Dostoevsky wrote in a letter to Apollon Maykov (poet and friend) that his idea with The Idiot was to create a "positively beautiful man." In another letter to his niece -- Sofya Ivanova -- he further writes:

"The main idea of the novel is to portray a positively beautiful man. There is nothing more difficult in the world and especially now. All writers, not only ours, but even all European writes, who have merely attempted to portray the positively beautiful, have always given up. Because the task is immeasurable. The beautiful is an ideal, but this ideal, whether ours or that of Civilized Europe, is still far from being worked out. There is only one perfectly beautiful person - Christ - so that the appearance of this immeasurably, infinitely beautiful person is, of course, already an infinite miracle."

This is why he thought he would fail writing this novel. His main idea was to portray that "positively beautiful man" - i.e someone Christ-like - in Myshkin. He isn't an idiot, really. He knows what he is doing, but he doesn't even acknowledge that he is being taken advantage of. Not because he is an idiot: he simply doesn't care and chooses to believe in people. In Norwegian we have a word for it: dumsnill. Its literal translation would be "stupid-kind." I suppose that would be a fairly good translation for this book if we were to translate it into my dialect and not only Norwegian, where "Idioten" (The Idiot) suffices.

Dostoevsky got the idea of this from Holbein's Christ Taken Down from the Cross. Nikolai Karamzin wrote of the picture: "[...] One doesn't see anything of God. As a dead man he is portrayed quite naturally." These words presumably had a strong impact on Dostoevsky, and he later saw the picture in Basel. His wife wrote of the visit:

"On the way to Geneva we stopped for a day in Basel, with the purpose of seeing a painting in the museum there that my husband had heard about from someone.

This painting, from the brush of Hans Holbein, portrays Jesus Christ, who has suffered inhuman torture, has been taken down from the cross and given over to corruption. His swollen face is covered with bloody wounds, and he looks terrible. The painting made an overwhelming impression on my husband, and he stood before it as if dumbstruck…

When I returned some fifteen or twenty minutes later, I found my husband still standing in front of the painting as if riveted to it. There was in his agitated face that expression as of fright which I had seen more than once in the first moments of an epileptic fit. I quietly took him under the arm, brought him to another room, and sat him down on a bench, expecting a fit to come at any moment. Fortunately that did not happen."

The whole point of this novel is to ask the quesion: What if Christ was merely a man? The idea is to show a saintly "idiot" clashing with a society that does not appreciate Christ-like qualities. What if Christ were not the incarnate God but simply a "moral genius" -- a positively beautiful man? The title is ironic because he is no idiot: he is only deemed an idiot because he meets a society that is idiotic.


Holbein's painting.

Το διάβασμα του (χαοτικού και γεμάτου αντι-ήρωες) Ηλίθιου είναι σαν κατάδυση σε σκοτεινή θάλασσα, όπου κολυμπάς χωρίς να ξέρεις αν κατευθύνεσαι προς τον βυθό η την επιφάνεια. Κι ενώ το 'χεις πάρει απόφαση ότι (σ' αυτόν τον χωρίς καμία καλοσύνη και δυνατότητα ευτυχίας ωκεανό του μυθιστορήματος) τα πνευμόνια σου θα σπάσουν, η απέλπιδα (βασισμένη σε μια ντοστογιεφσκιανή ερμηνεία του χριστιανισμού) άδολη τρυφερότητα του Πρίγκιπα Λεβ Νικολάγεβιτς Μίσκιν σε τραβάει στην επιφάνεια και (παρά το σκοτεινό τέλος) σου κάνει δώρο τη σύλληψη ενός (σωτηριακού αλλά πάντως) απόλυτου καλού, πάνω στην οποία θα αναστοχάζεσαι για το υπόλοιπο της ζωής σου και η οποία θα σε κάνει να ξαναγυρνάς στο βιβλίο de temps en temps.

ابله کیست؟! (بیست نمره)

چند کتابفروشی هست که بطور مرتب بهشون سر می‌زنم. دیشب که برای چندمین بار، داشتم کتابهای داخل قفسه رو به امید باطلِ شکار قیمت قدیم زیر و رو می‌کردم یک خانم و آقای نسبتاً میانسال دقیق و مستقیم سراغ قفسه ادبیات روسیه رفتند. برای من که حتی در مواقعی که با هدف مشخصی وارد کتابفروشی می‌شم هم معلوم نیست با چه کتابی خارج می‌شم این گروه کمی عجیب و جالب‌اند. پس با دقت بیشتری گفتگوی بین اونها رو دنبال کردم.

