The Dostoevsky Journal, 7 (2006), 31-53.

OLGA STUCHEBRUKHOV (Davis, CA, USA)

.A UTOCRATIC CAPITALISMAS THE "POLITICAL

UNCONSCIOUS" OF DOSTOEVSKY'S
DEVILS AND A WRITER'S DIARYl

In The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act,

Frederic Jameson attempts to remove the limitations of the original
Marxistbase/superstructure model. Drawing on. Althusser, he argues
that the economic base does not directly affect the object of art; rather,
it affects society in its production and reception of art. The creator and
the receiver of art objects share the same collective psyche that is in-
herently political by virtue of being. reflective of class. relationships.
The repressed, or unconscious, part of this collective psyche is defined
by Jameson as 'the historical pensee sauvage, the paradox of the in-
soluble social antagonisms. Imagining ·a story means producing an
imaginary, or symbolic, solution to these antagonisms since a story, by
its very definition, is based ona plot resolution. Literature and the
world are connected through the shared collective psyche expres~ed in
various cultural and socioeconomic. discourses of a given historical pe-
riod. Therefore, argues Jameson, a literary critic must seek the so.urces
of the text's ambiguities and contradictions outside it - in the network

1. In "Russia's Political Unconscious in The Possessed: Dostoevsky's New Phe-

nomenology of History and Representation," in The· Dostoevsky Journal: An Inde-
pendent Review, 1 (2000), 11-28, Slobodanka M. Vladiv-Glover draws our attention to
Liza Tushina's failed investment enterprise that she attempts to launch with Shatov's
help. Vladiv-Glover argues that this enterprise can be read as a "'marriage' of capital-
ism and popular culture"; as its failed status suggests, however, it "remains a stylized,
and hence alienated, part of Russia's political unconscious in the 1860s" (p. 28). In the
current article, I too consider capitalism as the "political unconscious" but focus on the
difference between Russia's post-reform capitalism and Western capitalism and try to
understand thematic and formal implications of this difference for Dostoevsky's Devils .
and the Writer~s Diary.
32 The Dostoevsky Journal

of cultural and socioeconomic discourses "of which a text is little more

than an individual parole or utterance.,,2
Following this argument, I propose to examine the fragmentary na-
ture of Dostoevsky's Devils and Writer's Diary, together with these
works' obsessive inflection of the notion of the, center, through the
prism of cultural and socioeconomic contradictions of autocratic capi-
talism, of 'Russia's 'post-reform suspension between autocracy and
capitalist modernization. The Devils and A Writer's Diary represent
two domlllant forms of nineteenth-century literature - the novel and
the periodical.· Formally fragmented, they embody the qualities of
fragmented and reified living experience of the post-refonn Russia,
which, despite capitalist industrialization and modernization, contnlued
to be strongly dependent on the hierarchical social models and mental-
ity.

The paradox of autocratic capitalism

Historians and sociologists of the past few decades have admitted
the linlited nature' of political and economic theories based on the West
European experience of modernization and industrialization and have
made an attempt to consider alternative models. Thus, in Autocracy,
Capitalism, ,and RevoJution in, Russia, Tim McDaniel proposes' "a
model of Russian industrialization based upon the contradictions be-
tween capitalist. economic institutions and autocracy in the political
realm"3; he calls this model autocratic capitalism. As is ~ell known,
Alexander II's reforms of the mid- nineteenth century aimed at the
capitalist modernization of society without changing the political sys-
tem of government, which resulted in a state of suspension between the
centralizing logic of autocracy and the decentralizing logic of emerg- .
ing capitalism. Although McDaniel is mostly interested in the relation-
ship between the state and the capitalist elite, as well as in the neculiar
nature of the post-reform labor mov~ment, hecoqectly points ~ut that
the model of autocratic capitalism is "applicable alike to questions of
large-scale social organization and to aspects of inter-group relations
and even' individual lives" since' "the' meaning and' import of the vari-

2. Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic

Act (Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1994), p. 76.
3. Tim McDaniel, Autocracy,. Capitalism, and Revolution in Russia (Berkeley:
Univ. of Califomia Press, 1988), p. 13.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 33

ous parts of society, and the processes of social change, can be under-
stood only in relation to the fundamental traits of society as a whole.,,4
The fact that the contradictory nature of autocratic capitalism 'perme- .
ated Russian post~reform society as a whole allows us to view this so-
cioeconomic model as the shaping force of Dostoevsky's works.
What interests me specifically in this model is the split between
centrifugal (decentralizing) and centripetal (centralizing) tendencies,
which, as I argue, mark The Devils and·A Writer's Diary as well.
Autocratic capitalism is a paradox, for, in and of itself, it means a un-
ion of two antagonistic forces, which belong to the opposing worlds of
tradition and mod~mity. By its very definition, autocracy is based on
the centralized type of. society, which consists of isolated "petitioners"
who can appeal directly to the monarch for their needs. ,This social
model. can be pictured as the autocratic center (the monarch) Sllr-
~ounded by atomized subjects that are discouraged fronl forming socio-
p.olitical groups (or classes in the Marxist sense of the word); the sub-
jects are connected not directly, but through a descending hierarchy
with th~ monarch at the center. The capitalist social model has an op-
posite structure. Under capitalism, hierarch~cal centralization dissolves
into a free market open to people of different social backgrotlnds. Such
a system is self-regulatory and, therefore, does not need paternalistic
authority from above. Law substitl:ltes the arbitrary power of the··auto-
crat and' is supposed to secure an equal treatment of society merrlbers.
Stability under capitalism is ensured by the mobility and flexibility of
free market, not by the hierarchical center. As argues McDaniel, the
inevitable contradictions between autocracy in the political realm and
capitalist economic institution&. "created conflicts and ambiguities
within both the' state· bureaucracy and the capitalist class" that eventu-·
ally led to the Revolution of 1917. 5 ·Written·in the 1870s, The Devils
and the Diary mimic the post-reform model of autocratic capitalism,
for the~r narratives are split between an obsessive search for the hierar-
chical center and the empirical reality of capitalist disintegration of·
Russia's traditional society and its values.

4. Ibid., p.·14.
5. Ibid.
 34 The Dostoevsky Journal

Autocratic capitalism and Dostoevsky's conservatism

"The connection between· these two master processes, moderniza-
tion and industrialization, and their interrelations with Russian auto-
cratic traditions was one of the nlain themes of social thought in the
last decades of tsarist rule. Conservatives, liberals, and radicals ad-
dressed these issues, sometimes with surprising results," says McDan-
iel. 6 He explains.· that within .the conservative, liberal, and radical
camps there were different opinions on autocratic -and capitalist nl0dels
of development. They ranged from complete rejection of either autoc-
racy· or mod~mization to the opinion that they could reinforce each
other. Although "Dostoevsky never fully corrimitted himself to alle-
giance to any particular 'party' of intellectuals,,,7 we can safely assert
that his position on Russia's post-reform development was strongly in-
fluenced by the ideas of the Slavophiles and his native soil collabora-
tors (pochvenniki).
The Slavophiles and the pochvenniki believed aut~cracy to be a
"natural" foml of government that, in Russia's unique historical ex-
perience, was not incompatible with the idea of freedom and progress.
Both groups distinguished between the state (vlast'). as the formal gov-
ernment and the land (zemlia) as the nation in its organic inner devel-
opnlcIif·independent from the formal state. As Alexander Yanov ex-
plains in The Origins ofAutocracy, the Slavophiles believed the Rus-
sian people to be "primarily a non-state people, something like a kin
. group, a family bound not by pQlitical ties, as. were the European peo-
ples; but by ties of blood and religion."8 Yanov goes on, "The Russian
people, the nation-commune, the 'land' ....' was an independent and
self-sufficient civilization.,,9 In Dostoevsky, Grigor'ev, and Native· Soil
Conservatism, Wayne Dowler connects the ideas of the. Slavophiles
and the poc.hvenniki in saying:

G-iven the' clear separation' of state and society, of political

sphere and the moral sphere, that the Slavophiles envisaged, it .

6. Ibid., p. 15.
7. Sarah Hudspith, Dostoevsky and the Idea ofRussianness: A New Perspective pn
Unity and Brotherhood (London:. Routledge Curzon, 2004), p. 17.
8. Alexander Yanov, The Origins ofAutocracy: Ivan the Terrible in Russian His-
tory, trans. Stephen Dunn (Berkeley: Univ. of Califomia Press, 1981), p. 242.
9. Ibid.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 35

was quite possible to see no contradiction between autocracy on

the. ~ne hand and the most sweeping social and humanitarian
progressivism on the other. The pochvenniki at least evidently
failed to see any incompatibility. The state remained, for them, a
constant, the symbol of external order and unity, whereas the
land, in their view, continued to grow organically in the form of
an autonomous and increasingly more perfect moral and ·social
order. 10

The clear separation between the political sphere of the state and
the moral sphere of the land explains the seeming contradiction of the
Slavophiles' and the pochvenniki 's views regarding centralization..
By.the seeming contradiction, I mean their negative attitude to the
centralization of the Rllssian lands into a formal state in the . post-
centralization period of Russian history and their positive attitude to-
wards autocracy -a highly centralized system .of government. Their
distinction between the formal political state .and the· inner moral de-
velopment of the land removes this contradiction, for it becomes clear
that, by distinguishing between the two forms, they reject the bureau-
cratic centralization of power but approve of the "moral centralization"
of the family-like autocracy, in which the autocrat embodies not the
center of political state power,but the moral and spiritual center of
Russia. The concept of the nation-state is substituted- in their thought
with the concept of the nation-family. It is precisely the notion of the
nation-family that allows nineteenth-century Russian conservatives to
reconcile autocracy with the· ideas of freedom and progress.·Yanov ex-
plains that the Slavophiles believed both monarchy and "freedom of
life and of the spirit" to be natural and sanctioned by tradition. Free-
dom here, of course, cioes not mean the political freedom of the capital-
ist-liberal society, but the voluntary acceptance of the spiritual and
moral nomis of the kin group exemplified by the community's father-
figure:
The problem of the ideal politic3:1 structure consequently. consisted
not in destroying. the original harmony of both traditions. [autocracy
and freedom] in order to achieve constitutional limitations on power,
but, on the contrary, in preserving their mutual trust and harmony.

10. Wayne Dowler, Dostoevsky, Grigor'ev, and Native Soil" Conservatism (To-
ronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1982), p. 102.
 .36 The Dostoevsky Journal

How was this to be done? Just as it was done in a family or in a peas-

ant commune. Did children or peasants seek constitutional limitations
on the power of the father' or head man? Could a constitution be 'a real
guarantee against the abuse of power, whether in a family, in a com-
mune, or in a nation? Who would guarantee this guarantee?l1
The similar "nation-family" logic works in Dostoevsky's novels
and journalism. Like other conservatives, he does not see any contra-
diction between freedom and tradition. The land, for him, provides
both: "The- land [for the Russian people] is everything, and everything
else derives from it - freedom, life, honor, family, childrep, order, the
church - in short, everything that has any value" (23: 96; WD,591).12,
In The Devils and in the Diary, however, the wish-fulfilling fantasy of
the morally centralized nation-family gets continuously disrupted ,by
the decentralizing reality of Russia's tum to capitalism.

The paradox ~f autocratic capitalism and The Devils

, In The Political Unconscious, Jameson proposes to broaden the
scope of criticism by considering three main "horizons" ·of interpreta-
tion: the "narrowly'political or historical" horjzon of factual events, the
horizon of clas~ struggle, and the history of the .modes of production
that succeed each other in a complex and contradictory waY"coexisting
and undermining each other at the ·same time. These three horizons'
cover both synchronic and diachronic analysis of social relations,mov-
ing from a l1lore narrow "textbook" history of the period to "the ulti-
mate horizon of human history as a whole.,,13 T,o illustrate his approach
to interpretation via the historical·shift fronl feudalism to capitalism,
Jameson exanlinesBalzac's La Vieille Fi/le, in which the factual his-
torical events are related to the JulY'Revolution of 1830, a revolt by the
French middle classes against Bourbon king Charles X and his ultra-
royalist policies. The empirical history of The' Devils is of a similarly
revolutionary nature. The novel· is set against the background of the

