Composition on the topic “The meaning of the title of the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Idiot”” 4.00 /5 (80.00%) 1 vote

The novel "The Idiot" is one of the greatest creations of F. M. Dostoevsky. Developing the plot of this
novel, noted: the main idea novel - to portray positively beautiful
person. There is nothing more difficult than this in the world, and especially now. The beautiful is the ideal, and
ideal ... is still far from developed. There is only one positively beautiful thing in the world
the face is Christ, so that the appearance of this immeasurably, infinitely beautiful face, of course, is
endless miracle. But what is the ratio of the "infinitely beautiful" ideal, the embodiment
which Prince Myshkin became, and the title of the novel? Why does he name his
the perfect hero, meant 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 him in sketches, he is beautiful precisely because he is idiotic. But
Here we should note one of the main meanings of the word "idiot", borrowed from the Greek
language - "separate, private person". That is, this is a person alien to those prevailing in his
circle of passions and vices, therefore, not participating in a life that has accepted "negative
direction". He lives according to the laws of his inner world and does not succumb to external
influences. It retained the original impulses - the desire for human
brotherhood and world peace. These natural features are most often perverted by terrible disharmony,
the victim of which, without noticing it, become "normal", "healthy" people.
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 preserved in himself, like a monk in a skete, uncomplicated moral reactions, Dostoevsky's "idiot"
is sympathetic to people who forget, but still subconsciously carry the idea of
Christian values.
According to Dostoevsky, the non-principal mind serves as an instrument of the will and desires of the sinful heart,
full of envy, self-interest, pride, etc. The main mind is associated with inner freedom from
worldly benefits, with spiritual insight and purification of the personality and the corresponding moral
changing the world around in the spirit of Christian love. Not having the powers of the non-principal
mind, Prince Myshkin does not depend on the power of wealth. He appears to be foolish, for example,
Rogozhin, also because he is free from sensual passions. Chastity and innocence
the nature of the prince reliably protects him from envy, resentment, vindictiveness that overcomes others
heroes of The Idiot.
Without striving, as it shows, it is impossible to transform the inner world or
Nastasya Filippovna, neither Rogozhin, nor other characters of The Idiot who were influenced by the prince
Myshkin.

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 Nikolaevich 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.

Material overview

overview acquaintance with a novel by F.M. Dostoyevsky "The Idiot" This is a presentation in the form of answers to the questions of a quiz dedicated to the 140th anniversary of the release of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky. Competition Organizing Committee: Omsk State literary museum named after F.M. Dostoevsky.

1. The novel "The Idiot" became peculiarsequel to Crime and Punishment.

The word has a non-modern meaning in the novel [gr.idiotes] - 1) a person suffering from idiocy; 2) stupidman, fool.

The word idiot originally did not contain even a hintfor mental illness. IN Ancient Greece itdenoted "private person", "separate, isolatedHuman". It's no secret that the ancient Greeks werepublic life very responsibly and called themselves"polites". Those who avoided participation in politics(for example, did not go to vote), called "idiotes"(that is, occupied only with their personal narrow

interests). Naturally, "idiots" consciouscitizens did not respect, and soon this word was overgrown with newdisparaging shades - "limited,undeveloped, ignorant person."

It was Aglaya, the heroine of the novel, who perceivedspecial Prince Myshkin.

According to Vyacheslav Ivanov, the main thing in the novelis the idea of guilt lying in the incarnation itself:“Truly, Myshkin’s fault is that he came into the worldan eccentric, a foreigner, a guest from a distant land "and began to liveso, “how I perceived life”; he perceived the world insleepy dream moving in God, and the fallen world turned out to beclose to those who are guilty of their own law of sin and death”; thisother people's perception of things by Myshkin "the world did not understand and did notsorry" and correctly called him an "idiot".

Dostoevsky himself writes that he dedicates this novelhimself beautiful image- to Jesus: “The main ideanovel - to portray a positively beautiful person.There is nothing more difficult than this in the world, and especially now. Allwriters, not only ours, but even all European ones, whojust did not take the image positivelybeautiful, - always gave in. Because this taskimmeasurable. The beautiful is an ideal, and the ideal is neither ours nor

civilized Europe is still far from developed. Onthere is only one positively beautiful face in the world -Christ, so this manifestation is immeasurable, infinitebeautiful face is certainly an infinite miracle.

3. What is the symbolism of the names and surnames of the maincharacters in the novel?

1) Prince Lev Myshkin. The main trend inthe study of this name is a designation of contrast: "Lion -a symbol of divine strength, power, power ... "and a mouse -symbol of destruction, death; the image of a lion wasthe emblem of Christ, and the mouse in mythology was an earthlythe incarnation of the devil.But despite all attempts to divide the polarlion and mouse symbols, facts are revealed straightopposite to this. Encyclopedia "Myths of the peoplesworld" gives an example illustrating this: "Widelythere is a story about a lion awakened by a mouse andwho nobly let her go, for which later the mousehelped him when he was in trouble. in princethere are two contrasting beginnings, which are not alwayscome into conflict with each other: in his soul an amazingimages of two women coexist in a way, each of whichseeks to destroy his peace of mind.

