Slavic and East European Journal

ARTICLES THE ICON IN THE PICTURE: REFRAMING THE QUESTION OF DOSTOEVSKY'S VOLUME 48, NUMBER 1 SPRING 2004 MODERNIST ICONOGRAPHY SLAVIC AND Jefferson J. A. Gatrall, Columbia University EAST EUROPEAN JOURNAL 1. Icon or Picture? The analogy between pictures and realist prose has long been a mainstay of literary criticism on the novel. At once extending and challenging this critical heritage, a growing body of scholarship on the nineteenth-century Russian novel has sought to reconceptualize traditional problems of realist representation through the prism of iconography. In the case of Dostoevsky, such criticism has overwhelmingly adopted the Orthodox icon as its master analog: his prose has been described as a "narrative icon," his urban land- scapes as "imaginary icons," and his characters as "living icons."1 This turn to the Orthodox icon in Dostoevsky scholarship over the past two decades has been motivated in part by a desire to dcenter Western-oriented accounts of the rise of the Realist novel. Erich Auerbach, for instance, relegates Dostoevsky to a subordinate position in his triumphal procession of Western mimesis, arguing that nineteenth-century Russian Realism as a whole is "fundamentally related rather to old-Christian than to modern occidental realism" (520-24). By contrast, a number of recent critics have situated Dostoevsky in an alternative Russian grand narrative by emphasizing the Published by the American Association ways in which the author's incorporation of Eastern Orthodox iconography into Of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages his novelistic craft augured Modernism's constitutive break from the mimetic AATSEEL of the U.S., Inc. norms of nineteenth-century Western Realism. As Konstantin Barsht puts it, Dostoevsky "was no mere realist": "This confluence of aesthetics— Romanticism, realism and Orthodox iconography—carried Dostoevsky toward Modernism before Modernism even existed" (2000, 54).2 This marrying of Dostoevsky's novels with the Modernist cult of the icon SEEJ, Vol. 48, No. 1 (2004): p. 1-p. 25 2 Slavic and East European Journal The Icon in the Picture 3 has done much to transform the author's outspoken Christian worldview ekphrasis in The Idiot [1869] on Holbein's The Body of the Dead Christ in the from a perceived liability into an integral component of his poetics; how- Tomb [1521]; namely, the representation of the divine in realist art.6 ever, this revisionism also carries with it a certain historical cost. Both the Second, pushing the affective limits of socially engaged portraiture from Russian icon and Dostoevsky's religiously inflected novels came to full the sentimental to the horrific, Dostoevsky incorporates into his prose prominence on the world stage during the first decades of the twentieth fiction a small set of perhaps a dozen thematically linked pictures that century, a coincidence of artistic posterity that has helped smooth over delineate the elements of a common, modernist iconography. This iconogra- conceptual anachronisms in recent criticism.3 Yet direct comparison be- phy is recognizable, above all, by the graphic nature of its subject matter: tween the icon and his novels in their Modernist reincarnations elides not children and young adults suffering abject punishment, being killed in only the problems provoked by Dostoevsky's realism but also the pro- violent and gratuitous ways, or committing suicide.7 That the suffering of tracted pre-history of the Russian icon's turn-of-the-century "rediscovery." children represented an iconographic project for Dostoevsky is nowhere The difference between the picture and the icon in the second half of the clearer than in one of Makar Dolgoruky's stories from The Adolescent nineteenth century lay less between conventional realism and Modernist [1875], in which an artist is commissioned by a grief-stricken merchant to anti-mimesis than between two forms of reproduction: pictures copy the paint the suicide of an eight-year-old boy. Yet it is in Ivan Karamazov's real, icons copy copies.4 There are a few dozen icons scattered throughout gallery of "charming pictures [kartinki prelestnye]" (14: 220) that Dostoev- Dostoevsky's prose fiction, yet the faces painted on them are never de- sky's well-crafted iconography of horrors reaches its culmination: a baby scribed in terms of their shape, expression, position, or color. On the shot by the very gun dangled before it as a toy; a serf boy hunted down and contrary, the divine face of the icon, preserved through the meticulous killed by the dogs of his master; and a girl, having been beaten by her copying of copies of an ancient original, is reverentially protected by parents and forced to eat her own excrement, locked all night alone in a Dostoevsky from the profane gaze of modern realism. The suprasensual latrine. Far from casting a shadow over the whole of Dostoevsky's prose lies outside the frame of the picture. fiction, this dark iconography develops on the distant periphery