N. A. BERDYAEV (BERDIAEV)
RUSSIAN GOD-SEEKERS 1
(1907 - #131)
The history of Russian self-consciousness in the XIX and beginning
XX Centuries is of tremendous interest. This history is still not
written, and many a page, very dear for us, are absent, many faces
remain in the shadows, in the back alley-ways, not leading out onto
the main thorough-fares. The typical liberal and radical histories
of Russian self-consciousness have worked out their stereotypes,
they have established banal criteria for defining what is the “main
road”, what generally obtains, and much that is original,
the most of all valuable for us, has ceased to be visible, has been
omitted, has been skipped over in the book about the Russian soul.
The vital worrying of official conservatism has prevented this book
from being written, and has created in the area of thought an official
progressiveness. There was created a moribund state cabinet of the
progressive camp, a special sort of bureaucratism of consciousness,
reflecting in itself the hated bureaucratism of the state lifestyle.
Against everything, that that seemed imputable to the conservative
camp, sometimes with foundation, sometimes without basis, there
were adopted bureaucratic measures, similar to the way the government
had taken bureaucratic measures against the progressive camp. In
such manner, off and to the outside of the official-progressive
horizon of view proved to be almost the whole of Chaadaev, the Slavophils
in what was progressive in them, half of Gogol, Tiutchev, Dostoevsky,
Lev Tolstoy in part, Konstantin Leont’ev, Vl. Solov’ev,
V. V. Rozanov, Merezhkovsky, all the Russian decadents, the whole
of Russian philosophy. They penned instead an history of the progressive
self-consciousness, which they accepted as the triumph of the positivist
world-view, and all the religious cravings, essentially, fell off
by the wayside from this history, and they were treated as either
individual quirks, or as reactionary. But in history there was the
so-called “conservatism”, the non-official, the non-Katkovite,
moreso romantic than it was realistic, and in it was hidden much
wealth, many creative and not altogether “conservative”
ideas. It is necessary to get to understand these ideas and discover
these riches.
A great pining, an incessant
God-seeking is lodged within the Russian soul, and it was
expressed over the expanse of an entire century. The God-seekers
reflected our spirit, rebellious and hostile to every philistinism.
Almost the whole of Russian literature, the Russian great literature,
is a living document, witnessing to this God-seeking, to an unquenchable
spiritual thirst. There is something heart-rending and together
with this tragic in the fate of the Russian God-seekers. They
go unrecognised, misunderstood, spurned, they perish from the
torments of their languishing.
The first such God-seeker
in the XIX Century was Chaadaev, and no fate was more sad than
his. In answer to his religious thirst, his search for the Kingdom
of God, they declared him a lunatic, and then they forgot him.
He remained a stranger for both the Westernisers and the Slavophils,
for both those on the left and on the right, and successive God-seekers
failed to comprehend their kinship with him. In the school-manuals
it has become commonplace to speak a couple trite words about
the scepticism of Chaadaev in regard to Russia, and about his
going over to Catholicism, but they failed to see into the depths
of his searching, and that which was prophetic in this man --
they failed to appreciate.2 Chaadaev had a presentiment already of the passage
over of historical forms of Christianity towards the supra-historical
Universal Church. With It he connected his hope for the Kingdom
of God upon earth. In this regard, Chaadaev was to a greater degree
a precursor for Vl. Solov’ev, than for the Slavophils, although
this connection was unclear even to Solov’ev himself. Chaadaev’s
thirst senses the Universal Church and subjects to it all the
history of the world, something which torments us even now. He
was not a Catholic, nor could he be only an Orthodox, for in him
there was the potentiality of a great religious idea. Universality
upon a religious ground, the search for a theocracy -- here is
what Chaadaev bequeathed to the subsequent generations of God-seekers.
The Slavophils fared
incomparably better, they constituted an entire camp, they founded
a school of thought, and the influence of their current is felt
even in our own time. But the actual influence of the Slavophils
upon subsequent generations is a distressing drama, filled with
historical irony. The religious thirst of the Slavophils and the
mission of faith in the supreme vocation of Russia decayed into
the moribund official churchliness and the official state patriotism.
