Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Dostoyevsky, Demons
>
Week 3: Part I, Chapter 5
message 1:
by
Roger
(last edited Jan 13, 2021 06:56AM)
(new)
Jan 13, 2021 06:54AM
Chapter 5, "The Wise Serpent": Stepan Trofimovich, the narrator, Shatov, Lizaveta Nikolayevna, and Marya Timofeyevna are assembled with Varvara Petrovna in her parlor. Varvara asks questions but gets evasive answers. The ill Praskova Ivanovna arrives, supported by Mavriky Nikolayevich, to rescue her daughter from the scandal around Marya. We learn that both Praskova and Varvara have been getting ominous anonymous letters. Darya Pavlovna walks in; we learn that she had taken 300 rubles from Nikolay Vsevolodovich and delivered them to Lebyadkin. Lebyadkin himself shows up, at once hung over and slightly drunk, formally dressed, pompously determined to repay the 10 rubles Varvara had given Marya. He lets everyone know he has a great secret that he must never tell. Pyotr Stepanovich arrives, followed by his friend and Varvara's son Nikolay. Pyotr knows Lizaveta and Praskova from meetings abroad, but he hasn't seen his father for 10 years. Nikolay was not expected home fo another month. Varvara asks him if Marya is his wife. He does not answer, but goes to the adoring Marya and leaves with her. Pyotr explains that Nikolay met Marya when they were both living in poverty in Petersburg, took pity on her, and arranged to provide 300 rubles a year for support. When Lebyadkin drank up the money, Nikolay placed Marya in a convent, from which Lebyadkin later removed her. Varvara is elated that her son did something so noble, Lebyadkin admits everything and leaves, Nikolay returns. Lizaveta starts laughing uncontrollably. Pyotr tells Nikolay something in private, then blurts out that his father wrote to him with ambivalence about his coming marriage and asked him come "save" him; Pyotr seems to be trying to cause an uproar. He succeeds. Varvara bans Stepan from her house. Shatov walks up to Nikolay and slugs him. Completely out of character, Nikolay does nothing. Lizaveta faints.
reply
|
flag
If this chapter is supposed to clear things up, I'd hate to see deliberate obfuscation.
Opening question: As far as I can recall, we get the first actual mention of demons in this chapter. In section 2, the narrator says that Varvara Petrovna can be possessed by the demon of pride. In section 6, Varvara says Nikolay Vsevolodovich is tormented by a "sudden demon of irony." Are there other demons around?
Roger wrote: "If this chapter is supposed to clear things up, I'd hate to see deliberate obfuscation."Ha--right.
It seems a little unbelievable to me that Lebyadkin would make such outrageous claims when they are so easily disproven. Did he think Nikolai would never come back and clear things up?
Well, even if there's still a lot of mystery, we at least get the relationship straight between Nikolay and Marya. Shatov obviously believes there's still something being concealed between Nikolai and his sister though, which Pyotr certainly did his best to insinuate. And Lizaveta's actions are a little off, to say the least.
One thing I’ve been thinking about is Kirillov’s speech on suicide in chapter 3. I am thinking Nikolay and Marya are the type of person who become God.“Whoever doesn’t care whether he lives or doesn’t live, he will be a new man. Whoever conquers pain and fear, he himself will be God.”
Both seem completely indifferent to fear and pain in a nihilistic way.
Everyone baffled by this chapter? I know I am. Anyone got an idea why Lizaveta Nikolayevna cant' help laughing?
Roger wrote: "Everyone baffled by this chapter? I know I am. Anyone got an idea why Lizaveta Nikolayevna cant' help laughing?"We can call this chapter 'Charging the Bomb'. Maybe we'll see later what the shrapnel is made of. Patience might be the safest approach at this point.
There seems to be some symmetry between the episode earlier between Nikolai and Liputin, where Liputin does nothing in response to Nikolai's offense, and Nikolai doing nothing after Shatov punches him. I'm not sure how we're supposed to take this though. This novel seems to be unfolding like a detective story. Motives aren't clear because the narrator isn't letting us see the whole picture yet, just clues.
Roger wrote: "If this chapter is supposed to clear things up, I'd hate to see deliberate obfuscation."I don't believe the chapter is meant to clear things up. If anything, I believe it was meant to further muddy the waters. ***Edited- Bryan corrected my mistaken impression that Nikolai formally married Marya, which isn't in the text.
