Fedor Dostoevsky. Overcoming Demons Saraskina Lyudmila Ivanovna

Chapter four. "Is this a feat ..."

An official at special assignments at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, actual state councilor I.II. Liprandi, whose efforts brought the “process of aspirations” to death sentences to its main participants, commented on the differences between the Petrashevists and the Decembrists: “Ordinary conspiracies are for the most part from people of the same kind, more or less close to each other in social status. For example, in the conspiracy of 1825, only the nobles participated, and moreover, mainly the military. Right there, on the contrary, along with the guards officers and officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there are students who have not finished their course, small artists, merchants, philistines, even shopkeepers selling tobacco, alongside with them.

Speshnev, a non-employee and without a rank of nobleman, was embarrassed by another in this comparison.

“The Decembrists fought in the square, among the people, and we only spoke in the room,” O. Miller quoted A. efforts, and the authorities seemed to thank the prisoners for the fact that "their criminal undertakings did not reach harmful consequences, having been timely prevented by measures from the government."

Cover of the Investigative File of F.M.Dostoevsky in Section III

Meanwhile, the Commission of Inquiry regarded Speshnev as the main malefactor; the verdict in his case branded the handsome aristocrat as an extreme revolutionary - a radical. Speshnev was listed abroad, where, for four years after the death of his beloved, he devoted himself entirely to political thought, studied the history of secret societies and, drawing on the experience of the most ancient conspirators, drew up a program of the latest closed organizations in relation to Russia. (On the eve of 1846, he wrote to his mother: “A few more days, and 1845, bye, bye, disappeared. A troubled year, an entertaining year, this year I will never forget - everything that in my youth so beautifully promised to unfold in me, - all this this year has received its positive stamp - now the intrigue is tied - the actors on the stage - now every step forward - two to the denouement. ")

Abroad, a turning point occurred that really pushed his life to a denouement: now in his aspirations he turned not to the Gospel, as in his youth, but to the works of socialists and communists, which he stubbornly studied. “Life does not lie in front of me a mystery,” he wrote to his mother, “now I know what I live on - what I want - how to do, what I want, how long it takes about time - and in the middle of my work the wind will rise and carry away me before I finished. " He seemed to have a presentiment of a tragic ending: "I bring some kind of fever into the action, as if there is not enough life to swallow everything that is written, and it's time to pause on something and do ..."

During a search, a “Draft draft of a mandatory subscription” was found in his possession; the undersigned member of the Russian Secret Society undertook strict obligations that had to be fulfilled exactly. “When the Administrative Committee of the society, realizing the strength of the society, the circumstances and the presented case, decides that the time of rebellion has come, then I undertake, without sparing myself, to take full and open participation in the uprising and fight, that is, (that) upon notification from Committee I undertake to be at the appointed hour in the place assigned to me, I undertake to appear there and there, armed with firearms or cold weapons, or both, without sparing myself, to take part in the fight and, as soon as I can, to promote the success of the uprising. "

Speshnev wrote a speech, which he read in the meeting at Petrashevsky's (the text of which was also captured during a search), with outrageous anti-state appeals. “Since our poor Russia stands, there has always been only one way of verbal dissemination - oral ... since we have only one verbal word left, I intend to use it without any shame or conscience, without any gap, for dissemination socialism, atheism, terrorism, everything, all the best in the world, and I advise you the same. "

Speshnev suggested expanding the widespread printing of books banned in Russia abroad, consulted with others about creating a home lithography, and even decided to secretly establish a printing house in his home - the materials necessary for this were purchased with his money. Speshnev discussed the possibility of an uprising in Siberia and the Urals, and if Petrashevsky was rather a zealous propagandist of social doctrines, hoping to see a phalanx in his lifetime and live in it, and also spoke out against the revolt and uprisings of the rabble, then Speshnev, on the contrary, held the most radical views.

