71 pages • 2 hours read
Fyodor DostoevskyA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin is the central figure in Devils. His return to the town sets the plot in motion, bringing about gossip, intrigue, and tragedy in equal measure. Despite other people’s fascination with Stavrogin, he is a man who is defined by his self-loathing. He cannot conceive of why men like Peter would be so interested in him, as he cannot recognize any redeeming or honorable traits in his character. Stavrogin is followed everywhere by gossip and not all of it is undeserved. He acts in a terrible manner on many occasions. In the censored chapter, he even admits to sexually abusing a young girl who died by suicide because of the trauma. Stavrogin destroys marriages, hurts people in an emotional and physical way, and refuses to change his behavior.
Each immoral action is an attempt to show the world his true self, only for the world to ignore the monstrous behavior. Peter, Varvara, and every other character are so quick to forgive Stavrogin that he is horrified. He is disgusted with a world that refuses to judge his actions; his repeated pattern of immorality is a cry for help, a feckless effort to show his true self to a world obsessed with aesthetics, status, and charm. As a handsome young intellectual from a good family, he is forgiven for everything. Peter knows all about Stavrogin’s crimes, yet he plans to make Stavrogin into some kind of post-revolutionary tsar figure. Stavrogin repeats his immorality in a desperate attempt to bring his public image in line with his own view of himself. He acts like a monster because he urgently needs the rest of society to see the monstrosity within him.
Throughout Devils, people search for excuses for Stavrogin’s behavior. When he first causes a scandal in the town as a young man, the townspeople quickly posit that a medical issue has caused him to act in such a fashion. The vague idea that a medical condition might be the reason for his behavior becomes an easy crutch with which society can remove any kind of personal responsibility from Stavrogin’s actions. Later, characters such as Peter try to explain Stavrogin’s actions in terms of mental health. They believe that his mental state is deteriorating and that he is no longer responsible for his outlandish actions.
However, Stavrogin remains fiercely logical throughout the novel. He wants the world to know about his marriage to Marya, and he refuses to lie about his involvement in her murder. He desperately craves the judgment of the world and he is keen to avoid any suggestion that a mental health condition might be an excuse for his bad behavior. In the final lines of the novel, Stavrogin is overcome by guilt. He dies by suicide, and, after a careful examination, the coroners report that he was in full control of his senses at the time of the incident. In his final act, Stavrogin demands that the world no longer makes excuses for him. He demands judgment and seeks this judgment in the most acute manner possible. Furthermore, his manner of dying—hanging—mirrors that of Matryosha’s own death by suicide, directly alluding to what he believes is his worst crime.
Stavrogin regards himself as a villain but occasionally performs seemingly altruistic deeds, as when he marries Marya. Peter Stepanovich Verkhovensky is the complete opposite. He commits many sins but excuses his own behavior with an almost religious zeal. Peter is convinced that he is the only person who can bring about true and meaningful change in Russian society. He is swept up in a revolutionary fervor, to the point where he is willing to do anything to collapse the Russian system and bring about complete chaos in the country.
Significantly, though Peter is obsessed with political change, he has no true ideology. He is obsessed with change for change’s sake, believing in the idea of the revolution itself more than any actual revolutionary idea. Other characters refer to Peter as a nihilist, an atheist, or a socialist. None of these descriptions truly fit Peter. While he may speak at length on these subjects, he does not truly believe in any of them. They function as a means to an end; for Peter, ideology is a tool to be wielded in the quest for revolution in any shape or form.
Key to Peter’s understanding of ideology is the way in which he talks about his revolutionary society. Peter tells frequent lies. His version of the truth shifts and alters, depending on who he needs to charm in any given moment. When talking to the other members of the society, he talks about their revolutionary organization as though they are part of a widespread network of many thousands of similarly-minded radicals, scattered across Russia. However, Peter inwardly admits that the true scope of the society is far smaller. The society is a lie that he tells himself and the world, but one which he excuses by insisting that his lies are in the service of a greater revolutionary goal. He can lie about the network, he believes, because these lies will help the society achieve their goals.
Peter is undoubtedly charming. He worms his way into Yulia’s company with ease, convincing the wife of a governor to stage an event that sows the seeds of revolutionary ideology through obscene and absurd acts. The event is a complete failure, but sets the stage for a revolutionary moment. His friendship with Yulia is a complete sham, but allows him to achieve a goal. Nothing in Peter’s world matters other than his own personal desire for chaos. Even the chaos is a mere means to an end, a way to set the stage for some kind of new world that he cannot—and perhaps does not care to—envisage. Peter’s actions are the product of a man who thinks only about the aesthetic idea of a revolution and who is prepared to do anything to achieve this vision, regardless of the moral or intellectual consequences.
