The author of the judgment beauty will save the world is. Beauty will save the world? "After what happened to him himself, Dostoevsky could not help but believe in the saving power of beauty"

Fedor Dostoevsky. Engraving by Vladimir Favorsky. 1929 State Tretyakov Gallery / DIOMEDIA

"Beauty will save the world"

“Is it true, Prince [Mishkin], that you once said that the world would be saved by “beauty”? Gentlemen, - he [Ippolit] shouted loudly to everyone, - the prince claims that beauty will save the world! And I say that he has such playful thoughts because he is now in love. Gentlemen, the prince is in love; just now, as soon as he entered, I was convinced of this. Don't blush, prince, I'll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world? Kolya told me this... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says you call yourself a Christian.
The prince examined him attentively and did not answer him.

"Idiot" (1868)

The phrase about the beauty that will save the world is said by minor character- consumptive young man Ippolit. He asks if Prince Myshkin really said so, and, having received no answer, he begins to develop this thesis. And here main character of the novel in such formulations does not talk about beauty and only once clarifies about Nastasya Filippovna whether she is kind: “Oh, if only she were kind! Everything would be saved!”

In the context of The Idiot, it is customary to speak first of all about the power of inner beauty - this is how the writer himself suggested interpreting this phrase. While working on the novel, he wrote to the poet and censor Apollon Maikov that he set himself the goal of creating perfect image"quite a wonderful person," referring to Prince Myshkin. At the same time, in the drafts of the novel there is the following entry: “The world will be saved by beauty. Two examples of beauty, ”after which the author discusses the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna. For Dostoevsky, therefore, it is important to evaluate the saving power of both the inner, spiritual beauty of a person and his appearance. In the plot of The Idiot, however, we find a negative answer: the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna, like the purity of Prince Myshkin, does not make the life of other characters better and does not prevent tragedy.

Later, in the novel "The Brothers Karamazov", the characters will again talk about the power of beauty. Brother Mitya no longer doubts her saving power: he knows and feels that beauty can make the world a better place. But in his own understanding, it also has destructive power. And the hero will be tormented because he does not understand exactly where the border between good and evil lies.

"Am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right"

“And not money, the main thing, I needed, Sonya, when I killed; money was needed not so much as something else... I know all this now... Understand me: perhaps, following the same path, I would never repeat the murders again. I had to find out something else, something else pushed me under the arms: I had to find out then, and find out as soon as possible, whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or right I have…”

"Crime and Punishment" (1866)

For the first time, Raskolnikov speaks of a “trembling creature” after meeting with a tradesman who calls him a “murderer”. The hero is frightened and plunges into reasoning about how some “Napoleon” would react in his place - a representative of the highest human “category”, who can calmly commit a crime for the sake of his goal or whim: “Right, right.” prophet, when he puts a good-r-roy battery somewhere across the street and blows on the right and the guilty, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and - do not wish, therefore - this is none of your business! .. ”Raskolnikov most likely borrowed this image from Pushkin’s poem “Imitation of the Koran”, where the 93rd sura is freely stated:

Be of good cheer, despise deceit,
Follow the path of righteousness,
Love the orphans and my Quran
Preach to the trembling creature.

IN original text suras, the addressees of the sermon should not be “creatures”, but people who should be told about the blessings that Allah can bestow “Therefore do not oppress the orphan! And do not drive the one who asks! And proclaim the mercy of your Lord" (Qur'an 93:9-11).. Raskolnikov deliberately mixes the image from "Imitations of the Koran" and episodes from the biography of Napoleon. Of course, not the prophet Mohammed, but the French commander put "a good battery across the street." So he crushed the royalist uprising in 1795. For Raskolnikov, they are both great people, and each of them, in his opinion, had the right to achieve their goals by any means. Everything that Napoleon did could be implemented by Mahomet and any other representative of the highest "class".

The last mention of the "trembling creature" in "Crime and Punishment" is the very damned question of Raskolnikov "Am I a trembling creature or have the right to ...". He utters this phrase at the end of a long explanation with Sonya Marmeladova, finally not justifying himself with noble impulses and difficult circumstances, but bluntly stating that he killed for himself in order to understand which “category” he belongs to. Thus ends his last monologue; after hundreds and thousands of words, he finally got to the bottom of it. The significance of this phrase is given not only by the biting wording, but also by what happens next with the hero. After that, Raskolnikov no longer makes long speeches: Dostoevsky leaves him only short remarks. Readers will learn about Raskolnikov's inner experiences, which will eventually lead him with a confession to Sen-naya Square and to the police station, from the author's explanations. The hero himself will not tell about anything else - after all, he has already asked the main question.

"Will the light fail, or should I not drink tea"

“... In fact, I need, you know what: so that you fail, that's what! I need peace. Yes, I'm in favor of not being disturbed, I'll sell the whole world right now for a penny. Will the light fail, or should I not drink tea? I will say that the light will fail, but that I always drink tea. Did you know this or not? Well, I now know that I am a scoundrel, a scoundrel, a selfish, lazy person.

"Notes from the Underground" (1864)

This is part of the monologue of the nameless hero of Notes from the Underground, which he says to a prostitute who unexpectedly came to his house. The phrase about tea sounds like proof of the insignificance and selfishness of the underground man. These words have a curious historical context. Tea as a measure of prosperity first appears in Dostoevsky's Poor People. Here is how the hero of the novel Makar Devushkin talks about his financial situation:

“And my apartment costs me seven rubles in banknotes, and a table of five rubles: here are twenty-four and a half, and before that I paid exactly thirty, but denied myself a lot; He didn't always drink tea, but now he's paid for tea and sugar. It is, you know, my dear, not to drink tea is somehow ashamed; there are enough people here, and it’s a shame.”

Dostoevsky himself experienced similar experiences in his youth. In 1839 he wrote from St. Petersburg to his father in the village:

"What; without drinking tea, you will not die of hunger! I'll live somehow!<…>The camp life of each pupil of military educational institutions requires at least 40 rubles. money.<…>In this sum, I do not include such needs as, for example, to have tea, sugar, and so on. This is already necessary, and necessary, not out of propriety alone, but out of necessity. When you get wet in damp weather in the rain in a linen tent, or in such weather, when you come home from school tired, cold, you can get sick without tea; what happened to me last year on a hike. But still, respecting your need, I will not drink tea.

tea in tsarist Russia was a really expensive product. It was transported directly from China along the only overland route, and this route is for-------- small for about a year. Due to transportation costs, as well as huge customs duties, tea in Central Russia cost several times more than in Europe. According to the Vedomosti of the St. Petersburg City Police, in 1845, in the Chinese tea shop of the merchant Piskarev, prices per pound (0.45 kilograms) of the product ranged from 5 to 6.5 rubles in banknotes, and the cost of green tea reached 50 rubles. At the same time, for 6-7 rubles you could buy a pound of first-class beef. In 1850" Domestic notes” wrote that the annual consumption of tea in Russia is 8 million pounds - however, it is impossible to calculate how much per person, since this product was popular mainly in cities and among people of the upper class.

“If there is no God, then everything is allowed”

“... He ended with the assertion that for every private person, for example, as if we are now, who does not believe either in God or in his immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately change into the complete opposite of the former, religious one, and that egoism is even evil --- action should not only be allowed to a person, but even recognized as necessary, the most reasonable and almost the noblest outcome in his position.

