Read the truncated chapter of demons. Forbidden Head of Demons

Who knows how empty the sky is

At the site of the fallen tower...

Anna Akhmatova

Let's try to imagine ourselves as readers of the Russian Messenger of 1871. It was here, from the first issue, that “Demons” began to be published. First performance...

The reader has been kept in increasing suspense all year. By the eleventh issue it seemed to have reached its limit. Two thirds of the novel were over. I could already feel my breath tragic ending, but more and more new knots continued to be tied, and more and more tightly.

This issue had two chapters - the 7th (“Ours”) and the 8th (“Ivan Tsarevich”). The previous one, the 6th, ended with the words of Pyotr Verkhovensky, thrown before entering “ours”: “Compose your physiognomy, Stavrogin; I always compose when I come to them. More gloom, that’s all, nothing more is needed; a very simple thing."

The meeting “At ours” ends in a scandal caused by Shatov, who was deliberately provoked by Pyotr Verkhovensky. In the next chapter, Stavrogin seems to break up with Petrusha forever (“I won’t give up Shatov to you”), even beats him in a rage and leaves. And he catches up and three times, in a whisper, begs, begs: “Make peace, make peace... Make peace!” And suddenly he drops his mask and stops “making up a face.” He delivers his devilishly inspired speech, painting a picture in comparison with which the already terrible plans just announced by “ours” seem romantic: “Cicero’s tongue is cut out, Copernicus’s eyes are gouged out, Shakespeare is stoned - that’s Shigalevism! We will proclaim destruction, why, why, again this idea is so charming! But you need to, you need to knead the bones. We will let fires, we will let legends..."

Imagine that all this is at night. Imagine that all this time Stavrogin, accelerating his pace, walks along the sidewalk, and Petrusha is either mincing behind, now beside, or running ahead, through the mud, not paying attention to her (Stavrogin is always “above”, Petrusha is “below” ). They stopped only twice: the first, when Petrusha suddenly kissed him - on the move! - Stavrogin’s hand; the second, when they approached the Stavrogin house. Imagine this frantic rhythm of movement set by Stavrogin, and this frantic rhythm of speech pronounced by Petrusha (Stavrogin has only individual, short remarks)... An amazing scene. And the main thing, of course, is what we are talking about:

“Well, sir, and the turmoil will begin! There will be such a build-up, such as the world has never seen... Rus' will become clouded, the earth will cry for the old gods... Well, sir, this is where we will let in... Who?

–?Ivan Tsarevich.

–?Who?

–?Ivan Tsarevich; you, you! The main thing is the legend! You will defeat them, look and defeat them. The new truth is brought and “hidden”…”. (Secret cynical impostor program.)

Stavrogin is silent.

Then Petrusha promises him, while the trial is in progress, to eliminate all current concerns (and give in to Shatov, and finish with Marya Timofeevna, and bring Liza)...

“- Stavrogin, our America? - Verkhovensky grabbed his hand for the last time.

-?For what? - Nikolai Vsevolodovich said seriously and sternly.

-?There’s no hunting, I knew it! - he cried in a fit of furious anger. - You’re lying, you trashy, lascivious, broken little bark, I don’t believe it, you have a wolfish appetite! Remember that your account is now too large, and I cannot refuse you! There is no one else on earth like you!..

Stavrogin, without answering, went up the stairs (up again! - Yu.K.).

-?Stavrogin! - Verkhovensky shouted after him (and “from below”! - Yu.K.), “I give you a day... well, two... well, three; I can’t do more than three, and there’s your answer!”

This is how the chapter ends, on this note.

The first magazine publication of a novel “with a continuation” has its own enormous advantage, its own special charm, its own uniqueness. It can be compared to the first performance-listening of a gigantic multi-movement symphony. The reader-listener tunes in to a certain rhythm, gets involved in it, lives in it and, as it were, with his own expectation, inflates it. Between the writer and the reader for a long time, sometimes for a year or two, some special field, a special atmosphere, some more direct interaction arises than in the case of the publication of a book. This perfectly corresponded to some properties artistic gift Dostoevsky and even the properties of his entire nature. Here, too, his almost ineradicable “disadvantage” (giving “sheets” directly from the table to the printing house) turned into a unique advantage. And Dostoevsky was perfectly aware of all this, valued it and attached extreme importance to the first magazine publication of his novels (rhythm, order, even pauses), the significance of a certain “action”, a certain “mystery”.

Having closed the eleventh issue of the “Russian Bulletin” for 1871 with the words: “and there is your answer!”, leaving Stavrogin going up the stairs, and Petrusha below, in front of the gate, with what impatience, with what tension the reader was waiting for the next chapter...

The twelfth issue has been released - there is no continuation. The first, second, third issues of 1872 - no, no and no. In summer - no. No for a whole year! Not until number eleven. This is an unprecedented fact. This alone ruined the first performance of the “symphony”.

Only on November 14 the reader finally received a continuation. It began with the chapter “Stepan Trofimovich was described.” But he never found out what happened during the past year, why the publication was delayed; did not find out that in the end he received not quite what, or rather, not at all what Dostoevsky wanted to give him: the next chapter after “Ivan the Tsarevich” should have been the chapter “At Tikhon’s.”

It began like this: “Nikolai Vsevolodovich did not sleep that night and sat all the time on the sofa, often fixing his motionless gaze on one point in the corner of the chest of drawers. His lamp was burning all night. At about seven o'clock in the morning he fell asleep sitting, and when Alexey Egorovich (servant - Yu.K.), according to the custom established once and for all, came to him at half past nine with a morning cup of coffee and woke him up with his appearance, then, opening his eyes, he seemed unpleasantly surprised that he could have slept for so long and that it was already so late. He quickly drank his coffee, quickly dressed and hurriedly left the house...”

Stavrogin, as he promised Shatov a few days ago, went to Tikhon, went with his “Confession”...

But, I repeat, the reader of that time never found out about this: the chapter was banned. And in the novel, Stavrogin’s promise to go to Tikhon remained a promise...

The first performance of “Demons” was spoiled not only by the delay, but, most importantly, by the ban.

“Not strawberry, but an amazing experience...”

“Chastity” of Katkov, “unchastity” of Dostoevsky, “unchastity” of the controversial chapter - this is usually considered the reason for the ban. Katkov was energetically supported by Pobedonostsev, the future chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod (their arguments convinced N. Strakhov and A. Maikov).

But it turns out that the very argument about “unchastity” was nothing more than Katkov’s revenge for the defeat that he suffered in the fight against Pushkin and Dostoevsky back in 1861, when he opposed Pushkin’s “Egyptian Nights” on exactly the same grounds , on which ten years later the chapter “At Tikhon’s” was banned. Katkov accused Pushkin of “fragmentation” (also an “esthete”!) and “eroticism” (there, supposedly, the “last expressions of passion” are depicted), Dostoevsky, as if foreseeing future accusations against himself, responded to Katkov like this:

“Aren’t you equating” Egyptian nights” to the works of the Marquis de Sade? We are now positively confident that by this “last expression” you mean something Marquis de Sade and strawberry. But this is not the same, not at all. This means losing your true, pure view of the matter. This last expression, which you talk about so often, in your opinion it can really be tempting, in our opinion, it represents only the perversion of human nature, which has reached such terrible proportions and is presented from such a point of view by the poet (and the point of view is the main thing) , which produces not a strawberry at all, but an amazing impression” (19; 135).

“Yes, we understand art poorly. Pushkin himself did not teach us this, he himself suffered and died in our society, it seems, mainly because he was a poet completely and to the end” (19; 138). “No, poetry has never risen to such terrible power, to such concentration in the expression of pathos” (20; 137).