“There are three ways to achieve any political goal,” according to Lvov and Petrashevsky, Speshnev said at their meeting, “Jesuit, secret intrigue, as suggested by Mombelli, Lvov, and partly Petrashevsky, explicit propaganda, as Debu suggests, and by open force ... If I had to act, I would have chosen the latter, and the means to this is the riot of the peasants! "

Dostoevsky became close to Speshnev at a time when the reputation of a "remarkably educated, cultured and well-read" (Petrashevsky) man who "doomed himself to serve humanitarian ideas" (Semenov) had already settled down: he had a reputation and called himself a communist, he talked about nationalization land and industry, about equalizing the rights of all classes and the abolition of class privileges. His name was implicated in all the dangerous undertakings of the Petrashevites, he tried to support all attempts that could lead to a real revolutionary cause. “Everywhere he, Speshnev, was like an honored guest,” the judges reported, “that's why they always invited him, knowing that he was a socialist, and socialism was in vogue in this society. Hastening ... must have seemed very interesting. "

It is unlikely, however, that he could captivate young Dostoevsky only by reading the works of socialists and communists - Theodor Dezami, Wilhelm Weitling, Karl Marx (it is known that Speshnev took "The Poverty of Philosophy" from Petrashevsky's public library). Dostoevsky's words - "this gentleman is too strong and not like Petrashevsky" - meant much more than just a compliment of erudition: from the first moment Speshnev attracted the attention of people who were very far from artistic exaltation. “His appearance and constant silence amazed me,” the gold miner P. A. Chernosvitov, who was involved in the trial, testified during the investigation.

This manner of thoughtful, keenly observant, but tacit presence on crowded “Fridays” by Petrashevsky; this fearless, hidden - tense and calm attention, which he gave to his chosen interlocutors, never mingling with them; this magnificent tone of secular courtesy and restrained simplicity, which acted disarmingly on those whom he brought closer to him - everything about him was natural and was given to him without any effort. “He stood in the midst of the aforementioned persons completely independently, he did not need anyone, while others needed him; spoke little, spent most of his time reading his books and must have seemed like a mysterious person; he was sometimes harsh in words, so that they did not hide in front of him, and managed to recognize all the inner thoughts in order to find out for himself with whom he was in relations. " In this excerpt from the all-subject report addressed to the sovereign, behind the dry protocol phrases, there was an involuntary respect of the court for the gift of personal influence that the defendant possessed.

When Speshnev wanted to show his affection for Dostoevsky, this was received, apparently, with anxious and enthusiastic emotion; however, very soon the chosen one appeared before the patron exactly in the role that was assigned to him: agitator, propagandist, recruiter.

One of the first researchers of this topic reasonably asked the question: “Which of us will dare to precisely define the complex of feelings and thoughts that worried Dostoevsky during the night scene described by Maikov? Was he thinking about one printing house, sitting on the bed in the Socratic position, "in a nightgown with an open collar"? In what did he see the "holiness" of the deed and the "duty" to save the fatherland? "

The list of questions should probably be continued. Why did Dostoevsky himself keep a deaf silence about this all his life? Why didn't you want to leave notes or memories? Why did the personality and even the name of Speshnev become - in fact, the biography of the writer - a kind of taboo topic? After all, there was just that case when Dostoevsky could with good reason (like his characters, Shatov and Kirillov) exclaim: "Remember what you meant in my life, Speshnev."

But Speshnev - if we proceed from the given analogy - he had to respond sparingly and restrainedly to such calls; this is exactly how, apparently, he appeared already in his advanced years before A. And Speshnev, from whom it would be reasonable to expect some unique details about their general youth, could only say: “F. M. never seemed young, as he looked sickly. " As Lvov and Petrashevsky testified in their "Memorandum", "Speshnev subsequently generally refused all conversations concerning the case," and "was wrapped in a cloak of mystery."

In February 1860 A. N. Pleshcheev, Dostoevsky's closest friend, who belonged with him to a narrow circle of lucky people, to whom Speshnev gave his attention and affection, wrote to St. Petersburg to N. A. Dobrolyubov: but also by the arrival of one person very dear to my heart - Speshnev; he is traveling from Siberia with Muravyov and will certainly be at Chernyshevsky's, whom he wishes to meet. I gave him your address too. I recommend this person to you, who, besides big mind, also possesses a quality - unfortunately, too rare in our country: for him, word always went hand in hand with deed. He constantly brought his convictions into life. It's in high degree honest character and strong will. We can say positively that of all ours, this is the most wonderful person. "

Obviously: Pleshcheev, ten years after his arrest, remained in the same thoughts and feelings and assumed that Dostoevsky also retained his unchanged loyalty to the idol of his youth. Apparently, he was very wrong.

