Seeking Harmony Between Slavic Culture and Latin Tradition Cultural Orientation Seeking Teaching Synthesis Card. Thomas Spidlik, S.J. (Translation by Carol Elias and Br. Vit Fiala, OFM) Originally published in Issue XIV of Vulgata, July 2004.

1. The Problem of the “second Europe”

In order for us to grasp the situation in Europe, we need to return to the distant past.

In the year 286, Diocletian divided the Roman Empire into two parts, East and West.  The intention of this move was solely administrative but as time went on, this act had a great political consequence.  Differences emerged between these two parts of the empire and antagonism arose.  In addition to this, new “barbarian” nations entered the stage of history; as they became Christian they united themselves with one of the Churches, East or West.

We notice that the separation between these two parts of the empire is definite in the ninth century.  At this time, however, a great number of Slavic tribes came rushing in, and they settled in the area between the East and West.  The mission of Cyril and Methodius was expected to bring an extraordinary solution: the creation of a new “central-church” which would become a bridge between the East and the West.  However, the mission did not bring the expected results.  The Slavic people entered on the stage of a world which was already greatly divided.  Thus, it happened that, instead of becoming a bond, they, themselves, divided into two Churches and two cultures.  To this day, then, there are Eastern and Western Slavs.

Today we might ask ourselves a question, “Should the two Europes continue in the old conflict, or should we consider them as complementary?”

Let us put aside political interests and examine this question from a purely religious perspective.  Let us ask concretely, “In what way can the Slavic tradition enrich the Latin culture?"  Let us ponder some typical problems.

2. The Living and Personal Truth

When, during the reign of Peter the Great (1725), the Russian “intelligentsia” chose the path of enculturation, it made an effort to imitate the West, which, at this time of history, appeared to be more rationalistic and enlightened.  The Russian followers of Hegel, Schelling and some socialists chose this path.

This inflated “Europe-ism” often initiated a deep personal crisis among Russian thinkers.  The analytical thinking of Europeans appeared to them to be desperately scattered.  They could not perceive of any unity in it.  Consequently, a sad discovery resulted: where there is no unity, there is no life.  Thus, the rationalistic European culture brings disintegration and death.

The Slavs, on the other hand, have always felt that true reality is an organic and vibrant unity.  Therefore, he who does not understand this, they say, has no right to speak about “truth.”

The word “truth”, itself, says Florensky, (whose main work Stolp i utver0d0nie istiny was translated into various languages) is sufficiently characteristic to express the mentality of different nations.  The Greek term is alétheia.  It developed from the privative, disputing alpha and from the root léthos, lathos, which marks that which has been forgotten and hidden.  Truth, then, is that which we “have discovered.”

Such is the truly firm conviction of the scientific European civilization.  The nations using and speaking the Roman language also adapted it, even though, there the word “truth” has an entirely opposite root.  Veritas denotes mystery, taboo (see the German wehren, defend, and Slavic vera, faith).  For the Jews, who defended the heritage of Divine Revelation, the basis of reality is the Word of God.  For this reason “truth” is marked as emes, emet (see aman, to trust amen), which is a word in which we trust.

The old Slavic term for “truth” is istina.  It is related to the Latin est, which means “that which exists” but also it is related to the Sanskrit asmi, asti or German atmen, which means to breathe, to live.  In the root of every “truth”, then, must be something that lives, breathes.  To seek “the truth” means to begin a new dialogue with someone, thus “truth” is about communication. [1]

3. The Slavic Vitality

The unchanging quality of eternal ideas dazzled Plato.  The Scholars dreamed about developing a lasting philosophy, philosophia peneris, which would be a collection of all that is valid for eternity.  Perhaps that is the reason why it never had true success among the Slavs who have always felt drawn by diversity of living forms, changes, and a continuous development of life.  “All was moving slowly, regularly,” writes B. Pasternak,[2]  “as a river flows (…); also the clouds flowed the same direction and even the fields were not without a movement; something was constantly moving, there was something boiling, which somehow itched”.  A text with similar inspiration can be often found in Slavic literature.  V. G. Belinsky (+1848), a founder of Russian socialism, characterized his thoughts with the words “eternal movement”.  The Great Russian Pasha of Rimsky-Korsakov, in music, expresses a nostalgic person who is deeply moved by the changes with which he lives, and soon after he dies, he is buried into “the pure womb of mother raw earth”.