"...Christ" - this is how Myshkin is called in draftsnovel, no other character can equal himwriter. throughout the spiritual warehouse of the prince. Author brightlyreveals its dominant feature: meekness,humility is something that correlates with the image of Christ.

2) Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova.

The name Philip, from which her patronymic is derived,means "lover of horses". Then the image of the heroineinterpreted in the following directions:

Independence and strength;

sacrifice;

Communication with the heroine of epics Nastasya - a hero.

Surname Barashkova repeats the theme of sacrificeNastasya Filippovna and denotes a certain connection onbestiary level with the prince. Rogozhin called the prince,who received a slap from Ganya Ivolgin, a sheep (thisthe animal is a specieslamb): “... you will be ashamed of Ganka that such a sheep(he could not find another word) insulted! Here, inthis scene, reflected all of the above interpretationssheep image. The prince stood up for Varya, literally saved herat the hands of a brother; he himself received a slap in the face and humbly behavedafter what happened: what is one of his “inappropriatesmile".

3) Rogozhin. The surname is associated with the famous MoscowRogozhsky cemetery, which quite logically follows from the imagethe life of his family and the fact that his father is not from the Old Believers, but"said that it was more correct according to the old faith", contains alsohint and Moscow merchants. But this is only true

kind of.V.I.Dal in his famous Dictionary of the LivingGreat Russian language" brings wonderful Russianproverbs: “Do not wrap your face under the mat”, “With yourface - would sit under the mat. Words are played“matting” and “mug”, and matting - “fabric, wickerwork, half ofcattails", i.e. from a marsh plant, besides Rogozhin"Black -faced" and "black -haired", which repeatedlystated at the beginning of the novel. Therefore, at the first appearancethe hero is played with his "low" origin, the authordeliberately reduces his image. Later to Parfyon, and to AglayaYepanchina, you can apply another proverb: “Not to the facematting, not to the face of an epancha, "characterizing them as heroes,who "broke out" from their environment, broke with theirsocial environment.This means that the alternation of “erysipelas - matting” is more important, whichcreates a negative impression of the hero on the emotionallevel.

4) The Yepanchin family is at the center of the novel. Basedthe meaning of the word "epancha" ("wide sleeveless cloak,round cloak, cape"), it can be assumed that allrepresentatives of this family are "covered", but thisrefers, as we believe, more to Aglaya, whohides his emotions inner world, to LizavetaProkofievna, who is kindest of all when she is angry.

Dostoevsky names his hero in the sketches for the novel"Prince Christ", he proceeds from the idea that there is no morehigh destination of a person than disinterestedly all of himselfto give to people, and at the same time is aware of what an obstacleto the realization of mutual universal love andBrotherhood serves the state of the modern in many waysselfish person and society, with the dominance of tendenciesto isolation and self-affirmation. This feeling is especiallyaggravated by the writer, judging by his "Winter Notes onsummer impressions "(1862), written after the firstforeign travel, when he observed lifecivilized Europe. Dostoevsky thought anxiously aboutsimilar forces of separation that marked the "spirit"

4. What are the literary prototypes of the princeMyshkin?

1) This is "of the beautiful faces" Don Quixote of Cervantes. ByAccording to Dostoevsky, the hero is "beautiful onlybecause at the same time it is ridiculous... Compassion isto the ridiculed and not knowing its own worth beautiful - buttherefore, there is sympathy in the reader too”;

2) “A weaker thought than Don Quixote, but stillhuge" Pickwick Dickens;

3) Jean Valjean from the novel Les Misérables by V. Hugo.Jean Valjean - "also a strong attempt, but he excitessympathy for his terrible misfortune andsociety's injustice to him."

4) Considering the experience of his predecessors, Dostoevskyfinds a different solution to the problem of the "beautiful" hero,whom, through the mouth of Aglaya Yepanchina, he will characterize as"serious" Don Quixote, correlating him with the heroPushkin's ballad "poor knight",selflessly dedicated their lives to the servicehigh ideal.

