KARAMAZOV: PART 1 BOOK 1: Discussion Thread
Talk Le Salon Littéraire du Peuple pour le Peuple
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1QuentinTom
And we're off!!!! Woohoo!!!!!
Book one basically describes the back stories of the Karamazovs. The action of the novel has not yet started. Here are some things to note:
From the Author
This invites comparison with the opening of David Copperfield.
“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.
D was a huge fan of Dickens. D asks the same question: why is Alyosha a hero, what kind of hero is he? Why is he the hero of the novel and not Ivan, or Dimitry? This is something to think about as we read.
In the second paragraph the author mentions the general disunity of contemporary life. This was a key note in D’s thinking of the time: the dissociation of Russian life. It’s worth looking out for this as we read: the novel describes many forms of dissociation. Or not?
Book one basically describes the back stories of the Karamazovs. The action of the novel has not yet started. Here are some things to note:
From the Author
This invites comparison with the opening of David Copperfield.
“Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show.
D was a huge fan of Dickens. D asks the same question: why is Alyosha a hero, what kind of hero is he? Why is he the hero of the novel and not Ivan, or Dimitry? This is something to think about as we read.
In the second paragraph the author mentions the general disunity of contemporary life. This was a key note in D’s thinking of the time: the dissociation of Russian life. It’s worth looking out for this as we read: the novel describes many forms of dissociation. Or not?
2QuentinTom
Ch1:
1. The narrator. He calls himself ‘I’, but who is he? An inhabitant of the town, and intimate of the family, ‘Dostoevsky’, an omniscient narrator, all of these, or none? Throughout the novel the narrator shifts in and out of focus. In Book 1 D foregrounds this and asks us to note it as important.
2. The narrator makes a curious digression about an acquaintance of his who threw herself off a cliff out of caprice, out of a desire to emulate Ophelia. The purpose of this digression, I feel, is to alert us to the presence of D’s very strange humour. This is undeniably funny, but it is also a bit sick. (if you find the opening line of Camus’s L’Etranger screamingly funny, as I do, then D’s humour is rather like that). The presence of humour may come as some surprise to first time readers of D/BK, but be alert to how your translation brings out the humorous elements of the novel.
1. The narrator. He calls himself ‘I’, but who is he? An inhabitant of the town, and intimate of the family, ‘Dostoevsky’, an omniscient narrator, all of these, or none? Throughout the novel the narrator shifts in and out of focus. In Book 1 D foregrounds this and asks us to note it as important.
2. The narrator makes a curious digression about an acquaintance of his who threw herself off a cliff out of caprice, out of a desire to emulate Ophelia. The purpose of this digression, I feel, is to alert us to the presence of D’s very strange humour. This is undeniably funny, but it is also a bit sick. (if you find the opening line of Camus’s L’Etranger screamingly funny, as I do, then D’s humour is rather like that). The presence of humour may come as some surprise to first time readers of D/BK, but be alert to how your translation brings out the humorous elements of the novel.
3QuentinTom
Ch 2:
Towards the end of the first long paragraph FP is described as often acting against his own interests. This is absolutely a central issue of D’s thinking, and the central theme of the novel. We can understand this on two levels, the psychological, and the philosophical
D spent his mature life trying to refute the philosophy of the Westernisers, which was essentially utilitarian: man never acts knowingly against his own interests. He attacks this philosophy again and again, both on the level of polemical nonfiction in his journalism, and on the level of psychological incident in all his major novels, starting with Notes from Underground. BK is full of incidents in which characters act irrationally, knowingly against their own interests, motivated by caprice, perhaps. This will become a key element of the trial scene, so it’s important to be alert to this theme from the start.
Towards the end of the first long paragraph FP is described as often acting against his own interests. This is absolutely a central issue of D’s thinking, and the central theme of the novel. We can understand this on two levels, the psychological, and the philosophical
D spent his mature life trying to refute the philosophy of the Westernisers, which was essentially utilitarian: man never acts knowingly against his own interests. He attacks this philosophy again and again, both on the level of polemical nonfiction in his journalism, and on the level of psychological incident in all his major novels, starting with Notes from Underground. BK is full of incidents in which characters act irrationally, knowingly against their own interests, motivated by caprice, perhaps. This will become a key element of the trial scene, so it’s important to be alert to this theme from the start.
4Macumbeira
Exactly what we need
but please do not proceed too fast.
but please do not proceed too fast.
5QuentinTom
ok.
have some vodka mac.
woohooo!
have some vodka mac.
woohooo!
6QuentinTom
Can anybody with a better knowledge of the Bible ( I am wilfully lacking in this) give us some thoughts on the meaning of the epigraph from John 12.24?
7urania1
Verily, verily I say unto you, Except a corn of
wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth
alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)
Damn it I can't find my King James version of the bib, so I will be working back and forth between this version the Oxford New English Bible.
I feel reluctant to discuss this passage in much detail as it foreshadows the end of the book. In context, Jesus speaks these words just as he has entered Jerusalem to great acclaim by the people, acclaim that will quickly shift to demands for his crucifixion. On one level, one can say Christ is prophesizing his own death – a death that will end in salvation. He will fall to ground (die), abideth alone (be utterly forsaken by God and his disciples), and bring forth fruit (salvation). So, as one reads the Bros. K. one might think about this as an overarching theme, one of many.
What follows this passage is interesting as well (here I start with Oxford New English Bible).
The man who loves himself is lost, but he who hates himself in this world will be kept safe for eternal life. Interesting quotation, no? Especially the part about "he who hates himself in this world." John 12 ends with a discussion of judgment.
I have come into the world as light . . . I have come not to judge the world, but to save the world. The is a judge for the man who rejects me (God The Father). Think Lacan - the nom/non du pere. There are many fathers in this novel; there are many judges as well. so you may want to identify them and think about their roles in the work.
wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth
alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)
Damn it I can't find my King James version of the bib, so I will be working back and forth between this version the Oxford New English Bible.
I feel reluctant to discuss this passage in much detail as it foreshadows the end of the book. In context, Jesus speaks these words just as he has entered Jerusalem to great acclaim by the people, acclaim that will quickly shift to demands for his crucifixion. On one level, one can say Christ is prophesizing his own death – a death that will end in salvation. He will fall to ground (die), abideth alone (be utterly forsaken by God and his disciples), and bring forth fruit (salvation). So, as one reads the Bros. K. one might think about this as an overarching theme, one of many.
What follows this passage is interesting as well (here I start with Oxford New English Bible).
The man who loves himself is lost, but he who hates himself in this world will be kept safe for eternal life. Interesting quotation, no? Especially the part about "he who hates himself in this world." John 12 ends with a discussion of judgment.
I have come into the world as light . . . I have come not to judge the world, but to save the world. The is a judge for the man who rejects me (God The Father). Think Lacan - the nom/non du pere. There are many fathers in this novel; there are many judges as well. so you may want to identify them and think about their roles in the work.
8Macumbeira
The intro sounds familiar to me
The intro of BK was clearly an inspiration for T. Mann. He too introduces Hans Castorp story in the Magic Mountain in a quite a similar way as Dosto introduces his BK.
The intro of BK was clearly an inspiration for T. Mann. He too introduces Hans Castorp story in the Magic Mountain in a quite a similar way as Dosto introduces his BK.
9theaelizabet
And away we gooooo...Murr, this is terrific! I've finished book one and will sit with your thoughts tonight, after all of the Halloween hullabaloo, before continuing on with book 2.