But if you had brought the Venus de Milo, writes Dostoevsky, two centuries ago to Moscow, its impression on the masses would have been the most rude, perhaps seductive: “... one must be highly purified, morally and correctly developed, in order to look at this divine beauty without being embarrassed. The chastity of the image will not save you from rude and perhaps even dirty thoughts. No, these images produce a high, divine impression of art. Here reality was transformed, passing through art, passing through the fire of pure, chaste inspiration and through the artistic thought of the poet. This is the secret of art, and every artist knows about it. On an unprepared, undeveloped nature or on a grossly depraved nature, even art would not have all its effect. The more developed, the better a person’s soul, the more complete and true the impression of art is in it” (19; 134).

And once again directly about the “Egyptian Nights”: “... it becomes clear to you what kind of people our Divine Redeemer came to then. The word also becomes clear to you: Redeemer And our soul would be strangely structured if this whole picture made only one impression about the strawberry!” (19; 137).

Dostoevsky’s assessment of “Egyptian Nights” turned out to be (unwittingly) a superbly accurate self-assessment of the chapter “At Tikhon’s.” Pushkin posed the question: is it possible to remake the “Egyptian anecdote” into “current morals”? Dostoevsky answered! Dostoevsky realized this brilliant opportunity, seeing in Pushkin’s words a task, a testament for himself. Let's re-read "Egyptian Nights". Let’s re-read at least Stavrogin’s dream (picture of heaven and Matryosha with a fist). Let’s re-read and remember Dostoevsky’s words about “Egyptian Nights”: “Here everything is one chord: every stroke of the brush, every sound, even the rhythm, the melody of the verse - is adapted to the integrity of the impression” (19; 133). Do these words not also refer to the paintings of Dostoevsky himself, whose prose words here unite the power of poetry, painting, and music? Cleopatra is a hyena. Stavrogin is a tiger. Both have already licked the blood. And both, despite any outbreaks of “revival,” will remain beasts. And instead of repentance, they will transgress and transgress, driven by satiety and boredom and paying for every hour, for every moment of their “fantasy” with the lives of others...

Could both of them, Katkov and Dostoevsky, forget about this clash, about the dispute over “Egyptian Nights”? Dostoevsky’s article about “Egyptian Nights” was called that - Reply to the “Russian Messenger”. Dostoevsky quite consciously, courageously and subtly continued the previous struggle on the pages of... "Russian Messenger"! I’m not talking about the banned chapter now. But at the very beginning of “Demons” we read the verses:

Century and Century and Lev Kambek,

Leo Cambek and Century and Century...

For us today this is an incomprehensible detail. And the readers of that time knew perfectly well that this was a parody of Dostoevsky (1862), a parody that was precisely connected with this whole story: the magazine “Vek” (editor - Lev Kambek) spoke out against Pushkin, against “Egyptian Nights”, and was supported Katkov.

There is no doubt: if it were Katkov’s will, Pushkin’s “Egyptian Nights” would never have seen the light of day. He would have banned them, just as he banned the chapter “At Tikhon’s”.

Twenty years after the clash with Katkov because of “Egyptian Nights”, ten years after exactly the same clash with him because of Stavrogin’s “Confession”, Dostoevsky in his Speech on Pushkin will say: “And here is the ancient world, here is the “Egyptian” nights,” these earthly gods, who sat over their people as gods, already despising the people’s genius and its aspirations, no longer believing in it, who had truly become solitary gods and gone mad in their isolation, in their dying boredom and melancholy, consoled themselves with fanatical atrocities, the voluptuousness of insects..." (26; 146). No, not only about " ancient world"he said here. Every word burned him and the modern world, every one applied to Stavrogin: Stavrogin is the image of the age-old crime of the “lordship” before Russia, before his mother, the image of extreme social and spiritual corruption, but this is also the highest artistic judgment on this crime, on this molestation. Could Katkov, reading these words of Dostoevsky, not remember previous conflicts? And isn’t that why, when publishing Dostoevsky’s Speech, he blasphemed it behind his back?

But let’s return to the “unchastity” argument. I leafed through the “Russian Messenger” for several years: a lot of high-society “cupids”, the most vulgar obscenities - playfully, cheerfully and, of course, without any social or spiritual background. I read the press of that time. Katkov and Pobedonostsev could not help but read it, and therefore could not help but know, for example, that on the St. Petersburg side, in Barmaleeva Street, there was a “House of Mercy” (even without any press, everyone knew about it in St. Petersburg). And in this house, “fallen” women were kept, and there was a special department there for minors (from 9 to 15 years old), and in this department in 1871 there were 42 girls, and each had their own story, and many of these stories - not at all no better than Matryoshina... And then suddenly “Confession” ruined their mass.

And was everything told to Dostoevsky? Could Katkov and Pobedonostsev have been delighted by the majestic image of Father Tikhon, oriented (quite consciously) to Pushkin’s Pimen? It is unlikely that they missed, for example, such a line: Father Archimandrite condemned Tikhon “of careless living and almost of heresy.” But isn’t this heresy for them, such words of Tikhon: “Complete atheism is more honorable than secular indifference”? You can talk about this “in private”, “among others”, but in public?! Why was it allowed to tempt “these little ones,” that is, the readers? The forbidden chapter contained such a concentration of the most painful issues, such an aggravation of them, that the entire official worldview was bursting at the seams - that’s why it was banned. Isn’t it too naive to imagine such hardened ideologists and politicians as Katkov and Pobedonostsev as meek guardians of “chastity” and that’s all? It was to their advantage to reduce the whole question to this, whereas the point was their deep ideological antagonism with Dostoevsky, Pushkin, and art in general. And at the same time, as has long been noted, they blackmailed Dostoevsky with the idea that the “public,” they say, could attribute Stavrogin’s sin to the writer himself.

Ultimatum

The chapter “At Tikhon’s” was filmed by Katkov in the finished proof in December 1871. Dostoevsky goes to Moscow (the editorial office of Russky Vestnik is there).

January 2, 1872: “Yesterday I left only Business Cards Katkov and his wife; today, despite the fact that Katkov is terribly busy and, most importantly, that even without me, countless people constantly disturb him with their visits, I went to Katkov at one o’clock to talk about business. I barely made it: in the reception room there were already three people besides me waiting for an audience. Finally I came in and made a direct request for money and settling old scores. He promised to give me a final answer the day after tomorrow (4th). So, only on the 4th I will receive an answer” (29, I; 222).

The delay of the chapter (and with it the entire next part) first of all complicates the already complex monetary calculations. Dostoevsky, apparently, does not yet see a serious danger to the chapter (and the novel as a whole).

February 4: “The second part of my worries was the novel (the first was money - Yu.K.). True, while busy with creditors, I couldn’t even write anything; at least, when I left Moscow, I thought that it would still be God knows how difficult it would be to forward the rejected chapter of the novel the way they wanted at the editorial office. But when I got down to business, it turned out that nothing could be fixed, except to make some minor changes. And while I was visiting creditors, I came up with the idea for the most part sitting in cabs, four plans and almost three weeks of torment over which one to take. He ended up rejecting everything and inventing a change to satisfy the chastity of the editors. And in this sense, I will send them an ultimatum. If they don’t agree, then I don’t know how to do it” (29, I; 226).

Ultimatum - rejected. But Dostoevsky does not make any fundamental concessions. I’m ready to resume publication of the novel in April, but better yet, in August.

