Thursday, May 10, 2012
КРАСОТА РУССКОЙ ДУШИ
Для описания ментальности русского человека, выделения особенностей его духовного развития, в литературе не раз использовалось понятие «Русская душа». О русской душе пишет и Н. Гоголь, и Л. Толстой, и Ф. Достоевский.
Термин «Русская душа» расскрывается через культурные тенденции русских, их восприятие жизни, отношения к религиозной и философской сфере бытия. Это говорит о том, что в Росии внутренняя сущность человека, основы его мировоззрения служат ключом к пониманию его личности. Проявление русской души видится через эмоциональную сферу жизни, а не через деятельностную. Поэтому для описания русской души используются такие характеристики, как глубина, сила и сострадание. По словам Достоевского, «самая основная, самая элементарная духовная потребность русского народа - есть потребность страдания, вездесущая и неугасимая, везде и во всем» [1].
Идеи Достоевского о русской душе тесно связаны с православием, в котором идеал Христа отражается через сострадание другим, через готовность умереть за других, через спокойное смирение, принятие этого.
Абстрактного «страдания» (страдания ради страдания) для россиянина не существует. Страдание ради страданий не имеет никакого смысла в русской культуре. Народной ментальности чужды депрессии и получение удовольствий от унижения и бесплодного страдания. В русском народе как пружина сжата внутренняя сила. Именно она позволила выжить русскому народу в самые трагические дни истории. Не будь этой пружины, не выжил бы русский народ в самые трагические дни своей истории, а был бы сметен, погиб без остатка, как многие другие народы земли.
Народный гнев страшен. Но он никогда не принимает националистическую окраску. Идеал русского человека предписывает делиться последним, не оставлять чувства юмора в самые тяжелые минуты (народная музыка, как ничто другое, отражает эту сторону русской души (частушка).
Русская душа характеризуется в литературе как: чувствительная, творческая, сострадательная, терпеливая, сильная (благодаря именно ее силе, русский человек можетвыжить в невыносимых условиях), поэтическая, мистическая, фаталистическая, интроспективная. По литературным произведениям можно судить о том, что русский не доверяет рациональной мысли, полагаясь на интуицию, быстро увлекается, проявляя способность чувствовать широкий спектр крайних человеческих эмоций (от абсолютной радости и умиротворения до глубокого отчаяния) и т.д., и т.д., и т.д. (список можно продолжить). Русские смогли сохранить свою мировоззренческую целостность, пройдя нелегкий исторический путь. Именно у русских в культуре заложен идеал абсолютной честности через приверженность к вере, И это несмотря на то, что реалии действительности давно должны были уничтожить его.
Так и понятие красоты в русской ментальности, в первую очередь, соотносится с понятием внутреннего богатсва человека, его духовной целостности. При этом понимание внутренней красоты не носит жертвенный характер. Такое выражение, как «красота требует жертв» заимствованное из западной культуры, никогда не понималось русскими женщинами буквально. Это скорее для них шутка, чем руководство к действию.
Не существует понятия «немецкая душа», «английская» или «американская». Именно в характеристике ментальности русских закрепилось слово «душа». Концепция русской души возникла в 1840-е годы прежде всего как литературное явление. Известный российский писатель Николай Гоголь и литературный критик Виссарион Белинский (1811-1848) совместно ввели данный термин в 1842 году в опубликованном шедевре Гоголя Мертвые души. Русские помещики при переписи считали своих крепостных для целей бухгалтерского учета, по «душам». С одной стороны, название романа отражает аферу главного героя, построенную на приобретении бухгалтерских документов, в которых числятся умершие крепостные крестьяне. Однако, помимо этого буквального смысла, Гоголь говорит о потере человеческих душ у живых людей.
Виссарион Белинский, известный радикальный критик, продолжил идею Гоголя дальше, и вывел из романа характеристики русской ментальности, так называемой «национальной души», существующей у народа. В самом деле, в своем анализе творчества Гоголя, Белинский использовал термин "русская душа" несколько раз, и именно от него данное выражение стало крылатым, получив со временем более четкое определение через труды такого автора, как Ф. М. Достоевский.
Понятие «русской души», сформировавшись как надклассовое, включающее особенности национального характера, помогло определить национальную идентичность [3]. Суждение о «Русской душе» эволюционировало и стало известно в западной культуре в последующие десятилетия, благодаря работам Ф. М. Достоевского. В своих произведениях Достоевский расскрывает весь психологизм своих героев, говорит о «народном духе». Вместе с тем, в его произведениях множество «невысказанных, бессознательных идей», которые постоянно и сильно ощущаются. В 1881 году к моменту смерти Достоевского, «русская душа» завершила свою эволюцию в Russia [3].
Начиная примерно с 1880 по 1930 годы, опять же во многом благодаря Достоевскому, с представлением о «русской душе» познакомились за рубежом. С тех пор данное словосочетание носит не только сугубо понятийное значение, но и служит брендом при восприятии не только единичного русского человека среди иностранцев, но и всего народа.
Для многих европейцев этот термин стал позитивной альтернативой восприятию русских как отстающего от западной культуры народа. Русский народ предстал через раскрытие понятия «русская душа» с той невинностью и душевной чистотой, которую давно потерял циничный Запад. Популярность "русской души" росла и в двадцатом веке.
Казалось, в 1930-е годы данная концепция ушла в небытие, но на самом деле она продолжала жить в произведениях многочисленных писателей, которые продолжали ее разрабатывать [3]. Казалось, что концепция «русской души» вышла из моды, ее место стал занимать пропагандируемый бренд «Советского человека». Теперь, когда Советский Союз ушел в прошлое, актуальность понимания русского человека через концепцию «русской души» возросла. В России дух православной духовности, даже среди тех, кто не считает себя православным, стал определяющим. Более того, он стал частью повседневной жизни русского, украинского и белорусского народов.
Множество испытаний выдержало население в бывших советских республиках с крахом Советского Союза. Ситуация по-своему была сложной в каждой из этих стран. Надежда была только на время. Анализируя сейчас то, что помогло людям не только выжить, но и не потерять свое достоинство в эпоху хаоса и становления новой государственности, мы опять приходим к концепции «русской души», определяя ее как источник внутренней силы и устойчивости. Обращение к концепции «русской души» как к идеалу позволяет справиться русскому человеку с множеством невзгод и исторических драм. Существование российского человека опрделяется через наличие внутреннего богатства, души. Уничтожишь душу – уничтожишь и русскую ментальность.
Душа в России относится к женскому роду. Характеризуя восприятие красоты и доброты в современной России, через анализ «русской души» приходим к выводу, что их понимание возможно только по отношению к современной русской женщине. Доброта, искренняя деликатность русских женщин, готовность понять других людей во многом определяются жизнью русского народа. До сих пор многие иностранцы считают Михаила Зощенко (1895-1958), который описал жизнь россиян в 1920-х и 30-х годов, писателем-фантастом. Между тем, коммунальные квартиры, где несколько семей живут на небольшой площади, разделенной на крошечные комнаты, с одним туалетом и ванной для всех не является такой редкостью, даже сейчас. Не у каждого есть отдельная квартира. Согласно западным параметрам эти квартиры считаются малыми даже для одного человека. Российские семьи из 4-5 человек живут в скромной двухкомнатной квартире площадью 58 квадратных метров. Очень часто несколько поколений живут в одной малогабаритной квартире. В России поговорка «в тесноте, но не в обиде» пользуется популярностью. Кажется, что здесь условия проживания вызывают чувство особого единства, когда необходимо считаться все время с другими, принимать других такими, как они. Россияне привыкли к тесной связи с другими людьми. Русский человек воспитывается в условиях зависимости от потребностей других людей. Русские обладают уникальной способностью адаптации, особенно там, где это касается женщин. Эти условия, казалось бы, невыносимые для иностранцев, воспринимаются русским народом как должные. По этой причине русские жены очень терпеливы и всегда готовы идти на компромисс в их семейной жизни. Ситуации, которые будут рассматриваться западной женщиной как нарушение ее интересов, могут быть проигнорированы русской. Русская жена всегда готова к компромиссу. Это искренняя мобильность и терпение свойственное россиянам, часто не хватало на Западе [4].
