The polemic of F. M. Dostoevsky with Catholicism: towards the formulation of the problem.

Iudakhin Artem Aleksandrovich Postgraduate Student, Department of History of Journalism and Literature, A. S. Griboyedov Institute of International Law and Economics 111024, Russia, Moskva oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Shosse Entuziastov, 21 Artemyudakhin@yandex.ru

Introduction to the problemsThe religious-philosophical and, in particular, confessional aspects of F. M. Dostoevsky's work play a key role in understanding most of the writer's significant texts adequately to the author's intention.

This statement is true both in relation to the conceptual micro—level of the text — individual, local messages and meanings laid down by the author in the work of art, and the macro-level or "big" idea - the leading general concept that builds the structure and logic of the narration of the text, as well as literally "permeating" its content. In one form or another, religious and confessional issues are touched upon by Dostoevsky in all the novels of the Great Pentateuch without exception, and, moreover, the author himself attached important, essential importance to it.  That is why a full-fledged analysis of both artistic and journalistic creativity of the writer outside of the mentioned problems is impossible, since it should be recognized a priori as weak and does not reflect the full picture.

In the religious and confessional aspect of the writer's work, Dostoevsky's permanent polemic with Catholicism, which covered the last, post-reform period of the author's life and work, is particularly highlighted. Confirmation of the quantitative and qualitative relevance of anti-Catholic polemics is evident: the Catholic theme runs like a red thread through all Dostoevsky's novels of the 1860s and 1880s, somewhere it takes on a background and "random" character, and somewhere, as, for example, in the novels "The Idiot" and "The Brothers Karamazov", it already has the meaning of a leitmotif.  Time after time, the Catholic theme emphasized by the author is not only an additional (and therefore, in principle, optional) successful literary device, behind it lies a huge layer of personal reflections, reflections and ideas of Dostoevsky himself, affecting issues of socio-political history, philosophy, historiosophy and theology. It is noteworthy in this sense that all the artistic works of the author of the 1860s-1880s have their own creative polygon and their own ideological backstage. The first is numerous rough sketches and notes to novels published in the fundamental thirty-volume Complete Works of F. M. Dostoevsky^[1]. I refer to the conceptual backstage of the writer's artistic creativity as those sources, examples, ideas and events that had a direct or indirect impact on both Dostoevsky's worldview and the idea of novels and its creative implementation. Dostoevsky the writer is inextricably linked in this respect with Dostoevsky the chronicler and Dostoevsky the journalist, because, as has been repeatedly proved and demonstrated by literary critics, Dostoevists, in his artistic work the writer often generalized, translated and translated to another, symbolic or metaphorical level events and episodes from everyday life. This circumstance, in turn, makes it essential to study the factual basis of the writer's novels. In the aspect of the author's anti-Catholic polemics, it is necessary, first of all, to pay attention to the genesis of the Catholic theme in the writer's worldview and work, relating to the first half of the 1860s.

In the 1861-1863's, as well as in the 1864-1865's, the brothers F. M. Dostoevsky and M. M. Dostoevsky published the literary and political magazines "Time" and "Epoch".  Since January 1861, the magazine "Time" has not only been among the thick St. Petersburg magazines, but also begins to compete in popularity with such periodicals as "Domestic Notes" and "Russian Word", occupying the third position in terms of the number of subscribers in relation to the absolute leaders — "Contemporary" (7000 subscribers) N. A. Nekrasov and "Russian Bulletin" (5700 subscribers) M. N. Katkov ^[45]. The statistics given confidently confirm the words of the Norwegian researcher G. Hetso that the journals of the Dostoevsky brothers had "a broad influence on Russian public thought" ^{[43, p. 7]}. It is known that F. M. Dostoevsky took an active part not only in the publication of magazines, but also in the selection of materials and their editing. According to Dostoevsky himself, in two years of cooperation with the magazine "Vremya", he wrote about a hundred printed sheets, which, despite possible exaggeration, indicates a significant personal contribution of the writer to filling magazines with journalistic or artistic material ^{[43, p. 10]}. This fact is extremely important. There is a whole list of anonymous articles published in the journals "Time" and "Epoch", which researchers, resorting to the method of statistical and linguistic analysis, attribute to Dostoevsky. After the death of his brother in 1864, F. M. Dostoevsky headed the editorial office of the Epoch magazine, which would last another year and close in 1865.

          Thus, Dostoevsky, actively engaged in journalism during the first half of the 1860s, is directly and constantly in contact with what is commonly called the "reporter's search" ^{[25, p. 153]} and its main subject — facts and events of everyday life. The everyday fixation of ontological facts ^{[4, p. 164]}, i.e. life events and incidents in the socio-political context, constitutes its own content of the publications of the "Political Section" of the Dostoevsky brothers' journals, which, in our opinion, occupy a special place in the formation of F. M. Dostoevsky's anti-Catholic sentiments. Turning to the analysis of the key positions of the anti-Catholic media agenda of Russian journalism in the first half of the 1860s, we note that F. M. Dostoevsky separately recorded the facts, plots and events that interested him in notebooks and notebooks dating from 1860-1865. That is why further, in order to limit the search circle, we will analyze mainly only those main information occasions that are directly or indirectly related to the plots mentioned by Dostoevsky himself.

