Jump to Introduction & Chronology
Jump back to Previous: The Brothers K. Bk VI. 1. & "Knocking on Heaven's Door"
The Brothers Karamazov
p358 [Zossima speaks] Fathers and teachers, what is the monk? In the cultivated world the word is nowadays pronounced by some people with a jeer, and by others it is used as a term of abuse. This contempt for the monk is growing. It is true, alas, it is true, that there are many sluggards, gluttons and insolent beggars among the monks. Educated people point to these: “You are idlers, useless members of society, you live on the labor of others, you are shameless beggars.” And yet how many meek and humble monks there are, yearning for solitude and fervent prayer in peace. These are less noticed, or passed over in silence... in their solitude, they keep the image of Christ fair and undefiled, in the purity of God’s truth, from the times of the Fathers of old....
p359 That is my view of the monk, and is it false? Is it too proud? Look at the worldly and all who set themselves up above the people of God. Has not God’s image and His truth been distorted in them? They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man’s being is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred.
From this perspective, the good contemplative monk is the visible representation of good Orthodox Christianity. We may not be able to see God, but at least we can see people who exemplify or personify the Christian ideal.
The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! [Ivan says “Amen!”] For the world says: “You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don’t be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires.” [Aldus Huxley says “Amen!”] That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide: [see Fyodor and Dmitri K.] in the poor, envy and murder. [Pavel. Spoiler: (we could end the novel here, but there’s more philosophy to cover.)] For they all have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, [Settembrini says “Amen!”] as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air. [This is too early for radio, so I suppose he is thinking of the telegraph?]
Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous beliefs are thus fostered. [This is almost laughable coming from someone speaking in praise of the kind of monks who are proud not to bathe and to wear weighted chains under their crude clothing and who persecute one another for the most inane theological variations from the “true path.”] They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. To have dinners, carriages, rank and slaves to wait on one is looked upon as a necessity, for which life, honor and human feeling are sacrificed. Men even commit suicide if they are unable to satisfy these desires. We see the same thing among those who are not rich for the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine [Michel Foucault says “Amen!”]. They are being led on to it. I ask you is such a man free?...
p360 ...Instead of serving the cause of brotherly love and the union of humanity, men have fallen, on the contrary, into dissension and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher said to me in my youth. And therefore the idea of the service of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is more and more dying out in the world. Indeed this idea is sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off his habits, what can become of him if he is in such bondage to the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for himself? He is isolated and what concern has he for the rest of humanity? Men have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less.
Epicurus and even the Cynics would agree with this anti-materialist view -- it’s worth noting that he is speaking against both the bourgeoisie and the gentry here. Not that solitude craving monks (desert or island based) are any better when it comes to “serving mankind.”
The monastic way is very different. Obedience, fasting and prayer are laughed at, yet only through them lies the way to real, true freedom. I cut off my superfluous and unnecessary desires, I subdue my proud and wanton will and chastise it with obedience, and with God’s help I attain freedom of spirit and with it spiritual joy. Which is most capable of conceiving a great idea and serving it -- the rich man in his isolation or the man who has freed himself from the tyranny of material things and habits?
I can make a surprisingly similar argument in favor of the homeless drug addict. His commitment to spiritual transcendence through chemical abuse is a powerful thing. And, aside from the debris and filth he leaves in his wake, he lives amazingly lightly on the land. And I can’t say that his life is less satisfying for him than is the life of the monk -- though he is, perhaps, less in control of his bliss. And I’m not sure which of the two has a better grasp on their marbles. Were you to swap the lives of the monk, the addict, the Epicurean, and the Lucullan, I’m not sure if any would be happier or even less happy. Perhaps each would find the new life at variance with their nature. Perhaps some would find the new life just as or more satisfying. It would actually be a fascinating experiment.
p361 The monk is reproached for his solitude: “You have secluded yourself within the walls of the monastery for your own salvation, and have forgotten the brotherly service of humanity!” But we will see which will be most zealous in the cause of brotherly love. For it is not we, but they, who are in isolation, though they don’t see that. Of old, leaders of the people came from among us, and why should they not again? The same meek and humble ascetics will rise up and go out to work for the great cause. The salvation of Russia comes from the people. And the Russian monk has always been on the side of the people. We are isolated only if the people are isolated. The people believe as we do, and an unbelieving reformer will never do anything in Russia, even if he is sincere in heart and a genius. Remember that! The people will meet the atheist and overcome him, and Russia will be one and orthodox. Take care of the peasant and guard his heart. Go on educating him quietly. That’s your duty as monks, for the peasant has God in his heart.
Isn’t this what the Grand Inquisitor was doing?
... I don’t deny that there is sin in the peasants too. The fire of corruption is spreading visibly, hourly, working from above downwards. The spirit of isolation is coming upon the people too. Moneylenders and devourers of society are rising up. The merchant grows more and more eager for rank and strives to show himself cultured though he has not a trace of culture. He despises his old traditions, and is even ashamed of the faith of his fathers. He visits princes, though he is only a peasant corrupted. The peasants are rotting in drunkenness and cannot shake off the habit. And what cruelty to their wives, to their children even! All from drunkenness! I’ve seen in the factories children nine years old, frail, rickety, bent and already depraved. The stuffy workshop, the din of machinery, work all day long, the vile language and the drink, the drink -- is that what a little child’s heart needs? He needs sunshine, childish play, good examples all about him, and love. There must be no more of this, monks, no more torturing of children. Rise up and preach that. Make haste, make haste!
So Ivan and Zossima are for the most part arguing for the same moral position but from different starting points. As usual we have the petite bourgeoisie criticized for being too uppity and not sophisticated enough.
Here drink and poor working conditions are the bane of society whereas today it would be lack of work and a wider variety of chemicals like meth, cocaine, and huffable paints. Haste was not made.
p362 But God will save Russia, for though the peasants are corrupt and cannot renounce their filthy sin, yet they know it is cursed by God and that they do wrong in sinning. Our people still believe in righteousness, have faith in God and weep tears of devotion.
Gissing’s Henry Ryecroft said something similar about the turn of the century English lower classes.
It is different with the upper classes. They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, not with Christ as before. They have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that’s consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? In Europe the people are already rising up against the rich, and the leaders of the people are everywhere leading them to bloodshed and teaching them that their wrath is righteous. But their”wrath is accursed, for it is cruel.” But God will save Russia as He has saved her many times. Salvation will come from the people, from their faith and their meekness.
Enough of this “there is no crime without God” shit. Draco’s Code -- the origin of written law in the West -- is not motivated by religion but by a need to break the cycle of blood feud. That a “crime” is not a “sin” in the Christian sense doesn’t mean it isn’t still a crime against society. You could argue that a more secular society could use a more Draconian law code since there isn’t a God to sort things out in the after-life.
...I’ve been struck all my life by the dignity of our people... I’ve seen it in spite of the degraded sins and poverty-stricken appearance of our peasantry. They are not servile, and even after two centuries of serfdom, they are free in manner and bearing, yet without insolence, and not revengeful and not envious. [I hadn’t realized that serfdom in Russia only started when the institution was already disappearing in Europe. And it was only established in parts of Russia, not the whole nation.] “You are rich and noble, you are clever and talented, well be so. God bless you. I respect you, but I know that I too am a man. By the very fact that I respect you without envy I prove my dignity as a man.”
This is not like Gissing's description of the English lower classes.
In truth if they don’t say this (for they don’t know how to say this yet) that is how they act... And would you believe it, the poorer our Russian peasant is, the more noticeable is that serene goodness for the rich among them are for the most part corrupt already. Much of this is due to our carelessness and indifference... I dream of seeing, and seem to be see clearly already, our future. It will come to pass, that even the most corrupt of our rich will end by being ashamed of his riches before the poor, and the poor, seeing his humility, will understand and give way before him, will respond joyfully and kindly to his honorable shame... Equality is to be found only in the spiritual dignity of man, and that will be understood among us. If we were brothers, there would be fraternity. But man will never agree about the division of wealth. . . . We preserve the image of Christ, and it will shine forth like a precious diamond to the whole world. So may it be, so may it be!
The “shame” of the rich before the poor is not yet in evidence, though I suppose their establishing themselves in enclaves of wealth where they only have to deal with the poor in the form of servants and the like, could indicate some degree of shame. And the ease with which the wealthy can manipulate the poor to vote against their own interest might indicate a tendency to “understand and give way” on the part of the poor -- though I think it is something else entirely.
p365 And can it be a dream, that in the end man will find his joy only in deeds of light and mercy, and not in cruel pleasures as now, in gluttony, fornication, ostentation, boasting and envious rivalry of one with the other? I firmly believe that it is not a dream and that the time is at hand.... [Along with cheap, cold fusion power.]
And we may ask the scornful: if our hope is a dream, when will you build your edifice and order things justly by your intellect alone, without Christ?... In truth, they have more fantastic dreams than we. They aim at justice, but, denying Christ, they will end by flooding the earth with blood, for blood cries out for blood, and he that taketh up the sword shall perish by the sword. And if it were not for Christ’s covenant, they would slaughter one another down to the last two men on earth. And those two last men would not be able to restrain each other in their pride, and the one would slay the other and then himself. That would come to pass, were it not for the promise of Christ that for the sake of the humble and meek the days shall be shortened.
Where does he get this? Is there any evidence that Christian nations are more peaceful than non-Christian nations? The history of Christian Europe until the middle of the 20th century was a history of war.
God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them in this earth, and His garden grew up and everything came up that could come up. But what grows lives and is alive only through the feeling of its contact with other mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life and even grow to hate it. That’s what I think.
Interestingly, this idea of “seeds from different worlds” is similar to current ideas that earth was “seeded” with proto-life from comets. In both cases this is not entirely satisfying since it ignores the question of how these “seeds” formed on other worlds. Pretty much any story that begins, “In the beginning...” is problematic.
p369 Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of anyone. For no one can judge a criminal, unless he recognizes that he is such a criminal as the man standing before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime. [This is esoteric, though Dostoyevsky seems to feel strongly about it.] When he understands that, [not yet] he will be able to be a judge. Though that sounds absurd, it is true. If I had been righteous myself, perhaps there would have been no criminal standing before me. [?] If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him yourself, and let him go without reproach. And even if the law itself makes you his judge, act in the same spirit so far as possible, for he will go away and condemn himself more bitterly than you have done. If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling block to you. It shows his time has not yet come. But remember it will come in due course. And if it comes not, no matter; if not he, then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled. Believe that. Believe it without doubt for in that lies all the hope and faith of the saints.
There’s a pantheistic way of understanding this: As part of God, we are co-authors of this world and of the criminal. And as co-authors we can hardly “judge” the actions of our characters. Though you could also say that in the situation above we are responsible for future crimes committed by the criminal we have “let go.”
p371 Fathers and teachers, I ask: “What is hell?” I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love...
They talk of hell fire in the material sense. I don’t go into that mystery and I shun it. But I think that if there were fire in the material sense, they would be glad of it, for, I imagine, that in material agony, their greater spiritual agony would be forgotten for a moment...
Several models are suggested for the character Zossima including Tikhon of Zadonsk and "The Life of the Elder Leonid" and Staretz Amvrosy -- also known as Ambrose of Optina.
Jump to Next: God's Hotel