End of March - beginning of April. ON THE. Lyubimov, executive editor of the Russian Messenger: “I’ll say without stupid boasting: the public was somewhat interested in the novel. IN Lately When each issue came out, they wrote and talked about him, at least here in St. Petersburg, quite a lot. The period until August is very long and, of course, harmful for me: the novel will begin to be forgotten. But, having suddenly recalled the third part when printing it, I hope to revive the impression again, and precisely at the time when it begins again winter season, in which my novel will be the first news, although very old” (29, I; 231–232)

He is still concerned about the first performance of the novel, about how to make readers-listeners' interest in it flare up again. He is confident that he will succeed, and this confidence is most associated with the head of “Tikhon’s”. He persuades, almost begs Lyubimov, contradicting himself:

“It seems to me that what I sent you (chapter 1 of “At Tikhon’s”, 3 small chapters) can now be published. Everything very obscene was thrown out, the main thing was shortened, and all this half-crazy trick was sufficiently indicated, although it would become even more pronounced later. I swear to you, I could not help but leave the essence of the matter, this is a whole social type in my conviction, our type, the Russian, is an idle person, not by desire to be idle, but who has lost connections with all his relatives and, most importantly, faith, depraved out of melancholy, but conscientious and using painful convulsive efforts to be renewed and begin to believe again. Next to nihilists this is a serious phenomenon. I swear that it really exists” (29, I; 232).

“Everything very obscene has been thrown out...” - There was nothing “obscene” at all.

“The main thing has been reduced...” - Wed: “I swear to you, I could not help but leave the essence of the matter...”

July 19. ON THE. Lyubimov: “We are very worried about whether printing will begin in the July issue? Otherwise, I won’t understand what the editors’ intentions are regarding this third part.

I’m also at a loss as to whether my letters to the editor (and the novel’s parcels) are getting through?” (29, I; 251).

September 22nd. Dostoevsky is going to go to Moscow to resolve the issue of a controversial chapter. He asks a relative to find out: “When are they expecting Mikhail Nikiforovich to come to Moscow? Sorry to bother you so much, but I really need it. If you answer that they are waiting, for example, in two weeks, and although I will be late in arriving, I will arrive in Moscow no earlier than in two weeks. If he doesn’t arrive for a long time, then there’s nothing to do, I’ll have to go to Moscow this minute and explain to one Lyubimov (who, however, already notified me on August 1st that he couldn’t decide on anything without Katkov)” (20, I ; 253).

October 9 (already from Moscow): “Everything seems to be settled with Lyubimov, to publish in November and December, but they were surprised and frowned that it was not over yet. In addition, he has doubts (since we are without Katkov) about censorship. Katkov, however, is already returning: he is in Crimea and will return at the end of this month. They want to release the November book on November 10, and the December book on December 1, - that is, I have to finish everything in almost three weeks. It’s terrible how you’ll have to work in St. Petersburg” (29, I; 254).

The decisive days are coming.

October 24. This is the last date in notebooks to “Demons” (11; 302). Judging by them, hope is by no means lost: traces of live work on the scene Stavrogin - Tikhon remain (11; 305–308). It is possible that this work was carried out a few days later on October 24 (since there are too many pages written here for one day).

Katkov returned at the end of October - beginning of November.

On what day, at what hour was everything decided? How? We do not know.

But this day predetermined too much in the fate of the novel, and not only the novel.

We only know that Dostoevsky is making a last desperate attempt to save the chapter - at least for the future.

After the last lines known to us from the canonical text, he suggests adding just two or three more lines. If they were accepted, it would look like this (emphasis added):

“After Nikolai Vsevolodovich, they say there were some notes [but not known to anyone]. I'm really looking for them. [Maybe I will find it, and if possible it will be].

Finis" (12; 108).

How much is hidden behind these lines and how much they promised! A trace of titanic labor. Last hope.

“I am really looking for them” - read: “I have not renounced. I'm forced for now. I really want to restore the chapter. But they don’t give me..."

And they didn’t give it. Katkov presented his ultimatum, and these lines were thrown out. He knew what would grow from these seeds.

Instead of publishing the chapter, Dostoevsky had to hastily bring the last part of the novel into line with its absence, but it was written in exactly the opposite way.

Add to this the all too well-known (purely monetary) dependence of Dostoevsky on Katkov. Who would have even the slightest doubt that if he had been as independent in this respect as Tolstoy, he would not have yielded even a letter to Katkov? But... Katkov didn’t like Dostoevsky’s chapter - and he removed it. But Tolstoy didn’t like Katkov - and he left him, stopped publishing with him (this happened with the last part of Anna Karenina). He had no idea that anyone would dare to command him: “It turns out that Katkov does not share my views, which cannot be otherwise, since I condemn precisely people like him, and, mumble, politely asking to soften I was terribly tired of releasing this, and I already told them that if they don’t print it in the form I want, then I won’t print it with them at all, and that’s what I’ll do” (May 21–22, 1877, N. Strakhov). Here the count’s voice jumped up: Katkov is dissatisfied with me?! So it’s the same as if my postilion is dissatisfied with me... It’s all the more painful to read Dostoevsky’s letters to Katkov - excuses for the delay, requests to give money in advance. Money... But Katkov paid Tolstoy twice or three times more per sheet than Dostoevsky, and the latter knew about it...

Can you still hear frequently asked question: But after all, Dostoevsky had separate lifetime editions of “Demons” - why wasn’t the chapter included there? The plural is not appropriate here. During his lifetime there was only one single separate publication (with a circulation of three thousand copies). And it was almost the same as the magazine one, and in fact could not be different. Moreover: in some ways it was softened at the request of censorship. It was typed almost in parallel with the magazine one. And his recruitment was also stopped until the end of 1872 (while the question of the head was being resolved). And a separate volume of “Demons” was published on the 20th of January 1873, that is, just a few weeks after the completion of the magazine publication. In addition, Dostoevsky, having barely finished it, began work at Grazhdanin (a weekly!). It was approved by the editor on December 20, and all the troubles associated with this began even earlier, and they took a lot of time and effort. At the end of December, he already sent the first manuscript for the weekly to the printing house. Two proofs of the book were proofread by Anna Grigorievna, and only the third, the author’s, was able to be proofread by Dostoevsky himself. Make a simple calculation of time, take into account the current interweaving of circumstances - and make sure of the complete - even physical - impossibility of doing anything to restore the chapter. There was neither an hour nor a crack of light. What about censorship? And what about Katkov and Pobedonostsev with their connections? And there was no way Dostoevsky could have broken with both of them at that moment (and the publication of the chapter would have meant such a break). Pobedonostsev, for example, helped him become the editor of Citizen. And Katkov helped. And the result is a complete humiliating hopelessness in protecting the most dear (at that time), the most hard-won labor.

There was only a ban. Only hopelessness. There was no renunciation. And it seems that Katkov is not aware of any thanks from Dostoevsky.

And there was also deeply hidden pain.

"If possible..."

In 1871–1872, the reader of “Demons” did without the chapter “At Tikhon’s”, unaware of its existence.

In 1905, Anna Grigorievna published an excerpt from there.

In 1922, a chapter entitled “Confession of Stavrogin” appeared in extremely small-circulation special editions.

In 1926, it was included in the Appendix to “Demons” from the Complete Collection of Artistic Works by F.M. Dostoevsky in 13 volumes (vol. 7).

In the 1920s, quite a lot of research was published about it.

In 1935, the failure of L. Grossman’s experiment (to include the chapter “At Tikhon’s” in the corpus of the novel) and the victory of D. Zaslavsky’s “experiment” (the ban on “Demons”) - for 22 years.

In 1957, in the Notes to “Demons” (volume 7 of the 10-volume edition, p. 730), Dostoevsky himself announced his rejection of this chapter (?!).

In 1974, “Demons” was published in the 10th volume of the Complete - 30-volume - collected works of F.M. Dostoevsky without her.

In the same year, in the 11th volume, it is published in the most adequate form so far. A version of it is in the 12th volume (1975).

In 1984, “Demons” appears again without this chapter (in the 12-volume edition of the Ogonyok Library).

Not once in 115 years has a chapter been included in the text of a novel.

Let us ask ourselves again and again: why? why did that ill-fated year of 1872 last for more than a century? why is Katkov still winning today (here)?

If you don’t deceive yourself, then there is no other answer here except: yes, precisely because he won then. Simply because Katkov banned the chapter - against the will of Dostoevsky. That's all.