With his enormous intellect, his religious visionary dreaminess,
his aristocratic spirit, what does Khomyakov have in common with
those subsequent nationalists, all those “truly Russian
people”, the Russian groups, the “Union of Russian
People”, etc? The only thing that had historical success
was the conservative teaching of the Slavophils about sovereignty
and their false veneration of nationality as a fact, as an idealisation
of the past, and not as an ideal norm, not as something which
ought to be realised. This -- is what has obtained in the camp
of official conservatism, which has guarded the temporal in place
of the eternal. And in the progressive camp they only scoffed
at or just plain ignored the Slavophils, since before their eyes
they had only the degenerated legacy of Slavophilism. And at present,
when someone wants to get into Kireevsky, Khomyakov, K. Aksakov,
their feet tangle upon the likes of Gr. Sharapov, and they hesitate
to go further.
And Gogol, the great
God-seeker Gogol? His fate was something terrible. True, he is
esteemed by everyone as a first-class artist, he was put in the
Pantheon, but his religious torments met with general censure,
his anguish was misunderstood. He sought God and His Kingdom and
he perished amidst the inescapableness of his longing. Further
along came our great geniuses, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, having
merited world acclaim, revered by everyone, but moreso as artists,
than as God-seekers. Dostoevsky is quite still regarded with suspicion,
and the progressives do not forgive him his “reactionary”
streak. Everything, that in Dostoevsky was religious and prophetic,
everything such failed to make it out upon the main thorough-fare
of Russian history, it remained the dostoyanie-merit but of few.
And the fate of a remarkable Russian man, extraordinarily original
and talented, tormented and anguished, -- was that of Konstantin
Leont’ev, almost a genius of a reactionary, with a fate
even more pitiful than that of Chaadaev. Political fanaticism
was the undoing of Leont’ev, and no one wants to know him.
Who would guess, that in this reactionary there was something
in truth revolutionary, in whom stormed religious passions? 3 Vl. Solov’ev has begun to be appreciated now,
but this extraordinary man spent all his life isolated and ended
in gloomy despair, he lost his faith that mankind would turn itself
to God, as a sign of Christ within itself. Then there is Rozanov,
together with the religio-philosophic gatherings, and too the
most recent searchings and experiences -- all this by-passes the
main thorough-fare, it all roosts off in the corners. Why does
the God-seeking get valued so lowly, why does it evoke such derision
and malice? Or is this a thirst for something vile? Sometimes
one arrives at despair, one loses faith in mankind, the hope in
the coming of the Kingdom of God. It may be that we, being weak,
have not the gift to move hearts, nor inspire by example, but
indeed behind us stand those great and strong ones, and their
fate is sadder than ours. Some day they will write down the rightly
just history of the Russian God-seekers, whose universal thirst
will be quenched in those, for whom the hour of historical reality
draws nigh.
The God-seekers were
of little use, they were unable to give practical directives,
they did not transform stones into bread, and so there has not
been forgiven them their dreamy uselessness, their apparent inactivity.
The official conservatism had nothing in common with this religious
thirst, it declared every thirst illegal, every manifestation
of spirit it regarded with suspicion, and in essence it is merely
positivist. But the idealistic conservatism, romantic in its hostility
to everything civil and official, has lodged within it greater
spiritual values, than the official, the governmental progressiveness
and revolutionism. The civil conservatives in the spirit of Katkov
and others worshipped imperialism, they worshipped the idol of
abstract statecraft, the kingdom of this world, but the God-seekers,
even though they outwardly and to casual glance might be imputed
to the conservative camp, actually instead craved for the city
of God, they sought in this world the kingdom not of this world.
