Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky(1821–1881) - prose writer, critic, publicist.

About the book

Writing time: 1867–1869

Content

A young man, Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, returns to St. Petersburg from Switzerland, where he was treated for a severe nervous illness.

After several years of almost reclusive life, he finds himself at the epicenter of St. Petersburg society. The prince takes pity on these people, sees that they are dying, tries to save them, but, despite all his efforts, nothing can change.

In the end, Myshkin is driven to the point of losing his mind by the people he most tried to help.

History of creation

The novel The Idiot was written abroad, where Dostoevsky went to improve his health and write a novel to pay off his creditors.

Work on the novel was difficult, health did not improve, and in 1868 Dostoevsky's three-month-old daughter died in Geneva.

While in Germany and Switzerland, Dostoevsky comprehends the moral and socio-political changes in Russia in the 60s of the XIX century: circles of commoners, revolutionary ideas, mindsets of nihilists. All this will be reflected in the pages of the novel.

Boboli Garden in Florence, where the writer liked to walk during his stay in Italy

The idea of ​​the work

Dostoevsky believed that there is only one positively beautiful person in the world - this is Christ. The writer tried to endow the protagonist of the novel - Prince Myshkin - with similar features.

According to Dostoevsky, Don Quixote is closest to the ideal of Christ in literature. The image of Prince Myshkin echoes the hero of Cervantes' novel. Like Cervantes, Dostoevsky raises the question: what will happen to a person endowed with the qualities of a saint if he finds himself in modern society, how will his relations with others develop and what influence will he have on them, and they on him?

Don Quixote. Drawing by D. A. Harker

Title

The historical meaning of the word "idiot" is a person living in himself, far from society.

The novel uses various shades of the meaning of this word to emphasize the complexity of the character's image. Myshkin is considered strange, he is either recognized as absurd and funny, or they believe that he can “read through” another person. He, honest and truthful, does not fit into the generally accepted norms of behavior. Only at the very end of the novel, another meaning is actualized - “mentally ill”, “clouded by reason”.

The childish appearance and behavior of Myshkin, his naivety, defenselessness are emphasized. “A perfect child”, “child” - that is what those around him call him, and the prince agrees with this. Myshkin says: “What children we are, Kolya! and ... and ... how good it is that we are children! This is clearly the gospel message: "be like children"(Matt 18 :3).

Another shade of the meaning of the word "idiot" is holy fool. In the religious tradition, the blessed are the conductors of Divine wisdom for ordinary people.

The meaning of the work

The novel repeats both the true gospel story and the story of Don Quixote. The world again does not accept the "positively beautiful person." Lev Myshkin is endowed with Christian love and kindness and brings their light to his neighbors. However, the main obstacles on this path are the disbelief and lack of spirituality of modern society.

The people whom the prince is trying to help are ruining themselves before his eyes. By rejecting it, society rejects the possibility of salvation. From a plot point of view, the novel is extremely tragic.

Screen adaptations and theatrical productions

Many film and theater directors and composers addressed the plot of the novel, The Idiot. Dramatic dramatizations begin as early as 1887. One of the most significant theatrical performances versions of Dostoevsky's novel was a 1957 performance staged by Georgy Tovstonogov at the Bolshoi Drama Theater in St. Petersburg. Innokenty Smoktunovsky acted as Prince Myshkin.

"Idiot". Directed by Pyotr Cherdynin (1910)

The first film adaptation of the novel dates back to 1910, the silent film period. The author of this short film was Pyotr Chardynin. The outstanding film version of the first part of the novel was Feature Film Ivan Pyryev "The Idiot" (1958), where the role of Myshkin was played by Yuri Yakovlev.

"Idiot", dir. Akira Kurosawa (1951)

One of the best foreign adaptations of the novel is the Japanese black-and-white drama The Idiot (1951) directed by Akira Kurosawa.

Yevgeny Mironov as Prince Myshkin in the film adaptation of the novel The Idiot (dir. Vladimir Bortko, Russia, 2003)

The most detailed and closest to the original film version of the novel is Vladimir Bortko's serial film The Idiot (2002), the role of Myshkin was played by Yevgeny Mironov.

Interesting facts about the novel

1. Idiot is the second novel in the so-called Great Pentateuch of Dostoevsky. It also includes the novels Crime and Punishment, The Gambler, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov.

Volumes of one of the first editions of the collected works of F. M. Dostoevsky

2. The idea of ​​the novel was strongly influenced by Dostoevsky's impression of Hans Holbein the Younger's painting Dead Christ in the Tomb. The canvas depicts the body of the dead Savior after being removed from the Cross in an extremely naturalistic way. In the image of such a Christ, nothing divine is visible, and according to legend, Holbein painted this picture from a drowned man. Arriving in Switzerland, Dostoevsky wanted to see this picture. The writer was so horrified that he said to his wife: "You can lose faith from such a picture." The tragic plot of the novel, where most of the characters live without faith, largely stems from reflections on this picture. It is no coincidence that it is in the gloomy house of Parfyon Rogozhin, who will later commit the terrible sin of murder, that a copy of the painting “The Dead Christ” hangs.

3. In the novel "Idiot" you can find the well-known phrase "beauty will save the world." In the text, it is pronounced in a sad, ironic and almost mocking tone by two heroes - Aglaya Yepanchina and the terminally ill Ippolit Terentyev. Dostoevsky himself never believed that some abstract beauty would save the world. In his diaries, the formula of salvation sounds like this - "the world will become the beauty of Christ." With the novel The Idiot, Dostoevsky proves that beauty has not only an inspiring, but also a destructive power. tragic fate Nastasya Filippovna, a woman of extraordinary beauty, illustrates the idea that beauty can cause unbearable suffering and destroy.

4. Dostoevsky considered the terrible scene in the Rogozhin house in the final part of The Idiot to be the most important in the novel, as well as a scene "of such power that has not been repeated in literature."

Quotes:

There is nothing more offensive to a man of our time and tribe than to tell him that he is not original, weak in character, without special talents and an ordinary person.

Compassion is the main and, perhaps, the only law of the existence of all mankind.

So much power, so much passion in the modern generation, and they don't believe in anything!

Following Crime and Punishment, F. M. Dostoevsky wrote the novel The Idiot (1868). If in the first work the hero is shown as negative character, then in "The Idiot" the author set himself the opposite task - "to portray a completely beautiful person." This idea was "old and beloved" by Dostoevsky. His desire to create goodie"The author embodied in the image of Prince Myshkin. Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin differs at first glance from all the characters in the novel in that he happily perceives the world. He knows how to be happy. He declares this on the very first day of his arrival in St. Petersburg. In a conversation with the Yepanchin family, when talking about his life in Switzerland, the prince admits: “I, however, was happy almost all the time.” Creating the image of the prince, Dostoevsky in notebooks with plans and sketches for the novel gives the following description: “His view of the world: he forgives everything, sees reasons everywhere, does not see the unforgivable sin and forgives everything.”

Dostoevsky deprives Myshkin of all external qualities that can attract others. Ugly, awkward, and sometimes even funny in society, the prince is ill with a serious illness. For most of the people he meets, he gives the impression of an "idiot" at first. But then all the heroes of the novel are well aware of the superiority of the prince over himself, his spiritual beauty. And all this because the prince is a happy man. “To love is the ability to be happy. A man seeks love because he seeks joy. A happy heart is a loving heart. Love itself is the highest good. And in people, Myshkin discovers this always lively and enticing, but timid and hidden stream of love, the thirst to love and be loved. (A. Skaftymov).

The reasons that prevent people from loving, Dostoevsky reveals in the images of others actors novel. Nastasya Filippovna, Rogozhin, Aglaya, Lizaveta Prokofievna, Ippolit, Ganya Ivolgin and General Ivolgin - all of them, to a greater or lesser extent, are prevented from being happy, understanding and forgiving a sense of pride, pride. All great beginnings human feelings they hide, do not let them come out. The desire to assert themselves over all turns in them into the loss of their own face. A great desire to love, to reveal oneself to another person is suppressed in them by virtue of great self-love and brings them only pain and suffering.