10absurdeist
6,7> right on, U. I'll add that that's a key passage in understanding Christian discipleship to its adherents: sublimating your will ("denying yourself") to God's will above all else. That's what it means, essentially, to "take up one's cross and follow me". Living for "the glory of God" rather than for yourself. Self-sacrifice. Self-negation. In 1st John, there's a verse that echoes this directive: "He must become greater; I must become less". He = God/Jesus Christ, obviously. Unless we die to ourselves, God cannot resurrect us into becoming servants of His will and purposes on Earth, is how I interpret Dusty's biblical quotation.
This is gonna be good!
This is gonna be good!
12urania1
Good question A_musing. And if "everybody" is the the corn of wheat, in what sense? I would be inclined to give a Hindu response here, but I will abstain.
I also wonder how this these verses fit into Russian Orthodoxy?
I also wonder how this these verses fit into Russian Orthodoxy?
13QuentinTom
so basically, Jesus is telling us to hate ourselves all through our life if we want to get to heaven. Is that right?
mm. Lovely religion, christianity. I shall try not to snipe.
Urania, We know that BK was the first part of an intended two volume work, focussing on Alyosha (this is what he refers to in the forward) I'm wondering now if this epigraph was intended by D to stand for both volumes of his projected work, or just for the first volume only. Thoughts?
MAc, have you got a quote there for MM? I would be interested to compare it with BK.
Thea, thanks, I'll try to put up some more later today on Book 1. Lovely quotes on the quote thread, btw!
mm. Lovely religion, christianity. I shall try not to snipe.
Urania, We know that BK was the first part of an intended two volume work, focussing on Alyosha (this is what he refers to in the forward) I'm wondering now if this epigraph was intended by D to stand for both volumes of his projected work, or just for the first volume only. Thoughts?
MAc, have you got a quote there for MM? I would be interested to compare it with BK.
Thea, thanks, I'll try to put up some more later today on Book 1. Lovely quotes on the quote thread, btw!
14urania1
Urania, We know that BK was the first part of an intended two volume work, focussing on Alyosha (this is what he refers to in the forward) I'm wondering now if this epigraph was intended by D to stand for both volumes of his projected work, or just for the first volume only. Thoughts?
I will need to think about this question some more. I am fascinated that he chose to quote from John. Of the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - John is utterly different:
1.) It was written much later than the other three books.
2.) It's purpose was not to record history.
3.) It is more philosophical than the other Gospels.
4.) Its was written with a definite slant toward attracting non-Jews.
And finally (about this I am not sure) it was written against a then prevalent cult of pleasure, hence (perhaps) the idea that one must hate oneself in the world.
The first three gospels are the synoptic gospels. They seem to record history. There is considerable agreement between the three texts, even in some places exact wording. Many scholars have argued that they must have been derived from another text - the mysterious Book of Q.
So in summary, D. chooses the outsider's text for his epigram. Interestingly - overall, the book of John tells more stories of loving and forgiveness, which is why I find that quotation from John so puzzling.
If there are any Biblical scholars here, please stand up. This is not my area of expertise. I have read the Bible through thrice because my parents bribed their atheist child with promises of twenty secular books from the local bookstore for each reading. Since then, I have read it in bits and pieces because my area of speciality - early modern English literature - requires it. But I am no authority on on biblical studies.
Let me reiterate - I would be curious to know how the Gospel of John is situated within Russian Orthodoxy.
I will need to think about this question some more. I am fascinated that he chose to quote from John. Of the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - John is utterly different:
1.) It was written much later than the other three books.
2.) It's purpose was not to record history.
3.) It is more philosophical than the other Gospels.
4.) Its was written with a definite slant toward attracting non-Jews.
And finally (about this I am not sure) it was written against a then prevalent cult of pleasure, hence (perhaps) the idea that one must hate oneself in the world.
The first three gospels are the synoptic gospels. They seem to record history. There is considerable agreement between the three texts, even in some places exact wording. Many scholars have argued that they must have been derived from another text - the mysterious Book of Q.
So in summary, D. chooses the outsider's text for his epigram. Interestingly - overall, the book of John tells more stories of loving and forgiveness, which is why I find that quotation from John so puzzling.
If there are any Biblical scholars here, please stand up. This is not my area of expertise. I have read the Bible through thrice because my parents bribed their atheist child with promises of twenty secular books from the local bookstore for each reading. Since then, I have read it in bits and pieces because my area of speciality - early modern English literature - requires it. But I am no authority on on biblical studies.
Let me reiterate - I would be curious to know how the Gospel of John is situated within Russian Orthodoxy.
15theaelizabet
From a Minneapolis Russian Orthodox Church website:
"Nine days after Pascha, on the Tuesday after Saint Thomas Sunday many Orthodox Christians celebrate "Joy Day," a Paschal commemoration of the dead
Joy Day is a happy commemoration of the dead, on which we bring the joy of Pascha into the cemeteries to our dead brothers and sisters in Christ. We remember them in the Divine Liturgy and memorial service of the day. We prepare and eat "memorial wheat" blessed in church to remind us of Christ's words about death: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain" (John 12:24). We visit the graves with the presbyters, who offer supplications for the dead and bless them with holy water. We leave dyed eggs, symbols of the Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection, on the graves as a token of love and prayer for the dead during the joyous Paschal season. We give alms in memory of the dead.
In the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe, Joy Day observances included family and village picnics in the cemeteries at which traditional Paschal foods were served. Such celebration might seem out of place to modern man, who tends to deal with death with much more reserve, denial and avoidance, if he visits a cemetery at all. But joy in such a setting during Paschaltide is not strange to Orthodox Christians, because it reflects the attitude of Saint Paul the Apostle's triumphant cry over the victorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ..."
"Nine days after Pascha, on the Tuesday after Saint Thomas Sunday many Orthodox Christians celebrate "Joy Day," a Paschal commemoration of the dead
Joy Day is a happy commemoration of the dead, on which we bring the joy of Pascha into the cemeteries to our dead brothers and sisters in Christ. We remember them in the Divine Liturgy and memorial service of the day. We prepare and eat "memorial wheat" blessed in church to remind us of Christ's words about death: "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain" (John 12:24). We visit the graves with the presbyters, who offer supplications for the dead and bless them with holy water. We leave dyed eggs, symbols of the Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection, on the graves as a token of love and prayer for the dead during the joyous Paschal season. We give alms in memory of the dead.
In the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe, Joy Day observances included family and village picnics in the cemeteries at which traditional Paschal foods were served. Such celebration might seem out of place to modern man, who tends to deal with death with much more reserve, denial and avoidance, if he visits a cemetery at all. But joy in such a setting during Paschaltide is not strange to Orthodox Christians, because it reflects the attitude of Saint Paul the Apostle's triumphant cry over the victorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ..."
16urania1
Wow! Thanks theaelizabet. This adds more contour to the discussion. I'll comment later because right now everything I want to say pertains to the end of BK. It might shed some light on the proposed second volume of BK. I wonder.
17Macumbeira
In chapter 2 Dimitri's military service reads as a summary of Lermontov's "Hero of our time"
18QuentinTom
yes, Thea that's most interesting!
Well spotted Mac!
Well spotted Mac!
