What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Violence, Mimesis, and Culture (SVMC)
Resurrection from the Underground: Feodor Dostoevsky
In a fascinating analysis of critical themes in Feodor Dostoevsky’s work, René Girard explores the implications of the Russian author’s “underground,” a site of isolation, alienation, and resentment. Brilliantly translated, this book is a testament to Girard’s remarkable engagement with Dostoevsky’s work, through which he discusses numerous aspects of the human condition, including desire, which Girard argues is “triangular” or “mimetic” — copied from models or mediators whose objects of desire become our own. Girard’s interdisciplinary approach allows him to shed new light on religion, spirituality, and redemption in Dostoevsky’s writing, culminating in a revelatory discussion of the author’s spiritual understanding and personal integration. Resurrection is an essential and thought-provoking companion to Dostoevsky’s Notes from the Underground .
122 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1963
49 people are currently reading
1429 people want to read
About the author
René Girard
123 books846 followersRené Girard was a French-born American historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science whose work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
July 17, 2024
Dans Mensonge Romantique, René Girard faisait une lecture magistrale de Cervantès, Flaubert, Stendhal, Proust et Dostoïevski à travers son hypothèse du « désir mimétique ». Dostoïevski : Du double à l’unité se présente comme un supplément à ce premier livre et propose de revisiter la vie et l'œuvre de Dostoïevski à travers le prisme du mimétisme, en s'intéressant particulièrement à la figure du double, manifestation obsédante des contradictions internes qui hantent les personnages. Loin d'une simple analyse littéraire, Girard y explore les méandres de l’orgueil, les pièges du désir mimétique, et la possibilité d'une rédemption.
Le triangle amoureux, figure récurrente chez Dostoïevski, notamment dans L'Éternel Mari, illustre parfaitement ce phénomène : l'amant, l'aimée et le rival, prisonniers d'un mécanisme libidinal où l'amour se nourrit de haine et le désir de privation, s'enfoncent inexorablement dans un engrenage destructeur.
Mais d’autres figures dostoïevskiennes illustrent les multiples modalités de ce processus. Girard dresse dans ces pages un portrait saisissant de la Russie impériale, sclérosée par une bureaucratie quasi-kafkaïenne. C'est dans cet univers asphyxiant qu'évoluent ces êtres aliénés, incapables de désirer par eux-mêmes, réduits à imiter et envier l'objet du désir de l'Autre. Goliadkine, modeste fonctionnaire du Double, est l’un de ces personnages tragiques qui voit son identité se désagréger sous le poids des rapports de force et des désirs mimétiques, dès lors qu’il est confronté à son double, reflet grotesque et angoissant de ses propres convoitises et frustrations.
L'argent, dans ce contexte, est un autre « objet » du désir triangulaire. Le joueur compulsif, à l'instar de l'amant éconduit, est prêt à tout sacrifier pour un gain illusoire, une reconnaissance impossible. La scène de L'Idiot où Nastassia Filippovna jette des billets au feu cristallise cette vérité : l'argent, objet du désir mimétique, ne peut acheter ni l'amour ni le respect. Il ne fait qu'exacerber le mépris et la violence, que nourrir rivalités, frustrations, humiliations.
Girard dissèque ainsi les rouages du désir et de l’orgueil souterrains, qui enferment l'individu dans une forme d’aveuglement infernal : « Dans ses rêves solitaires, le héros s'élève sans effort jusqu'au septième ciel ; aucun obstacle ne l'arrête. Mais il arrive toujours un moment où le rêve ne lui suffit plus. [...] Le héros souterrain se précipite donc dans les aventures humiliantes ; il tombe d'autant plus bas dans la réalité qu'il est monté plus haut dans le rêve ». In fine, l’homme du souterrain, solitaire et à-demi dément, s’écrie : « Moi, je suis seul et eux ils sont tous ».
Y a-t-il une issue possible ? Girard se garde de tout idéalisme. La révolte elle-même, qu'elle se drape des oripeaux du nihilisme ou du messianisme, n'est qu'un symptôme du même mal. Et si le christianisme, omniprésent chez Dostoïevski, semble offrir une voie de salut, la foi elle-même est une épreuve permanente, un champ de bataille où s’affrontent le doute et la tentation.
Les Frères Karamazov incarnent cette tension ultime. Le parricide (meurtre du médiateur mimétique pas excellence) y devient le symbole d'une rupture radicale, non seulement avec les valeurs du père, mais aussi avec toutes les formes d'idolâtrie. Et la figure glaçante du « Grand Inquisiteur » révèle la face obscure d'un certain christianisme, nouvelle idole, prompte à asseoir son pouvoir sous prétexte de soulager la souffrance.
En définitive, c’est dans le silence du Christ face à l’Inquisiteur que Girard décèle une lueur d'espoir. Un silence qui n'est pas absence, mais affirmation d'une vérité indicible, par-delà les oppositions du type Mychkine vs Stavroguine, par-delà le Bien et le Mal. « Il n'y a plus de bons ni de méchants en soi. Il n'y a plus qu'une seule réalité humaine. [...] Le mal et le bien y sont comme les voix alternées d'un même chœur ».
Le triangle amoureux, figure récurrente chez Dostoïevski, notamment dans L'Éternel Mari, illustre parfaitement ce phénomène : l'amant, l'aimée et le rival, prisonniers d'un mécanisme libidinal où l'amour se nourrit de haine et le désir de privation, s'enfoncent inexorablement dans un engrenage destructeur.
