Dostoevsky published The Eternal Husband in 1869. This was right around the middle of the period during which he wrote almost all of the works- Notes from the Underground, Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov- that casual readers will be familiar with. The Eternal Husband differs from his novels in a few ways, however. The most obvious difference is that it is a novella, probably even shorter than Notes…, but it seemed to me that there are also significant differences in tone, content and theme. We are first introduced to Velchaninov, a resident of St. Petersburg, who’s being tormented by a man who keeps appearing to him in public places. The man looks vaguely familiar to Velchaninov, who can’t quite place him. One night, he sees the man standing outside his, Velchaninov’s, flat at around 2 AM, and soon hears the sound of someone trying the lock on his front door. He opens it and confronts the man. Well, of course, how could he not have recognized him- it’s Pavel Pavlovitch! Velchaninov was an acquaintance of Pavlovitch’s about nine years ago, at which time he had an affair with Pavlovitch’s wife, Natalya Vassilyevna- an affair that Pavlovitch has never found out about. Or has he? Pavel Pavlovitch is in town because Natalya Vassilyevna has just died of consumption, which of course doesn’t exactly explain why he’s furtively trying Velchaninov’s lock in the dead of night. And oh yes, Pavlovitch has been traveling with his daughter Liza, who’s eight years old, which means she would have been born…well, probably about a year or so, give or take a few months, after Velchaninov’s affair with Natalya Vassilyevna, come to think of it. To say more about the plot would detract from its pleasures. But having finally read War and Peace, I can at least weigh in a little on the only debate that really matters: Tolstoy vs. Dostoevsky. Tolstoy, at least the Tolstoy I know from War and Peace, wants to paint a huge, complex mural with countless characters and events set against the backdrop of Russian history. I read somewhere recently that Tolstoy looked exactly like Tolstoy. I would say that he wrote exactly like Tolstoy, too- that is, the way you’ve always imagined Tolstoy wrote. Dostoevsky’s stories are never as sweeping or picturesque. But he’s a master of psychology, and this is one of the stories in which I think that’s most clear, particularly in his creation of Pavel Pavlovitch, who is grotesque, piteous, savage, sympathetic and monstrous.Dostoevsky is known for his indelible characters, but perhaps less for his sense of humor. There are certain moments in his books that are not simply dark humor, but something distinctive: the moment, for example, in The Idiot, when Ippolit in the middle of a gathering abruptly takes out a huge sheaf of paper and announces that he’s written an essay about why he won’t commit suicide, even though he’s terminally ill, which he intends to read aloud, and everyone around him groans; the old general in the same novel who tells a long story about having been a young boy when Napoleon invaded Moscow, and having become his chamber page and confidant, a story that can’t possibly be true; or in The Brothers Karamazov, when, over cognac, the father tries to persuade Ivan, his son, to admit that there’s at least ‘some’ immortality: ‘just a tiny, tiny amount? At least not zero…’ The last scene in The Eternal Husband has a similar kind of cosmic humor that’s unique to Dostoevsky.And the adverbs! No other writer has ever used adverbs like Dostoevsky. Characters grin mockingly and insinuatingly, wriggle insolently, snigger jocosely, moan piteously, answer superciliously or defiantly, conclude timidly or wrathfully (or both), titter mendaciously, wiggle importunately, and do other things that no real person has ever done. But if all of these qualities are in line with Dostoevsky’s other writing, why do I feel that there’s something especially distinctive about this novella? I’m not sure. But my first impression was that it was almost like finding a journal of Dostoevsky’s travels through a country I know he never went to. Korea or Japan, for example. There’s something about this novella that feels modern. I don’t mean “modern”, by the way, as a synonym for “good”, necessarily- I just mean modern. The fact that Velchaninov had an affair, for instance, is made clear, whereas in every other Dostoevsky story I can remember reading, improper sexual activity is alluded to only as a ‘scandal.’ Everything’s a scandal in Dostoevsky. In this case, enough detail is provided for us to understand what happened, without having to infer a whole lot. And towards the end of the novella, one of the characters is on a train heading to Odessa, “…on one of our newly opened railways.” It’s an interesting turn of phrase, at least as it’s translated in my copy, because I remember quite clearly a scene in The Idiot, published only a couple of years prior to this novella, in which a few characters are arguing about whether the benefits of the new railroads outweigh the deleterious effect on natural beauty and man’s sense of spirituality, and which features the immortal line, “I, the vile Lebedev, do not believe in the carts that deliver bread to mankind!” And I remember getting the sense that Dostoevsky was probably not a big fan of railroads. But here, in The Eternal Husband, the railroads, and even train stations with dining options, have arrived. The character on the train reflects on the stability of his life, “however the social edifice may totter, whatever trumpet call they’re sounding…” Ominous words. The world was changing. The emphasis of the novella is on the characters, but there’s a sense in the background of something more, of history passing. Dostoevsky would have been around 100 at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution; it would be interesting now to read what he would have written then, had he been alive, but I’m glad for his sake that he wasn’t.It really is important, by the way, if you’re reading in English, to consider the translation. I was going to read this story eventually, one way or the other, because I’m a Dostoevsky fanatic. But I picked it up at a Barnes and Noble at this particular point in my life because it was featured prominently on the shelf, in a pocket-sized edition with an eye-catching (but in retrospect, ugly) pink cover, released by something called Melville House Publishing. The back inside flap informs us that “Too short to be a novel, too long to be a short story, the novella is generally unrecognized by academics and publishers. Nonetheless, it is a form beloved and practiced by literature’s greatest writers. In The Art of the Novella Series, Melville House celebrates this renegade art form and its practitioners with titles that are, in many instances, presented in book form for the first time.” Okay, I don’t know if the novella is a ‘renegade’ art form, but whatever, it’s marketing-speak- fair enough. But here’s the funny part. It’s very unusual for me, but something about the edition, some marketing wizardry, induced me to forget to check the translation. Maybe I unconsciously thought that if Melville House Publishing was going to go to all this trouble, they would have also thought carefully about which English translation they were going to use. When I got home and finally looked inside, I discovered that the translator was Constance Garnett. Garnett is the old standby for translations of Russian into English, and you could have picked up her translations of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy in the early 20th Century. There’s nothing wrong with that in itself, but I’ve often found her translations choppy, and rough going on a line-by-line basis. I’ve heard from at least two friends that they had finally gotten around to reading Dostoevsky, and didn’t understand what the big deal was- and then found out they’d read Garnett. And about that ‘…in many instances, presented in book form for the first time”, part? Well, not in this instance. Pevear and Volokhonsky did The Eternal Husband very recently- get their translation (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...), an edition that features a few other Dostoevsky stories, for a couple extra dollars.
نتونستم زیاد با کتاب ارتباط برقرار کنم. رابطه ی بین دو کاراکتر اصلی داستان ، دیالوگها و طرز تفکراتشون نسبت به هم برام گنگ بود. نمیدونم، شاید چون وجود همچین آدمی رو عجیب میدونم.شخصی که باید صرفن می آمد تا تصفیه حساب کند و یا بدلیل ضعیف بودن در مقابل گذشته ای که اکنون برملا شده سر خم کند و راه خود را بگیرد و برود.اما او آمد تا دست کسی را که از او نفرت دارد، ببوسد.. احساس او محبت آمیخته با نفرت است. و تکلیف خود را نمیداند.میداند که دیگر رابطه ی دوستانه ای درکار نیست ولی مدام از روزهای گذشته میگوید.کلن نمیدونستم در مقابل این دوگانگی شخصیت چه عکس العملی نشون بدم. تعجب کنم و یا درک.به حالش تاسف بخورم و یا باهاش همدردی کنم.بخشهایی از کتاب:*زشت ترینِ زشت ها کسی است که احساسات عالی دارد. طبیعت برای زشت ها مادر مهربانی نیست بلکه زن پدر است. زشت را خلق میکند اما به جای اینکه از او دلسوزی کند، عذابش می دهد! و این کار شایسته است.*در زمان ما ، در آغوش فشردن ها و اشک های گذشت و رحمت حتی در اشخاص شریف هم به نتیجه نمی رسد و موثر واقع نمی شود، چه رسد به..*بهتر است که آدم یک فرد عادی اجتماع باشد، نه از طبقات بالای آن! از این جهت که در زمان ما، دیگر ارزش اشخاص معلوم نمی شود و بدترین بیماری عصر ما این است که دیگر نمیتوان فهمید از که باید قدردانی کرد! همچه نیست؟*عقیده داشت که یک دسته شوهرانی هم یافت میشوند که تنها ماموریتشان این است که "همیشه شوهر"باشند. یعنی در همه زندگیشان فقط شوهر باشند، نه هیچ چیز دیگر. چنین مردی متولد میشود و بزرگ میشود تا یک بار ازدواج کند و بعد ضمیمه و تابع زنش گردد، حتی اگرچه طبیعتی مخصوص به خود داشته باشد. صفت مشخص این چینین شوهری آن است که درست مثل یک زینت رسمی به کار برود. همانطور که خورشید نمیتواند ندرخشد، این شوهر هم نمیتواند مثل گاو پیشانی سفید نباشد. و تازه هم نه تنها هرگز این موضوع را نمی داند، بلکه طبیعتن محال است که آن را دریابد.پ.ن: متاثر شدم از وجود همچین مردان، و زنانی که وصف حالشون رو اینجا ننوشتم.. از وجود این روابط متزلزل مثلثی شکل.
What do You think about The Eternal Husband (2005)?
#الزوج_الأبدي لـ #دوستويفكسيالرواية ذات طابع سيكولوجي تهتم بسلوكيات الإنسان ومشاعره وما إلى ذلك من أمور. الصراع الكبير فيها والذي يستمر من البداية وحتى النهاية هو ما بين زوج وعشيق لزوجة الأول التي توفيت منذ أعوام، ولكن العشيق تلازمه الكوابيس أو التهيؤات إلى أن يلتقي بالزوج وتبدأ مرحلة الأخذ والعطاء بين شخصيتين متضاربتين في التصرف، أحدهما متيقنة لما تعلم وأخرى عشوائية لا تدرك الكثير، يظهر أن هناك ابنة للزوج ولكن الزوج يخفي عن العشيق بانها ابنته إثر علاقة أقامها العشيق مع زوجته والتي كشفت عن ذلك قبل وفاتها.مصطلح الزوج الأبدي مخادع جداً، فالقارئ يفهم شيئاً معيناً أثناء القراءة ويبدأ بتشكيل صفات معينة لهذا الزوج حتى الارتطام بالصفحات الأخيرة والتي يكشف فيها الكاتب عن فكرة الزوج الأبدي وهنا يظهر التناقض المثير في معنى الزوج الأبدي.
—أحمد جابر
معنای اصطلاح ؛همیشه شوهر ؛ که به عنوان بخشی از تفکر ولچانینف در مورد دوستش ٬ در کتاب آمده ٬چنین است: ؛ناتالیا(همسر دوست ِ ولچانینف) از این زن هاییست که به نظر می اید برای بی وفا بودن زاییده شده اند . این گونه زن ها قبل از ازدواج به این راه نمی افتند . طبیعتشان به طور کلی تقاضا می کند که برای این کار ازدواج کنند. شوهرشان اولین عاشق ِ آنهاست ٬اما فقط بعد از ازدواج. هیچکس به این آسانی و به این مهارت ازدواج نمی کند و شوهر همیشه مسئولیت و جور اولین عاشق را به گردن میگیرد. بعد همه چیز٬ تا حد امکان با صداقت می گذرد.این زن ها همه چیز را کاملا حق خود تصور می کنند و طبیعتنا کاملا خودشان را پاک و بی آلایش می دانند.یک دسته شوهرانی هم که طرف مقابل آنها هستند یافت می شوند که تنها ماموریتشان این است که با این جور زن ها به سر ببرند. به عبارت دیگر وظیفه ی اساسی این طور مردها این است که ؛همیشه شوهر؛ باشند یا واضحتر بگویم ٬ در همه ی زندگیشان فقط شوهر باشند و نه چیز دیگر!؛
—Zari
Dostoesvskij non diventerà mica il mio preferito?? Impegnativo come standard, arduo trovare altri che riescano a portare allo scoperto l'animo umano mantenendo sempre un livello artistico pari al suo, anche qui, in una storia ideata come racconto da pubblicarsi su un quotidiano. In "L'eterno marito" D. analizza minutamente il rapporto tra un marito e l'amante della di lui moglie e l'avvicendarsi dei loro dubbi, ansie e paure (stessa situazione trovata in "Le braci" di Marai, ma lì le menti dei personaggi sono più elevate). L'amante - Vel'caninov - rimane perlopiù uguale a se stesso, alla fine del racconto è un po' più risoluto e meno ipocondriaco ma sostanzialmente non si allontana molto da ciò che era all'inizio, rimane comunque interessato alle donne d'altri e non impegnato in una relazione stabile. Un uomo a metà.Il marito - Pavel Pavlovic -, invece, si scopre, si rivela. Non è una persona completa in se stessa, riesce ad avere una parvenza di dignità solo quando ricopre un ruolo riconosciuto dalla società, quello del marito. Un uomo a metà. Eterno marito che accetta - sforzandosi di non accorgersene - che la moglie, pur riconoscendogli le sue qualità di brav'uomo, non può accontentarsi di ciò che lui le può offrire e cerca soddisfazione con vari amanti. E non solo, Pavel Pavlovic aveva accettato questo dato di fatto probabilmente a monte di qualsiasi accadimento in quanto sua moglie era di quest'idea anche prima del matrimonio, essendo proprio questo il tipo di uomo che cercava, un marito e nient'altro che con la sua scarsa individualità le consentisse di trovare consolazione in altri uomini e in altri interessi. Quando la verità viene crudelmente alla luce, Pavel Pavlovic viene sopraffatto dal desiderio di vendetta che per essere soddisfatto richiederebbe, però, che lui fosse un vero uomo, un uomo intero: la vendetta rimane incompiuta, lui stesso è quasi innamorato dell'amante, prova un gran desiderio di emulazione, ne ammira le doti di uomo di società e il suo savoir faire, ma al tempo stesso lo odia, vorrebbe ucciderlo. Non sarà mica un invidioso...?1870
—Aprile