19Macumbeira
intro comparison :
Introduction Dostoyevsky : ...though I called Aleksey Fyodorovich my hero, I am nevertheless aware that he is in no way a man of greatness, and thus do I anticipate inevitable questions of a kind such as: In what respect does your Aleksey Fyodorovich stand out from the common run of men, that you have selected him as your hero?
Introduction Mann: The story of Hans Castorp that we intend to tell here – not for his sake ( for the reader will come to know him as a perfectly ordinary, if engaging young man) but for the sake of the story itself, which seems to us to be very much worth telling ...
Last word of intro Dostoyevsky: And now to business
Last word of intro Mann: And with that we begin
Introduction Dostoyevsky : ...though I called Aleksey Fyodorovich my hero, I am nevertheless aware that he is in no way a man of greatness, and thus do I anticipate inevitable questions of a kind such as: In what respect does your Aleksey Fyodorovich stand out from the common run of men, that you have selected him as your hero?
Introduction Mann: The story of Hans Castorp that we intend to tell here – not for his sake ( for the reader will come to know him as a perfectly ordinary, if engaging young man) but for the sake of the story itself, which seems to us to be very much worth telling ...
Last word of intro Dostoyevsky: And now to business
Last word of intro Mann: And with that we begin
20Macumbeira
Papa Fyodor not remembering where he burried hiw wife was quite funny in a gross way.
21QuentinTom
callous laughter, I think. non?
22QuentinTom
Ch 3:
3rd paragraph halfway through describes the response in Petersburg to Ivan’s article. The narrator says:
It was rather a curious incident. When he had just left the university and was preparing to go abroad upon his two thousand roubles, Ivan Fyodorovitch published in one of the more important journals a strange article, which attracted general notice,….What was most striking about the article was its tone, and its unexpected conclusion. Many of the Church party regarded him unquestioningly as on their side. And yet not only the secularists but even atheists joined them in their applause. Finally some sagacious persons opined that the article was nothing but an impudent satirical burlesque. I mention this incident particularly because…(elipses mine to make my point clearer)
This is absolutely important. For BK it outlines some of the problems in interpreting the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor and the life story of Father Zosima, the two central philosophical panels of the work. Generally in terms of Dostoevsky’s total output, it might offer us a key to understanding his entire poetics, especially his humour.
I am working on an essai about this at the moment, and my ideas are not yet developed enough to share more. But for now, note this passage and note also the care with which the narrator foregrounds it, as hugely significant. Note the word choice: 'burlesque' here, 'mockery' in P&V. What do other translations have? please share your version of this word.
More later.
3rd paragraph halfway through describes the response in Petersburg to Ivan’s article. The narrator says:
It was rather a curious incident. When he had just left the university and was preparing to go abroad upon his two thousand roubles, Ivan Fyodorovitch published in one of the more important journals a strange article, which attracted general notice,….What was most striking about the article was its tone, and its unexpected conclusion. Many of the Church party regarded him unquestioningly as on their side. And yet not only the secularists but even atheists joined them in their applause. Finally some sagacious persons opined that the article was nothing but an impudent satirical burlesque. I mention this incident particularly because…(elipses mine to make my point clearer)
This is absolutely important. For BK it outlines some of the problems in interpreting the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor and the life story of Father Zosima, the two central philosophical panels of the work. Generally in terms of Dostoevsky’s total output, it might offer us a key to understanding his entire poetics, especially his humour.
I am working on an essai about this at the moment, and my ideas are not yet developed enough to share more. But for now, note this passage and note also the care with which the narrator foregrounds it, as hugely significant. Note the word choice: 'burlesque' here, 'mockery' in P&V. What do other translations have? please share your version of this word.
More later.
23QuentinTom
Thanks for the Mann quotation, Mac, striking parallels between the two texts.
Can you tell us anything more about parallels /influences between Mann and D? don't hold back man!
Do we need more herring?
Can you tell us anything more about parallels /influences between Mann and D? don't hold back man!
Do we need more herring?
24QuentinTom
btw I am using this online version of the text to copy and paste quotations from, save me the trouble of typing stuff out.
http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/brothers_karamazov/
Can anyone press the right button and tell us who the translator is? I can't find it on the site. but then, I'm a few few sheets to the wind on this vodka.
Woohoo!
http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/brothers_karamazov/
Can anyone press the right button and tell us who the translator is? I can't find it on the site. but then, I'm a few few sheets to the wind on this vodka.
Woohoo!
25LolaWalser
What about Catholic Slavic lands? Russia's no momma of theirs. I can't picture Poles cavorting merrily among the graves up in their soggy plains.
I think one has to beware of Russian Orthodox imperialism, nationalism and other other-people-eating isms. Of which Dodo was a fervent supporter.
I think one has to beware of Russian Orthodox imperialism, nationalism and other other-people-eating isms. Of which Dodo was a fervent supporter.
26QuentinTom
Absolutely. He was a rampant Orthodox imperialist of the worst sort, virulent and naive. So were most of his audience, judging by the way he goes on at length about 'the glorious mission of Russia' in the Diary. His readers were lapping it up like cream and calling for more of the same.
Poor Dodo, he was so deluded about politics and religion.
Poor Dodo, he was so deluded about politics and religion.
27Macumbeira
What strikes me is that Russia hasn't changed a bit since Dosto till now.
I'll be back with some more Dosto- Mann stuff.
Tomcat, thanks for reminding the Chap 3 lines. I read it and - damn my carelessness - didn't stop to ask myself : Why is this important ?
I'll be back with some more Dosto- Mann stuff.
Tomcat, thanks for reminding the Chap 3 lines. I read it and - damn my carelessness - didn't stop to ask myself : Why is this important ?
28A_musing
Ah, Murr, I'd already noted that passage and was fascinated by it. When I first read this book, more than half my life-time ago, it is those philsophical panels that most fascinated me and drew me in, and so I'm already on the lookout for relevant bits in this re-read. Most interesting. Love the way Ivan's set up as a bit of a cipher.
29LolaWalser
Ivan K., so dark and tormented, my first (teenage) literary crush! Until Stavrogin gave him a run for the money, that is. I can't think what the girls today see in sparkly vampires. All that time could be better spent fan-ficcing about the demonic fallen angels of Russian lit, my little ones!
Sorry, cat, I am sick (quite un-metaphorically) and couldn't go pick up the book, so I'm sitting here wasting precious your threadspace on chat. But I go now to imbibe liquids and snort into mouchoirs. Smell ya lata!
Sorry, cat, I am sick (quite un-metaphorically) and couldn't go pick up the book, so I'm sitting here wasting precious your threadspace on chat. But I go now to imbibe liquids and snort into mouchoirs. Smell ya lata!
30janeajones
1.3.3 "Confession in Verse"
I'm fascinated with Dimitri's obsession with Schiller -- first of all, I thought he was "uneducated;" secondly -- all this Eleusinian Mystery stuff: Ceres searching for her daughter -- then we go back to the corn motif in Schiller's "Eleusinian Festival"
Thus was all to Ceres, when
Searching for her ravish'd child
(No green culture smiling then),
O'er the drear coast bleak and wild,
Never shelter did she gain,
Never friendly threshold trod;
All unbuilded is the fane,
All unheeded then the god!
Not with gold corn-ears strew'd
Where the ghastly altar stones;
Bleaching there, and gore-imbued,
Lay unhallow'd human bones!
Wide and far, where'er she roved,
Still reign'd Misery over all;
And her mighty soul was moved
At man's universal fall!
