The novel "The Idiot" is one of the greatest creations of F. M. Dostoevsky. Developing the plot of this novel, Dostoevsky noted: the main idea novel is to portray a positively beautiful person. There is nothing more difficult than this in the world, and especially now. The beautiful is the ideal, and the ideal ... is still far from developed. There is only one positively beautiful face in the world - Christ, so that the appearance of this immeasurably, infinitely beautiful face is, of course, an infinite miracle. But what is the ratio of the “infinitely beautiful” ideal, which Prince Myshkin became the embodiment of, and the title of the novel? Why does Dostoevsky call his ideal hero, designed to serve as a role model, an idiot? These questions can be answered as follows: main character novel, "Prince Christ," as the writer sometimes calls it in sketches, is beautiful precisely because it is idiotic. But here it should be noted one of the main meanings of the word "idiot", borrowed from the Greek language - "separate, private person". That is, this is a person who is alien to the passions and vices prevailing in his circle, therefore, does not participate in life that has taken a “negative direction”. He lives by the laws of his inner peace and is not subject to external influences. It retained the original impulses - the desire for human brotherhood and universal peace. These natural traits are most often distorted by a terrible disharmony, the victim of which, without noticing it, "normal", "healthy" people become. That is why in Rus' the holy fools have always been revered, it was considered a sin to offend the one marked by God. Having retained in himself, like a monk in a skete, uncomplicated moral reactions, Dostoevsky's "idiot" is sympathetic to people who forget, but still subconsciously bear in themselves the idea of ​​Christian values. According to Dostoevsky, the non-main mind serves as an instrument of the will and desires of a sinful heart, full of envy, self-interest, pride, etc. The main mind is associated with inner freedom from worldly benefits, with spiritual enlightenment and purification of the personality and a corresponding moral change in the surrounding world in the spirit Christian love. Not having the powers of a non-principal mind, Prince Myshkin does not depend on the power of wealth. He seems to be a holy fool, for example, to Rogozhin, also because he is free from sensual passions. The chastity and innocence of the prince's nature reliably protect him from envy, resentment, vindictiveness that overcomes other heroes of The Idiot. Without striving, as Dostoevsky shows, the transformation of the inner world of neither Nastasya Filippovna, nor Rogozhin, nor other characters in The Idiot, who were influenced by Prince Myshkin, is impossible.

A.E.Kunilsky, Petrozavodsk

The word in the title of the novel is repeatedly used in relation to the protagonist - both by himself and by those around him. At the same time, its two interrelated meanings are updated - professional (medical) and everyday (pejorative).

The dictionary of P.Ya. Well-known pre-revolutionary dictionaries give the following interpretation: "foolish, stupid from birth, stupid, miserable, holy fool" (Dal); “idiot (ka) - allegorical, abusive - stupid, stupid” (Mikhelson). Dahl and quoted by the compiler of the commentary on the novel "The Idiot" in the Complete Works of Dostoevsky N.N. Solomin (IX, 394); she also gives a minimal translation of the word from Greek (a separate, private person) and adds that in the Middle Ages it meant “a person not very educated or generally far from “bookish wisdom”, but endowed with ideal features and deep spirituality.” The following is a reference to the work of R.I. Khlodkovsky, in which the last of the listed meanings is touched upon.

Indeed, in the Greek language, the pejorative meanings in the word "idiot" were not primary: this was the name of a private person, in general a simple person, an ignoble one; a simple soldier, an ordinary as opposed to a ruler, a prince, a commander. An ignorant, ignorant, inexperienced, ignorant person (as opposed to) an educated, dedicated person, just like a prose writer (as opposed to a poet) - this is the next stage in understanding the word. Let us pay attention to the, so to speak, "dialogical" nature of its meaning, the perception of which presupposed taking into account another member of the opposition - that with which it correlated, with which it was opposed. Obviously, in ancient Roman culture, the word largely lost this richness of meaning (“the Romans understood by the “idiot” an ignorant, inexperienced person, ignorance and mediocrity in the sciences and arts”).

The “revival” of the word occurs with the beginning of the Christian era .. and when it acquires another, subsequently almost completely forgotten, meaning - “layman”. In this sense it is used by St. Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Speaking of the liturgical meetings of the apostolic church, he calls on the preachers to express themselves intelligibly for all those present... (1 Cor. 14:16). In the Slavic and Russian texts, this word is translated differently, but it seems that in both cases its meaning is not fully conveyed. Slav.: “Because if you bless in spirit, under the place of the ignoramus, as he says, amen, according to your thanksgiving, you don’t know what you say” (my italics. - A.K.). The change made in the Russian text, both in the edition of the Russian Bible Society of 1823 and in the Synodal translation of 1863, which Dostoevsky used, is indicative: ? For he does not understand what you are saying” (italics mine - A.K.). "Commoner" is no longer "ignoramus". In this case, we mean a simple (ordinary) member of the church, but in apostolic times the hierarchy was not yet rigid, the spirit of equality was tangibly manifested and anyone could preach. Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) points to this: “Each member of the society occupied the position of a layman or 4 * 4TJ0H only as long as he listened to the speech of another, and then he could take the place of a teacher as soon as the word of edification ripened in his soul (1 Cor. 14 : 16). Thanks to this freedom of preaching speech, during the apostolic ministry there was a lively, sincere exchange of speeches in the form of a simple home conversation or conversation ... (Acts 20: 7, 11). And the liturgical gatherings of leading Christians in this respect represent rare, remarkable and unparalleled phenomena in the Christian Church. It is interesting to note that the semantic richness of the word "idiot" and cognate lexemes was the reason for their use in theological literature to convey the most complex meanings. This happened during a period of disputes and the search for the most accurate formulations. St. Athanasius expressed the identity of God the Father and God the Son in a Greek word - property or property: Christ is God's own Son, own to the Father (cf. in the Creed: "Consubstantial with the Father, in whom all things were"). At St. Basil the Great 0H is used to denote the self-hypostasy of the Persons of the Holy Trinity: special. St. Cyril of Alexandria with this word expresses the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit: He (the Son) has his own Spirit. He uses the word to emphasize the difference between the two natures of Christ. Of all the given meanings, the most interesting for us is the one that conveys the relationship of the filial unity of Christ with God (“own Son”, “own to the Father”). The “idiot” Myshkin is also presented to God as not a stranger, “his own” for God.

P.Ya.Chernykh points out that in the word “idiot” “the meaning of “mentally disabled person”, “nerd” is not original, but later, which arose on Western European soil.” The "idiot" becomes a cretin, a fool in the Renaissance - the era of rebellion against Christianity, the destruction of Christian values. It is this moment, as R.I. Khlodovsky shows, that is reflected in Boccaccio's Decameron (4th short story of the Third Day), where the object of ridicule is the "idiocy" of a character who is a member of the Order of St. Francis of Assisi (however, in the Russian translation of A.N. Veselovsky, the words “idiot”, “idiocy” are not preserved). Thus, speaking about Prince Myshkin, about the novel as a whole, one cannot but take into account the special meaning, the mystery of the word "idiot". Behind the superficial, contemptuous meaning that came from the West, another, eastern meaning shines through - "layman", that is, "ordinary, not invested with spiritual dignity, a member of the Christian church." In turn, in Russian the word "layman" is also ambiguous, in addition to the first meaning, it has others: it is a rural, village resident, a member of the community, the world; and one of the people, the people in general. It is clear that all the given values ​​turn out to be very important in the case of Myshkin. They correspond to his status: 1) a Christian who does not belong to the clergy; 2) a person who was brought up not in the city, but in the countryside (both in Russia and in Switzerland); 3) a person representing his people and even all of humanity (Hippolit says about the prince: “I will say goodbye to the Man” - VIII, 348). Perceived in this - in many respects archaic and esoteric already for Russia of the 19th century - sense, the title of the work corresponds to Dostoevsky's plan to create a novel about a Christian (cf .: "Roman. Christian" - IX, 115; "Christian" and calls himself Myshkin - VIII, 317). And in ancient society, and in the Renaissance, and in the modern world, a Christian was perceived as abnormal, an idiot in the pejorative sense of the word (for the Jews, a temptation, and for the Hellenes, madness).

