This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
The reader's familiarity withThe Possessed is assumed.
The original Russian title isBecbl. In English the title isThe Possessed and sometimes alsoThe Devils. The French title isLes Démons, although Camus called his dramatizationLes Possédés. For this paper the following editions were used: Dostoïevski,Les Démons, Carnet des Démons, Les Pauvres Gens, trad. B. de Schloezer et Sylvie Luneau (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade 1966); Albert Camus, “Les Possédés”,Théâtre, Récits, Nouvelles (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1962).
For this paper,The Notebooks for the Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), based upon the Russian edition of Dostoevsky's notebooks:зауснуе мемрабу Ф. М. Досмоевкозо, ed. by N. Konshina, Moscow, were used.
Ibid., p. 303. It is never explained who this Enforcer is. Perhaps this is just another name for Kirilov. It seems that for a long time Dostoevsky did not give a real name to Kirilov and called him only the engineer.
Among other notes in the draft which may be related to Kirilov, although he is not mentioned by name, was one, dated December 1869-May 1870—containing references to a novel which Dostoevsky planned to write but never did—“The Life of a Great Sinner”. In this note the theme of dethroning God is indicated, an anticipation of Kirilov's argument.Ibid.The Notebooks for The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 54. In another note the student [Nechaev-Peter Verkhovensky] “wants to move the Prince [Stavrogin] to murder Shaposhniko [Shatov], or at least to force him to a public display of anger at the latter so that the murder may be blamed on him”. Kirilov has not yet been born, “but the idea of murdering Shaposhnikov and blaming the murder on someone else is there”.Ibid. The Notebooks for The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 104.
Ibid., p. 310. Perhaps Dostoevsky is alluding to the origin of his name. According to Richard Peace: “He is the prophet of a new religion, hence his name evokes St. Kirill, the missionary who first brought the new gospel to the Slavs.” Richard Peace,Dostoyevsky (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1971), p. 183.
Ibid. pp. 310–12. Dostoevsky's vacillation about Kirilov's role is indicated by a note (November 1, 1870) that “No, you haven't got the right to exploit the Engineer's life.”Ibid.The Notebooks for The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 309.
Ibid., p. 313, 316.
Ibid., pp. 343–44.
Ibid., p. 347.
Ibid., p. 349. Later there must have occurred another change because in the novel Kirilov, by signing the document, accepted the responsibility for Shatov's murder.
Ibid., pp. 352–53.
Ibid., p. 389.
Ibid., pp. 393, 404, 400, 410.
Ibid., p. 401.
Ibid., p. 408.
We find a few scattered notes here and there. One refers to the time of the suicide—4 o'clock- and that he [Peter Verkhovensky] is looking around to find Kirilov who is hiding and then bites Peter Verkhovensky's finger.Ibid.The Notebooks for The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 393. Another sets the day as April 4 and calls him “wretched, blind”. Ibid., p. 408.
Wasiolek also noted the sketchiness of information, and referring to the metaphysics of the engineer, suggested that “the conception of Kirilov” continued to develop even after the notes.Ibid.The Notebooks for The Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 389.
Ibid., p. 19.
“Un commentateur [Boris de Schloezer] le remarque à juste titre: ‘Dostoievski a partie liée avec Ivan—et les chapitres affirmatifs des Karamazov lui ont demandé trois mois d'efforts, tandis que ce qu'il appelait ‘les blasphèmes’ ont été composés en trois semaines, dans l'exaltation”. Camus, “Le Mythe de Sisyphe”,Essais (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1967), p. 187.
Fyodor Dostoevsky,The Possessed, trans. Andrew R. McAndrew, (New York: The New American Library, 1962), pp. 88–101.
Ibid., pp. 108–13.
Ibid., pp. 219–26.
The Notebooks, op. cit.,, p. 19.
Ibid., p. 408. The date of this note is in doubt. Konshina, the Russian editor, places it in 1872, but Wasiolek is inclined to believe that it was written in the second half of 1871. However, Wasiolek lists it among the last notes, dated probably in 1872.
André Gide,Dostoïevski, Articles et Causeries (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1923), p. 217.
