5. Prose of Russian Symbolists: "The Little Demon" by Fyodor Sologub

On the individual

Today we are starting a conversation about symbolist prose and talk about the novel by Fyodor Sologub "Small Demon". Sologub is a pseudonym, in fact this man's name was Fedor Kuzmich Teternikov, he was born in 1863 and died in 1927. In age, he was older than not only many of the younger Symbolists, but also older Symbolists. He almost never took part in what is sometimes called the "storm and onslaught of symbolism", i.e. he published in symbolist journals, but wrote almost nothing polemical articles, did not sign manifestos and in general was, as they say, an individual. He is remembered as a gloomy, extremely scrupulous, strict person.

However, life did not spoil him. He was born in a deep province. He had a very strict mother and a very strict sister. He suffered a lot from his mother and sister, whom, however, he loved very much.

After graduating from high school, he began to teach in the provinces. He is remembered as a rather strict, if not picky, teacher. He taught in the Novgorod and Pskov provinces. Then, approximately, he began to write poetry and prose - in addition to being a prose writer, he was also a wonderful poet. And his first poems were inspired mainly by the poetry of the idol of that time, Semyon Yakovlevich Nadson, about whom we have already talked a little and will talk more. And even in The Little Demon, when the heroine asks the hero who his favorite poet is, he replies: “Of course Nadson!”

"But it only seemed"

In 1895, Sologub wrote the novel "Heavy Dreams", which was just related to the theme provincial life, teaching in the province. In 1903, Sologub's book, a collection of poems, was published. By this time he had already moved to St. Petersburg. And, finally, in a year of crisis for Russia, in the year of the first Russian revolution, in 1905 Sologub published his novel The Petty Demon.

This novel was a huge success. It was read in perfect different layers. This is one of the few symbolist texts that was immediately accepted not only in a narrow circle of readers modernist literature, but in general in a very wide environment. But, as it seems, this novel was not quite adequately understood even then, and now it is also not always correctly perceived by the reader. Let's remember how this novel begins, let's remember the first paragraph of "Small Demon".

“After the festive mass, the parishioners went home. Others stopped in the fence, behind the white stone walls, under the old lindens and maples, and talked. Everyone dressed up in a festive way, looked at each other affably, and it seemed that in this city they live peacefully, and amicably, and even cheerfully. But it only seemed so."

As a matter of fact, the rest of the novel is devoted to exposing this appearance, this appearance. The novel is dedicated to what really happened, what did not seem. And it seems that this provokes the reader to perceive Sologub's text as a work that continues the traditions of great classical Russian literature. Indeed, we remember a large number of texts, a large number of works that are devoted to the description, as Gorky said, “ lead abominations» life in the Russian provinces.

I remember, of course, Saltykov-Shchedrin with his satirical works, Dostoevsky is also remembered as the author of "Demons", and this is just a title that echoes the title of Sologub's novel "Small Demon".

I remember, of course, Chekhov with his "Man in a Case" and other works. Let me remind you that in Sologub's novel the main character is school teacher, as in Chekhov's story "The Man in the Case".

Moreover, the text is full of references to classical Russian literature. For example, Princess Volchanskaya, one of Sologub's off-text characters, who does not appear on stage in the novel, but is often mentioned, of course, reminds of Pushkin's "Queen of Spades", and the image of a masquerade in which a bear appears may make some readers recall famous stage home holiday in "Eugene Onegin" and the episode preceding this scene is also famous - Tatiana's dream. As we remember, there the heroine is carried away by a bear. Here the bear also carries away one of the main characters. Those. the novel is indeed extremely densely saturated with references to Russian classical literature and is often perceived as, I repeat, a continuation of this great tradition. Like another text written within this great tradition of revelation. And often this novel is defined as a novel about the absurdities of Russian provincial life. late XIX century. This is almost a classic definition.

