Dostoevsky is a blind spot for me. I haven't really read of much of anything he's written, and so I cannot speak as an authority on him. "The Grand Inquisitor" is a chapter from The Brothers Karamazov and this slim volume was assigned to me in a course on Tyranny, Totalitarianism and Terror, about 20 years ago. It is barely 20 pages long and ultimately serves as a parable.
I decided to read it ("again") because of the previous selection. Both books quite clearly portray Christ as a supernatural phenomenon while maintaining credence to the historical details. I felt this would be a fair venue for a type of short essay on Catholicism, faith and the cyclical nature of history. I also need to read Dostoevsky, period. Only in revisiting this did I decide on three big books that I hope to one day cover on this blog: Moby Dick, War and Peace and The Brothers Karamazov. These are due by about 2030.
This chapter of the novel consists of a dialogue between Ivan and Alyosha, which is mostly Ivan telling Alyosha the story with intermittent commentary and questioning. Ivan refers to it as a poem. It is not written in verse, but there are a few italics that appear to serve as gloss, and I am uncertain whether they occur in the original text. They are: (1) The three temptations foreshadowed the whole subsequent history of mankind; (2) The first temptation: the problem of bread.; (3) The second temptation: the problem of conscience.; (4) The third temptation: the problem of unity.; (5) Summary: the Inquisitor's Utopia.
Quite clearly, I think, these are glosses. They are not there for the benefit of Alyosha, but the modern-day students that need to write 1,000-word essays dissecting the translated text to "prove" some "original" thesis. In a way, these past 2 reviews (to say nothing of countless other reviews on this blog) may serve as a college essay. I claim no copyright over said ideas, but I always appreciate, of course, proper credit.
This will not, however, be a comparison of Between Heaven and Hell and "The Grand Inquisitor." One selection simply inspired the other. No question that this is the essential text, if one must pick between the two. It is, after all, a portion of one of the greatest novels in the history of the world, or so I have been told. People often put the Bible in similar territory, i.e. every true scholar must read the Bible, for it is also the greatest "novel" of all time, the greatest story ever told, etc. As far as biblical authority goes, and as far as any "updates" go, this stands alongside the monumental Paradise Lost, which, like the Bible, is also in verse (though more verse, if that makes sense; it is sometimes called an epic poem, which the Bible is often not).
The Spanish Inquisition lasted from 1478-1834, so it ended just 50 years before this tale was written. However, it appears to take place closer to the beginning:
"'" But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look around and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from him--Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter."'" (12)
Thee/Thou/Prisoner/Jesus is set to be executed the next day, but not before he is admonished and interrogated by the Grand Inquisitor. No answers are provided. Instead, the Grand Inquisitor lays out the institution's r'aison d'etre: subjugate and enslave the masses, for they do not know what is best for them. Follow the example of "the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and destruction," not Jesus. Give them happiness in slavery, rather than unhappiness in freedom.
Dostoevsky meant to criticize the rise of Russian socialism, which bent towards atheism, nihilism, and rationalism, and away from true Christian faith. Socialism is often decried in the culture today as one step removed from a communist state, and embraced by many that regard our present-day capitalist framework as a different type on enslavement.
Regardless, evangelism remains in vogue in conservative ideology. Morality is used as a cudgel for delegitimizing dissent and casting doubt on self-actualization. Women lose autonomy over their bodies and identity politics become a flashpoint. The Church stands impassive, and makes tentative steps towards a more inclusive stance. But that is inconvenient for the election of certain representatives, who see authoritarianism as the most efficient path towards unification and economic prosperity.
There is no question that the Church has diverged from the path that Jesus prescribed and led others to follow. Whether Jesus believed in proselytization remains a subject of debate, as with many other precepts from the Bible: they can be shifted according to the motivations of the speaker. It would seem clear to me, as a person that spent 10 years in a Catholic school, that he would not believe in it, that he would not force his way onto anyone, that he would simply live as he found best, and leave others to follow his example and decide for themselves. Indeed, the Grand Inquisitor bemoans Christ for failing to give bread to man, for allowing man to retain his conscience, and for failing to establish his own sovereignty.
In short, Jesus' teachings are inconvenient for the Inquisition, and since 15 centuries have passed, the people have forgotten, and the Church's interpretation of the teachings have become Gospel; to see Christ resurrected in the flesh, performing miracles again, potentially exposing the fraud inherent in the institution, is an intolerable risk for the Grand Inquisitor: it threatens to upend the enterprise.
There is some application of this parable to present day, and perhaps there always has been, yet it is felt most clearly in the totalitarian systems of government in the past. This is merely the background for one side of debate, the side that has an ulterior motive (query whether both sides have separate ulterior motives). Yet in a way, the Grand Inquisitor's ideology makes sense: it truly does seem that much of the time, the great masses are susceptible to suggestion, triggered by perceived wrongs that do not align with their values. They need to be effectively managed, and letting them think for themselves can destabilize the regime in power.
The ending of the parable, however, provides some measure of comfort: the prisoner offers no response but a kiss on the lips of the Grand Inquisitor, and he is allowed to escape into the night and avoid an auto-da-fe. The Inquisitor will hold to his views, while privately knowing that he has been further disproven. Perhaps one day, such Inquisitors will resign their posts, become "whistleblowers" of a type, and renounce their ways. The Inquisition did ultimately end, and the Soviet Union did ultimately come into being and did ultimately end, and the Church has been "Reformed," and continues to be further reformed, still. History ultimately bends towards humanity, but the truth is never apparent until the highest authority has acknowledged their errors, lies, cruelties, and general mismanagement. That generally means giving up power, and that only tends to happen when power is no longer theirs. Such renunciation, however, is less persuasive when offered from that perspective of diminished power.
No comments:
Post a Comment