Влияние, которое оказали на русскую культуру такие писатели, как Федор Достоевский, Николай Гоголь, Лев Толстой и другие было глубоким. Они, конечно, дети своего времени, но, независимо от этого, они повлияли и продолжают влиять на мировоззрение множества поколений, которые пришли после них. И до тех пор, пока они влияют на становление русского человека, концепция «русской души» не исчезнет.
Русская женщина является не только олицетворением «русской души», но и обеспечивает условия, в которых красота этой души может быть выражена. Уют и теплая атмосфера дома дело чести российской домохозяйки. Она считает свой дом продолжением себя, как символ счастливой семейной жизни. В России до сих пор дом убирают сами, без специально нанятых для этого домработниц. Большинство русских женщин заняты в уборке квартиры и приготовлении пищи. Они часто сами шьют, вяжут, ремонтируют вещи. Росская красавица, способная улучшить жилье с помощью кисти или шпателя живописью – для запада является чудом. Русская женщина всегда старается сделать свой дом светом, чистым и радостным. Посещение ресторанов и кафе в России считается общественным мероприятием. Рядовые граждане не ходят в рестораны «просто поесть». Большинство русских семей едят дома. Это объясняется не только материальными причинами и привычками россиян, к вкусной домашней еде, это еще и отношение к таинству семьи и ее целостности[5]. Понятие о красоте русской души является не просто продуктом конце девятнадцатого века, но живет и процветает сегодня через повседневную жизнь русской женщины. Сейчас, возможно, иначе, чем во времена Льва Толстого, но она жива! Каждое последующее поколение будет иметь свое собственное проявление этой реальности, однако, красота русской души никогда не умрет.
Библиографический список
1) Ries, Nancy Russian Talk: Culture and Conversation During Perestroika (NY: Cornell University Press, 1997)
2) “Russian Soul” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_soul
3) Robert C. Williams, "The Russian Soul: A Study in European Thought and Non-European Nationalism" Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (1970): 573-588, accessed October 27, 2011.
4) “About Russian Women” http://www.single-russian-woman.com/russianwomen.php (accessed 11/7/11)
5) “About Russian Women”
Impact of Incarceration on Genius
Between 1850 and 1854, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) spent four long, punishing years in a Siberian prison-stockade. During this time he lived cheek-by-jowl with a motley collection of prisoners from the Russian peasantry, a few convicts from among the Russian educated class or “gentry”, and one other member of the Petrashevsky group of liberals and radicals. These prison-years in Siberia, as Dostoevsky himself stressed later, were of decisive importance in his life and resulted in what he called the “transformation of his conviction”.1 The experience garnered in these years changed Dostoevsky from an opponent to a supporter of Czarism, and finally consolidated his faith in Christ and in the Christian God who transcended the bounds of reason. A clear understanding of what happened to Dostoevsky during these crucial years would, accordingly, would go a long way to explain many of the baffling and still enigmatic features of the creative universe of his great novels.2
This novel was published in 1860 during a brief thaw in the strict censorship of the time. The House of the Dead at first positions itself as a novel, with an elaborate editorial framing device designed to mollify the censor and other critics. The work is presented as a manuscript left among the papers of a former prisoner. Behind the ‘I’ of Alexander Petrovich Goryanchikov, imprisoned for 10 years for murdering his wife, (he serves as a narrator in the novel) hides the ‘I’ of Dostoevsky, imprisoned for 4 years for a political crime. This initial narrative masking creates up a certain freedom, allowing Dostoevsky to describe objectively and in detail the life of the prison without making it appear as a political act, or an overt attack on the system itself. The novelistic mask soon slips; however, as it emerges that, unlike a novel, there is no plot, no ‘setting’ and no ‘characters’.
The autobiographical and documentary now come to the fore. The writing is characterized by a clinical objectivity. Phrases such as, It is a fact that…. abound. We are given detailed descriptions of the social structure of the prison, the economics of the prison, the squalid living conditions, the daily routine, the excessive brutality of the punishments, the grueling labor, utterly relentless and crushing boredom, and the lice-ridden latrine-stinking overcrowding. Like modern oral historiography, we are given some of the convict’s stories, from their own mouths, with little or no ‘authorial’ interference or comment. The emphasis is on facts. The (melo)drama and theatricality of Dostoevsky’s previous work is entirely absent, even in the stories told by the convicts of their crimes, and in the descriptions of the punishments meted out to them for infractions of prison regulations, and the outbreaks of sudden violence that characterize prison life. Everything is understated and downplayed, and left to speak for itself. There is none of the angry hectoring of Charles Dickens (1812-1870), for example, or the biting sarcasm of Victor Hugo (1802-1885), those other great reforming zealots of the 19th century who were such huge influences on early Dostoevsky.
At the same time, the book addresses a number of philosophical problems:
1. The inequality of punishment for the same crime
2. The gap between appearance and reality and how to interpret reality
3. The effect on the character of judicial brutality, both on those who administer it, and those who suffer under it
4. The nature of freedom
5. The nature of philanthropy
6. The importance of hope
These themes run like threads throughout the narrative but appear with more frequency and intensity towards the end of the second half, where we can understand them more because we have, like the narrator, spent more time in the prison, and are able to understand it better.3
This novel mirrors several of the horrifying experiences he witnessed while in prison. He recalls the guards’ brutality and relish in performing unspeakably cruel acts, the crimes that the convicted criminals committed, and the fact that tousled amongst these great brutes were good and decent individuals.4 However, he also displays admiration for the convicts’ abilities to commit murders without the slightest change in conscience. It was a stark contrast of him and his high sensitivity levels. It was during his time in prison that he first began experiencing his epileptic seizures. House of the Dead led Dostoevsky to include the theme of murder in his later works, a theme not found in any of his works preceding House of the Dead.5
The theme of murder was prevalent in The Idiot, Brothers Karamazov, and Crime and Punishment. It seems rather obvious that his time in prison had a major influence on these three masterpieces. In fact, in Brothers Karamazov, the reader is able to enter into the life of Karamazov family and experience the dynamics of this family; however, this novel is largely a murder mystery. In The Idiot, Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin ends up killing the woman he claimed that he loved. The main event in Crime and Punishment is the murder of a pawnbroker by Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. The rest of the novel shows his descent into madness.
To his contemporary readers, Dostoyevsky appeared as a writer primarily interested in the terrible aspects of human existence. However, later critics have recognized that the novelist sought to plumb the depths of the psyche, in order to reveal the full range of the human experience, from the basest desires to the most elevated spiritual yearnings. Above all, he illustrated the universal human struggle to understand God and self. Dostoyevsky was, Katherine Mansfield wrote, “a being who loved, in spite of everything, adored life, even while he knew the dank, dark places.”6
Not every person who has been incarcerated became known as geniuses, but this is certainly true in Dostoevsky’s case. He was a member of the intellectual community in St. Petersburg prior to his imprisonment and went on to become known as one of the greatest Russian authors of all time.
End Notes
1) The Russian word originally translated as “transformation” is pererozhdenie which carries the religious implication of rebirth or regeneration.
2) Dostoevsky: The House of the Dead by Joseph Frank in The Swanee Review, Vol. 2, 1966, p. 25.
3) “Notes from House of the Dead by Dostoevsky” http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2009/02/impression-made-by-reality-is-always.html
4) "Fyodor Dostoyevsky." Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2011. http://www.britannica.com/ (accessed 5/9/12)
5) Dostoevsky, Fyodor Memoirs from House of the Dead (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. xii. First English translation in 1956.
6) “Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)” http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/dostoevskybio.html#_thehouseofthedead (accessed 5/10/12)
This novel was published in 1860 during a brief thaw in the strict censorship of the time. The House of the Dead at first positions itself as a novel, with an elaborate editorial framing device designed to mollify the censor and other critics. The work is presented as a manuscript left among the papers of a former prisoner. Behind the ‘I’ of Alexander Petrovich Goryanchikov, imprisoned for 10 years for murdering his wife, (he serves as a narrator in the novel) hides the ‘I’ of Dostoevsky, imprisoned for 4 years for a political crime. This initial narrative masking creates up a certain freedom, allowing Dostoevsky to describe objectively and in detail the life of the prison without making it appear as a political act, or an overt attack on the system itself. The novelistic mask soon slips; however, as it emerges that, unlike a novel, there is no plot, no ‘setting’ and no ‘characters’.
The autobiographical and documentary now come to the fore. The writing is characterized by a clinical objectivity. Phrases such as, It is a fact that…. abound. We are given detailed descriptions of the social structure of the prison, the economics of the prison, the squalid living conditions, the daily routine, the excessive brutality of the punishments, the grueling labor, utterly relentless and crushing boredom, and the lice-ridden latrine-stinking overcrowding. Like modern oral historiography, we are given some of the convict’s stories, from their own mouths, with little or no ‘authorial’ interference or comment. The emphasis is on facts. The (melo)drama and theatricality of Dostoevsky’s previous work is entirely absent, even in the stories told by the convicts of their crimes, and in the descriptions of the punishments meted out to them for infractions of prison regulations, and the outbreaks of sudden violence that characterize prison life. Everything is understated and downplayed, and left to speak for itself. There is none of the angry hectoring of Charles Dickens (1812-1870), for example, or the biting sarcasm of Victor Hugo (1802-1885), those other great reforming zealots of the 19th century who were such huge influences on early Dostoevsky.
At the same time, the book addresses a number of philosophical problems:
1. The inequality of punishment for the same crime
2. The gap between appearance and reality and how to interpret reality
3. The effect on the character of judicial brutality, both on those who administer it, and those who suffer under it
4. The nature of freedom
5. The nature of philanthropy
6. The importance of hope
These themes run like threads throughout the narrative but appear with more frequency and intensity towards the end of the second half, where we can understand them more because we have, like the narrator, spent more time in the prison, and are able to understand it better.3
This novel mirrors several of the horrifying experiences he witnessed while in prison. He recalls the guards’ brutality and relish in performing unspeakably cruel acts, the crimes that the convicted criminals committed, and the fact that tousled amongst these great brutes were good and decent individuals.4 However, he also displays admiration for the convicts’ abilities to commit murders without the slightest change in conscience. It was a stark contrast of him and his high sensitivity levels. It was during his time in prison that he first began experiencing his epileptic seizures. House of the Dead led Dostoevsky to include the theme of murder in his later works, a theme not found in any of his works preceding House of the Dead.5
The theme of murder was prevalent in The Idiot, Brothers Karamazov, and Crime and Punishment. It seems rather obvious that his time in prison had a major influence on these three masterpieces. In fact, in Brothers Karamazov, the reader is able to enter into the life of Karamazov family and experience the dynamics of this family; however, this novel is largely a murder mystery. In The Idiot, Parfyon Semyonovich Rogozhin ends up killing the woman he claimed that he loved. The main event in Crime and Punishment is the murder of a pawnbroker by Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. The rest of the novel shows his descent into madness.
To his contemporary readers, Dostoyevsky appeared as a writer primarily interested in the terrible aspects of human existence. However, later critics have recognized that the novelist sought to plumb the depths of the psyche, in order to reveal the full range of the human experience, from the basest desires to the most elevated spiritual yearnings. Above all, he illustrated the universal human struggle to understand God and self. Dostoyevsky was, Katherine Mansfield wrote, “a being who loved, in spite of everything, adored life, even while he knew the dank, dark places.”6
Not every person who has been incarcerated became known as geniuses, but this is certainly true in Dostoevsky’s case. He was a member of the intellectual community in St. Petersburg prior to his imprisonment and went on to become known as one of the greatest Russian authors of all time.
End Notes
1) The Russian word originally translated as “transformation” is pererozhdenie which carries the religious implication of rebirth or regeneration.
2) Dostoevsky: The House of the Dead by Joseph Frank in The Swanee Review, Vol. 2, 1966, p. 25.
3) “Notes from House of the Dead by Dostoevsky” http://thelectern.blogspot.com/2009/02/impression-made-by-reality-is-always.html
4) "Fyodor Dostoyevsky." Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2011. http://www.britannica.com/ (accessed 5/9/12)
5) Dostoevsky, Fyodor Memoirs from House of the Dead (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), p. xii. First English translation in 1956.
6) “Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881)” http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/dostoevskybio.html#_thehouseofthedead (accessed 5/10/12)
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Inspiring Creativity
In my article “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts” 1 I discussed the issue of being alone versus being lonely. The need for constantly stimulation is very prevalent in Western society, but was not always found in other cultures around the world. For example, Russian society has always had a more reflexive mindset. This may be changing now that Western culture has made its way into Russia and that part of the world. Hopefully, it will continue to endure into the next generation.
In an interview, Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky [Андрей Арсеньевич Тарковский] (1932-1986) was asked what message he would like to leave for young people. Tarkovsky said that they should learn to love solitude and to be able to be alone with themselves. He believed that young people were carrying out noisy and aggressive actions in an effort not to be alone. He felt that all individuals must learn to be on his own as a child. This is not the same as being alone. He is referring to the idea of not becoming bored with oneself, which is sees as a very dangerous symptom, almost a disease.2
One thing which being alone can inspire, regardless of whether this isolation is voluntary or forced, is a sense of creativity. There are numerous examples of highly creative people who chose to be alone for extended periods of time and others who were forced into solitude as a result of imprisonment.
On Christmas Day 1849, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) began the long journey from St. Petersburg to Siberia where he was to spend the next four years in a prison camp. Together with other members of the Petrashevsky circle, a group of intellectuals, he had been arrested in April 1849, and had already spent eight months as a prisoner in the Peter and Paul fortress. During this initial period, he was in solitary confinement, and, at first, was not allowed books or writing materials. In spite of this, he discovered that he had inner resources which enabled him to tolerate captivity far better than he had initially expected. His arrest may even have saved him from a breakdown, rather than precipitating it; for there is evidence that his participation in an underground revolutionary organization had been preying on his mind during the previous winter, and had brought him to the edge of a collapse.
When, at the beginning of July, the prisoners were allowed to receive books from the fortress library Dostoevsky fell upon them. He also wrote to his brother, Mikhail, telling him that he had thought out three stories and two novels. The famous incident of the mock execution in Semenovsky Square, when Dostoevsky faced a firing squad, only to be reprieved at the last minute, followed on December 22nd. In Siberia, Dostoevsky’s only literary activity keeping a surreptitious notebook in which he noted the phrases and expressions used by his fellow convicts. He managed to give the notebook to one of the medical assistants who returned it to him upon his release. Its contents were used in House of the Dead, the book which described his prison camp experience.
This experience was horrific, not only because of the appalling physical conditions in which the convicts were housed, and the perpetual threat of flogging under which they lived, but Dostoevsky found himself, as a ‘gentleman’, totally rejected by the brutish peasant prisoners whose cause he had espoused and for whose sake, as a potential revolutionary, he was suffering exile and imprisonment. During the time of his imprisonment, Dostoevsky underwent a conversion experience in which his total dissolution with the peasantry was replaced by an almost mystical belief in their essential goodness. This was based upon an involuntary memory which came back to him from his childhood of an incident in which one of his father’s serfs, Marey, had comforted him when he was terrified. Although Dostoevsky suffered deeply from never being alone while in the prison camp, his emotional isolation and lack of companionship had the effect of turning his attention inward, and allowing his mind to wander in the past.
All through his four years in camp he had employed the technique of involuntary association, which probably served somewhat the same purpose as psychoanalysis or drug therapy in releasing repressed dreams and thereby relieving his psychic blocks and morbid fixations. This technique also served the additional and reassuring function of keeping alive his artistic faculties under conditions where he was forbidden to put pen to paper.3
Dostoevsky’s experience of penal servitude permanently influenced his view of human nature and hence permeated his novels. More particularly, his experience of seeing convicts who for years had been ruthlessly crushed suddenly break out and assert their own personalities, often in violent and irrational fashion, made him feel that individual self-expression or self-realization was a basic human need, a need which did not accord with the subordination of individuality to the collective demands of the State.4
Other creative people who experienced forced solitude included Edith Bone, M.D. (1889-1975), Christopher Burney (1917-1980), and Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). Unlike Burney and Bone, Beethoven’s forced solitude was the result of his deafness which began in 1796 and continued for many years. His famous “Ninth Symphony” was written after his hearing loss had become more pronounced. In fact, after he played this symphony for the first time he actually cried because he was not able to hear the applause.5
Creativity inspiration is something which needs to be both encouraged and supported. Being alone is certainly a source of inspiration for various creative genius. In the case of some of these people they actually had difficulty interacting with other adults and some never had any type of intimate relationship and very few close friends. This may not be the type of solitude that every person can engage in, but it was certainly successful of some people.
End Notes
1) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/06/being-alone-with-ones-thoughts.html (accessed 5/7/12)
2) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts”
3) Joseph Frank Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850 to 1859 Five Volumes, (Princeton: 1983), Vol. II, p. 122
4) Anthony Storr Solitude: A Return to the Self (NY: Ballantine Books, 1988), p. 59
5) “Ludwig van Beethoven” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven (accessed 5/7/12)
In an interview, Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky [Андрей Арсеньевич Тарковский] (1932-1986) was asked what message he would like to leave for young people. Tarkovsky said that they should learn to love solitude and to be able to be alone with themselves. He believed that young people were carrying out noisy and aggressive actions in an effort not to be alone. He felt that all individuals must learn to be on his own as a child. This is not the same as being alone. He is referring to the idea of not becoming bored with oneself, which is sees as a very dangerous symptom, almost a disease.2
One thing which being alone can inspire, regardless of whether this isolation is voluntary or forced, is a sense of creativity. There are numerous examples of highly creative people who chose to be alone for extended periods of time and others who were forced into solitude as a result of imprisonment.
On Christmas Day 1849, Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky (1821-1881) began the long journey from St. Petersburg to Siberia where he was to spend the next four years in a prison camp. Together with other members of the Petrashevsky circle, a group of intellectuals, he had been arrested in April 1849, and had already spent eight months as a prisoner in the Peter and Paul fortress. During this initial period, he was in solitary confinement, and, at first, was not allowed books or writing materials. In spite of this, he discovered that he had inner resources which enabled him to tolerate captivity far better than he had initially expected. His arrest may even have saved him from a breakdown, rather than precipitating it; for there is evidence that his participation in an underground revolutionary organization had been preying on his mind during the previous winter, and had brought him to the edge of a collapse.
When, at the beginning of July, the prisoners were allowed to receive books from the fortress library Dostoevsky fell upon them. He also wrote to his brother, Mikhail, telling him that he had thought out three stories and two novels. The famous incident of the mock execution in Semenovsky Square, when Dostoevsky faced a firing squad, only to be reprieved at the last minute, followed on December 22nd. In Siberia, Dostoevsky’s only literary activity keeping a surreptitious notebook in which he noted the phrases and expressions used by his fellow convicts. He managed to give the notebook to one of the medical assistants who returned it to him upon his release. Its contents were used in House of the Dead, the book which described his prison camp experience.
This experience was horrific, not only because of the appalling physical conditions in which the convicts were housed, and the perpetual threat of flogging under which they lived, but Dostoevsky found himself, as a ‘gentleman’, totally rejected by the brutish peasant prisoners whose cause he had espoused and for whose sake, as a potential revolutionary, he was suffering exile and imprisonment. During the time of his imprisonment, Dostoevsky underwent a conversion experience in which his total dissolution with the peasantry was replaced by an almost mystical belief in their essential goodness. This was based upon an involuntary memory which came back to him from his childhood of an incident in which one of his father’s serfs, Marey, had comforted him when he was terrified. Although Dostoevsky suffered deeply from never being alone while in the prison camp, his emotional isolation and lack of companionship had the effect of turning his attention inward, and allowing his mind to wander in the past.
All through his four years in camp he had employed the technique of involuntary association, which probably served somewhat the same purpose as psychoanalysis or drug therapy in releasing repressed dreams and thereby relieving his psychic blocks and morbid fixations. This technique also served the additional and reassuring function of keeping alive his artistic faculties under conditions where he was forbidden to put pen to paper.3
Dostoevsky’s experience of penal servitude permanently influenced his view of human nature and hence permeated his novels. More particularly, his experience of seeing convicts who for years had been ruthlessly crushed suddenly break out and assert their own personalities, often in violent and irrational fashion, made him feel that individual self-expression or self-realization was a basic human need, a need which did not accord with the subordination of individuality to the collective demands of the State.4
Other creative people who experienced forced solitude included Edith Bone, M.D. (1889-1975), Christopher Burney (1917-1980), and Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827). Unlike Burney and Bone, Beethoven’s forced solitude was the result of his deafness which began in 1796 and continued for many years. His famous “Ninth Symphony” was written after his hearing loss had become more pronounced. In fact, after he played this symphony for the first time he actually cried because he was not able to hear the applause.5
Creativity inspiration is something which needs to be both encouraged and supported. Being alone is certainly a source of inspiration for various creative genius. In the case of some of these people they actually had difficulty interacting with other adults and some never had any type of intimate relationship and very few close friends. This may not be the type of solitude that every person can engage in, but it was certainly successful of some people.
End Notes
1) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/06/being-alone-with-ones-thoughts.html (accessed 5/7/12)
2) “Being Alone with One’s Thoughts”
3) Joseph Frank Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal, 1850 to 1859 Five Volumes, (Princeton: 1983), Vol. II, p. 122
4) Anthony Storr Solitude: A Return to the Self (NY: Ballantine Books, 1988), p. 59
5) “Ludwig van Beethoven” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_van_Beethoven (accessed 5/7/12)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Unlucky at Cards
Every
year countless people from around the US and around the world travel to
Atlantic City, New Jersey, Las Vegas, Nevada, and various other locations in
order to have a relaxing vacation and hopefully win a large amount of money at
one of the many casinos. No matter how
much money a person wins at the casino, the “house” (casino) always has the
advantage.
However, many people try to overcome the
casino’s advantage by using some strategy which they believe will help them to
“beat the odds”. One of these strategies
is known as card counting. This involves counting the various cards which are
used in games such as blackjack. Knowing which cards have already been used and
which ones are left would certainly give the player an advantage. This
technique is not illegal, but if the casino believes that you are counting
cards they will more than likely ask you to leave.
Some people use various other techniques,
either legal or illegal to gain an advantage.
Since the casino can potentially lose a large amount of money they are
always looking for those people who attempting to manipulate the odds in favor
of the player. If illegal methods are
used, that person will be arrested and will likely be sent to jail.
The idea of gaining an advantage while
gambling is certainly nothing new. In
the play The Queen of Spades 1
by Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837) this issue is dealt with. The main character is Hermann, an ethnic German,
who is an officer in the Imperial Russian Army.
Like many soldiers, his friends often play cards, but Hermann never
plays cards with them. One evening
another officer, Tomsky, tells Hermann a story about his grandmother who is now
an 87 year old countess.
Many years earlier, the countess had been
playing cards in France and initially had lost quite a bit of money. However, she then learned a secret regarding
three cards and apparently had won back all the money she had lost. There is no indication that Tomsky had
actually ever learned this secret nor is there any indication that he had used
the secret if he had learned it.
Even though Hermann is not a gambler, he
becomes obsessed with the idea of finding out what this secret is. In order to
do this he must meet the countess, but instead of approaching her directly he
finds out that she has a young ward named Lizavyeta Ivanovna. Hermann begins sending love letters to
Lizavyeta asking her to let him into the house.
