DOCSLIB.ORG

Crime and Punishment: Fyodor Dostoevsky

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crime and Punishment: Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment: Fyodor Dostoevsky Samuel Johnson, when he called William Shakespeare the greatest dramatist of Europe, put forth two premises on which he based his judgement: Shakespeare’s profound knowledge of human nature, which according to Johnson, genius alone can provide; and the continuance of Shakespeare’s esteem. Reading Dostoevsky in this century, one could say the same about him. Inspired and influenced by Honerè de Balzac, who is widely accepted to be one of the pioneers of realism in European literature, Dostoevsky has left an indelible mark on the literary world with his works including short stories and novels which dealt with human psychology in its fullest depth and complexity. Born on 11 November 1821, in Moscow to a middle class couple as their second child, Dostoevsky introduced to literary world through legends and fairy tales in childhood. His father, worked as a doctor was a tyrant toward his family, while his mother was a pious woman who died while Dostoevsky was fifteen. As an escape from the oppressive atmosphere of his father's household, he acquired a love of reading, especially the works of Nikolai Gogol, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Alexander Pushkin and Honerè de Balzac. At his father's insistence, he trained as a military engineer in St. Petersburg. His father was murdered by his own serfs at the family's small country estate while he was in St. Petersburg. Dostoevsky rarely mentioned his father's murder in his writings including letters, but Oedipal themes are recurrent in his work, and Sigmund Freud suggested that Dostoevsky's epilepsy was a manifestation of guilt over his repressed wish for his father's death. Working as a military engineer, he first published translation of Balzac’s novel ‘Eugenie ​ Grandet’ in a Russian journal followed by other translations in 1844. Two years later, he ​ published his first novel ‘Poor Folk’, with a clear social message as well as a delicate ​ ​ description of life's tragic aspects as manifested in everyday existence as a naturalistic tale. He became an overnight celebrity when Vissarion Belinsky, the most influential critic of the day, praised ‘Poor Folk’ as Russia’s first social novel and Dostoevsky for his social awareness and ​ ​ declared him the literary heir to Gogol. Success and wide reception of ‘Poor Folk’ made him ​ ​ resign his job in military hoping for a successful literary career, but his second novel ‘The ​ Double’ released after 15 days from the publishing of ‘Poor Folk’ became a failure and came ​ ​ ​ under attacks from various critics including Belinsky. Daniel Kalder wrote “Has anybody else ​ ever suffered such a calamitous decline in popularity as Dostoevsky did in January 1846?” Since then he thrived hard to remain in literary circles but failures of his subsequent works made him to suffer financial crisis and poverty. Dostoevsky’s entrance to Russian literary world was during the reign of Tsar Nicholas I, under him the dissent of society was crushed and Dostoevsky experienced the fruits of authoritarian rule of Nicholas while he was growing up. Nicholas, unlike his brother and forerunner Alexander I, grew up during Napoleonic wars and not in the late enlightenment period which contributed him for the adoption of an authoritarian regime. Nicholas embraced a patriarchal authoritarianism rooted in Russian nationalism rather than Western notions of enlightened despotism. Tsar imposed strict censoring and surveillance throughout the country in fear of uprisings and the penetration of revolutionary spirit into his country. Even Alexander Pushkin was sent to exile due his writings and his books were banned. Alexander Milyukov, a contemporary of Dostoevsky, who met the latter in one of the literary circles, gives a vivid description of the political atmosphere in Russia during the 1840s: The rotten pillars of reaction were crumbling one after the other, and all over Europe new life seemed to be in bud. Yet in Russia, at that time, prevailed the most crushing reaction: Science, no less than the Press, could hardly breathe beneath the heavy yoke of the administration, and every sign of mental vitality was stifled. From abroad, a quantity of liberal writings, partly scientific, partly literary were smuggled into the country. In the French and German: papers, people, despite the Censorship, were reading stirring articles; but among ourselves all scientific and literary activity was rendered well-nigh impossible and the Censorship tore each new book to pieces(Mayne,1964,p.271). Dostoevsky was influenced by Belinsky, who heavily critiqued the autocracy of the Russian state and its degradation of the individual. He promoted a philosophy which promoted individual rights, freedoms, and passions above all else. As he states, “What is it to me that the ​ Universal exists when the individual personality is suffering.” Belinsky’s ideas on freedom and ​ the individual passions played an integral role in Dostoevsky’s thoughts which preached the importance of human freedom and passions. Belinsky’s clear influence on Dostoevsky drove him to associate with Petrashevsky Circle, a group of young intellectuals, led by Mikhail Petrashevsky, which met to discuss literary and political readings. He was accused for reading a banned text in circle’s meeting and blamed for anti Tsarist propaganda. In the reactionary political climate of mid-nineteenth-century Russia, such groups were illegal and censorship was prevalent. Dostoevsky and several of his associates were imprisoned and sentenced to death. As they were facing the firing squad, an imperial messenger arrived with the announcement that the Tsar had commuted the death sentences to hard labour in Siberia and compulsory military service. This incident haunted him for the rest of his life. Brother, I’m not depressed and haven’t lost spirit. Life everywhere is life, life is in ourselves and not in the external. There will be people near me, and to be human among human beings, and remain one forever, no matter what misfortune befall, not to become depressed, and not to falter- this is what life is, herein lies its tasks. I have come to recognize this(Mochulsky,1971,p.141). Dostoevsky wrote this passage in a letter to his brother Mikhail immediately after he underwent traumatic experience that to face death by firing squad. The execution purported in Semyonovsky Square was terrifyingly real that it induced insanity within his fellow prisoners. This quote shows his strength of character. His life was difficult; stricken by poverty, epilepsy and other calamities including helpless watch of deaths of his beloved ones. It also exposes the significant flaw common to some of his characters and tragic heroes through despair, and weakness before the weight of misfortune, they falter, and commit barbaric acts that render them unfit to operate within the context of humanity. The difficult facts of Dostoevsky’s life are the genesis of all of his work. Circumambulated along his hardships of life and experiences, his characters and their personalities blends with the plot of his every work. In Siberia, he underwent huge transformation; from an atheistic communist to his older faith in Christianity and theology because of the thoughts from New Testament, the only text he was allowed to read. His time in prison greatly challenged the utopian ideals he developed in St. Petersburg. Dostoevsky returned to the Orthodoxy of his childhood after experiencing the loving suffering of fellow inmates in Siberia, and he credits such moments as the reason for his Christian faith. Dostoevsky articulates a philosophy that embraces both suffering and faith simultaneously. For him, one finds this philosophy not by logic, but experience. Freshly emerged from prison in 1854, Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote this mysterious note to friend Natalya Fonvizina “If someone were to prove to me that Christ was outside the truth, and it ​ was really the case that the truth lay outside Christ, then I should choose to stay with Christ rather than the truth.” Beginning from a humble and thoroughly Orthodox household in which ​ he nurtured a religious idealism, Dostoevsky matured to a state of bitter cynicism. After receiving an engineering education he did not want, followed by a challenging writing career in St. Petersburg, he turned to nihilistic and socialist thoughts which gained him imprisonment in Siberia. The suffering and grace of this imprisonment inspired Dostoevsky to return to the Orthodoxy of his childhood. This transformation is visible in his works. Malcolm Jones suggests that, “What one observes in Dostoevsky’s novels is a reflection of the process of ​ discovery or rediscovery of the Christian tradition, in the face of its most deadly…opponents.” For years, Dostoevsky struggled with the painful realities of life and the idealism of Christian religion. While Dostoevsky could not intellectually support faith in full, he could not reject the experience of contentment and love he experienced both as a child and in prison a love which transcended all suffering and provided a hope and memory that allowed joy in pain. Some scholars believed that he would never have reached the height of literary success and philosophy if the imprisonment and exile had not divided his life and caused him to revise his principles. Malcolm Jones contends that, “it was from them that he had again received into his ​ soul that Christ whom he first knew in his parents’ home as a child and whom he had nearly lost when, in his turn, he transformed himself into a European liberal.” Although Dostoevsky had endured terrible hardship in Siberia, his gloomy days had been brightened by a deep feeling of love for Maria Isaev who, after the death of her husband became the writer’s first wife in 1857. The happiness with Maria Isaev however lasted only for few years. After their return to St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 the Woman Question in Russia
