- Sergey Rosedkin -
		About d about with t about e in with to about m
	Main | News | Cut-away | fotobio | Prose | About Dostoevsky | J. Roberts | Humour | Non-fikshn | Criticism | Virgin Pussy
P. 14	Dostoevsky's suicide (Continuation) 6 Creativity riddles — are inexplicable. Here it has been mentioned, that Apollinarija as though parodied the behaviour of a scene from «Humiliated and offended» … And there can be, on the contrary, Dostoevsky, creating this novel, not only recollected Siberia and teacher Vergunova, but also expected-had a presentiment, has displayed artly what should be occurred-happen actually after three years — on a new coil of a spiral of destiny? «— <…> I have dared: if I is not at him always, constantly, every instant, he will stop loving me, will forget and will throw. It such; its everyone another behind herself can carry away. And what I then will do? I then will die …» It who to whom is spoken-confesses — Natasha Ivan Petrovichu about Alyoshu or to Apollinarija Feodor Mihajlovichu about El Salvador? However, if in the novel Natasha Ihmeneva remembers death, more likely, in romantiko-allegorical sense Apollinarija Suslov dared at concrete suicide … Dostoevsky «the friend correct» (so he will name And.  To P.Suslov later — in the latest, farewell letter) from voluntary death has dissuaded-has kept. What words have been thus told, what reasons-reasons are resulted — it is possible to guess only. One is clear: to the writer was that on this theme to tell. To the full he, of course, yet did not know, that suicide becomes one of kapitalnejshih that of its creativity, but the suicide philosophy already osoznanno and extremely started it to disturb-excite. The proof to that is «Humiliated and offended»; and first of all — an image of the prince Valkovsky, a system of its thoughts-reflexions. This rather disgusting hero-cynic, on a being, first-ever starts to theorise Dostoevsky on a suicide theme, tries to formulate as though the law of inversely proportional communication between cynicism, level of personal egoistical well-being and aspiration to suicide. A minute of frankness he states an essence of the credo to Ivan Petrovichu: «— <…> All for me, and all world for me is created. Listen, my friend, I still believe that on light it is possible to be well. And it is the best belief because without it even poorly to live it is impossible: it should to poison. Speak, and any fool has made. It zafilosofstvovalsja before, that has destroyed everything, everything, even legality of all normal and natural duties human, and has reached that anything at it does not remain; there was as a result a zero, here it and has proclaimed, that in a life the best — hydrocianic acid. You will tell: he is Hamlet, this terrible despair, in a word, such stately, that to us and will not dream never. But you the poet, and I the simple person and consequently will tell, that it is necessary to look at business from the most simple, practical point of view. I, for example, have released for a long time already myself from all put and even duties. I consider myself obliged only when it to me will bring any advantage. <…> Like myself — here one rule which I recognise. A life — the commercial transaction <…> I have no Ideals and I do not wish to have; melancholy on them never felt. In light it is possible so cheerfully so it is lovely to live and without ideals <…> I am very glad, that I can do without some hydrocianic acid. After all I be more virtuous, I, maybe, without it and have not managed, as that fool the philosopher (undoubtedly, the German). No! In a life so it is a lot of still the good. I like value, a rank, hotel; the huge rate in maps (awfully I like maps). But the main thing, main — women... And women in all kinds; I even like undercover, dark debauchery, postearly and it is more original, even a little bit with grjaznottsoj for a change... Ha, ha, ha! I look at your person: with what contempt you look at me now! — You are right, — I answered. — Well, we will put, as you are right, but after all grjaznottsa, than hydrocianic acid anyway is better. Isn't that so? — No, hydrocianic acid is better … » Undoubtedly, Ivan Petrovich this phrase "has sounded" belief of the prototype, that is — Dostoevsky. But give, besides, sproetsiruem the given scene of the literary novel on the scene of the vital novel which has happened in three years in Paris. With whom in the second case Feodor Mihajlovich would be solidarier? We will agree, as in relations Suslovoj with El Salvador was "grjaznottsa", and in Dostoevsky's relations — the husband of the dying wife