(This is a fragment of Jacek Woźniakowski Góry niewzruszone. The translation is mine).
(This is a fragment of Jacek Woźniakowski Góry niewzruszone. The translation is mine).
Crime and Punishment is a theological treatise in a narrative form. It’s not a psychological novel and even less a crime story but a Russian theodicy. Characters are meant to embody the ideas drawn from the Gospels.
On the way to a penal settlement in Siberia, Dostoyevsky was given the New Testament by an aristocratic lady. This was the only book which he read during the four years of penal labour, even when he had a chance to read something else. Dostoyevsky is a direct disciple of the apostles. All the great themes he deals with in his novels come from the Gospels. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the Gospels for Dostoyevsky. (Stanislaw Mackiewicz Dostojewski)
Crime and Punishment should be seen as Dostoyevsky’s reflections on the commandment “thou shall not kill”. The novel’s protagonist, Raskolnikov (raskol – schism), imagines himself to be the master of his fate and the fate of others. Dostoyevsky describes him as an atheist who wants to arrange the world according to the principles of Reason, as he is strongly convinced that Logos rules the world.
God gives him a painful lesson. Raskolnikov kills a pawnbroker in the name of humanity but circumstances made him to kill her half-sister as well. The latter victim was supposed to be one of the beneficiaries of his act. Dostoyevsky’s message is that God is not the same as Logos, as they think in Europe, and Catholics in particular. Dostoyevsky hated Catholicism in which God is benevolent, knowable and identical with the Greek concept of the Good. He sees in Catholicism a form of humanism. The papacy is therefore guilty of distorting the divine message. Catholics say that they have the power of the keys, potestas clavium, or the keys to God’s kingdom on earth. That’s why when God appears again on earth, the Great Inquisitor (in Brothers Karamazov) orders to imprison him. God of the Russian orthodoxy is inscrutable and omnipotent – and not necessarily benevolent.
Vasily Surikov Boyarynya Morozova, 1887
Raskolnikov gradually comes to realisation that Man is weak and cannot do anything without God whose emissaries in the novel, the detective Porfiry and the prostitute Sonia, urge him to submit unconditionally to God. All Raskolnikov needs to do is to kiss the earth in the presence of the simple folk. Raskolikov’s crime is not that he killed. The title of the novel should be understood as the transgression of the divine order and its restoration. Raskolnikov sins against God rather than against fellow human beings. All what’s important in the novel happens in his mind. His crime is theological in nature and the murder is just the consequence of it. The murder is an illustration of an idea, a narrative device to make the novel more dramatic. The crime of atheism and humanism would be equally heinous without it. Homicide is used by Dostoyevsky to strengthen his argument that emancipated Reason will lead to deicide and when God is killed, everything is permitted, even murder – “Everything is permitted to the intelligent man” (Brothers Karamazov). In Brothers Karamazov, one who commits deicide in his thoughts is made morally responsible for parricide.
Dostoyevsky himself explains the meaning of his novel as follows:
[Raskolnikov’s deed] turns out to be a sin, a violation of inner moral justice. His violation of the outer law meets its lawful retribution from without in exile and penal servitude, but his inward sin of pride that has separated the strong man from humanity and has led him to commit murder – that inward sin of self-idolatry can only be redeemed by an inner moral act of self-renunciation. His boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of that which is greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself. (David McDuff Crime and Punishment in Reference Guide to World Literature, 3rd edition)
Ilya Repin Religious Procession in Kursk Province, 1880-1883
When compared with the novels of Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens, Les Miserables and Oliver Twist in particular, Crime and Punishment seems to probe much deeper into the great questions of life. Crime and Punishment is Les Miserables a rebours. Both Jean Valjean and Raskolnikov are repentant sinners but Valjean is an accidental sinner who is pushed towards crime by circumstances and he achieves redemption through good deeds. Raskolnikov commits a crime as an act gratuit when his only motivation is to prove the validity of an idea. The sin of murder makes him realise that only faith and unconditional submission to God will save his soul. In his case, salvation is through faith only and not through deeds. The God of the Russian Orthodox Church is closer to sinners than to righteous men. In Crime and Punishment, God reveals Himself to a murderer and a prostitute.