During the entire decade since Dostoevsky returned to St. Petersburg, the image of "a person very dear to his heart" (these words about Speshnev Dostoevsky could say in 1849 with much more reason than his friend Pleshcheev) seemed to be safely hidden in depths of memory - as if a ban were imposed on this memory.

But, perhaps, it was precisely the artist's instinct that guarded him from premature memories, which did not allow the rarest and most precious impression to be wasted before the deadline and without a creative goal. When such a date came and the goal appeared, the captivating image, kept in the soul, declared itself; then Dostoevsky was able to say: "I took him from my heart."

In the old and already mentioned dispute between Grossman and Polonsky about the prototype of Stavrogin, there was one point on which both opponents unconditionally agreed - the very concept of a prototype. “Living faces are not deeply similar to the romantic images that they engendered,” asserted Grossman, in which Polonsky readily agreed with him. - They give only the first impetus to the artist's imagination, which then acts autonomously, transforms the embryo of life, gives it an original development and finally deduces from it an artistic image so original and new that the primary source of life completely recedes and the similarity between reality and fiction is sometimes smoothed out. beyond recognition. The artist acts here according to some higher arbitrariness, which are the categorical laws of his creative concept, his general style, his philosophical or other tendencies; he takes from a living person those features that these laws of the creative process require, discarding the rest and freely transforming the personality, fate and character of a living and genuine original. "

it expressive definition nevertheless, it did not help Grossman to prove that the prototype of Stavrogin was Bakunin, perhaps because Dostoevsky's biographer liked to look for (and find!) similarities in everything. But in the case of Speshnev, where the similarity was difficult to dispute, something else turned out to be more interesting. The author was interesting, creating arbitrariness over reality; interesting is the tendency for the sake of which reality has been distorted or transformed. The arbitrariness itself is also interesting - the violence that Dostoevsky could perform over the personality and fate of his Mephistopheles, when he felt that such an experiment was within his power.

The fundamental difference between the prototype, Speshnev, and the hero, Stavrogin, which was recorded in the process of transforming the original into fantasy, became a means of mastering the demonically predatory type and - liberation from it.

At the same time, it was also a liberation from himself - the one about which Dostoevsky wrote to his brother on the day of the civil execution: “How I look back at the past and think how much time was wasted in vain, how much of it was lost in delusions, in mistakes, in idleness, in inability to live; just as I did not value him, how many times I sinned against my heart and spirit, - so my heart bleeds ”.

"An aristocrat, when he goes to democracy, is charming!" - proclaimed in the novel Peter Verkhovensky.

Twenty years before the events of The Demons, Dostoevsky held this opinion too - seeing Speshnev in front of him. And that was a mistake, a fundamental fallacy.

Leaving for Stavrogin all the charm of aristocracy, all the luxurious bouquet of masculine beauty, sensual energy and demonic charm, Dostoevsky subjected his status as a revolutionary conspirator to a total revision: from the communist Speshnev, his artistic double got almost nothing.

With respect, historians reported that after leaving the Lyceum Speshnev read only social and political - economic literature. The possible influence of Marxist writings on him was investigated with even greater respect: The Communist Manifesto, published in early 1848, could hypothetically be familiar to him already. That is, if Speshnev had been in Europe at the time of the publication of the Manifesto, and not in his Kursk estate due to economic troubles, he would certainly have read the most revolutionary document of the era.

Stavrogin, who committed suicide on an October evening in 1869, twenty years after the civil execution over Speshnev and Dostoevsky, was no longer interested in Marxism: a comrade in the "common cause", having visited Nikolai Vsevolodovich in his house, instead of Marx, Fourier, or at least Louis Blanc ( which Dostoevsky, under the influence of Speshnev, read himself and offered to read to his brother Mikhail) drew attention only to the album with pictures of "Balzac's Women" - a gorgeous kipsek, hurt by a fidgety nihilist, fell noisily to the floor.

