-
Cultural Kenosis in Chekhov’s “The Wife”
- Slavica Publishers
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Chekhov for the 21st Century. Carol Apollonio and Angela Brintlinger, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2012, 181–94. Cultural Kenosis in Chekhov’s “The Wife” Nina Wieda Chekhov is known for asking uncomfortable questions that have no tidy answers. His short story “The Wife” (“Zhena,” 1892) asks one such question, namely: what is the real meaning of philanthropy, and what do people really seek when they give to others? In order to answer this question, I will contrast two types of philanthropy described in Chekhov’s story: rational, reflective giving aimed at maximizing the beneficial effect on the recipient, and irra-‐‑ tional, unreflective giving that emphasizes the giver’s own benefit and point of view. I propose comparing the second type—where the process takes the form of a kind of emptying out of the giver—to the theological concept of kenosis. The term kenosis (Greek for “emptying-‐‑out”) has made frequent appear-‐‑ ances in literature on Russian religiosity. Originally, the word comes from Philippians 2: 6–8, where St. Paul declares that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emp-‐‑ tied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man. And being found in the human form he humbled himself and became obedi-‐‑ ent onto death, even death on a cross.”1 In 1892, the Orthodox theologian Mikhail Tareev introduced the word kenosis into Russian religious discourse;2 the word was used to describe not only the actions of Christ, but also subse-‐‑ quent acts inspired by them. Kenosis plays an important role in the works of religious philosophers Nikolai Lossky and Sergei Bulgakov.3 In his 1933 theo-‐‑ logical study, Georges Florovsky writes about kenosis as the basis for the 1 The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version (New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953). The Russian text reads: “Он, будучи образом Божиим, не почитал хищением быть равным Богу; но уничижил Себя Самого, приняв образ раба, сделавшись подоб-‐‑ ным человекам и по виду став как человек; смирил Себя, быв послушным даже до смерти, и смерти крестной” http://www.ctel.msk.ru/media-club/bible/ru51.htm. 2 Steven Cassedy, Dostoevsky’s Religion (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), 11. 3 For discussion of the role that the notion of kenosis plays in the works of Sergei Bulgakov, see Paul Valliere, Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox Theology in a New Key (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 337–44. 182 NINA WIEDA Russian culture of self-‐‑offering (darenie sebia).4 Nadejda Gorodetzky’s 1938 study The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought delineates kenosis— synonymously described as “humiliation”—as a Russian national ideal.5 In his 1946 book The Russian Religious Mind, Fedotov suggests that kenosis is the great discovery of the first Christian generation in Russia and the key to the Russian religious mind.6 In the Russian context, the term is most often associated with Russia’s patron saints Boris and Gleb. Never ordained as monks and having per-‐‑ formed no feats for the faith during their lifetime, Boris and Gleb became canonized based on their willing yielding of their lives to assassins.7 Their Vita inaugurates the kenotic tradition in Russian theology, which some schol-‐‑ ars recognize as the most distinctive feature of the Russian brand of Orthodox Christianity. Russian kenoticism manifested itself in the Vitae of a number of Russian saints, including St. Tikhon of Zadonsk and St. Sergii of Radonezh. For Che-‐‑ khov’s short story, the most relevant hagiographic text is the Vita of St. Theodosius, the founder of the Pechersk Monastery in Kiev. According to the Vita, Theodosius named the fact that Christ “lowered himself and was hum-‐‑ ble” as his main Christian inspiration.8 Along with articulating his apprecia-‐‑ tion for kenosis verbally, Theodosius practices numerous kenotic behaviors, which emulate the ideal of the humiliated Christ. These behaviors include wearing “poor and patched” clothing (120), choosing the humble vocation of wafer-‐‑baker in his youth, being secretive about his ascetic exercises, and showing a willingness to undertake the hardest labor even after he is elected abbot. Interestingly, the only area where the generally forgiving Theodosius dis-‐‑ played severity in maintaining the stipulated economic order of his monastic community was in his strict adherence to the statutory poverty, removing from the cells everything superfluous in vestments or food to be burned in a stove as “the devil’s part.”9 George Fedotov writes that to “have no hope in property was his principle in managing the good of the monastery. […] The 4 Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, in Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 5, ed. Richard S. Haugh, trans...