To understand Notes from Underground, you need to understand the historical context. Russia in the 1860s was not a nation-state; it could barely be called a state. Even though the Tsar was powerful and there was a united government, the nation was still primarily based on an absolutist government. An absolutist government is a system of government that sought to increase the power of the monarch and protect the traditional rights of the nobility.
The economy of Russia was also largely agricultural with peasants and later poor farmers living on small farms. There was little to no industrialization in most regions of the Empire. Unlike the rest of Europe, the Russian Empire did not have an elected parliament. Even states like Prussia and Austria created parliaments after the revolutions of 1848. Russia was economically behind and politically stuck in the 18th century.
Dostoyevsky is responding to the actions of the current and past Tsars. Russia was divided by those who wanted to westernize and those that wanted to promote Slavic values. For many Russians, this was an impossible choice. They recognized the need to change, but they also knew that they need a unifying force for their multi-ethnic Empire. Dostoyevsky, through the Underground Man, is dealing with this existential question. Should the Russian Empire act, or should it be acted upon? Should they change, or should they persevere?
1 comment:
I just wanted to add to the historical context that you provided with some religious context. Russia was first introduced to christianity by Greek missionaries from Byzantium in the 9th century. By the 10th century there was large Christian community in Russia, and Russia then eventually became almost completely Christianized. The East-West Schism occurred in 1054. Russia, clearly stayed with the Eastern Church. The Western Church became known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church (included Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Antiochan Orthodox, etc. - These are all the same church, the only difference is in which language the liturgy* is preformed.)
- *liturgy is the service
More to the point, from the Eastern Church's perspective the schism is seen as fault by the West. This is because originally all bishops, including the Bishop of Rome- the Pope- were seen as equals. No one person could have authority over another, especially were interpreting the main beliefs of the Church. The East believes that the Bishop of Rome essentially became too power hungry when he changed the Creed - the main statement of belief in Christianity. It is said he had no authority to do this. That is because for nearly 700 years prior to this there had always been Ecumenical Councils to discuss changes in the church doctrine.
This is why many people in the East see the western churches as corrupted. And this goes back to the return to the soil movement that wanted to be free of the western "corrupted" ideologies and religion and have more focus on Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Post a Comment