The Devils by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Translated by Roger Cockrell
Okaaaaaaaayyyyy… I’ve reached the end of my marathon read of Dostoevsky’s masterly book, “The Devils”, and I have the book hangover to end all book hangovers! My marathon served me well, but I had to sprint at the end because I couldn’t stand the suspense and *needed* to find out what happened; I’d become so invested in the characters that they were at times more real than the reality around me – always the sign of a good book. I’ll try to string some coherent thoughts together, but forgive me if I babble a bit occasionally…
First up, it’s worth remembering that this is a BIG book; not only in size (my edition is 698 pages plus notes and extras) but also in its epic narrative sweep and in the range of events and ideas it takes in. It’s stuffed to the brim with fascinating characters, and I’ll only be able to touch on the main ones – so here goes with my impressions of “The Devils”.
Absolute freedom will come only when it doesn’t matter whether one lives or dies. That’s the whole aim.
The story is set in a provincial town and in simple terms tells of the dramatic events that take place when two prodigal sons return to the fold, bringing with them some very modern and disruptive ideas. The sons are Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky and Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin, men who have been associating abroad and whose parents are scions of the local social circle. Verkhovensky senior is Stepan Trofimovich, an educated gentleman and sometime tutor who in effect has been living off his dear friend, the separated and wealthy Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina, mother of the other returning son. Stepan Trofimovich had in fact been tutor to young Nikolai so the whole motley crew are deeply interwoven. Stepan considers himself a man of learning, having spent his twenty years sponging off of Varvara supposedly working; and Varvara herself enjoys being the local society queen bee. However, prior to the return of the prodigals, rumours starting seeping into town about events in Switzerland; romances are hinted at between Nikolai and Lizaveta Tushina, a local beauty also returning to the fold from Switzerland. And what of the mysterious revolutionary pamphlets which keep appearing? Add into the mix personalities such as the Lebyadkins, brother and sister; the mysterious Shatov; several other characters who make up the nebulous “our group”; the violent and wilful Fedka the convict; plus the local governor von Lembke and his status-conscious wife Yulia Mikhailovna, and you have the recipe for a brilliant and involved novel which follows the disruptive effect of a mix of revolutionary and personal politics on a provincial town.
People were in a strange state of mind at the time. A certain light-headedness became apparent, particularly among the ladies, and it would be wrong to say that this emerged only gradually. Several extraordinarily free-and-easy ideas were blowing about everywhere, as if carried on the wind. There was a light-hearted merriment in the air, which I wouldn’t say was always particularly pleasant. A certain mental derangement had become fashionable.
I’ve commented before, I think, that Dostoevsky tends to write very much in set pieces and “The Devils” is no different – which is not a criticism! The book is narrated in the main by one Anton Lavrentyevich G—v; a close friend of Stepan’s, he’s in many ways a minor character, yet he’s a thread running through much of the story, until the rush of the narrative kind of takes over from him at the end of the book. And the plot is a long and complex one, with many different strands and many different issues; there is critique of social-climbing and status; discussion of new ideas and the ‘women question’; debates on the existence or not of God; moral dilemmas; and of course, revolution, mayhem and murder. Nikolai and Pyotr are contrasting studies in evil – because both *are* evil, though in very different ways – and the development of their characters is chilling to watch.
… As a rule, the Russian people are never more entertained than by some uproarious social scandal.
As Cockrell’s foreword explains, Dostoevsky was initially inspired to start writing a short pamphlet after the real case of the murder of a student by a group of radicals. However, what started as a short work expanded, and ended up as what is really Dostoevsky’s discussion of the ‘Russian question’, the politics of his day, the way forward and the larger questions of what man should actually believe in. As so often, he chose a provincial setting to discuss his major issues; I suppose the shocking effect of the outsiders on a place away from the centre of things can be more spectacular, and he did love his drama. In fact, there are always elements of dramatic farce in Dostoevsky’s work (“The Gambler” springs to mind particularly, with its manic qualities); and he loves to create a story which inexorably builds to an explosive climax!