11. Yanov, The Origins ofAutocracy,p.257.

12. All references to Dostoevsky's works are from F. M. Dostoevskii, Polnoe so-
branie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh [hereafter the volume and the page will be used],
, ed. Bazanov et al. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972-90). Translations are from Fyodor Dosto-
evsky, A Writer's Diary, 2 vols., trans. Kenneth Lanz (Evanston, IL: Northwestern
Univ. Press, 1997-99) [hereafter WD].
13. Jameson, The Political Unconscious, p. 76.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 37

"great reforms" of the early 1860s, which included the emancipation of

serfs, the zemstvo (local government) reform, and the reform of the ju-
diciary. They were followed by the municipal reform and the army re-
forin in the early 1870s. As Nicholas Riasanovsky puts it, the time of
the reforms was "loud and actlve,,,14 nlarked by peasant riots, student
disturbances, mysterious fires, and attempts to assassil1ate Alexander
II.
Written in 1871-72, The Devils deals with these historical realities.
"The great day, the 19th of February" (10~ 31; D 34) (the day on which
the emancipation reform was announced) is repeatedly mentioned in
the novel, and the narrative is rich in references to the reforms and
their aftermath, such as "the formerly wealthy Russian landowners
who'd suffered the greatest losses after ~he emancipation reform" (10:
232; D 312),15 their "severe, singular [uiedinionnyie] opinions on the
latest reforms" (10: 234; D 314), the unjustifiable acquittals associated
with the new judicial system,16 the peasant rebellion led by Anton Pet-
rov (10:32; D 35), and so on. The "loud and active" nature of the pe-
riod is reflected in the tumultuous atmosphere of the novel. Like Rus-
sian post-reform life itself, it is' filled with mysterious fITes, murders,
public scandals, and riots. '
What lies behind the "brute facts" of the text's empirical history are
the less time-bound issues of class struggle and of history ~'in. its,'vast-
est sense of the sequence of modes of production' and the succession
and destiny of the various human social formations.,,17 Examining The
Devils through the prism of class relations and the succession of social
formations moves our interpretation of the novel beyond the text's "in-
ert givens and materials" to more nuanced critical insights. At this

14. Nicholas Riasanovsky, A History ofRussia, fifth ed. (New York: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1993), p. 379.
15. I use Michael R. Katz' translation of The Devils (Oxford: Oxford 'Univ. Press,
1992) 'and Alan Myers translation of The Idiot (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992)
[hereafter D and 1].
16. One· of the local nobility club members, in fact, alludes to the famous' at the
time Glebov's case as an example of mindless acquittals associated with the recent ju-
dicial reform: "No, I'll tell you a secret about our new courts., ... Ifsomeone gets
caught red-handed stealing or swindling and is convicted, he'd best run home quickly,
while he still has time, and murder his own mother. He'll be acquitted instantly of all
crimes..." (10: 234; D 314). On the Glebov's case, see ,PSS 12: 299.
17. Jameson, The Political Unconscious, p. 75.
 38 The Dostoevsky Journal

stage of interpretation, we ask ourselves, why is it inlportantfor

Dostoevsky to have an aristocrat, Stavrogin, as the central character of
the novel? What do his relations with other characters tell us about the
social landscape of the period? If the matrimonial drama of Balzac's
. La Vieille Fille can be read as an allegorical contest for the hand of
France between the· dying aristocracy and the newly emerged bour-
geoisie,18 the drama of Stavrogin's failed attempt at podvig (noble feat)
call·be read as a tale of a dying ancien regime.
. Dostoevsky clearly finds it important to emphasize Stavrogin's cen-
trality in the novel: he is conlpared to a star (10: 233; D 314), the sun
(10: 210; D 281; 10: 234; D 444), the hero of Russian folklore, Ivan
the Tsarevich (chapter eight, "Ivan the Tsarevich"). In the eyes of the
loc~l society, Stavrogin is "an 'indubitable noble mall, ,,, "the richest
landowner in the province," "their 'new man'" (10: 234; D 314). It is
imperative for Dostoevsky to make an aristocrat the center of attraction
in the novel because, although substantially weakened by the emanci-
pation reform, the aristocracy continued to be one of the major social
forces in Russia at the time.
According to Dowler, the pochvenniki, including Dostoevsky, be-
lieved that the post-reform gentry "was to enjoy neither legal nor insti-
tutional distinctions." However, it ~o"Uld and should exercise "moral-in-
fluence, not as a class but as a group of individuals":

As a group most favoured in. the past, the gentry was morally.
obligated to take the initiative in breaking down class barriers, to
further the education of the masses.... "As. the educated part of
the .zemstvo,;' Dostoevsky wrote, "the gentry. will stand at the
head of the people, not in the capacity of an unacblowledged es-
tate but as the acknowledged best men, the people's elders
(narodnye startsy)~ ,,19

Similarly, in The -Idiot, written in 1868, Prince Myshkin explains

his understanding of the aristocracy's leading role but expresses his
apprehensions about their ability to fulfill their social duty:

18. Ibid, p.. 164.

19. Dowler, Dostoevsky, .Grigor'ev andnative Soil Conservatis.m, p. 109.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 39

I am afraid. for you, for all of you and all of us taking· to-
gether. After all, I am a prince of ancient lineage [kniaz' iskon~
nyi] and I sit among princes. I am saying this to save you all, to
prevent our class [soslovie] disappearing pointlessly, in the dark-
ness, .blind to the situation, constantly at odds, and so forfeiting
everything. Why disappear and yield the place to others, when it
is possible to stay in the front rank and be leaders? Let us stay in
that front rank and so be leaders. Let us become servants in order
to be masters [starshiny]. (8: 458; 1585)20

In The .Devils, Dostoevsky highlights the aristocracy's important

social function by placing another "prince of ancient lineage," Stav-
rogin, at the center of the novel. This time, however, the protagonist-
aristocrat is not a Christ-like figtlre, but a tragic imposter.
Such characters as Kirillov, Shatov, and Peter Verkhovensky'idol-
ize Stavrogin and seek his leadership, which highlights the aristoc-
racy's ideological and moral significance in the novel. For instance,
Kirillov's obsess~on with the idea of the all-powerful man-God is at-
tributed to Stavrogin's influence. "'Go have a look at him [Kirillov]
now; he's your creation," says Shatov to Stavrogin (10: 197; D 262).
Shatov's own obsession with Russia's messianic mission has also been
inspired by' Stavrogin. Like' the rest of the characters, Shatov worships
Stavrogin and expects him to "raise the banner" of Russian national-
ism:

