بحث ویکی‌پدیا:گزیدن مقاله‌های برگزیده/برادران کارامازوف

message: * Nabokov, Vladimir. Lectures on Russian Literature. Edited and with an introduction by Fredson Bowers. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981.
** Contents
*** Editor's Introduction   vii   /   p. xi: If the mark of Dostoevski’s sentimentality offends him, as in his outraged description of Raskolnikov and the prostitute in Crime and Punishment bent together over the Bible, he is appreciative of Dostoevksi’s wild humor; and his conclusion that in The Brothers Karamazov a writer who could have been a great dramatist is struggling unsuccessfully within the novel form is a unique perception.
*** Russian Writers, Censors, and Readers   1
** Fyodor Dostoevsky   97
*** Crime and Punishment   109
*** Memoirs from a Mousehle   115
*** The Idiot   125
*** The Possessed   128
*** The Brothers Karamazov   p. 131   /   p. 131: The Brothers Karamazov is the most perfect example of the detective story technique as constantly used by Dostoevski in his other novels. It is a long novel (more than 1,000 pages), and it is a curious novel. The things that are curious about it are numerous; even the chapter headings are curious. It is worth noting that the author not only is well aware of this quaint and weird nature of his book but he even seems to be all the time pointing to it, teasing his reader, using every device to excite the reader’s curiosity. Let us look, for instance, at the index of chapters. I have just mentioned how unusual and how puzzling: a man, unfamiliar with the novel, could be easily misled into imagining that the book offered him is not a novel but rather the libretto of some whimsical vaudeville. Chapter 3: “Confession of a Fiery Heart, Expressed in ...   /   p. 133: The book is a typical detective story, a riotous whodunit—in slow motion. The initial situation is the following. We have the father Karamazov, a lecherous, hideous old man, one of those unlamentable victims neatly prepared for murder by every farsighted writer of detective fiction. And we also have his four sons—three legitimate and one illegitimate —each of whom might be his murderer.   /   p. 131: The girl Dmitri loves, another of those Dostoevskian “infernal” women, Grushenka, has also caught the fancy of the old man, who has promised her money if she pays him a visit, and Dmitri is persuaded that she has accepted the offer. Convinced that Grushenka was with his father, he leaped over the fence ...   / p. 135: Where Alyosha is concerned, we constantly gain the impression that the author was torn between two independent plots: Dmitri’s tragedy on the one side and the story of the almost saintly youth Alyosha. Alyosha is again an exponent (the other was Prince Myshkin) of the author’s unfortunate love for the simple-minded hero of Russian folklore. The whole lengthy limp story of the monk Zosima could have been deleted from the novel without impairing it; rather, its deletion would have given the book more unity and a better balanced construction. And again quite independently, sticking quite obviously out of the general scheme of the book, stands the, in itself, very well written story of the schoolboy Ilyusha. But even into that excellent story about the boy Ilyusha, another boy Kolya, the dog Zhuchka, the silver toy cannon, the cold nose of the puppy, the freakish tricks of the hysterical father, even into this story Alyosha introduces an unpleasant unctuous chill.
* Fedor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Norton Critical Edition of the novel, the Constance Garnett translation revised by Ralph E. Matlaw 
** Preface   vii   /   In beginning the life story of my-hero, Alexey Fyodorovich Karamazov, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Namely, although I call Alexey Fyodorovich my hero, I myself know that he is by no means a great man, and hence I foresee such unavoidable questions as these: “What is so remarkable about your Alexey Fyodorovich, that you have chosen him as your hero? What has he accomplished? What is he known for, and by whom? Why should I, the reader, waste time learning the facts of his life?”   /   The last question is the most fateful, for to it I can only answer: “Perhaps you will see for yourself from the novel.” Well, suppose you read the novel, and fail to see, and so do not agree that my Alexey Fyodorovich is remarkable? I say this because unhappily I anticipate it. For me he is remarkable, but I doubt strongly whether I shall succeed in proving this to the reader. The fact is, if you please, that he is a protagonist, but a vague and undefined protagonist. And, in truth, in times such as ours it would be strange to require clarity of people. One thing, I dare say, is fairly certain: this man is odd, even eccentric. But oddness and eccentricity interfere rather than help, especially when everyone is trying to put the particulars together and to find some sort of common meaning in the general confusion. In most cases the eccentric is a particularity, a separate element. Isn’t that so?   /   Now, if you do not agree with this last thesis, and answer, “It isn’t so,” or “It isn’t always so,” then I, if you please, might become encouraged about the significance of my hero, Alexey Fyodorovich. For not only is an eccentric “not always” a particularity and a separate element, but, on the contrary, it happens sometimes that such a person, I dare say, carries within himself the very heart of the whole, and the rest of the men of his epoch have for some reason been temporarily torn from it, as if by a gust of  wind...   /    Still, I should not have plunged into these quite uninteresting and confused explanations and should have begun quite simply, without introduction: “If they like it, they will read it”; but the trouble is that I have two novels and only one life story.1 (1. According to Dostoevsky’s wife, he had planned to start writing the second part in 1882. It was to take place in the 1880s. Dmitri returns from prison, and Alyosha has lived through a complex drama with Lisa.) The main novel is the second—it is the action of my hero in our day, at the very present time. The first novel takes place thirteen years ago, and it is hardly even a novel, but only one moment in my hero’s early youth. I cannot do without this first novel, because much in the second novel would be unintelligible without it. But in this way my original difficulty is rendered still more complicated: if I, that is, the biographer himself, find that even one novel might perhaps be superfluous for such a modest and undefined hero, how ever can I appear with two, and how from my point of view can I justify such presumption?   /   Finding myself lost in the solution of these questions, I decide to bypass them with no solution at all. Of course, the astute reader has long since guessed that from the very first I was leading up to this, and was vexed with me for wasting fruitless words and precious time. To this, I shall answer explicitly: I was spending fruitless words and precious time, first, out of courtesy, and second, out of shrewdness: “Still,” the reader might say, “he has forewarned us of something.” Indeed, I am actually glad that my novel has of itself split into two narratives, “with essential unity of the whole”: having become acquainted with the first tale, the reader will then decide for himself whether it is worth his while to attempt the second. Of course, one is not bound by anything—the book can be abandoned at the second page of the first tale, never to be opened again. But then, you know, there are those considerate readers who absolutely must read to the end, so as not to be mistaken in their impartial judgment; such, for example, are all the Russian critics. It is before this type of person that my heart somehow becomes lighter: despite all their careful exactness and conscientiousness, I nevertheless give them a perfectly legitimate pretext to ‘abandon the tale at the novel’s first episode. Well, there is the whole foreword. I completely agree that it is superfluous, but since it has already been written, let it stand.   /   And now the matter at hand.
** The Text - 736
*** Pronunciation of the Main Characters' Names   x
*** Contents of The Brothers Karamazov   xiii
*** Ralph E. Matlaw   Afterword: On Translating The Brothers Karamazov   736-744
** Backgrounds and Sources 
*** A Brief Chronology of Dostoevsky's Life   746-747
*** L. M. Reynus   Prototypes and Heroes of The Brothers Karamazov (Staraya Russa, Notes from the Dead House, Notebooks)   747-751
**** p. 747: Various impressions and episodes of the writer’s life in Staraya Russa can be traced through many pages of the novel. The scenery of Staraya Russa became the setting against which the action of Dostoevsky’s last novel develops. It was here, too, that its subject arose.
*** From Dostoevsky's Letters  - 770
**** To A. N. Maykov   (December 11, 1868)   751
**** To V. A. Alekseev (June 7, 1876)   753
**** To V. V. Mikhaylov (March 16, 1878)   755
**** To N. M. Dostoevsky   756   /   p. 756: My very dear brother Nikolay Mikhaylovich, today our Alyosha died from a sudden attack of epilepsy, which he had never had before. Yesterday he was still merry, sang, ran around, and today he is laid out for burial. The attack started at 9:30 in the morning, and at 2:30 Lyoshechka died. He will be buried Thursday the 18th in the Great Okhtensky Cemetery. Goodbye, Kolya, pity Lyosha, you petted him frequently (remember how he imitated a drunk, “Vanka the foo’ ’’?). I have never felt so sad. We all grieve.