The Brothers Karamazov (1880)

The most important words in Dostoevsky are usually not spoken by the main characters. So, Porfiry Petrovich is the first to speak about the theory of dividing humanity into two categories in Crime and Punishment, and only then Ras-kol-nikov; Ippolit asks the question of the saving power of beauty in The Idiot, and Pyotr Aleksandrovich Miusov, a relative of the Karamazovs, notes that God and the salvation promised to him are the only guarantor of people's observance of moral laws. Miusov refers to his brother Ivan, and only then other characters discuss this provocative theory, arguing about whether Karamazov could have invented it. Brother Mitya considers it interesting, the seminarian Raki-tin is vile, the meek Alyosha is false. But the phrase "If there is no God, then everything is allowed" in the novel, no one pronounces. This "quote" will later be constructed from different replicas literary critics and readers.

Five years before the publication of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was already trying to fantasize about what humanity would do without God. The hero of the novel The Teenager (1875), Andrei Petrovich Versilov, argued that clear evidence of the absence of a higher power and the impossibility of immortality, on the contrary, will make people love and appreciate each other more, because there is no one else to love. This imperceptibly slipped remark in the next novel grows into a theory, and that, in turn, into a test in practice. Exhausted by God-borches-skim ideas, brother Ivan waives moral laws and allows the murder of his father. Unable to bear the consequences, he almost goes insane. Allowing himself everything, Ivan does not stop believing in God - his theory does not work, because even to himself he could not prove it.

“Masha is on the table. Will I see Masha?

Love a person as yourself according to the commandment of Christ, it is impossible. The law of personality on earth binds. I hinders. Only Christ could, but Christ was an ideal from the ages, to which man aspires and, according to the law of nature, man must strive.

From a notebook (1864)

Masha, or Maria Dmitrievna, nee Constant, and by the first husband of Isaev, the first wife of Dostoevsky. They married in 1857 in the Siberian city of Kuznetsk, and then moved to Central Russia. On April 15, 1864, Maria Dmitrievna died of consumption. IN last years The couple lived separately and had little contact. Maria Dmitrievna is in Vladimir, and Fedor Mikhailovich is in St. Petersburg. He was absorbed in the publication of magazines, where, among other things, he published the texts of his mistress, the aspiring writer Apollinaria Suslova. The illness and death of his wife hit him hard. A few hours after her death, Dostoevsky recorded in a notebook his thoughts about love, marriage and the goals of human development. Briefly, their essence is as follows. The ideal to strive for is Christ, the only one who could sacrifice himself for others. Man is selfish and unable to love his neighbor as himself. Nevertheless, heaven on earth is possible: with proper spiritual work, each new generation will be better than the previous one. Having reached the highest stage of development, people will refuse marriages, because they contradict the ideal of Christ. A family union is a selfish isolation of a couple, and in a world where people are ready to give up their personal interests for the sake of others, this is not necessary and impossible. And besides, since the ideal state of mankind will be reached only at the last stage of development, it will be possible to stop multiplying.

"Masha is on the table..." - intimate diary entry rather than a thoughtful writer's manifesto. But it is precisely in this text that ideas are outlined that Dostoevsky would later develop in his novels. The selfish attachment of a person to his "I" will be reflected in the individualistic theory of Raskolnikov, and the unattainability of the ideal - in Prince Myshkin, who was called "Prince Christ" in the drafts, as an example of self-sacrifice and humility.

"Constantinople - sooner or later, should be ours"

“Pre-Petrine Russia was active and strong, although it was slowly taking shape politically; she worked out a unity for herself and was preparing to consolidate her outskirts; she understood to herself that she carries within herself a precious value that is not found anywhere else - Orthodoxy, that she is the custodian of Christ's truth, but already the true truth, the real Christ's image, obscured in all other faiths and in all other on-ro-dah.<…>And this unity is not for capture, not for violence, not for the destruction of Slavic personalities in front of the Russian colossus, but in order to recreate them and put them in proper relation to Europe and to humanity, to give them, finally, the opportunity to calm down and rest - after their countless centuries of suffering ...<…>Of course, and for the same purpose, Constantinople - sooner or later, should be ours ... "

"A Writer's Diary" (June 1876)

In 1875-1876, the Russian and foreign press was flooded with ideas about the capture of Constantinople. At this time in the territory of Porto Ottoman Porta, or Porta, Another name for the Ottoman Empire. uprisings broke out one after another Slavic peoples which the Turkish authorities brutally suppressed. It was going to war. Everyone was waiting for Russia to come out in defense of the Balkan states: they predicted victory for it, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. And, of course, everyone was worried about the question of who in this case would get the ancient Byzantine capital. Discussed different variants: that Constantinople will become an international city, that the Greeks will occupy it, or that it will be part of the Russian Empire. The last option did not suit Europe at all, but it was very popular with Russian conservatives, who saw it primarily as a political benefit.

Vol-no-vali these questions and Dostoevsky. Having entered into controversy, he immediately accused all the participants in the dispute of being wrong. In The Writer's Diary, from the summer of 1876 until the spring of 1877, he continually returns to the Eastern Question. Unlike the conservatives, he believed that Russia sincerely wants to protect fellow believers, free them from the oppression of the Muslims, and therefore, as an Orthodox power, has the exclusive right to Constantinople. “We, Russia, are really necessary and inevitable both for all of Eastern Christianity and for the whole fate of the future Orthodoxy on earth, for its unity,” writes Dostoevsky in his Diary for March 1877. The writer was convinced of the special Christian mission of Russia. Even earlier, he developed this idea in The Possessed. One of the heroes of this novel, Shatov, was convinced that the Russian people are God-bearing people. The same idea will be devoted to the famous, published in the Writer's Diary in 1880.

Great people are great in everything. Often phrases from novels written by recognized geniuses literary world, become winged and passed from mouth to mouth for many generations.

So it happened with the expression "Beauty will save the world." It is used by many and each time in a new sound, with a new meaning. Who said: These words belong to one of the characters in the work of the great Russian classic, thinker, genius - Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.

Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

The famous Russian writer was born in 1821 on November 11. He grew up in a large and poor family, distinguished by extreme religiosity, virtue and decency. Father is a parish priest, mother is a merchant's daughter.

Throughout the childhood of the future writer, the family regularly attended church, the children, together with adults, read the Old, Old and Very memorable Dostoevsky Gospel, he will mention this in more than one work in the future.

The writer studied in boarding houses, far from home. Then at the Engineering School. The next and main milestone in his life was the literary path, which captured him completely and irrevocably.

One of the most difficult moments was hard labor, which lasted 4 years.

The most famous works are the following:

• "Poor people".
• "White Nights.
• "Double".
• "Notes from the House of the Dead".
• "The Brothers Karamazov".
• "Crime and Punishment".
• "Idiot" (it is from this novel that the phrase "Beauty will save the world").
• "Demons".
• "Teenager".
• "A Writer's Diary".

In all his works, the writer raised acute questions of morality, virtue, conscience and honor. The philosophy of moral principles excited him extremely, and this was reflected in the pages of his works.

Catch phrases from Dostoevsky's novels

The question of who said: "Beauty will save the world" can be answered in two ways. On the one hand, this is the hero of the novel "The Idiot" Ippolit Terentyev, who retells other people's words (supposedly the statement of Prince Myshkin). However, this phrase can then be attributed to the prince himself.

On the other hand, it turns out that these words belong to the author of the novel, Dostoevsky. Therefore, there are several interpretations of the origin of the phrase.

Fyodor Mikhailovich has always been characterized by such a feature: many phrases written by him became winged. After all, for sure everyone knows such words as:

• "Money is minted freedom."
• "One must love life more than the meaning of life."
• "People, people - this is the most important thing. People are more valuable than even money."

And this is certainly not the whole list. But there is also the most famous and beloved by many phrase that the writer used in his work: "Beauty will save the world." It still causes a lot of different arguments about the meaning contained in it.

Roman Idiot

The main theme throughout the novel is love. Love and inner spiritual tragedy of the heroes: Nastasya Filippovna, Prince Myshkin and others.

The main character is not taken seriously by many, considering it a completely harmless child. However, the plot twists in such a way that it is the prince who becomes the center of all events. It is he who turns out to be the object of love for two beautiful and strong women.

But his personal qualities, humanity, excessive insight and sensitivity, love for people, desire to help the offended and outcast played a cruel joke on him. He made a choice and made a mistake. His brain, tormented by the disease, cannot stand it, and the prince turns into a completely mentally retarded person, just a child.

Who said: "Beauty will save the world"? Great humanist, sincere, open and infinitely who understood precisely such qualities by the beauty of people - Prince Myshkin.

virtue or stupidity?

This is almost as difficult a question as the meaning of the catchphrase about beauty. Some will say - virtue. Others are stupidity. This is what will determine the beauty of the responding person. Everyone argues and understands the meaning of the fate of the hero, his character, train of thought and experience in his own way.

In some places in the novel there is really a very thin line between stupidity and sensitivity of the hero. Indeed, by and large, it was his virtue, his desire to protect, to help everyone around him that became fatal and disastrous for him.

He looks for beauty in people. He notices her in everyone. He sees the boundless ocean of beauty in Aglaya and believes that beauty will save the world. Statements about this phrase in the novel ridicule her, the prince, his understanding of the world and people. However, many felt how good he was. And they envied his purity, love for people, sincerity. From envy, perhaps, they said nasty things.

The meaning of the image of Ippolit Terentyev

In fact, his image is episodic. He is just one of many people who envy the prince, discuss him, condemn him and do not understand. He laughs at the phrase "Beauty will save the world." His reasoning on this matter is definite: the prince said utter nonsense and there is no sense in his phrase.

However, it certainly exists, and it is very deep. just for limited people like Terentyev, the main thing is money, respectable appearance, position. He is not very interested in the inner content, the soul, which is why he ridicules the prince's statement.

What meaning did the author put into the expression?

Dostoevsky always appreciated people, their honesty, inner beauty and completeness of perception. It was with these qualities that he endowed his unfortunate hero. Therefore, speaking about the one who said: "Beauty will save the world", we can confidently say that the author of the novel himself, through the image of his hero.

With this phrase, he tried to make it clear that the main thing is not appearance, not beautiful facial features and statuesque figure. And what people love for is their inner world spiritual qualities. It is kindness, responsiveness and humanity, sensitivity and love for all living things that will allow people to save the world. This is what real beauty is, and people who have such qualities are truly beautiful.

Idiot (film, 1958).

The pseudo-Christianity of this statement lies on the surface: this world, together with the spirits of the "world-rulers" and the "prince of this world," will not be saved, but condemned, and only the Church, the new creation in Christ, will be saved. All about it New Testament, all Holy Tradition.

“Renunciation of the world precedes the following of Christ. The second has no place in the soul, if the first is not accomplished in it first ... Many read the Gospel, enjoy, admire the loftiness and holiness of his teaching, few dare to direct their behavior according to the rules that legislate the Gospel. The Lord declares to all who approach Him and wish to assimilate Him: If anyone comes to Me and does not renounce the world and himself, My disciple cannot be. This word is cruel, even such people spoke about the teachings of the Savior, who outwardly were His followers and were considered His disciples: who can listen to Him? This is how carnal wisdom judges the word of God from its distressful mood ”(St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov). Ascetic experiences. On following our Lord Jesus Christ / Full collection of creations. M .: Palomnik, 2006. T. 1. S. 78 -79).

We observe an example of such “carnal wisdom” in the philosophy that Dostoevsky put into the mouth of Prince Myshkin as one of his first “Christs”. “Is it true, prince, that you once said that “beauty” would save the world? - Gentlemen ... the prince claims that beauty will save the world! And I say that he has such playful thoughts because he is now in love ... Do not blush, prince, I will feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world?... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says you call yourself a Christian” (D., VIII.317). So, what kind of beauty will save the world?

At first glance, of course, Christian, "for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47). But, as it was said, "come save the world" and "the world will be saved" is completely different positions for "whoever rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge for himself: the word that I have spoken, it will judge him on the last day" (John 12:48). Then the question is whether the hero of Dostoevsky, who considers himself a Christian, rejects or accepts the Savior? What is Myshkin in general (as Dostoevsky's concept, because Prince Lev Nikolaevich Myshkin is not a person, but an artistic mythologeme, an ideological construction) in the context of Christianity and the Gospel? - This is a Pharisee, an unrepentant sinner, namely, a fornicator, cohabiting with another unrepentant harlot Nastasya Filippovna (prototype - Apollinaria Suslova) out of lust, but assuring everyone and himself that for missionary purposes (“I love her not with love, but with pity” (D., VIII, 173)). In this sense, Myshkin is almost no different from Totsky, who also at one time “felt sorry” for Nastasya and even did good deeds (he sheltered an orphan). But at the same time, Dostoevsky's Totsky is the embodiment of depravity and hypocrisy, and Myshkin is at first directly named in the handwritten materials of the novel "PRINCE CHRIST" (D., IX, 246; 249; 253). In the context of this sublimation (romanticization) of sinful passion (lust) and mortal sin (fornication) into “virtue” (“pity”, “compassion”), it is necessary to consider famous aphorism Myshkin “beauty will save the world”, the essence of which lies in a similar romanticization (idealization) of sin in general, sin as such, or the sin of the world. That is, the formula “beauty will save the world” is an expression of the attachment to sin of a carnal (worldly) person who wants to live forever and, loving sin, sin forever. Therefore, the “world” (sin) for its “beauty” (and “beauty” is a value judgment, meaning the sympathy and passion of the person making this judgment for this object) will be “saved” as it is, for it is good (otherwise such an All-Man , like Prince Myshkin, he would not love him).

“So you appreciate such and such beauty? - Yes ... such ... In this face ... there is a lot of suffering ... ”(D., VIII, 69). Yes, Nastasya suffered. But is suffering in itself (without repentance, without changing one's life according to God's commandments) a Christian category? Another change of concept. “Beauty is difficult to judge ... Beauty is a mystery” (D., VIII, 66). Just as Adam who sinned hid from God behind a bush, so romantic thought, loving sin, hastens to hide in the fog of irrationalism and agnosticism, wrapping its ontological shame and decay with veils of inexpressibility and mystery (or, as the soil-dwellers and Slavophiles used to say, “living life”). , naively believing that then no one would solve her riddles.

