Misplaced Pages

Dostoevsky and Parricide: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:00, 7 June 2014 editJacobisq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,371 edits add sourced material, reshape, destub← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:36, 27 October 2024 edit undoMonkbot (talk | contribs)Bots3,695,952 editsm Task 20: replace {lang-??} templates with {langx|??} ‹See Tfd› (Replaced 1);Tag: AWB 
(22 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1928 essay by Sigmund Freud}}
"'''Dostoevsky and Parricide'''" ({{lang-de|Dostojewski und die Vatertötung}}) is an introductory article contributed by ] to a scholarly collection on '']'' that was published in 1928.<ref>Ernest Jones, ''The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud'' (Penguin 1964) p. 590</ref> The article argues that it is no coincidence that some of the greatest works of world literature - including '']'', '']'', as well as '']'' – all concern parricide, which in Dostoevsky's case Freud links to his ].. "'''Dostoevsky and Parricide'''" ({{langx|de|Dostojewski und die Vatertötung}}) is an introductory article contributed by ] to a scholarly collection on the 1880 novel '']'' by ]. The collection was published in 1928.<ref>Ernest Jones, ''The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud'' (Penguin 1964) p. 590</ref> The article argues that it is no coincidence that some of the greatest works of world literature – including '']'', '']'', as well as '']'' – all concern ], which in Dostoevsky's case Freud links to his ].


] termed the piece “Freud's last contribution to the psychology of literature and his most brilliant”;<ref>Ernest Jones, ''The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud'' (Penguin 1964) p. 590</ref> Freud himself however called it “this trivial essay. It was written as a favour for someone and written reluctantly”.<ref>Quoted in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., ''The Psychology of Gambling'' (1974) p. 105</ref> ] termed the piece "Freud's last contribution to the psychology of literature and his most brilliant";<ref>Ernest Jones, ''The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud'' (Penguin 1964) p. 590</ref> Freud himself however called it "this trivial essay. It was written as a favour for someone and written reluctantly".<ref>Quoted in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., ''The Psychology of Gambling'' (1974) p. 105</ref>


==Gambling== ==Gambling==
The second section of Freud's essay turned away from a primary consideration of '']'' to consider the related question of Dostoevsky's gambling. Freud saw gambling as a defiant struggle with Fate (concealing the father figure);<ref>Otto Fenichel, ''The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis'' (1946) p. 372</ref> the associated guilt was the reason for the gambler's compulsion to lose. As Freud himself put it with reference to Dostoyevsky's wife:<ref>S. Freud, 'Dostoevsky and Parricide' in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., ''The Psychology of Gambling'' (1974) p. 170</ref> The second section of Freud's essay turned away from a primary consideration of '']'' to consider the related question of Dostoevsky's gambling. Freud saw gambling as a defiant struggle with Fate (concealing the ]);<ref>Otto Fenichel, ''The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis'' (1946) p. 372</ref> the associated guilt was the reason for the gambler's compulsion to lose. As Freud himself put it with reference to Dostoyevsky's wife:<ref>S. Freud, 'Dostoevsky and Parricide' in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., ''The Psychology of Gambling'' (1974) p. 170</ref>
<blockquote>”she had noticed that the one thing which offered any real hope of salvation – his literary production – never went better than when they had lost everything....When his sense of guilt was satisfied by the punishments he had inflicted on himself, the inhibition on his work became less severe.”</blockquote> <blockquote>"she had noticed that the one thing which offered any real hope of salvation – his literary production – never went better than when they had lost everything....When his sense of guilt was satisfied by the punishments he had inflicted on himself, the inhibition on his work became less severe."</blockquote>


==See also== ==See also==
{{Columns-list|3| {{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
* ] * ]

*] *]

*] *]
}} }}
Line 19: Line 18:
{{Reflist|2|}} {{Reflist|2|}}


==Further Reading== ==Further reading==
*F. Dostoevsky, ''The Gambler'' (Penguin 1971) *F. Dostoevsky, ''The Gambler'' (Penguin 1971)
⚫ *] ''Dostoevsky'' (197?) Appendix 379-91


⚫ ==External links==
⚫ *Joseph Frank, ''Dostoevsky'' (197?) Appendix 379-91
* {{in lang|de}}

⚫ *
⚫ ==External links==
⚫ *
⚫ *
⚫ * ]


{{Sigmund Freud}} {{Sigmund Freud}}
Line 32: Line 31:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dostoevsky And Parricide}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Dostoevsky And Parricide}}
] ]
]
] ]
] ]
]
] ]


{{lit-essay-stub}}

Latest revision as of 12:36, 27 October 2024

1928 essay by Sigmund Freud

"Dostoevsky and Parricide" (German: Dostojewski und die Vatertötung) is an introductory article contributed by Sigmund Freud to a scholarly collection on the 1880 novel The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The collection was published in 1928. The article argues that it is no coincidence that some of the greatest works of world literature – including Oedipus Rex, Hamlet, as well as The Brothers Karamazov – all concern parricide, which in Dostoevsky's case Freud links to his epilepsy.

Ernest Jones termed the piece "Freud's last contribution to the psychology of literature and his most brilliant"; Freud himself however called it "this trivial essay. It was written as a favour for someone and written reluctantly".

Gambling

The second section of Freud's essay turned away from a primary consideration of The Brothers Karamazov to consider the related question of Dostoevsky's gambling. Freud saw gambling as a defiant struggle with Fate (concealing the father figure); the associated guilt was the reason for the gambler's compulsion to lose. As Freud himself put it with reference to Dostoyevsky's wife:

"she had noticed that the one thing which offered any real hope of salvation – his literary production – never went better than when they had lost everything....When his sense of guilt was satisfied by the punishments he had inflicted on himself, the inhibition on his work became less severe."

See also

References

  1. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (Penguin 1964) p. 590
  2. Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud (Penguin 1964) p. 590
  3. Quoted in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., The Psychology of Gambling (1974) p. 105
  4. Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (1946) p. 372
  5. S. Freud, 'Dostoevsky and Parricide' in J. Halliday/P. Fuller eds., The Psychology of Gambling (1974) p. 170

Further reading

  • F. Dostoevsky, The Gambler (Penguin 1971)
  • Joseph Frank Dostoevsky (197?) Appendix 379-91

External links

Sigmund Freud
Books
Essays
Case studies
Original
concepts
Related
Cultural
depictions
Family


Stub icon

This article about a literary essay or essay collection is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: