Week 8: Part III, chapters 1 and 2

[Roger]

Chapter 1, "The Gala. First Part": The gala took place despite the Shpigulin workers incident, and it was a disaster. Afterwards this was blamed on the Internationale and Pyotr Stepanovich manipulating Yuliya Mikhaylovna. Here's what happened: Everyone subscribed because young ladies love to dance, and many families went deep in debt to dress them for the occasion. There was a great crush as the opening. It seems that Lyamshin and Liputin let in many riffraff without tickets. There is general dissatisfaction that lunch is not included in the price. Then at the start, Liputin stands up and reads a silly and vulgar poem about governesses by Lebyadkin. Then Karmazinov reads 30 pages of pompous and useless babble about how he is giving up reading, stupefying the audience. The riffraff start heckling him. Mortified and offended, he flees, but not before Yuliya gives him a laurel wreath. Stepan Trofimovich is next to speak, so he walks into the confusion. He talks of how stupid manifestos are, and how beauty is the most important thing. He gets heckled too; he curses the audience and leaves. The third speaker is a professor new to town; he denounces Russia, causing pandemonium. The young woman student from Virginsky's revolutionary meeting grabs the stage and starts talking about the sufferings of unfortunate students.

[Roger]

Chapter 2, "The End of the Gala": The narrator follows Stepan Trofimovich back to his lodgings, but he won't admit him. He is leaving town, done with everyone and everything. He is writing a lugubrious and self-pitying four-page farewell letter to Darya Pavlovna. Then the narrator goes to see Yuliya Mikhaylovna. She is talking to Pyotr Stepanovich, very upset and blaming him for plotting to ruin the gala (the narrators agrees). Pyotr gaslights her into thinking it was all bad luck and misunderstanding. Then he drops a bombshell: Lizaveta Nikolayevna has fled her fiancé and driven off in a carriage with Nikolay Vsevolodovich. She is now ruined. The narrator can take it no more; he denounces Pyotr and leaves. Back at the ball, none of the aristocracy comes, and there are four men per woman, many of them riffraff. Yuliya shows up, chagrined and suffering. The "literary quadrille" takes place, a pitiful, talentless, vapid allegory with dancers in masks, to general disgust. The governor, who appears distracted and unwell, bursts out angrily at the crowd. Just then the cry starts: Zarechye is on fire! (That's the part of town across the river.) Most of the attendees are from there; there is a rush to get out. (Some riffraff stay, get drunk, and trash the place.) It later emerges that the fire was arson, set in 3 places by 3 Shpigulin workers, perhaps under orders, and by Fedka the Convict. In a house that was torched but by chance failed to burn, there are discovered the brutally murdered bodies of Lebyadkin, Marya Timofeyevna, and their elderly housekeeper. It turns out that Nikolay had rented the house for them.

[Roger]

Opening question: Is Nikolay Vsevolodovich complicit in the murder of his wife?

[Emil]

Roger wrote: "Opening question: Is Nikolay Vsevolodovich complicit in the murder of his wife?"


Nikolay knew that Fedka might regard the incident on the bridge as a green light for murder and he did nothing to stop it as far as we know:

“Listen, Dasha, now I’m always seeing phantoms. One devil offered me yesterday, on the bridge, to murder Lebyadkin and Marya Timofyevna, to settle the marriage difficulty, and to cover up all traces. ... What do you suppose I did! I gave him all I had, everything in my purse, and now he’s sure I’ve given him that on account!”

(Discussion between Dasha and Nikolay - Book II, Chapter 3)

[Aiden]

Emil wrote: "Nikolay knew that Fedka might regard the incident on the bridge as a green light for murder and he did nothing to stop it as far as we know"

I think, as your quoted section implies, Nikolai is arguably responsible through negligence by not warning Lebyadkin and Marya (although, are we sure he didn’t?) or the police (who already know Fedka is on the loose and don’t seem much bothered). The whole town knows that Fedka is among them and is a dangerous escaped convict from the story’s beginning. As far as “complicit,” I think that requires harmful intention.