However, if we begin to read this novel attentively, if we begin to read The Little Demon attentively, then we will see one very important thing. We will see that, in the words of Sologub himself, "all this only seemed to be." It just seems that this novel fits into the tradition of Russian classical literature. In fact, Sologub does not so much continue this tradition as parodies it very evilly, ridicules it very evilly. And just as we read this novel—which is partly why it is chosen for this lecture—we see how realistic direction, whatever we understand by this word, enters into some conflict right on the pages of the novel with a new symbolist, modernist, decadent direction. And to begin with, I propose a little understanding of how all parts of this definition work, or rather, how they do not work in this novel: a novel about the absurdity of Russian provincial life at the end of the 19th century. Let's start with the word "provincial".

Provincial city?

Indeed, we know, we see that the action of the novel takes place in some provincial town, there is no name for it, as is often the case in Russian literature. But at the same time, it is very curious that in the novel there is no, there is no opposition “province – capital”, traditional for Russian literature, which, in fact, as it seems, only gives meaning to this exposure of the province, that there is a province, but there is some other .

Well, remember Chekhov, "Three Sisters": "To Moscow! To Moscow! To Moscow!" - some albeit fantastic some kind of land, some kind of fantastic space where people rush best heroes which are opposed to this inert life. Sologub did all this quite cunningly.

Petersburg seems to be mentioned in the novel. Here is the same Princess Volchanskaya, whom she dreams of marrying main character novel Peredonov, lives in St. Petersburg. She once - again outside the novel - sent some letters to the hero. However, firstly, none of these letters are mentioned in the novel. And, secondly, Peredonov so often fantasizes about this very Volchanskaya, her features take on more and more some kind of fantastic appearance, and in the end it becomes incomprehensible to the reader whether this Princess Volchanskaya exists at all or does not exist.

A remarkable and important episode in this respect is the episode when the characters go on a short journey. Peredonov rides in a cart with secondary characters novel. He goes on this journey, they describe to us in detail the beginning of this journey, how they leave the city, it is described how they go along the road, and then everything ends. The reception is somewhat similar: we see that the heroes, leaving the city, do not end up anywhere. Nothing is reported either about where they arrived, or about how they returned, they find themselves, as it were, in an absolute void.

Parody on the theme of "small motherland"

It is even more interesting how the novel parodies a very important topic for classical Russian literature. small homeland, which is often contrasted with the capital St. Petersburg or the capital Moscow. I even read this piece. Two heroes, Peredonov and the second one, such a parody, such a comic ... Yes, all the characters there are so scary. Such a scary comic character, a teacher named Volodin. And they have such a dialogue. (Ardalyon Borisovich is Peredonov's name.)

“Listen, Ardalyon Borisych, what I wanted to tell you,” Volodin began. - All the way I thought about how not to forget, and I almost forgot.

Well? asked Peredonov sullenly.

You like sweet things, - Volodin said joyfully, - but I know such food that you will lick your fingers.

I know all the tasty dishes myself,” said Peredonov.

Volodin made an offended face.

Perhaps, - he said, - you, Ardalyon Borisych, know all the tasty dishes that are made in your homeland, but how can you know all the tasty dishes that are made in my homeland, if you have never been to my homeland ?

And, pleased with the persuasiveness of his objection, Volodin laughed and bleated.

In your homeland they eat dead cats,” said Peredonov angrily.

Allow me, Ardalyon Borisych,” Volodin said in a shrill and laughing voice, “perhaps in your homeland they deign to eat dead cats, we will not touch on this, but you never ate erlov.”

Well, and so on. We see that this topic arises - a small homeland, it is discussed what foods are eaten in Volodin's homeland, and which ones are eaten in some other places, but right there, and this is typical for Sologub's novel, this topic, having arisen, is ridiculed. So high, so lyrical theme small homeland leads to a buffoonish, buffoonish, denying it, destroying this topic, dialogue between the characters.

Russian life at the end of the 19th century?

So, from this definition, as it seems, the word “provincial” should be removed, because we are talking not only about provincial life, because another life, I repeat once again, metropolitan life is simply not described in the novel. Now let's see what happens to Russian life. And, in general, we will actually see the same thing, the same similar picture. Despite the fact that the characters have Russian surnames, they eat porridge, here you are, but there is no special such specificity, pressure that we are talking about Russian life, in the novel. Again, since there are no other alternatives - another life, some better life– does not appear in the novel.