Of the extensive verdict in the Speshnev case, which contained the most serious accusations ("intent to make a riot," "an attempt to establish a secret society for this purpose," "making assumptions about the production of an uprising"), very little also got into Stavrogin's dossier. Closely converging abroad with the son of his tutor, Peter Verkhovensky, who founded a certain political circle, he "partly participated in the reorganization of society according to a new plan, and nothing more."

The vague expression "partially participated" was determined by one - the only point: the organization adopted a charter, written personally by Nikolai Vsevolodovich - despite the fact that the skill of drawing up statutory political documents was, as it were, inherited from the prototype.

Comparison of the mode of action and motives of the revolutionary behavior of Speshnev and Stavrogin, two aristocrats who went to democracy, revealed that Dostoevsky was a much more knowledgeable Petrashevist - or rather, a Speshnevite - than he showed this during the investigation.

Stavrogin in a night scene with Shatov explained: “In the strict sense, I do not belong to this society at all, I did not belong before and much more than you have the right to leave them, because I did not enter. On the contrary, from the very beginning I declared that I was not a friend to them, and if I helped them by chance, then only as an idle person. "

Now it is no longer possible to establish what exactly Dostoevsky could have heard from Speshnev, often visiting him and almost every time he came to find him alone (as Dostoevsky asserted in the investigative testimony). It is all the more impossible to prove (or disprove) that he heard Speshnev, the number one revolutionary, communist and radical, confessions similar to Stavrogin's. Most likely, he really did not hear them, because Speshnev could not say anything like that to him.

But here is how Speshnev's testimony, written by him under pressure from the investigation, sounded in the retelling of the audience general: “He, Speshnev, has no obligation (in relations with society - L. C.) never would have allowed, not wanting to be associated with anyone; he always tried to sharply raise this question, and when he made sure that he would remain completely free and that this was a simple invitation, then he agreed to visit one or another society ”. And here is what a special opinion about Speshnev and the motives of his behavior was expressed by the Investigative Commission: “Speshnev, proud and rich, seeing his pride dissatisfied, wanted to play a role between his pupils (that is, lyceum comrades). He did not have a deep political conviction, was not exclusively addicted to any of the socialist systems, did not strive, like Petrashevsky, constantly and persistently, to achieve his liberal goals; he was engaged in plans and conspiracies as if out of nothing to do; he left them on a whim, out of laziness, for some sort of contempt for his comrades, too, in his opinion, young or poorly educated - and after that he was ready to take up the same thing again, to take up, to leave again ”.

Meanwhile, The Demons contained convincing proof that Speshnev's Project was well known to Dostoevsky: as if mocking the very essence of the concept of “affiliation,” the novel's recruiters acted publicly, in front of random and almost unfamiliar people. “I have not yet affiliated exactly anyone, and no one about me has the right to say that I am an affiliate, and we just talked about opinions,” Pyotr Verkhovensky justified.

But suppose Dostoevsky somehow managed to read Speshnev's "Project" - either before his arrest, or during interrogations, when the defendants were presented with a document for identification, or later, in 1861, when it was published by Herzen in "Pole Star". But how could the author of "Demons" know about what was going on between Speshnev and Petrashevsky in private?

Giving testimony to the Investigative Commission about Chernosvitov, Speshnev described in detail one extremely curious scene. "Petrashevsky came in something very out of sorts, did not go further than my front hall, asked:" What is it? " And when we went out into the street, I told him that Chernosvitov wants to talk with me and with him. "Only I will pretend that I am the head of a whole party," I added, "please, and you do the same, otherwise he will not say anything." - "Well, what is it for?" - Petrashevsky answered me somewhat with heart. “Well, as you like,” I told him. My position was becoming difficult. We were silent all the way, and at the end I asked Petrashevsky: does he have anything against me? He replied that he never had anything against anyone. "