    The Woman Question in Russia: Contradictions and Ambivalence Elizabeth A. Wood The Woman Question in nineteenth and early twentieth century Russia focused principally on the position of women in the family and society. It was one of the so-called “burning” social issues that occupied the Russian intelligentsia in the second half of the nineteenth century, questions such as the emancipation of the peasants and the Jews, the rise of national consciousness. Yet it was perhaps the least straight-forward of the burning questions, the one most burdened by contradictions and ambivalence. It was, for one thing, very much a question about the place of men and masculinity under autocracy. Although it ostensibly addressed notions of how to improve women’s lot, it also contained within it and even perpetuated deeply misogynist notions of women’s backwardness. The early “woman question” was also often a code phrase for authors seeking to evade the strict censorship under Tsar Nicholas I (1825-1855); they wrote about women as a way of talking about revolution and radical social change. Contemporaries perceived the Woman Question as a native development that had organic Russian roots. Yet in actuality it came to Russia as an import, borrowing many Western ideas, yet melding them with Russian intellectual and moral traditions in a new synthesis. Historians and literature scholars debate the timing and nature of the earliest appearances of the Woman Question. Most general discussions date it from the time of discussions of the Emancipation of the peasantry, i.e., the late 1850s and early 1860s. Yet it is easy to see the roots in changes under Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, as well as in the 1830s-40s [1-4].
    [Show full text]
  • Folklore and the Construction of National Identity in Nineteenth Century Russian Literature
    Folklore and the Construction of National Identity in Nineteenth Century Russian Literature Jessika Aguilar Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Columbia University 2016 © 2016 Jessika Aguilar All rights reserved Table of Contents 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…..1 2. Alexander Pushkin: Folklore without the Folk……………………………….20 3. Nikolai Gogol: Folklore and the Fragmentation of Authorship……….54 4. Vladimir Dahl: The Folk Speak………………………………………………..........84 5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………........116 6. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………122 i Introduction In his “Literary Reveries” of 1834 Vissarion Belinsky proclaimed, “we have no literature” (Belinskii PSS I:22). Belinsky was in good company with his assessment. Such sentiments are rife in the critical essays and articles of the first third of the nineteenth century. A decade earlier, Aleksandr Bestuzhev had declared that, “we have a criticism but no literature” (Leighton, Romantic Criticism 67). Several years before that, Pyotr Vyazemsky voiced a similar opinion in his article on Pushkin’s Captive of the Caucasus : “A Russian language exists, but a literature, the worthy expression of a mighty and virile people, does not yet exist!” (Leighton, Romantic Criticism 48). These histrionic claims are evidence of Russian intellectuals’ growing apprehension that there was nothing Russian about the literature produced in Russia. There was a prevailing belief that
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Dostoevsky's View of the Russian Soul and Its Impact on the Russian Question in the Brothers Karamazov Paul C. Schlau
    ABSTRACT Dostoevsky’s View of the Russian Soul and its Impact on the Russian Question in The Brothers Karamazov Paul C. Schlaudraff Director: Adrienne M. Harris, Ph.D Fyodor Dostoevsky, one of Russia’s most renowned novelists, profoundly affected the way that Russia would think of itself in the years following his death. One of the most important issues for Dostoevsky and other authors at the time was the reconciliation of the peasant and noble classes in the aftermath of the serf emancipation in Russia. Dostoevsky believed that the solution to this issue would come from the Russian peasantry. My research investigates Dostoevsky’s view of the “Russian soul”, which is the particular set of innate characteristics which distinguishes Russians from other nationalities. Furthermore, it examines how Dostoevsky’s view of the Russian soul affected his answer to the question of Russia’s ultimate destiny. During the 19th century, socialism was an especially popular answer to that question. Dostoevsky, however, presented an entirely different solution. Through a thorough examination of Dostoevsky’s final novel, The Brothers Karamazov, my thesis demonstrates this alternative solution and its significance in light of competing Russian theory during the 19th century. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS ______________________________________________________ Dr. Adrienne M. Harris, Department of Modern Languages APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: ______________________________________________ Dr. Andrew Wisely, Director DATE: ________________________ DOSTOEVSKY’S VIEW OF THE RUSSIAN SOUL AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RUSSIAN QUESTION IN THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Paul C.
