Discovering Russian Literature discussion

PART II

CHAPTER I. NIGHT
CHAPTER II. NIGHT (continued)
CHAPTER III. THE DUEL
CHAPTER IV. ALL IN EXPECTATION
CHAPTER V. ON THE EVE OF THE FETE
CHAPTER VI. PYOTR STEPANOVITCH IS BUSY
CHAPTER VII. A MEETING
CHAPTER VIII. IVAN THE TSAREVITCH
CHAPTER IX. A RAID AT STEFAN TROFIMOVITCH'S
CHAPTER X. FILIBUSTERS. A FATAL MORNING

I felt that the scene between Nikolai and Peter in the first chapter had something rather ominous about it, perhaps it is a bit of foreshadowing?

I felt that there was a rather sinister overtone in the departing scene between them. The way in which Peter indicates the paper weight (if I recall correctly a paper weight was used as a murder weapon in one of Dostoevsky's other stories which puts me in a certain frame of mind) and remarks that if anything needs to be done about Gaganov he will arrange it, seems to come with a certain veiled threat. And when he at first thought he so Nikolai reaching for his stick, it instantly put this image in my head of Nikolai using it to beat Peter with.

And as I am reading I cannot help but to contemplate upon the title of the book which has come to my mind a few times throughout the story. I find it interesting the title Demons of The Devils both imply the plural and yet it seems to me that Nikolai most particuarly seems to almost be as if he were indeed possessed. That rather creepy scene comes to mind when after Peter leaves him he goes into what seems to be a strange trance like state. While the other characters in the book simply appear to be somewhat neurotic.

What do you make of the marriage between Nikolia and Maria?

It seems unlikely that he had acted out of any genuine feelings of love for her becasue such would contrast agasint what we have seen of his character. Yet at the same time I do not see what personal gain he could derive from the marriage.

Did he truly do it out of some sort of noble feeling? Is there some connection between him and Lebyadkin of which we do not know?

Do you beleive him about the baby? That Maria is truly a virgin? And the child is only but one of her fantasies? Or is Nikolia hiding something?

I wonder, do you think that Nikolia had truly dishonored her and that is why he wed her? Or is he protecting her to cover up for someone else's misdeeds?

At Tickhon's

This chapter was originally written by Dostoevky's to be chapter 9 but publishers were concerned it was too shocking and would damage the author, Dostoeevky ended up concurring and allowed the chapter to be removed. In his life time it never appeared in the book.

But later additions began to include this chapter at the end of the book with an explanatory note. My addition of the book had acutally included this chapter in the place in which it was originally attended and appears as chapter 9.

For those who do have the chapter included within thier book, be it at the end, or as intended you may discuss it here.

I have tried to find an online link to this chapter, for those who may have it completely absent from their editions, but I have not been able to do so. It seems online additions of the book do not include it at all.

It was at the end of my edition. Honestly, I was sorry to have read this part! Until then, I did not totally despise Nikolai. But, his coldness about the young girl, and his almost delight at his wickedness, just really made me sickkkkk.

Christi wrote: "It was at the end of my edition. Honestly, I was sorry to have read this part! Until then, I did not totally despise Nikolai. But, his coldness about the young girl, and his almost delight at his w..."

I found this section to be quite interesting because it was intended to offer us that important insight upon Nikolai's character. And perhaps Dostoevsky originally wrote this because he does not intend for Nikolai to be a sympathetic character. This gave us that insight into the heart of who he was.

One of the things which confused me in reading this though, was I could not figure out, did he in fact acutally kill the girl? Or did he witness her suicide? I remember there was one scene in which he is looking through a window and said he saw just what he needed to see, was that when she had committed suicide?

For though his behavior and his attitude toward her may be disagreeable, I could not understand exactly what was supposed to be the great crime he committed? Unless he was involved in someway with her death.

I was asked to pass these thoughts on from Robert, whom contacted about his inability to partake in the dicussion, but wished his thoughts on the book to be shared:

Now, to Demons and Dostoevsky in general. This novel strikes me a something of a tempest in a teapot but it reflects Dostoevsky's deep concerns about European influences on Mother Russia. Of course it's vivid and compelling like all his books, but the anchoring insight, the fundamental psychological reality, that pulls it all together has been dealt with in the strangest way. I am referring to "At Tikohn's," which originally was meant to be chapter 9 of part II. As we know, Dostoevsky's publisher would not print it, so it was left out. Now, for the life of me, I can't understand why the current editors (Pevear and Volokhonsky) include it as an appendix instead of putting it where it belongs. I think they have every justification to restore the manuscript, and that is essential to understanding Stavrogin. To come upon this chapter after the book is over is quite a shock and disappointment. At least it was to me.