However, there is plenty of importance going on in this first time many of the main characters are in the same place. The chronicler uses it to foreshadow and then introduce Pyotr Stepanovich and Nikolai, both critical to the remainder of the novel, into the story proper.
Chapter Five, among other things, shows the contrasts between Pyotr's fast- and smooth-talking nature and Nikolai's more subdued one. Pyotr is immediately shown to be a possibly-dangerous man in the subtly threatening way he puts Ledyabkin in his place and Ledyabkin's sudden flash of fear before being allowed to leave.
Later, Pyotr reveals that Stepan Trofimovich has written to him pleading to help him get out of the arranged engagement to Dasha that Varvara has pressured him into for another man's (that is, Varvara's son, Nikolai's, it has been hinted) sins in Switzerland. Pyotr's protestations that he didn't know the letter's contents were a secret are unconvincing, to say the least.
The revelation leads Varvara to terminate her 20-year relationship with Stepan Trofimovich immediately, leaving him homeless and without a patron. It shows that many of the characters obviously know and are being affected by scandalous news, but leaves the reader in the dark with mere hints about why they might be so bothered, creating dramatic tension to pull the story forward.
I know I wanted to keep reading to find out how all the hints and allusions connect.
Roger wrote: "In section 6, Varvara says Nikolay Vsevolodovich is tormented by a "sudden demon of irony." Are there other demons around?."I'm curious about the demon of irony. The demon of pride is more easily understood, but irony? Nikolai is cast by his mother, and by the narrator, as a man who does the opposite of what is expected of him as a "noble soul". Is this ironic, or just contrary? Is it Varvara Petrovna making excuses for him? Or is irony really a demon?
Then you will understand the impulse with which, in this blindness of nobility, one suddenly takes a man in all respects even unworthy of one, profoundly lacking in understanding of one, who is ready to torment one at the first opportunity, and, contrary to everything, makes such a man into some sort of ideal, one's dream, concentrates on him all one's hopes, worships him, loves him all one's life, absolutely without knowing why, perhaps precisely because he is unworthy of it...
Aiden wrote: "..."I don't believe the chapter is meant to clear things up. If anything, I believe it was meant...We haven't got that far yet.
Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "We haven't got that far yet."Everything I mentioned is included in the text of Part 1, Chapter 5, but with the benefit of knowing what's to come.
I don’t remember there being anything said about Nikolai and Marya being married. Unless I missed it, we were left thinking Nikolai had simply taken pity on the girl.
Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "I don’t remember there being anything said about Nikolai and Marya being married. Unless I missed it, we were left thinking Nikolai had simply taken pity on the girl."Nope, you're right and thank you for pointing it out. I've corrected my post.
I thought that it said that Nikolai married Marya to ensure he could take care of her for the rest of her life, but it doesn't say "married". It says that he treated her kindly, was offended when Kirillov thinks he is only being kind to drive her further mad, Pyotr says Marya believed that she was his fiance (emphasis mine) and then he sets her up in a convent with an annual income of 300 rubles.
About this demon of irony: Some people certainly are tempted to take a pose of irony--it allows them to feel superior, while not really engaging with the problems around them. But I don't know if that fits Nikolay.
This whole section strikes me like an act in a play with characters entering and exiting the stage. Also, Marya's behavior here is somewhat reminiscent of the fool's role in Shakespeare. She is guileless, honest, and blurts out whatever is on her mind.
It seems to me as if we, the readers, are being kept in the dark about a lot of things. I don't trust Pyotr is being honest. I suspect there is more to the relationship between Nikolai and Marya than we've been told. It's as if the characters have different pieces of a puzzle which they are not revealing. I get the sense a lot of things that could be said are not said.Or, maybe, I just have a suspicious nature.
Bryan--Pumpkin Connoisseur wrote: "I don’t remember there being anything said about Nikolai and Marya being married. Unless I missed it, we were left thinking Nikolai had simply taken pity on the girl."
Well, yes and no. There was no definitive statement that the two were married. Nonetheless, it was suggested and left unresolved in chapter 5:
Varvara Petrovna: "...she suddenly addressed her son...
'Nikolai V_' she repeated, rapping out the words in a firm voice in which a menacing challenge sounded, 'I ask you to tell me right now, without moving from that spot: Is it true that this unfortunate lame woman--there she is, over there, look at her! --is it true that she is ... your lawful wife?'" (p. 182 P&V translation)
Well, yes and no. There was no definitive statement that the two were married. Nonetheless, it was suggested and left unresolved in chapter 5:
Varvara Petrovna: "...she suddenly addressed her son...
