faded glory, it took him a considerable amount of time to arrive at his definitive portrait of Pyotr Verkhovensky. At first, he saw him as another, though much more sinister, incarnation of Bazarov. Now called 'the Student,' he 'appears with the aim of counterfeit money, proclamations and groups of three ... Troubles his father (Granovsky) by his Nihilism, his sarcasms, contradictions. Simple, straightforward ... Rebuild the world ... Bazarov.' (italics in text) This is very far from being the Pyotr of the novel, who is anything but 'simple, straightforward', though his relation to his father will remain unchanged. Even less like the final Pyotr is another note, in capital letters: 'THE STUDENT AS A HERO OF OUR TIME'. The Student will thus be endowed with some of the Romantic, Byronic traits of Lermontov's Pechorin, the protagonist of his famous novel, A Hero of Our Time. The Prince is still in love with the Ward, and a group of three kill a character called Shaposhnikov (the later Shatov) for fear of being denounced. They attempt to throw the blame on the Prince, between whom and Shaposhnikov there is a supposed mutual hatred because the Prince has dishonored Shaposhnikov's sister (the Ward), etc., etc. (there are a plethora of plot variations that Dostoevsky tries out to motivate the accusation against the Prince). What originated as the idea of an innocent person being accused of the murder eventually becomes that of an innocent person, Kirillov, voluntarily assuming the guilt.
Once such an accusation against the Prince is made, however, this hitherto colorless and conventional Romantic prop 'immediately unravels everything ... obliges Uspensky [a member of the group of three, whose name is that of one of Nechaev's actual accomplices] to confess and firmly denounces to the Governor.' The Prince then marries the Ward, as in Envy, and Dostoevsky notes: 'The principal idea (that is, the pathos of the novel) is the Prince and the Ward - new people who have surmounted temptation and have resolved to begin a new regenerated life.' (italics in text) The problem, though, is that Dostoevsky had not given much thought earlier to the Prince, and now finds himself called upon to provide some adequate motivation for his heroic behavior. 'In general,' he writes, 'at the end of the novel nobody suspects such a strong and ardent character in the Prince'; but this implies that he would be portrayed as a mediocrity in the eyes of society throughout most of the text. To avoid such an unpromising prospect, Dostoevsky then conceives of him as a haughty aristocrat, contemptuous of all those around him, but then also endows him with a passionate religiosity. 'Despises the atheists to the point of fury, believes furiously. Wishes to be a muzhik; Old Believer.' (italics in text) With this, the political 'pamphlet' begins to move into the realm of the religious thematic to which it had been intended as an alternative.
Dostoevsky had expected that he would be able to write his 'pamphlet-novel' very quickly, but almost a year after beginning he wrote to Strakhov: 'All year I only tore up and made alterations, I blackened so many mounds of paper that I even lost my system of references for what I had written. I have modified the plan not less than ten times, and completely written the first part each time.' What was causing him so much difficulty? Part of the answer is that, once having begun to provide the Prince with a religious motivation, the character began to deepen in a way that Dostoevsky had not foreseen. Until March 1870, he had clung to his initial plan of the Prince and the Ward as 'new people', who would emerge triumphant from the the machinations of Nechaev and the ordeal of the murder; but suddenly all this is changed. After the Prince unravels the murder plot as before, and declares that 'it is necessary to believe ... [that] Russia and Russian thought will save humanity ... he [the Prince] prays before icons ... And then suddenly, he blows his brains out. -(Enigmatic personage, said to be mad).' This note turns the Prince into a genuinely tragic character, beset by a crisis of faith like 'the great sinner', and his two projects thus begin to merge in Dostoevsky's imagination.