And finally, "the end of the XIX century." Again, all sorts of words associated with this era are used in the novel. In the novel in question about some reforms that were carried out at that time, etc. But it is arranged in such a way that only being mentioned, this topic is immediately discredited, immediately becomes meaningless, unimportant, unimportant. In other words, the focus of the Russian great literature on sociality, on the specific conditions of life in Russia at the end of the 19th century, in the provinces in the novel means almost nothing.

Here is one more very specific interesting example. The fact is that just the story of Chekhov, which we have already recalled, the story "The Man in the Case", was written at the height of Sologub's work on the novel "Small Demon". One can imagine how Sologub, I repeat once again, is a gloomy, gloomy person, how angry he got when he read this story. Chekhov, as it were, intercepted his theme. And, apparently, it was impossible for him not to react in any way to the release of this story. He understood that otherwise the critics would have begun to reproach him for being secondary, for imitating Chekhov, for somehow repeating Chekhov in his text. And he introduces into the novel an episode in which the characters discuss Chekhov's story "The Man in the Case", and discuss it again in such a way that literally nothing remains of this story. The fact is that this teacher Volodin, out of his stupidity, is wooing an educated young lady. Here is the dialogue between them:

“She saw that only one conversation was possible - city gossip. But Nadezhda Vasilyevna nevertheless made one more attempt.

Have you read "The Man in the Case" by Chekhov? she asked. - Isn't it, how aptly?

Since she turned to Volodin with this question, he grinned pleasantly and asked:

Is this an article or a novel?

A story, - Nadezhda Vasilievna explained.

Mr. Chekhov, you deigned to say? Volodin inquired.

Yes, Chekhova, - said Nadezhda Vasilievna and grinned.

Where is this placed? Volodin continued to inquire.

In "Russian Thought," the young lady answered kindly.

Which room? Volodin interrogated.

I don’t remember well, in some kind of summer,” Nadezhda Vasilyevna answered, just as kindly, but with some surprise.

And in the living room, meanwhile, Volodin comforted the hostess with a promise to get the May issue of Russkaya Mysl without fail (by the way, Sologub gave the number incorrectly) and read Mr. Chekhov's story. Peredonov listened with an expression of obvious boredom on his face. Finally he said:

I didn't read either. I don't read nonsense. In stories and novels, all nonsense is written.

Those. a short story arises, a parallel seems to also appear between the short story and the novel, but all this is crossed out by Peredonov's idiotic, frankly, foolish remark "everyone writes nonsense."

A novel about the absurdity of life

And thus, if we cross out all unnecessary words in this hypothetically written definition of “a novel about the absurdity of Russian provincial life at the end of the 19th century”, then “a novel about the absurdity of Russian provincial life at the end of the 19th century” will turn out to be “a novel about the absurdity of life”. This, it seems, is the very big, key difference between the Russian classical novel and Sologub's novel. If Russian classic novel busy with the fact that he is trying to describe a specific historical reality, then, accordingly, we can conclude that somewhere they live differently, that life in general, in theory, should be arranged differently.

At different writers this is justified in different ways. For example, the Russian classic novel "Crime and Punishment", let us recall, believes that the city of Petersburg is infected with devilry, the devil has won in this city. And when Raskolnikov finds himself at the Yenisei River, when he finds himself outside of St. Petersburg, then a purification takes place. Everything returns - here it is very important word! - returns to the primitive truth, to the Christian foundations of life. And in general, it is important that Russian classical literature, of course, looked at all this in different ways, but nevertheless, one way or another, most writers hoped that good was primary, and evil came into the world later.

With Sologub, this is absolutely not the case. Sologub has these characters, who seem to be pretending to be the heroes of the Russian classical work, are so ridiculous, so caricatured, so terrible and terrible in their manifestations, that, it seems, no social conditions, no features of the biography can explain this. And it turns out in Sologub that through this veil, through this fog, through this semblance of a Russian classical humanistic novel, a completely different construction begins to shine through: a novel about the absurdity of life, about evil, which is primary.