The way I read it was that he sexually abused her, and then sort of taunted her afterwards. Then he somehow knew she was going to go kill herself, and she did. It was a strange scene. I was wondering if he was going to kill her or something, but I think that he was just delighted that she killed herself.

I don't know what 'great crime he commited," but I do know I was completely revolted by this whole chapter. I thought his behavior was more than just disagreeable; I found it to be evil and grotesque. Maybe young girls always got abused in this way, but I found the whole situation to be utterly cruel and manipulative.

Christi wrote: "The way I read it was that he sexually abused her, and then sort of taunted her afterwards. Then he somehow knew she was going to go kill herself, and she did. It was a strange scene. I was wonderi..."

I was always unclear on the fact as to weather or not he acutally did have any sort of sexual relations with her or not. It seemed to allude to such a times, and well considering Nikolai's past history with women and his varrious affairs it does seem to suggust that direction.

But than he tells the monk that he had not had any such relations with the girl, and considering that the whole thing is intended to be a confession and he does not hold anything else back no matter how despicable I do not know why he would lie about that but tell the truth about the rest.

I had wondered if he simply thought that his crime was the fact that he had imagined taking her life, and than was delighted upon the realization that she had taken her own life instead.

But it is all very uncertain.

Oh, I will have to go reread some of that chapter then. I do not recall him telling the monk that he did not have sex with Matryosha. I remember it was in the letter that he wrote that he admitted to the abuse of her. And he also described his thrill when she was beaten by her mother. And he caused her to get in trouble so that she would be punished. Very twisted. I think all of that desire of his to see her tormented when she was innocent, is his crime. There were inferences to his being like a spider catching flies in his web. He liked to see the girl suffer.

But, yes, I agree that the chapter was kind of dreamlike (nightmare-like) and it left things rather ambiguous for the reader. What was not uncertain though, was that he was a creep! Until this chapter, I was not convinced of that.

Christi wrote: "Oh, I will have to go reread some of that chapter then. I do not recall him telling the monk that he did not have sex with Matryosha. I remember it was in the letter that he wrote that he admitted ..."

Apparently there are two different versions of the confession. In my edition of the book right when it gets to the point in which the girl throws her arms around his neck and starts kissing upon Nikolai, the narrative of the confession is interrupted becasue one of the sheets is missing, and while they are discussing the issue of the missing sheet, Nikolia chastises the monk for coming up with the most disgusting assumptions and swears that nothing happened between him in the girl at all.

But there is a footnote that says in the earlier version of the confession there is no discussion about the missing sheet, and it contains the paragraph from the earlier version which is not included in the version I have, and the earlier version does seem to be more suggestive of a sexual encounter between him and the girl.

Oh, that explains a lot! I was just now trying to reread (in a skimming way) some of the chapter, and I haven't found any place where he denies his actions. My edition does not have an interuption (to look for a missing page)when Nikolai is talking about his relationship with the girl.

Very interesting that there are these two different versions, as well as apparently the complete omission of this confession in older editions. Silver, if this is chapter 9 in your edition, then do you have 11 instead of 10 chpts in part 2? I was just wondering if this chapter replaced another, or if was just placed between chapters?

In my version, I don't think there is any doubt that Nikolai is a revolting man! I wonder how sexual abuse of a child was viewed back in the days of this writing in general though? What made it all the worse to me was his attitude, his total lack of compassion towards her. He seemed happy that she may have felt that she was guilty and responsible for "killing god."

Christi wrote: "Oh, that explains a lot! I was just now trying to reread (in a skimming way) some of the chapter, and I haven't found any place where he denies his actions. My edition does not have an interuption ..."

It was just placed between two different chapters, so my edition has 11 chapters in part 2.

I agree that in the original version of the confession without Nikolai's denial of the sexual encounter it does make him look much worse and it explains more his claims to have committed some sort of crime. For in my version while he comes off as a jerk in his actions he has not acutally committed any great wrongs.

There is no explanation as to why an alternative version was created. I wonder if Dostoevsky originally thought that if he removed the allusion to sexual abuse the publisher would view it as less offensive, and allow him to publish it.