It is interesting that Dostoevsky made his first critical and polemical remark about Catholicism already in 1861. In a note to the stories of the French writer Countess V. de Gasparin "Dovecote" and "Poor Boy" published in the Time magazine, Dostoevsky writes that the author, when writing works, "unfortunately, was inspired more by Catholicism than by evangelical teaching" (19, 213). Despite the fact that Dostoevsky's assessment correlates with the content of the stories, it in itself, in isolation from the texts, appears as a certain marker demonstrating Dostoevsky's already well-established negative attitude towards Catholicism. The juxtaposition of Catholicism and "evangelical Christianity" will become the leitmotif of the writer's subsequent anti-Catholic polemics, as well as one of the components of his original historiosophical system. An interesting remark about the appearance of the Catholic theme in Dostoevsky's field of view is made by N. O. Lossky in the work "Dostoevsky and his Christian worldview": "Dostoevsky's turn to Orthodoxy began not with the discretion of the positive value of his Church, but with repulsion from someone else's religion, namely from Catholicism" ^{[30, p. 81]}. It is necessary to continue Lossky's thought and point out the motivating motives of Dostoevsky's appeal to Catholic themes. The main motive, in our opinion, was the realities of Russian and, more broadly, European political life of the first half of the 1860s and, above all, what is commonly called in historiography the "Polish question" and the "Roman question".

F. M. Dostoevsky and the "Polish Question"               

In historiography, the term "Polish question" refers to a protracted internal political crisis caused by a complex of unresolved problems of a socio-political and ethno-religious nature by the Russian government, which unfolded on the territory of the Western provinces of the Russian Empire in the XIX century. The time of the emergence of the "Polish question" was determined in different ways: I. S. Aksakov in 1863 wrote about the centennial drama of the "Polish question" ^{[3, p. 75]}, according to the opinion of the Russian publicist M. P. Pogodin, the time of the appearance of the "Polish question" can be considered the 1830s ^{[28, p. 143]}. The actualization of the topic of the "Polish question" in the first half of the 1860s is primarily connected with the Polish uprising of 1863-1864, which was widely covered by domestic journalism. The theme of the "Polish question" in various variations is also present on the pages of the magazines of the Dostoevsky brothers. It is noteworthy that in assessing what is happening on the western borders of the Empire, Dostoevsky was in solidarity with the authors of the Slavophile (I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin) and the soil-based (N. N. Strakhov) trends, who believed that the "underground" of the Russian-Polish conflict hides a religious-confessional and civilizational conflict. The Catholic theme, therefore, comes to the fore in the "Polish question", since Catholicism has historically been inextricably linked with Polish identity, Polish national identity. In addition, an important role in the preparation and conduct of uprisings was played by the Polish Catholic clergy, who became an active force of the national liberation movement ^{[27, p. 124]}. One of the researchers of the issue states: "The armed uprising that broke out in 1863 in the territories of modern Poland, Lithuania and Belarus attracted a lot of white and monastic clergy. Some of them performed the functions of spiritual pastors and confessors among the rebels, others became part of the rebel authorities, others took up arms at the head of the rebels" ^[24].  The uprising of 1863 only clearly indicated the fact that, as one modern researcher noted, "the Catholic Church was considered by the Russian government to be a hostage of the Polish question" ^[13].

The leading forces of the uprising were the urban population (townspeople, burghers), the gentry and the Catholic clergy (episcopate, priests) of Poland and Lithuania, guided by the Polish political emigration, led by the leader of the Hotel Lambert party, Prince Vladislav Czartoryski (1828-1894) ^{[2, pp. 16, 32]}. It should be noted that the support of the conspirators by the Catholic clergy can be traced at all phases of the uprising: revolutionary hymns were sung in Catholic churches and sermons were preached calling for a speech ^{[2, p. 23]}; already at the height of the uprising, the priests actively participated in the terror of the pro-Russian-minded peasantry of the Western Region and the Kingdom of Poland.  A modern researcher, St. G. Shcheglov, cites a number of illustrative facts that indicate that it was the priests who more than once acted as instigators in the brutal reprisals of revolutionary detachments against Orthodox priests and members of their families ^[46].  As an eyewitness of the described events recalled: "It meant nothing to a priest, a servant of the altar of the Lord, preaching from the pulpit about the humane teaching of Christ, to kill some helpless woman in the eyes of her children, hang a defenseless elder or poison someone who did not heed their God-defying teaching" ^{[2, p. 72]}.

         Both I. S. Aksakov and Yu. F. Samarin wrote about the participation of the Polish lower clergy in the uprising, who, for example, in one of his articles in 1863, gives the following picture: a gang of Polish insurgents comes out of the forest and enters the village, led by a Polish priest holding a crucifix in one hand, and in the other — a six-barrelled revolver, because "where he does not take the word, a bullet will take it and pierce through a skull that defies admonition, whether it is male or female" ^{[38, p. 364]}.

         The image of a revolutionary priest-executioner similar to Samarinsky is present in one of the poems of the famous diplomat and poet F. I. Tyutchev:

         "These battles have been going on for a month,

         Heroic fervor, betrayal and lies,

         The robber's den in the house of prayer,

         In one hand is a crucifix and a knife" ^{[42, p. 121]}.