Murder plays a central role in all of Dostoyevsky’s big novels. Apart from making a story more dramatic, it also has a religious function. In Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky suggests that murder is the logical consequence of the abandonment of God. Murder triggers in Raskolnikov the process of recognising God as the only sovereign and the source of all values. This is a peculiar form of Revelation through murder.
Christ The Pantocrator
The Trinity Cathedral of the St. Sergius’ Trinity Monastery
Dostoyevsky warns in Crime and Punishment about the consequences of nihilism but his warning can be turned against him. Russian nihilism is not what the term suggests. Nihilist Bazarov, in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, is a humanist and a believer in progress through education. In the nineteenth century Russia, nihilists are those who assert human agency in history. One could argue that it’s those who deny the existence of human agency are true nihilists. If we accept this reasoning, it’s Dostoevsky who is a nihilist because he demands total submission to an imaginary deity.
Crime and Punishment is one of the greatest novels ever written albeit with an anti-modern, anti-Western and anti-humanist message.
The Enlightenment initiated the process of desacralisation of the world. As a reaction to this process, voices started to be heard at the end of the eighteenth century that the Enlightenment worldview – rationalistic and even mechanistic – is a threat rather than a promise. Czeslaw Milosz writes in The Land of Ulro that three writers defended the pre-Enlightenment world with particular zeal: Swedenborg, Goethe and Blake. Blake rejected the notion of progress and the desire for human perfection which he perceived as the signs of arrogance and pride. He saw in the Industrial Revolution the seeds of Satan’s future kingdom. Bacon, Locke, and Newton were for Blake an anti-trinity.
Imagination holds the central place in Blake’s system of thought. Only imagination reaches the realm of transcendence from where all sense and meaning are coming. Imagination allows us to see the spiritual reality which, according to Blake, is superior to other forms of reality. Blake banishes those who are devoid of the faculty of imagination to a desert, the land of Ulro, where everything is relative and meaningless. This is the land of ”scholars, advocates of Newtonian physics, philosophers, also almost all the painters and poets. As well as their successors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, until the present “(Czeslaw Milosz The Land of Ulro).
Novalis also looks backwards. In Christianity or Europe, he blames Reformation for initiating the process of man becoming alienated from his spiritual side:
The initial personal hatred of the Catholic faith gradually passed over into hatred of the Bible, of the Christian faith, and finally of religion in general. Still further, the hatred of religion extended itself quite naturally and consistently to all objects of enthusiasm. It made imagination and emotion heretical, as well as morality and the love of art, the future and the past. With some difficulty it placed man first in the order of created things, and reduced the infinite creative music of the universe to the monotonous clatter of a monstrous mill, which, driven by the stream of chance and floating thereon, was supposed to be a mill in the abstract, without Builder or Miller, in fact an actual perpetuum mobile, and the mill that milled of itself.
Reformation destroyed medieval universalism and the cultural and political unity of Europe. Pope ceased to be God’s vicegerent for the whole world, Rome ceased to be the centre of the world, or axis mundi, the place of transcendence in which heaven and earth meet in one spot. One was allowed to read the Bible on one’s own, which led to different interpretations of the holy text and, ultimately, to its irrelevance. Lutheranism removed wonder and mystery out of religion.
Humanists played a similar role. They wanted a religion with a minimal set of dogmas and ceremonies. They contributed to the erosion of the position of the Church. One can see them as predecessors of deists of the Enlightenment who saw in God a watchmaker rather than the loving father.