Unjustified is the unconditional application to Myshkin of a draft, setting definition "Prince Christ", when Dostoevsky left us another, more accurate and fixed in the main text: an idiot is a layman, as if coming from the time of the apostolic church, living Christianity. As a Christian, Myshkin strives to imitate Christ (and in humility too). Therefore, the statement that Christ from Myshkin did not work out looks tactless. Could Myshkin (and Dostoevsky) have hoped for this? St. Francis of Assisi once called himself "the donkey of the Lord", meaning that there is a Sower - Christ - and there is an animal that helps the Sower to scatter seeds - a donkey. Let me remind you that the motif of the donkey - and specifically in relation to Myshkin - appears in the novel (VIII, 48-49). It is strange that all these moments associated with Christian belittling, self-abasement, debasement, a topic opposite to ancient culture, are often not taken into account in modern studies, including in the article by T. Goricheva, where almost every page uses the word " kenosis".

The meaning of the word “idiot” (layman) emphasized in my work does not negate the significance of its usual and obvious in modern times semantics (mentally ill). But this meaning also turns out to be involved in the general - Christian - system of meanings of the novel. Firstly, the idiocy into which Myshkin falls is a kenotic, reduced version of death (the hero's death would look nobler, more beautiful). At the same time, Myshkin's ending almost literally corresponds to the commandment of Christ: “... love one another as I have loved you. There is no greater love than if a man lays down his life for his friends” (Jonah 15:12-13). In this case we are talking specifically about the soul (cf.: “For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it” - Luke 9: 24); Myshkin loses his soul, not his flesh. This once again confirms that the word "idiot", with all the many meanings and the history of its perception, strikingly corresponds to the Christian nature of the image of Myshkin and Dostoevsky's poetics.

A natural question arises: did the author of the novel The Idiot know all the meanings of the word we are interested in presented here? I think I knew. We have no reason to underestimate Dostoevsky's theological and historical-religious knowledge. Yes, the writer himself agreed: “Well, which of us, for example, is strong in dogma. Even our specialists in this case are not always sometimes competent. And therefore we will leave it to the specialists” (XXIV, 123). However, to understand these words literally means to act like Pushkin's detractors, who at one time nihilistically straightforwardly interpreted his confession "we all learned little by little something and somehow ...".

Of course, in Dostoevsky's novel we find not a dogmatic exposition of Christian doctrine, but, if you like, a kerygmatic description of its basic values, made by a man who comprehended them not at the office table, but in a fortress, on a scaffold, in hard labor - all his hard, passionate life. However, let us follow the genius in his humility and “let the experts” judge how pure and useful this description turned out to be for Christianity. Just let's not forget that it was not the specialists (scribes) who were the first to accept - and accepted with their hearts - those ideas that inspired Dostoevsky to create the novel.

The novel "The Idiot" is one of the greatest creations of F.M. Dostoevsky. Developing the plot of this novel, Dostoevsky noted: “The main idea of ​​the novel is to portray a positively beautiful person. There is nothing more difficult than this in the world, and especially now. The beautiful is the ideal, and the ideal ... is still far from developed. There is only one positively beautiful face in the world - Christ, so that the appearance of this immeasurably, infinitely beautiful face is, of course, an infinite miracle. But what is the ratio of the “infinitely beautiful” ideal, which Prince Myshkin became the embodiment of, and the title of the novel? Why does Dostoevsky call his ideal hero, designed to serve as a role model, an idiot? These questions can be answered as follows: the protagonist of the novel, “Prince Christos,” as the writer sometimes calls him in sketches, is beautiful precisely because he is idiotic. But here it should be noted one of the main meanings of the word "idiot", borrowed from the Greek language - "a separate, private person."

That is, this is a person who is alien to the passions and vices prevailing in his circle, therefore, does not participate in life that has taken a “negative direction”. He lives according to the laws of his inner world and is not subject to external influences. It preserved the original impulses - the desire for human brotherhood and universal peace. These natural traits are most often distorted by a terrible disharmony, the victim of which, without noticing it, "normal", "healthy" people become. That is why in Rus' the holy fools have always been revered, it was considered a sin to offend the one marked by God. Having retained in himself, like a monk in a skete, uncomplicated moral reactions, Dostoevsky's "idiot" is sympathetic to people who forget, but still subconsciously bear in themselves the idea of ​​Christian values.