I'm an unhappy, boring book and nothing more than that at

the moment, at the moment. ". .. But to hell with me! You're the
one that matters, not me ....I'm a man without talent and can only
offer my blood and nothing more, just like any man without tal-
ent. And to hell with my blood! I'm talking about you; I've
waited, here two years for you. . . . You, you alone could've
raised the banner. (10: 201; D 267)

20. The correction of this translation is needed.' In Dostoevsky we have: "~, QT06bI
cnaCTIi Bcex Hac, rOBOpIO, QT06bI He MCQe3JIOCOCJIOBlie ,ZJ;apOM, BnOTeMKaX, Hli 0 qeM
He ,n;ora,ZJ;aBiliMch, 3a Bce 6paIDIC'h Ii Bee npOHrpaB" (8: 458). Myers' translation reads:
"I am saying this to save you all, to prevent our class disappearing pointlessly into the
darkness" (p. 585) instead of "disappearing pointlessly, in the darkness...." (italics
added).
40 The Dostoevsky Journal

Peter Verkhovensky worships Stavrogin for his ability to rise above

the crowd and, in so doing, to inspire fear mixed with admiration.
"You're my idol," says he to Stavrogin, "[You're] a terrible aristocrat.
When an aristocrat goes in. for democracy, it's irresistible.... You're
the sort I need. I know of no one else but you. You're the leader, the
sun, and I'm your worm..." (10: 234; D 444).

According to Jameson, in La Vieille Fille, the aristocracy and the

bourgeoisie are depicted as socially and sexually inlpotent respec-
tively, which points to the ancien regime's historical legitimacy but
lack of social energy. Despite his status as society's idol, Stavrogin
proves t~ be both socially and sexually impotent, which. renders the
Russian ancien r~gime in The Devils irrevocably decayed. Stavrogin's
social impotence is exposed by his marriage to Mariya Lebyadkina.-
the embodiment' of the abused and long-suffering Russian peasantry -
who pronounces hinl an impostor. Their marriage synlbolizes a failed
attempt to unite the upper classes with the conlman people. This fail-
ure is reinforced by the pervasive fear of peasants' uprising in the
novel so aptly captured in the words of "the well-known" "verses
probably composed by some fonner liberal landowner," which Stepan
Trofnnovichmutters to himself on the eve of the 19th of February,
1861: "The peasants are coming and bringing their axes, / Something
terrible is about to happen" (10: 31; D 34).
"Liza's description of Stavrogin as limbless puts a sexual twist on
Mariya's idea that Stavrogin is a fraud," says Nina Pelikan Straus. 21 As
a result of her tryst with Stavrogin, Liza learns about his main "disabil-
ity" - his lack of the basic human capacity for love. "[You] deserve a
nurse as much as any creature lacking arms and legs," says she to Stav-
rogin (10: 402; D 592). As we have seen, the pochvenniki believed
that, in order for the aristocracy to survive, they had to tum from "con-
ventional" to moral' leaders of the nation. "Morality and faith are one
and the sanle thing, moral.ity arises from faith, ... the need to worship
is an inalienable property of human nature. . .. But in order that there
be worship, there must be God," says Dostoevsky in the notebooks to
The Devils (11: 188; N 253). "Proud as god" (10: 326; D 447), Stav-
rogin is unable "to. cross the threshold into the land of the living and

21. Nina Pelikan Straus, Dostoevsky and the Woman Question: Rereading at the
End ofa Century (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), p~ 94.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious n of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 41

the Russian Orthodox community".22 In his suicide note, he admits that

"the only thing to emanate from [him] is negation without magnanim-
ity, without power. Not even negation has come from [hinl]" (10: 514;
D 754). This admission and Stavrogil1's suicide undermine the novel's
desperate attempts to resuscitate the Russian aristocracy into the mor~l
leaders'of the nation.
Fulfilling Prince Myshkin's apprehensions, Stavrogin's death signi-
fies the aristocracy's "pointless disappearance," which clears the way .
for the ·new ruling class that featuJ;es only briefly in the novel. The
emerging capitalism is represented by the Shpigulin broth.ers and their
factory. Significantly, the novel depicts Russian capitalism as' an' over-
looked source of infection that is moving from the neighboring prov-
ince and threatens to engulf the town. "I must note," says the chroni-
cler,

... that satisfactory sanitary precautions [against Asiatic chol-

era] had been taken, as far as possible, to' meet this uninvited
guest. But the factory' belonging to the Shpigulins,' millionaires
and people with connections, had somehow been overlooked.
And then, all of a sudden, came a hue and cry that it was the sole
source and a hotbed of the infection.... (10: 269-70; D 367)

In the notebooks to the novel, Dostoevsky discusses. the, nature of

Russian nascent capitalism at length, describing it.as an odd, farce-like
phenomenon: "Come on, look at our Russian capitalists and their capi-
tals: it's as if they had all won it playing roulette. A father will make
millions . . . he has made them not by accumulating capital,' nor by la-
bor, but rather by some racket [kakimi-nibud' fokusami]"(11: 155; N I

213). The Shpigulin Qrothers' name alludes to greed and overindul-

gence - shpigovat' (or spikovat') means to "lard (e.g., a roast foul)"23
- which points to Dostoevsky's disdain for Russian capitalists, while
the brothers' marginal status signals their "overlooked" social signifi-
cance.