The question on how sexual abuse of children was viewed than is an interesting one, considering it was not uncommon for men to marry very young girls at this time and there perceptions of childhood/adulthood was different than it is for us today.

Though clearly this incident was considered to be too shocking for publication, and the publisher believed that the inclusions of such a thing could reflect badly upon Dostoevsky himself, so there must have been some reaction agasint such things.

I can understand why the publication of this chapter was controversial at the time, after all, I was disgusted by it in the year 2011! Maybe marriage to a young girl was ok at the time of the publication, but sex with a girl outside of marriage was looked down upon. If I understood the chapter well (I doubt it though), Tickhon said to Nikolai that many people commited the same offense (which I took as having sex with a girl who was very young)and still "live in peace and quiet with their conscience, even regarding it one of the inevitable tresspasses of youth. There are old men who sin in the same way, even contentedly and playfully. The whole world is filled with all these horrors. But you have felt the whole depth of it, something which rarely happens to such an extent." To me, here Tickhon is telling Nikolai that what he did is not so unusual, maybe not so bad. It seems he is saying that it is only Nikolai's feeling that it was bad and a crime that is unusual, which makes me think that he is suggesting that Nikolai is sort of 'good' to feel so bad. Then it seems that the subject becomes forgiveness. Nikolai says Christ will NOT forgive him because the bible says "whoso shall offend one of these little ones..." Then Nikolai says " there is not and cannot be any greater crime." Tikhon goes on to say that Christ will forgive him if he first forgives himself. Ok,I think I understand all that. But then what? I mean does Nikolai reject that, and in that rejection he is doomed? I wonder if the fact that Dostoyevsky had this idea in the chapter was part of the problem with censors too? Was it shocking to say that this crime could be forgiven??

Christi wrote: "I can understand why the publication of this chapter was controversial at the time, after all, I was disgusted by it in the year 2011! Maybe marriage to a young girl was ok at the time of the publi..."

But considering the fact that it was not unheard of for men to marry young girls it does than bring the question, would having sex with a young girl outside of marriage be viewed as being a more atrocious offence than having sex with any woman outside of marriage?

While having sex with any woman outside of marriage was considered scandalous it is not uncommon for many books around this time period to make allusions to such instances without being censored. So if they do say that it is extra wrong to engage in sexual relations with young girls and that is too scandalous for the public eye, than how do they justify the allowance of such marriages?

Unless in Russia had stricter rules about age and marriage at this period of time than other parts of the world. Maybe in Russia it was not as common for marriages with such age differences between men and women to occur.

On the forgiveness question, I will have to go back and reread over the conversation between Nikolai and Tikhon, but wouldn't be a anti-Christian or blasphemous to suggest there was any crime or offence that was beyond the forgiveness of Christ?

Silver wrote: "Christi wrote: "I can understand why the publication of this chapter was controversial at the time, after all, I was disgusted by it in the year 2011! Maybe marriage to a young girl was ok at the t..."

Good point about the marriage of a young girl vs sex with a young girl. Maybe it wasn't more atrocious. But maybe she was very much too young. That was the idea I had from the chapter (like she was 8 or 9)??


As for the blasphemy idea, I am not up on what constitutes blasphemy to who, but that might be the case here. Maybe that was what was so bad about this chapter that the publisher suggested not publishing. I am also wondering if the suggestion in the chapter that Nikolai would be forgiven for such a crime at all was repugnant to potential readers? I guess that would be the opposite of blasphemy though. I just don't really comprehend the chapter's point. I mean, if we are supposed to think that Nikolai is this monster, why do we see him feeling bad about his actions? Doesn't that make him a tiny bit less of a monster? I mean, he says he CAN control himself, and doesn't HAVE to do certain things, but he lets himself do them sometimes. And what he says haunts him about the girl episode though, isn't the act, it isn't her death either, it is the memory of her making fists at him. Is that because he didn't want anyone to dislike him? I am not sure the significance of that. Is it because she called him out with that act of fists, and it made him realize he was wrong??

Was part of the publisher's reluctance due to the fact that the girl seemed to enjoy/desire Nikolai's attentions? There is a 'Lolita' element to the story whereby the reader is being told that Nikolai's seduction (was it rape?) wasn't so bad because the girl encouraged him? There is a lot of ambiguity in the tale and one of the ambiguities is why did a ten year old girl kill herself? Could she have felt guilty if she did not already know what the sexual act was? Was she upset because Nikolai appeared to abandon her after the act rather than because of the act iteself?