A. S. Pushkin, «Пиковая Дама»,Сочuненuя vol. III. Gosizdat. (Moskva: Khudozh. Literatury, 1954), p. 402.
Ibid.,, p. 401.
Joseph Frank, “Nihilism andNotes from the Underground”, Fyodor Dostoevsky,Notes from the Underground, ed. Robert G. Durgt (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1969), p. 161. The image of Kirilov has also something to do with Dostoevsky's reaction to N. G. Chernyshevsky'sWhat is To Be Done? In his book Chernyshevsky admires the wonders and ultimate truth of science which gave man the power to transform himself and society. The author shows himself to be a disciple of Darwin. His heroes — the “new men” who will build a new society —are characterized by an unusual will-power to go to the extreme point of logical consistency. Dostoevsky disliked Chernyshevsky's infatuation with science and attacked this utopia inNotes from the Underground. The novelist continued his animosity toward Chernyshevsky by poking fun at Kirilov's anthropological anticipation.
The Notebooks, op. cit.,, pp. 387–88.
Railroad is really a synonym for science in Dostoevsky's works. The novelist's disapproval of railroads began with his visit to London in 1861 where he heard “the screech and roar of the machines” and “railroads passing over the houses (and soon under them too)”, F. M. Dostoevsky,Winter Notes on Summer Impression, Foreword by Saul Bellow, (New York-Toronto-London; McGraw-Hill, 1965), p. 90. His dislike became especially sharp inThe Idiot (1868–69), in which, speaking of train collisions, collapse of bridges under trains, and trains snowed under, he has one of the characters exclaim that “... railways are a curse ... they are the ruin of humanity ... they are a plague that has descended upon the earth to pollute the ‘waters of life’”, and again “they hustle, they roar, they rend the air with their noise...” Fyodor Fostoyevsky,The Idiot, trans. David Magarshack, (Baltimore-Maryland: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 360, 411, 413. Peace adds that the spread of the railway network is regarded as “a picture, an artistic impression of the materialistic tendency of the age”.Op. cit., p. 110
“He ... spoke ... rather ungrammatically, arranging his words in peculiar sequences, and getting mixed-up when he had to cope with long sentences, and later the narrator asks him: “Why do you speak such awkward Russian?”The Possessed, op. cit. Fyodor Dostoevsky,The Possessed, trans. Andrew R. McAndrew, (New York: The New American Library, 1962), pp. 112, 121. Mochulsky feels that “[his] ... impeded speech ... reveal[s] to us the abstractedness of a nature that has fallen out of intercourse with men.” Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky, trans. Michael A. Minihan (Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 447. Wasiolek points out that “... language itself — fed by poisonous spiritual sources — has begun to disintegrate”, and “Kirilov speaks, from misuse and misapplication, a mutilated Russian”.The Notebooks, op. cit.,The Notebooks for the Possessed by Fyodor Dostoevsky, ed. by Edward Wasiolek, trans. by Victor Terras (Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1968) p. 1. It is worthy of note that Myshkin, a great favorite of Dostoevsky, also had difficulties in expressing himself at times. In a conversation with Burdovskij, one of the nihilists, Myshkin explains: “I also was in the same state before I went to Switzerland; I also stammered incoherently, tried to express myself and couldn't”The Idiot, op. cit., trans. David Magarshack, (Baltimore-Maryland: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 310.
