You remember Stinky, the kid from "Hey Arnold!"? I used to think what person - even a cartoon character - would name their child Stinky? But what was great about the HA episodes centered around Stinky was that even the odd-man-out can do something extraordinary, like when Stinky turned down a $1 million TV deal on principle or when he won that prized pumpkin competition. The thing about guys with unusual names is that they tend to be underestimated.
Dostoevsky has his own Stinky, a cook named Smerdyakov who owes his surname to his mother's sobriquet, "the reeking one". Although Smerdyakov comes from humble (and mysterious) origins and showed no aptitude for long, drawn-out books like Smaragdov's General History, he seems to possess a natural wit and attention to detail. This was evidenced in his childhood when he learned the story of Creation and asked the logical question, Where did the light on the first day come from if God created the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day? (page 166) The violent reaction he received for this question should make it unsurprising that Smerdyakov does not venture into the theological realm until his twenties. But the cleverness with which he responds to his second theological disputation would make one believe that he were a professional seminarian.
Smerdyakov makes the argument on pages 171-76 that a Christian who renounced his faith on pain of torture would have committed no sin. His justification for believing so:
1. The Christian would have had the intention of denying his religion before answering, and therefore been excommunicated before verbally denying. Hence, when he subsequently announced "I am no Christian", he would have told the truth for which God can issue no punishment.
2. If the Christian had faith "the size of a mustard seed" (Matthew 17:20) he would have been able to command a mountain to crush his tormentors, and when he proved unable to perform such a miracle he would know that he had no faith at all to renounce, and thus be guilty of no sin.
While Smerdyakov's argument is clever, it would not convince the most devout Christian - or for that matter the most skilled logician. Smerdyakov would make a great debater, but his style is more akin to the Sophists who made "the weaker argument the stronger" than a serious Socratic. His first point is invalid because, although he would not be punished for lying with his mouth, he would have rejected God in his heart, a sin surely worthy of Hell. And as for the second point, does any Christian seriously believe that Jesus' remark about moving mountains can be interpreted literally? Even the most literal translation of scripture would allow that this phrase was a metaphor for overcoming seemingly impossible challenges, not the physical transference of geological formations.
Smerdyakov would be a first rate stand-up comic, but in our class he's just a stinker!
I definitely agree that Smerdyakov gets so caught up in the details of his argument that he forgets the main thing - the action of rejecting God. He does, however, raise the uncomfortable comparison of telling the truth and dying, versus lying and possibly doing good things with the rest of your life. It would be interesting for Smerdyakov to state this argument to Elder Zosima. If Elder Zosima believes that anyone can repent, no matter what they've done, and be forgiven by God, than maybe even someone who renounced their faith but survived could also be forgiven. It still sounds wrong, like a loophole, but maybe it works with Smerdyakov's argument.
ReplyDeleteSince Smerdyakov does not believe in God, do you think that the good deeds he refers to have anything to do with the Christian faith? If taken from a secular utilitarian perspective he may mean that it is better to live and do good deeds on earth for the effects they have on earth, rather than do a good deed for its reward in Heaven. The question is, if Smerdyakov does not believe in God or the Bible, how does he define a deed as good or bad?
DeleteI agree that Smerdyakov is quite the stinker. He doesn't talk much, but when he does he seems to cause quite the stir. It is quite odd that he is such an opposite from his mother. She was a holy fool and he questions God's creation of the world. It makes you think that he would then be taking after his father, but we do not know who this father is. Perhaps one of the reasons for his religious skepticism could stem from Grigory who told him he was born from the steam of the bathhouse, which we learned in class has devilish connotations. Seeing the way that he often lurked and glared out of corners for a majority of his childhood it wouldn't be surprising if he started to dwell on that idea put forth by Grigory and cast God out of his mind as a saving presence.
ReplyDeleteYour right in pointing out that he did not inherit his mother's devout piety. If we assume that Dostoevsky believes in nature over nurture, then that fact supports the theory that Fyodor Pavlovich is the father. After all, Ivan had a holy fool, or wailer, for a mother and he inherited his father's disbelief in God rather than his mother's belief.
DeleteThis whole argument makes me believe that Fyodor is indeed Smerdyakov's father. The majority of the time in which Smerdyakov speaks is related to religion and God, which happens to be Fyodor's favorite subject. Smerdyakov also seems to enjoy contradicting others in order to start an argument, which them becomes "entertaining" drama like that of Fyodor's "entertainment." I agree with Kala that Smerdyakov doesn't act like his mother from what we know, but I think there is a strong possibility that Fyodor is indeed his father (which might explain a lot).
ReplyDeleteI am curious to know why Fyodor paid more attention to Smerdyakov than his other children and hat event it was that marked the transition from indifferent to caring. The narrator tells us that Fyodor "suddenly seemed to alter his view of the boy" after learning that he had "the falling sickness". What is it about epilepsy that would make Fyodor care about this child. Maybe he thought his other sons were equipped by nature to make their own way in life without paternal guidance, and that Smerdyakov's condition put him at a disadvantage? Or maybe Fyodor's father or other relative had epilepsy and Smerdyakov reminded him of this person?
DeleteI like you post and I like Kala's comment as well. It seems like the interplay between the sacred (God) and the infernal (Devil) is overtly in play with regard to Smerdyakov. This is interesting especially considering Smerdyakov's seeming neutrality--he doesn't do anything for either side-- and his childlike wit--we are even told that after returning from Moscow Smerdyakov "pshychologically was quite the same as before". The case of Smerdyakov is also interesting to consider as an overt demonstration of the same kind of tug of war that seems to be going inside Alyosha and perhaps all the characters. This Smerdyakov guy creeps me out though. His psychotic attention to cleanliness and his complete lack of emotional response to the story of someone getting tortured to death by evil tartars on the edge of Russia while defending the faith of the Fatherland bother me. It seems like the Stinker is fundamentally separated from much of what makes us all human and I don't like that in a human.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the literal meaning of the name "Satan" is "to accuse". This is the only direct role Satan plays in the Bible, to accuse people of being being disloyal to God in the way a Sicilian consigliere maintains order. It is a coincidence that Satan played this role first in the book of Job, which is Grigory's favorite book of the Bible. Smerdyakov himself is something of an accuser in the way he undermines long-held traditions and sort of puts them on a logical trial for lacking substance.
DeleteI agree that Smerdyakov is a stinker. Just the name Smerdyakov sounds kind of gross to me. We were talking about this briefly in class, but I am wondering just how much Fyodor has had influence on Smerdyakov. I would like to know how much of Smerdyakov's personality is a result of nature and how much is a result of "nurture," if you can contribute his nurturing to Fyodor.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's interesting to note how much Smerdyakov's argument depends on logical constructions (that may or may not follow, depending on whether you accept his premises). So the question whether he is a genuine theologian or a sophist is an important one. And as you point out--he would seem to tend toward grabbing at different extremes (taking Jesus' frequent use of hyperboles) in the literal sense and then clashing them against one another to create his own sort of illogic and reductio ad absurdum.
ReplyDeleteDo you think this is Dostoevsky's way of showing that logic and religion are incompatible and that to be religious one must rely on a mystical faith which is separate from reason?
Delete