Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T20:47:00.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophical Anthropology and Dostoevsky's “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Ellis Sandoz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The political thought of Fyodor Dostoevsky grows out of his opposition to nihilism, atheistic humanism, and socialism in much the same way as the philosophy of Plato grew out of his opposition to the sophists. Indeed, the parallel of Dostoevsky's thought with that of Plato is to be seen in some further aspects of this fundamental opposition. Both the Russian master of the novel and the Hellenic founder of political science confronted adversaries for whom “Man is the measure of all things” and each based his opposition on the principle “God is the Measure,” to use Plato's formulation. This declaration, echoing like a thunderclap across more than twenty centuries of history, found consummate expression in the last great work of each writer: the Laws and The Brothers Karamazov.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , July 1964 , pp. 353 - 377
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “No it is God who is, for you and me, of a truth the ‘measurement of all things,’ much more truly than, as they say, ‘man.’ So he who would be loved by such a being must himself become such to the utmost of his might, and so, by this argument, he that is temperate among us is loved by God, for he is like God, whereas he that is not temperate is unlike God and at variance with him; so also it is with the unjust, and the same rule holds in all else.” Plato, , The Laws, 716c-d, trans. Taylor, A. E. (London, 1960), pp. 100fGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of this opposition, see Jaeger, Werner, Humanism and Theology (Milwaukee, 1943)Google Scholar, passim.

2 Strauss, Leo, What is Political Philosophy? (Glencoe, 1959), pp. 10ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Voegelin, Eric, Order and History, 3 vols. (Baton Rouge, 1956–1957), III, 69Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., III, 296 and 69.

5 From Kant's Handbook to the lectures in logic, quoted by Buber, Martin in Between Man and Man (Boston, 1955), p. 119Google Scholar.

6 Fromm, Erich, “Introduction,” Marx's Concept of Man (New York, 1961), p. 58Google Scholar.

7 Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, Dostoevsky: His Life and Art, (2nd ed.; New York, 1960), p. 28Google Scholar.

8 Letter to A. N. Maikov, December 11, 1868, from Florence, in Letters of F. M. Dostoevsky to his Family and Friends, trans. Mayne, E. C. (New York, 1961), pp. 157fGoogle Scholar. Hereafter this book will be cited Letters (Mayne).

9 Letter to Liubimov, N. A., Associate Editor of the Russky Vestnik, 05 10, 1879Google Scholar, from Roussa, Staria, in “Dostoevsky on ‘The Brothers Karamazov,’” trans. Koteliensky, S. S., in the New Criterion, IV (1926), 552fGoogle Scholar.

10 Letter June 11, 1879, ibid., 554f.

11 Translated from Komarowitsch, W., Die Urgestalt der Brueder Karamasoff: Dostojewskis Quellen, Entwuerfe und Fragmente (Munich, 1928), pp. 540fGoogle Scholar.

12 Berdyaev, Nicholas, Dostoevsky, trans. Attwater, D. (New York, 1957), pp. 210Google Scholar, 30, and 188. Dostoevsky himself is said to have regarded the Legend as the culminating point of his artistic life. See Komarowitsch, W., Die Urgestalt der Brueder Karamasoff, p. ixGoogle Scholar.

13 Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, Dostoievsky: A Study in his Ideology (New York, 1921), p. 7Google Scholar.

14 Guardini, Romano, Religioese Gestalten in Dostojewskijs Werk (Munich, 1951), p. 7Google Scholar.

15 Ibid., pp. 235f.

16 Camus, Albert, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt, trans. Bower, A. (New York, 1958), pp. 55ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Berdyaev, , op. cit., p. 120Google Scholar.

18 Dostoevsky, F. M., The Brothers Karamazov, 2 vols., “Everyman Edition,” trans. Garnett, Constance (London, 1927), I, 267Google Scholar. Further references to this novel are to this edition and are given in the text by volume and page numbers, designated by Roman and Arabic numerals, respectively.