    [Show full text]
  • Poetry and Psychiatry
    POETRY AND PSYCHIATRY Essays on Early Twentieth-Century Russian Symbolist Culture S t u d i e S i n S l av i c a n d R u ss i a n l i t e R at u R e S , c u lt u R e S , a n d H i S to Ry Series Editor: Lazar FLeishman (Stanford University) POETRY a n d PSYCHIATRY Essays on Early Twentieth-Century Russian Symbolist Culture Magnus L junggren Translated by Charles rougle Boston / 2014 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: A bibliographic record for this title is available from the Library of Congress. Copyright © 2014 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-61811-350-4 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-61811-361-0 (electronic) ISBN 978-1-61811-369-6 (paper) Book design by Ivan Grave On the cover: Sergey Solovyov and Andrey Bely, 1904. Published by Academic Studies Press in 2014 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com Effective December 12th, 2017, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. The open access publication of this volume is made possible by: This open access publication is part of a project supported by The Andrew W.
    [Show full text]
  • “Neo Romantic Period” in the Soviet Literary Research of the 1960-1980S
    ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 5 S2 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy September 2015 Debate Background on the “Neo Romantic Period” in the Soviet Literary Research of the 1960-1980s Kirill Nikolaevich Ankudinov Uchuzhuk Maskhudovich Panesh Kutas Nukhovna Paranuk Galina Viktorovna Sokolova Federal State Budget Institution of Higher Professional Education «Adyghe State University» (ASU), 385000 Maikop, street Pervomayskaya, 208, Russian Federation; Email: [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n5s2p191 Abstract The article is a local research related to the solution of the general theoretical literary issue: whether Romanticism is beyond Romanticism boundaries as a certain historical trend. The article reveals the methodology of solving this problem that combines the achievements of ‘sociological’ and ‘formal’ national schools of literary research, as well as uses the method of philosophical metahermeneutics. In addition, the article provides a panorama of methodological approaches to the discussion of the Romanticism problem in foreign literary research. The bulk of the article examines the controversy in the Soviet literary research of the 60-80s in the 20th century about the possible existence of ‘new Romanticism’ in the initial method of ‘socialist realism’. This controversy has revealed two opposite approaches to the issue of ‘Romanticism post Romanticism’. The first approach expressed in the statements of G. Pospelov, V. Vanslov N. Gulyaev, E. Maymin (et al.) categorically denied ‘Romanticism post Romanticism’ as “Romanticism had already existed before”. The second approach, represented by A. Kireyeva, A. Ovcharenko, U. R. Focht, on the contrary, suggested the possibility (and even the regularity) of this phenomenon in the Soviet art.
    [Show full text]
  • Phd Dissertation Full
    UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Invention of Russia in America, 1880-1920 Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9h04h57r Author Dobrushin, Maxim Publication Date 2018 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ THE INVENTION OF RUSSIA IN AMERICA, 1880-1920 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in LITERATURE by Maxim Dobrushin December 2018 The Dissertation of Maxim Dobrushin is approved: Professor Susan Gillman, Chair Professor Kirsten Gruesz Professor Tyrus Miller Professor Steven Cassedy Lori Kletzer Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Maxim Dobrushin 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….iv Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………..…..vi Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter One A Climate of Flexibility: Russian Translation Philosophy and Practice in the Nineteenth-Century U.S………33 Chapter Two America’s “Immaturity”: Russian Aesthetic “Truth” in the U.S.…………………………………..…………...84 Chapter Three Narratives of Failure: The Politics of Realism in the U.S. Novel………………………………………….123 Bibliography…………………………………………………………….....…….…161 iii ABSTRACT The Invention of Russia in America, 1880-1920 Maxim Dobrushin The Invention of Russia in America aims to breaks new ground by exploring an international phenomenon that was well-known in the nineteenth century but has since become an under-studied moment in U.S. literature and culture: the rise of Russian culture and politics at a time when the U.S. was considering new methods of literary representation, art-criticism, and language.