'Nikolai V_' she repeated, rapping out the words in a firm voice in which a menacing challenge sounded, 'I ask you to tell me right now, without moving from that spot: Is it true that this unfortunate lame woman--there she is, over there, look at her! --is it true that she is ... your lawful wife?'" (p. 182 P&V translation)
I loved the scene p164 w Stepan and the coffee. There are tensions between Varvara and Praskovya Ivan. Varvara has a servant serve coffee. Praskovya waves the pro-offered coffee away... lol...and the others signal (almost virtue signalling...to show they are on the right side)... they "also declined the coffee" But you have to love STV... He ACCEPTS the coffee... but then SET IT ON THE TABLE. Doesn't want to offend either party. Marya's response, too, is fascinating.
Roger wrote: "Opening question: As far as I can recall, we get the first actual mention of demons in this chapter. In section 2, the narrator says that Varvara Petrovna can be possessed by the demon of pride. In..."
I think this is a most important passage in the book---"Demons" is after all the title, and Luke 8:32-36 has been given emphasis.
From page 163 where "demon" is perhaps first mentioned: "But, apparently, the demon of the most arrogant pride took possession of Varvara Petrovna precisely when she had the slightest suspicion that she was for some reason considered humiliated" (163).
1) This demon is identified as "the most arrogant pride," and as Roger had pointed out another demon is later mentioned. So there are different demons (and demons of different degree)...which reminds us all that in Luke, when asked by Jesus who he was, the man replied, "Legion."
2) I liked the little bits in that passage that remind us of that particular passage in Luke:
Shatov "grunted." I think pigs. And I think again of that passage in the Bible.
"Lord Jesus Christ..." VarVara invokes Jesus, as did the man possessed.
“What do You want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You not to torture me!”
3) Note, Varvara, too, is described as being "possessed."
4) From Luke: "...they found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind"
Varvara: "have they all lost their minds?"
From Luke: "And those who had seen it told them how he who had been possessed with demons was healed."
And we have to wonder whether the characters in _Demons_ will be healed.
I think this is a most important passage in the book---"Demons" is after all the title, and Luke 8:32-36 has been given emphasis.
From page 163 where "demon" is perhaps first mentioned: "But, apparently, the demon of the most arrogant pride took possession of Varvara Petrovna precisely when she had the slightest suspicion that she was for some reason considered humiliated" (163).
1) This demon is identified as "the most arrogant pride," and as Roger had pointed out another demon is later mentioned. So there are different demons (and demons of different degree)...which reminds us all that in Luke, when asked by Jesus who he was, the man replied, "Legion."
2) I liked the little bits in that passage that remind us of that particular passage in Luke:
Shatov "grunted." I think pigs. And I think again of that passage in the Bible.
"Lord Jesus Christ..." VarVara invokes Jesus, as did the man possessed.
“What do You want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You not to torture me!”
3) Note, Varvara, too, is described as being "possessed."
4) From Luke: "...they found the man from whom the demons had gone, sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind"
Varvara: "have they all lost their minds?"
From Luke: "And those who had seen it told them how he who had been possessed with demons was healed."
And we have to wonder whether the characters in _Demons_ will be healed.
One final thought on that sentence. And I think, too, this is an important aspect of what Dostoevski is suggesting in his novel--- 'though I could be mistaken, of course.
I thought about how much this sentence is conveying! "apparently" is actually set as a stand-alone through the use of those commas. (I know...I'm reading a translation...so I'm trusting the translator.) So it's emphasized that we don't REALLY know that this demon of pride has Varvara. And we are shown that Varvara, too, is reacting without sold grounds... "she had the SLIGHTEST suspicion"...that "for some reason" other people --- she supposes... think her humiliated.
I just loved that sentence. I haven't thought it through all the way --- there's a good deal of book still to read; but I think that that is a part of chapter one's title: "Instead of an Introduction." How can we truly be "introduced" to someone...? We have the surface appearance and surface facts.... akin to the "costumes" that Varvara chooses for Stepan .... Sure, he wears them... but they don't accurately reflect who he IS.
As the narrator says regarding Nikolai V during the altercation between Nikolai and Shatov:
"Of course, I do not know what was inside the man, I only saw the outside" (205).