and the voluptuous lover already far not the first youth — with the young mistress was defined "grjaznottsa" … However, from «hydrocianic acid» it Apollinariju dissuaded and has dissuaded — leaves, absolutely «hydrocianic acid» is not better?. Here, really, Dostoevsky with identical force could describe-recreate as feeling-sensation of the lamb devoured with a wolf, and a wolf devouring a lamb. It was possible to it to speak-write convincingly both «pro», and «contra». Without this duality-bifurcation in creativity (and in a life!) would not be also such zapredelno enormous and immeasurably deep phenomenon, as — DOSTOEVSKY … However, as it would be expressed Valkovsky, again we have soared in poetic empirei, have hit in pathetics. We will return to a conversation essence, we will bring a result to cynical verbalisations of the prince. More correctly, he brings it: he urges Ivan Petrovicha to get rid of silly idealism and to wish all clever people to follow precepts of the prince, and differently these clever people «will have nothing to do on light», that is all of them as one samoubjutsja, will exterminate themselves, and there are «one only fools». They will survive from "clever" only, valkovskie. «— <…> All on light can be lost, one we never will be lost. We exist since the world exists. All world can fail somewhere, but we will emerge upward. By the way: look though at one how such people as we are hardy. After all we, approximately, are phenomenally hardy <…>. Means, the nature patronises us, he, he, he! I wish to live by all means till ninety years. I do not like death and I am afraid of it. After all lines knows still as it is necessary to die! But to what to speak about it! Me the poisoned philosopher has provoked it. To hell philosophy!.» To line to hell, and Max Shtirnera's original philosophy as it is visible, Valkovsky has experienced and has quite acquired, the truth, in simplified, too utilitarian sense. This German philosopher-rebel has proclaimed in 1844 in the treatise «Unique and its property», the pier — «for Me is not present anything above Me». In a mug petrashevtsev round egoistichesko-materialistic ideas SHtirnera disputes boiled. As well as round Gegel's idealistic concepts. The author «Humiliated and offended» at the moment of novel creation-writing, undoubtedly, was overwhelmed with memoirs on these disputes of 1840th years. Well, and as to Hamlet who has been rather sarcastically remembered by the prince it is one of sign figures in a theme «Dostoevsky and suicide». The writer will be not once — especially in publicism — to address to an image of the Shakespearean hero as to a symbol of the philosophical relation to a life and death, as to a sample reflektirujushchego, the person fluctuating on the verge of suicide. About it we will be more detailed to speak further while we will notice, that else in one of the youthful letters to brother Michael from Engineering school (on August, 9th, 1838 ) Feodor was exclaimed-admitted: «But to see one rigid cover under which the Universe pines, to know, that one explosion of will it is enough to break of it and to merge with vechnostiju, the nobility and to be as last of creations... Awfully! As the person is cowardly! Hamlet! Hamlet! When I will recollect these rough, wild speeches in which sounds stenane otsepenelogo the world then neither the grief, nor grumble, a reproach do not compress my breast... The Soul so is suppressed by a grief, that is afraid to understand it not to tear to pieces itself …» If to translate this romantichesko-theatrical heat-heat to ordinary language it turns out, what 16-year-old Feodor starts to reflect on senselessness of a life, however, on voluntary leaving from it that «to merge with vechnostiju», — the determination at it does not suffice … Well, who it after that? Certainly, — Hamlet!. Clearly, that here — literaturnost, theatricality, koturny. Here young Dostoevsky as though parodies in Werther's syllable as if forgetting, that the hero of the Goethe novel has dreamt-has dreamt, has played in Hamlet, and — was shot … Yes, Dostoevsky wanted it or did not want, but these philosophic vertero-gamletovskie phrases-judgements in his letter are looked-are perceived, of course, parodijno. Certainly, he, being almost the boy, wrote it quite seriously and with absolutely sincere pathos. And here it is a lot of years later, being already the person highly experienced, it already can, he in a condition to sneer-mock on a suicide theme meaningly and with all the heart. It does it in «Winter notes about summer impressions». And, it is necessary to note two