“He would like to unravel something hidden in this face [Nastasya Filippovna] and struck him just now. The previous impression had hardly left him, and now he was in a hurry, as it were, to check something again. This face, unusual in its beauty and for something else, struck him even more strongly now. As if immense pride and contempt, almost hatred, were in this face, and at the same time something trusting, something surprisingly simple-hearted; these two contrasts even aroused, as it were, some kind of compassion when looking at these features. This dazzling beauty was even unbearable, the beauty of the pale face, almost sunken cheeks and burning eyes; strange beauty! The prince looked for a minute, then suddenly caught himself, looked around, hastily brought the portrait to his lips and kissed it ”(D., VIII, 68).

Everyone sinning with sin unto death is convinced that his case is special, that he is “not like other people” (Luke 18:11), that the strength of his feelings (passion for sin) is an irrefutable proof of their ontological truth (according to the principle "what is natural is not ugly"). So it is here: “I already explained to you before that I “love her not with love, but with pity.” I think that I define it precisely” (D., VIII, 173). That is, I love, like Christ, the gospel harlot. And this gives Myshkin a spiritual privilege, a legal right to fornicate with her. “His heart is pure; is he a rival to Rogozhin? (D., VIII, 191). great person has the right to small weaknesses, it is “difficult to judge” him, because he himself is an even greater “mystery”, that is, the highest (moral) “beauty” that will “save the world”. “Such beauty is power, with such beauty you can turn the world upside down!” (D., VIII, 69). This is exactly what Dostoevsky does, turning the opposition of Christianity and the world upside down with his “paradoxical” moral aesthetics, so that the sinful becomes holy and the lost of this world - saving it, as always in this humanistic (neognostic) religion, allegedly saving itself, amusing itself such illusion. Therefore, if “beauty saves”, then “ugliness will kill” (D, XI, 27), because “the measure of all things” is man himself. “If you believe that you can forgive yourself and achieve this forgiveness for yourself in this world, then you believe in everything! Tikhon exclaimed enthusiastically. - How did you say that you do not believe in God? ... Honor the Holy Spirit, without knowing it yourself ”(D, XI, 27-28). Therefore, “it always ended with the most shameful cross becoming great glory and great power, if the humility of the feat was sincere” (D, XI, 27).

Although formally the relationship between Myshkin and Nastasya Filippovna in the novel is the most platonic, or chivalrous on his part (Don Quixote), they cannot be called chaste (that is, Christian virtue as such). Yes, they simply “live” together for some time before the wedding, which, of course, may exclude carnal relations (as in Dostoevsky’s stormy romance with Suslova, who also offered her to marry him after the death of his first wife). But, as was said, it is not the plot that is being considered, but the ideology of the novel. And here the point is that even marrying a harlot (as well as a divorced woman) is, canonically, adultery. In Dostoevsky, however, Myshkin, by marriage to himself, must “restore” Nastasya, make her “clean” of sin. In Christianity, on the contrary: he himself would become a fornicator. Therefore, this is the hidden goal-setting here, the true intention. “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Luke 16:18). “Or do you not know that he who copulates with a harlot becomes one body [with her]? for it is said, The two shall be one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16). That is, the marriage of a harlot with the Prince-Christ has, according to Dostoevsky's plan (in the Gnostic religion of self-salvation), the "alchemical" power of a kind of church sacrament, being the usual adultery in Christianity. Hence the duality of beauty (“the ideal of Sodom” and “the ideal of the Madonna”), that is, their dialectical unity, when sin itself is internally experienced by the gnostic (“higher man”) as holiness. The concept of Sonya Marmeladova has the same content, where her prostitution itself is presented as the highest Christian virtue (sacrifice).

Because this typical Romantic aestheticization of Christianity is nothing more than solipsism (an extreme form of subjective idealism, or “carnal wisdom” in Christian terms), or simply because from exaltation to depression passionate person one step, the poles in this aesthetics, and in this morality, and in this religion are so widely spaced, and one thing (beauty, holiness, deity) turns into the opposite (ugliness, sin, devil) so rapidly (or “suddenly” - beloved words of Dostoevsky). “Beauty is a terrible and terrible thing! Terrible, because it is indefinable... Here the shores converge, here all the contradictions live together... 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... It is even more terrible, who already with the ideal of Sodom in his soul does not deny and the ideal of the Madonna, and his heart burns from it ... What seems to the mind a shame, then the heart is entirely beauty. Is beauty in sodom? Believe that she sits in Sodom for the vast majority of people ... Here the devil is fighting with God, and the battlefield is the hearts of people ”(D, XIV, 100).

In other words, in all this “holy dialectics” of sinful passions, there is also an element of doubt (the voice of conscience), but very weak, at least in comparison with the all-conquering feeling of “hellish beauty”: “He often said to himself: why are all these lightning bolts and glimpses of a higher sense of self and self-consciousness, and therefore of a “higher being”, nothing but a disease, a violation of the normal state, and if so, then this is not a higher being at all, but, on the contrary, should be ranked among the lowest . And yet, nevertheless, he nevertheless finally reached an extremely paradoxical conclusion: “What is it that this is a disease? he finally decided. - What does it matter that this tension is abnormal, if the very result, if the minute of sensation, remembered and considered already in a healthy state, turns out to be in the highest degree harmony, beauty, gives an unheard-of and hitherto unexplained feeling of fullness, proportion, reconciliation and enthusiastic prayerful fusion with the highest synthesis of life?” These vague expressions seemed to him very understandable, though still too weak. In the fact that this is really “beauty and prayer”, that this is really “the highest synthesis of life”, he could no longer doubt this, and he could not allow any doubts ”(D., VIII, 188). That is, with Myshkin's (Dostoevsky's) epilepsy - the same story: that others have a disease (sin, disgrace), he has the seal of being chosen from above (virtue, beauty). Here, of course, a bridge is also thrown over to Christ as the highest ideal of beauty: “He could reasonably judge this after the end of the painful state. These moments were just one extraordinary intensification of self-consciousness - if it were necessary to express this state in one word - self-consciousness and at the same time self-sensation in the highest degree of directness. If at that second, that is, at the very last conscious moment before the seizure, he happened to have time to clearly and consciously say to himself: “Yes, one can give his whole life for this moment!”, then, of course, this moment in itself was worth the whole life. life "(D., VIII, 188). This “strengthening of self-consciousness” to an ontological maximum, to “enthusiastic prayerful merging with the highest synthesis of life”, according to the type of spiritual practice, is very reminiscent of the “transformation into Christ” by Francis of Assisi, or the same “Christ” by Blavatsky as “The Divine principle in every human chest." “And according to Christ you will receive… something much higher… This is to be the ruler and master even of yourself, your self, to sacrifice this self, to give it away to everyone. There is something irresistibly beautiful, sweet, inevitable and even inexplicable in this idea. It's inexplicable." “HE [Christ] is the ideal of mankind… What is the law of this ideal? A return to immediacy, to a mass, but free, and not even by will, not by reason, not by consciousness, but by a direct, terribly strong, invincible feeling that this is terribly good. And a strange thing. Man returns to the mass, to immediate life,<овательно>, into a natural state, but how? Not authoritatively, but, on the contrary, in the highest degree arbitrarily and consciously. It is clear that this highest self-will is at the same time the highest renunciation of one's own will. This is my will, not to have a will, for the ideal is beautiful. What is the ideal? To achieve the full power of consciousness and development, to fully realize one's self - and to give it all arbitrarily for everyone. Indeed: what would a better person do, who has received everything, is conscious of everything and is omnipotent? (D., XX, 192-193). “What to do” (an age-old Russian question) - of course, to save the world, what else and who else, if not you, who has reached the “ideal of beauty”.