I thought about how much this sentence is conveying! "apparently" is actually set as a stand-alone through the use of those commas. (I know...I'm reading a translation...so I'm trusting the translator.) So it's emphasized that we don't REALLY know that this demon of pride has Varvara. And we are shown that Varvara, too, is reacting without sold grounds... "she had the SLIGHTEST suspicion"...that "for some reason" other people --- she supposes... think her humiliated.
I just loved that sentence. I haven't thought it through all the way --- there's a good deal of book still to read; but I think that that is a part of chapter one's title: "Instead of an Introduction." How can we truly be "introduced" to someone...? We have the surface appearance and surface facts.... akin to the "costumes" that Varvara chooses for Stepan .... Sure, he wears them... but they don't accurately reflect who he IS.
As the narrator says regarding Nikolai V during the altercation between Nikolai and Shatov:
"Of course, I do not know what was inside the man, I only saw the outside" (205).
Tamara wrote: "It seems to me as if we, the readers, are being kept in the dark about a lot of things. I don't trust Pyotr is being honest. I suspect there is more to the relationship between Nikolai and Marya th..."It's not just you:
She had listened with malicious pleasure to the whole "truthful" torrent of words from Pyotr Stepanovich, who was obviously playing a role (I did not know then what it was, but it was obviously a role, played even much too crudely.)
The narrator knows that Pyotr is "truthful" in scare quotes, and he admits that he knows more now in retrospect. He's artfully leaving information out and letting the story play out.
Adelle wrote: "which reminds us all that in Luke, when asked by Jesus who he was, the man replied, "Legion.""I enjoyed your post, but just wanted to post the entire biblical quote that you mention because I think it's important to the "demons" referred to in the title and epigraph. The epigraph starts with Luke 8:32, but the part you mention is two verses earlier:
"And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him. And they besought him that he would not command them to go out into the deep." -Luke 8:30-31, KJV (emphasis mine)
And the version of the story in the Gospel of Mark:
"For he said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit, And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country." Mark 5:8-9, KJV (emphasis mine)
And Mark 5:13 actually gives a number of "about two thousand" demons.
Interestingly, the version of the story in the Gospel of Matthew mentions two men "possessed with devils", but they never give a name or suggest plurality other than the word "devils."
As we established in the Chapter 3 & 4 thread, it's the narrator, "G---v," who chooses Luke's account out of the three for his epigraph. According to footnotes to the Norton Critical Edition of the New Testament, "into the deep" meant to "the place of demonic confinement". In Mark, it's written or translated as "out of the country." I wonder if the difference is significant.
Either way, I think choosing either Luke's or Mark's account seems to allude to a multiplicity of demons, many coming from "out of the country" if demons is read as a metaphor for ideas (such as philosophies from France or Germany).
Aiden's, wrote, " The epigraph starts with Luke 8:32, but the part you mention is two verses earlier:"...
Right you are. That may make a difference in meaning. I googled the story as it was easier to copy...and didn't note the verse differences. Thanks for the detailed info.
Right you are. That may make a difference in meaning. I googled the story as it was easier to copy...and didn't note the verse differences. Thanks for the detailed info.
Cphe wrote: "Doesn't irony pertain to after the fact? So how can it be a "demon"?"I read "demon of irony" more as the impulse to behave a certain way for the sake of irony (like maybe a devil on your shoulder). VP says Nikolai has been plagued by a "sudden demon of irony" (same phrasing in both Maguire and P&V) all of his life. To describe something as sudden seems to imply an action rather than a literary device.
I happened to be reading a guide to analyzing literature today and it enumerated three types of irony. I think we can eliminate the meaning of "demon of irony" as "dramatic irony," since the context doesn't suggest an audience. Then there is "verbal irony" where a person says one thing but means another, which also doesn't seem to apply here.
The third type is "situational irony," defined as a discrepancy between the expected result and actual result. As in, Nikolai is expected by Kirillov (and presumably others) to be treating Marya kindly as a sort of mockery, but he's actually sincere. I'm pretty sure that's what Varvara means by "sudden demon of irony." The sudden impulse to behave in a situationally ironic manner.
On Legion: In Luke, the demons ask not to be sent "into the abyss"--the Greek word is "abyssos," literally "depthless," indicating a bottomless pit. In Mark, it is the possessed man who asks not to be sent "out of the country," presumably the country of the Gadarenes. In Matthew the demons just ask to be sent into the swine.In Mark, two thousand is the number of swine, not of demons.
