It is with much trepidation that I begin this blog post. I was unable to join in discussion due to the CCIW swim meet, so my post consists of purely my initial musings concerning the character of Pavel “Smerdyakov”.
Initially what struck me as curious in the case of Smerdyakov was his portrayal as an ever-present observer who gazed at the world from a corner.[1] From an earlier lecture, I recall that the corner of a room is the frequent position for icons in the Russian religious tradition. In a sense Smerdyakov holds a similar position to that of an icon. Simply put, Smerdyakov has relegated himself to the periphery, where he maintains an ever-observant watch (a contemptuous watch) on his surroundings. In a similar manner, an Orthodox icon rests in the corner room, casting a field of view advantageous to constant observation of the dwelling’s inhabitants.
Throughout the chapter young Smerdyakov is introduced as a “disciple” or “little lord”. Despite these religious connotations in association with Smerdyakov, it is clear the character has suffered a break from the Orthodox faith. The turning point seems hinged on the rather odd practice he had as youth in performing funerals for cats. Young Smerdyakov would hide in the woods wearing something that resembled a makeshift ecclesiastical garment performing rituals with incense. This behavior was punished by Grigory with banishment to the corner.
After serving his period of punishment Smerdyakov underwent lessons in Biblical history. In these lessons Smerdyakov took an antagonistic stance toward the story of creation. There seems to have been a shift in Smerdyakov, from an individual who emulated the Church, to one who at every opportunity sought to undermine the faith through logic and reason. Smerdyakov’s dismissal of Biblical history was repeated with Russian folk stories and writings of history. All of these studies seemed useless and porous to him when he presented them with his concept of reason. Even when engaged in argument Smerdyakov continually referred to “reason”, typically in order to highlight his staunch disapproval of Grigory’s faith in the Orthodox tradition.
In many respects, given Smerdyakov’s manner of argument and his ever-present association with observation, I feel as if Dostoyevsky is attempting to highlight the discord between progressive and traditional schools of thought. Smerdyakov is an observer who seeks truth, and appeals to logic and reason as a means of supporting his observations. This contrasts with Grigory, who from the traditional background of an Orthodox upbringing, relies on faith and scripture as a means of supporting his perceptions. These two characters naturally seem in conflict with each other. It seems as if Dostoyevsky is relating the tension that exists between traditional Orthodox understandings and modern progressive concepts.
In Dostoyevsky’s portrayal, which school of thought seems to be presented in the best light…the traditional Orthodox, or the modern progressive? If the interpretation above is accurate it should be interesting to see the character of Smerdyakov develop further as the text continues, potentially shedding more light on this question.
[1]Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by David McDuff (New York: Penguin Group, 2003), 166.
From the way you describe it, it seems almost as though Smerdyakov and Grigory represent opposite extremes--both of which are in serious need of tempering. Smerdyakov lacks the religious and pious foundation to help anchor his attempts to use reason and logic--while Grigory is perhaps in serious need of some logical and rational skills to help his faith go beyond slapping someone who disagrees with him. Btw, while Grigory is more traditonal than Smerdyakov--he does seem associated with schismatic fringe groups (such as the flagellants) who emerged in the vacuum created by the seventeenth century schism.
ReplyDelete