- خانم ببخشید، میدونید کدوم ترجمه ابله کیفیت بهتری داره؟
+ قطعا و بدون شک سروش حبیبی!
- قیمتش چقدره؟
- هفتصد و پنجاه.

بدون تردید و معطلی با کتاب راهی صندوق شدند و رفتند.
بلافاصله بعد از خروج خانم و آقای خریدار گفتگوی مضحکی بین دو راهنمای بخش کتاب رخ داد:

- واقعا کیا میان بابت ابله داستایفسکی هفتصد و پنجاه پول میدن؟ چیزیشون نیست؟
+ خب معلومه دیگه، ابلهن!
- آره واقعا، خیلی بیخوده، هیچ خوشم نیومد، از جنایت و مکافاش هم خوشم نیومد.
(از ادا و شکلک هاشون فاکتور گرفتم، خودتون تصور کنید.)

واقعاً با خوندن چهار کتاب چه بلایی به سر بعضیا میاد که فاز روشنفکری می‌گیرن و فکر می‌کنن شاخ فیل رو شکستن؟

خریدار دنبال کتاب قیمت قدیم باشه حرف میخوره، به چاپ جدید یک کتاب چیزی نزدیک به یک میلیون هم پول میده اون هم بدون هیچ اعتراض و چانه بازهم ابله خطاب می‌شه!

اینکه داخل یکی از کتابفروشی های محبوبم این نمایش سراسر مضحک و دردناک رو دیدم خیلی ناراحتم کرد. اونها نبودن تا پاسخ درخور این حرکت رو بدن، کاش من وجود مقابله با این حرکت رو داشتم که ندارم و صد حیف.

کتاب مطلقا شرط کافی برای بهبود فرهنگ و ادب نیست، منتها لازمه‌اش هست.
باشد که رستگار شویم.

هشت اردیبهشت صفرسه

Wow this was a triiiiip. Officially down the Dostoevsky rabbit hole, see you all when I (maybe) climb out in 2021.

On rereading Dostoyevsky:

There is really no other author that can compare with him. At times wonderfully wicked and funny, other times inexpressibly tragic, sometimes breaking the fourth wall and sometimes giving us so much deep psychological relevance and inner turmoil that we ourselves need to find a sanitorium to recover, his writing is all things and none.

The Idiot happens to be my third favorite novel by him. It is wildly different from Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, having a much lighter, funnier tone than either, but it also exemplifies the truism that bad choices are the soul of great stories.

Our idiot is, by and large, the only true innocent in the tale, beholden to always loving the truth way beyond tact, insanely lucky as only a Fool can be, and as loving of others as only a child can be.

Russia is not equal to him. Indeed, practically everyone is won over by him in equal measure to how much they want to destroy him. Consequently, we have wild soap-opera levels of undying loyalty, protestations, tragedies, and love stories that will rip your heart out and stamp it all over your hamster.

Hamster? Oh yes, hamster. And let us not forget how many monks were eaten in this novel.

I should mention that this is also one of the greats of truly quirky literature, too. :) I still think of it as a fantastic comedy EVEN IF it is one of the greats of utter tragedy. I still can't make up my mind about it. Indeed, I may never be able to.


What a fantastic treat this is! A definite classic of literature. Of course, it is Dostoyevsky. He's in a class of his own.

What is the difference between simplicity and being an idiot? In different ways, this question is asked over and over again over the course of this book. And can an honest man survive in society - to be precise, Russian society in the 19th century.

Note: The rest of this review has been withdrawn due to the recent changes in Goodreads policy and enforcement. You can read why I came to this decision here.

In the meantime, you can read the entire review at Smorgasbook

The worst cover art I have seen on a book. The title is misleading, the main character is not stupid. The writing reminded me of Charles Dickens.

