The Petty Demon (4 page)

Readers may wonder about the surname of our hero, Peredonov. That, too, has given critics pause. The most likely suggestions
have indicated that the root may well have come from Don Quixote, one of Sologub’s beloved characters and an archetype with
which he felt he had a great deal in common. In the case of Peredonov, we have, of course, the reverse image of the idealistic
and chivalrous Spanish knight. A number of critics have already indicated the parallels that may well exist between Cervantes’
novel and Sologub’s where the sheeplike Volodin performs the role of Sancho Panza and Varvara appears as Aldonsa.
¹⁸

Extensive discussions of educational organization and educational philosophy are omnipresent in most of Sologub’s novels,
not to mention many of his stories. One must recall that Sologub devoted twenty-five years of his life to this profession
and had always been a deeply involved member of that profession. That experience provides a considerable amount of the content
of
The Petty Demon
. In order to understand many of the circumstances and allusions in the novel it is necessary to have some knowledge of the
educational system in Russia before the Revolution.

A Ministry of Public Education was established in 1802 under Alexander I and this was the first genuinely well-conceived and
organized attempt at meeting an educational system in Russia. The country was divided into six educational circuits, each
possessing a university at its center. These “circuits” were further subdivided into districts. Each university would have
a pedagogical institute to train teachers. Furthermore, the new Regulations
called for the establishment of one or more four-year gymnasia in every main town or city, some type of two-year secondary
or elementary school in each district, and a one-year elementary school in every parish. These same Regulations allowed teachers
to rise through the various levels of schooling by increasing their qualifications. This reasonably “democratic” and “secular”
beginning, was, however; ruined when in 1815 Alexander virtually gave a large measure of control over the school system to
the Holy Synod. That meant, among other things, that religious writings and the catechism would occupy a very important part
in secular education for the rest of the century.

Under the reign of Nicholas I (1825–1855) this reactionary attitude to public education continued, indeed, deepened, because
Nicholas felt that Alexander I’s earlier reforms were too liberal. He did not care for the idea that peasant children might
be able to ascend upwards through the school system or be allowed to mix with other social classes. He also preferred more
emphasis to be placed on the formation of attitudes and character (namely, loyalty, piety and morality) rather than the acquisition
of knowledge. New rules were issued in 1828 which stated that the village school as intended exclusively for the peasants;
the country or district school was reserved for the merchant class; the
gymnasia
and universities should be the exclusive domain of the gentry or nobility. Specific social status was also attached to the
teachers at the various levels. Those in the parish or village schools had little or no status and could only strive for the
very lowest rank in the Table of Ranks (the fourteenth). Posts in the district schools and
gymnasia
, particularly the latter, obviously commanded greater respect and could only be held by persons of “free estate.” The latter
teachers could rise quite high in the Table of Ranks. Corporal punishment was reintroduced (after having been banned during
the reign of Peter I). One of the most important—and insidious—new developments concerned the creation of the special office
of the Class Monitor or Prefect. Essentially, this represented an official whose primary duties were not only to enforce the
numerous regulations pertaining to the educational work of the students, but to maintain a watchful eye over the entire life
of the student inside and outside of the classroom. Less euphemistically, the Prefect might well have been called an “academic
policeman” or “spy.” The chief disciplinary office in each district, however, was held by the Inspector who enjoyed a great
deal of power. In actual fact, the Prefects were all answerable to him rather than the director or headmaster in each
gymnasium
. As a result, the Inspector ruled over a kind of Fifth Column within the school system. Another perquisite of an Inspectorship
was the administration of corporal punishment. In the district schools the Inspector’s power was even greater. Here the teachers
were required to acknowledge him as their ultimate superior in all matters pertaining to their behavior and duties.

During the reign of Alexander II (1855–1881), there were many reforms within the educational system. But the reactionary conservatism
fostered by Nicholas I often undermined those reforms. One of the most important changes concerned the development of the
rural school system. In the mid-1860’s, after the Emancipation of the serfs, elected county or rural councils
(
zemstvos
) were created. These rural councils included members from both the wealthier nobles and the smaller landowners. Although
the desire for liberal reform varied from region to region, nevertheless, these councils managed to improve the rural school
system for the peasants. Naturally, the more conservative elements in the Russian educational system resented the work of
the councils and did their utmost to undermine both the influence of the councils and the results of their pedagogical activities.
Teachers in the
Zemstvo
schools were regularly subjected to harassment and repression.