A parody of the philosophy of hope

And then it is probably necessary to take one more step: there are different kinds of evil in Sologub. Evil can be disgusting, negative, and disgusting, but at the same time (and we'll talk about this a little more) evil can be charming. Evil can be, according to Sologub... Forgive me for this oxymoron, evil can be good within the framework of his concept.

At the same time, it must be said that Sologub is very evil and very witty, sometimes more, sometimes less, parodying not only the circumstances of the Russian realistic novel - he parodies, perhaps, the main thing that is in the Russian novel, be it a novel by Dostoevsky or a novel by his antipode Chernyshevsky. It parodies the philosophy of hope.

Indeed, even in the most, perhaps, gloomy writer of the era, in the writer closest to Sologub, whom, in fact, we were talking about - Chekhov, even with him, if we remember, in his plays, nevertheless, in the final, albeit in two sides, albeit ambiguously, but one way or another, this philosophy of hope emerges. This is the “sky in diamonds” in the play “Uncle Vanya”, this is a monologue about work and its fruitfulness in the finale of “Three Sisters” ... Yes, there, of course, this is complicated by the fact that maybe this will never happen, maybe maybe it will be future generations, but still some hope, as always with Chekhov, it happens in two directions - Chekhov gives this hope.

What's with Sologub? I repeat, he parodies this philosophy, it is important to emphasize this here. In general, when we talk about Sologub's method, and in this he differs from those who came after him, he does not renounce realism. He does not say that all this was wrong, but I will write a completely different novel, built on other grounds. He seems to take all this into account, he seems to use all this in his text, but all this is turned on its head and takes on such an absurd shape.

Here is a small fragment of the novel, where, as it seems, the philosophy of hope is very clearly parodied, first of all, of course, in the version of Chernyshevsky, his novel What Is to Be Done and the famous epilogue from this novel. Here again Peredonov and Volodin are talking.

“It’s useful, Ardalyon Borisych, to get promoted,” Volodin assured, “you’ll work, take a walk, eat, you’ll be healthy.

Well, yes,” objected Peredonov, “do you think that in two or three hundred years people will be working?”

It seems impossible not to hear in this question of Peredonov a variation of the question from the play "Three Sisters" whether people will work or not.

“- And then how? If you don't work, you won't eat bread. They give you bread for money, but you have to earn money.

I don't even want bread.

There won’t be any buns or pies,” Volodin said, giggling, “and there won’t be anything to buy vodka with, and there won’t be anything to make liquor from.

No, people won't work themselves,' said Peredonov, 'there will be machines for everything,' he turned the handle like an ariston, and that's it... And it's boring to turn it for a long time.

Volodin became thoughtful, bowed his head, pursed his lips, and said thoughtfully:

Yes, it will be very good. But then we won't be here anymore."

Again, there are two motives here at once, distinctly parodic - this is Peredonov's idea that machines will do all the hard work, and the phrase, almost as if taken from a Chekhov play: it will be fine, it will be fine, but we will no longer be. But on this Sologub does not want to calm down, and everything continues to be absurdized, if I may say so, already to the stop, to the limit.

Peredonov looked at him angrily and grumbled:

It will not be you, but I will live.

May God grant you,” Volodin said cheerfully, “to live two hundred years and crawl on all fours for three hundred.”

Here, as it seems, the technique of how Sologub deals with Russian literature of the 19th century is very clearly visible, if you like. There are not just important, not just essential, but key, the most cherished motifs for Russian classical literature. And then he instructs two unpleasant ones to conduct a dialogue about them, two obviously, as they say in the subway, negative characters, and they bring all this absolutely already to complete absurdity. At first, I’ll just “live”, but everything ends with an absolutely absurd phrase “live for two hundred years and crawl on all fours for three hundred.”

"Positive Program"

It seems that more or less I have already shown how Sologub deals with the Russian classical literature XIX century. Is there anything he puts in this place? Does he have any positive program, as they would say again in the 19th century? Well, I've already started talking about it a little bit. He puts evil in the place of good, in place of the philosophy of hope, and what is traditionally divided in Russian literature turns out to be joined together in him.

For example, this novel caused a scandal when it came out, also because it was perceived by contemporaries, and not without reason, as an erotic novel. But not only for this reason, but because Sologub's eroticism was extremely inconsistent with the way they are used to writing about erotica in Russian. literature XIX century.

