Holbein's Body of Christ in the Tomb and the Idiot

[Pavo]

Hans Holbein the Younger's painting of the Dead Christ in the Tomb figures into the Dostoevsky's the Idiot.

Dostoevsky himself is reported by his wife to have been fascinated with this picture when he viewed it in a museum in Basel, Switzerland.  She reports he stood on a chair and examined it closely, she was afraid they might be thrown out of the museum.

I have appended a small version of the painting here.  You may view the painting online in more detail by going to the following web site and clicking on the picture to get a larger view.

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/h/holbein/hans_y/1525/03deadch.html

I am not sure I understand this.  What was Dostoevsky thinking?  Why is this painting so important to him personally, and to his story?

[Worm]

I am not sure about your not understanding of this painting, Pavo.  I think you have a concealed opinion of this thing.  What do you think about it?


I think it's a symbol for the suffering of humanity, around which religion revolves.  On the painting we see a Christ, laying almost naked, in a deplorable condition.  The artist has made the effort to paint the pieces of wood of the casket in which he lays.  'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.'.

How does this link with the Idiot?
your turn.

[Pavo]

I am not sure about your not understanding of this painting, Pavo.  I think you have a concealed opinion of this thing.  What do you think about it?

I didn't know what my opinion was when I wrote the question, although I knew I had one.    I had to "sleep on it" as we say.  

I think it's a symbol for the suffering of humanity, around which religion revolves.  On the painting we see a Christ, laying almost naked, in a deplorable condition.  The artist has made the effort to paint the pieces of wood of the casket in which he lays.  'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.'.

True.  Very true.  In my opinion, for Dostoevsky in the Idiot the religious subject matter of the painting is not really very important, because the picture itself points to something else, something along the lines of your quotation.   There is in the painting itself a kind of tension, is it religious or is it secular?  I think that for the purposes of this book, this painting is in the end a painting of a dead man.

It has been described as a painting of a body in the beginning stages of putrifaction, the blackened fingers, the navel protruding, really very unpleasant in its realist portrayal of corruption.

I think that for Dostoevsky, corruption, physical decay and putrifaction, is a recurring theme.  We saw it in the Brothers Karamazov when Zosima's body undergoes corruption.  And you see it in the 19th century view of consumption, or tuberculosis, essentially understood then as a pathological process of internal decay.  That is one reason I believe Dostoevsky's consumptives are so important:  they are dying, but they are us.  Oh yes, Worm, 'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.'

I think the picture in Rogozhin's rooms points us to Rogozhin, to his moral corruption, to his importance in the story, and to fact that, as Fyodor has said, "when he is around, things happen."

[Worm]

True.  Very true.  In my opinion, for Dostoevsky in the Idiot the religious subject matter of the painting is not really very important, because the picture itself points to something else, something along the lines of your quotation.   There is in the painting itself a kind of tension, is it religious or is it secular?  I think that for the purposes of this book, this painting is in the end a painting of a dead man.  

If i have understood your post well, you mean to say that religion does not revolve around the suffering of man, but they are two subjects that are different.  
Am i correct in saying this?

It has been described as a painting of a body in the beginning stages of putrifaction, the blackened fingers, the navel protruding, really very unpleasant in its realist portrayal of corruption.

And imagine Dostojewski standing there with his nose almost against the painting, on a chair, leaning forward a bit .. and scanning the whole thing.

I think that for Dostoevsky, corruption, physical decay and putrifaction, is a recurring theme.  We saw it in the Brothers Karamazov when Zosima's body undergoes corruption.  

But it's interesting to note that many of Dostojewski's characters are in mental turmoil.  They are all struggling with something.  
His interest can therefore not be solely in physical decay.  His books are not all just stories with bodies laying on tables, and Dostojewski describing how the worms come out and how the flesh rots off the bodies.
In the painting we see physical decay .. but it represents moral/mental decay.  It's the language of a painter.

And you see it in the 19th century view of consumption, or tuberculosis, essentially understood then as a pathological process of internal decay.  That is one reason I believe Dostoevsky's consumptives are so important:  they are dying, but they are us.  Oh yes, Worm, 'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.'