Why, then, did Myshkin end so ingloriously at Dostoevsky's and did not save anyone? – Because so far, in this age, this achievement of the “ideal of beauty” is given only to the best representatives of humanity and only for a moment or in part, but in the next century this “heavenly brilliance” will become “natural and possible” for everyone. “Man ... goes from diversity to Synthesis ... But the nature of God is different. It is a complete synthesis of all being, self-examining itself in diversity, in Analysis. But if a person [in future life] not a man - what will be his nature? It is impossible to understand on earth, but its law can be foreseen both by all mankind in direct emanations [of the origin of God] and by every individual” (D., XX, 174). This is the “deepest and fatal secret of man and mankind”, that “ greatest beauty man, his greatest purity, chastity, innocence, gentleness, courage and, finally, the greatest mind - all this often (alas, even so often) turns into nothing, passes without benefit to mankind and even turns into ridicule by mankind solely because all these noblest and richest gifts, with which even a person is often awarded, lacked only one last gift - namely: a genius to control all the wealth of these gifts and all their power, to control and direct all this power to the truthful, and not fantastic and crazy way of activity, for the benefit of humanity!” (D.,XXVI,25).

Thus, the “ideal beauty” of God and the “greatest beauty” of Man, the “nature” of God and the “nature” of Man are, in Dostoevsky’s world, different modes of the same beauty of a single “being”. Because "beauty" and "save the world" that the world (humanity) - this is God in "diversity".

It is also impossible not to mention the numerous paraphrases of this aphorism of Dostoevsky and the planting of the very spirit of this “soteriological aesthetics” in E. Roerich’s “Agni Yoga” (“Living Ethics”), among other theosophies condemned at the Council of Bishops in 1994. Compare: “ The miracle of the ray of beauty in the adornment of life will uplift humanity” (1.045); “we pray with sounds and images of beauty” (1.181); “the beauty of the spirit will enlighten the temper of the Russian people” (1.193); “whoever said “beauty” will be saved” (1.199); “say: “beauty”, even with tears, until you reach the appointed one” (1.252); “be able to reveal the expanse of Beauty” (1.260); “through beauty you will approach” (1.333); “happy are the ways of beauty, the need of the world must be satisfied” (1.350); “by love kindle the light of beauty and by action show the world the salvation of the spirit” (1.354); "the consciousness of beauty will save the world" (3.027).

Alexander Buzdalov

And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good.
/ Gen. 1.31/

It is human nature to appreciate beauty. The human soul needs beauty and seeks it. All human culture is permeated with the search for beauty. The Bible also testifies that beauty lay at the heart of the world and man was originally involved in it. Expulsion from paradise is an image of lost beauty, a person's rupture with beauty and truth. Once having lost his heritage, man yearns to regain it. Human history can be presented as a path from lost beauty to sought after beauty, on this path a person realizes himself as a participant in Divine creation. Leaving the beautiful Garden of Eden, symbolizing its pure natural state before the fall, a person returns to the garden city - Heavenly Jerusalem, " new, coming down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband» (Rev. 21.2). And this last image is the image of the future beauty, about which it is said: eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him.» (1 Cor. 2.9).

All of God's creation is originally beautiful. God admired His creation different stages his creation. " And God saw that it was good”- these words are repeated in the 1st chapter of the book of Genesis 7 times and they clearly have an aesthetic character. This is where the Bible begins and ends with the revelation of a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). The Apostle John says that " the world lies in evil”(1 John 5.19), thus emphasizing that the world is not evil in itself, but that the evil that entered the world has distorted its beauty. And at the end of time, the true beauty of God's creation will shine - purified, saved, transfigured.

The concept of beauty always includes the concepts of harmony, perfection, purity, and for the Christian worldview, good is certainly included in this series. The separation of ethics and aesthetics occurred already in modern times, when culture underwent secularization, and the integrity of the Christian worldview was lost. Pushkin's question about the compatibility of genius and villainy was already born in a divided world, for which Christian values ​​are not obvious. A century later, this question sounds like a statement: “aesthetics of the ugly”, “theater of the absurd”, “harmony of destruction”, “cult of violence”, etc. — these are the aesthetic coordinates that define the culture of the 20th century. Breaking aesthetic ideals with ethical roots leads to anti-aesthetics. But even in the midst of decay, the human soul does not cease to strive for beauty. The famous Chekhovian maxim “everything in a person should be beautiful ...” is nothing but nostalgia for the integrity of the Christian understanding of beauty and the unity of the image. Dead ends and tragedy modern searches beauty lies in the complete loss of value orientations, in the oblivion of the sources of beauty.

Beauty is an ontological category in the Christian understanding, it is inextricably linked with the meaning of being. Beauty is rooted in God. From this it follows that there is only one beauty - True Beauty, God Himself. And every earthly beauty is only an image that reflects the Primary Source to a greater or lesser extent.

« In the beginning was the Word… through Him everything came into being, and without Him nothing came into being that came into being» (John 1.1-3). Word, Inexpressible Logos, Mind, Meaning, etc. - this concept has a huge synonymous series. Somewhere in this series, the amazing word “image” finds its place, without which it is impossible to comprehend true meaning beauty. Word and Image have one source, in their ontological depth they are identical.

The image in Greek is εικων (eikon). Hence comes and Russian word"icon". But just as we distinguish between the Word and words, we should also distinguish between the Image and images, in a narrower sense - icons (in Russian vernacular, the name of icons, “image”, was not accidentally preserved). Without understanding the meaning of the Image, we cannot understand the meaning of the icon, its place, its role, its meaning.

God creates the world through the Word, He Himself is the Word that came into the world. God also creates the world by giving an image to everything. He Himself, having no image, is the prototype of everything in the world. Everything that exists in the world exists due to the fact that it carries the Image of God. The Russian word “ugly” is a synonym for the word “ugly”, meaning nothing more than “shapeless”, that is, not having the Image of God in itself, non-essential, non-existent, dead. The whole world is permeated with the Word and the whole world is filled with the Image of God, our world is iconological.

God's creation can be imagined as a ladder of images that, like mirrors, reflect each other and, ultimately, God as the Prototype. The symbol of the stairs (in the old Russian version - “ladders”) is traditional for the Christian picture of the world, starting from the ladder of Jacob (Gen. 28.12) and up to the “Ladder” of the Sinai Abbot John, nicknamed “The Ladder”. The symbol of the mirror is also well known - we meet it, for example, in the Apostle Paul, who speaks of knowledge like this: now we see how through a dull glass, guessingly"(1 Cor. 13.12), which in the Greek text is expressed as follows:" like a mirror in divination". Thus our cognition is like a mirror dimly reflecting true values which we can only guess. So, God's world is a whole system of images of mirrors built in the form of a ladder, each step of which reflects God to a certain extent. At the basis of everything is God Himself — the One, Beginningless, Incomprehensible, having no image, giving life to everything. He is everything and everything is in Him, and there is no one who could look at God from the outside. The incomprehensibility of God became the basis for the commandment forbidding the depiction of God (Ex. 20.4). The transcendence of God, revealed to man in the Old Testament, exceeds human capabilities, so the Bible says: “ man cannot see God and stay alive» (Ex. 33.20). Even Moses, the greatest of the prophets, who communicated directly with Jehovah, heard His voice more than once, when he asked to show him the Face of God, received the following answer: “ you will see me from behind, but my face will not be seen» (Ex. 33.23).