essential strokes-moments: first, the writer derides in this case theatricality of a problem for describes in a parody key the French theatre, burzhuazno-trite vodevilno-melodramnuju dramatic art Ozhe, Sardu, ponsara and other fashionable then authors. And secondly, these pisalis-were created «Winter notes» under impression of the very first travel of the writer abroad of which he passionately dreamt even before penal servitude, yes besides those days when its relations with Suslovoj, apparently, were in the most light and delightful period of the development. From here and — tone. From here and so cheerfully-are witty parody descriptions of French-scenic suicides because of ostensibly unfortunate love: «Certainly, at it (Gjustava. — N. N) not a stiver <…>. Madam Bopre, certainly, is enamoured in it, Sesil too, but he does not suspect love Sesili. Sesil groans from love throughout five certificates. There is, at last, a snow or something in this sort. Sesil wishes to rush to a window. But under a window two shots are distributed, all will run together; Gjustav, pale, with the tied up hand, slowly enters on a scene. <…> the slanderer and seducer Sesili is punished. Gjustav forgets at last, that Sesil it likes and that all is pieces of madam Bopre. But madam Bopre pale, frightened, and Gjustav guesses, that she likes it. But the shot is distributed again. It Bopre, killing with despair. Madam Bopre screams, rushes to doors, but is itself Bopre and bears the killed fox or something in this sort …» Well, and here in absolutely gloomy and hopeless under the maintenance and colour «Notes from an underground» as it is surprising, about suicide outright practically it is not spoken anything. Only at the moment of the description of an episode-scene with the former messmates at the hero-author it is pulled out: «I have been exhausted before, before is broken, that though to be killed, and to finish!.» In this case the unfortunate Underground person wished, so to say, even to "finish" own suicide the tightened heavy scene-situation, but all «Notes …», their maintenance testify to continuous aspiration of the hero to suicide. Its reasoning-philosophising on a life supposedly the main thing, is continuousness of movement to the purpose, instead of the purpose; its conclusion, that twice two four (that is, the reached purpose) is the beginning already of death, that the meaning of the life is lost, when the purpose is reached, — are rather dangerous and fraught with consequences for the Underground person. After all for it the underground also became in any measure its already reached purpose. He declares, that-de if he would choose to itself(himself) «career of the idler and the glutton», but not simple, and «sympathising all perfect and high» he then veins "easy" and would die "solemnly". And further the character of the story leads up the sarcasm almost to a hysterics: « … yes after all it is a charm, the whole charm! And such would be grown by me then a belly, such threefold chin has built, such sandalnyj the nose to itself would develop, that any passer would tell, looking at me: "Here so plus! Here so the present positive!"…» For it full of tears through laughter, the recognition viditsja reads belief of the underground hero, that he would count such life-destiny for suicide. But after all it, having gone another by and having achieved the object, too, in essence, has committed suicide, has ruined itself. He and itself about it quite guesses-knows. In the end of the confession the Underground person asserts, that lead up in the life excessively that others «did not dare to lead up and to half». Also exclaims: «So I, perhaps, still« zhivee »you leave …» And up to the end and whether the Underground person is completely confident it? Whether he is afraid to admit to itself(himself), what "underground" is any more a life? In effect, physically it has buried itself(himself) alive, and it, maybe, is even more terrible, than to smash to itself a skull a bullet, to crush all this world at once, and to settle in a coffin really. Honestly — it is more terrible … 7 And it is even more terrible, more burdensome, nevynosimee — to see in a coffin of the most close people. From April, 5th, 1864 to Michael Mihajlovichu from Moscow Dostoevsky assures of the letter: «Now my position before heavy, never there was I in such. The life gloomy, health still weak, the wife dies absolutely <…>. Too hard …» about bespretsedentnosti degrees of the heavy position Feodor Mihajlovich even underlines-allocates the Categorical statement wavy line. But already absolutely soon he should be