THE «OBVIOUSNESS» OF THE TRUTH IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIAN THOUGHT. M. Levitt

Transcription

1 236 THE «OBVIOUSNESS» OF THE TRUTH IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIAN THOUGHT M. Levitt For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator. Wisdom of Solomon 13: 5 First follow NATURE, and your Judgment frame By her just Standard, which is still the same: Unerring Nature, still divinely bright, One clear, unchang d, and Universal Light... Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism We hold these truths to be self-evident Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence Видимый нами мир сей уверяет о бесконечной мудрости Божией. Phrase illustrating the word «vidimyi» (visible) in the Slovar Akademii Rossiiskoi (1789) T he staring point for much of Russian philosophical and theological thinking in the eighteenth century is quite simple and basic: namely, that to any unbiased observer, the truth is obvious. The evidence of the senses particularly «the noblest of the senses,» vision offers incontrovertible evidence of the rational structure of the universe, and hence proof of God s existence. While such ideas may seem naïve or outlandish to us today, they underwrote the age s fundamental belief in reason. On the one hand, pre- M. Levitt, 2003.

2 M. Levitt 237 Kantian philosophy reflected a modernized version of scholastic cosmology and a quasi-aristotelean teleological argumentation about the orderly, hierarchical nature of the universe, represented for example, in the works of Christian Wolff. 1 On the other hand, Enlightenment thought was caught in a kind of ontological and epistemological loop, going back to the way Descartes had posed the central problems of modern philosophy. Descartes ultimate criterion for knowledge, the well known formula of «clear and indubitable truth,» is itself self-verifying, as it posits an inner faculty (e.g. «the light of nature,» which in turn depended on scholastic proofs of God s existence). Thus the «proofs» of the objectivity of reason necessarily depend to some degree on individual subjective perception. Discussing Fenelon s debt to Descartes, one of his contemporaries noted that «Fenelon has fallen into the same vicious circle as his leader: Reason is to demonstrate the existence of God, and God to guarantee the validity of Reason they presuppose what they set out to justify.» 2 Reason is the only tool accepted and needed to prove God s existence and goodness, but without God s existence Reason cannot be validated (so as to extricate us from the solipsistic cul de sac of the «cogito»). Nevertheless, for many the authority of reason was just as solid and obvious as the evidence of sight. Before I continue, I should note that the argument I am putting forward here about eighteenth-century Russian «occularcentrism» 3 contradicts most accounts of the history of Russian philosophy. Mikhail Miaitskii, one of the few scholars to examine «the problem of visuality» in Russian culture, for example, has recently written that The path of secularizing the invisible, its domestication, its justification in terms of the visible in a word, the path that was considered Western in Russia was unacceptable for Russian thought. This unacceptability is embodied in the anathematizing of obviousness (anafema ochevidnosti) 4 Such a conclusion is understandable, insofar as as Maitskii here holds «Russian thought» is constituted by the philosophical school that formed in the later nineteenth century, a philosophical tradition that as a rule also rejected the eight- 1 On Wolff in Russia, see Khristian Vol f i russkoe vol fianstvo, a special number of Filosofskii vek: Al manakh, 3 (St. Petersburg, 1998); and Khristian Vol f i filosofiia v Rossii, ed. V.A. Zhuchkov (St. Petersburg, 2001). 2 Stafford H. St. Cyres, François de Fenelon (Port Washington, N.Y., 1970), pp The term was coined by Martin Jay, author of the fundamental study Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (Berkeley, CA, 1993). 4 Mikhail Maiarskii, «Nekotorye pokhody k probleme vizual nosti v russkoi filosofii,» Logos 6 ([Moscow] 1995), p. 57. Maiatskii notes contemporary scholarship s «complete lack of consideration» of the problem of the visual in Russia (p. 48).