of his late Rather than choosing between realism and iconography, the fecund ten- novels and there brushes against the limits of nineteenth-century realism. sions between these two terms—the first a mode of representation, the latter a In picturing the suffering of children, Dostoevsky modernizes the novel, canon of recurring images—are better negotiated by substituting the "picture" not just by extending its range of subject matter to the unilluminated for the "icon" as the dominant visual analog of Dostoevsky's novelistic corners of modern society, but by shifting the locus of the literary real from iconography. In short, I contend that Dostoevsky cuts a path to Modernism the quotidian and the metonymic to the exceptional and the emblematic. in his iconography less through the Orthodox icon than through a radicalized Indeed, Ivan's pictures make good on one of Dostoevsky's favorite para- realism of the picture. Throughout his novels and journalism, Dostoevsky doxes: that which is most exceptional, in the history of the novel if not employs the term "picture" [kartina] in a variety of different contexts, rang- necessarily in history itself, is what is most unbearably real. ing from actual portraits and paintings to literary tableaux and character At the other end of Dostoevsky's iconographic imagination lies the Or- sketches to mental impressions and memories. Furthermore, in contrast to thodox icon. Icons appear throughout his works, often as if in passing, the Orthodox icon, certain types of verbal images in Dostoevsky's novels do during descriptions of domestic interiors, monasteries, churches, cemeteries, parallel two broad modernizing developments involving Christian iconogra- pawnshops, and prison barracks. Whether as an incidental background phy in European painting of the second half of the nineteenth century: the detail or as a symbolic motif in a character sketch, icons thus form one of increasingly realistic portrayals of Jesus — newly historicized in the works of the recurring elements in the composite representations of people and Strauss and Renan — in both historical and genre painting and even in pho- places in Dostoevsky's prose fiction. In short, the icon enters the picture. tography5; and the widespread co-opting of Christian martyrology in genre The icon in the picture does not function as a picture in turn, however. paintings depicting the marginalized social groups of modern industrial Eu- Robert Jackson, in an oft-cited passage from his groundbreaking Dostoev- rope, a practice common to such national schools as the Peredvizhniki, the sky's Quest for Form, observes in relation to Dostoevsky's philosophy of Realistes, and the Pre-Raphaelites. Concerning the first development, Dos- art that the word obraz, frequently encountered in the novelist's literary toevsky's image of a silent Christ in the "Grand Inquisitor," at once original criticism, refers in Russian to both "image" and "icon" (47-48). More and canonical, historical and legendary, represents a unique response to a recently, such critics as Barsht and Murav have drawn persuasive parallels major mid-century art controversy, one which Dostoevsky himself addresses between obraz., which can also mean "face," and portraiture in Dostoevsky in his critique of Nikolai Ge's modernized Last Supper [1863] as well as in his (1996,16-21; 148-50). While acknowledging these varied nuances in Dost- 4 Slavic and East European Journal The Icon in the Picture 5 oevsky's understanding of obraz, there nevertheless remain fundamental novelist is, so far as I am able to see, complete" (25). Despite Dostoevsky's functional differences between the "icons" (that is, obraz, obrazok, or prevalent use of pictorial analogies, however, his polyphonic novels would ikona) and the "pictures" (kartiny or kartinki) that actually appear in his seem at first glance not only to fit poorly within this tradition but arguably prose fiction. Most crucially, whereas Dostoevsky's characters often com- to mark a radical break from it. Whereas a long line of novelists would pare portraits—both their own and others'—with the faces they depict, the follow Flaubert in seeking a minimalist mimesis within which their own faces of his characters are never compared to icons. That several of his 8 voices might fade to silence, the cacophony of voices in Dostoevsky's novels female characters are said to resemble famous Renaissance Madonnas shatters the thin mirror of pictorial realism. Be that as it may, the further sets in relief the exclusive privilege of inimitability that Dostoevsky picture plays at least two crucial roles in Dostoevsky's modernist iconogra- accords to the Russian Orthodox icon. phy: first, as a visual analog for realism in literature; second, and more In a similar manner, icons in Dostoevsky's novels may be named, vener- provocatively, as a compositional device for compelling his own characters ated, or even addressed, as if they were persons, but the faces on them to confront the problem of the real.

Load more