It may be that Dostoevsky and Vl. Solov’ev were tempted
by the idea of autocracy, and they displayed their political naivte
and made crude mistakes in their political arithmetic, as is apparent
now to any gymnasium school-kid, yet all the same they never worshipped
the idol of imperialism, the Katkovism, they never avowed autocracy,
as something not limited by the law of God. Government life, the
practice of official statecraft did not however recognise this
limitation of every rule of power by the law of God, and therefore
every God-seeking as such was inwardly directed against the reactionary
rule of power, against the demonic imperialism. A free theocracy,
the replacing of the state by the Church, -- was an utmost dream
of all the God-seekers, and insofar as there has never yet been
a theocracy within historical Orthodoxy, our God-seekers strove
towards an higher, a supra-historical form of Christianity.
In modern Europe there
is no such religious craving, and a different spirit has prevailed
there. There each day the spirit of the earth conquers out the
sphere of its kingdom, it deadens the age-old eternal dream about
heaven and the thirst for the meaning of life. The mechanistic
in Europe conquers everything organic, both in the theoretical
consciousness, and so also in activity. Man herein -- is an outright
machine, society -- is an outright machine, the whole of culture
-- is an improved mechanism, the whole of thought is non-organic,
is rational judgement, wherein the whole world-sense has lost
its organic centre of being. Only God’s world is
an organism, whereas the godless world, naturally improved, is
a mechanism, a pseudo-organism, a substitute for authentic life.
The prevailing European philosophy is likewise mechanistic, torn
off from the absolute centre, irreligious, just as in the prevailing
European politics. Observations upon European culture tend to
stoke the faith in Russian missionism. This missionism readily
assumes false forms, and it degenerates into the nationalism,
against which Vl. Solov’ev so brilliantly contended. Nationalism,
national self-praise and self-affirmation, the rendering of nationality
into an idol for oneself, a doltish chauvinism -- all this quite
flourishes also in the West, and in this we cannot even compare
with the French, the English and the Germans in national exclusiveness,
in national greed and self-worship. Our “truly Russian”
people -- these are people demonic and sick, evidencing for us
moreso the absence of an healthy and strong national sense, rather
than its abundance. Russian missionism, which was always present
in the Russian God-seekers, is least of all an earthly nationalism
and state self-affirmation. This missionism, intelligible only
for the religious consciousness, is totally foreign to our official
imperialism, it is opposed to it and a danger for it; those seeking
out the city of God have nothing in common with our nationalists,
statesmen and political reactionaries, tempted by the prince of
this world. In Slavophilism itself there was a twofold understanding
of the missionism: that of a religious vocation and calling, which
ought to be realised by Russia on the world stage, though it be
by way of great self-renunciation, or otherwise that of an idealisation
and regarding divine the fact of national lifestyle, i.e. a purely
pagan self-affirmation. The first sort of consciousness of a Russian
missionism was further developed by Dostoevsky, by Vl. Solov’ev,
and passed on to Merezhkovsky and the most recent God-seekers;
the second sort of consciousness was developed by Katkov, by the
state nationalists, and it passed on into reactionary obscurantism
and the “Union of the Russian People”. The missionary
consciousness is a duty, and not a privilege, an arduous historical
task, and not an outward primacy. The pagan, the non-Christian
and anti-Christian attitude towards nationality and statecraft
all still prevails, and our official conservatives, Katkovites,
nationalists, “truly Russian” people stand firmly
on the soil of this paganism and anti-Christianism.
In the revolutionary
epoch at present, the position of the God-seekers, in seeking
out the City, is very difficult, tortuous, complex. Truth has
too much become mixed up together with falsehood. It is necessary
to contend both against the official statecraft, with its reactionism,
and also against the official revolutionism, with its nihilistic
hooliganism in revolution, since both with the one and the other
there is temptation with the kingdoms of this world. Lovers of
the kingdom not of this world seem like foreigners in the bustle
and the crowd, finding themselves there no joy. All these, whether
Chaadaev, Gogol, the best of the Slavophils, Dostoevsky, Solov’ev
and the others, did not find actual and practical applications
for their extraordinary ideas, they did not find points of application,
wherein their ideas would overturn all the world; they seemed
in comparison with others to be inactive, and for matters of this
world poorly adapted. All of them rendered unseen a great deed,
but they did not bequeathe us clear methods of visible historical
activity. And we too stand helplessly before a great historical
task. In the official-progressive and Westerniser camp only infrequently
is there to be encountered any hidden God-seeking, always instead
there is the veiled-over struggle against God, and the ideas of
this camp in the majority of instances are banal, but they had
with them clear methods of action, techniques for liberation,
and with them there is much that might be learned whether for
Dostoevsky, or Vl. Solov’ev, and all the other people of
this type. When the Slavophils made a great practical deed (participation
in the emancipation of the serfs), they then worked in concert
with the Westernisers; whereas, their own original methods almost
always were mistaken or utopian.
Someone once mentioned about the day and night aspect in the history
of Russian self-consciousness, in our searchings, in our literature.
With us only the day part obtained an official right to existence,
and was acknowledged as progressive. In this day aspect of the
history there is little that is original, it all follows along
on its trite models, though too it served a needed and useful
service. But our God-searching has transpired as though in the
night, amidst the light of the stars, and not by that of the sun.
Nocturnal -- is all the poetry of Tiutchev, all the creativity
of Dostoevsky. Nocturnal -- is all the Russian metaphysics and
mysticism. For people of the day and daytime work, the nocturnal
represents all the consciousness of the religious meaning of life.
Only the nocturnal, the transcendent, the supra-empirical consciousness
leads to the sensing of God, though in it too can be manifest
the devil (about this, much can be learned in Dostoevsky). Amidst
the night, the trans-rational, we do not reason upon the darkness
and gloom, but on something higher, passing beyond the bounds
of the consciousness of this world. To transform the nocturnal
insight and vision into the mighty powers of the daytime sun --
in this is our great task, perhaps, our historical mission. The
rift between the “nocturnal” and the “daytime”
consciousness, a dualism of the transcendent and the immanent
-- is likewise a sickness of spirit, and in it is all our tragedy.
It is exactly as when in oversleeping we waken from the night-time
dreams and our eyes are in a blind daze, and our mind is tormented
by the fright of actuality, by the terror of the reality of day.
We are powerless to transfer to the daytime God’s truth,
as borne from out of the nocturnal searchings. The Russian missionism,
lodged within the night, the transcendent consciousness of the
finest Russian people, is shaken to its roots by the immediacy
of day.
There has been
lost faith in the people, which proved such a slave on the day
of its emancipation. How could the God-bearing people in a notable
extent prove so nihilistic hooligan-like or be so black-souled
rowdy? How could the sacred standard of liberation become polluted
with criminal acts, wild licentiousness and brazen impudence?
Hath the people, as a mystical organism, said its say, and where
is it, this great people? The Social-Revolutionary fabrications
of the people’s soul just as little resemble -- the people,
as do the fabrications of the state-cabinets. We believe, that
the people is neither the Black Hundreds nor the Red Hundreds.
Within the people there has always been suchlike a religious thirst,
amongst those lower down in national life, in Russian sectarianism,
and in the people’s Orthodox piety there has been the same
God-seeking and God-responsiveness, that there is at the summits
of the people’s organism, with the God-seeker thinkers,
artists and prophets.
But, perchance, in
our nocturnal visionary dreams and insights has there been a greater
reality, an absolute reality, than that which exists in daily
activity? Those, who believe in the sole finality of empirical
activity, may laugh at our questions, but they will not have the
last laughs. It is not about romantic dreams that are being discussed,
for even without this we have had sufficient of such, but rather
about actual, real, to the utmost a directing with real power
the awareness of God to history, to the fate of Russia and the
world. If we and our predecessors were all only mere up in the
air, day-dreamy God-seekers, then it would be ludicrous to speak
of real power and historical action. But we indeed speak about
that God-seeking, which also together with this was a God-finding,
a coming upon and following of God: the religious future in these
searchings is bound up with the religious past, which is imbued
already with an absolute and utmost reality, an uniquely absolute,
unrepeatable, salvific and redemptive fact of world history. With
Christ, with the faith in Christ the God-Man, our Saviour, is
bound up the Russian religious movement, the seeking of the Kingdom
of God, the thirst for the God-manly path of developement; in
Him, and only in Him is all our hope, and the possibility for
us to become a real force in history.