convinced-test, that the limit to human sufferings in the nature does not exist, the top lath at heavy position simply is not present. In ten days, on April, 15th, Maria Dmitrievna dies. Hardly pogodja, in the middle of June, brother Michael and, after three and a half a week suddenly falls ill, on July, 10th, suddenly dies from «bile outpourings in blood». Through two and a half a month, on September, 25th, from apopleksicheskogo blow one of the most significant employees of "Time" and the "Epoch", the person close to Dostoevsky, the poet and critic A.A.Grigoriev perishes  . In last stage of an agony there is also magazine "Epoch" … Really, 1864 — black year in Dostoevsky's destiny. It is not necessary to have too rich imagination to imagine a condition of the writer during this period. We will remind, that else in the letter to Michael Mihajlovichu from Semipalatinsk the summer of 1859 at Feodor Mihajlovicha pulled out hot a recognition, almost an oath: « If you die — I will die, and I do not wish to live after you … »Now, five years later, over a coffin, over a tomb of the died brother, it is necessary to guess, similar black thoughts for certain flashed in his head. But it is known: the person from voluntary leaving from the grown hateful, full weight and burdens-cares of a life frequently is kept just by these burdens-cares — on hands of the writer there was the stepson, all numerous family of the brother, perishing magazine, yes plus to all to it and a horde of creditors to pay off with which it considered as business of the honour. But here that, besides, it is amazing: the death those days as though soared over Dostoevsky's head, was somewhere absolutely-absolutely nearby, rejected on it a shade … Under certificate Strahova,« in public, not too attentive to names, there was a mess, and many considered then died Feodor Mihajlovicha, that is the well-known Dostoevsky ». To the writer who has been pressed down by death of the brother whom "I" on spirit really was its the second, it was necessary to prove-declare even pechatno, that it still, thanks God, is live. One more essential moment to which attention Dostoevsky's biographers a little pay is connected with illness and Michael Mihajlovicha's death, and meanwhile it on the, so to say, to subjunctive sense too quite sudbonosen and mnogoznamenatelen. The matter is that in the beginning of June of this year Suslov is written from abroad by the letter to Feodor Mihajlovichu (that where responds about "cynicism" to lead «Notes from an underground»), informs, that in two weeks it goes to the Belgian city of Spa and invites him to arrive there to it. Apollinarija, in essence, appoints to it appointment, underlines, what is it, maybe, unique possibility at them vstretitsja-communicate … Dostoevsky abroad was going to, already has obtained-has elicited again 1500 roubles of the loan in committee Litfonda, even the passport foreign has corrected. It, of course, was in awful excitement, in alarm, uncertainty about the mutual relations with Apollinariej, the passion to which did not cool down. And here now it of widows, already prevents to incorporate nothing it, but whether she likes it?. And here — such letter-invitation. Probably, Dostoevsky was lost in day-dreams, already the groom of has felt-has felt, was torn in Spa, but … Illness of the brother has delayed a trip abroad, and the death and at all has cancelled it. The meeting with Apollinariej has not taken place, has broken that time. The love has not revived, has not flashed a new bright flame … In connection with Apollo Grigoriev's death too there are moments which can give food for rather interesting assumptions. In day of sudden death- destruction of the critic and the colleague on magazine Dostoevsky does in a working writing-book to a dung — «Eheu!». This Latin interjection «Alas!» The writer marked-branded in records some burdensome moments-events in the life, calling at it boundless melancholy. There is it for the first time in «the Siberian writing-book» between phrases-remarks unbearable ljuda; it «Eheu!» Dostoevsky eleven times fixes-marks, so to say, failures in relations from  M.D.Isaevoj when it seemed to it, that it loses it for ever. Besides «an unbearable writing-book» this sad-melancholy exclamation meets in note writing-books a minute quantity of times: in connection with death of the wife — on April, 16th, 1864, and then — on September, 25th, in day of death of Grigoriev. Even date of death of the brother is not accompanied by this sad «Eheu!» . Strange … Really Dostoevsky-editor in such despair of what the leading critic of "Epoch" was not in time, how it was entrusted to it, to read the manuscript certain CHichagova "Whim" and to give a response about it? Or, can, Grigoriev to Dostoevsky was closer and rodnee than the native brother?. But let's recollect some circumstances of death of the poet and the critic. Last years the life it became an inveterate drunkard literally, continually after long hard drinkings-zagulov got to a debt hole. In the end of summer of 1864 it once again appears in debt prison. Therefrom Apollo Aleksandrovich in letters to Dostoevsky, and then Strahovu asks-demands to get out it of a debt captivity. Also it is necessary for it only hundred roubles as they are promised to it by "Epoch" edition. However, at Dostoevsky, after death of the brother absolutely got confused in editorial obligations, the head goes around from the numerous authors demanding payment gonorarnyh of debts. And he, in general, tries to pay: to Mrs. Suslovoj for the story «The dorgoj» — 83 roubles (well as loved not to pay!), I.  To P.Polonsky — 100 roubles (the friend-companion close, and the brother promised!), and here still any «the Caucasian officer» should send in addition urgently any 3 roubles (demands!) … In this plan Dostoevsky accompanying hundred roubles to Polonsky's the letter-note is very characteristic: «I Send hundred. I have no the slightest concept about your conditions with Mishej. objasnimtes somehow personally. Only at us money is not present or very little. I and did not count hundred on these, that it will be necessary to you to give. But all the same. You say, that so there was a condition; so, it also was so. Good-bye, smart guy. I press to you a hand, finger from different directions …» Well, good, Polonsky — "smart guy" and really could not deceive, but how much from "fingering" have used then Dostoevsky's trustfulness, have helped it to be ruined definitively … However, we will return to Grigoriev. He, without any doubt, demanded lawfully, but, alas (Eheu!), Dostoevsky who has come to see it in debt branch still on August, 21st and, apparently, promising to help, and could not make it though and, agrees records-dung in a writing-book from September, 10th, was going to once again personally to come to see the disgraced critic-debtor in an imprisonment. Further the chronicle of tragical events develops so: after September, 20th Grigoriev is redeemed from debt prison of one of venerators of its talent and on September, 24th appears in "Epoch" edition. Dostoevsky fixes in the account book, that Ap. 27 rbl. 20 copeck are given out Grigoriev and next day the unfortunate poet-critic dies of a hemorrhage in a brain … It is easy to imagine, as Dostoevsky as he cursed itself(himself) has been stunned: not only that in due time has not found time to get out the poor fellow of a shameful imprisonment so now here, it turns out, indirectly promoted also to  destruction of the sick person … Certainly, the bitter drunkard cannot be kept-stopped from hard drinking after almost monthly abstention, especially, if he has already started to drink, but — to give out to it the hands of means, on which it upyotsja to death, to  destruction … It is necessary to know Dostoevsky's character and its ability to feel guilty even for another's sins and misses to understand, what is burdensome-gloomy drama he has gone through in connection with Apollo Grigoriev's ridiculous and premature death-suicide as it executed itself(himself) … But, besides we will underline, about it we can have legal proceedings-guess only on short Latin «Eheu!» In a note writing-book. And here Dostoevsky's sincere condition at the moment of death of the wife of what he thought-reflected, is fixed and even, it is possible to tell, is recorded by the writer in detail, in details. Record in a writing-book from the April, 16th, 1864, beginning a phrase Means: «Masha lays on a table. Whether I will meet Masha?.» This record is quoted often in the literature on Dostoevsky, for a long time is investigated and explained. From its part only we will underline, that in this record musters with «Notes from an underground» which were created just during this period imejutsja-contain; what is it, in essence, a philosophical essay on a death and immortality theme; also that, at last, in this record and in «Notes from an underground» Dostoevsky-writer, Dostoevsky-thinker's philosophical concepts which it will develop, deepen, investigate in all subsequent great novels are concentrated-are designated. Let's recollect tezisno the maintenance of this record: - One of the main precepts of the Christ — to love near as