The man who is opposed to all of them is Prince Myshkin, a man who is completely devoid of pride. The prince is the only person who knows how to recognize in people those wonderful spiritual qualities that they so carefully hide from prying eyes. No wonder the prince is easy and good only with children. Children have not yet learned to hide their feelings, to deceive, to suppress sincere impulses in themselves. Yes, and Myshkin himself is a “big child”. In Dostoevsky, the feeling of “childishness” in his heroes is always a sign that the “living sources of the heart” have not yet completely disappeared in their souls, they are still alive, they have not been completely drowned out by “the assurances and temptations of denying reason and pride.”

But it is always difficult for a prince with his open soul and innocence in society " big people”, because a naively open soul for strangers, unloving eyes, callous and envious hearts is ridiculous and does not fit into the framework of a society where all feelings are tightly closed and where their own laws of decency are observed. In such a society, sincerity is even indecent and can only humiliate a person. For those who love the prince more, and appreciate and respect, such behavior causes shame for him, embarrassment and indignation at the prince himself for revealing his soul to unworthy people.

But Prince Myshkin feels the distance between himself and his inner ideal. And he knows how to appreciate the attitude towards himself from the outside. He suffers a lot from the fact that he understands the difference between what he says, how he says it, and himself “I know that I ... am offended by nature ... I am superfluous in society ... I am not from pride ... I know very well that it’s embarrassing to talk about your feelings to everyone. ” The prince feels this not because he is proud, unlike all the other characters in the novel, but because he is afraid that the expression of these thoughts may not be understood by others, that the “main idea” may be distorted and therefore he will suffer even more. And the prince also dreams of a man who would understand him, love him as he is.

He felt this "light" of understanding and acceptance of his soul in Aglaya. Therefore, the motive of the prince's double love sounds in the novel. On the one hand, love for Nastasya Filippovna, compassionate love, forgiveness love, love "for her." On the other hand, there is love for Aglaya, a thirst for forgiveness for oneself, love "for oneself." The prince always believed that Aglaya would understand him. The prince understands that it is difficult to love him, but he strives for love. In his heart, one love does not crowd out the other, they both live in his soul. And if, by the will of the author, the prince had not been drawn into a conflict situation, he would have remained with Aglaya. But he stayed with Nastasya Filippovna, and this did not happen by his will, because he knew that he was necessary for her.

The Idiot is one of Dostoyevsky's most complex works. Saltykov-Shchedrin called the idea of ​​the novel "radiant" and emphasized that Dostoevsky had entered that area of ​​"anticipations and forebodings" where "the most distant searches" are directed. The image of Prince Myshkin, conceived as a type of "positively beautiful person", turned into the image of a sick man, weak man with the seal of deep inner suffering.

The prince is incapable of resolving a single contradiction in life, he is aware of the tragic, hopeless nature of the phenomena that are taking place, but he still cannot change this life in any way. Despite the fact that the prince deeply understands life and people, he cannot exert any influence on them. He cannot prevent Nastasya Filippovna's torment, prevent her murder by Rogozhin, help Aglaya find a way out of the impasse, and ends his life insanity himself. Dostoevsky brings Myshkin closer to Don Quixote and Pushkin's "poor knight". On the one hand, he emphasizes by this the moral height of the prince, and on the other hand, his impotence, generated by the discrepancy between his ideals and life. This is the result of the meeting of the ideal hero with the people of a soulless, decaying society. “He,” Dostoevsky remarked, “only touched their lives. But whatever he could do and undertake, everything died with him ... But wherever he touched, everywhere he left an unexplored line.

Before carrying out brief analysis novel "The Idiot", it should be noted that Fyodor Dostoevsky realized in this work his old creative ideas, which had matured for him for quite a long time. The famous Russian thinker analyzed and thought a lot about the storyline, as well as the characters of the characters. The result exceeded all expectations.

The protagonist of the novel "The Idiot" is Prince Myshkin. Dostoevsky himself gave Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin an author's assessment, saying that he was indeed a "wonderful personality", because he embodied not only goodness, but also Christian morality. Thanks to kindness, honesty, disinterestedness and great philanthropy, the prince was so strikingly different from those around him, who were mired in hypocrisy and greed, putting money and greed at the forefront. This is one of the key thoughts in the analysis of the novel "Idiot", because that is why Prince Myshkin in the eyes of his environment really was just an "idiot".

Let's remember what kind of life the prince led. For the most part, he was closed in on himself, and only when Lev Nikolaevich began to rotate in high society did he realize that inhumanity, cruelty and other vices of people reigned around. Dostoevsky associates this character with Jesus Christ, or rather, with the purpose for which he came to earth. Myshkin, like Jesus, dies, while forgiving people - those who were his enemies. In addition, Myshkin wants to provide real help to society, to individuals, and tries to inspire good beginnings in them, setting an appropriate example. The above parallel is clearly visible when we analyze the novel "The Idiot", do not miss this detail.

Other Analysis Details

Let's look at the compositional structure of the work - in its center is the image of the protagonist, and the whole plot, all other characters are closely intertwined with him. What characters are we talking about? We are talking about the family of General Epanchin, the merchant Rogozhin, Nastasya Filippovna, Gan Ivolgin and some others.

The red thread of the story is also the confrontation between the virtue of Prince Myshkin and the usual way of life people from the world. The author set the task to reflect the negative side of this contrast, which is visible even to the heroes of the confrontation. They understand everything, but boundless kindness was not close to them, and they rejected it.

Are there symbols in the novel? Of course, and making an analysis of the work "The Idiot", it is impossible to pass by this aspect. The protagonist here becomes a symbol of Christian love, Nastasya Filippovna is associated with beauty, and the symbolic nature of the painting "The Dead Christ" is especially vivid, because Myshkin says that if you contemplate it, you can lose faith.

What conclusions can be drawn?

The ending of the novel is tragic, and complete lack of spirituality and the fact of lack of faith lead to such an ending. One can look at the essence of the ending from different angles and evaluate it differently, but Dostoevsky makes a clear emphasis on physical and spiritual beauty, which cannot survive in the midst of self-interest, greed and hypocrisy.

Individualism and the ideology of "Napoleonism" are steadily growing. Dostoevsky notes this. And although the author stands for the freedom inherent in any person, he is convinced that often inhuman acts are committed as a result of unlimited and uncontrolled willfulness. When an individual tries to assert himself, it leads to crime. Dostoevsky regarded the revolutionary movement as the most typical anarchist revolt.

Interestingly, the characters of all the characters that had interaction with the character of Prince Myshkin developed in better side, and thanks to the image good man, which has a biblical basis, we see the reason for such a positive change.

You have read the analysis of the novel "The Idiot" by Dostoevsky, and we hope that it was useful to you. You might also be interested in articles

The novel touches on various topics that are very relevant in modern world. The first topic that Fyodor Mikhailovich raises is greed. What people are not ready for for their own benefit, they only think about how to take a more prestigious position in society. All this does not go unnoticed. After all, the thirst for wealth pushes people to the dirtiest deeds that are committed without a twinge of conscience. Man is convinced that the end justifies the means. He doesn't need anything else, that's enough to calm himself. After all, everyone does it. The thirst for profit pushes people to slander, a little later they begin to change their own principles and beliefs.

The problem is that in society you can become someone significant only if you have significant people in higher circles, who will put in a good word to whomever they need. Moreover, self-interest does not act independently, she has a true friend, who is called vanity.

This work has a philosophical meaning. The author resorts to the rules and foundations of Christianity. He takes a lot as a basis from a famous teacher named Christ. Moreover, Fyodor Mikhailovich singles out one character, which is a prince by the name of Myshkin, and endows him with many Christian qualities. This hero even has a savior function. He cares about those around him. Myshkin is not indifferent to the condition of other people, he is compassionate, capable of mercy and not vindictive. People around the prince are also trying to learn these qualities.

Further, the novel very actively raises the theme of love. Here you can find all its varieties. In the work there is love for people, love between a man and a woman, friendly love and love in the family. Also, the author did not forget about the passion that is especially inherent in a character named Rogozhin. The highest love is characteristic of Prince Myshkin, while Ganya has low love, built on vanity and self-interest.