The movement follows from
whence Christ leads, apart from Christ it would be bereft of all
reality. But the martyrs of the new religious thirst have awaited
and await the fulfilling of the promise and prophecies about the
Kingdom of God even upon the earth. Often along unperceived and
varied pathways, from varied and quite apparently contrary scenes
of modern culture there occurs the working out in consciousness
and the preparation in practice of a new idea of theocracy, neither
Catholic nor Old Testament, alike opposed to both the Western
Papocaesarism and the Eastern Caesaropapism. At the various ends
of culture there is conceived an awareness of dissatisfaction
and apprehension at the dissociated and abstract being, the impossibility
and the madness of human self-affirmation and self-deification.
A melancholy anxiety is taking hold, close like to that, with
which the ancient world was sickened in its era of decline and
decay. The most refined summits of culture are grasping at mysticism,
a mysticism chaotic, anarchistic and irreligious, just as remote
from worldly meaning, as are also positivism and materialism.
Contemporary trans-cultural man is experiencing a profound spiritual
decadence, the loss of an objective, absolutely real, religious
meaning of life and he substitutes for it his subjectively contrived
meaning.
The ultimate liberation
is possible only by God-manhood, and the ultimate joy is possible
only in God. From this perspective of consciousness there inevitable
results a twofold attitude towards revolution, towards the worldwide
liberation movement, now bursting forth upon Russia. The humanistic
side of revolution, the liberation of man from slavery, the affirmation
of the rights of man and the unconditional significance of the
human person is part of the truth of God-manhood. But the abstract
and exclusively self-affirming humanism, an humanism, which would
idolise the human element as a god, passes over as something not
only godless, but also inhuman. The revolutionaries, the humanists
and atheists too often with an inhuman ferocity struggle against
man, they do not respect the human person, and they lay waste
the human soul. The very idea of the inalienable rights of man
and the unconditional value of the human person cannot be affirmed
on the grounds of an abstract humanism, it presupposes inevitably
an higher and supra-human will. To spurn God and the God-Man --
this means together with this to spurn both mankind and man as
the idea of God. The natural man of nature is still a beast, the
offspring of a chaotic element, a child of death and decay, not
a person still; the natural mankind of nature is still impersonal,
subject to the law of hostility and decay, a phantasmic being.
Only the God-Man was a true and absolutely real Divine Man, and
a true, absolutely real Divine Mankind can only be in God-manhood.
All our God-seekers, whether consciously or unconsciously, sought
after God-manhood, they moved towards a sociability of God-manhood
and therefore they seemed foreign to a sociability merely human,
they gave the impression of being lovers of God and as it were
seeming indifferent towards mankind.
The conditional, the
superficial criteria of conservatism and progressivism, of the
right and of the left, are inapplicable to these searches, ineffective
for this spirit. One can but say, that a thousand times more radical
are those, which go down deep to the very roots of being, who
get to the transcendent fundaments of all phenomena, rather than
those, that accept the phenomenality as the essence, and see not
the roots.
To go
along the path not only of an European but also a world liberation
does not signify an as yet for certain becoming subject to vulgarisation,
to philistinism and spiritual devastation, as tended to think
Konstantin Leont’ev, an odd, extraordinarily gifted reactionary
and genuine God-seeker. Russian God-seekers, perhaps, as no one
nowhere, sensed the absolute void of emptiness in the end-point
of the natural, the merely human progress, and they were terrified
at the shrill vividness of their insight. But this was indeed
only one side of the world developement -- a foreseeing of the
kingdom of the prince of this world. There is also another side
-- the prophecy about the Kingdom of God upon earth, into which
will enter everything good that was created and conceived in the
world. And there can be further developed the invested pledges
of an organic thought and an organic world-sense.