3 238 M. Levitt eenth century as «un-russian» and «Western.» We take a contrary position: both that one may legitimately speak of eighteenth-century Russian thought, and that the visual played a uniquely privileged role in it. Furthermore, we would suggest that the Russian preoccupation with sight was not merely a Western import, a naïve or provincial version of Descartean metaphysics, but had deep roots in traditional Orthodox theology, in which the justification of vision (in connection with the defense of icons) played a central role. 1 Moreover, one cannot fully appreciate the later nineteenth-century philosophical and cultural tradition that declared obviousness to be anathema without taking into account the fact that it represented a profound dialectical negation of the preceding cultural configuration. Only in this light may one appreciate the very tenacity of the later tradition s «logocentrism,» its turn away from Sight in favor of the Word. In a short article, I cannot, of course, offer an extended defense of these ideas, which will be developed in a forthcoming book. In the following I will focus on what was known in the eighteenth century as «physico-theology,» the idea that the existence of God and the rational structure of the universe may be demonstrated by the self-evident evidence of the visible world. 2 I will take my main evidence from Lomonosov, and center on his adaptation of classical philosophical sources (especially Cicero). In eighteenth-century Russia the ideas of «physico-theology» were universally accepted and may be found in numerous scientific and philosophical texts, in poetry (religious as well as what is often referred to as «naturephilosophical» verse), as well as in sermons and other theological works. In Lomonosov s writing, as in many of these others, there was no clear boundary be- 1 See, for example, Jaroslav Pelikan, «The Senses Sanctified: The Rehabilitation of the Visual,» chapter 4 in Imago Dei: The Byzantine Apologia for Icons (Princeton, 1990). 2 For an excellent exposition of this philosophical tradition, with emphasis on Germany, see Thomas P. Saine, The Problem of Being Modern, or, The German Pursuit of Enlightenment from Leibniz to the French Revolution (Detroit, 1997). Perhaps the most comprehensive exposition of physictheological ideas in eighteenth-century Russia was Trediakovskii s unpublished poem Feoptiia ili dokazatel stvo o bogozrenii po veshcham sozdannogo estestvo (which we may paraphrase as «Feoptiia or Proof of God s Existence by Means of Visual Evidence from His Natural Creation»). This visual theodicy in verse, inspired by Leibniz and Alexander Pope, was largely based on Fenelon s Traité de l existence et des attributs de Dieu (1712, 1718). See note 6 below. The Traité was among the most popular French expositions of physico-theological ideas, and evidently also known in Russia, as suggested by Kantemir s paraphrase entitled «Letter on Nature and Man» (1743; unpublished until 1868). Other physico-theological tracts that appeared in Russia include: «Razmyshlenie o velichestve bozhiem, po koliku onoe prilezhnym razsmotreniem i ispytaniem estestva otkryvaetsia,» Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia k pol ze i uveselieniiu sluzhashchiia, noiabr, 1756, pp (a translation); Dm. Anchikov, Rassuzhdenie iz natural noi bogoslovii o nachale i proisshestvii natural nogo bogopochitaniia (Moscow, 1769), reprinted in Izbrannye proizvedeniia russkikh myslitelei vtoroi poloviny XVIII veka, vol. 1 (Moscow, 1952); and Iermonakh Apollos (Baibakov), Evgeont, ili sozertsanie v nature bozhiikh vidimykh del (Moscow, 1782).