The episode centers around Kapernaumov, the tailor, and his family, in whose apartment Sonja reads from the Bible the physical resurrection of Lazarus to Raskolnikov and prepares the way for the latter's spiritual rebirth. The tailor is shown as a poor cripple; he stutters and limps, and all the members of his large family who live crowded in one room, stutter too. However, in a later scene, only the tailor and his eldest son are shown as stutterers. In a conversation with Raskolnikov, Sonja mentions several times how kind and nice the Kapernaumov are and the children, too, who often come to see her. The tailor's name reminds the reader of Capharnaum or Capernaum, town in Galilee, at the site of the modern city Tell Hüm. The name comes from the Aramaic or late Hebrewkopar-nahûm which means “village of Nahum”. There are many references in the New Testament to Jesus's presence, teaching, and miracles in Capernaum which he used as headquarters for his ministry. Jesus “made His home in Capernaum” (Matthew 4, 13), and he called Capernaum “His home town” (Matthew 9, 1), and in that town “He went into the synagogue and began to teach” (Mark 1, 21). When he came down from the mountain “great crowds followed Him” (Matthew 8, 1) and at Capernaum he healed a servant boy from paralysis (Matthew 8, 13). He also chose his disciples from that city. Such elements in the novel as the reading of the Bible, the resurrection of Lazarus, and the close phonetic similarity of the tailor's name with that of the town of Jesus's activities obviously require an allegorical interpretation of this episode. The saintly Sonja makes her residence at the Kapernaumovs where she teaches the stutterers — that is the pagans unable to pray yet presumably because they do not believe. The reference to the large family of the tailor implies the whole community at Capernaum and the big room — the synagogue. The indication that the tailor and his eldest son still continue to stutter may refer to the fact that not all the people have immediately accepted the new religion. Matthew mentions that “He began to censure the cities, in which His many wonderworks had been done, because they did not repent”, (11, 20) and cites Jesus's words of anger “And you, Capernaum, are you to be exalted to heaven? No, you belong to the regions of the dead”. (11, 23.)
The Possessed, op. cit., p. 355. See also p. 219 for the reference to Kirilov's playing ball with the little child.
InThe Idiot the novelist created a caricature of the Western-type strongman, the boxer Keller, one of the nihilists, a former officer thrown out of the army. He is called a “blackguard, a scoundrel, and a petty thierf”, a slavish imitator of English manners.The Idiot, op. cit., trans. David Magarshack, (Baltimore-Maryland: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 225, 304, 410. Dostoevsky's dislike of physical fights goes to such an extent that, although violence is one of the characteristic elements of his novels, nowhere in his extensiveoeuvre do we come across a real man-to-man struggle, in which vigorous punches and blows are exchanged. When violence occurs in his novels, it is always one-sided: the powerful aggressor humiliates the meek, who seems to offer no resistance.
Another link connecting the atmosphere of the Petrashevsky circle withThe Possessed is the threat to punish a defector by death because of the possibility of treason. As Mochulsky points out: “... the threat [would] reinforce the secret even more rigidly, thereby securing it.”Op. cit. Mochulsky feels that “[his] ... impeded speech ... reveal[s] to us the abstractedness of a nature that has fallen out of intercourse with men.” Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky, trans. Michael A. Minihan (Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 126. As the reader recalls this pretext was used to kill Shatov inThe Possessed.
Ibid., Another link connecting the atmosphere of the Petrashevsky circle withThe Possessed is the threat to punish a defector by death because of the possibility of treason. As Mochulsky points out: “... the threat [would] reinforce the secret even more rigidly, thereby securing it.”Op. cit., Mochulsky feels that “[his] ... impeded speech ... reveal[s] to us the abstractedness of a nature that has fallen out of intercourse with men.” Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky, trans. Michael A. Minihan (Princeton University Press, 1967) pp. 119–20. It is interesting to note that Camus's portrait of Belinsky inL'Homme Révolté brings the Russian philosopher and literary critic close to Kirilov. He meditates “à minuit”, becomes a new man who hates most “l'injustice” in this world. This man of “cœur généreux” declares that “je ne veux pas du bonheur, même gratuit, si je ne suis pas tranquille pour tous mes frères de sang.” He understood that what he wanted was not “l'absolu de la raison, mais la plénitude de l'être ... Il veut l'immortalité de l'homme entier, dressé dans sa personne vivante, non l'abstraite immortalité de l'espèce devenue Esprit.” Camus, “Le Mythe de Sisyphe”,Essais (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1967) p. 559. There is a curious verbal coincidence which connects Camus's Belinsky inL'Homme Révolté with his Kirilov inLes Possédés. Camus has Belinsky address Hegel in the former with the words: “J'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir ...” and his Kirilov uses the same formal approach in talking to Shatov: “J'ai l'honneur de vous informer ...” in the latter.Ibid., p. 559, and Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., Albert Camus, “Les Possédés”, Théâtre, Récits, Nouvelles (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiafe, 1962),
Mochulsky indicates that in Dostoevsky's youth “Christian humanism and romantic mysticism for a long time contented the ‘dreamer's’ religious yearning”.Op. cit., Mochulsky feels that “[his] ... impeded speech ... reveal[s] to us the abstractedness of a nature that has fallen out of intercourse with men.” Konstantin Mochulsky,Dostoevsky, trans. Michael A. Minihan (Princeton University Press, 1967) p. 120.
