October 20, 2017Literature, History
“Beauty will save the world”, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted”, “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right”: we analyze the stories of the most common phrases of the writer and the heroes of his works
Author Anastasia Pershkina
Fedor Dostoevsky. Engraving by Vladimir Favorsky. 1929 State Tretyakov Gallery / © DIOMEDIA
"Beauty will save the world"
“Is it true, Prince [Myshkin], that you once said that the world will be saved by “beauty”? “Gentlemen,” he [Hippolytus] shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince claims that the world will be saved by beauty!” And I claim that the reason he has such playful thoughts is that he is now in love. Gentlemen, the prince is in love; Just now, as soon as he came in, I was convinced of this. Don’t blush, prince, I’ll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world? Kolya told me this... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says, you call yourself a Christian. The prince looked at him carefully and did not answer him.”
"The Idiot" (1868)
The phrase about beauty that will save the world is uttered by a minor character - the consumptive youth Hippolyte. He asks if Prince Myshkin really said that, and, having received no answer, begins to develop this thesis. But the main character of the novel does not talk about beauty in such formulations and only once asks about Nastasya Filippovna whether she is kind: “Oh, if only she were kind! Everything would be saved!”
In the context of “The Idiot,” it is customary to talk primarily about the power of inner beauty - this is exactly how the writer himself suggested interpreting this phrase. While working on the novel, he wrote to the poet and censor Apollo Maykov that he set himself the goal of creating an ideal image of “a completely wonderful person,” meaning Prince Myshkin. At the same time, in the drafts of the novel there is the following entry: “The world will be saved by beauty. Two examples of beauty,” after which the author discusses the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna. For Dostoevsky, therefore, it is important to appreciate the saving power of both the inner, spiritual beauty of a person and his appearance. In the plot of “The Idiot,” however, we find a negative answer: the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna, like the purity of Prince Myshkin, does not make the lives of other characters better and does not prevent tragedy.
Later, in the novel The Brothers Karamazov, the characters again talk about the power of beauty. Brother Mitya no longer doubts its saving power: he knows and feels that beauty can make the world a better place. But in his understanding, it also has destructive power. And the hero will suffer because he does not understand where exactly the border between good and evil lies.
“After what happened to him, Dostoevsky could not help but believe in the saving power of beauty.”
Does beauty unite people?
Vladimir Recipe:
I would like to believe that yes. Called to unite. But people, for their part, must be ready for this unification. And it is the “worldwide responsiveness” that Dostoevsky discovered in Pushkin that makes me study Pushkin for half my life, trying each time to understand him for myself and for the audience, for my young actors, for my students. When we get involved in this kind of process together, we come out of it somewhat different. And this is the greatest role of all Russian culture; and Fyodor Mikhailovich, and Alexander Sergeevich especially.
This idea of Dostoevsky - “beauty will save the world” - was it not an aesthetic and moral utopia? Do you think he understood the powerlessness of beauty in transforming the world?
Vladimir Recipe:
I think he believed in the saving power of beauty. After what had happened to him, he couldn't help but believe it. He counted the last seconds of his life - and was saved a few moments before his seemingly inevitable execution and death. The hero of Dostoevsky’s story “The Dream of a Funny Man,” as we know, decided to shoot himself. And the pistol, ready and loaded, lay in front of him. And he fell asleep and had a dream that he shot himself, but did not die, but ended up on some other planet that had reached perfection, where exclusively kind and beautiful people lived. He is a “Funny Man” because he believed in this dream. And this is the beauty: sitting in his chair, the sleeper understands that this is a utopia, a dream and that it is funny. But by some strange coincidence, she believes in this dream and talks about it as if it were reality. The gentle emerald sea quietly splashed against the shores and kissed them with love, obvious, visible, almost conscious. Tall, beautiful trees stood in all the luxury of their colors...” He paints a heavenly picture, absolutely utopian. But utopian from the point of view of realists. And from the point of view of believers, this is not a utopia at all, but truth itself and faith itself. Unfortunately, I started thinking about these most important things late. It’s too late because they didn’t teach this at school, at university, or at theater institutes in Soviet times. But this is part of the culture that was expelled from Russia as something unnecessary. Russian religious philosophy was put on a ship and sent into emigration, that is, into exile... And just like the “Funny Man,” Myshkin knows that he is funny, but still goes to preach and believes that beauty will save the world.
“Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right”
“And it wasn’t money, the main thing, that I needed, Sonya, when I killed; It wasn’t so much the money that was needed, but something else... I know all this now... Understand me: maybe, walking the same road, I would never repeat the murder again. I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right..."