The consciousness of the Slavic people is jolted by opposites: on the one hand there is confidence that the foundation of reality is life, but this life appears as a long line of sufferings.  A man who, above everything else, loves life and at the same time experiences suffering which brings life, finds salvation only by the one who was able to join suffering with the beatific vision of eternal life.  Belinsky, alone, who expected so much from the future society which merged from the social and political reforms of Russia, finally understood that for “the renewal of humanity it is necessary that, above the chaos of death and decay, mankind hears the words of the Son of Man which are full of mercy:  ‘Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest’ (Mt. 11:28).” [3]   Therefore, the Slavic vitality differs from the analogical movements of the West; it is joined to the mysticism of death and suffering.

This summary could serve as an introduction to the novel Cancer Ward of A. Solzhenitsyn, in which it seems at first, that no religious consideration stands out. [4]   This is the famous writer who also wrote The Gulag Archipelago, which is a shocking portrayal of the reality of suffering that people have to face in a society based on violence and tyranny. Cancer Ward is different.  No one wants to kill anybody.  On the contrary, people lovingly making a sacrifice want to save all the ill.  There are young and old, past political prisoners, and also members of the Communist party.  All desire to live, but at the same time, all wait for their death.  What is the outcome?  The writer does not offer any moral conclusion, but we read it between the lines: without the vision of eternal life, the human life on earth seems like a hospital quarters for people with cancer. The sanatorium differs from the concentration camp only by the method with which they are dealt and for this reason their suffering is only prolonged.  The people have nothing in common except the desire to live.  Everything else separates them.  Furthermore, if in the end there is no eternal life, the honorable work of the physicians and nurses seems absurd.

4. Religious Personalism

 In order for the truth to be alive, it must be personal, human.  In order to be eternal it must be human-divine, i.e. identified with Christ-Truth.  Slavs do not easily accept religion that is expressed in abstract notions or mere theoretical teachings.  In the introduction to his famous thesis Crisis of Western Philosophy, [5]  Solovyev writes: “This book is based on the conviction that philosophy as an abstract knowledge, solely theoretical, has ended its development and irrevocably belongs to the past.” [6]

The book of Solovyev analyzes European thinking.  It begins with John Scotus Eriugena and ends with German Hegelianism.  Solovyev discovers a century long attempt, progressive but more and more hopeless, to translate the spiritual vision of the world in rational terms; and still worse, later, to consider the spiritual vision to be a scientific experience and describe and measure it with positive methods.  It cannot arrive at a different result than atheism.  When we get rid of personal contemplation, we also get rid of its subject: God the Father.

In order to save the wholeness of a person in this atomistic world there is no other way than a return to the vision of Christ and move away from the superficial phenomenon of the misleading schemas which our secularized world offers.  This is a common thought of the Slavic religious thinkers.  Their forethought has not yet been adequately estimated.

5. Social Anthropology

The teachings of the Stoics about the social character of man were adopted by the Greek Fathers of the Church and they developed their fullness within the ecclesiological realm.  The Eastern Christian Monks repeated the same beliefs in order to defend the necessity of social life in the coenobitic monasteries. [7]

Precisely this type of religious life dominated in Russia, and it seems that it corresponded best to the sociological structure of the nation.  In the Russian villages, lying at a distance from each other, a common work supported the collective thinking which exhibited itself in the spiritual field.  Dostoyevsky expressed it in a sentence: “All are responsible for all.”  He paraphrased an old Russian saying: “This or that farmer would not enter paradise alone, only people from the whole village would enter together.”

