“The Meek One” by Fyodor Dostoevsky and Abuse by Ivo Andrić

JATS XML:

XML

BibTEX:

BIB

Research Information Systems Citation Format:

RIS

Download:

PDF

Author: Enisa Uspenski

Information about the author:

DSc in Philology, Professor, Faculty of Dramatic Arts, University of Arts, Boulevard Umetnosti, 20, 10070 Belgrade, Serbia.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8359-1237

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

For citation:

Uspenski, Enisa. “‘The Meek One’ by Fyodor Dostoevsky and Abuse by Ivo Andrić.” Dostoevsky and World Culture. Philological journal, no. 4 (32), 2025, pp. 205–231. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22455/2619-0311-2025-4-205-231

Received: 09 Sept. 2025

Approved after reviewing: 11 Oct. 2025

Published: 25 Dec. 2025

Issue: 2025 no. 4 (32)

Department: DOSTOEVSKY IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES

Pages: 205-231

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22455/2619-0311-2025-4-205-231

EDN:

https://elibrary.ru/TRVEEK

UDK: 821.16.1.0

BBK: 83.3(2Рос=Рус)

Publication Type: Research Article

Keywords: Dostoevsky, “The Meek One,” Ivo Andrić, Abuse, narcissism, violence, woman question, feminist dimension, metaphysics of love, social independence.

Abstract: The article presents a comparative analysis of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s short story “The Meek One” and Ivo Andrić’s Abuse, conducted through comparative and genetic methods. The starting point of the study is the invariant plot of male violence within marriage, unequal in multiple respects. From a psychoanalytic perspective, in both works the female characters appear as victims of the narcissistic personality disorder of the male protagonists, who themselves have experienced social trauma. By exploiting the advantages of their social and economic position—the right to choose a wife, the right to sexual control, and the right to dominate the sphere of thought—the male characters in both stories victimize their spouses: the first (the protagonist of “The Meek One”) through a strategy of silence, and the second (the protagonist of Abuse) through excessive verbalization. As a result, both works culminate in the complete breakdown of communication between husband and wife: in one case leading to the heroine’s suicide, and in the other to the wife’s escape. Both heroines prove to be “ideal victims” for the predatory narcissist—by virtue of their character, material situation, and social status—where patriarchal norms and the question of women’s education play a decisive role. According to feminist criticism, which has examined the works of both Fyodor Dostoevsky and Ivo Andrić through its own lens, the authorial position in these stories may be understood from a feminist perspective. Alongside the numerous parallels that bring these texts together on various discursive levels, there also exists a fundamental difference in their treatment of the “woman question.” For Dostoevsky, it acquires an ontological dimension—through Christ and the metaphysics of love—whereas for Andrić, a possible solution is suggested in the evolutionary development of society, in which women would be able to attain economic independence.

References

1. Berdiaev, N.A. Mirosozertsanie Dostoevskogo [Dostoevsky’s Worldview]. Praha, Ymka Press Publ., 1923. 242 p. (In Russ.)

2. Budanova, N.F. “Neizvestnie stati F.M. Dostoevskogo po zhenskom voprosu (Opit atributsii)” [“Unknown Articles by Fyodor Dostoevsky on the Woman Question (An Attempt of Attribution)”]. Dostoevskii. Materiali i issledovaniia [Dostoevsky. Materials and Research], vol. 2. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1976, pp. 236–244. (In Russ.)

3. Varlamova, D.V. “K polemike o zhenskom voprose vo vtoroi treti XIX v.: zhurnal F.M. i M.M. Dostoevskikh ‘Vremia’” [“On the Polemics on the ‘Woman Question’ in the Second Third of the 19th Century: The Dostoevsky Brothers’ Journal Vremya”]. Vestnik RGGU. Seria: Literaturovedenie. Iazikoznanie. Kulturologiia, no. 8, 2016, pp. 45–49. (In Russ.)

4. Vojvodić, Jasmina. “Paradoksal’nost’ ‘Krotkoi’” [“The Paradox of ‘The Meek One’”]. F.M. Dostoevskii: Iumor, paradoksal’nost’, demontazh 2023: sbornik statei [Fyodor Dostoevsky: Humor, Paradoxicality, Deconstruction 2023: Collected Articles]. Firenze, University Press Publ., 2023, pp. 123–130. (In Russ.)

5. Dostoevskii, F.M. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii: v 30 tomakh [Complete Works: in 30 vols]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1972–1990. (In Russ.)

6. Zhirmunskii, V.M. Izbrannye Trudy: Sravnietel’noe literaturovedenie: Zapad i Vostok [Selected Works: Comparative Literature: West and East]. Leningrad, Nauka Publ., 1979. 493 p. (In Russ.)

7. Esaulov, I.A. O liubvi. Radikal’naie interpretatsii [On Love: Radical Interpretations]. Magadan, Novoe vremia Publ., 2020. 216 p. (In Russ.)