And that kind of narrative is definitely on show here. Dostoevsky is masterfully in control of his material: after he’s established his protagonists (with some vivid – and often very funny – character sketches), hinted at events gone by and introduced the ideas of revolutionary goings on, he hits the reader with a number of dramatic revelations about what’s actually happened abroad. Of course, all of this is building up to a spectacular and marvellous set-piece; this is Yulia Mikhailovna’s fete in aid of governesses, which turns from farce to tragedy and takes up much of the start of part three of the book. However, as well as set-pieces, Dostoevsky is exceptional on characterisation, and his skill at gradually revealing the reality behind the masks of some of his protagonists was stunning. Verkhovensky in particular starts the book coming across as just a slimeball, but as the narrative goes on his real fanaticism is revealed and it’s frightening. Make no mistake, despite the wonderful humour (and I’ve never read a Dostoevsky without any) this is a very dark book that deals with dark topics.
A particular chapter springs to mind, entitled here simply “At Tikhon’s”. It was censored at the original point of publication and never saw the light of day in Dostoevsky’s time; and it *is* distressing, dealing as it does with abusive behaviour by Nicolai Stavrogin (although never in graphic detail). This edition reinstates the chapter at the point in the narrative where Dostoevsky originally placed it, and to my mind it’s essential to the plot, revealing as it does the real character of Nikolai – a debauched, degraded and dissolute person who has nothing to offer the world.
Of course, central to much of the book *is* moral discussion; that of the older generation like Stepan, and the younger group of revolutionaries. Dostoevsky’s aim seems to be to try to get to heart of both group’s beliefs and he in fact seems to find both wanting. It all boils down, I think, to the generational conflict which was such a topic in Russian literature; Turgenev, of course, springs to mind, and in fact Dostoevsky provides a funny, merciless and heavily satirical lampoon of his literary rival in the form of the famous novelist Karmazinov. However, the conflict is also that between the Superfluous Man (exemplified by Stepan) and the new generation of destructive, active men who want to change everything; the latter, however, have no more to offer than the older generation, and simply degenerate into evil wherever they go. And age is no barrier, as by his rejection of the revolutionaries, Nikolai in effect transforms himself into a superfluous man. Yes, “The Devils” is a clash of generations a la Turgenev, but with so much added fire, venom and disaster! The older generation are portrayed as blustering, out of touch idiots, convinced of their status in Russia and blindly believing they’re universally worshipped. The young are seen as mad or dangerous or deluded or simply hooligans. The generational divide never seems to change much, does it??
It is difficult to change gods.
This being Dostoevsky there is, of course, discussion of God and faith; and many of the characters are suffering from the loss of the latter. That disillusionment is what the author seems to think leads to the madness and depravity of many of the characters, although frankly the religious figures are not free from ridicule if Dostoevsky thinks they deserve it. No-one escapes from his relentless pen, neither the old fools nor the young madmen. Where Dostoevsky really excels, however, is in how he captures the mind of the extremist; there was passage after passage that struck a chord with me, and made me realise that little changes under the surface of progress; humans are much the same as they always were. I’ve already quoted one piece which stood out in an earlier post, but I could have pulled out so many – well, here are just a few:
He’s got this system of spying, in which all members of society watch one another and are obliged to inform on each other. Each belongs to all, and all belong to each. All men are slaves, and are equal in this slavery.
—
You see what happens when you slip in the reins for just a tiny little bit! No, this democratic rabble with their groups of five is of little use as a support; what we need is a single, magnificent, monumental, despotic will that relies on something external and premeditated then the groups of five will gently put their tails between their legs, and the subservience will come in useful when the occasion arises.
—
This’ll make you laugh: the first thing that everyone finds terribly impressive is a uniform. There’s nothing more powerful than uniform. I purposefully invent ranks and positions: I have a secretary, secret spies, treasurers, chairmen, registrars, their assistants – all much appreciated and splendidly endorsed.
—
I’ve found my own data confusing, and my conclusion directly contradicts my original idea, my starting point. Beginning with the idea of absolute freedom, I end with the idea of unlimited despotism. I should add, however, that there can be no solution to the social problem other than mine.