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (January 30, 1879)   756
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (May 10, 1879)   757     / ... is the depiction of extreme blasphemy and the kernel of the idea of destruction of our time, in Russia, among our youth who have broken away from reality, and together with the blasphemy and anarchy, their refutation in the last words of the Elder Zosima, a character in the novel, which I am preparing at the moment.  Since the difficulty of the task I have undertaken is obvious, you will of course understand, esteemed Nikolay Alexeevich, and will forgive my preferring to stretch it over two issues rather than to spoil the culminating chapter by my rushing it. The whole chapter will be full of movement. In the text I sent you I merely depict the character of one of the leading figures in the novel who expresses his fundamental convictions. These convictions are precisely what I consider the synthesis of contemporary Russian anarchism. The rejection not of God but of the sense of His creation. All of socialism emerged and began with the rejection of sense in historical reality and developed into a program of destruction and anarchism.   /   p. 758: original anarchists were, in many instances, people of sincere convictions. My hero chooses a theme I consider irrefutable: the senselessness of children’s suffering, and develops from it the absurdity of all historical reality. I don’t know whether I executed it well but I know that the figure of my hero is ‘a real one to the utmost degree. (I was reproached for many figures in The Possessed as being fantastic but later, would you believe it, they were justified by reality, so they must have been apprehended correctly. K. P. Pobedonostsev,® for example, told me of two or three incidents about imprisoned anarchists which strikingly resembled what I depicted in The Possessed.) Everything my hero says in the text I sent you is based on reality. All the anecdotes about children took place, existed, were published in the press, and I can cite the places, I invented nothing. The general who ran down the child with his hunting dogs and that whole incident is a real fact and was published last year, I think in the Archive, and was reprinted in many newspapers. My hero’s blasphemy will be triumphantly refuted in the next (June) issue, on which I am now working with fear, trembling, and veneration, since I consider my task (the destruction of anarchism) a civic deed. Wish me success, esteemed Nikolay Alexeevich.   /   In the text I sent there does not seem to be a single indecent word. There is only the bit about the tormentors who were raising a five-year-old child and smeared it with its feces because she didn’t ask to be taken up during the night. But I ask you, I beg you not to strike that. It comes from a current criminal trial. The word “‘feces”’ was retained in all the newspapers (only two months ago in the Voice). It can’t be toned down, Nikolay Alexeevich, that would be too, too sad! After all, we’re not writing for ten-year-old children. But I am sure you would have stuck to my text even without my request.
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (June 11, 1879)   759   /   Two days ago I sent to the office of the Russian Herald the continuation of the Karamazovs for the June issue (the ending of the fifth book, Pro and Contra). In it is concluded what is said by “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.”! A contemporary nay-sayer, one of the most vehement, openly declares himself in favor of the devil’s counsel and maintains that it insures mankind’s happiness more than Christ. It is an omen, and a striking one for Russian, stupid socialism (but terrible, because our youth is in it): bread, the tower of Babel (that is, the future reign of socialism) and the total enslavement of the freedom of conscience —that is what the desperate nay-sayer and atheist comes to. The difference lies in that our socialists (and you know very well that it is not merely the underground nihilists) are conscious Jesuits and liars who do not admit that their ideal is the ideal of coercing human consciousness and reducing humanity to a herd of cattle, while my socialist (Ivan Karamazov) is a sincere man, who admits openly that he agrees with the “Grand Inquisitor’s” view of humanity and that Christ’s faith (seemingly) raised man much higher than he in fact is. The question is brought to a head: “Do you despise humanity or respect it, you, its future saviors?”   /   And they give the impression of doing all this in the name of love for humanity. “Christ’s law is difficult and abstract, unbearable for weak men,” and in place of the law of Freedom and Enlightenment, they bring them the law of chains and enslavement by bread.
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (August 7, 1879)   760   /   p. 761:  It is an enraptured and poetic chapter, the prototype is taken from several exhortations of Tikhon Zadonsky, while the naiveté of the exposition is taken from the Pilgrimages of the monk Parfeny.   
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (September 16, 1879)   762   / 
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (November 16, 1879)   764   /    
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (December 8, 1879)   765   /   
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (April 9, 1880)   766   /   
**** N. A. Lyubimov to Dostoevsky (April 12, 1880)   767   /    You remark that a comparable degree of development may be observed in nature. But I think poetry must be truer than nature. 
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (April 13, 1880)   767   /   
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (August 10, 1880)   767   /   
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (September 8, 1880)   768   /   
**** To N. A. Lyubimov (November 8, 1880)   769   /   Well, and now the novel is finished! I worked on it for three years, published it for two—a great moment for me. Toward Christmas I want to issue a separate edition. It is in great demand, both here and by other book dealers in Russia. They’ve even sent money.   /   You will permit me not to bid you farewell. After all, I intend to live and write for another 20 years. Think kindly of me.
**** From Dostoevsky's Writer's Diary   The Kroneberg Case   770-774   /   p. 773-774: We Russians are a young nation. We are only beginning to live, though we have already lived a thousand years, but a large ship needs broad horizons. We are a fresh nation and we have no sacred things quand-méme. We love our sacred things but only because they are really holy. We do not merely insist on them in order to defend [’Ordre.4 Our sacred things remain so by our faith, not by their utility. We would not even defend such sacred things if we stopped having faith in them, like the ancient priests who, at the end of paganism, defended their idols, whom they had long since stopped considering gods. Not a single one of our sacred things needs fear free investigation, precisely because it is solid in reality. We love the sanctity of the family when it is really sacred, and not because the solidity of the state is founded on it. * * * But there must be measure and limits in everything, and we are ready to understand that. I am not a jurist, but I cannot fail to note a profound falseness in the Kroneberg case. Something was wrong here, something must have been different, regardless of who was actually guilty. Mr. Spasovich is profoundly correct when he spoke of the framing of the question. However, that solves nothing. Perhaps we need a profound and independent review of our laws on that point, in order to fill gaps and to fit the character of our society.