The author wanted to show how rotten society is in the highest circles, which are called the intelligentsia. Here you can observe the moral and spiritual degradation. It's normal for heroes to have a double life. For this, the author singles out Myshkin, who is endowed with the qualities of a spiritual person. He cares about other people, he is not selfish, he is able to forgive others for their misdeeds. This hero exists so that a person is not completely disappointed in this world, which is full of vices and where everyone thinks only of himself. This hero gives hope that not everything is lost and that there are pure people in the world.

Dostoevsky emphasizes that society needs holy people who will point out vices and sins. Because without them, everything would have fallen apart a long time ago. Of course, it is difficult for the righteous to live, because it is impossible to adapt to such conditions. However, they do not give up, they have something more than ordinary people. Moreover, they are very happy when they manage to help someone and make someone's life at least a little better.

Option 2

The novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky "The Idiot" (very brief summary) is one of the masterpieces of Russian classical literature. Interest in this work can be traced to this day. And not only among the readers of our country, but also abroad. And this is not surprising, because the novel is a storehouse for philosophers. The work is filled with symbolic content. Dostoevsky put a hidden meaning into each character. For example, Nastasya Filippovna symbolizes beauty and girlish passion, and Prince Myshkin symbolizes Christian love and justice.

In order to understand the meaning and essence of the work as much as possible, it is necessary to turn to its analysis.

The most important goal of this work is to show the process of decomposition of the society of that time, in particular in the circles of the intelligentsia. The reader may note exactly how this process of decay occurs: through love affairs, mental baseness and double life. The author created the image of a wonderful person endowed with such qualities as justice, kindness and sincerity. But at the same time, Dostoevsky shows readers that, unfortunately, a person with a beautiful soul is not able to withstand the hordes of vile and miserable people. He becomes powerless, surrounded by envious and prudent people.

However, the meaning of the novel is that for the most part, a vile society simply needs a righteous man. This righteous man of life, according to Christian canons, is Prince Myshkin. It is with him that every other hero of the work feels somewhat safe from lies and pretense, behaves naturally, and finally, they know their own soul.

Dostoevsky brings up many themes in the novel. One of the most egregious is the theme of greed. The desire to achieve a certain status and the vision of happiness in untold wealth can be traced in such heroes of the novel as Ganya Ivolgin, General Yepanchin and Totsky. The author emphasizes that in such a society, those who do not know how to lie, who do not have connections and a noble name, will not succeed.

Of course, Dostoevsky could not but highlight the theme of religion. And the main character, directly involved in the topic of Christianity, of course, is Prince Myshkin. It is he who is some savior of the novel. It can be compared to Jesus Christ himself, who sacrificed himself for the salvation of others. It is thanks to Prince Myshkin that other heroes of the work learn to be merciful and show compassion for their neighbor. They are Varya, Aglaya and Elizaveta Petrovna.

Along with religious themes, the theme of love in all its forms can be traced in the work. For example, the love of Prince Myshkin for Nastasya Filippovna is Christian, as the hero of the novel himself believes, his feelings are “love out of pity”. What Rogozhin calls his feelings love is nothing but passion. After all, you can do such an act as murder only out of passion, but not out of love. In Ganya Ivolgin, love has a vain character. His feelings are measured by the amount of money he can get by playing the role of a loving person well.

The novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky was created with the aim of calling people to love for good. At the same time, the author teaches readers to believe in the salvation of the human soul and to see in it the purpose of life.

Analysis of The Idiot

The idea for The Idiot came to Dostoevsky in the process of writing another, also immortal novel, Crimes and Punishments. If in "Crime and Punishment" Raskolnikov lost faith in everything: in God, in humanity, even in himself. He is trying to establish himself as a person through crime.

The protagonist of the novel "Idiot" Prince Myshkin, on the contrary, embodies not only kindness but also faith, not only in God and in people too, he has the hope that from the mass of villains there will be one worthy person. It is thanks to his honesty and kindness that the prince stands out from the general background of other people. The rest of the vile and mercenary people do everything for their own benefit or in order to commit meanness for others.

Myshkin is disgusted by such a life, he understands it in part, but does not accept it. For the rest, this person is really incomprehensible, and even more so, evil tongues dubbed him with an insulting “nickname - an idiot”. They can't (don't want to) understand him. Although many people like his honesty, however, many of even his good acquaintances get annoyed over time. In fact, the prince never has real and sincere friends.

Dostoevsky, as an experienced psychoanalyst, reflected the essence of the time in which he lived. He put two opposites and, as it were, compared them. The essence that he noticed lies in the revolutionary spirit and disintegration that was approaching Russia. Dostoevsky, back in Possessed, predicted what would happen to Russia if a revolution began and how it would be. “Rus will be clouded…” - this is what the main anti-hero of the novel Verkhovensky says. And there were many such Verkhovenskys in Rus', it was they who created the revolution of 1905 and two revolutions of 1917.

Society and people as a whole have ceased to perceive and accept goodness and honesty. They do not believe in them, and they themselves are not. Prince Myshkin annoys them. Yet his honesty disarms evil. But, unfortunately, not always. The surrounding evil and misunderstanding, as well as the transferred illness, make the prince closed in himself. He gets acquainted with the "higher" light and finds it cruel and vicious.

In general, Dostoevsky shows in Myshkin - Christ, but in fact he is him. He tries to induce people to do good, forgives everyone, even enemies, but dies. He is ruined by the misunderstanding of others.

Some interesting essays

• The death of the prosecutor in Gogol's Dead Souls

  There are not very many episodes where the main characters are the prosecutor, but they still exist. The very first meeting of Chichikov is given to us at the ball, where Nozdryov is present.

• Do you agree that indifference is the highest cruelty? Final essay

  Such a phrase can carry a positive message, as it encourages people to be active in some kind of action. Accordingly, they become more interested in the rest of the world, other people

• Children in the work In bad company Korolenko

  The story "In Bad Society" was written by V.G. Korolenko during his time in exile. Due to the fact that the writer was distinguished by an objective view, bold statements, he often criticized

This work is dedicated to the battle of people from Ukraine for the independence and freedom of their homeland. The writer had a pretty good general idea history of their country

• Historical events in the novel The Captain's Daughter of Pushkin

  Captain's daughter the fundamental historical novel by A. S. Pushkin became one of his last works during his lifetime. The work was published at the end of 1836, two months later its author will be killed in a duel.

The novel "The Idiot" became the realization of F.M. Dostoevsky, his main character- Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin, according to the author's judgment, is "a truly wonderful person", he is the embodiment of goodness and Christian morality. And it is precisely for his disinterestedness, kindness and honesty, extraordinary philanthropy in the world of money and hypocrisy that Myshkin's entourage calls an "idiot." Prince Myshkin spent most of his life in isolation, going out into the world, he did not know what horrors of inhumanity and cruelty he would have to face. Lev Nikolaevich symbolically fulfills the mission of Jesus Christ and, like him, perishes loving and forgiving humanity. Just as Christ, the prince, is trying to help all the people who surround him, he is trying to heal their souls with his kindness and incredible insight.

The image of Prince Myshkin is the center of the composition of the novel, all plot lines and heroes are connected with it: the family of General Yepanchin, the merchant Rogozhin, Nastasya Filippovna, Ganya Ivolgin, etc. And also the center of the novel is a bright contrast between the virtue of Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin and the usual way of life of secular society . Dostoevsky was able to show that even for the heroes themselves, this contrast looks terrifying, they did not understand this boundless kindness and, therefore, were afraid of it.

The novel is filled with symbols, here Prince Myshkin symbolizes Christian love, Nastasya Filippovna - beauty. The picture “Dead Christ” has a symbolic character, from the contemplation of which, according to Prince Myshkin, one can lose faith.

The lack of faith and spirituality become the causes of the tragedy that happened at the end of the novel, the meaning of which is regarded in different ways. The author focuses on the fact that physical and spiritual beauty will perish in a world that puts only self-interest and benefit as an absolute.

