Problems in the work Judas Iscariot. Philosophical problems and system of images of the story L

The era of modernism, which began in late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, was marked by the desire of many writers to give their interpretation of the “eternal” plots and images that underlie all European culture. These are not only images of world literature - Prometheus, Hamlet, Don Quixote, Don Juan, but also images that came to us from the pages of Holy Scripture - a book that gives answers to the most important spiritual questions of humanity. Artists of previous centuries relied on canonical subjects and explained eternal truths in their own words. Modernist writers tried to change the traditional view of biblical images. One of these images turned out to be Judas, whose very name became a household word, meaning the highest degree of a person’s moral decline - betrayal. The most popular prose writer of the turn of the century, Leonid Andreev, gave his understanding of the reasons that pushed one of Christ’s apostles to commit a monstrous act.

The theme of the story "Judas Iscariot" (1907) is one of the most relevant and exciting topics for everyone who survived the bloody events of the revolution of 1905 - 1907. Unlike his contemporary, the writer Fyodor Sologub, Leonid Andreev could not accept the idea that the nature of evil is petty and vile, that in the guise of earthly evil there is little grandiose, demonic. Being under strong impact creativity of F. M. Dostoevsky, L. Andreev sought to find the ideological premises underlying the Sin of Judas.

Judas and Christ

What immediately attracts attention is that Judas is simultaneously contrasted in the story with both Christ and the apostles. However, this opposition is different in the first and second cases. It's not just about appearance: Jesus is an amazingly complete person who knows no doubt about his words and actions. In the appearance of Judas, as in his speeches, gestures, and deeds, duality is constantly emphasized. Even Judas's face is double.

In L. Andreev’s interpretation, Judas committed his first betrayal long before the Garden of Gethsemane. Let us recall an incident that occurred in one of the villages in which Jesus’ preaching was received with hostility and they even wanted to stone him and his disciples. Judas, with lies and slander against his teacher, begged for mercy from the angry residents, but instead of gratitude he met the wrath of Christ and the apostles. This episode clarifies the nature of Judas’ relationship to Jesus: his love for his teacher is earthly love, and Judas values ​​the mortal man in Christ more than the immortal God the Son. Jesus was ready to pay for the truth of his teaching at the cost of his life.

The originality of the author's position in the story

Any interpretation, unlike holistic analysis, is based on the fact that its author formulates his point of view, relying only on a number of facts that allow him to create a sufficiently convincing and internally consistent concept. This is exactly what L. Andreev did. It is no coincidence, according to memoirists, that he was even proud that, while working on the first edition of the story, he did not read not only other writers who dedicated their works to close topic, but did not re-read the Gospel, which, by the way, was why there were many errors in the initial version of the story. Therefore, in the writer’s interpretation, Jesus will wait for his disciples to stand up for him, and will reject their defense only when he is convinced of its futility.

Another noteworthy thing: for a long time The words of Christ in the story are heard only in the retelling of the narrator or his disciples. And the first words of Jesus, heard in the work from his own lips, will be the words about the coming threefold denial of Peter. In the future, if “Christ” is spoken in the story in the first person, these will be words of condemnation of the disciples and sorrow, taken by the author directly from the text of the Gospel. Thus, Leonid Andreev seems to want to convince us that Jesus needed a man like Judas, capable of laying down his life and soul for him. The image of Judas in the story, especially in its finale, receives a truly tragic decision: having destroyed with his love the one who was his only justification and protection, Judas doomed himself to death.

Difficult, difficult and perhaps thankless
approaching the mystery of Judas easier and calmer
not to notice it, covering it with the roses of church beauty.
S. Bulgakov 1

The story appeared in 1907, but mention of its idea was found in L. Andreev already in 1902. Therefore, not only the events of Russian history - the defeat of the first Russian revolution and the rejection of many revolutionary ideas - caused the appearance of this work, but also the internal impulses of L. Andreev himself. From a historical point of view, the theme of apostasy from past revolutionary passions is present in the story. L. Andreev also wrote about this. However, the content of the story, especially over time, goes far beyond the scope of a specific socio-political situation. The author himself wrote about the concept of his work: “Something on the psychology, ethics and practice of betrayal,” “A completely free fantasy on the topic of betrayal, good and evil, Christ, etc.” The story of Leonid Andreev is an artistic philosophical and ethical study human vice, and the main conflict is philosophical and ethical.