*** Essays in Criticism 
**** Konstantin Mochulsky - The Brothers Karamazov   776   /   p. 778:  The religious idea of the novel—the struggle of faith with disbelief-—emerges beyond the limits of the Karamazov household.  Ivan’s negation begets the ominous figure of the inquisitor; Alyosha’s affirmation is mystically deepened in the Elder Zosima’s image. Human hearts are only the field of battle, and God and the devil struggle. Under the psychological exterior of the personality, Dostoevsky unveils its ontology and metaphysics. The history of the Karamazov family is an artistic myth which encompasses a religious mystery: here is why the Legend of the Grand Inquisitor stands at its center.   /   p. 779: But ancient paganism has ended. Great Pan is dead and the fauns have turned into demons. Fyodor Pavlovich is not only a sensualist, but also a wicked buffoon, cynic, and blasphemer. The innocent shamelessness of the natural demigod passes into delight in one’s personal ignominy and fall. The faun is no longer innocent; he knows that his lust is sinful and protects himself by buffoonery and cynicism. His shamelessness is a perversion of the feeling of shame. After the “sensualist’s” indecent sallies in the monastery, the Elder Zosima says to him: “Don’t be so ashamed of yourself, for this alone is the cause of everthing.” And Fyodor Pavlovich exclaims that by this remark the elder’s perspicacity “pierced right through him.” “Precisely, I always feel just like that,” he adds, “when I meet people, that I’m lower than everyone and that they take me for a buffoon.... Here’s why I am a buffoon, a buffoon from shame. ... It’s simply from over-anxiety that I am rowdy.” Shame, over-anxiety, wounded dignity, vindictiveness, and rapture in his personal shame—such is the complex composition of old Karamazov’s buffoonery. Absorption in the sexual element makes a man weak and timid. Fyodor Pavlovich does not believe in God, but is afraid of hell. He “intends to remain on the earth as long as possible,” wants “to belong to the line of man for about twenty years yet,” and therefore he amasses money; the sensualist is naturally greedy. Money allows him to devote himself without concern to his “filth,” but does not save him from the fear of death. He knows his sin and for his tranquility he must be convinced that there is no God, no life beyond the grave.... “Do you see,” he confesses to Alyosha, “however stupid I am about this, yet I keep thinking, keep thinking, now and then, of course, not all the time. Why, it’s impossible, I think, for the devils to forget to drag me down by them with their hooks, when I die.... And if there are no hooks, everything just falls apart, which again is not very likely: for then who will drag me down with hooks, because, if they don’t drag me down, what will there be then, where will justice be in the world?” This unexpected confession sheds a new light on the cynic and blasphemer. The enormous “Karamazov” force of life has in Fyodor Pavlovich passed into lust and debauchery; but, however stifled it is by this base element, its nature remains spiritual and creative. The sensualist condemns himself and thirsts for justice. More than that: sitting up to his neck in “filth,” he is, at moments, capable of perceiving beauty and loving good: his second wife, the “orphan” Sofya Ivanovna he married without any calculation, for her beauty alone. “ “Those innocent little eyes slashed my soul then, like a razor,’ he used to say afterward.”   /   p. 781: The fatal discord between sex and Eros is the first enigma which Mitya encounters. The second and even more terrible is ahead of him. Sex is motion about a circle, continual and without any issue; Eros is an ascension, a ladder, leading to a height. Eros has an aim and an ideal—Beauty. It creates Beauty and worships it. And here is the second enigma. “Beauty—this is a terrible and awful thing,” says Mitya, “terrible because it is indefinite, and to define is impossible, for God has posed only enigmas. Here the shores meet, here all contradictions live side by side. . . . Beauty! I cannot, besides, endure the thought that a man with a lofty heart and with a lofty mind begins from the ideal of the Madonna, and ends with the ideal of Sodom. ... What is presented to the mind as shameful, to the heart is uninterrupted beauty. ... What’s awful is that beauty is not only a terrible, but also a mysterious thing. Here the devil struggles with God, and the field of battle is the human heart. ...”   /   p. 781: This is one of the most brilliant pages in Dostoevsky. The mystery of beauty, the tragic duality of the aesthetic consciousness is expressed with astounding force. Dmitri knows only one way to God—through Eros. In his amorous inspiration he longs to press himself “to the garment of the Divinity” and recoils with horror: his divinity is two-faced, Beauty comprises the ideal of the Madonna and the ideal of Sodom. “Is there beauty in Sodom?” asks Mitya and answers: “Believe me that for the vast multitude of people it is found in Sodom; did you know this secret, or not?”   / p. 782: Beauty is from God; Beauty is the breath of the Holy Spirit. But in this fallen world its face has been darkened and distorted. It is not Beauty which will save, but it itself must be saved. In the aesthetic consciousness there are most subtle temptations: Beauty can be an evil demonic attraction. Mitya does not see the way out of these tragic contradictions. He has to pass through the purification of suffering, through the torment of conscience and the spiritual death of penal servitude in order that the flame of Eros, which has caught fire in him might become a spiritual force that transfigures the world. As an epigraph to his novel Dostoevsky took the words from the Gospel of John: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.”   / p. 783: ...“incessant striving” and predicts that he will fall and rise up. The author of The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor will not perish like Stavrogin, whose heart was frozen. In the epilogue, Mitya prophesies: “Listen, our brother Ivan will surpass everyone. He ought to live and not us. He will recover.”    /   p. 786: Having destroyed the idea of the fall and reward, the atheist must do away with the idea of redemption. His task involves titanic daring. How is one to struggle with the Living God? Of what can one accuse the “One Without Sin”? How can one raise up one’s hand against the “everlasting ideal of Beauty”? The God-struggler understands the infinite difficulty of the conflict. He sharply changes his tactics. In place of logical proofs there is set a religious myth, in place of facts from contemporary reality—a legend whose action takes place in Spain of the 16th century. The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor is Dostoevsky’s greatest creation. Here is the culmination of his work, the crowning of his religious philosophy.   /   p. 
**** Dmitry Tschizewskij - Schiller and The Brothers Karamazov   794   /
**** Robert L. Belknap   The Structure of Inherent Relationships: The Buffoon, The Nadryv (Laceration)   
**** Harry Slochower - Incest in The Brothers Karamazov   821
**** D. H. Lawrence - The Grand Inquisitor   829  /   p. 829: It is a strange experience, to examine one’s reaction to a book over a period of years. | remember when I first read The Brothers Karamazoy, in 1913, how fascinated yet unconvinced it left me. And I remember Middleton Murry saying to me: “Of course the whole clue to Dostoevsky is in that Grand Inquisitor story.” And I remember saying: “Why? It seems to me just rubbish.”   /   p. 829: If there is any question: Who is the Grand Inquisitor?—then surely we must say it is Ivan himself. And Ivan is the thinking mind  ...   / p. 830: The limits are, says the Grand Inquisitor, three. Mankind in the bulk can never be “‘free,”” because man on the whole makes three grand demands on life, and cannot endure unless these demands are satisfied. 1. He demands bread, and not merely as foodstuff, but as a miracle, given from the hand of God. 2. He demands mystery, the sense of the miraculous in life. 3. He demands somebody to bow down to, and somebody before whom all men shall bow down. These three demands, for miracle, mystery and authority, prevent men from being “free.” They are man’s ‘“‘weakness.’”’ Only a few men, the elect, are capable of abstaining from the absolute demand for bread, for miracle, mystery, and authority. These are the strong, and they must be as gods, to be able to be Christians fulfilling all the Christ-demand. The rest, the millions and millions of men throughout time, they are as babes or children or geese, they are too weak, “impotent, vicious, worthless and rebellious” even to be able to share out the earthly bread, if it is left to them.   /    p. 830: This, then, is the Grand Inquisitor’s summing up of the nature of mankind. The inadequacy of Jesus lies in the fact that Christianity is too difficult for men, the vast mass of men. It could only be realized by the few “saints” or heroes. For the rest, man is like a ...  /   p. 831: Christianity, then, is the ideal, but it is impossible. It is impossible because it makes demands greater than the nature of man can bear. And therefore, to get a livable, working scheme, some of the elect, such as the Grand Inquisitor himself, have turned round to “him,” that other great Spirit, Satan, and have established Church and State on “him.” For the Grand Inquisitor finds that to be able to live at all, mankind must be loved more tolerantly and more contemptuously than Jesus loved it, loved, for all that, more truly, since it is loved for itself, for what it is, and not for what it ought to be. Jesus loved mankind for what it ought to be, free and limitless. The Grand Inquisitor loves it for what it is, with all its limitations. And he contends his is the kinder love. And yet he says it is Satan. And Satan, he says at the beginning, means annihilation, and not-being.   /    p.836: And Ivan need not have been so tragic and satanic. He had made a discovery about men, which was due to be made. It was the rediscovery of a fact which was known universally almost till the end of the eighteenth century, when the illusion of the perfectibility of men, of all men, took hold of the imagination of the civilized nations. It was an illusion. And Ivan has to make a restatement of the old truth, that most men cannot choose between good and evil, because it is so extremely difficult to know which is which, especially in crucial cases: and that most men cannot see the difference between life-values and money-values: they can only see moneyvalues; even nice simple people who live by the life-values, kind and natural, yet can only estimate value in terms of money. So let the specially gifted few make the decision between good and evil, and establish the life-values against the money-values. And let the many accept the decision, with gratitude, and bow down to the few, in the hierarchy. What is there diabolical or satanic in that? Jesus kisses the Inquisitor: Thank you, you are nght, wise old man! Alyosha kisses Ivan: Thank you, brother, you are right, you take a burden off me! So why should Dostoevsky drag in Inquisitors and autos-da-fé and Ivan wind up so morbidly suicidal? Let them be glad they’ve found the truth again. . 
