We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 January 2010
In a lecture on ‘Science and Psychology’ Dr Drury distinguishes between ‘a psychology which has insight into individual characters’ and ‘a psychology which is concerned with the scientific study of universal types’, one which comprises ‘those subjects that are studied in a university faculty of psychology’. The former, and not the latter, he says, is psychology in ‘the original meaning of the word’. ‘We might say of a great novelist such as Tolstoy or George Eliot (he goes on) that they show profound psychological insight into the characters they depict … In general, it is the great novelists, dramatists, biographers, historians, that are the real psychologists.’
1 The Danger of Words (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973), 37, 41.Google Scholar
2 Philosophy and Psycho-Analysis (Basil Blackwell, 1953), 261.Google Scholar
3 See Trilling, Lionel, ‘Anna Karenina’, The Opposing Self (Seeker and Warburg, 1955), 72.Google Scholar
4 Letter, 26 February 1896, quoted in Allott, Miriam, Novelists on the Novel (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959) 68.Google Scholar
5 See Wellek, René, ‘Introduction’, Dostoyevsky (Prentice-Hall, 1962), 3.Google Scholar
6 ‘The Two Dimensions of Reality in The Brothers Karamazov’, Wellek, , op. cit., 74.Google Scholar
7 ‘Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment’, Wellek, , op. cit., 20.Google Scholar
8 For a discussion of this question see Dilman, , ‘Socrates and Dostoyevsky on Punishment’, Philosophy and Literature, 1, No. 1 (Fall 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 The Hudson Review 13 (Spring 1960).Google Scholar
10 This theme of paying in punishment not only for the crime that one has committed, but for everything in one which creates an inclination towards it, whether one in fact commits the crime or not, is one that receives prominence in The Brothers Karamazov.
11 Crime and Punishment, trans, by Magarshack, David (Penguin Classics, 1956), 47.Google Scholar
12 The Idiot, trans, by Magarshack, David (Penguin Classics, 1955), 523.Google Scholar
13 ‘Bad’ in the sense of hostile, inimical, sadistic.
14 Psycho-Analysis Today, Lorand, Sándor (ed.) (Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1948), 67.Google Scholar
15 See, for instance, ‘Gods’, Wisdom, , op. cit.Google Scholar
16 Quoted from ‘A Personal Record’ (1912)Google Scholar by Allott, Miriam, op. cit., 76.Google Scholar
17 On Science, Necessity and the Love of God, trans, by Rees, Richard (ed.) (Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
18 La Source Grecque (Gallimard, 1953).Google Scholar
19 On Science, Necessity and the Love of God, 162.Google Scholar
20 Ibid.
21 ‘Art and Philosophy’, Without Answers (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969), 146–147.Google Scholar
22 Trilling, Lionel, op. cit., 69.Google Scholar
23 These questions are obviously related to the question Dostoyevsky explored in The Idiot, Part IV, sees 8–9.
24 Wilson, J. Dover, ‘The New Shakespeare’, Hamlet, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1957), xlv–xlvi.Google Scholar
25 Jones, Ernest, Hamlet and Oedipus (Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1949).Google Scholar
26 Wilson, J. Dover, What Happened in Hamlet? (Cambridge University Press, 1940), 205.Google Scholar