We must pay tribute to the artistic courage of the writer who risked turning to the image of Judas, much less trying to understand this image. After all, from a psychological point of view understand means to accept something (in accordance with the paradoxical statement of M. Tsvetaeva understand- forgive me, nothing else). Leonid Andreev, of course, foresaw this danger. He wrote: the story “will be criticized both right and left, above and below.” And he turned out to be right: the accents that were placed in his version gospel history(“The Gospels of Andreev”), turned out to be unacceptable for many contemporaries, among whom was L. Tolstoy: “Terribly disgusting, false and lacking a sign of talent. The main thing is why?” At the same time, the story was highly appreciated by M. Gorky, A. Blok, K. Chukovsky and many others.

Jesus as a character in the story also caused sharp rejection ("The Jesus composed by Andreev, in general, the Jesus of the rationalism of Renan, the artist Polenov, but not the Gospel, a very mediocre personality, colorless, small," - A. Bugrov 2), and the images of the apostles ("From the Apostles approximately nothing should remain. Only a little wet," - V.V. Rozanov), and, of course, the image central character"Judas Iscariot" ("... an attempt by L. Andreev to present Judas an extraordinary person, giving his actions high motivation was doomed to failure. The result was a disgusting mixture of sadistic cruelty, cynicism and heartbreaking love. The work of L. Andreev, written at the time of the defeat of the revolution, at the time of the black reaction, is essentially an apologetics of betrayal... This is one of the most shameful pages in the history of Russian and European decadence,” I.E. Zhuravskaya). scandalous work there was so much in the criticism of that time that K. Chukovsky was forced to declare: “In Russia it is better to be a counterfeiter than a famous Russian writer” 3 .

The polarity of assessments of L. Andreev’s work and its central character in literary criticism has not disappeared even today, and it is caused by the dual nature of the image of Andreev’s Judas.

An unconditionally negative assessment of the image of Judas is given, for example, by L.A. Zapadova, who, having analyzed the biblical sources of the story “Judas Iscariot”, warns: “Knowledge of the Bible for a full perception of the story-story and comprehension of the “secrets” of “Judas Iscariot” is necessary in different aspects. You need to keep biblical knowledge in your memory.. - for this at least not to succumb to the charm of the serpentine-satanic logic of the character whose name the work is named" 4 ; M.A. Brodsky: “Iscariot’s correctness is not absolute. Moreover, by declaring shameful things natural and conscientiousness unnecessary, cynicism destroys the system moral guidelines, without which it is difficult for a person to live. That is why the position of St. Andrew's Judas is devilishly dangerous." 5

Another point of view has become no less widespread. For example, B.S. Bugrov states: “The deep source of provocation [Judas. - V.K.] is not the innate moral depravity of a person, but an integral property of his nature - the ability to think. The impossibility of renouncing “seditious” thoughts and the need for their practical verification are the internal impulses of behavior Judas" 6; P. Basinsky in the comments to the story writes: “This is not an apology for betrayal (as some critics understood the story), but an original interpretation of the theme of love and fidelity and an attempt to present the theme of revolution and revolutionaries in an unexpected light: Judas is, as it were, the “last” revolutionary, blowing up the very the false meaning of the universe and thus clearing the way for Christ" 7 ; R.S. Spivak states: “The semantics of the image of Judas in Andreev’s story is fundamentally different from the semantics of the Gospel prototype. The betrayal of Andreev’s Judas is a betrayal only in fact, and not in essence” 8 . And in the interpretation of Yu. Nagibin, one of modern writers, Judas Iscariot is the “beloved disciple” of Jesus (see about the story by Yu. Nagibin “Beloved Disciple” below).

The problem of the Gospel Judas and its interpretation in literature and art has two facets: ethical and aesthetic, and they are inextricably linked.

