The Petty Demon (43 page)

The body of critical material about
The Petty Demon
in English was quite limited until fairly recently. John Cournos, an early translator of Sologub, published one of the first
studies of the writer in English.
³³
It has a certain antiquated charm; his comments on
The Petty Demon
are sensible if not always original. He sides with the critics who see Peredonovism as a universal human condition; he gives
Peredonov credit for recognizing that the
nedotykomka is
an evil spirit and for fighting against it. He finds the Sasha-Lyudmila episode to be a relief from the novel’s tragedy: “But
the infatuation of a young woman for a young boy may in itself seem strange to the English reader.” (!)
³⁴
As for the “Karamazovian question” (Ivan’s questioning the meaning of life), Cournos believes that Chekhov consoled himself
with the hope of progress; Sologub finally realized that beauty and imagination might offer an escape for the individual,
but not for all of humanity—so Sologub’s great hero became Death.

Brief mention of
The Petty Demon
is found in various histories of Russian literature, the best probably that by D.S. Mirsky who called the novel “the most
perfect Russian novel since the death of Dostoevsky.”
³⁵
Renato Poggioli
³⁶
devotes some attention to the work with perceptive, if concise observations, and Robert Jackson’s study
³⁷
is also to be recommended. The articles reprinted here, and the suggested readings following them, represent the best criticism
on
The Petty Demon
to appear in recent years in English. While ultimately the work must speak for itself, these thought-provoking analyses by
contemporary scholars should enrich the reading of
The Petty Demon
.

NOTES

1
. An observation by Andrew Field in the Introduction to his Master’s Thesis, “Sologub’s Prose: A Critical Analysis Of Its
Symbolism And Structure”, Columbia University, 1961 (unpublished). Field was the translator of the novel published by Random
House in 1962.

2
. A.N. Chebotarevskaia, “‘Tvorimoe’ Tvorchestvo,” in A.N. Chebotarevskaia (ed.), O
Fedore Sologube. Kritika. Stat’i i zametki
. (Petersburg, 1911). This piece eppears in the collection of critical essays about Sologub, compiled by Chebotarevskaia. It
is a selection of articles covering the writer’s work in poetry, drama and prose. While a rather well-balanced assessment
for the time (the articles were written between 1905–1911), it is not surprising that the general attitude is most positive.
Ardis (1983) has reprinted the Russian original (ISBN 0-88233-849-8).

3
.
Ibid
., p. 79.

4
. This is particularly true in Sologub’s trilogy,
The Created Legend
, written between 1907 and 1913. Translated by Samuel D. Cioran and published by Ardis (Ann Arbor, 1979): Volume I,
Drops of Blood;
Volume II
Queen Ortruda
; Volume ID
Smoke and Ashes
. The protagonist, Trirodov, is actively pursuing a Utopian ideal, a private idea being put into practice in order to transform
other individuals and thereby transform reality.

5
. See the “Introduction” by Samuel Cioran in
Drops of Blood
pp. 11–21 for a summary of the reaction to the legend. Of particular interest is his discussion of Gorky’s estimation of
Sologub.

6
. Among others, A. Gornfel’d, “Nedotykomka” in O
Fedore Sologube
, p. 256; IU. M. Steklov, “O tvorchestve Fedora Sologuba,”
Literaturnyi
raspad
.
Kniga vtoraia
(Petersburg, 1909), p. 190.

7
. Ivanov-Razumnik, “Fedor Sologub” in O
Fedore Sologube
, pp. 7–35.

8
. A. E. Redko, “Fedor Sologub v bytovykh proizvedeniiakh i v ‘tvorimykh legendakh’,”
Russkoe bogatstvo
, No. 3 (March 1909), p. 77.

9
.
Ibid
., p.
75
.

10
. P.S. Vladimirov, “Fedor Sologub i ego roman ‘Melkii bes’,” in O
Fedore Sologube
, p. 315.

11
. E. Anichkov, “Melkii bes,” in O
Fedore Sologube
, p. 220.

12
. Z. Gippius, “Slezinka Peredonova,” in O
Fedore Sologube
, pp. 72–79.