Enlightenment thinkers were satisfied with the natural order of things and did not seek divine sanction and legitimacy for the world. The characteristic feature of Enlightenment is the abundance of utopias. The starting point of any utopia is the negation of the Fall and the original sin which apparently contaminates human nature. Enlightenment thinkers believed that it would be enough to change external conditions to reveal the natural goodness of man and his ability to arrange his environment according to rational principles. They gave man the right to correct natural and social order. The emancipation of the human mind meant that man’s humility before God was not justified any longer. Reason was believed to be able to eradicate evil. Critics of the Enlightenment say that this vision of the perfect society is full of over-simplifications, reductive, overly rationalistic and one-dimensional. Speculative models ignore the complexity of reality, the multiplicity of conflicting motives in people’s lives, with their spontaneity and randomness, and the weight of tradition. The world of utopias of this kind is therefore based on false premises. Their harmony is artificial and unrealisable in the real world. Attempts to realise utopias invariably end in human suffering and misery. Nikolai Berdyaev warns that:
Utopias seem to be much more achievable than we formerly believed them to be. Now we find ourselves presented with another alarming question: how do we prevent utopias from coming into existence? … Perhaps a new century will begin, in which intellectuals and the privileged will dream of ways that eliminate utopias and return to a society less perfect and freer.
Totalitarian states created by national socialists and communists should be seen as a warning from history. They turned individual human beings into manure for a new, perfect society. Totalitarian order strips a person of its individuality and harmonises an individual with a leader, a collective, a mass, an idea. A person becomes an empty vessel and all sense and meaning comes from a leader of a collective entity.
It is rather surprising that war criminals produced by totalitarian regimes were often ordinary men and women. Hannah Arendt writes about Eichmann that:
Half a dozen psychiatrists had certified Eichmann as “normal.” “More normal at any rate, than I am after having examined him,” one of them was said to have exclaimed, while another had found that Eichmann’s whole psychological outlook, including his relation with his wife and children, his mother and father, his brothers and sisters and friends, was “not only normal, but most desirable.
Stanislav Vincenz blames the French Revolution for elevating violence to the sphere of politics. The French Revolution, in which the philosophy of the Enlightenment comes into fruition, is an important point in the process of desacralisation. New laws demanded the death of the king who personified the existing political order. The demarcation line between sacrum and profanum was crossed and politics became emancipated and desacralised. All sorts of social experiments were now possible. Politics imposed itself on the common good which was now determined by a narrow group of revolutionary fanatics. Revolutionary order was based on institutionalised violence which sometimes took form of state terror whose aim was to pacify its own citizens.
Vincenz writes in In the Upper Highlands:
The new revolutionary laws are indeed splendid, Papa was dethroned and had his head chopped off. His place was taken by a drunkard from the street who gives people Papa’s wine and bread.
The regicide was a form of deicide. Destruction of a political order also meant the re-valuation of all values and even their reversal. The aim of the revolution was a new social order. The state took the place of God as a source of new sacrum. Social unity was achieved through the physical elimination of groups considered as enemies of the state and the intimidation of the rest. Vincenz describes freedom as “liberte – an office to cut people’s heads off … and who does it? Herod of officialdom, his salary grows and grows and he is paid for each head separately”.
Vincenz’s aversion to revolution is more understandable in the broader context of politics. The French Revolution is the result of the belief in the magical power of politics. The myth of the revolution offers an easy path to the creation of a new order of eternal bliss although it requires a denial of Christian values. During the French Revolution, politics assumed the leading role in society and its importance has been growing ever since, until it filled all aspects of life in totalitarian societies. Vincenz rejects the supposedly simplistic idea of a radical change of the society through politics. His proposal is of quite another kind. Vincenz stresses the longing of humanity for transcendence. Politics only brings problems – political engagement is not for decent people.
The French revolution turned European politics upside down, while the romantic movement played a similar role in European culture.
Milosz writes in The Land of Ulro:
We have to go back there, to that time in the history of Europe when its destiny still hung in the balance, before the split into the world of science – cold and indifferent to values, and the inner world of man. This split can be perceived first at the end of the eighteenth century and then it becomes the main trait of the Romantic crisis of European culture.