4 M. Levitt 239 tween science and theology, literature and philosophy, and between «natural philosophy» and «natural theology» («estestvennoe» or «natural noe» «bogoslovie»). Тhe physico-theological tradition was thus a meeting ground and melting pot for generically heterogeneous works of natural science, poetry, and philosophy and for chronologically disparate trends, a peculiarly early modern blend of classical, Christian (Eastern and Western), and Enlightenment ideas. A useful place to start is Lomonosov s Rhetoric (Short Guide to Oratory), first published in 1748, revised in 1765, and republished seven times during the eighteenth century. As an example of a «conditional syllogism» (uslovnyi sillogizm) Lomonosov offers a seven-page proof of God s existence as demonstrated by the visible world. While presented as an exercise in formal logic, loosely based on Cicero s dialogue On the Nature of the Gods, the substance of Lomonosov s arguments very much reflected the thinking of the age. Cicero s work, which has been termed his Summa theologica, had a major impact on both the medieval Christian tradition (especially via St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas), as well as on the growth of modern philosophy from Grotius and Descartes to Montesquieu, Locke and Hume. 1 The syllogistic logic concerning interlocking parts deriving from a rational being, as well as its application to the question of God s existence the so-called «argument from design» were accepted not only by Cicero, but also by the Early Christian world. These ideas made a dramatic comeback in the Early Modern period in the wake of the challenge of the new science to the old Medieval cosmography. As Thomas Saine has noted, with the demise of Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, the even older Epicurean atomist model which it had displaced, and whose arguments had long seemed scientifically discredited as well as morally anathema, now suddenly took on dangerous new plausibility. Seemingly outmoded and long-resolved arguments against the Epicurian position assumed new relevance. 2 Texts like On the Nature of the Gods, which iterated the position of the Sophists against the Epicureans, many of whose arguments had been taken up by the Church Fathers centuries before, also took on new importance. Cicero s detailed discussion of the various arguments proving God s existence, excerpted by Lomonosov, were typologically similar and historically connected to various aspects of the Russian Orthodox tradition that validated the occularcentric suppositions of the age. The syllogism that Lomonosov sets out to demonstrate is the following: If something consists of parts, of which each one depends on another for its existence, [that means that] it was put together by a rational being. The visible world 1 Paul MacKendrick, with the collaboration of Karen Lee Singh, The Philosophical Books of Cicero (New York, 1989), chap Saine, The Problem of Being Modern, p. 37.

5 240 M. Levitt consists of such parts, of which each one depends on another for its existence. It follows that the visible world was created by a rational being. 1 The ideas expressed in this tripartite syllogism two premises and conclusion had far-reaching influence in the eighteenth century, and provided a basic theological framework for its faith in the validity of the world that we see. To cite from Lomonosov s working out of the second premise of the syllogism: But let us take a look at the marvelous enormity of this visible world and at its parts: do we not see everywhere the mutual connection of things whose very being benefits one another? Do not the mountains height and the valleys inclination serve so that the water that comes together from their springs creates streams and finally unites in rivers? And rivers, which themselves stretch out over the broad earth like the manifold branches of a thick tree, small and large united, so as to water and bathe the inhabitants spread out over the land and with its movement to connect the human race for its mutual benefit? (VII: ) The discussion of water circulation continues for several pages, covering the role of the heavenly bodies, plants, seeds, and then goes on to discuss the arrangement of the human body and its sense organs. Part of the efficacy of the «mutual connection and benefits» argument evidently came from the sheer mass of examples and rhetorical variations on a theme (often presented, as above, as a series of unanswered rhetorical questions). One of the most popular scenarios dramatizing this second premise is that of the viewer looking out into the dark, starry sky and being overcome by the sublime order of the universe. The prototype of this epiphanic experience probably also comes from Cicero s On the Nature of the Gods, which quotes the following passage from Aristotle s lost treatise On Philosophy: Imagine that there were people who had always dwelt below the earth in decent and well-lit accommodation embellished with statues and pictures, and endowed with all the possessions which those reputed to be wealthy have in abundance. These people had never set foot on the earth, but through rumor and hearsay they had heard of the existence of some divine power wielded by gods. A moment came when the jaws of the earth parted, and they were able to emerge from their hidden abodes, and to set foot in this world of ours. They were confronted by the sudden sight of earth, seas, and sky; they beheld towering clouds, and felt the force of winds; they gazed on the sun, and became aware of its power and beauty, and its ability to create daylight by shedding its beams over the whole sky. Then, when night overshadowed the earth, 1 M.V. Lomonosov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. 11 vols. (Moscow, ), VII: 319. Further references to this edition will be given in the text.

