The “Demons” of Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Besy, in Russian, variously translated as “The Possessed” and “The Devils”) is a fundamentally political and social novel. It is directly inspired by the true story of a murder committed in 1869 by Russian anarchist and nihilist Sergei Nechaev (Saunders 324). The peasant reforms (Dostoevsky 370), the Third Department (Dostoevsky 361), and the emergence of the zemstvo (Dostoevsky 211) are all worth mentioning in passing. However, it is Nechaev-type anarchists and older liberals who are the main players in the Russia of the “demons.” In addition to the facts of the murder, "Demons" depicts a much larger social and political conflict in Russia. Dostoyevsky depicts a Russian society divided between ideologies: the Westernizing liberals of the 1840s, the Slavophiles (Russian isolationists and nationalists) and the nihilists. Dostoyevsky's feelings are clearly not on the latter's side, since "Demons" offers an often satirical and always unflattering portrait of the Russian radical revolutionary movement of the 1860s and 1870s. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essay Dostoyevsky's treatment of the ideological divide between pro-Western liberals and nihilists can be more generally characterized as a generational divide. Stepan Trofimovich best represents the older generation of liberal Westernists, who called for a gradual modernization of Russia rather than a radical and rapid transformation of autocracy and Russian society. As liberals of Stepan's generation (1840s) engage in vigorous debate, the narrator remarks on the nature of liberalism in Russia at that time: For a while there was talk of us in town, that our circle was a hotbed of free thought, of depravity. , and impiety; and this rumor has always persisted. Yet what we got was just the most innocent, kind, Russian, and joyful, liberal chatter. “Higher liberalism” and “higher liberalism”, that is, aimless liberalism, are possible only in Russia. (Dostoevsky 33) Stepan's westward-looking character is established early in the novel, and even early in his life: "he managed to publish... in a monthly, progressive journal, which translated Dickens and preached George Sand , the beginning of a most profound study” (Dostoyevsky 9). Moreover, Stepan's speech is satirically filled with individual French phrases and interjections, reflecting the tendency of the intellectual classes to use French. Stepan's use of French is later parodied as Kirillov composes his suicide note, abandoning Stepan's French-speaking niceties in favor of the fiery language of revolution. The narrator notes that Stepan's theses on European history attract the ire of the Slavophiles. The invocation of the Slavophiles and their ability to strip him of his professorship demonstrates the division between nationalist Slavophiles and Westernizing liberals. Dostoyevsky, however, tempers the apparent power and influence of the conservative faction by adding that Stepan “could have continued...if he had simply given the necessary explanations” (Dostoyevsky 11). Slavophiles play a marginal role in the central generational conflict between liberals and nihilists, but their early role in opposing Stepan Trofimovich (and vice versa) illustrates the presence of an ongoing philosophical debate in Russia long before Pyotr's birth Stepanovich. Stepanovich Verkhovensky, son of Stepan Verkhovensky, represents a more far-left faction of Russian thought than hisfather. Nihilist and anarchist, Piotr advocates the violent demolition and reconstruction of Russian society. His “revolution” would establish Stavrogin as the hidden Tsarevich, who would lead the insurrection. Pyotr's extremism contrasts sharply with his father's relatively passive "higher liberalism". However, despite the poor relationship between father and son, Dostoyevsky establishes several important connections between the two generations of Verkhovensky men. Pyotr and his generation of nihilists, in their revolutionary fervor, reject the more purely intellectual nature of Stepan's "cultural" liberalism in favor of dramatic, even violent, action. Thinkers of Stepan's generation, speaking in more moderate tones, find the extremes that anarchists wish to explore equally distasteful. The character of Pyotr is clearly based on the real-life anarchist Sergei Nechaev, who planned an insurrection against the Tsar's authority in the late 1860s. During a brief period of exile in 1869, Nechaev and Bakunin wrote "The Catechism of a Revolutionary”, describing the objectives and mechanisms of a revolution. Upon his return to Russia later that year, Nechaev attracted a number of followers at the Petrovskaya Agricultural Academy in Saint Petersburg. Among these supporters, Ivan Ivanov was considered disloyal and considered a threat to the organization (Saunders 324). In the winter of 1869, Nechaev and several associates murdered Ivanov. The circumstances resemble those found in "Demons", where Pyotr and members of the anarchist circle murder Shatov. If we accept that Nechaev is in fact the model on which Pyotr Verkhovensky is based, it is difficult to argue that Dostoyevsky sympathizes with the anarchist. and nihilistic cause. Indeed, “Demons” constitutes a strong indictment against the revolutionary movement. Dostoyevsky's unflattering portrait of Pyotr's ideals and methodology