Mais d’autres figures dostoïevskiennes illustrent les multiples modalités de ce processus. Girard dresse dans ces pages un portrait saisissant de la Russie impériale, sclérosée par une bureaucratie quasi-kafkaïenne. C'est dans cet univers asphyxiant qu'évoluent ces êtres aliénés, incapables de désirer par eux-mêmes, réduits à imiter et envier l'objet du désir de l'Autre. Goliadkine, modeste fonctionnaire du Double, est l’un de ces personnages tragiques qui voit son identité se désagréger sous le poids des rapports de force et des désirs mimétiques, dès lors qu’il est confronté à son double, reflet grotesque et angoissant de ses propres convoitises et frustrations.
L'argent, dans ce contexte, est un autre « objet » du désir triangulaire. Le joueur compulsif, à l'instar de l'amant éconduit, est prêt à tout sacrifier pour un gain illusoire, une reconnaissance impossible. La scène de L'Idiot où Nastassia Filippovna jette des billets au feu cristallise cette vérité : l'argent, objet du désir mimétique, ne peut acheter ni l'amour ni le respect. Il ne fait qu'exacerber le mépris et la violence, que nourrir rivalités, frustrations, humiliations.
Girard dissèque ainsi les rouages du désir et de l’orgueil souterrains, qui enferment l'individu dans une forme d’aveuglement infernal : « Dans ses rêves solitaires, le héros s'élève sans effort jusqu'au septième ciel ; aucun obstacle ne l'arrête. Mais il arrive toujours un moment où le rêve ne lui suffit plus. [...] Le héros souterrain se précipite donc dans les aventures humiliantes ; il tombe d'autant plus bas dans la réalité qu'il est monté plus haut dans le rêve ». In fine, l’homme du souterrain, solitaire et à-demi dément, s’écrie : « Moi, je suis seul et eux ils sont tous ».
Y a-t-il une issue possible ? Girard se garde de tout idéalisme. La révolte elle-même, qu'elle se drape des oripeaux du nihilisme ou du messianisme, n'est qu'un symptôme du même mal. Et si le christianisme, omniprésent chez Dostoïevski, semble offrir une voie de salut, la foi elle-même est une épreuve permanente, un champ de bataille où s’affrontent le doute et la tentation.
Les Frères Karamazov incarnent cette tension ultime. Le parricide (meurtre du médiateur mimétique pas excellence) y devient le symbole d'une rupture radicale, non seulement avec les valeurs du père, mais aussi avec toutes les formes d'idolâtrie. Et la figure glaçante du « Grand Inquisiteur » révèle la face obscure d'un certain christianisme, nouvelle idole, prompte à asseoir son pouvoir sous prétexte de soulager la souffrance.
En définitive, c’est dans le silence du Christ face à l’Inquisiteur que Girard décèle une lueur d'espoir. Un silence qui n'est pas absence, mais affirmation d'une vérité indicible, par-delà les oppositions du type Mychkine vs Stavroguine, par-delà le Bien et le Mal. « Il n'y a plus de bons ni de méchants en soi. Il n'y a plus qu'une seule réalité humaine. [...] Le mal et le bien y sont comme les voix alternées d'un même chœur ».
May 7, 2020
Dostoyevski’yi okumuş olanlara önereceğim mükemmel bir analiz kitabı. Hem yazarı hem eserlerini ve kahramanlarını farklı bir yönden anlatmış. Doğrusu okuduğum Dostoyevski eserlerini bir daha okumam gerekiyor, özellikle “Budala” ve “İnsancıklar”ı.
Yazarın dehasını kabul eden Rene Girard onun temelde iki farklı kişilik (yazarlıkta) olmasında, yazar ve eleştirmen Bielinski’nin nasıl etkilediğini inandırıcı bir şekilde anlatıyor. Felsefik ve psikolojik çözümlemeleri çok ilgi çekici. Çeviride dalınç, saltık, dağdağa, izlek, anıştırma, esriklik gibi kelimelerin sıklıkla kullanılması okumamı zorlaştırdı.
Dostoyevski okumak isteyenlerin spoiler vermesi nedeniyle uzak durması gereken bir kitap, ancak yazarın birkaç eserini okuduktan sonra bu kitabı da okumanızı öneririm.
Yazarın dehasını kabul eden Rene Girard onun temelde iki farklı kişilik (yazarlıkta) olmasında, yazar ve eleştirmen Bielinski’nin nasıl etkilediğini inandırıcı bir şekilde anlatıyor. Felsefik ve psikolojik çözümlemeleri çok ilgi çekici. Çeviride dalınç, saltık, dağdağa, izlek, anıştırma, esriklik gibi kelimelerin sıklıkla kullanılması okumamı zorlaştırdı.
Dostoyevski okumak isteyenlerin spoiler vermesi nedeniyle uzak durması gereken bir kitap, ancak yazarın birkaç eserini okuduktan sonra bu kitabı da okumanızı öneririm.
January 13, 2020
Dostoyevski ve karakterlerinin iyi bir analizini içeriyor. Bana yazarı anlamak adına önemli bir bakış sağladı.
September 2, 2021
Dostoyevski romanlarındaki tema ve karakterleri Dostoyevski'nin yaşamı ve takıntılarıyla paralelleştirerek anlatması hoş olmuş. Yazar aslında bize her bir roman karakterinin özerk olduğunu söylese de Dostoyevski karakterlerini bir yönüyle ve bir şekilde birbiriyle bağlantılandırabilmiş.
Dili zaman zaman ağırlaşsa da okuduğunuz Dostoyevski kitaplarını tekrar düşündürecek, okumadıklarınız içinse iştahınızı artıracak bir kitap.
Dili zaman zaman ağırlaşsa da okuduğunuz Dostoyevski kitaplarını tekrar düşündürecek, okumadıklarınız içinse iştahınızı artıracak bir kitap.
May 28, 2020
Uno dei saggi più utili che abbia letto sino ad ora sulle opere di Dostoevskij.