6 M. Levitt 241 they saw the entire sky dotted and adorned with stars, and the phases of the moon s light as it waxed and waned; they beheld the risings and settings of all those heavenly bodies, and their prescribed, unchangeable courses through all eternity. When they observed all this, they would certainly believe that gods existed, and that these great manifestations were the works of gods. 1 The episode described here is something like the parable of the cave in The Republic, only in this one people escape not into the transcendent realm of Truth and Light but out into the physical world, whose constant natural movements embody eternal truth. Aristotle s underground visitors experience a sudden vision of divine power and beauty. The truth is something to be physically felt (here: the force of the wind, presumably the heat of the sun), especially through the sense of sight. This illustration of the second premise the sudden revelation of the glory of the physical universe, often taking place when gazing up into the night sky is one of the most widespread scenarios in eighteenthcentury Russian religious and meditative poetry (e.g., Lomonosov, Trediakovskii, Kheraskov, Derzhavin and others); much of this mostly well-known verse, I would suggest, belongs to the «physico-theological» category. Lomonosov s syllogism ends with a formal «Conclusion»: Hence there is no doubt at all that this visible world has been constructed by a being possessing reason and that, apart from this most marvelous and magnificent enormity, there is some force that has delimited (sogradila) it, a force that is immeasurably great, so as to create such an immeasurable edifice; a force so inconceivable and most wise so as to make it so well shaped, so harmonious, so magnificent; a force so inexpressibly generous that it established and confirmed the mutual utility of all these creations. Is not this immeasurably great, inconceivably wise, inexpressibly generous power none other than that which we call god and revere as immeasurably great and all-powerful, inconceivably wise, inexpressibly generous? And you who are privileged to gaze into the book of unshakable natural laws, raise up your minds to the one who constructed them, and with extreme reverence thank the one who revealed to you the theater of his most wise deeds, and the more that you comprehend of them, the greater the awe with which you will extol him. The tiniest of vermin (gady) proclaim His omnipotence to you, and the vast heavens announce, and the numberless stars demonstrate, his greatness that passes understanding. O how blind you are, Epicurus, that in the presence of so many luminaries you do not see your creator! Sunk because of barbaric ignorance or carnal pleasures in the depth of unbelief, rise up, bethink yourself, having considered that the one who once shook the earth s foundations may throw you down alive into hell, the one who caused seas and rivers to overflow will drown you with his waters, the who set mountains aflame with His touch will exterminate you with fire, the one who covers the heavens with storm clouds 1 Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans. P.G. Walsh (New York : Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 81.

7 242 M. Levitt will strike you down with lightning. The One Who casts down lightning, He Is. Atheists, tremble! (VII: ) Cicero s dialogue, which presents viewpoints both pro and con, does at moments include some invective, but generally strives to be straightforward and undogmatic. In contrast, this final apostrophe to Epicurus that culminates Lomonosov s syllogism suggests the more or less explicit Christian and polemical eighteenth-century context. The last (imperfectly preserved) section of Cicero s dialogue is comprised of criticism of the Stoics proofs of God, but there is nothing comparable in fervor to Lomonosov s fire-and-brimstone condemnation of atheists, which recalls a sermon rather than an imitation of classical philosophy. Part of the vehemence against unbelievers may derive in part from the conviction that, given the obviousness of the truth, those who fail to see do so out of perversity and recalcitrance. As Trediakovskii explained in the prose summary of the second part of his Feoptiia, which itself represents a theodicy based on the visual, in order to demonstrate the truth incontestably and clearly it is not necessary to use great subtlety of argument, but one simple glance at the world together with some general reasoning and attentiveness in scrutinizing things is alone sufficient. 1 The truth is so clear and unmistakable, all one has to do to be convinced is to open one s eyes. A careful reading of such passages suggests some measure of equivocation; while «great subtlety of argument» may not be not needed, some «general reasoning» is, and despite the «one simple glance» that «alone is sufficient,» «attentiveness in scrutinizing things» is also required. 2 In any case, if seeing means believing, not to see represents a purposeful refusal to accept the truth. Those who do not see are prevented either by ignorance or by their own prideful egos. In this context, reason taken too far or not far enough (either the skepticism of a Hobbes or the deism of a Spinoza), becomes an obstacle to the truth. This denigration of critical reason may help explain the nature of eighteenth-century philosophy in Russia, which was oriented 1 V.K. Trediakovskii, Izbrannye proizvedeniia (Leningrad, 1963), p Further citations of Feoptiia in the text are to this edition. On the Feoptiia, see note 6 above, and the study by Wilhelm Breitschuh, Die Feoptija V.K. Trediakovskijs: Ein Physikotheologisches Lehrgedicht im Russiland des 18. Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1979). 2 This passage paraphrases the opening sentence of Fenelon s opening sentence (I quote it in Kantemir s prose translation): «I cannot open my eyes without amazement at the wisdom and art visible in nature; the slightest glance is sufficient (samyi poslednii vid dovol no) for the all-powerful creator to show his hand» (A.D. Kantemir, Sochineniia, pis ma i izbrannye perevody, ed. P.A. Efremov [St. Petersburg, 1867], II: 25). The motif of the «simple (or single) glance» and «merely opening up of one s eyes» were also a staple of physico-theological writings.