فرقی بین "احمق"، "ابله" و "نادان" وجود داره که فقط اگر کسی فصل ( در ستایش حماقت) رو توی کتاب ( از کتاب رهایی نداریم ) خونده باشه، اونو میدونه =)))

ليس أصدق و لا أبسط من أمثلة الشعوب و أغنياتهم الشعبية في تصوير أحوال الناس و مشاعرهم الإنسانية على وجه الحقيقة بلا تجميل أو غش.
و قد قيل "الطيب في الزمان ده يقولوا عليه ضعيف" بل يقولون أيضا عبيط و أهبل أي أبله.
"أصل فلان راجل طيب و على نياته" أو كما قالت المطربة إياها "حبيبي على نياته. كل البنات اخواته" و هو أمر لو تعلمون عظيم.

أميرنا هنا ليس طفلا و لا أبله بل رجلا له قلب طفل و ما أدراك ما قلب الطفل. عندما أسأل ابني الصغير ذو الأعوام السبعه: هو انت موجود يا عاصم؟ يرد ببراءة و قد لمعت عيناه: أيوه موجود يا بابا. فأقول مازحا: و ايه اللي يثبت انك موجود؟ يرفع يده أمام عينه و ينظر إليها متأملا ثم ينظر لي و يقول: أهوه موجود أهوه حتى شوف.
لا يخطر ببال الأطفال أننا نداعبهم و نلاعبهم بل و نسخر منهم أحيانا فلماذا؟ هل يجبل الإنسان على الخير أم يجبل على الشر؟ هل نولد صفحات بيضاء تلوثها نقاط الحبر أو تلونها و تزخرفها؟! أم يولد كل منا و لديه بذرة مخبوءة في قرارة نفس مطمئنة أو نفس لوامة أو نفس أمارة بالسوء أو بخليط من كلٍ.

بطلنا الأمير ميشكين هو هنا هذا الطفل قلبا و روحا الرجل جسما و عقلا و علما. كلؤلؤة عاشت في المحار في ظلمات البحر أعواما عديدة فلما خرجت من البحار و ألقيت في التجربة و تلقفتها أيدي الناس أبهرتهم بضوئها و جمالها فصار كل ما عداها قبيحا و كل ما بجوارها زينة لها.
رجل لم تلوثه الخطيئة البشرية الممتدة من المهد إلى اللحد و لم تتملكه الأهواء و ما ملكها و لا عرفها. هذا هو الأبله يا سادة. هو الفارس الذي لم يخض حربا من قبل و لا امتطى جوادا.

أما ناستاسيا فيلبوفنا فهي الأيقونة الخالدة للخطيئة التائبة و لكنها توبة من نوع خاص. توبة إبليسية ملائكية في ذات الوقت. تسعى لتلوث نفسها أكثر فأكثر لكي تطهر هذا العالم من الدنس. تحمل طموحاتها السيزيفية التي تصعد بها إلى قمة الجبل كل يوم قاطعة نفس المسافة في نفس الإتجاه بلا أمل في الوصول و لكن يكفيها أن يراها الناس متمرغة في الخطية.

أما أجلايا ايفانوفنا فهو النقيض من ناستاسيا فيلبوفنا أو هي الوجه الأخر للجمال المهان. هي الجمال المصان من كل سوء. هي التي نشأت في الحلية و ولدت في النعيم و مهد لها الطريق لتتنقل من هذا النعيم إلى نعيم مقيم. و كأنه يصور لنا طريقين للجمال كل حسب قدره و بيئته و ظروف مجتمعه.

رواية مجنونة مجنونة مجنونة رغم كل ما بها من مط و تطويل لا مكان له في نسيج الرواية و لا موضوعها إلا أنه مع الرائع ديستوفسكي تطويل جميل نتقبله منه بكل سرور.

تجد إقتباسات الجزء الأول من الرواية  هنا
تجد إقتباسات الجزء الثاني من الرواية  هنا

“I am a fool with a heart but no brains, and you are a fool with brains but no heart; and we’re both unhappy, and we both suffer.”



I've read Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Idiot several times, but this is the first time I've attempted a review. From Prince Myshkin's first appearance in a cold train traveling to St. Petersburg, it feels we are in a different world, one driven by obsession, sickness and suffering. I don't believe this is the most well written of Dostoevsky's works, but as an experiment on whether it is possible to live a noble life in such a world, it has always intrigued me. When I was an undergrad, I did an honor's thesis on suffering in Dostoevsky's work and The Idiot and Notes from Underground both featured prominently. While I'm intrigued by Myshkin's character, I'm also fascinated by other characters in this novel like Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna.