Interesting paganism here. And of course, the Eleusinian Mysteries, laid the groundwork for the cult of death and resurrection that encouraged the reception of Christianity in the Mediterranean world.
I'm fascinated with Dimitri's obsession with Schiller -- first of all, I thought he was "uneducated;" secondly -- all this Eleusinian Mystery stuff: Ceres searching for her daughter -- then we go back to the corn motif in Schiller's "Eleusinian Festival"
Thus was all to Ceres, when
Searching for her ravish'd child
(No green culture smiling then),
O'er the drear coast bleak and wild,
Never shelter did she gain,
Never friendly threshold trod;
All unbuilded is the fane,
All unheeded then the god!
Not with gold corn-ears strew'd
Where the ghastly altar stones;
Bleaching there, and gore-imbued,
Lay unhallow'd human bones!
Wide and far, where'er she roved,
Still reign'd Misery over all;
And her mighty soul was moved
At man's universal fall!
Interesting paganism here. And of course, the Eleusinian Mysteries, laid the groundwork for the cult of death and resurrection that encouraged the reception of Christianity in the Mediterranean world.
31QuentinTom
Looking forward to it Mac!
A_musing, it's the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor that blew my mind apart when I first read it (winter 1992, according to the date in my Constance Garnett copy). And Ivan's hallucination. (sh. Say no more about that.)
Oh dear, Lola, no sense of smell? I have ordered some smoked squid, a Taiwanese delicacy, which has an intense aroma of unwashed genitalia, guaranteed to cut through the thickest blocked nose! You will love it I"m sure!
Whoa! jumping madly ahead there, Jane! I"ll have to more to say on Dodo and Schiller when we get there. Thanks for posting the excerpt. and I also wondered about Dimitry's education. He certainly didn't pick up his Schiller from Grigory.
Don't forget this thread, folks,
http://www.librarything.com/topic/101522
and this:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/101524
A_musing, it's the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor that blew my mind apart when I first read it (winter 1992, according to the date in my Constance Garnett copy). And Ivan's hallucination. (sh. Say no more about that.)
Oh dear, Lola, no sense of smell? I have ordered some smoked squid, a Taiwanese delicacy, which has an intense aroma of unwashed genitalia, guaranteed to cut through the thickest blocked nose! You will love it I"m sure!
Whoa! jumping madly ahead there, Jane! I"ll have to more to say on Dodo and Schiller when we get there. Thanks for posting the excerpt. and I also wondered about Dimitry's education. He certainly didn't pick up his Schiller from Grigory.
Don't forget this thread, folks,
http://www.librarything.com/topic/101522
and this:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/101524
32janeajones
Sorry -- didn't mean to jump ahead -- thought this was a Part I thread, not just Part I, Book 1.
33Macumbeira
Chapter 8.
Biographical element :
Dostoyevski in 1878 lost his nearly three year old son Aleksey ( born 1875). How strange then to read about a peasant woman lamenting the loss of her child of the same age and with the same name in such heart-breaking details…
"What are you weeping for?"
"It's my little son I'm grieving for, Father. he was three years old -- three years all but three months. For my little boy, Father, I'm in anguish, for my little boy. He was the last one left… I have buried the last I can't forget him. He seems always standing before me. He never leaves me. He has withered my heart. I look at his little clothes, his little shirt, his little boots, and I wail. I lay out all that is left of him, all his little things. I look at them and wail."
And
And I shall pray for the peace of your child's soul. What was his name?"
"Alexey, Father."
"A sweet name. After Alexey, the man of God?"
"Yes, Father."
Obviously this is Dostoyevski or his wife speaking
How strange.
Biographical element :
Dostoyevski in 1878 lost his nearly three year old son Aleksey ( born 1875). How strange then to read about a peasant woman lamenting the loss of her child of the same age and with the same name in such heart-breaking details…
"What are you weeping for?"
"It's my little son I'm grieving for, Father. he was three years old -- three years all but three months. For my little boy, Father, I'm in anguish, for my little boy. He was the last one left… I have buried the last I can't forget him. He seems always standing before me. He never leaves me. He has withered my heart. I look at his little clothes, his little shirt, his little boots, and I wail. I lay out all that is left of him, all his little things. I look at them and wail."
And
And I shall pray for the peace of your child's soul. What was his name?"
"Alexey, Father."
"A sweet name. After Alexey, the man of God?"
"Yes, Father."
Obviously this is Dostoyevski or his wife speaking
How strange.
34slickdpdx
Good stuff Mac. That is all much harder to read now, with my own kids, than it was when having kids seemed like a remote possibility. Anyhow, this book is soo unbelievably good.
The dying seed bearing fruit is, I think, a common mystery religion ceremony feature. The speech is made during a passover celbration, isn't it, so it has some blunting the blow of the sacrifice to come. It seems another feature is that JC is receiving visitors - as Zosima does.
Think of the "hate yourself" as "lose yourself" and the sentiments may seem more palatable and more universal to other religious traditions as well. That's how it strikes me anyway.
Also, it may be that I am older and it may be the translation (PV), but I get the sly self-deprecating Fyodor PAvlovich better than I did before.
The dying seed bearing fruit is, I think, a common mystery religion ceremony feature. The speech is made during a passover celbration, isn't it, so it has some blunting the blow of the sacrifice to come. It seems another feature is that JC is receiving visitors - as Zosima does.
Think of the "hate yourself" as "lose yourself" and the sentiments may seem more palatable and more universal to other religious traditions as well. That's how it strikes me anyway.
Also, it may be that I am older and it may be the translation (PV), but I get the sly self-deprecating Fyodor PAvlovich better than I did before.
36A_musing
Anyone have any background on Russian monasticism and elders? I have the sense that the notion of the irrevocable authority of the elder is one of those half-myth, half-history elements, and that the authority of the Elder is very carefully overstated here.
I think the "what is Russian" theme is always interesting (we Americans do it too, right - lot's of questions about what is American, what is UnAmerican in our literature), with the elder institution both being new and a rebirth of something old and fundamental.
I think the "what is Russian" theme is always interesting (we Americans do it too, right - lot's of questions about what is American, what is UnAmerican in our literature), with the elder institution both being new and a rebirth of something old and fundamental.
37anna_in_pdx
36: This need to define your nationality seems really prevalent in the late 19th century throughout Europe and North America - remember Hugo in Les Mis? French people are like this, French people are like that....
38QuentinTom
'What is Russia?' was a burning theme of 19th century Russian culture. Is she European, Slavic, Asiatic, what? Anna is right, there was a growing nationalistic trend throughout the 19th century. the 1870s was the period when most of the European nation states we know today were formed.
39QuentinTom
Ch 4:
1. 5th para. First mention of the jews. Dostoevsky’s anti-semitism is as repellent as his Christianity. Without condoning it, it must of course be understood in the context of his times and place: 19th Century Russia was of course terribly anti semitic. The key point here is the distinction Dostoevsky makes between yids and jews. By the former he means anyone with a professional interest in finance, jewish or gentile. Dostoevsky makes this distinction in the Diary. Given that finance and money is such a central theme in the book, I think this distinction is important, but I don’t really want to get into gradations of anti-semitism.
2. Fyodor’s discourse on 'hooks'. The importance of this for the atheist theme hardly needs pointing out. However, I have a genuine question here:
Is Dostoevsky parodying those who take an extremely literal view of religion, or is he parodying atheists who use literal arguments to attack religion? Or both?