It's maybe worth recalling Bakhtin's view of Dostoyevsky's novels as "polyphonic" (an I consisting of a legion of I's) and "carnivalesque". The latter is close to "grotesque " about which Lee B. Jennings says "The grotesque is the demonic made trivial."
Aiden wrote: "Adelle wrote: "which reminds us all that in Luke, when asked by Jesus who he was, the man replied, "Legion.""I enjoyed your post, but just wanted to post the entire biblical quote that you mentio..."
AFAIK the perceived nature of demons changed over the inter-testamental period. Similarly, the abysss (tehom) was in the Old Testament a watery deep. By the New Testament it had become a pit to hold the demons until the Apocalypse of the Book of Revelations.
Roger wrote: "In Mark, it is the possessed man who asks not to be sent "out of the country," presumably the country of the Gadarenes. "Regardless of who is in control of the possessed man when he is "besought"ing Jesus in Mark's account, the difference of avoiding being sent "out of the country" or being sent "into the abyss" in the different Gospels seems relevant to G---v's choice of Luke, rather than Mark or Matthew. Possibly more so if the entire request to be sent into the swine comes from the demons in Luke, but the man in Mark.
Roger wrote: "In Mark, two thousand is the number of swine, not of demons."
You're right. Two thousand does refer to the size of the herd. I misread that. However, wouldn't that imply that at least two thousand demons are part of "Legion"?
Either way, the wording seems open to interpretation, not a declarative as far as suggesting a quantity.
Donal wrote: "Similarly, the abysss (tehom) was in the Old Testament a watery deep."Just as an FYI--tehom is etymologically linked with Tiamat, the primal female in the Enuma Elish, the Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Epic, probably composed some time during the first Babylonian Dynasty (1894-1595 BCE). The poem was recited annually by a high priest at the New Year festival in Babylon. It commemorates the defeat and subsequent dismemberment of Tiamat by Marduk and his ascendancy as the supreme deity.
Tiamat is the mother of all. All subsequent deities, including Marduk who kills her, emerge from her union with her first consort, Apsu. On the one hand, Tiamat is depicted as the swampy, inchoate, and primal force of chaos and anarchy that must be controlled and regulated; on the other hand, she is depicted sympathetically as an example of motherly compassion since she tries to defend herself and her offspring from attack.
From her dismembered carcass, Marduk forms the heavens, the earth, and the waters of the earth and sky. From her pierced eyes emerge the Tigris and Euphrates. The earth is female, but it is now formed from the lifeless carcass of a deceased mother goddess whose creative power, control, and authority have been appropriated by the supreme male god, Marduk.
The poem, therefore, begins with the watery, unregulated, and primordial chaos of Tiamat and concludes with the establishment of the orderly, regulated, and controlled universe of Marduk.
At 30 Aiden wrote: "Roger wrote: "In Mark, it is the possessed man who asks not to be sent "out of the country," presumably the country of the Gadarenes. "
Regardless of who is in control of the possessed man when he..."
You made me curious!
I'm looking at it a little differently. I went back and compared only the relevant portions of Luke [8:32-36} and Mark [5:11-15]... from where the herd of swine is mentioned to where the man is in his right mind.
(Jesus commanding the unclean spirits to depart comes before that section. Although interestingly, in googling, I read that the line about not wanting to leave the country, in Greek, was that they did not wish to leave the inhabitants of the country. Anyone read Greek? Lots of online discussion on that point... The upshot--- theories, but interesting to consider--- was that the demons had had a "legal' right to inhabit the man... on the basis that the man had invited them in.
And I found that rather intriguing... as I noticed in chapter 5 the big deal made about Lebyadkin at Varvara's home.
"I am absolutely determined now to admit this suspicious man .... of whom Mavriky said, that it was impossible to receive him"...."if it as all possible to admit him, bring him here" (170).
"admitting" seems to mean to allow to present one's self, one's case, one's ideas, if you will, to be considered. "receiving' seems to allow into one's self: as in 'And he received the holy spirit." And receiving someone at home, I would suppose, conveys legitimacy.
It simply struck me that Varvara made a very big deal about this difference.
So... if the demons had been "received" with the free will of the man possessed, they kinda had his ok to be there.
Online thinking is that they could enter the swine because pigs are unclean animals.
Interesting line of thinking, I thought.)
In comparing just those relevant verses in Luke and Mark, the only real difference I could see was that in Luke the pigs choke in a lake. In Mark, they choke in the sea. Will that prove significant to the book? I have no idea.