Evangelist John also testifies: God has never been seen"(John 1.18a), but then adds:" the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed» (John 1.18b). Here is the center of the New Testament revelation: through Jesus Christ we have direct access to God, we can see His face. " The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and we saw His glory» (John 1.14). Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the incarnate Word is the only and true image Invisible God. IN in a certain sense He is the first and only icon. The Apostle Paul writes: He is the image of the Invisible God, born before every creature" (Col. 1.15), and " being the image of God, he took the form of a servant» (Phil. 2.6-7). The appearance of God into the world occurs through His belittling, kenosis (Greek κενωσις). And at each subsequent step, the image reflects the Prototype to a certain extent, thanks to this, the internal structure of the world is exposed.

The next step of the ladder we have drawn is a person. God created man in His own image and likeness (Gen. 1.26) (κατ εικονα ημετεραν καθ ομοιωσιν), thereby distinguishing him from all creation. In this sense, man is also an icon of God. Rather, he is meant to be. The Savior called the disciples: be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect» (Mt. 5.48). Here the true is found human dignity, open to people Christ. But as a result of his fall, having fallen away from the source of Being, man in his natural natural state does not reflect, like a clean mirror, the image of God. To achieve the required perfection, a person needs to make efforts (Matt. 11.12). The Word of God reminds man of his original calling. This is also evidenced by the Image of God, revealed in the icon. In everyday life it is often difficult to find confirmation of this; looking around and impartially looking at himself, a person may not immediately see the image of God. However, it is in every person. The image of God may not be manifested, hidden, clouded, even distorted, but it exists in our very depths as a guarantee of our being. The process of spiritual development consists in discovering the image of God in oneself, revealing, purifying, restoring it. In many ways, this is reminiscent of the restoration of an icon, when a blackened, sooty board is washed, cleaned, removing layer after layer of old drying oil, numerous later layers and inscriptions, until the Face eventually emerges, the Light shines, the Image of God manifests itself. The Apostle Paul writes to his disciples: My children! for whom I am again in the throes of birth, until Christ is formed in you!» (Gal. 4.19). The Gospel teaches that the goal of a person is not just self-improvement, as the development of his natural abilities and natural qualities, but the revelation in himself of the true Image of God, the achievement of God's likeness, what the holy fathers called "deification" (Greek Θεοσις). This process is difficult, according to Paul, it is the pangs of birth, because the image and likeness in us are separated by sin - we receive the image at birth, and we achieve the likeness during life. That is why in the Russian tradition the saints are called "reverend", that is, those who have attained the likeness of God. This title is awarded to the greatest holy ascetics, such as Sergius of Radonezh or Seraphim of Sarov. And at the same time, this is the goal that every Christian faces. It is no coincidence that St. Basil the Great said that " Christianity is likening God to the extent that it is possible for human nature«.

The process of “deification”, the spiritual transformation of a person, is Christocentric, since it is based on likeness to Christ. Even following the example of any saint is not limited to him, but leads, first of all, to Christ. " Imitate me as I imitate Christ“, wrote the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 4.16). So any icon is initially Christocentric, no matter who is depicted on it - whether the Savior Himself, the Mother of God or one of the saints. Holiday icons are also Christocentric. Precisely because we have been given the only true Image and role model - Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Incarnate Word. This image in us should be glorified and shine: yet we, with open face, as in a mirror, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord» (2 Cor. 3.18).

A person is located on the verge of two worlds: above a person - the divine world, below - the natural world, because of where his mirror is deployed - up or down - it will depend on whose image he perceives. From a certain historical stage man's attention was focused on the creature, and the worship of the Creator faded into the background. The misfortune of the pagan world and the wine of modern culture is that people, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, and were not thankful, but were futile in their minds… and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image like corruptible man, and birds, and quadrupeds, and reptiles… they replaced the truth with a lie and worshiped and served the creature instead of Creator"(1 Cor. 1.21-25).

Indeed, a step below the human world lies the created world, which also reflects, in its measure, the image of God, like any other creature that bears the stamp of its Creator. However, this can only be seen if the correct hierarchy of values ​​is observed. It is no coincidence that the holy fathers said that God gave man two books for knowledge - the Book of Scripture and the Book of Creation. And through the second book, we can also comprehend the greatness of the Creator - through " viewing creations» (Rom. 1.20). This so-called level of natural revelation was available to the world even before Christ. But in creation the image of God is even more diminished than in man, since sin has entered the world and the world lies in evil. Each underlying step reflects not only the Prototype, but also the previous one; against this background, the role of a person is very clearly visible, since “ the creature did not submit voluntarily" And " awaits the salvation of the sons of God» (Rom. 8.19-20). A person who has corrected the image of God in himself distorts this image in all creation. All ecological problems of the modern world stem from here. Their decision is closely connected with the inner transformation of the person himself. The revelation of the new heaven and the new earth reveals the mystery of the future creation, for " passes the image of this world"(1 Cor. 7.31). One day, through the Creation, the Image of the Creator will shine in all its beauty and light. The Russian poet F.I. Tyutchev saw this prospect as follows:

When the last hour of nature strikes,
The composition of the earthly parts will collapse,
Everything visible around will be covered by water
And God's Face will be displayed in them.

And, finally, the last fifth step of the ladder we have drawn is the icon itself, and more broadly, the creation of human hands, all human creativity. Only when included in the system of images-mirrors described by us, reflecting the Prototype, the icon ceases to be just a board with plots written on it. Outside this ladder, the icon does not exist, even if it was painted in accordance with the canons. Outside of this context, all distortions in icon veneration arise: some deviate into magic, crude idolatry, others fall into art veneration, sophisticated aestheticism, and still others completely deny the use of icons. The purpose of the icon is to direct our attention to the Archetype - through the only Image of the Incarnate Son of God - to the Invisible God. And this path lies through the revelation of the Image of God in ourselves. The veneration of the icon is the worship of the Archetype, the prayer before the icon is the standing before the Incomprehensible and Living God. The icon is only a sign of His presence. The aesthetics of the icon is only a small approximation to the beauty of the imperishable future age, like a barely visible contour, not quite clear shadows; contemplating the icon is similar to a person gradually regaining his sight, who is healed by Christ (Mk. 8.24). That's why o. Pavel Florensky argued that an icon is always either larger or less product art. Everything is decided by the inner spiritual experience of the future.