Not surprisingly, Lizavyeta is taken by
the attention she has received from a Russian Army officer and invites him to
the house. Hermann aggressively
confronts the countess and demands that she tell him the secret of the three winning
cards. Initially, she tells him that the
secret is not real, but only a joke, but he does not believe her. He asks her a second time, but she remains
silent. At this point he decides to try again; however, this time he confronts
her with a pistol. At this point the
elderly countess dies of fright.
Hermann, who is now completely scared,
Lizavyeta confesses to her that he killed the countess. His only defense is that the pistol was not
loaded. Lizavyeta helps him to escape from the house even though she is annoyed
by the fact that his love letters were simply a rouse to allow him to meet the
countess.
He attends the countess’ funeral and is
terrified when the countess opens her eyes and looks at him as she is lying in
her coffin. Later that evening, her
ghost appears to him. The ghost tells him the secret of the three cards (three,
seven, and ace) and that he must play once each night and marry Lizavyeta. On the first night, he bets it all on the
three and wins. On the second night, he wins on the seven. On the third night,
he bets on the ace - but when cards are shown, he finds he has bet on the Queen
of Spades, rather than the ace, and loses everything. When the Queen appears to
wink at him, he flees in terror.
Hermann goes mad and is committed to an
asylum.
He is installed in Room 17 at the
Obukhov hospital; he answers no questions, but merely mutters with unusual
rapidity: 'Three, seven, ace! Three, seven, queen!' 2
There is a tradition in Russian literature
that negative actions on the part of a particular character are ultimately
connected with them going insane. This
can be seen in Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and
several other novels. Hermann’s actions were not only immoral, but illegal and instead
of benefitting from the information he received, he ends up going insane and
losing everything. This would definitely
qualify him as being unlucky at cards.
End Notes
1) “The Queen of Spades” http://www.classicreader.com/book/2154/1/
(English translation) [accessed 4/30/12]
2) “The Queen of Spades” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_of_Spades_(story)
(accessed 4/30/12)
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Too Much of a Good Thing
The movie “Wall Street” appeared in US theaters in 1987 and for many people this film typified their beliefs regarding the economy. This film follows the career of Bud Fox, a young stockbroker who becomes involved in various business dealings with Gordon Gekko, an unscrupulous businessman who buys companies in order to sell off what is profitable and then allow the company to fail.
Fox goes so far as to actually violate several Federal laws in order to assist Gekko and is finally caught by Federal agents and sent to prison, but not before turning against Gekko and gathering enough information to send Gekko to prison as well.
One of the most memorable statements made by Gordon Gekko was, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” It was his belief that greed inspired people to work harder and become more successful. For many people this attitude exemplified the stock market in the 1980s. Several well-known investment bankers went to prison during this period of time after destroying the financial lives of countless people simply because they were greedy.
The issue of greed is certainly not limited to the United States, nor was it only present in the 1980s. This same issue was addressed by the famous Russian poet Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837) in his poem, The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish. 1 which was written in 1833. The story is very simple. Once upon the time lived a poor fisherman. One day he caught a golden fish. The fish talked with him in a human voice and begged him to go free. She promised to fulfill any of his wishes. He was a kind man and simply let her go free.
After hearing the story, the fisherman's wife shouted at him and sent him back to see the magic fish - she needed a new washboard. The fish granted the wish, and a new trough magically appeared at their hut.
However, his wife continued to scream and yell at him. She wanted a new house, to be a noble lady, and then wanted to be the Tsarina. Every time she sent her old husband to the shore, the golden fish fulfilled the wishes of the wicked wife.
The woman now wanted to be Empress of the Land and the Sea, and that the golden fish should be her servant. The fisherman went to the shore, called to the fish, and when she came he explained the last wish of his wife. The gold fish disappeared without a word. The old man then went home and found his old mud hut, his poor wife, and a broken washboard.2
Based upon this story it would appear that greed, for lack of a better word, is not necessarily good. Instead of simply being happy with a new washboard, this woman actually went so far as to ask to become Empress of the Land and Sea and lost everything she had already been given.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to things to make your life easier, but the need to acquire things simply because you can or in order to make sure that you do not have fewer things than your neighbor is actually foolish. However, this is very common in the US. We need to keep buying things in order to compete with our neighbors. It is not enough to simply have a mobile phone and a computer; we need to have the latest and most updated model of both, otherwise, how can we possibly show our face in public?
When it comes to raising children, I cannot imagine that most people who openly promote greed as a virtue; however, this is the lesson they are being taught by virtue of our actions instead of what we say. Pushkin’s poem may be written in the form of a fairy tale, but the message it true for adults and children alike.
End Notes
1) “The Fisherman and the Little Fish” (translated from Russian) http://www.barynya.com/tales/fish.htm [accessed 4/28/12].
2) “Fisherman and the Fish” http://www.tradestonegallery.com/index.php?content=fairytaleview&fairytaleid=6&fairytale=fifi&length=S (accessed 4/28/12)
Fox goes so far as to actually violate several Federal laws in order to assist Gekko and is finally caught by Federal agents and sent to prison, but not before turning against Gekko and gathering enough information to send Gekko to prison as well.
One of the most memorable statements made by Gordon Gekko was, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” It was his belief that greed inspired people to work harder and become more successful. For many people this attitude exemplified the stock market in the 1980s. Several well-known investment bankers went to prison during this period of time after destroying the financial lives of countless people simply because they were greedy.
The issue of greed is certainly not limited to the United States, nor was it only present in the 1980s. This same issue was addressed by the famous Russian poet Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837) in his poem, The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish. 1 which was written in 1833. The story is very simple. Once upon the time lived a poor fisherman. One day he caught a golden fish. The fish talked with him in a human voice and begged him to go free. She promised to fulfill any of his wishes. He was a kind man and simply let her go free.
After hearing the story, the fisherman's wife shouted at him and sent him back to see the magic fish - she needed a new washboard. The fish granted the wish, and a new trough magically appeared at their hut.
However, his wife continued to scream and yell at him. She wanted a new house, to be a noble lady, and then wanted to be the Tsarina. Every time she sent her old husband to the shore, the golden fish fulfilled the wishes of the wicked wife.
The woman now wanted to be Empress of the Land and the Sea, and that the golden fish should be her servant. The fisherman went to the shore, called to the fish, and when she came he explained the last wish of his wife. The gold fish disappeared without a word. The old man then went home and found his old mud hut, his poor wife, and a broken washboard.2
Based upon this story it would appear that greed, for lack of a better word, is not necessarily good. Instead of simply being happy with a new washboard, this woman actually went so far as to ask to become Empress of the Land and Sea and lost everything she had already been given.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to things to make your life easier, but the need to acquire things simply because you can or in order to make sure that you do not have fewer things than your neighbor is actually foolish. However, this is very common in the US. We need to keep buying things in order to compete with our neighbors. It is not enough to simply have a mobile phone and a computer; we need to have the latest and most updated model of both, otherwise, how can we possibly show our face in public?
When it comes to raising children, I cannot imagine that most people who openly promote greed as a virtue; however, this is the lesson they are being taught by virtue of our actions instead of what we say. Pushkin’s poem may be written in the form of a fairy tale, but the message it true for adults and children alike.
End Notes
1) “The Fisherman and the Little Fish” (translated from Russian) http://www.barynya.com/tales/fish.htm [accessed 4/28/12].
2) “Fisherman and the Fish” http://www.tradestonegallery.com/index.php?content=fairytaleview&fairytaleid=6&fairytale=fifi&length=S (accessed 4/28/12)
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt
The title of the article comes from the song, “Sixteen Tons”, which tells the story of an American coal miner and was made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford. This song was written in 1946 and what was true just after World War II among the American coal miners is true now among many other aspects of society. As a consumerist society, the United States actually encourages people to go into debt as a way of helping to support our economy. In fact, it would not be untrue to say that someone could easily qualify as un-American if they do not go into debt.
Going into debt is not normally done because of basic necessities, such as food, but because we have been encouraged to believe that we need to keep buying things in order to be happy. If a person has any doubt about that, simply watch any television station on any evening and more time will be devoted to commercials than to the actual shows.