Talk about doublespeak and rampant cynicism; Dostoevsky knows human nature well and could recognise where things might end up. As Cockrell states in his foreword: “Dostoevsky went further than any of his predecessors and contemporaries with his insights into the psychology of terrorism, his depiction of what he saw as the catastrophic consequences of atheism and his prescient vision of a society driven to the brink of anarchy, with the spectre of totalitarianism waiting in the wings.” Prescient indeed! And if that doesn’t convince you, just read the chapter depicting the chaotically funny and shambolic meeting of revolutionaries who are all at odds and all with different beliefs and very probably couldn’t organise their way out of a paper bag. It’s hilarious and chilling at the same time; however, as always, when the general mass of people have had enough and start to take action, things begin to go awry. Stepan’s belief in art and beauty seems very naive when faced with the mob…
Don’t you know, do you really not know, that mankind can survive without the English, without Germany, most certainly without the Russian people, without science, without bread, but that without beauty it won’t be able to survive, for then there’d be nothing left to do on earth…
Well, I could go on and on about this wonderfully immersive reading experience but I’d end up risking doing a post almost as long as the book…. 😉 There are so many moments to enjoy in “The Devils”, from the narrator’s breathless and sometimes disingenuous take on events to Stepan’s petulant quarrels with Varvara to the marvellously worded puncturing of the pomposity of Russian society; particularly memorable is Dostoevsky’s fabulously worded description of Karmazinov’s writings (i.e. Turgenev) through the voice of the narrator, which I can’t reproduce here because it’s too long. However, suffice to say he simply dismantles the character’s writing and takes it to pieces in a cleverly done “Brutus is an honourable man” sequence! I got quite attached to the loquacious narrator (even though he can’t possibly have witnessed everything he relates) and on occasion, when discussing “our town”, his voice was very reminiscent of that of the narrator of Saltykov-Shchedrin’s “The History of a Town” (which Dostoevsky slyly references at one point…) But there are tragic consequences for some participants that will break your heart, and I confess to becoming quite emotional at one small family’s fate. “The Devils” is most definitely a book of light and shade, deftly and expertly contrasting comedy and tragedy, and it’s quite obvious to see why it’s regarded as one of Dostoevsky’s masterpieces.
So that’s my response to “The Devils” and I know it’s a book that’s going to continue resonating with me for a long time. It’s a complex, immersive, rambling, thought-provoking, deep, funny and dark book which gets under your skin and inside your soul. My choice of heading for this post was deliberate, as the dramatic sequence of events in the book either changes or destroys pretty much all of the participants; no-one really gets out unscathed at all. Having lived in this book and alongside these characters for a month, the devastating end left *me* emotionally drained and exhausted; although reading “The Devils” didn’t kill me, it’s certainly changed me….
*****
A word on the edition I read; this was a lovely new translation by Roger Cockrell, published by Alma Classics (who kindly provided a review copy – thank you). As usual, there was extra material, extensive notes and supporting information so an ideal version to pick. I have to applaud the translator for his epic undertaking and the narrative read wonderfully, as far as I was concerned; it felt authentically Dostoevskian to me! 😀
Apr 18, 2019 @ 08:16:30
How wonderful that even reading such a monster you were racing to the end to find out what happened! I do empathise with “Well, I could go on and on about this wonderfully immersive reading experience but I’d end up risking doing a post almost as long as the book” having just written a humungous Iris Murdoch review myself!
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:28:13
Yeah, I was really compelled to keep reading like mad at the end – I couldn’t bear to wait any longer! And you could write thesis after thesis about this one, which is why I stopped when I did…. ;D
Apr 18, 2019 @ 08:49:25
So long since I read this, I find I’d forgotten most of it. Stavrogin doesn’t fade so much. How can we keep reading the unread stuff, when there’s so much to reread?!
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:26:44
I’m like that with any number of books I read a long time ago… And I would so love to re-read more of those books I’ve kept on the shelves. It’s a dichotomy….