22. See Faith Wigzell, "Dostoevskii and the Russian Folk Heritage," in The Cam-
bridge Companion to Dostoevskii, ed. W. J. Leatherbarrow (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2002), p. 34.
23. See Charles Page, Character Names in Dostoevsky's Fiction (Ann Arbor, MI:
Ardis, 1982), p. 85~
42 The Dostoevsky Journal

The dying ancien regime in the figure of Stavrogin and the emerg-
ing "money bag" (the term Dostoevsky will use in the Diary to de-
scribe Russian capitalism) in the figure of the Shpigulin brothers em-
body the transition from feudalism to capitalism. It is important to
keep in mind, however, that Russian feudalism and post-refoffil capi-
talisnl only tentatively fit the Western models of these modes of pro-
duction; it was precisely the autocratic principle of authority, under
which they developed, that made them different from their Western
counterparts. Throughout Russian history, autocracy fostered a special
type of mentality that relied on the notion of a center. The obsessive in-
flection of this notion in The Devils is indicative of the disintegration
of traditional social structures and values.
In her presentation at the AAASS' 37th National Convention, Anne
Lounsbery discussed Peter Verkhovensky' s and other conspirators'
fascination with the idea of the center:

The bumbling provincial nihilists listen eagerly to Verk-

hovnsky's talk of a "tsentral'nyikomitet" [central.committee]
more than ready to believe that he's "an emissary come from
abroad with full plenary powers." The conspirators' frequent use
of the word tsentr [center] signals their faith that a center .(and
only a center) has the power to render meaningful whatever they
do, including sonlething as senseless as an unmotivated mur-
der?4.

T~econspirators' mysterious center is associated with the source of

an ideological "infection" from the West, defined as godlessness, or
the lack of an ultimate patrimonial center - God. "[A] teacher who
laughs with his children at their God over their cradle is already one of

24. Lounsbery's presentation focuses on the significance of the split between the
capitals and the provinces in The Devils. She argues that it is important for Dostoevsky
to move "an infamous real-life Moscow event - the so-called 'Nechaev affair'" to "a
nameless provincial city" (1) because of the peculiar center-oriented mentality of the
Russian provinces. She says: "In Moscow it would be harder for Demons ... to con-
vey the power of the spurious id.ee flXe that animates nearly all of the characters simply
because in Moscow these characters would have to contend with the metropolis's pro-
liferation of competing ideologies and its myriad claims on their attention" (1). Anne
Lounsbery, "Dostoevsky's Provinces" (paper presented at the AAASS 37th National
Convention, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 3-6, 2005).
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 43

US," says Peter Verkhovensky, "A lawyer who defends an educated

murderer by arguing he's more cultured than his victims, and couldn't
help murdering to acquire money, is one of us already. Schoolboys
who murder a peasant just to experience the sensation are already wi~h
us... " (10: 324; D 445). In her naIve self-assurance, Yuliya Mik-
hailovna dreams of "bestowing happiness and reconciling the irrecon-
cilable" (10: 268; D 365), traditional values and the nihilism of Peter
Verkhovensky's circle. The logic of the novel, however, leads to an en-
tirely different conclusion. "[There] are only two alternatives: either to
have faith, or to burn everything [est' tol 'ko dvie initsiativy: .iii vera, iii
zhech ],"says the Prince in the notebooks to the novel. (11: 182; N
24l). . .
The lack of faith in God is associated with the disintegration .of pat-
rimonial centers on other levels. In the beginning of the novel, for in-
stance, we learn that the town was governed byVarvara Petrovna Stav-
rogina, which nlakes her "magnificent estate," Skvoreshniki,25 the un-
official center of the province. The chronicler says:

[Ivan] Osipovich, the ·former governor, was' a bit of an old

woman, although he came from a good family and had connec-
tions; this explains why he remained' in office so many:years,
constantly avoiding any and all obligations. Judging by his,gen-
erosity and hospitality he really should have been a marshal of
the nobility in the good old days, not a governor in such tumul-
tuous times as ours. It was constantly alleged that our town was
administered not by the governor, but byVarvara Petrovna. (10:
37-38; D 44)

"The worship accorded [Varv~ra Petrovna] by [the] provincial soci-

ety at times bordered on idolatry [nechto grehovnoie]," continues the
narrator, highlighting the fall of traditional Christian values (10: 26; D
27) in the local society.

25. The idea to compare the town with Skvoreshniki in terms of two centers was
suggested to me by Helena Goscilo during my presentation at the Midwest Slavic Con-
ference, The Ohio State University, March 3-5, 2005. I use this comparison metaphori:-
cally since Varvara Petrovna spent only summers in Skvoreshniki. In the winter, she
lived in her town house (10: 26; D 27).
44 The Dostoevsky Journal

The present governor, Andrei Antonovich von Lembke, is equally

impotent both as· a governor and as a. husband. Predictably, Yuliya
Mikhailovna self-assured' efforts to replace him lead to disastrous re-
sults:

It's true, he [von Lemke] rarely opposed ller [his wife]; for
the most, part he obeyed her wishes entirely. At her insistence"
for example, two or three very risky, almost illegal measures
were implenlented with the aim of strengthening the govenlor's
powers. For the same purpose a number of sinister actions were
condoned. . . . In addition, some enquiries and complaints were
systematically ignored. . . . Von Lembke not only put his signa-
ture to 'everything, but never even questioned the role assumed
by his wife in the execution of his official duties. (10: 267; D
363)

Eventually, von Lemke admits that he has failed to fulfill his obli-
'gations because there are "two centers of power" in his family: "[I]'m
a capable man; but with you, madam, with you around - I can't cope~ .
. . Two centers cannot co-exist, and you've built two of them ~ one in
me, and the other here in your boudoir - two centers of power, madam.
. . .. In the civil service as in marriage, there can only. be one center, not
two ..." (10:338; D 501).
The. idea that in public, as well a~ in private life, "there can only be
.one center" is irtherentlypatrimonial and constitutes the. basis of the
autocratic social model. .
Stavrogill's status as an .imposter also points to "two centers of
power." By pronouncing S~avrogin the Imposter, Grishka Otrep'ev, the
novel refers back to the Time of Troubles, the well-known political cri-
sis of the end of the sixteenth and the' beginning of the seventeenth
century.- Michael Chemiavsky describes this crisis as follows: "In the
few years between 1598 and 1613, Russia experiel1ced the end of a
seven-hundred-year-old dynasty, a succession of three Tsars of whom
one was the successful pretender to being the son of Ivan IV, l?imitry
(d. 1591), and an anarchic civil war conducted by innumerable pre-
tenders to and claimants of the Russian throne.,,26 The result of these