**** Albert Camus - The Rejection of Salvation   836   /   p. 840: The fact that Ivan was defeated does not obviate the fact that once the problem is posed, the consequence must follow: rebellion is henceforth on the march toward action. This has already been demonstrated by Dostoevsky, with prophetic intensity, in his legend of the Grand Inquisitor. Ivan, finally, does not distinguish the creator from his creation. “It is not God whom I reject,” he says, “it is creation.” In other words, it is God the father, indistinguishable from what He has created. His plot to usurp the throne, therefore, remains completely moral. He does not want to reform anything in creation. But creation being what it is, he claims the right to free himself morally and to free all the rest of mankind with him. On the other hand, from the moment when the spirit of rebellion, having accepted the concept of “everything is permitted’ and “everyone or no one,” aims at reconstructing creation in order to assert the sovereignty and divinity of man, and from the moment when metaphysical rebellion extends itself from ethics to politics, a new undertaking, of incalculable import, begins, which also springs, we must note, from the same nihilism. Dostoevsky, the prophet of the new religion, had foreseen and announced it: “If Alyosha had come to the conclusion that neither God nor immorality existed, he would immediately have become an atheist and a socialist. For socialism is not only a question of the working classes; it is above all, in its contemporary incarnation, a question of atheism, a question of the tower of Babel, which is constructed without God’s help, not to reach to the heavens, but to bring the heavens down to earth.””   
**** Nathan Rosen - Style and Structure in The Brothers Karamazov   841
**** R. P. Blackmur - The Brothers Karamazov: The Peasants Stand Firm and the Tragedy of the Saint   870   /    p. 875-876: Mme. Khokhlakoy, on the other hand, is looking for emotion. Her foot swells when Rakitin presses her hand, and she throws him out because to do so makes such a fine scene. For her, aberration is the explanation of everything, and from the point of view of little faith she is right: she says that Dmitri and Katerina and Ivan will all go to Siberia “‘and they will all torment each other.” In her daughter Lise, we find put together both unusable emotion and looked-for emotion worked up together into the great theme of pride as destruction and crime. Ivan is right when, after tearing up unread her letter to him, he says of her that this girl of sixteen offers herself for sale. Lise is parallel to the boy Kolya in precocity, but she is a true phase; she speaks not distortions as Kolya did but base and basic truths. She has a longing to revile God aloud, which is awful fun and takes the breath away. Kalganov, the boy of twenty who shook Dmitri’s hand and wept, has made love to her. Lise says of him that he spins like a top and wants to be lashed. Lashed, lashed with a whip. She loves disorder and wants to set fire to the house, to do evil of all sorts so that everything may be destroyed. And so on. The moments when everyone loves crime are every moment; everybody secretly loves Dmitri’s killing his father. To all this Alyosha assents; it is part of his lesson. But it was Ivan whom she had sent for; and no wonder—she was the pure expressive form of that of which Ivan was only the critical form. She imagines the crime and the sweetness of the crime of which she has read: the Jews who crucify the four-year-old boy who dies “soon” in four hours: it was like eating a pineapple compote. She rejoices in what Ivan found intolerable. She believes where Ivan cannot believe. She has learned the harshness of love and the beauty of Sodom in exactly the sense represented when after she crushes her finger in the door she cries ““Wretch wretch wretch,” and watches the finger end blacken.   /   p. 881: “Who doesn’t desire his father’s death?” he cries and looks at the “ugly faces” in the courtroom. “They all desire the death of their fathers. One reptile devours another.... If there hadn’t been a murder, they’d have been angry and gone home ill-humored.” Here is the fruition of Lise who, when she hears the story of a murdered child, thinks of a pineapple compéte. Here is Ivan, like Lise, slamming his finger in the door. It is a whole school of insight: whether or not there is guilt, and especially if there is no guilt, there must be a crime. One would not doubt that Ivan is speaking for the official society which the court—all but the jury—represents. Thus he goes on that the devil who does not exist is his only witness—that bad half of himself—and urges that that monster, Dmitri, singing a ...   /   p. 886: Again, lastly, the final chapter is by way of a sermon, a prayer, and an invocation. The last thing Dostoevsky can find to say is about the good memory of a dead boy: of a great evil and a greater good without innocence without guilt without sin, but under the images of all these: about what happened before life had begun to be fully lived and what, so to speak, could not happen in full life at all. It is almost as if Dostoevsky was compelled to say that as a regular thing the truth will at most for a moment become a lie. I suggest that in the last words of the novel—“Hurrah for Karamazov!”,—4 Dostoevsky is making for his whole novel one of those tragic phrases which comfort the heart beyond possibility and denying necessity, and which must be forgiven, for “without them, sorrow would be too heavy for men to bear.” The whole novel? Let us say that “Hurrah for Karamazov!” covers and includes the tragic phrases of the three dreams: the wine of new gladness, the babe, and the devil of the other self, and does so under the triple aegis of Zosima’s harsh and dreadful thing which is active love, of Dmitri’s beauty of Sodom, and of Ivan’s wise and dread spirit of destruction. This is how it is that in The Brothers Karamazov the plain and overwhelming story of a murder is lifted into the condition of miracle, mystery, and authority. Hurrah for all the Karamazovs! for here is the condition where all aresguilty and none are guilty. To live in that condition, and to love life, is to endure the tragedy of the saint. In his novel the saint is migratory among the three brothers, nowhere at home.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۷ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۵:۲۵ (UTC)
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt, 1821-1849. Colombia: Princeton University Press, 1979.
** Appendix: Freud's Case-History of Dostoevsky     379
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850-1859. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2020.
** PART IV: A SECOND START
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Stir of Liberation, 1860-1865. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 1986.
** PART I: A TIME OF HOPE - Chapter 3: "A Bit of Liberty, A Bit of Freedom"   22
** PART IV: THE PRISON OF UTOPIA - Chapter 21: Notes from Undergrund     310
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The miraculous years, 1865-1871. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 1995.
** Chapter 26: Conclusion   499
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Mantle of the Prophet, 1871-1881. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2020.
Letter of May 10 1879, quoted in Frank (2010), p. 788
RousouR (بحث) ‏۳۱ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۰:۴۴ (UTC)
* Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: A Writer in His Time. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2012.
* Frank, Joseph. Lectures on Dostoevsky. United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 2019.
* Selected letters of Fyodor Dostoyevsky
* Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, trans. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002.
* Blackmur, R. P. Eleven Essays in the European Novel. New York: Harcourt, 1964.
** PART TWO studies in Dostoevsky 
*** The Brothers Karamazov: I. The Galloping Troika and the Momentum of the Underground    185
*** The Brothers Karamazov: II. The Grand Inquisitor and the Wine of Gladness   204
*** The Brothers Karamazov: III. The Peasants Stand Firm and the Tragedy of the Saint   222
* Holquist, Michael. Dostoevsky and the Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.
** Acknowledgments   vii    /   The peculiar anxiety that comes with the conviction that there is no past to learn from or to lean on is what this book is “about.” 
** Chapter 7   How Sons Become Fathers: The Brothers Karamazov  165
** Afterword   193
* Jackson, Robert Louis. The Art of Dostoyevsky: Deliriums and Nocturnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۴ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۲۵ (UTC)
* Mochulsky, Konstantin. Dostoevsky: His Life and Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. 
** II. Poor People   24-39
* Jackson, Robert Louis, ed. A New Word on the Brothers Karamazov. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 2004.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۳۶ (UTC)
* Berlin, Isaiah. A Portrait of Dostoevsky, Review of Henri Troyat, Firebrand: The Life of Dostoevsky (London, 1948: Heinemann), The Listener 40 (1948), 15 July, 102
* Berlin, Isaiah. The Hedgehog and the Fox: An Essay on Tolstoy's View of History - Second Edition. United States: Princeton University Press, 2013.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۱۲ (UTC)
* Katz, Michael R. Notes from Underground: A Norton Critical Reader. New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.