Segue una impostazione cronologica di interpretazione delle sue opere dalle origini - Povera Gente e il Sosia - al capolavoro incredibile che è i Fratelli Karamazov, affrontando i personaggi e le loro azioni in chiave psicanalitica. Non è sempre corretto analizzare un autore guardando ai suoi personaggi, ma di certo alcune osservazioni su Dostoevskij, a parer mio, sono davvero coerenti con la sua biografia e la realtà in cui visse.
Per questo, credo sia un saggio che forza poco e nulla l'interpretazione dei romanzi e anzi ne mostra il volto reale, il rapporto con l'orgoglio, con il rancore del sottosuolo, con il terrore di non essere mai all'altezza, con la figura da mitizzare e distruggere del doppio... Tante riflessioni e tanto materiale per chi ama le opere di Dostoevskij. Ci tengo a precisare che il saggio - per sua natura - contiene spoiler di tutti i romanzi, ergo andrebbe letto a seguito del recupero dell'opera omnia.
Segue una impostazione cronologica di interpretazione delle sue opere dalle origini - Povera Gente e il Sosia - al capolavoro incredibile che è i Fratelli Karamazov, affrontando i personaggi e le loro azioni in chiave psicanalitica. Non è sempre corretto analizzare un autore guardando ai suoi personaggi, ma di certo alcune osservazioni su Dostoevskij, a parer mio, sono davvero coerenti con la sua biografia e la realtà in cui visse.
Per questo, credo sia un saggio che forza poco e nulla l'interpretazione dei romanzi e anzi ne mostra il volto reale, il rapporto con l'orgoglio, con il rancore del sottosuolo, con il terrore di non essere mai all'altezza, con la figura da mitizzare e distruggere del doppio... Tante riflessioni e tanto materiale per chi ama le opere di Dostoevskij. Ci tengo a precisare che il saggio - per sua natura - contiene spoiler di tutti i romanzi, ergo andrebbe letto a seguito del recupero dell'opera omnia.
April 15, 2020
In this long-form essay, Girard traverses Dostoyevsky’s entire oeuvre, explaining how each book charted a progression of attempts to come to terms with mankind’s clashing emotions of pride and socio-economic impotence. Dostoyevsky personifies these feelings best in his protagonist from his early-career book “Notes from Underground”. Girard adopts the label, summarizing these emotions as the “underground”, which he likens to Nietzsche’s idea of ressentiment. Girard, writing in the early 1960’s, believes society still held these feelings in his day. I expect they are more real than ever today, as evidenced by books like Pankaj Mishra’s Age of Anger, and more broadly our current political discourse.
The underground is a somewhat ambiguous emotional place, here’s the most concise definition I could find by Girard:
Girard believes that Dostoyevsky intuited this problem early in his career, but struggled to overcome these feelings in his own life, as well in the lives of his characters through which he was exploring these feelings.
One popular solution of course is emotional self-mastery, but Dostoyevsky found this to be ironically self-defeating. Girard argued that it was a stroke of creative genius for Dostoyevsky to design protagonists for The Idiot and Demons who both fail to escape their own underground, in spite of their own unique forms of self-mastery. Just what were these failures? The protagonists of The Idiot and Deamons each practice a form of detachment from normal human desires, the former in a positive saintly direction, and the latter just the opposite. Girard marks these escapes fundamentally as failures, because they come at the cost alienation from the people around the characters. Or, as Girard puts it for The Idiot protagonist, Myshkin, “[he] affirm[s] his own innocence and… transfer[s] all his guilt onto others… The ‘detachment’ does not prove that one has conquered one’s own pride; it proves only that one has exchanged slavery for mastery. The roles are reversed but the structure of intersubjective relations remains the same.”
As an interesting aside, there’s a moment in this essay that reminded me of an observation Steven King made about writing – that theme and metaphor are oftentimes added later by an author, who discovers the opportunity in their characters’ stories. Girard has the same blind-muse theory about Dostoyevsky, saying:
To the extent that artists, philosophers, politicians, and nonfiction authors are all attempting to find solutions to similar questions about the human condition, it’s interesting to see a consistent theory for how the artist class intuits their approach.
But what of the problem of the underground? How does one escape the shackles of society’s judgment, conquer their pride, but still exercise their will? For Dostoyevsky, none of his contemporaries seemed to have a good answer. I suppose, to steal a line from Holden Caulfield, Dostoyevsky just felt like his contemporary Romantic artists were all phonies.
Where else to turn? Can we rebel? Dostoyevsky attempted this as well, falling into revolutionary socialist ciercles, a new school of thought during his youth that was sweeping through Europe. Girard notes that this ended in failure as well for the young author: “Rebellion is not bad because it rejects this or that value but because it is as little able to reject these values as to conserve them”.
Actually, Girard doesn’t focus on this chapter of Dostoyevsky’s life much, but I think it highlights a crucial lesson. It’s *very* difficult to have a productive idea that one can defend. This is actually probably the most alluring motivation for being an orthodox or conservative, it’s just not the case that good ideas come around very often. I read loads of books about the world that try to explain what’s wrong with some corner of it. There are virtually no books that focus on thoroughly explaining a solution.
In a novelistic denouement that I fear is rarely found in real life, Dostoyevsky discovers a solution to his lifetime question in his final work, The Brothers Karamazov. Girard actually focuses his attention on a brief story inside of Karamazov called “The Grand Inquisitor”. This is not immediately apparent. As Girard puts it:
But herein lies the rub. The Grand Inquisitor recalls the devil’s three temptations to Jesus in the desert: social messianism, doubt, and pride… these are all Dostoyevsky’s temptations! And Christ’s response and ultimate message, relayed again to the Grand Inquisitor (and subsequently Ivan by Alyosha) are in Dostoyevsky’s mind the *only* possible response to these underground temptations.