The writer insightfully noticed the growth of individualism and the ideology of "Napoleonism". Adhering to the ideas of individual freedom, he at the same time believed that unlimited self-will leads to inhuman acts. Dostoevsky considered crime as the most typical manifestation of individualistic self-affirmation. He saw in the revolutionary movement of his time an anarchist revolt. In his novel, he created not only an image of impeccable goodness equal to the biblical one, but showed the development of the characters of all the heroes of the novel who interacted with Myshkin for the better.

Some convention is connected with this in the description of how the character of the prince was formed. We only know about his severe mental illness, which he overcame in Switzerland, for a long time living outside of civilization, far from modern people.

His return to Russia, to St. Petersburg seething with egoistic passions, remotely resembles the "second coming" of Christ to people in their confused, "sinful" life. Prince Myshkin has a special mission in the novel. According to the author's intention, it is intended to heal the souls of people struck by selfishness. Just as Christianity took root in the world through the preaching of the twelve apostles, so Myshkin must revive in the world the lost faith in the highest good. With his arrival and active participation in the fate of people, he must cause a chain reaction of good, demonstrate the healing power of the great Christian idea. The intention of the novel is covertly polemical: Dostoevsky wants to prove that the teaching of socialists about the impotence of a single good, about the impracticability of the idea of ​​"moral self-improvement" is absurd.

Prince Myshkin is distinguished from all other heroes of the novel by his natural "childishness" and the "immediate purity of moral feeling" associated with it.

N. Tolstoy and therefore gave his hero a Tolstoy name and patronymic - Lev Nikolaevich. In communicating with people around him, he does not recognize any class distinctions and other barriers born of civilization. Already in the reception room of General Yepanchin, he behaves as an equal with his lackey and leads the latter to the idea that “the prince is just a fool and has no ambitions, because a smart prince with ambition would not sit in the hallway and talk about his affairs with a lackey. ..". Nevertheless, "for some reason he liked the prince," and "no matter how strong the lackey was, it was impossible not to maintain such a courteous and polite conversation." Myshkin is completely free from false pride, which fetters in people the free and living movements of the soul. In St. Petersburg, everyone "keeps themselves," everyone is too concerned about the impression they make on others. Everyone, like Makar Devushkin, is very afraid of being considered funny, of revealing himself.

The prince is completely devoid of egoism and left by Dostoevsky with open sources of heart and soul. In his "childhood" there is a rare spiritual sensitivity and insight. He deeply feels someone else's "I", someone else's individuality and easily separates in a person the real from the superficial, the sincere from the lie. He sees that egoism is only an outer shell, under which lies the pure core of human individuality. With his gullibility, he easily breaks through the bark of vanity in people and releases from captivity the best, innermost qualities of their souls.

Unlike many, Myshkin is not afraid to be funny, he is not afraid of humiliation and resentment. Having received a slap in the face from the proud Ganechka Ivolgin, he is very worried, but not for himself, but for Ganechka: "Oh, how you will be ashamed of your act!" He cannot be offended, because he is not busy with himself, but with the soul of the offending person. He feels that a person who tries to humiliate another humiliates himself first of all.

Pushkin's all-humanity, the talent to embody the geniuses of other peoples with all the "hidden depths" of their spirit is manifested in Myshkin and in his extraordinary calligraphic abilities, in the ability to convey through calligraphy the features of different cultures and even different human characters.

The prince easily forgives people for their egoism, because he knows that any egoist consciously or secretly suffers deeply from his egoism and loneliness. Perceptive, endowed with the gift of heartfelt understanding of someone else's soul, Myshkin has a renewing and healing effect on everyone. With him, everyone becomes cleaner, more smiling, more trusting and more frank. But such outbursts of cordial communication in people poisoned by the poison of egoism are both beneficial and dangerous nonetheless. Instant, instantaneous healings in these people are replaced by flashes of even more frenzied pride. It turns out that with his influence, the prince both awakens cordiality and aggravates the contradictions of a sick, conceited soul. modern man. Saving the world, he provokes a catastrophe. This central, tragic line of the novel is revealed in the story of the prince's love for Nastasya Filippovna. Meeting with her is a kind of exam, a test of the prince's ability to heal the painfully proud hearts of people. Myshkin's touch to her soul, wounded by life, not only does not soften, but sharpens the contradictions inherent in it. The novel ends with the death of the heroine.

What's the matter? Why does a prince with a talent for healing people provoke a catastrophe? What does this catastrophe indicate: about the inferiority of the ideal that the prince affirms, or about the imperfection of people who are unworthy of his ideal?

Let's try to get to the answer to these difficult questions.

Nastasya Filippovna is a person who, in her youth, was betrayed by reproach and harbored a grudge against people and the world.

This spiritual wound constantly hurts Nastasya Filippovna and gives rise to a contradictory complex of feelings. On the one hand, there is credulity and innocence in it, a secret shame for an undeserved, but accomplished moral fall, and on the other, a consciousness of offended pride. This unbearable combination of opposing feelings - wounded pride and hidden gullibility - is noticed by the insightful Myshkin even before direct acquaintance with the heroine, at one glance at her portrait: "As if immense pride and contempt, almost hatred were in this face, and at the same time something gullible, something wonderfully ingenuous."

In the presence of people, proud feelings of contempt for people rage on the surface of the heroine's soul, sometimes leading her to cynical acts. But in this cynicism, she only tries to prove to everyone that she neglects their low opinion of herself. And in the depths of the same soul, a sensitive, cordial being wakes up, longing for love and forgiveness. In secret thoughts, Nastasya Filippovna is waiting for a person who will come to her and say: “You are not to blame,” and he will understand and forgive ...

And now the long-awaited miracle happens, such a person comes and even offers her a hand and a heart. But instead of the expected peace, he brings Nastasya Filippovna an aggravation of suffering. The appearance of the prince not only does not reassure, but leads to a paradox, to a tragic rupture, the contradictory poles of her soul. Throughout the novel, Nastasya Filippovna is drawn to Myshkin and pushed away from him. The stronger the attraction, the stronger the repulsion: the oscillations grow and end in disaster.

Carefully reading the novel, you are convinced that the heroine is attracted to Myshkin and repelled from him for two completely opposite psychological motives.

Firstly, the prince in her mind is surrounded by a halo of holiness. It is so pure and beautiful that it is scary to touch it. Would she dare, after all that had happened to her, to defile him with her touch.

"I, he says, know what kind. I was Totsky's concubine." Out of love for Myshkin, for his purity, she yields to him to another, more worthy one, and steps aside.

Secondly, next to the psychological motives coming from the depths of her heart, other, already familiar to us, proud, proud feelings arise. To give a hand to a prince means to forget the insult, to forgive people the abyss of humiliation into which they threw it. Is it easy for a person, in whose soul everything sacred has been trampled down for so long, to believe again in pure love, goodness and beauty? And wouldn't such kindness be insulting for a humiliated person, giving rise to an outburst of pride? "In her pride," says the prince, "she will never forgive me for my love." Along with worship before the shrine, malice is born. Nastasya Filippovna accuses the prince of putting himself too high, that his compassion is humiliating.

Thus, the heroine is attracted to the prince out of a thirst for an ideal, love, forgiveness, and at the same time repels him either because of her own unworthiness, or because of wounded pride, which does not allow her to forget insults and accept love and forgiveness. "Reconciliation" does not occur in her soul, on the contrary, a "rebellion" is growing, culminating in the fact that she herself actually "runs" on the knife of the merchant Rogozhin, who jealously loves her. And here is the tragic finale of the novel: “when, after many hours, the door opened and people entered, they found the murderer in complete unconsciousness and fever. run a trembling hand over his hair and cheeks, as if caressing and calming him, but he no longer understood what they were asking him about, and did not recognize the people who had entered and surrounded him.

This ending of the novel causes conflicting interpretations. Many believe that Dostoevsky, willy-nilly, showed the collapse of the great mission of salvation and renewal of the world on the path of Christian improvement of people.