takes two important forms. Piotr's organization, an obvious parody of Nechaev's, is a satirical and often amusing mix of chaos and extremism. The individuals involved in the organization - the virulent representatives of nihilism - are seriously flawed and are largely unsympathetic characters. “With Our People,” chapter seven of book two, recounts a typically disorganized and often hilarious meeting of the revolutionary group. Shigalyov's attempts to organize the assembled guests are thwarted by the stupid, drunken, or otherwise crude interjections of his audience. Dostoyevsky depicts these revolutionaries as a group of clumsy, panicked, and generally motley fools. A typical exchange from “With Our People” offers a good example of an imperfect and often ridiculous meeting: “No, I understand,” shouted a third, “raise your hand if it means yes.” » “Yes, but what does yes mean?” ""It means a meeting. " "No, not a meeting. "'I voted for a meeting,' the high school student shouted to Madame Virginsky. 'So why didn't you raise your hand?' against you, you didn't raise yours, so neither did I. » (Dostoyevsky 399) Comments like that of the high school student reveal a more subtle and perhaps more damning accusation against Pyotr. Many of the nihilists are very young, and an even greater number, like Lebyadkin, are very stupid. Since these individuals would probably not organize themselves into a group of anarchist revolutionaries, it falls to Pyotr and Shigalyov to bring them together. In this sense, Dostoyevsky portrays Pyotr, and by implication Nechaev, as talented manipulators, and relegates most of the other characters to the role of reckless spectator. If they are guilty of nihilism, they are perhaps more guilty of a youthful impetuosity and naivety thatseem to permeate the base of the group. The character of the group's leaders is much more deeply called into question. Among these leaders, Dostoevsky does not create any sympathetic characters. Stavrogin often exhibits bizarre and rude behavior in unsuspecting company, leading to an abortive duel. Dostoyevsky exposes Stavrogin's sinister manipulation in a conversation between Nikolai Vsevolodovich and Lebyadkin: "Lebyadkin, experienced in the role of jester, remained a little uncertain until the last moment whether his master was really angry or only to tease him" ( Dostoyevsky 268.) Pyotr himself is often emotionally and morally vacant, falsely placing his father under the suspicion of the authorities at the end of book three. The apotheosis of this inhuman detachment is, of course, the murder of Shatov. Dostoevsky's treatment of nihilistic anarchists is considerably different from his treatment of Stepan's type of "higher liberal." Stepan is relatively harmless and charming, and lacks the murderous coldness that his son possesses in abundance. However, Dostoyevsky maintains an important link between Stepan's circle of liberals and Pyotr's group of revolutionaries. In many ways, Pytor's group is a far-left parody of the "high liberals" of the 1840s. An important element of the parody is the international nature of each organization. Stepan's liberals find their inspiration and fodder for conversation in Western writings. Russian audiences express admiration for Western thinkers and authors, and Dickens, George Sands, Goethe, and Fourier are mentioned throughout the first part. This admiration for the West and desire to cultivate similar intellectual advances in Russia during the 1840s continued in Pyotr's generation, but on an entirely different scale. Western influence in the 1870s, as presented in the context of the revolutionary group, was a far more sinister force. Stravrogin and Pyotr spend a lot of time abroad; Dostoyevsky frequently invokes Switzerland as a source of revolutionary publications and ideas. Nechaev fled to Switzerland, where he and Bakunin co-wrote revolutionary pamphlets. The fugitive Netchaev probably chose Switzerland because of its press freedom and stability. Despite this historical fact, the role of Switzerland in “The Demons” strengthens the link between Pyotr Stepanovich and Nechaev. Membership, real or perceived, in an international organization considerably elevated the status of the revolutionary group in a provincial town. Once again, Pyotr and Stavrogin play the role of manipulators: “You undoubtedly presented me there as a sort of foreign member, linked to the International, perhaps an inspector? » asked Stravrogin suddenly. “No, not an inspector; the inspector will not be you; you are a foreign founding member who knows the most important secrets, that is your role. (Dostoevsky 386) In addition to adding credibility, an exaggerated international affiliation would have increased the conspiratorial air among the group's members. Legitimate international influences – Stavrogin's and Pyotr's early philosophically formative experiences abroad – as well as imagined international support organizations are major tools through which Pyotr maintains control of the group. As a supposed part of a large international organization dedicated to the lawless overthrow of the government, Piotr demands absolute secrecy from the group's members. Although there is a secret police presence (which Stepan also manipulates to frame his father), Piotr exaggerates and actively lies about the need for absolute secrecy between the group members. THE., 1992.