Regardless of who is in control of the possessed man when he..."
You made me curious!
I'm looking at it a little differently. I went back and compared only the relevant portions of Luke [8:32-36} and Mark [5:11-15]... from where the herd of swine is mentioned to where the man is in his right mind.
(Jesus commanding the unclean spirits to depart comes before that section. Although interestingly, in googling, I read that the line about not wanting to leave the country, in Greek, was that they did not wish to leave the inhabitants of the country. Anyone read Greek? Lots of online discussion on that point... The upshot--- theories, but interesting to consider--- was that the demons had had a "legal' right to inhabit the man... on the basis that the man had invited them in.
And I found that rather intriguing... as I noticed in chapter 5 the big deal made about Lebyadkin at Varvara's home.
"I am absolutely determined now to admit this suspicious man .... of whom Mavriky said, that it was impossible to receive him"...."if it as all possible to admit him, bring him here" (170).
"admitting" seems to mean to allow to present one's self, one's case, one's ideas, if you will, to be considered. "receiving' seems to allow into one's self: as in 'And he received the holy spirit." And receiving someone at home, I would suppose, conveys legitimacy.
It simply struck me that Varvara made a very big deal about this difference.
So... if the demons had been "received" with the free will of the man possessed, they kinda had his ok to be there.
Online thinking is that they could enter the swine because pigs are unclean animals.
Interesting line of thinking, I thought.)
In comparing just those relevant verses in Luke and Mark, the only real difference I could see was that in Luke the pigs choke in a lake. In Mark, they choke in the sea. Will that prove significant to the book? I have no idea.
Tamara wrote: "Donal wrote: "Similarly, the abysss (tehom) was in the Old Testament a watery deep."Just as an FYI--tehom is etymologically linked with Tiamat, the primal female in the Enuma Elish, the [book:Enu..."
Very interesting. Thanks Tamara.
Tamara wrote: "Just as an FYI--tehom is etymologically linked with Tiamat, the primal female in the Enuma Elish, the Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Creation Epic, probably composed some time during the first Babylonian Dynasty (1894-1595 BCE)..."Yes, indeed, very interesting. Thank you for your concise summary of that poem, Tamara.
Why does Shatov slug Nikolay? Anybody have any ideas?
I can’t say why Shatov punched Nikolai, but I can tell you that you’re not meant to know yet, but will soon.
And why does Nikolai say and do nothing in response? It suggests that Nikolai knows why Shatov hit him, and that he thinks he deserved it. So what did Nikolai do? Something ironic?
Thomas wrote: "And why does Nikolai say and do nothing in response? It suggests that Nikolai knows why Shatov hit him, and that he thinks he deserved it. So what did Nikolai do? Something ironic?"
What a scene.
I would like to think that Nikolai V didn't hit back because he thought he deserved it. Because I would like to like Nikolai V.
WHY did Shatov strike Nikolai V? It's a puzzlement. Nikolai V's "face turned to wrath" even before he was struck.
Wouldn't a strike between those of society, a strike having to do with "honor,/deserving" have been a slap across the face, followed by a challenge? Maybe not...but I lean that way.
Then the narrator goes on and on telling us how Nikolai has no fear, and no matter what, had he been offended, he would kill the other in a duel. "not at all in rage"... But Nikolai has shown that he felt rage/wrath towards Shatov before he is struck. Mmmm. I'm guessing tht Nikolai V deserved quite a few of those duel challenges... yet he killed those men coldly. (Might Nikolai V. done something even too terrible even by his own standards??)
SOMETHING of Shatov forces cool, calm Nikolai V. to show his emotions.
Nikolai is so "REASONABLE" (205). He so wants to kill Shatov, and the narrator so emphasizes that that would absolutely be in character for him. But Nicolai, I believe, recognizes that it would not be "reasonable" for him to kill Shatov. Why, I don't know.
Nikolai V, with his "complete self-control," clasps his hands behind his own back to prevent himself from killing Shatov. Why? He needs Shatov alive. That's all I can guess. He must reasonably need Shatov alive more than he needs to kill Shatov for the offense of striking him.
Mmm. I think what really pushed me away from Nikolai V. thinking that he deserved it was that Nikolai V. had a look that was "cold," and that Shatov was "the first to lower his eyes," and Shatov walked out deflated, so careful not to make any (more?) mistakes on his way out ("carefully...without brushing or knocking anything over"). And Shatov is diminished man on his way out, opening the door "only a very little way" and squeezing out.