Girard then ties together the core relation between Christianity and Dostoyevsky’s escape from underground: “It is the Other whom one must love as oneself if one does not desire to idolize and hate the Other in the depths of the underground. It is no longer the golden calf, it is this Other who poses the risk of seducing humans in a world committed to the Spirit, for better or for worse.”
I must admit that when I read Karamasov probably ten years ago, this idea went right over my head. And for good reason! What I didn’t understand about the Grand Inquisitor was the very Straussian method Dostoyevsky chose to follow to bury his lesson. Roughly, here’s the face-value lesson, as retold by Girard:
Here’s the deeper, Straussian meaning:
The power, the reason for communicating in this way is the best justification for Straussian reading that I’ve ever come across.
Plato too spoke of a protagonist who climbed out of his own literal underground, and had trouble sharing what he learned upon return to his own cave. Perhaps messages like these must to some extent be coded.
This book actually pre-dates the mimetic theory that Girard became famous for, and my edition comes with a great post-script where Girard explains how the Dostoyevskian underground maps to Girard’s mimetic theory. I’m looking forward to another book that explores the topic of mimesis more thoroughly.
The underground is a somewhat ambiguous emotional place, here’s the most concise definition I could find by Girard:
Underground pride, strange thing that it is, is banal pride. The most intense suffering proceeds from the fact that the speaker does not succeed in distinguishing himself concretely from the persons around him. Yet he becomes aware of this failure little by little. He perceives that he is surrounded by minor bureaucrats who have the same desires and suffer the same failure as he. All underground individuals believe they are all the more “unique” to the extent that they are, in fact, alike.
Girard believes that Dostoyevsky intuited this problem early in his career, but struggled to overcome these feelings in his own life, as well in the lives of his characters through which he was exploring these feelings.
One popular solution of course is emotional self-mastery, but Dostoyevsky found this to be ironically self-defeating. Girard argued that it was a stroke of creative genius for Dostoyevsky to design protagonists for The Idiot and Demons who both fail to escape their own underground, in spite of their own unique forms of self-mastery. Just what were these failures? The protagonists of The Idiot and Deamons each practice a form of detachment from normal human desires, the former in a positive saintly direction, and the latter just the opposite. Girard marks these escapes fundamentally as failures, because they come at the cost alienation from the people around the characters. Or, as Girard puts it for The Idiot protagonist, Myshkin, “[he] affirm[s] his own innocence and… transfer[s] all his guilt onto others… The ‘detachment’ does not prove that one has conquered one’s own pride; it proves only that one has exchanged slavery for mastery. The roles are reversed but the structure of intersubjective relations remains the same.”
As an interesting aside, there’s a moment in this essay that reminded me of an observation Steven King made about writing – that theme and metaphor are oftentimes added later by an author, who discovers the opportunity in their characters’ stories. Girard has the same blind-muse theory about Dostoyevsky, saying:
Dostoevsky is not a philosopher, but a novelist. He does not create the character of Stavrogin because he formulated for himself, intellectually, the unity of all the underground phenomena; to the contrary, he succeeds in relating this unity because he created the character of Stavrogin.
To the extent that artists, philosophers, politicians, and nonfiction authors are all attempting to find solutions to similar questions about the human condition, it’s interesting to see a consistent theory for how the artist class intuits their approach.
But what of the problem of the underground? How does one escape the shackles of society’s judgment, conquer their pride, but still exercise their will? For Dostoyevsky, none of his contemporaries seemed to have a good answer. I suppose, to steal a line from Holden Caulfield, Dostoyevsky just felt like his contemporary Romantic artists were all phonies.
[The Underground protagonist] passionately admires the great romantic writers. But it is a poisonous balm that these exceptional beings pour on his psychological wounds. The great lyrical impulses divert one from what is real without truly liberating, for the ambitions they aware are, after all, terribly mundane. The victim of romanticism always becomes more and more unfit for life, while demanding of it things more and more excessive.
Where else to turn? Can we rebel? Dostoyevsky attempted this as well, falling into revolutionary socialist ciercles, a new school of thought during his youth that was sweeping through Europe. Girard notes that this ended in failure as well for the young author: “Rebellion is not bad because it rejects this or that value but because it is as little able to reject these values as to conserve them”.
Actually, Girard doesn’t focus on this chapter of Dostoyevsky’s life much, but I think it highlights a crucial lesson. It’s *very* difficult to have a productive idea that one can defend. This is actually probably the most alluring motivation for being an orthodox or conservative, it’s just not the case that good ideas come around very often. I read loads of books about the world that try to explain what’s wrong with some corner of it. There are virtually no books that focus on thoroughly explaining a solution.
In a novelistic denouement that I fear is rarely found in real life, Dostoyevsky discovers a solution to his lifetime question in his final work, The Brothers Karamazov. Girard actually focuses his attention on a brief story inside of Karamazov called “The Grand Inquisitor”. This is not immediately apparent. As Girard puts it:
The underground appeared in this novel as the failure and reversal of Christianity. The wisdom of the redeemer, and especially his redemptive power, are notably absent. Rather than hide his own anxiety from himself, Dostoevsky expresses it and gives it an extraordinary fullness. He never combats nihilism by fleeing from it.
But herein lies the rub. The Grand Inquisitor recalls the devil’s three temptations to Jesus in the desert: social messianism, doubt, and pride… these are all Dostoyevsky’s temptations! And Christ’s response and ultimate message, relayed again to the Grand Inquisitor (and subsequently Ivan by Alyosha) are in Dostoyevsky’s mind the *only* possible response to these underground temptations.
Girard then ties together the core relation between Christianity and Dostoyevsky’s escape from underground: “It is the Other whom one must love as oneself if one does not desire to idolize and hate the Other in the depths of the underground. It is no longer the golden calf, it is this Other who poses the risk of seducing humans in a world committed to the Spirit, for better or for worse.”
