MLR, 102.3, 2007 923 ofOrthodoxy' and 'Dostoevsky's Deconstructive Anxiety') represent the theoretical core of thebook. In these Jones defends his central idea that inDostoevsky the intense collision of atheism and traditionalChristianity/Orthodoxy results in thedeath of the latter,but also in its rebirth as a new formof spirituality based on personal experience and largely stripped of its institutional (dogmatic and sacramental) clothing. This, after Mikhail Epstein, Jones terms 'minimal religion'. For Epstein, who isconcerned with contemporary Russia, minimal religion is a post-atheist, post-Soviet phenome non, but Jones finds ithighly effective inapplication toDostoevsky, who in this as in many other respects anticipates twentieth-century cultural phenomena. Jones ispar ticularly attracted toEpstein's thesis thatRussian atheism-which of course reaches back deep into thenineteenth century and beyond-can be seen as an ideological fruit of Eastern Christianity's strong tradition of negative, or apophatic, theology,which stresses the absolute inaccessibility to reason of God in his essence, and consents to describe him only bywhat he isnot. Crudely summarized, this destabilizes faith and opens theway for radical doubt as toGod's very existence. As Jones quotes: 'Apophaticism is a liminal phenomenon, throughwhich faith crosses into atheism, while atheism itselfreveals theunconscious of faith' (p. 68). Through extensive textual analysis, Jones demonstrates thepotential touse Epstein's theory as a powerful inter pretative tool in the attempt todescribe the religious dimension ofDostoevsky's text without critical distortion. It accounts both for the diversity of religious experience represented thereand the 'deconstructive anxiety' about thenature of truthand reality exemplified inDostoevsky's poetics and inhis characters, both sceptics and believers. Jones builds his case with characteristic delicacy and concern. It ispersuasive-he does not need tobe as defensive as he isabout his debt toEpstein. Yet from thepoint of view of the religiouslymore orthodox/Orthodox reader there may be concerns. One is troubled by the sense that thepresentation of apophaticism isone-sided and lacks the theoretical corrective of the theology of hesychasm, with its robust defence of the knowability ofGod inhis Energies. (Jones isaware of this,but ratherconsigns itto the periphery, as he consigns the institution ofElders-hesychasts all-to theperiphery of theOrthodox Church. Yet the doctrine of the divine Energies is not at all peri pheral toOrthodoxy.) One might furtherobject thatOrthodoxy isnot nearly as alien to cataphatic theology as Jones-or perhaps Epstein-finds itconvenient to suppose. And finally,if,as Jones says (p. 65), the key tounderstanding Dostoevskian minimal religion is an awareness of the rich intertext ofOrthodox tradition and Scripture, what will be the fateof the religious dimension ofDostoevsky's novels if-when that awareness is replaced, as italready is inmany undergraduates, forexample, by ignorance? Of course the last of these concerns does not invalidate Jones's reading, but renders it more poignant to all thosewho will value thisbook's contribution to the study of the relationship between religion and culture aswell as to thatofDostoevsky. UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL RUTH COATES Dostoevsky on theThreshold ofOther Worlds: Essays inHonour of Malcolm V J7ones. Ed. by SARAHYOUNG and LESLEY MILNE. Ilkeston: Bramcote Press. 2oo6. xx + 276 PP. ?49-50. ISBN 978-I-900405-I3-3. Sarah Young and Lesley Milne have done an excellent job of bringing together a stellar cast ofDostoevsky specialists fromBritain, Europe, America, and Russia in order to celebrate the academic achievements ofMalcolm Jones and his outstanding contribution toDostoevsky studies. That they have done so in a volume that fully punches its weight as a scholarlywork in itsown right is testimonyboth to thequality of the contributors and to their fine judgement as editors. Furthermore, the choice 924 Reviews of contributors is particularly apt for a volume of this kind, representing as itdoes Malcolm Jones's contemporaries, thosewith whom he has worked closely in the Inter national Dostoevsky Society, colleagues fromhis home department inNottingham, and younger scholars whose work he has supervised and mentored. There is littleneed to rehearse here thenature and extent ofMalcolm Jones's con tribution to the study ofDostoevsky inparticular, or of nineteenth-century Russian and European literature in general. But that contribution is neatly reflected in the content and structure of thisvolume: although ostensibly devoted toDostoevsky, its concerns are enlarged to embrace thatwriter's broader significance. There are, for example...
Read full abstract
Jul 15, 2024
Philna Ferreira 
Open Access
