Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T17:52:41.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Dostoevsky in the prism of the orthodox semiosphere

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2009

George Pattison
Affiliation:
King's College, Cambridge
Diane Oenning Thompson
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

One of the most astute and enlightened Orthodox readers of Dostoevsky wrote of him in the 1930s:

Dostoevsky dreamt of Russian socialism, but what he saw was a ‘Russian monk’. And that monk had neither the intention nor the wish to build ‘world harmony’ he was in no way a builder within the historical process. It is clear, therefore, <…> that Dostoevsky's dream did not coincide with Dostoevsky's vision. Dostoevsky's place in the history of Russian philosophy belongs to him not because he worked out a philosophical system, but because he opened up and deepened actual metaphysical experience <…> and Dostoevsky shows more than he argues.

To read Dostoevsky religiously it is not ‘necessary to put everything in its proper place so that everything can be reconciled’ as, according to Sergei Averintsev, the Neo-Thomist ‘theology of art’ tends to do. Dostoevsky is no Dante, but a nineteenth-century writer whose ‘dreams’ are influenced not by Christian theology but by secular European Utopianism and Romanticism, though his vision and his ‘metaphysical experience’ are Christian and, indeed, in many ways specifically Russian Orthodox Christian. One can only accept these contradictions, and work from within the paradox.

Most great art reflects the world as chaos and this is particularly evident in Russian art. Dostoevsky, in his novels, reflects religious dereliction and aspiration and is capable of ‘showing’ profound insights, ‘metaphysical experience’, even Grace, but these are seen from within ‘the sphere of our sorrows’, glimpses not to be reassembled according to any all-embracing concept of hierarchy and order. In his notebooks for 1880–81, Dostoevsky speaks of his ‘Hosannah’, having passed through a furnace of doubt (27,86).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2001

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×