According to Dostoevsky, the non-main mind serves as an instrument of the will and desires of a sinful heart, full of envy, self-interest, pride, etc. The main mind is associated with inner freedom from worldly benefits, with spiritual enlightenment and purification of the personality and a corresponding moral change in the surrounding world in the spirit Christian love. Not having the powers of a non-principal mind, Prince Myshkin does not depend on the power of wealth. He seems to be a holy fool, for example, to Rogozhin, also because he is free from sensual passions. The chastity and innocence of the prince's nature reliably protect him from envy, resentment, vindictiveness that overcomes other heroes of The Idiot. Without striving, as Dostoevsky shows, the transformation of the inner world of neither Nastasya Filippovna, nor Rogozhin, nor other characters in The Idiot, who were influenced by Prince Myshkin, is impossible.

His kindness, morality, humility oppose Lev Nikolaevich to other characters in the novel; in fact, he is the embodiment of Christian virtue, or even the personification of Jesus Christ. According to Dostoevsky, the main aspiration of the prince is "to restore and resurrect man."

"... a young man, also about twenty-six or twenty-seven years old, slightly taller than average, very blond, thick-haired, with sunken cheeks and with a light, pointed, almost completely white beard. His eyes were large, blue and intent; in their eyes there was something quiet, but heavy, something full of that strange expression by which some people guess at first sight an epilepsy in the subject. The young man's face was, however, pleasant, thin and dry, but colorless ... "

Separate features of the image of Myshkin and the details of his biography are taken by Dostoevsky from his own life. In particular, Myshkin, like the writer himself, suffers from epilepsy. A. S. Dolinin points out that certain episodes from the life of Myshkin remind of certain scenes from the Gospel, which emphasizes the parallel between Myshkin and Christ.

In the drafts of the novel, Myshkin is referred to as "Prince Christ".

Actors who played Myshkin

* Andrei Gromov in the film adaptation of Pyotr Cherdynin in 1910.
* Gerard Philippe in the 1946 French adaptation of Georges Lampin.
* Masayuki Mori in Akira Kurosawa's 1951 Japanese film adaptation, Myshkin's name in the film was Kinji Kameda.
* Yuri Yakovlev in the film adaptation of Ivan Pyryev in 1958.
* Francis Huster in Andrzej Zulawski's 1985 French film adaptation, in the film his name was Leon (the French form of Leo).
* Fyodor Bondarchuk in a modern film adaptation-parody of Roman Kachanov "Down House".
* Yevgeny Mironov in the film adaptation of Vladimir Bortko in 2003.

Quotes

Then people were somehow about one idea, but now they are more nervous, more developed, more sensitive, somehow about two, about three ideas at once ... the present person is wider - and, I swear, this is what prevents him from being such a one-component person as in those centuries

After all, Russian atheists and Russian Jesuits do not come from just vanity, not everything from some nasty conceited feelings, but also from spiritual pain, from spiritual thirst, from longing for a higher cause, for a strong shore, for a homeland in which they ceased to believe, because that they never knew her!

He did not expect that his heart would beat with such pain.

What other children we are, Kolya! And ... and ... how good it is that we are children!

Do you know that a woman is capable of tormenting a man with cruelty and ridicule and will never feel remorse, because every time she will think to herself, looking at you: “Now I will torture him to death, but then I will make up for him with my love ...”

A coward is one who is afraid and runs; and whoever is afraid and does not run is not yet a coward.

A child can say everything, everything; I have always been struck by the thought of how little big children, fathers and mothers even know their children? Nothing should be hidden from children, under the pretext that they are small and that it is too early for them to know. What a sad and unfortunate thought!

And finally, I think we are different people in appearance ... for many reasons that we, perhaps, cannot have many points in common, but, you know, I myself do not believe in this last idea, because very often it only seems that there are no points in common, but they are very ... it happens from human laziness that people

Among the works of Dostoevsky, created in the sixties, an important place is occupied by the novel "The Idiot". Dostoevsky worked on it abroad (in Switzerland and Italy), from where he followed with excitement what was happening in Russia. The writer foresaw the tragedy modern man and believed that it would be fully revealed in Russia, a country of extremes and contradictions.

Dostoevsky conveyed the atmosphere of general crisis and disintegration through the story of a “random family” and Prince Myshkin, the same idiot after whom the novel was named. Dostoevsky wrote: “The main idea of ​​the novel is to portray a positively beautiful person. There is nothing more difficult in the world than this, and especially now ... "

Recognizing that "there is only one positively beautiful face in the world - Christ", Dostoevsky tried to embody his features in an earthly person. Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin was supposed to be such in the novel "The Idiot", in the image of which the writer intended to recreate his idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe ideal person. This person must be in some way akin to Christ, that is, not only a god, but also a perfect person in all respects. A kind, naive and spontaneous man, Myshkin treats all the unfortunate and offended with love and compassion, regardless of who they are and what their social origin is. He is convinced that "compassion is the most important and may be the only law of the existence of all mankind." In his hero, the writer emphasizes, first of all, his belief that every person has a bright beginning in his soul. Myshkin is full of love for others and seeks to find a way to harmony.