If it weren’t for Katkov’s will, everything would have been according to Dostoevsky’s will.

We are still paying for Katkov’s crime against our culture and we are not aware of it, we are deceiving ourselves.

We complain about fate, about chance, about history, we scold Katkov, but we still publish and read brilliant novel- crippled, we read Dostoevsky not according to Dostoevsky, but according to Katkov. We reassure ourselves that Dostoevsky nevertheless published the novel without the chapter “At Tikhon’s,” forgetting that this was not a renunciation, but a ban with which he was forced to come to terms. We forget or do not know about the torment that he endured. And we gradually got used to this as a norm, and we are no longer shocked that this “norm” was born from a crime and legitimized it. We have come to terms with this. And when the question arises whether we should restore a chapter in the text of a novel, or at least restore it “as an experiment,” we are more willing to look for “academic” arguments against than living arguments for.

But Katkov’s will is not there now.

But there remains a chapter (albeit a little damaged), and we know, we read it.

And we know the will of Dostoevsky, so monstrously violated.

So what should we do?

In my opinion, there is only one thing - to simply carry out this will: to publish “Demons” together with the chapter “At Tikhon’s”, under one cover, to publish in the main body, after the chapter “Ivan Tsarevich”, or, in any case (for now ), in the appendix, immediately, when writing a novel, publish it - with an appropriate comment. It will be both scientific and fair.

Another question is about the textual difficulties of restoring the most optimal version of the chapter (see about this in the Notes to “Demons”: 12; 236–246). Not all of them have yet been overcome, and perhaps not all (yet?) can be overcome. But when the authors of the notes write: “Therefore, at present we do not have the opportunity to include a chapter in the text of the novel” (12; 246), it seems to me that they underestimate, first of all, their own, already enormous, work. In fact, there is such an opportunity, and they themselves have begun to implement it. After all, they write: “The chapter was conceived by Dostoevsky as the ideological and compositional center of the novel” (12; 239). So where is it better for this center to be, in the novel or behind the novel, if it exists, exists not in a dream, but in its artistic flesh? After all, they quote desperate lines in which the voice of Dostoevsky, still not giving up, is heard: “After Nikolai Vsevolodovich, they say, there were some notes, but unknown to anyone. I'm really looking for them. Maybe I’ll find it and, if possible, it will be...” But they really - “turned out”, really - were found. So why is it impossible?

The chapter “At Tikhon’s” was published in the 11th volume of the Complete Works of F.M. Dostoevsky. Published in the same huge circulation as the novel itself in the tenth volume: 200 thousand! Even if this is not yet an optimal solution, the most important thing has been achieved: the chapter does not distort the essence of Dostoevsky’s plan, conveys it to readers who read it and still - mentally - include it in the novel.

For A. Dolinin, L. Grossman, M. Bakhtin, the great experts on Dostoevsky, in general, there was no question of including the chapter “At Tikhon’s” in the novel, they did not read, did not imagine “Demons” except with this chapter, on the allotted her - central - place. And now hundreds of thousands of readers include it in the novel. This is a fact, and a decisive fact. Therefore, in reality, the issue of inclusion has already been resolved. Even in this form, the chapter begins to work perfectly. But still, how does the average reader include it in the novel? Not always qualified, more often - in the wrong direction, askew. He reads the novel, then - separately - the chapter, without, as a rule, imagining all the accuracy, depth, beauty of Dostoevsky's plan. So why not help him? Why complicate his job, which is already very difficult? Why not take the next step?

We know the history of the ban on the chapter (although, probably, no less dramatic pages will open in this history over time). We were incredibly lucky - its versions were preserved, did not burn, and were not lost (and maybe new materials will be found). Now, if they disappeared, the trouble would be irreparable. So what's the deal?

Maybe it’s the sheer length of time that hinders and fascinates? More than a century passed. Everything has moved away. And indeed, this century seemed to have filled up the gaping hole, dulled the pain from Katkov’s “art”. Well, let’s imagine that all this is happening today, now, right before our eyes. Oh, how indignant we would be! How one would dream of “implanting” what was cut off.

Let’s also imagine: what if everything were like this (the year-long struggle before our eyes), but suddenly - at the very last moment- there is no Katkov (but there is no Dostoevsky either), but it’s up to us to decide for ourselves and with the available material? And if they suddenly told us: publish according to Dostoevsky’s will. What a scary and happy responsibility. Would we really renounce it? Would they really say: no, let everything go as it went, without a chapter, and then someday we will publish it too? Yes, I’m sure: such a thought would not have stirred. They would do the impossible so that it would turn out according to Dostoevsky, and not according to Katkov.

In short: the losses from including the chapter “At Tikhon’s” in the novel are minimal (to tell the truth, I hardly see them), the gains are maximum.

So, isn’t it worth it for the sake of such a thing - to double, triple efforts to overcome these same textological difficulties (and in the main they have already been overcome), in order to finally publish “Demons” not according to Katkov, but according to Dostoevsky, according to his complete will? This will also be an act of restoration of justice, truth, beauty. And she is beautiful, this chapter. And “Demons” without it is like “The Brothers Karamazov” without “The Grand Inquisitor”, “Hamlet” without the monologue “To be or not to be...”, it’s like Tchaikovsky’s Sixth Symphony without the final movement or St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome without its central dome.

Indeed, what kind of torment Dostoevsky experienced when he was forbidden to do this. One can only guess about this, but even guessing about it is painful. Let us once again recall the portrait of Dostoevsky by Perov. Let's remember: May 1872. Before us is not just Dostoevsky at the time of work on “Demons”, not only an artist struggling with demonism and overcoming it, before us is an artist to whom real demons have just forbidden his favorite chapter, but he has not yet given up hope of defending it, is preparing for a new fight with them, he still doesn’t know what will happen at the end of October, when Katkov returns from Crimea, and no one even knows what will happen with this chapter (and with the novel) in 1935...

One day I was reading Akhmatova, and suddenly:

Who knows how empty the sky is

At the site of the fallen tower...

But this is right about our chapter!

The best epigraph to the whole story of this unfortunate and great Head, best image her tragic fate, it seems to me that it is impossible to find.

Akhmatova wrote this in 1940, in the same year that dates the end of the “Requiem”, and in this poem there is a “requiem” motif, but it is about something else, not about “Demons”, not about Dostoevsky:

Who knows how empty the sky is

At the site of the fallen tower,

Who knows how quiet it is in the house,

Where the son did not return...

Yes, this is about something else. But not really. After all, for some reason, it was in the same year of forty that she suddenly remembered Dostoevsky, and remembered as if she had moved to his time. Why?

Russia of Dostoevsky. Moon

Almost a quarter is hidden by the bell tower.

The taverns are selling, the cabs are flying,

Five-story buildings are growing

In Gorokhovaya, near Znamenya, near Smolny,

There are dance classes everywhere, signs change,

And next to it: “Henriette”, “Basile”, “Andre”

And magnificent coffins: “Shumilov Sr.”...

In the tavern, Raskolnikov meets Marmeladov, who is then crushed by the cab.

Funny man: “I went up to my fifth floor.”

And isn’t it coming from Shumilov’s coffins: “Bobok, bobok, bobok!”

But, however, the city has changed little.

I'm not alone, but others too

We noticed that he sometimes knows how

Looks like an ancient lithograph,

Not first class, but quite decent

The seventies, it seems.

Especially in winter, before dawn

Or at dusk - then outside the gates

Darkens hard and straight Foundry,

Not yet disgraced by modernity,

And my counterparts live - Nekrasov

And Saltykov... Both on the board

Memorial. Oh, how scary it would be

They should see these boards! I'm passing through.

And in Staraya Russa there are lush ditches,

And in the gardens there are rotten gazebos,

And the glass of the windows there is black, like an ice hole,

And I think something like this happened there,

It’s better not to look in, let’s leave.