Shatov seems to hold himself in the wrong.
Or, you could be right. I hope so. I really want to like N.V.
Good question as to motivations.
What a scene.
I would like to think that Nikolai V didn't hit back because he thought he deserved it. Because I would like to like Nikolai V.
WHY did Shatov strike Nikolai V? It's a puzzlement. Nikolai V's "face turned to wrath" even before he was struck.
Wouldn't a strike between those of society, a strike having to do with "honor,/deserving" have been a slap across the face, followed by a challenge? Maybe not...but I lean that way.
Then the narrator goes on and on telling us how Nikolai has no fear, and no matter what, had he been offended, he would kill the other in a duel. "not at all in rage"... But Nikolai has shown that he felt rage/wrath towards Shatov before he is struck. Mmmm. I'm guessing tht Nikolai V deserved quite a few of those duel challenges... yet he killed those men coldly. (Might Nikolai V. done something even too terrible even by his own standards??)
SOMETHING of Shatov forces cool, calm Nikolai V. to show his emotions.
Nikolai is so "REASONABLE" (205). He so wants to kill Shatov, and the narrator so emphasizes that that would absolutely be in character for him. But Nicolai, I believe, recognizes that it would not be "reasonable" for him to kill Shatov. Why, I don't know.
Nikolai V, with his "complete self-control," clasps his hands behind his own back to prevent himself from killing Shatov. Why? He needs Shatov alive. That's all I can guess. He must reasonably need Shatov alive more than he needs to kill Shatov for the offense of striking him.
Mmm. I think what really pushed me away from Nikolai V. thinking that he deserved it was that Nikolai V. had a look that was "cold," and that Shatov was "the first to lower his eyes," and Shatov walked out deflated, so careful not to make any (more?) mistakes on his way out ("carefully...without brushing or knocking anything over"). And Shatov is diminished man on his way out, opening the door "only a very little way" and squeezing out.
Shatov seems to hold himself in the wrong.
Or, you could be right. I hope so. I really want to like N.V.
Good question as to motivations.
The Wise Serpent. There are three possible indicators in this chapter.
Praskovya Ivanovna: "suddenly pointed her finger at Marya Tim, with that desperate resolution which no longer considers the consequences but only seeks to strike at once" (165).
But that doesn't seem wise, So it's not Praskovya Ivan.
Pyotr Stepanovich: "You somehow begin to imagine that the tongue in his mouth must be of some special form, somehow unusually long and thin, terribly red, and with an extremely sharp, constantly and involuntarily wagging tip" (180).
So it could be Pyotr Step. He PLAYS the fool...but we're informed that by Pyotr Step himself it's a "role."
Nikolai V: "...in the doorway he [the captain] ran right into N.V.; the latter stood aside; the captain...shrank before him...like a rabbit in front of a snake:... " (194).
Praskovya Ivanovna: "suddenly pointed her finger at Marya Tim, with that desperate resolution which no longer considers the consequences but only seeks to strike at once" (165).
But that doesn't seem wise, So it's not Praskovya Ivan.
Pyotr Stepanovich: "You somehow begin to imagine that the tongue in his mouth must be of some special form, somehow unusually long and thin, terribly red, and with an extremely sharp, constantly and involuntarily wagging tip" (180).
So it could be Pyotr Step. He PLAYS the fool...but we're informed that by Pyotr Step himself it's a "role."
Nikolai V: "...in the doorway he [the captain] ran right into N.V.; the latter stood aside; the captain...shrank before him...like a rabbit in front of a snake:... " (194).
I love this line about Pyotr Step.
"Note that being a realist he cannot lie, and truth is dearer to him than success... save, naturally, on those special occasions when success is dearer than truth" (195).
I love how frequently just before something of importance is conveyed we see the use of the word "incidentally."
What's with Liza, and why does Varvara make such a big deal, saying she doesn't have to stay, "made a cross over her and kissed her again," "So, good-bye, Liza" with tears almost in her voice...??? "I shall never cease to love you"... "God be with you"... etc.
Since re-reading, I notice Marya Tim's brother's speech. P.174.
"Marya the Unknown, my sister, born Lebyadkin, but for now we will call her Marya the Unknown"...
This further suggests---but doesn't absolutely say---that Marya Tim is married. The French equivalent of "born" is nee... used to indicate what the name of a married woman was prior to her marriage.