The age of the girl was changed from 10 to 14, which infers that 14 was then the legal age for marriage?

Dosteovsky had the chance to rewrite this chapter for his publisher but chose not to do so and this has engendered much speculation. It has been suggested that he intended Stavrogin's guilty secret, hinted at throughout the novel, to remain an enigma because how one obtains redemption after a great sin, the great theme of the novel, was also an enigma. This is an implied criticism of the church, of his religion, which preaches that redemtpion is always possible if you confess your sins and truly give yourself to God/Jesus. The ambiguities in the tale are therefore the ambiguities about his faith which he felt, or was beginning to feel, himself.


I think!

MadgeUK wrote: "Could she have felt guilty if she did not already know what the sexual act was? Was she upset because Nikolai appeared to abandon her after the act rather than because of the act iteself?"

My opinion is that she felt abandoned. She had also a mother who beat her and perhaps for the first time in her life this girl felt loved by somebody. Perhaps she thought to have found a person who would take care of her and loved her but then she realized that it wasn't so. I think it is because of this that she killed herself and not for the sexual act.


This is an implied criticism of the church, of his religion, which preaches that redemtpion is always possible if you confess your sins and truly give yourself to God/Jesus. The ambiguities in the tale are therefore the ambiguities about his faith which he felt, or was beginning to feel, himself.

I don't think Nikolai wanted redemption or felt guilty of what he did. The thing that made him feel "strange" was that he didn't know the girl would act in this way. I mean the fist and not the suicide. It seems he loved to play with the emotions of the persons. At least in my edition it doesn't seem he felt guilty but he felt only strange because he didn't expect that the girl made the fist against him. This means that she realized everything, that for him it was only a game and not a true feeling. Perhaps Nikolai didn't know that such a young girl would understand this and so he is amazed.

It was really a strange chapter that I had to read twice because the reader doesn't understand very good what Dostoyevsky wants to say. Perhaps he wanted to let the reader free to decide what to think about Nikolai.

Finally finished the novel. I read it in Russian, and my book does not have At Tikhon’s Chapter. I haven’t been able to find it in Russian so far, so I read it in English instead.
While reading it I already knew I would have to reread at least the dialogue part. And I will.
Now I see there is a pretty lengthy discussion on this chapter.
After first reading of Tikhon’s chapter it was quite clear to me that that was a rape.
The girl did not know about sex much but she knew some and she knew it was sin.
She did not realize that caress, and simply play can be so closely connected to sex. And she simply trusted the adult. But everything happened so fast. It’s not that whether she knew or she didn’t what sex was. It’s the contradiction/collision between what she knew but not quite, and that what she got to know much more fully so sudden. That’s why it was a rape: it was not consent but deception.

I see everybody’s opinions are so diverse. Boy.. I need to find the Russian version.
And I’ll reread the English one too. It was at the end of my book btw.

Virginia Woolf's translation of Stavrogin's Confession/At Tikhon's on-line http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id...

Andrew wrote: "Finally finished the novel. I read it in Russian, and my book does not have At Tikhon’s Chapter. I haven’t been able to find it in Russian so far, so I read it in English instead.
While reading it ..."

I think you are completely correct. But, I wonder, why on earth did it take a man (you, Andrew) to see what we women should have been able to see in this chapter? I did actually see it, but I was thinking maybe my perspective was not correct. But, for a man to understand, then yes, I am not mistaken!

But, I wonder, why on earth did it take a man (you, Andrew) to see what we women should have been able to see in this chapter?

I think Dosteovsky intended the chapter to be ambiguous. He could have been more specific if he wanted to be so. Rapes have been portrayed before in literature during times of censorship, using heavy symbolism.

I just finished Part II tonight, and, after finishing that and coming here, I read 'At Tikhon's'. which ranks right between the The Devil and The Grand Inquisitor as all-time great Dostoievsky stand-alones.

I was a bit confused about the girl's age while reading the chapter. At the beginning Stavrogin says she was 14, but then he mentions she was 10. He also says that he would be sent to Siberia if someone found out, if I'm not mistaken. So apparently it was still a serious crime then even though Tikhon says that it wasn't that uncommon.

To me it felt like Stavrogin was trying out how low he can go until he couldn't handle his own actions anymore. That's why he repeatedly says that he felt he could stop at any given moment but he still did it.