Later in chapter 5 the narrator will mention a ‘double edged sword’. Everything in Dostoevsky ‘cuts both ways’, as he himself puts it in the Diary. Ideas about this?
1. 5th para. First mention of the jews. Dostoevsky’s anti-semitism is as repellent as his Christianity. Without condoning it, it must of course be understood in the context of his times and place: 19th Century Russia was of course terribly anti semitic. The key point here is the distinction Dostoevsky makes between yids and jews. By the former he means anyone with a professional interest in finance, jewish or gentile. Dostoevsky makes this distinction in the Diary. Given that finance and money is such a central theme in the book, I think this distinction is important, but I don’t really want to get into gradations of anti-semitism.
2. Fyodor’s discourse on 'hooks'. The importance of this for the atheist theme hardly needs pointing out. However, I have a genuine question here:
Is Dostoevsky parodying those who take an extremely literal view of religion, or is he parodying atheists who use literal arguments to attack religion? Or both?
Later in chapter 5 the narrator will mention a ‘double edged sword’. Everything in Dostoevsky ‘cuts both ways’, as he himself puts it in the Diary. Ideas about this?
40QuentinTom
Ch 5:
2nd para
"I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise." In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.
1. The immortality of the soul is the basis for Dostoevsky’s view of religion, it forms the bedrock of everything: from it comes his love of Christ, his belief in god. his attacks on atheism etc
Without faith in one’s soul and its immortality, human existence is unnatural, unthinkable and unbearable he wrote in an essay in 1876, the year before he started work on BK.
2. Dostoevsky held that socialism and atheism both had the same root, in Catholicism. This needs a bit of explanation, as it’s perhaps counter intuitive. Here is an extract from The Lectern, if I might be allowed to cite myself:
“Dostoevsky detested Catholicism. Even atheism is preferable to Catholicism he wrote in the Diary. He held that Catholicism peddled a version of Christ who had actually succumbed to the third temptation of the Devil, and thereby gained the kingdoms of the world. This idea first appeared in The Idiot, and was developed as the key idea of The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. This was manifest in the statism of the Roman church, which sought to bring the states of Europe under its spiritual control, and which persisted in behaving as a temporal kingdom. Naturally, people were beginning to reject it, and atheism, materialism and socialism (the three evils of Dostoevsky’s personal ideology, and at the same time, the things he was most attracted to) were a direct result of Catholicism, and grew out of it: Roman Catholicism long ago sold out Christ for the sake of Earthly dominion, forcing humanity to turn away from it and so being the principle cause of Europe’s materialism and atheism, quite naturally this Catholicism engendered socialism in Europe.”
3. The Tower of Babel. Dostoevsky uses various buildings as images of man’s attempts to create perfect societies. In Notes from Underground, the main image is the crystal palace (he had seen the real Crystal Palace in London in 1862). This image was also used by Chernyshevsky as an image of the ideal society that would appear after the revolution. Dostoevsky turned the image round and used it as an image of how terrible an atheistic society would be, a crystal palace, with no room for secrets, caprice, the irrational, belief in the immortality of the soul etc. Another central image for Dostoevsky is the antheap, a society in which everyone knows their place and all work for the good of all, but which has no guiding principle, no spiritual idea animating it, a kind of impersonal society driven only by natural impulses, no room for the individual.
3rd para,
1. the discussion of the starets, the narrator mentions this: to attain perfect freedom, that is, from self; to escape the lot of those who have lived their whole life without finding their true selves in themselves. What is the self? What is Dostoevsky’s view of the self? This question haunts me throughout Dostoevsky. This whole discussion of the starets is terribly important, of course, but this little snippet is especially worth remembering later when we get to Ivan’s hallucination. I’ll come back to it then.
2. It is true, perhaps, that this instrument which had stood the test of a thousand years for the moral regeneration of a man from slavery to freedom and to moral perfectibility may be a two-edged weapon and it may lead some not to humility and complete self-control but to the most Satanic pride, that is, to bondage and not to freedom. the double edged sword.Note.
Personally, this sounds like a paradox to me. Complete subjugation of the self (whatever that is) to the will of another sounds very much like slavery, not freedom.
2nd para
"I want to live for immortality, and I will accept no compromise." In the same way, if he had decided that God and immortality did not exist, he would at once have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to heaven from earth but to set up heaven on earth.
1. The immortality of the soul is the basis for Dostoevsky’s view of religion, it forms the bedrock of everything: from it comes his love of Christ, his belief in god. his attacks on atheism etc
Without faith in one’s soul and its immortality, human existence is unnatural, unthinkable and unbearable he wrote in an essay in 1876, the year before he started work on BK.
2. Dostoevsky held that socialism and atheism both had the same root, in Catholicism. This needs a bit of explanation, as it’s perhaps counter intuitive. Here is an extract from The Lectern, if I might be allowed to cite myself:
“Dostoevsky detested Catholicism. Even atheism is preferable to Catholicism he wrote in the Diary. He held that Catholicism peddled a version of Christ who had actually succumbed to the third temptation of the Devil, and thereby gained the kingdoms of the world. This idea first appeared in The Idiot, and was developed as the key idea of The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor. This was manifest in the statism of the Roman church, which sought to bring the states of Europe under its spiritual control, and which persisted in behaving as a temporal kingdom. Naturally, people were beginning to reject it, and atheism, materialism and socialism (the three evils of Dostoevsky’s personal ideology, and at the same time, the things he was most attracted to) were a direct result of Catholicism, and grew out of it: Roman Catholicism long ago sold out Christ for the sake of Earthly dominion, forcing humanity to turn away from it and so being the principle cause of Europe’s materialism and atheism, quite naturally this Catholicism engendered socialism in Europe.”
3. The Tower of Babel. Dostoevsky uses various buildings as images of man’s attempts to create perfect societies. In Notes from Underground, the main image is the crystal palace (he had seen the real Crystal Palace in London in 1862). This image was also used by Chernyshevsky as an image of the ideal society that would appear after the revolution. Dostoevsky turned the image round and used it as an image of how terrible an atheistic society would be, a crystal palace, with no room for secrets, caprice, the irrational, belief in the immortality of the soul etc. Another central image for Dostoevsky is the antheap, a society in which everyone knows their place and all work for the good of all, but which has no guiding principle, no spiritual idea animating it, a kind of impersonal society driven only by natural impulses, no room for the individual.
3rd para,
1. the discussion of the starets, the narrator mentions this: to attain perfect freedom, that is, from self; to escape the lot of those who have lived their whole life without finding their true selves in themselves. What is the self? What is Dostoevsky’s view of the self? This question haunts me throughout Dostoevsky. This whole discussion of the starets is terribly important, of course, but this little snippet is especially worth remembering later when we get to Ivan’s hallucination. I’ll come back to it then.
2. It is true, perhaps, that this instrument which had stood the test of a thousand years for the moral regeneration of a man from slavery to freedom and to moral perfectibility may be a two-edged weapon and it may lead some not to humility and complete self-control but to the most Satanic pride, that is, to bondage and not to freedom. the double edged sword.Note.
Personally, this sounds like a paradox to me. Complete subjugation of the self (whatever that is) to the will of another sounds very much like slavery, not freedom.
41Porius
It seems to me that D. was paving the way towards Korzybski's 'Maybe' approach and Robert Anton Wilson's guerilla ontology. Just as Dickens was pecking away at the stylistic approach in Joyce's ULYSSES with Mr. Jingle. I would advise against using the cookie cutters when trying to come to get to the bottom of the wily F.D.