You can’t come to an agreement with every place,

So that it reveals its secret

(And I won’t be in Optina anymore...).

And in Staraya Russa Dostoevsky arrived immediately after Perov’s sessions, came to agonize over “Confession.”

It says "Teenager".

And there, in “the ruins of an ancient green gazebo, blackened and crooked, with lattice walls, but with a covered top,” - it was there (in three chapters of “Confession of a Warm Heart”) Alyosha Karamazov listens to his brother Mitenka: “No, the man is broad, too even wide, I would narrow it. Here the devil is fighting with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people...”

And there Mitenka carries out her terrible night watch under the windows of the “villain”.

And in Optina Dostoevsky was with Vl. Solovyov on June 26 and 27, 1877, and he, too, would never be there again...

But how, however, Akhmatova knew how to live in all times at once, and in all of them as if she were her own.

Who knows how empty the sky is

At the site of the fallen tower...

We know, and we know too, too well. Therefore, let’s return to the chapter - I am convinced: restoring it is not only and not so much an “academic” matter, it is a matter of high principle, we are talking about “longing for an ideal.” Justice must, must be restored. And this restoration is a small living piece of the restoration of all justice, and all justice consists of endless living pieces, be it lines, poems, novels, paintings, cathedrals, be it people’s thoughts, names.

“Maybe I’ll find it, and if it’s possible...” It’s not only possible, but also necessary, but also inevitable.

The chapter “At Tikhon’s” - as it is now - is like the dome of a cathedral, painted with brilliant frescoes, albeit scratched, with chipped places, with broken pieces. And the most important thing has already happened: access to it is open. Thanks to those who did this. But it’s better for him to return there, to the cathedral where he was born and where he was torn from the meat. And the cathedral misses him so much. They haven't seen each other for over a hundred years. And we haven't seen them together yet.

Is there another story like this?

But let us have no doubt: the question of restoring the chapter is only a matter of time.

Since then, several editions of the novel “Demons” have been published in Russia with the incorporated chapter “At Tikhon’s”: Dostoevsky F.M. Demons / Comments by L.I. Saraskina. Izhevsk, 1990; Dostoevsky F.M. Demons / Prep. text, preface and note Saraskina L.I. M.: Moscow worker, 1993; Dostoevsky F.M. Demons. Anthology of Russian criticism / Preparation, publication, compilation, afterword and commentary. L.I. Saraskina. M.: Soglasie, 1996. At the same time, there is an opinion of authoritative experts who object to the inclusion of this chapter in the text of the novel. Currently, researchers have at their disposal several author's editions of this chapter; none of these texts can be considered complete; on this basis, the publishers of the Complete Works of F.M. Dostoevsky in 30 volumes did not consider it possible to include it in the novel (12; 237–246). As Professor V.N. writes Zakharov, contamination of the two main versions of the text - the original Galleys (that is, the text over which the conflict with Katkov arose) and the final List, which was submitted to the editors of the Russky Vestnik as a compromise option - is currently impossible, because one of the proofs and some sheets of the List are lost. Therefore, such contamination would lead to the fact that “the editor becomes Dostoevsky’s co-author.” V.N. Zakharov expresses the hope that over time the missing proofs and sheets will be found, which will allow us to return to this problem again (F.M. Dostoevsky. Complete collection works: In 18 volumes. T. 9. Novel “Demons” (1871–1872) / Introductory article by B.N. Tarasova; articles and commentary. V.N. Zakharova; comments by V.V. Dudkin and T.A. Kasatkina - M.: Vozrozhdenie, 2004. P. 601–609).

Chapter Nine
At Tikhon's

I

"were conceived as a grandiose icon diptych: the dark door was opposed to the light one; demonic personality - “a positively beautiful person.” The Christian ideal of beauty is embodied by Bishop Tikhon, whose image Dostoevsky “long ago accepted into his heart with delight.” With the loss of the chapter “At Tikhon’s” this plan was destroyed, and all that remained of the diptych was dark side: a picture of hell, universal destruction, the raging of a demonic blizzard. (The epigraph is taken from Pushkin’s verse: “The demon leads us into the field, we can see it, and circles us around.”)

At Tikhon's. Fragment from the film “Demons”

The “majestic” face of the saint is painted reverently and timidly. The author admitted that he was “terribly afraid” and that this task was beyond his strength. But in the uncertainty of the drawing and the ascetic severity of the image, one feels a huge restrained strength. Tikhon is the antithesis of Stavrogin: a strong man is contrasted with a weak one, a proud one with a humble one, a wise man with a holy fool. Tikhon is “a tall and lean man of about 55 years old, wearing a simple house cassock and looking somewhat sick, with a vague smile and a strange, seemingly shy look.” Father Archimandrite condemns him “for careless living and almost heresy”... “Whether due to weakness of character or due to unforgivable absent-mindedness and uncharacteristic of his rank, he failed to inspire special respect for himself in the monastery itself.” The monks kept silent about him, “as if they wanted to hide some of his weakness, perhaps his foolishness.” He has an inveterate rheumatic disease in his legs and from time to time, some kind of nervous spasms.

Tikhon contrasts Stavrogin’s “magnificence” with his own wretchedness: sickness, weakness, helplessness and foolishness. He speaks to the visitor, embarrassed and timid, “shamefully lowering his eyes with some completely unnecessary smile.” The guest ironically lectures him: “You, you venerable Father Tikhon... I heard from others, you are not fit to be a mentor... You are greatly criticized here. They say that as soon as you see something sincere and humble in a sinner, you immediately become delighted, repent and humble yourself, and run before the sinner and fuss.” “Of course, it’s true that I don’t know how to approach people. “I have always felt my great shortcoming in this,” Tikhon said with a sigh and so innocently that Stavrogin looked at him with a smile.”

Tikhon does not preach humility to the proud - he himself is humility incarnate. But beneath the foolishness lies spiritual wisdom, the gift of clairvoyance and prophecy. He is afraid of offending the sinner, tries to express himself gently, is embarrassed and asks for forgiveness. But reading the confession makes a repulsive impression on him and “decisive indignation” can be heard in his voice. He carefully and carefully touches the guest’s sore spot: there is nothing heroic in his confession - she ugly and funny . Having pronounced this death sentence over the man-god, the saint comes to his senses and begs him not to despair of salvation. “Oh, don’t believe that you won’t win! - he exclaimed, catching himself, but almost in delight... - It always ended with the most shameful cross becoming great glory and with the greatest strength...” “If you believe that you can forgive yourself, and only seek to achieve this forgiveness through your suffering, then you believe in everything... And Christ will forgive.” If a sinner admits his sin and is tormented by it, he has already returned to God. “God will forgive you for your unbelief, for in truth you honor the Holy Spirit without knowing him... For there are neither words nor thoughts in human language to express everyone the ways and motives of the Lamb, “until His ways are revealed to us.” “Who will embrace His immensity, who will understand Total , infinite." But Stavrogin knows neither humility nor repentance; his confession - new challenge To God and people, a new offering of devilish pride. The words of the “damned psychologist” evoke in him unquenchable anger. Tikhon sees his doom. “He stood in front of him, with his hands folded forward in front of him, palms of his hands, and a painful spasm, as if from great fear, passed instantly across his face. “I see... I see, as if in reality, that you, poor, lost young man, have never stood so close to a new and even more powerful crime as at this very moment!”

Bottomless humility, shy tenderness, foolish wisdom and restrained delight are not only ideologically indicated, but also artistically shown in Tikhon. He will share his spiritual treasure with the wanderer Makar Ivanovich Dolgoruky V " Teenager"And with Elder Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov."