         After the beginning of the uprising, the Papal See has been developing rapid activity in the field of foreign diplomacy. Note a remarkable fact: if the Polish (November) uprising of 1831-1832 was sharply condemned by the Catholic Church in the person of Pope Gregory XVI, who declared to Prince A. Czartoryski in 1841 that he was forced to condemn the Polish revolution, and, if necessary, will do it again ^{[1, s. 597]}, then according to In relation to the uprising of 1863, Rome took an ambiguous position. On the one hand, the Roman Pontiff Pius IX publicly called on Catholics to pray for oppressed Poland ^{[41, p. 336]}, and in 1863 even initiated the process of canonization of Bishop Josaphat Kuntsevich (1580-1623), famous for the brutal persecution of the Orthodox Church in the XVII century. This symbolic act had a pronounced political connotation. In the same year, 1863, diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Russia were actually severed.

         On the other hand, on February 20, 1863, the Pope condemned the Polish revolution and called on Poles to respect the state-church laws of the Russian Empire ^{[47, p. 73]}. In Poland itself, Bishop Adam Krasinski of Vilna directly refused to condemn the participants of the uprising. Subsequently, for his support of the revolutionaries, this prelate was exiled to Vyatka. In addition, by order of the Governor-General of Vilna, Count M. N. Muravyev, 177 Catholic priests were also expelled from the region, and 7 priests were sentenced to death ^{[41, p. 106]}. More than 400 Polish Catholic clerics, including bishops, were deported to Siberia, 114 of the 197 Catholic monasteries were closed due to their active support of the rebels ^{[1, s. 601]}.

         Thus, it can be stated that the Russian government has taken a whole range of measures aimed not only against the direct participants of the uprising, but also against the elements that supported the speech. Already after the suppression of the uprising, the government confiscated the property and monetary capital of the Catholic Church and transferred them to the state, and also imposed various sanctions that restricted the rights of the Catholic clergy (a ban on public processions, restrictions on the preaching of the clergy, etc.) ^{[26, p. 278]}.

         As already mentioned, F. M. Dostoevsky considered the Russian-Polish conflict, first of all, as an ethno-religious and civilizational conflict. In an unpublished article, "The Response of the editorial board of Vremya to the attack of the Moscow Vedomosti," Dostoevsky, in May 1863, expresses his view of what is happening.

In his article, Dostoevsky, sharing his own reflections, comments on and supplements the theses of N. N. Strakhov, expressed by the latter in the article "The Fatal Question" (April 1863). Referring mainly to the religious aspect of the issue, the writer states that Europe has developed in Poland only an anti-national and anti-Christian spirit, expressed in Catholicism, Jesuitism and aristocracy par excellence (20, 99). Moreover, nowhere in Europe did Catholicism reach such a degree of proselytism as in Poland, which led to the extreme hatred of Poles towards the schismatic Slavs: the Poles, based on their cruel religious fanaticism, did not consider the latter to be people (flakes, cattle), tortured and killed in an effort to convert them to the "true faith", since the entire Polish civilization "converted to Catholicism" (20, 100). Immediately Dostoevsky, explaining the main idea of the Polish civilizational mission in eastern Europe, reproduces the Strahovian twofold — "to pollute and to catholicize" (20, 100). In conclusion, Dostoevsky writes that the editorial board of Vremya, which published Strakhov's article, "completely and completely agrees" with the author's position on the "Polish question" (20, 101), from which we can conclude that Dostoevsky and Strakhov have complete ideological solidarity on this issue, except only for the emphasis, because Dostoevsky, unlike his colleague, states the pronounced religious nature of Polish hostility to Russia, thus referring the reader to the true root cause of the conflict, which lies in the religious subtext of the "Polish question".

Announcing the closure of the magazine in a letter to I. S. Turgenev dated June 19, 1863, Dostoevsky makes the following remark about the public reaction to Strakhov's article: "Some magazines ("Day", by the way) seriously began to prove that Polish civilization is only superficial, aristocratic and Jesuit, and, therefore, not at all higher ours. And imagine: they prove it to us, and that's what we meant in our article" (28, book 2:34). This entry refers us to the position taken by the newspaper "Day" regarding Polish-Russian relations. This weekly publication was headed by a prominent publicist and poet, ideologist of Slavophilism I. S. Aksakov, deservedly considered the main specialist of this ideological direction on the "Polish question" ^{[6, p. 145]}: in 1863 alone Aksakov published 33 articles on the "Polish question".

         The correspondence acquaintance of Dostoevsky and Aksakov took place back in the mid-1840s, when, as Aksakov himself wrote, a "new star" ascended to the literary firmament — the aspiring young writer F. M. Dostoevsky. Their personal acquaintance took place probably in the 1863-1864's ^{[29, p. 115]}. It is worth noting the ideological closeness of the most prominent Slavophile and the ideologists of soil science ^{[12, p. 31]}, including regarding the problem of the "Polish question". Dostoevsky himself considered the newspaper "Day" to be his ally during the publication of the Epoch magazine ^{[29, p. 115]}.