Fedka badgered him as he walked on the street in the “Night” section, but Nikolai tried to get rid of him and made clear he thought the man’s murderous proposals ridiculous. It seems harsh to blame him for murder for simply having a criminal make unsolicited proposals as he walks to a friend’s house. He gave money to a fugitive imprudently.

Could he have done more? Probably. What that would have been and whether it would have changed the outcome is rather less clear. I haven’t seen any indication that he actually wanted the Lebyadkins dead. For that matter, personal history indicates he wouldn’t have needed to outsource the job to Fedka if that’s what he wanted.

Side note: Nikolai’s ranting to Dasha that you quoted suggests to me that he may not be of sound mind. Also, it provides an instance of Nikolai actually saying he sees devils (or demons) everywhere.

[Mike]

I believe Marya Timofeevna Lebyadkina can be seen as a holy fool and represents the native old Russian folk religions, whereas Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin can be seen to represent modern European Russia. Perhaps there hidden secret marriage and Marya’s murder can be seen as old Russia being incompatible with modern European Russia.

[Thomas]

Pyotr was the one who sent Fedka to Nikolai in the first place, and at least at the time, Nikolai didn't know why. Previously Pyotr mentioned, after noting that Fedka was around, that if Nikolai was serious about Lizaveta Nikolaevna, "then I repeat once more that I, too, am a man ready of anything...and am completely at your service."

Fedka doesn't suggest anything about murdering Marya -- he's interested in robbing Lebyadkin. Nikolai is the one who comes up with this "down payment" idea when he's talking to Dasha.

The famous phrase, "Kill more, steal more" is Pyotr's. Fedya just repeats it. I'm not sure how Pyotr is mixed up in this exactly, but he seems to be at least as responsible as Nikolai.

[Roger]

Back in Book II, Chapter 2, Nikolay Vsevolodovich offers to take Marya Timofayevna to Switzerland with him and live quietly with her. How could he go from that to wanting to bump her off?

[Emil]

Aiden wrote: "Emil wrote: "Nikolay knew that Fedka might regard the incident on the bridge as a green light for murder and he did nothing to stop it as far as we know"

I think, as your quoted section implies, N..."


I agree with you. I'm not holding Nicolay responsible for this murder - I found nothing so far indicating his direct involvement. What I'm saying is that his actions (or his lack of action) definitely played big role.

Roger wrote..Back in Book II, Chapter 2, Nikolay Vsevolodovich offers to take Marya Timofayevna to Switzerland with him and live quietly with her. How could he go from that to wanting to bump her off?..."

It wouldn't surprise me, his character & his actions are extremely unpredictable.

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "How could he go from that to wanting to bump her off?"

I don’t believe Nikolai wanted Marya dead (nothing in the text that I’ve seen suggests it other than the suppositions of other characters and the unreliable narrator), but I would say that the suggestion of taking her to live abroad and abandoning his current life in Part II was killed almost immediately by Marya’s nonsensical ramblings in response. He had an impulse to start a new life abroad to escape his problems, but the reality of what that life would look like was less attractive and he abandoned it.

[Roger]

It looks like Pyotr Stepanovich put an extraordinary amount of effort into ensuring that Yuliya Mikhaylovna's gala would be a disaster. What kind of paltry revolutionary is he, mainly concerned with ruining a party?

[Tamara]

I was wondering the same thing. What does he gain by publicly humiliating her? He must have a reason because he went to so much effort to convince her to go to the party.

[Thomas]

I've been waiting to see what role Yulia has since the end of Part 2 Ch. 4, where the narrator says:

I will note, anticipating events, that had it not been for Yulia Mikhailovna's self-importance and ambition, perhaps none of the things these bad little people managed to do here would have taken place. Much of it is her responsibility!

The narrator's opinion can't be taken at face value, but I'm interested to see how he thinks a self-important society lady fits into the revolution and its associated murder and mayhem.