The thinkers of the twentieth century developed this topic from various points of view.  The first conclusion can be derived on the moral field.  Sin is identified simply by egoism, a closing into oneself; whereas all virtues are based on love. [8]

This moral position is developed from considerations about a human person.  The Aristotelian philosophy defined personhood to be an independent, autarkic, and relative-independence.  This terminology should epitomize freedom, without which the existence of a person is unthinkable.  However, can freedom really develop in isolation?  A completely different vision opens up in the light of faith, as revealed by the Most Holy Trinity.  Within the Divine life there are not Three Divine Persons who are isolated.  On the contrary, they are joined together in mutual relationships: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The Russian thinkers are convinced that human persons also can achieve perfection only if they will follow this honorable ideal.  Humans are “social” beings because they are created in the image of God, who is a “society”.

The thoughts of the poet V. Ivanov can serve as an example.  He expressed his opening principle with a short aphoristic sentence: Tu es ergo sum.  “You are and therefore I am also.  I cannot be without you, and I cannot exist outside you.  I have no intention of being without you because to be separated from you brings me confusion.  I discover that I would diminish.  I would be emptied of my freedom by this separation.  However, you desire that I am.  I cannot, then, destroy Your name which seems to deny me.  But, in a reality it means that I truly exist only when I am in relationship to You.  Your name is my I am; it is becoming a consuming fire; let it not become the Cain’s mark on my forehead, but, on the contrary, a seal of your Fatherhood.” [9]

This social thought leads us into a new mystery.  The Other is God and thus it leads us into the divine life but it appears also as the human other, our neighbor.  We have to open ourselves to others in order to find ourselves.  This is the essence of the Church.

“Within the Church” says A. S. Chomyakov (+1860), “one finds oneself and one’s own perfection, or better said, one finds that which is perfect within oneself the divine inspiration, which constantly disappears in a coarse existence of individualism.” [10]   Chomyakov and also other “slavyanophilos” often speak about mutual love which must remain one of the bases of all juridical and church structures.

This noble understanding of human society, the theologian Florensky believes, is unfortunately constantly disturbed with the old Trinitarian heresies.  The heretics of the earliest centuries felt that they had explained the union which is between the Father and the Son with the term homoioúsios: meaning the Son “resembled” the Father.  The Church refuted this heresy by defining that he is homoúsios, “of the same nature with the Father.”  Florensky thinks that the old heresy survives also today in the field of sociology.  We defend social rights because we “resemble each other” white or black, educated or ignorant.  But precisely this resemblance often misleads us.  Besides, it is not this which is the foundation of faith.  We have to be convinced that we are “one” in the mystical body of Christ, even though we do not resemble each other. [11]

A person who believes that he is alone, who closes himself into himself and announces himself to be autonomous, enters into a closed circle, remains isolated without any connection to others, as if imprisoned.  Ecstasy (meaning exit from the self) is thus the essential element of human life, in order that one finds his “social I.”

6. Seeking the Revived World

 The Greek Fathers possess a great feeling for beauty and order in the world.  The cosmos, the Divine Work of six days (hexaemeron), is “a school for souls” in order that they learn to know God the Father.  A practical conclusion of faith and dependence on the Divine Providence flows from it.  Slavic ascetics often lived so estranged that they were accused of passivity as if they would not be interested in the re-creation of the world and modifying its development.  On the other hand, they cultivated another attitude toward the world: the art of seeing the world spiritually.  The Christian preachers of all times have reasserted the responsibility of people to accept the cosmos as a gift from God and to use it for their good.  The Western person predominantly seeks it for material benefits and affluence.  The world has become a field where technical knowledge can be used for material gain.  For this reason the Western mentality cannot understand the Slavic mysticism, the religious devotion to “the mother raw earth.”