Aksakov interprets the Russian-Polish conflict as an ethno-religious one, and the religious aspect of enmity is the prevailing one. This is clearly evidenced by two July articles: "On the intervention of Europe in the Polish question" ^{[29, pp. 82-85]} and, especially, the article "On Rieger's letter on the Polish question". In the last article, Aksakov's attention is attracted by the speech of the deputy of the Austrian Reichsrat G. Berger, who expressed full support for the rebellious Poland, explaining his position by the fact that Poland is "the most faithful bulwark against pan-Slavism" and "a reliable tool of Europeanism" ^{[3, p. 87]}. Russian Russian-Polish conflict is, in fact, a religious confrontation between Latinism and Orthodoxy, this struggle is not for the possession of land, but for the spiritual independence of the Russian people from aggressive Romanization; moreover, if the Poles were Orthodox, no conflict would arise at all ^{[3, pp. 88-89]}.

A position similar to Aksakov, Strakhov and Dostoevsky regarding the "Polish question" was also taken by Yu. F. Samarin, a prominent Russian publicist and Slavophile philosopher. In 1863, two important articles by Samarin were published in Aksakov's "Day": "How does the Roman Church treat us?" (May, No. 19) and "The Modern scope of the Polish Question" (September, No. 38). According to Samarin, the enmity between Poland and Russia is based primarily on a significant difference in religious and political ideals ^{[38, p. 352]}. In his May article, Samarin notes that Russians do not harbor any hatred for Poles, but they shun the spirit of Latinism, because it is "repugnant to our faith, our beliefs and the whole structure of our spiritual life" ^{[38, p. 363]}. Just like Aksakov, Samarin believes that it is Polish Catholic missionism, the desire to spread the Latin enlightenment principle (propaganda latina) that serves as a justification for the forcible subjugation of neighboring Slavic peoples ^{[38, p. 351]}. Thus we see that the primary factor in the Russian-Polish enmity is again religious.  Suppressing the Slavic folk element in the Poles, Latinism, however, could not completely destroy it, which led to a dichotomy, coexistence and struggle of two principles: the Latin soul and the Slavic soul still produce their litigation, and it is on its outcome that the final resolution of the "Polish question" depends ^{[6, p. 138]}.

In a notebook of the 1863-1864's, Dostoevsky records a thought similar to that expressed by Samarin: "What is a real war? The Polish war is a war of two Christians — it is the beginning of a future war between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, in other words, the Slavic genius with European civilization" (20, 170).

Further, the Catholic theme appears in the notebooks and notebooks of the writer already in conjunction with the "Roman question", the rich factual background of which, in our opinion, had a serious impact on Dostoevsky's worldview.

F.M. Dostoevsky and the "Roman Question"Under the term "Roman question" in historical science, it is customary to understand the long—term conflict of the Papal See with the united Italian state, caused by the annexation of the sovereign Papal state by the latter, and, as a consequence, the liquidation of the secular power of the Roman pontiffs, which occurred in 1871. The conflict was legally settled only in 1929, through the Lateran Agreements - thereby was resolved and "the Roman question".

  The time frame of the "Roman question" is traditionally defined in 1871-1929 ^{[40, p. 223]}, however, the genesis of the confrontation should be attributed to the period of the first half of the XIX century, in which the desire of the Italian people for national and political unity, the desire to create a single Italian state, manifested itself with particular force. Thus, the "Roman question" was only one of the important components of a larger political and cultural process - Risordgimento (Ital. "Rebirth").

The starting point of the conflict should be considered 1848: in April 1848, the Roman Pontiff Pius IX publicly spoke out against the idea of unification of Italy. This reaction was quite expected, since the political consolidation of Italy was bound to inevitably lead to the liquidation of the disparate Italian states, including the Papal Region, which was the pledge of secular power and formal independence of the Roman high priests. Starting from this turning point, Italian nationalist patriots, declaring the Roman pontiff a traitor to the motherland, begin an active, unprecedented struggle with the papal throne. As a result of this armed struggle, the situation of the Papal State at the beginning of the 1860s was very deplorable. After the withdrawal of the Austrian troops in 1859, an uprising broke out in the papal province of Romagna, and soon a rebellion began in the neighboring papal provinces of Umbria and Marche. Thus, by 1861, the Roman pontiff held only 1/3 of his possessions, since the rebellious provinces became part of Sardinia-Piedmont, transformed in the same 1861 into the kingdom of Italy.

Domestic journalism closely followed the events taking place in Italy. Regular reports and articles covered various aspects of the "Roman question". Content analysis of the publications of the Dostoevsky brothers' magazines "Time" and "Epoch", as well as various weekly newspapers, for example, "Golos" or "Moskovskiye Vedomosti", allows you to systematize all the incoming material on "Roman issues" into several main categories, which, in turn, include various stories, events and episodes of a private and local nature. These categories represented the main media events broadcast by domestic journalism and formed the attitude of the Russian layman to what was happening on the Appennine Peninsula. These categories are as follows:

1) The personality, behavior and actions of Pope Pius IX: speeches and speeches, divine services and other public events of the pope, a description of his character and physical health, the history of the pontificate, etc.

2)    Activities of the Papal State: activities of the papal government and the Roman Curia, events within the Papal region, interstate diplomatic correspondence, etc.

3) Various aspects of the papal-Italian conflict: the actions of "Bourbon" robbers in the south of Italy, provocations of ordinary clerics and monarchists, conspiracies and intrigues of "anti-patriotic" forces in Italy, etc.