But the predominant trait of the saint is not moral, but aesthetic . Tikhon is a spirit-bearing righteous man, illuminated by the beauty of the Holy Spirit. The beautiful mask of the man-god disintegrates into decay in the rays true beauty spirit. The aesthetic side is emphasized in its appearance and setting. Stavrogin’s decaying style is contrasted with his high, strict, archaic style; verbal formlessness for one, chastity of church form for another. In Tikhon’s cell: “three elegant things: a richly furnished armchair, a large desk of excellent finishing, an elegant carved bookcase; a table, a bookcase, an expensive Bukhara carpet, engravings of “secular content”; in the library, along with spiritual books, there are novels and theatrical works.

I finished reading “The Demons” by Dostoevsky.
And everything would be fine, everything would be fine...
But the last chapter, not included in the novel due to the publishers’ rejection, which is now inserted at the very end, after the Conclusion...
This is simply unbearable!
The chapter is called "At Tikhon's". I couldn't finish reading it the first time.
She started, then closed the book, sat there bringing herself to her senses, then continued. So it’s not far from nervous hysterics =)
I’m already an impressionable person, and if I didn’t read something like that I wouldn’t injure myself, but damn! curiosity always gets ahead of impressionability.
But, most importantly, “But!” Without this chapter, the image of Stavrogin would not have been understood for me. I even sympathized with him for a while, even though he was connected with all the people who died, but it didn’t seem to be his direct guilt, it seemed like he could have been justified in my own eyes. This is where I was wrong. There is no excuse for him and this becomes clear precisely in the last chapter.
I also read a brief analysis of the work and some comments here.
Truly, how many people have so many opinions. And sometimes they diverge like you read different books, and not the same one. If Fyodor Mikhailovich were to read the comments to his “Demons” now, he would probably have a nervous attack from the fact that no one understood him, and if they understood him, then it was wrong.
Oddly enough, the elder Verkhovensky does not cause me contempt, as many do, but in some ways I sympathize with him.
Here are his excellent words in my opinion:

"Oh my friend, marriage is moral death every proud soul, every independence. Married life will corrupt me, it will take away my energy and courage in serving the cause, I will have children who, perhaps, are not mine yet, that is, of course, not mine; a wise man is not afraid to face the truth..."

And I liked another one about the idea:

“What sadness and anger covers your entire soul when a great idea, which you have long since revered sacredly, is picked up by the incompetent and dragged out to the same fools as yourself, on the street, and you suddenly meet it in a crowded place, unrecognizable, in the dirt, placed absurdly, at an angle, without proportion, without harmony, as a toy for stupid children."

Or how he responds to Yulia Mikhailovna, who exclaimed that socialism is a great idea:

"The thought is great, but those who profess are not always giants."

Speaking of great thoughts, I still remember these words - a thought expressed by different words (people) tends to change its meaning.
AND great idea can be ruined by careless handling.
“There is no stupidity that cannot be corrected with the help of the mind, and there is no wisdom that cannot be spoiled with the help of stupidity.” Goethe

I remember Shigalev from the five with his book on the plan of the world.

“Having devoted my energy to studying the question of the social structure of the future society, which will replace the present, I came to the conviction that all the creators of social systems, from ancient times to our 187... year, were dreamers, storytellers, fools who contradicted themselves, nothing at all who understood natural science and that strange animal called man. Plato, Rousseau, Fourier, columns made of aluminum - all this is only suitable for sparrows, and not for human society. But since the future social form is necessary precisely now, when we are all. We’re finally going to act so that we don’t have to think about it anymore, then I propose my own system of organizing the world. Here it is,” he tapped on the notebook. oral explanations, and therefore the entire presentation will require at least ten evenings, according to the number of chapters of my book (Laughter was heard.) In addition, I announce in advance that my system is not finished. (Laughter again.) I am confused by my own data, and my conclusion is in direct contradiction to the original idea from which I come. Coming from boundless freedom, I conclude with boundless despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my permission of the social formula, there cannot be any."

“Coming from boundless freedom, I conclude with boundless despotism” - the root of the entire system. Each, so to speak, is a leader, leading and promising unlimited freedom and cannot end otherwise.
In general, such an amazing thought came to me - our world is arranged in a brilliant way. There can be no other device human world. That “strange animal called man,” without limitless despotism on the part of the heads of the people, would simply bring about hell on earth. What chaos there would be would be nothing like the current one. Now we can say everything is under control. We have laws, for failure to comply with which there are penalties, and if a person is not afraid, for example, of prison, then there is also religion for this case. Maybe not everyone is afraid of condemnation from their own kind, but condemnation of the church is a different matter. The church insures the state. Burning in hell is not a pleasant experience, especially in your terrible fantasies. And atheists... there are no real atheists.

“A perfect atheist, whatever you want, but still stands on the penultimate upper step to the most perfect faith...” - Tikhon
“...(whether he will step over it or not), but the indifferent person has no faith except bad fear” - continuation of Tikhon’s phrase.

This is why I continued it - selective quoting is terrible =)
When selectively quoting, you can put any meaning into the author’s phrases, but when you read the entire work or sentence, you understand that the author intended a completely different meaning, completely different from the one taken out of context.
An atheist stands on the penultimate step, but whether he will cross it is not a fact. Most are atheists only during the day; at night it becomes creepy and sad and you want to immediately believe in something, as they say in a falling plane there are no atheists. When talking with some people who consider themselves atheists, I came to the conclusion that they do not like the very word and concept of “God”. If we call this force not God, but a higher mind, then atheists agree that yes, a higher mind exists and it would be stupid to deny it.
Atheists are not as scary, Tikhon implies, as indifferent ones, such as Stavrogin.
Reflections about Shigalev’s book are also interesting - the lame man at the meeting of the five and after it in the conversation between Pyotr Verkhovensky and Stavrogin.
Khromoy about Shigalev’s book:

“I know his book. He proposes, as a final solution to the question, the division of humanity into two unequal parts. One tenth receives personal freedom and unlimited right over the remaining nine-tenths. Those must lose their personality and turn, as it were, into a herd and boundless obedience to achieve a series of rebirths of primitive innocence, a kind of primitive paradise, although, however, the measures proposed by the author for taking away the will of nine-tenths of humanity and converting it into a herd, through the re-education of entire generations, are very remarkable, based on. natural data and very logical. One may not agree with other conclusions, but it is difficult to doubt the author’s mind and knowledge. It is a pity that the condition of ten evenings is completely incompatible with the circumstances, otherwise we could hear a lot of interesting things.”

Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky, conversation with Stavrogin about Shigalev’s book:

“He’s good in his notebooks,” Verkhovensky continued, “he’s doing espionage. With him, every member of society watches one after another and is obliged to denounce. Everyone belongs to everyone, and everything to everyone. All slaves are equal in slavery. In extreme cases, slander and murder , and most importantly - equality. First of all, the level of education, science and talents is reduced. A high level of science and talent is available only to higher abilities; higher abilities have always seized power and have been despots. Higher abilities cannot but be despots and have always corrupted. more than brought benefits; they are expelled or executed. Cicero's tongue is cut out, Copernicus's eyes are gouged out, Shakespeare is stoned - this is Shigalevism! Slaves must be equal: without despotism there has never been either freedom or equality, but there must be equality in the herd, and That’s Shigalevism! Ha-ha-ha, is it strange for you? I’m for Shigalevism!”

"Listen, Stavrogin: level the mountains - Good idea, not funny. I am for Shigalev! No education needed, just science! Even without science there will be enough material for a thousand years, but obedience must be established. There is only one thing missing in the world: obedience. The thirst for education is already an aristocratic thirst. A little bit of family or love, and now there’s a desire for property. We will kill desire: we will allow drunkenness, gossip, denunciation; we will allow unheard-of debauchery; We extinguish every genius in infancy. Everything has the same denominator, complete equality. “We have learned a trade, and we are honest people, we don’t need anything else,” was the recent answer of the English workers. Only what is necessary is necessary - that is the motto of the globe from now on. But a spasm is also needed; We, the rulers, will take care of this. Slaves must have rulers. Complete obedience, complete impersonality, but once every thirty years Shigalev has a spasm, and everyone suddenly begins to eat each other, until famous trait, the only thing is not to get bored. Boredom is an aristocratic feeling; in Shigalevism there will be no desires. Desire and suffering for us, but for slaves Shigalevism."