    [Show full text]
  • Fyodor Dostoevsky
    The Double Fyodor Dostoevsky Translated by Hugh Aplin ALMA CLASSICS AlmA ClAssiCs ltd London House 243-253 Lower Mortlake Road Richmond Surrey tw9 2ll United Kingdom www.almaclassics.com The Double first published in Russian in 1846 This translation first published by Hesperus Press Ltd in 2004 This new, revised edition first published by Alma Classics Ltd in 2012 Translation and Introduction © Hugh Aplin, 2004, 2012 Extra Material © Alma Classics Ltd Cover image © Catriona Gray Printed in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, Cr0 4yy isbn: 978-1-84749-301-9 All the pictures in this volume are reprinted with permission or pre sumed to be in the public domain. Every effort has been made to ascertain and acknowledge their copyright status, but should there have been any unwitting oversight on our part, we would be happy to rectify the error in subsequent printings. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other- wise), without the prior written permission of the publisher. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be resold, lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the express prior consent of the publisher. Contents Introduction ix The Double 1 Notes 181 Extra Material 183 Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Life 185 Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Works 197 Select Bibliography 208 Introduction The Double was Fyodor Dostoevsky’s second published work, appearing in the journal Notes of the Fatherland in February 1846, hot on the heels of the rapturously received Poor People.
    [Show full text]
  • “Superfluous Man” in Russian Literature by Christopher Henry
    The Redemption of the “Superfluous Man” in Russian Literature By Christopher Henry Carr B.B.A. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1998 M.A. Middlebury College, 2004 M.A. Brown University, 2012 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Slavic Studies at Brown University PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND May 2016 © Copyright 2016 by Christopher Henry Carr This dissertation by Christopher Henry Carr is accepted in its present form by the Department of Slavic Studies as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date_____________ _________________________________ Vladimir Golstein, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date_____________ _________________________________ Svetlana Evdokimova, Reader Date_____________ _________________________________ Alexander Levitsky, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date_____________ _________________________________ Peter M. Weber, Dean of the Graduate School iii VITA Christopher Henry Carr was born in Jackson Heights, New York in 1976. He received a B.B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1998, an M.A. in Russian from Middlebury College in 2004, an M.A. in Slavic Studies from Brown University in 2012, and a Ph.D. in Slavic Studies from Brown University in 2016. Prior to his doctoral studies, Christopher taught English composition and literature several colleges in New York City. During his time at Brown, he has taught the Russian language, served as a teaching assistant for Russian literature courses, and has taught writing courses at Providence College and in Brown’s summer pre-college program. Within the Department of Slavic Studies at Brown, Christopher has co-organized graduate student conferences and colloquia, one of which was funded by a grant from Brown’s Office of International Studies in 2010-11.