I must admit that when I read Karamasov probably ten years ago, this idea went right over my head. And for good reason! What I didn’t understand about the Grand Inquisitor was the very Straussian method Dostoyevsky chose to follow to bury his lesson. Roughly, here’s the face-value lesson, as retold by Girard:
The Inquisitor does not confuse the message of Christ with the psychological cancer to which it leads, by contract to Nietzsche and Freud. He therefore doesn’t accuse Christ of having underestimated human nature, but of having overestimated it, of not having understood that the impossible morality of love necessarily leads to a world of masochism and humiliation.
Here’s the deeper, Straussian meaning:
[Dostoyevsky’s contemporaries] expected of a Christian novelist some reassuring formulas, some simplistic distinctions between good and bad people, in a word, “religious” art in the ideological sense. The art of the later Dostoevsky is terribly ambiguous from the point of view of the sterile oppositions with which the world is filled because it is terribly clear from the spiritual point of view… If one says to [Dostoevsky] that the effect sought is not visible, he can only bow. This is why Dostoevsky promises to refute the irrefutable without ever following through, and this for good reason.
The power, the reason for communicating in this way is the best justification for Straussian reading that I’ve ever come across.
“This art does not require listening to sermons, for our era cannot tolerate them. It lays aside traditional metaphysics, with which nobody, or almost nobody, can comply. Nor does it base itself on reassuring lies, but on consciousness of universal idolatry. Direct assertion and affirmation is ineffective in contemporary art, for it necessarily invokes intolerable chatter about Christian values. The legend of the Grand Inquisitor escapes from shameful nihilism and the disgusting insipidity of values. The art that emerges in its entirety from the miserable and splendid existence of the writer seeks affirmation beyond negations. Dostoevsky does not claim to escape from the underground. To the contrary, he plunges into it so profoundly that his light comes to him from the other side. “It is not as a child that I believe in Christ and confess him. It is through the crucible of doubt that my Hosanna has passed.
Plato too spoke of a protagonist who climbed out of his own literal underground, and had trouble sharing what he learned upon return to his own cave. Perhaps messages like these must to some extent be coded.
This book actually pre-dates the mimetic theory that Girard became famous for, and my edition comes with a great post-script where Girard explains how the Dostoyevskian underground maps to Girard’s mimetic theory. I’m looking forward to another book that explores the topic of mimesis more thoroughly.
December 31, 2025
There are very insight observations interspersed throughout this book about Dostoevsky's work as a whole, but having not read 'Demons' and a few other shorter novels of Dostoevsky, it was hard to understand all of Girard's comments. My expectations were also disappointed by his treatment of the Brothers Karamazov (I was hoping for more profundity), though I think Girard writes about Dostoevsky elsewhere. The last chapter was the best.
August 3, 2017
"The theme of the double is present in all the works of Dostoevsky in the most diverse and sometimes most hidden forms. Its extensions are so many and ramified that they will not appear to us except little by little." (6)And this is what Girard does—he makes the double in Dostoevsky appear and reappear through a close examination of the writer's works and life.
[A proper review will follow when I have more time.]
June 27, 2017
Con questo libro ho capito il mio problema. Il sottosuolo è l'inferno.
December 19, 2012
Girard's take on literary masterpieces is different from that of most other literary critics because of his discernment of mimetic desire fueling the plots and character development of novels. Dostoevsky is the greatest genius of all in this understanding (well, along with Shakespeare. Anyone interested in Dostoevsky will profit from grappling with Girard's take. For my own comments on Brothers Karamazov & introduction to Girard's thought, see my article "Violence and the Kingdom of God" on my blog at http://bit.ly/SwYVuH
February 28, 2025
Çeviri güzel ama böyle inceleme, deneme yazılarında dipnotlar ya da bazı kelimelerin orjinal dilinde yazan kelimeleri kullanılsa güzel olur. Çoğu kelimenin Türkçede karşılığı tam oturmuyor gibi ve metni anlamakta zorlanıyorum. Mesela 84. sayfada yazan şu cümleyi anlamıyorum: ''Babayı kutsallıktan uzaklaştırmak demek, sonunda soyut başkaldırının üstesinden gelmek, Slavcı isteriyi ve gerici taşkınlığı oluşturan sahte aşmışlığı aşmak demektir''
August 30, 2020
Há neste livro muito do que já foi ponderado em "Mentira Romântica e Verdade Romanesca" (MRVR). Contudo, o foco exclusivo em Dostoievski é bem interessante e a dialética obra e vida muito bem feita e integrada na teoria mimética.
Perde meia estrela apenas pela parte mais teórica da superação mimética pela escatologia em Cristo, que é um salto sem muita explicação, e que está melhor desenvolvida no MRVR
Perde meia estrela apenas pela parte mais teórica da superação mimética pela escatologia em Cristo, que é um salto sem muita explicação, e que está melhor desenvolvida no MRVR
September 11, 2021
Libro meraviglioso, capace di arrivare al cuore dell'arte di Dostoevskij e di svelare la grandezza dell'autore e delle sue opere.
December 7, 2024
En baştan beri altını çizerek, not alarak okuduğum, Dostoyevski eserlerindeki yeraltı evreni, yeraltı kahramanı ve ikiz izleği üzerine detaylı, kapsamlı ve ayakları yere basan bir analiz olan bu kitaba, Karamazov Kardeşler'e odaklandığı son 15-20 sayfasını okurken ayrı bir seviyede hayran kaldım. Dostoyevski severleri mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap.
March 22, 2020
Bu kısa ve yoğun incelemede, Dostoyevksi'yi, hayatı ve yazdıklarıyla eşzamanlı gözlemleme fırsatı sunulmuş. Daha çok roman penceresinden elbet.
