BUFFOONERY AND FOOLISHNESS IN F.M. DOSTOEVSKY’S NOVEL “THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV”

Abstract

Introduction. Holy fools (fools for Christ) are one of the most intriguing topics for researchers of F.M. Dostoevsky’s work. This is likely due to several reasons. Firstly, the answer to the question of which characters can be classified as holy fools remains ambiguous. Some researchers focus on which characters are considered holy fools in Dostoevsky’s texts, while others argue that the criteria for classifying characters as holy fools should be carefully analyzed and developed by the researchers themselves. Secondly, it is necessary to answer the question of how Dostoevsky’s holy fools differ from classical Christian holy fools. In the article, the author examines the characters of F.M. Dostoevsky’s final novel, The Brothers Karamazov. This concerns Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his second wife, Sofya Ivanovna. To date, the most widespread interpretation of these characters in scholarly research is one that derives from the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin and posits a connection between foolishness and buffoonery. Accordingly, Sofya Ivanovna is a holy fool, and Fyodor Pavlovich is a jester. This interpretation is certainly confirmed by Dostoevsky’s own works. Furthermore, in scholarly literature, the image of Karamazov the father is predominantly negative, while the character of his wife, Klikusha, remains virtually unexplored. This article also analyzes hysteria as a phenomenon specifically in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky, whose philosophy is seen by scholars as a rehabilitation of hysteria. The purpose of the study. The author proposes moving away from the prevailing scholarly interpretations of buffoonery and foolishness of Dostoevsky and analyzing the characters of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov and his second wife, turning instead to the ideas of the philosopher himself, who, in the chapter “Vlas” of “A Writer’s Diary,” discussed the Russian type of person. Methods. The methods used in the study include comparative philosophical analysis, which helps identify the difference between fear and horror in the selected philosophers. A literary analysis of Dostoevsky’s own works and interpretations of his ideas by M.M. Bakhtin and several contemporary scholars also explores discrepancies between these interpretations and the material being analyzed. These types of analysis aim to identify connotations and discrepancies in the philosophical systems of the studied thinkers, both through textual analysis of their works and through the study of their concepts. Textual analysis is used as a supporting method, allowing for a thorough analysis of Dostoevsky’s texts to support the conclusions made in the article. The primary research method is philosophical-anthropological analysis, which utilizes the human subject as a lens to address the philosophical questions raised by Dostoevsky. The author chooses this method as the primary one because it meets the objectives of the article. Scientific novelty of the study. Using the chapter “Vlas” from “A Writer’s Diary” completely changes the very possibility of interpreting Dostoevsky’s characters. With this approach, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov becomes the writer’s attempt to sculpt a typical Russian man who goes to the extreme in everything, and his hysterical wife becomes one of those people among the people who know Christ in their hearts. Thus, it becomes possible to identify the meanings conceived by Dostoevsky based on the author’s texts. Results. In exploring such a significant topic for Dostoevsky as foolishness, the author departs from M.M. Bakhtin’s dominant interpretation in the field of scholarship. It is also important to note that Bakhtin’s ideas focused primarily on European literature, meaning they cannot be fully applied to Dostoevsky’s philosophical research. By turning to Dostoevsky’s own texts, we are able to give new meaning to the characters and ideas analyzed in the article. Conclusions. Dostoevsky’s philosophy, one of the main goals of which is to understand the meaning of Russian self-awareness, what the Russian person is like, and how he differs from everyone else, is characterized by a rejection of Eurocentric thinking. This necessitates understanding Dostoevsky not through European culture and its appeal to it, but by turning to the author’s texts. Thus, new opportunities arise for interpreting phenomena such as buffoonery and foolishness, so significant to his entire work. Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov becomes an opportunity for Dostoevsky to explore a type of Russian man who goes to extremes in everything, and his hysterical wife is a Russian woman who knows Christ in her heart.