"Crime and Punishment" (1866)
Raskolnikov first talks about the “trembling creature” after meeting with a tradesman who calls him a “murderer.” The hero gets scared and plunges into reasoning about how some “Napoleon” would react in his place - a representative of the highest human “class” who can calmly commit a crime for the sake of his goal or whim: “The “prophet” is right, right when places a good-sized battery somewhere across the street and blows at the right and the wrong, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and don’t desire, because it’s none of your business!..” Raskolnikov most likely borrowed this image from Pushkin’s poem “Imitations of the Koran,” where the 93rd sura is freely stated:
Take courage, despise deception, cheerfully follow the path of truth, love the orphans and preach my Koran to the trembling creature.
In the original text of the sura, the recipients of the sermon should not be “creatures,” but people who should be told about the benefits that Allah can bestow “Therefore, do not oppress the orphan! And don’t drive away the one who asks! And proclaim the mercy of your Lord” (Koran 93:9–11). Raskolnikov deliberately mixes the image from “Imitations of the Koran” and episodes from the biography of Napoleon. Of course, it was not the prophet Mohammed, but the French commander who placed “a good battery across the street.” This is how he suppressed the royalist uprising in 1795. For Raskolnikov, they are both great people, and each of them, in his opinion, had the right to achieve their goals by any means. Everything that Napoleon did could be implemented by Mohammed and any other representative of the highest “rank”.
The last mention of the “trembling creature” in “Crime and Punishment” is Raskolnikov’s same damned question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...”. He utters this phrase at the end of a long explanation with Sonya Marmeladova, finally not justifying himself with noble impulses and difficult circumstances, but directly declaring that he killed for himself in order to understand what “category” he belongs to. Thus ends his last monologue; after hundreds and thousands of words, he finally got to the point. The significance of this phrase is given not only by the biting formulation, but also by what happens next to the hero. After this, Raskolnikov no longer makes long speeches: Dostoevsky leaves him only short remarks. Readers will learn about Raskolnikov’s internal experiences, which will ultimately lead him with a confession to Sennaya Square and to the police station, from the author’s explanations. The hero himself will not tell you anything more - after all, he has already asked the main question.
Brief biography of F. Dostoevsky
Before we talk about why this phrase became a catchphrase and what meaning was attached to it, let’s get acquainted with the biography of the person who became its author.
Fyodor Mikhailovich was born on November 11, 1821. His father was a priest who served in the parish church. The mother was the daughter of a merchant. However, despite the fact that the mother had a fortune, the family lived quite poorly. Dostoevsky's father believed that money brings evil with it. And therefore, from childhood, he taught children to have decency and a modest life.
Since the father of the future writer was a priest, it is not at all difficult to assume that it was he who instilled in his children a love for the Lord God. In particular, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky was distinguished by this love. In his works he mentions religion more than once.
As soon as Dostoevsky grew up a little, his father sent him to a boarding house. There he studied away from home, and after that, without any particular difficulties, he entered the Engineering School.
While studying at school, the young man found himself completely in the grip of a love of literature. Realizing this, the young man abandoned his intention to master any craft and joined the ranks of writers.
It was this decision that later caused serious problems that became a real test for Dostoevsky. The words he wrote reached not only the hearts of readers. The courtyard drew attention to him. And by the decision of the monarch he was forced to go into exile.
Note! For four whole years the young man was in hard labor.
Many works came from the writer’s pen. And all of them found a response in the hearts of not only his contemporaries. Now the creations of this author continue to excite and excite thoughts.
After all, in them he raises very important questions. And some of them still have not been answered. The most famous works that Dostoevsky wrote are:
- "Crime and Punishment";
- "Demons";
- "The Brothers Karamazov";
- "White Nights";
- "Idiot".
This is interesting! The expression Ate the dog - what is the meaning of the phraseological unit
“Should the light fail, or should I not drink tea?”
“...In fact, I need, you know what: for you to fail, that’s what! I need peace of mind. Yes, I’m in favor of not being bothered, I’ll sell the whole world right now for a penny. Should the light fail, or should I not drink tea? I will say that the world is gone, but that I always drink tea. Did you know this or not? Well, I know that I am a scoundrel, a scoundrel, a selfish person, a lazy person.”