George Steiner,Tolstoy or Dostoevsky (New York: Random House, 1959), p. 215.
Peace,op. cit.,, p. 156. Further on the subject of the possible identity of Belinsky-Kirilov it is worth-while to quote the following passage fromL'Homme Révolté: “Lorsque Herzen ... écrira; ‘L'annihilation du vieux, c'est l'engendrement de l'avenir’, il reprendra le langage de Belinsky”.Essais, op. cit. Camus, “Le Mythe de Sisyphe”, Essais (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1967), p. 560. But this is precisely Kirilov's thesis in its initial stage.
“No other novel by Dostoevsky provoked as much controversy asThe Possessed. It was serialized in theRussian Messenger, at St. Petersburg monthly, between January 1871 and December 1872, and each new installment added fuel to the raging polemics. The indignant liberals saw in it a calumny on the Russian intelligentsia; radical critics found its characters utterly fantastic, on the borderline of madness, and considered their portrayal nothing more than a clinical diagnosis of pathological delusions. The conservatives, on the other hand, acclaimed the novel as a daring exposé of anarchistic nihilism and praised its author as a defender of Monarchy and Church.” Marc Slonim, in an After-word toThe Possessed, op. cit., Fyodor Dostoevsky,The Possessed, trans. Andrew R. McAndrew, (New York: The New American Library, 1962), p. 695. Following Gorky's lead who had described Dostoevsky as a cruel talent Soviet commentators are almost unanimous in characterizing the novel and Kirilov in negative terms. Just to mention a few of the more recent criticisms: M. Gus,Ибеu u Образы Досмоевскоzо, Gosizdat. (Moskva: Khudozh. Literatury, 1962): “Dostoevsky became confused in his own sophistication and misled his poor Kirilov ...” p. 363; G. M. Fridlender, «Романы Достоевского,»Исморuя Русскоzо Романа, Vol. II. (Moskva-Leningrad: Nauka, 1964): “The atheist Kirilov ... commits suicide ... wishing thereby to prove ... the freedom and independence of the personality. But at the moment of his suicide his painful vacillation, weakness, and frailty become evident.” p. 241;Исморuя Русской Лuмерамуры XIX.века, Vol. II. ed. by Prof. S. M. Petrov (Moskva: Gos. Uchebno-Pedag. Izdat. Min. Prosv. RCFCR, 1963): “Almost all the heroes of the novel are maniacs or halfinsane idiots and hysterics. Such is also Kirilov”. p. 510. Among Western criticism the following are worthy of mention: Nicholas Berdyaev,Dostoevsky (New York: Meridian Books, 1959): His [Kirilov's] spirit of freedom shows unmistakable symptoms of degeneration.” p. 81. Janko Lavrin,Dostoevsky, A Study (New York: Russel and Russel, 1969), calls Kirilov a “maniac”. p. 58; Richard Curle,Characters of Dostoevsky (London, 1950), feels that Kirilov is “alarmingly unbalanced”, “universally regarded at least partially insane,” yet he also points out Kirilov's essential humanism: “such thoughts as his could only have ripened in a mind seeking to bring more happiness to humanity.” pp. 165–67; Ronald Hingley,The Undiscovered Dostoevsky (London, 1962), finds Kirilov “one of Dostoevsky's most overrated characters”, “the part that Kirilov plays in the book matters but little”, “one of the most tedious figures”. pp. 160–61, 166–67; Dmitri Chizhevsky, “The Theme of the Double in Dostoevsky”, Dostoevsky,Twentieth Century Views, René Wellek, ed., calls Kirilov “a mad genius”; Edward Wasiolek,Dostoevsky, The Major Fiction (Cambridge, Mass.: The M. I. T. Press, 1964), qualifies Kirilov's dialectic “monstrous,” at whose core is “selfdeception”, characterizes him as one of Dostoevsky's “immense creations”, yet concludes that he is “a grotesque imitation of Christ, as his love and sacrifice — despite his intention — are grotesque imitations of true love of man and true sacrifice”. pp. 111, 120–21; Jacques Madaule,Dostoïevski (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1956), states that “Peutêtre-est-il un peu fou, mais ... c'est le meilleur des hommes, toujours prêt à rendre service ...” and asks the rhetorical question “quant à Kirilov, n'est-il pas un nouveau Christ, qui donne sa vie pour libérer les hommes de la peur?” and feels that “il renonçait tout simplement à l'existence pour ouvrir une voie”. pp. 63, 65, 72. Peace,op. cit, Richard Peace,Dostoyevsky (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1971), p. 183. indicates that “He is constantly referred to as mad by the other characters — and with good reason,” and mentions that Kirilov's side is “sterile and self-destructive,” pp. 169, 208. Irving Howe, “Dostoevsky: The Politics of Salvation,”Dostoevsky, Twentieth Century Views, op.cit., Dostoevsky,Twentieth Century Views, René Wellek, ed., calls Kirilov “a mad genius”; holds that Kirilov is “one of Dostoevsky's most brilliant ideological projections,” who has a “native sweetness”, yet, noticing the contradictions, concludes that “For once ... Dostoevsky the novelist has been tripped by Dostoevsky the ideologue”. p. 64. Gide,op. cit. Dostoïevski, Articles et Causeries (Paris: Librairie, is one of the few who does not believe in Kirilov's insanity, even though he calls his brain as “demie-folie”, and hints at a symbolic explanation of the engineer's spiritual pilgrimage. pp. 212, 217. Finally, in the most recent publication, Avrahm Yarmolinsky,Dostoevsky, Works and Days (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1971), calls Kirilov's sacrifice a parody of Christ, and the engineer's conclusion “non-sequitur” p. 298
Wasiolek points out that Dostoevsky's moral vision is dialectical. “The values his acts have are born with the choices he makes. Love, sacrifice, and other “good” acts are not good in themselves, for Dostoevsky, they are ... without value until their value is chosen ... Selfsacrifice abstractly considered ... is “good,” but it may be, in Dostoevsky's world, “bad”. Conversely, something like murder, which abstractly considered is always “evil”, may, in Dostoevsky's world be “good”.Dostoevsky, op. cit.,, p. 56.
The Possessed, op. cit., p. 649.
George Lukács, “Dostoevsky”,Twentieth Century Views, op. cit., Dostoevsky,Twentieth Century Views, René Wellek, ed., calls Kirilov “a mad genius”; p. 152.
Hingley,op. cit. Ronald Hingley,The Undiscovered Dostoevsky (London, 1962), finds Kirilov “one of Dostoevsky's most overrated characters”, “the part that Kirilov plays in the book matters but little”, “one of the most tedious figures”. p. 116.
Richard I. Evans,Psychology and Arthur Miller (New York: Dutton, 1969), pp. 22, 25. We may add that, on the subject of a conflict between a statement of a pervasive eternal truth about man and the writer's immediate need to talk about a current issue which may threaten his integrity, Miller said: “[The writer] must be ... endangered by it. His own attitudes have to be tested in it. The best work that anybody ever writes is the work that is on the verge of embarrassing him, always. It is inevitable ... But without that implication of the writer himself, a truth has not been served”. p. 73.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 1877.
Ibid., p. 1719.
Ibid., p. 1877.
Martin Esslin expresses a similar thought in connection with the confrontation of the absurd: “The sense of loss at the disintegration of facile solutions and the disappearance of cherished illusions retains its sting only while the mind still clings to the illusions concerned. Once they are given up, we have to readjust ourselves to the new situation and face reality itself. And because the illusions we suffer from made it more difficult for us to deal with reality, their loss will ultimately be felt as exhilarating”, and later “The dignity of man lies in his ability to face reality in all its senselessness; to accept it freely, without fear, without illusions, and to laugh at it.”The Theater of the Absurd (New York: Doubleday, 1970), pp. 375, 377.