         The choice of the weekly newspapers Golos and Moskovskie Vedomosti as additional sources of information is dictated by the following considerations. Firstly, both newspapers occupied an exceptional place in Russian journalism. "Moskovskie Vedomosti" was one of the oldest and most authoritative domestic publications (since 1756), which, since 1863, under the leadership of M. N. Katkov, has been gaining popularity and becoming the "intellectual center of right-conservative forces" ^{[44, p. 337]} in the Empire. According to the well-known publicist N. P. Gilyarov—Platonov, "Moskovskie Vedomosti", having gained great influence in society, "formed a kind of department in which the most important issues on domestic and foreign policy were discussed and prepared for solution - the department is not official, with an independent and not imperious voice, but to the sounds of which it is impossible it was necessary to remain deaf..." ^{[44, p. 337]}. The daily St. Petersburg newspaper Golos, published from 1863 to 1883, also stood out against the background of other printed publications. It is significant that if in 1863 Golos had 4,000 subscribers, then in 1877 the newspaper already had 22,000 subscribers and regular readers. The successful editorial policy, as well as the exhaustive informative content of the publication, led to the fact that in the 1870s Golos became "one of the most influential newspapers in the country" ^{[14, pp. 436-437]}. Thus, the selection of these newspapers is dictated both by their exceptional popularity among readers, and by the exceptional position that these publications occupied in the socio-political life of the Empire of the 1860s-1880s.

         Secondly, and this is the main thing, the newspapers Golos and Moskovskie Vedomosti were the publications with which Dostoevsky interacted directly and directly more than once. It was Katkov's "Moscow Vedomosti" that was mainly targeted by the journalistic polemics of Dostoevsky and "Time", especially in the first year of the magazine's existence ^{[35, p. 268]}. In addition, some significant issues of the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti for Dostoevsky, as the experience of reconstruction showed, were in the writer's personal library ^{[5, pp. 267-268]}. In the newspapers "Moskovskie Vedomosti" and "Golos", the Dostoevsky brothers in early 1864 placed announcements about the upcoming publication of the magazine "Epoch" ^{[36, p. 15]}. In the February book "Epoch" for 1865, a comparison of the views of the "Moscow Vedomosti", "Day" and "Voice" on the fate of the peasants liberated by the reform is given ^{[36, p. 48]}. Just as with the Moscow Vedomosti, Dostoevsky also enters into a polemic with The Voice ^{[36, pp. 224-226]} already on the pages of The Epoch. Dostoevsky reads the newspaper Golos and makes notes in notebooks about the material that interested him^[2]. Thus, we can conclude that Dostoevsky was well acquainted with the material published in the newspapers Moskovskie Vedomosti and Golos. The actual acquaintance with the material, confirmed by notebooks and notebooks of 1860-1865, can also be supplemented by a reasonable assumption about the hypothetical possibility of Dostoevsky's acquaintance with materials and publications about which the writer does not write anything in the notes and notebooks of the said period.

The twentieth volume of the academic PSS of F. M. Dostoevsky presents notebooks and books of Dostoevsky for the period from 1860 to 1865 . It is from these rough dung and remarks that we learn that the Catholic theme in relation to the "Roman question" riveted Dostoevsky's attention, worried him, and not least.

For convenience, the content analysis of Dostoevsky's notebooks will be conducted by us according to the chronological principle, i.e., in fact, in the sequence in which the writer made his notes and remarks.

In a notebook of the 1863-1864's, Dostoevsky makes sketches for a political article and, among other things, states the following statement: "Between us and civilization is faith. The beginning is Catholic and Byzantine" (20, 171). By "civilization" here is meant Europe, which is increasingly acting in Dostoevsky's worldview as the main religious-cultural, mental and even eschatological antagonist of Orthodox Russia. Certainly, Dostoevsky borrows many ideas in this vein from Slavophiles, first of all from the most prominent representative of the Russian Laien Theologie A. S. Khomyakov, the author of critical articles published under the title "A few words about Western faiths"^[3]. Khomyakov's historiosophical ideas, comprehended and supplemented by Dostoevsky, occupy an important place in the writer's ideological system.

The following facts can serve as confirmation of the thesis about Dostoevsky's acquaintance with the works of Slavophiles and, above all, with the works of Khomyakov. Firstly, the Complete works of A. S. Khomyakov in three volumes were in the Dostoevsky Library ^{[5, p. 146]}. In addition, touching on the Catholic theme, Dostoevsky repeatedly mentions Khomyakov in notebooks: "Perfect logic in the construction of the idea: that if the pope is a spiritual master and if the church combines the answers to everything and the keys of the future, then it is clear, therefore, that everyone should be subordinate to whom, if not to the pope (logistics in the nature of Roman construction. Hamsters)" (20, 190). This mention seems to be quite important, because it demonstrates Dostoevsky's familiarity with the criticism of Catholicism and the papacy by Khomyakov. Later, Dostoevsky would often recall the ideological leader of the Slavophile movement, but already outside the context of anti-Catholic polemics. In 1881 Dostoevsky, reflecting on the meaning of Orthodoxy for the Russian people, directly refers the reader to the Khomyakov understanding-the definition of the Church: ("What is the church — from Khomyakov") (27, 64). It is also worth emphasizing that the synonymy of Dostoevsky and Khomyakov in the criticism of Catholicism was pointed out by N. O. Lossky ^{[30, pp. 341-342]}.