[Aiden]

Perhaps engineering a scandal during an event hosted by the most prominent members of town and causing a collision between a group of angry laborers and the town police force at the same time might serve to distract official focus from the shadowy dealings that "revolutionary-minded" persons may not want noticed?

After all, many of those in attendance at Yulia's event were also at Virginsky's meeting in Book II.

[Emil]

Roger wrote: "It looks like Pyotr Stepanovich put an extraordinary amount of effort into ensuring that Yuliya Mikhaylovna's gala would be a disaster. What kind of paltry revolutionary is he, mainly concerned wit..."


History proves that given the right circumstances, even an insignificant event could ignite a revolution. The revolution was smoldering in the Russian Empire at that time.

Or maybe it's meant to be a distraction as Aiden said?

[Aiden]

Emil wrote: "The revolution was smoldering in the Russian Empire at that time."

It's a good point, Emil, and I don't think its necessarily either/or. I also think some people might underestimate the importance of Yulia's gala to the town, not just Yulia. It wasn't a private affair, this would have basically been a government-sponsored, celebrity charity event hosted by the wife of the new Tsarist governor to the province.

As the depiction of von Lembke shows, the ruling class was already paranoid about revolution after freeing the serfs failed to fully satisfy the Russian people and ideas continued to filter in from Western Europe. Given the people attending and the planned reading by a famous Russian author (Karmazinov is FMD's parody of his contemporary, Ivan Turginev, according to critics), this scandal would be an event that would be gossiped about in Petersburg, the country's capital.

Add to that, much like the American far right of today, the revolutionaries' aims at this time were often nihilistic in nature. They just wanted to make the other side look bad by destroying their institutions (pawn'ing the Tsarists, is you will). Making the new governor's event a fiasco could be considered a revolutionary end unto itself.

[Roger]

The Tsarist government wasn't paranoid about revolution--they were quite correct to think that networks of revolutionaries and nihilists were working to destroy society, in the wild hope that something better would spontaneously emerge from the chaos. At least that's what Dostoyevsky seems to say.

[Bigollo]

As for the government being paranoid... I can't detect it from the the book. Historically - maybe, then we need to infer it from some other books. Lembke IS paranoid; only because the fate threw him into the wrong place and gave him the wrong role for his personality. And that maybe was quite typical for Tsarist Russia, because there were no strong regulatory mechanisms for stabilizing the society. The critical mass of nobility was already degenerated by that time, yet they were still playing the role of the ruling class.

PS And for the book, there is still no serious discussion of any serious ideology. Is violence an ideology? IMHO, an ideology is supposed to say what's to be done then, after the violence.

[Roger]

The only report we've had on what happens after the revolution is Shigalyov's scheme for enslaving 90% of humanity to the other 10%. Which seems like society before the revolution. And it will take 10 days to hear the whole proposal. Was Dostoyevsky psychic, or what?

[[deleted user]]

I don't think Nikolai wanted Marya dead. He was aware that Pyotr could arrange to have it done... but NVS didn't pursue that offer. He was aware that Fedka would be willing to freelance outside of Pyotr's directions...but didn't pursue that either....though he in some non-rational act threw money for Fedka...which landed in the mud and rain... dirty money. He had been muttering to himself, "A knife, a knife"... so upset that Marya had thought that he would have pulled a knife on her... I can't see him upset that she THOUGHT he would knife her...and then turn around and hire someone to knife her.

And then, too, NVS had said to Marya, "Don't worry, I'll never abandon you" (276). I don't believe he was lying or would go back on his word to her.

[[deleted user]]

I like some of the thoughts on the party posted above. Another aspect of Pyotr's manipulations of Yulia might have been that she represents the elite... which was still supported by the middle class.

But this party was so big and so inclusive that even the middle class bought tickets and mortgaged themselves to put in a good appearance.

When the party has been ruined, and Yulia seen as responsible, and homes burned to the ground destroying the middle class further, then the middle class ceases to support the existing government.

Nice symbolism of the current state of affairs... The current government still has the trappings of official bureaucracy, but in truth it's no longer what it once was.

"This big White Hall, despite its already decrepit structure, was indeed magnificent..." (468).

[[deleted user]]

I thought this was significant. In "The Fete. First Part."

Society falling apart. The members of society disengaging themselves from stepping up and taking some responsibility for what happens in their society--- from taking action on behalf of their society.

Narrator: "You did it on purpose!"

Liputin: "By God, I had no idea," he cowered, immediately starting to lie and pretend..."

*Liputin: "What business is it of yours?"

*"Liputin: "And what is that to you?"

Narrator: What was I to do? (See below. What Is to Be Done?

***Narrator: "Eh, really, what business is it of mine?"

The radicals embracing the 1863 novel . What Is to Be Done? may not have a plan than bettered society, but one might observe that they did believe in working towards their goals.

Here, the narrator--- perhaps representing the society of this time, knows that Luputin has lied and is up to something... but the narrator lets it go, "Eh, {"meh"} I thought, "really, what business is it of mine. I'll take the bow off and go home" (475).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is...

[Aiden]

Roger wrote: "The Tsarist government wasn't paranoid about revolution--they were quite correct to think that networks of revolutionaries and nihilists were working to destroy society, in the wild hope that somet..."

I don’t call them paranoid on the basis that they had no opposition or that people didn’t want change, but rather that their military power levels and systems of suppression were far greater than the comparable “revolutionary cells.” The revolutionary rhetoric and specter in late-nineteen century Russia were much more effective than the actual revolutionary actions.

Notably, even though the Tsarist government of Nicholas II was generally weak and arguably incompetent, it took the West sending revolutionaries after 3 horrific years of world war to finally cause widespread revolt sufficient to overthrow its monarch, last of the European powers to do so.

[Aiden]

Bigollo wrote: "And for the book, there is still no serious discussion of any serious ideology. Is violence an ideology? IMHO, an ideology is supposed to say what's to be done then, after the violence."

You won’t find any discussion on revolutionary ideology in Dostoevsky’s novel(s). Writing explicitly about such ideology is what landed him in mock execution followed by Siberia and the censors never would have allowed its publication anyway.

As for violence being an ideology, I would define ideology as a philosophical viewpoint with an end goal in mind. In the case of nihilism and anarchism, imagine that you’re trapped under a boulder that’s crushing you to death, but there is a pleasant, orderly society of people living on top of that boulder.

If you figure out a way to destroy the boulder and save your life, would you really hesitate to do it because you’re not sure what will replace the boulder or what happens to the orderly society founded on your suffering? Or would your philosophical end goal be simply to destroy the boulder and save yourself, society be damned?

That’s my view of the logic of ideologies of violence. The philosophical viewpoint is simply that one should destroy the thing that’s destroying them. It may not be a very sophisticated ideology, but that’s also why they didn’t allow printed revolutionary tracts; so that the people couldn’t become educated and organized.

[Tamara]

Aiden wrote: "That’s my view of the logic of ideologies of violence. The philosophical viewpoint is simply that one should destroy the thing that’s destroying them. ."

Sorry, Aiden. Maybe I'm a little confused because I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting violence can function as an ideology?

I've always thought of violence as a means to an end--the end being the implementation of an ideology. It isn't the only means and it certainly isn't always successful, but it is one path of many available paths that people pursue to achieve a goal.

[Bigollo]

I think our 'misunderstanding' here is only a matter of definitions.

To throw off the boulder of repressors? Sure - sign me in first. Only I wouldn't call it an ideology. A big time despair? - Yes. Did Stepan Razin and Emelyan Pugachev have an ideology? Yes, exactly same ideology as that of the repressing class: The power to the strongest.
Psychologically we always can understand the rebels. Because they hurt, big time hurt. And they need leaders who call for fight, only we may prefer not to call those calls an ideology, as understood as a philosophical system.