L. Tolstoy had this ethical line in mind when he asked the question: “the main thing is why” to turn to the image of Judas and try to understand him, to delve into his psychology? What's the first thing in this? moral meaning? It was deeply natural that in the Gospel there appeared not only a positively beautiful personality - Jesus, the God-man, but also his antipode - Judas with his satanic beginning, who personified the universal human vice of betrayal. Humanity needed this symbol to form moral system coordinates To try to look at the image of Judas in any other way means to attempt to revise it, and, consequently, to encroach on the system of values ​​that has been formed over two millennia, which threatens a moral catastrophe. After all, one of the definitions of culture is the following: culture is a system of restrictions, self-restraints that prohibit killing, stealing, betraying, etc. Dante's Divine Comedy"As is known, the ethical and the aesthetic coincide: Lucifer and Judas are equally ugly both ethically and aesthetically - they are anti-ethical and anti-aesthetic. Any innovations in this area can have serious not only ethical, but also socio-psychological consequences. All this and gives an answer to the question why the image of Judas was banned for a long time, as if a taboo (ban) was imposed on it.

On the other hand, to refuse attempts to understand the motives of Judas’s action means to agree that a person is a kind of puppet, the forces of others are only acting in him (“Satan entered” into Judas), in which case the person is responsible for his actions does not carry. Leonid Andreev had the courage to think about these difficult questions, offer your own answers, knowing in advance that the criticism will be harsh.

When starting to analyze L. Andreev’s story “Judas Iscariot”, it is necessary to emphasize once again: positive assessment of Judas - gospel character, - of course, is impossible. Here the subject of analysis is the text work of art, and the goal is to identify its meaning based on establishing relationships at various levels of elements of the text, or, most likely, to determine the boundaries of interpretation, otherwise - the spectrum of adequacy.

History of creation and analysis of the story's problems

The work was written in 1907, although the idea appeared 5 years earlier. Andreev decided to show betrayal based on his own thoughts and fantasies. At the center of the composition is the narration of a new take on the famous biblical parable.

Analyzing the problems of the story “Judas Iscariot”, one can notice that the motive of betrayal is being considered. Judas envies Jesus, his love and kindness towards people, because he understands that he is not capable of this. Judas cannot contradict himself, even if he behaves inhumanly. The general theme is the philosophical theme of two worldviews.

The main characters of the story “Judas Iscariot”

Judas Iscariot is a two-faced character. His portrait causes hostility among readers. He is shown either courageous or hysterical. Unlike the other disciples, Judas is depicted without a halo and even outwardly uglier. The author calls him a traitor, and in the text there are comparisons of him with a demon, a freak, an insect.

The images of other students in the story are symbolic and associative.

Other details of the analysis of the story “Judas Iscariot”

Judas's entire appearance coincides with his character. But his external thinness brings him closer to the image of Christ. Jesus does not distance himself from the traitor, because he must help everyone. And he knows that he will betray him.

They have mutual love, Judas also loves Jesus, listening to his speeches is breathy.

The conflict occurs when Judas accuses people of depravity and Jesus moves away from him. Judas feels and perceives this quite painfully. The traitor believes that those around Jesus are liars who curry favor with Christ; he does not believe in their sincerity. He also does not believe in their experiences after the death of Jesus, although he himself suffers.

Judas has the idea that after dying, they will meet again and be able to get closer. But it is known that suicide is a sin and the teacher is not destined to meet his student. It is with the death of Jesus that the betrayal of Judas is revealed. Judas committed suicide. He hung himself on a tree growing over an abyss, so that when the branch broke off, he crashed on the rocks.

An analysis of the story “Judas Iscariot” would not be complete if we did not note how the Gospel narrative fundamentally differs from the story “Judas Iscariot”. The difference between Andreev’s interpretation of the plot and the Gospel is that Judas sincerely loved Christ and did not understand why he experienced these feelings and the other eleven disciples had them.

This plot traces Raskolnikov’s theory: using the murder of one person to transform the world. But, of course, it cannot be true.

Undoubtedly, the work was criticized by the church. But Andreev put in the following essence: an interpretation of the nature of betrayal. People need to think about their actions and put their thoughts in order.

We hope the analysis of the story “Judas Iscariot” was useful to you. We recommend reading this story in its entirety, but if you wish, you can also read

Story "Petka at the Dacha" first published in the “Magazine for Everyone” in 1899. It is based on the story of the writer’s namesake Ivan Andreev. He was considered the most fashionable hairdresser in Moscow. The story is a highly social work. At the center of the story “Petka at the Dacha” is the fate of a child from poor family , given by an apprentice to a hairdresser and performing the most difficult and dirty work. Andreev emphasizes the menacing look that hairdresser Osip Abramovich casts at the boy. At times he whispers threats foreshadowing punishment. The story has a ring composition. Its action begins and ends with approximately the same scene in the hairdresser's. Moreover, the quarter where it is located is filled with houses of cheap debauchery. There are constant fights, bad words, and drunkenness. And against the backdrop of this seamy side of life, the hero of the story spends his childhood in constant work. The writer does not skimp on artistic details depicting the vulgarity of the surrounding environment. These are the indifferent faces of dirty and strangely dressed visitors, and a picture covered with flies on the wall of a hairdressing salon, and pictures of drunken massacres disgusting in their cruelty. The horror of the situation emphasizes its hopeless monotony. All days are alike, like siblings. They are even more depersonalized by the same cry: “Boy, water.” There are no holidays. Drawing a portrait of the hero, L.H. Andreev shows how such a hopeless life dries up a child’s soul. Petka is losing weight and has bad scabs and fine wrinkles. L.H. Andreev writes that the boy becomes like an aged dwarf. One day, the owner lets Petka go stay at the dacha, where his mother serves as a cook, and he seems to find himself in heaven: relaxing, swimming, exploring with interest the ruins of an ancient palace. Outside the city, Petka sees for the first time a clear and wide sky, white joyful clouds that look like angels. This sky becomes a certain symbol of happiness, freedom, peace, the breadth of the world, open to the inquisitive gaze of a child. L.H. Andreev emphasizes how organic this world is for a child’s consciousness. The boy, who had never been to a dacha before, becomes so accustomed to his surroundings in two days that he forgets that Osip Abramovich and his hairdresser exist in the world. But the happiness suddenly ends: the boy is ordered to return to his boring, exhausting duties. The reader is faced with the true tragedy of a child who was deprived of his childhood. Petka reacts to the current situation like a boy: he screams and cries. But soon the hero calms down and dutifully returns to his duties. The master and lady sincerely feel sorry for the boy, but instead of real help, they only remember that someone in this world is living even worse now. Then, with a clear conscience, they go to the dance to have fun.

With his story L.N. Andreev seeks to attract the attention of the progressive public to the situation of children in capitalist society. After all, true humanism does not consist in pitying a child, but in helping him. However, the strength of the artistic exposure of cruel capitalist mores in the work is such that the conclusion suggests itself that it is possible to change the position of children in society only at the state level. Individual philanthropists will not solve the situation radically. Petka's fate can be considered typical for that time of the fate of a child from a poor family. It is no coincidence that the story depicts the figure of another boy - Nikolka, who is three years older than Petka. Listening to the dirty stories that Nikolka tells about visitors, Petka thinks that someday she will be the same as Nikolka. “But for now he would like to go somewhere else,” emphasizes L.N. Andreev.