19 The figure of Elder Zosima is, like all of Dostoevsky's characters, a composite. He is based in the main on Saint Tikhon Zadonsky (1724–1783). The idea of “Active Love,” the central preachment of Zosima, is taken directly from Tikhon. See Gorodetzky, Nadejda, Saint Tikhon Zadonsky: Inspirer of Dostoevsky (London, 1951), pp. vii, 181ffGoogle Scholar. and 186; see, also, Dostoevsky's Letter to A. N. Maikov, March 25, 1870, from Dresden, , in Letters (Mayne), pp. 190fGoogle Scholar. The name Zosima probably was taken from Saint Zosima, one of the two founders of the great monastery of Solovki in the fifteenth century. For understanding the highly detailed symbolism pervading The Brothers Karamazov (but which we cannot enter into here), the connection of the Solovki monastery with the Schismatics is of significance. See Bolshakoff, Serge, Russian Nonconformity: The Story of ‘Unofficial’ Religion in Russia (Philadelphia, 1950), p. 70Google Scholar. Because of the limited space here available to us, it is the more important to emphasize the significance of Tikhon Zadonsky for the views of Dostoevsky, especially for his Augustinianism and his anthropology — both of which receive attention in this paper. On this last, some useful hints are to be found in Fedotov, G. P., ed., A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (New York, 1948), esp. pp. 182 and 234fGoogle Scholar.

20 This phrase in Latin occurs in Dostoevsky's, Diary of a Writer, 2vols., trans. Brasol, Boris (New York, 1949), I, 261Google Scholar (March, 1876; ii, 1), in the context of a discussion of Schiller's Don Carlos and the Grand Inquisitor. The connection of Schiller's drama to the Legend is discussed by Payne, Robert in Dostoevsky: A Human Portrait (New York, 1961), pp. 357ffGoogle Scholar. The sources of the Legend are extraordinarily varied and complex; cf. Komarowitsch, op. cit., and Matlaw, Ralph E., The Brothers Karamazov: Novelistic Technique (The Hague, 1957), pp. 14Google Scholarff. The critical literature is enormous.

21 This conception of faith is to be found in Otto, Rudolf, The Idea of the Holy, trans. Harvey, J. W., pp. 56f., 77ff, 172fGoogle Scholar. and passim.

22 Quoted in Gorodetzky, , op. cit., p. 193Google Scholar.

23 For Dostoevsky's view of Christ see Zernov, Nicolas, Three Russian Prophets: Khomiakov, Dostoevsky, Soloviev (London, 1944), pp. 106ffGoogle Scholar. The significance of Vladimir Solovyov for Dostoevsky's conception of Christ and the God-man and man-god relationship can scarcely be exaggerated. Cf. Solovyov, V., A Solovyov Anthology, arranged with an Introduction by Frank, S. L., trans. Duddington, N. (London, 1950), pp. 35ffGoogle Scholar.; also, Seduro, Vladimir, Dostoyevski in Russian Literary Criticism, 1846–1956 (New York, 1957), pp. 310fGoogle Scholar. The personal relationship of Solovyov and Dostoevsky is set forth in Carr, E. H., Dostoevsky (London, 1931), pp. 277ffGoogle Scholar. Solovyov is particularly important for understanding the gnosticism of Dostoevsky.

24 For this view of revelation, see Voegelin, Eric, New Science of Politics (Chicago, 1952), p. 78Google Scholar; and Niebuhr, H. Richard, Meaning of Revelation (New York, 1941), ch. iiiGoogle Scholar.

25 Berdyaev, , op. cit., p. 80Google Scholar.

26 Quoted in de Lubac, Henri, The Drama of Atheistic Humanism, trans. Riley, E. M. (London, 1949), p. 180Google Scholar.

27 Berdyaev, , op. cit., p. 144Google Scholar.

28 The problem of theodicy in Ivan's presentation of it is, in fact, not so “unassailable” as Dostoevsky believed it to be. See the remarks on the problem in Voegelin, Eric, Order and History, II, 255Google Scholar.

29 Camus, , op. cit., p. 59nGoogle Scholar.

30 Cf. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. xiii.

31 Cf. the discussion of “No morality without Immortality” in Dostoevsky in the article of that name by a contemporary theologian, Ramsey, Paul, in Journal of Religion, XXXVI (1956), 90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Brothers Karamazov, Bk. XI, ch. ix (II, 307).

33 Republic, 382a-b.

34 Ibid., 572e-576b.

35 Fedotov, , op. cit., p. 182Google Scholar, wrote: Through Tikhon the “fundamental ideas of St. Augustine now made their first entrance into Orthodox theology.”

36 The best discussion of Dostoevsky's anthropology I have seen is Strakosch, H. E., “Dostoevsky and the Man-God,” Dublin Review, CCXXIX (1955), 142–153Google Scholar. Its principal deficiency derives from the attempt to force Dostoevsky into the mold of Neo-Scholasticism. See, also, Hacker, Andrew, “Dostoevsky's Disciples …,” Journal of Politics, XVII (1955), 597ffGoogle Scholar.

37 The mythopoeic character of Dostoevsky's art, and the Legend in particular, which can only be mentioned here, supplies the basis for the interpretation. See Matlaw, , op. cit., pp. 20ffGoogle Scholar; Poggioli, Renato, “Dostoevski, or Reality and Myth,” in Phoenix and the Spider (Cambridge, 1957), pp. 29ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Ivanov, Vyacheslav, Freedom and the Tragic Life: A Study in Dostoevsky (New York, 1952)Google Scholar, passim. Ivanov's study, however, for all its ingenuity and great value for the problem of myth in Dostoevsky, is vitiated by poetic extravagance.

38 Nietzsche, Morgenroethe, Sec. 79.

39 Cf. Lampert, E., Studies in Rebellion (London, 1957), p. 142Google Scholar.

40 Genesis 3. Cf. von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. Marks, J. H. (London, 1961), pp. 83ffGoogle Scholar. and 94.

41 Matlaw, , op. cit., p. 32Google Scholar.

42 Genesis 3:42. See Letter to Osmidov, N. L., 02 18, 1878, from Petersburg, in Letters (Mayne), p. 234Google Scholar.

43 I, 334.

44 Ivanov, , op. cit., pp. 140fGoogle Scholar.

45 Quoted in Payne, , op. cit., p. 363Google Scholar. The Inquisitor's argument has been examined from the viewpoint of political theory by Riemer, Neal, “Some Reflections on the Grand Inquisitor and Modern Democratic Theory,” Ethics, LXVII (1957), 249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Zernov, , op. cit., p. 108Google Scholar.

47 Revelation 9:3. See Komarowitsch, , op. cit., p. 515Google Scholar.

48 Komarowitsch, ibid., pp. 515 and 539.

49 See Miliukov, Paul, Outlines of Russian Culture, 3 volumes, trans. Ughet, V. and Davis, E. (Philadelphia, 1943), II, 3–5Google Scholar. Also, Powicke, F. J., “Bogomils,” Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 12 volumes (New York, 1928), II, 784Google Scholar.

50 See, in particular, Jonas, Hans, “Gnosticism and Modern Nihilism,” Social Research, XIX (1952), 430–452Google Scholar, and the same author's The Gnostic Religion (Boston, 1958), passim., and p. 46Google Scholar. Also, Voegelin, , New Science of Politics, pp. llOff.Google Scholar; Lampert, , op. cit., esp. pp. 137ffGoogle Scholar, 155ff; and Berdyaev, , The Russian Idea (London, 1947), pp. 148ff. and passimGoogle Scholar.

51 See Letter to Maikov, , 12 11, 1868, from Florence, in Letters (Mayne), p. 158Google Scholar; also Letter to Maikov, March 25, 1870, from Dresden, ibid., p. 190. The Khlysty, Stundists, and sectarians generally were frequently discussed or alluded to in the Diary of A Writer:

52 Cf. Comte, A., Cours de philosophie positive, 6 volumes, (Paris, 1841), V, 343fGoogle Scholar. Dostoevsky had his introduction to philosophy, especially to Hegel, Feuerbach, and Comte, from Vissarion G. Belinsky. See Masaryk, T. G., The Spirit of Russia, 2 volumes, 2nd ed., trans. , E. and Paul, C. (London, 1955), I, 334ffGoogle Scholar., for a discussion of Belinsky's intellectual development and relationship to Dostoevsky; also the excellent discussion by Lampert, , op. cit., pp. 46–108Google Scholar. For Dostoevsky's description of his relationship to Belinsky, see the first issue of Diary of A Writer (Grazhdanin No. 1, 1873)Google Scholar. I see no reason for supposing, as is frequently done, that Dostoevsky was not informed about and well-read in contemporary thought and affairs. In any event, he certainly was aware of Feuerbach and Comte, not to go farther.

53 Cf. Nicholas Berdyaev, Dostoevsky, passim.

54 Rahv, Philip, “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” Partisan Review, XXI (1954), 250Google Scholar. T. G. Masaryk has hinted that Dostoevsky portrayed his friend and admirer K. P. Pobedonostsev, Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod, in his Grand Inquisitor!

55 It is to be remarked that neither in the Legend nor elsewhere does Dostoevsky debate the question whether Christianity is the foundation of the social and political order. That is taken as self-evident or “axiomatic,” as he would say. Dostoevsky was profoundly convinced that Christianity was “the foundation” from the age of eighteen onward. The shorthand expression, “the foundation,” runs through his publicist writings like a thread. Cf. letter to his brother Michael, , 01 1, 1840, from Petersburg, in Letters (Mayne), p. 13Google Scholar. Dostoevsky's fullest statement of his views on this subject is to be found in the penultimate issue of the Diary (August, 1880; ch. iii), II, 981ff.

56 See Komarowitsch, , op. cit., p. 538Google Scholar.

57 Lawrence, D. H., “The Grand Inquisitor,” Selected Literary Criticism, ed. Beal, A. (New York, 1956), p. 241Google Scholar. The “play” element here is of significance for the understanding of the Legend as myth. See Huizinga, J., Homo Ludens (London, 1949)Google Scholar.

58 See the Diary for August, 1880, passim. Dostoevsky makes the implicit connection explicit by characterizing the “new Russian” of “the future” as a peasant sectarian of the time of Tsar Paul I. The reference is to Conrad Selivanov, “Christ Peter III” of the castrati Skoptsy. See Letter to Maikov, , 03 25, 1870, from Dresden in Letters (Mayne), p. 191Google Scholar. The “Wanderers” of the Schismatics are the Beguni for whom the state and church are in Antichrist's power and the Orthodox Church is Satan's prophet. The Bogomil-Manichaean duality is pronounced with the Beguni and even more so with the Khlysty and Skoptsy. See von Stromberg, A., “Russian Sects,” Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, XI, 338Google Scholar. For the sources of the Russian sectarian movements see the detailed study by Grass, Karl, Die russischen Sekten, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1907–1914), I, 588ffGoogle Scholar. The Bogomil relationship is discussed ibid. 626ff. and the gnostic character of the movements (particularly of the Khlysty) at ibid., 636–648. A study of our contemporaries, the Soviet “New Men,” in light of Dostoevsky, might prove rewarding.

59 Letter to Strachov, , 03 18, 1869, from Florence, in Letters (Mayne), p. 175Google Scholar.

60 Cf. Fedotov, op. cit., for this account of the Russian Christ. Also, Zernov, op. cit. and Eastern Christendom (New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

61 Dimitri Merejkowsky has made much of the “two truths”; see his Tolstoi as Man and Artist with an Essay on Dostoevsky (New York, 1902), pp. 289ffGoogle Scholar.

62 Cf. Voegelin, , Order and History, I, 464fGoogle Scholar.

63 See Komarowitsch, , op. cit., p. 545Google Scholar.

64 Cf. Voegelin, Eric, “Bakunin's Confession,” Journal of Politics VIII (1946), 30Google Scholar.

65 Second Thessalonians 2:8. This is the only place in the New Testament where it is said that Christ destroys Satan with the “Breath of His mouth.” Cf. Isaiah 11:4 and Job 4:8–9.

66 On the technique of caricature in Dostoevsky see the excellent study by Frank, Joseph, “Nihilism and Notes from Underground,” Sewanee Review, LXIX (1961), 1–33Google Scholar.