The originality of the image system of “Judas Iscariot. The story "Judas Iscariot"

Essay on Cultural Studies

Leonid Andreev “Judas Iscariot”

Topic: The problem of the boundaries of love in L. Andreev’s work “Judas Iscariot”

There are many retellings biblical legend about Judas from Kariot. It seems to me that “Judas Iscariot” by Leonid Andreev is the most extraordinary option in this regard. The story reveals to us a picture of the betrayal of Jesus Christ, but this is only the external meaning of the work. The author poses questions to his readers, but does not give clear answers to them. The peculiarity of the story lies in the versatility of the author's perception of the characters. What is this work about? I think this book is primarily about love. About the sincere love of man for man and the love of man for God. About what a person is ready for for the sake of love, what tests a lover faces and about those who are ready to pass these tests.

According to the traditional interpretation, Judas of Kariot betrayed Jesus Christ, and therefore the son of God was crucified, and the Name of Judas became synonymous with betrayal. Judas, according to Leonid Andreev, loved Jesus so much that he even betrayed him to prove it. Among the disciples of Christ, so open and understandable at first glance, Judas from Kariot stands out for the duality of his image, the author shows this even in his appearance: his face seemed to be sewn from two halves, “one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles, the other is deathly smooth, flat and frozen, seeming large from the wide open, sightless, eyesore-covered.” On the one hand, Judas is selfish, cunning, prone to pretense and lies; Jesus’ disciples reacted negatively to his appearance in their close circle. On the other hand, he loves Christ and Jesus believes him; by the end of the story, Judas appears before us as the only truth-seeker, striving to find the truth, to open people’s eyes to what they are doing. Judas' betrayal is natural. He hoped that at least such a shake-up would make people really believe in the chosenness of Jesus, that Christ “was innocent and pure,” and even animals would mourn his death. Judas is already accustomed to deceit, so he has his own means and methods, this partly forces him to choose the path of betrayal in the name of highest goal. Having already betrayed, Judas hoped that he would be stopped. He cried out to God, asking him to give him a sign, but the sky was silent. Judas tried to induce Christ's disciples to help their teacher, but Judas did not understand. No one even tried to free their teacher. And after the death of Jesus, this outraged Judas most of all, these people who swore to Christ in their eternal love and fidelity, they can live in complete peace. Judas is indignant and says words that explain his action: “He who loves does not ask what to do! He goes and does everything." It seems to me that with this phrase the author tells us that love cannot be limited by any boundaries, it has no boundaries. Judas decided to follow Christ because he loves him, he committed suicide and believes that he will meet Jesus and return to earth with him.

Judas' feelings are brought to a critical point and Judas, the eternal symbol of betrayal, suddenly becomes the embodiment of sincere love, selfless and merciless. The disciples of Christ in the story also love Jesus, but their love is passive, it is incapable of death in the name of the object of worship. Jesus is submissive to fate and, out of love for people, does not try to change anything, so Judas remains alone.

I believe that this book immerses us in a world where only sincere feelings exist at the limit of human capabilities. I took a different look at this legend and realized how different love can be, and how important it is not to blame a person for what he has done, but to try to understand him. I would like to advise everyone, especially believers, to read this book; it will help you look at what you have known for a long time from a slightly different angle.

Composition

“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 in the spotlight Holy Scripture lies 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 and human nature deeper than Jesus. 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.”

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.” Leonid Andreev's story is an artistic philosophical and ethical study of 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, with psychological point vision 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 emphasis that was placed in his version of the Gospel story (“The Gospel of Andreev”) turned out to be unacceptable for many contemporaries, including L. Tolstoy: “It’s 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 for betrayal... This is one of the most shameful pages in the history of Russian and European decadence," - I.E. Zhuravskaya). Derogatory reviews of the scandalous work in There was so much 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. It is necessary to keep biblical knowledge in mind... - at least in order 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, to offer his own answers, knowing in advance that the criticism would be harsh.

When starting to analyze L. Andreev’s story “Judas Iscariot”, it is necessary to emphasize once again: a positive assessment of Judas, the gospel character, is, of course, impossible. Here, the subject of analysis is the text of a 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, determining the boundaries of interpretation, otherwise - the spectrum of adequacy.

Betrayal, for a long time, has been and remains a relevant topic for works of art. This issue is especially acute in difficult days of lack of mutual understanding between people. Perhaps it is for this reason that Leonid Andreev’s story, written at the beginning of the 20th century, “Judas Iscariot,” is so popular today. Particularly interesting is the assessment that the author gives in his work about the motives of betrayal.

The plot of the story is based on the gospel story about the betrayal of Jesus Christ by one of his disciples, Judas. It is interesting that Leonid Andreev, taking the Gospel as a basis, did not read it himself, and, therefore, conveyed the plot rather subjectively.

Throughout the narrative the words “Judas the Traitor” are repeated. With the help of such a well-established nickname in people's minds, the author positions Judas as a symbol of betrayal. Even at the beginning of the story, the reader understands the vicious essence of Jesus: his ugliness is noted, his unpleasant appearance is emphasized - the disproportion of his facial features is emphasized, his voice is strange and changeable. His actions are surprising in their inconsistency and inexpediency; for example, in conversations he is either silent for a long time or overly kind, and this alarms most people. Judas did not talk to Jesus for a long time, but he loved all his disciples without exception, despite the fact that Judas was unworthy of this, because... often lied, looked stupid and insincere. During the course of the story, the author compares Judas and Jesus, thus elevating two images that are absolutely opposed to each other to the same rank, but he deliberately brings them closer together.