With every passing year it appears that the middle class is getting smaller and smaller. I would not be surprised if one day the middle class will disappear altogether. If you visit almost any suburban area you will see one shopping center after another where all the same products are sold. This is not a new development. In the 1960s, there was a song entitled “Big Yellow Taxi” which accurately describes this situation.
The demise of the middle class is certainly not a new problem. This issue was addressed by Anton Chekov (1860-1904) in his play The Cherry Orchard. This is rather unique because there “main character” is actually the orchard instead of any particular person and there is no character that could be considered a villain. The main person in the play is Madame Ranevskaya who owns the estate where the orchard is located.
Madame Ranevskaya is part of the old aristocracy in Russia which has now fallen on hard times. Her financial situation has given her two options. She can sell her estate and allow new houses to be built on the property or allow it to be taken away by the bank. Even though she would like to maintain her estate, she realizes this is not possible and either way the orchard will disappear. Her way of dealing with this is to spend seven years in Western Europe so she does not have to face the situation. She is also dealing with the fact that her marriage had failed and her son had drowned in the pond on the estate.1
Another character was Leonid Andreieveitch Gayev, Madame Ranevshaya’s brother. He is more of a comedic character than his sister. He is addicted to billiards and cannot engage in conversation without talking about it. His sister has no husband. One died and the other one continued to manipulate her even after their marriage failed, so she comes to rely upon Leonid. However, he still considers himself to be a ‘man of leisure’, so he is not really able to help his sister because he has no idea how to deal with this. He is a not a bad person, he is simply clueless about what is happening around him.
Next we meet Yermolai Alexeievitch Lopakhin, a merchant. Lopakhin is by far the richest character in the play, but comes from the lowest social class. This contrast defines his character: he is enjoying living the high life, but at the same time is uncomfortably conscious of his low beginnings and obsession with business. He is often portrayed as an unpleasant character because of his greedy tendencies and ultimate betrayal of the Gayev family, there is nothing in the play to suggest this. He works strenuously to help the Gayevs, but to no avail. Lopakhin can be understood as representing the new middle class in Russia; one of many threats to the old aristocratic way of doing things.2 It is this new middle class who will receive the benefit of turning the estate into a housing development.
Firs is the manservant who has been with the family for generations. He is almost 90 years old and remembers the days of Russian serfdom. An aging eccentric, Firs considers the emancipation of the Russian serfs to be a disaster, and talks nostalgically of the old days, when everybody admired their masters and owners, such as Gayev's parents and grandparents. He can be understood as a supporter of the Slavophile movement and appears to be rather lost in this new society. In Firs, we can see the decline of the old order.
Ultimately the cherry orchard is sold and the family leaves the house to be torn down. The orchard is chopped down and sold for the firewood. Chekhov does an amazing job of presenting the different emotions and motivating factors of the characters and, in the end, it seems as though he is making the point that society will progress and change will occur regardless of what the individual might desire or try to hold on to. All of his characters have their personal desires and idiosyncrasies, but they cannot change the fact that Russia is undergoing drastic change. All of the characters are being buffeted by the tide of change, but they can control their future by the attitude with which they view the future.3
What Chekov wrote about Russia in the 19th Century is also true in the United States in the 21st Century. Family farms in the US are becoming a thing of the past. The land is worth an enormous amount of money as the farmer sinks deeper and deeper into debt. His land is sold to a real estate developer who will build another shopping mall (which we certainly do not need), a housing development where every home looks like every other home, or some “McMansions” (enormous homes which are so expensive to maintain that many people find it difficult to furnish them). Could this really be considered progress?
This does not have to be the future of modern society, but if things are going to change it is essential that we bring about this change. We certainly can control our attitude about the future, but this does not mean that we should simply allow things to remain the same if we can do something to change it.
The Cherry Orchard was Chekov’s last play. He is certainly an example of a classic Russian author since this plays speaks to countless generations and can be read numerous times with different insights being gained with each new reading.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 77
2) “The Cherry Orchard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard
3) “Symbolism in The Cherry Orchard: Chekov’s Russia” http://bewhuebner.hubpages.com/hub/symbolism-in-the-cherry-orchard-chekhovs-russia
Going into debt is not normally done because of basic necessities, such as food, but because we have been encouraged to believe that we need to keep buying things in order to be happy. If a person has any doubt about that, simply watch any television station on any evening and more time will be devoted to commercials than to the actual shows.
With every passing year it appears that the middle class is getting smaller and smaller. I would not be surprised if one day the middle class will disappear altogether. If you visit almost any suburban area you will see one shopping center after another where all the same products are sold. This is not a new development. In the 1960s, there was a song entitled “Big Yellow Taxi” which accurately describes this situation.
The demise of the middle class is certainly not a new problem. This issue was addressed by Anton Chekov (1860-1904) in his play The Cherry Orchard. This is rather unique because there “main character” is actually the orchard instead of any particular person and there is no character that could be considered a villain. The main person in the play is Madame Ranevskaya who owns the estate where the orchard is located.
Madame Ranevskaya is part of the old aristocracy in Russia which has now fallen on hard times. Her financial situation has given her two options. She can sell her estate and allow new houses to be built on the property or allow it to be taken away by the bank. Even though she would like to maintain her estate, she realizes this is not possible and either way the orchard will disappear. Her way of dealing with this is to spend seven years in Western Europe so she does not have to face the situation. She is also dealing with the fact that her marriage had failed and her son had drowned in the pond on the estate.1
Another character was Leonid Andreieveitch Gayev, Madame Ranevshaya’s brother. He is more of a comedic character than his sister. He is addicted to billiards and cannot engage in conversation without talking about it. His sister has no husband. One died and the other one continued to manipulate her even after their marriage failed, so she comes to rely upon Leonid. However, he still considers himself to be a ‘man of leisure’, so he is not really able to help his sister because he has no idea how to deal with this. He is a not a bad person, he is simply clueless about what is happening around him.
Next we meet Yermolai Alexeievitch Lopakhin, a merchant. Lopakhin is by far the richest character in the play, but comes from the lowest social class. This contrast defines his character: he is enjoying living the high life, but at the same time is uncomfortably conscious of his low beginnings and obsession with business. He is often portrayed as an unpleasant character because of his greedy tendencies and ultimate betrayal of the Gayev family, there is nothing in the play to suggest this. He works strenuously to help the Gayevs, but to no avail. Lopakhin can be understood as representing the new middle class in Russia; one of many threats to the old aristocratic way of doing things.2 It is this new middle class who will receive the benefit of turning the estate into a housing development.
Firs is the manservant who has been with the family for generations. He is almost 90 years old and remembers the days of Russian serfdom. An aging eccentric, Firs considers the emancipation of the Russian serfs to be a disaster, and talks nostalgically of the old days, when everybody admired their masters and owners, such as Gayev's parents and grandparents. He can be understood as a supporter of the Slavophile movement and appears to be rather lost in this new society. In Firs, we can see the decline of the old order.
Ultimately the cherry orchard is sold and the family leaves the house to be torn down. The orchard is chopped down and sold for the firewood. Chekhov does an amazing job of presenting the different emotions and motivating factors of the characters and, in the end, it seems as though he is making the point that society will progress and change will occur regardless of what the individual might desire or try to hold on to. All of his characters have their personal desires and idiosyncrasies, but they cannot change the fact that Russia is undergoing drastic change. All of the characters are being buffeted by the tide of change, but they can control their future by the attitude with which they view the future.3
What Chekov wrote about Russia in the 19th Century is also true in the United States in the 21st Century. Family farms in the US are becoming a thing of the past. The land is worth an enormous amount of money as the farmer sinks deeper and deeper into debt. His land is sold to a real estate developer who will build another shopping mall (which we certainly do not need), a housing development where every home looks like every other home, or some “McMansions” (enormous homes which are so expensive to maintain that many people find it difficult to furnish them). Could this really be considered progress?