Let me remind you that if we are talking about Russian literature of the 19th century, then it must be said that the main thing in a woman has always been considered her inner world. There is some inner beauty, which highlights the appearance. Suffice it to recall Katya from "Fathers and Sons" or, perhaps, the most expressive example in Russian literature - Natasha Rostova. Conversely, women who have external beauty there is always something suspicious about them.

And Odintsova from "Fathers and Sons", just paired with her sister Katya - it seems that she wins against her in all respects, and Katya's hands are too big, and in general she is so clumsy, but as a result it is she who wins, namely she achieves, achieves her goal, because inner beauty is more important.

And, of course, the famous couple: Helen Kuragina-Bezukhova - Natasha Rostova. It is clear on whose side Tolstoy's sympathy is and who is truly handsome.

With Sologub, this is absolutely not the case. Absolutely not. AND main character, Varvara, is described as follows: “She hastily undressed and, impudently grinning, showed Peredonov her lightly painted, slender, beautiful and flexible body. Although Varvara was staggering from intoxication, and her face would have aroused disgust in any fresh person with her flabby, lustful expression ... ”This is quite, as it were, still in the traditions of Russian literature. Then comes the “but”: “... but her body was beautiful, like the body of a tender nymph, with the power of some despicable charms attached to it, the head of a withering harlot. And this amazing body for these two…” And so on. Further, it is no longer very interesting and even somehow vulgar, but I would like to draw your attention to this absolute contradiction of tradition. Sologub has it quite possible variant: a disgusting heroine, even with a disgusting face, but her body is described as the body of a tender nymph and, apparently, Sologub does not feel any disgust for her body.

"All lambs, all lambs, be-be-be"

Remarkably, Sologub's reality doubles. For example, we have already talked quite a lot about this very Volodin, who is constantly compared to a ram. He bleats like a ram, his eyes are bulging like a ram's, and this comparison is made all the time. And all this is also perceived quite in such a realistic perspective - a stupid young man, he is so often called. When suddenly, unexpectedly, we stumble upon an episode where Volodin describes his dream. He tells what dream he had today. "Me too today. interesting dream I saw it," Volodin announced, "but I don't know what it's for. It’s like I’m sitting on a throne, in a golden crown, and in front of me is grass, and on the grass there are lambs, all lambs, all lambs, be-be-be. So all the lambs walk, and so they do it with their heads, and everything is that way be-be-be-be.

Well, i.e. It is understandable, it seems quite obvious what Sologub is hinting at here. And he hints no more, no less than the image of a lamb, which traditionally in painting and literature correlates with the image of Christ, the king of kings, who sits on the throne. And when we read this episode, we begin to perceive Volodin's first appearance in a different way. We begin to read one detail in this first appearance in a different way.

Here is how Volodin is described for the first time: “Pavel Vasilyevich Volodin entered with a joyful loud laugh, a young man, all over, both in face and in grips, surprisingly similar to a lamb: hair, like a lamb, curly, eyes bulging and dull, - everything is like a cheerful lamb - a stupid young man. But further, as it seems to me, is important: “He was a carpenter, he used to study at a trade school, and now he served as a craft teacher in a city school.” Again: you can consider it, you can perceive it as a completely realistic detail - a teacher, a carpenter, a vocational school.

But as it seems, in gluing together with this episode, where he sits on the throne as the king of kings, I repeat once again, as Christ, we should probably remember that the carpenter was nothing more nor less than Christ's father Joseph. And then this theme continues, it develops, all the time Sologub is balancing on the verge between the image of Volodin as stupid young man, a ram, and such a king of kings prepared for sacrifice.

Here is another scene: “Volodin paced the rooms, shaking his forehead, protruding his lips and bleating. The guests laughed. Volodin sat down in his place, gazing blissfully at everyone, screwing up his eyes with pleasure, and laughing, too, a sheepish, bleating laugh.

Well, all the lambs, all the lambs, and then I woke up, ”Volodin finished.

Sheep and lamb dreams,” grumbled Peredonov, “an important dish is the king of sheep.”