'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.  Our souls are gone and missing ... and we're trying to get it back.'

I think the picture in Rogozhin's rooms points us to Rogozhin, to his moral corruption, to his importance in the story, and to fact that, as Fyodor has said, "when he is around, things happen."

Perhaps .. i don't remember the paintings, it's been too long since i've read the Idiot.  srry



How does Holbein's Christ link to the Idiot?  I don't see the link.  I don't understand.  What was Dostojewski thinking?

[sadfireworks]

Myshkin differs from the others characters in the book in that he puts everyone else before him, he's willing to sacrifice his happiness for the well-being of another, regardless of consequences. He asks Nastasya Filippovna to marry him, but his love is mixed with pity and empathy, and the same goes to Aglaya. More than to love them he wants to save them.

He's a benefactor, and everyone uses him to their own profit. That's clear from when he receives an inheritance and people become interested in him only to ask him for money. It's not quite money that they take from him, but his confidence and trust, and even though he's an intelligent man and knows that they won't pay him back,
he's still willing to make a sacrifice in hope that people will do better, but they don't, and that probably distresses and disappoints him. (The claim of his idiocy is ironic, and it's due to his authenticity and naivety)

His character seems to change throughout the book in relation to this. He is corrupted. People betray him, he forgives them but it leaves him in a state of hopelessness.  And as far as I can remember his epilepsy sets in when he
encounters the painting at Rogozhin's house.

So in relation to other characters, to the "dialogic communion between consciousnesses", their interaction, and especially the interaction with Rogozhin, Dostoevsky developed his "Jesus Christ", a pure, humble and loving man, but in all only a man. As Myshkin begins to decay and his character shrinks we could assume that that's where the relationship to the painting lies.

You look at the painting and you immediately realize who this man was, what he has done, and what his life meant, but then you return to him, laying in a casket, open-mouthed, half-naked, looking like a dead animal,
just like any other man, and decaying just like any other man, it sets people in the same state of hopelessness, in which that disturbing question comes to their minds; "What if Jesus Christ were only a beautiful man, a moral genius, but not the incarnate God, powerless to redeem human suffering?"

[sadfireworks]

"In the painting we see physical decay .. but it represents moral/mental decay.  It's the language of a painter."

Precisely what I was trying to say above

[sadfireworks]

"If i have understood your post well, you mean to say that religion does not revolve around the suffering of man, but they are two subjects that are different.  
Am i correct in saying this?"

In my opinion, it can be understood as representing something less religious but more spiritual/moral. I think that's what I understood from what Pavo said.

[Pavo]

If i have understood your post well, you mean to say that religion does not revolve around the suffering of man, but they are two subjects that are different.  
Am i correct in saying this?

Yes.  For me, human suffering is usually not religious per se.  That would be a trivializing of Christ's atoning sacrifice.  That is why I described what I saw as a tension in the painting between religious and secular themes.

And imagine Dostojewski standing there with his nose almost against the painting, on a chair, leaning forward a bit .. and scanning the whole thing.

Really, it is amusing.  We ought to do a painting of Dostoevsky examining Holbein's work.

His interest can therefore not be solely in physical decay.  His books are not all just stories with bodies laying on tables, and Dostojewski describing how the worms come out and how the flesh rots off the bodies.
In the painting we see physical decay .. but it represents moral/mental decay.  It's the language of a painter.

A good point, I am going to have to think about that one.  My first response is a little decay in a work of literature goes a long way.   That is why Dostoevsky uses it sparingly.  We don't need long descriptions.  A small allusion from time to time is enough.   That is the work of the literary genius.  

'The people are dead.  We are buried alive without knowing it.  Our souls are gone and missing ... and we're trying to get it back.'

Yes.

.. i don't remember the paintings, it's been too long since i've read the Idiot.  srry

If you will look at the first post, I did succeed in finally getting a small image of the painting as an attachment.

