New page. Philosophy of the heart in the worldview of F.M. Dostoevsky and I.A. Ilyina

Here God and the Devil are fighting, and the battlefield is the hearts of people
(Novel “The Brothers Karamazov”)

“Russian liberalism is not an attack on the existing order of things, but is an attack on the very essence of our things, on the things themselves, and not on the order alone, not on the Russian order, but on Russia itself. My liberal has gone so far as to deny Russia itself, that is, he hates and beats his mother. Every unfortunate and unfortunate Russian fact excites laughter and almost delight in him. He hates folk customs, Russian history, everything. (...) There cannot be such a liberal anywhere, who would hate his own fatherland. How can we explain all this? By the same thing as before - by the fact that a Russian liberal is not yet a Russian liberal,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in his novel “The Idiot.”
And a peculiar embodiment of this liberal lackeyism, its extreme degree, is the character of another work of the writer... For some time now there have been people in Russia of a special type, who often believe that they are progressive and “new” due to their “advanced” ideas on how to quickly exterminate Russia and the Russian people in to please the enlightened West. Such gentlemen have a very “worthy” forerunner in our literature - Smerdyakov. “Can a Russian peasant have feelings against an educated person? Due to his lack of education, he cannot have any feeling” - such an attitude towards the people is nothing more than Smerdyakovism. Smerdyakovism is contempt and hatred for Russia, for everything Russian, denial of Russia’s right to its own development, its own thought, its own national identity. All these traits, to one degree or another, were and are now characteristic of Russian liberals. And the numerous lackeys in the guise of teachers and the newly-minted “nobility” look wild. The current “smerdyakovs” are educated and polished, unlike their predecessors, they are perfumed with expensive perfume, but even this is not able to cover up the stench emanating from them. And their essence remains unchanged at all times. “I wish the destruction of all soldiers, sir. In the year 12, there was a great invasion of Russia by Emperor Napoleon the First of France, the father of the present one, and it would be good if these same French had conquered us then: a smart nation would have conquered a very stupid one and annexed it to itself. There would even be completely different orders, sir.” It would be more democratic, more civilized! Yes, here is the eternal problem: the people are rubbish! It's getting in the way! “The Russian people must be flogged, sir!” And one famous liberal, a contemporary of Dostoevsky, once answered his opponent to the argument that “the people will not allow this”: “Then we will destroy the people!” Simple and clear. Smerdyakovism is the prevailing ideology of a large part of the liberal public. It boils down to one single confession: “I hate all of Russia!”
But where do the “smerdyakovs” come from? What do they grow from? Their minds are too small and undeveloped to invent their own ideas. Ideas, in a somewhat distorted form, they adopt from adulterers, crafty sages, arrogant wise men, who, with complete disbelief in anything, preach, depending on their mood, either God, or the devil, or liberalism, or socialism, contrasting his theories, the fruits of the human mind, with higher reason, replacing human judgment with God's justice. These people are the spiritual fathers of the “smerdyakovs”.
And this is exactly shown in the example of Ivan Karamazov. His personality is very contradictory, because it is split within itself, and, as we know, “a house that is split within itself cannot stand.” Ivan vehemently denies God, or rather, the world of God, but he, perhaps, thirsts for faith more than anyone else. His tragedy lies in his lack of faith, in the fact that his arrogant soul is unable to believe in anything, and is therefore doomed to eternal tossing and doubt. Ivan denounces the world so passionately, perhaps because he is thereby trying to justify himself. He seems to be offended by God because his world turns out to be not so fair, not what it should be in the understanding of Ivan Fedorovich. When he talks about his love for children, he is disingenuous. For if you truly love children, then you should have condescension and pity for adults. But Ivan doesn’t have this. And, crying out about the suffering of children, he himself will never alleviate it for an individual child. Therefore, his judgments, partly fair and convincing, are demagoguery. It is also remarkable that Ivan, like Svidrigailov, is planning to leave for America... He who has retreated from God ultimately surrenders himself into the hands of the devil. This is what happens with Ivan. And so, he, like another of Dostoevsky’s characters, Stavrogin, begins to believe... in a demon. Into the canonical demon! Because the latter appears to him... Ivan’s soul cannot bear his own declared principle: “Everything is permitted!” - who enthusiastically absorbs Smerdyakov and follows him. Although even the latter turns out to be too tough to follow this path: “They are executed for their deeds!”
The burden of permissiveness turns out to be beyond Ivan’s strength; it strains his mental and spiritual strength, leading to self-destruction. After all, Ivan is not Smerdyakov. Nobility and conscience are also alive in him. And after the murder of his father, he feels his involvement, although he tries to deny it at first: “Yes, I myself know that it was not I who killed...”. And he hears a crushing answer: “Do you know, sir? In that case, you killed!” This thought shocks Ivan Fedorovich, and he, this preacher of permissiveness, goes to court to confess to the murder and save such an unloved brother: “Take me! I killed! Let him go, you monsters!” This is a different Ivan. And, perhaps, having passed through the crucible of illness, his soul, which was in darkness, but suffered for the light, will still see this light...
And the guide to him may well be Ivan’s brother Alyosha, a pure heart for which God and the Devil are fighting. Alyosha is the son of the fornicator Fyodor Pavlovich and the beloved disciple of the righteous elder Zosima. And for him there can be no middle ground: either to be with God entirely, or to rebel. However, the elder chooses for him the most difficult test - a feat in the world, where the humble person will have to go through all possible trials. Ivan tries to make the first hole in Alyosha’s unbreakable faith. And their dispute is perhaps the most significant part of the novel, for here is a clash of two principles, the faith of the true and the evil theory, the pure soul and the proud mind.
It is noteworthy that at the beginning of the conversation Ivan admits:
“My brother, it’s not you I want to corrupt and move from your foundation, I might like to heal myself with you,” perhaps all the Karamazovs crave this healing of Alyosha, and not only them, they all reach out to him. Maybe because scoundrels always have a craving for cleanliness?”
Further, Ivan develops his idea:
“I have one confession to make to you - I could never understand how you can love your neighbors. In my opinion, it is impossible to love your neighbors, but perhaps only those who are distant. I read once and somewhere about “John the Merciful” (one saint), that when a hungry and frozen passer-by came to him and asked him to warm him, he lay down in bed with him, hugged him and began to breathe into him. his mouth festering and stinking from some terrible disease. I am convinced that he did this with anguish, with anguish of lies, because of the love ordered by duty, because of the penance he had brought upon himself. To love a person, you need him to hide, and as soon as he shows his face, love is gone. (...) In my opinion, Christ’s love for people is in its own way a miracle impossible on earth. True, he was a god. But we are not gods. Suppose I, for example, can suffer deeply, but another can never know to what extent I suffer, because he is another, not me, and moreover, rarely does a person agree to recognize another as a sufferer (as if this is a rank). Why won't he agree, do you think? Because, for example, I smell bad, that I have a stupid face, because I once crushed his leg. In addition, suffering and suffering: humiliating suffering that humiliates me, hunger, for example, my benefactor will still allow in me, but slightly higher suffering, for an idea, for example, no, he will allow this in rare cases, because he, for example, will look at me and suddenly see that I don’t have at all the face that, in his fantasy, a person suffering for such and such an idea, for example, should have. So he deprives me of his benefits right away, and not even out of an evil heart. Beggars, especially noble beggars, should never show themselves outside, but beg through newspapers. You can still love your neighbor abstractly, and even sometimes from a distance, but almost never up close. If everything were like on stage, in a ballet, where beggars, when they appear, come in silk rags and torn lace and beg for alms, dancing gracefully, well then you can still admire them. To admire, but still not to love. But enough about that. I just had to put you on my point. I wanted to talk about the suffering of humanity in general, but it would be better to focus on the suffering of children alone. This will reduce the size of my argument by ten times, but it’s better to talk about children alone. None the less profitable for me, of course. But firstly, you can love children even up close, even dirty, even ugly-faced (it seems to me, however, that children are never ugly-faced). Secondly, I won’t talk about the big ones yet because, besides the fact that they are disgusting and don’t deserve love, they also have retribution: they ate an apple and knew good and evil and became “like gods.” They continue to eat it now. But the kids didn’t eat anything and are still innocent of anything. Do you love children, Alyosha? I know that you love, and you will understand why I want to talk about them alone now. If they also suffer terribly on earth, then of course they are punished for their fathers who ate the apple - but this is reasoning from another world, incomprehensible to the human heart here on earth. An innocent person cannot suffer for another, especially such an innocent person! Marvel at me, Alyosha, I also love children terribly. And note to yourself, cruel people, passionate, carnivorous, the Karamazovs, sometimes love children very much. Children, while children, up to seven years old, for example, are terribly distant from people, as if they were a different creature and with a different nature. (...)
“You speak with a strange look,” Alyosha notes, “as if you are in some kind of madness.”
(…)
- One, just one more picture, and then out of curiosity, very characteristic... (...) Well, the general lives on his estate of two thousand souls, he is arrogant, treats his small neighbors as hangers-on and his jesters. A kennel with hundreds of dogs and almost a hundred hounds, all in uniforms, all on horses. And here is the yard boy, a little boy, only eight years old, once let loose while playing with a stone and hurt the leg of the general’s favorite hound. “Why is my beloved dog lame?” They report to him that this same boy threw a stone at her and hurt her leg. “Oh, it’s you,” the general looked at him, “take him!” They took him, took him from his mother, sat in jail all night, the next morning the general rode out in full parade to hunt, sat on his horse, surrounded by his hangers-on, dogs, hounds, hunters, all on horses. The servants are gathered around for edification, and in front of everyone is the mother of the guilty boy. They take the boy out of jail. A gloomy, cold, foggy autumn day, good for hunting. The general orders the boy to be undressed, the child is stripped completely naked, he is trembling, mad with fear, does not dare to utter a word... “Drive him away!” the general commands, “Run, run!” the hounds shout to him, the boy runs... “Atta him!” the general yells and throws the whole pack of greyhounds at him. He hunted him down in front of his mother, and the dogs tore the child to shreds!.. The general, it seems, was taken into custody. Well... what is it? Shoot? Shoot to satisfy moral feelings? Speak, Alyoshka!
- Shoot! - Alyosha said quietly, looking up at his brother with a pale, distorted smile.
- Bravo! - Ivan screamed in some kind of delight, - if you said it, it means... What a schema-monk! So this is the little devil you have in your heart, Alyoshka Karamazov!
- I said something absurd, but...
“That’s exactly what it is, but...” Ivan shouted. - Know this, novice. That absurdities are too necessary on earth. The world stands on absurdities, and without them, perhaps nothing at all would have happened in it. We know what we know!
- What do you know?
“I don’t understand anything,” Ivan continued, as if delirious, “I don’t want to understand anything now.” I want to remain factual. I decided long ago not to understand. If I want to understand something, I will immediately change the fact, but I decided to remain with the fact...
- Why are you testing me? - Alyosha exclaimed sadly with anguish, - will you finally tell me?
“Of course I’ll say it, that’s what I was trying to say.” You are dear to me, I don’t want to miss you and I won’t give in to your Zosima.
Ivan was silent for a minute, his face suddenly became very sad.
- Listen to me: I took only the children to make it more obvious. About the rest of human tears, with which the entire earth is saturated from the crust to the center - I don’t say a word, I deliberately narrowed my topic. I am a bug and I admit with all humiliation that I cannot understand why everything is arranged this way. People themselves, therefore, are to blame: they were given paradise, they wanted freedom and stole fire from heaven, knowing themselves that they would become unhappy, which means there is no point in pitying them. Oh, in my opinion, in my pitiful, earthly Euclidean mind, I only know that there is suffering, that there are no guilty ones, that everything flows directly and simply from the other, that everything flows and is balanced - but this is just Euclidean nonsense, After all, I know this, because I cannot agree to live according to it! What does it matter to me that there are no guilty people and that everything follows directly and simply from one another, and that I know this - I need retribution, otherwise I will destroy myself. And retribution is not in infinity somewhere and someday, but here already on earth, and so that I can see it myself. I believed, I want to see for myself, and if by that hour I am already dead, then let them resurrect me, because if everything happens without me, it will be too offensive. I didn’t suffer for the same reason, so that with myself, my atrocities and suffering, I could manure someone’s future harmony. I want to see with my own eyes how the deer lies down next to the lion and how the slaughtered one gets up and embraces the one who killed him. I want to be here when everyone suddenly finds out why it all happened. All religions on earth are based on this desire, and I believe. But here are the kids, and what am I going to do with them then? This is a question I cannot resolve. I repeat for the hundredth time - there are a lot of questions, but I took only the children, because here it is irresistibly clear what I need to say. Listen: if everyone must suffer in order to buy eternal harmony through suffering, then what does this have to do with children, please tell me? It is not at all clear why they had to suffer, and why should they buy harmony through suffering? Why did they also get into the material and carry with them the future harmony for someone? I understand solidarity in sin between people, I understand solidarity in retribution, but there is not solidarity in sin with children, and if the truth is that they are in solidarity with their fathers in all the atrocities of their fathers, then of course this truth is not from this world and incomprehensible to me. Some joker will probably say that the child will grow up anyway and have time to sin, but he didn’t grow up, he was eight years old and was hunted down by dogs. Oh, Alyosha, I’m not blaspheming! I understand what a convulsion of the universe must be like when everything in heaven and under the earth merges into one voice of praise and all living things exclaim: “You are right, Lord, for your ways have been opened! “When the mother embraces the tormentor who tore her son to pieces with dogs, and all three exclaim with tears: “You are right, Lord,” then of course the crown of knowledge will come and everything will be explained. But here is the comma, that’s what I I can’t accept. And while I’m on earth, I’m in a hurry to take my measures. You see, Alyosha, it may actually happen that when I myself live to that moment, or resurrect to see him, then I myself will. I’ll probably exclaim with everyone, looking at the mother who embraced the tormentor of her child: “You are right, Lord!” but I don’t want to exclaim then, I’m in a hurry to protect myself, and therefore I completely refuse the highest harmony. if only that tortured child beat himself in the chest with his fist and prayed in his stinking kennel with his unredeemed tears to the “god”! It’s not worth it because his tears remained unredeemed. They must be redeemed, otherwise there can be no harmony. How will you redeem them? Is it really possible that they will be avenged? But why do I need their revenge, why do I need hell for the tormentors, what can hell do to correct them when they are already tortured. And what kind of harmony is there if hell: I want to forgive and I want to hug, I don’t want them to suffer anymore. And if the suffering of children went to replenish the amount of suffering that was necessary to purchase the truth, then I affirm in advance that the whole truth is not worth such a price. Finally, I don’t want a mother to hug the tormentor who tore her son to pieces with dogs! She doesn't dare forgive him! If he wants, let him forgive for himself, let him forgive the tormentor for his mother’s immeasurable suffering; but she has no right to forgive the suffering of her torn child, she does not dare forgive the tormentor, even if the child himself forgave them to him! And if so, if they do not dare to forgive, where is the harmony? Is there a being in the whole world who could and had the right to forgive? I don’t want harmony, I don’t want it out of love for humanity. I want to remain better with unavenged suffering.
It would be better if I remained with my unavenged suffering and my unsatisfied indignation, even if I was wrong. And they valued harmony too dearly; we can’t afford to pay that much for admission. That’s why I’m in a hurry to return my entry ticket. And if I am an honest person, then I am obliged to return it as early as possible. This is what I do. I don’t accept God, Alyosha, I just respectfully return the ticket to him.
“This is a riot,” Alyosha said quietly and with downcast eyes.
- Riot? “I wouldn’t want such a word from you,” Ivan said soulfully. - Is it possible to live by rebellion, but I want to live. Tell me directly, I’m calling you - answer: Imagine that you yourself are erecting the building of human destiny with the goal of making people happy in the end, giving them peace and tranquility at last, but for this it is necessary and inevitably would have to torture just one tiny creator, that very child who beat his fist in the chest and founded this building on his unavenged tears, would you agree to be an architect on these conditions, tell me and don’t lie!
“No, I wouldn’t agree,” Alyosha said quietly.
- And can you admit the idea that the people for whom you are building would agree to accept their happiness on the unjustified blood of a little tortured person, and having accepted, remain happy forever?
- No, I can’t allow it. Brother,” Alyosha suddenly said with sparkling eyes, “you said just now: is there a creature in the whole world who could and had the right to forgive? But this Being exists, and it can forgive everything, everyone and everything and for everything, because it itself gave its innocent blood for everyone and everything. You have forgotten about him, but the building is based on him, and it is to him that they will exclaim: “You are right, Lord, for your ways have been opened.”
And after these words, Ivan tells his brother his poem “The Grand Inquisitor.” The reaction of Alyosha is amazing, he completely understood the essence of the Inquisitor and others like him “ smart people", their "philanthropy":
“They have no such mind, and no such secrets and secrets... Only one thing is godlessness, that’s their whole secret. Your inquisitor doesn’t believe in God, that’s his whole secret! – and he sadly turns to his brother, understanding his suffering: “How will you live, how will you love?” With such hell in your chest and head, is this possible? (...)
- There is such a strength that it can withstand everything!
- What power?
- Karamazovskaya... the power of Karamazovskaya's baseness.
- This is drowning in depravity, crushing the soul in corruption, yes, yes?
“Perhaps this too... maybe I’ll avoid it until I’m thirty, and then...
- How can you escape? What will you avoid? This is impossible with your thoughts.
- Again, in Karamazov style.
- Is this so that “everything is allowed”? Everything is allowed, right, right?
Ivan frowned and suddenly turned strangely pale.
- Yes, perhaps: “everything is permitted”, if the word has already been spoken. I don't renounce. (...) When I left, brother, I thought that I had at least you in the whole world, but now I see that there is no place for me in your heart, my dear hermit. I will not renounce the formula: “everything is permitted,” so what, you will renounce me for this, yes, yes?
Alyosha stood up, walked up to him, and silently, quietly kissed him on the lips.”
After the publication of the novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was hit with a barrage of criticism. Fyodor Mikhailovich answered the detractors: “The scoundrels teased me with my uneducated and retrograde faith in God. These fools never dreamed of such a powerful denial of God as in The Inquisitor... to which the entire novel is the answer. I’m not a fool (a fanatic), I believe in God. And these wanted to teach me and laughed at my lack of development! Yes, their stupid nature never dreamed of such a strong denial that I went through. Should they teach me!.. The Inquisitor and the chapter about children. In view of these chapters, you could treat me at least scientifically, not so arrogantly in terms of philosophy... And in Europe there is no such force of atheistic expressions and there never was. Therefore, it is not a boy who believes, but my hosanna has passed through a great crucible of doubts...
There are such slums of darkness in your souls that no ray can illuminate them. Who are you thinking of enlightening, whom?”
After The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was going to write a new novel, Children. About the fate of Alyosha Karamazov, who, having returned, according to the behest of Elder Zosima, was supposed to end up among the revolutionaries, overcome their idea of ​​​​building a just society, for the implementation of which all means are good, and overcome this temptation in himself.
Ivan managed to sow the seeds of doubt in his brother’s soul, however, the guiding force for the latter will forever remain Elder Zosima, his teachings, which it would be nice for everyone to remember. What did the elder teach?
"The main thing - do not lie to yourself. He who lies to himself and listens to his own lies reaches such a point that he no longer discerns any truth either in himself or around him, and therefore begins to disrespect both himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and in order, not having love, to occupy himself and entertain himself, he indulges in passions and coarse sweets, and reaches the point of complete bestiality in his vices, and all from continuous lies to both people and himself. He who lies to himself first of all may be offended. After all, sometimes it’s very pleasant to be offended, isn’t it? And a person knows that no one offended him, but that he invented an insult to himself and lied for beauty, exaggerated it himself in order to create a picture, became attached to a word and made a mountain out of a pea - he himself knows this, and yet he is the very first he is offended, he is offended to the point of pleasantness, to the feeling of greater pleasure, and thereby reaches true enmity...”