Petrashevsky confirmed Speshnev's testimony, and the whole scene - in retelling - was included in the report of the audience general. “When Petrashevsky came to him, Speshnev, when they went out into the street, he, Speshnev, having announced to Petrashevsky about Chernosvitov’s desire to talk to them, said that he, Speshnev, would pretend that he was the head of a whole party, and suggested that Petrashevsky do the same however, on the assumption that Chernosvitov in this case will speak to them. But Petrashevsky did not like this proposal. "

If Speshnev had never before and no one (except investigators and judges) talked about himself as a revolutionary on a whim and a communist out of idleness, then Dostoevsky could not have known about it: neither Speshnev's investigative testimony, nor the conclusions of the commission, nor the report of the general audience in the name of the sovereign, he did not read and could not read due to the secrecy of the documents. This means: either the usually silent Speshnev was at some moment just as frank with Dostoevsky as Stavrogin was with Shatov, or the "reverent" chosen one, admitted to a dangerously close distance, guessed a painful secret coldly - a silent master, whose political whims he, as a dependent person, he was forced to fulfill.

Speshnev's Draft Draft of Mandatory Subscription for those entering the Russian Secret Society contained a very expressive third point about affiliations, that is, about joining the society of new members. The word “afilation” (as in Speshnev), used by him five times in one paragraph (to affilate, afilate, afilator, etc.), could not be forgotten by a member of society familiar with the “Project”, especially since it contained an important instruction: “I undertake from everyone who is affiliated with me to take a written commitment that he will rewrite from word to word these very conditions that I am giving here, everything from the first to the last word, and sign them. I, having sealed his written commitment, give it to my affilator for delivery to the Committee, the latter to his, and so on. For this, I rewrite for myself one copy of these conditions and keep it with me, as a form for the affilation of others. "

However, Speshnev, admitting that the "Project" was written by him with his own hand, categorically asserted that the seditious paper he found was not a copy, but the original, or rather, even a sketch of the original. He swore that he had never discussed this "Project" with anyone and had not shown it to anyone "and only he alone in the whole world can give an explanation about this paper."

“In the papers of the other persons accused in this case, no one had a copy of the obligatory signature found on the defendant Speshnev, and when they questioned those of them who had closer relations with Speshnev, they responded that they did not know about the existence of this paper at all ", - commented in the audit report.

Preserving almost exactly the scenario of the episode (Verkhovensky comes to Stavrogin, and then together they go to Virginsky, to a meeting of "ours"; a dispute arises between them on the way), Dostoevsky gave Verkhovensky, not Stavrogin, a humiliating initiative.

“- You, of course, put me there as some kind of member from abroad, in relations with the Internationale, an auditor? Stavrogin asked suddenly.

No, not an auditor; the auditor will not be you; but you are a founder member from abroad, who knows the most important secrets - that is your role ... Enough, you have come. Compose? Ka your physiognomy, Stavrogin; I always compose when I enter them. More gloominess, and nothing else is needed; a very simple thing. "

If, for example, Dostoevsky heard the story from one of its three participants (the third was Chernosvitov, to whom Petrashevsky told that “Speshnev, wishing to interest him more, Chernosvitov, intended to introduce himself to him as the head of the Communist Party in Russia, and this is he, Chernosvitov, considered it ill-intentioned and outrageous ”), why did he radically change the role of Speshnev in it, actually whitewashing him? Or did he deliberately not want to so primitively lose the dignity of an aristocrat who had associated with a revolutionary rabble, even if this aristocrat himself had smeared himself with an attempt at a shameful farce?

The "Note on the Petrashevtsy Affair", drawn up by Lvov and Petrashevsky, contained an important remark about Speshnev and his behavior during the investigation. “The tone of his testimony was the tone of mockery - contempt for almost everyone involved in this case. He wanted to show that it was impossible to conceive a serious matter with such insignificant people and that he alone had criminal intentions between them, and turned away from these youth because he could not find support in them. He supposed, perhaps, that he would save others by this and that one would become an interesting sacrifice. "

Speshnev did not like the company that was gathering at Petrashevsky's place and, as he admitted during the investigation, seemed to him somehow rude and uneducated. Speshnev interpreted the visit to Speshnev by Pleshnev and Dostoevsky, who once appeared with a proposal to converge with a narrow circle of acquaintances in another place, and not at Petrashevsky, where, in their opinion, full of spies, Speshnev interpreted as fear of the police; the idea of ​​such safe gatherings, Speshnev believed, "was born of timid people who just wanted to talk, but were afraid that they might get it for every word."