5. How do you understand the most famous phrase Prince Myshkin: "Beauty will save the world"?

I think beauty internal state people can be savedworld. But simply external beauty has nothing to do with it, since it is nothing indoes not carry itself, and beauty can also be attributed to healthhumanity, because only healthy person all body shapeswell built, beauty improves with the world.(Valyuk Lilia)

Beauty for me is the purity of the soul. All pure people are spirituallysave the world with kindness, understanding, good and prudentdeeds. How simple this truth is, that beauty will save the world.The world will be saved by a person who understands and appreciates beauty, kind andbelieving. Human, loving world protecting and creating.(Kondratieva Julia)

I believe that the phrase "Beauty will save the world" is in sometrue sense. After all, if there were no such beauty of the world,beauty of a person, it would be boring to live. beauty isa kind of lifeline in our world, where there is a lot of evil, lies,negativity. It is impossible to imagine the world without it. If you don't haveyour mood, then look at something beautiful and you immediatelywill become easier. (Kleshneva Veronica)

Yes, I agree with Dostoevsky, because beauty isthe definition of man himself is the duration of the whole world.(Andreev Sasha)

Yes, beauty will save the world, because each person has his ownthe concept of beauty. Everyone strives for their own ideal, whileimproving yourself or others. Beauty is not only inperson, but also in voice, writing, art, the beauty of deeds,environment, architecture. Can be listedendlessly ... People improve all this, thereby making the worldmuch brighter around you. But in order to perfect all this, inincluding yourself, you need a lot of money, health, because sometimesbeauty can kill. It turns out that I disagree a little.with this. Everyone is trying so hard to do something and they do not notice that fromtime they begin to suffer, not sparing themselves. (Bogdzevich Sveta)

I believe that the phrase of F.M. Dostoevsky “Beauty will save the world”means a lot. Beauty can be both internal and external.This statement can be attributed both to man and to nature. AtEach of us expresses beauty differently. If this phraseaddressed to man, then beauty alone cannot save the world.A person should be beautiful not only externally, but also spiritually.plan. And in relation to nature, I will agree with this phrase.Yes, beauty will save the world, because nature cannot beterrible. She is always beautiful, and everyone sees this beauty in their own way.It is the beauty of nature that inspires man and saves him fromterrible thoughts and actions. (Ryabkova Alena)

I believe that the saying "Beauty will save the world" istrue, when viewed from the side of the beauty of our world.A beautiful world is a world without superfluous images. This is what is creatednature. If our world is clean, it will be beautiful.(Woitsekhovskaya Maria)

I agree with Dostoevsky, because every person,a scientist, a poet, sees beauty in his creation. All that is createdman, it's beautiful. (Esirkepov Almaz)

I agree with the words of the hero F.M. Dostoevsky, because in the eyesalways rushes appearance and if it attracts attention, then

The meaning of the work of the novel "The Idiot" or who is Prince Myshkin?

creative path Dostoevsky - the path of searching, often tragic delusions. But no matter how we argue with the great novelist, no matter how we disagree with him on some vital issues, we always feel his rejection of the bourgeois world, his humanism, his passionate dream of a harmonious, bright life.

Dostoevsky's position in the social struggle of his era is extremely complex, contradictory, and tragic. The writer is unbearably hurt for a person, for his crippled life, desecrated dignity, and he passionately seeks a way out of the realm of evil and violence into the world of goodness and truth. Searches but does not find. About how complex and controversial was his public position, testifies the famous novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "The Idiot", written in 1869.

In this work, it is not society that judges the hero, but the hero - society. In the center of the novel is not the hero's "deed", not a misdemeanor, but "non-doing", the worldly vanity of vanities, sucking the hero in. He involuntarily accepts acquaintances and events imposed on him. The hero does not at all try to rise above people, he himself is vulnerable. But he's taller than them a kind person. He does not want or ask anything for himself from anyone. In The Idiot there is no logically predetermined end of events. Myshkin drops out of their flow and leaves for where he came from, to “neutral” Switzerland, again to the hospital: the world is not worth his kindness, you can’t change people.

Looking for moral ideal Dostoevsky was captivated by the “personality” of Christ and said that people needed Christ as a symbol, as a faith, otherwise humanity itself would crumble, get bogged down in the game of interests. The writer acted as a deep believer in the feasibility of the ideal. Truth for him is the fruit of the efforts of the mind, and Christ is something organic, universal, all-conquering.

Of course, the equal sign (Myshkin - Christ) is conditional, Myshkin is an ordinary person. But there is a tendency to equate the hero with Christ: complete moral purity brings Myshkin closer to Christ. And outwardly, Dostoevsky brought them closer: Myshkin, at the age of Christ, as he is depicted in the Gospel, he is twenty-seven years old, he is pale, with sunken cheeks, with a light, pointed beard. His eyes are large and intent. The whole manner of behavior, conversation, all-forgiving sincerity, great insight, devoid of any selfishness and selfishness, irresponsibility in case of insults - all this has the stamp of ideality.

Christ struck Dostoevsky's imagination from childhood. After the penal servitude, he loved him all the more, for not a single system of views, not a single earthly model were already authorities for him.