* Charles Guignon, Dostoevsky's "The Grand Inquisitor," with Related Chapters of "The Brothers Karamazov" (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993). Includes a 40-page editor's introduction
* Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. United States: Henry Holt and Company, 1994.
* Wellek, René, edDostoevsky; a collection of critical essays
** Interoduction: a History of Dostoevsky criticism   1
** Dostoevsky and Parricide—Sigmund Freud   98
** Dostoevsky—George Lukacs   146
* Sandoz, Ellis, Political apocalypse; a study of Dostoevsky's grand inquisitor
* Ralph E. Matlaw, Notes from Underground and the Grand Inquisitor   
* Robert L. Jackson, Dostoevsky : new perspectives 
* Dewey, Robert E, Freedom; its history, nature, and varieties
RousouR (بحث) ‏۳۱ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۲۰:۱۸ (UTC)
thread_title:  منابع و گزیده سرفصل‌ها 

message: === از متن ===
p. xii: Dedicated to Anna Grigorievna Dostoevsky
p. xii: “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
p. xvii-xviii: From The Author
p. 243: The old man longed for Him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: ‘Go, ...
p. 244: Alyosha got up, went to him and softly kissed him on the lips. “That’s plagiarism,” cried Ivan, highly delighted. “You stole that from my poem. Thank you though. Get up, Alyosha, it’s time we were going, both of us.”
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۳۶ (UTC)
=== از منابع ===
Berlin:
...Greek poet Archilochus which says: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’.
first: Dante, Plato, Lucretius, Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Proust.
second: Shakespeare, Herodotus, Aristotle, Montaigne, Erasmus, Moliere, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce.
Thus we have no doubt about the violence of the contrast between Pushkin and Dostoevsky; and Dostoevsky’s celebrated speech about Pushkin has, for all its eloquence and depth of feeling, seldom been considered by any perceptive reader to cast light on the genius of Pushkin, but rather on that of Dostoevsky himself, precisely because it perversely represents Pushkin—an arch-fox, the greatest in the nineteenth century—as a being similar to Dostoevsky who is nothing if not a hedgehog; and thereby transforms, - indeed distorts, Pushkin into a dedicated ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The grey tones of Chekhov alone have been added to the livid colours with which Dostoevsky has indelibly marked the composite image of the celebrated ‘Slav soul’: the rest has been supplied in our day, by a combination of opposites which no one has attempted to reconcile or explain, drawn from the works of the Russian decadents of this century plus Mr Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.
It is clear that Dostoevsky’s vision was violently affected by the harrowing course of his life. It is, M. Troyat observes, a story as terrifying as any of the author’s own novels, and he gives a vivid and appropriately gruesome, but unexaggerated, account of the protracted nightmare.
There are a few curious omissions. Dostoevsky’s conversion from his youthful radicalism to reactionary views is not adequately explained; the letters to Lubimov explaining the central purpose of The Brothers Karamazov are unaccountably passed over. 
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۹ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۰:۲۷ (UTC)
thread_title:  گزیده‌ها 

message: p. xii: Dedicated to Anna Grigorievna Dostoevsky
p. xii: “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
p. xvii-xviii: From The Author
p. 243: The old man longed for Him to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips. That was all his answer. The old man shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and said to Him: ‘Go, ...
p. 244: Alyosha got up, went to him and softly kissed him on the lips. “That’s plagiarism,” cried Ivan, highly delighted. “You stole that from my poem. Thank you though. Get up, Alyosha, it’s time we were going, both of us.”
RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۶ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۳۶ (UTC)
thread_title:  از متن 

message: Berlin:
...Greek poet Archilochus which says: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’.
first: Dante, Plato, Lucretius, Pascal, Hegel, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Ibsen, Proust.
second: Shakespeare, Herodotus, Aristotle, Montaigne, Erasmus, Moliere, Goethe, Pushkin, Balzac, Joyce.
Thus we have no doubt about the violence of the contrast between Pushkin and Dostoevsky; and Dostoevsky’s celebrated speech about Pushkin has, for all its eloquence and depth of feeling, seldom been considered by any perceptive reader to cast light on the genius of Pushkin, but rather on that of Dostoevsky himself, precisely because it perversely represents Pushkin—an arch-fox, the greatest in the nineteenth century—as a being similar to Dostoevsky who is nothing if not a hedgehog; and thereby transforms, - indeed distorts, Pushkin into a dedicated ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The grey tones of Chekhov alone have been added to the livid colours with which Dostoevsky has indelibly marked the composite image of the celebrated ‘Slav soul’: the rest has been supplied in our day, by a combination of opposites which no one has attempted to reconcile or explain, drawn from the works of the Russian decadents of this century plus Mr Koestler’s Darkness at Noon.
It is clear that Dostoevsky’s vision was violently affected by the harrowing course of his life. It is, M. Troyat observes, a story as terrifying as any of the author’s own novels, and he gives a vivid and appropriately gruesome, but unexaggerated, account of the protracted nightmare.
There are a few curious omissions. Dostoevsky’s conversion from his youthful radicalism to reactionary views is not adequately explained; the letters to Lubimov explaining the central purpose of The Brothers Karamazov are unaccountably passed over. 
