The Visual Dominant in Eighteenth-Century Russia

Chapter Six—The Seen, the Unseen, and the Obvious

C H A P T E R S I X The Seen, the Unseen, and the Obvious “Видимый нами мир сей уверяет о безконечной мудрости Божие. [The world that is visible to us convinces us of God’s infinite wisdom.] Вся природа проповедует нам бытие Божие. [All nature proclaims God’s existence to us.]” —Phrases illustrating the words “visible” and “nature” in the Dictionary of the Russian Academy (1789) “My first question is this. After saying that this part of your discourse needed no elaboration because it was obvious and universally agreed that the gods exist, why did you labor the point at such length?” —Cotta, critiquing the Stoic position in Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods In this chapter, the ideal associated with true vision will be asserted and challenged in two types of mostly poetic works. The first group exemplifies the discourse of “physicotheology,” which asserted that the visual evidence of the physical world attests to the rational structure of the universe and proves the existence of God. The second group, associated with the Book of Ecclesiastes, took a more skeptical stance, describing vision in a minor key; these works might promise ultimate knowledge in heaven but throw doubt on the efficacy of vision in this world. This latter group may be seen as a counterpoint to the reigning optimistic, ocularcentric trend, at times complementary and at times antagonistic to it, questioning although ultimately supportive of the dominant visual paradigm. 152 THE VISUAL DOMINANT IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIA Illustration to Derzhavin’s poem “The Proof of [God’s] Creative Being” (“Dokazatel’stvo tvorcheskogo bytiia”) of 1796, a paraphrase of Psalm 18 (Psalm 19 in western Bibles). It depicts “a wise man [starets] with one hand pointing to creation and with the other indicating a book thrown open before him, resting on a cubical stone with the inscription 2 x 2 = 4, signifying the true and undeniable proof of God’s existence.” The artwork was carved on wood and signed by the St. Petersburg engraver G. V. Gogenfel’den some time after 1795 for an edition of Derzhavin’s works that was not published. From Sochineniia Derzhavina, edited by Ia. Grot (St. Petersburg: Akademiia nauk, 1864), 1:726–27. The Seen, the Unseen, and the Obvious 153 Nature as an Open Book Sumarokov’s historical tragedy Dimitrii the Pretender of 1771 opens with a short debate between the false tsar Dimitrii and Parmen, his advisor and eventual nemesis, over human beings’ ability to perceive divine wisdom. The scene serves as overture to the play’s main action and touches on the main thematic oppositions of pretendership versus legitimacy, tyranny versus monarchy, and Russian national self-determination versus foreign overlordship, all of which are framed in terms of the larger political and theological clash between Russian Orthodoxy and Catholicism. In representing a specific era of Russian history, the early seventeenth century’s “Time of Troubles,” the play has been seen as a step in the direction of greater historicism, but this exchange clearly reflects contemporary eighteenth-century Enlightenment Orthodox concerns.1 Mideighteenth -century ideas are projected back more than a century and a half, not only confirming the peculiar “presentist” nature of early modern Russian historical consciousness, but also testifying to an ocularcentric value system that had become so normative as to be taken for granted as universally valid. Dimitrii and Parmen argue over whether or not divine wisdom is accessible to individual mortals. Parmen contrasts modern rational religious thinking to Dimitrii’s “Catholic” mistrust of human reason: Пармен [. . .] Разумный человек о Боге здраво мыслит. Димитрий Во умствовании не трать напрасно слов. Коль в небе хочешь быть, не буди философ! Премудрость пагубна, хотя она и льстивна. Пармен Премудрость вышнему быть может ли противна? Исполнен ею, Он вселенну созидал И мертву веществу живот и разум дал. На что ни взглянем мы, его премудрость видим. Или, что в Боге чтим, в себе возненавидим? Димитрий Премудрость божия непостижима нам. 154 THE VISUAL DOMINANT IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY RUSSIA Пармен Так Климент оныя не постигает сам. К понятию ея ума пределы тесны, Но действа божества в творении известны. И если изострим нам данные умы, Что папа ведает, узнаем то и мы.2 [Parmen: A rational person can think about God in a sensible way. / Dimitrii: Do not waste words intellectualizing. / If you want to go to heaven, do not be a philosopher! / wisdom is harmful, though too it is also seductive. / Parmen: Can wisdom really be offensive to the Most High? / Filled with it, He created the universe / And gave life and reason to dead matter. / wherever we look, we see His wisdom. / Or should we hate in ourselves that which we revere in God? / Dimitrii: Divine wisdom is inaccessible to us. / Parmen: Then (Pope) Clement himself cannot access it either. / Our mind’s limits make understanding difficult, / But divine actions in creation are known. / And if we develop the intellect that has been given us, / what the Pope knows, so too can we.] This argument covers many issues, from wisdom and the ability to know the world, to the authority of the Catholic Church, to the...