It is unlikely that Dostoevsky completely escaped the fate of the despised one, although under Speshnev he was his agitator; However, knowing well the motives of Speshnev's arrogant treatment of timid and cowardly members of the circle, he radically changed these motives, depriving them of any heroism and revolutionary romanticism. In general, it turned out that the role of the aristocrat, who was huddled among political propagators and agitators, over the twenty years that divided the Petrashevites and the Nechaevites, underwent painful changes: it became smaller, vulgarized, approached pure criminality.

Or - the attitude of Dostoevsky's former speshnevsky to such a charming figure for him has radically changed.

Stavrogin, freed from the communist illusions of Speshnev and his radical plans, strongly corrected the image of the prototype; devoid of the aura of a hero - a martyr for a just cause, he also lost a significant share of Speshnev's unique charm.

Stavrogin in his dying letter to Dasha admitted: “Do you know that I looked even at our deniers with malice, out of envy for their hopes? But you were in vain to be afraid: I could not be a comrade here, for I did not share anything. And for laughter, out of spite, I also could not, and not because I was afraid of the funny - I cannot be afraid of the funny - but because I still have the habits of a decent person and I felt cold. But if I had more anger and envy towards them, then maybe I would have gone with them. "

Giving testimony to the Investigative Commission, Dostoevsky, freed from any external influences by a lone camera, spoke almost the same thing and in the same words. Denying his guilt as a radical and revolutionary extremist, but not stigmatizing others well-known to him, he argued: “I don't think there is a lover of Russian revolt in Russia ... Everything that was good in Russia, starting with Peter Great, all that constantly came out from above, from the throne, and from below until now nothing has been shown except perseverance and ignorance. This opinion of mine is known to many of those who know me. "

It is interesting, however, whether Speshnev knew this opinion of Dostoevsky?

To the question of the investigation: "Since when and on what occasion has a liberal or social trend manifested in you?" - Dostoevsky, assuring that he was never a socialist, but only loved to study social issues, answered bluntly? in the same Stavrogin way: "I never had anger and bile in me."

Under the pen of Dostoevsky, Speshnev's personality was transformed in such a way that the extreme radicalism of an aristocrat - a communist was either psychologically impossible or simply ridiculous. And Stavrogin, drawn into the society of conspirators on an idle whim, turned out to be almost the main denouncer of “ours”; Openly despising them, demonstrating disobedience to the political leader and protesting against the terrorist act, he retroactively corrected mistakes - those that Dostoevsky recognized both for himself and for Speshnev.

However, simply to moderate the revolutionary ambitions of Stavrogin-Speshnev and de-heroize the plot did not seem enough to Dostoevsky. A larger-scale satisfaction was required, a more decisive revision of the "past history", as Dostoevsky called the history of the Petrashevists. The author's fantasy invaded the real events of past years and reshaped them, attributing to the participants such actions that they were then incapable of - out of timidity, weakness, or thoughtlessness.

And so Shatov, a student and henchman of Stavrogin (the real relationship between Dostoevsky and Speshnev was clearly oriented towards this pair), in the strongest shock, almost maddened, shouted inconceivable, unheard-of words in the face of his idol: “You, you, Stavrogin, how could you have lost yourself into such shameless, mediocre lackey absurdity! You are a member of their society! Is this a feat of Nikolai Stavrogin! he cried, almost in despair. He even threw up his hands, as if nothing could be more bitter and cheerless for him. "

Presumably, at the moment when the lines were written so painful for Dostoevsky, the singer of music, they may have come as a surprise to himself. It must be assumed that in those days when he was still with his Mephistopheles and was his, he did not dare to such insolence. But he was able to utter these words, being in another dimension, at a different point in time and space - where Speshnev and Stavrogin, Shatov and he, Dostoevsky, a former member of the small Speshnev circle, where he recruited Maykov on behalf of Speshnev, came together to “ to make a coup in Russia ”.