Khomyakov's influence on Dostoevsky's polemic with Catholicism can also be traced in the fact that both authors postulated the transformation of the Catholic Church into a state pursuing exclusively earthly goals. Seduction by the third diabolical temptation, i.e., earthly power, will become one of the general motives of the entire anti-Catholic polemic of Dostoevsky, who wrote that Roman Catholicism sold Christ for earthly possession (22, 88; 26, 85), having turned the whole of Christ's work only into "concern for his earthly possessions and for the future state possession of the whole world" (26, 90). All these thoughts are echoes and continuation of the anti—Catholic polemics of the most famous Slavophile - A. S. Khomyakov, with whose work Dostoevsky was well acquainted.

The next logical conclusion, which Dostoevsky makes, is that since the Catholic Church for centuries fought only for the possession of secular power, and did it by worldly, often morally unacceptable means, then it was the Papacy that gave rise to socialism — positively (the desire to unite people under the auspices of the Pope by worldly means and for worldly purposes) and negatively (the bitterness of the European secular society at the centuries-old dictate of the Roman Catholic Church). Catholicism, according to the writer, also has in common with socialism a similar attitude towards man — a topic that is especially important for Dostoevsky: "Socialism is based on disrespect for humanity (herding)" (20, 177). Socialism for a writer, in this sense, is a papal pantocracy inside out.  Thus, the genesis of Dostoevsky's idea of internal typological similarity should be attributed precisely to the first half of the 1860s, including the materials of notebooks and books of this period. In them Dostoevsky writes the following: "Only socialism has grown out of Catholic Christianity" (20, 177).

On August 21, 1864, Dostoevsky makes a very important entry, which contains a reference to several parallel plots at once. The writer makes notes in the margins regarding the article "Moscow Vedomosti" dated August 19, 1864. The conceptual "decoding" of Dostoevsky's recording shows the presence in it of at least two media reasons known at that time. First, Dostoevsky mentions the resonant abduction in Rome of a Jewish boy, Joseph Cohen, who was forcibly converted to Catholicism (20, 189). On August 30, 1864, the writer returns to this incident again: "Cohen and Catholicism. (That you can lose because of some Koen). There will remain not love, but fear" (20, 191).

On one of the July days of 1864, a 10-year-old boy, shoemaker's apprentice Joseph Cohen, was abducted in Rome, fraudulently abducted by a Catholic priest. The boy, rejected from his family, was unwillingly imprisoned in the Institute of Catechumens, and his parents, in turn, were denied the opportunity to see their son. The abduction of the child caused a wide socio-political resonance. Not only representatives of the Jewish community of the city, as well as the Faculty of Law of one of the Roman universities, but also the French ambassador Count Sartige stood up for the Cohen family. However, the papal government rejected all requests. On July 20, 1864, Joseph Cohen was personally presented to Pope Pius IX at the summer residence of the pontiff Castel Gandolfo. When his dad asked him if he would be happy to change his old religion to a new one, the boy, appeased with treats and sweets, suddenly burst into tears and asked to be sent to his father. However, the boy's parents were never returned.

The abduction of Joseph Cohen, widely covered by the Russian press, was a tragic repetition of the Mortara incident. In June 1858, in Bologna, the 6-year-old son of a Jewish couple Mortara Edgardo, who had been secretly baptized by a servant, was abducted by gendarmes on the orders of Catholic prelates, taken away from his parents' home and placed in a monastery for Catholic upbringing ^{[39, p. 276]}. Pope Pius IX rejected requests to return the child to the family, explaining the refusal to comply with the laws of the Papal region, according to which Jews were forbidden to raise Christian children. Dostoevsky undoubtedly knew about the Mortara incident, as well as he knew about the Cohen incident, since both incidents were often considered together in the domestic press. The motif of Ivan Karamazov's "tears of a child" has, in this case, its own prehistory, proving that the Papacy will stop at nothing to achieve its goals. The "little Tragedy" of the boy Cohen is a vivid journalistic fact, a significant event that Dostoevsky could not ignore.

The next plot is also connected with violence, but in a more violent form.  Dostoevsky records in his notebook: The Catholic Church "will unite directly with the revolutionaries and with the socialists — in sincere representatives sincerely, in insincere ones — robberly (like how it now helps robbery in Italy), and not otherwise than in both cases bringing Jesuitism into the revolution" (20, 189-190). Brigand gangs of Bourbon monarchists and pro-Papal forces operated on the territory of central and southern Italy, and from time to time it became increasingly obvious that this banditry was inspired and supported by Rome. In No. 9-10 of the magazine "Vremya" from 1861, the following fragments of the speech of the Italian politician Baron B. Ricasoli are given: "Neapolitan robberies are the hope of European reaction, and the European reaction has set up its main citadel in Rome" ^{[15, p. 17]}; "pennies collected from Catholics from all over the Earth in the name of St. Peter, go to recruit robbers from all over Europe" ^{[15, p. 17]}; "In Rome they sign up publicly, receive instructions and blessings, with which ... they cheerfully go to robbery and murder" ^{[15, p. 17]}.