8 M. Levitt 243 more toward systematization or popularization of truth than on testing its limits. After all, if the truth is obvious, one does not really need philosophy; the problem is simply to get people to open their eyes: И не ослепленный грубых заблуждений тьмой, Весь в природном свете пребывающий с собой, Гнусными ниже страстьми сердца восхищенный, Ни пороками, ни злом скотства развращенный, Не возможет тотчас Бога жива не познать... (197) And one who has not been blinded by coarse error, abiding with himself, completely in nature s light, and not enthralled to vile passions of the heart, nor by vices, nor perverted by the evil of bestiality cannot fail to recognize the living god right away Смотрение его толь ясно зримо есть, Что не возможет скрыть от нас никая лесть И что без слепоты извольныя не можно Не видеть нам везде того, что есть неложно. (251) His [God s] surveillance [of us] is so clearly visible, that no kind of flattery can hide it from us, and it is not possible without intentional blindness not to see that which truly exists all around us. Мудрости в сем вышни, в мудрованиях нелеп, Точно кто не видит, и с очами тот есть слеп; Тот не токмо назван быть может малоумным, Но бессмысленным совсем и страстями шумным. (272) The one who has divine wisdom within, but is made foolish by philosophizing, is like one who doesn t see, one with eyes but still blind. Such a person may be called not only weak of intellect, but completely senseless, disturbed by passions. However, the fact that this truth was deemed to be obvious did not obviate the need for repeating it ad nauseum. The cluster of images associated with Lomonosov s syllogism recur with variations in many eighteenth-century Russian literary works. In the remainder of this article I will center on one: the use of the traditional biblical trope of the «book of nature» that Lomonosov uses to illustrate the notion that God s existence may be proven merely by opening one s eyes. This contrasts sharply with the older Baroque handling of this image. In such poems as Simeon Polotskii s «The World Is a Book,» «Book,» and «Writing,» the meaning to be found in the book of the world is emblematic and allegorical, not empirical, and is not easily