But another interpretation of the novel seems more reliable. It is not without reason that the idea is expressed that "paradise is a difficult thing." The prince's Christian kindness and mercy really exacerbate the contradictions in the souls of people captured by selfishness. But the aggravation of contradictions testifies that their souls are not indifferent to such goodness. Before good triumphs, a tense and even tragic struggle with evil in the minds of people is inevitable. And Myshkin's spiritual death comes only when, to the best of his strength and ability, he gave himself entirely to people, planting the seeds of goodness in their hearts. Only by suffering paths will mankind obtain the inner light of the Christian ideal. Let us recall Dostoevsky's favorite words from the Gospel: "Truly, truly, I say to you, if a grain of wheat, falling into the ground, does not die, then only one will remain; and if it dies, it will bear much fruit."

The question of the "Idiot's" system - despite its apparent "formality" - requires a special ideological forewarning. First of all - because of the eccentricity of the hero, his special position not only within the framework of the novel dedicated to him, but also within the framework of Dostoevsky's work as a whole.

The author himself felt this extraordinaryness quite acutely. Already in the first stages of his work, Dostoevsky knew:<...>The whole comes out in the form of a hero.” After the publication of the book, regretting that much of it remained unexpressed, the writer was nevertheless inclined to consider those readers closest to him who preferred The Idiot to all his creations.

It is not surprising that in the process of scientific analysis, the hero also exerts an almost personal influence on the researcher. The concepts of the novel are largely determined by the attitude of the writer to Prince Myshkin. The rejection of the hero as a “positively beautiful person” dictates conclusions that are outwardly heterogeneous, but are essentially the same - the thesis about the “underincarnation” of the central character (K. Mochulsky), the re-emphasis of the work, in which its center is not “prince Christ”, and the rebellious heroine (as in the notorious book by V. Yermilov) or the interpretation of the tragedy of the final in the spirit of the prince's guilt (in the last thought, Dostoevsky's atheistic opponents of the 30-60s and today's orthodox-religious interpreters unexpectedly converge).

Impression of Dostoevsky's novels, as a rule, arises from two successive, qualitatively polar states. First, you become infected with the atmosphere of thunderstorm and chaos that reigns in the world of his heroes. And only then is the harmonious author's intention revealed, the order in which true art lives. In the novel The Idiot, the harmonic beginning plays a special role. It is not only a source of formal, cementing unity (the word "harmony" in Homer means "clamps", "nails").

The compositional harmony here is an analogue of that image of a perfect life, which Myshkin knows as reality. The face of harmony in this work of Dostoevsky (in contrast to "Crime and Punishment" or "Demons") is revealed directly - in the face of the hero. All the main properties of the construction of The Idiot are determined by this person, the degree and nature of Myshkin's influence on the rest of the characters in the novel. The static section of the composition (in other words, the main principle of the arrangement of actors) is the confrontation between the “Prince Christ” and all those who surround him. The system and meaning of this comparison have been sufficiently clarified by modern literary criticism. Let us specify only one thing - what expressed the "individuality" of "The Idiot" against the backdrop of the classic Russian one-centered novel. The antithesis - the hero and others - is justified here not by the scale of the personality (Pechorin), the level of intelligence (Rudin), representation on behalf of the social group (Bazarov, Molotov) or the fullness of the typical (Oblomov). Behind the figure of a “positively beautiful person” in Dostoevsky is something incomparably greater—participation in a higher truth. That is involvement. The finite human shell is unable to accommodate the Absolute. Moreover, the Earth cannot contain it - earthly forms of being and consciousness. “Christ is God, as far as the Earth could show God” (24; 244), - it is said in the “Notebook of 1876-1877”. Dostoevsky does not decipher this statement, almost enigmatic in its unorthodoxity. But about man as a generic being he speaks somewhat more definitely: “Man is a being on earth, only developing, therefore, not finished, but transitional.”

Subsequently, this idea will be transferred to Kirillov. In order to endure the “presence of higher harmony” for more than five seconds, it is said in “Demons”, “one must change physically...”. Until the same time - "foolishness", "opposite gesture", the darkness of epilepsy - the payment for the insight of the ideal. Myshkin is not equal to the truth he represents. But there is some artistic magic in this very inequality. The work, despite Dostoevsky's rare formal completeness, "roundness", does not close on itself. Infinity, translucent through the hero's figure, pushes the clear boundaries of the novel's "construction".

Let us return, however, to this “construction” itself, to its structural foundations. Unlike "Crimes and Punishments", where the plot is organized by the hero's deed and its consequences, "The Idiot" is a relationship novel. The action unfolds here as a string of scenes connected by narrative bridges. As a rule, these are scenes of two types: a steam room, where a “close-up” of a separate human destiny, and the conclave is the moment of the intersection of many destinies, the clash of everyone with everyone, taking place in conditions of extreme psychological and plot tension. There are also intermediate scenes that combine several faces. They approach the pairs if the prince's opponents act as a psychological unity (the episode of breakfast at the Yepanchins), or to the conclave if their aspirations are in different directions (the arrival of Nastasya Filippovna to the Ivolgins). Myshkin is a participant in all significant episodes, but the nature of his communication with others in the atmosphere of a chamber meeting or a crowded meeting is different. Sometimes this distinction is interpreted as a kind of key to understanding the tragedy of the hero.

Thus, analyzing the performance of Innokenty Smoktunovsky in the performance of the BDT, N. Ya. Berkovsky noticed something unexpected and repetitive: Prince Myshkin “establishes relations between himself and each individual and, it would seem, achieves complete success every time.” But “as soon as resurrected souls come into contact with others, also resurrected, everything achieved by Prince Myshkin collapses in an instant.” Paired scenes, thus, are a chain of moral victories of the hero; the conclaves are his unconditional defeats.

This idea, seductive in its vivid certainty and therefore fully justified as a principle of the structure of the performance, is only partially confirmed by the novel. The relationship between the prince and the “others” is generally more complicated. The nature of the correlation of paired scenes and conclaves changes at different stages of the novel's action - in the "progress of the structure of a thing" (S. Eisenstein's expression).

This move puts us before the problem of composition as the internal movement of the work. In its dynamic section, the composition of “The Idiot” is due to the oncoming movement of two polar forces. The novel opens the coming of the “Prince Christ” to the people. His attraction to them is unequivocal and simple. The reciprocal aspiration of “others” to the prince is complex and varied in quality. It is generated by impulses of different levels. The lower is a movement almost devoid of direction. These are fluctuations of endless intrigues - the sphere of activity of Lebedev, Varia Ivolgina, and partly Ippolit. Their secret plans, petty defections, betrayal “for the sake of business” and “for the sake of art” have little effect on the actions of the main characters. But they create a flickering background of eternal restlessness. This pulsating plasma demonstrates the main feature of the "age of vices and railways" - the activity of separation, the struggle of all against all, "anthropophagy".

Its most striking manifestation, a form that emphasizes the incompatibility of individual interests, is the rivalry that boils around two women. Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya, by the feeling that they arouse in those around them, are the focus of a movement that is opposite to the harmonizing influence of the prince. However, we seem to have forgotten the hero altogether. The world of "anthropophagy" can exist without it. Maybe, but in the artistic space of the novel does not exist. Everything is superimposed on the inclination towards “prince Christ” peculiar to everyone and exclusive for everyone. The centripetal movement absorbs civil strife and is colored by them. The dialectic of the interaction of polar forces determines the course and meaning of all the vicissitudes of the novel plot. The development of the action passes through two parallel and qualitatively different stages. In the first part, coinciding with the first part of the novel, the main conflicts are outlined, concrete decisions are anticipated, although without "obligation". The second, expanding the range of persons and events, varies and complicates the given set of problems and forms. The foreseen comes true - with the immutability of the inevitable and the freedom of random life incarnations. The beginning of the plot movement in the novel reveals the premises of the action - it represents the hero, opposed to the world and gravitating towards the world.