"Is this a feat of Nikolai Stavrogin!" - exclaimed Shatov; logically and for justice's sake, Dostoevsky could, having in mind the story of prototypes, continue the list of names, including at least both Speshnev and himself. This was demanded by the debt of memory and the understanding of the Plot, which arose at the intersection of two plans and two conspiracies - a novel about his revolutionary youth and a pamphlet about the political spite of the day.

It is significant that traces of the old monetary debt were found in The Possessed.

“… I know,” Stavrogin explained to Shatov, “that you joined this society abroad, two years ago, and even with its old organization, just before your trip to America and, it seems, immediately after our last conversation about which you wrote so much to me from America in your letter. By the way, excuse me for not answering you with a letter too, but limited myself to ...

Sending money; wait, ”Shatov stopped, hastily pulled out a drawer from the table and took out from under the papers a rainbow banknote note,“ here, take the hundred rubles that you sent me; without you I would have died there. I would not have given it for a long time if it were not for your mother: she gave me these hundred rubles nine months ago for poverty, after my illness. "

It is important that the beggar Shatov gave out of his last money, actually from alms, the very amount that he borrowed at the last minute - for him a hundred rubles was the same gigantic money as five hundred for Dostoevsky. It is important that Stavrogin accepted the debts of his debtors in money, not in services. The novel corrected reality: the heroes, taught by the bitter experience of prototypes, in especially scrupulous cases, tried to behave more strictly and more circumspectly.

Loudly reverberated in the novel and another mysterious story, dating back to the events of twenty years ago.

From the testimony of the accused Speshnev: “Under the influence of conversations in Durov's company, he, Speshnev, decided to set up a printing house for himself and begged the accused Filippov to order different parts of the printing press. However, as always, as soon as he began to fulfill his evil intention, he began to reflect and tried only to get all the things from Filippov so that they would not remain in his hands. "

Filippov objected to Speshnev. “He, Filippov, two weeks before his arrest, set out to set up not a lithograph, but a printing house and act independently and in secret from others, intending to collect and distribute by printing such works that could not be printed with the permission of the censorship. To this end, he, Filippov, borrowed money from Speshnev and ordered the necessary things for the printing house, of which some had already been brought to Speshnev and left, upon his call, in his apartment. This intent does not concern any circle and any persons, except for him, Filippov, and Speshnev, for both of them made it possible to keep this matter in the greatest secret. "

Speshnev nevertheless insisted that the idea of ​​establishing a printing house belonged to him, and not to Filippov, and that Filippov in vain in this case takes the blame.

The degree of sincerity of the confessions of both Speshnev and Filippov could be judged from Maikov's letter, already partially quoted here. “Subsequently, I learned that a printing manual press was ordered according to a drawing by Filippov in different parts of the city and a day or two before the arrest it was demolished and assembled in the apartment of one of the participants, Mordvinov ... When he was arrested and searched at his place, this machine they did not pay attention, he had various physical and other instruments and apparatus in his office, but the door was sealed.

Conclusion of the Auditor General in the case of F.M.Dostoevsky

Upon the departure of the Commission and the withdrawal of Mordvinov, his family managed, without damaging the seals, to remove the doors from the hinges and stole the machine. Thus, the evidence was destroyed. The Commission knew nothing about this whole case, Petrashevsky did not know either, and of all those who avoided arrest, I was the only one who knew.

The printing house, which was not found during the search, did not burden the guilt of Speshnev (who gave money for its production), Filippov (who made the drawings and ordered parts of the machine in various workshops of St. Petersburg for conspiracy), Mordvinov (whose apartment the machine was assembled), Dostoevsky (among others participants in the speshnevskaya seven dedicated to the essence of the case), nevertheless, contrary to Maikov's assertion, it was not destroyed. Its traces were discovered much earlier than it was written (1885), and even more so for the first time published (1922) the famous letter from Maikov to Viskovatov with sensational details on the case of Dostoevsky's speshnevsky.