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۹ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۰:۲۷ (UTC)
thread_title:  از منابع 

message: === اولیه ===
* برادران کارامازوف: بدی، رنج و مرگ؛ غایتی الهی (اگر خدا هست، چرا شر وجود دارد)(جایگاه روسیه در جهان)(معنای خدا). / فروید: بزرگترین رمانی که نوشته شده است / آغاز کتاب John:12:24 (مرگ و ادامه زندگی پس از آن) / کنستانتین، ارتدوکسی؛ روسیه مسیحیت خود را از قسطنطنیه گرفت و هیچگاه تفکیکی که در کلیسای کاتولیک اتفاق افتاد (با وجود برتری پاپ به امپراتور) را نپذیرفت. / سرف: برده / در این خودکامگی و بردگی، داستایفسکی به دنیا آمد. پدرش را سرفها کشتند. وارد ارتش می‌شود، از نه سالگی دچار صرع بوده؛ وطن‌پرستی؛ جذب حلقه‌های انقلابی، ۱۸۴۹ تا ۱۸۵۴ در سیبری و تبعید پنج ساله پس از آن؛ قمار، مشروب‌خواری، فرار به اروپا از دست طلبکاران و با ادامه با قمار در آنجا؛ اعتقاد به کلیسای ارتدوکس /   پدر داستان، هم‌نام با داستایفسکی؛ یکی از پسران، هم‌نام با پسر داستایفسکی که در اثر صرع (بیماری خود داستایفسکی نیز) در میانه نوشتن برادران کارامازوف (وجود خوبی و بدی در انسان) در سه سالگی مرد.   /   هر یک از برادران دربرگیرنده بخشی از «روح روسی» (در ابله (داستان یک روح خالص و چگونگی نابودی آن به دست جهانیان) او «روح روسی» را «جایگاهی تاریک» توصیف کرده است.)   /   در نظر داستایفسکی کسانی مانند ایوان (در تلاش برای وارد کردن ایده‌های غربی (دموکراسی، آزادی، خردگرایی)) افرادی گمراه هستند: از خارج و پس از تحصیل برگشته‌اند، دستشان می‌اندازد که در آب‌وهوای روسیه همان لباس و کفشی را می‌پوشند که در خارج.   /   الکسی نماد روح واقعی روسیه؛ ایوان و مسخره کردن الکسی /   در زیرروایت «مفتش اعظم» گفتگوی شیطان با مسیح و مونولوگ مفتش اعظم با مسیح در پایان: ... تو گفتی پادشاهی من از این جهان نیست؛ باز هم تو در اشتباه بودی؛ در همه تاریخ زن و مرد، خواستار نان، معجزه و حکومت مطلقه جهانی بوده‌اند تا هیچ مسوولیتی را بر دوش نداشته باشند، آزادی نداشته باشند و ما در حال رفتن به این سو هستیم و به آن دست خواهیم یافت و اکنون تو (مسیح) را زنده خواهم سوزاند؛ این معجزه غایی است ...  ایوان خطاب به الکسی: خدا و آزادی معنایی ندارد، در سراسر تاریخ بشر بدی کرده؛ جنگ است که همیشه بوده و نه عشق؛ بردگی در تاریخ همیشگی بوده و نه عشق؛ عشق هیچ معنایی ندارد  /   زیرروایت دیگر: عشق الکسی به بچه‌ها؛ آنها یکی از میان خود را که متفاوت است، طرد کرده و آزار می‌دهند. الکسی تلاش می‌کند دکترین عشق را به آنها بیاموزد. به هنگام مرگ پدر زاسیما، بچه‌ها داستانی را برای خواندن انتخاب می‌کنند که الکسی آن را عنوان یک نشانه در نظر می‌گیرد (داستان تبدیل آب به شراب).  /  هدف از وجود شر را شاید ندانیم اما رستگاری مقام انسان در آن است که اجازه ندهد این مشکلات روح انسان را خُرد کند. صرع، تا مرز اعدام رفتن، پنج سال محکومیت در سیبری و پنج سال مجازات تکمیلی (در مجموع ده سال) و از دست دادن پسرش به بیماری‌ای که داستایفسکی به وی منتقل کرده بود، او را از پای درنیاورد. به جای آن خلاقیت خود را در ابله، جنایت و مکافات و برادران کارامازوف نشان داد. روایت‌های پر از گفتگویی که روسیه و «جایگاه تاریکی که روح روسی است» را می‌کاود.RousouR (بحث) ‏۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۱۸ (UTC)
* فیودور: ... فیودور لوده است، لوده به این معنا که «مردی است که هیچ کس نمی‌داند اقدام بعدی او چیست»؛ روایت‌هایی از خشونت جنسی نسبت به مادر فرزندانش را برای آنها روایت می‌کند...   /   ایوان: «افعی، افعی را خواهد خورد». او با بیان این جمله سرنوشت خود را پیشگویی می‌کند. در پایان داستان، ذهن او از هم می‌پاشد (افعی، افعی را خواهد خورد). فکر کردن می‌تواند به کشته شدن منجر شود. سنت عصر روشنگری بر اقتدار و قدرت تفکر متمرکز است (فکر می‌کنم، پس هستم). این کتاب، یک جابه‌جایی پارادایمی است. تفکر می‌تواند منجر به مردن شما شود؛ نابودتان می‌کند و نه آنکه از زمین برخیزید. این تجربه ایوان است. در پایان کتاب دیوانه می‌شود. قبل از آن، روشنفکری خونسرد و منطقی است که برخی از بهترین بخش‌های رمان به او تعلق دارد. در فصل «سرکشی» ایوان توضیح می‌دهد که چرا خدا را رد می‌کند. در واقع، او خدا را رد نمی‌کند بلکه دنیایی را رد می‌کند که خدا ساخته است. «هیچ چیز نمی‌تواند رنج کودکان را توجیه کند» (نمونه‌های زیاد از شکنجه و به صلیب کشیدن، کشتن با سرنیزه، شکنجه مرسوم در روسیه تا خانواده مرفه و تحصیلکرده‌ای که از شکنجه دختر پنج ساله خود لذت می‌برند، مجبورش می‌کنند در سرما بماند و او را مجبور به خوردن مدفوع می‌کنند). چنین صحنه‌هایی ایوان را به این نتیجه می‌رساند که اگر اعتقاد به خدا به این معنا است که به گونه‌ای برنامه کلانی را پذیرفت که این صحنه‌ها به آن تعلق دارند، ایوان آن را رد می‌کند. /   «مفتش اعظم»    RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۵۹ (UTC)
* کشتن پدر، شورش علیه اقتدار است؛ می‌توان با واژگان فرویدی آن را خواند و به قیام علیه خدا تفسیر کرد. داستایفسکی به دنبال ااین پرسش بزرگ دوره خود است: چگونه در دنیایی زندگی کرد که خدایی نیست و هر چیز مجاز است؟    /   این بحران منحصر به دوره داستایفسکی نیست؛ بحرانی ملموسِ دوره کنونی است.  /   واکنش به گفته نیچه (خدا مرده است) چیست؟ برادران کارامازوف داستانی جنایی است که در مرکز اصلی آن قتل خدا قرار دارد. خدا را چه کسی کشته است؟ زندگی مدرن، خواست انسان؟ فیودور پدر بسیار بدی است و کاندیدای مناسبی برای کشتن است. (در دادگاه می‌گویند لایق زندگی نبوده؛ گفته برجسته ایوان به آلیوشا (هیچ زندگی‌ای ذاتا ارزش ندارد)؛ نگاه فرویدی به رمان (گله بدوی))  /   به نظر می‌رسد کشتن پدر، حمله به خداست. انگار کارکرد آزادی انسان، گونه‌ای خداکشی است. نه فقط هر چیز در این اعطای جدید مجاز است، که حقیقت تاریکتر این است که کشتن چیزی است که در طلب آن هستیم (ایوان در دادگاه: «چه کسی آرزوی مرگ پدرش را نداشته؟» + گفته لیزا به آلیوشا).   /   برادران کارامازوف؛ بخش‌های تاریک روان انسان؛ میل به خشونت و کشتن   /   nadryv (فشار، زخم): دیمیتری و کاترینا؛ گروشنکا و کاترینا؛ خدا زمانی می‌میرد که روابط انسانها با nadryv تعریف شود؛ گفته ایوان به کاترینا (هر چقدر دیمیتری توهین بیشتری می‌کند، بیشتر دوستش داری)؛ سنگ زدن بچه‌ها به ایلیوشا و گاز گرفتن آلیوشا توسط ایلیوشا؛ در برابر اینها، به خاک افتادن زوسیما و گفته (برادرش) مارکل.   /   Lise (pineapple compo) (گسترش یابد)  / RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۳:۰۴ (UTC)