    [Show full text]
  • Anna Karenina Illustrated
    Anna Karenina Illustrated: Russian and Soviet Illustrated Editions of the Novel, 1878-1982 By Timothy R. Ormond A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Toronto © Copyright of Timothy R. Ormond 2013 ABSTRACT Anna Karenina Illustrated: Russian and Soviet Illustrated Editions of the Novel, 1878-1982 PhD 2013 Timothy Richard Ormond Graduate Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Toronto This dissertation discusses illustrations of Anna Karenina created in Russia and the USSR in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It first considers Mikhail Vrubel’s illustration from 1878 and then examines four illustrated editions published in in 1914, 1933, 1953 and 1982. It accomplishes the following: it attends to the lack of attention illustration receives, generally in literary studies, but especially in Russian; it fills in a part of the history of publication practices in Russia and the USSR, as it pertained to illustration; it describes the intended audience for these works; and it offers close readings of the artists’ illustrations, thereby demonstrating the changing reception of Tolstoy’s novel over time. Vrubel’s illustration confronts the treatment of the heroine and marks the beginning of his life-long dislike for Tolstoy. The illustrations of Shcheglov, Korin and Moravov in the 1914 Sytin & Co. edition aided in reading comprehension, suggesting that the intended audience were readers who were new to Tolstoy. Since most of the illustrations were commissioned during the Soviet period, they reveal a great deal about how that regime intervened in the reception of Anna Karenina and its author.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of NG Chernyshevsky and FM Dostoevsky
    Volume 46 Number 4 Article 2 June 2018 What is to be Done with the Underground Man: A Comparison of N.G. Chernyshevsky and F.M. Dostoevsky Mark McCarthy Dordt College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege Part of the Christianity Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation McCarthy, Mark (2018) "What is to be Done with the Underground Man: A Comparison of N.G. Chernyshevsky and F.M. Dostoevsky," Pro Rege: Vol. 46: No. 4, 15 - 24. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol46/iss4/2 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Is To Be Done With the Underground Man: A Comparison of N.G. Chernyshevsky and F.M. Dostoevsky Russian society. Literary scholar Joseph Frank has gone so far as to claim that no other work in mod- ern times has so profoundly affected human lives and history. Vladimir Lenin, among many others, acknowledged the major role this work played in the formation of his thought (The Stirs of Liberation, 285). The novel’s appeal for Russian readers is clear. In it, Chernyshevsky provides simple solutions to prob- lems facing the rising class of raznochintsy, couched in a facade of scientific certainty.2 He also merges Western European theories with traditional Russian cultural ideas, such as one might find in the Russian by Mark McCarthy Orthodox Church.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    CHAPTER 1 Introduction The last ten years of Dostoevsky’s life, the subject of the present vol- ume, mark the end of an extraordinary literary career and of a life that touched both the heights and depths of Russian society. It became cus- tomary during these years, even among people who disagreed (and sometimes quite violently) with Dostoevsky on social-political issues, to regard him with a certain reverence, and to feel that his words incar- nated a prophetic vision illuminating Russia and its destiny. One of his favorite poems, which he often read aloud, was Pushkin’s powerfully evocative “The Prophet”; and each time he did so, his mesmerized lis- teners invariably felt that he was assuming this function himself. The unprecedented stature he attained astonished even his friends and ad- mirers, and transcended all personal and political boundaries. In the eyes of the vast majority of the literate public, he became a living sym- bol of all the suffering that history had imposed on the Russian people, as well as of all their longing for an ideal world of (Christian) brotherly love and harmony. A number of factors contributed to the unique status that Dostoevsky enjoyed during the s. His now little-read Diary of a Writer, a monthly periodical written entirely by himself for two years, com- mented on the passing scene with passion, verve, and eloquence, and also included literary reminiscences, short stories, and sketches. This personal periodical was an enormous success, reaching a larger audi- ence than any previous journal of comparable intellectual seriousness; and although many of its ideas do not represent Dostoevsky at his best, they elicited a wide response that made him the most important public voice of the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Strike Out, Right and Left!
    http://www.diva-portal.org This is the published version of a paper published in Studies in East European thought. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Petrov, K. (2019) ‘Strike out, right and left!’: a conceptual-historical analysis of 1860s Russian nihilism and its notion of negation Studies in East European thought https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-71746 Studies in East European Thought https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-019-09319-4 ‘Strike out, right and left!’: a conceptual‑historical analysis of 1860s Russian nihilism and its notion of negation Kristian Petrov1 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract The aim of this essay is to synthesize as well as to analyze the conceptual evolu- tion of 1860s Russian nihilism in general and its notion of negation in particular. The fctitious characters that traditionally have been informing the popular notion of “Russian nihilism” mainly refer to an antinihilistic genre. By analyzing nihilism also on the basis of primary sources, the antinihilistic notion of nihilism is nuanced, ena- bling a more comprehensive analysis of the movement’s diferent aspects.
    [Show full text]