Now that I've started, I feel like I have a lot more to say, but I'll save that for another time. Decent writing, great book!

“It was all quite natural, human beings are created in order to torment one another.”

“The Russian soul is a dark place.”

А вие знаете ли що е то идиот? Срещали ли сте идиоти в живота си? У нас думата „идиот“ е особено широко понятие и се прилага щедро по отношение на хора, които най-общо не са съгласни с вас или по ваше мнение са извършили въпиеща глупост. Според „Речник на дявола“ на Амброуз Биърс идиотът е „член на голямо и мощно племе, чиято роля в човешките дела винаги е била господстваща и ръководна“. В българския Наказателен кодекс пък е заложена като цяло хуманната идея на законодателя, че идиотията, сиреч най-високата степен на невменяемост, е предпоставка за освобождаване от наказателна отговорност. Защо пиша всички тези несвързани неща ли? Защото „идиотът“ на Достоевски е един малко по-особен вид.

Не си спомням да съм чела роман от руски автор, в който персонажите да не изпадат в крайни изстъпления и речта им да не е претенциозна и изпълнена с полулични размишления, полуобръщения към събеседника, поради което цялото повествование добива един леко фантастичен характер. Приковава погледа тази хипнотизираща динамика и ви се струва, че всъщност пред вас се разиграва някакъв спектакъл с очарователните леко преекспонирани театрални маниери, характерни за това изкуство. В произведенията на Достоевски има допълнително насищане поради това, че основните му персонажи винаги стоят на ръба на някоя бездънна лична пропаст и въпросът никога не е „Дали?“, а „Кога?“.

„Аз не съм съгласен и даже се възмущавам, когато някои ви наричат идиот; вие сте твърде умен, за да ви наричат така; но съгласете се сам, че сте толкова странен, че се различавате от всички хора.“
Князът светец Мишкин е опитът на Достоевски да създаде образа на „напълно прекрасния човек“. Прекрасният човек, който може да бъде такъв, само ако е „малко смешен“, също като Дон Кихот, и сам не вижда чистотата си. „Той би сметнал за нещо чудовищно възможността да бъде обичан „такъв човек като него“. Идиот е Мишкин и всички му повтарят това, не толкова поради епилептичните припадъци, които уж от малък са го оставили почти без разсъдък, а защото „не лъжете на всяка крачка, а може би и съвсем“. Не пропускат да покажат изменчивата си човешка природа и хората, които искрено се възхищават от княза и дори го „обичат“. (Друга странност на руската литература за мен – всички или „обичат“ някого, или „не го обичат“, или може би го „презират“. Като че русите не са способни на по-умерени чувства от тези две крайности. Може би това е някаква част от онази необятна руска душа, която още никак не мога да разбера). Сякаш някак се бояха от това негово така неподправено добродушие и искреност, като от някаква причудлива стихия се бояха, която може да ги глътне и обезличи. Как да не те е страх от нещо толкова непонятно и да не се опитваш да го омаловажиш, потъпчеш дори, че да се предпазиш?

„... аз ви смятам за най-честния и най-справедливия човек, по-честен и по-справедлив от всички, и ако казват за вас, че вашият ум… тоест, че понякога вие сте болен умствено, това не е справедливо; аз се убедих в това и спорех с другите, защото макар че сте наистина болен умствено… главният ви ум е по-развит, отколкото у всички тях, до такава степен дори, че те и представа нямат“.

В „Идиот“ Достоевски се нагърбва да опише не само пътя на своя „княз Христос“, но и отношенията в следреформена Русия в средата на XIX век. Особено се интересува от съдебната реформа на Александър II, която напълно изменя съдебната система в Русия и въвежда принципи като свободната адвокатура и съдебните заседатели – тема, която е доста застъпена и в n  „Братя Карамазови“n, най-вече в процеса срещу Митя. Неведнъж се споменава и „женският въпрос“ и последвалото колебание на жените дали социалната роля, която са изпълнявали досега, е достатъчна. Като цяло Достоевски винаги развива персонажите си не някак отвлечено от историческия контекст, а ги представя като продукт и продължение на увличащите социални течения и в контраст с реакционните възгледи. Особено остро парва сарказмът му по повод на „оригиналниченето“ и типичния и до днес възглед на човека, че за да успееш в живота, трябва да си колкото се може по-конформистки настроен. Като всички останали в стадото. Всъщност Достоевски често пришива обръщението „идиот“ към княз Мишкин, но позицията му не оставя съмнение кои са всъщност истинските идиоти в романа.