With the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, the reactionaries received fresh impetus to suppress liberal reform in the
public school system. Under K. P. Pobedonostsev, the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, as well as other reactionary officials
chosen by Alexander III (1881–94) and Nicholas II (1894–1917), there was a concerted attempt to exert the authoritarian influence
of the Church over public schools. Curiously enough, the
zemstvos
were largely successful in resisting this move to sectarianize the schools, largely because they contributed the lion’s share
of financial support to the rural school system and the Government did not have the funds to wrest control from the councils.
To counter this influence of the
zemstvos
, the Government created a plan to strengthen the parish schools so that they could compete with the secular or rural schools.
The revised curriculum proposed for the parish school concentrated particularly on religious subjects (including prayers,
the catechism and even singing Church music). Because of large amounts of funding from the Government, the parish schools
actually burgeoned for a while through the later 1890s. But that growth quickly declined after 1905 and the
zemstvp
schools were clearly in the ascendancy. In the early part of the 20th Century the rural councils began to design a scheme
whereby education would be accessible to the peasantry not only in theory, but in practice as well. This plan called for the
organization and construction of schools that would be strategically located so that no pupils would have to go farther than
two miles to attend school. Beginning with various reforms introduced after the aborted revolution of 1905, there was a see-sawing
battle between conservatives and liberals to further “deform” or “reform” the educational system. In general, great progress
was made towards expanding the educational system and liberalizing the regulations governing education in Russia by the time
of the Revolution.
¹⁹

Against this schematic background of educational progress and regression throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the reader might better comprehend the social significance of Sologub’s extensive preoccupation with and description of the
educational milieu described in the novel. Peredonov, the tireless and tyrannical reactionary, obviously sees the teacher’s
role as being that of the moral policeman rather than the purveyor of knowledge. The supreme way of dispensing disciplinary
punishment (and simultaneously gratifying his own sadistic lasciviousness) is to become an Inspector who controls the police
force of school Prefects. The tension between the champions of the ultra-reactionary educational system of parish schools
and rural council schools is portrayed in Peredonov’s confrontations
with the Marshal of the Nobility, Veriga, and the local
zemstvo
chairman, Kirillov. The question of varying social status within the system is reflected at many points throughout the narrative:
Peredonov orders a new uniform in anticipation of his future Inspectorship and dons his official cap with the cockade while
mocking those teachers in the lower school system who are not allowed to wear such a cap.

This was the kind of sociological detail that appealed to readers such as Gorky who could appreciate the accuracy of Sologub’s
portrayal of the educational milieu in Russia at the turn of the century.
²⁰

It is not by chance that Sologub gave Trirodov, the hero of
The Created Legend
, his own physical features and aesthetic views. Nor is it any less an accident that Trirodov is both poet and chemist, for
who would be better endowed to transform the creative dreams of the poet into reality than such a poet-alchemist? Sologub’s
own dreams of transformation were as fervent as those of the other Symbolists. At the same time, however, he saw the impossibility
of fulfillment. But not to dream, not to aspire—that would mean denial of the creative fantasy of the poet: “It is impossible
to live without faith in a miracle … the miracle of transformation is impossible but it is essential … Only the ecstasy of
creativity offers man a solution to this fateful contradiction.”
²¹
Futile, yet beautiful dreams are the most alluring, the most exquisite, just as the love of Sasha and Lyudmila in
The Petty Demon
is exquisitely sweet, yet impossible. As a number of his poems reveal, Sologub must have readily identified with the hopelessly
romantic, the eternally old, but eternally young hero of Cervantes’ novel. Bedevilled by Aldonsa, beguiled by Dulcinea, that
ridiculous epigone, Don Quixote, seeks the fulfillment of the impossible dream. Sologub must have caught in himself the wry
reflection of that superannuated knight trapped in a time warp when he held the Symbolist’s beloved mirror up to his own unprepossessing
visage. Ridiculous as he might have seemed, he was nevertheless unwilling to abandon his beloved, his chaste vision:

—S.D. C
IORAN

NOTES

1
. See Georgette Donchin,
The Influence of French Symbolism on Russian Poetry
. ’S-Gravenhage, 1958.

2
. Vladimir Solovyov, “Chteniya o Bogochelovechestve,” in
Sobranie sochineniy VS. Solovyova
, III, 118.

3
. Carl Proffer and Ellendea Proffer (editors),
The Silver Age of Russian Culture
. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1971, p. 5.