Thomas Hanna,The Thought and Art of Albert Camus (Chicago: Gateway, 1958), p. XI.
John Cruickshank,Albert Camus and the Literature of Revolt (London, Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 5.
Fred H. Wilhoite Jr.,Beyond Nihilism, Albert Camus' Contribution to Political Thought (Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press, 1968), p. 79.
Quoted by Wilhoite,op. cit., p. 79.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 1107.
Camus,Essais, op. cit., pp. 184, 188.
“Le raisonnement du suicide logique ayant provoqué quelques protestations des critiques, Dostoïevsky ... développe sa position ...” Camus,Essais, op. cit., pp. 186
In the last pages ofThe Brothers Karamazov young Kolya, asks Aliosha Karamazov, Dostoevsky's spokesman in the novel: “Karamazov ... can it be true as they teach us in the church, that we shall all rise again from the dead and shall live and see each other again, all, Ilusha [their friend who just died] too?” and Aliosha answers: “Certainly we shall all rise again, certainly we shall see each other and shall tell each other with joy and gladness all that has happened.” Fyodor Dostoyevsky,The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett (New York: The New American Library, 1957), p. 700.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 1877.
Les Démons, op. cit., p. 120.
Ibid., pp. 120–21.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 956.
Ibid., op. cit., p. 1877.
Les Démons, op. cit., p. 121.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 957.
Another example of Camus's simplification occurs in connection with Kirilov's treatment of the division of history in the novel. He explains how, from the annihilation of God, the second part of history will proced “à la transformation physique de l'homme et de la terre. L'homme sera Dieu et se transformera physiquement. Et l'univers se transformera, et les œuvres se transformeront, et les sentiments et les pensées. Ne croyez-vous pas que l'homme change alors physiquement?” The above is a very repetitious statement. The word “transformer” in its substantival and verbal form is used four times. The passage ends on a question by Kirilov which, indirectly, reflects a certain vagueness and indecisiveness hiding behind the repetitions. Camus rephrased this portion and had his Kirilov assert that the second part of history will go from the destruction of God “à la divination de l'homme”. Again the rambling, repetitious, and uncertain Kirilov is replaced by a Kirilov of brevity and conciseness.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 958.
Les Démons, op. cit., p. 122.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 958. The cause of Kirilov's occasional stuttering and incoherence — as pointed out before — may have been Dostoevsky's idea that sinful pagans cannot pray because they do not believe. In this connection it is worth-while to mention that in a paper, “In Defence of Atheism”, read at Brockport College of Arts and Sciences, Dr. Kai Nielsen, a wellknown American scientist, outlined the position of contemporary atheism as follows: “Careful reflection on the use of “God” ... is enough to justify atheism which asserts that the concept of God is so incoherent that there could not be possibly be a referent for the word ‘God’”.The New York Times, October 21, 1969. If we read Kirilov's incomprehensible answer on the question of God's existence — “Dieu n'existe pas, mais Il est” — in the light of Dr. Nielsen's statement, we can only marvel at Dostoevsky's stunning anticipation.
Les Démons, op. cit., p. 648.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit.. p. 1108.
Ibid., p. 958, 1108.
Ibid. p. 960.
Lés Démons, op. cit., p. 251.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 999.
Ibid., p. 1105.
Camus,Essais, op. cit., p. 187.
Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., p. 958.
Ibid., pp. 1880–81.
Ibid.,, p. 1008.
Camus,Essais, op. cit., p. 184.
Ibid., pp. 139–40.
The Possessed, op. cit., p. 91.
CamusEssais, op. cit., p. 102.
Germaine Brée explains the interest the French novelist took in Artaud's ideas and especially in sharing “Artaud's conviction that significant drama is a form of transcendency, existing only on the metaphysical level”.Camus (New York, Chicago, Burlingame, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1964). pp. 119, 144–45.
InL'Envers et l'endroit Camus tells us that “... une œuvre d'homme n'est rien d'autre que ce long cheminement pour retrouver par les détours de l'art les deux ou trois images simples et grandes sur lesquelles le cóeur, une première fois, s'est ouvert”, Camus,Essais, op. cit., p. 13.