[Pavo]

You look at the painting and you immediately realize who this man was, what he has done, and what his life meant, but then you return to him, laying in a casket, open-mouthed, half-naked, looking like a dead animal,  just like any other man, and decaying just like any other man, it sets people in the same state of hopelessness, in which that disturbing question comes to their minds; "What if Jesus Christ were only a beautiful man, a moral genius, but not the incarnate God, powerless to redeem human suffering?

This question I think is central to the Idiot.  You are perfectly describing the tension between the secular and religious elements of this painting.  That is exactly why I hesitated to call it religious.  It seems that Dostoevsky intended that Myshkin be a sort of literary figure along these lines..."a beautiful man, a moral genius, powerless..."

By the way, Sadfireworks, your entire post was an outstanding work of thoughtfulness and analysis, I am still digesting it.  Thank you.

Pavo

[Worm]

SADFIREWORKS:
 

... he wants to save them.

Well said.

I'm sorry i remember so little from the book .. i read it badly and inbetween things.  I can't talk along about everything.

Is one of the paintings in the house of Rogozhin, the dead Christ of Holbein?

So in relation to other characters, to the "dialogic communion between consciousnesses", their interaction, and especially the interaction with Rogozhin, Dostoevsky developed his "Jesus Christ", a pure, humble and loving man, but in all only a man.

I agree with the idea that Dostojewski's Myshkin is his version of the Christ.  The line of Dostojewski of that The Idiot only has 1/10 in it of what he dreamt it would be, must be taken in consideration with this.

As Myshkin begins to decay and his character shrinks we could assume that that's where the relationship to the painting lies.

I agree.  I have the same view on it.  But i don't think the painting is only about Myshkin - it's about all the characters.

You look at the painting and you immediately realize who this man was, what he has done, and what his life meant, but then you return to him, laying in a casket, open-mouthed, half-naked, looking like a dead animal,
just like any other man, and decaying just like any other man, it sets people in the same state of hopelessness, in which that disturbing question comes to their minds; "What if Jesus Christ were only a beautiful man, a moral genius, but not the incarnate God, powerless to redeem human suffering?

Yes ....
What if .. he was not able to solve the suffering of man?  It's a large question .. with a large answer..
..


PAVO:
Indeed, suffering is not to be considered religious.  Religion is rather the art of healing this suffering.  Suffering is just suffering in itself.  It is not automatically connected with religion.

(This one is for Sadfireworks as well):
What is the difference between religion and spirituality?!  I don't know the difference .. if there even is one..

Really, it is amusing.  We ought to do a painting of Dostoevsky examining Holbein's work.

I paint ..
and i'm starting to take portrait lessons in a few months.  I'd love to try this out, seriously.
Can ye paint, my friend Pavo?  Maybe we can arrange something.

A good point, I am going to have to think about that one.  My first response is a little decay in a work of literature goes a long way.   That is why Dostoevsky uses it sparingly.  We don't need long descriptions.  A small allusion from time to time is enough.  That is the work of the literary genius.  

I disagree.
I prefer clear-cut descriptions that go to the soul of things over allusions and foggy talk.  I'd rather call someone a literary genius if he can go the heart of something, rather than appearing deep.  If he's not, then he isn't, period.

If you will look at the first post, I did succeed in finally getting a small image of the painting as an attachment.

Thanks for that.
But i saw it already through the link .. is one of the paintings of Rogozhin, the Christ of Holbein?  Or are they other ones?

[sadfireworks]

Thanks for bringing up the topic and for your remark, Pavo. I'd be happy to continue our discussion further.

To suggest why this painting was important to Dostoevsky personally is difficult, I was trying to go back to this particular question as well. How could this be answered? I could only try to come up with a suggestion in relation to the work itself. But someone could try to answer this by pointing out to Dostoevsky's personal "struggle" with faith.

I would have to do some reading to find out when this happened exactly, but by then I believe Dostoevsky had already turned into a spirtual man. In my opinion, the painting has a lot of relevance to him because it expresses his personal doubts as much as it incites his willingness to believe in God. Proving or disproving, believing or despairing is what that particular question brings up. But beyond these lines, there is the struggle to believe itself, essentially in people. (trying not to get too much into the theological view here)

And then, you can try to answer the relevance of this painting for its artistic integrity and defiance which undoubtly impressed a writer like Dosteovsky. Who would ever portray such a 'beautiful man', a  paradigm for morality and order, in such a depicable and chaotic state?