The sinful act committed by Judas may well be due to the nature of its origin. Thus, Judas was jealous of Jesus’ purity, his integrity and boundless kindness towards people, i.e. all those qualities that he himself was not capable of. And yet Judas loves Jesus infinitely. In those moments when Jesus moves away, Judas takes everything very close, he worries that he is only emphasizing his love and reverence for his Teacher. Having committed his sinful act, he blames the rest of the disciples for this, he reproaches them for the fact that they can eat, sleep, and continue to live as before without their Teacher. For Judas himself, life after the death of Jesus seemed to have lost all meaning.

It becomes clear that it was not greed that prompted Judas to commit betrayal. Judas is the chosen one, who suffered the same fate as Jesus - to sacrifice himself. He, knowing in advance that he will commit a serious sin, fights, but his soul is unable to withstand, because... It is impossible to defeat predestination.

Judas is the personification of a paradoxical combination of betrayal and manifestation of the best human qualities. The problem of betrayal in the story “Judas Iscariot” is revealed through the struggle of an individual with a predetermined mission.

Several interesting essays

• Essay based on Mashkov's painting Strawberries and a white jug, grade 5

  I.I. Mashkov loved to depict landscapes or still lifes in his paintings. They look so bright and saturated in his paintings. Every detail of his painting is very important. The play of light and shadows helps to expand the artist’s idea as much as possible

What is growing up? When you grow taller, your baby teeth fall out, and your clothes are almost the same size as your dad? How do you understand that you have matured?

• Analysis of the novel Fathers and Sons of Turgenev

  The novel “Fathers and Sons” takes the reader to the times of serfdom. The events in the work take place in 1959 and end in 1869. And this was not done by chance by the author, since it was during this period

• The image and characteristics of Vasily Egorovich Knyazev in the story Chudik Shukshina essay

  Chudik was 39 years old at that time. He held the position of projectionist in a rural cinema. Nickname "Weirdo" main character received the story because different things happened to him funny incidents, with which he could not do anything.

Many people associate childhood memories of the terrible blind Viya and the terribly beautiful lady with the work of Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol. At school, having become acquainted with other works of the writer, we realize how individual

Essay on Cultural Studies

Leonid Andreev “Judas Iscariot”

Topic: The problem of the boundaries of love in L. Andreev’s work “Judas Iscariot”

There are many retellings of the biblical legend of Judas of Kerioth. It seems to me that “Judas Iscariot” by Leonid Andreev is the most extraordinary option in this regard. The story reveals to us a picture of the betrayal of Jesus Christ, but this is only the external meaning of the work. The author poses questions to his readers, but does not give clear answers to them. The peculiarity of the story lies in the versatility of the author's perception of the characters. What is this work about? I think this book is primarily about love. About the sincere love of man for man and the love of man for God. About what a person is ready for for the sake of love, what tests a lover faces and about those who are ready to pass these tests.

According to the traditional interpretation, Judas of Kariot betrayed Jesus Christ, and therefore the son of God was crucified, and the Name of Judas became synonymous with betrayal. Judas, according to Leonid Andreev, loved Jesus so much that he even betrayed him to prove it. Among the disciples of Christ, so open and understandable at first glance, Judas from Kariot stands out for the duality of his image, the author shows this even in his appearance: his face seemed to be sewn from two halves, “one side of it, with a black, sharply looking eye, was alive, mobile, willingly gathering into numerous crooked wrinkles, the other is deathly smooth, flat and frozen, seeming large from the wide open, sightless, eyesore-covered.” On the one hand, Judas is selfish, cunning, prone to pretense and lies; Jesus’ disciples reacted negatively to his appearance in their close circle. On the other hand, he loves Christ and Jesus believes him; by the end of the story, Judas appears before us as the only truth-seeker, striving to find the truth, to open people’s eyes to what they are doing. Judas' betrayal is natural. He hoped that at least such a shake-up would make people really believe in the chosenness of Jesus, that Christ “was innocent and pure,” and even animals would mourn his death. Judas is already accustomed to deceit, so he has his own means and methods, this partly forces him to choose the path of betrayal in the name of a higher goal. Having already betrayed, Judas hoped that he would be stopped. He cried out to God, asking him to give him a sign, but the sky was silent. Judas tried to induce Christ's disciples to help their teacher, but Judas did not understand. No one even tried to free their teacher. And after the death of Jesus, this outraged Judas most of all, these people, who swore their eternal love and fidelity to Christ, can live completely calmly. Judas is indignant and says words that explain his action: “He who loves does not ask what to do! He goes and does everything." It seems to me that with this phrase the author tells us that love cannot be limited by any boundaries, it has no boundaries. Judas decided to follow Christ because he loves him, he committed suicide and believes that he will meet Jesus and return to earth with him.

Judas' feelings are brought to a critical point and Judas, the eternal symbol of betrayal, suddenly becomes the embodiment of sincere love, selfless and merciless. The disciples of Christ in the story also love Jesus, but their love is passive, it is incapable of death in the name of the object of worship. Jesus is submissive to fate and, out of love for people, does not try to change anything, so Judas remains alone.

I believe that this book immerses us in a world where only sincere feelings exist at the limit of human capabilities. I took a different look at this legend and realized how different love can be, and how important it is not to blame a person for what he has done, but to try to understand him. I would like to advise everyone, especially believers, to read this book; it will help you look at what you have known for a long time from a slightly different angle.