42LolaWalser
I think slick is on the right track with the religious "dissolving" of the self required/sought after/promised in so many religions.
The self is a sinner. That's the basic tennet of Christianity. Dostoevsky felt it in his bones (quite a sinner, he), but he never could hack the idea that EVERYBODY's been addressed to hell, on birth (unless you follow this recipe...), down to the innocent babes. That, he rightly thinks, is monstrous. So he grapples with this in all his books. He experiments with dozens of mixed sinner/saint characters--fallen women with hearts of gold, abused children (innocents introduced to vice through a crime committed against them), atheists who are honest or dishonest men, honest men who commit crimes, dishonest men who do not, but only out of weakness etc. How are these various people redeemed (bad form to call it "subjugation"!)? In every case, it's through Christ, the catcher in the rye, the catch-all black hole 100% stain remover loooooove machine.
oh oh oh I fell off my chair
back tomorrow
The self is a sinner. That's the basic tennet of Christianity. Dostoevsky felt it in his bones (quite a sinner, he), but he never could hack the idea that EVERYBODY's been addressed to hell, on birth (unless you follow this recipe...), down to the innocent babes. That, he rightly thinks, is monstrous. So he grapples with this in all his books. He experiments with dozens of mixed sinner/saint characters--fallen women with hearts of gold, abused children (innocents introduced to vice through a crime committed against them), atheists who are honest or dishonest men, honest men who commit crimes, dishonest men who do not, but only out of weakness etc. How are these various people redeemed (bad form to call it "subjugation"!)? In every case, it's through Christ, the catcher in the rye, the catch-all black hole 100% stain remover loooooove machine.
oh oh oh I fell off my chair
back tomorrow
43QuentinTom
Optina Pustyn
The famous OP to the south of Moscow became a centre of counselling and of spiritual retreats for many of Russia's most famous 19th century thinkers: beginning with the with slavophile Ivan Kireevsky, who spent much of his later life there, and extending on through Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Vladimir Solovyev. The figure of Father Zosima in D's BK presents a fairly accurate composite picture of Father Ambrose, the monastic elder at OP, whom D frequently visited, and of Tikhon Zadonsky, whose writing D reverently studied.
Billington, The Icon and the Axe p.203
Father Ambrose, the model for Father Zosima
Tikhon of Zadonsk the model for Father Zosima
The opening of Tikhon's book: 'a Spiritual
Treasure Gathered from the World', studied and revered by Dostoevsky:
As a merchant from various lands gathers various goods, and brings them into his house and treasures them there, likewise a Christian can collect from the world soul-saving thoughts, and by collecting them in the treasury of his heart can form his soul.
>36 A_musing: A_musing, I can't find anything about the role of obedience in the starets episode, but you are right to point out how 'carefully' the narrator highlights this. Generally, the potted history the narrator gives of the Starets is borne out by what Billington says.
The figure most often used to illustrate the power of the Starets is the infamous Rasputin. W Bruce Lincoln in The Romanovs quotes our passage from BK to explain the tremendous hold Rasputin had over the government, over the Tsarina Alexandra especially. It seems the imperial family to a certain extent subjugated their wills to that of Rasputin in the traditional way of an apprentice to an elder. Rasputin was a false Starets, but the Tsar and his entourage of course didn't see it that way.
44slickdpdx
Regarding the double edge - it is a big part of what keeps Dostoy fresh and interesting. He presents every position in earnest, not in didactic discussions with straw men.
Schiller's The Robbers
at Theatre Database: http://www.theatredatabase.com/18th_century/robbers.html
at Google books in English translation: http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkHAAAAQAAJ&ots=Id7zBoahT-&dq=the%20ro...
Schiller's The Robbers
at Theatre Database: http://www.theatredatabase.com/18th_century/robbers.html
at Google books in English translation: http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkHAAAAQAAJ&ots=Id7zBoahT-&dq=the%20ro...
45Macumbeira
Back to the epigraph
"The epigraph echoes the elder Zosima's teachings. He cites this particular passage from the New Testament's Gospel of John to suggest that suffering should not be the cause of our rejection of God, but an avenue into faith (6.1.14). In other words, suffering – particularly the suffering of innocents – may cause us to doubt the existence of a God who is just and all-powerful. But Zosima argues that suffering is necessary; it is the "seed" that can produce the "fruit" of a greater, a more robust faith. Through suffering we lose our pride and conceit; we become humble, and, in our humility, we are able to empathize with all human beings because we no longer consider ourselves superior to them. This empathy, or love, as Zosima stresses, connects us to the greater mystery of God's love"
"The epigraph echoes the elder Zosima's teachings. He cites this particular passage from the New Testament's Gospel of John to suggest that suffering should not be the cause of our rejection of God, but an avenue into faith (6.1.14). In other words, suffering – particularly the suffering of innocents – may cause us to doubt the existence of a God who is just and all-powerful. But Zosima argues that suffering is necessary; it is the "seed" that can produce the "fruit" of a greater, a more robust faith. Through suffering we lose our pride and conceit; we become humble, and, in our humility, we are able to empathize with all human beings because we no longer consider ourselves superior to them. This empathy, or love, as Zosima stresses, connects us to the greater mystery of God's love"
46PimPhilipse
From A.G. Dostoevskaya's memoirs:
A pilgrimage to Optina Pustyn’ was an old dream of D, but it had been hard to realize. Vladimir Solovyov promised me to help and started to talk D into traveling to the monastery with him.
...
D has used many of my doubts, thoughts and even words in BK in the chapter “Religious Women”, in which a woman who has lost her child, tells her woes to father Zosima.
...
My husband has narrated the history of his trip, or rather his meanderings with Vladimir Solovyov, in his letter to me of 29 June 1878.
When D returned from Optina Pustyn’, he seemed to be reconciled with his fate, and he was much calmer; he told me much about the customs and traditions in the monastery, where he spent two days. D three times spoke with the then famous ‘starets’ father Ambrosii, once together with a number of other people, and twice in a private meeting, and these conversations left him with deep impressions. When D told the starets of our woe and my sadness ... the starets asked him, whether I was religious, and after D had confirmed this, he asked him to tell me that he gave me his blessing, speaking the words that are later said in BK by starets Zosima, when he talks to the sad mother.
D’s stories show the starets Ambrosii, much honoured by all, as a seer with great knowledge of the human heart.
A pilgrimage to Optina Pustyn’ was an old dream of D, but it had been hard to realize. Vladimir Solovyov promised me to help and started to talk D into traveling to the monastery with him.
...
D has used many of my doubts, thoughts and even words in BK in the chapter “Religious Women”, in which a woman who has lost her child, tells her woes to father Zosima.
...
My husband has narrated the history of his trip, or rather his meanderings with Vladimir Solovyov, in his letter to me of 29 June 1878.
When D returned from Optina Pustyn’, he seemed to be reconciled with his fate, and he was much calmer; he told me much about the customs and traditions in the monastery, where he spent two days. D three times spoke with the then famous ‘starets’ father Ambrosii, once together with a number of other people, and twice in a private meeting, and these conversations left him with deep impressions. When D told the starets of our woe and my sadness ... the starets asked him, whether I was religious, and after D had confirmed this, he asked him to tell me that he gave me his blessing, speaking the words that are later said in BK by starets Zosima, when he talks to the sad mother.