Ideally, all human activity is iconological. A person paints an icon, seeing the true Image of God, but an icon also creates a person, reminding him of the image of God hidden in him. A person tries to peer into the Face of God through the icon, but God also looks at us through the Image. " We know in part and we prophesy in part, when the perfect comes, then that which is in part will cease. Now we see, as if through a dull glass, guessingly, but at the same time, face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know, just as I am known"(1 Cor. 13.9,12). The conditional language of the icon is a reflection of the incompleteness of our knowledge of the divine reality. And at the same time, it is a sign indicating the existence of the Absolute beauty, which is hidden in God. The famous saying of F.M. Dostoevsky “Beauty will save the world” is not just a winning metaphor, but the exact and deep intuition of a Christian brought up on a thousand-year-old Orthodox tradition of searching for this beauty. God is true Beauty, and therefore salvation cannot be ugly, formless. Biblical image the suffering Messiah, in whom there is "neither form nor majesty" (Is. 53.2), only emphasizes what has been said above, revealing the point at which the belittling (Greek κενωσις) of God, and at the same time of the Beauty of His Image, reaches the limit, but from the same point the upward ascent begins. Just as the descent of Christ into hell is the destruction of hell and the leading of all the faithful to the Resurrection and Eternal Life. " God is Light and there is no darkness in Him”(1 John 1.5) - this is the image of the True Divine and saving beauty.

The Eastern Christian tradition perceives Beauty as one of the proofs of the existence of God. According to a well-known legend, the last argument for Prince Vladimir in choosing a faith was the testimony of the ambassadors about the heavenly beauty of the Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. Knowledge, as Aristotle argued, begins with wonder. So often the knowledge of God begins with wonder at the beauty of God's creation.

« I praise You, because I am wonderfully made. Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul is fully aware of this."(Ps. 139.14). The contemplation of beauty reveals to man the secret of the relationship between the external and the internal in this world.

…So what is beauty?
And why do people deify her?
Is she a vessel in which there is emptiness?
Or fire flickering in a vessel?
(N. Zabolotsky)

For the Christian consciousness, beauty is not an end in itself. It is only an image, a sign, an occasion, one of the paths leading to God. There is no Christian aesthetics in the proper sense, just as there is no "Christian mathematics" or "Christian biology". However, for a Christian it is clear that the abstract category of "beautiful" (beauty) loses its meaning outside the concepts of "good", "truth", "salvation". Everything is united by God in God and in the name of God, the rest is formless. The rest is pitch hell (by the way, the Russian word "pitch" means everything that remains except, that is, outside, in this case outside of God). Therefore, it is so important to distinguish between external, false beauty, and true, internal beauty. True Beauty is a spiritual category, imperishable, independent of external changing criteria, it is incorruptible and belongs to another world, although it can manifest itself in this world. External beauty is transient, changeable, it is just external beauty, attractiveness, charm (the Russian word “charm” comes from the root “flattery”, which is akin to a lie). The Apostle Paul, guided by the biblical understanding of beauty, gives this advice to Christian women: May your adornment be not external weaving of hair, not golden headdresses or finery in clothes, but a man hidden in the heart in the imperishable beauty of a meek and silent spirit, which is precious before God"(1 Pet. 3.3-4).

So, “the imperishable beauty of a meek spirit, valuable before God” is, perhaps, the cornerstone of Christian aesthetics and ethics, which constitute an inseparable unity, for beauty and goodness, beauty and spirituality, form and meaning, creativity and salvation are essentially inseparable, as one at its core Image and Word. It is no coincidence that the collection of patristic instructions, known in Russia under the name "Philokalia", in Greek is called "Φιλοκαλια" .(Philocalia), which can be translated as "love for the beautiful", for true beauty is the spiritual transfiguration of man, in which the Image of God is glorified.
Averintsev S. S. "The Poetics of Early Christian Literature". M., 1977, p. 32.

Clarification of the common phrase "Beauty will save the world" in encyclopedic dictionary winged words and Vadim Serov's expressions:

"Beauty will save the world" - from the novel "The Idiot" (1868) by F. M. Dostoevsky (1821 - 1881).

As a rule, it is understood literally: contrary to the author's interpretation of the concept of "beauty".

In the novel (part 3, ch. V), these words are spoken by an 18-year-old youth, Ippolit Terentyev, referring to the words of Prince Myshkin transmitted to him by Nikolai Ivolgin and ironically over the latter: "? Gentlemen, - he shouted loudly to everyone, - the prince claims that beauty will save the world! And I say that he has such playful thoughts because he is now in love.

Gentlemen, the prince is in love; just now, as soon as he entered, I was convinced of this. Don't blush, prince, I'll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world. Kolya told me this... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says that you call yourself a Christian.

The prince examined him attentively and did not answer him. F. M. Dostoevsky was far from strictly aesthetic judgments - he wrote about spiritual beauty, about the beauty of the soul. This corresponds to the main idea of ​​the novel - to create the image of a "positively beautiful person." Therefore, in his drafts, the author calls Myshkin "Prince Christ", thereby reminding himself that Prince Myshkin should be as similar as possible to Christ - kindness, philanthropy, meekness, a complete lack of selfishness, the ability to sympathize with human misfortunes and misfortunes. Therefore, the “beauty” that the prince (and F. M. Dostoevsky himself) speaks of is the sum of the moral qualities of a “positively beautiful person”.

Such a purely personal interpretation of beauty is characteristic of the writer. He believed that "people can be beautiful and happy" not only in the afterlife. They can be like this and "without losing the ability to live on earth." To do this, they must agree with the idea that Evil “cannot be the normal state of people”, that everyone is able to get rid of it. And then, when people will be guided by the best that is in their soul, memory and intentions (Good), then they will be truly beautiful. And the world will be saved, and it is precisely such “beauty” (that is, the best that is in people) that will save it.

Of course, this will not happen overnight - spiritual work, trials and even suffering are needed, after which a person renounces Evil and turns to Good, begins to appreciate it. The writer speaks of this in many of his works, including in the novel The Idiot. For example (Part 1, Chapter VII):

“For some time, the general, silently and with a certain tinge of disdain, examined the portrait of Nastasya Filippovna, which she held in front of her in her outstretched hand, extremely and effectively moving away from her eyes.

Yes, she's good," she finally said, "very good indeed. I saw her twice, only from a distance. So you appreciate such and such beauty? she suddenly turned to the prince.
- Yes ... such ... - the prince answered with some effort.
- That is, exactly like this?
- Exactly like this
- For what?
“There is a lot of suffering in this face ...” the prince said, as if involuntarily, as if speaking to himself, and not answering a question.
“You may be delirious, by the way,” the general’s wife decided and with an arrogant gesture threw the portrait back on the table.

The writer in his interpretation of beauty acts as a supporter of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who spoke about the “moral law within us”, that “beauty is a symbol of moral goodness”. F. M. Dostoevsky develops the same idea in his other works. So, if in the novel “The Idiot” he writes that beauty will save the world, then in the novel “Demons” (1872) he logically concludes that “ugliness (malice, indifference, selfishness. - Comp.) will kill ... "

“... what is beauty and why do people deify it? Is she a vessel, in which there is emptiness, or fire, flickering in a vessel? So wrote the poet N. Zabolotsky in the poem "Beauty will save the world." A catchphrase, rendered in the name, is known to almost every person. She probably touched her ears more than once beautiful women and girls, flying from the lips of men fascinated by their beauty.