[sadfireworks]

I'm sorry i remember so little from the book .. i read it badly and inbetween things.  I can't talk along about everything.

Is one of the paintings in the house of Rogozhin, the dead Christ of Holbein?

Not to worry, Worm. If you don't remember something perhaps we could remind you, i've read the book a while ago as well, and there are things I also can't remember. Anyway, yes, Myshkin sees the painting at Rogozhin's house, and it is Holbein's Dead Christ, he suffers from a  epilepsy attack shortly after seeing the painting.

Tomorrow's Sunday, i haven't got much to do, so I could find an excerpt from the book to include here. Or maybe just read it and see if I have any ideas.

I'll try to answer the other questions tomorrow


By the way, just for the sake of fairness and reference:

The phrase "dialogic communion between consciousnesses" is Mikhail Bakhtin's. And the question at the end of the post was a re-phrasing of Richard Pevear's.

[Pavo]

to Worm

I paint ..
and i'm starting to take portrait lessons in a few months.  I'd love to try this out, seriously.
Can ye paint, my friend Pavo?  Maybe we can arrange something.

Yes, I do paint, a little.  I am not very good, I don't have the patience, I paint fast.  I am taking it up again after a long hiatus.  I am using acrylic, but I want to learn oil painting.

I am working on a little painting of a gargoyle fountain I saw at the Villa d'Este in Tivoli outside of Rome.  It has ferns growing all around it.  Actually, there are a whole line of these gargoyles along a walkway there.

I think that Dostoevsky precariously standing on a chair examining Holbein's painting would be a fantastic subject.  Seriously.  Paint it and Fyodor can post it here on the website.

To sadfireworks:

To suggest why this painting was important to Dostoevsky personally is difficult, I was trying to go back to this particular question as well. How could this be answered? I could only try to come up with a suggestion in relation to the work itself. But someone could try to answer this by pointing out to Dostoevsky's personal "struggle" with faith.

I completely agree, with this and the rest of what you have written, better than I could say.  He was willing to question, and to share with us his questioning and doubt, and I think in the Brothers Karamazov, he shares his resolution of the struggle of faith through the character of Alyosha.  But I am not sure we get that in the Idiot.

[Worm]

I only use acrylic/watercolour as well.  I started out with fast short images, of about 15minutes, for fun.  Now it's grown a bit to images of about an hour.  And the biggest i have right now, i've worked already about an hour on .. and it needs much more work.  I'm not very good at it either ... i do have the patience for it ... i hope to improve a lot with the portrait lessons i'll take soon.

A friend of mine has done oil painting, and he says it's very difficult.. incomparable to easy watercolours.

The idea of Dostojewski on a chair examining the dead Christ is an interesting one .. but it has so much charge, i doubt if i can paint it.  It would also be the biggest one i've made so far.
The thing would obviously be my own interpretation of the whole thing, and it'll be painted in my own taste .. which others perhaps don't like.  I'll probably also write some poetry on the painting itself, as i've done before on a painting.
It'd be also a nice asset for this website .. i'd be glad to have it put online on here.  I'll let you know more in about a day.


I believe the painting is important to Dostojewski personally because it deals with suffering .. and Dostojewski had a lot of that in his own life.  He suffered, hence became interested in it, and this painting deals with that subject .. so the interested person goes to it and takes a look at it.


I couldn't help it, i've flipped through the book to find the passages of the painting.  Most interesting!!  I'll put more info about it up in a day, because i don't have time for it.
This is going to be a tasty discussion.   *rubs his hands*

[sadfireworks]

I wanted to add more on this topic today, but i've been writing and still havent finished, so maybe i will post it later on or tomorrow. I've tried to answer Worm's question on a new thread, and i'm hoping someone will come with a better reply.