9 244 M. Levitt accessible to sight. 1 Hence the unlearned and uninitiated may easily misunderstand what they see, and be led astray. Vision alone is insufficient, as illustrated in the poem «Writing.» Here written words are compared to a rushing river: one is in jeopardy of seeing only the flickering surface, missing the deeper truth that may elude the untrained eye (prekhodiashcha zrenie neiskusna oka), and drowning. As in Trediakovskii, insufficient or excessive reason can be harmful, even fatal. The classicist, physico-theological interpretation of the image of the book of nature, as in Lomonosov s paraphrase of Cicero, is that the truth to be read there is obvious, transparent, and open to everyone, even without training. As if in response to Polotskii, in his ode entitled «Reading,» for example, Kheraskov asserts that Всегда у нас перед очами Отверзта книга Естества; В ней пламенными словами Сияет мудрость Божества.. 2 The book of Nature is always open before our eyes; the wisdom of Divinity shines from it in flaming words. Similarly, in his sermon on Catherine s ascension to the throne, published in 1782, Metropolitan Platon also employs the «world as a book» metaphor to suggest that Knowledge of God is of the most accessible (udobneishikh) kind, because it is the most necessary (Ibo ono est samonuzhnoe). This book is open to the entire universe. It is written in letters which the educated and uneducated can understand, and all of the peoples on earth, who speak different languages, can read them without difficulty and without preparation (bez nauki). It is enough to open ones eyes and see the Creator and Ruler of all things. 3 The «book of nature» metaphor also served as a key image in Lomonosov s defense of modern science, which he couched as a defense of sight. In an ad- 1 See Berkov, P.N., «Kniga v poezii Simeona Polotskogo,» Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 24 (1969): ; A.M. Panchenko, «Slovo i znanie v estetike Simeona Polotskogo,» Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 25 (1970): , his Russkaia stikhotvornaia kul tura XVII veka (Leningrad, 1973); and L.I. Sazonova, Poeziia russkogo barokko: vtoraia polovina XVII-nachalo XVIII v. (Moscow, 1991). These poems may be found in Simeon Polockij, Vertograd mnogocvětnyj, ed. Anthony Hippisley and Lydia I. Sazonova. 3 vols. (Köln, ). 2 Tvoreniia M. Kherskova, vnov ispravlennyia i dopolnennyia. Vol. 7 (Mosow, 1796), p («Slovo na den vozshestviia na prestol eiia imperatorskogo velichestva,» Pouchitel nye slova i drugie sochineniia, Vol. 10 (Moscow, 1782), p. 277.

10 M. Levitt 245 dendum to a 1761 speech concerning astronomy, he used it to assert science s right to explore the visible, physical world: The Creator gave the human race two books. In one He showed His greatness, in the other His will. The first is the visible world, which He created so that a person, looking upon the immensity, beauty and harmonious construction of the edifice, would recognize divine omnipotence, to the extent of the understanding given him. The second book is holy writ. In it is shown the Creator s concern for our salvation. In these divinely-inspired prophetic and apostolic books the interpreters and elucidators are the great teachers of the church. [In contrast,] astronomers reveal the temple of God s power and magnificence, and seek the means for our temporary welfare, united with reverence and gratitude to the All-High. Both together assure us not only of God s existence but of the untold blessings He gives us. (IV: 375) Notably, Lomonosov grounds the reading of the first «book of nature» on the authority of the second, the «inspired prophetic and apostolic books» by «the great teachers of the church.» 1 One of the main philosophical issues of the century of light was the compatibility between these «two books.» For Lomonosov, and for the Russian Enlightenment tradition in general, there was no doubt: they were completely in harmony, and the visible world, the one susceptible to human reason and scientific inquiry, offers an equally valid path to divine truth as that of revelation and faith. Nevertheless, the very terms in which Lomonososv couches this argument suggest a fundamental tension between open-ended scientific inquiry, as something exploring unknown truths and applying critical reason, on the one hand, and its pre-determined purpose of revealing the «temple of God s power and magnificence,» on the other. However, what might well seem problematic and even contradictory for the later tradition, for the great majority Russian eighteenth-century thinkers remained obvious. 1 In particular, Lomonsov cites the authority of St. Basil s Hexaemeron (in Russian Shestodnev), sermons that examine the «six days» of creation as described in Genesis, and that attempt to accommodate science to scripture. Lomonosov also refers to St. John of Damascus «Exposition of the Orthodox Faith» (part three of the Fount of Knowledge, a kind of Summa theologica for the Eastern Orthodox). Notably, «The Exposition» begins with a guarded defense of reason, necessary not only for scientific pursuits but for theological speculation itself. These, together with the works of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Grigorii Bogoslov), were among the central Eastern Orthodox works that contributed to the physico-theological tradition. Notably, all three of these church fathers were famous both as theologians and as poets or orators, and were well known in the East and West. In the introduction to the Feoptiia, Trediakiovsky notes that in discussing these (physico-theological) issues, «it was impossible for me not to use metaphysical arguments They have long been used in our language, and are if you please to be found everywhere in our ecclesiastic and theological books» V.K. Trediakovskii, V.K. Psalter Ed. Alexander Levitsky (Paderborn, 1989), p. 465.