"Notes from Underground" (1864)
This is part of the monologue of the nameless hero of Notes from Underground, which he pronounces in front of a prostitute who unexpectedly came to his home. The phrase about tea sounds like evidence of the insignificance and selfishness of the underground man. These words have an interesting historical context. Tea as a measure of wealth first appears in Dostoevsky’s “Poor People.” This is how the hero of the novel, Makar Devushkin, talks about his financial situation:
“And my apartment costs me seven rubles in banknotes, and a table of five rubles: that’s twenty-four and a half, and before I paid exactly thirty, but I denied myself a lot; I didn’t always drink tea, but now I’ve saved money on tea and sugar. You know, my dear, it’s somehow a shame not to drink tea; The people here are all well-to-do, it’s a shame.”
Dostoevsky himself experienced similar experiences in his youth. In 1839, he wrote from St. Petersburg to his father in the village:
"What; Without drinking tea, you won't die of hunger! I'll live somehow! <…> The camp life of every student of a military educational institution requires at least 40 rubles. money. <…> In this amount I do not include such needs as, for example: having tea, sugar, etc. This is already necessary, and it is necessary not out of decency alone, but out of necessity. When you get wet in damp weather in the rain in a canvas tent, or in such weather, coming home from training tired, chilled, without tea you can get sick; what happened to me last year on a hike. But still, respecting your need, I will not drink tea.”
Tea in Tsarist Russia was a truly expensive product. It was transported directly from China along the only land route, and this journey took about a year. Due to transportation costs, as well as huge duties, tea in Central Russia was several times more expensive than in Europe. According to the Gazette of the St. Petersburg City Police, in 1845, in the store of Chinese teas of the merchant Piskarev, prices per pound (0.45 kilograms) of the product ranged from 5 to 6.5 rubles in banknotes, and the cost of green tea reached 50 rubles. At the same time, you could buy a pound of first-class beef for 6–7 rubles. In 1850, Otechestvennye Zapiski wrote that the annual consumption of tea in Russia was 8 million pounds - however, it is impossible to calculate how much per person, since this product was popular mainly in cities and among people of the upper class.
“If there is no God, then everything is permitted”
“... He ended with the statement that for every private person, for example, like us now, who does not believe in either God or his own immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately change in complete contrast to the previous, religious one, and that selfishness, even to the point of villainy, is not only should be allowed to a person, but even recognized as a necessary, most reasonable and almost noblest outcome in his position.”
"The Brothers Karamazov" (1880)
The most important words in Dostoevsky are usually not spoken by the main characters. Thus, Porfiry Petrovich is the first to speak about the theory of the division of humanity into two categories in Crime and Punishment, and only then Raskolnikov; Ippolit asks the question about the saving power of beauty in “The Idiot,” and the Karamazovs’ relative Pyotr Aleksandrovich Miusov notes that God and the salvation he promised are the only guarantor of people’s observance of moral laws. At the same time, Miusov refers to his brother Ivan, and only then other characters discuss this provocative theory, discussing whether Karamazov could have invented it. Brother Mitya considers her interesting, seminarian Rakitin - vile, meek Alyosha - false. But no one utters the phrase “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” in the novel. This “quote” will later be constructed from various remarks by literary critics and readers.
Five years before the publication of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was already trying to fantasize about what humanity would do without God. The hero of the novel “The Teenager” (1875), Andrei Petrovich Versilov, argued that clear proof of the absence of a higher power and the impossibility of immortality, on the contrary, will make people love and appreciate each other more, because there is no one else to love. This unnoticed remark in the next novel grows into a theory, and that, in turn, into a test in practice. Tormented by atheistic ideas, brother Ivan compromises moral laws and allows the murder of his father. Unable to bear the consequences, he practically goes crazy. Having allowed himself everything, Ivan does not stop believing in God - his theory does not work, because he could not prove it even to himself.
Prince Myshkin: kindness and stupidity
The second most important question is: what killed Myshkin?
Because the answer to it is an indicator of how beautiful a person is. It should be noted that finding the correct answer to this question is indeed not easy. In some cases, the prince's virtue borders on real stupidity. Why do some people consider the prince stupid? Of course, not because of his ridiculous actions. The reason for this is excessive kindness and sensitivity. After all, in the end, his positive qualities became the cause of the tragedy that happened to him.
This is interesting! What does it mean to “hack on the nose” and what is the meaning of phraseology
The man tried to see only the good in everything. His beauty could even justify some of his shortcomings. Perhaps this is why he considers Nastasya Filippovna a truly beautiful person. However, many can argue with this.
“Masha is lying on the table. Will I see Masha?