* ماچولسکی: نخستین رد شخصیت فیودور را می‌توان در Poor Folk یافت که معصومانه‌ترین ترسیم کشش جنسی قوی مرد پیر به دختر جوان است (letcher).   /   infernal’nitsa (“infernal woman”)         /   What an overcoat is for Gogol’, a woman is for Dostoevsky.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۱۰ (UTC)
* بلینسکی که ساعت چهار صبح به در آپارتمان کوفت تا او را سه بار ببوسد و بگوید نابغه هستس (poor folk) به دنبال The Double، کاملا نظرش برگشت و داستایفسکی احساس کسی را داشت که فرش را از زیر پای او بکشند. با آنکه بلینسکی زود مرد اما حضورش در وجود داستایفسکی تا سالهای آخر باقی ماند.   /   صرع داستایفسکی در زندان اگر کم نشد بسیار از شدتش کم شد (فروید توجه بسیاری به بیماری صرع داستایفسکی داشت. او عقیده داشت داستایفسکی درباره قتل پدرش احساس گناه می‌کند (جس می‌کند در قتل او مشارکت داشته است) و بیماری صرع مجازاتی بوده که در نتیجه این احساس، در او پدیدار شده و او در طلب آن بوده (درستی این تحلیل بحث دیگری است)). / ۴ + ۴ سال (نه ۵ + ۵ سال؟)   /   احساس داستایفسکی که تا مرز اعدام را تجربه کرد (نامه به برادرش پس از آن) تا آخر با او ماند و در رمان‌هایش بسیار لحظه‌های آخر یک انسان را توصیف می‌کند.  /   داستایفسکی عهد جدیدی را که هدیه گرفت (وان فیزینا) در لحظه مرگ با خود و در زیر بالش داشت (نامه به وان فیزینا: عقاید عمیق دینی).   /   Notes from the House of the Dead داستایفسکی پس از چهار سال زندان در سیبری آدم دیگری شد.   /   در شب ازدواجش حمله صرع داشت (عاشق ماریا (دیمیتری) بود اما با او نیز نمی‌توانست زندگی کند)  /   ماریا مرد و چنان که مرسوم است در تابوت و بر روی میز قرار گرفت. داستایفسکی چندین روز در کنارش بود، نوشت و در این پرسش بود که آیا زنده خواهد شد؟ چه چیزی این امکان را به من می‌دهد که او را دوباره ببینم؟   Notes from the Underground  (رساله‌ای در باب آزادی: آیا با وجود عشق، آزادی ممکن است؟) (جان استوارت میل)(یوتیلیتاریانیسم)  /   “Ia chelovek bol’noi...ia zloi chelovek. Neprivlekatel’nyi ia chelovek.” (“I man sick, I spiteful man. Unattractive I man.”)   /   قهرمان داستایفسکی حاضر است خودش را از پنجره بهشت به بیرون پرتاب کند تا نپذیرد دو ضربدر دو همیشه چهار می‌شود.   /   پایان داستان (+ پایان  (دست دادن)poor folk)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۲:۵۸ (UTC)
* داستان آنا و داستایفسکی شگفت‌آورتر از رمانهاست. برادران کارامازوف به آنا تقدیم شده است.   /   پایانی تلخ: یکی دیگر از قربانیان انقلاب بولشویکی   /  فقط یکی از بلاهایی که بر سر آنا آورد: تمام پول خودش را قمار کرد، تمام پول آنا را قمار کرد، تمام پول برادر آنا را قمار کرد، تمام پول مادر آنا را قمار کرد، سپس نشست و ابله را نوشت.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۵۳ (UTC)
thread_title:  بررسی داستان و زمینه 

message: * برادران کارامازوف: بدی، رنج و مرگ؛ غایتی الهی (اگر خدا هست، چرا شر وجود دارد)(جایگاه روسیه در جهان)(معنای خدا). / فروید: بزرگترین رمانی که نوشته شده است / آغاز کتاب John:12:24 (مرگ و ادامه زندگی پس از آن) / کنستانتین، ارتدوکسی؛ روسیه مسیحیت خود را از قسطنطنیه گرفت و هیچگاه تفکیکی که در کلیسای کاتولیک اتفاق افتاد (با وجود برتری پاپ به امپراتور) را نپذیرفت. / سرف: برده / در این خودکامگی و بردگی، داستایفسکی به دنیا آمد. پدرش را سرفها کشتند. وارد ارتش می‌شود، از نه سالگی دچار صرع بوده؛ وطن‌پرستی؛ جذب حلقه‌های انقلابی، ۱۸۴۹ تا ۱۸۵۴ در سیبری و تبعید پنج ساله پس از آن؛ قمار، مشروب‌خواری، فرار به اروپا از دست طلبکاران و با ادامه با قمار در آنجا؛ اعتقاد به کلیسای ارتدوکس /   پدر داستان، هم‌نام با داستایفسکی؛ یکی از پسران، هم‌نام با پسر داستایفسکی که در اثر صرع (بیماری خود داستایفسکی نیز) در میانه نوشتن برادران کارامازوف (وجود خوبی و بدی در انسان) در سه سالگی مرد.   /   هر یک از برادران دربرگیرنده بخشی از «روح روسی» (در ابله (داستان یک روح خالص و چگونگی نابودی آن به دست جهانیان) او «روح روسی» را «جایگاهی تاریک» توصیف کرده است.)   /   در نظر داستایفسکی کسانی مانند ایوان (در تلاش برای وارد کردن ایده‌های غربی (دموکراسی، آزادی، خردگرایی)) افرادی گمراه هستند: از خارج و پس از تحصیل برگشته‌اند، دستشان می‌اندازد که در آب‌وهوای روسیه همان لباس و کفشی را می‌پوشند که در خارج.   /   الکسی نماد روح واقعی روسیه؛ ایوان و مسخره کردن الکسی /   در زیرروایت «مفتش اعظم» گفتگوی شیطان با مسیح و مونولوگ مفتش اعظم با مسیح در پایان: ... تو گفتی پادشاهی من از این جهان نیست؛ باز هم تو در اشتباه بودی؛ در همه تاریخ زن و مرد، خواستار نان، معجزه و حکومت مطلقه جهانی بوده‌اند تا هیچ مسوولیتی را بر دوش نداشته باشند، آزادی نداشته باشند و ما در حال رفتن به این سو هستیم و به آن دست خواهیم یافت و اکنون تو (مسیح) را زنده خواهم سوزاند؛ این معجزه غایی است ...  ایوان خطاب به الکسی: خدا و آزادی معنایی ندارد، در سراسر تاریخ بشر بدی کرده؛ جنگ است که همیشه بوده و نه عشق؛ بردگی در تاریخ همیشگی بوده و نه عشق؛ عشق هیچ معنایی ندارد  /   زیرروایت دیگر: عشق الکسی به بچه‌ها؛ آنها یکی از میان خود را که متفاوت است، طرد کرده و آزار می‌دهند. الکسی تلاش می‌کند دکترین عشق را به آنها بیاموزد. به هنگام مرگ پدر زاسیما، بچه‌ها داستانی را برای خواندن انتخاب می‌کنند که الکسی آن را عنوان یک نشانه در نظر می‌گیرد (داستان تبدیل آب به شراب).  /  هدف از وجود شر را شاید ندانیم اما رستگاری مقام انسان در آن است که اجازه ندهد این مشکلات روح انسان را خُرد کند. صرع، تا مرز اعدام رفتن، پنج سال محکومیت در سیبری و پنج سال مجازات تکمیلی (در مجموع ده سال) و از دست دادن پسرش به بیماری‌ای که داستایفسکی به وی منتقل کرده بود، او را از پای درنیاورد. به جای آن خلاقیت خود را در ابله، جنایت و مکافات و برادران کارامازوف نشان داد. روایت‌های پر از گفتگویی که روسیه و «جایگاه تاریکی که روح روسی است» را می‌کاود.RousouR (بحث) ‏۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۱۸ (UTC)
* فیودور: ... فیودور لوده است، لوده به این معنا که «مردی است که هیچ کس نمی‌داند اقدام بعدی او چیست»؛ روایت‌هایی از خشونت جنسی نسبت به مادر فرزندانش را برای آنها روایت می‌کند...   /   ایوان: «افعی، افعی را خواهد خورد». او با بیان این جمله سرنوشت خود را پیشگویی می‌کند. در پایان داستان، ذهن او از هم می‌پاشد (افعی، افعی را خواهد خورد). فکر کردن می‌تواند به کشته شدن منجر شود. سنت عصر روشنگری بر اقتدار و قدرت تفکر متمرکز است (فکر می‌کنم، پس هستم). این کتاب، یک جابه‌جایی پارادایمی است. تفکر می‌تواند منجر به مردن شما شود؛ نابودتان می‌کند و نه آنکه از زمین برخیزید. این تجربه ایوان است. در پایان کتاب دیوانه می‌شود. قبل از آن، روشنفکری خونسرد و منطقی است که برخی از بهترین بخش‌های رمان به او تعلق دارد. در فصل «سرکشی» ایوان توضیح می‌دهد که چرا خدا را رد می‌کند. در واقع، او خدا را رد نمی‌کند بلکه دنیایی را رد می‌کند که خدا ساخته است. «هیچ چیز نمی‌تواند رنج کودکان را توجیه کند» (نمونه‌های زیاد از شکنجه و به صلیب کشیدن، کشتن با سرنیزه، شکنجه مرسوم در روسیه تا خانواده مرفه و تحصیلکرده‌ای که از شکنجه دختر پنج ساله خود لذت می‌برند، مجبورش می‌کنند در سرما بماند و او را مجبور به خوردن مدفوع می‌کنند). چنین صحنه‌هایی ایوان را به این نتیجه می‌رساند که اگر اعتقاد به خدا به این معنا است که به گونه‌ای برنامه کلانی را پذیرفت که این صحنه‌ها به آن تعلق دارند، ایوان آن را رد می‌کند. /   «مفتش اعظم»    RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۵۹ (UTC)