This does not have to be the future of modern society, but if things are going to change it is essential that we bring about this change. We certainly can control our attitude about the future, but this does not mean that we should simply allow things to remain the same if we can do something to change it.
The Cherry Orchard was Chekov’s last play. He is certainly an example of a classic Russian author since this plays speaks to countless generations and can be read numerous times with different insights being gained with each new reading.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 77
2) “The Cherry Orchard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard
3) “Symbolism in The Cherry Orchard: Chekov’s Russia” http://bewhuebner.hubpages.com/hub/symbolism-in-the-cherry-orchard-chekhovs-russia
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Two Different Worlds
One of the most popular songs in the United States in 1956 was entitled “Two Different Worlds”. The title of this song can easily describe one of the many themes which took place in The Uncle’s Dream by Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881). Like most, if not all, of Dostoevsky’s novels there are numerous themes working their way through this novel at the same time.
This novel takes place in a small provincial town called Mordasov which has within it what might be referred to as a mini-salon; similar to those in St. Petersburg. However, it is much smaller and of less significance. The main character is a rather shallow woman named Maria Moskalyova. She is more interested in appearances than substance and would be considered “plastic” in American society. She is deceitful, a liar, but, unlike many “plastic” people she lacks any sort of power.
Maria has a very attractive, head strong daughter named Zina. She has a desire to be honorable in her dealings with men, but lacks a suitable female role model and she also considers herself to be too good for the local men. As a result of this Zina is very confused. Her father, Afanasy, is not exactly an ideal male role model.1
Afanasy is a completely ignorant fool who received his position as a result of his connections. He is completely clueless and dominated by Maria. Her father is not exactly the ideal role model when his young daughter is looking for a husband. In fact, he is the type of man that Zina would not be attracted to at all. Is it any wonder why she is confused?
Zina is a pursued by many men, but one, in particular, was a rather sympathetic character known as “The Prince”, a man distantly related to the old gentry of Russian society. This character calls to mind Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot. Prince Myshkin is a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him.2
The Prince has a small fortune and some land, but, like almost all the characters in this novel, he is as clueless about the world as anyone else. He is a much older man with several health problems. Even though there is a major age difference between the Prince and Zina, Maria encourages the relationship as a way of assuring her family that they will inherit the Prince’s fortune. Actually, the primary concern is that she and Zina will inherit this fortune. There is very little indication that Maria is concerned about her husband at all.
Another major character is Pavel Morglyakov. He is very attracted to Zina and Maria decides to use the prince as a way of getting Pavel out of Zina’s life. The Prince is invited to Zina’s home, given quite a bit to drink, and Zina begins to sing various songs which are meant to inspire feelings of love. This plan works. The Prince proposes to Zina and her mother encourages her to go along with this plan. Zina is not particularly interested in marrying a much older man who is in such poor physical condition, but Maria finally explains to her the morality of this act.
Pavel overhears the conversation between Zina and Maria and informs the Prince of this plan. Pavel realizes that Maria is doing this for the purpose of her own personal advancement and is aware that she will be throwing a major ball for all the most important people in the town so that she can announce Zina’s engagement. Pavel’s plan is to convince the Prince that this entire event was only a dream, which does not take a great deal of effort given the Prince’s state of confusion.
At this banquet, Maria is waiting for the proper moment to make the announcement; however, the Prince is now convinced that the entire event was a dream. Maria is mortified and does what she can to maintain her dignity, but the Prince is convinced that it was a dream. Maria is so frustrated that she calls the Prince “an imbecile” and the entire event is a major humiliation for Maria. A short time later the prince dies.3
Zina finds out that Vasya, a poet who Zina loves, is dying and she spends every moment at this bedside. Vasya is a romantic. He is intelligent, artistic, and more concerned by his work and the arts than about money. As you imagine, such a relationship between Zina and Vasya would never appeal to Maria. There is no ability for personal advancement if your daughter marries a penniless poet.
What does all this have to do with “two different worlds”? Well, the reality is that there are two completely different worlds in this novel. The Prince represents “Old Russia”. Old Russian culture, life in Russia prior to the influence of western culture, was very appealing to Dostoevsky. In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is also representative of Old Russia. Its values and traditions appeared to be outdated and dying among those who accepted post-Petrine Russian society. Old Russian culture can be seen in the characters of Alexei and Dmitry Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov as well as Sonya in Crime and Punishment.
Dostoevsky would definitely have been considered a Slavophile. Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great (1672-1725), who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.4
The Prince represents simplicity and grace. He is the only one to refer to the Old Russian religion as he prepares to spend time with Father Michael at a nearby monastery. In a telling and comic line in this story, the Prince tells a local gathering at Maria’s house that he is going to go abroad to soak in the “new ideas” of western Europe, just after returns from the monastery. Those two ideas are opposites, and the Prince has no idea that they are, having no concept whatsoever what the “new ideas” are in western Europe, he just knows that the elites speak this way, therefore, he must as well. It is obvious that he is completely out of place in modern Russia.5
In contrast, Maria is presented as a representative of modern Russia culture. She is an opportunistic, self-absorbed, uncaring woman who will even go so far as to use her daughter in order to accomplish her personal goals. The only thing which is important in modern culture is a manifestation of power which is falsely associated with strength and virtue. This idea is associated directly with the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), particularly his novel The Prince.
Maria is the exact opposite of Old Russia. She does not believe in its values, but she attempts to make use of these values in order to accomplish her own agenda. Dostoevsky emphasizes this point by situating this novel in a small insignificant town instead of St. Petersburg. She presents herself as an extremely large fish is a very small pond.
It is highly unlikely that Maria and her friends would have understood the philosophical foundation associated with bringing western culture to Russia or the possibility that such changes might destroy their homeland. Instead, they were concerned about what benefits they could receive from such changes and if people’s lives were destroyed in the process that would simply be the end result of “progress”.
Between the Prince and Maria, there are several characters that represent a bridge between these two different worlds. Zina, for example, is confused. Even though she finally goes along with her mother’s plan to deceive the Prince, she does not believe this is right, but is not sure why. On the one hand, she finds something very appealing about the culture of Old Russia, but she is heavily influenced by her mother.
In The Idiot, this character is represented by Nastasya Filippovna. Prince Myshkin professes his love for Nastasya and she finds something very appealing about him, but the westernized culture of St. Petersburg pulls her in the direction of Parfyon Rogozhin who turns out to be a poor choice for her. Nastasya felt caught between the culture of Old Russia and the “progress” of modern Russia. This tension becomes a major source of conflict throughout the rest of this novel.
The 1956 song I mentioned at the beginning of the article speaks about two people who come from two different worlds, but they have come to believe that their love will overcome this divide. If these people can come together from two completely different worlds it can be a wonderful experience. Potentially, this is also true when it comes to two different cultures within one nation.
One of the major challenges is that there is really no way to blend these two cultures. Instead of being harmonious, one culture will succeed and one will fail. Even though students from the former USSR are required to read classic Russian novels as part of their education, there is very little indication that these novels are read by many of them after their formal education is finished or that they have a great appreciation for the culture that these novelists were espousing.
As a result of Russia having kept the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared many of the problems which faced the West. Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war. For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office. The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Aleksey Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.6
Based upon my conversations with many friends in the former USSR, life has not changed for the better as a result of introducing Western culture. Contrary to Orthodox tradition, the culture has become more materialistic and people are becoming more selfish. It is very sad that my friends have experienced this, but if this is a reality for the vast majority of the people it is not only sad, but dangerous.
The younger people seem to show little or no interest in their heritage, but want to become more “American” (the premier representative of Western culture). One major challenge is that Western and Eastern culture are vastly different. This is based upon a variety of factors including location and the influence of the Orthodox Church in the East.
Instead of being happy with these changes, my sense is that many of these people are confused. Internally they realize that there is something very unique and special about their culture, but they are having Western ideas thrust upon them. This confusion leads to a sense of sadness which may not be easy to vocalize.