The course of the structure of the first part is a turning point from the ever-growing expectation of harmony to the triumph of chaos. The role of the prince here is drawn close to the scheme outlined in the work of N. Ya. Berkovsky. The first meeting - a conversation in the car - is perceived as a model of relationships that develop at the first stage of the hero's journey to people. Starting a road conversation with barbs and hostility, Rogozhin ends it with an unexpected confession: “Prince, I don’t know why I fell in love with you. Maybe it was because I met him at that moment, but I also met him (he pointed to Lebedev), but he didn’t love him ”. The chain of paired scenes that follow this episode is a staircase of Myshkin's brilliant victories. The spectacle of these victories is so captivating, the rise of the hero is so swift, that almost no attention is paid to the rational methodicalness (worthy of the author of Oblomov) with which Dostoevsky introduces the reader to the character of a “positively beautiful person”.

The exposition, merged with the plot, subject to its dynamics, ends quite late - only towards the middle of the first part, when the main word is finally said about the hero. The Yepanchins, who “examined” the prince, unraveled the mission of the strange guest: he appeared to teach, prophesy, and save. The episode at the Ivolgins, the first scene close to the conclave, is a direct realization of this mission. Having taken upon himself the malice addressed to another, exposing himself to a slap in the face, Prince Myshkin not only subdued the whirlwind of hostile passions, he brought to the surface human souls hidden layers of good.

Next to Nastasya Filippovna, who “woke up” at his word, next to the penitent Ganya, touched by Varya, Kolya in love with him, the hero seems almost omnipotent. A genuine conclave - a catastrophe at a party at Nastasya Filippovna's - reveals the illusory nature of the ideas that have arisen. Prince Myshkin is no longer a winner. But, let's not simplify: what happened cannot be regarded as a direct defeat of him. The conclave has no winners at all.

"Catastrophe," writes M. M. Bakhtin, is the opposite of triumph and apotheosis. In essence, it is also devoid of elements of catharsis. Not knowing the winners, the conclave marks the purely defeated: “scapegoats” are singled out - the victims of a common reproach. In the "fireplace scene" it is, of course, Ganechka. The prince, by Nastasya Filippovna's treatment of him, is exalted and immersed in immeasurable sorrow. In its tonality, the finale of the first part anticipates the general outcome of the novel's action. The second part, in terms of the content and form of the initial episodes, varies the beginning of the first, but varies in such a way that the “correction” immediately takes into account the sad meaning of what has already happened. Again Myshkin comes to Petersburg. Again he meets with Lebedev, with Rogozhin. Paired scenes here again model the nature of the relationship that will unfold in the future. But this model is different from that at commissioning. The hero has subtly changed. Full of hopes and plans, he is at the same time seized by the returning illness, immersed in bad forebodings.

Accordingly, the course of the key pair scene, the meeting with Rogozhin, also changed. The episode is oversaturated with gloomy details (from haunting eyes to Holbein's painting), painfully slowed down. Its result is two contrasting plot peaks: the exchange of crosses and a knife raised over Myshkin. This is how the new nature of people's relationship to the prince expresses itself in its ultimate manifestation - not the former unconditional acceptance, but the destructive rhythm of attraction and repulsion. It is planned a little earlier - all in the same "fireplace scene", in the kinks of Nastasya Filippovna's behavior in the face of Myshkin and Rogozhin. Her throw from one to the other, her rejection of the one in whom for the first time in her life she “believed in a truly devoted person”, can hardly be interpreted as a conscious self-sacrifice. The basis of everything, rather, is an irresistible subconscious impulse.

The already cited note of Dostoevsky dated April 16, 1864 helps to understand it: “<...>A person strives on earth for an ideal that is opposite to his nature.. The heroes of the novel, succumbing to the impulse of passionate craving for the embodied ideal, then just as passionately take revenge on him and themselves for the inability to stay at his level. The paired scene with Rogozhin translates what might have seemed exceptional in Nastasya Filippovna's behavior into an immutable law. This is how Myshkin's relations with most of the heroes will now unfold: from Lebedev to Ippolit and Aglaya. Alienation penetrates into the sphere where the prince initially looked all-powerful. The process of aggravated human isolation finds for itself in the second half of the novel a new, specific structural equivalent - the multiplicity of "parallel plots". In the first part, the possibility of these parallels is outlined, but not realized. “Additional” plot material fits there in closed inserted short stories. Precisely because of their completeness, such short stories do not “compete” with the main line, they are easily assimilated by the plot flow. Another thing is "plots, that is, stories that continue throughout the whole novel." In their very presence is an encroachment on the hegemony of the center. The minor characters of the novel “rebel” against their own minority, do not agree to be interesting to the reader only as they participate in the affairs of the main persons. The history of the work on The Idiot reveals a curious psychological phenomenon: having published half of the novel, Dostoevsky continues to “invent” plans in which the first roles are given to persons who, in fact, have already left the game (Gana, for example). And in the white text, Gavrila Ardalyonovich, after his mortal disgrace, is going to conquer Aglaya. Hippolyte after the “necessary explanation” does not die, but intrigues and gets angry. General Ivolgin, sentenced to a catastrophe, Myshkin takes hours to “reminisce” about Napoleon. The first part of the novel demonstrated one-centeredness as the predominant principle of composition of the whole. Starting from the second part, this principle has not been abolished, but supplemented by the opposite - the autonomy of side lines. On the second paths, there are now even conclaves - the centers of the parts selected by the author.

So, the conclave of the second part - the Yepanchins and the Nihilists visiting Myshkin. The conclave of the third is the “necessary explanation” of Hippolytus and the tragicomedy of his “unpublished” suicide. The hypertrophy of additional plots in the novel not only multiplies vital material. In the stories and reflections of minor characters, the ideological overtones of the central events are exposed. The relationship of “far-off concepts” is established: Nastasya Filippovna’s revenge and the challenge that Ippolit throws to the higher forces, Keller’s naive-cunning extortions and Prince Myshkin’s “double thoughts”; interpretations of the Apocalypse and Petersburg reality. The splitting of a single plot core brings with it not only fragmentation, but also the accumulation of internal commonality.

Both the one and the other Dostoevsky- symptoms of the approaching finale. In the course of the second and third parts, they are still little perceptible. The conclaves of these parts, lying on "parallel plots", do not undermine the position of the protagonist. The situation will be changed by the moment when he himself becomes the center of universal “consideration” and ridicule – namely, the conclave of the last, fourth part of the novel. This is the scene of the evening at the Yepanchins' - a meeting of guests, unusual for them in its level, the secular "bride" of the groom Aglaya. Everything that happens to the prince during these "views" - inappropriate animation, passionate sermon, and a broken vase, and an epileptic seizure that overtook him - should come down to a single conclusion: "he is an impossible groom." But, oddly enough, this conclusion has almost no effect on Myshkin's everyday situation. Having decided on him, Lizaveta Prokofievna suddenly disputes herself: “I would drive all those yesterdays away,--she says to Aglaya,--but she left him, that's the kind of person he is...”.

The scene of the evening touches on something incomparably more important in relation to the prince than the reputation of the groom - the hero's supra-domestic status changes. Before the guests of the Epanchins, Myshkin for the first time acts as a preacher. The meaning of his sermon, as has been noted more than once in the study of dignity, is close to the ideological complex of Dostoevsky - the author of the Writer's Diary. In this capacity, Myshkin's speech on Catholicism and Orthodoxy has repeatedly attracted the attention of researchers. So, G. Pomerants believes that the very fact of her presence in the novel violates the inner harmony of the image of "Prince Christ". “Myshkin,” the researcher writes, “cannot preach, like Dostoevsky, foaming at the mouth, that Catholicism is atheism.” I do not dispute this psychologically accurate remark. But I think that in terms of composition, the episode of the hero's frantic speech that was not perceived by the listeners is highly necessary and justified. In its course, the character of the prince's relations with those around him “breaks” again.