Yarattığı karakterlerin diğer romanlarında farklı isimlerle gelişimini ve bununla birlikte düşüncelerinin tamamlanışını incelemiş yazar. Tamamlanış kısmı belki de biraz yeraltı gururu üzerinden ilerlemiş. Ve elbette başyapıtı Karamazov Kardeşleri okuyunca bu kanıya varmanın biraz daha kolay olduğu bir gerçek. Fakat geriye dönüp diğer romanlarıyla ister istemez bir korelasyon kurunca, bir felsefeciden ziyade romancı olarak bilinç ve bilinç dışındakilerinin daha fazlasını sunabileceğine inanmak istiyorsunuz.
Yarattığı karakterlerin diğer romanlarında farklı isimlerle gelişimini ve bununla birlikte düşüncelerinin tamamlanışını incelemiş yazar. Tamamlanış kısmı belki de biraz yeraltı gururu üzerinden ilerlemiş. Ve elbette başyapıtı Karamazov Kardeşleri okuyunca bu kanıya varmanın biraz daha kolay olduğu bir gerçek. Fakat geriye dönüp diğer romanlarıyla ister istemez bir korelasyon kurunca, bir felsefeciden ziyade romancı olarak bilinç ve bilinç dışındakilerinin daha fazlasını sunabileceğine inanmak istiyorsunuz.
April 9, 2020
Girard, Dosyoveski’nin genel anlamda “yapıt”ını incelemek yerine tek tek eserlerini, birkaç teması bağlamında –yeraltı insanı, öteki kavramı, baba-oğul ilişkisi vs.- kendince yorumluyor ve yazarın yaşamından kesitlerle karşılaştırıyor. Dostoyevski’nin yaşamından parçaları magazinsel bir heyecanla tekrarlıyor --özellikle eleştirmen Bielinski ile olan saygı-nefret ilişkisinde. Yazarın -ona göre ancak sınırlı sayıda eserde ortaya çıkan-dehasını vurguluyor ama bunu nesnel bir analizden ziyade romantik bir naiflikle yapıyor. Bana göre, okuyucusunu zorlamayan, çok derinlikli olmayan bir deneme. Kaba bir akademik benzetme yapacak olursam Bahtin’in eseri bir doktora tezi ise Girard’ınki lise dönem ödevi düzeyinde. Yine de Dostoyevski’nin dünyasına yüzeysel bir giriş yapmak için faydalı olabilir, tabi okuduktan sonra burada öne sürülen fikirleri bellekten silip Dostoyevski’nin eserlerine temiz bir zihinle yaklaşmak şartı ile.
January 24, 2016
“Dostoyevski’nin önünde yalnızca iki yol kalmıştır: tam delilik ya da deha, önce delilik, ardından deha.”
Kitabın ortalarında bu cümleyle karşılaşacaksınız. Renê Girard, Dostoyevski ve romanlarını analiz ettiği bu kitabın özeti işte. Lakin kitabı okuduğunuzda özetlenecek bir kitap olmadığının farkına varacaksınız.
Nezdimde Dostoyevski'nin tüm eserlerini okumadan da okunabilir. Hatta daha güzel olabilir. Zira analizler algıda yön belirleyecektir.
Kitabın ortalarında bu cümleyle karşılaşacaksınız. Renê Girard, Dostoyevski ve romanlarını analiz ettiği bu kitabın özeti işte. Lakin kitabı okuduğunuzda özetlenecek bir kitap olmadığının farkına varacaksınız.
Nezdimde Dostoyevski'nin tüm eserlerini okumadan da okunabilir. Hatta daha güzel olabilir. Zira analizler algıda yön belirleyecektir.
January 2, 2015
Drowned in rhetoric, one forgets the book is about Dostoyevsky. This book is an attempt (a professional one) to dissect Dostoyevsky, except Dostoyevsky is not a frog you should feel free to operate on.
December 16, 2024
René Girard’s Resurrection from the Underground: Feodor Dostoevsky is an intellectually dense yet profoundly illuminating exploration of Dostoevsky’s literary and spiritual evolution. Girard, a master of unveiling the deep mechanisms of human behavior, particularly through his theory of mimetic desire, approaches Dostoevsky with the precision of a scholar and the passion of a devout admirer. The result is a work that feels both rigorous and deeply personal, as if Girard is attempting not only to explain Dostoevsky’s genius but also to commune with it.
What makes this book so compelling is the way Girard situates Dostoevsky’s transformation as a writer within the broader context of his spiritual awakening. This is not merely an analysis of Dostoevsky’s novels; it is an excavation of his soul. Girard traces a clear progression in Dostoevsky’s work, from the dark nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of his early protagonists, such as the Underground Man, to the redemptive vision that defines his later novels, particularly The Brothers Karamazov. For Girard, this transformation is not just literary—it is profoundly theological. Dostoevsky’s journey as a writer mirrors his journey as a believer, from despair to resurrection.
Girard’s insights into mimetic desire—how individuals unconsciously imitate the desires of others, leading to rivalry and conflict—fit seamlessly into his interpretation of Dostoevsky. He argues that Dostoevsky was uniquely attuned to the destructive power of envy and imitation, and this insight allowed him to create characters who are both deeply flawed and universally relatable. In works like Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and Demons, Girard shows how Dostoevsky’s protagonists are consumed by their desire to assert their individuality, often at the expense of others. Yet this destructive path ultimately leads them to a spiritual reckoning, a realization that true freedom lies in surrender, not domination.