Living on the border between two different worlds can be challenging for anyone. In order to so properly it is important to have a proper understanding of both worlds so that a proper decision can be made regarding which world a person chooses to live in. Giving up one’s world (culture) without a profound understanding of it will not only lead to confusion, but a feeling of being lost because they have turned away from one culture while not being fully accepted by the other.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 152
2) “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952 (accessed 4/15/12)
3) Johnson, p. 157.
4) “Westerners and Slavophiles” http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 4/21/12)
5) Johnson, p. 158
6) Johnson, p. 223
This novel takes place in a small provincial town called Mordasov which has within it what might be referred to as a mini-salon; similar to those in St. Petersburg. However, it is much smaller and of less significance. The main character is a rather shallow woman named Maria Moskalyova. She is more interested in appearances than substance and would be considered “plastic” in American society. She is deceitful, a liar, but, unlike many “plastic” people she lacks any sort of power.
Maria has a very attractive, head strong daughter named Zina. She has a desire to be honorable in her dealings with men, but lacks a suitable female role model and she also considers herself to be too good for the local men. As a result of this Zina is very confused. Her father, Afanasy, is not exactly an ideal male role model.1
Afanasy is a completely ignorant fool who received his position as a result of his connections. He is completely clueless and dominated by Maria. Her father is not exactly the ideal role model when his young daughter is looking for a husband. In fact, he is the type of man that Zina would not be attracted to at all. Is it any wonder why she is confused?
Zina is a pursued by many men, but one, in particular, was a rather sympathetic character known as “The Prince”, a man distantly related to the old gentry of Russian society. This character calls to mind Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot. Prince Myshkin is a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him.2
The Prince has a small fortune and some land, but, like almost all the characters in this novel, he is as clueless about the world as anyone else. He is a much older man with several health problems. Even though there is a major age difference between the Prince and Zina, Maria encourages the relationship as a way of assuring her family that they will inherit the Prince’s fortune. Actually, the primary concern is that she and Zina will inherit this fortune. There is very little indication that Maria is concerned about her husband at all.
Another major character is Pavel Morglyakov. He is very attracted to Zina and Maria decides to use the prince as a way of getting Pavel out of Zina’s life. The Prince is invited to Zina’s home, given quite a bit to drink, and Zina begins to sing various songs which are meant to inspire feelings of love. This plan works. The Prince proposes to Zina and her mother encourages her to go along with this plan. Zina is not particularly interested in marrying a much older man who is in such poor physical condition, but Maria finally explains to her the morality of this act.
Pavel overhears the conversation between Zina and Maria and informs the Prince of this plan. Pavel realizes that Maria is doing this for the purpose of her own personal advancement and is aware that she will be throwing a major ball for all the most important people in the town so that she can announce Zina’s engagement. Pavel’s plan is to convince the Prince that this entire event was only a dream, which does not take a great deal of effort given the Prince’s state of confusion.
At this banquet, Maria is waiting for the proper moment to make the announcement; however, the Prince is now convinced that the entire event was a dream. Maria is mortified and does what she can to maintain her dignity, but the Prince is convinced that it was a dream. Maria is so frustrated that she calls the Prince “an imbecile” and the entire event is a major humiliation for Maria. A short time later the prince dies.3
Zina finds out that Vasya, a poet who Zina loves, is dying and she spends every moment at this bedside. Vasya is a romantic. He is intelligent, artistic, and more concerned by his work and the arts than about money. As you imagine, such a relationship between Zina and Vasya would never appeal to Maria. There is no ability for personal advancement if your daughter marries a penniless poet.
What does all this have to do with “two different worlds”? Well, the reality is that there are two completely different worlds in this novel. The Prince represents “Old Russia”. Old Russian culture, life in Russia prior to the influence of western culture, was very appealing to Dostoevsky. In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is also representative of Old Russia. Its values and traditions appeared to be outdated and dying among those who accepted post-Petrine Russian society. Old Russian culture can be seen in the characters of Alexei and Dmitry Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov as well as Sonya in Crime and Punishment.
Dostoevsky would definitely have been considered a Slavophile. Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great (1672-1725), who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.4
The Prince represents simplicity and grace. He is the only one to refer to the Old Russian religion as he prepares to spend time with Father Michael at a nearby monastery. In a telling and comic line in this story, the Prince tells a local gathering at Maria’s house that he is going to go abroad to soak in the “new ideas” of western Europe, just after returns from the monastery. Those two ideas are opposites, and the Prince has no idea that they are, having no concept whatsoever what the “new ideas” are in western Europe, he just knows that the elites speak this way, therefore, he must as well. It is obvious that he is completely out of place in modern Russia.5
In contrast, Maria is presented as a representative of modern Russia culture. She is an opportunistic, self-absorbed, uncaring woman who will even go so far as to use her daughter in order to accomplish her personal goals. The only thing which is important in modern culture is a manifestation of power which is falsely associated with strength and virtue. This idea is associated directly with the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), particularly his novel The Prince.
Maria is the exact opposite of Old Russia. She does not believe in its values, but she attempts to make use of these values in order to accomplish her own agenda. Dostoevsky emphasizes this point by situating this novel in a small insignificant town instead of St. Petersburg. She presents herself as an extremely large fish is a very small pond.
It is highly unlikely that Maria and her friends would have understood the philosophical foundation associated with bringing western culture to Russia or the possibility that such changes might destroy their homeland. Instead, they were concerned about what benefits they could receive from such changes and if people’s lives were destroyed in the process that would simply be the end result of “progress”.
Between the Prince and Maria, there are several characters that represent a bridge between these two different worlds. Zina, for example, is confused. Even though she finally goes along with her mother’s plan to deceive the Prince, she does not believe this is right, but is not sure why. On the one hand, she finds something very appealing about the culture of Old Russia, but she is heavily influenced by her mother.
In The Idiot, this character is represented by Nastasya Filippovna. Prince Myshkin professes his love for Nastasya and she finds something very appealing about him, but the westernized culture of St. Petersburg pulls her in the direction of Parfyon Rogozhin who turns out to be a poor choice for her. Nastasya felt caught between the culture of Old Russia and the “progress” of modern Russia. This tension becomes a major source of conflict throughout the rest of this novel.
The 1956 song I mentioned at the beginning of the article speaks about two people who come from two different worlds, but they have come to believe that their love will overcome this divide. If these people can come together from two completely different worlds it can be a wonderful experience. Potentially, this is also true when it comes to two different cultures within one nation.
One of the major challenges is that there is really no way to blend these two cultures. Instead of being harmonious, one culture will succeed and one will fail. Even though students from the former USSR are required to read classic Russian novels as part of their education, there is very little indication that these novels are read by many of them after their formal education is finished or that they have a great appreciation for the culture that these novelists were espousing.
As a result of Russia having kept the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared many of the problems which faced the West. Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war. For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office. The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Aleksey Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.6
Based upon my conversations with many friends in the former USSR, life has not changed for the better as a result of introducing Western culture. Contrary to Orthodox tradition, the culture has become more materialistic and people are becoming more selfish. It is very sad that my friends have experienced this, but if this is a reality for the vast majority of the people it is not only sad, but dangerous.
The younger people seem to show little or no interest in their heritage, but want to become more “American” (the premier representative of Western culture). One major challenge is that Western and Eastern culture are vastly different. This is based upon a variety of factors including location and the influence of the Orthodox Church in the East.
Instead of being happy with these changes, my sense is that many of these people are confused. Internally they realize that there is something very unique and special about their culture, but they are having Western ideas thrust upon them. This confusion leads to a sense of sadness which may not be easy to vocalize.
Living on the border between two different worlds can be challenging for anyone. In order to so properly it is important to have a proper understanding of both worlds so that a proper decision can be made regarding which world a person chooses to live in. Giving up one’s world (culture) without a profound understanding of it will not only lead to confusion, but a feeling of being lost because they have turned away from one culture while not being fully accepted by the other.
End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 152
2) “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952 (accessed 4/15/12)
3) Johnson, p. 157.
4) “Westerners and Slavophiles” http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 4/21/12)
5) Johnson, p. 158
6) Johnson, p. 223
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)