“Love God’s people, do not give up your flocks to strangers, for if you fall asleep in laziness and in your squeamish pride, and even more so in greed, they will come from all countries and take your flock from you. Interpret the Gospel to the people tirelessly... Do not covet... Do not love silver and gold, do not hold it... Believe and hold the banner. Raise him high..."

“The world proclaimed freedom, in Lately especially, and what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide! For the world says: “You have needs, and therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest people. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them,” - this is the current teaching of the world. This is what they see as freedom. And what comes from this right to increase needs? The rich have solitude and spiritual suicide, and the poor have envy and murder, because they have given rights, but have not yet indicated the means to satisfy their needs. They claim that the further the world goes, the more it unites, forms a fraternal communion, thereby shortening distances and transmitting thoughts through the air. Alas, do not believe in such unity of people. Understanding freedom as the increase and quick satisfaction of needs, they distort their nature, because they give rise to many meaningless and stupid desires, habits and the most absurd inventions. They live only for envy of each other, for carnality and arrogance.
Having dinners, trips, carriages, ranks and slave servants is already considered such a necessity for which they even sacrifice life, honor and philanthropy in order to satisfy this need, and even kill themselves if they cannot satisfy it. For those who are not rich, we see the same thing, but for the poor, unsatisfied needs and envy are still drowned out by drunkenness. But soon, instead of wine, they will get drunk with blood, and that is what they are being led to. (...) And it is not surprising that instead of freedom they fell into slavery, and instead of serving brotherly love and human unity, they fell, on the contrary, into isolation and solitude, as my mysterious guest and teacher told me in my youth. And therefore, in the world, the thought of serving humanity, of the brotherhood and integrity of people is fading more and more, and truly this thought is even met with mockery, for how can one lag behind one’s habits, where will this slave go, if he is so accustomed to satisfying his countless needs, which Did you make it up yourself? He is in solitude, and what does he care about the whole. And they reached the point where they accumulated more things, but there was less joy.”

“Hell is the suffering of not being able to love anymore.”

“Oh, there are also those in hell who remained proud and fierce, despite already having indisputable knowledge and contemplating the irresistible truth; There are terrible ones who have joined Satan and his proud spirit entirely. For those, hell is already voluntary and insatiable; those are already willing martyrs. For they themselves cursed themselves, cursing God and life. They feed on their evil pride, as if a hungry man in the desert began to suck his own blood from his own body. But they are insatiable forever and ever and reject forgiveness; they curse the God who calls them. They cannot contemplate the living God without hatred and demand that there be no god of life, that God destroy himself and all his creation. And they will burn in the fire of their wrath forever, thirsting for death and non-existence. But they will not receive death..."

Timid, naked and wild was hiding
Troglodyte in the rock caves,
The nomad wandered through the fields
And he devastated the fields.
Trapper, with a spear, arrows,
Grozen ran through the forests...
Woe to those tossed by the waves
To the inhospitable shores!
From the Olympic peak
Mother Ceres comes after
The kidnapped Proserpina:
Dick lies before her light.
No corner, no treats
There is no goddess there anywhere;
And nowhere is there any reverence for God
The temple does not testify.
The fruit of the fields and the grapes are sweet
They do not shine at feasts;
Only the remains of bodies are smoking
On bloody altars.
And where with a sad eye
Ceres doesn't even look there -
In deep humiliation
He sees people everywhere!

To joy! (German).

This work has entered the public domain. The work was written by an author who died more than seventy years ago, and was published during his lifetime or posthumously, but more than seventy years have also passed since publication. It may be freely used by anyone without anyone's consent or permission and without payment of royalties.

The blind and the seeing in ignorance are both equally “blind” and equally useless.

They argue which is better - capitalism or socialism. Essentially, it is discussed what is better in a person - selfishness or altruism, stinginess or generosity, evil or good. So, what is better - a good person or a bad one?

The answer is unanimously beyond doubt .

“He has chosen our hearts as a battlefield” …

Capitalism is expressed in physical world personality trait - selfishness. Just like socialism, it is the altruism of the individual reflected in the material world of objects. Slavery and feudalism are unlimited despotism.

Despotism, egoism, altruism (slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism) are within us. All of them are simultaneously present in every person. They are present in everyone - in different proportions. If the traits are not clearly manifested, this does not mean that they do not exist - simply, they are in a suppressed embryonic state, not revealed.

Each of our character traits is objectively expressed in the world of matter and interpersonal relationships. Generosity, greed, courage, boasting, stupidity, callousness, etc. (A direct connection between character traits and diseases has been established). If you look at a person carefully, then everything manifestations of character can be see in the surrounding material world of objects created by him. Whichever qualities a person has more, the more he or she is represented in life. Remember, for example, the characters N.V. Gogol in "Dead Souls" : - Korobochka, Manilov, Plyushkin and others. (Another person only has to speak, and everything about him immediately becomes clear).

Thus. - Capitalism and socialism do not exist separately. They are a product of the human mind and “live” simultaneously together - in one person.

In absolutely all states (and even earlier in primitive tribes) there is and was socialism. In every society, free help and care are present to varying degrees. Also in society, there is and was capitalism, the expression of which today is money. A, B prehistoric world The role of money was played by any item necessary for life (a chop, a scraper, a piece of meat, a handful of water, etc.).

The debate between politicians about the best system is "war of good and evil" in the human mind.

Each arguer adheres to values ​​- according to the achieved level of individual development. Similarly, a donkey chooses a carrot for itself, and a man chooses something human (to each his own).

Having discovered that "root" capitalism (selfishness) and socialism (altruism) “grows” from a person, then among healthy and reasonable people, political disputes and wars can be put to an end. Having put the forces of the “blind and the sighted ignorant” together, Can transfer the wasted energy of conflict to problems of personal development.

Ultimately, on changing the existing society and the world - for the better!

Any person, during the day, at the same time, countless times, can be an acquisitive person and show concern for others (even if this action occurs in the family). Which indicates flexibility, mobility, changeability of the mind, the ability to change oneself and the surrounding material world with thoughts.

If you look more broadly, a person has everything. He contains all the character traits of his ancestors. All are identical in the structure of the genetic code and differ in the manifestation of gene activity. The total expression of all personality traits is called character.

…“He took seventy-two colors, He threw them into the vat. He took them out all white and said: “Like this, truly, the Son of man has come”... (From Philip, 54).

Consisting of “seventy-two colors,” man came to life. A self-realized Man, according to his knowledge and desire, can become “white” (pure).

The amount of socialism (the sum of social benefits) in the state is determined by the level of moral development of society. If the level is high, then there is more concern. The higher the consciousness, the more socialism there is. With democratic changes, the amount of socialism increases, and with dictatorship, autocracy, despotism, it decreases.

A morally low level of society is never able to build a more developed social state. Likewise, a monkey will not do anything human.

There is an Eastern proverb: “A new saddle and a golden bridle will not make an Arabian horse out of a donkey.” If you move the harness from one donkey to another donkey, then the stallion won’t work either.

Material changes alone in the country are useless.- Proactive moral development is required.

Everything serves as proof of truth, including the opposite. - To create a “beast”, it is necessary to erase the humanity from people, depriving them of the opportunity to think and free Gain knowledge. Then, the born beast (as a reward) will destroy its blind and mediocre parents.

Politicians, magicians, swindlers to take over : property, freedom, love, sympathy, trust, power or anything else - distract attention. Distracted by "false stand" people's minds are blinded and unable to see the essence of things correctly.

It's good to know that everything that is inside us is embodied in the outside.

Everyone can be their opposite - an egoist or an altruist. An English proverb confirms: - “our shortcomings are a continuation of our advantages.” People, under external dominant influence in an instant, easily capable of changing in any direction - good and bad.

With a low level of development of consciousness in society, freedom of speech and democratic institutions - from the individual, the head of state, It fully depends on whether such a society will develop or degrade.

How well a person knows himself depends on the possibility of external influence on his mind and manipulation of his consciousness.

“Our weaknesses no longer harm us when we know them.” (18th century, German scientist, publicist Georg Lichtenberg).

Those who know can understand both themselves and others. They are able to choose the best for themselves - the best president, government, they are able to limit the bad. … “And you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John: 8 - 32).

Nikolaeva Ekaterina, Tikhonova Lyudmila, Sysoeva Elvira, Kumakhova Adisa, Shikhalieva Yulia

The object of study of our work is the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”.

The subject of the study is the main characters of the novel, their monologues and dialogues, which help to reveal the religious and philosophical thoughts of the characters.

Goal: to identify the religious and philosophical views of F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”.

1. Study the biography of F. M Dostoevsky and the features of his work.

2. Try to characterize general direction spiritual searches of F. M. Dostoevsky before and during the writing of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, the writer’s attitude to faith and God, his religious views.

3. Analyze the main images of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and observe how the religious and philosophical themes that concern F. M. Dostoevsky are presented in the novel.

4. Compare the heroes of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and, based on a comparison of their characters, find out for yourself which of the heroes of the novel is closer to the author.

5. Based on the analysis and comparison of the main characters of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, identify for yourself the basic principles of the religious and philosophical views of the writer presented in the novel.