Jean-Claude Brisville,Camus (Paris: Gallimard, 1959), p. 11.
Jean Bloch-Michel, “Albert Camus et la tentation de l'innocence”,Preuves, Avril, 1960, No. 110., p. 4.
Brée,op. cit., Germaine Brée explains the interest the French novelist took in Artaud's ideas and especially in sharing “Artaud's conviction that significant drama is a form of transcendency, existing only on the metaphysical level”.Camus (New York, Chicago, Burlingame, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1964), p. 18. The American reader should substitute “football” with “soccer”.
Ibid., Brée,op. cit., Germaine Brée explains the interest the French novelist took in Artaud's ideas and especially in sharing “Artaud's conviction that significant drama is a form of transcendency, existing only on the metaphysical level”.Camus (New York, Chicago, Burlingame, Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1964), p. 18–19. The American reader should substitute “football” with “soccer”.
In this connection Artaud's remark concerning pantomime and Oriental languages is highly revealing: “The idea of a play made directly in terms of the stage ... comples the discovery of an active language, active and anarchic, a language in which the customary limits of feelings and words are transcended ... In the Oriental theater of metaphysical tendencies ... this whole comples of gestures, signs, postures ... this language which develops all its physical and poetic effects on every level of consciousness and in all the senses necessarily induces thoughts to adopt profound attitudes which could be called metaphysics-in-action ... To make metaphysics out of a spoken language is to make the language express what it does not ordinarily express: to make use of it in a new exceptional and unaccustomed fashion; to reveal its possibilities for producing physical shock ...” Antoine Artaud,The Theater and its Double, trans. Mary Cardine” Richards (New York, Grove Press, 1958), pp. 41, 44, 46.
InWhat is To Be Done? Chernyshevsky describes Rakhmetov, one of the new men, as follows: “... he formed the idea of acquiring physical strength and acted accordingly. At first he practiced gymnastics ... carried water, delivered firewood, chopped it up, cut stone, dug in the earth, sawed wood, and forged iron ... He adopted the diet of pugilists: he ate food known exclusively as strengthening ... he had been an agricultural laborer, a carpenter, a boatman ... once he even went along the Volga ... as a boat-hauler.” Later Chernyshevsky indicates that Rakhmetov “reads all night,” “lived a Spartan life,” and “gymnastics, labor for the development of his strength ... were [his] personal occupations”. One morning a friend finds him in a terrible state: “The back and sides of Rahkmetov's shirt were covered with blood; there was blood under the bed; the felt on which he slept was covered with blood; in the felt were hundreds of little nails ... Rakhmetov had lain all night on this bed of his invention”. To his friend's question “What does this mean?” he implies that it was necessary to harden himself for the tasks ahead. It was a “trial” and now he knows what he “can do”. N. G. Chernyshevsky,What is To Be Done? (New York: Random House, 1961), pp. 227, 228, 230–31, 237. Camus unquestionably knew this book since inThe Possessed Stefan Verkhovensky has it prominently displayed on his table when Peter visits him and refers to its enlightening effect on his father.Les Démons, op. cit., Dostoïevski,Les Démons, Carnet des Démons, Les Pauvres Gens, trad. B. de Schloezer et Sylvie Luneau (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1966), p. 322. There are also a number of references to this novel in theCarnets des Démons [Les Démons, op. cit., Dostoïevski,Les Démons, Carnet des Démons, Les Pauvres Gens, trad. B. de Schloezer et Sylvie Luneau (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1966), pp. 819, 854, 935, 936, 1094] which Camus used for the dramatization ofLes Possédés. Camus,Théâtre, op. cit., Albert Camus, “Les Possédés”,Théâtre, Récits, Nouvelles (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1962), p. 922. Therefore, Rakhmetov might have influenced him in the creation of Kirilov's physical exercises.
“Le Minotaure ou la halte d'Oran”, inEssais, op. cit., (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1967), pp. 810–32.
Ibid., Le Minotaure ou la halte d'Oran”, inEssais, op. cit., (Paris: Bibl. de la Pléiade, 1967), p. 105.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brody, E.C. The mask and the substance. Neohelicon 3, 121–170 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093100
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02093100