In general, reports of robberies and robberies of reactionary robber gangs have become a regular part of the "Political Review" of many newspapers and magazines for several years. The discovery of the role of the Catholic Church in the organization, financing and spiritual support of robbery was given a special place. Here is what, for example, the authors of the column in No. 21 "Voices" of 1863 write, referring to an article from the English newspaper "Times": it is becoming more and more clear that the Catholic clergy "incites and supports robbery in the Neapolitan provinces. So, in Campo Basso, where robbers have been rampaging lately, an archdeacon was arrested" ^{[19, p. 84]}, from whose testimony it turned out that he was the "chief chief of the robbers" ^{[19, p. 84]}. The rebels not only terrorize the local population in southern Italy, but also constantly engage in battle with police and National Guard detachments, as reported in No. 44 of the Voice of February 21, 1863: one of the gangs "inflicted heavy losses on the national Guard detachment from Cirigliano ... killing up to 12 people from ambush" ^{[20, p. 176]}. On March 28, 1863, in No. 47, The Voice reports that one of the robber detachments was placed in the Kopka monastery, "where he received everything he needed for his maintenance" ^{[22, p. 296]}. In 1864, in No. 127 of The Voice, a correspondent of the Times, noting the fact that the Pope condones and directly supports the rebels, writes that Rome, therefore, has become a "refuge of robbers" ^{[23, p. 3]} and a "refuge of cannibals" ^{[23, p. 3]}.

Moskovskie Vedomosti also constantly cites reports from Italy, regularly addressing the topic of the robbery of reactionary gangs of rebels. And again, the evidence of the patronage of the Catholic Church to the rebellious detachments is evident. No. 151 of July 11, 1863 describes the atrocities of the robber gangs of certain Caruso and Schiavone, who, having captured 15 people, in violation of a promise, strangled them like pigeons ^{[31, p. 4]}. It is significant that the murder was accompanied by a battle cry: "Long live Rome" ^{[31, p. 4]}, as well as the following formula for sentencing to execution: "In the name of Pius IX and blessed Mary Christina, I condemn you as deserving of death" ^{[31, p. 4]}. In No. 153 of July 13 , 1864 "Moskovskie Vedomosti" reprints the correspondence of the "Cologne Newspaper", which reports on the recent Genoese incident, namely— the arrest of five passengers of the steamship "Aunis", which sailed from Civitta Vecchia to Marseille. These passengers, in fact, were hiding robbers, who at one time distinguished themselves by special cruelty. However, the most interesting thing was that when the criminals were arrested, papal passports were found with the handwritten signature of Cardinal Antonelli, Secretary of State of the Holy See ^{[32, p. 2]}. In No. 174 of August 10 , 1863 "Moskovskie Vedomosti" again cites the correspondence of the "Cologne Newspaper", which reported on the brutal massacre of robbers Caruso and Schiavone over a detachment of Italian royal Hussars. A detachment of 30 hussars, having lost the battle at Rendine, turned out to be almost completely destroyed by the rebels, among whom two priests were clearly seen ^{[33, p. 3]}. On August 22, 1863, in No. 183 of the Moscow Vedomosti, general statistics of victims of robber attacks are given: "the war against robbers" from May 1, 1861 to the end March 1863 claimed the lives of 307 people; the robbers' losses amounted to 3,451 people killed ^{[34, p. 3]}.

Thus, regular reports about the crimes of robber gangs supported by the Papal See attracted Dostoevsky's attention, creating a sharply negative impression of both Pope Pius IX and the Catholic Church as a whole.

The two above-mentioned plots are joined by a third, not directly articulated by the writer. We are talking about "Jesuitism" (20, 190) in the revolution, which Dostoevsky writes about. Along with reports of the atrocities of rebel gangs, reports of the intrigues of instigators and conspirators — supporters of Pope Pius IX and the deposed King of the Two Sicilies Francis II - constantly appear on the pages of the press. The Voice of January 2, 1863, writes about the arrest of several priests in Naples who incited "bribed commoners to raise reactionary cries near the church of St. Lucia" ^{[18, p. 8]}. In No. 5 of January 5, 1863, Golos summarizes that "in every reactionary movement that appears from time to time in Italy, the clergy is certainly a private citizen" ^{[21, p. 17]}.  On January 17, 1863, in No. 15, The Voice reports on the arrest on the Papal-Italian border of Princess Barberini-Sciarra, who acted as a liaison between the deposed King Francis II and the Neapolitan legitimists; several encrypted letters and petitions addressed to the king were found in the aristocrat's belongings ^{[16, p. 60]}. And this is only a small part of the reports that reported on the clerical—legitimist conspiracy in the Italian kingdom. Conspiracy, encryption, forged documents, bribery and agitation — these are just some of those intrigues in favor of the Pope and Rome, sustained quite in the "Jesuit" spirit, which Dostoevsky, who regularly read the Russian and foreign press, could not have been unaware of.

A separate category of news consists of reports about Pope Pius IX — his actions, words and remarks, as well as public events with his participation. Dostoevsky was perfectly familiar with the biography of Pope Pius IX, whose pontificate fell on 32 years of the writer's life (1846-1878). In fact, all of Dostoevsky's work, both journalistic and artistic, found the era of the pontificate of Pius IX. And this circumstance seems to us especially important, since the image of Pius IX perfectly personified the papal Catholicism that Dostoevsky criticized and tirelessly polemicized with for the last 20 years of his life. It can be said that for Dostoevsky, Pope Pius IX was a kind of personification of clerical-reactionary, ultramontane Catholicism. The image of the sovereign pope, cursing his enemies and refusing to renounce secular power, has always been a convenient target for Dostoevsky in his anti-Catholic polemic.