One of Girard’s most striking arguments is his interpretation of Dostoevsky’s notion of love and its redemptive power. Girard sees Dostoevsky as a writer who understood that human beings, when consumed by mimetic rivalry, can only find salvation through self-sacrificial love. This is a profoundly Christian vision, and Girard does not shy away from framing Dostoevsky as a writer whose faith underpins his art. For some readers, this overt theological emphasis may feel reductive, as if Girard is forcing Dostoevsky’s work into a pre-existing framework. However, for others—myself included—it feels like an unveiling, a revelation of the spiritual undercurrents that give Dostoevsky’s novels their enduring power.
If the book has a flaw, it is its density. Girard assumes a familiarity not only with Dostoevsky’s work but also with the broader intellectual traditions he engages with, from Christian theology to existential philosophy. This makes the book challenging, especially for readers not steeped in these areas. At times, Girard’s language becomes abstract, his arguments so intricately layered that they risk losing the reader in their complexity. Yet, even in its most demanding passages, the book rewards patience, offering insights that linger long after the final page.
Ultimately, Resurrection from the Underground is a work that deepens one’s appreciation of Dostoevsky by revealing the intricate connections between his art, his philosophy, and his faith. Girard’s admiration for Dostoevsky is palpable, but it is not uncritical. He engages with Dostoevsky as one great thinker grappling with another, probing his work with a combination of intellectual rigor and spiritual reverence. For anyone seeking to understand the profound moral and existential questions that animate Dostoevsky’s fiction, Girard’s book is an indispensable guide. It is not an easy read, but it is a transformative one, much like Dostoevsky’s own work.
What makes this book so compelling is the way Girard situates Dostoevsky’s transformation as a writer within the broader context of his spiritual awakening. This is not merely an analysis of Dostoevsky’s novels; it is an excavation of his soul. Girard traces a clear progression in Dostoevsky’s work, from the dark nihilism and self-destructive tendencies of his early protagonists, such as the Underground Man, to the redemptive vision that defines his later novels, particularly The Brothers Karamazov. For Girard, this transformation is not just literary—it is profoundly theological. Dostoevsky’s journey as a writer mirrors his journey as a believer, from despair to resurrection.
Girard’s insights into mimetic desire—how individuals unconsciously imitate the desires of others, leading to rivalry and conflict—fit seamlessly into his interpretation of Dostoevsky. He argues that Dostoevsky was uniquely attuned to the destructive power of envy and imitation, and this insight allowed him to create characters who are both deeply flawed and universally relatable. In works like Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and Demons, Girard shows how Dostoevsky’s protagonists are consumed by their desire to assert their individuality, often at the expense of others. Yet this destructive path ultimately leads them to a spiritual reckoning, a realization that true freedom lies in surrender, not domination.
One of Girard’s most striking arguments is his interpretation of Dostoevsky’s notion of love and its redemptive power. Girard sees Dostoevsky as a writer who understood that human beings, when consumed by mimetic rivalry, can only find salvation through self-sacrificial love. This is a profoundly Christian vision, and Girard does not shy away from framing Dostoevsky as a writer whose faith underpins his art. For some readers, this overt theological emphasis may feel reductive, as if Girard is forcing Dostoevsky’s work into a pre-existing framework. However, for others—myself included—it feels like an unveiling, a revelation of the spiritual undercurrents that give Dostoevsky’s novels their enduring power.
If the book has a flaw, it is its density. Girard assumes a familiarity not only with Dostoevsky’s work but also with the broader intellectual traditions he engages with, from Christian theology to existential philosophy. This makes the book challenging, especially for readers not steeped in these areas. At times, Girard’s language becomes abstract, his arguments so intricately layered that they risk losing the reader in their complexity. Yet, even in its most demanding passages, the book rewards patience, offering insights that linger long after the final page.
Ultimately, Resurrection from the Underground is a work that deepens one’s appreciation of Dostoevsky by revealing the intricate connections between his art, his philosophy, and his faith. Girard’s admiration for Dostoevsky is palpable, but it is not uncritical. He engages with Dostoevsky as one great thinker grappling with another, probing his work with a combination of intellectual rigor and spiritual reverence. For anyone seeking to understand the profound moral and existential questions that animate Dostoevsky’s fiction, Girard’s book is an indispensable guide. It is not an easy read, but it is a transformative one, much like Dostoevsky’s own work.
November 17, 2019
"Just as many Russians and Europeans nowadays deplore the servile imitation of everything American in their own countries, Dostoevsky deeply resented the servile imitation of everything Western that dominated the Russia of his time. His reactionary leanings were reinforced by the smugness of the West, already boasting of its great 'advance' over the rest of humanity, which was then called 'progress.' The West was almost as vulgar as it is today, already confusing its very real material prosperity with a moral and spiritual superiority it did not possess" (p. 88).
I found some of the best aspects of this book to be in the author's final explanations in the postface.
Girard does seem to give a nuanced analysis of Dostoevsky's views on Christianity and faith that rings true with what I have read so far, and I appreciate that compared to other sources (such as the well-produced biopic by Khotinenko) that portray him as a bit simplistic in his beliefs.
I feel that the concept of mimetic desire in Dostoevsky as described by Girard is interesting, though I'm not sure about the idea that is the archetype for Dostoevsky's entire worldview or literary work.
I also think that reading Girard's Deceit, Desire and the Novel before reading this booklet/essay would probably help make sense of the concepts in this essay and make it more digestible. The postface was definitely enlightening but I think it might have been better added to the beginning of the volume.
I found some of the best aspects of this book to be in the author's final explanations in the postface.
Girard does seem to give a nuanced analysis of Dostoevsky's views on Christianity and faith that rings true with what I have read so far, and I appreciate that compared to other sources (such as the well-produced biopic by Khotinenko) that portray him as a bit simplistic in his beliefs.
I feel that the concept of mimetic desire in Dostoevsky as described by Girard is interesting, though I'm not sure about the idea that is the archetype for Dostoevsky's entire worldview or literary work.