Romanticism destroyed the ideal of harmony in culture and introduced into it elements of chaos. Its rejection of the idea of unity went so far that even individuals lacked a sense of identity. Literary characters are often doubles, people without shadows, the living dead, and superfluous men – people torn between conflicting desires, suspended between heaven and earth, and between self-adulation and self-hatred. There is no balance either in Nature, either. Landscape in painting ceases to be a pleasing background and moves to the fore, dominating the human figure placed in the world of chaos and chance. Romanticism was a reaction to the advancing rationalism and the disappearance of sacrum during the period of Enlightenment, when moral norms were losing divine sanction and religious categories were being replaced by secular ones. Rationalism stripped the world of mystery and deprived an individual of free will, turning him into a slave of biology and politics. European culture had been demythologised. Conflict became the central characteristics of human relationships and of man’s place in the world. Even an individual personality ceased to be a coherent whole.
Novalis writes in Christianity or Europe:
The learned man is by instinct the enemy of the clergy. The learned man and the clerical classes, once they are separated, must struggle to the death, for they strive for one and the same position. This separation advanced ever further, and the learned man gained the more ground the more the history of European humanity approached the age of triumphant erudition, whereas knowledge and faith entered into more decisive opposition.
This phenomenon, called by Max Weber disenchantment (die Entzauberung der Welt), could lead, according to its critics, to chaos, profanation of all areas of sacrum and, ultimately, to the psychological decay of man. It was only natural that people reacted to the feeling of emptiness by sacralising the domains other than religion – science, art, politics, and economics. The harmonious world arranged on the basis of religion was replaced by a supposedly happier and better world of secular humanism and we still live in this world.
Islam suffers from the excess of sacrum – there are too many aspects of the lives of Muslims that are beyond rational discussion because they are regulated by a divine decree. They were supposedly revealed by God and cannot be changed. This is the case of faith rather than reason, the orientation towards the holy text rather than external reality, and the direction towards the past rather than the future.
In order to revive its glory, Islam must re-Hellenise itself. In its philosophy, it needs to switch from Al-Ghazali to Ibn-Rushd. The former’s sola fide (only faith) must be replaced with the latter’s fides and ratio (faith and reason) as the foundation of Islam. Islam must recognise that modern civilisation can only be built on three pillars of rationalism, empiricism and humanism.
At present, Islam has a number of distinct, mostly problematic, characteristics such as:
the centrality of the holy text,
the primacy of the holy text over visible and tangible reality,
no innovation in the matters of faith,
orientation towards the past,
the times of Muhammad treated as a reference point for future generations,
idealisation of the beginnings of Islam,
divine voluntarism which requires total submission to the will of God,
God knowing both universals and particulars,
God’s Word preceding the universe,
God being sovereign ie omnipotent and not necessarily benevolent,
the absence of the concept of natural causality (God intervenes in every action and is present between the cause and the effect),
low awareness of the role of Aristotelian philosophers (Mutazilites) in the early history of Islam,
the rejection of the Aristotelian tradition of Averroism in Islam which was replaced in the twelfth century by fideism of Al-Ghazali; Al-Ghazali initiated the process of de-hellenisation in Islam, while Europe was going in the opposite direction,
misunderstanding of the causes of Islam’s glorious past; contrary to what most Muslims think Islam was triumphant until the twelfth century not because of Islam as such but because of the incorporation of the Greek thought and the fusion of faith and reason,
modern world seen as the corruption of the idealised past,
no religious hierarchy,
no separation of church and state,
sectarianism manifesting itself in the treatment by Muslims of denominations within Islam other than one’s own,
the suppression of sufism,
the leading role of the Arabs which is often resented by non-Arabs,
puritanical versions of Islam in the Middle East and syncretism in south-east Asia,
sharp distinction between what is haram and halal,
Manichaeism evident in the dualistic system of dar-al-Islam (the House of Peace) and dar-el-Harb (the House of War),
essentialism and a-historicism,
fear of modernity,
religious concepts and vocabulary used in the description of the modern world,
visionary and radical conservatism in social matters and sometimes in politics,
the concept of ummah which delegitimises nation states and elevates local grievances to global issues,
a weak sense of belonging to a nation,