Slavic people talk to the mother earth as to a living being.  A farmer does not consider himself to be the master of the earth but rather a humble son.  The earth then seems to be a compassionate mother who loves her children and weeps over their fate in times of calamity.  She suffers with the sufferings of man; but, at the same time she is the infinite source of strength and health.  Herbs grow from her and cure human illnesses, and she solves all problems.  And, in the end, an individual finds eternal repose within her.  It is not surprising then, that generally speaking Slavic people find it difficult to adapt themselves to a life abroad.  It is not due to patriotism in a common sense of the word but rather to atavism, which contains an element of religiosity. [12]

In modern times, Russian theologists V. Solovyev, P. Florentsky, S. Bulganov, and B. Zdenkovsky, developed this attitude in “sophiological” or “sophianical” theories.  According to the witness of P. Evdovkimov, “Sophiology is the glory of the present Orthodox theology; it is the opposite of agnostic, idealistic a-cosmism, and also materialistic evolutionism.  They see the world in a liturgical way.” [13]

G.S. Skovoda (+1794), the first representative of lay thinkers in Russia, derived a similar conclusion.  His conclusion is based on natural sciences, but he turns to the creation with this message: “We will find a new Sun behind your bad sun.  It will be gorgeous! Let there be light! … It calls, Rejoice! Trust me!  Peace be with you! Be not afraid!  I am the light of this world.  He who is thirsty, let him come to me and I will give him water.” [14]

If we ask why Christ should be the natural law of the world for a scientist, V. Solovyev explains it with prophetic clarity.  In his youth, while studying Darwin’s theory at a university, he lost his faith.  Even later when he returned to his faith, he remained a convinced follower of the theory of evolution.  Christ appears to him as necessary for the explanation of the theory of evolution.

According to him, the evolution goes like this.  In the beginning, for thousands of years, a cosmic fight of material elements and various material forms existed. During this time life also appeared.  Then a homo sapiens emerged on the earth, a creature at the same time material and spiritual.  He grew to know and to understand nature, to express material laws as ideas and concepts, and to learn and express unchangeable principles.  Through his study of natural sciences, man discovered laws in nature that were at the same time natural laws and providential, ideological laws.

Ideology, however, is not life.  Life presupposes freedom and love.  Natural science cannot explain or create these values.  Scientific evolutionary theories, however, presuppose that all discovery comes from life on the earth.  In following the scientific theory of evolution, one can predict with certainty that there must be a new step of evolution, a new “living power in the matter” which would be able to make the necessary changes to ensure freedom. [15]   This new power must be subjected to the law of necessity and at the same time it must be completely free.  Such a power is only present in the God-man, Christ.  He is the goal of world evolution.  To keep Him before our eyes is the only manner in which to understand the visible worlds.

7. The Heart, Center of the Human Being

If the dimension of human existence is so broad, then human beings must also have an inner psychological structure commensurate with this call.  Neither experimental knowledge nor analytical reason, which the Western culture so greatly esteems, are able to give a person an adequate vision of his place before God and in the universe.  This is why, the Slavic writers speak about “heart” with such emphasis.  “The notion of the heart”, says B. Veseslavcev, “has a central position in the mysticism and poetry of nations.” [16]  His contemporary P. Ivanov adds to this: “To seek nourishment for the heart means to return to God, because God himself is a Heart which embraces everything.” [17]  To be without a heart is a state which characterizes an atheist because the real contact is possible only “in the depth of my ‘I’, in the depth of the heart.” [18]

In particular, the Slavic spiritual writers of the twentieth century stand out by emphasizing the heart; this is becoming the profession of faith against “rationalism” which they accuse the Western school of thought of embracing. [19]   The Middle Ages School of Voluntarism identified the heart with the decision of the will.  To love God with all your heart (Lk. 5:27), then, for St. Thomas Aquinas means “an act of the will, which is here denoted by the heart.” [20]  On the contrary, for the Slavic writers, who are much closer to common folk, the heart means feelings.  For example, Theophan Zatvornik (Russian spiritual writer, +1894) writes: “The purpose of the heart is in feeling everything that concerns our person.” [21]  In order to explain this, he uses an example from the environment of the theater.  When an actor recites his role outside the stage, his delivery loses much of its value.  It is the same way with our abilities when they act individually and are separated from the heart. Thus Zatvornik considers the heart to be the root of human essence, a source of all other powers.