8. Kasatkina, T.A. Sviashchennoe v povsednevnom: Dvusostavnyi obraz v proizvedeniiakh F.M. Dostoevskogo [The Sacred in the Ordinary: The Two-Folded Image in the Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky]. Moscow, IWL RAS Publ., 2015. 413 p. (In Russ.)

9. Lotman, Iu.M. Izbrannye stat’i: v 3 tomakh [Selected Articles: in 3 vols]. Tallin, Aleksandra Publ., 1992. (In Russ.)

10. Pogrebnaia V.L. “‘Zhenskii vopros’ v tvorchestve F.M. Dostoevskogo” [“The ‘Woman Question’ in the Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky”]. Vіsnik Zaporіz’kogo derzhavnogo unіversitetu, no. 2, 2010, pp. 1–7. (In Russ.)

11. Fokin, P. “‘Zhenskii vopros’ v ‘Dnevnike pisatelia’ 1876—77 gg. F.M. Dostoevskogo” [“The ‘Woman Question’ in Dostoevsky’s A Writer’s Diary (1876–1877)”]. Preobrazhenie. Russkii feministskii zhurnal, no. 6, 1998, pp. 29–33. Available at: http://www.a-z.ru/women_cd1/html/preobrazh_6_1998_a.htm (Accessed 28 Feb. 2017). (In Russ.)

12. Khasieva, M.A. “Vliianie proizvedenii Dostoevskogo na sistemu obrazov i metod povestvovaniia v tvorches’ve Virdzhinii Vulf (Na primere romana ‘Prestuplenie i nakazanie’ i ‘Missis Deloulei’)” [“The Influence of Dostoevsky’s Works on the System of Images and the Narrative Method in the Writings of Virginia Woolf (Based on Crime and Punishment and Mrs. Dalloway)”]. Al’manakh sovremennoi nauki i obrazovaniia, no. 5, 2012, pp. 158–161. (In Russ.)

13. Iur’eva, T.G. “Bunt protiv tiranii i tiraniia bunta v rasskaze F.M. Dostoevskogo ‘Krotkaia’” [“Revolt against Tyranny and the Tyranny of Revolt in Dostoevsky’s Short Story ‘The Meek One’”]. Dostoevskii i mirovaia kul’tura. Al’manakh, no. 21, 2005, pp. 91–102. (In Russ.)

14. Iur’eva, T.G. Tolkovanie zhenskikh obrazov v tvorchestve F.M. Dostoevskogo [Interpretation of Female Characters in the Works of Fyodor Dostoevsky]. Moscow, RGGU Publ., 2007. 176 p. (In Russ.)

15. Andrić, Ivo. Pripovetke u izboru samog pisca. Beograd, Srpsak književna zadruga, 2017. 330 p. (In Serbian)

16. Ahmetagić, Jasmina. Priče o narcisu zlostavljaču: zlostavljanje i književnost. Beograd, Službeni glasnik, 2011. 237 p. (In Serbian)

17. Briggs, Katherine Jane. How Dostoevsky Portrays Women in His Novels: A Feminist Analysis. Foreword by The Rt Revd Prof. Joe Andrew, Keele University. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, Edwin Mellen Press, 2004. 325 p. (In English)

18. Dojčinović, Biljana. “Andrićeve priče o nasilju nad ženama: ‘Mara milosnica’ i ‘Zlostavljanje’.” Ivo Andrić u našem vremenu: zbornik radova, 2018, pp. 275–293. (In Serbian)

19. Ivanova, I. “Prokleta avlija i Zapisi iz Mrtvog doma.” Andrićeva avlija. Grac, Institut za slavistiku; Banjaluka, Narodna univerzitetska biblioteka Republike Srpske, svet knjige, 2015, pp. 279–287. (In Serbian)

20. Lukić, Jasmina. “Dvije Andrićeve priče: Anikina vremena i Mara milosnica.” Bosna Franciscana, no. 23, 2005, pp. 151–174. (In Serbian)

21. Nikolić, Milica. Igra protivrečja ili Krotka Dostojevskog. Novi Sad, Matica Srpska. 209 p. (In Serbian)

22. Perić, Sanja P. “Tamnički dani u Zapisima iz ‘Mrtvog doma’ F.M. Dostojevskog i ‘Peokletoj avliji’ Ive Andrića.” Sveske Zadužbine Ive Andrića, Godina XXXIX, sveska 37/2020, pp. 157–177. (In Serbian)

23. Urquhart, David. “Foreword.” Briggs, Katherine Jane. How Dostoevsky Portrays Women in His Novels: A Feminist Analysis. Available at: https://edwinmellen.com/book/HOW-DOSTOEVSKY-PORTRAYS-WOMEN-IN-HIS-NOVELS-A-Feminist-Analysis/7917/ (Accessed 28 Aug. 2025). (In English)