D’s stories show the starets Ambrosii, much honoured by all, as a seer with great knowledge of the human heart.
47dchaikin
I feel like I'm coming in so late, and I'm now out of breath with so much to think about. Where to begin...
__________
The epigraph: This may also be a humorous reference to FK. His life is awful and essentially lonely, but his death– presumably it brings about something quite interesting (or fruitful).
__________
from post 1: In the second paragraph the author mentions the general disunity of contemporary life.
This is related, I think, to "those who have lived their whole life without finding their true selves in themselves." I take this as a commentary/criticism of modern life (as it was then, but it's more true now). For D, this seems to always go hand-in-hand with atheism –and hence points to Ivan and maybe FK.
__________
from post #40 “Roman Catholicism long ago sold out Christ for the sake of Earthly dominion, forcing humanity to turn away from it and so being the principle cause of Europe’s materialism and atheism, quite naturally this Catholicism engendered socialism in Europe.”
Is this a direct quote from Dodo? I agree with him, almost completely.
__________
from Lola, in post #42: "the catch-all black hole 100% stain remover loooooove machine." => I love this!
__________
General thoughts on P1, B1
What strikes me is how quickly this reads, and how nicely it flows.
edited to add in some dividers.
__________
The epigraph: This may also be a humorous reference to FK. His life is awful and essentially lonely, but his death– presumably it brings about something quite interesting (or fruitful).
__________
from post 1: In the second paragraph the author mentions the general disunity of contemporary life.
This is related, I think, to "those who have lived their whole life without finding their true selves in themselves." I take this as a commentary/criticism of modern life (as it was then, but it's more true now). For D, this seems to always go hand-in-hand with atheism –and hence points to Ivan and maybe FK.
__________
from post #40 “Roman Catholicism long ago sold out Christ for the sake of Earthly dominion, forcing humanity to turn away from it and so being the principle cause of Europe’s materialism and atheism, quite naturally this Catholicism engendered socialism in Europe.”
Is this a direct quote from Dodo? I agree with him, almost completely.
__________
from Lola, in post #42: "the catch-all black hole 100% stain remover loooooove machine." => I love this!
__________
General thoughts on P1, B1
What strikes me is how quickly this reads, and how nicely it flows.
edited to add in some dividers.
49LolaWalser
Got my book.
(Tomcat, you'll be delighted to hear that Dr. Fraud is reliably outrageous. But I'll leave his essay for the end. Oh yes, in the meantime, ponder this: Dmitri: Id; Ivan: Ego; Alyosha: Superego.)
Am reminded that I never resolved my personal mystery regarding the character of Alyosha. I could argue this is the only failure in all of Dostoevsky--but isn't that to argue that BK is fatally flawed? Conflict.
So, anyway, here we have the quintessential fair-haired boy, a being made of light, whom EVERYONE LOVES. They can't help it, it just happens. Twenty years ago I lapped this up adoringly. Alyosha was Prince Mishkin one needn't pity, the Idiot without the Idiocy.
But now I darkly wonder... is he possible?
(Tomcat, you'll be delighted to hear that Dr. Fraud is reliably outrageous. But I'll leave his essay for the end. Oh yes, in the meantime, ponder this: Dmitri: Id; Ivan: Ego; Alyosha: Superego.)
Am reminded that I never resolved my personal mystery regarding the character of Alyosha. I could argue this is the only failure in all of Dostoevsky--but isn't that to argue that BK is fatally flawed? Conflict.
So, anyway, here we have the quintessential fair-haired boy, a being made of light, whom EVERYONE LOVES. They can't help it, it just happens. Twenty years ago I lapped this up adoringly. Alyosha was Prince Mishkin one needn't pity, the Idiot without the Idiocy.
But now I darkly wonder... is he possible?
50QuentinTom
Lola, I'm relieved that you survived your ravishing by the loooove machine. I was worried that you would never have survived.
Alyosha? mmm. I know what you mean, actually my favourite character so far is Fyodor Pavlovich. I see myself in him. I do. 'He was wicked and maudlin.' and his behaviour in the Starets cell is exactly the kind of stuff I do when around priests etc. 'Bless the paps that raised you, especially the paps...'
Id, ego and super ego? HOW CONVENIENT!!!! as they say here.
Dan, excellent point about the epigram. The trail and the whole shenangians does have a positive spiritual outcome, I suppose for Dimitry, although it's still a miscarriage of justice.
The quote in >40 QuentinTom: is from A Writer's Dairy 1877 November, an essay called: Rumours of Peace. “Constantinople Must Be Ours” – Is That Possible? Various Opinions
Pim, it's obvious I have to get that diary of AGD. Have you read Tsypkin's Summer in Baden Baden? it's based on her Dairy. do you know if it's available in ENglish, the diary, I mean?
Also, I have a question for you. Can you tell me what the Russian is for the title of chapter 2 part 1 book 2: The Old Buffoon. What word is used for Buffoon? is it striutsky?
Alyosha? mmm. I know what you mean, actually my favourite character so far is Fyodor Pavlovich. I see myself in him. I do. 'He was wicked and maudlin.' and his behaviour in the Starets cell is exactly the kind of stuff I do when around priests etc. 'Bless the paps that raised you, especially the paps...'
Id, ego and super ego? HOW CONVENIENT!!!! as they say here.
Dan, excellent point about the epigram. The trail and the whole shenangians does have a positive spiritual outcome, I suppose for Dimitry, although it's still a miscarriage of justice.
The quote in >40 QuentinTom: is from A Writer's Dairy 1877 November, an essay called: Rumours of Peace. “Constantinople Must Be Ours” – Is That Possible? Various Opinions
Pim, it's obvious I have to get that diary of AGD. Have you read Tsypkin's Summer in Baden Baden? it's based on her Dairy. do you know if it's available in ENglish, the diary, I mean?
Also, I have a question for you. Can you tell me what the Russian is for the title of chapter 2 part 1 book 2: The Old Buffoon. What word is used for Buffoon? is it striutsky?
51QuentinTom
We ready for book 2 yet?
52highdesertlady
I started book 2, briefly, last night before I fell asleep.
More wodka!
More wodka!
53Macumbeira
yes; part 2 please
I am puzzled by the structure. Why are the 2 chapters of the women who believe, inserted between the chapters of the men who discuss- quarrel etc
D could have opened or end book 2 with that but he chooses to let Zosima enter the cell - listen to the first part of dicussion - leave to see the women - come back for the rest of the discussion which is still going on without any agreement in view.
Pim thanks for your input. I like to spot biographical fingerprints in books. Bad habit I have since studying Ulysses by Joyce.
I am puzzled by the structure. Why are the 2 chapters of the women who believe, inserted between the chapters of the men who discuss- quarrel etc
D could have opened or end book 2 with that but he chooses to let Zosima enter the cell - listen to the first part of dicussion - leave to see the women - come back for the rest of the discussion which is still going on without any agreement in view.
Pim thanks for your input. I like to spot biographical fingerprints in books. Bad habit I have since studying Ulysses by Joyce.
54highdesertlady
Uh oh, the U word... shhh don't tell Mr Freeque.
55QuentinTom
OMG, Mac, beware the BIOGRAPHICAL FALLACY!!!!!! it's creeping up behind you!
56PimPhilipse
>50 QuentinTom:: the Russian title is Старый Шут - Stary Shut. A shutka is a joke, so the most literal translation would be joker. Стрюцкы is not in my dictionary, and has zero Google hits (but Стрюц appears to be a family name).
