Unitatea Bisericii lui Cristos este un dat care nu poate fi contestat de nimeni, cu atat mai putin de actualele scrasniri legionaro-haiducesti din cadrul BOR. Din punct de vedere teologic, Biserica este una sau nu este deloc. Pentru a elucida deosebirile dintre confesiunile crestine actuale, cea mai buna (daca nu singura) solutie este analiza istorica a faptelor si interpretarea lor in afara oricarei grile reductionist-polemice. Nu ma intereseaza „opinia” personala a lui X,Y,Z, „teologi improvizati” pe baricadele unui ortodoxism nationalist fara nici o legatura cu Evanghelia lui Cristos. Conteaza numai atitudinile responsabile atat din punct de vedere moral cat si teologic-stiintific. Ce vreau sa spun?

Asa cum au aratat, in chip genial, la vremea lor, un Newman ori un Soloviov, asa cum o arata implicit studiile unui istoric de prima mana din zilele noastre (convertit la ortodoxie), Iaroslav Pelikan, exista o evolutie a dogmaticii crestine sau, mai precis, o clarificare (in sensul mai bunei explicitari) a invataturilor de credinta. Fara sa intru in prea multe detalii (cine doreste cu adevarat sa se lamureasca ajunge usor la studiile esentiale), voi enunta cateva chestiuni de bun simt, pe care se intemeiaza textul de fata. Mentionez ca ma voi ocupa de relatia ortodoxie-catolicism, „revizitand” punctele-cheie ale „disensiunii milenare”.

- Dogma crestina fundamentala, pe care se intemeiaza Biserica de la originile ei si pana astazi, priveste Intruparea si Invierea lui Isus Cristos; erezia-tip neaga atat Intruparea cat si Invierea, facand din Isus o simpla fiinta umana, desavarsita, poate, insa fara caracter divin; dogmele crestine (ma refer la cele adoptate de primele sapte sinoade ecumenice) clarifica, dezvolta, pe alte paliere, aceasta dogma initiala fundamentala;

- „teologii” ortodoxisti de azi par a fixa inceputul crestinismului nu in Isus Cristos, ci in perioada constantiniana, atunci cand apare formularea unui Crez integrator, o marturisire dezvoltata de credinta; crestinismul insa a existat si pana la 325 cu sau fara voia „teologilor” respectivi, iar „marturisirile de credinta” sunt numeroase (desi sumare), mergand de la aceea a lui Petru (Matei 16) si a ucenicilor (episodul mersului pe ape Matei 14 si paralele) trecand prin confesiunile tulburatoare ale lui Pavel si ajungand pana la marii teologi ai secolelor II si III (acelasi Iaroslav Pelikan a consacrat o lucrare exemplara istoriei Crezului crestin). De retinut: e o aberatie nelinistitoare fixarea inceputului dogmatic al crestinismului in secolul IV (atunci se fixeaza un canon, se structureaza o dogmatica mai mult sau mai putin „completa”, Biserica se politizeaza etc, dar nu atunci se naste crestinismul, ci cu trei secole mai devreme!!!);

- dimensiunea istorica este evacuata complet din schema de gandire si de perceptie a „teologilor” ortodoxisti, care, incremeniti in anul 325, reproseaza, in fond, istoriei ca exista, timpului, ca avanseaza spre un punct Omega (neramanand intr-un vesnic Alpha privativ), omenirii ca n-a ramas la „epoca de aur” a lui Constantin (in cel mai bun caz; bizantinii daco-tracomani ar fi revoltati!). Or, istoria exista intrucat ea este expresia interventiei divine in soarta umanitatii; nu putem nega sau refuza cursul istoriei, dinamica timpului sacru, decat negand sau refuzand, implicit, planul divinitatii sau momentul inaugural, momentul-cheie al Istoriei, care este Intruparea;

- marea problema/carenta a criticilor ortodoxisti este necinstea la nivel moral si intelectual; daca s-ar informa corect ar vedea ca toate „criticile” pe care ei le aduc astazi, in anul de gratie 2008, Bisericii Catolice, au facut, de foarte multa vreme, obiectul autocriticilor asumate, la nivelul cel mai inalt, de Biserica Catolica. Aceasta atitudine, autocritica, ar trebui imitata de ortodoxie, care se complace intr-o submediocritate autosuficienta strigatoare la cer.

- ridicola, pe de alta parte, este obsesia ortodoxului pentru „demascarea si distrugerea celuilalt”, a catolicului, in speta; acum vreo cateva luni, dupa o conferinta despre botez in primele secole crestine, pe care am tinut-o la o „facultate” de teologie ortodoxa (pardon, ortodoxista), singurele „intrebari” (de-o agresivitate rar intalnita) au fost legate de faptul ca nu mi-am declinat expressis verbis calitatea de „ortodox”; nu interesa nimic altceva. Reflex de secta securista, ce reduce teologia la controlul buletinului de identitate „eliberat de politia BOR”. Am tinut conferinte in medii universitare catolice, protestante, baptiste: nicaieri si niciodata nu mi s-a pus mana in gat: „Spune dom’le de ce confesiune esti, altfel...”. Ortodocsii sunt obsedati, in sens patologic, de catolicism, in vreme ce catolicii isi vad de ale lui Cristos (sau macar incearca sa nu fie „obsedati” decat de ale lui Cristos). Cert este ca unde exista atata ura, atata vulgarite, atata necuviinta si necinste nu poate exista si traire adevarata in Cristos. Cand scriu „ortodocsi” nu ma gandesc la toti credinciosii care se revendica de la ortodoxie, ci la acea parte a fals-credinciosilor care transforma deliberat ortodoxia intr-o ideologie mai mult sau mai putin politica. Folosesc insa uneori termenul generic pentru simplificare. Niciodata nu am generalizat diagnosticele mele iar coreligionarii care ma citesc cu pricepere si interes stiu asta. Pentru ei continuu sa scriu si sa-mi exprim public parerile. Revin! Aceasta fixatie a ortodocsilor (in sensul precizat mai sus) pentru catolicism nu este dublata de un interes veritabil pentru „traditia catolica”. Cand esti obsedat de cineva atunci incerci sa-l cunosti cat mai indeaproape, sa-i refaci istoria, sa-i intelegi „evolutia”, „caracterul” etc. Or, fixatia ortodoxista nu se exprima decat printr-o vesnica invectivare fara obiect, adica printr-o permanenta jignire a „obsedantei confesiuni”. Tocmai de aceea mi se pare necesar sa intervin public: ortodoxia nu trebuie si nu poate fi confundata cu asemenea reactii.

Textul meu are un obiectiv foarte simplu: doresc sa arat inadecvarea „criticilor” aduse de ortodoxisti catolicilor, plecand de la pozitia istorico-critica a teologilor catolici cu privire la unele dogme „controversate”, precum purgatoriul sau Filioque. De asemenea, mi se pare obligatorie o revizitare, din perspectiva istorica, a dogmelor respective, prin punerea lor in context, pentru indepartarea oricarei false acuzatii. Asta nu inseamna relativizarea dogmelor, ci urmarirea semnificatiei lor din momentul promulgarii (sau al primei atestari) si pana astazi.

Abia dupa un asemenea demers obiectiv-istoric se poate pune problema invalidarii credintelor respective. Pana atunci, taxarea Bisericii Catolice, de catre o parte din ortodocsii romani, drept „eretica” ramane o grosolana acuzatie care, daca nu va fi dezmintita la timp de Patriarhia BOR, risca sa inaugureze o perioada teribila pentru ortodoxia romaneasca.

Filioque

E chestiunea cea mai „spinoasa” in relatiile catolico-ortodoxe. Nu am de gand sa pledez pro sau contra, dat fiind ca o asemenea atitudine a fost de multa vreme depasita atat de teologii Vaticanului (in mod oficial) cat si de o parte a teologilor ortodocsi (cu exceptia celor ramasi in continuare blocati la etajul dintre secolele al XIX-lea si al XX-lea). Ma voi multumi sa parcurg istoricul problemei, punand lucrurile in context. Filioque priveste o adaugire- clarificare pe care Biserica occidentala (cu mult inainte de schisma din 1054) o opereaza in Crezul adoptat la Sinodul de la Niceea (325). Anume, acolo unde Crezul niceean afirma purcederea Duhului Sfant „de la Tatal”, la inceput doar o parte a crestinilor occidentali, ulterior, toata Biserica occidentala, mentioneaza ca Duhul purcede „de la Tatal si de la Fiul/Filioque”.

Pneumatologia a starnit enorme discutii teologice neincheiate/nerezolvate/neelucidate rational de nimeni pana astazi (cu exceptia „expertilor” de la ZIUA, fireste). Avem de-a face, probabil, cu elementul cel mai putin „rationalizabil” din panoplia dogmatica a crestinismului. Ajunge sa amintesc aici faptul ca numai in Noul Testament, termenul „duh”/”spirit”, gr. pneuma, imbraca patru sensuri: literal, „suflu, suflare, vant” (3 ori); antropologic, „principiu al vietii” dar si „omul vazut in integralitatea capacitatilor sale duhovnicesti, spirituale” (47 de ori); demonologic, „duh rau” (38 de ori); teologic, cel mai important si mai des intalnit, Duhul sau Duhul Sfant, in legatura cu Tatal sau cu Fiul (275 de ori). Foarte interesant: de 18 ori apare formula „Duhul lui Dumnezeu”; o singura data, „Duhul Tatalui”; de cinci ori Duhul este calificat cristologic.

Introducerea lui Filioque in Crezul/Simbolul Bisericii latine dateaza din secolul al VI-lea (al treilea Conciliu de la Toledo, 589). Formula a fost reconfirmata la conciliile locale din 633 si 675. Hotararea respectiva a fost adoptata ulterior de Biserica din Galia, sub Charlemagne. Biserica romana si-a insusit-o spre 1013. In legatura cu Filioque se ridica trei chestiuni: 1) este legitima adaugirea respectiva? 2) care este justificarea ei istorica si teologica? 3) cum se prezinta lucrurile astazi? In ce priveste legitimitatea, teologii au oarecum dreptate sa raspunda acuzelor ortodocsilor amintindu-le acestora unele interventii unilaterale, fara consultarea Bisericii de la Roma. Daca orientalii si-au ingaduit, de pilda, la Sinodul de la Constantinopol (381), sa modifice Crezul de la Niceea fara consultarea si fara acordul latinilor, atunci reprosul orientalilor in sens invers este neavenit. Pe de alta parte, introducerea lui Filioque n-a fost un capriciu teologic al Occidentului, ci, de la bun inceput, o necesitate istorica si teologica. Gotii din Spania, increstinati de Ulfila, proclamau, in realitate, arianismul (multa vreme oficial si in Orient, sub urmasii lui Constantin), erezie care, asa cum bine se stie, pentru a evita confuzia cu politeismul, accentua monarhia Tatalui in cadrul Sfintei Treimi, coborand Fiul pe treapta creaturilor. Adaugarea lui Filioque in Crezul rostit de comunitatile din Spania a fost, la origine, o incercare de contracarare a arianismului si modalismului priscillian.

Pe de alta parte, Filioque reprezinta un punct extrem de important al teologiei trinitare a lui Augustin. Imprumutand de la Hilarie de Poitiers ideea Duhului ca „dar al Tatalui si al Fiului” (De Trinitate 2, 29) si de la Marius Victorinus (filozof, traducator al lui Plotin in latina) tema Duhului ca dragoste reciproca a Tatalui si a Fiului (Imne 1, 4; 3, 242), Augustin vorbeste despre Tata si Fiu ca „unic principiu al Duhului Sfant”. Dar, atentie, Augustin a fost in mod sistematic interpretat de tabara ortodoxa nu plecand de la textele sale, ci de la prejudecatile taberei respective. Pentru teologul latin, Tatal este principium non de principio („principiu care nu are nici un principiu”) in vreme ce Fiul este principium de principo („principiu care provine dintr-un principiu”). Augustin nu amesteca asadar, in mod indiscret, cele doua Principii, Tatal si Fiul, ci le deosebeste cu subtilitate (De Trinitate 15, 17, 29; 15, 26). Trebuie amintita, in treacat, si influenta neoplatonismului (Plotin citit in traducerea lui Marius Victorinus) asupra conceptiei trinitare „democratice” a lui Augustin. Augustin abstractizeaza Persoanele Treimii. Acestea nu se mai afla, ca in teologia personalista orientala, intr-un raport de „forta-iubire” una fata de alta, ci mai degraba intr-unul de „echilibru-cunoastere”. Acestea fiind zise, viziunea lui Augustin, desi inovatoare, nu elimina iubirea ca principiu relational intre Persoanele Treimii; asa cum, vice versa, teologii oriantali (Vasile cel Mare, Grigore din Nazians) nu elimina factorul-cunoastere din „mecanismul” inefabil al Sfintei Treimi.

Leon cel Mare (sec. V) isi va insusi formula augustiniana, Filioque, in mod explicit. Teologii greci sustin formula: „Duhul purcede de la Tatal si se primeste de la Fiul”. Maxim Marturisitorul (sec. VI-VII) discuta, cel dintai, deosebirea dintre formula greceasca si cea latineasca, in Scrisoarea catre Marinos. Prin urmare, lucrurile se stiau de multa vreme, grecii fiind la curent cu unele inovatii latine, cu secole bune inainte de 1054, fara a se arata scandalizati. Dimpotriva, in Scrisoarea citata adineaori, Maxim ii demonstreaza destinatarului sau compatibilitatea lui Filioque cu per Filium, tema care va fi reluata ulterior, in profunzime, de Nichifor Blemmydes (si pentru acesta Filioque trebuie inteles ca per Filium). Ioan Damaschinul va contesta adaugirea latina, insistand pe unicitatea principiului purcederii, care este Tatal.

Chestiunea lui Filioque are si un substrat liturgic. In primele Liturghii crestine Crezul nu aparea deloc (de altminteri, pana in 325 nu exista un Crez elaborat si acceptat universal). Pentru prima data o marturisire de credinta intra in structura Liturghiei, in Orient, abia in secolul V. Conciliul al treila de la Toledo (589) impune ca si in Occident Crezul de la Niceea-Constantinopol sa fie cantat la Liturghie. In 807, abatele manastirii de pe Muntele Maslinilor (manastire latina) introduce practica respectiva la Ierusalim. Crezul, continand si adaugirea Filioque, starneste o disputa cu calugarii greci de la manastirea Sfantul Sava de pe muntele Sinai. Disputa ajunge la curtea lui Charlemagne. Mai multi teologi ai imparatului scriu tratate in favoarea lui Filioque. Papa Leon al III-lea marturiseste Crezul cu Filioque, dar refuza sistematic sa insereze formula in textele liturgice romane. Abia Benedict al VIII-lea o va introduce, in 1014. Conciliul de la Trento, din secolul al XVI-lea, o va confirma. Cu titlu anecdotic, trebuie spus ca daca, in 1054, cardinalul Humbert nu i-ar fi acuzat pe greci ca ar fi suprimat Filioque din Crezul lor (sic!), acestia nu si-ar fi dat seama de existenta acestui diferend. Doar atunci patriarhul Mihail Chelularie isi da seama ca latinii „au adaugat” un element la Crezul niceno-constantinopolitan.

Momentul reconcilierii a fost de foarte scurta durata: conciliul de la Florenta, din 1439, cu putin inainte de caderea Constantinopolului. La Florenta nu s-a decis eliminarea lui Filioque, ci s-a propus interpretarea lui intr-un sens apropiat de per Filium. Oricum, grecilor nu li s-a impus nici o secunda preluarea lui Filioque in Crez. Din punct de vedere teologic lucrurile s-au deblocat in 1874-1875, la o conferinta comuna a ortodocsilor rusi (tot rusii!) si a catolicilor de rit vechi. In 1898, Bolotov publica o serie de teze cu privire la Filioque. Traducerea franceza a textului german va aparea in revista Istina, in 1972. Dupa teologul rus, formula patriarhului Photius, „Duhul purcede numai de la Tatal” este o teologumena, iar nu o dogma; iar in teza 27 se afirma: „Filioque, ca optiune teologica speciala, nu poate constitui un impediment pentru restabilirea comuniunii ecleziale”. Tezele lui Bolotov vor fi acceptate, ulterior, de importanti teologi ortodocsi, precum Bulgakov, Evdokimov, Voronov, dar vor fi privite cu suspiciune de V. Lossky.

De o importanta capitala pentru dialogul intre catolici si ortodocsi o reprezinta „Clarificarea Vaticanului cu privire la Filioque” din 1995. Textul integral a aparut in L’Osservatore romano, 20 septembrie 1995, pp. 3-6, in limba engleza. Pozitia Vaticanului este aici mai mult decat concilianta. Renuntand la atitudinea „de forta”, aratata in timpul lucrarilor Conciliului de la Florenta, si mergand, fara parti pris-uri, la sursele neotestamentare si patristice ale chestiunii, documentul poate fi rezumat grosso modo ca o incercare de explicitare a lui Filioque in sensul traditiei ortodoxe. Altfel spus, desi Filioque este pastrat ca formula (in realitate, lucru foarte important, Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea l-a eliminat in ceremoniile ecumenice) el trebuie inteles nu ca adaugire inovatoare, ci ca o simpla glossa clarificatoare.

Iata unul din pasajele-cheie ale acestui document oficial: „Biserica Catolica recunoaste valoarea conciliara, ecumenica, normativa si irevocabila, ca expresie a credintei comune a Bisericii tuturor crestinilor, a Simbolului marturist, in greaca, la Constantinopol, in 381, de catre al Doilea Sinod Ecumenic. Pe temeiul Evangheliei dupa Ioan 15, 26, Simbolul marturiseste ca Duhul „purcede (ekporeuomenon) de la Tatal. Tatal, singur (The Father alone) este principiu fara principiu (arche anarchos) al celorlalte doua Persoane ale Treimii, unicul izvor (pege) al Fiului si al Duhului Sfant. Prin urmare, Duhul Sfant isi are originea (takes his origin) numai in Tatal (ek monou tou Patrou) intr-un chip principal si imediat. Parintii greci si intregul Orient crestin vorbesc, in acest sens, de „monarhia Tatalui”, iar traditia din Vest, urmandu-l pe sfantul Augustin, marturiseste, la randul ei, ca Duhul Sfant isi are originea principaliter in Tatal, adica, [Tatal] fiind principiu (De Trinitate 15, 25, 47). In acest sens cele doua traditii recunosc ca „monarhia Tatalui” implica faptul ca Tatal este cauza (aitia) trinitara unica sau Principiu (principium) atat al Fiului cat si al Sfantului Duh.” Ce dovada mai clara de buna credinta si buna stiinta istorica, filologica, teologica decat aceasta „clarificare” venita acum mai bine de zece ani din partea Vaticanului!? Unii ortodocsi au intampinat-o cu simpatie, recunostinta si bucurie, intrei ei si episcopul Zizioulas, altii, cu mefienta ranchiunoasa, precum Jean-Claude Larchet. Fiecare dupa temperament si... posibilitati. Cert este ca ortodocsii nu mai au acum absolut nici un motiv de aruncare cu piatra. Daca sunt cinstiti nu pot nega pasul urias facut de catolici in rezolvarea celei mai importante disensiuni „dogmatice”: Filioque.

Imi amintesc de replica, sublima, a unui teolog spaniol, care mi-a fost profesor pe vremuri la Madrid. Intrebandu-l care este opinia lui despre Filioque, m-a privit tinta, ca pe un om cazut atunci din luna, si mi-a raspuns cu un umor nimicitor: „Dragul meu, n-am fost niciodata acolo sus, in sanul Sfintei Treimi, ca sa stiu de unde purcede exact Sfantul Duh.” Cu asta cred ca putem trece la capitolul urmator.

Post scriptum: Multumesc numerosilor cititori, de toate confesiunile, care mi-au scris in legatura cu textele mele precedente aparute pe site-ul www.greco-catolica.org. Unii dintre ei m-au avertizat cu privire la cateva replici violente, rugandu-ma sa raspund intr-un anumit fel. Daca numele de sub acele atacuri la persoana ar avea vreo legatura cu teologia, cu istoria crestinismului sau cu credinta, in general, fireste ca le-as fi luat in consideratie (atacurile la persoana, cum se stie, se rezolva la tribunal). Ele vin insa din partea unor oameni fara pregatire, fara caracter si fara Dumnezeu. Prin urmare, nu vad alta replica posibila decat gandul rugaciunii. Pe de alta parte, celor care s-au speriat de „scandalurile” din cadrul ortodoxiei (rusesti, romanesti, grecesti) le pot spune doar ca aceste scandaluri, dincolo de murdaria de suprafata, absolut reprobabila, sunt semnul unei dezmortiri, al unei iesiri din incremenirea milenara la care ortodoxia s-a autocondamnat. In sfarsit ceva-ceva incepe sa se miste, chiar daca aiurea, fara sens si cu bruschete.

(va urma)
Cristian Badilita

Författare på B:

Michail Bulgakov. Mästaren och Margarita är en klassiker, och en bok jag aldrig tröttnar på. Kommer i nytryck gång på gång och pocketupplagan i bokhandeln just nu har ett väldigt snyggt rött, svart och vitt omslag.

Titel på B:

Begrav mitt hjärta vid Wounded Knee av Dee Brown. Mycket omtalad på sistone. Mitt eget exemplar lånade jag ut och fick aldrig tillbaka. Mycket skakande läsning. När jag såg texten om ett indianer i en lärobok en gång, önskade jag att eleverna fått läsa den här i stället.

Karaktär på B?

Hm, det får bli Bob, Bob Crusoe (av Daniel Defoe)! Robinson var tråkig när jag läste delar av den på högskolan i våras, men alla andra gånger jag läst boken har jag gillat den, både som barn och vuxen. Fantastiskt vad man kan ordna det för sig. I alla fall om man har lasten från ett skeppsvrak med sig. Och inte har tummen mitt i handen. Mindre fantastiskt hur en vit mans människosyn såg ut på den tiden. Ganska omskakande faktiskt, om man tänker efter.

Încă de la începutul răspândirii creştinismului a existat această problemă, pe care creştinii trebuiau să o depăşească. În prima sa parte, creştinismul s-a răspândit într-un mediu elenist în care platonismul era redescoperit prin intermediul medioplatonismului şi a neoplatonismului, curente promovate de studioşi precum Filon din Alexandira şi Plotin. Aristotelismul trecuse deja într-un plan secund, societatea de la acea vreme fiind suprasaturată de gândirile materialiste (materialiste nu în accepţiunea modernă a cuvântului, ci în sensul în care epicureismul şi stoicismul încercau să definească lumea suprasensibilă pornind de la elementele physis-ului), iar în acest context doctrina profund spirituală platonică a avut un rol benefic.

Platon a plecat în aventura descoperirii lumii suprasensibile ajutat de „a doua nevigaţie”. Pentru el totuşi corpul nu era altceva decât închisoarea trupului. Pentru descoperi adevărata esenţă a sinelui omul trebuie să se debaraseze încetul cu încetul de materialitatea sa şi să se reidice spre contampalrea Ideilor, asupra cărora Ideea de Bine avea absolută întâietate. Aceasta se putea face prin adevărata cunoaştere a lucrurilor şi a ideilor. Analizând aceasta am putea spune că gnosticismul a fost mereu o tentaţie grecească. În aceste condiţii, creştinii trebuiau totuşi să găsească o soluţie pentru a propovădui bunătatea lumii materiale, ca so creaţie divină.

Plotin a depăşit dimensiunea demiurgică a logosului, introducând acel Unu care este deasupra logosului şi din care se desprinde logosul prin emanaţie. Astfel logosul nu mai este principiul realităţii ci o consecinţă a unui Unu de la care au luat fiinţă toate şi care rămâne unic şi incognoscibil. Iată că această concepţie vine într-un moment potrivit pentru creştinism, care într-o lume politeistă, monistă, trebuia să propovăduiască unicitatea lui Dumnezeu. Totuşi, chiar şi aşa exista o mică problemă: cum să exprimi adevărul treimic, pentru că în acest sens doctrina plotiniană nu era de nici un ajutor. Soluţia a venit tot din parte categoriilor greceşti, fâcându-se apel la celebra distincţie între ousia, substanţă, şi ipostasi, adică persoană. Iată deci cum cultura laică a putut oferi creştinismului anumite concepte de care acesta să se folosească pentru răspândirea sa.

Probleme în calea dialogului dintre cultură şi teologie încep să apară în Orient după lupta iconoclastă caştigată de iconoduli, dar care a şi adus cu sine o afirmare puternică a monahismului. Începând din acest moment a început un adevărat proces de fugă din calea culturii laice. Monahismul a propus şi a implementat fără scrupule propria sinteză, asupra realităţii. Cu acest monahism sintetizat a intrat în contact lumea slavă. Astfel se explică de ce în toate bibliotecile antice de la Kiev, Moscova, Tîrnovo se puteau găsi doar operele de factură monastică a sfinţilor părinţi. Astfel şi astăzi se crede că Sfinţii Părinţi se rezumă la operele monastice scrise de cei trei ierari şi Antonie cel Mare, Efrem Sirul şi se trec cu vederea operele patristice care dialogau cu cultura contemporană lor, respectiv patristica latină. Apare apoi Pelerinul Rus o excepţională expresie a sintezei monastice acceptate de slavi, şi considerată azi de ortodocşi şi de habotnicii creco-catolicii ortodoxizaţi, adevărata cultură bizantină.

Aşadar, trebuie să fim atenţi ce considerăm cultură bizantină, pentru că aceasta nu se echivalează cu sinteza monastică ce a ajuns la noi. Nu consider această sinteză ca fiind una malefică, doar că trebuie stiut că aceasta este doar o sinteză a unei culturi, nu cultura în sine. Resimţim astfel din plin în România subjugarea slavonă la care suntem încă supuşi, întrucât nu încape îndoială, ritul bizantin a intrat pe teritoriile noastre prin slavii ce au preluat din cultura bizantină doar această sinteză monastică. Mai mult, în continuare până în epoca modernă, biserica ortodoxă a promovat numai această sinteză monastică, iar ca argument am putea aduce faptul că prima carte tradusă în limba română, binenţeles cu litere slavone că doar noi nu eram latini, a fost Scara paradisului de Ioan Scărarul. NU pun la îndoială profunda valoare spirituală pe care această carte o are, dar nu putem să nu remarcăm faptul că traducerea ei în limba română încă dă mărturie despre sinteza monastică perpetuată până în zilele noastre!

Problema ortodoxiei în general apare în această epocă modernă, când disensiunile dintre diferitele biserici autocefale au devenit din ce în ce mai puternice. La rândul lor, în fiecare biserică autocefală s-au cristalizat două curente: unul ce propune perpetiuarea aceste tradiţii monastice, şi altul ce a reînceput dialogul cu cultura modernă! Astfel avem, pe de o parte, teologi ca Bulgakov, Losskij, Uspensky, Schmemann, care au reluat dialogul cu cultura, iar pe de altă parte avem reprezentanţii perpetuării sintezei monastice: Paisie Velicikovski, Iustin Popovic şi alţii. Din păcate între aceste două părţi există o luptă destul de acerbă, s-au mai bine zis, primi teologi ortodocşi enumeraţi sunt consideraţi filo-catolici şi aproape afurisiţi de adepţii tradiţiei pur monastice, în frunte cu mănăstirile athonite care se cred absolut îndreptăţite să îl tragă de urechi pe Patriarhul ecumenic Bartolomeu I şi pe episcopul Athenei. Aceasta este problema pe care ortodoxia ar trebui să o rezolve, pentru că altfel este greu de purtat un dialog cu aceasta, întrucât nu ştim cu cine să vorbim.

Andra bloggar om Skrivande, Novell, Författande, Bulgakov

Aş impresiona oare atât de mult pe distinsul meu profesor cu experimentele literare ale lui Bulgakov încât îmi va încununa ieşirea din sala de examen cu zâmbete ştrengare? Încât lacrimi îi vor şiroi pe obrazul drept odată cu descoperirea epocală a faptului că studenta pe care-a văzut-o pentru prima oară la faţă a fost născută pentru a experimenta orice cotlon obscur al black-box-ului uman?

Mientras los bolcheviques tomaban el Palacio de Invierno, MIjaíl Bulgákov estaba en algún pueblo perdido de Rusia preparando unos chutes. Al parecer era bastante duro ser médico rural, así que se enganchó a la morfina, que no logró dejar hasta 1919. Su relato 'Morfina' es una especie de diario de su cuelge:

"8 de abril de 1917: Esto es un martirio".

"9 de abril: La primavera es terrible".

"Me inyecto morfina dos veces al día: a las cinco de la tarde (después de la comida) y a las doce de la noche, antes de dormir"

"El primer minuto: una sensación de que algo roza el cuello. Este roce se vuelve cálido y se extiende. En el segundo minuto una onda fría atraviesa repentinamente la cavidad estomacal e inmediatamente después comienza una extraordinaria lucidez en las ideas y se produce un estallido de la capacidad de trabajo. Todas las sensaciones desagradables desaparecen. Es el punto más alto de la expresión de la fuerza espiritual del hombre. Si yo no estuviera maleado por mi formación de médico, afirmaría que normalmente el ser humano sólo puede trabajar después de una inyección de morfina. En realidad: ¡para qué sirve el ser humano si la más insignificante neuralgia puede hacerle perder completamente el equilibrio espiritual!".

Bulgakov started to write this book in the 20ties of the 20th century. Altough you could not tell it from the start, this novel eventually become a mirror of the life and namely the atmosphere in the Russia. Paranoia, suspicion against anything, that is seen to be uncommon. But the other (evergreen) characteristics of mankind are shown here - greed, jealousy, hypocrisy, false morale.

And what is this novel about? Simply put - there is a "black mage" Woland, who with his entourage arrive in the Moscow. This entourage comprises from 2 men (both of them are really weirdos :-) ), one tomcat, who can speak and walk and woman (who likes to walk around naked and does not like a sunshine much)... Very soon, the twisted marry-go-round of absurd, but humorous situations occur, sparkling with brilliant and completely unrestrained fantasy of the author. The another story-line appears - the story of last days of Jesus - but this story is really different from anything you could read before :-). And there is also a love-story of broken novelist and broken wife of russian scientist... Well, I guess, that is enough for the start...

This novel really deserves the mark of the one of most famous and brilliant novels of the 20th century. Although you may think, that it is not actual, the opposite is true...

Find out that yourself.....

Bye

RB

--------------

Czech version of this article can be found here:
bednarik.blog.idnes.cz
----------------
Now playing: Emiliana Torrini - At Least It Was
via FoxyTunes

You can download it here: Mikhail Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita (419pp, 1.50 MB).

Any comments welcome! :)

… είδα ότι ο τύπος της ΕΣΣΔ τα τελευταία δέκα χρόνια της λογοτεχνικής μου δραστηριότητας τα κατέγραψε σε 301 άρθρα. Από αυτά τα εγκωμιαστικά ήταν μόνο τρία, ενώ τα εχθρικά και υβριστικά 298. Αυτά τα τελευταία 298 αποτελούν τον καθρέφτη της ζωής μου ως συγγραφέα. (…) Σας παρακαλώ να λάβετε υπόψη σας ότι το να μη μπορώ να γράφω ισοδυναμεί με το να ζω σαν θαμμένος ζωντανός. (…) Παρακαλώ την κυβέρνηση να δώσει εντολή να εγκαταλείψω την ΕΣΣΔ (…)  Αν όλα όσα έγραψα δεν είναι πειστικά…και με καταδικάσουν σε εφ’ όρου ζωής σιωπή (…) παρακαλώ να μου δώσετε εργασία ανάλογη με την ειδικότητά μου (…) αν όχι (…) να με διορίσετε ως κομπάρσο, αλλά και αν αυτό είναι αδύνατο, τότε διορίστε με ως εργάτη σκηνής (…) γιατί είμαι, την παρούσα στιγμή, αντιμέτωπος με το φάσμα της ανέχειας, την έλλειψη στέγης και τον θάνατο.

 Τα παραπάνω έγραφε το 1930 σε επιστολή του στην Σοβιετική Κυβέρνηση ο Μιχαήλ Μπουλγκάκοφ, ο κορυφαίος συγγραφέας του γκροτέσκου και της ανελέητης σάτιρας, μια από τις πιο αδικημένες μορφές της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας, στον οποίο είναι αφιερωμένο το τρέχον τεύχος του Διαβάζω.

Αυτός ο μόνιμα εξεγερμένος δημιουργός με τους εκλεπτυσμένους τρόπους και την παράτολμη γραφή και ζωή, που την ημέρα εργαζόταν στον τύπο και το θέατρο και τις νύχτες έγραφε πυρετωδώς τα έργα του, παρέμεινε άγνωστος σε όλη τη διάρκεια της ζωής του λόγω του ανελέητου πολέμου, ή μάλλον κρυφτού, που του επιφύλασσε η κρατική ηγεσία κι ο ίδιος ο Στάλιν: από τις μυστικές έρευνες στο σπίτι του, την κατάσχεση χειρογράφων και ημερολογίων ως την απόσυρση κάθε θεατρικού του έργου και την πλήρη απαγόρευση δημοσίευσης κάθε άλλου. Ο Μπουλγκάκοφ, στερημένος από κάθε έσοδο από την εργασία του και ακατάπαυστα λοιδωρούμενος από τους λιβέλλους των εφημερίδων, δεν δίσταζε να γράφει επιστολές κατευθείαν στον Στάλιν, ζητώντας μια εξήγηση που, φυσικά, ποτέ δεν έλαβε.

Το πλήρες αυτό αφιέρωμα, που δημιουργεί εντονότατα συναισθήματα, περιλαμβάνει εκτός από ποικίλα βιογραφικά, αυτοβιογραφικά και άλλα κείμενα και σειρά επιστολών όπου διαφαίνεται ανάγλυφα η απεγνωσμένη προσπάθεια του κράτους να εξαφανίσει το όνομά του από οπουδήποτε. Δεν το κατάφεραν, γιατί μπορεί τα έργα του (Η Λευκή Φρουρά, Διαβολιάδα, Τα μοιραία αυγά κ.λπ. και πάνω απ’ όλα Ο Μαιτρ και η Μαργαρίτα - το κατά Μπόρχες μοναδικό μυθιστόρημα της παγκόσμιας λογοτεχνίας) όσο ζούσε να μην βρήκαν ποτέ το δρόμο προς αναγνώστες ή θεατές, σήμερα όμως θεωρούνται μνημειώδη.

Εξαιρετικό ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει ακόμα η συνέντευξη με τον Reader’s Diggest, έναν από τους πρώτους βιβλιο-blogger στη χώρα μας, που δεν ασχολήθηκε μόνο με βιβλία που αγνοούσε η κριτική, αλλά και έκρινε βιβλία επωνύμων που περνούσαν στο απυρόβλητο.

Οι 164 σελίδες του τεύχους γεμίζουν με ένα Φάκελο περί χάρτινης γεύσης (ο γευσιγνώστης Αλέξανδρος Σακκάς περνάει από το κριτικοσκόπιο 30 βιβλία μαγειρικής και οίνου), συνέντευξη με τον Βαγγέλη Ραπτόπουλο, τις γνωστές ερεθιστικές στήλες κ.ά. Εγκαινιάζεται, τέλος, μια νέα στήλη που θα ενημερώνει για κόμικς μέσω …κομικς, μια ιδέα που, απ’ όσο γνωρίζω, είναι εντελώς πρωτότυπη.

Oj vad det springs och hojtas! Och vad de spelar och sjunger! Ale Möller står för musiken, som alltid på teatern numera. Inget ont om Ale men det är, om man ska vara snäll, inte så jättemycket Ryssland i hans musik. Och definitivt inget Sovjetunionen.

Om Bulgakov hade velat skriva en pjäs hade han såklart gjort det. Istället skrev han en märkligt mångbottnad allegorisk roman som handlar om Stalins kommunistiska idealsamhälle. Boken är fylld med händelser av typen "ämbetsmän börjar plötslig sjunga, slutar arbeta och transporteras bort på ett lastbilsflak, alltjämt sjungande". Humor naturligtvis men också ett påpekande om vad som hände den som vägrade samarbeta med Sovjetstaten.

Sånt har svårt att gå fram på teatern. Situationer om sanning och författare i statens tjänst finns men blir övertydliga på scenen. Nyanserna saknas. Det finns ingen tydlig dramatisk konflikt i romanen, snarare arbetade Bulgakov med lager-på-lager, händelser återkommer i nya versioner och det finns minst en berättelse i berättelsen. Regin försöker med tempoväxlingar gestalta detta men det är tveksamt om man lyckas. Delarna är bra men helheten känns forcerad.

Obehaglig lyteskomik förekommer på några ställen i uppsättningen. En tandlös korpulent man med vårtor i ansiktet dansar. Är det roligt? Är det menat att vara roligt? Hade de (kanske 1/4 av publiken) som skrattade skrattat även ifall det vore de bildsköna ynglingarna från korsfästelsescenen som hade dansat?

Nä, som så ofta när det gäller döda författares omarbetade verk så blir man en smula bekymrad. Och kära Stadsteatern, varför valde ni att spela den här pjäsen? Ni räknade med bra beläggning? Det är trots allt en mycket känd titel? Även om det visar sig att rätt få verkligen har läst boken.

But there is another city: the old lanes of Arbat that inspired the Muscovite poet and folk singer Bulat Okudzhava; the footpaths where the Rostovs walked in War And Peace; Georgian restaurants where the diners at the other tables know the songs the guitarists are singing and join in; cheap food markets, piled with pickles and honey and salted fish.

Unlike Paris or London, Moscow has never had a large bourgeoisie. It is gold or it is iron and there is little cushioning in between. There are few cities of such contrasts or of such power and will exerted in architecture: from the imperial supremacy of the Kremlin, to the Soviet supremacy of Stalin's grandiose blocks, to the corporate supremacy of the modern high-rise business district.

Writers have always grown here, too. In winter, they seem closer. Inside a small pink townhouse, it is 1890. Lamplight glows over a green baize-covered desk. Here, Anton Chekhov changed from a jobbing writer of short stories to respected author and winner of the Pushkin Prize. The pen with which he wrote The Cherry Orchard lies in a case.

The city is filled with the perfectly preserved open houses of great writers: Dostoevsky, Lermontov, Bulgakov, among others, and you can visit all of them. Bulgakov's gives the eeriest feeling of deja vu: anyone who has read The Master And Margarita will recognise the stair and the courtyard across which Margarita flew.

Gorky's house is perhaps the saddest and most beautiful. In 1928, Stalin lured Russia's literary wunderkind back from Italy and installed him in this vast and elegant art-nouveau masterpiece with a KGB man for a secretary. In 1934, he was banned from leaving the country. Two years later, he died in suspicious circumstances. "It is a beautiful cage," says Galina, my translator, gesturing at the otherworldly subaquatic design of the interior.

Stalin also established the residential settlement of Peredelkino, in the countryside on Moscow's outskirts, as a writers' colony. Writers were the cultural stars of the Soviet Union and this was its 1930s Hollywood. Now the new rich are building their houses here, but some of the original buildings have been kept as museums.

Materiale si foto despre Sf Serafim de Sarov: http://www.miriamturism.ro/galeriefoto.html

Pelerinaj in Rusia la Sf Serafim de Sarov, in mai, iulie si octombrie 2008: http://www.miriamturism.ro/pelerinaj-rusia-sfantul-serafim-de-sarov.html

Invitation to a Beheading was originally published in its original Russian in Paris in the 1930s, under the pseudonym Sirin. It is nothing so much as a phantasmagoria; a nightmare with beautiful, dreamy interludes. It's also a dystopia, although Nabokov would surely despise this categorization (in his 1959 Foreword to this edition, he encourages his readers to disregard the significance of the Bolshevik and Nazi revolutions to the work, and heaps scorn on the "illustrated ideas and publicistic fiction" of Orwell).

Cincinnatus has "a certain peculiarity" which, so far as I can tell, is his crime, for which he is sentenced to death and locked away in a fortress to await his beheading (the date of which his guards refuse to reveal). The peculiarity is described:

"He was impervious to the rays of others, and therefore produced when off his guard a bizarre impression, as of a lone dark obstacle in this world of souls transparent to one another... In the midst of the excitement of a game his coevals would suddenly forsake him, as if they had sensed that his lucid gaze and the azure of his temples were but a crafty deception and that actually Cincinnatus was opaque...

"In the course of time the safe places became ever fewer: the solicitous sunshine of public concern penetrated everywhere, and the peephole in the door [of C's cell] was placed in such a way that in the whole cell there was not a single point that the observer on the other side of the door could not pierce with his gaze."

The crime of Cincinnatus is opacity. A reluctance to be utterly "transparent," open with fellow citizens. Reserve might be a word for it; so might individuality. We, today, in the free world, are utterly basking in "the solicitous sunshine of public concern."

This is no brilliant analysis, I'm afraid. But the crime struck me as a remarkably contemporary concern, and documenting it occurred to me as a lovingly ironic way to open this utterly public, utterly opaque discourse.

As a footnote: Mikhail Bulgakov, in his brilliant The Master and Margarita, allegorizes Stalin as the sun. Coincidental, surely, but interesting nonetheless.

There is a new project on the web and it prompted me to write this little review. It's been 5 years since I read this book and to me it's not just one of the greatest novels of modern literature, but (together with this) it's what made me rediscover the pleasure of reading - not because you have to, but because you want to and because you know it's a feeling you can't find anywhere else. It's one of those books that you just never want to end.

This is the book that gave us Behemoth, the fast-talking gun-loving black cat, the novel that put a human face to the devil (the face of Professor Woland) - all while making satirical references to the communist-and-godless USSR (upturned into havoc by the arrival of such characters) - how can one not love it?

In Moscow, in the 1930s, a odd looking foreigner (none other that Prof. Woland) has a baffling conversation with MASSOLIT artists Ivan Bezdomniy (the surname means "homeless") and Berlioz in the aftermath of which the latter dies, while the first is committed to an institution. Here, he meets The Master, an author whose work (a historical novel about Pontius Pillat and Jesus) is rejected by the Soviet authorities, thus forcing him to turn his back on his former life (which included lover Margarita).

This brings us to the second setting, as the confrontation between Pillat and Yeshua Ha-Nozri as described by Woland in his conversation with Berlioz and echoed in the pages of the rejected novel.

The third setting is way past the borders of "magical realism" and downright in the middle of "fantasy". Margarita, out of love for the Master, makes a deal with the Devil, who turns her and her maid into quite powerful witches; Margarita flawlessly hosts the Midnight Ball (in the Walpurgis Night) and Woland grants her wish - to be together with the Master.

I have made this sound rather simple and plain, yet it's anything but. It's a rather hard to read novel, because its density varies and you never know what to expect next. The story of Pillat strikes me as the most straightforward, while the ball, or Margarita's flight are more difficult pieces. The fragments I found most engaging though, were those featuring some kind of "Moscow vs. Woland" match, a match with clever, fast, witty lines, hiding underneath a much more serious reality. (And since we're on the subject of witty cracks about the Soviet Union, I saw that Ilf & Petrov have been reprinted by RAO - I read their books also about 5 or 6 years ago, and I can't help wondering how I'd look at them now, since I'm...you know, older and wiser ;) )

In the tradition of the Russian novel, Mr. Bulgakov is influenced by Dostoyevsky and Gogol, but mostly by Goethe's "Faust", and he has, in his turn, influenced some of the greatest artists of today, from Mr. Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" to Franz Ferdiand's "Love and Destroy" (or so Wikipedia would have us believe ;) ).

There have been several on-screen adaptations of the novel, and I was reticent to watching any, because I thought a lot of the book would be lost. But, since it was on TV, I watched the 2005 10-episode miniseries and it totally won me over, so if you can get your hands on it (here....or maybe here ;) ) it's definitely worth your time :)

 And, right at the end, a little request: if anyone knows where I can find a translated version of Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", please, please let me know :D

This is the story about the rich and famous, the not quite rich or famous and, most importantly, those not famous at all. It is also a story about art. It touches on some shameful facts but there are good things too. Nothing is black and white only. Something for everyone, I think.

Technology

It has long been a desire of the powerful to classify people into useful categories. Consumer companies such as Procter & Gamble owes considerable debt to market research which divides the World into those using Prell, Tide, Bounce and the infidels that do not. TV evangelists, politicians, NPR and Greenpeace split people into Donors and Parasites.

The Census Bureau classifies us in microscopic detail to the delight of the marketing and advertising gangs. The political districting gurus have a grandiose sand box of devious tactics. Some become crooked enough to drive legislators into neighboring states to avoid being railroaded. Starbucks drill into the data to determine the address of the next overpriced java dump.

I'm happy to learn there are 984 Slovaks and 89 Sioux in the City Of Seattle. Sadly, no Navajos appear to live in my city. 2,447 females require less than five minutes to get to their workplace. Some are my neighbors, no doubt. Of those working at home, 1,271 are not US citizens. 4,767 leave for work between 5 and 5:29 AM, which oddly is about the same number as those leaving between 11 and 11:59 AM. All data is downloadable from the Census Bureau for your entertainment unless, of course, you already have a life.

Then there is something called data mining as practiced illegally by various US government agencies such as NSA in the name of the holy War on Terror, aka the Religious Right War on Muslim. It's purpose, in the eyes of the George W.'s of an unfortunate world, is to gain insights in as many aspects of your personal life as possible, thereby supposedly proving you are a Muslim and thus a terrorist. Never mind that you may actually be a Slovak, Sioux, Navajo or, worse, a Democrat.

Data mining is largely done by deep diving into the Internet, tapping emails and listening in on phone calls. When it gets more than lukewarm, your phone specifically is tapped, with or, most likely, without court approval. Big Joe demands all your private records from record keepers such as banks, online services and your veterinarian. Naturally, banks, airlines and others such as Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft and Google, have caved in to Big Joe. Joe McCarthy would be green with envy if he were to live in these joyous times. Many wonder why 250 million Americans buy into this horse manure. This is the people fanatically defending their right to bear assault rifles. Over their dead bodies as the saying accurately goes. That line in the sand stand, of course, defends the right to carry an assault rifle to the supermarket, not those Commies'
civil rights.

If you are like most people, data mining is not close to your top priorities. It is a subject almost as boring as Global Warming. No doubt you will ignore both of these issues until 1) your house is permanently under carbonized ocean water and 2) Big Brother decides you are no longer allowed to fly on US of A airlines to visit Grandma in Florida. Your charitable donations are suddenly terrorist money laundering. Your favorite cruise ship vacation is replaced by a prolonged stay in Cuba where no laws are pertinent.

Will data mining stop terrorism? It absolutely, definitely and assuredly will not. Data mining and the War on Terror will fail because George Bush has no idea what or who he is allegedly fighting. Winning means you have to know who and what to beat. It helps if you also know why. Ask any athlete. Tim Duncan does not play against some vague demographic segment. His job is to beat the heck out of Yao Ming and Shaq O'Neal.

Data mining, on the other hand, will generate gigatons of absolutely useless data, not winning a single game. It is pointless to wiretap 250 million Americans to gain insights into the minds of five or so terrorists located in Kazakhstan this week and in Lille, France next week and then possibly in the Sears Tower with a suitcase full of radioactive weapons of mass destruction and a smart looking suicide belt. The CIA will blame FBI who will tear into The Domestic Nuclear Detection Office who sends it off to NSA/CSS after which it is never seen again.

This is all due to the idea people can be classified, pigeonholed and dumped into categories, risk segments, code orange traps and hard drive locations. It is, to be true, all fantasy.

Politics

George Bush splits the World into those with him and those not. Those against him include everyone not with him, that is, Terrorists aka Muslims, Scientists, Environmentalists, anything French or German, Gays, his Dad, Hollywood, the Press, Fancy Food, Alzheimer victims, Math Teachers, ACLU and Anyone making less than a million bucks a day. He also dislikes journalists, doctors, lawyers, actors, his own cabinet and members of previous cabinets as well as any past, current or future members of Congress.

Hitler divided the World into mythical Aryans and those not, such as Jews, Gypsies, Hungarians, Poles, Cabaret performers and Homosexuals. Stalin divided his constituents into evil peasants versus loyal commissars. His Generals split their troops into those shot by Germans and those shot in the back by fellow soldiers for not advancing fast enough. The Generals too usually ended up shot by a jealous Stalin.

None of the three gentlemen above cared or cares at all for "different" people. That is a tragedy led by the powerful and directed at the powerless. People are split into categories resulting in the loss of freedom, rights and heads. The rules of the splits can be pretty much anything. Here are a few examples from the last 8 years or so, sorted by casualties:

Iraqi Wars, Afghan Wars, Ethiopia-Eritrea War, Somali Civil War, The First and Second Chechen Wars, Sudanese Civil War, 9/11, Algerian Civil War, Israel-Lebanon War, Sierra Leone Civil War, Waziristan War, Cote d'Ivoire Civil War, al-Qaeda misc. Murders, Turkey-PKK Conflict, Beslan School Siege, Bali Bombings, Madrid Terrorist Attack, Moscow Theatre Siege, Guatemala Civil War, Bojaya Massacre, Super Ferry 14 Bombing, Iraq Fuel Tanker Bombing, London Terror Attacks, Passover Massacre, USS Cole Bombing, Varanasi Train Bombings, Janupur Train Bombing, Karachi Bus Bombing, Indian Parliament Murders, Podujevo Bus Bombing and the Anthrax Attacks.

Tragedy

There is a different kind of prominent split that most of us like to ignore. That is the split of those that are Disadvantaged or those who are not. This includes the Mentally Ill versus us Sane. The physically disabled versus us fit. The oppressed, discriminated against and persecuted; the homeless, stateless, limbless, jobless or not. Anyone not fitting the orderly picture favored by those claiming to be Normal. Once you had Hippies and Beatniks. Now you have welfare mothers, suicide by police, walled suburbs, security cameras, phone taps, road rage and high school murder. It's them versus us. Take no prisoners.

Perhaps one way to make the distinction is that the Outsiders are those that frighten the Insiders. The Insiders deep down know that the transition to Outsider is just a breath away. That is not a pleasant thought. You might suddenly and involuntarily join the damned, those fucked over one way or another. Jobs, status and security come and go.

Walk into any nursing home and you will not just find the elderly - you will find plenty of people that by their age and physical condition should be out there laboring away as us normal persons do. These people - traffic accident victims, punched out boxers, short-circuited CEOs, born "that way", victims of violence or natural disasters - are institutionalized because a) they should be and b) someone or something is paying for their keep which is lucky indeed.

The US VA hospitals are filled with those suddenly Disadvantaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or the dozens of other conflicts deemed worthwhile by brave leaders. Iraqi graves are filled with those permanently Disadvantaged by cluster bombs, religious leaders, Bunker Busters, Precision this or that, lack of milk, neighbors, drugged out Blackwater "security guards" not to mention Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, Egyptians, Kurds, Turks and Jordanians. Perhaps an Israeli or two play their game too.

Cityscapes

I live in downtown Seattle. As in most downtown areas, human misery is close at hand. Screams in the night, mental illness, drugs, pan handling and all the other urban invisibles are all quite visible in my neighborhood. Being on a busy street close to a major fire station, sirens topple the normal noise level at a frightening pace. The major TV stations are close by and their remote units come and go, recording misery somewhere else. Their helicopters constantly head for some disaster or another.

Listening to the nighttime screams, the anger of those stuck out there is very obvious. It is true rage I hear. That rage is rarely specific and usually aimed at "it". "It" isn't you or me. But it leads to fear among the shop owners, the Yuppie condo people and the city officials. Rage on one side, fear on the other side. Careful demarcation of boundaries: them versus us, day versus night. It is remarkable how loud voices are at 4 AM when the traffic is gone. Perhaps it is despair I hear rather than anger. It might be both.

I have yet to see the rage of the disadvantaged turn into violence although it certainly happens. It does not, though, approach the violence created by even an average American President. Some of "them" I know by now. Others I recognize. Being an insomniac, I see both sides of the fence. Some of "them" are artists with great talent although the chance of a gig or exhibition is slim indeed.

Art

Here is what I'm driving at. You'd be astonished how much art is created by the Different or those Disadvantaged. Take Hitler's concentration camps and ghettos. A different post of mine included the harrowing, remarkable art produced by camp inmates. Some of those images are repeated here. Extraordinary music was composed in the camps. Only a small proportion is preserved. Hitler's envy of real artists sentenced them to extermination. Here are just four of the names: Mendel Grossman - photographer, Leo Haas - painter, Alfred Kantor - painter, Paul Morgan - entertainer.

In recent times, the fenced paradise of Singapore banned, censored and prosecuted local press, local artists, theater performances, international press and magazines, pornography and music of various kinds. Sex and the City was only shown recently after much hand wringing. They call it Social Engineering.

The people of Singapore feel they live in a nice place which might be true in the mind of some. Certainly Singapore is record clean. There are immigrant ghettos in Paris and many other European cities that are not as clean or socially engineered. The various zones, authorities and partitions in the Middle East are in the daily news. The Baghdad disaster, parts of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Toronto. If you live in one such area, Art may not be in the front yard of your life. Yet Art lives on everywhere - even in the Green Zone of Baghdad. I bet.

Many of us saw the glorification of the Soviet Worker's Paradise: workers rising, workers working, workers marching or worker warring. It did not include workers drunk, workers departing for Siberia or workers suffering from AIDS. Apparatich, KGB and aging leaders were artistically invisible. Artistically, the World became one-dimensional.

The Soviet System demanded conformance to "Soviet Realism" which was neither realistic, nor had much to do with art. Lenin in 1920 denounced "Expressionism, Futurism, Cubism and "other 'isms'," as non worthy elitist deviance. Dissidence meant gulags as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Alexander Ginzburg found out. Major artists such as Shostakovich and Prokofiev in music and, in literature, Bulgakov, Pasternak, Platonov, Mandelstam, Trifonov, Babel and Grossman all walked the thin line of becoming "Different" and rebelling against the state line. But check out some of Shostakovich's works - there are plenty of semi hidden revolts against the dictations. All of which were at the mercy of Stalin and others. "Different" meant living a very miserable life.

In the US of A

Billie Holiday was banned from performing in New York as was Thelonious Monk. Joe McCarthy destroyed some 140 victims - many were artists. Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully censored the Brooklyn Museum and its "Sensation" art show. Some five years ago, the New York State corrections commissioner announced that he banned the sale of artwork created by prison inmates to reduce the anguish of the victims of said inmates. Considering over two million people in the US enjoy free room and board, it stands to reason there should be a rather lively art scene. Certainly many artists were in jail for some or another offence in their past.

Let's compile another list: Emily Araki, Asao Handa, Mobu Hashimoto, Taye Jow, Yoshiko Ushida and Richard Kanazawa. All were Artists, different and residents of American concentration camps during WWII. There were many more, all of Japanese origins. Yet the sons fought in Italy and elsewhere. On the American side.

NPR and the National Endowment for the Arts are perpetual Republican targets for extinction. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, To Kill a Mockingbird, All the Pretty Horses, the Harry Potter series, The Catcher in the Rye, Sophie's Choice, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Inferno (Dante) all share the honor of being banned from schools in, for instance, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida and Texas. The same schools usually favor school prayers, various patriotic pledges and creationism. They tend to agree with Lenin on "Expressionism, Futurism, Cubism and "other 'isms'," being dangerous elitist deviance usually leading to pre marriage sex or worse.

Then we have the racial issues. It used to be those were viewed as mostly a shameful American problem. Today it is a global issue that will get worse. Global Warming will force relocation of hundreds of millions of people from tropical areas into developed areas on top of the current labor market flows. Politicians gamble it will not happen on their guard. But Nicolas Sarkozy of France already knows the score as do his riot police.

Racial profiling is yet another example of discrimination practiced by air lines, police and New Jersey Turnpike State Patrol. United Airlines throw Assem Bayaa off a flight claiming that because of national security, they don't have to obey civil rights protection laws. Racial profiling is blamed for the shooting of Amadou Diallo by the New York City Police Department. London Police killed Jean Charles de Menezes because he looked Middle Eastern. Menezes was Brazilian. US Airways removed six Muslim imams from a flight after fellow passengers expressed fear.

My favorite fascist Ann Coulter jumped in on the US Airways act: "US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline." Would Ms. Coulter like to fly Middle East Airlines on her next trip to Beirut? Maybe she'll have to connect using Syrian Arab Airlines after crossing the Atlantic on Royal Jordanian out of JFK. No doubt service would be impeccable.

Mortgage lenders, insurance companies and the retail industry have their own version of profiling known as redlining. It means ethnic factors determine the availability of services. Blacks cannot obtain loans or insurance. Retailers refuse to serve certain ethnic neighborhoods. The late 1980s saw the emergence of the phrase Environmental Racism. It covers issues such as urban decay and excessive pollution in minority areas and the unavailable health care for, say, AIDS.

Us

"Us or We" stand for Tide and Dell. iPods, SUVs and cell phone ring tones. A precious few are happy, well adjusted and always productive. Most of us are not. We cherish majestic homes, exercise clubs, personal trainers. Airline miles, first class upgrades, airport club rooms and special floor in hotels. Foie Gras, Beluga Caviar, Kobe Beef, 1945 Mouton-Rothschild, stirred, not shaken martinis on Bombay Sapphire and a spot of BC's finest. Prozac, Prada, Nike, Viagra.

Illegal gardeners, cooks and nannies. Insider trading, child porn, spousal abuse, congressional pages. Cancer, heart pacers, redone faces, improved waistlines, hairlines and butt lines. The Sundance Cirque Lodge, The Causeway Therapeutic Center or perhaps the Sunset Malibu when things get out of hand? "We" congest the streets, cause global warming, kill thousands of species, make wars, snort cocaine and generally don't care for one another.

Only the most stupid of us believe in useless stereotyping as shown above. There is not a single individual fitting the portrait. Some may come closer than others but labeling just does not work. Not all enjoy Beluga Caviar. Some prefer ballpark hot dogs and drive a Chevy Aveo. Others like Iranian Caviar better. Personally, I like spaghetti. I'm not much of a Prada guy.

Let's consider the "Us" camp and some of its members. By most standards, membership includes strange individuals such as Howard Hughes, Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, Jerry Springer, Kobe Bryant, George W. Bush, Howard Stern, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Boris Yeltsin, Ann Coulter, Al Gore, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Flintstone and George Karl. All defy classification. They are different but have one thing in common. These people do not produce Art.

The "Us" segment contains untold numbers of serious, legitimate artists. Writers, painters, composers, topless dancers, photographers and maybe a blogger or two. Occasionally well adjusted, safe and sound, they go about the business of art. Some art may be a bit bland compared to the far corners of expressive power. It truly takes all kinds. Take Smooth Jazz and New Age Flutists - great companions with Prozac. No wonder the true Disadvantaged scream in the night. Their art is rarely bland.

To see the spread from the bland to the somewhat adventurous and, by exception, the truly original, compare, say, Perry Como and Janis Joplin. Doris Day compared to Eve Ensler. Miss Marple and John Barth. Rock Hudson and Sean Penn. Tom Clancy and Kurt Vonnegut. Amy Grant versus Eminem. Norman Rockwell against Pablo Picasso. John Grisham versus Norman Mailer. Burt Bacharach and Arnold Schoenberg. Ebert against Susan Sontag. Ricky Martin versus John Cage. David Sanborn versus John Coltrane. Janet Jackson and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Anita Baker against Anita O'Day. Danielle Steel versus Andrea Barrett.

Perhaps not all of the above are well adjusted. Some are or were addicted to various things. Not all are nice people. Some of the art is truly awful and most is very bland. None of them live on the street or reside in mental institutions. Some may feel at home in rehab centers but that's not quite the same thing. This essay is not about these guys. This article is about the other ones: "them".

Them

"They" stand for poverty, rage, illness, irresponsibility, insanity, and screams in the night. They are institutionalized, discarded, feared, deep-6ed, 86ed, banned, ignored, hidden, driven out of town. They look bad and smell bad. They are drunk, high, low, infected with lice, AIDS or TBC. A few are violent. They annoy, panhandle and give us evil eyes. Many are in jail, asylums or various concentration camps around the World. Or they would be if we establishment types could find the time to round them up. Being parasitic, they deserve no care, no breaks and no respect. Politicians safely can ignore them. They carry no political weight, do not lobby much of anything and receive no DC pork.

Mental Creativity

Mental illness, in particular manic-depression and creativity go well together. Famous examples include Ernest Hemingway, Robert Schumann, Virginia Woolf, Michelangelo, Diane Arbus and Lord Byron.

"Outsider Art" refers to the work of self-taught mentally ill or disadvantaged artists such as Delaine La Bas, Adolph Wolfli, Nek Chand, Ferdinand Cheval, Henry Darrger, Madge Gill, Alexander Lobanov, Martin Ramirez, Achilles Rizzoli and Judith Scott. The 1922 book "Artistry of the Mentally Ill" by Hans Prinzhorn identified the Ten Schizophrenic Masters: Karl Brendel, August Klotz, Peter Mogen, August Neter, Johann Knupfer, Victor Orth, Herman Bell, Heinrich Welz, Joseph Sell and Franz Pohl.

The six images close by in this section represent works by Outsider Artists. The top pencil drawing of a woman is by Madge Gill, an English artist guided by a spirit. She did thousands of drawings like the one shown here. The woman in the drawing may be Gill herself or a stillborn daughter.

Martin Ramirez, a Mexican who lived in California, did the Man on a Horse. Ramirez suffered from schizophrenia. After his death, the painting became quite valuable. This is unusual: most of these artists are or were institutionalized with their work neither shown publicly nor sold. Even after death, when often their work first came to light, little is made public.

The drawing of a huge dog with his tiny master is next. No doubt based on an accurate view of the world according to most dogs, the artist is Bill Traylor. He was born a slave in 1856 on a plantation near Benton, Alabama. He remained at the plantation till 1934, described as an illiterate farmer with some English vocabulary. He then worked on road gangs and was essentially homeless. So how come this man is viewed as one of the most important American artists?

From 1939 to 1942, Traylor worked the streets of Montgomery as a street artist. He was 83 when he started this artistic career, eventually producing around 1,800 drawings. Friends brought him drawing materials and others provided small favors such as food and an occasional roof. His first show was held in 1940 - ignored by Traylor who was busy drawing. His next show was held in 1942 at a local high school. By chance, his work caught the attention of the NYC Museum of Modern Art. The Museum attempted to buy some of the works but was angrily rejected. By 1943 Traylor moved north to his children. He died in 1947 and his work fell into the shadows for thirty five years.

In 1982, he was part of a landmark exhibition of Black American art. His work was rediscovered and he is now a regular feature of the art scene. Exhibitions include about some twenty across the South in the last 10 years. He recently was featured in England, Germany and Switzerland.

Adolf Wolfli, Resident Artist, Waldau Mental Asylum, Switzerland 1895-1930

Adolf Wolfli is perhaps the best known of the Outsider Artists. Born in 1864, he was a farmhand, a laborer and a convicted sex offender by the age of 31. At this point he was committed to the Asylum where he remained to his death in 1930. He was violent, subject to hallucinations and diagnosed as a schizophrenic.

He started drawing in 1899, but nothing is preserved till about 1905. Over the next twenty five years, he accumulated a remarkable output of an imaginary 25,000 page autobiography and some 3,000 drawings and collages. Supported by some of the hospital staff, here is his established routine:

• "Every Monday morning Wölfli is given a new pencil and two large sheets of unprinted newsprint. The pencil is used up in two days; then he has to make do with the stubs he has saved or with whatever he can beg off someone else."
• "He often writes with pieces only five to seven millimeters long and even with the broken-off points of lead, which he handles deftly, holding them between his fingernails. He carefully collects packing paper and any other paper he can get from the guards and patients in his area; otherwise he would run out of paper before the next Sunday night."
• "At Christmas the house gives him a box of colored pencils, which lasts him two or three weeks at the most."

He achieved a bit of fame in 1921 when he was the subject of an attention getting publication stating a mentally ill person can be a serious artist. In 1922, he was one of several subjects in Prinzhorn's book mentioned above. The publicity allowed him to sell some drawings.

Yet that ripple did not last long and it was not till 1972 - forty two years after his death - that he was discovered by the world of art. His work started a remarkable tour through the world that included well over a hundred fifty exhibitions at locations such as the Museums of Fine Arts in Basel and Bern, Palais des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, Moderna Museet, Stockholm, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, Institute of Contemporary Arts, London, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, Universities of California in Berkeley and Santa Barbara, Musee Picasso, Antibes, American Folk Art Museum, New York, Kunsthalle, Kiel, Scottish Art Council, Edinburgh, Berliner Museum, Berlin, Centre de Cultura Contemporania, Barcelona, Museum of Kyoto, Kyoto, Setagaya Art Museum, Tokyo and the Katonah Museum of Art, New York. This is just a sampling;
add many more museums, exhibition halls and galleries.

What about his work? Well, think an enormous collection of newsprint papers completely covered with text, drawings, symbols, poetry and musical annotations. Meticulously organized into volumes: Nine volumes of "From the Cradle to the Grave", Seven volumes of "Geographic and Algebraic Books", 3,000 pages of "Saint Adolf-Giant-Creation (allowing his nephew to conquer not only Earth but the entire Cosmos), six books of "St Adolf II" (his alter ego), six books of "Songs ands Dances", four books on "Dances and Marches" and sixteen books and 8,404 pages on his "Funeral March". Most of his drawings were part of the volumes but some, called bread art, were single sheet, occasionally sold and the basis of his modest early following.

The drawings are exhausting, epic, complex, grandiose, geometrical, adventurous, labyrinthine, mysterious, startling and based on an incredible imagination. He spent most of his mature life in an isolation cell, yet provided views on far reaching subjects he could not have observed through anything but imagination.

Here is a bit of trivia: Wolfli did his Campbell Soup Can (above) in 1929. Andy Warhol did his Can in 1964. It seems both of them liked the Tomato Soup. Warhol is the pop artist of fame. Wolfli is known for insanity. May the best man or image win.

Also interesting is the inclusion of musical annotations and hints. Recently, these annotations have been interpreted into actual performances. He is said to have inspired a range of musicians and composers. Here are a few words on the musical aspect of his work off his web site:

• "Naturally enough, the question whether Wölfli's music can be played is asked again and again. The answer is yes, with some difficulty. Parts of the musical manuscripts of 1913 were analyzed in 1976 by Kjell Keller and Peter Streif and were performed. These are dances - as Wölfli indicates - waltzes, mazurkas, and polkas similar in their melody to folk music."
• "How Wölfli acquired his knowledge of music and its signs and terms is not clear. He heard singing in the village church. Perhaps he himself sang along. There he could see song books from the eighteenth century with six-line staffs (explaining, perhaps, his continuous use of six lines in his musical notations). At festivities he heard dance music, and on military occasions he heard the marches he loved so well."
• "More important than the concrete evaluation of his music notations is Wölfli's concept of viewing and designing his whole oeuvre as a big musical composition. The basic element underlying his compositions and his whole oeuvre is rhythm. Rhythm pervades not only his music but his poems and prose, and there is also a distinctive rhythmic flow in his handwriting."

Another curious aspect is that he apparently incorporated a detailed vocabulary into his work. This vocabulary included graphics such as birds, faces, decorative borders, snakes, musical staves and mandela shapes.

Adolf Wolfli's creativity is only the beginning of his startling abilities. It is hard to even imagine what must have been going on in that isolated mind that astonishes a world about which he directly knew very little. There is only room here for a few of his drawings (above). Given the uniqueness of his work, I've prepared a short multimedia show of samples from his work, accompanied by his own music as interpreted recently. Hit the "Wolfli" button in the next segment and let the show roll.

TOC

The Case of Adolf Wolfli - A Multimedia Show

Sometimes, Outsider Artists are referred to as "Folk Artists". Other descriptions include "brutish, rural, untrained, intuitive, menial, peasant, marginal, clumsy, naive, primitive, extreme, mental, elaborate and fantasy driven". Personally, I don't quite agree with any of these classifications. Considering that Outsider Art has become a commercially viable art form, some recent output might be described as opportunistic, simply bad or exploitative.

However, in the case of Wolfli, his music as interpreted in the show below is decidedly Swiss Folk style. Perhaps not all of us favor that particular music legacy but few among us can claim to simultaneously be writers of autobiographies, adventures, poetry, algebraic and geographic text books and symbolic essays plus be accomplished visual artists, draftsmen and illustrators plus be composers.

Hit the button for a rare glimpse of a long ago Outsider Artist and his quite strange world and who beat Andy Warhol to the Campbell Soup Can:

Wolfli

Finally

There are Outsider Music and Outsider Photography artists. Perhaps we have Outsider Postmen, Outsider Plumbers, Outsider Accountants and Outsider Neurosurgeons. Outsider Bloggers most likely are quite a large group. It depends on how you classify people. I suppose my point is that classifying people is a futile exercise. There are some trivial classifications that are real. If you lost a leg you are a one-legged individual. If you were born in Moscow, Idaho, you are an American citizen. But if you claim such classifications can be extended to your credit rating or artistic ability, then you are on a slippery slope.

There was an oddness about that terrible day in May which is worth recording : not only at the kiosk but along the whole avenue parallel to Malaya Bronnaya Street there was not a person to be seen. It was the hour of the day when people feel too exhausted to breathe, when Moscow glows in a dry haze as the sun disappears behind the Sadovaya Boulevard--yet no one had come out for a walk under the limes, no one was sitting on a bench, the avenue was empty.

Immediately following, the first Russians known to meet Woland are treated to yet another absence, as above, in the form of two expected presences:

'A glass of lemonade, please,'said Berlioz.
'There isn't any,'replied the woman in the kiosk. For some reason the request seemed to offend her.
'Got any beer?' enquired Bezdomny in a hoarse voice.
' Beer's being delivered later this evening' said the woman.
' Well what have you got?' asked Berlioz.
' Apricot juice, only it's warm' was the answer.
' All right, let's have some.'

The third major absence, of a sort, reverses this trend: Nearly every character in the book makes near-constant references to the devil, in whom they supposedly don't believe, and who supposedly doesn't exist. Bulgakov and the reader, of course, know better. And so should Berlioz, the first of many to use the expression "the devil!", the first occurrence, in the book, of which coincides with the first, supposedly illusory, sighting of the one of Woland's henchmen:

Just then the sultry air coagulated and wove itself into the shape of a man--a transparent man of the strangest appearance. On his small head was a jockey-cap and he wore a short check bum-freezer made of air. The man was seven feet tall but narrow in the shoulders, incredibly thin and with a face made for derision.
...
' The devil! ' exclaimed the editor. ' D'you know, Ivan, the heat nearly gave me a stroke just then! I even saw something like a hallucination . . . '

Before returning to the issue of either the devil's presence or absence, Bulgakov's characters discuss Jesus Christ, his supposed absence in history and presence in Bezdomny's (Homeless' - Bezdomny's patronymic suggests another absence) poem:

It was hard to say exactly what had made Bezdomny write as he had--whether it was his great talent for graphic description or complete ignorance of the subject he was writing on, but his Jesus had come out, well, completely alive, a Jesus who had really existed, although admittedly a Jesus who had every possible fault. Berlioz however wanted to prove to the poet that the main object was not who Jesus was, whether he was bad or good, but that as a person Jesus had never existed at all and that all the stories about him were mere invention, pure myth

The discussion goes on to mention Jesus' absence in the writings of ancient historians, and the supposed forgeries that constitute Jesus' presence in history and then, curiously, the presence of Jesus-like figures in nearly all "Oriental religions", ending with Berlioz' declaration that "the Christians, lacking any originality, invented their Jesus in exactly the same way. In fact he never lived at all. That's where the stress has got to lie."

Upon the pair's confession of atheism to Woland, we are treated to another expected-presence-but-doubly-actual-absence:

This valuable piece of information had obviously made a powerful impression on the traveller, as he gave a frightened glance at the houses as though afraid of seeing an atheist at every window.

In Bulgakov's Soviet Union, Woland should indeed expect to see atheists in every window. However, as we see later, these supposed atheists are often enough anything but. Not only are the atheists not present in the windows Woland supposedly expects them in (and there may even be some issues with the actual presence of Woland's expectation), but were they present they wouldn't even be atheists.

The five-now-six proofs of God's existence constitute the next instance of shifting presence:

' But might I enquire,' began the visitor from abroad after some worried reflection, ' how you account for the proofs of the existence of God, of which there are, as you know, five? '

And after Berlioz' rejection of these five proofs:

' Bravo!' exclaimed the stranger. ' Bravo! You have exactly repeated the views of the immortal Emmanuel on that subject. But here's the oddity of it: he completely demolished all five proofs and then, as though to deride his own efforts, he formulated a sixth proof of his own.'

This discussion of things that exist or don't culminates in Woland's frustrated response to the pair's disbelief in the devil:

' Well now, that is interesting,' said the professor, quaking with laughter. ' Whatever I ask you about--it doesn't exist! ' [the original translation I read had "Whatever I ask about - you haven't got any!"]

Like I said in the beginning, though, I'm not sure I have anywhere to take all this.