These rich investments we see in Russian literature, in Russian
philosophy, in the unique religiosity of the Russian people and
in the religious searchings of the finest segment of the Intelligentsia,
creative investments, prophetic about the future. It has fallen
to our lot to undergo onerous tribulations, but a great people
has need of such trials, in order to prove the strength of its
spirit. At present the very idea of the people has been shaken;
the religious idea of the people as an integrally whole organism
has been falsified by both the right and the left, it has had
substituted for it various classes, social classes and every sort
of social category. The will of the people has become splintered,
fragmented, unseen by us, and everyone alike takes cover under
the veil of the people’s will: with it all justify themselves
the Black Hundreds, and the Red Hundreds, and the government,
and the people’s freedom parties. Two Dumas have already
expired, and neither one of them has discovered the authentic
and mighty will of the people, there has been discovered only
dissonance and discord. The people’s will has sickened with
a grievous illness, and this inward infirmity can hardly be doctored
with but outward, politically-abstract measures. Then only will
the people’s will be integrally whole and organic, then
only can it find itself expression and fulfillment, surmounting
the malice and hatred, when it inwardly becomes conjoined together
with the will of God, when it becomes a God-manly will, and not
merely human a will.
We do not share the earthly
utopias of other dreamers and we believe it to be a poor thing
the general deification of mankind, though also we ought to aspire
to this. But we believe and we hope that there will be discerned
the God-manly centre of world history and around it will coalesce
the full scope of God-manly life. Vl. Solov’ev, in whom
there was much of the prophetic, finely said, that if prior to
Christ the world moved towards the God-Man, then after Christ
the world moves towards God-manhood. When upon the world historical
path there acutely arises the problem of God-manhood, when the
purely human paths will have been traversed, when the godless
efforts yield all their results, when religious anguish takes
hold on people not only separate and as it were torn off from
the great historical path, and there be many, whole masses, whole
peoples, then they will remember the Russian God-seekers. These
names, sometimes forgotten and always misunderstood by people,
will be inscribed onto the list of heroes of world liberation,
not an illusionary, but quite real liberation. The anguish of
the God-seekers will be appeased. “Blessed are they that
hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shalt be satisfied”.
Nikolai Berdyaev
1907
© 2001 by translator Fr. S. Janos
Permission granted for non-commercial distribution
(1907 - 131(4) -en)
RUSSKIE BOGOISKATELI. Published originally in “Moskovskii
ezhenedel’nik”, 1907, No. 29, p. 18-28, (Klep. #131).
Article was included and republished thereafter within the 1910
Berdyaev book, “Dukhovnyi krisis intelligentsii” (“Spiritual
Crisis of the Intelligentsia”) (Klep.# 4). My translation
is from the 1998 Moscow “Kanon” republished
edition of the “Dukhovnyi krisis intelligentsii”,
p. 35-45, -- whether this follows the pagination of the original
1910 text is not clear. I have not reproduced the many scholarly
footnotes of the 1998 editor, since my intent is to preserve and
present the integrity of Berdyaev’s own original text; also
as not to infringe copyright rights of the 1998 editor’s
(V. V. Sapov’s) own work, at this interim point in time.
1
Originally published in “Moskovskaya ezhenedel’nika”,
28 July 1907.
2
Not so long ago, M. Gershenson opened up almost all that there
was in Chaadaev within his articles in “Voprosi Zhizn”
for the year 1905, and in “Vestnik Evropy” for the
year 1906. And thereafter the work of Gershenson came out as a
separate book.
3
Here however there ought to be mentioned the remarkable thinker
Fedorov, a bit strange and with flashes of genius, having had
influence upon Vl. Solov’ev and deeply revered by him. In
Fedorov is seen already a passage over towards a new religious
consciousness. Concerning Fedorov, vide the interesting book by
V. a. Kozhevnikov, which regrettably was published not gratis
for free, as was the work of Fedorov himself.
|