4
.
Ibid
., p. 123.

5
.
Ibid
., p. 4.

6
.
Ibid
., p. 35.

7
. See M.I. Dikman, “Poeticheskoe tvorchestvo Fyodora Sologuba,” in
Fyodor Sologub. Stikhotvoreniya
(Biblioteka Poeta, Bolshaya seriya, Izd. 2-oe). Leningrad, 1978.

8
. See the Introduction to the second set of textual variants by S. Rabinowitz.

9
. G. Chulkov,
Gody stranstviy
. Moscow, 1930, pp. 146–7.

10
. F. Sologub,
The Created Legend
(Parts I-III). Translated by S.D. Cioran. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1979.

11
. P. Kogan,
Ocherki po istorii noveishey russkoy literatury
. Moscow, 1910, III (vypusk I), p. 103.

12
. Maksim Gorky,
Sobranie sochineniy v 30 tomakh
. Moscow, 1949–55, XXX, p. 44.

13
.
Ibid
., p. 46.

14
. A.A. Izmailov,
Literaturnyi Olimp
. Moscow, 1911, p. 316.

15
.
Ibid
., pp. 309–10.

16
. Quoted by M.I. Dikman, p. 33.

17
. See Opyt
oblastnago velikago russkago slovarya
(izd. vtorym otdeleniem Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk). Sanktpeterburg, 1852, p. 126.

18
. See the Preface by Andrew Field to Fyodor Sologub,
The Petty Demon
, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970.

19
. See W.H.E. Johnson,
Russia’s Educational Heritage
. Pittsburgh, 1950.

20
. For a more complete discussion of the works of Fyodor Sologub please see: Murl Barker,
The Novels of Fyodor Sologub
. Knoxville, 1977; Stanley Rabinowitz,
Sologub’s Literary Children
. Columbus, Ohio. 1980.

21
. Quoted by M.I. Dikman, p. 42.

T
HE NOVEL
The Petty Demon
was begun in 1892 and completed in 1902. It was printed for the first time in the journal
Questions of Life
in 1905 (Nos. 6–11), but without the concluding chapters. The novel appeared for the fist time in a complete version in an
edition by
Shipovnik
In March of 19107.

In the printed reviews, as well as the oral ones which I was obliged to listen to, I noticed two contrary opinions.

Some think that the author, being a very bad fellow, wished to present his own portrait and depicted himself in the model
of the teacher Peredonov. Due to his sincerity, the author didn’t wish to justify and embellish himself in any way, and for
that reason smeared his visage with the blackest of colors. He embarked upon this amazing enterprise in order to deliver himself
up to a kind of Calvary and to suffer for something or other. The result was an interesting and harmless novel.

Interesting because the novel makes apparent what manner of bad people there are in the world. Harmless because the reader
can say: “I’m not the one he’s writing about.”

Others, who have a less harsh opinion of the author, think that the Peredonovism described in the novel is a rather widespread
phenomenon.

Several people even think that by peering closely into ourselves, each of us will find the unmistakable characteristics of
Peredonov inside.

Of these two opinions I give preference to the one which pleases me more, namely the second. I was not obliged to contrive
and invent on my own. Everything that relates to the narrative incidents, the everyday life and the psychology in my novel
is based on very precise observations, and I had sufficient “models” for my novel in my proximity. And if the work on the
novel was so drawn out, then it was simply so that stern Ananke could be enthroned where once reigned Aisa, the disseminator
of anecdotes.

True, people love to be loved. They like to have the lofty and noble aspects of their souls depicted. Even in malefactors
they like to see glimmerings of goodness, of the “divine spark,” as it was expressed in olden
times. Therefore they cannot believe it when they are faced with a depiction that is faithful, precise, gloomy and wicked.
They want to say:

“He’s writing about himself.”

No, my dear contemporaries, it is about you that I have written my novel about the Petty Demon and its sinister
Nedotykomka
, about Ardalyon and Varvara Peredonov, Pavel Volodin, Darya, Lyudmila and Valeriya Rutilova, Aleksandr Pylnikov and the others.
About you.

This novel is a mirror, skillfully fashioned. I polished it for a long while and worked zealously over it.

Smooth is the surface of my mirror and pure its composition. Measured repeatedly and tested painstakingly, it possesses no
distortion.

The deformed and the beautiful are reflected in it with equal precision.

January 1908