I also think that reading Girard's Deceit, Desire and the Novel before reading this booklet/essay would probably help make sense of the concepts in this essay and make it more digestible. The postface was definitely enlightening but I think it might have been better added to the beginning of the volume.
March 1, 2023
Girard's Dostoevsky analysis of the psychosocial genre. While examining Dostoevsky's "negativity," Girard draws attention to the sociopolitical environment of his time. In particular, palace repression and traumatic poverty reveal a socialist-realist literary attitude such as the "Dostoevsky negativity". That is why Dostoevsky is east against west, poor against rich, guilty against the innocent. Everywhere either Dostoevsky is the antagonist or the other. While Girard accompanies us in Dostoevsky's study, he brings us the socio-cultural environment as well as the sociopolitical environment. Both his characteristic inclination towards art, as well as the fact that his family kept him in the Russian way of life, distanced him from Russian culture and left him in a position alien to other cultures. In other words, according to Girard, Dostoevsky is a psychopathological name both culturally, politically and socially.
Girard made an in-depth study of Dostoevsky in the short book. and unearthed his underworld. The tragicomic part of the job was to write a review for the book, which was actually just a review. Besides, the book is a good source for Dostoevsky readings.
Girard made an in-depth study of Dostoevsky in the short book. and unearthed his underworld. The tragicomic part of the job was to write a review for the book, which was actually just a review. Besides, the book is a good source for Dostoevsky readings.
February 19, 2022
“ Raskolnikov est essentiellement l'homme qui ne réussit pas à prendre la place du dieu qu'il a tué, mais le sens de son échec reste caché; c'est ce sens que révèlent Les Possédés. Stavroguine n’est pas dieu en soi, évidemment, ni même pour soi; les hommages unanimes des Possédés sont des hommages d'esclaves et ils sont dépourvus, en tant que tels, de toute valeur. Stavroguine est dieu pour les Autres. “
“ Ce sont bien là les tentations majeures de Dostoïevski, le messianisme social, la foi et l'orgueil. La dernière, surtout, mérite d'être méditée. Tout ce que désire l'orgueilleux se ramène, en définitive, à se prosterner devant l'Autre, Satan.”
“ Ce sont bien là les tentations majeures de Dostoïevski, le messianisme social, la foi et l'orgueil. La dernière, surtout, mérite d'être méditée. Tout ce que désire l'orgueilleux se ramène, en définitive, à se prosterner devant l'Autre, Satan.”
September 10, 2025
3.5
I'm a Dostoevsky novice and a Girard newbie, but I understood juuust enough of this to get a lot out of it.
Girard's philosophy and presence fascinates me the more I dig in, and I'm always down for an analysis of Dostoevsky. The line "Rebellion is not bad because it rejects this or that value but because it is as little able to reject these values as to conserve them" was worth the whole read.
Given my worship towards the section in "God, Human, Animal, Machine" that discusses it, and Girard's discussion of it here, I absolutely have to read "The Grand Inquisitor," if not all of Brothers Karamazov soon.
I'm a Dostoevsky novice and a Girard newbie, but I understood juuust enough of this to get a lot out of it.
Girard's philosophy and presence fascinates me the more I dig in, and I'm always down for an analysis of Dostoevsky. The line "Rebellion is not bad because it rejects this or that value but because it is as little able to reject these values as to conserve them" was worth the whole read.
Given my worship towards the section in "God, Human, Animal, Machine" that discusses it, and Girard's discussion of it here, I absolutely have to read "The Grand Inquisitor," if not all of Brothers Karamazov soon.
May 4, 2022
"The great lyrical impulses divert one from what is real without truly liberating, for the ambitions they awake are, after all, terribly mundane. The victim of romanticism always becomes more and more unfit for life, while demanding of it things more and more excessive. Literary individualism is a sort of drug whose doses must be ceaselessly augmented in order to procure a few doubtful raptures at the price of sufferings which continually increase. The separation between the “ideal” and sordid reality is increased." - made me think of Madame Bovary and Francesca from the Divine Comedy.
Read
October 5, 2019Riemergere dal sottosuolo.
May 26, 2021
Excellent secondary source to read along with Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, Demons, Brothers K as well as Rene Girard’s Deceit, Desire, and the novel. Explanatory and enlightening.
Read
June 19, 2022Tamam
Want to read
January 19, 2024Peter thiel rec!
March 21, 2017
6/5 stars.
January 4, 2015
The art of the tempter-novelist consists in revealing, behind all human situations, the CHOICES they imply.
Triangular or mimetic desire: our desires are copied form models or mediators whose objects of desire become our objects of desire. But the model or mediator we imitate can become our rival if we desire the object he is imagined to have. Or other imitators of the same model may compete with us for the same objects. => Jealousy and env.
"As for me, I have never done anything but push to extremes in my life what you yourselves would dare to push only halfway.; in the process you call your cowardice wisdom and so console yourselves with lies. So that I am perhaps more alive than you." - Golyadkin.
"Underground pride."
The novelist "projects" his own feelings upon those around him and transforms his obsessions into a universal system of interpretation. (all knowing guru this is my experience should be yours as well kinda thing)
Triangular or mimetic desire: our desires are copied form models or mediators whose objects of desire become our objects of desire. But the model or mediator we imitate can become our rival if we desire the object he is imagined to have. Or other imitators of the same model may compete with us for the same objects. => Jealousy and env.
"As for me, I have never done anything but push to extremes in my life what you yourselves would dare to push only halfway.; in the process you call your cowardice wisdom and so console yourselves with lies. So that I am perhaps more alive than you." - Golyadkin.
"Underground pride."
The novelist "projects" his own feelings upon those around him and transforms his obsessions into a universal system of interpretation. (all knowing guru this is my experience should be yours as well kinda thing)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews