It is known that, along with Nikolai Gogol, Dostoevsky is among the few Russian classics with a strong religiosity. But has he always been extremely orthodox? Do his views correspond in all respects to what has been established by the Church? Didn’t he contradict himself? And has he always been satisfied with his belonging to the Orthodox Church? Let’s ask ourselves at least these questions. The author Valeriy V. Vyatkin discusses on „Nezavisimaya gazeta“ these issues.
We will immediately note: the religious views (feelings) of the writer were far from formed suddenly. In the works written in the period from his life to the penal servitude – Poor People and White Nights, religious themes are almost absent, church officials are not mentioned at all. With this in mind, the writer released from hard labor can be referred to the neophytes. However, they often idealize religion.
The conceptual judgment of faith is embedded in the mouth of Prince Mishkin in the novel The Idiot: “The essence of religious feeling is not connected with any reasoning, with any transgressions or crimes.” And from this point of view, today’s law on “offending the feelings of believers” is nonsense.
The great power of “casinoism”
The state-church relations enjoyed the special attention of the writer.
The comments on what seemed to be happening in the country belong to the monk Paisius of the Karamazov Brothers: “… not the church becomes a state… On the contrary – the state becomes a church„ “. What is desired here is presented as real, as an example of an idealization that has led many to disappointment. However, the people could not be satisfied with a state which, by destroying itself, led to the destruction of the church, which was firmly connected with it.
The writer’s diary has already said about the union of the two countries: “It is we who must declare ourselves as state-linked to Orthodoxy.” And this connection was indeed established – the servants at the altar played the role of imperial officials. It is no coincidence that the portraits of the bishops hanging in the cell of the old man Zosima are called “Kazionism”. And here are new questions: aren’t the elders – these spiritual ascetics, these authentic icons of Orthodoxy – captive to this “Kazionism”, isn’t Orthodoxy liberating man? Dostoevsky himself probably asked about the same.
Leaving these questions unanswered, we will mention only Zosima’s “haters and enviers,” who are also portrayed by the writer. Such have been found in real life. After the death of the mentor, the church censors banned the teachings of the elder Zosima – they found Dostoevsky to be insufficiently orthodox. The sermons of the old man still work in favor of Orthodoxy.
However, let us return to the relations between the two countries. Throughout its history, the Russian Orthodox Church has tended toward a close alliance with the state: something that has led to the loss of church independence. Realizing this, perhaps the irritated Dostoevsky wrote in the Diary: “On Mount Athos under Muslim rule (this is the Ottoman government, extending its power over Mount Athos – VV)… The Orthodox Church acts to a large extent more independently than in Russia “. The clergy, called to inform, have adjusted to contacts with the police. There were trifles. Thus, in the novel Crime and Punishment it is said that “the policeman” follows the priest. The writer himself saw this closeness with obvious displeasure – it is appropriate to assume it.
Pastors and flocks on the eve of the church tragedy
The problems of monastic life Dostoevsky affects not only in the Karamazov Brothers. Gavrila Ivolgin from the novel The Idiot allowed himself to joke about the past: “дни only monks and they were fat…”. Something similar is in Demons, but no longer in a joking way: “… a fat and white monk.” The asceticism of the blacks is called into question.
Dostoevsky even suggests that not all blacksmiths adhered to strict rules. The story “The Village of Stepanchikovo and Its Inhabitants” mentions a “nun who has come away,” although the monks are not advised to leave the walls of their monastery.
Sober assessments of monasticism are repeated. In 1873, Dostoevsky wrote a new note: “… in one of our most noble monasteries it happened… a stupid and evil monk with a brutal beating to kill a ten-year-old boy at school, and at the same time in front of witnesses което which adventure quite real ”(Writer’s Diary).
He also mentions the famous. In the novel The Adolescent we find: “A face the size of Mother Abbess Mitrofania – of course, without foreshadowing anything criminal.” The name of the abbot Mitrofania (Rosen) is mentioned more than once in the Writer’s Diary. The loud criminal trial over her – accused of falsifying policies with her own hands – is attracting a lot of public attention. The trial was also monitored by Dostoevsky.
However, he did not seem to want to notice them. And here’s the reaction: in liberal circles, they called him a “squirrel.” Adherents of Christianity have to become a target for ridicule.
The leaders of the monastic order, contemporaries of Dostoevsky, also speak openly about the sad condition of the Russian monasteries. One of them – ep. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) – stated: “Many of its monasteries have become precipices of immorality and dishonor.” “Their time is up… they have destroyed themselves,” the bishop added another time. This refers to Russian monasticism in the nineteenth century.
The work on the image of the old man Zosima became a vent for the writer. In this image, which is justly impressive, Dostoevsky has invested many of the notions of the spiritual peaks of Orthodoxy. With his sermon on the importance of love for the world around us, for the fact that life is wonderful, the old man inspires sympathy for himself, and also for people who are far from religion. However, the realization that the old man was just an exception to the general rule of spirituality was painful for the writer. The image of Zosima was created despite the numerous facts that cast a shadow over monasticism. Judging by the Writer’s Diary, Dostoevsky knew these facts.
Sometimes the writer prophetically prophesies, “We will cease to stand up for our holy things when we stop believing in their holiness.” This is confirmed by the events of 1917 and beyond: the involvement of many former parishioners who had lost their religious faith in the destruction of churches. Dostoevsky apparently foresaw the tragedy, approaching his own spiritual crisis even after that.
There were few years left until the Bolsheviks came to power.
But wasn’t he controversial?
Dostoevsky also declared his understanding of life in Orthodoxy. For him, it is not just ecclesiology and ritual; it is a very living feeling, “there is in it only charity, only the image of Christ.” Another thing is the look inside. About the church from the beginning of the twentieth century, the priest of the Ekaterinburg diocese Evgeniy Landishev wrote to the synodal prosecutor general as follows: “Everywhere there is only one form without content. The clergy only groaned that the people were leaving the church en masse, only that they were not looking at themselves – that it was the cause of this phenomenon, and it was time to wake up, and we only knew the gesheft, the cup and the cards.”