So here I am with Tamara on the definition of an ideology. That is I, too, usually think of an ideology as a philosophical system with an end goal in mind. But not just any goal. The goal must be positive. A vision of how the society is supposed to be functioning afterwards. Here's one example in a very brief: Destroy the current society (steal the stolen!) and then build up a new one with the law: No private property on means of production! Because the latter inevitably becomes a means of exploitation of human by human.

Again, I don't see real disagreement in our discussion, it's just that it's good to clarify from start what we call what. I brought up the word ideology because I think it was mentioned in the beginning of reading that that's what this book is all about.

[Aiden]

Bigollo wrote: "Again, I don't see real disagreement in our discussion, it's just that it's good to clarify from start what we call what."

I think defining "ideology" as requiring a fully-formed and "positive" (a subjective term, no?) view for the future of society seems to be asking it to be a different word. If I used the word previously in discussion, it definitely didn't have that type of restriction.

I do think that this novel is about the various ideologies, political philosophies, pie-in-the-sky dreams, or whatever-term-you-use to describe "ideas for further revolutionary changes to the socio-political system." Things such as Marxism, Utopianism, Anarchism, Nihilism, Capitalism, Communism, Royalism, etc.

You may think that anarchy and "anything but this" are poor ideals to fight for by themselves and counterproductive, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing nor do I think FMD would disagree. They were sincere visions for change, though, based on the theories of people who never knew "government" to mean anything but feudal serfdom.

To clarify as Tamara requested, I don't see violence as an ideology by itself; however, I do believe that violent destruction was the only means to achieve certain some people's "ideal" futures. For Nihilists and Anarchists (sincere ones, not opportunists), violence against the government and aristocracy was the means to achieve their ideal of destroying governments and/or class systems for the good of mankind. They had no interest in replacing it with anything or didn't care what replaced it, but that doesn't translate to lack of ideals or violence as ideology in my view.

[Tamara]

Aiden wrote: "To clarify as Tamara requested, I don't see violence as an ideology by itself; however, I do believe that violent destruction was the only means to achieve certain some people's "ideal" futures. .."

Thanks for the clarification.
I understand what you're saying--some people may pursue violence as a means to an end, the end being the destruction of a system perceived as being oppressive even though they may or may not have an alternative system in mind to be its replacement.

[Jwig]

One section that brought me back to the opening Luke verse was the narrator's differentiation of "the so-called 'vanguard'" and

"scum, which exists in every society, rises to the surface in any transitional time... and itself merely expresses anxiety and impatience with all its might. And yet this scum, without knowing it, almost always falls under the command of that small group of the 'vanguard,'" (p. 462).

As I read about the "scum," I couldn't help but think of swine, ripe for infection by demons. Sure enough, as the groups of "buffet people" comment on the quadrille:

"'Aren't the Lembkas ashamed to look?'
'Why should they be ashamed? You're not ashamed, are you?'
'I am, too, ashamed, and he's the governor.'
'And you are a swine.'" (p.509)

Within minutes, the buffet people are acting as the "herd [that] rushed down the steep bank," storming out of the hall to save their homes from the fires (Luke 8:32-36).

Something else I noticed in this section was the prevalence of likening people to animals, each of which is subservient in some way. Just before one attendee calls another a swine, they've used the nickname "lembkas," and another group has just discussed who (maskers or spectators) are the "asses."

In his manipulative discussion with Yulia preceding the ball, Pyotr refers to Karmazinov as a "green ass," and the next mention of asses is part of a commentary on the quadrille that Karmazinov himself had a hand in arranging (p. 497). Pyotr has worked to manipulate all of these "animals."

[[deleted user]]

Aiden wrote: " imagine that you’re trapped under a boulder that’s crushing you to death, but there is a pleasant, orderly society of people living on top of that boulder...."

Aiden, might this be something along the line of a Russian proverb or Russian saying?