Dostoevsky then immediately develops this new image of the Prince, who would become Stavrogin by the end of March ('stavros' in Greek means cross). In a transitional note, Dostoevsky writes: 'The Prince — a man who has become bored. Product of Russian century.' (italics added) Previously, the Prince had turned for ideological guidance to Shatov and Golubov (the real name of a writer on religious issues, a former Old Believer who had returned to Orthodoxy, and whose articles had impressed Dostoevsky); but now Golubov is dropped, and it is the Prince 'who inflames him [Shatov] with enthusiasm, but does not believe himself. A page later, there is a reference to the Prince as having 'violated a child of thirteen years of age, which created some stir'; and he is described as 'gentle, modest, quiet, infinitely proud and bestially cruel ... all the pathos of the novel in the Prince; he is the hero'. What had begun as a satirical depiction of the clash of generations, with Stepan Trofimovich and his son as the central characters, has now become one revolving around Stavrogin, who inspires others with beliefs that he does not share, and is himself 'a product of the Russian century'.
This last phrase is of considerable importance because it helps to clarify the particular social-historical coloring that Dostoevsky will give to his character. The remark about Stavrogin's 'boredom', the famous mal de siecle, links him with the Russian Byronic type first created by Pushkin in Evgeny Onegin; and like Baudelaire and many others, Dostoevsky attributed this sense of ennui to a loss of that religious faith which had previously provided a meaning to the universe and to human life. In an essay dating from 1861, in which he had defended Pushkin's creation against the charge of being merely an upper-class wastrel, Dostoevsky had seen him as the first artistic expression of a crisis of the Russian spirit - a crisis caused both by the assimilation into the Russian moral-social psyche of all the attainments of European civilization, and the realization of the European-educated upper class that this assimilation had deprived them of contact with their own native roots (which for Dostoevsky always meant the religious roots still deeply embedded in the soil of Russian peasant life). 'The skepticism of Onegin,' he had written, 'contained something tragic in its very principle, and sometimes expressed itself with malicious irony.'
This type then entered into the bloodstream of Russian culture, and produced the already-mentioned Pechorin, who combined 'an egoism extending to the limits of self-adoration, and a malicious self-contempt'. The latest avatar of this Russian Byronism is Stavrogin, whose moral-psychological attributes fit these words to perfection, but who combines them with something new - a malignancy, as the narrator of the novel puts it, that was 'cold, calm, and, if one may put it so, reasonable and therefore the most repulsive and terrible that can be'. Moreover, the creation of this Onegin-type by Pushkin, as Dostoevsky saw it, then gave birth to the epoch when 'our leading men sharply separated into two camps ... The Slavophils and the Westernizers were also a historical manifestation and in the highest degree national.' The Slavophils, whose ideas Dostoevsky largely shared, believed that Russian culture should (and would) follow an independent path quite different from that of Europe; the Westernizers believed it was essential for Russia to follow the European model of social-cultural development more and more closely. Stavrogin, as the very latest incorporation of this Onegin-type, is thus flanked by the two disciples whom he had indoctrinated, Shatov and Kirillov, and who unforgettably embody the essence of these two doctrines as Dostoevsky envisaged them (the effort to return to the religious sources of Russian life on the one hand, the triumph of a self-destructive rationalism on the other). The structure of this relationship, which has aroused some perplexity, derives from this view of the whole development of Russian cultural self-consciousness.
Dostoevsky had promised Katkov that he would begin sending chapters of his new novel by June 1870, but found himself unable to meet the deadline even though he had been piling up manuscript and constantly adding new ideas and apercus to his notes. But he was dissatisfied with what he had written, and felt that there was a problem that he had not yet solved. 'The work went slowly,' he told his niece in mid-August. 'I felt that there was an important error in the whole thing, but what it was - I could not figure out.' By that time he had written fifteen signatures (approximately 240 pages), which unfortunately have not survived in their initial form. During July, his epileptic attacks had been so frequent and so severe that he found it impossible to write at all (they usually incapacitated him for several days, sometimes as long as a week); but perhaps this respite from composition was a blessing in disguise. In any event, when he returned to his desk in August, 'I suddenly saw all at once what the trouble was, and where I had made a mistake ... a new plan appeared in all its proportions ... I struck out everything I had written ... and I began on page 1.' This does not mean, however, that Dostoevsky simply discarded his earlier manuscript; he told Katkov a month later that twelve of the fifteen signatures had been integrated into the new version, though obviously entirely rewritten.
Dostoevsky never explained to any of his correspondents what he discovered his 'mistake' to have been, but
