The Quarterly Journal of St. Philaret’s Institute

The article is devoted to the analysis of N. A. Berdyaev’s book “The Worldview of Dostoevsky”. The author indicates the key points on which he agrees with Berdyaev and criticises the philosopher’s thoughts which seem not indisputable. The comparative-analytical method was used as the main research method. The paper analyses the characteristics of Dostoevsky’s novels identified by Bakhtin: polyphonicity, dialogicality and incompleteness. Berdyaev’s interpretations, while providing food for disagreement and debate, are not generally at odds with Bakhtin’s ideas, which many Western scholars rely on. The author argues that Berdyaev without denying a certain integrity of Dostoevsky’s worldview, emphasises the dynamism of his thought and, consequently, the need for a dynamic perception of his thought by the reader. Dostoevsky’s theological anthropology reveals the tragic contradictions and duality of the human heart. Berdyaev stresses t hat in Dostoevsky’s artistic world the human path to God is possible as a personal and internal one, and at the same time it implies a relationship with other people. Three main issues are highlighted in which the author agrees with Berdyaev: Dostoevsky is a predominantly Christian writer; Dostoevsky’s Christianity is largely original; even a religious worldview centred on the individual requires the social aspect, including the relationship between church, society and nation. In the second part of the article, the author criticises a number of statements in Berdyaev’s book. Firstly, Berdyaev’s idea of centralising the action of Dostoevsky’s novels around the main character appears to be controversial. The analysis of the case studies shows that the structure of the novels is polycentric and suggests that it is possible to consider different characters in the novels as central. Secondly, the boundaries between individuality and personality in Berdyaev’s work do not seem to have been fully clarified. Thus, personalit presupposes openness to communication with others, and this characteristic is precisely a characteristic of personality, not of individuality. It is hard to agree with Berdyaev in his assessment of the role of women in Dostoevsky’s novels. The post-penitentiary novels contain many vivid heroines who have significance in their own right, whereas Berdyaev believes that Dostoevsky presents women “solely as a moment in a man’s destiny”. Finally, the author does not agree with Berdyaev’s thesis about the peculiar structure of the Russian soul, which differs from the soul of a Western person. On the contrary, the deep interest in Dostoevsky’s work among Western audiences shows the relevance of his legacy for people of different nationalities and cultures.