13
. Peredonov is often referred to as the petty demon too, which emphasizes the multiplicity of interpretations of the title.

14
. R. Ivanov-Razumnik, O
smysle zhizni. Fedor Sologub. Leonid Andreev. Lev Shestov
(St. Petersburg, 1908), p. 45.

15
. IU. Steklov, “O tvorchestve Fedora Sologuba,”
Literaturnyi raspad
, II (St. Petersburg, 1909), p. 176.

16
. E. Anichkov,
loc. cit
. Anichkov argues that Peredonov is not at all like Chekhov’s schoolteacher.

17
. Steklov, op.
cit
., p. 200.

18
. Gornfel’d, op.
cit
., p. 259.

19
. A. Gornfel’d, “Fedor Sologub,”
Russkaia literatura xx veka 1890–1910
, ed. S. Vengerov, II, kn. 4–5 (Moscow, 1915), p. 47.

20
. Aleksandr Blok,
Sobranie sochinenii
(Moscow, 1962), V, 126.

21
. A. Izmailov, “Ismel’chavshii russkii Mefistofel’ i peredonovshchina. ‘Melkii bes’—roman F. Sologuba” in O
Fedore Sologube
, p. 293.

22
. Ivanov-Razumnik, in O
Fedore Sologube
, pp. 7–35.

23
. A. Belyi,
Masterstvo Gogolia
(Moscow, 1934), reprinted by Ardis, Ann Arbor, 1983.

24
. V. Botsianovskii, “O Sologube, Nedotykomka, Gogole, Groznom i pr. (Kritikopsikhologicheskii etiud)” in O
Fedore Sologube
, p. 146.

25
. E. Anichkov, op.
cit
., p. 217.

26
. P. S. Vladimirov, op.
cit
., p. 307.

27
. V. Botsianovskii, op.
cit
., p. 171.

28
. Moscow-Leningrad, 1933; Kemerovo, 1958.

29
. B. IU. Ulanovskaia, “O prototipakh romana E Sologuba ‘Melkii bes’,”
Russkaia literatura
, XII, no. 3, (Leningrad 1969), pp. 181–184.

30
. For a more detailed discussion, see G.J. Thurston, “Sologub’s
Meikiy bes,” Slavonic and East European Review
, LV, 1 (January, 1977), pp. 31–33.

31
. Fedor Sologub,
Stikhotvoreniia
, ed. M.I. Dikman, 2nd ed., Bol’shaia seriia, (Leningrad, 1975).

32
. Galina Selegen’,
Prekhitraia via’ (Simvolizm v russkoi prose: ‘Melkii bes’ Fedora Sologuba
(Washington, 1968).

33
. John Cournos, “Fedor Sologub,”
The Fortnightly Review
, XCVIII (July-December, 1915), pp. 480–490.

34
. Cournos, op.
cit
., p. 486.

35
. D.S. Mirsky, A
History of Russian Literature
(New York, 1926), p. 444.

36
. Renato Poggioli,
The Poets of Russia 1890–1930
(Cambridge, 1960).

37
. Robert Jackson,
Dostoevsky’s Underground Man in Russian Literature
(‘s Gravenhage, 1958).

Additional Articles of Interest:

Julian W. Connolly, “The Medium and the Message: Oral Utterances in
Melkij Bes,” Russian Literature
, IX (1981), pp. 357–368.

F.D. Reeve, “Art as Solution: Sologub’s Devil,”
Modern Fiction Studies
, V, No. 2, (1957), pp. 110–118.

G. Roman Shchurowsky and Pierre R. Hart, “A Somber Madness: Dionysian Excess in
The Petty Demon and Professor Unrat”, Germano-Slavica
, Vol. III, No. 1 (Spring, 1979), pp. 33–44.

G.J. Thurston, “Sologub’s
Melkiy bes” Slavonic And East
European
Review
, Vol. LV, No. 1 (January, 1977), pp. 30–444.

