In this latest installment of The Brothers Karamazov (Book VI), the narrator introduces the backstory of Elder Zosima through the writings of Aleksey. The scattered stories that are recounted focus on the early portion of the Elder’s life, concentrating on the events that developed his personal philosophy toward the proper and ideal ordering of life. Present throughout Book VI is the theme of servitude.
It is developed by Elder Zosima that it is only in servitude and apparent solitude that we are truly able to attain freedom. He furthers this by stating that science is subject to the senses and that our concept of secular needs and rights has created a false sense of freedom, and that ultimately, in its own manner, this reduces society to self-repression and solitariness. The Elder is of the belief that in being a servant one has the ability to truly understand loyalty, it is this concept of loyalty (and faith) that drives the freedom to understand an embrace love and religion. Unknowingly, the progressives and the elite have succumbed to the secular, ignoring their role as God’s servant…this itself a central theme from the story of Job that Elder Zosima continually refers to as essential. It is only by submitting that we may ultimately understand what it is to love and to truly have faith. In this manner the Russian people and the Russian monks are pegged as the freest within the realm.
In addition to the Elder’s interesting concept of freedom through servitude, is also his passing remarks at the supremacy of the Russian Orthodox faith:
Meanwhile in their seclusion they are preserving the image of Christ in well-apportioned and undistorted form, in the purity of God’s truth, as it was handed down to them by the most ancient fathers, apostles and martyrs, and when the need arrives they will show that image to the wavering truth of the world. Great is this thought. This star will shine in the east.[1]
In the excerpt above the Elder cites traditional Orthodox arguments concerning the pureness of their religious text in comparison to Western vernacular translations. There is a sense throughout The Brothers Karamazov that the Orthodox Church has remained untouched by the statist leanings of the Roman Catholic faith and the populist leanings of the Western Protestants. This brings to bear the age old Russian quandary concerning the East vs. the West. It is clear that Elder Zosima views the Russian Orthodox faith as superior to the Western religious concept, as well as to the introduced notions of secular necessities and method, which are most associated with the Western line of development.
In order to finish my post I would like to turn to the passing reference Dostoyevsky made toward the Decembrist revolt of 1825.[2] The reference, although minimal, puzzled me greatly as to why it was specifically included. The Decembrists of 1825 were a group of officers and men from the Imperial Russian army that refused to swear allegiance to Tsar Nicholas I upon the death of Alexander I. Among the grievances the Decembrists touted was the lack of a Russian constitution .[3] The liberal revolt was subsequently repressed, but the idea of a non-autocratic Russian state persisted. The Decembrists of 1825 initiated the starting tick-mark on the timeline toward the conflict against the autocratic state. It seems that Elder Zosima poked fun at the idealism of the Decembrists, which set-off the progressively educated landowner (leading to the duel).
What I find interesting in The Brothers Karamazov in terms of the various uprisings that have been mentioned, is that in each case their mention has been associated with a West-leaning individual, be at Miusov or the landowning elite. Overall, it can be said that Dostoyevsky seems to tout the Eastern line as appropriate for Russia, despite his own flirtations with liberal thought through his involvement as a Petrashevtsi. It should be interesting to see whether Dostoyevsky surrenders any of his thoughts on whether liberal and socialist ideals were appropriate for Russia, or whether his period in political exile had influenced him to focus on another source for Russia’s salvation, away from the Western movements so repressed by the Tsarist regime.
[1] Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by David McDuff (New York: Penguin Group, 2003), 405.
[2] Ibid., 385.
[3]Zenon E. Kohut and David M. Goldfrank “Reaction Under Nicholas I,” Library of Congress Country Studies. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/rutoc.html (Accessed March 9, 2012).
I really appreciate your sensitive eye to the social and political side of things within the reading. Your observations seem fairly sound to me, and after reading your post I can't help but ask myself about what Dostoyevsky's idea of a Russian is, and if we are really presented with such a Russian within the work.
ReplyDeleteI considered this for a while, and I really think that Alyosha fits the bill for a real Russian. He has the faith, although he is tested by it - I'm looking for other aspects that support what constitutes a real Russian, and I think the answer is within the areas you seem to be particularly keen to write about.
Do you think that the prototypical Russian must be a revolutionary of some kind?
DeleteBecause of the political aspirations of the Church mentioned thus far in the novel, I wonder if the motives for advocating servitude are entirely pure. I understand the philosphical argument, however it cannot be denied that the Church would only benefit from a servient population. Dostoyevsky seems to toy with the perceptions of the Church's involvement in the administration of justice and perhaps even government in Russia at the time. In Ivan's "Grand Inquisitor" it is said by the old priest that 'we shall be Caesars,' a notion far from the Elder's focus on people as the catalyst for change. Depending on which of these roles the Church will lean toward, the meaning of the focus on servitude changes entirely.
ReplyDeleteI do not doubt the Elder's sincerity in wishing to bring about this Utopian era of brotherly love; but I am skeptical as to whether it can realistically come come into being. True, the priests may, by example, convince the Russian people to give up their materialism in order to become a nation of monks; but then what! I cannot imagine what a society completely devoid of base nature would look like. It is part of the human condition for each of us to put aside our childish ways and to mature into rational beings. But does anyone really think that the human race as a whole will ever change from its cyclical pattern of stuffing itself until a collapse of some kind convinces it to behave for a short while only to go for the sweets again after it has lost the taste for peace and quiet?
DeleteYour blog entry was definitely one of the longer ones, but as always it was worthwhile to read :) Ben, you characterize the issues of freedom, solitarity, and servitude perfectly. Yes, Zosima believes that by learning to serve others, or to escape serving stricly oneself an individual can attain freedom. Furthermore, the monks who are in isolation of the world are less isolated than the material seeking citizens who are incapable of forming any meaningful relationships due to their enslavement to well being and mammon. You even brought up the part about science being subject to the senses. However, when reading this I found myself thinking not about Russia but rather the United States. I believe that we (Americans)could and should take Zosima's criticism to heart a bit. I am not arguing for the rejection of science and recombining the Church and State but at least a bit of reflection on who we are serving. I feel that we are a bit guilty of being enslaved to the capitalist system, and we should simply take a step back. We should realize that material goods are great, the capitalist system has served us well and continues to serve us greatly, but there's more to life that we will miss out on if we don't break away from serving ourselves. I agree with Zosima, that by learning to serve others we are able to attain true freedom.
ReplyDeletePaul, do you think that capitalism requires Christianity to temper it and to ensure that its efforts to raise the standard of living do not lead to an excess of greed and envy? Or can capitalism only exist as a purely secular system devoted to material gain?
DeleteWow, you bring up many good and interesting points in your blog post! The quote that you've included from Brothers Karamazov reminded me of the "City of a Hill" role touted by the Puritans in America. While I do not think that Elder Zosima is exalting Russia as an overall model for the world to follow, he does seem to hold up the Russian Orthodox faith as the most true and least diluted form of faith ("well-apportioned and undistorted", as the text says).
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for the background on the Decembrist revolt of 1825. If Dostoyevsky intended this work to be a book about all topics, then I wouldn't be surprised to see his political views bleed through.
And what you write here makes me want to go back and reconsider what Ivan's Grand Inquisitor said regarding freedom and how it is too difficult for the vast majority of humans to handle. Is Ivan in agreement with Zosima on this question of freedom vs. servitude--or are they in conflict?
ReplyDelete