The Vremya magazine reports on the Pope's speech in the consistory, delivered on March 18, 1861. The Pope calls encroachment on his secular power a "mortal sin", and also "repels" and "curses" anyone who demands him to renounce secular power ^{[7, p. 99]}. Shortly after the Easter holiday of 1862, the Roman pontiff surveys the camp of the papal Zouaves (papal guards), visits army tents, after which he leads a review of military units, including a ceremonial march, maneuvers and formations. The authors of the May political note give this picture an exhaustive comment: "If you think that the pope is, in the concepts of Catholics, the representative of Christ on earth, the head of the religion of love, forgiveness, brotherhood, and that the Zouaves are distinguished by ferocious courage and inexorable cruelty, then this papal review at the command of the cardinal will seem somehow wild, ridiculous, a stupid dream, and a German general is a brownie, who painfully presses and lashes and does not let you wake up" ^{[10, p. 23]}. Some time later, during a religious ceremony on the feast of Pentecost, the papal zouaves, greeting the pontiff, shout out very characteristic words: "long live the pope-king!" ^{[8, p. 9]}. From the August issue of the magazine "Time" for 1862, in which the speech of the aforementioned Secretary of State of the Holy See, Cardinal J. Antonelli, we learn that the pope, before his election, and the cardinals, at their appointment, take a special oath "not to concede anything from the ecclesiastical domain" ^{[11, p. 19]}.

The image of the pope-king and the pope-warrior is complemented by a third — the pope-despot. In No. 164 of The Voice we read: Pope Pius IX, "the most educated man among his court ... has some ideas from which he does not retreat a step ... he is convinced that every form of government has one outcome — despotism" ^{[8, p. 4]}.

The despot pope directs the Papal state, in which very peculiar, sometimes caricatured processes and events take place. The image of a "monk-townsman" "in some Palestrina or Civitavecchia" is already caricatured and ridiculous in itself ^{[9, pp. 18, 19]}, although realistic. The anti-Jewish legislation of the Papal Region at the time of the beginning of the 1860s retains its harsh and even cruel norms: for example, for "affectionate and familiar treatment" ^{[17, p. 19]} with Christians, a Jew was threatened with imprisonment and a fine of five crowns. We have already mentioned the incidents of Mortara and Cohen. A deep economic crisis, confusion in the government, curial intrigues — all this characterizes the Papal state at the beginning of the 1860s. Priest Konstantin (Simon) in the article "The Russian Orthodox Church in the first half of the XIX Century through the Eyes of Catholic authors" points out: "The Papal region ... was one of the most poorly governed states in Europe, full of bandits, corruption and abuse of the death penalty in suppressing uprisings" ^{[37, p. 216]}. 

         Conclusion From all the above material it can be seen that the Catholic theme that arises in Dostoevsky's field of view in the form of two realities of the socio-political life of Europe — the "Polish question" and the "Roman question", "sounds" in various variations.

         The "Polish Question" opens an anti-Catholic polemic in the writer's notebooks, but chronologically it follows the "Roman question", the factual history of which was closely followed by the magazines of the Dostoevsky brothers "Time" (1861-1863) and "Epoch" (1864-1865). Dostoevsky records the main media reasons for the "Roman question", which, in turn, were widely discussed by the Russian press, including newspapers that Dostoevsky regularly read. The Cohen incident, the degradation of the Papal state, the crimes of robber gangs of legitimist clerics in southern Italy, intrigues, conspiracies and provocations of priests and aristocrats, the image of the pope-king and the despot pope, repeatedly cursing everyone who denies the right of the Papal Throne to secular power - all this information material, along with familiarity with the Slavophile literature, personal negative experience of Dostoevsky's stay abroad, had, in our opinion, a decisive influence on the formation of the writer's critical attitude to Catholicism.

^[1] All subsequent citations of Dostoevsky's Collected Works will be arranged as follows: volume number, page number in parentheses. F. M. Dostoevsky's citations are given in the 30-volume collection of Dostoevsky's works — Dostoevsky F. M. The Complete works in thirty volumes. L., 1972.

^[2] For example, see the following note in the notebook of the 1863-1864's: "Emile Girardin in "The Voice" ("Le Droit")" (20,171).

^[3] The publication in 1850 of F. I. Tyutchev's article "The Roman Question" causes a lively discussion in French intellectual circles, which resulted in the appearance of a number of polemical articles aimed at the apology of the Catholic faith (P. S. Laurency, F. de Champagny, A. Cochin, etc.). In 1853, this discussion was joined by A. S. Khomyakov, incognito published the article "Ouelques mots par un chr?tien orthodoxe sur les communions occidentales ? l'occasion d'une brochure de M. Laurentie". In 1856, the Jesuit Prince I. S. Gagarin published a pro-Catholic pamphlet "La Russie sera-t-elle catholique?", marking a new round of disputes and debates. In response, an article by A. S. Khomyakov from 1858 "Encore quelques mots par un chr?tien orthodoxe sur les communions occidentales ? l'occasion de plusieurs publications religieuses, latines et protestantes" followed.