„Ще се намери ли например майка, която нежно обича детето си, да не се изплаши и разболее от страх, ако синът или дъщеря ѝ малко излезе от релсите? „Не, никаква оригиналност, нека по-добре бъде щастливо и живее в охолство“ — мисли всяка майка, когато приспива детето си.“
„… известна умствена тъпота е като че ли почти необходимо качество ако не за всеки делови човек, то поне за всеки, който сериозно се е заел да трупа пари.“

Не ми се ще да нищя сложните характери на Рогожин, Настасия Филиповна или Аглая и отношенията им с Мишкин. У всеки от тях има повече и по-малко безумие, къде от страст, къде от унизено чувство за достойнство или пък просто от младост. Достоевски не дава оценки. Просто описва и наблюдава тези деца на тогавашното общество, които имат по един невидим клуп от човешки слабости около шията и той ги души ли, души. Наблюдава ги и Мишкин и страда за тях и заедно с тях по толкова човешки начин.

THE IDIOT: THE JOURNEY FROM RESURRECTION TO CRUCIFIXION

I am selective in reading novels, particularly long ones, and I dither to dip my head into middling ones even if they offer some interesting perspectives on life, history or storytelling. I was wary when started reading The Idiot , since the drama spans over 660 pages. Having read the work, my feeling is –Give me another 600 pages of this signature! The Idiot has made deep imprint in my psyche and I am sure it is going to stay with me forever. I may even consider a re-read!

If the primary purpose of literature is entertainment spliced with enlightenment, then The Idiot is a spectacular success. Its plot is thick with events, the characters exhibit extremes of unpredictability in behavior and emotions, the events are engrossing and many passages have rare lyrical intensity , intellectual insight and psychological depth. Unlike Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamzov (the only other two novels that I have read), pontificating passages (common in many Russian novels) - eg: the letter of Ippolit and Prince Myshkin’s last debate during the party at the house - are kept to the bare minimum . The novel concentrates on events, situations, actions, moods, misunderstandings, accusations, whimsical outpourings, loneliness and untenable sympathies to engage the reader. Many fine novels end up in catastrophic denouement damaging the overall effectiveness. Surprisingly, The Idiot excels in its finale too. No wonder, this classic has achieved a rare stature of greatness in the realm of art.

Most of the central characters of this novel surface at the very beginning when Prince Lyov Nikolayevitch Myshkin returns to Petersburg from a Swiss clinic after a prolonged treatment for epilepsy. The train journey at the beginning introduces two important characters- Parfyon Semyonovitch Rogozhin (someone who stays till the end as a shadow of the Prince, a kind of doppelgänger) and Lebedyev – and soon we enter into the world of two major families of this novel- Epachin and Ivolgin - representing two ends of social strata. The prince soon makes acquaintance of the sole distant relative of him in the city - Lizaveta Prokofyevna, the wife of General Ivan Fyodorovitch , the head of Epachin family. His childlike candor and ‘inimitable idiocy’ soon charms all Epachins including the three daughters, Alexandra, Adelaida, and Aglaya, the latter being the youngest and the most beautiful. It is here he first encounters the portrait of the beautiful and mysterious lady Nastasya Filippovna Barashkov , the tumultuous character that occupies the center stage of this novel. Immediately following this, the Prince meets the chaotic Ivolgin Family: General Ardalion Alexandrovitch , the alcoholic father; Nina Alexandrovna , the gracious mother; the ambitious daughter Varvara Ardalionovna (Varya) ; the son Gavril Ardalionovitch (Ganya) who later rivals the Prince and Kolya , the younger brother of Ganya, the ever ready errant boy of everyone who soon becomes the Prince’s confidante.