In the face of Myshkin, for the first time, the face of Don Quixote is directly visible (until that time, the possibility of such contact was only declared by Aglaya). With deafness unusual for him before, the prince does not feel the reaction of those with whom he speaks; like the hero of Cervantes, he sees the non-existent, takes one for the other. From the moment of the conclave, the center of which is the protagonist, the reader has a feeling of impending disaster. One of her sharpest moments is the date of her rivals. Myshkin finds himself on it almost involuntarily (as in his time he almost involuntarily assumed the role of “groom”). It may seem that this "involuntariness" releases him from responsibility for what happened. In any case, this is the opinion of the author of the work we have already mentioned, A.P. Skaftymov. “The prince's double love,” writes the scientist, “becomes a conflict not in himself, but only outside him, in the proud rivalry of those who are jealous of him. For the prince himself, the question of choice did not exist.<...>". The question, indeed, did not exist, but the choice was nonetheless made through Myshkin. By his own will or against it, the prince found himself a participant in a situation where the most humane solution is not free from evil. Saving Nastasya Filippovna, he dealt a terrible blow to Aglaya. And therefore - without guilt guilty. Not in the way, of course, as Yevgeny Pavlovich, who comments on his behavior, presents it. The prince is to blame for having served as an unwitting instrument of separation. However, not for long. The inertia of separation, which hit him with a ricochet, is completely removed by the mystery of mortal brotherhood with Rogozhin - near the dead Nastasya Filippovna: “Meanwhile, it was quite dawn, finally, he lay down on the pillows, as if completely helpless and in despair, and pressed his face against the pale and motionless face of Rogozhin; tears flowed from his eyes onto Rogozhin's cheeks...”.

The people who entered them “Caught the killer in complete unconsciousness and fever. The prince sat motionless on the mat beside him and quietly, each time at the outburst of a cry or delirium of the patient, hastened to run a trembling hand over his hair and cheeks, as if caressing and calming him. But he no longer understood what they were asking him about, and did not recognize the people who entered and surrounded him. The last gesture of Prince Myshkin is the most touching and majestic of what Dostoevsky gave his hero. The action completes the high spectacle of tragic harmony - the embodiment of the ideal, not realized, but not shaken in its moral beauty. The finale carries an undoubted plot exhaustion, a “roundness” of form.

Those force fields are approaching, which, up to the fourth part of the novel, unfolded in parallel (the centers of Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya). The paths of Rogozhin and Myshkin cross for the last time. The final episodes take on the character of “recurrence”. Not endless following along the trajectory of the ring - the finale of "The Idiot" gives rise to a feeling of almost complete stoppage of movement. We will verify this by recalling specific moments of the plot. The beginning of the novel suggests a sequence of the following kind: the declaration of the title - "The Idiot", Myshkin's report about the treatment in Switzerland, Rogozhin's story about the first meeting with Nastasya Filippovna. The end varies close moments: Rogozhin's story about his last stay with Nastasya Filippovna, Schneider's alleged phrase about Myshkin: "Idiot", a message about treatment in Switzerland (now useless).

The compositional isolation of this type is a formal analogue of the thought that is concealed by the presence in the work of Hans Holbein's painting "Christ in the Tomb". In the picture described by Dostoevsky with the utmost ruthlessness, the death of Christ is not an allegory, but a reality. That reality that obliges a person, which does not allow him, pitying himself, to turn away from horror. That which disturbed the soul has taken place, it was, and, whatever follows the former, the resurrection in new life or the cynicism of decay - the earthly loss remains irreplaceable. The inviolability of the ideal does not save one from the pain of losing the ideal being.

Dostoevsky does not seek to establish "faith" by a "miracle." The thread of light left in the world by Prince Myshkin is bitterly weak. The only unconditional argument in defense of the hero is the moral and aesthetic beauty of his appearance, the charm - non-rational, defeating logic - which is communicated to him by the likeness of the One who is “the great and ultimate ideal of the development of all mankind”.

First of all, Dostoevsky's works are striking in the extraordinary variety of types and varieties of the word, and these types and varieties are given in their sharpest expression. The multidirectional two-voiced word clearly predominates, moreover, internally dialogized, and the reflected word of another: a hidden polemic, a polemically colored confession, a hidden dialogue. In Dostoevsky there is almost no word without a tense glance at someone else's word. At the same time, he has almost no objective words, because the speeches of the heroes are given such a setting that deprives them of any objectivity. What is striking, furthermore, is the constant and abrupt alternation of the most varied types of words. Sharp and unexpected transitions from parody to internal polemic, from polemic to hidden dialogue, from hidden dialogue to stylization of soothing everyday tones, from them again to a parodic story and, finally, to an exceptionally tense open dialogue - such is the agitated verbal surface of these works. All this is intertwined with a deliberately dull thread of a protocol informing word, the ends and beginnings of which are difficult to catch; but even on this dry protocol word itself, bright reflections or thick shadows of nearby utterances fall and give it, too, a peculiar and ambiguous tone.

But the point, of course, is not just a variety of abrupt change in verbal types and the predominance of two-voiced internally dialogized words among them. The originality of Dostoevsky is in the special placement of these verbal types and varieties between the main compositional elements of the work.

How and in what moments of the verbal whole does the last semantic instance of the author realize itself? For a monologue novel, this question is very easy to answer. Whatever the types of words introduced by the author-monologue, and whatever their compositional placement, the author's comprehension and evaluation should dominate over all the others and should be formed into a compact and unambiguous whole. Any amplification of other people's intonations in this or that word, in this or that section of the work, is only a game that the author allows, so that his own direct or refracted word will then sound the more energetically. Any dispute between two voices in one word for its possession, for dominance in it is predetermined, it is only an apparent dispute; all full-fledged author's comprehension sooner or later will gather to one speech center and to one consciousness, all accents - to one voice.

Dostoevsky's artistic assignment is completely different. He is not afraid of the most extreme activation of multidirectional accents in a two-voiced word; on the contrary, this activation is exactly what he needs for his purposes; for the plurality of voices must not be eliminated, but must triumph in his novel.

The stylistic significance of someone else's word in Dostoevsky's works is enormous. It lives here the most intense life. The main stylistic connections for Dostoevsky are not at all connections between words in the plane of one monologic utterance, the main ones are dynamic, most intense connections between utterances, between independent and full-fledged speech and semantic centers that are not subject to the verbal and semantic dictatorship of a monological single style and a single tone.

The word in Dostoevsky, its life in the work and its function in the implementation of the polyphonic task, we will consider in connection with those compositional units in which the word functions: in the unity of the monologue self-expression of the hero, in the unity of the story - the story of the narrator or the story from the author - and, finally , in the unity of the dialogue between the characters. This will be the order of our consideration.

The confession of Hippolytus, introduced into the novel ("My Necessary Explanation"), is a classic example of a confession with a loophole, just as Hippolytus's most unsuccessful suicide was by design a suicide with a loophole. This idea of ​​Ippolit is basically correctly defined by Myshkin. Answering Aglaya, who suggests that Ippolit wanted to shoot himself so that she would later read his confession, Myshkin says: “That is, this is ... how can I tell you? It's very hard to say. Only he probably wanted everyone to surround him and tell him that he was very loved and respected, and everyone would beg him very much to stay alive. It may very well be that he had you all in mind, because at such a moment he mentioned you ... although, perhaps, he himself did not know that he had you in mind ”(VI, 484).

This, of course, is not a rough calculation, this is precisely the loophole that Hippolytus' will leaves and which confuses his attitude towards himself to the same extent as his attitude towards others. Therefore, the voice of Hippolytus is just as inwardly unfinished, just as unaware of a point, as is the voice of the "underground man." No wonder it the last word(what confession was supposed to be) and in fact turned out to be not the last at all, since the suicide failed.

In contradiction to this, which determines the whole style and tone of the whole, is a hidden setting for recognition by others, there are open declarations of Hippolytus, which determine the content of his confession: independence from another's court, indifference to it and manifestation of self-will. “I don’t want to leave,” he says, “without leaving a word in response, a free word, not a forced one, not for justification, oh no! I have no one and nothing to ask for forgiveness - but this way, because I myself want it ”(VI, 468). His entire image is based on this contradiction; it determines his every thought and every word.

With this personal word of Hippolytus about himself, the ideological word is also intertwined, which, like that of the “man from the underground”, is addressed to the universe, addressed with protest; the expression of this protest must also be suicide. His thought about the world develops in the form of a dialogue with some higher power that offended him.