itself — by the person on the earth is not executed owing to it, the person, imperfection … - The Christ is an ideal of the person in a flesh and to reach this ideal — the mankind purpose … - But if the definitive purpose is reached, the life ostanovitsja-will stop … - Then it turns out, that «the person is on the earth a being only developing, a trace <ovatelno>, not ended, and transitive» … - «It is investigatory, there is a future, paradise life» … And the main conclusion most, maybe, which Dostoevsky marks multisignificant Latin «notice well»: «NB. So, all depends on that: whether the Christ is accepted to a definitive ideal on the earth, that is from belief Christian. If you believe in the Christ you believe, as you will live for ever and ever …» However, it is not necessary to think, that the great writer was unequivocally religious mystic. Concepts "immortality", «an eternal life» had for it and especially terrestrial, so to say, substantiated expression: the person after physical death it is necessary-continues to live in children, in memory human. In this plan Dostoevsky's especially interestingly reasoning, that «memory great razvivatelej the person lives between people <…>. Means, the part of these natures enters also a flesh and odushevlenno into other people …» That is, it is necessary to specify-concretise for clearness: great writers-creators of level of Dostoevsky, unconditional «razvivateli the person», are simply doomed to immortality. But it is important to writer-philosopher to define-comprehend and kosmologichesky aspect of immortality. Alas, to recognise compelled it, its concrete forms to the person to present it is not given. It is possible to guess only. And to know-trust, that there will be "synthesis", achievement of the Christ's ideal, merge to it: «All then will feel itself and learns forever. But as it will be, in what form, in what nature, — to the person difficultly and to imagine definitively …» In the end of this philosophical essay, possibly, already in the light of April morning engaged behind a window, Dostoevsky formulates definitively and sense of terrestrial existence of the person: «So, the person aspires on the earth to an ideal, protivupolozhnomu to its nature. When the person has not executed the aspiration law to an ideal, that is I did not sacrifice love of the to people or other being (I and Masha), it feels suffering and has named this condition a sin. So, the person continuously should feel suffering which is counterbalanced by paradise pleasure of execution of the law, that is a victim. Here and balance terrestrial. Otherwise the earth would be senseless …» Leaves, suffering — the law, inevitability, a reality of terrestrial human life. * * * Whether and there is a limit to human suffering? «I thought often of you all this time, about all blows which have amazed you — and sincerely I rejoice to that you have not allowed to them to break you completely …» These are lines from letter Turgeneva to Dostoevsky from 3/15/October, 1864. It is safely possible to assume, that Ivan Sergeevich not only «sincerely rejoiced», but also was sincerely amazed. As the person, moreover such nervous warehouse as Dostoevsky, to sustain such train of powerful, ruthless strokes of bad luck in general could. About that Feodor Mihajlovich was at this time on a limit of patience and has been subject to the most gloomy thoughts and intentions it is possible to judge and by its own recognitions. Here, for example, from the letter to Vrangelju (on March, 13th - on April, 14th, 1865 ) in which details of death of the wife and the brother were informed: «… instead of know, to what degree the destiny has knocked down me! <…> it is literally — it is nothing me it was necessary to live …» It would seem, a year minul, it is time to be released from similar suicide moods. But we will recollect, what exactly is definitively perished-is closed at this time also magazine "Epoch" is became one more most severe shock. Really, the destiny is literally zadavlivala Dostoevsky, as though aspired to ruin it. And its autoforecast from the letter to younger brother Andrey is looked-is looked by quite proved: «In one year my life as though has cracked. These two beings (the wife and brother Michael. — N. N) long time made all in my life. <…> ahead a cold lonely old age and my epilepsy …» With such mood just right to think of death and to give up as a bad job all remained "final" piece of destiny. It, in essence, — a sentence to itself. Eheu!. (THE FRAGMENT END) <<<(P. 13)
çç ● èè
© Rosedkin Sergey Nikolaevich, 2001
E-mail: emp-reports@fustercluck.com