The only glimpse of Peter’s post-revolutionary world is given when he is urgently pleading with Stavrogin to help the society. In truth, Stavrogin is a peripheral figure in the society. He is aware of them but contributes very little to their cause. In Peter’s distorted version of reality, Stavrogin is everything. Peter’s vision of the future is built on pure personality. He pleads with Stavrogin to aid the revolutionaries because Peter is utterly obsessed with Stavrogin, who he believes will become a kind of benevolent dictator who functions as the head of a society that Peter will orchestrate on his behalf. Peter adores Stavrogin, though the devotion is not mutual. Peter’s devotion to Stavrogin is such that he wants to collapse all of society, just to elevate Stavrogin to some new, unimaginable height. Peter disregards all of Stavrogin’s sins, just as he disregards his own. Thus, Peter’s perfect future is one built on his love for Stavrogin, rather than any true political ideology.
Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina is a big figure in a small town. As the wealthiest and most influential figure in Skvoreshniki, she dominates local politics and culture. She is also the mother of Stavrogin, regarded as an important figure in the community. Though she is wealthy and influential, her relationship to the community is often viewed only through her relationship to others, rather than as an individual in her own right. Her status in the novel is a subtle portrayal of the gender politics in 19th-century Russia, wherein even a wealthy and influential female figure was thought of in terms of being the widow to a dead husband and the mother to a charismatic son. Even though Varvara has more of an influence over the history of the town than any of her relations, she is not permitted to be a stand-alone figure in the inherently patriarchal society.
Varvara’s relationship with Stepan is complex. She is his benefactor and they have spent time together for nearly two decades. Both Stepan and Varvara have lost spouses. Now, Varvara uses her money to support the academic Stepan at a time when he is not as notable or as well-regarded as he once was. Their relationship is platonic but built on a foundation of unrequited love. At times, Varvara loathes Stepan, but she never abandons him. She tries to arrange a marriage to Dasha for him and, at the end of the novel, she tracks him down and sits at his bedside as he dies. Even after his death, she makes sure to support Sofya, whom Stepan met in his final days. Varvara’s relationship with Stepan reveals the tenderness at the heart of an indominable woman. Though she is demanding, strong-willed, and domineering, she never abandons her friend. She is aware of his love for her, and she does not indulge him, nor does she break social convention. Varvara is keenly aware of her status and role in society, but she does not allow this to curtail her dedication to her friends.
The only figure who seems to have any true influence over Varvara’s actions is her son, Stavrogin. He is a controversial figure in the town, yet Varvara refuses to entertain the idea that he may be a villain. Though she is dedicated to Stepan, she never allows her dedication to cloud her opinion of his actions. This is not the case with Stavrogin: Varvara often makes apologies for her son’s worst behavior, though she does not know the full extent of his immorality. She is willing to obfuscate her own understanding of her son because he is the only family that she has left.
Varvara’s warm opinion of her son leaves her open to manipulation. Peter recognizes this; his high praise of Stavrogin immediately ingratiates him with Varvara, despite his ill intentions and his behavior toward her beloved Stepan. In this respect, Varvara’s biggest weakness is her biggest love. Her unrelenting love for her son clouds her opinion of his actions, leading to the tragic moment when she finds his dead body. After his suicide, she can no longer delude herself as to the true nature of his actions. In tragic fashion, Varvara is forced to confront reality precisely at the moment when she loses her last living family member.
Devils is narrated from the first-person perspective of a character in the story. Though he is rarely referred to by name, the narrator does play an important role in the plot. He is friends with men like Shatov and Stepan, due to being part of the same intellectual circle. Though he is not a member of the revolutionary society, he is sympathetic to many of their concerns.
The narrator is an intelligent man and not afraid to impose his moral judgments on other characters. However, his judgment is limited to his own actions in the linear narrative, such as the time when he resigns as an usher at the literary festival. When reviewing events in retrospect, he often adopts an empathetic tone for even the evilest of acts. The narrator is not concerned with judging the people he knew, only trying to organize their actions into some kind of coherent narrative. As such, the character of the narrator is reduced to a verb: He is the narrator, and his role is to narrate. Anything else, he fears, may be bringing him too close to the chaos and blurred morality that he observed for himself during the course of the events he describes.
Important to the narrator’s role is the blend between omniscience and observance. In certain passages, the narrator is giving his firsthand account of events that he witnessed. At other times, he is assembling fragments of gossip and rumor that spread through the town. Occasionally, the narrator presents a scene that takes place between two characters in private. These moments of omniscience pierce the veil of subjective narration, blurring the line between what is true and what is invented. The narrator cannot have been present in these scenes, particularly as one or more of the characters die before the narrator meets them. Nevertheless, the narrator presents these scenes in the same fashion and style that he presents scenes where he was physically present.
This blurred line between observance and invention creates a sense of narrative chaos that mirrors the political situation in the novel. Truth is mutable and shifting, creating a reality where nothing can be wholly trusted. The narrator’s method of presentation thrusts the reader into the chaos of the town, where rumor and gossip dominate the very idea of truth, transforming reality itself into an iconoclastic demonstration of the unreliability of existence.
By Fyodor Dostoevsky
Allegories of Modern Life
View Collection
Class
View Collection
Class
View Collection
Family
View Collection
Good & Evil
View Collection
Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics
View Collection
Politics & Government
View Collection
Psychological Fiction
View Collection
Satire
View Collection
School Book List Titles
View Collection
Sexual Harassment & Violence
View Collection