Shatov, I think, back in "The Lame Girl", said, "STV was right to say that I'm lying under a stone, crushed but not crushed to death, I'm just writhing--" (138).

I had thought that you were paraphrasing Shatov,...

but I read in Cancer Ward almost the exact same wording:

"Why should he, the one who for years had been deprived of all rights, be expected to teach these free men how to wriggle out from underneath the boulder that was crushing them?"

[Aiden]

Adelle wrote: "Aiden, might this be something along the line of a Russian proverb or Russian saying?"

It was actually just the a metaphor that seemed most apt, if lazy, to me in making my point. Lazy because the metaphor of political repression as literally crushing a person is quite old, I'm sure. At least as old as Athenian Greece with it's democratic literature in response to tyranny. In that sense, it is definitely an old saying, but I was just going for clarity, not alluding.

It's interesting that Shatov said that, but I don't think political repression is what he was referring to as the crushing stone he is under.

[Roger]

We haven't heard a lot about workers crushed by oppression in this book. The closest is the Shpigulin workers, who suffered a straightforward swindle, and they might have gotten redress through their appeal to the governor if Pyotr Stepanovich hadn't encouraged him to take a hard line.

[[deleted user]]

Aiden wrote: "It was actually just the a metaphor that seemed most apt, if lazy, to me in making my point. L..."

Thanks much. The wording had simply struck me as so similar.

[[deleted user]]

Another instance in which the narrator thought he should send a warning...but didn't.

Last paragraph in "The End of the Fête."

"All around, however, stories went on about NVS, that the murdered woman ... and that if his wife had been killed, it must have been so that he could marry the Drozdov girl."

Remember, the narrator had called Pyotr's version of this story false. "You set it up, you scoundrel!"

"Skvoreshnoki wasn't more than a mile and a half away, and I remember thinking: shouldn't I send word to them there?" (518).

But he didn't do so.

One of the "buffet" mugs the narrator notices there in the crowd turned out to be a locksmith.

[Thomas]

Roger wrote: "We haven't heard a lot about workers crushed by oppression in this book. The closest is the Shpigulin workers, who suffered a straightforward swindle, and they might have gotten redress through the..."

I'm starting to wonder if it isn't ideology, but the lack of ideology, that is responsible for events spinning out of control. They don't stand for anything, and they tolerate everything. They have no direction and no discipline and no fear. Nikolai taking Gaganov's fire and refusing to fire back seems emblematic of this. He just doesn't care. The conspirators can't conduct a simple meeting, let alone a revolution. because there's no point to their revolution.. They can't even throw a party. It's comical in a way, but it's hard to laugh when people start to really suffer and die as a result.

[Thomas]

Jwig wrote: "One section that brought me back to the opening Luke verse was the narrator's differentiation of "the so-called 'vanguard'" and "scum, which exists in every society, rises to the surface in any tra..."

There's an interesting passage at the end of this section:

I will repeat once again. Among us there was also preserved a small group of prudent persons who had secluded themselves at the very beginning and even locked themselves in. But what lock can stand against a law of nature?

It sounds a little like "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[[deleted user]]

Jwig wrote, "Pyotr has worked to manipulate all of these "animals"

Indeed!

[Roger]

It seems fitting that Pyotr Stepanovich, the destructive and nihilist revolutionary of the 1860s, is the literal offspring of Stepan Trofimovich, the ineffectual and self-pitying revolutionary of the 1840s. Should we attribute his malevolence to absence of a father-figure?

[[deleted user]]

Roger wrote: "It seems fitting that Pyotr Stepanovich, the destructive and nihilist revolutionary of the 1860s, is the literal offspring of Stepan Trofimovich, the ineffectual and self-pitying revolutionary of the 1840s. Should we attribute his malevolence to absence of a father-figure?"

I like the symmetry...not exactly the word I'm searching for.

Wondering... Does his presence as a father-figure in the lives of Stavrogin, etc., contribute to their characters?