The greatness of Dostoevsky lies in his imponderable capacity to delve into the depth of all the above characters exposing their goodness and weakness. In a novel of this magnitude, it is quite possible that a modern day author knowingly or unknowingly sidelines some of the characters or sketch a shallow portrayal of them; but not in the case of Dostoevsky. The overall architecture of the novel is also robust and there are signal sentences embedded in the beginning that foreshadows the finale. The reader wonders about the mysterious absence of a central character of this novel for more than 300 pages and yet at the end, everything falls in place in its grand scheme.

Everyone that the Prince meets is disarmed with his simplicity, open manners, and for a brief time at least he does manage to bring out some goodness even in the worst of them. He is identified as a "holy fool" by Rogozhin early in the novel. He is loved by almost all characters in this novel, but no one wants to own him. Both Aglaya , the fiancée of Prince, and her mother Lizaveta Prokofyevna are in eternal vacillation whether the Prince would make a good husband. As a character openly confronts him in the novel, My dear Prince, paradise on earth is not easily achieved; but all the same you are counting on paradise in a way; paradise is a difficult thing, Prince, much more difficult than it seems to your wonderful heart..

One cannot help noticing a Christ-like quality in everything that Prince does or speaks. Perhaps one scene in the novel that nakedly showcases the Prince's nature happens immediately after the Prince undergoes the first epileptic seizure after his return. The prince, still recuperating from it, is being visited by the whole Epachin family, when suddenly into this cheerful and elegant though inwardly tense circle burst the fashionable young revolutionaries and nihilists which include the garrulous Ippolit , the ostensible "son of Pavlishchev ", Keller the "boxer". They accuse the Prince that he acted like avaricious man in grabbing a fortune left to him by Pavlishchev , the late benefactor of Prince Myshkin , without sharing it with the ‘so called’ legitimate ones (Ganya proves later that they non-existent) . This is a disagreeable, repulsive and disquieting scene where these misguided young people mercilessly and nakedly inflicts a double pain upon the good Myshkin. The Prince, unaided, stands exposed, critically observed by the entire members of Epachin family and most of the Ivolgin family. And how does the situation end? It ends with Myshkin, despite the minor mistakes he makes during the excitement, behaving exactly according to his kind, gentle, childlike nature, accepting smilingly the unbearable, answering selflessly the most shameless speeches, willing to assume every fault and to search for every fault in himself – and his complete failure in this with the result that he is despised, not by one side or the other, but by both! All turn against him, he has stepped on everyone's toes; for an instant the most extreme social opposites in age and point of view are completely wiped out, all are united and at one in turning their backs with indignation and rage on the single one among them who is pure!

Can a pure heart bring solace to this world? I won’t answer it as the readers are sure to find answer as they immerse in this one. Why does no one comprehend the Prince, even though almost all love him in some way, almost everyone finds his empathetic gentleness exemplary? What distinguishes him, the man of magic, from the others, the ordinary folks? Why are they right in snubbing him? Why must they do it, inexorably? Why must things go with him as they did with Jesus, who in the end was abandoned not only by the world but by all his disciples as well?

It is because the "idiot's" way of thinking is unlike others. Not that he thinks less logically or in a more childlike and associative way than they – that is not it. His way of thought is magical. This gentle "idiot" completely denies the life, the way of thought and feeling, the world and the reality of other people. His reality is something quite different from theirs. Their reality in his eyes is no more than a shadow, and it is by seeing and demanding a completely new reality that he becomes their enemy.

In an excellent introduction to this novel, superbly translated by the best known translator pair in the world of translations , Richard Pevear Larissa Volokhonsky , a letter written by Dostoevsky to his beloved niece Sofia Ivanova is cited :

The main idea of the novel is to portray a positively beautiful man. There is nothing more difficult in the world and especially now. All writers, not only ours, but even all European writers, who have merely attempted to portray the positively beautiful, have always given up. Because the task is immeasurable. The beautiful is an ideal, but this ideal, whether ours or that of civilized Europe, is still far from being worked out. There is only one perfectly beautiful person -Christ - so that the appearance of this immeasurably, infinitely beautiful person is, of course, already an infinite miracle

The Idiot is constructed out of two impossibilities-the impossibility of a novelistic portrayal of an epileptic living in tranquility and the impossibility of portrayal of a Christ like figure , and beyond that , the failure of that figure to transmute the world around him. I believe Dostoevsky has astonishingly succeeded in this attempt.