Final scene

Here again this sheep king appears, and all this prepares the final scene, where the features of a stupid young man, a lamb, and the features of an innocent victim merge in this image. “Volodin seemed to him scary, threatening…” This is almost the end of the novel. “We had to defend ourselves. Peredonov quickly drew his knife, rushed at Volodin, and cut him across the throat. Blood gushed out. Peredonov was frightened. The knife fell from his hands. Volodin kept bleating and tried to clutch his throat with his hands. It was evident that he was mortally frightened, weakening and not bringing his hands to his throat. Suddenly he turned dead and fell on Peredonov. An intermittent squeal sounded - as if he had choked - and died away. Peredonov also squealed in horror, followed by Varvara.

Those. this humorously, satirically developing theme of the ram ends up with something - it ends with a sacrifice. It is quite obvious that here this Volodin, who is slaughtered by the protagonist of Peredonov's novel like a ram, turns out to be a victim, and moreover a victim that does not lead to purification. It turns out such a completely diabolical picture: yes, Volodin was stabbed to death, a sacrifice was made, but this does not lead to anything. There is no enlightenment, there is nothing. Peredonov sits with a dull face, with a dull mechanical face, when they come to arrest him.

Erotic line of the novel and Nedotykomka

And here it is necessary to say about one more, it seems to me, the most interesting and not the most conspicuous circumstance. What in this novel, besides the line of Peredonov, Volodin and these characters, who personify such a dark, gloomy, creepy life this provincial town, there is a line that is, as it were, opposed to this line.

This is an erotic line, for which Sologub was also much scolded, and condemned, and accused. The boy, whose name is Sasha Pylnikov, is a student of Peredonov, who is in love with an adult woman, Lyudmila Rutilova. And the way their pastime is described, which, however, is quite innocent, they dress each other in all sorts of costumes, etc., some kisses ... All this, all this beautiful life, fragrant with perfume, is, as it were, opposed to this terrible life the rest of the city.

However, if we carefully read this novel, we will see that, in fact, nothing happened. The fact is that the personification of this terrible city life is such fantasy creature, which is called "nedotykomka". This is a character invented by Sologub, who appears when the hero... Well, it seems obvious even from my presentation - the hero goes crazy over the course of the novel more and more and ends up killing his comrade. And the first sign of this madness is the image of Nedotykomka. Under-tykomka correlates with Peredonov: from "too", "over-", it is "under-".

And it is described as follows: “In the clouds of dust, a gray Nedotykomka sometimes flashed in the wind. It was dirty and dusty." Pay attention again: clouds of dust, in the wind, gray Nedotykomka, dirty and dusty. And elsewhere in the novel, it is described as follows: "The nedotykomka sparkled with dull golden sparks, now bloody, now fiery." This is how the embodiment of vulgarity, fear, the horror of life, absurdity, the very absurdity of life that we spoke about in our lecture is portrayed.

But it is interesting that Nedotykomka and Sasha Pylnikov, as if opposed to everything that is in this novel, appear in the same chapter. And the most interesting thing is that the way this Sasha Pylnikov is described ... Well, starting with his last name. We already see that clouds of dust are what accompanies this Nedotykomka, and the hero bears the surname of Pylnikov. And then "dull golden sparks, sometimes bloody, sometimes fiery" - this is how Nedotykomka is described. So, in the same chapter, Sasha is portrayed as follows: "Sasha shone, he was all red." Those. we see that in fact the motives that envelop the most terrible, most infernal character of this novel, Nedotykomka, and the motives that are associated with the character, as it were, opposing her (note that she is small and he a little boy), and so, these motives are similar.

And one can even assume, if we carefully, well, if not read, then re-read this novel, that, in fact, Nedotykomka is ... Peredonov takes such a not entirely pure interest in this boy, in this Sasha, it seems to him that he is in disguise girl all the time. So, it can be assumed that modern language, Nedotykomka is such a sublimation of Sasha in the eyes of Peredonov. And if we assume this, but it seems that we have reasons for this, it turns out that this line, the line of opposition, the line of beautiful eroticism, opposed to the line of base eroticism and, in general, everything base and terrible in the novel, that they grow from one root, as a matter of fact. Here is Nedotykomka, on the one hand, and Sasha Pylnikov on the other.