I will highlight a few phrases:
“First of all, the level of education, science and talents is lowered. A high level of sciences and talents is accessible only to higher abilities, no need for higher abilities! Higher abilities have always seized power and were despots.”

“The thirst for education is already an aristocratic thirst. Just a little bit of family or love, and then there’s the desire for property. We will kill desire: we will allow drunkenness, gossip, denunciation; we will allow unheard-of debauchery; we will extinguish every genius in infancy.”

“Slaves must have rulers” - that’s all true. There must be rulers. Education and higher abilities are not needed, because... if a person begins to think, it may be for the best for him, but for the rulers it is very unprofitable. Therefore, drunkenness, debauchery, gossip - it is easier to control the herd when it is faceless.
I'm not an expert in history, but in my opinion something is similar to 1917

“The people are drunk, the mothers are drunk, the children are drunk, the churches are empty, and on the ships: “two hundred rods, or drag a bucket.” Oh, give, give, grow a generation. It’s only a pity that there is no time to wait, otherwise they would become even drunker Oh, what a pity that there are no proletarians! But there will be, there will be, this is coming..."

“Demons” was published in 1872, there is some kind of prophecy in the words of the last quote, isn’t it. The book has long been considered political, anti-nihilistic, but I wouldn’t say so. It contains a chronicle of the 60-70s, the case of Nechaev and his circle for the murder of student Ivanov, in the novel Pyotr Verkhovensky plays this role and his conspiracy against Shatov.
There are remarks about Russia; I really liked the performance of one unnamed hero at Yulia Mikhailovna’s holiday.

"- Gentlemen! - the maniac shouted with all his might, standing at the very edge of the stage and in almost the same shrill-feminine voice as Karmazinov, but only without the noble lisp. - Gentlemen! Twenty years ago, on the eve of the war with half of Europe, Russia stood as an ideal in the eyes of all civil and secret councilors. Literature served as a censor; the army turned to ballet, and the people paid taxes and remained silent under the whip of serfdom. Patriotism turned into taking bribes from the living and from the dead. were considered rebels because they violated harmony. Birch groves were destroyed to help order. Europe trembled... But never in all the stupid thousand years of its life did it reach such a shame...
He raised his fist, waving it enthusiastically and menacingly above his head, and suddenly violently lowered it down, as if smashing his opponent into dust. A frantic scream was heard from all sides, and a deafening applause rang out. Almost half the hall was already applauding; they were carried away in the most innocent way: Russia was publicly and publicly dishonored, and how could one not roar with delight?
- What a deal! That's how it is! Hooray! No, this is not aesthetics!
The maniac continued in delight:
– Twenty years have passed since then. Universities are open and multiplied. Shagistika has become a legend; There are not enough officers to complete them in the thousands. Railways They ate up all the capital and covered Russia like a cobweb, so that in fifteen years, perhaps, it will be possible to go somewhere. Bridges burn only occasionally, but cities burn regularly, in the prescribed order, one by one, during the fire season. The courts have Solomonic verdicts, and the jury takes bribes only in the struggle for existence, when they have to die of hunger. The serfs are free and hitting each other with rods instead of the former landowners. Seas and oceans of vodka are drunk to help the budget, and in Novgorod, opposite the ancient and useless Sofia, a bronze colossal ball is solemnly erected as a memory of a thousand years of past disorder and confusion. Europe frowns and begins to worry again... Fifteen years of reforms! Meanwhile, Russia, even in the most caricatured eras of its stupidity, never reached...
The last words could not even be heard over the roar of the crowd. You could see him raise his hand again and lower it triumphantly once again. Delight went beyond all limits: they screamed, clapped their hands, even some of the ladies shouted: “Enough! You can’t say anything better!” They looked like they were drunk."

But “Demons” is still not about politics, and not about nihilism and atheists. This book is about the darkness of human souls, like all Dostoevsky’s novels.
And in every commentary to “Demons” people write - oh, how dark, dark and gloomy. Well, as it is, comrades, they are so rich.
I really remember the moment about a young guy of 19 years old who committed suicide because he “squandered 400 rubles” collected by the whole family for his sister’s dowry. And how everyone ran into the living room to look at the corpse of this boy, and one lady said out loud, “everything is so boring that there is no need to stand on ceremony with entertainment, it would be entertaining.”
“In every misfortune of a neighbor there is always something that amuses the prying eye...” writes Dostoevsky at the end of that story.
Well, the great writer Karmazinov.
Reading someone’s comment, to my surprise, I learned that in Karmazinov Dostoevsky portrayed Turgenev, whose enmity with whom only the lazy would know, as the author of the comment wrote. I didn't know. Of course, he portrayed him funny. I liked Karmazinov’s last “masterpiece,” which was his farewell to the reader and which I read at the celebration.

“Yes, friend reader, farewell!” he began immediately from the manuscript and without sitting down in his chair. “Farewell, reader; I don’t even really insist that we part as friends: why really bother you? Even scold me, oh scold me, as much as you want, if it gives you any pleasure. But it would be best if we forgot each other forever. And if all of you, readers, suddenly became so kind that, on your knees, you began to beg with tears: “Write, oh write for us, the Karmazinovs - for the fatherland, for posterity, for laurel wreaths,” then even then I would He answered you, of course, thanking you with all courtesy: “No, we’ve been fussing with each other enough, dear compatriots, merci! It’s time for us to go in different directions! Merci, merci, merci.”

Even funnier is Turgenev’s epigram to Dostoevsky, with which it all seemed to begin:

Knight of the sorrowful figure!
Dostoevsky, young pimp,
On the nose of literature
You jumped up like a bright pimple.
Even though you are a new writer,
But he sent everyone into delight:
The Emperor praises you
Respects Leuchtenberg.

Turgenev thought that Dostoevsky had become too arrogant after the success of his first published novel, “Poor People,” and wanted to bring him down a little, so to speak.
I don’t know what they really had there; you won’t know the truth.
There are many scenes and hysterics in the novel, but Dostoevsky loves to portray hysterical women, he was good at it and he knew about it. However, men are also quite hysterical, the same Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, Lebyadkin, also in “Demons”, Fyodor Karamazov - the father of the Karamazov brothers in the novel of the same name, General Epachin in “The Idiot”
Some of Lebyadkin’s remarks were also memorable, especially his phrase:

“He lives to harm people,” he says about Stavrogin.

Before the chapter "At Tikhon's" why did it seem to me that the main villain was Pyotr Verkhovensky. He caused confusion, persuaded the five, plotted the murder of Lebyadkin and his sister, wooed Liza Stavrogina, although Liza has her own head, but still contributed to this matter, deceived Yulia Mikhailovna, killed Shatov. Everywhere he is to blame and his fault is direct.
Stavrogin is, as it were, on the sidelines, he is guilty, but there is no direct, proven guilt of his.
But the main demon is still Stavrogin.
And one person who could have been saved, in my opinion, but was not saved, is Shatov. I sympathize with him. Somewhere in the comments they wrote that Marya Ignatievna always loved him and that’s why she returned. Yeah.
Marya Ignatievna may not have had any feelings for him, which is why she ran away to Stavrogin so quickly after the wedding. And how Nikolai Vsevolodovich took advantage of her and then abandoned her, she, already pregnant, ran to Shatov. True, out of great love for him. Not about her now.

“If you want to conquer the whole world, defeat yourself” - words belonging to Shatov in the novel.