* کشتن پدر، شورش علیه اقتدار است؛ می‌توان با واژگان فرویدی آن را خواند و به قیام علیه خدا تفسیر کرد. داستایفسکی به دنبال ااین پرسش بزرگ دوره خود است: چگونه در دنیایی زندگی کرد که خدایی نیست و هر چیز مجاز است؟    /   این بحران منحصر به دوره داستایفسکی نیست؛ بحرانی ملموسِ دوره کنونی است.  /   واکنش به گفته نیچه (خدا مرده است) چیست؟ برادران کارامازوف داستانی جنایی است که در مرکز اصلی آن قتل خدا قرار دارد. خدا را چه کسی کشته است؟ زندگی مدرن، خواست انسان؟ فیودور پدر بسیار بدی است و کاندیدای مناسبی برای کشتن است. (در دادگاه می‌گویند لایق زندگی نبوده؛ گفته برجسته ایوان به آلیوشا (هیچ زندگی‌ای ذاتا ارزش ندارد)؛ نگاه فرویدی به رمان (گله بدوی))  /   به نظر می‌رسد کشتن پدر، حمله به خداست. انگار کارکرد آزادی انسان، گونه‌ای خداکشی است. نه فقط هر چیز در این اعطای جدید مجاز است، که حقیقت تاریکتر این است که کشتن چیزی است که در طلب آن هستیم (ایوان در دادگاه: «چه کسی آرزوی مرگ پدرش را نداشته؟» + گفته لیزا به آلیوشا).   /   برادران کارامازوف؛ بخش‌های تاریک روان انسان؛ میل به خشونت و کشتن   /   nadryv (فشار، زخم): دیمیتری و کاترینا؛ گروشنکا و کاترینا؛ خدا زمانی می‌میرد که روابط انسانها با nadryv تعریف شود؛ گفته ایوان به کاترینا (هر چقدر دیمیتری توهین بیشتری می‌کند، بیشتر دوستش داری)؛ سنگ زدن بچه‌ها به ایلیوشا و گاز گرفتن آلیوشا توسط ایلیوشا؛ در برابر اینها، به خاک افتادن زوسیما و گفته (برادرش) مارکل.   /   Lise (pineapple compo) (گسترش یابد)  / RousouR (بحث) ‏۲۸ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۳:۰۴ (UTC)
* ماچولسکی: نخستین رد شخصیت فیودور را می‌توان در Poor Folk یافت که معصومانه‌ترین ترسیم کشش جنسی قوی مرد پیر به دختر جوان است (letcher).   /   infernal’nitsa (“infernal woman”)         /   What an overcoat is for Gogol’, a woman is for Dostoevsky.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۱:۱۰ (UTC)
* بلینسکی که ساعت چهار صبح به در آپارتمان کوفت تا او را سه بار ببوسد و بگوید نابغه هستس (poor folk) به دنبال The Double، کاملا نظرش برگشت و داستایفسکی احساس کسی را داشت که فرش را از زیر پای او بکشند. با آنکه بلینسکی زود مرد اما حضورش در وجود داستایفسکی تا سالهای آخر باقی ماند.   /   صرع داستایفسکی در زندان اگر کم نشد بسیار از شدتش کم شد (فروید توجه بسیاری به بیماری صرع داستایفسکی داشت. او عقیده داشت داستایفسکی درباره قتل پدرش احساس گناه می‌کند (جس می‌کند در قتل او مشارکت داشته است) و بیماری صرع مجازاتی بوده که در نتیجه این احساس، در او پدیدار شده و او در طلب آن بوده (درستی این تحلیل بحث دیگری است)). / ۴ + ۴ سال (نه ۵ + ۵ سال؟)   /   احساس داستایفسکی که تا مرز اعدام را تجربه کرد (نامه به برادرش پس از آن) تا آخر با او ماند و در رمان‌هایش بسیار لحظه‌های آخر یک انسان را توصیف می‌کند.  /   داستایفسکی عهد جدیدی را که هدیه گرفت (وان فیزینا) در لحظه مرگ با خود و در زیر بالش داشت (نامه به وان فیزینا: عقاید عمیق دینی).   /   Notes from the House of the Dead داستایفسکی پس از چهار سال زندان در سیبری آدم دیگری شد.   /   در شب ازدواجش حمله صرع داشت (عاشق ماریا (دیمیتری) بود اما با او نیز نمی‌توانست زندگی کند)  /   ماریا مرد و چنان که مرسوم است در تابوت و بر روی میز قرار گرفت. داستایفسکی چندین روز در کنارش بود، نوشت و در این پرسش بود که آیا زنده خواهد شد؟ چه چیزی این امکان را به من می‌دهد که او را دوباره ببینم؟   Notes from the Underground  (رساله‌ای در باب آزادی: آیا با وجود عشق، آزادی ممکن است؟) (جان استوارت میل)(یوتیلیتاریانیسم)  /   “Ia chelovek bol’noi...ia zloi chelovek. Neprivlekatel’nyi ia chelovek.” (“I man sick, I spiteful man. Unattractive I man.”)   /   قهرمان داستایفسکی حاضر است خودش را از پنجره بهشت به بیرون پرتاب کند تا نپذیرد دو ضربدر دو همیشه چهار می‌شود.   /   پایان داستان (+ پایان  (دست دادن)poor folk)
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۲:۵۸ (UTC)
* داستان آنا و داستایفسکی شگفت‌آورتر از رمانهاست. برادران کارامازوف به آنا تقدیم شده است.   /   پایانی تلخ: یکی دیگر از قربانیان انقلاب بولشویکی   /  فقط یکی از بلاهایی که بر سر آنا آورد: تمام پول خودش را قمار کرد، تمام پول آنا را قمار کرد، تمام پول برادر آنا را قمار کرد، تمام پول مادر آنا را قمار کرد، سپس نشست و ابله را نوشت.
RousouR (بحث) ‏۱۰ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۴:۵۳ (UTC)
thread_title:  اولیه 

message: * داستایفسکی در یادداشت‌های زیرزمینی مسیری را بنیاد می‌گذارد که در چهار رمان بعدی خود در آن پیش می‌رود. تاثیر این داستان در برادران کارامازوف به خصوص خود را در «مفتش اعظم» نشان می‌دهد.RousouR (بحث) ‏۳۱ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۰:۵۱ (UTC)
* فلسفه: تمرکز بر «مفتش اعظم» و «راهب روسی». ایجاد تمایز و تقابل با نیچه در مورد هویت انسان و جستجوی معنا. زوسیمای داستایفسکی و زرتشت نیچه. کاردینال نماد کلیسای کاتولیک و مسیح نماد پروتستانتیسم. تحول زوسیما (و برادرش). فصل پنج و شش. RousouR (بحث) ‏۳۱ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۵:۲۷ (UTC)
* سیاست: اریک فروم در گریز از آزادی به تحلیل دیدگاه‌ها در مورد آزادی و اقتدار از زبان «مفتش اعظم» می‌پردازد و آنها به جنبش‌های سیاسی مدرن (به خصوص آلمان نازی هیتلر) ارتباط می‌دهد. RousouR (بحث) ‏۳۱ اوت ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۵:۵۴ (UTC)
thread_title:  گسترش مقاله 

message: * درباره نویسنده: در مورد رابطه داستایفسکی و پدرش؛ به اجبار پدر شغل نظامی را در پیش گرفت (چیزی که نه با روحیاتش سازگاری داشت و نه با بیماری صرع او که گویا از بچگی درگیرش بوده است). پس از مرگ پدر نویسندگی را جدی پی گرفت.   /   پس از تا مرز اعدام رفتن (که یکی از همراهانش موقع اعدام در جا دیوانه شد) و تحمل ده سال زندان و تبعید آدم دیگری شده بود. دیدگاهش در مورد مسیحیت ارتدکس از آن زمان تقویت شد. 
* روایت اصلی: یک منبع با خلاصه مناسب   /   «مفتش اعظم» در ویکی روسی مفصل است. RousouR (بحث) ‏۴ سپتامبر ۲۰۲۳، ساعت ۱۳:۴۴ (UTC)
thread_title:  چند نکته