“April 16th. Masha is lying on the table. Will I see Masha?
To love a person as oneself, according to the commandment of Christ, is impossible. The law of personality on earth binds. I'm preventing. Christ alone could, but Christ was the eternal ideal from time to time, to which man strives and, according to the law of nature, must strive.”
From a Notebook (1864)
Masha, or Maria Dmitrievna, whose maiden name was Konstant, and by her first husband Isaev, was Dostoevsky’s first wife. They married in 1857 in the Siberian city of Kuznetsk and then moved to central Russia. On April 15, 1864, Maria Dmitrievna died of consumption. In recent years, the couple lived separately and communicated little. Maria Dmitrievna is in Vladimir, and Fyodor Mikhailovich is in St. Petersburg. He was absorbed in publishing magazines, where, among other things, he published texts by his mistress, the aspiring writer Apollinaria Suslova. The illness and death of his wife hit him hard. A few hours after her death, Dostoevsky recorded in a notebook his thoughts about love, marriage and the goals of human development. Briefly, their essence is as follows. The ideal to strive for is Christ, the only one who was able to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Man is selfish and incapable of loving his neighbor as himself. And yet, heaven on earth is possible: with proper spiritual work, each new generation will be better than the previous one. Having reached the highest stage of development, people will refuse marriages, because they contradict the ideal of Christ. A family union is the selfish isolation of a couple, and in a world where people are ready to give up their personal interests for the sake of others, this is unnecessary and impossible. And besides, since the ideal state of humanity will be achieved only at the last stage of development, it will be possible to stop reproducing.
“Masha is lying on the table...” is an intimate diary entry, not a thoughtful writer’s manifesto. But it is in this text that ideas are outlined that Dostoevsky will later develop in his novels. A person’s selfish attachment to his “I” will be reflected in Raskolnikov’s individualistic theory, and the unattainability of the ideal - in Prince Myshkin, called “Prince Christ” in the drafts, as an example of self-sacrifice and humility.
Important words from Terentyev
It is noteworthy that the question of who owns the phrase is decisive.
But in this case we are talking specifically about the character of the book, and not about its author. After all, the phrase that actually defines the work was uttered by a minor character. Moreover, he was extremely stupid and thought too narrowly. He often ridiculed the prince, considering him a low person, which in fact he himself was.
What comes first for Terentyev is not feelings. A man is most interested in money. For the sake of well-being, he is ready to do anything. Appearance and position are also important to him. But he is ready to close his eyes even to these important “attributes” of a person. After all, if you have money, then everything else doesn’t matter.
Important! This is precisely the symbolism of the fact that it is Hippolytus who utters this phrase, which later became a catchphrase.
This character actually turns out to be incapable of appreciating not only internal, but also external beauty.
Although the latter is important for him. But he is not able to appreciate the beauty of a woman if she is not rich. And therefore it seems impossible to him that the world will be saved only because of someone’s beauty. Perhaps one day beauty will really play a decisive role in saving the world. But this will happen in the future. And now the important task of every person is to preserve this beauty. It is important to be not just a wonderful person, but also to be an image of wisdom and virtue. After all, using the example of Prince Myshkin, it became clear that kindness, full of sympathy, without wisdom, can become the cause of trouble.
“Constantinople – sooner or later, it must be ours”
“Pre-Petrine Russia was active and strong, although it was slowly taking shape politically; it had developed unity for itself and was preparing to consolidate its outskirts; She understood within herself that she carried within herself a treasure that was not found anywhere else - Orthodoxy, that she was the keeper of Christ's truth, but already the true truth, the real image of Christ, obscured in all other faiths and in all other peoples. <…> And this unity is not for capture, not for violence, not for the destruction of Slavic individuals in front of the Russian colossus, but in order to recreate them and put them in the proper relationship to Europe and to humanity, to finally give them the opportunity to calm down and rest after their countless centuries of suffering... <...> Of course, and for the same purpose, Constantinople - sooner or later, should be ours..."
"A Writer's Diary" (June 1876)
In 1875–1876, the Russian and foreign press were flooded with ideas about the capture of Constantinople. At this time, in the territory of the Porte, the Ottoman Porte, or Porta, is another name for the Ottoman Empire. One after another, uprisings of the Slavic peoples broke out, which the Turkish authorities brutally suppressed. Things were heading towards war. Everyone expected Russia to come out in defense of the Balkan states: it was predicted to win, and the Ottoman Empire was predicted to collapse. And, of course, everyone was worried about the question of who would get the ancient Byzantine capital in this case. Various options were discussed: that Constantinople would become an international city, that it would be occupied by the Greeks, or that it would be part of the Russian Empire. The latter option did not suit Europe at all, but it was very popular with Russian conservatives, who saw this primarily as a political benefit.