The finale of the novel "The Idiot" is the writer's reflection on Goodness and Beauty in the terrible world of profit, godlessness, rampant egoistic passions. The focus is on the fate of Nastasya Filippovna and Myshkin. The heroine that combines these two images is Aglaya. Comparing the portraits of Aglaya and Nastasya Filippovna, made by the artist I.S. Glazunov, one can notice the difference in the interpretation of the heroines. The image of Aglaya seems more earthly, and the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna is an image-symbol.

Why is Aglaya close to Myshkin? How is Nastasya Filippovna trying to guess? In Nastasya Filippovna's letters to Aglaya, she confesses her love. But it is stipulated that "you and he (Myshkin) are one for me." She writes: “You are innocent. And in your innocence all your perfection. Nastasya Filippovna calls Aglaya a “bright spirit”, an angel: “An angel cannot hate. Can't help but love." That is why the image of Aglaya and Prince Myshkin merge for Nastasya Filippovna into a single whole: they are united by innocence. But Nastasya Filippovna has a presentiment of what might happen if she makes a mistake in Aglaya: “You alone can love without selfishness. You alone can love not for yourself alone, but for the one you love. Oh, how bitter it would be to know that you feel shame and anger because of me! Here is your death: you are with me at once ... "

The idyll during the meeting is destroyed when Aglaya tells Myshkin about Nastasya Filippovna with hatred: “The prince jumped out and looked in fright at Aglaya’s sudden fury; and suddenly, as if a fog fell before him. You may feel that way... it's not true, he muttered. This is true! Is it true! cried Aglaya, almost beside herself. Since that time, Prince Myshkin, anticipating a tragic denouement, is increasingly striving to escape from reality and more and more often resembles an unfounded dreamer.

Myshkin addresses the high society. Reminding everyone of the responsibility for Russia, he calls to love life, assures that it is beautiful. It is known that Dostoevsky endowed the protagonist of the novel with his illness, which he called "sacred", and gave it special significance. It is important, as Dostoevsky himself describes it in the novel The Idiot. A few seconds before the seizure, the mind and heart lit up with an extraordinary light, all doubts, all worries seemed to be pacified at once, resolved into some kind of higher calmness, full of clear, hormonal joy and hope, full of reason and final reason. And although the consequences of these lofty moments were terrible suffering, and then - dullness, spiritual darkness, idiocy, this moment in itself was worth a lifetime. Myshkin's seizure symbolizes the high price that must be paid for communion with the highest harmony. Twice Myshkin has a seizure, and each time a seizure is a harbinger of an impending catastrophe.

The second attack of the hero will be followed by the meeting of two heroines: Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya, in whom Beauty humiliated and Beauty innocent are embodied. In the rivalry of the heroines, pride triumphs, and love turns into hatred. Aglaya hates the prince because he cannot bear Nastasya Filippovna's "desperate, insane face". But Nastasya Filippovna also understands that the pity of the prince is not love and never was love. The heroine runs away with Rogozhin, going towards her death. Her and Myshkin's prophecies come true: as a result, Rogozhin kills Nastasya Fillipovna.

The symbolic meaning of the final scene is that Myshkin and Rogozhin meet again. Rogozhin leads the prince to Nastasya Filippovna's deathbed. Over the body of the murdered, these heroes are like accomplices: both killed her with their love. The divine and human in Myshkin goes out, he becomes a real idiot.

We can say that in the finale the madness of the egoistic world triumphs. The dark, demonic beginning displaces the light from life. Myshkin, "Prince Christ", Goodness and Beauty perish in this terrible world. Such is Dostoevsky's apocalyptic vision of the world.

The end of the novel cannot be called pessimistic. Prince Myshkin planted the seeds of goodness in the hearts of people, his spiritual death awakened them to life. Dostoevsky gives his contemporaries faith in the ideal, which, no matter how far it lags behind reality, is necessary for man. If there is no striving for the ideal, the world will perish.