This hero probably would have been able to conquer himself, to defeat his demons, but Dostoevsky decided his fate differently. It's a pity.
Kirillov is interesting in his ideas, but I don’t understand why he left without a detailed description of his idea?

“I want to declare my willfulness. Let alone, but I will do it... I am obliged to shoot myself, because the most complete point of my willfulness is to kill myself... I want the highest point and I will kill myself... I am obliged to declare disbelief... For me, there is no higher idea that there is no God. For me, human history has done nothing but invent God in order to live without killing itself; this is the whole of world history until now. world history I didn’t want to invent God for the first time. Let them know once and for all."

“Let them find out,” says Kirillov, but how can we understand his idea if in his suicide note he writes everything that Pyotr Verkhovensky dictates to him, admits to distributing proclamations, in connection with Fedka Katorzhny and even to the murder of Shatov?
Not a word about the man-god, not a word about the highest freedom, when it will be all the same to live or not to live, not a word about his self-will!
I killed myself for an idea, but for what, why didn’t I at least write about it in my note.
This is kind of strange to me.
Maybe he is, of course, just a person devoid of vanity and therefore did not write and speak publicly about his idea, but he still acts better than Stavrogin. Kirillov, having come to the conclusion that there is no God, and that he himself is a god, decides to kill himself, and not to do evil out of boredom or hopelessness, to believe in at least something, as Stavrogin does. And yes, if it weren’t for Stavrogin, who poisoned Kirillov with her poison of unbelief, then maybe everything would have turned out differently. Everywhere Stavrogin made his contribution.
And the episode is just before Kirillov’s death, when Shatov runs in to him with the news that his wife has arrived and asks them to have some tea to warm up. Kirillov hastily gives back the samovar and offers him the food he has.

"Kirillov! If... if you could give up your terrible fantasies and give up your atheistic nonsense... oh, what kind of person you would be, Kirillov!"

It would seem that what does he care about the Shatovs if he decided to kill himself and is about to carry out this idea. .And he is kind and sympathetic in his time. I also feel sorry for Kirillov, just like Shatov.
It was also said about Shatov at the beginning of the novel:

“He was one of those ideal Russian creatures who are suddenly struck by some strong idea and immediately crushes them with it, sometimes even forever. They are never able to cope with it, but they believe passionately, and then their whole life passes by.” as if in the last writhing under a stone that fell on them and half completely crushed them."

These words, in my opinion, apply to Kirillov as well. The idea crushed him forever.

“You didn’t eat the idea, but you were eaten by the idea,” says Pyotr Verkhovensky about him.

By the way, Christ will not forgive.
and Tikhon answers him:
- I’ll tell you the good news for this - and Christ will forgive.

And then the question arises - how?!
How can you forgive, how can you forgive something like this? Conscious evil.
I read the entire novel excitedly, I was drawn in by the plot and characters, but the last chapter seemed to unsettle me.
If she weren't there...
If it didn't exist, it would be both good and bad at the same time. They write that Dostoevsky pinned his hopes on this chapter, but it was rejected (of course I understand why). Moreover, she is in different options. In the version that I read (more terrible. Understatement is a great thing) the confession goes on without interruption, but there is another version where one page with the story about Matryosha is torn off and Stavrogin, responding to the look of Elder Tikhon, exclaims that nothing happened, just a girl I'm stupid and got it all wrong. However, the child hanged himself.
The chapter was rejected, and Fyodor Mikhailovich realized his plan in The Brothers Karamazov, answering all the most important questions in the person of Elder Zosima.
In The Brothers Karamazov there was also one very memorable chapter called “Revolt”, where Ivan Karamazov tells Alyosha all the abominations and atrocities that he learned, and specifically about children, because they had not yet sinned. If we are all guilty, all sinners, then we suffer, but why do children, innocent children suffer, he asks Alyosha.
And if there is a God, then how can he allow even one tear of an innocent child to shed? And not only that, but also to forgive this child after the torturers. After all, God forgives everything, forgives everyone.
Even then I thought the same way as now - how can you forgive this?! Forgive all those who mock, beat and rape the defenseless, who commit evil consciously, for the sake of their own pleasures.
I don't understand!
Oh.
They write in the comments to “Demons” - a great novel, read, read Dostoevsky, everything!
And I honestly don’t know if it’s worth it. The novel is, of course, great, but when a person is impressionable, it’s better not to read something like that. It will be calmer.
And in The Brothers Karamazov, after The Revolt, there are chapters about Elder Zosima, his conversations recorded by Alyosha, which should have explained everything, put everything in its place. We are all guilty of something, and we are also guilty of someone else’s sins; each of us is guilty of all human atrocities. We have no right to judge someone, because we ourselves are not without sin, but we must forgive a person who has sinned and take it not with violence, but with humble love.
But I read here in an essay by Camus that one of Dostoevsky’s commentators wrote this:

“Dostoevsky has a lot in common with Ivan Karamazov; it is not for nothing that the chapters affirming in their spirit (about Elder Zosima and forgiveness) required three months of hard work from him, while what he called “blasphemy” (that’s right, the chapters “Revolt” and “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor"), written in three weeks in a fit of inspiration."

Something tells me that he himself would like to believe what he writes from the words of this old man, but he really couldn’t, or he didn’t believe it completely.
When, after Stavrogin’s confession, in which he seemed to describe with pleasure how he approached the child, seduced him, and later did not stop the suicide attempt, he sat and waited, and was conscious, after describing the scene when Matryosha threatens him with her small fist... Tikhon tells him that Jesus will definitely forgive him.
Ahh, I have an explosion of emotions!
But I’m finishing it though, I scribbled it here =)
Maybe I take everything to heart. But similar things happen in our world, and it can be worse. People are more dangerous than animals. As Dostoevsky himself wrote in “The Brothers Karamazov” - an animal can never be so sophisticated and cruel in its intentions; if an animal kills, it will simply kill, but as a person does - mocking, deliberately torturing another. In "Demons" this is exactly what is depicted. Stavrogin eclipsed all the villains with his cold, indifferent and, most importantly, conscious cruelty committed by him out of boredom. Verkhovensky persuaded to kill Shatov, but he killed him simply and without sophistication, and on Stavrogin’s conscience, Kirillov, who killed himself, whom he led to all these “atheistic nonsense”, Lebyadkina and Liza, obsessed with their love for him, the murder of the Lebyadkins is also on his conscience, because Surely he could have stopped it, but he didn’t stop it, and if Lisa had not died from an accident, she could probably have joined the list of suicides, and the last straw for me was the death of Matryosha.
The novel "Demons" is the story of a human soul without faith, without faith in the light, without faith in salvation, without hopes.
“There the devil and God fight, and the battlefield is the hearts of people.”
The throwing of heroes from God and to God is probably also the throwing of the author.
We are used to labeling people, this one is good, that one is evil, but there are no absolutely good people, just as there are no absolutely evil people. In us equal quantity light and darkness, god and devil. And everything is decided only by whom we take on faith more, what thoughts we listen to, this is that unbearable freedom of choice - to help or not to help, to tell the truth or to lie, to steal or to earn money, to take revenge or to forgive, to kill or not to kill. People don't need that kind of freedom, because if they finally make that difficult choice, they always choose the wrong thing.
After reading similar books such as “Demons” and “The Brothers Karamazov”, these “hysterical” throwings, as Dostoevsky would write, are transmitted to the reader.
I cannot deny the existence of a higher power, a higher mind, which can be called God, but if it exists, then how can what happens in our lives, what Dostoevsky wrote about?
And I don’t even know which thought is easier, that there is no God or that he still exists, but allows evil to happen, and the guilty will not only not be punished, but will also receive his forgiveness.
I’ll end my thoughts about Dostoevsky with his own words on behalf of Ivan Karamazov, which completely and perfectly describe my feelings after reading “The Demons”:

“I don’t accept God, understand this, I don’t accept the world He created... and I can’t agree to accept it.”