Dostoevsky was also concerned about these questions. Having entered into controversy, he immediately accused all participants in the dispute of being wrong. In the “Diary of a Writer” from the summer of 1876 to the spring of 1877, he continually returned to the Eastern Question. Unlike conservatives, he believed that Russia sincerely wants to protect fellow believers, free them from Muslim oppression, and therefore, as an Orthodox power, has the exclusive right to Constantinople. “We, Russia, are truly necessary and inevitable for all of Eastern Christianity, and for the entire fate of the future Orthodoxy on earth, for its unity,” writes Dostoevsky in his Diary for March 1877. The writer was convinced of the special Christian mission of Russia. Even earlier, he developed this idea in “The Possessed.” One of the heroes of this novel, Shatov, was convinced that the Russian people are a God-bearing people. The famous Pushkin speech, published in the “Diary of a Writer” in 1880, will be devoted to the same idea.
“Beauty is not a disposable syringe”
What does the world need to be saved from today?
Vladimir Receptor: From the war. From irresponsible science. From quackery. From lack of spirituality. From arrogant narcissism. From rudeness, anger, aggression, envy, meanness, vulgarity... Here you can save and save...
Can you remember a case when beauty saved, well, if not the world, then at least something in this world?
Vladimir Receptor: Beauty cannot be likened to a disposable syringe. It saves not with an injection, but with the consistency of its effect. Wherever the “Sistine Madonna” appears, wherever war and misfortune take her, she heals, saves and will save the world. She became a symbol of beauty. And the Creed convinces the Creator that the person praying believes in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. I have a friend, famous actor Vladimir Zamansky. He is ninety, he fought, won, got into trouble, worked at the Sovremennik Theater, acted a lot, suffered a lot, but did not lose faith in the beauty, goodness, harmony of the world. And we can say that his wife Natalya Klimova, also an actress, with her rare and spiritual beauty saved and is saving my friend...
Both of them, I know, are deeply religious people.
Vladimir Receptor: Yes. I'll tell you a big secret: I have an amazingly beautiful wife. She left the Dnieper. I say this because we met in Kyiv and specifically in the Dnieper. And both did not attach any importance to this. I invited her to have lunch at a restaurant. She said: I’m not dressed to go to a restaurant, I’m wearing a T-shirt. I’m wearing a T-shirt too, I told her. She said: well, yes, but you are a Recipe, and I am not yet... And we both began to laugh wildly. And it ended... no, it continued with the fact that from that day in 1975 she saves me...
Beauty is meant to unite people. But people, for their part, must be ready for this unification. Beauty is the path. Man's path to God
Is the destruction of Palmyra by ISIS militants an evil mockery of the utopian belief in the saving power of beauty? The world is riddled with antagonisms and contradictions, full of threats, violence, bloody clashes - and no beauty can save anyone, anywhere, from anything. So, maybe stop repeating that beauty will save the world? Isn’t it time to honestly admit to ourselves that this motto itself is empty and hypocritical?
Vladimir Recepter: No, I don’t think so. You shouldn’t, like Aglaya, isolate yourself from Prince Myshkin’s statement. For him, this is not a question or a motto, but knowledge and faith. You are correct in raising the question of Palmyra. It's excruciatingly painful. It is excruciatingly painful when a barbarian tries to destroy the painting of a brilliant artist. He does not sleep, the enemy of man. It’s not for nothing that the devil is called that way. But it was not in vain that our sappers cleared the remains of Palmyra. They saved beauty itself. At the beginning of our conversation, you and I agreed that this statement should not be taken out of its context, that is, from the circumstances in which it was made, by whom it was said, when, to whom... But there is also subtext and overtext. There is the entire work of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, his fate, which led the writer to precisely such seemingly funny heroes. Let us not forget that for a very long time Dostoevsky was simply not allowed on stage... It is no coincidence that the future is called in the prayer “the life of the future century.” What is meant here is not a literal century, but a century as a space of time - a powerful, infinite space. If we look back at all the catastrophes that humanity has suffered, at the misfortunes and troubles that Russia has gone through, then we will become eyewitnesses of a continuously ongoing salvation. Therefore, beauty has saved, is saving and will save both the world and man.
Vladimir Receptor. Photo: Alexey Filippov/TASS