The alternative to evil turns out to be evil that is more charming, more attractive. Those. as if evil is the only thing that, strictly speaking, surrounds a person, according to Sologub. It just takes different forms. Maybe the form is terrible, the form is disgusting, the form is base. Or maybe the form is high, erotic, beautiful. [The problem] is that he still revels in it himself. When he writes about Sasha Pylnikov and about this Lyudmila, he himself is simply delighted with this. But from this all this evil does not cease to be, and he himself even understands this in fact, when he describes it.

And we return to what, in fact, with which we began the analysis of this text. The novel is not written about social motives. The novel exposes evil as much as it glorifies on other pages. A novel that masquerades as Russian realistic novel, at the same time being a novel of a new type, a decadent novel, a symbolist novel, which is often difficult to read, very often unpleasant, but a must for the reader who is interested in Russian culture of the early twentieth century.

Literature

1. Venclova T. To the demonology of Russian symbolism // Venclova T. Interlocutors at the feast. Articles about Russian literature. Vilnius, 1997, pp. 41-81.
2. Erofeev Victor. Disturbing Lessons of "Small Demon". Sologub F. Small demon. Novel. Stories / Comp., entry. Art. V. V. Erofeeeva. - M.: Pravda, 1989. El. version - V. Esaulov, August 2005
3. Keldysh V.A. About the “Small demon” // Sologub F. Small demon. M., 1988. S. 3-18.

Brief summary of the works of Russian literature of the 1st half of the 20th century (collection 2) Yanko Slava

Small Demon - Roman (1902)

Small Demon - Roman (1902)

Ardalyon Borisovich Peredonov, a teacher of literature at the local gymnasium, constantly felt himself the subject of special attention from women. Still would! A state councilor (fifth grade in the ranking table!), a man in the juice, in fact, not married ... After all, Barbara is ... Barbara, in which case, you can get a side. There's only one thing - without her, perhaps, you won't get the inspector's position. (The director of the gymnasium does not favor him, the students and their parents consider him rude and unfair.) Princess Volchanskaya promised Varvara to plead for Ardalyon Borisovich, but she made the wedding a condition: it is inconvenient to plead for the roommate of her former home dressmaker. However, first the place, and then the wedding. And then just deceived.

Varvara was extremely worried about these moods of his, and she begged the widow Grushina to prepare a letter for money, supposedly from the princess, with a promise of a place if they got married.

Peredonov was overjoyed, but Vershina, who tried to pass off the dowry Marta as him, immediately rebuked him: where is the envelope? Business letter- and without an envelope! Varvara and Grushina immediately corrected the matter with a second letter sent through Petersburg acquaintances. Both Vershina and Routilov, who was wooing his sisters to Peredonova, and Prepolovenskaya, who was counting on getting a niece for him, all understood that their case was lost, Ardalyon Borisovich appointed the wedding day. Already suspicious, he was now even more afraid of envy and kept waiting for a denunciation or even an attempt on his life. Prepolovenskaya added fuel to the fire, alluding to the fact that Pavel Vasilyevich Volodin, a close friend of Ardalyon Borisovich, was visiting Peredonov for Varvara Dmitrievna's sake. This, of course, is nonsense. Varvara thinks Volodin is a fool, and she gets a trade teacher at the city school four times less teacher Gymnasium Peredonov. Ardalyon Borisovich became worried: he would marry Varvara, they would go to the inspector's place, and on the way they would poison him and bury him like Volodin, and he would be an inspector. Barbara does not let go of the knife, and the fork is dangerous. (And he hid the utensils under the bed. The Chinese eat with chopsticks.) And here is the ram, so similar to Volodin, staring blankly, probably intriguing. The main thing is, they will inform - and he died. After all, Natasha, Peredonov's former cook, went directly from them to the gendarme. Having met the gendarme lieutenant colonel, Ardalyon Borisovich asked not to believe what Natasha would say about him, she was lying, and her lover was a Pole.