Stolen by the family of Senator Mordvinov from the room of his son, a member of the Durov and Speshnev circles, the printing house had been out of business for twenty years in order to emerge at the behest of one of the circle members under special circumstances. Collected in 1849, but never used, a manual machine, obeying Dostoevsky's artistic imagination, became in his novel a means of blackmail and a pretext for political murder.

“You ... were instructed to accept here, in Russia,” Stavrogin explained to Shatov, warning of the imminent danger, “from someone, some sort of printing house and keep it until handing over to the person who will come to you from them ... Are you, in hope or under on condition that this will be their last demand and that after that they will let you go completely, they took it up ... But what you still don't seem to know: these gentlemen do not intend to part with you at all. "

And Shatov, who dared to break with "these gentlemen", had to "hand over the machine and letters and old papers." The "gentlemen" had to "lure Shatov, in order to surrender the secret printing house that was with him, to that secluded place where it was buried" in order to "order" there. The young man Erkel, having come to Shatov to "lure" him, announced to him: "You have a machine that does not belong to you and in which you owe a report, as you know yourself." In the context of a long past history, the words of a fanatical circle member sounded like heavy evidence against the accused Dostoevsky.

Another fragment of the dialogue between Shatov and Erkel could serve not only as evidence, but as an actual confession of complicity in the assembly of the machine tool at Mordvinov's apartment.

“- How do you take (the machine. - L. S.)? After all, it cannot be picked up and carried away at once.

And it won't be necessary. You will only indicate the place, and we will only make sure that it is really buried here. We only know where this place is, we do not know the place itself. Have you pointed out the place to someone else?

Shatov looked at him.

You, then, you, then, such a boy - such a stupid boy - did you climb in there with your head, like a ram? Eh, yes, they need this kind of juice! "

For everyone who then managed to avoid punishment, or, having deceived the investigation, to reduce its size, Shatov now had to pay. At the very moment when he, lured into a "secluded place", pointed out where to dig, and exclaimed: "Well, where is your spade here and is there still another lantern?" - three knocked him down and pressed him to the ground; a minute before the action, the question of the fate of the machine was really being decided between its performers.

“- If I’m not mistaken, will the printing house be transferred first? ..

Well, of course, do not lose the same thing ... Let him show only to you the point where he is buried here; then we'll dig it ourselves ... "

For some reason, however, the conspirators, covering their tracks, never dug up a valuable "thing"; giving the most frank testimony to the investigation, they did not even mention the printing press - as if it had never existed.

As a matter of fact, he really was not here; there was a phantom, a mystery, at one time, apparently, which tormented Dostoevsky a lot; Now, years ago, the mystery was no longer so dangerous; moreover, artistic evidence could hardly be used legally against the author or his former fellow dealers. With a clear conscience, he could now exclaim after the member of the five Virginsky, who was almost delighted at the arrest: "My heart has fallen."

…O. F. Miller wrote about the amazing complacency with which Dostoevsky, imprisoned in a fortress, reacted to his position. “According to FM's own words, he would have gone mad if not for the catastrophe that turned his life around. An idea came up that made health and self-care a trifle. "

If by the saving idea was meant a penitent detachment from the grave mistakes of his youth, he had to learn not to regret the past, but to artistically transform it. Only here, in the infinity of novelistic fiction, where he was the master of the situation and master of the conversation, there was a chance not only to pay, but also to receive the bills.

“Understand,” Pyotr Stepanovich shouted to Nikolai Vsevolodovich, “that your account is now too large, and I cannot refuse you! There is no other on earth like you! "

Dostoevsky also had his own reasons for such statements. His account for Stavrogin was also too great - much more than the mere political "exploits" of Nikolai Vsevolodovich and his prototype were worth.

Chapter Four On the procedure for appointing and removing rural and volost officials, their rights and responsibilities From the positions of the peasant administration, some are replaced by choice, while others, according to

Chapter Four About Recruitment 192. The peasants who came out of serfdom and who are in the same volost, even if they were settled on the lands of different owners, form one land plot after conscription. Before the formation of parishes