the concept of truth being of divine origin rather than being understood as the correspondence of thought and external reality,
orthopraxy, which means that one has to observe correctly strict rules in everyday behaviour, rather than orthodoxy,
jihad or the pressure to seek perfection,
ritual forms of capital punishment (decapitation and lapidation),
blasphemy treated as a serious transgression and severely punished,
corporate punishment, including flogging,
strict dietary laws,
strict dress code,
faith-based and ritualised ethics,
ossified rules of social behaviour,
strict rules of sexual behaviour,
prohibition of homosexual acts,
the sharp division between the sexes,
the inequality of women,
utter sexualisation of the female body,
strong blood ties,
the obligation to protect the honour of the family, going as far as killing a family member to protect it,
fasting during Ramadan,
self-flagellation and self-mutilation by Shia Muslims in celebration of Ashura,
genital mutilation (in some regions),
the concept of jahiliyyh which prevented Muslims from absorbing knowledge from the antiquity (after Al-Ghazali),
the concept of the caliphate in which the ruler combines secular and religious authority,
memorisation of Quran seen as a noble activity and admiration for hafizes, or those who know the whole Quran by heart,
strong feeling of ressentiment towards the West,
tendency to blame the West for its own failings,
fear of acculturation,
the conviction that the Islam’s past glory can only be revived through Islamisation,
self-absorption and distrust of the non-Islamic world,
the feeling of oppression by external powers,
the syndrome of besieged fortress,
the feeling of righteousness,
hyper-sensitivity to criticism,
inflexibility of religious convictions,
distrust of secular institutions,
secular governments perceived as a force of corruption,
tendency to legitimise terrorism as a weapon of the powerless,
in the eyes of Westerners, anachronistic concepts and vocabulary,
rejection of democracy,
no freedom of speech,
weak state institutions, with governments overcoming their weaknesses by brutality towards the people,
the authorities treating people as subjects rather than citizens,
governments ruling rather than governing,
the lack of democratic mechanisms that would ensure a smooth transition of power,
The alienation of elites from the wider population,
Indigenous neo-colonialism, with narrow groups that have political power behaving like colonial authorities towards their own societies,
the political role of the army in many Muslim countries as the supposed guarantor of stability, while in fact the army acts as the defender of the status quo and its own interests,
religious universalism co-existing with ethnic allegiances,
apostasy punishable by death.
As a syncretic religion, Christianity is difficult to analyse. There is no agreement among Christians themselves as to its essence, hence there are many Christian churches. To probe into Christianity, one has to examine its history.
Within the first few centuries, Christianity originated as a Jewish sect, evolved into a religion with universal aspirations, incorporated Greek philosophical ideas into its doctrine, and became a state religion. Christianity stands therefore on three pillars – Jewish mysticism, Greek philosophy and Roman administration. Correspondingly, its foundation texts are written in three languages – the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, while the Latin translation of both texts had been used in the Catholic Church for nearly two millennia.
In Christianity, beliefs are more important than practices. All its Churches make claims to orthodoxy, ie the correct set of beliefs. Christians are indifferent to how they dress and what they eat but focus on what they think. In Judaism and Islam, orthopraxy prevails hence there are strict dietary and clothing rules in both religions while beliefs are relatively simple. In Islam, a declaration of faith is sufficient to become a Muslim. In Judaism, one is born a Jew.
Christianity has strong rational and humanistic elements. These elements are so dominant that some critics of Christianity deny that it is a religion. En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai Theos en ho Logos, John writes in his Gospel. For the Greeks, Logos meant the underlying order of reality. John’s passage can be read as “In the beginning was Reason, and Reason was with God, and Reason was God”. Christian God can therefore be understood as deified Logos, or Reason, combined with the personal God of the Jews.
Socrates asks whether that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the gods. He answers that the gods only recognise the holiness which already exists in holy things. This thought became the basis of the Christian theology. It equates God with the Good and Necessity. God is benevolent. What follows is that God is not omnipotent. God cannot appear again and declare that the Decalogue will now include new commandments urging believers to rob, rape and murder. Similarly, God can only do things that are not contradictory or impossible. God cannot change what I ate yesterday for breakfast.
One of the papal encyclicals is titled Fides and Ratio, faith and reason, and this combination makes Christianity a peculiar religion. The centrality of Aristotelianism in the Catholic Church prompted Russian emigre philosopher Lev Shestov to declare that Catholicism is a rationalist philosophy masquerading as a religion. Shestov expands on Dostoevsky’s criticism of the Papacy in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky accuses the Church of corrupting the original message of God that his kingdom is not of this world, and sacrificing freedom for earthly welfare.
“Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”. Pope Benedict XVI used this statement by Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus to reiterate the Church’s attachment to Reason. The Church cannot accept Tertulian’s Credo quia absurdum because it denigrates Reason. God can be both known through Revelation and rational thought. It is therefore legitimate to seek rational proofs of God’s existence. Shestov writes that Catholics believe that they have the key to the universe and that that key is Reason.
Jean Fouquet Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels, ca 1452
The other central aspect of Christianity is its anthropocentrism. The New Testament says that Jesus was sent to Earth to die for our sins in an act of atonement. Jesus became Man and suffered as a human being for the sake of humanity. His human characteristics are stressed to such an extent that this may not be the case of God becoming Man but Man being celebrated as God. In Western art, Jesus is portrayed first as a baby with his loving mother, then as a merciful teacher and, finally, as a humiliated and suffering individual who is executed together with common criminals. If a Martian landed on Earth and visited art museums and Catholic churches, he would have concluded that Christianity is the religion of Man. Catholicism acquires feminine characteristics through the cult of Mary, the mother of God. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Sensualism of certain saints verges on eroticism. Religious themes in painting, but also in music, provide ample evidence of Christians celebrating beauty in themselves, also physical beauty. There is disarming sweetness in cantatas of Bach and Vivaldi or paintings of the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus.
By worshiping their God, Christians worship the order in the universe and themselves as deified human beings. Christianity is therefore prone to be perceived in human, rational and, ultimately, secular terms. It is only seemingly a paradox that Christian societies had evolved into modern welfare states. The original Christian promise has found its fulfilment in a secular society which treats Christian principles as its own. Even the pessimistic doctrine of the original sin has turned out to be a blessing, so to speak. Man is born in sin and incapable of perfection. If an individual transgresses against divine and human laws he will be dealt with according to the severity of his transgression, with the aim of rehabilitation rather than revenge. Among Western societies, only the US retains the capital punishment. In Islam, striving for perfection is a religious obligation and those who fail in jihad are harshly punished.
Christianity is unique among religions. It encompasses rationalism and humanism and this combination places it on the antipodes of Islam and orthodox Judaism which are both strictly theocentric. Orthodox Jews and Muslims are oriented towards their holy texts as homini unius libri, or men of one book. Judaism has its reformed branch which originated in Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment, and mainstream Judaism embraced modernity to the same extent as mainstream Christianity. The fact that most Jews had lived in diaspora in Europe for two thousand years is reflected in the history of Israel which is a state with Western institutions, although with complications of geopolitical nature.
Islam though is past-oriented and anti-modern and will remain so until it revisits the dispute of Ibn-Rushd (Averroes), an Aristotelian philosopher, with Al-Ghazali, an enemy of Aristotelianism. Islam diverged from Christianity when Al-Ghazali accused the philosophers of blasphemy and infidelity, punishable by death. Al-Ghazali killed the flourishing Islamic civilisation which abandoned Reason and reverted to Revelation, discouraging an interaction with visible and tangible reality and focusing instead on the holy text as the primary aspect of reality.
Christianity chose an opposite path when it opted for Aristotelianism as its core in the thirteenth century, and it made all the difference for Europe and its outposts on other continents. Modern civilisation can only be built on three pillars – rationalism, empiricism and humanism. There are plenty of aspects of Christianity that can be criticised but, on balance, Christianity has played a positive role in the history of the world.