My edition of AD's diary is in Dutch. I don't know about an English translation - but I didn't look very hard.
My edition of AD's diary is in Dutch. I don't know about an English translation - but I didn't look very hard.
57Macumbeira
> 55 : Buy - our - graphical - phallus - scenes ? How much ? How much ?
> 56 : is stary not "old" ? Stares = the elders ? stary shut = old fool ?
> 56 : is stary not "old" ? Stares = the elders ? stary shut = old fool ?
58theaelizabet
More than ready for Book II (already reading it, actually) and soooo relieved to find that I have permission to love Fyodor. What a great cad. And a smart one, too.
59Macumbeira
He is a Tarass Bulba !
60PimPhilipse
>57 Macumbeira: Stary is indeed old, I didn't think there would be a misunderstanding about that, and focused on the buffoon/shut/fool/joker issue.
Note that there are a number of Russian words describing foolish behaviour:
Shut: who willingly jokes, even if highly inappropriate
Yurodstvy: fool in Christ
Durak: stupid person, but remember that Ivan-Durak eventually marries the princess.
Note that there are a number of Russian words describing foolish behaviour:
Shut: who willingly jokes, even if highly inappropriate
Yurodstvy: fool in Christ
Durak: stupid person, but remember that Ivan-Durak eventually marries the princess.
61QuentinTom
Pim, can you alert me when you find the word 'struitsky' used in the text. I'm particularly interested in this word. All will be revealed later.
>53 Macumbeira: this is a very interesting question indeed. Any thoughts?
>45 Macumbeira: Mac, can you give us the source for this quote?
>41 Porius: Korzybski's 'Maybe' approach and Robert Anton Wilson's guerilla ontology
Por, you've lost me there, but you've piqued my interest (is that idiom right?) Can you say more?
New thread starting in a jiffy. Lots of stuff on Schiller for Janeajones in >30 janeajones:.
Has the sturgeon arrived yet?
>53 Macumbeira: this is a very interesting question indeed. Any thoughts?
>45 Macumbeira: Mac, can you give us the source for this quote?
>41 Porius: Korzybski's 'Maybe' approach and Robert Anton Wilson's guerilla ontology
Por, you've lost me there, but you've piqued my interest (is that idiom right?) Can you say more?
New thread starting in a jiffy. Lots of stuff on Schiller for Janeajones in >30 janeajones:.
Has the sturgeon arrived yet?
62highdesertlady
Just arrived, Murrushka... Comin' up.
(by the way, my erudite friends... consider me the waitress in this establishment. You know, the one who listens and learns as she makes her way around the room.)
(by the way, my erudite friends... consider me the waitress in this establishment. You know, the one who listens and learns as she makes her way around the room.)
63theaelizabet
62--Oh love, if you're the waitress, then consider me the busboy.....
64highdesertlady
#63 - I will definitely share my tips, dear... ;-)
65copyedit52
Dr. Fraud, as Lola calls him in #49, citing Dmitri as Id, Ivan as Ego, and Alyosha as Superego, has nothing on Dr. Jung, or rather those who comment on Jung's typology vis-a-vis the Brothers (and their father): Dmitri as sensory (sensual) type, Ivan as conceptual type, and Alyosha as emotional type. Or is it Fyodor who's the sensory type?
66anna_in_pdx
I am a diehard Jungian and those actually make sense to me so far. Even though I am barely into Book 2.
67solla
For me the whole scene with the elder, Zosima, and the Karamotsov family was the most interesting so far. I found it more interesting than the chapters of the section on Zosima later on - though the story part of that was good too. But I enjoyed the way that he dealt with the bufoonery and so on, and the way that he talked about it. He seemed very astute about people's motivations and how one can act falsely. As for Freud vs. Jung, how about a neoFreudian, Karen Horney. Her ideas about a falsely inflated self burying a damaged real self could apply to several characters.
68absurdeist
a falsely inflated self burying a damaged real self could apply to several characters
I like that idea a lot Solla. I would argue that not just these Dusty characters, but everybody lives that reality to one degree or another, in constant flux between transparency and facades.
Late but been lurking. Rather than comment on my own, I've invited Joseph Frank over, to both reiterate and reinforce and add a tidbit or two of his own to much of what's already been discussed in this thread.
EF: Welcome to the salon, Joseph Frank!
JF: Thank you. I'm delighted to be here among such a learned, and fully engaged audience.
EF: The pleasure is all ours. Really.
Dr. Frank, could you give us some preliminary thoughts on the characters, namely the brothers for now, and perhaps Father Zosima too, of The Brothers Karamazov?
JF: Happy to. "The characters of The Brothers Karamazov are not only contemporary social types, they are linked with vast, age-old cultural-historical forces and moral-spiritual conflicts. The internal struggle in Ivan Karamazov's psyche, for example, is expressed through the legends and mystery plays of the Middle Ages in Europe, the autos-da-fé of the Spanish Inquisition, the eschatological myth of the returning Christ, and the New Testament narrative of Christ's temptations by Satan. Dimitry is surrounded with the atmosphere of Schiller's Hellenism and the struggle between the Olympian gods and the dark, bestial forces that had subjugated humankind before their coming. Zosima is the direct inheritor of the thousand-year-old rituals and traditions of the Eastern Church and a representative of the recently revived institution of starchestvo, both of which are evoked so solemnly in the early chapters. Alyosha is situated in this same religious context, and his crisis of doubt, which, like those of King Lear and Hamlet, calls into question the entire order of the universe, is resolved only by a cosmic intuition of the secret harmony linking the earth with the starry heavens and other worlds."
~p. 848 Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time
I like that idea a lot Solla. I would argue that not just these Dusty characters, but everybody lives that reality to one degree or another, in constant flux between transparency and facades.
Late but been lurking. Rather than comment on my own, I've invited Joseph Frank over, to both reiterate and reinforce and add a tidbit or two of his own to much of what's already been discussed in this thread.
EF: Welcome to the salon, Joseph Frank!
JF: Thank you. I'm delighted to be here among such a learned, and fully engaged audience.
EF: The pleasure is all ours. Really.
Dr. Frank, could you give us some preliminary thoughts on the characters, namely the brothers for now, and perhaps Father Zosima too, of The Brothers Karamazov?
JF: Happy to. "The characters of The Brothers Karamazov are not only contemporary social types, they are linked with vast, age-old cultural-historical forces and moral-spiritual conflicts. The internal struggle in Ivan Karamazov's psyche, for example, is expressed through the legends and mystery plays of the Middle Ages in Europe, the autos-da-fé of the Spanish Inquisition, the eschatological myth of the returning Christ, and the New Testament narrative of Christ's temptations by Satan. Dimitry is surrounded with the atmosphere of Schiller's Hellenism and the struggle between the Olympian gods and the dark, bestial forces that had subjugated humankind before their coming. Zosima is the direct inheritor of the thousand-year-old rituals and traditions of the Eastern Church and a representative of the recently revived institution of starchestvo, both of which are evoked so solemnly in the early chapters. Alyosha is situated in this same religious context, and his crisis of doubt, which, like those of King Lear and Hamlet, calls into question the entire order of the universe, is resolved only by a cosmic intuition of the secret harmony linking the earth with the starry heavens and other worlds."
~p. 848 Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time
69QuentinTom
wow, thanks Dr Frank. Some Sturgeon?