Apr 18, 2019 @ 08:50:26
Superb post. I first read this book back in college for a class. It Is indeed a powerful book. As you know, I recently read Turgenev‘s Fathers and Sons. That book seemed to describe everyday people playing with the ideas of nihilism and revolution in a mostly passive way. This book seemed to portray larger then life characters consumed by these ideas. The characters and situations here were indeed unforgettable.
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:25:17
Thank you Brian – most kind. And yes, I think you may have nailed the difference I feel between the two writers. There is a passivity in Turgenev which is maybe why I find him less memorable than the active engagement of Dostoevsky’s characters, who always seem to throw themselves into whatever’s happening. The Devils is definitely a book which stays with you…
Apr 18, 2019 @ 09:27:58
Well your love for this enormous book shines through your review. Wonderful that even after all those pages you still wanted to race toward the end. Am I right in thinking that Nikolai and Pyotr are the devils of the title? That story if different kinds of evil and clash of generations certainly sounds appealing. I remember when I read some big Russians in my twenties, the names were what I found hard, the stories themselves immersive, epic and very readable.
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:21:02
I did indeed absolutely love this book. And yes, Nikolai and Pyotr are two of the Devils, but really there are plenty of other wicked characters in there, as well as sympathetic ones, foolish ones, kind ones, damaged ones – really, the whole of humanity is in there. I find the Russian classics so readable and for a big book I tend to find a character guide and print it out to keep on hand – helps with the names… 😉
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:47:48
I was just reminiscing on reading The Idiot and Dostoevsky’s incredible talent at creating fully rounded characters, who immediately jump out of the pages into the readers imagination. I didn’t know this title, but a new translation certainly sounds tempting and a stunning review! I love that it grabbed you at the end and wouldn’t let you stop reading, quel talent!
Apr 18, 2019 @ 11:55:09
Yes, that’s very much the case here – the characters were simply alive and part of my life while I was reading the book, and they’ll certainly stay with me. The Idiot was a great book too, and it shares the dramatic, episodic nature of this one, although I would say this one is a little darker. But I highly recommend it, and the new translation worked beautifully for me! Dostoevsky is definitely high up on the list of my favourite authors, for sure! 😀
Apr 18, 2019 @ 13:30:09
Wow, what a tale and loved your description of it. Sound like a worthwhile book to live in for awhile.
Apr 18, 2019 @ 14:32:37
It definitely was! I haven’t been so absorbed into a book for a long time!
Apr 19, 2019 @ 07:26:51
I do admire your commitment to these classic Russians, very impressive indeed. It’s been a while since I read anything by this author – maybe five or six years since I raced through The Double as prep for the film adaptation by Richard Ayoade. (I can cope with the short ones!) Anyway, I very much enjoyed reading your perspectives on this epic. It seems as if you’ve been living the book while reading it.
Apr 19, 2019 @ 10:05:35
Thanks Jacqui! Yes, I really did live this one – such an involving experience. The Double is great, and The Gambler also if you want another short one. Dostoevsky is definitely one of my favourites!
Apr 20, 2019 @ 18:30:15
Jul 03, 2019 @ 15:02:22
I have always been haunted by this extraordinary novel ever since I first read it at university, and I jumped at the idea when Alma asked me to translate it. Your wonderful review of my translation is actually the first that I have seen. Thank you so much! Roger
Jul 03, 2019 @ 15:47:39
Thanks for your kind words, Roger, and also for your work on the wonderful translation! You’re right that it’s a book that haunts and I couldn’t put it down! 😀
Aug 07, 2019 @ 18:10:29
Hi there
Apropos my translation of Dostoevsky’s ‘Devils’ and your very detailed and kind comments (and having just read about Tim Parks’s ‘Pen in Hand’) I am attaching something I wrote a while back comparing my translation (RC) with that of Pevear and Volokhonsky (PV). PLEASE don’t feel you have to reply or read this stuff; it’s just that sometimes, when I come across what many people say about PV’s translations, I think I’m living in a different universe. So every now and then I inflict this on poor unsuspecting people. Anyway, yer ’tis, as they say in Devon.
