One of the most famous and frequently analysed descriptions in literary and art history is undoubtedly Dostoevsky’s ekphrasis of Holbein’s painting The Dead Christ in the Tomb in his novel The Idiot (Part III. Chapter 6). The painting itself sparked a series of theological and aesthetic controversies with its unusual, non-canonical iconography depicting of the Passion of Christ. Most art historical analyses do not ignore the ekphrasis of that picture in The Idiot. In this study, we proceed from the premise that the “reading of the painting” leads to different results from the point of view of three main characters of the novel: Rogozhin, Myshkin, and Ippolit. Our goal is to prove that ekphrasis is an inseparable part of a speech act—not an objective description, but intentional speech. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted without understanding the speaker’s intention or the character’s situation. This explains the strong distortions and misreading in the ekphrasis. We can capture the meaning reconstructed in the character’s speech through the motifs of copy, epigonism, duplication and misquotation. Ippolit, the subiectum of ekphrasis, proves to be a truly “bad reader,” and his reading becomes devastating in the world of the novel insofar as it anticipates the destruction expressed in the motifs of the Apocalypse. In addition, we also reveal that there is a hidden intention behind Ippolit’s reading, which we can grasp by examining the signs in the text (metaphorical meaning). The most important motifs of ekphrasis (e.g., nature, the number six, actuality, darkness–light) weave through the entire text of the novel and are incorporated into the process of text production and meaning creation.
Géza Horváth (Tue,) studied this question.