Slavs say that in the heart is “the entire spiritual activity of a person: truths receive their own character, and the good dispositions have their root there.” [22]   “If, on the other hand, the heart is separated from the spirit, one is unable to do anything.” [23]  In modern terms it could be said that one is frustrated.  Of course it is understood that unstable feelings of the body and spirit cannot have such a great importance.  Our “spiritual feelings” are stable, therefore, only when the heart beats in union with the Holy Spirit who dwells in our heart.

8. The Beauty of the Liturgy

It is said that the Slav who comes into the Temple of God desires psychologically to be surrounded by the beauty of Paradise on all sides.  He desires to be in an atmosphere in where he will forget the world and be in a place which gives him peace and consolation.  Similarly, the Slavs of the Roman rite prefer the folk-Baroque style, which is rich in forms and colors.

The mysteries of Christ’s life are often depicted on the walls of churches in order to teach and remind the people of this sacred history.  From this point of view, the function of the iconographer is linked with that of the priest.  We read in in Podliniku, a manual of sacred painting: “The sacred service of iconographical painting began with the apostles.  … A priest puts the body of Christ on the altar with the power of words …; the painter does it in painting.”  [24]

However, icons mean more than a picture for believers.  Through this medium of the visible Christ and saints, divine grace is granted; it is a type of revelation.  People pray in front of icons so that Jesus will be present.

From this point of reference, then, one can understand why an icon has supernatural power.  “In the conscience of the Church”, says L. Uspensky, “the economy of salvation is organically joined with the image.  The discipline of icons originates from the discipline of salvation, with which it is inseparably joined.” [25]

There are many icons, considered to be miraculous, which people highly esteem.  Philosopher I. Kireyevsky says, “One day I was in a chapel and I gazed at the pictures of the Mother of God (called Iberskaja, a famous Shrine in Old Moscow) and I thought about the faith of these people who prayed all around me.  … With a great trust, also, I observed the features of the holy face, and little by little the mystery of that mysterious power was clearer to me.  Yes, it is not a mere wooden board with a painting.  …  For many centuries the icon has been fed with waves of passionate movements of human hearts, and with the prayers of suffering people.  It must be filled with power which now comes from it.  …  It has become a living instrument, a meeting place of the Creator with his people.” [26]

9. No Borders

“We are enormous, as the mother Russ is enormous,” says Dostoyevsky.  The endless Russian flats give a pilgrim the feeling that there are no hindrances that he needs not stop.  On the contrary, they invite him to continue faster.  In winter time the Russians love to travel in troika, a silly ride in one direction until one is utterly exhausted.

A similar manner of intoxication can be observed also on the spiritual journey, in sin as well as in penance.  The sense of prudence, the restraint in a measure, which the Latin and the Greek cultures boast of, is lacking among the Slavs.  On the contrary, at the essence of their mentality they disdain those who are too conscientious in the application of norms.

It can be concluded that the Slavic soul is often full of opposites, just as there are great differences in the Russian climate, between winter and summer or between various locales.   N. Berdayev says, “Opposites of the Russian character have constant echoes in literature as well as in philosophical thinking.  The product of Russian creativity is twice obvious as the historical existence alone.  (…) The face of Dostoyevsky is divided just as the face of Russia is divided.  It evokes two opposite feelings.  In truth, the infinite depths with unreachable heights are mingled with some type of low impurity, lack of honor, and a spirit of slavery.  Love without measure goes hand in hand with misanthropic hate and cruelty.  The desire for absolute freedom in Christ meets with the obedience of the slaves.  Isn’t Russia alone like this?” [27]