Tale "Judas Iscariot" Leonida Andreeva raises not one, but many problems, both psychological, philosophical, and ethical. These problems can be analyzed accordingly from different angles, but without forgetting their interconnection. The psychological problems raised in the story include problems of betrayal and loneliness. The same problems can be considered from the position of philosophy: can a person be lonely? What is the reason for his loneliness? Was Judas really a traitor or did he act guided by higher powers? (The dogmatic interpretation of the theme of Salvation and Redemption is such that they would not have happened without the suffering and death of Jesus, and therefore without the betrayal of Judas. There are many very different points of view on this matter, which indicates the ambiguity of the problem and the presence of different ways of interpreting this plot). Another of the problems raised in the story is the problem of the relationship between truth and lies, truth and untruth. The worldview and attitude of Judas is extremely unusual, its logic differs from the logic of ordinary people. A striking example This is the logic of Judas's monologue about the dog. Judas believes that it is true that everyone is deceiving him, and, based on this, he makes the assumption that if he kills the dog, it will deceive him and in fact will become even more alive than before. Perhaps it was this logic that served as one of the reasons for the betrayal: wanting to destroy Jesus, Judas could hope that he would deceive him and, like that dog, would become even more alive. At the same time, Judas could try to deceive himself and perceive betrayal as proof of love and fidelity. Judas is trying to convict both himself and the people around him of deception. He is trying to prove to the apostles that their love for Jesus is not sincere, and they do not understand the meaning of His words. Together with the apostles, Judas, all the followers of Jesus, is contrasted with Jesus himself (the scene with the stolen denarii and the subsequent conversation between Judas and Thomas, the scene when Judas the traitor comes to the apostles and accuses them of dislike for the Teacher, of betrayal). This contrast raises the problem of inconsistency between the teachings of Christ and the teachings of the official Churches: Jesus suffered, but did not ask to defend himself, was meek, humble and did not welcome any violence, rejected and condemned it. The official Churches, as soon as they ceased to be persecuted, became persecutors themselves, Churches that “own and flay,” venerating the cross, a weapon of murder, and thereby betraying their Teacher. From the point of view of Judas, the traitor is not he, but all those who misinterpreted the teachings of Christ and refused to defend the Teacher.

L. Andreev's story “Judas Iscariot” is a psychological interpretation of the famous gospel story.

“The psychology of betrayal” is the main theme of L. Andreev’s story “Judas Iscariot”. Images and motives of the New Testament, ideal and reality, hero and crowd, true and hypocritical love - these are the main motives of this story. Andreev uses the Gospel story about the betrayal of Jesus Christ by his disciple Judas Iscariot, interpreting it in his own way. If the focus of the Holy Scripture is the image of Christ, then Andreev turns his attention to the disciple who betrayed him for thirty pieces of silver into the hands of the Jewish authorities and thereby became the culprit of the suffering on the cross and the death of his Teacher. The writer is trying to find an excuse for Judas’s actions, to understand his psychology, internal contradictions, prompting him to commit a moral crime, to prove that in the betrayal of Judas there is more nobility and love for Christ than in the faithful disciples.

According to Andreev, by betraying and taking on the name of the traitor, “Judas saves the cause of Christ. True love turns out to be betrayal; the love of the other apostles for Christ - through betrayal and lies.” After the execution of Christ, when “horror and dreams came true,” “he walks leisurely: now the whole earth belongs to him, and he steps firmly, like a ruler, like a king, like one who is infinitely and joyfully alone in this world.”

Judas appears in the work differently than in the gospel narrative - sincerely loving Christ and suffering from the fact that he does not find understanding of his feelings. The change in the traditional interpretation of the image of Judas in the story is complemented by new details: Judas was married, abandoned his wife, who wanders in search of food. The episode of the apostles' stone-throwing competition is fictional. Judas' opponents are other disciples of the Savior, especially the apostles John and Peter. The traitor sees how Christ treats them great love, which, in the opinion of Judas, who did not believe in their sincerity, is undeserved. In addition, Andreev portrays the apostles Peter, John, and Thomas as being in the grip of pride - they are worried about who will be first in the Kingdom of Heaven. Having committed his crime, Judas commits suicide, because he cannot bear his act and the execution of his beloved Teacher.

As the Church teaches, sincere repentance allows one to receive forgiveness of sin, but Iscariot’s suicide, which is the most terrible and unforgivable sin, forever closed the doors of heaven to him. In the image of Christ and Judas, Andreev brings two life philosophies. Christ dies, and Judas seems to be able to triumph, but this victory turns into tragedy for him. Why? From Andreev’s point of view, the tragedy of Judas is that he understands life deeper than Jesus and human nature. Judas is in love with the idea of ​​goodness, which he himself debunked. The act of betrayal is a sinister experiment, philosophical and psychological. By betraying Jesus, Judas hopes that in the suffering of Christ the ideas of goodness and love will be more clearly revealed to people. A. Blok wrote that in the story there is “the soul of the author, a living wound.”