Download:

Preview:

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and log in to it: https://accounts.google.com

Slide captions:

“Here God and the devil are fighting, and the battlefield is the hearts of people...” (based on the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”) And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it... Om John. Chapter 1.5 Work performed by: Kumakhova Adisa Nikolaeva Ekaterina Sysoeva Elvira Tikhonova Lyudmila Shikhalieva Yulia Supervisor: Elena Gennadievna Strakhova GBOU Secondary School No. 1297, Moscow, 2013

Contents Chapter 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………….………………………………….3 Chapter 2. Biography of F.M. . Dostoevsky, the image of F. M. Dostoevsky through the eyes of his contemporaries…………………………………………………………………………………5 Chapter 3. Spiritual quest F M. Dostoevsky before and during the writing of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov. The writer’s attitude towards faith and God, his religious views. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 Chapter 4. The novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. History of creation …………………………….………..22 Chapter 5. Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov ……………………………………………………………… … 24 Chapter 6. Dmitry Karamazov ……………………………………………………………………………….37 Chapter 7. Ivan Karamazov ……………… ………………………………….………………………………….47 Chapter 8. Alyosha Karamazov ………………………………………… ………………………………………………………..58 Chapter 9. Pavel Smerdyakov ……………………………………………………………………… ……………64 Chapter 10. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………70 List of references used ………………….…………………………………………………….72 Appendix …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………….73 2

Chapter 1. Introduction The work of F. M. Dostoevsky has aroused the interest of researchers in various fields of activity since the publication of the author’s first work and remains relevant in our time. F. M. Dostoevsky, depicting complex, confusing situations in society and putting his heroes before a choice, especially often resorts to turning points in the fate of an individual, thereby forcing us, together with the heroes, to make a choice, to empathize with them, living with them this or that different situation. The object of study of our work is the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”. The subject of the study is the main characters of the novel, their monologues and dialogues, which help to reveal the religious and philosophical thoughts of the characters. Goal: to identify the religious and philosophical views of F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. Objectives: 1. Study the biography of F. M. Dostoevsky and the features of his work. 2. Try to characterize the general direction of F. M. Dostoevsky’s spiritual search before and during the writing of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, the attitude of the writer 3

to faith and God, his religious views. 3. Analyze the main images of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and observe how the religious and philosophical themes that concern F. M. Dostoevsky are presented in the novel. 4 . Compare the heroes of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and, based on a comparison of their characters, find out for yourself which of the heroes of the novel is closer to the author. 5 . Based on the analysis and comparison of the main characters of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, identify for yourself the basic principles of the religious and philosophical views of the writer presented in the novel. To achieve the above objectives, the following Methods were used: - analysis of primary sources and additional literature that help to reveal the objectives; - synthesis, which allows you to combine the information obtained as a result of analysis; - induction – formulating a logical conclusion by summarizing data. 4

Chapter 2. Biography of F.M. Dostoevsky, the image of F. M. Dostoevsky through the eyes of his contemporaries. F. M. Dostoevsky was born on October 30 (November 11), 1821 in Moscow. Father - Mikhail Andreevich Dostoevsky - head doctor of the Mariinsky Hospital for the Poor, mother - Maria Fedorovna Nechaeva, daughter of the Moscow merchant Fyodor Timofeevich Nechaev. “... these were advanced people... and at this moment they would be advanced!.. And such family men, such fathers... you and I will not be, brother!” 1 The family loved to read, they subscribed to the magazine “Library for Reading”, which made it possible to get acquainted with the latest foreign literature. Of the Russian authors, they loved N. Karamzin, V. Zhukovsky, A. Pushkin. The mother, a religious nature, introduced the children to the Gospel from a young age and took them on pilgrimages to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. In 1834, Fyodor Mikhailovich and his brother entered the Moscow private boarding school of Leonty Ivanovich Chermak. “The selection of good teachers and strict monitoring [i]/e/ of their regular and timely arrival, and at the same time - the presence of a family character, reminding the children, at least in part, of their home and home life - this, in my opinion, is the ideal of a closed educational institution. ‑ Boarding house 1 F. M. Dostoevsky about his parents, from “Memoirs” A. M. Dostoevsky. http://az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0580.shtml 5

L.I. Chermaka was close to this ideal.” 1 After the death of his mother, which coincided with the news of the death of A. S. Pushkin (1837), F. M. Dostoevsky, by decision of his father, entered the St. Petersburg Military Engineering School (1838), which was one of the best educational institutions of that time . In 1839, his father unexpectedly died (killed, according to family legend, by serfs). This news shocked F.M. Dostoevsky and provoked a severe nervous attack - a harbinger of future epilepsy, to which he had a hereditary predisposition. Left an orphan, without funds, in an atmosphere of drill, nit-picking of tyrants at the Main Engineering School, F. M. Dostoevsky devoted several years to a business that he did not like, to the sciences that bore him. At the school, as D.V. Grigorovich recalls, “over everyone’s head hung the sword of Damocles of severity, the most picky exactingness... For the most innocent offense - an undone collar or button - they were sent to a punishment cell or put on watch at the door with a satchel on their back.” . F. M. Dostoevsky already at this time keenly felt injustice; he was outraged by the embezzlement, bribery, and careerism that reigned in the army. “Fyodor Mikhailovich was outraged by many things in his service...” recalled A.I. Savelyev, who served as an officer on duty at the school. “He could not see the serf prisoners in shackles at his work 6

distances and reprisals that occurred in the troops holding guards in Kronstadt." 1 After graduating from college in 1843, F. M. Dostoevsky was enlisted in the drafting department of the engineering department, but a year later he retired, convinced that his vocation was literature In 1845, F. M. Dostoevsky’s first novel “Poor People” was written, published by N. Nekrasov in the “Petersburg Collection”. Later, “White Nights” (1848) and “Netochka Nezvanova” (1849) were published, in which features of realism were revealed. F. M. Dostoevsky: profound psychologism, exceptional character and situations. But his successful literary career ended tragically. Being one of the members of the Petrashevsky circle, which united adherents of French utopian socialism, in 1849 the writer was arrested and sentenced to death for his participation in this circle. , later replaced by four years of hard labor and settlement in Siberia. “Dostoyevsky, in hard labor and in exile, retained his energy of character, strength of personality, and did not lose faith in himself. The most striking evidence remains “Notes from the House of the Dead” - this terrible chronicle of the journey through the circles of hell of Russian penal servitude. The most painful 1 B. Rurikov. "Dostoevsky and his contemporaries". http://az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0580.shtml 7

the test was not backbreaking work, not terrible living conditions, but the cruel and merciless humiliation of a person, the violation of his dignity and honor, the outrage of his personality... The years of hard labor and exile were years of turning point for Dostoevsky, the full meaning of which was revealed only later. During this period, religious tendencies in the consciousness of Dostoevsky intensified, the idea of ​​humility in the face of evil became stronger, and he stopped believing in revolution. He began to idealize obedience and humility, considering them as features of the Russian national character. In the end, Dostoevsky came, as he himself wrote, to betray his former convictions." 1 F. M. Dostoevsky spoke in 1874 Sun. Solovyov about the significance of hard labor for his spiritual development: “Fate helped me then, hard labor saved me. I became a completely new person... Oh! This was great happiness for me: Siberia and hard labor... They say horror, bitterness, about the legality of what What do they say about bitterness? Terrible nonsense! I only lived there healthy, happy life, I understood myself there, my dear... I understood Christ... I lifted and felt the Russian man..." 2. From a revolutionary, an atheist, a believer is born. 1 B. Rurikov. "Dostoevsky and his contemporaries". http:// az .lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0580.shtml 2 F.M. Dostoevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries. In two volumes. M., 1964. p.

After the death of Nicholas I and the beginning of the liberal reign of Alexander II, the fate of F.M. Dostoevsky, like many political criminals, was softened. His noble rights were returned to him, and he retired in 1859 with the rank of second lieutenant. In the same year he received permission to live in Tver, and then in St. Petersburg. In his first post-convict letter to N.D. Fonvizina F. M. Dostoevsky tells her in what direction the rebirth of his beliefs was going: “...I formed a symbol of faith for myself, in which everything is clear and holy for me. This symbol is very simple; here it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, deeper, more sympathetic, more intelligent, more courageous and more perfect than Christ, and not only is there not, but with jealous love I tell myself that it cannot be. Moreover, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, then I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth.” 1 At this time, the stories “Uncle’s Dream”, “The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants” (1859), and the novel “The Humiliated and Insulted” (1861) were published. In 1862, F. M. Dostoevsky travels abroad for the first time. In 2.5 months, he visited more than 20 cities in Western Europe (Berlin, Dresden, Wiesbaden, Cologne, Paris, London, Florence, Turin, Geneva, Vienna and others). The writer believes that the historical path that Europe took after french revolution 1789, would have been disastrous 1 Belov S.V. Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. M., 1999. p. 95. 9

for Russia, as well as the introduction of new bourgeois relations. Russia’s special, original path to “earthly paradise” is the socio-political program of F.M. Dostoevsky early 1860s. In 1864, “Notes from the Underground” was written, an important work for understanding the writer’s changed worldview. In 1865, while abroad in the resort of Wiesbaden to improve his health, he began work on the novel Crime and Punishment (1866), which reflected the entire complex path of his inner quest. In 1867, F. M. Dostoevsky married Anna Grigorievna Snitkina, his stenographer, who became his close and devoted friend; they lived in Germany, Switzerland, Italy (1867 - 1871). During these years, the writer worked on the novels “The Idiot” (1868) and “Demons” (1870 – 1871), which he finished in Russia. In May 1872, the Dostoevskys left St. Petersburg for the summer for Staraya Rusa, where they subsequently bought a modest dacha and lived here with their two children even in winter. The novels "The Teenager" (1874 - 1875) and "The Brothers Karamazov" (1878 - 1879) were written almost entirely in Staraya Russa. Since 1873, the writer became the executive editor of the magazine "Citizen", on the pages of which the "Diary of a Writer" began to be published. At the end of May 1880, F. M. Dostoevsky goes to Moscow for the opening of the monument to A. Pushkin (June 6, on the birthday of the great poet), where all of Moscow gathered. There were 10 here

Turgenev, Maikov, Grigorovich and other Russian writers. Speech by F.M. Dostoevsky was called by I. Aksakov “brilliant, historical event"Unfortunately, the writer's health soon deteriorated; on January 28 (February 9, 2010), F. M. Dostoevsky died in St. Petersburg. F. M. Dostoevsky's contemporaries left many memories of his character, habits, appearance from his youth and Until the last years of his life and from many memoirs, one can see that the first impression when meeting F. M. Dostoevsky was sometimes almost disappointing: his appearance was discreet, not aristocratic, there was something painful in his face - this feature was noted by almost all memoirists. However, all of them. note that the first impression of the writer immediately dissipated upon closer acquaintance with him both in his early years and in adulthood. Sometimes in the memoirs of the same people we meet “different” Dostoevsky (O. Pochinkovskaya 1) describes her first impression of meeting F. M. Dostoevsky: “His hand was cold, dry and seemingly lifeless, and everything about him that day seemed lifeless to me: limp, as if through the force of movement. silent voice, extinct eyes fixed on me 1 Varvara Vasilievna Timofeeva (O. Pochinkovskaya, 1850 – 1931) - writer and translator, author of novels, stories and essays-memoirs. In the early 70s she worked as a proofreader in the Transchel printing house, where the weekly book of the book was published. Meshchersky's "Citizen", published under the editorship of Dostoevsky in 1873 and the first months of 1874. eleven

two fixed points." 1 But at another moment and at another time, she describes it as follows: “As if illuminated by an imperious thought, animatedly pale and very young, with a soulful gaze of deep darkened eyes, with an expressively closed outline of thin lips - it breathed with the triumph of its mental strength, a proud consciousness of his power... It was neither a good nor an evil face. It somehow at the same time attracted and repelled, intimidated and captivated... And I unconsciously, without looking away, looked at this face, as if a “living picture” with mysterious content suddenly opened in front of me, when you greedily rush to catch its meaning, knowing that one more moment, and all this rare beauty will disappear like a flash of lightning. I have never seen such a face from Dostoevsky again. But in those moments his face told me more about him than all his articles and novels. It was the face of a great man, a historical face." 2. We see the writer as touchy, suspicious, often unrestrained, unable to control his feelings. Sometimes he left the impression of being unkind to people 1 V. V. Timofeeva (O. Pochinkovskaya). Year of work with famous writer. (Dedicated to the memory of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky). http://chulan.narod.ru/hudlit/dost/timofeeva.htm 2 Ibid., http://chulan.narod.ru/hudlit/dost/timofeeva.htm 12

person. Even in a circle of people close to him, he often appeared dissatisfied, bowing dryly, “as if they were people unpleasant to him.” But memoirists also write about another Dostoevsky. As his relative Ivanova says, among young people F. M. Dostoevsky felt alive, cheerful, set the tone in the games and entertainment of the youth, participated in their revels, and composed humorous poems. Dostoevsky took part in an amateur production of The Inspector General and played the role of postmaster Shpekin. He turned out to be a comedian, “and a subtle comedian at that, who knew how to evoke purely Gogolian laughter.” How many times, responding to requests from students, did Dostoevsky speak at literary evenings? He could have given away his last money to a random person, did not know how to refuse when asked, and at the same time complained that he was being robbed and treated poorly. In Dostoevsky, gullibility was combined with morbid suspiciousness, unsociability and isolation with a disposition towards people, simplicity and cordiality with cold distrust. All these are not just contradictions of the writer’s personality, manifestations of the complexity and variability of his nature. These are contradictions of character that society has distorted, contradictions of its ideology and creativity. “Dostoevsky as an artist-psychologist was a rare, exceptional phenomenon. He had an amazing sensitivity to 13

the most intimate and secret movements of the soul, the ability to penetrate into the most remote corners of consciousness and feelings, to observe and analyze the subtlest fluctuations of the psyche, the emergence of almost elusive ideas and their development, the collision of various aspirations in the depths of the spiritual world. These properties made an all the more powerful impression because they appeared in combination with another trait - with the talent of bold thought, the desire for generalization, for one’s own, clearly expressed concept. Dostoevsky's novels were called ideological novels. The writer was not afraid of the invasion of philosophy, journalism, he was not afraid of disputes, the clash of different points of view. His works are imbued with the spirit of ideological quest. Analysis of mental movements is inseparable from synthesis, generalizations, defense moral ideas, dear to the writer." 1 Thus, having examined the biography of F. M. Dostoevsky and the memories of his contemporaries about him, we came to the following conclusions: 1) F. M. Dostoevsky lived a life full of moral and psychological difficulties, creative ups and downs, and suffered many personal and family tragedies . 2) According to the memoirs of his contemporaries, F. M. Dostoevsky gave the impression of a shy person, especially in his youth. 1 B. Rurikov. “Dostoevsky and his contemporaries. http:// az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0580.shtml 14

3) The features of F. M. Dostoevsky’s creativity are realism, in-depth psychologism, centralization, all attention is directed to the individual. 15

Chapter 3. Spiritual quests of F. M. Dostoevsky before and during the writing of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov. The writer’s attitude towards faith and God, his religious views. Many researchers of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky of this period note that the time preceding and coinciding with the moment of writing the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” represents the result of the writer’s intense thoughts about God. After hard labor, F. M. Dostoevsky in a letter to N. Fonvizina writes the following: “I will tell you about myself that I am a child of the century, a child of disbelief and doubt to this day and even (I know this) to the grave. What terrible torment this thirst to believe has cost me and is now costing me, which is the stronger in my soul, the more contrary arguments I have. And yet, God sometimes sends me moments in which I am completely calm; in these moments I love and find that I am loved by others, and in such moments I formed within myself a symbol of faith in which everything is clear and sacred to me. This symbol is very simple, here it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, deeper, more sympathetic, more intelligent, more courageous and more perfect than Christ, and not only is there not, but with jealous love I tell myself that it cannot be. Moreover, if someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and it really were that the truth is outside Christ, then I would rather remain with Christ than with the truth.” 1 . 1 RVB: F.M. Dostoevsky. Collected works in 15 volumes. N. D. Fonvizina. End of January - 20th of February 1854. Omsk, http://www.rvb.ru/dostoevski/01text/vol15/01text/383.htm 16

From F. M. Dostoevsky’s letter we see how great his “thirst” for faith is and how painful his religious doubts are, among which Christ acts as salvation. Christ for F. M. Dostoevsky is the embodiment of morality, goodness and beauty, as well as the highest truth. But F. M. Dostoevsky comes to this conviction only after hard labor, and this path is painful and long. In 1846, the writer was influenced by the socialist ideas of V. G. Belinsky and, as some researchers note, during this period he approached the ideas of atheism. But even at this time he is concerned with the question of how to reconcile the existence of God and world evil. F. M. Dostoevsky does not accept “victims of living conditions and history” and demands an account of all those accidentally lost in the course of historical progress. But from whom should we demand an account? In traditional religious perception, the judge is God, which means the solution is rebellion against God and Divine Revelation. The writer faces a problem self-creation new religious and ethical values. So F. M. Dostoevsky begins the painful path of spiritual knowledge, the decisive point of which is hard labor, where, as many researchers rightly note, the “degeneration of the writer’s beliefs” occurs. It was in conditions of hard labor that F. M. Dostoevsky turned to the Bible. This was a book given to him by the wives of the Decembrists in Tobolsk on the way to the prison and became the only one allowed for him to read. 17

“Fyodor Mikhailovich,” writes his wife, “did not part with this holy book during all four years of his stay in hard labor. Subsequently, it always lay in plain sight, on his desk, and he often, having conceived or doubted something, opened the Gospel at random and read what was on the first page...” 1 . Reading the Bible, F. M. Dostoevsky comes to the conviction that it is possible to discover the meaning of life only by taking life itself as a basis, by loving “living life” - God - before logic and oneself. The Creator Himself is Love, and Love and Good cannot but be free, which means they cannot make a person unfree. Man, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, is equally capable of both Good and the birth of Evil in self-will. Self-will, as the writer believes, turns personal freedom into an end in itself and from absolute Freedom creates despotism, which tries to provide happiness to a person by force, which leads to the denial of God, the world, and, consequently, man. F. M. Dostoevsky sees Scripture not so much as a sermon or morality, but rather as a guarantee of new life. The dignity of a person, his right to well-being and respect are not based on the fact that he is intelligent, kind or possesses " beautiful soul”, but on the significance of every person. In "A Writer's Diary" last years life F. M. Dostoevsky wrote: “Without 1 A. G. Dostoevskaya. Memories. Part eleven. Death. Funeral., http://www.azlib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0610.shtml 18

no higher idea can exist, neither man nor nation. And there is only one highest idea on earth, and that is the idea of ​​the immortality of the human soul, for all other “higher” ideas of life by which a person can live flow only from it alone.” 1 . By “higher idea” the writer understands God’s word as set out in the Bible. Deep faith in God, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, provides solid support in all the vicissitudes of fate. It is thanks to faith that peace arises in a person’s soul for the fate of the world and his personal life. Whoever denies the existence of God introduces an irreparable loss into his worldview. God in the Christian canon is an absolute and comprehensive value, and by denying God, absolute values ​​are also denied: beauty, goodness, moral behavior. The proclamation of Christ as the highest truth, goodness and beauty, the appeal to the Holy Scriptures as the “book of humanity” - these ideas were embodied by F. M. Dostoevsky in his last novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. Turning to the style of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and the type of depiction of reality, many researchers note its closeness to the Bible. V. Rozanov, in his article dedicated to F. M. Dostoevsky, wrote: “Among the chaos of chaotic scenes, amusingly absurd conversations (perhaps deliberately piled up by the author) - wonderful dialogues 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Writer's Diary. 1876, December. Chapter One III. Unsubstantiated allegations., http://az.lib.ru/d/dostoewskij_f_m/text_0480.shtml 19

and monologues containing the highest contemplation of the destinies of man on earth: here there is delirium, and murmur, and high tenderness of his suffering soul. Everything in general forms a picture that is both amazingly true to reality and removed from it into some kind of endless abstraction, where the features of high art are mixed with the features of morality, politics, philosophy, and finally religion, everywhere with a thirst, rather a need not so much to convey as create or at least alter. It’s amazing: in an era that is completely non-religious, in an era that is essentially decomposing, chaotically mixing, a number of works are created that, as a whole, form something reminiscent of a religious epic, but with all the features of blasphemy and chaos of their time.” Vyach. Ivanov in his work “Dostoevsky and the Tragedy Novel” writes that “In new history tragedy is almost torn away from its religious foundations, and therefore falls.” 1 . F. M. Dostoevsky, according to the author, although he did not write a tragedy, but only a “tragedy novel,” revived the mythological and religious feeling that was originally inherent in tragedy as a genre. Modern researchers of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky, following Vyach. Ivanov and V. Rozanov develop their ideas related to the style of author’s novels. So G. Pomerantz in his work “Openness to the Abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky he wrote: “However, 1 Vyach. Ivanov. Dostoevsky and the tragedy novel. II. The principle of worldview, p. 427., http://www.rvb.ru/ivanov/vol4/01text/02papers/4_172.htm 20

If we strictly pose the question of which root of European culture Dostoevsky is closer to, the biblical or the Hellenic, then, of course, to the biblical.” 1 . In fact, the story told in the Bible is the story of the meeting of God and man; it is this meeting that is discussed in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. The Bible played a huge role in the creation of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” influencing not only the characters and plot of the novel, but also harmoniously intertwining itself with the system of relationships between the characters, which can be projected onto world-famous biblical types, onto the speech organization and symbolism of the work. Based on the above, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. The time of writing the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” is preceded by a long and painful period of spiritual formation of the writer. 2. As a result of the search, the “highest idea” for F. M. Dostoevsky becomes God’s word as set out in the Bible. 3. The Bible, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, is a conversation between a person and God - an absolute value, the denial of which leads to the denial of beauty, goodness, and morality. Only in absolute Love for Christ and God can a person achieve harmony with the world and himself. 1 G. Pomerantz, Openness to the Abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky., M., Soviet writer, 1990, p. 167. 21

Chapter 4. The novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. History of creation. The pinnacle of F. M. Dostoevsky’s philosophical creativity was the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” (1879 - 1880) - his last and largest work, which included a philosophical poem (a legend, as V. V. Rozanov called it) about the Grand Inquisitor. The concept of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” by F. M. Dostoevsky consists of two romantic cycles conceived by the writer, “Atheism” and “The Life of a Great Sinner,” which he turned to the experience of the Bible, a book that represents the basis of the Christian worldview. The novel was conceived as a social and philosophical epic about the present, past and future of Russia, depicted through the prism of “the history of one family” and the fate of several of its representatives. F. M. Dostoevsky worked on his last novel for three years. The final stage of work - artistic embodiment - lasted for three years. But spiritually he worked on it all his life. At the beginning of 1878, F. M. Dostoevsky compiled a detailed outline of the novel. died on May 16 little son writer Alyosha, whose death had a hard effect on him. In June, F. M. Dostoevsky visits Optina Pustyn together with Vladimir Solovyov, so the first 22

books were written under the direct impression of the monastic life the writer saw. At the end of October, the first two books of the novel were rewritten by Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya and presented to the publisher of the Russian Messenger. The publication of the novel began with the first issue of the Russian Messenger in 1879, and ended in the eleventh issue of the same magazine in 1880. All these years were years of intense labor, which even F. M. Dostoevsky, who worked so hard and passionately, called convict labor. According to the author’s plan, F. M. Dostoevsky’s last novel, “The Brothers Karamazov,” was supposed to consist of two parts. The writer managed to complete work only on the first part, which outlined only the background history of the main characters. But what was written is completely an independent work. The novel “The Brothers Karamazov” was the result of the writer’s creative development, a kind of synthesis of his general philosophical, ethical, and social ideas. 23

Chapter 5. Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov Fyodor Pavlovich 24

Each character in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” is inexhaustible material for studying the depths of human psychology, and the head of the Karamazov family, Fyodor Pavlovich, is not only a riotous voluptuary, an extravagant and depraved person, but also a cunning man who managed to save a lot for himself. state. “...he was a strange type, one that is encountered quite often, namely, the type of person who is not only trashy and depraved, but at the same time stupid - but one of those stupid people who know how to manage their property affairs very well, and it seems that these are the only ones. Fyodor Pavlovich, for example, started out with almost nothing, he was the smallest landowner, he ran to dine at other people’s tables, strived to become a hanger-on, and yet at the time of his death he had up to a hundred thousand rubles in pure money. And at the same time, all his life he continued to be one of the most stupid madcaps throughout our district. I’ll repeat again: this is not stupidity; Most of these madmen are quite smart and cunning - namely, stupidity, and also some kind of special, national one.” 1 His “stupidity” is “national”, but he learned how to handle things and be a shameless money-grubber from the Jews. He is a landowner, but the smallest one, did not live on his estate and in his youth behaved like a hanger-on, and then went into business, first of all 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book one. The story of one family. http://www.modernlib.ru/books/dostoevskiy_fedor_mihaylovich/bratya_karamazovi/read/ 25

usury, opened taverns, i.e., chose the dirtiest option of “bourgeoisification.” But his fundamental trait is depravity and voluptuousness, which dominate his attitude towards Grushenka, which leads to a love rivalry with his son Dmitry. Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov - the father of Dmitry, Alexei and Ivan Karamazov, as well as Pavel Smerdyakov, his illegitimate son - is a man who is completely absorbed in his desires and passions, greedy for any pleasures and entertainment. Turning to the name of the main character, it can be noted that it is derived from the Latin “Theodore”, which means “God’s gift”. And this is where the author’s position is manifested, because, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, every person is God’s gift, but this is what a person himself can do with himself and what he can turn God’s gift into without faith, without Christ in the soul. It is obvious that in the novel F. M. Dostoevsky, in the person of Fyodor Pavlovich, creates precisely a kind of anti-image of the name, since it is quite difficult to call it “God’s gift.” The hero’s appearance is completely devoid of attractiveness, there is not even a feeling of a pleasant-looking person, and his behavior is defiant: he is overly emotional, often starts shouting, but this is more “playing for the audience” than character traits. The first half of the novel is built on Fyodor Pavlovich’s relationship with his children, and here we immediately notice how different his sons have grown up. F. M. Dostoevsky 26

directly tells us that the hero did little to raise them, and even now, recognizing them as his children, he cares little about them further fate. Fyodor Pavlovich's attitude to life is manifested in his words and actions. So, in a conversation with his youngest son Alyosha, he says: “... I need every penny, and the longer I live, the more necessary it will be... Now I’m still a man, fifty-five in total, but I want another twenty years on the line of a man If I'm going to be wealthy, then when I get old, I'll become a lousy person, they won't come to me in good faith then, well, that's when I'll need the money. So now I’m saving up more and more for myself, sir...” 1. We see that Fyodor Pavlovich openly recognizes fornication and debauchery, “filth” as the essence of his life, and his stinginess and greed for money, old man’s frugality as the only way and means to get to this essence. F. Kafka writes about Fyodor Pavlovich in his diaries that “... the father of the Karamazov brothers is by no means a fool - he is very smart, almost equal in intelligence to Ivan, but an evil person, and, in any case, he is smarter, for example, than his not exposed by the narrator's cousin or nephew, the landowner who considers himself so much superior to him." 2. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book Four Tears. II. At my father's. http://www.modernlib.ru/books/dostoevskiy_fedor_mihaylovich/bratya_karamazovi/read / 2 Franz Kafka. Diaries. 1914, December 20 http://www.vehi.net/kafka/dnevnik.html 27

This is confirmed precisely by the fact that, despite his frivolity, Fyodor Pavlovich is still with the estate and with money. F. M. Dostoevsky himself speaks of Fyodor Pavlovich as “an old buffoon”, “a strange fellow”, “a stupid madman”, “a cunning and stubborn buffoon”, “an evil buffoon” (as he is often called), “a mean comedian”, “ ran around like a jester around other people’s tables.” He loves to “introduce himself”, “to dress others up as jesters” and appears at a “family fight” for “some kind of buffoonish and acting scene”, and says about himself: “You see a jester before you, a jester indeed!”, “... I am a native jester, from birth, just like a holy fool,” “... a jester and I introduce myself as a jester.” The appearance of Fyodor Pavlovich is the appearance of a holy fool, but the essence of a clowning bastard. Foolishness in the original sense is holiness through shame, while behind the external ugliness there is a Bright Face, but Fyodor Pavlovich does not have this light. Ivan, reciting the poem “The Grand Inquisitor,” speaks of the category of sinners who “... plunge into this lake so that they can no longer swim out, then “God already forgets them” ...” 1. In the same way, Fyodor Pavlovich plunges into sins, like into this lake from which he cannot swim. Violation of sacred human, moral and spiritual norms is 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book five. Pro and contra. V. Grand Inquisitor. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 28

the cause of Karamazov's death. According to Ivan, Fyodor Pavlovich embodies the denial of everything that Ivan considers (or would like to consider) sacred, therefore he and his brothers indirectly administer final and ancient Justice, being bearers of pre-Christian biblical truth, which Fyodor himself speaks of Pavlovich: “It is measured with the same measure, it will be measured with the same measure, or whatever it is... In a word, it will be measured.” 1 . True, the hero himself does not apply these words to himself. One of the chapters of the second book is called “The Old Jester.” Here we get to know Fyodor Pavlovich directly for the first time and can personally form our own idea of ​​the hero. Fyodor Pavlovich explains his behavior to Elder Zosima this way: “Do you think that I always lie like that and play buffoons? Know that I did this all the time on purpose to test you...” 2. This “on purpose to test you” manifests itself in Fyodor Pavlovich constantly. He also “deliberately” pisses off Miusov, as if for some time becoming his “double” and pretending that it was because of him that he lost his faith, while exposing him, revealing the true character of the hero. The buffoonery of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov is essentially characteristic Russian 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book five. Pro and contra. V. Grand Inquisitor. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book two. Inappropriate meeting. II Old Jester. http://www.loveread.ec/contents.php?id=1728 29

Russian people - distrust of unfounded statements. However, this only results in him teasing the monks and ranting about faith: “he tells offensive... jokes, deliberately reinterprets the concept of Christian love; at some point, playing along with the “sacred elder”, Father Zosima, he pretends that he is “playing the jester” only out of “suspiciousness”, and then, continuing to grimace, he reproaches the monks for trying to “buy God with minnows” 1 . “In his seemingly stupid and buffoonish speech addressed to the elder in this episode, numerous quotes that seem to come to his mind completely arbitrarily actually develop the hero’s subconscious thoughts. Fyodor Pavlovich’s gospel quotes express, on a deeper level than the buffoonish chatter that serves as his shield, the secret doubts and fears of a man so frightened by the degradation of his life that he is afraid to be alone even at night.” 2. It should be noted. That Fyodor Pavlovich’s speech is replete with gospel quotations, but God’s word in his mouth is vulgarized, takes on a different, base meaning, thereby emphasizing the baseness of the hero himself. So Karamazov quotes the Gospel of Luke: “...blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nourished You!” 3. In Scripture these words are 1 E. M. Meletinsky. Notes on the work of Dostoevsky. M., RSUH 2001 – p. 158. 2 Simonetta Salverstoi. Biblical and patristic sources of Dostoevsky's novels. Academic project, St. Petersburg, 2001 – p. 124. 3 Gospel of Luke, chapter 11, 27., http://apologetica.ru/biblie/luk11.html 30

addressed to Christ, glorified by one of the women, and Fyodor Pavlovich addresses them to Elder Zosima. This creates a symbolic parallel between Christ and Zosima, which, according to F. M. Dostoevsky, is unacceptable. Another time, when talking about Grushenka, he says that “... she “loved much,” and Christ forgave her who loved much...” 1, referring to the Gospel of Luke. Here are just the words in the Gospel: “... her many sins are forgiven because she loved much, but he who is forgiven little loves little.” 2 refer to a sinner who loved Christ and came to him, Fyodor Pavlovich, referring them to Grushenka, puts a completely different meaning into them, vulgarizing him. In general, conversations about faith occupy Karamazov most of all. So during lunch, he happily enters into an argument with Smerdyakov, taking Grigory’s side: “Don’t cry, Grigory, we’ll smash him into smoke and dust in a minute. Tell me this, donkey: you may be right before your tormentors, but you yourself still renounced your faith and you yourself say that at that very hour you were cursed with anathema, and if you are anathema, then you for this anathema 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book two. Inappropriate meeting. VI. Why does such a person live? http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.12/index.html 2 Gospel of Luke. Chapter 7. 47. http://apologetica.ru/biblie/luk7.html 31

You won't get a pat on the head in hell. What do you think about this, my beautiful Jesuit?” 1 . We see how he squeals “in the apotheosis of delight”, listening to Smerdyakov’s position, and all his arguments are perceived by us not as a desire to convince his opponent, but as a kind of question to which the hero wants to hear the answer. He speaks with delight about Smerdyakov’s faith: “Alyoshka, isn’t it true? Isn’t this what the Russian faith is like?” 2. It seems that the hero deliberately does not express his point of view. Confronting faith and unbelief, he seems to try on these two positions. We see that the hero is scared without faith in God, but he is not able to fully believe, and he is afraid. Living according to God's canons is not for him, he has fallen too low, there are too many temptations, he is too sinful, but even without faith it is difficult for him. That is why he pits the sincere believer Alexei against the unbelieving Ivan, asking them: “But still say: is there a God or not? Only seriously! Now I seriously need to... Hm. It is more likely that Ivan is right. Lord, just think about how much faith a person gave, how much strength he gave for this dream, and this is so many thousands of years! Who is it that laughs at a person like that? Ivan? IN last time and decisively: is there a God or not? This is my last time!” 3. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. Voluptuous people. VII. Controversy. http://www.loveread.ec/contents.php?id=1728 2 Ibid., http:// www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=40 3 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. Voluptuous people. VIII For some cognac. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=40#glIII_8 32

Fyodor Pavlovich accepts Ivan’s position because he himself does not believe in God, but at the same time he sincerely wants to be convinced of his unbelief, which is why he asks several times about the same thing, which is why he becomes gloomy and gloomy after a conversation with Smerdyakov. Without any theory, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov also refuses “paradise”: “... I want to live in my filth to the end, if only you knew this. It’s sweeter in filth: everyone scolds it, but everyone lives in it, only all in secret , and I openly... But I don’t want to go to your paradise, Alexey Fedorovich, you would know that, but for a decent person it would be indecent even to go to your paradise, even if he is there...” 1 - he says to Alyosha. Fyodor Pavlovich’s godlessness gives rise to his ugliness and depravity. And yet Alyosha is closer to his father, it is he who is Fyodor Pavlovich’s beloved son, and not Ivan, with whom the hero seems to agree: “Alyosha, my dear, my only son, I am afraid of Ivan; I’m afraid more than that. I’m not afraid of you alone...” 2. It is Fyodor Pavlovich’s love for his son Alexei that makes the hero even more paradoxical. He is an atheist, a voluptuary, a madman and a libertine, although this love is selfish. Fyodor Pavlovich does not notice how he hurts Alyosha in 1 F. M. Dostoevsky, Part Two. Book four. Tears. II. At my father's. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=52 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. Voluptuous people. IX. Voluptuous people. http:// www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=42 33

in Zosima’s cell, his son is ashamed and does not immediately understand that he has unpleasant memories of his mother. Fyodor Pavlovich's love for Alyosha can be called love for sincerity, for simplicity, for purity. Alyosha, unlike Dmitry, does not pretend to anything, is not competition, and, unlike Ivan, is understandable, so there is no reason to be afraid of him. This is precisely what is dear to Fyodor Pavlovich. Thus, we see what is really happening in the hero’s soul eternal struggle between God and the devil, although he himself does not want to believe in either one or the other until he is convinced of their existence, he is frightened by the thought of paying for his sins. Of course, Fyodor Pavlovich is that fallen soul whom I would like to save, even though he is a buffoon, a stubborn man, and a libertine. “Fyodor Karamazov is a landowner, albeit a declassed one, who has gone through the stage of a hanger-on, prone to evil buffoonery and dirty business. Faith in God and connection with the Russian God-bearing people are the condition and source of salvation for the fallen, no matter how mired in sin.” 1 . In connection with the image of Fyodor Pavlovich, the color symbolism of the novel is also indicative. So when describing the image of Karamazov (“Fyodor Pavlovich had on his head the same red bandage that Alyosha saw on him.” 2), his room (“It was a small room, the whole 1 E. M. Meletinsky. Notes on the work of Dostoevsky. M., Russian State University for Humanities, 2001. 2. F. M. The Karamazov Brothers. Book IV. 115 34

divided across by red screens..." 1) most often there are dark and red tones, which in F. M. Dostoevsky's novel is associated with hell, and due to which the situation is escalated before the murder. G. Pomerantz notes that in F. M. Dostoevsky “... the approach to hell is marked by cramped space and darkness, the approach to heaven is marked by space and light.” 2. In connection with the above, we can also mention the chapter in which the murdered man is described: “The light robe and white shirt on the chest were covered in blood. The candle on the table brightly illuminated the blood and the motionless dead face of Fyodor Pavlovich.” 3, where the color is red and the candle, brightly illuminating the blood, is like tongues of flame from hell itself. The image of Alyosha’s mother is constructed in a completely different way, which he remembers in the illumination of the “slanting rays of the setting sun” “... (the slanting rays are what he remembers most), in the room in the corner there is an image, in front of it there is a lit lamp, and in front of the image she is sobbing on her knees as if in hysterics, with squeals and cries, her mother, who grabbed him in both hands, hugged him tightly to the point of pain and prayed to the Mother of God for him, stretching him out of her arms 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book eight. Mitya. IV. In the dark. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=115 2 G. Pomerantz. Openness to the abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky. M., Soviet writer, 1990, p. 361. 3 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book nine. Preliminary investigation. II. Anxiety. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=135 35

with both hands to the image, as if under the cover of the Mother of God..." 1. We see how the image of the holy fool praying for her son from the Mother of God in F. M. Dostoevsky becomes a symbol of motherhood, reminding us of the Sistine Madonna - a mother with a baby in her arms. Conclusions: 1) The main negative traits of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov are voluptuousness and buffoonery, lack family values. 2) Refusing God and paradise, denying their existence, the hero comes to the destruction of the soul, which leads him to physical death, as retribution for what he has done, as the hero himself says: “It is measured with the same measure, it will be measured with the same, or how is it there." 3) Any person. According to F. M. Dostoevsky, it is God’s gift and is worthy of forgiveness if you are sincerely ready to repent and come to God. 4) When analyzing the image of Fyodor Pavlovich, we can clearly see how the “biblical” is organically included in the novel, not only in terms of creating the character and speech of the hero, but also at the level of symbolism (the name of the hero, color painting). 5) The very life of the father of the family shows that a life in which there are no moral values, respect for the individual and there is a place for unbelief leads to moral self-destruction and, as a result, to physical death. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. The story of one family. IV. Third son Alyosha. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.5/index.html 36

Chapter 6. Dmitry Karamazov 37

One of the main characters of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov” is Dmitry Karamazov, a man of uncontrollable passions and spontaneous impulses. Dmitry is infinitely far from any rationalism and represents an extremely spontaneous nature. The hero is “frivolous, violent, passionate, impatient.” His youth, as we know, was chaotic; he was a terrible “reveler.” Dmitry himself admits: “...I am Karamazov. Because if I’m going to fly into the abyss, I’ll do it straight, head down and heels up, and I’m even pleased that it’s in this humiliating position that I fall and consider it beauty for myself.” 1 . “I loved debauchery, I loved the shame of debauchery. I loved cruelty: am I not a bug, an evil insect? It’s said - Karamazov!” 2, “in the meantime, revelry and mayhem.” Dmitry, more than other sons, inherited voluptuousness from his father: “Even though he is an honest man<...>but he is a voluptuous man.” For all his spiritual brokenness, sinfulness and depravity, the hero is endowed with nobility and generosity. F. M. Dostoevsky is attracted by many things in Dmitry. He sees in 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. Voluptuous people. Chapter III. Confession of a warm heart. In verse. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=32 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. Voluptuous people. Chapter IV. Confession of a warm heart. In jokes. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=32 38

It is the expression of a passionate Russian soul, ready to purify itself through suffering. “As we have seen, Dmitry is constantly aware of his “baseness” (“I am the most vile bastard of all”) and at the same time expresses a desire to correct himself, to renew himself, to suffer... Dmitry quotes Schiller’s words about the deep humiliation of a person and the need to get rid of humiliation enter into an alliance with the "earth" (soil). There is always talk about his “thirst for resurrection and renewal.” 1 . When depicting Dmitry Karamazov, F. M. Dostoevsky is obviously “biased” in the sense that, characterizing him from the words of other heroes as a man of extremes, often low, voluptuous and unbridled in anger, the author at the same time sympathizes with him and tries to justify in the eyes of readers. And although in the course of the action Dmitry Karamazov equally commits both dishonorable and noble deeds, F. M. Dostoevsky “enlightens” his image, showing the hero mainly in a state of painful struggle and victory over himself. As a result, Dmitry appears in the novel as a passionate, but warm-hearted, repentant person. His saving trait should be recognized as his constant generosity. He is ready to forgive his father, who defrauded him of his inheritance and is constantly plotting against him, 1 E. M. Meletinsky. Notes on the work of Dostoevsky. M., RSUH 2001 – p. 167. 39

forgives Grushenka, who secretly ran away from him to the Pole, forgives Katya, who spoke out against him at the trial and thereby destroyed him: “I swear by God and the Last Judgment, I am not guilty of my father’s blood! Katya, I forgive you! 1 . With no less fervor, Dmitry Karamazov himself asks for forgiveness, since he, even at the moment of committing another “baseness,” is unusually acutely aware of his sinfulness. His thirst for forgiveness results in his “confession of a warm heart” to Alyosha, is reflected in the noble impulse to “step back and give way” to Grushenka’s happiness upon the return of her first fiancé, and in repentance before the judges in Mokroye. At the trial, he declares: “I accept the torment of accusation and my national shame, I want to suffer and through suffering I will be cleansed!” Unlike Ivan, he fervently believes in God, is ready to admit that he is the most guilty and to suffer for others, even instead of others. He appears in precisely the image of a repentant sinner who is so loved by God and Elder Zosima. It is Dmitry who is assigned in the novel to follow the “path of grain” to the end, thanks to which his “punishment” rises to a spiritual feat. This image of grain falling into the ground appears more than once in the novel. Quoting 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book twelve. Judgement mistake. Chapter XIV. The men stood up for themselves. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=225 40

Gospel of John “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; and if it dies, it will bear much fruit.” (Chapter XII, 24), F. M. Dostoevsky attaches special significance to these words, making them an epigraph to the entire novel. And since the novel is dedicated to the history of “one family,” then, accordingly, these words are primarily addressed to the members of this “family.” Many researchers of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky noted that the writer deliberately chooses words from the Gospel of John as an epigraph, because the context in this text is the coming of the Hellenes to Jesus, and therefore the rest of the world, all of humanity. Jesus says: “Whoever serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there will my servant also be. And whoever serves Me, My Father will honor him.” 1 . And a little earlier: “...the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” 2, where the hour of glory is the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, the one who forgets about himself and follows Christ is worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven: “ Loving soul he will destroy his own; But he who hates his life in this world will keep it to eternal life.” 3. 1 Gospel of John. Chapter 12, 26. http://biblia.org.ua/bibliya/in.html#ch12 2 Gospel of John. Chapter 12, 23. http://biblia.org.ua/bibliya/in.html#ch12 3 Gospel of John. Chapter 12, 25. http://biblia.org.ua/bibliya/in.html#ch12 41

Another time, Zosima says the same words about grain in a conversation with Alyosha, and here they are directly connected with Dmitry: “I sent you to him, Alexey, because I thought that your brotherly face would help him. But everything is from the Lord and all our destinies. “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, then only one remains; and if it dies, it will bear much fruit.” Remember this." 1 . Thus, the idea of ​​sacrifice, expressed figuratively in the Gospel, states the following: in order to preserve one’s soul for “eternal life,” one must not only neglect the personal, overcome selfishness, but also, sacrificing oneself, suffer, one must joyfully accept the guilt of everyone upon oneself, be able to sacrifice oneself for the benefit of everyone. Dmitry Karamazov comes to such sacrifice, which constitutes a symbol of faith, the moral credo of F. M. Dostoevsky. The “strange” dream about the “child” ends the most stormy day and the most stormy night in the life of Dmitry Karamazov, when he successively experiences complete despair, the depth of hatred and anger (in his father’s garden), then - with the news of Grushenka’s flight to her former fiancé - self-denial up to the intention of committing suicide, then - upon her return - the joy of renewal and love, but then the height of shame and humiliation during arrest and first interrogation, and, finally, the slow realization of the hopelessness of one’s situation given the gravity of existing 1 F. M. Dostoevsky . Brothers Karamazov. Book six. Russian monk. I. Elder Zosima and his guests. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.40/index.html 42

evidence against him. As a result, all these experiences and shocks are embodied in a dream. In the center of the dream is the image of a crying child and a feeling of immense pity for him. And it is at this moment that the whole essence of Mitya Karamazov is revealed: he is filled with the desire to do something so that “the child will not cry anymore,” “... so that no one will have tears at all from this moment. And to do this now, without delay and in spite of everything, with all the unrestraint of Karamazov...” 1. The heroes of F. M. Dostoevsky are especially close and understandable to those whose soul does not know peace, who is in a state of constant doubt and search for truth. Such is Dmitry Karamazov; it is not for nothing that he is the bearer of the book’s most intimate secret. It is Dmitry who says the famous phrase, which can serve as the key to the novel and to the entire work of F. M. Dostoevsky as a whole: “Here the devil is fighting with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people.” 2. Dmitry - a “morally broad nature” - also represents a “battlefield” of the divine and the devil. Having traced the development of this conflict higher powers in the soul of Mitya Karamazov, we cannot help but notice that in his own judgments at the trial, in 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book nine. Preliminary investigation. VIII. Testimony of witnesses. Child. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.62/index.htmlF. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Book three. 2 Voluptuaries. Chapter III. Confession of a warm heart. In verse. http://www.loveread.ec/read_book.php?id=1728&p=32 43

In relation to him, other characters who speak “for” or “against” him necessarily include God (“refuge and salvation”) and the devil (clever and insidious, questioning the truth). “God,” as Mitya himself said later, “was watching over me then: just at that very time Grigory Vasilyevich woke up...” 1 - we read in the novel. And another time: “In my opinion, gentlemen, in my opinion, this is how it was,” he spoke quietly, “whether it was whose tears, whether my mother begged God, whether the bright spirit kissed me at that moment - I don’t know, but damn was defeated..." 2. We see that Dmitry Karamazov himself is aware of this struggle within himself. He is not irretrievably lost, like his father, since he is capable of repenting and suffering, capable of accepting the “torment of the cross.” Good and Evil, moral beauty and depraved ugliness, the battle of which takes place in the hearts of people, the dramatic tension of overcoming “hell” is repeated every time in its own way, and not only in the story of Mitya, but at the same time the truth of Zosima’s words is confirmed every time: “ before all people for everyone and for everything, for all the sins of man, the world and 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book eight. Mitya. IV. In the dark. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.50/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book nine. Preliminary investigation. V. Third ordeal. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.59/index.html 44

individual, then only the goal of our unity will be achieved. For know, dear ones, that each one of us is undoubtedly guilty for everyone and for everything on earth, not only for the common world guilt, but individually each for all people and for every person on this earth. This consciousness is the crown of the monastic path, and of every person on earth. For monks are not other people, but only such as all people on earth should be. Only then would our heart be touched by endless, universal love that knows no saturation. Then each of you will be able to win the whole world with love and wash away the world’s sins with your tears...” 1. “Hell of spiritual torment” is different for each hero. Mitya considers his dishonor – Katerina Ivanovna’s lost money – “hell”, and therefore pins his hope for the deliverance of his soul on the return of the money he asks from his father. Conclusions: 1) Dmitry is a “sacrificial” person, consciously sacrificing himself, consciously following the path of atonement for his own sin of his brothers. 2) It is Dmitry Karamazov who manages to complete the “path of grain” and come in his spiritual quest to the Kingdom of Heaven. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book four. Tears. I. Father Ferapont. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.26/index.html 45

3) Deep faith in God, according to Dostoevsky, provides firm support in all the vicissitudes of fate; peace arises in a person’s soul for the fate of the world and his personal life. 4) Dmitry Karamazov is proof of Dostoevsky’s religious theory, because it is he who manages to take the path of atonement. No matter what happens, the hero does not lose faith in God, which is why he manages to pass all the tests, thereby redeeming not only his own sins, but also the sins of his brothers. 46

Chapter 7. Ivan Karamazov 47

Ivan Fedorovich Karamazov is the twenty-three-year-old son of Fedor Pavlovich Karamazov. He grew up “... as some kind of gloomy and closed-off youth, far from timid, but as if from the age of ten, he understood that they were still growing up in someone else’s family and at the mercy of others, and what kind of father they had something that is embarrassing to even talk about, and so on. and so on." 1 . From an early age, Ivan showed extraordinary abilities for learning. Having graduated from the educational institution and, out of pride, not turning to his father for financial help, he achieved work in the field of literature, after graduating from university he wrote an article about the church court, which both clergy and atheists liked equally and which the most astute readers recognized as “an impudent farce and mockery.” » 2. Young Karamazov stands out in the society of the small provincial town where the action of the novel develops with his intelligence, clarity of thinking, and education. He leads an outwardly impeccable life: he owes nothing to anyone and does not need anything. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book one. The story of one family. III. Second marriage and second children. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.4/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book one. The story of one family. III. Second marriage and second children. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.4/index.html 48

Alyosha confesses to Ivan in the tavern: “Brother Dmitry says about you: Ivan is a grave. I'm talking about you: Ivan is a mystery. You are still a mystery to me..." 1. Alyosha feels that his brother is doing something internal and important, striving for some goal, perhaps a very difficult one. Zosima immediately guesses the young philosopher’s secret, saying that God is torturing him.” “This idea has not yet been resolved in your heart and torments it... This is your great grief, for it urgently requires a solution... But thank the creator for giving you a higher heart capable of tormenting with such torment,” 2 Zosima addresses Ivan. Thus, Ivan is not a smug atheist, but a “higher heart,” a martyr of the idea, experiencing unbelief as a personal problem. He denies with his mind what he loves with his heart. Ivan is exhausted and overwhelmed by the problem of God and his relationship to the world. The hero’s facts and reasoning are always connected with Holy Scripture, but if you look closely at how he interprets it, defending his point of view, you can immediately see that the hero stops only at those places where the logic of God’s opponent dominates, taking them out of context, in which has a reverse side, the Divine word. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. III. The brothers meet. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.35/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book two. Inappropriate meeting. VI. Why does such a person live? http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.12/index.html 49

Ivan admits the existence of God: “I don’t accept God, understand this, I don’t accept the world he created, the world of God, and I can’t agree to accept.” 1 . He is ready to accept God, but only in order to hold him responsible for the “damned chaos” He created. He denies God out of love for humanity, acts as a lawyer for all those who suffer against the Creator, addressing Alyosha, a true believer: “Imagine that you yourself are erecting the building of human destiny with the goal of ultimately making people happy, finally giving them peace and quiet, but for this it would be necessary and inevitable to torture just one tiny creature, that same child who beat himself in the chest with his fist and founded this building on his unavenged tears. Would you agree to be an architect on these conditions, tell me and don’t lie! ..." 2. Many researchers note that of the entire Bible, F. M. Dostoevsky most loved the Book of Job, in which he sought the answer to the question about the mystery of the suffering of the innocent, about faith in God. The rebellious motives of the “Book of Job,” refracted in the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” in the chapter “Revolt,” are associated primarily with the issue of the suffering of the innocent. F. M. Dostoevsky was well aware of the point of view according to which a person is cleansed of sins through 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra, III. The brothers meet. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.35/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. IV. Riot. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.36/index.html 50

suffering, which has only increased since the time of Job, but Ivan Karamazov sees only suffering without purification, and therefore cannot accept God’s peace. God is silent and does not respond to the cries of the innocent victims, in the words of Job: “In the city people groan, and the soul of those who are being killed screams, and God does not forbid it.” 1 . This remark is very similar to Ivan’s confession to Alyosha: “I accept God... I accept his wisdom... I don’t accept God,... I don’t accept the world created by him, God’s world, and I cannot agree to accept... I am convinced like a baby, that suffering will heal and smooth out, that... at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will happen and appear that it will be enough for all hearts, to satisfy all indignations, to atone for all the atrocities of people, for all the blood they have shed... but I don’t think so I don’t accept and don’t want to accept!” 2. Ivan rejects the hero's justification for evil at the end of the Book of Job. For the hero, the main difficulty lies in the time factor: his desire for “everything” is immediately opposed to the slow flow of time in the Holy Scriptures. Ideological struggle, a clash of two positions of the rebel Ivan, who does not accept the world and its injustice, and Elder Zosima, the preacher forgiving love, suffering and self-sacrifice as the only path to self-improvement, 1 Book of Job, chapter 24, 12. http://biblia.org.ua/bibliya/iov.html#ch24 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. III. The brothers meet. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.35/index.html 51

reaches its climax in the chapter "The Grand Inquisitor". The action of the poem takes place in Spain in the 15th century. The Savior comes to earth again during the period of the rampant Inquisition, and people recognize him. The Grand Inquisitor, “...an almost ninety-year-old old man, tall and straight, with a withered face, with sunken eyes, but from which the shine still glows like a fiery spark...” 1, orders Jesus to be put in prison, and at night he comes to his captive and begins talk to him. The old man’s speech is directed against the teachings of the God-man, and Christ responds to this speech only with a kiss. According to the inquisitor, great power, allowing one to rule over all humanity, is contained in the formula “miracle, mystery and authority,” but remembering how Jesus appears, we see that these three conditions are met. “He appeared quietly, unnoticed, and now everyone - this is strange - recognizes him. This could be one of the best parts of the poem, that is, why exactly they recognize him.” 2 - what else is presented to us here if not a mystery? “The people cry and kiss the ground on which he walks. Children throw flowers in front of him, sing and cry out to him: “Hosanna!” 3, - this is how the authority of 1 F. M. Dostoevsky is presented. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. V. Grand Inquisitor. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. V. Grand Inquisitor. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 3 Ibid., http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 52

Christ. And finally, with one word, he resurrects the dead girl - a miracle. Miracle, mystery and authority - all this is inherent in the prisoner and is not given to the inquisitor. But not only this torments the inquisitor and makes him talk so much and passionately, but the power that Christ possesses, because he does not at all resort to the power of mystery, miracle and authority, and without this the people love him, believe him and follow him. The power of Christ is truly not based on miracle, mystery and authority, as the Inquisitor thinks, but lies in His Love and Compassion. He loves everyone and everyone, he even loves the great inquisitor, knowing in advance that he will tell him: “Tomorrow I will burn you.” His love is the true Miracle, Mystery and Authority. The situation changes dramatically after the kiss of Christ. The doors of the prison dissolve, and Christ goes out into the “dark stacks of hail,” and the inquisitor remains inside the prison. The doors of the prison are open, but he does not dare to take a step, because this means following Christ, following His path. Ivan doesn’t know whether he will take this step, but Dostoevsky knows, because there is no other way out of prison. Ivan is not only the author of this poem, he is also that great inquisitor who stands in front of the open door and does not know whether to follow Christ or not. And Alyosha understands this, who, following Christ kissing the inquisitor, gets up and kisses Ivan. Alyosha bows to his “great grief” associated with doubts and the search for truth, which Zosima unraveled in him at the beginning of the novel. It is the final kiss of the Prisoner that makes 53

this poem is brilliant. It contradicts the entire worldview of Ivan the ideologist, but is immensely dear to Ivan the artist. Thus, the poem is the heart of the novel, the very battlefield where the devil fights with God. The monologue of the Grand Inquisitor is, of course, the monologue of Ivan himself, addressed to an invisible enemy. Christ never appeared to Ivan in any vision, just as, on the contrary, the devil would appear to him later. He creates a poem, composes “The Grand Inquisitor” only in order to finally see his opponent. “The Silence of Christ” in the poem is the muteness of Ivan himself, his heart and soul. But Ivan himself does not intend to admit this and he turns his spiritual weakness into a weapon, saying that silence is consent, recognition of the truth of the inquisitor’s words, their indisputability. And he tells his poem to Alyosha as a counter-argument to his brother’s exclamation that there is a Being in the world who “... can forgive everything, everyone and everything and for everything, because He Himself gave His innocent blood for everyone and for everything...” 1. The poem, prepared as evidence against Christ, becomes indisputable proof of his power, completely destroying Ivan’s theory. So, Ivan's main problem is a clash of mind and heart, and neither of these forces is inferior to the other. As a result of this struggle, contradictions are born: 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. V. Grand Inquisitor. http:// ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.37/index.html 54

1 . There is no God and immortality, but I want to believe that they exist. 2. There is no eternal harmony, and I don’t want it (out of love for humanity), but as an ideal it is beautiful. 3. Everything is permitted, but I cannot accept the idea that the people for whom the highest harmony was built would agree to accept it “on the unjustified blood of a little tortured one,” and therefore not everything is permitted for me. 4 . “To satisfy my moral feeling” I need retribution, but I want to forgive. According to Dostoevsky, all of Fyodor Pavlovich’s children are to blame for his death, and therefore everyone is responsible for the crime. Dmitry is guilty of killing his father in his soul and mentally committing murder several times, Alexey is guilty of going to Grushenka instead of being with Dmitry and preventing the catastrophe, Ivan is guilty of killing his father in his desires and by this denies himself. Ivan is the mental leader of the murder. According to Ivan’s theory, “everything is allowed,” but, despite the theory, Ivan himself does not go to kill. The attraction to God is what stops him, the force that prevents him from falling completely. His theory was just a mask, which he did not fully believe in. And yet he blames himself for the murder of his father. “I only know one thing... It wasn’t you who killed your father... I said this word to you for the rest of my life: “Not you!” This is what Alyosha says to Ivan. But for him these words sound like “you killed too.” 55

Then, in the conversation, the image of a certain third person pops up - the devil. Some researchers associate the image of the devil with Smerdyakov, but we are closer to the opinion of those who bring him closer to Ivan’s father, Fyodor Pavlovich. “The devil is a dead father who comes to his son to amuse him. As before, Ivan hates his father, now in the shoes of a “small-caliber” devil, with the only difference, however, that Fyodor Pavlovich’s life stopped and found a new place for himself in the world of ghosts of his own son.” 1 . Thus, the devil is a combination of the smallest and lowest qualities of father and son. The devil tells Ivan’s poem “Geological Revolution,” which the hero now listens to with great shame, and it is in the devil’s retelling that it is revealed to us that Ivan once thought about the possibility of harmony on earth without God. “And although Ivan has not yet completely renounced his theory, the appearance of the devil proves that it survives last days, for the devil in his own way is Ivan’s lynching.” 2. It is the devil who forces Ivan to admit the inconsistency of his theory, and, consequently, his guilt. Archpriest Vyacheslav Perevezentsev in his work “The Revolt of Ivan Karamazov” wrote: “... people don’t just forget God, it’s not so easy to forget about Him, because 1 F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. Current state of study. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of World Literature named after. A. M. Gorky. Commission for the Study of the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky. - under. Ed. T. A. Kasatkina, M., “Science”, 2007, p. 152. 2 Novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”. Current state of study. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of World Literature named after. A. M. Gorky. Commission for the Study of the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky. - under. Ed. T. A. Kasatkina, M., “Science”, 2007, p. 153. 56

“The soul is Christian by nature” (Tertullian). They rebel against Him, they kill Him, and, having killed Him within themselves, they long for everyone to commit murder.” 1 . The same thing happens to Ivan in the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky: having killed God in himself, he provokes Smerdyakov and blames his brother Dmitry for the murder. Conclusions: 1) Ivan’s tragedy in rebellion against Christ, arising from the clash of mind and heart, from the hero’s pride. 2) F. M. Dostoevsky directly makes it clear that denial of Christ, rebellion against him leads to the death of the soul, this is, first of all, rebellion against oneself. 3) The resurrection of a person, and in this case Ivan, is possible only through the acceptance of God. 4) Once again we are convinced of Dostoevsky’s theory that happiness lies in accepting God without requiring logical conclusions, but accepting Him sincerely, without requiring evidence. 1 Novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”. Current state of study. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of World Literature named after. A. M. Gorky. Commission for the Study of the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky. - under. Ed. T. A. Kasatkina, M., “Science”, 2007, p. 163. 57

Chapter 8. Alyosha Karamazov 58

Alexey Karamazov is the youngest son of Fyodor Pavlovich, who was twenty years old at the time the events began. Alyosha is depicted paler than others, and yet “The Brothers Karamazov” was conceived as a biography of Alyosha, and in the preface the author directly calls him the hero of the novel. “The main novel of the second is the activity of my hero already in our time,” writes F. M. Dostoevsky, “precisely in our current current moment. The first novel took place thirteen years ago, and there is almost not even a novel, but only one moment from the first youth of my hero. It is impossible for me to do without this first novel, because much in the second novel would become incomprehensible.” 1 . One gets the impression that what lies ahead is really his biography or even a “life”, but in reality Alyosha appears only as one of the characters, but an obviously positive one, uniting and reconciling everyone. It was “... a stately, red-cheeked, bright-eyed, radiant health... teenager. At that time he was even very handsome, slender, of medium-tall height, dark blond, with a regular, although somewhat elongated oval face, with shiny dark gray wide-set eyes, very thoughtful and, apparently, very calm » 2. He studied easily, smoothly, but, without graduating from the gymnasium, suddenly, under the influence of some internal impulse, he came to his father, found his mother’s grave and soon after that decided to enter a monastery. At this time, Alyosha completely submits to the influence of Elder Zosima and is so imbued with his worldview that he considers himself to be “mentally united with him.” 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. From the author. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.1/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book one. The story of one family. V. Elders. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.6/index.html 59

Almost all the characters in the novel treat Alyosha with love. By his nature, from an early age he had the ability to arouse the special love of those around him. He always had a special, even, bright mood that filled his soul and did not give room to feelings of resentment, anger and irritation. This trait of his is reflected in the name of the hero, which means “protector”, “protector”, from the Greek word “alex” - “to protect”, “reflect”, “prevent”, it is not without reason that almost everything in the novel is close to him those who know call Alyosha “angel”, “cherub”. So Dmitry, asking Alyosha to go to Katerina Ivanovna, tells him: “I could send anyone, but I had to send an angel...”. Or another time: “I have already told the angel in heaven, but I must also tell the angel on earth. You are an angel on earth. You will listen, you will judge and you will forgive...” Ivan also calls him Cherub: “He was afraid of you, you, the dove. You are a “pure cherub”… Cherub…”. Another one arises here biblical image- the image of a dove as a harbinger of God, the Kingdom of God, the Holy Spirit. F. M. Dostoevsky sought to show in Alyosha that humane humanity, that genuine love for one’s neighbor, which the rest of the Karamazovs lack. At first glance, Alyosha is a completely positive hero; among the most important traits of his character, the most prominent are his love of humanity and “non-judgment of his neighbor.” And no matter what misdeeds his brothers and his father commit, he is always ready to forgive and understand them, and always treats them with love. But at the same time, Alyosha Karamazov is at some point able to say about himself: “... and I myself am Karamazov... Am I a monk, a monk? ... maybe I don’t believe in God...” 1 . And this paradoxical statement corresponds to the unrealized plan of F. M. Dostoevsky to turn him in the second volume of The Brothers Karamazov into a revolutionary or a criminal, who later, of course, repents. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. From the author. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.1/index.html 60

Although Alyosha recognizes Karamazov in himself, he believes that in this sense he is on the “lowest rung” and admits to religious doubts. And yet he is a deeply religious person, without “fantasies” and “mysticism”, without psychological “morbidity”. The narrator calls Alyosha Karamazov a realist and asserts that “... in a realist, faith is not born from a miracle, but a miracle from faith. If a realist once believes, then precisely because of his realism he must certainly admit a miracle.” 1 . He did not need miracles, but only the highest justice. Alyosha loves people, and especially children, whom he tries to influence. “His character of love was always active,” he believes that “everyone should love life,” and “before logic.” He acts as a kind of reconciliator not only between his father and brothers, but also other heroes of the novel, having a good understanding of people, he “does not want to be a judge of people” and treats everyone with sympathy. Alyosha is deprived of the shortcomings of his father and brothers and combines their advantages. He is not voluptuous, like Fyodor Pavlovich and brother Dmitry, not an atheist, like his father and Ivan, not indifferent to people and not a rationalist, like Ivan, not dry, like Smerdyakov. It should be noted that throughout the entire novel “The Brothers Karamazov” Alyosha more than once has to fight the temptation of faith. Such a temptation of faith is the death of Zosima, when we see that Alyosha is disappointed and partly outraged by the rapid decay of the deceased Zosima. No less of a test for him is a conversation with Ivan, during which his brother tells Alyosha about the essence of his “rebellion against God,” trying to involve Alyosha himself in it. This is a rebellion against religion, against a world where “a child cries, where tears flow…”. Ivan considers the torture of “innocent children” the most cruel and recognizes the desirability of destroying their tormentors, persuading his brother Alyosha to do this. It comes from 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book one. The story of one family. V. Elders. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.6/index.html 61

the belief that the injustice of human suffering cannot be justified at any cost, speaks of the tears of an innocent child, which cannot be repaid by future harmony, and talks about a certain landowner who hunted an eight-year-old boy with greyhounds and, having finished, asks cruelly: “Well... what about him? Shoot?". And Alyosha, without hesitation, answers: “Shoot! - quietly... with a pale, distorted smile..., but immediately correcting himself: “I said something absurd, but...”. Even the meek and religious Alyosha, who grew up on the idea of ​​​​forgiving his enemies, is not able to drown out in himself the immediate sense of justice that demands revenge on the beast landowner. Without a doubt, such a movement of Alyosha’s soul was nothing more than a game of the devil in his heart: “there is a devil in his heart...”. It is precisely because the world is unfair towards those who suffer that Ivan Karamazov denies it: “I don’t accept God, understand this, I don’t accept the world He created, the world of God, and I can’t agree to accept...” 1 . This phrase was deeply ingrained in Alyosha’s mind, which he later used as his own in a conversation with Rakitin: “I don’t rebel against my God, I just don’t accept the world,” Alyosha suddenly grinned wryly.” 2. Here Alyosha specifically quotes the words of Ivan Karamazov, as if emphasizing the similarities between himself and his brother, but there is still a fundamental difference, because he, in contrast to Ivan, is guided by love, some recklessness, spontaneity of thought and feeling. Ivan comes to this thoughtfully, with a cold heart. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. III. The brothers meet. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.35/index.html F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book seven. Alyosha. II. Such a moment. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.44/index.html 62

That same evening, Alyosha overcomes his “rebellion” and embraces the earth in tenderness: “something solid and unshakable, like this vault of heaven, descended in his soul... He fell to the ground as a weak youth, and stood up as a steadfast fighter for the rest of his life...” 1 . The Gospel story about the marriage in Cana of Galilee, read by Father Paisius, becomes such a “resurrection” for Alyosha. Through his drowsiness, praying at the tomb of Elder Zosima, Alyosha hears Father Paisius reading - and then the walls move apart, the coffin is no longer there. He sees the guests, the bridal chamber. Elder Zosima, “joyful and quietly laughing,” says to him, “We are having fun, drinking new wine, the wine of new, great joy... But do you see our Sun, do you see Him? Don't be afraid of Him. He is terrible in his greatness before us, terrible in his height, but his mercy is endless...” 2. Alyosha’s vision is a symbol of resurrection, the joy of the Kingdom of God. Ivan does not understand how he can forgive the mother of a tortured child. Alyosha understood: in the new world they forgive “for everyone, for everything and for everything,” he manages to survive “temptations.” Conclusions: 1) Alyosha is devoid of the shortcomings of his father and brothers and combines their advantages. 2) Alyosha, like all Karamazovs, is subject to temptations and doubts, but unconditional faith and love help him withstand all trials. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book seven. Alyosha. IV. Cana of Galilee. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.46/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part three. Book seven. Alyosha. IV. Cana of Galilee. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.46/index.html 63

Chapter 9. Pavel Smerdyakov 64

Pavel Smerdyakov is the illegitimate son of Fyodor Pavlovich Kamarazov, not recognized by him, and Lizaveta Smerdyashchaya, practically the adopted son of the servant Grigory. Smerdyakov's character is largely determined by his illegal origin. He himself says: “Without a father, from the Stinking One came... it was my lot from my very childhood... they poked me in Moscow.” 1 . This partly explains why he is “terribly unsociable and silent”, “arrogant”, “without any gratitude”, has “immense pride, and, moreover, insulted pride”, why he is characterized by “illogicality and disorder of other desires”. Having learned about Smerdyakov’s disgust and cleanliness, Fyodor Pavlovich sent him to Moscow to study as a cook, where “... he stayed for several years and returned with a greatly changed face. He suddenly aged somehow unusually, completely disproportionately with age, he shriveled, turned yellow, and began to look like an eunuch.” 2. At the same time, it was difficult to understand what was on his mind when he stopped and seemed to think, engaging in self-contemplation. F. M. Dostoevsky compares him with the hero of I. N. Kramskoy’s painting “The Contemplator” 3. If “...they asked him what he was standing and thinking about, he probably would not have remembered anything, but he would probably have harbored within himself the impression under which he was during his contemplation. These impressions are dear to him, and he is probably hoarding them... maybe, suddenly, having accumulated impressions for many years, he will leave everything and go to Jerusalem, to wander and escape, or maybe he will suddenly burn down his native village, or maybe something else will happen... and more together. There are quite a few people who are contemplative. 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part two. Book five. Pro and contra. II. Smerdyakov with a guitar. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.34/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book three. Voluptuous people. VI. Smerdyakov. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.20/index.html 3. See Appendix 1. 65

Smerdyakov was probably one of these contemplators...” 1 . Thus, F. M. Dostoevsky makes us understand that Smerdyakov contains that destructive force, that ability to reach the end in his denial, which the writer spoke about in his “Diaries”: “... to destroy oneself forever and ever for just one minute triumph with denial and pride - the Russian Mephistopheles could not have invented anything more impudent!” 2. Many researchers attribute the wanderer from Kramskoy’s painting to the schismatic sectarians, Old Believers, whose views are opposed to the official church, and after this, to Smerdyakov himself, noting F. M. Dostoevsky’s enormous interest in the religious and cultural schism in Russian society and its consequences. According to F. M. Dostoevsky, the contemplator in Kramskoy’s painting of the same name accumulates impressions that can later provoke his actions. Accumulating impressions for his own further actions, which could result in something unexpected, and Smerdyakov, similar to him in his self-absorption. The fact that Smerdyakov is a sectarian is evidenced by many details found in the novel. This is a direct indication of his thin voice, dislike of women, preference fish dishes meat, conscientious attitude to their work, visible honesty, efficiency. Fyodor Pavlovich calls him a “Jesuit,” which for Dostoevsky is tantamount to a sectarian. For Smerdyakov, it costs nothing to renounce both Christ and his own baptism, because he accepted another - “baptism of fire.” 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part one. Book three. Voluptuous people. VI. Smerdyakov. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.20/index.html 2 F. M. Dostoevsky, Diary of a Writer. 1873, M., Institute of Russian Civilization, 2010, p. 84. 66

Smerdyakov is deprived of Karamazov’s love of life, driven to debauchery; he is terribly disgusted and loves external cleanliness and neatness. He is a contemplator, not a doer, but just like Ivan Karamazov, only on a parodic level, he is prone to logical, rationalistic reasoning. So he casuistically talks about the innocence of his nephew, who agreed to convert to Islam, and about the impossibility of moving mountains by the power of faith. It is these arguments that bring him closer to Fyodor Pavlovich and Ivan Karamazov, betraying the hero’s lack of faith. Ivan’s theory that “everything is permitted”, which he has adopted, inspires Smerdyakov to commit parricide. Defender Mitya Fetyukovich says about Smerdyakov that “... in character... in heart... he was not such a weak person... I did not find timidity in him. There was no simplicity in him at all; on the contrary, I found a terrible mistrust hiding under naivety, and a mind capable of contemplating a lot..." 1. The defender calls Smerdyakov a being “evil, ambitious, vengeful and sultry-envious.” A number of circumstances contributed to Smerdyakov’s commission of the crime: Ivan’s departure, Alyosha’s absence that night and Dmitry’s appearance. Hating him with the “hatred of Cain,” Smerdyakov commits a crime, knowing that the accusation will fall on Mitya, but he does not want to use the stolen money because of disappointment in the validity of Ivan’s theory of permissiveness and because of his indecision. He could have saved Mitya by leaving a confession in his suicide note, but he did not do this, because confession is the voice of conscience. It is noteworthy in this regard that the name of the hero is Pavel Fedorovich - a kind of inversion of the name of his father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov. F. M. Dostoevsky in a unique way creates a vicious circle from Fyodor Pavlovich to Pavel Fedorovich - illegitimate 1 F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. Part four. Book Twelve. Judgement mistake. XII. And there was no murder. http://ilibrary.ru/text/1199/p.92/index.html 67

son. Born in sin, he dies committing sin - suicide. A son who killed his father, but not mentally, as Ivan does, and not in his soul, like Dmitry, kills himself. Often researchers of the work of F. M. Dostoevsky consider Smerdyakov only as Ivan’s double, his dark side. However, it is no coincidence that Alyosha claims that his father’s killer is not Mitya or Ivan, but Smerdyakov, thereby emphasizing the difference between Ivan and Smerdyakov. Smerdyakov, who returned the stolen money to Ivan and declared to his “teacher” that he was only his, the “main murderer”, henchman who carried out the “deed” at his word, and then committed suicide “on his own by one's own will“, like Judas, who betrayed Christ for thirty pieces of silver, and then returned him to the Jewish high priests and elders, he cannot understand Ivan’s horror and torment; it seems to him that he is pretending, “playing a comedy.” And it is not for nothing that in Ivan’s sick imagination it is Smerdyakov who merges with the image of the devil and replaces it. He, like Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, only needed to make sure that he could “transgress.” The theme raised by F. M. Dostoevsky in the novel Crime and Punishment finds its development here, in The Brothers Karamazov, but here it is resolved on a different, more evangelical level than in Crime and Punishment. The brothers, each in their own way, experience the same tragedy, they have a common guilt and a common redemption. Not only Ivan with his idea of ​​“everything is allowed,” not only Dmitry in his uncontrollable passions, but also the “quiet boy” Alyosha are responsible for the murder of his father. All of them consciously or semi-consciously wished for his death, and their desire pushed Smerdyakov to commit a crime: he was their obedient instrument. Ivan's murderous thought turned into Dmitry's destructive passion and Smerdyakov's criminal action. 68

Conclusions: 1) Pavel Smerdyakov, despite the fact that we do not recognize him as our father, is still by nature a true Karamazov. 2) Pavel Smerdyakov, unlike other heroes, has already made his choice between God and the devil, and his entire further path is the path of the devil. 3) Renunciation of God and faith leads to the loss of life values ​​and the fall from grace, even to parricide. 4) Smerdyakov’s suicide is nothing more than retribution for lack of faith. 69

Chapter 10. Conclusions “The Brothers Karamazov” is a novel that sums up the philosophical quests of F. M. Dostoevsky, this is a kind of summary of his life’s journey. It is here that the writer’s main thoughts about man, faith, and the fate of Russia as a whole are concentrated. Using the example of one family - the Karamazov family - F. M. Dostoevsky shows what can happen to a person and a family without faith, without Christ. The theme of faith and unbelief runs like a red line through the images of the heroes of the novel, their life path and attitude towards loved ones. So Smerdyakov’s suicide is nothing more than retribution for lack of faith. F. M. Dostoevsky directly makes it clear that denial of Christ, rebellion against him, leads to the death of the soul. This is, first of all, a rebellion against oneself, as happened not only with Pavel Smerdyakov, but also with Ivan. The resurrection of a person can only happen through acceptance of God, through faith. Dmitry's redemption, the purification of his soul through suffering, his unshakable faith in God create the image of a repentant sinner. Deep faith in God, according to Dostoevsky, provides firm support in all the vicissitudes of fate; peace arises in a person’s soul for the fate of the world and his personal life. The theme of family is no less important in the novel. Family is the most important part of the life of not only every person, but also society as a whole. Its collapse is even equal to the collapse of the state. The heroes of the novel talk about Russia, they are one way or another concerned about the fate of the country. The state cannot exist if its small unit - the family - is not united. F. M. Dostoevsky showed that the loss of values, roots and moral qualities leads to this collapse, and this loss, in turn, manifests itself when people leave God, when unbelief takes root in their consciousness. 70

Special mention should be made about the influence of the Bible on F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel. The writer does not just quote Holy Scripture, the entire novel is permeated with biblical motifs and reflections. The Bible penetrates into the text of the novel in the form of borrowing symbolic images (color painting, names of characters, analogies with biblical images, such as “dove”, “angel” - Alyosha Karamazov, “Valam’s donkey” - Pavel Smerdyakov, the image of a repentant sinner - Dmitry Karamazov , the rebellion of Ivan Karamazov - with the rebellion of Lucifer. One of the questions that worries the author of the novel is the question of the Russian soul. F. M. Dostoevsky identifies his own, original path for Russia, and this is connected primarily with man. different time all the heroes of the novel notice something national, Russian. Having analyzed the work, we came to the conclusion that the Russian soul for Dostoevsky is a soul that truly believes in God, not completely succumbing to vices, which, even in the most difficult moment, will not lose its faith, for faith from birth has been inextricably linked with this soul. The Russian soul is ready to follow the path of renewal and purification through suffering, as shown in the example of Dmitry Karamazov. At the same time, the Russian soul is characterized by a search for truth, the highest truth. This character is presented in the novel by Alyosha Karamazov. He never completely loses his faith in God, but he is interested in the question of Supreme Justice: “Who judged? Who could judge that?” (Book 7, Chapter 2). 71

Literature used Fiction 1. F. M. Dostoevsky. Brothers Karamazov. M., Soviet writer, 1974 2. F. M. Dostoevsky. Writer's Diary. 1876, December. 3. Bible Critical literature 1. F.M. Dostoevsky in the memoirs of his contemporaries. In two volumes. , M., 1964. 2. Belov S.V. Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky. M., 1999. 3. G. Pomerantz, Openness to the abyss. Meetings with Dostoevsky., M., Soviet writer, 1990. 4. E. M. Meletinsky. Notes on the work of Dostoevsky. M., RSUH 2001 5. Simonetta Salverstoi. Biblical and patristic sources of Dostoevsky's novels. Academic project, St. Petersburg, 2001 6. F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. Current state of study. The Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of World Literature named after. A. M. Gorky. Commission for the Study of the Works of F. M. Dostoevsky. - under. Ed. T. A. Kasatkina, M., “Science”, 2007 Internet sources 1. F. M. Dostoevsky about his parents, from “Memoirs” A. M. Dostoevsky. 2. B. Rurikov. "Dostoevsky and his contemporaries". 3. V.V. Timofeeva (O. Pochinkovskaya). A year of work with the famous writer. (Dedicated to the memory of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky). 4. A. G. Dostoevskaya. Memories. 5. Vyach. Ivanov. Dostoevsky and the tragedy novel. II. Principle of worldview 6. Franz Kafka. Diaries. 72

Appendix 1 73 I. N. Kramskoy. Contemplator.

The Karamazov family. Relation degree. 74 Appendix 2

75 Appendix 3 All illustrations for the work were made by E. Nikolaeva.

“...Here the devil and God are fighting, but the battlefield is the hearts of people”...

1. Preacher of a merciful and humble heart

As you know, the work of F.M. Dostoevsky was aimed at understanding the secrets of human personality. He wrote about this to his brother Mikhail: “Man is a mystery. It must be solved, and if you spend your whole life solving it, then don’t say that you wasted your time, I’m working on this mystery, because I want to be human.”

In his quest to comprehend the mystery of man, Dostoevsky did not turn to the European philosophy of rationalism, going from Aristotle to Descartes. Since the Enlightenment of the 18th century, rationalism has understood man as a being produced from nature, the social environment, the state, the nation, one or another ideology.

“Man is a political animal,” declared Aristotle. It was obvious that European philosophy was not capable of comprehending the mystery of man’s personality, his spiritual nature. Therefore, in his research and in his creativity, F.M. Dostoevsky relied on the biblical tradition, for which the secret of a person is concentrated in his heart - the “hidden heart” of a person. The heart in Holy Scripture is the focus of a person’s entire physical and spiritual life. Everything that comes to a person’s mind or memory comes to the heart.

The heart is that mysterious depth at which a person meets God - the divine Logos. “The pure in heart will see God.” In the New Testament, the heart is a network of organs of communication with God. “Christ dwells in our hearts through faith,” according to the words of St. Paul.

The secret of the heart in particular is that it can be the source of good or evil will. The Holy Scriptures say that there is an evil heart, a vain heart, an undivided heart, even a bestial heart. According to the Gospel, from the depths of the human heart come evil thoughts, adultery, fornication, and murder (Mark 7:21).

Therefore, we pray, turning to God, “O God, instill within me a pure heart, and renew a right spirit in my womb.” That is why the Bible says in the Proverbs of Solomon: “Guard your heart above all else, for from it comes life” (Proverbs 4:23). At the same time, the Holy Scripture also says that the secret of the heart is revealed only to God. Dostoevsky developed this biblical philosophy of the heart in his work. He reveals the secrets of the heart through the destinies of his heroes. In the final novel “The Brothers Karamazov”, Dmitry, in confession of his warm heart, expresses the biblical idea that the heart is a spiritual battlefield where the devil and God fight (“here the Devil and God fight, but the battlefield is the hearts of people”).

It turns out that the heart, as the spiritual center of the personality, was split in man by the Fall and, as a result, both the ideal of the Madonna and the ideal of Sodom began to coexist in him. The metaphysical nature of the human heart, according to Dostoevsky, became antinomic. Dostoevsky expresses this discovery through the lips of the hero. “I cannot bear it,” says Dmitry, that another person, even higher in heart and with a lofty mind, begins with the ideal of the Madonna, and ends with the ideal of Sodom. Even more terrible is someone who already has the ideal of Sodom, in his soul does not deny the ideal of the Madonna, and his heart burns from it and truly burns, as in other blameless years. No, the man is wide, too wide, I would narrow it down.” The fate of Dostoevsky's heroes depends on who wins in their hearts. Heroes proud at heart: Svidrigailov, Stavrogin, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov come to the denial of God and immortality. Self-will, rebellion and voluptuousness conquer the ideal of the Madonna in their hearts and lead them to death. There are other heroes in Dostoevsky who are ready to accept redemptive suffering on earth, just to save their soul from death, to lead them out of hell. Dostoevsky shows us such heroes in the person of Raskolnikov and Dmitry Karamazov. “Accept suffering and redeem yourself with it, that’s what you need,” Sonya advises Raskolnikov (Sofia - wisdom). The suffering that God sends to Dmitry Karamazov saves him from the self-will and voluptuousness that dominate his heart. They reveal to him the Christian meaning of life, he accepts the redemptive suffering sent to him. “I would never, never have risen on my own! But the thunder struck, I accept the torment of accusation and my national shame, I want to suffer and through suffering I will be cleansed!” Dostoevsky argued and preached that only in Christ and the immortality of the soul is the true meaning and purpose of human life, and indeed of all humanity. “Destroy the belief in immortality in humanity, not only love, but all living force to continue world life will immediately dry up,” says Ivan Karamazov.

“In my opinion, Christ’s love for people is in its own way a miracle impossible on earth,” Ivan says to his brother Alyosha, seducing him. Believing with your mind and proud heart that there is no God and everything is permitted. It is no coincidence that the devil tells him: “You and I have the same philosophy” - and this is the philosophy of a proud heart. Dostoevsky contrasts the rebellious Ivan with the humble-hearted, philanthropic Alyosha. He believes that the path to the Kingdom of God is kept in the heart of Elder Zosima. “It doesn’t matter, he is holy, in his heart is the secret of renewal for everyone, that power that will finally establish truth on earth, and everyone will be holy and will love each other, and there will be no rich, no poor, no exalted, no humiliated, but “Everyone will be like children of God and the real kingdom of Christ will come,” this is what Alyosha’s heart dreamed about, writes Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky's heroes, from Sonya Marmeladova and Prince Myshkin to Alyosha Karamazov and Elder Zosima, carry in their hearts the image of Christ through humble love for their neighbor. In contrast to willful, proud carnal love, which is a painful passion and leads to crime, as happens between Rogozhin and Nastasya Filippovna. On the contrary, moderate, meek and sacrificial love, by its nature, love saves (Sonya saves Raskolnikov). Elder Zosima preaches this humble love: “Should we take it by force or by humble love?” Always decide: “I will take it with humble love” - decide this once and for all and you will be able to conquer the whole world. Love humility is a terrible force, the strongest of all, like which there is nothing.”

In the sermon of the humble saving love of Elder Zosima, Dostoevsky embodies the idea of ​​the “merciful heart” of St. Isaac the Syrian, which loves and has mercy on everyone and all of God’s creation and cries for its salvation.

In the person of Elder Zosima, Dostoevsky becomes a preacher of the philosophy of a merciful and humble heart, capable of saving the world. This is an image of the love that Christ commanded us in the Gospel: “Learn from me, if you are meek and humble in heart, you will find rest for your souls.”

2. Philosophy of the singing heart

Russian religious philosophy is often called “philosophy of the heart.” Unlike the European philosophy of Cartesian rationalism (“I think, therefore I am”), Nietzsche’s philosophy of life (“Man is the will to power”) and the philosophy of existentialism (Sartre “Man is doomed to freedom”), Russian philosophy is not anthropocentric, but Christocentric or theocentric. She was a guide to faith in Christ as the measure of all things. “The direction of philosophy depends at first on the concept that we have of the Holy Trinity,” wrote I. Kireevsky. Based on biblical and patristic ideas about man as the image and likeness of God, Russian thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries turned to the soul and heart, seeing in them the spiritual and religious foundations of human life. One of the famous Russian religious thinkers of the 20th century was I.A. Ilyin. The philosophy of Ivan Ilyin is often called the philosophy of the “singing heart.” In his book of the same name, “The Singing Heart,” Ilyin wrote: “And everything great and brilliant that was created by man was created from a contemplating and singing heart.” Humanity, in his opinion, over the past two centuries, having broken with faith in Christ, has tried to create a culture without faith, without heart, without contemplation, without conscience. And therefore, in the 20th century there were disasters, wars, revolutions, the collapse of spiritual culture and the creation of a materialistic civilization. And today we live in an era of heartless culture, the heart and the love associated with it have been banished from modern life. “The great misfortune of modern man is that he has lost the sincerity of his heart.” I.A. Ilyin became a preacher of the Russian Orthodox Renaissance. As a thinker, he believed and argued that the Russian revival must begin from a loving and singing heart. “The Russian idea is the idea of ​​the heart. The idea of ​​the contemplative heart. A heart that contemplates freely and objectively: and transmits its vision to the will for action and thought for awareness and speech. This is the main source of Russian faith and Russian culture. Here main strength Russia and Russian identity. This is the path of our revival and renewal.” The Russian idea, according to Ilyin, asserts that the main thing in life is love and that it is through love that life together on earth is built, for from love will be born faith and the entire culture of the spirit. Since ancient times, the Russian-Slavic soul, organically predisposed to feeling, sympathy and kindness, received this idea historically from Christianity: it responded with its heart to God’s gospel, to the main commandment of God and believed that God is love.” In his book “The Singing Heart,” Ilyin argued that the kingdom of God appears within us when we have a singing heart. “There is only one true happiness on earth - the singing of the human heart. The heart sings when it loves, it sings from love, which flows as a living stream from some mysterious depth and does not dry up even when suffering and torment come. Then everything else in life is not so significant: then the sun does not set, then God’s ray does not leave the soul, then the Kingdom of God enters earthly life, and earthly life appears illuminated and transformed. And this means that a new life has begun, and that a person has joined a new existence.” At the end of his probably main book, I.A. Ilyin, summing it up, wrote: “A man with a singing heart is the island of God, his lighthouse, his mediator. So, on Earth there is only one true happiness, and this happiness is the bliss of a loving and singing heart: for it already grows during life into the spiritual substance of the world and participates in the kingdom of God.”