M
URL
B
ARKER

L
INDA
J. I
VANITS

T
HE PRESENT STUDY
is an exploration of the relationship between
byt
and the fantastic in
The Petty Demon
. The very title of the novel hints at a possibility: that the pettiness and vulgarity of everyday life—
poshlost
’—are a mask
of the demonic. The cosmos of the novel, appearing initially to be a typical provincial society, slips almost imperceptibly
into an inferno. The artistic method through which
poshlost’
is integrated with the demonic is the grotesque.

A few words should be said about the concept of the grotesque underlying this study. Recently the grotesque has been described
both as the trivial perceived as demonic and as the demonic made trivial.
¹
This seems accurate with the qualification that in literature as well as in painting and sculpture the combination of the
trivial and demonic takes a highly visual form. The grotesque is a particular distortion of the usual representation of man,
and as such it implies a play with the concept of what it is to be human. This distortion is frequently achieved through a
joining of elements from the animal, plant, spirit, and mechanical worlds with human elements. Often bodily confines are violated
and extended to ludicrous or obscene proportions. In the case of nonhuman creatures the form is humanized, yet remains lacking
in genuine humanity. In the grotesque object the trivial and the obscene yield to the uncanny and vice versa so that an uncomfortably
estranging effect, perhaps best described as simultanenously ridiculous and sinister, results.
²

The above understanding seems to apply to such figures as Gothic gargoyles, the strange creatures of Hieronymous Bosch’s hell,
Pieter Bruegel’s illustrated proverbs, Jacques Callot’s sketches for the Commedia dell’Arte, and many of the paintings and
sketches of Francisco Goya—all of which are generally accepted as grotesque.
³
Other aspects of the grotesque include a particular type of motion which is gestic and apparently unmotivated and which tends
to turn back on itself. The dance of death, consisting of jerky hops and strange contortions, has been called the archetypal
grotesque motion.
⁴
Senseless, impromptu acts of spite, obscenity, and scandalmongering are common activities, and they imply abrupt, directionless
motion. Insanity is a frequent motif accompanying the presentation of grotesque characters because it provides a cover for
irrational behavior.

A particular type of scenery which conveys the feeling of a defined space and is at the same time cluttered and colorful is
characteristic of the grotesque. Parties and masquerades are frequent settings because they provide an element of artificiality
and estrangement. If the grotesque object is placed outdoors, then
nature tends to come alive and acquire a hostile mien. Language is a significant factor in the presentation of grotesque characters.
Words tend to lose their value as a means of exchanging ideas, and they often acquire a magical significance. A character’s
language, like his motion, tends to be abrupt and illogical.
⁵

The Petty Demon
contains an entire roster of grotesque figures. Three primary means of rendering characters grotesque are used: (1) the exaggeration
and repetition of one or two salient physical features, (2) metaphor, and (3) literary allusion. The effect in most cases
is that the chracters are not rendered so overwhelmingly unhuman as to be totaly fantastic. They remain a part of provincial
byt, yet
at the same time their essential humanity is called into question, and they are given identities within a demonology.

THE CHARACTERS

The major character and focal point of
The Petty Demon
is Peredonov, a paranoid schoolmaster who is obsessed by a desire to be promoted to the position of inspector of public schools.
He was modeled on a teacher whom Sologub knew personally when he taught in the Russian provinces, and this prototype, like
the character generated from him, was to Sologub the very incarnation of
poshlost’
.
⁶
Peredonov’s is the most elaborate portrait in
The Petty Demon
, and it is possible to visualize him rather precisely. Basically he is drawn from the outside in, through externals which
serve both to create a pictorial representation and to reflect the status of his soul. His face is ruddy, sleepy, and generally
indifferent. He has small, puffy eyes framed in gold-rimmed glasses; his eyes are expressionless and as his insanity increases
they become vacant “like the eyes of a dead man.”
⁷
He has chestnut brown hair which is thinning, and he is gaining weight around the middle—suggestions that he is approaching
middle age. To avoid catching cold, Peredonov wears an overcoat, even in warm weather. His tendency to encase himself in an
overcoat indicates a fear of his surroundings, and thus points to his paranoia. The indifference and lack of emotion in his
face and eyes suggest that he is somehow lifeless.

Comparisons of Peredonov to a corpse, a pig, a puppet, and a devil are especially important in rendering him grotesque. The
metaphor of the walking corpse
(khodiachii trup)
is the logical culmination of a visual representation stressing lack of emotion and lifelessness. The comparison of Peredonov
to a puppet serves to mechanize him; the suggestion is that someone other than he is in control of his movements. Significantly,
this comparison is used when he is engaged in a hysterical, awkward dance, which may be considered a dance of death (257).
Peredonov’s mistress Varvara is the first person in the novel to call him a pig; it is her response to his spitting in her
face. Possibly the most striking comparison of Peredonov to a pig is in the form of a pun on the word “piatachek,” which means
both “five-kopeck piece” and “pig snout” in Russian. Peredonov’s friend Rutilov asks him if he has a five-kopeck piece
(piatachek)
and then reasons that if Peredonov has a pig snout
(piatachek)
, he must be a pig (60–61). Terrified, Peredonov grabs his nose to make sure it is human, but when he asserts that he has
a “human mug”
(chelovech ‘ia kharia)
, he uses a term which may also apply to a pig
(kharia)
. The implication is that he may be a pig after all.

In folklore and the literary tradition the pig is a common embodiment of
the devil, and no doubt in
The Petty Demon
too these images are interconnected.
⁸
While the metaphor of the pig points directly to Peredonov’s vulgarity, that of the devil suggests the demonic side of his
personality. Rutilov calls Peredonov a devil several times, and on one occasion calls him a devil in eyeglasses, thus adding
a human and comic touch to the traditional image of the devil. Another significant instance in Which Peredonov is called a
devil occurs at the very end of the novel just before his murder of Volodin. Varvara, now his wife, repeats the common saying,
“Husband and wife make one devil”
(Muzh da zhena—odna Satana
, 382). The suggestion may be that Peredonov’s demon stature grows during the course of the novel; he is no longer an ordinary
devil
(chert, bes)
, but the “prince of darkness”
(Satana)
.
⁹

The metaphors used in Peredonov’s depiction dehumanize him by emphasizing his lifelessness and by suggesting that he has another,
non-human essence—that of a pig/demon. The presence of bodily hungers—appetite—in the place of emotion and feeling tends to
further dehumanize Peredonov. Vodka is perhaps the most obvious sign of appetite in
The Petty Demon
. A staple of Peredonov and his friends, it runs through the novel as a leitmotif accompanying Peredonov on visits, present
at his parties, and present too at his slaying of Volodin. As Peredonov’s paranoia grows, his intake of vodka increases until,
towards the end of the novel, he begin to appear at the school drunk. Varvara excuses Peredonov’s strange (insane) behavior
as drunkenness, and this causes her no worry. Vodka and cards are the only means Peredonov has of entertaining his friends,
an indication of the meagerness of his imagination. Here too the folk tradition provides a framework for interpretation: it
was believed that a drunk was one of the devil’s favorite hosts and that card-playing was a common entertainment among devils
and witches.
¹⁰

As is freqent in the creation of the grotesque object, the motif of the buffoon is combined with that of the demon in Peredonov’s
characterization. This is most evident in the ridiculous yet sinister antics in which he engages. For example, on his wedding
day Peredonov reddens his cheeks with Varvara’s rouge, paints “P’s” on his chest, attempts to wear one of Varvara’s corsets,
and, finally, tries to have his hair cut in an imaginary “Spanish style”—all to distinguish himself from Volodin. The comic
element in Peredonov’s buffoonery is diminished by the error in conceptual thinking which underlies it. His paranoia is by
now so acute that he believes Volodin will “crawl under his skin” and assume his identity, his wife, and the inspectorship.
This series of antics is uncanny partly because it illustrates the power which words have acquired over Peredonov. A statement
which originally was a general formulation of the fear that Volodin wanted to marry Varvara and become the inspector—“Perhaps
he’s even thinking of marrying Varvara and crawling under my skin, (71)”—has become for Peredonov a literal possibility.

In general Peredonov’s language is plays the same abruptness and lack of transition as his motion. His speech usually consists
of short units, often of only one or two words. Although his language is vulgar, it tends to be grammatically correct (in
contrast to that of Varvara and Volodin). As a rule Peredonov does not initiate conversation, but rather reacts to someone
else’s words; and there is a notable absence of formal greetings and the usual politeness of social convention in his speech.
He uses substandard words in place of the standard lexicon: for “face”
(litso)
he substitutes “mug” and “snout”
(kharia, rozha, rylo, morda)
, and he refers to his friends by debasing diminutive
forms of their names (“Varka” rather than “Varvara,” “Pavlushka” rather than “Pavel”).
¹¹
For Peredonov language is a means of fulfilling bodily needs, of abusing, of spreading gossip, of charming, and of countercharming;
words have lost their value as a means of exchanging ideas and opinions. Yet, at the same time, they have acquired magic powers:
this is clear from the terror which the pun on “piatachek” inspires in Peredonov and from his fear that Volodin will literally
“crawl under his skin.”

The settings in which Peredonov is placed tend to take on his sullenness and become extentions of his personality. Hints are
given that his apartment is dirty and smelly; it is certainly stuffy, since to avoid drafts Peredonov refuses to open the
window. Nature particularly mirrors Peredonov’s inner state. He is often pictured alone outdoors going to and from places.
Streets, trees, grass, physical surroundings, and especially the weather take on his moods and reflect his boredom, anguish,
and fear. As Peredonov’s paranoia increases and he becomes deader, nature comes alive and seems hostile to him: “The heavens
frowned. The wind blew straight at him. … The trees did not want to give shade. … But dust rose up in the form of a long,
half-transparent gray serpent. Why is the sun hiding behind a cloud—could it be spying?” (285).

Peredonov’s pictorial delineation, achieved through a combination of human, animal, mechanical, and demonic traits, is the
first of many such creations in
The Petty Demon
. The two persons closest to Peredonov, Varvara and Volodin, are also genuinely grotesque. Varvara’s physical representation
is acheived through a juxtaposition of contradictions. She has a wrinkled
face
on which there is a lewd and spiteful expression, but her body is beautiful, like that “of a gentle nymph with the head of
a withered harlot attached to it by the power of some despicable spell” (72). The motifs of mechanization and the mask are
used in Varvara’s characterization. The high heels she wears cause her walk to be jerky, and she is so heavily powdered and
rouged that her blushing cannot be seen. In Varvara’s creation there is a certain identity of mask and face: the vulgarity
which her heavy make-up suggests is painted on top of the lewdness which accompanies her decaying beauty. For the social visits
which she makes after her marriage, Varvara dons a new hat adorned with flowers in all colors. Thus another element, this
time from the plant world, is added to the motley amalgamation which makes up her visual image.

Hints are given that Varvara has a witch nature. Peredonov senses that she has the power to charm him. He is alarmed because
she cooks from a black book, a suggestion of sorcery; and he fears that she has the ability to cast a spell on him with cards.
Indeed, Varvara, like the rest of the novel’s society, believes in black magic. She is able to recognize her crony Grushina’s
abilities at sorcery, and she immediately suspects sorcery when a hat which Peredonov left in his former apartment is returned
(46, 251).

The only person in the novel who sincerely likes Peredonov is Volodin, yet Volodin, is the person from whom Peredonov suspects
the brunt of the attack against him. Volodin’s physical creation is based on the motif of metamorphosis: he is, as his name
implies, amazingly ram-like. He bleats his way into the novel, and, after Peredonov cuts his throat, he bleats, squeals, and
chokes his way out (25,383). Even in a society characterized by a lack of intellectual interests, Volodin’s bestial stupidity
stands out. This is particularly evident in his language, which is totaly insipid and devoid of meaning. An especially incongruous
touch is added to Volodin’s depiction by Peredonov’s attempt to marry
him to Nadezhda Adamenko, an attractive, intelligent girl who spends her time reading books and has no part in the day to
day affairs of the novel’s town. As a couple they are a complete mismatch, both visually and intellectually. The costume Volodin
grafts on his ram-like frame while courting Nadezhda renders him additionally ludicrous: he wears a tight fitting frock coat,
a freshly starched shirt, a gaudy necktie, and his wooly hair is pasted down with pomade and scented.