Date/Time
Date(s) - 04/05/2025
12:30 pm - 2:00 pm
Location
The Rose Battersea
On 4 May 2025 Dmitry Usenco will speak. His notes for the talk are given below
In this talk we are going to approach two independent literary acts put up in response to what was perceived by many 19th-century intellectuals as a trend on the part of Roman Catholicism to grow increasingly aggressive in the propagation of its views and doctrines all over Europe (stretching as far west as England and as far east as Russia). These two works are:
-
- ‘Bishop Blougram’s Apology’ by Robert Browning (first published in 1855)
- ‘The Grand Inquisitor’ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (first published in 1880, itself being a chapter of The Karamazov Brothers saga)
- ‘Bishop Blougram’s Apology’ by Robert Browning (first published in 1855)
The above authors were unlikely to have any knowledge of each other’s writings and were certainly not personally acquainted. Yet their geographical and ‘generational’ remoteness from each other did not seem to prevent them from approaching their subjects in a similar manner.
To begin with, both authors employ the same genre, so-called dramatic monologue – a first-person soliloquy in justification of the speaker’s recent actions and general life stance. Both monologues feature a distinguished Catholic figure who holds a confidential conversation with someone who does appear to share the speaker’s views. More specifically, both speakers want to prove that their opponents are impractical idealists whose goals and aspirations are out of touch with today’s reality and therefore doomed to failure – unless, of course, the opponent changes his mind and embraces the Catholic cause. In both cases, the other party remains silent throughout the whole conversation, and their responses to the speaker’s pronouncements (or lack of such responses) can be only inferred from the speaker’s own passing comments.
It is true that the characters of these conversations belong to quite different periods of history. Browning’s bishop, according to the poet’s own admission, is based on the contemporary figure of Cardinal Wiseman, head of the Catholic Church in England, who addresses a Mr Gigadibs, an all-rounder journalist with essentially secularist views. Dostoyevsky’s character is a 16th-century Spanish inquisitor who delivers a fiery tirade to no one but Christ himself who happens to be paying an unexpected visit to Seville and whom the inquisitor regards as a nuisance for contemporary Catholics (‘Why do you come to interfere with our work?’).
Yet the difference in historical settings must not conceal from us the similarity of allegations advanced by the speakers against their silent opponents. In particular, both accuse their interlocutors of overrating human nature whose main concern (according to the bishop and the inquisitor) is success and prosperity in earthly life, rather the question of internal freedom or moral responsibility. The inquisitor, among other things, claims that Christ was wrong to reject the devil’s offer to turn stones into bread, which would have allowed him to feed the hungry; while the bishop (with even less scruples) declares that the Catholic Church has always enjoyed that miraculous power and can exercise it any time at its discretion if not literally, at least figuratively. In both cases, the speaker presents his church (more precisely, its ‘Inner Party’) as the only institution which is both capable and willing to assume responsibility for the happiness of mankind.
The only point on which the two authors truly diverge becomes evident in the contrasting outcomes of their conversations. Bishop Blougram appears to win his opponent completely to the Catholic agenda and everything else it involves. Yet he does so by perverting and even subverting the most basic tenets of Christianity (at least from the Protestant point of view). By considering religion as a mere tool to assure success in this life he can be said to declare allegiance to the ‘Prince of this world’ and thus can be regarded as a contemporary version of Antichrist (quite in line with Browning’s own, highly negative, view of Catholicism).
On the other hand, the grand inquisitor’s drive is completely altruistic. He is prepared to suffer for the sake of the innocently unreflecting majority of mankind and thus relieve them of all moral responsibility. But here is the paradox: by declaring his readiness to bear responsibility for others, the grand inquisitor appears to act as a true Christian. His Christian self-denial is fully appreciated by his interlocutor who, at the end of the conversation ‘tacitly approaches the old man and kisses his bloodless nonagenarian lips’.
For background see Bishop Blougram’s Apology – Robert Browning.pdf This is a link to The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Grand Inquisitor
Dmitry will give his talk at The Rose Battersea, 74-76 Battersea Bridge Road, London SW11 3AG but the meeting will also be on Zoom see SLPC Zoom Meeting
We always welcome new speakers. If you would like to give a talk on a philosopher or a philosophical topic please contact Adrian Carter at southlondonphilosophy@gmail.com