Originally Posted by
Truthlover
What stuck in my mind more than anything else was the Prince's statement: "In the end beauty will save us."
In Ch 33, Lebedeff says:
Is it true, prince, that you once declared that 'beauty would save the world'? Great Heaven! The prince says that beauty saves the world! And I declare that he only has such playful ideas because he's in love! Gentlemen, the prince is in love. I guessed it the moment he came in. Don't blush, prince; you make me sorry for you. What beauty saves the world? Colia told me that you are a zealous Christian; is it so? Colia says you call yourself a Christian."
The prince regarded him attentively, but said nothing.
In Ch 38, the prince reads the third letter from 'that poor, "sinful" woman', Nastasya Filippovna, to Aglaya:
"Why do I wish to unite you two? For your sakes or my own? For my own sake, naturally. All the problems of my life would thus be solved; I have thought so for a long time. I know that once when your sister Adelaida saw my portrait she said that such beauty could overthrow the world. But I have renounced the world. You think it strange that I should say so, for you saw me decked with lace and diamonds, in the company of drunkards and wastrels. Take no notice of that; I know that I have almost ceased to exist. God knows what it is dwelling within me now--it is not myself. I can see it every day in two dreadful eyes which are always looking at me, even when not present. These eyes are silent now, they say nothing; but I know their secret. His house is gloomy, and there is a secret in it. I am convinced that in some box he has a razor hidden, tied round with silk, just like the one that Moscow murderer had. This man also lived with his mother, and had a razor hidden away, tied round with white silk, and with this razor he intended to cut a throat.
-------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by
Truthlover
I am not saying love affairs cannot be the main attraction in great literature ... No, it has nothing to do with "what" the author is talking about, in the sense of what the story is about. Rather, it has to do with the message the author is trying to convey, using the vehicle of the particular story he is narrating.
Yes. The Idiot centres around Prince Myhskin's attraction to the 'beauty' of Nastasya Filippovna and Aglaya. Superficially, this seems like romance, but the 'beauty' that attracts the prince is much more than skin deep - infinitely more.
Originally Posted by
Truthlover
At the same time, even though Dostoyevsky is writing in the third quarter of the 19th century, what elements can be considered "romantic" in his works, even if not related to the Romantics, strictly speaking, fifty years before him?
Here are the simplest definitions of 19th century Romanticism, I can find:
In literature, a style that emphasizes the imagination, emotions, and creativity of the individual artist.
In the purest form, the Romantic movement elevated imagination above realism. It sought to convey the thoughts and emotions behind a work.
As the industrial revolution began, people and nature were objectified, and reduced to commodity status. This was regarded as undesirable and leading to the degradation of humans. According to the Romantics, the solution was “back to nature” because nature was seen as pure and a spiritual source of renewal.
The Romantic Movement literature characterized by any emphasis on emotion, passion and the natural world.
Having just read Scott's Rob Roy and Shelley's Frankenstein, I can readily recognise these features, whereas The Idiot seems dominated by an ethical, or even a religious, focus: a profound beauty in the human spirit.
Reply With Quote