Websters: used to identify a woman by her maiden family name Mrs. Jane Doe, née Smith.
(Mrs???) Marya the Unknown (who???), born Lebyadkin.
"Note that being a realist he cannot lie, and truth is dearer to him than success... save, naturally, on those special occasions when success is dearer than truth" (195).
I love how frequently just before something of importance is conveyed we see the use of the word "incidentally."
What's with Liza, and why does Varvara make such a big deal, saying she doesn't have to stay, "made a cross over her and kissed her again," "So, good-bye, Liza" with tears almost in her voice...??? "I shall never cease to love you"... "God be with you"... etc.
Since re-reading, I notice Marya Tim's brother's speech. P.174.
"Marya the Unknown, my sister, born Lebyadkin, but for now we will call her Marya the Unknown"...
This further suggests---but doesn't absolutely say---that Marya Tim is married. The French equivalent of "born" is nee... used to indicate what the name of a married woman was prior to her marriage.
Websters: used to identify a woman by her maiden family name Mrs. Jane Doe, née Smith.
(Mrs???) Marya the Unknown (who???), born Lebyadkin.
Whatever else is going on, Shatov is a former serf. Nikolai Vsevolodovich comes from and aristocratic family. He could not possibly challenge Shatov to a duel; he was socially beneath such a meeting of equals.
Mmm. You're saying that given Nikolai V's position in society wouldn't allow a duel...because it would equalize them.... Couldn't Nikolai then simply kill Shatov? Or do you mayve think he didn't want to bring scandal to his mother's home?
Adelle wrote: "Mmm. You're saying that given Nikolai V's position in society wouldn't allow a duel...because it would equalize them.... Couldn't Nikolai then simply kill Shatov? Or do you mayve think he didn't wa..."Yes, I would expect Nikolay to simply kill Shatov. Why he refrains is a mystery to me.
Yes. The narrator even says, even if NV knew he would certainly be sent to hard labor, he would still have killed the offender without hesitation.
Some very powerful motive/reason holds NV back from his natural inclination.
Why did NV's grin turn to wrath at Shatov, even before Shatov hit him?
WHY does Shatov hit him?
Why was Shatov even there? I had to go back to chapter 4. STV and Stepan had been invited for noon by Varvara Ivan. Shatov shows up... "officially" invited.... Why? Shatov asks whether Darya Pavlovna went w Varvara Ivan.
In 5, does Shatov not want to be recognized? "Shatov would not raise his head.
And then he basically sits in the corner until the incident. ???
What is said at this gathering that causes Shatov to calmly walk over and slug NV?
Some very powerful motive/reason holds NV back from his natural inclination.
Why did NV's grin turn to wrath at Shatov, even before Shatov hit him?
WHY does Shatov hit him?
Why was Shatov even there? I had to go back to chapter 4. STV and Stepan had been invited for noon by Varvara Ivan. Shatov shows up... "officially" invited.... Why? Shatov asks whether Darya Pavlovna went w Varvara Ivan.
In 5, does Shatov not want to be recognized? "Shatov would not raise his head.
And then he basically sits in the corner until the incident. ???
What is said at this gathering that causes Shatov to calmly walk over and slug NV?
Adelle wrote: "..Why was Shatov even there?."His sister is about to be engaged. He's the closest and only Darya's relative there.. if I remember right..
Adelle wrote: "In 5, does Shatov not want to be recognized? "Shatov would not raise his head.And then he basically sits in the corner until the incident. ???."
This (about Shatov) reminded me one line from a very old movie, "As one my acquaintance, deceased, once said, 'I have known too much'."
If take out 'deceased', that would describe Shatov's state perfectly, I think.
Bigollo: His sister is about to be engaged. He's the closest and only Darya's relative there.. if I remember right..
Thank you!!!
Thank you!!!
Bigollo wrote: "Adelle wrote: "..Why was Shatov even there?."His sister is about to be engaged. He's the closest and only Darya's relative there.. if I remember right.."
So Varvara Petrovna was planning to announce the engagement between Darya and Stepan Trofimovich? Makes sense, but what happened to that plan?
Might Darya Pavlona be feigning illness...perhaps not looking forward to being married to Stepan Trofimovich?
So much happened at that meeting, and so much revealed..VP got so mad at ST, "...I expect a great favor from you, please be so good as to leave us right now, and henceforth never step across the threshold of my house."
ST had to leave, the engagement plan was definitely out of the question.