26. Michael Chemiavsky, Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths (New Ha-
ven, CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1961), p. 53.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 45

catastrophic misfortunes 'on Russian political. consciousness, argues

Cherniavsky, was the obsessive preoccupation with the question' of
"how to distinguish between a legitimate, true Tsar and a false one
who is nevertheless crowned and consecrated.,,27 Similar dilemma
haunts the narrative of The Devils. As we have seen, Stavrogin is the
"crowned and consecrated" leader of society. He is an ideological cen-
ter of the novel, but not the moral one. To expose his moral bankruptcy
and, therefore, false centrality is the novel's objective..
In the notebooks to the novel, Dostoevsky says: "AND SO, THE
WHOLE PATHOS OF THE NOVEL LIES IN THE PRINCE: HE IS
THE HERO. All the rest moves around him, like a kaleidoscope" (11:
136; N 182). Konstantin Mochul'sky once pointed out the extreme
structural centralization of The Devils, in which Stavrogin's character
can be seen as an a~is that holds together the rest of the nove1.28 I argue
that such a structural composition is similar to the structural principle
of autocracy, in which the autocrat rep~esents the center surrounded by
atomized subjects. Stavrogin's own lack of moral and spiritual center
causes the centralized structUre of !the novel to dissolve. The "brute
facts" of Russia's post-reform condition resist the autocratic central-
ized model. With Stavrogin's death the formal center of the narrative is
removed, and the novel ends with the sense of uncertainty characteris-
tic of the post-reform fragmented living experience.
In his analysis of La Vieiile Fille, Jameson says, that the aristoc-
racy's social inlpotence and the bourgeoisie's lack of historical legiti-
macy may seem as an app.arent "dead end." However, "[faced] wit~a
contradiction ofthis'kind ... the historicalpensee sauvage, or what we
have called, tIle political unconscious, nonetheless seeks .by logical
permutations and combinations to find a way out of its intolerable clo-
sure and to produce a 's.olution'....,,29 The "solution" that the political
unconscious of La Vieille Fille produces is the character of Count de
Troisville who blocks out a place which is not that of empirical history
but of a possible alternate one: a history in which some genuine Resto-
ration would still be possible, provided the aristocracy could learn ...
that it needs a strong man who combines aristocratic values 'with Napo-

27. Ibid.
28. Konstantin Mochul'skii, Gogol', Soloviyev, Dostoevskii (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo
"Respublika," 1995), p. 436.
29. Jameson, The Political Unconscious, p. 167.
46 The Dostoevsky Journal

leonic energy (at sqme wish-fulfilling or fantasy. level, Balzac obvi-

ously has himself in mind).30
The "pointless" death of the "prince of ancient lineage," Stavrogin,
may also appear as an apparent historical "deadend~" However, faced
, ,

with the problem of the aristocracy's historical impotence, the nihilism

of the "progressive and governing circles fperedovykh' i go-
spodstvuiushchikh]" (10:, 494; D 726), and the moral illegitimacy of
the nascent Russian capitalism, the- political unconscious of The Devils
nevertheless seeks to find a way out of such an intolerable ~losure and
to produce a "solution."
The "solution" it produces is Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky's
enlightenment, which suggests a metaphorical reading of history. Ste-
pan Trofimovich's vision of Russia's destiny is inspired by the passage
in Luke that is also used as the epigraph to the novel: .

These devils who go out of the sick man and enter the swine
- they're all the plagues, all the miasmas, all the filth, all the
devils, and all the demons who have accumulated in our great,
our dear, sick Russia for centuries, for centuries! ... ,But a 'great
idea and a great will protect her from on high, just as they did
that madman .possessed by the devils, and all. the devils will
leave, all the filth, all the abominations festering on the surface..
. . [The] sick man will be heale,d and "will sit at the feet of Jesus"
... and everyone will look upon him 'in astonishment. (10:499;
D 732)

Influenced by Erich Auerbach's notion of literal and figurai mean-

ings of history, Harriet Murav argues that ,The Devils should he seen as
modeled after Russian medieval chronicles which traditionally treat
history as already imbued with transcendental meaning.' Murav argues
that like the reader of the medieval chronicle, 'the reader of The Devils
"must seek connectedness elsewhere, outside the chain of cause and ef-
fect. ... We have to look to the novel's more 11largin3:1 characters ...
and to 'its literal margins, most importantly its epigraph from Luke, in

30.1bid., pp. 168-69.

Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 47

order to discover the ·other chronicle in the novel, one that provides an
interpretation 'from above,' to use Auerbach's term."31
Hence, paradoxically, .in The Devils, Russia's post-reform reality
already embodies the "solution" to its historical pensee sauvage, much
the same way as the characters of the novel, regardless of their empiri-
cal choices, already embody the "eternal Great Idea.""Evan the most
foolish man must have something great," says Stepan Trofimovich
during his epiphany: "Oh, how I'd like to see them all again! They
don't know, don't know that the same eternal Great Idea also dwells in
them!" (10: 506; D 742). Using Jameson, one might say that Stepan.
Trofimovich's interpretation of history represents a "peculiar shift in
registers, in which the events of the narrative remain the same but yet
someho'w emptied of their finality.,,32 By opening up a space in which
"'the brute facts of empirical history" are less definitive, such an ending
renders the paradox of autocratic capitalism less irreparable.

The paradox of autocratic capitalism and A Writer's Diary

In the -last issue of the Diary, Dostoevsky complains about the
anachronistic nature of the novel: "There's a good deal in our contem-
porary, current life that hasn't yet been touched upon in our literature;
it has overlooked a good deal and is terribly behind times."33 ·The Di-'
ary'8' objective is to respond to the life-changing events of the "great
reforms" more efficiently than the novel has done. Hence,-the facts of
empirical history - the reforms themselves - are the main focus of the
Diary. Dostoevsky the diarist examines the effects of the emancipation
refornl on the peasantry, dwells on the consequences of the judicial re-
form; and discusses thezemstvo reform and the reform of the army.
However, it is not the ·facts of empirical history themselves, but rather
their interpretation that most interests Dostoevsky. The introduction to
the Diary is his declaration of an independent, not "ready-made," in-
terpretation of history; his task as a journalist is' "to study and under-
stand things" (21: 7; WD 123). Dissatisfied with a purely "chronicle-
like sequence of happenings in time,,,34 Dostoevsky ventures into the

