Dostoevsky: Language, Faith and Fiction by Rowan Williams (review)

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

736 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OOg The shiningstarof thiscollectionis a piece by Ezequiel Adamovsky. Whereasmanyoftheotherauthors dwellon rather narrowsubjects, and in some instances failto generatea concreteargument despitethisinherent focus,Adamovskytacklesthe vast questionof European perceptionsof Russianculture and succeedsin elucidating coherent patterns. Drawingon a rangeof illuminating examplesplaced in the contextof moregeneralized, theoretical ruminations, thearticle isaccessible tospecialists ofdifferent disciplinesand yetuseful to all. The authorconvincingly suggests thatthecritical Europeangaze on Russia,made from theinherently biasedvantagepointof Western civilization, hasbeeninternalized intotheRussiannationaldiscourse as a stigma, evenbythosewhoreject Western accusations ofbarbarism. Thus, Adamovsky arguesfora post-Eurocentric re-assessment of Russianhistory, whichwillelucidatetheinter-relation ofRussianand Europeanperceptions ofthemselves and their'other'. Itisa shamethatina volumewheremuchspaceisdevotedtothequestion oftranslation, no critical analysis is made ofan actualtranslation published within it.GivenTeplova'ssuggestion thatAndréMarcowicz'sextremely wellreceived version ofOnegin maybecomethe Frenchtranslation ofthework, one would imaginethatMarcowicz'stranslation of Tsvetaeva'sCasanova would deservesomecomment as well.However,thisis notthecase and,notbeing a specialist, I cannotspeaktoitsmerits. Teplova'sownarticle isquiteinterestingforitscomparison and analysis ofthedifferent approaches, inproseversus poetry,takenby the authorsof the fifteen extantFrenchtranslations of Onegin. Altogether, thismotley selection ofarticles does notliveup to thegrand titleof the volume,since the Francophone'world' consideredis limited essentially toParisand Geneva,and 'Russia'isrepresented almostexclusively in thedomainofthewritten word,withpractically no examination of the Frenchperception of Russia via itsmusic,art,theatreor folkor popular culture, or theRussianinterpretation ofFrancophoneculture in anyofthe¿UUlCillCllUUllCU SpilClCã. J.11C Ulli y VClllUlC 111 Ulla UllCLAlUU 10 J Siemens, whosearticleabouttherestoration ofcountry estate tantalizing coupleofpagesbutthenlosescoherence, disintegra mane uy inicua :sopenswitha tingintoretelling ine iinKS oeiween various esiaies anu liierary creations wiiuc auaiiuuiiing itsprofessed subject. StCatherine's College AnnaWinestein University ofOxford Williams, Rowan. Dostoevsky: Language, FaithandFiction. Continuum, London 2008.xiii+ 290 pp. Notes.Bibliography. Index.£16.99. This is a profoundand powerfully reasonedstudyof thosefundamental moralandreligious questions so urgently posedbyDostoevskii's majorfiction. RowanWilliams, Archbishop ofCanterbury, a former academicwho knows Russianand is versedin thetheology oftheEasternChurch,comesto the reviews 737 taskwithuniquequalifications. Dostoevskii combined hisOrthodoxfaith with a remarkably modernconsciousness. He was acutelyaware of thespiritual malaise afflicting his society, the besetting moral problemsof the human condition, and whatlossofthesacredportends fortheworld.Contemplating our increasingly secularized,contemporary society,Williamsis similarly worriedthatitsspiritual, moralcapitalis diminishing, slipping away,being trivialized, leavinguswithout a senseofwhatwe 'owe toeach other', withno relation orloyalty toanyhigher values(p. i). He doesDostoevskii thehonour ofthinking and seeingintohisworld, oftrying tounderstand hispurposes, his meanings, in order'to bringus wherehe wantsus tobe' (p. 14).As Williams observes, Dostoevskii is notprimarily concernedwitharguments about the existenceof God. Rather,withhis depictionsof the 'extremes of failure, suffering and desolation', he impelsus toimagine'whata worldwithout faith lookslike',and whatlivingin thelightoffaith might be like(pp.1,4). This leads Williamsinto a penetrating and wide-ranging explorationof how Dostoevskii understands and represents the diabolicaland the holyin his fiction.This focus yieldsa wealth of arresting insightsand compelling arguments. We can onlytouchon a few. WilliamsbeginswiththequestionofwhereDostoevskii locatesChristin relation tothetruth and convincingly showsthat, throughout hisfiction, truth 'outsideofChrist'entails lying'aboutthehumancondition', withdestructive consequencesforhumanlife(pp.30, 229). In his second chapter,'Devils', Williams focuses on howDostoevskii conceivesand represents hischaracters' struggles withthedemonic,withexamplesbrilliantly drawnfromTheDevils and TheBrothers Karamazov. The diabolicalis above all thatwhichsilences, closesoffdialogue,endsnarrative and history, lies,enslaves;itis theenemy of hope and reconciliation, and strivesfor disembodiment and the 'derealization ' ofthepersonand theabandonment ofthisworld'sreality (p. 108). In Dostoevskii all thosewhohavefallen underthepowerofthediabolicare, as Williams putsit,'deathbound'.Dostoevskii offered Williamsan outstanding exampleof how writing fiction from'theperspective of faith'can free humanlanguageand imagination (p.5). Here Williamsbringsin Mikhail Bakhtin's ideas on Dostoevskii. They are underpinned by whatone might call a theology of dialogue,by Christological categories shotthrough with 'theological resonances' and a use of'theological modelsand idioms'(pp.213, 138-39).LanguageinDostoevskii isthemediumforensuring thecontinuation ofdialogueintheworldand thusforopposing thediabolical.Dialogueresists closure,all absolute finalization, and creates that indeterminacy which guaranteesfreedom,that keeps human potentialsand futuresopen. As Williamssuccinctly putsit: 'ifthe Devil's aim is silence,God's is speech' (p. 113).Dostoevskii's characters alwaysstandforsomething larger thanthemselves .This has to do withhisproviding themwithwhatWilliamsaptlycalls a 'background plentitude' lyingbeyondtheirspecificsituations, and from whichDostoevskii resources hisfiction (p. 149).Thereisalsothereality oflove and goodnessin Dostoevskii's fiction, of a stancetowardslifethatis 'lifebound '(p. 147).Williams finds inDostoevskii's central moralidea that'all are responsible forall' a position from whichto approachtheproblemof'what we owe each other'.Dostoevskii presents thedifficulty and necessity oflove 738 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 2OO9 forhumanflourishing, a lovethatis open to theotherand ultimately 'theologically rooted'(p. 174).In hisfinalchapter,he examinesthoseaspectsof representing andrecognizing theholythatarepeculiartotheEasternChurch and whichunderlieDostoevskii's theology of theincarnation...