The mutual orientation of Myshkin's speech with someone else's word is also very tense, but it has a slightly different character. And Myshkin's inner speech develops dialogically both in relation to himself and in relation to another. He also speaks not about himself, not about the other, but with himself and with the other, and the anxiety of these internal dialogues is great. But he is guided rather by the fear of his own word (in relation to another) than by the fear of another's word. His reservations, inhibitions, and so on, are explained in most cases precisely by this fear, ranging from simple delicacy towards the other and ending with a deep and fundamental fear of saying a decisive, final word about the other. He is afraid of his thoughts about the other, his suspicions and assumptions. In this regard, his internal dialogue before Rogozhin's attempt on his life is very typical.

True, according to Dostoevsky's plan, Myshkin is already the bearer of a soulful word, that is, a word that is able to actively and confidently intervene in the internal dialogue of another person, helping him to recognize his own voice. At one of the moments of the sharpest interruption of voices in Nastasya Filippovna, when she desperately plays the “fallen woman” in Ganichka’s apartment, Myshkin introduces an almost decisive tone into her internal dialogue:

“And you are not ashamed! Are you what you now imagined. Yes, can it be! the prince suddenly cried out with deep heartfelt reproach.

Nastasya Filippovna was surprised, grinned, but, as if hiding something under her smile, somewhat confused, looked at Ganya and left the drawing room. But, before reaching the hallway, she suddenly turned back, quickly went up to Nina Alexandrovna, took her hand and raised it to her lips.

I’m really not like that, he guessed it, ”she whispered quickly, hotly, all of a sudden flushing and blushing, and, turning around, went out this time so quickly that no one had time to figure out why she was returning” (VI , 136).

He knows how to say the same words and with the same effect to Ganya, and Rogozhin, and Elizaveta Prokofievna, and others. But this penetrating word, the appeal to one of the voices of the other as the true one, according to Dostoevsky's plan, is never decisive in Myshkin. It is devoid of any last confidence and authority and often just breaks down. He does not know a solid and integral monologue word either. The internal dialogism of his word is as great and as restless as that of other heroes.

The self-consciousness of the hero in Dostoevsky is completely dialogized: in each of its moments it is turned outward, intensely refers to itself, to another, to a third. Outside of this living address to himself and to others, he does not exist for himself either. In this sense, we can say that in Dostoevsky man is the subject of circulation. You can't talk about it, you can only refer to it. Those "depths of the human soul", the depiction of which Dostoevsky considered the main task of his realism "in the highest sense", are revealed only in a tense appeal. It is impossible to master the inner man, to see and understand him by making him the object of an indifferent neutral analysis, nor can he be mastered by merging with him, empathizing with him. No, you can approach him and reveal him - more precisely, force him to reveal himself - only through communication with him, dialogically. And portray inner man, as Dostoevsky understood it, is possible only by depicting his communication with another. Only in communication, in the interaction of man with man, is the “man in man” revealed, both for others and for oneself.

It is clear that in the center artistic world Dostoevsky, there must be a dialogue, moreover, dialogue not as a means, but as an end in itself. Dialogue here is not a prelude to action, but the action itself. Nor is it a means of revealing, revealing, as it were, a ready-made character of a person; no, here a person not only manifests himself outside, but for the first time becomes what he is, we repeat, - not only for others, but also for himself. To be means to communicate dialogically. When the dialogue ends, everything ends. Therefore, the dialogue, in essence, cannot and should not end. In terms of his religious-utopian worldview, Dostoevsky transfers the dialogue to eternity, thinking of it as eternal co-joy, co-admiration, agreement. In terms of the novel, this is given as the incompletion of the dialogue, and initially - as its bad infinity.

Everything in Dostoevsky's novels converges to dialogue, to dialogic confrontation as its center. Everything is a means, dialogue is an end. One voice ends nothing and resolves nothing. Two voices - the minimum of life, the minimum of existence. dostoevsky novel idiot myshkin

The potential infinity of the dialogue in Dostoevsky's conception already in itself solves the question that such a dialogue cannot be a plot dialogue in the strict sense of the word, because the plot dialogue as necessary tends to an end, like the plot event itself, the moment of which it is, in essence, , is. Therefore, as we have already said, Dostoevsky's dialogue is always extra-plot, that is, internally independent of the plot relationship of the speakers, although, of course, it is prepared by the plot. For example, Myshkin's dialogue with Rogozhin is a dialogue of "man with man", and not at all a dialogue of two rivals, although it was precisely the rivalry that brought them together. The core of the dialogue is always extra-plot, no matter how tense it is in the plot (for example, the dialogue between Aglaya and Nastasya Filippovna). But on the other hand, the shell of the dialogue is always deeply plotted.

For a correct understanding of Dostoevsky's intention, it is very important to take into account his assessment of the role of another person as "another", because his main artistic effects are achieved by passing the same word through different voices opposing each other.

Nastasya Filippovna's voice, as we have seen, split into a voice recognizing her as guilty, a "fallen woman," and into a voice justifying and accepting her. Her speeches are full of intermittent combinations of these two voices: now one prevails, now the other, but neither can completely defeat the other. The accents of each voice are amplified or interrupted by other people's real voices. The condemning voices make her exaggerate the accents of her accusing voice to spite those others. Therefore, her repentance begins to sound like the repentance of Stavrogin, or - closer in stylistic expression - like the repentance of "a man from the underground." When she arrives at Ganya's apartment, where, as she knows, she is being condemned, she spitefully plays the role of a cocotte, and only Myshkin's voice, intersecting with her internal dialogue in a different direction, makes her abruptly change this tone and respectfully kiss the hand of Ganya's mother, over which she had just mocked. The place of Myshkin and his real voice in the life of Nastasya Filippovna is determined by this connection with one of the replicas of her internal dialogue. "Didn't I dream of you myself? You are right, you have dreamed for a long time, even in his village, you lived alone for five years; you think, you think, it happened, you dream, you dream, - and here is everything like you, imagined, kind, honest, good and just as stupid, that suddenly he will come and say: “You are not to blame, Nastasya Filippovna, but I adore you!" Yes, it used to be that you daydream that you would go crazy ... ”(VI. 197). She heard this anticipated remark of another person in the real voice of Myshkin, who almost literally repeats it at the fateful evening at Nastasya Filippovna's.

Rogozhin's production is different. From the very beginning, he becomes for Nastasya Filippovna a symbol for embodiment from the second voice. “I’m a Rogozhinskaya,” she repeats repeatedly. Going on a spree with Rogozhin, going to Rogozhin means for her to fully embody and fulfill her second voice. Rogozhin, who sells and buys her, and his sprees are an evilly exaggerated symbol of her fall. This is unfair to Rogozhin, because, especially at the beginning, he is not at all inclined to condemn her, but he knows how to hate her. There is a knife behind Rogozhin, and she knows it. This is how this group is built. The real voices of Myshkin and Rogozhin intertwine and intersect with the voices of Nastasya Filippovna's internal dialogue. Interruptions in her voice turn into plot interruptions in her relationship with Myshkin and Rogozhin: repeated flight from the crown with Myshkin to Rogozhin and from him again to Myshkin, hatred and love for Aglaya.

Thus, the external compositionally expressed dialogue is inextricably linked with the internal dialogue, that is, with the micro-dialogue, and to a certain extent relies on it. And both of them are just as inextricably linked with the great dialogue of the novel that embraces them as a whole. Dostoevsky's novels are entirely dialogical.

Like everyone great artist words, Dostoevsky was able to hear and bring to the artistic and creative consciousness new aspects of the word, new depths in it, very weakly and muffledly used by other artists before him. For Dostoevsky, not only the pictorial and expressive functions of the word, which are usual for the artist, and not only the ability to objectively recreate the social and individual originality of the characters' speeches, are important for him, the most important thing for him is the dialogical interaction of speeches, whatever their linguistic features. After all, the main subject of his image is the word itself, moreover, it is the full-fledged word. Dostoevsky's works are a word about a word addressed to a word. The depicted word converges with the depicting word on the same level and on equal rights. They penetrate each other, overlap each other at different dialogic angles. As a result of this meeting, new aspects and new functions of the word are revealed and come to the fore, which we have tried to characterize in this chapter.