The meeting suggested the idea of ​​visiting the city fathers and assuring them of their trustworthiness. He visited the mayor, the prosecutor, the marshal of the nobility, the chairman of the county zemstvo council, and even the police chief. And he told everyone that everything they talk about him is nonsense. Wanting to somehow smoke on the street, he suddenly saw a policeman and inquired if it was possible to smoke here. So that the almost accomplished inspector would not be replaced by Volodin, he decided to mark himself. On the chest, on the stomach, on the elbows, he put the letter P in ink.

The cat also became suspicious. Strong electricity in wool is the trouble. And he took the beast to the hairdresser - to cut his hair.

Already many times a gray nedotykomka appeared to him, rolled around at his feet, mocked him, teased him: he would lean out and hide. And even worse - cards. The ladies, two at a time, winked; aces, kings, jacks whispered, whispered, teased.

After the wedding, the director and his wife visited the Peredonovs for the first time, but it was noticeable that they were moving in different circles local society. And in the gymnasium, not everything is going smoothly with Peredonov. He visited the parents of his students and complained about their laziness and insolence. In several cases, the children were sekoma for these fictitious guilt and complained to the director.

The story with the fifth grader Sasha Pylnikov turned out to be quite wild. Grushina told me that this boy was really a girl in disguise: he was so cute and blushed all the time, he was quiet and the schoolboys teased him as a girl. And all this to catch Ardalyon Borisovich.

Peredonov reported to the director about a possible scandal: depravity would begin in the gymnasium. The director considered that Peredonov was going too far. Nevertheless, the cautious Nikolai Vlasevich, in the presence of the gymnasium doctor, was convinced that Sasha was not a girl, but the rumor did not subside, and one of the Rutilov sisters, Lyudmila, looked into Kokovkina's house, where the aunt rented a room for Sasha.

Lyudmila and Sasha became friends with a tender but restless friendship. Lyudmila awakened in him premature, still vague aspirations. She came dressed up, perfumed, sprinkled perfume on her Daphnis.

Innocent excitement for Lyudmila was the main charm of their meetings, she said to the sisters: “I don’t love him at all as you think ... I innocently love him. I don't want anything from him." She shook Sasha, put her on her knees, kissed and allowed her wrists, shoulders, legs to be kissed. Once she half-begged, half-forced him to strip to the waist. And she said to him: “I love beauty ... I would like to be born in ancient Athens ... I love the body, strong, dexterous, naked ... My dear idol, godlike youth ... "

She began to dress him in her outfits, and sometimes in the chiton of an Athenian or a fisherman. Her gentle kisses aroused the desire to do something sweet or sick, tender or shameful, so that she laughed with joy or screamed in pain.

Meanwhile, Peredonov was already repeating to everyone about Pylnikov's depravity. The townspeople looked at the boy and Lyudmila with filthy curiosity. The future inspector himself behaved more and more strangely. He burned the cards winking and grimacing in his face, wrote denunciations about card figures, about the underdog, about the ram who pretended to be Volodin. But the most terrible was what happened at the masquerade. The eternal pranksters and inventors of the Rutilov sisters dressed Sasha as a geisha and did it so skillfully that he got the first ladies' prize (no one recognized the boy). The crowd, excited by envy and alcohol, demanded to remove the mask, and in response to the refusal, they tried to grab the geisha, but the actor Bengalsky saved her, carrying her out of the crowd in his arms. While the geisha was being persecuted, Peredonov decided to set fire to the underdog that had come from nowhere. He brought the match to the curtain. The fire was already noticed from the street, so the house burned down, but people escaped. Subsequent events assured everyone that the talk about Sasha and the Rutilov girls was nonsense.

Peredonov began to realize that he had been deceived. One evening Volodin came in and sat down at the table. They drank more than they ate. The guest bleated, fooled around: "They fooled you, Ardasha." Peredonov drew his knife and slashed Volodin across the throat.

When they entered to take the killer, he sat dejectedly and muttered something meaningless.

Small business There is an erroneous, albeit rather romantic, opinion that the French are a nation of small entrepreneurs, owners of small forges, medium-sized construction and notary offices. For some reason, everyone has always believed that if you have even the most remote