This wonderful expression belongs to the famous Russian writer F. M. Dostoevsky. In his novel "The Idiot", the writer endows his hero, Prince Myshkin, with thoughts and reasoning about beauty and its essence. The work does not indicate how Myshkin himself says that beauty will save the world. These words belong to him, but they sound indirectly: “Is it true, prince,” Ippolit asks Myshkin, “that “beauty” will save the world? Gentlemen,” he shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince says that beauty will save the world!” Elsewhere in the novel, during the prince’s meeting with Aglaya, she tells him, as if warning him: “Listen, once for all, if you talk about something like the death penalty, or about the economic state of Russia, or that “beauty will save the world ", then ... I, of course, will rejoice and laugh very much, but ... I warn you in advance: do not appear before my eyes later! Listen: I'm serious! This time I'm being serious!"

How to understand the famous saying about beauty?

"Beauty will save the world." How is the statement? This question can be asked by a student of any age, regardless of the class in which he is studying. And each parent will answer this question in a completely different way, absolutely individually. Because beauty is perceived and seen differently for everyone.

Everyone probably knows the saying that you can look at objects together, but see them in completely different ways. After reading Dostoevsky's novel, a feeling of some ambiguity about what beauty is is formed inside. “Beauty will save the world,” Dostoevsky uttered these words on behalf of the hero as his own understanding of the way to save the fussy and mortal world. Nevertheless, the author gives the opportunity to answer this question to each reader independently. "Beauty" in the novel is presented as an unsolved riddle created by nature, and as a force that can drive you crazy. Prince Myshkin also sees the simplicity of beauty and its refined splendor, he says that there are many things in the world at every step so beautiful that even the most lost person can see their magnificence. He asks to look at the child, at the dawn, at the grass, into loving and looking at you eyes .... Indeed, it is difficult to imagine our modern world without mysterious and sudden natural phenomena, without the gaze of a loved one that attracts like a magnet, without the love of parents for children and children to their parents.

What then is worth living and where to draw your strength?

How to imagine the world without this enchanting beauty of every moment of life? It's just not possible. The existence of mankind is unthinkable without it. Almost every person, doing everyday work or any other burdensome business, has repeatedly thought that in the usual bustle of life, as if carelessly, almost without noticing, he missed something very important, did not have time to notice the beauty of moments. Nevertheless, beauty has a certain divine origin, it expresses the true essence of the Creator, giving everyone the opportunity to join Him and be like Him.

Believers comprehend beauty through communication through prayers with the Lord, through the contemplation of the world created by Him and through the improvement of their human essence. Of course, a Christian's understanding and vision of beauty will differ from the usual ideas of people who profess another religion. But somewhere between these ideological contradictions, there is still that thin thread that connects everyone into one whole. In this divine unity, too, lies the silent beauty of harmony.

Tolstoy on beauty

Beauty will save the world... Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich expressed his opinion on this matter in the work "War and Peace". All phenomena and objects present in the world around us, the writer mentally divides into two main categories: this is content or form. The division occurs depending on the greater predominance of objects and phenomena of these elements in nature.

The writer does not give preference to phenomena and people with the presence of the main thing in them in the form of form. Therefore, in his novel, he so clearly demonstrates his dislike for the high society with its forever established norms and rules of life and the lack of sympathy for Helen Bezukhova, who, according to the text of the work, everyone considered unusually beautiful.

Society and public opinion do not have any influence on his personal attitude towards people and life. The writer looks at the content. This is important for his perception, and it is this that awakens interest in his heart. He does not recognize the lack of movement and life in the shell of luxury, but he endlessly admires the imperfection of Natasha Rostova and the ugliness of Maria Bolkonskaya. Based on the opinion of the great writer, is it possible to assert that beauty will save the world?

Lord Byron on the splendor of beauty

For another famous, true, Lord Byron, beauty is seen as a pernicious gift. He considers her as capable of seducing, intoxicating and committing atrocity with a person. But this is not entirely true, beauty has a dual nature. And it is better for us, people, to notice not its perniciousness and deceit, but a life-giving force capable of healing our heart, mind and body. Indeed, in many respects our health and correct perception of the picture of the world develops as a result of our direct mental attitude to things.

And yet, will beauty save the world?

Our modern world, in which there are so many social contradictions and heterogeneities... A world in which there are rich and poor, healthy and sick, happy and unhappy, free and dependent... And that, despite all the hardships, beauty will save the world? Maybe you are right. But beauty should not be understood literally, not as an outward expression of a bright natural individuality or grooming, but as an opportunity to make beautiful noble deeds helping these other people, and how to look not at a person, but at his beautiful and rich inner world. Very often in our lives we pronounce the usual words “beauty”, “beautiful”, or simply “beautiful”.

Beauty as an evaluation material of the surrounding world. How to understand: "Beauty will save the world" - what is the meaning of the statement?

All interpretations of the word “beauty”, which is the original source for other words derived from it, endow the speaker with an unusual ability to evaluate the phenomena of the world around us in an almost simplest way, the ability to admire works of literature, art, music; the desire to compliment the other person. So many pleasant moments hidden in only one word of seven letters!

Everyone has their own definition of beauty.

Of course, beauty is understood by each individual in his own way, and each generation has its own criteria for beauty. There is nothing wrong. Everyone has long known that thanks to the contradictions and disputes between people, generations and nations, only truth can be born. People by nature are absolutely different in terms of attitude and worldview. For one, it’s good and beautiful when he’s just neatly and fashionably dressed, for another it’s bad to go in cycles only in appearance, he prefers to develop his own and improve his intellectual level. Everything that somehow relates to the understanding of beauty sounds from the lips of everyone, based on his personal perception of the surrounding reality. Romantic and sensual natures most often admire the phenomena and objects created by nature. Fresh air after rain autumn leaf, fallen from the branches, the fire of a fire and a clear mountain stream - all this is a beauty that is worth constantly enjoying. For more practical natures based on objects and phenomena material world, beauty may be the result, for example, of an important deal concluded or the completion of a certain series of construction works. A child will be incredibly pleased with beautiful and bright toys, a woman will be delighted with a beautiful jewelry, and the man will see the beauty in the new alloy wheels on his car. It seems like one word, but how many concepts, how many different perceptions!

The depth of the simple word "beauty"

Beauty can also be viewed from a deep point of view. “Beauty will save the world” - an essay on this topic can be written by everyone in completely different ways. And there will be a lot of opinions about the beauty of life.

Some people really believe that the world rests on beauty, while others will say: “Beauty will save the world? Who told you such nonsense?" You will answer: “Like who? Russian great writer Dostoevsky in his famous literary work"Idiot"!" And in response to you: “Well, so what, maybe then beauty saved the world, but now the main thing is different!” And, perhaps, they will even name what is most important for them. And that's all - it makes no sense to prove your idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe beautiful. Because you can see it, and your interlocutor, by virtue of his education, social status, age, gender or other race I never noticed or thought about the presence of beauty in this or that object or phenomenon.

Finally

Beauty will save the world, and we, in turn, must be able to save it. The main thing is not to destroy, but to preserve the beauty of the world, its objects and phenomena given by the Creator. Enjoy every moment and the opportunity to see and feel the beauty as if it were your last moment of life. And then you won’t even have a question: “Why will beauty save the world?” The answer will be clear as a matter of course.