Conclusion

How can the Slavic mentality be characterized in basic terms?  It is anthropological in its basics.  “Things” and systems are not carriers of life; only people, only living beings, can do this.  It is interesting that Slavic spiritual writers including those who do not intend to mingle the teachings of Christ with philosophy show constant awareness of anthropological problems.  It cannot be otherwise, thinks V. Lossky, “After all, it is about the revelation of a living and personal God who created man in his own image and likeness.” [28]

Because a man is created in the image of God, “painted” by the Creator himself, it is also a source of revelation, as the Greek Fathers say.  However, the Slavs, in a certain sense, turn the problem around: If we, on the one hand, find God in man, then it works also the other way around: We cannot understand man if we do not consider God.  “God is present in the vertical axis of man“, says poet V. Ivanov.

“The human phenomenon” is the primary object of Slavic thought.  Because human problems are placed in a higher sphere, there have been among the Slavs only a few humanists according to the Western meaning of the word.  And those who did exist, did not observe with interest the human desires to recreate the world a make it a better place.  Instead, they stressed this startling revelation about man: a person who isolates others, from the world and from God, can destroy himself.  Salvation consists in this, that we are able to overcome the borders of our “ego.”  Only then will we be able to say, “I am.”

___________________

Notes:

 [1] P. FLORENSKIJ, Stolp I uverženije istiny, Moscow 1917, pg. 19.
 [2] Il dottore Givago, Milan 1958, pg. 607 n.
 [3] T. ŠPIDLÍK, I grandi mistici russi, Roma 1977, pg. 333 n.
 [4] Rakovyj korpus, Paris 1968.
 [5] French translation: M. HERMAN, La crise de la philosophie occidentale, Paris 1947.
 [6] Ibid. pg. 161.
 [7] BAZIL, V?tší pravidla 7, Patrologia Graeca 31, 928-933.
 [8] See, A. POPOVSKY, K?es?anská pravoslavná morálka, Saratov, pg. 154.
 [9] V. IVANOV, List A. Pelleginimu o “u?ené zbožnosti”, Vydané spisy, Vol. III, Bruxelles 1979, pg. 444.
 [10] A. S. CHOMLJAKOV, ?Église latine et le protestantisme, Lausanne 1872, pg. 116.
 [11] P. FLORENSKIJ, Stolp…, pg. 87 n.
 [12] T. ŠPIDLÍK, I grandi mistici russi, pg. 354 n.
 [13] P. EVDOVKIMOV, La femme et le salut du monde, Tornai-Paris 1958, pg. 324.
 [14] T. ŠPIDLÍK, I grandi mistici russi, pg. 329 n.
 [15] V. SOLOVJEV, I fondamenti spirituali della vita,  Roma 1949, pg. 95 n.
 [16] B. VEŠESLAVCEV, Serdce v chrisijanskoj I indijskoj mistike,  Paris 1925, pg. 5.
 [17] P. IVANOV, Smirenie vo Christ?, Paris 1925, pg. 97
 [18] B. VEŠESLAVCEV, Serdce…, pg. 11.
 [19] T. ŠPIDLÍK, La doctrine spirituelle de Théophane le Reclus. Le Coeur et ?Esprit, Oca 172, Roma 1965, pg. XII, 20, 204.
 [20] Summa Theologica II-II, 44, 5.
 [21] ?to jes? duchovnaja žiz?, Moscow 1897, pg. 26.
 [22] Na?ertanie christijanskogo mravou?enija, Athos 1895, pg. 306.
 [23] Ibid.
 [24] Russian Podlinnik, Publ. T. Bolšakov, Moscow 1903.
 [25] L. USPENSKIJ-V. LOSSKIJ, Der Sinn der Ikonen, Bern 1952, pg. 28.
 [26] Cited from the book by N. ARSENIEW, Das heilige Moscow, Paderborn 1940, pg. 98 n.
 [27] N. BARDJAJEV, ?anima della Russia, Roma 1919, pg. 5.
 [28] V. LOSSKIJ, A? image et á la resemblance de Dieu, Paris 1967, pg. 109 n.