31. Harriet Murav, Holy Foolishness: Dostoevsky's Novels and the Poetics of Cul-
tural Critique (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 1992), p. 120.
32. Jameson, The Political Unconscious, p. 164.
33.27:8. WD 1337.
34. Jameson, The Political Unconscious, p. 75.
48 The Dostoevsky Journal

issues of the less time-bound significance - into the history of the Rus-
sian ruling classes and Russia's ultimate historical destiny.
Published from 1873 to 1881, the Diary attempted to stay in touch
with the everyday reality of this period. As we have seen,· in The Dev-
ils, capitalism· looms on the horizon as a menacing possibility. In the
Diary, Dostoevsky openly declares the advent of the "money bag." In
the October 1876 issue of the Diary, he gives a nearly Marxist analysis
of the former and the present ruling classes of Russia. He calls the rul-
ing class the ~'best people" and explains that these are the people who
are

"... officially" recognized as the best because of the higher con-

s~derations of order and administrative stability: the "best· peo-
ple" of this sort arise through a historical law, and they have al-
'ways exist~d, in all nations and states, from the beginning ~fthe
world, so that no society could organize and bind itself into ,a
whole.... In order to maintain itself and live, every society must
necessarily respect someone and something and - most impor-
tant - this must be done by society as a whole, not by each indi-
vidual choosing for himself. (23: 153-54; WD 664)

Dostoevsky proceeds with his interpretation of the history, of the

Russian aristocracy from the time of the boyars to the present day,
pointing out that, while "the sack of gold already held, sway allover
Europe," in Russia "the aristocracy continued to stand at the head of
the nation" up until very recent times, (23: 155; WD 665).
The ,"very fine rules to live by" that the aristocracy have been fol-
lowing for centuries, are "the virtual obligation to acq'uire some educa-
tion" and "the code of honor." With "the most colossal revolution [per-
evorotl" of the great reforms, "everything changed profoundly," says
Dostoevsky, and "the views on what was 'best' seemed somehow to
change" (23: 155; WD 666). The new "convention" of money worship
has assumed an overwhelnling significance in the Russian society in
the post-reform period. "[The] former limits of the old-style ,merchant,
have suddenly expanded enormously. He has been joined by the, Euro-
pean-style speculator, previously unknown in Russia, and the stock-
exchange gambler. . . . T~e actual worship of the money bag is not
merely indisputable; the sudden expansion of that worship is unprece-
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 49

dented" (23: 159; WD 670-71). Dostoevsky describes capjtalism as

"the monster of materialism .[chudovishche materializma]" (23: 160;
WD 672), as a morally illegitimate phenomenon that can be repelled by
the old-fashioned "aristocratic" notion of education and the religious
values preserved by the People.
Like The Devils, the Diary seeks to find a "solution" to the intoler-
able paradox of history - the impotence of the dying aristocracy and its
values and the moral illegitimacy of the new "best people." Despite
admitting the victory. of the "money bag," Dostoevsky views capital-
ism as an .accidental, transitory, stage between the old and the ~yet un-
known future periods in Russian history: "The old has been .shattered
or has worn out, the new is still soaring in the heights of fantasy, while
in actuality. and before OlIr very eyes there has appeared something re-
pulsive, an unprecedented development in Holy Russia"·(23: 160; WD
672). In an earlier issue, he consoles himself and his readers with the
idea that capitalism in Russia is not "organic"; instead, it is nothing but
a "farce," something "half-artificial and induced," which gives him
hope that it will not last long and "in the end, perhaps, people. will
want to come to an accord," while "in Europe they are beyond any ty-
ing together" (22: 83-84; WD, 399-400). As is well knOWI)., Marx con-
sideredRussia too backward for the socialist revolution, but, at the
same time, agreed with the Russian Populists (Narodniki) that such
backwardness and the peasant commune could be ·Russia's "finest·
chance ever offered by history to a nation, in order to undergo all the
fatal vicissitudes of the capitalist regime.,,35 Apparently, both Marx and
Dostoevsky saw Russia as "the weakest link" in the world's .transition
to capitalism, hoping that, as such, i~ may escape "the fatal vicissitudes
of the capitalist regime." The major difference that separates Marx and
Dostoevsky is the type of socialism they espoused. Unlike Marx, who
believed in state s·ocialism, Dostoevsky advocated the so-called "Rus-
sian socialism" in the form of a utopian Christian brotherhood.
The Diary reflects the unstable and contradictory nature of Russia's
transition ·to capitalism. The unusual heterogeneity of the Diary con-
ceals the same opposing forces of centralization ·and decentralization
characteristic of autocrati~ capitalism. What distinguishes the idea of

35. See Marx's 1877 letter to the editor of Otyechestvenniye Zapiski, Selected Cor-
respondence: 1846-1895. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, trans. Donna Torr (New
York: International Publishers, 1942), p. 353.
50 The Dostoevsky Journal

autocratic centralization in the Diary from the same idea in The Devils
is that it expands from Russia to the pan-Slayic world. The autocratic
model, however, remains the same.. As .we hav~ seen, in The Devils,
Stavrogin represents the center that is supposed to hold the atomized
characters of the novel together; in the Diary, Russia is the center that
is responsible for keeping the atomized parts of the Slavic .world to-
gether. In the Diary, Dostoevsky argues against Danilevsky's idea that
Constantinople must become a neutral international zone. In the March
1877 issue, he asserts that such an idea is detrimental because of its
"diss~ciating" potential. He says, "Constantinople must be ours, sooner
or later, even if only to avoid the painful and appalling ecclesiastical
disorders [tserkovnye smutty] that could· so easily arise.... Once· we
take possession of Constantinople, nothing of this sort can happen"
(25: 73, WD 899). According to Dostoevsky, Russia is the only power
capable of uniting the rest of the Slavic nations; its moral leadership is
necessary in order to avoid disputes and chaos· much the same way as
the nl0ral authority of the Tsar is necessary to avoid the chaos of the
revolution in Russia.
In this centralized schema of Russian moral guardianship, the auto-
crat plays a vital role because Russia's mission of the moral center· of
the Slavic and Orthodox worlds depends on the autocrat's·role as the
religious leader. In the·notebooks to The Devils, Dostoevsky describes
his vision of the Russian nation-family: "This isn't Anglo-Saxon law;
nor is it Democracy or the formal equality of the French (Romance)
world. This is natural brotherhood. The Tsar is at the head. . . . The
Tsar is for his people an incarnation of their soul, of their spirit" (11:
167; N225). In the Diary, he asserts that since th~ time of the conquest
of Constantinople by the Turks:

[The] People have firmly and unwaveringly given as the

principle, beloved appellation of their tsar the word "Orthodox,"
"Orthodox Tsar" - and so they still see him. Having thus named
their tsar, the People thereby essentially acknowledged his mis-
sion as well - his mission as guardian [okhranitel'] and unifier
[edinitel'] al1d, when God's commandment thunders forth, as
liberator of Orthodoxy and of all Christendom professing it,
from Mohammedan barbarism and Western heresy. (25: 68; WD
893)
 Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" ofDostoevsky's Devils and A Writer's Diary 51

Hence, the centralizing logic of Dostoevsky's pan-Slavism depends

on the social model of autocracy. The tsar embodies for him the moral
center that guides and unifies not only the atomized Russian slLbjects,
but the atomized nations of the Slavic and Orthodox worlds. Under
such a guidance, Russ~a herself turns into a saintly' nation, "son1ething
too unselfish and honorable, something that loathes profit and ill-
, gotten gain [zakhvat i vziatka]" (25: 49; WD 866).
If in The Devils, Stavrogin constitutes the center that irresistibly,
but deceivingly, attracts other characters, in the' Diary, Russia repre-
sents a true n10ral center, "a gigantic magnet" "irresistibly'drawing
[other Slavic nations]to her" (26: 80; WD 1202). As a saintly nation~
she is "the great center of the East and the great attracting force': with-
out which the unity of other Slavs "would collapse in an instant and fly
into fragments" (26: 80; WD 1202). In The Devils, the centralized unity
collapses because of Stavrogin's falsehood; in the Diary, the centraliz-
ing logic of Dostoevsky's pan-Slavism is continuously disrupted by the
"dissociating" reality of, Russia's capitalism, which challenges her
saintly status.
In the Diary, Dostoevsky comes up with a special term, "dissocia-
tion" (obosoblenie), in order to describe the process of,decentralization
that disrupts his hopes of Russia's moral leadership. In the March 1876
issue, he devotes an entire section to the problem of "dissociation,"
which he sees as the'main'characteristic of modem alienating relations.
In his definition, the nineteenth century is "the epoch of universal dis-
sociation," of "the remarkable, virtually chemical decomposition of our
society into its constituent elen1ents, a process that has begun suddenly
in our time" (22: 83; WD 398). This process of social "decomposition"
is diametrically opposite to the idea of patrimonial centralization: "All
are dissociating themselves.... ·Everybody sets aside all those things
that used to be common to our thoughts and feelings and begins. with
his own thoughts and feelings~ ... The links,that once united us are
broken without regret, and everyone acts on his own accord and finds
his only consolation in that" (22: 80; WD 395). "Accidental" families,
suicides, moral and economic degradation of the countryside embody
the "chemical decomposition" of the RUSSIan post-reform society and
contradict the Diary's national and pan-Slavic centralized utopias.
52 The Dostoevsky Journal

The form of the Diary mirrors the same indeterminate logic of auto-
cratic capitalism; it vacillates between two contradictory patterns of
centralization and fragmentation. In The Boundaries of Genre, Gary
Saul Morson discusses the generic pec'uliarities of the Diary and points
out that it represents a convergence of two dissimilar literary forms,
that of a nineteenth-century feuilleton and the generic tradition of
meta-utopia. Formally, feuilleton ~s characterized by fragmentariness
and extren1e heterogeneity. As such" it is better suited for the depiction
of the new historical reality of "dissociation," "the chemical decon1po-
sition" of society under the pressure of capitalist modernization. ,As,
Morson points out, Dostoevsky was acutely aware of the necessity of
new literary forms that could accommodate new social reality) and
"prided himself for his refusal to retreat from a difficult artistic prob-
lem into what he regarded as other writers' conventional descriptions
of a beautiful' past.,,36 The Diary, therefore, can be se~n as an ~xpres­
sion of "a poetics of the underground," of the fragmentary and alien-
ated way of life. At the same time, says Morson, "the central- and cer-
tainly the most frequently repeated - theme of the monthly Diary" is "a
worldwide utopia headed by Russia and based on the Russian Ortho-
dox faith.,,37 Hence, the Diary, according to Morson, not only repre-
sents the convergence of two opposite forms, the fragmentary feuille-
ton and the utopia, but has utopia as its center around which congre~
gate the rest of the themes.
The Diary then, I would argue, is based on the centralized pattern
characteristic of autocracy: it has the "moral" center and the "atom-
ized" texts (articles, stories, etc.) that are held· together by one ,central
theme of Russia's moral leadership. This centralized formal pattern,
however, cannot be seen as conclusive, for, as Morson correctly points
out: "The voice of the utopian prophet usually predominates, but that
predominance is always precarious . . . the Diary's dialogue of utopia
with, anti-utopia - and anti-utopia with utopia - is ultimately inconclu-
sive.,,38 As we have seen, the centralized structure of The Devils falls
~part with Stavrogin's demise; the Diary's centralized pattern gets, con-
tinuously disrupted bY,the anti-utopia of Russia's emerging capitalism,

36. Gary Saul Morson, The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky's Diary of a Writer
and the Tradition ofLiterary Utopia (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1981), p. 8.
37. Ibid., p. 33.
38. Ibid., p. 36.
Autocratic Capitalism as "Political Unconscious" of Dostoevsky's Devils and A Writer'~ Diary 53

which !llakes the reader doubt the viability of the .traditional autocratic
model. As the post-reform alltocratic· capitalism itself, Dostoevsky's.
novel and one-man journal are marked by contradictory logic; drawn to
the. coherency and stability of traditional moral and social centraliza-
tion, they nevertheless question its plausibility in the conditions of new
historical reality.. In The Devils and the Diary, autocracy, as an ideal-
ized patrimonial model of social relations, represents the utopian desire
to avoid social chaos and' disintegration; confronted with "the brute
facts of empirical history," it turns into a wish-fulfilling fantasy.

University ofCalifornia, Davis