Best regards
Roger
Roger
________________________________________
Aug 07, 2019 @ 18:48:52
Hi Roger, thanks for commenting again. Your thoughts on P/V seem to have been eaten by the Internet, though I did see you commented about their version of The Demons on a profile of them entitled “Lost in Translation”. I have actually read up on them a bit (and mentioned them on the blog). Let’s just say I’m not a fan of what they do to books. They nearly killed my first reading of “The Master and Margarita” and I tend to avoid their translations like the plague. Each to their own etc etc, but I find their working methods suspect, and I’ve heard very bad things said about their versions by Russian speakers… ;D
Dec 20, 2020 @ 03:19:47
Gary Saul Morson is also not a fan of Pevear/Volokhonsky. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/gary-morson/the-pevearsion-of-russian-literature/
Dec 20, 2020 @ 12:30:00
Yes – I’ve read his piece and I’ve seen many Russian speakers express concern about what they do to these books. I try to avoid them as much as possible… ;D
May 24, 2022 @ 02:24:20
I can’t see this attachment? I would be fascinated to see these translation comparisons.
May 24, 2022 @ 09:57:11
How do I get that attachment to you? I found translating Devils fascinating and would be really interested in your comments on this. Roger rogercockrell15@gmail.com
May 24, 2022 @ 10:24:52
Hi Roger, thanks so much for replying. My email is anoopspolia@yahoo.co.uk. In the past, I tried to read the translation by P&V and there were times when I struggled to understand them. They translate in such a way as if English was their second language. I’ve only recently ordered your translation because Alma Classics had sold out and it was unavailable for quite a while. Presumably, that’s indicative of how well your book is selling. I’ve only just started to read it and it already feels so much better than P7V.
May 24, 2022 @ 12:09:28
Hi there
Many thanks for getting in touch! Here is my ‘Devils’ file, which I hope you’ll find illuminating. You may also be interested to know that my translation of Crime and Punishment is due to be published, with Alma, in June (details attached). If you haven’t had a look at the latest 2022 Alma Catalogue (available online) I highly recommend it; for a small, independent publisher, it has an astonishing range.
All good wishes, Roger
On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 10:24 AM Kaggsy’s Bookish Ramblings wrote:
> ryokan1973 commented: “Hi Roger, thanks so much for replying. My email is > anoopspolia@yahoo.co.uk. In the past, I tried to read the translation by > P&V and there were times when I struggled to understand them. They > translate in such a way as if English was their second langu” >
May 25, 2022 @ 15:34:09
Hi Roger,
Thanks so much for sending me the Devils file. I was always aware of how bad PV translations were, but you have proven and demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that PV translations are not just bad, they’re completely and utterly hopeless. I read in a transcripted interview that Pevear had learned some Russian, but perhaps he should have focused on learning some idiomatic English. How on earth did this couple win the Pen Translation award? Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain that one tome?
Nov 21, 2019 @ 06:46:31
Dec 31, 2019 @ 07:53:18
Dec 20, 2020 @ 03:14:14
An insightful and engaging review of a complex, multi-faceted book. There is a minor error in the second paragraph: Stepan Trofimovich tutored Nikolai, not Pyotr – he had nothing to do with his own son’s upbringing.
Dec 20, 2020 @ 12:30:39
Thank you, and also for the correction – I have amended this! It *is* a wonderful book – it’s a little while since I’ve read any Dostoevsky so I may have to pick him up soon!
Mar 01, 2022 @ 22:50:49
And yet Professor Joseph Frank vigorously defended P&V translations. If you haven’t heard of Joseph Frank, he is considered to be one of the greatest authorities on Dostoevsky. All that said, I personally cannot stand P&V translations. I haven’t read Devils yet, but I’ll be sure to check out the Cockrell translation based on your recommendation.
Mar 02, 2022 @ 09:19:05
Yes, I’ve heard of Frank though not yet read him. Translation is of course a personal thing, and P/V are most definitely not for me either! I thought Devils was marvellous and did enjoy Cockrell’s rendering!