Myshkin is conceived as a person who has come as close as possible to the ideal of Christ. But the deeds of the hero were presented as a very real biography. Switzerland is introduced into the novel not by chance: from its mountain peaks Myshkin descended to the people. The hero’s poverty and sickness, when the title “prince” sounds somehow out of place, are signs of his spiritual enlightenment, closeness to ordinary people bear in themselves something suffering, akin to the Christian ideal, and in Myshkin something infantile always remains.

The story of Marie, stoned by fellow villagers, which he tells already in the St. Petersburg salon, resembles the gospel story of Mary Magdalene, the meaning of which is compassion for the sinner.

This quality of all-forgiving kindness will manifest itself in Myshkin many times. While still on the train, on the way to St. Petersburg, the image of Natalya Filippovna, who had already acquired the notoriety of Trotsky's concubine, Rogozhin's mistress, would be described to him, but he would not condemn her. Then they will show her to Myshkin at the Yepanchins, and with admiration he “recognizes her, speaks of her beauty and explains the main thing in her face: the seal of “suffering”, she endured a lot.” For Myshkin, "suffering" is the highest reason for respect.

Myshkin always has on his lips the commandments: "Who among us is not without sin", "Do not throw a stone at a penitent sinner." On the other hand, it was important to Dostoevsky that Myshkin should not turn out to be an evangelical scheme. The writer endowed him with some autobiographical features. It gave life to the image. Myshkin is sick with epilepsy - this explains a lot in his behavior. Dostoevsky once stood on the scaffold, and Myshkin tells a story in the Yepanchins' house about what a person feels a minute before the execution: he was told about this by a patient who was treated by a professor in Switzerland.

Myshkin, like the author, is the son of a seedy nobleman and the daughter of a Moscow merchant. The appearance of Myshkin in the Epanchins' house, his non-secularism are also autobiographical traits: this is how Dostoevsky felt in the house of General Korvin-Krukovsky when he was courting his eldest daughter, Anna. She was known as the same beauty and "idol of the family" as Aglaya Yepanchina.

The writer made sure that the naive, simple-hearted, open-minded prince at the same time was not ridiculous, was not humiliated. On the contrary, so that sympathy for him would grow, precisely because he does not get angry with people: "for they do not know what they are doing."

One of the acute issues in the novel is the appearance of modern man, the "loss of good looks" in human relations.

The terrible world of proprietors, greedy, cruel, vile servants of the money bag is shown by Dostoevsky in all its dirty unattractiveness. Here is the successful General Yepanchin, vulgar and limitedly self-satisfied, using his position for his own enrichment. And the insignificant Ganechka Ivolgin, hungry for money, dreaming of getting rich in any way, and the refined, hypocritical and cowardly aristocrat Trotsky.

As an artist and thinker, Dostoevsky created a wide social canvas, in which he truthfully showed the terrible, inhuman character of the bourgeois-noble society, torn apart by self-interest, ambition, and monstrous egoism. The images he created of Trotsky, Rogozhin, General Yepanchin, Ganya Ivolgin and many others with fearless authenticity captured the moral decay, the poisoned atmosphere of this society with its flagrant contradictions.

As well as he could, Myshkin tried to elevate all people above vulgarity, to raise them to some ideals of goodness, but to no avail.

Myshkin is the embodiment of Christian love. But such love, love-pity, is not understood, it is unsuitable for people, too high and incomprehensible: “one must love with love.” Dostoevsky leaves this motto of Myshkin without any evaluation; such love does not take root in the world of self-interest, although it remains an ideal. Pity, compassion - that's the first thing a person needs.

Myshkin-Christ is clearly and hopelessly entangled in earthly affairs, involuntarily, according to the most invincible logic of life, he sows not good, but evil. He did not grow up to be an accuser, but, like Chatsky, the unreasonable world called him crazy. He was forced to return with a broken heart to Switzerland, Schneider's hospital, where they recognized that he had a complete damage to his mind. The human world destroyed it.

The meaning of the work is in a broad reflection of the contradictions of Russian post-reform life, general discord, loss of "decency", "plausibility".

The strength of the novel is in the artistic use of the contrast between the ideal spiritual values developed by mankind over many centuries, ideas about the goodness and beauty of deeds, on the one hand, and the true established relationships between people based on money, calculation, prejudices, on the other.

The Prince-Christ could not offer convincing solutions instead of vicious love: how to live and which way to go.

Dostoevsky in the novel "The Idiot" tried to create the image of a "quite a wonderful person." And you need to evaluate the work not on small plot situations, but on the basis of the general plan. The question of the improvement of mankind is eternal, it is raised by all generations, it is the “content of history”.

About the title of the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "The Idiot"

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, later 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.