«БРАТЬЯ КАРАМАЗОВЫ» И РЕПРЕССИЯ: ФЕНОМЕНОЛОГИЧЕСКИЙ ПОДХОД К ОНТОЛОГИИ ДОСТОЕВСКОГО
Представлена интерпретация образа Смердякова не в рамках персоналистической концепции, а в контексте метафизического прочтения сюжета «Братьев Карамазовых». Смердяков играет особую роль в ритуале «перехода к зрелости» других братьев. Он выступает в качестве «агента репрессии»: его появление на свет из «мутного», «смрадного» (Лизавета Смердящая) рассматривается как «оговорка по Фрейду», в которой проявляется тесная связь персонажа с «бессознательным». Однажды исполнив свою функцию в качестве «агента репрессии» (подавляемое желание смерти отца), герой исчезает из сюжета через «избыточное» (немотивированное) самоубийство. В исследовании предпринимается попытка рассмотреть Эдипову драму с участием Алеши и других братьев, в которой Смердяков является ключевым элементом. ; The function of Smerdiakov in the plot of Dostoevsky's novel is interpreted in this article outside the framework of a personalistic motivation of character, favoured in Dostoevsky criticism, which has devoted much attention to the question of why Smerdiakov was the real father killer a question that is irrelevant according to the present analysis. Smerdiakov and his presumed brothers are like one person portrayed from four different perspectives in the rite of passage from childhood to manhood. This rite of passage involves the overcoming of what Freud has called the Oedipus complex, which hinges on an unconscious wish for the death of the father. In this oedipal drama which constitutes the complicated plot of the novel (each of the Karamazov brothers has, as it were, his own plot line but all four are connected through what I have called elsewhere 'plot simultaneities'), Smerdiakov plays the role of the agent of repression. His connection with "stinking Elizabeth" and his 'emergence' into the world out of the elements of 'dirt' and 'stench' is like a "Freudian slip" which points to Smerdiakov's birth in the unconscious (seen in earlier anthropology as a union of the sacred and the profane). Once he has performed his function as agent of repression in the oedipal drama of the three Karamazov brothers, Smerdiakov disappears from the plot. Smerdiakov's 'suicide' is thus unmotivated on the plot level (there is no psychological progression which makes this act an imperative) and represents pure excess. The oedipal drama of the Dimitry, Alesha and Ivan turns on the function and interpretation of signs amulets with money sums, hand and body gestures, prearranged signals all of which belong to the performance of language as a determinant of the phenomenology of a subject or individual identity. The brothers evolve as subjects or 'identities' within a network of linguistic signs and sign relations which are contextualised in another giant web of literary and intertextual (historical, cultural, political, social, religious) allusions. The 'real' texture of these subjects is textuality: the brothers are 'texts' rather than 'individuals' with closed characterogical contours, even if such contours appear to follow them throughout the hermeneutic tradition of Dostoevsky studies. This new interpretation of the phenomenology of Dostoevsky's ontology is given in this work by means of a re-reading of the plot function of Smerdiakov in relation to the three Karamazov brothers.