08 — The Journals and the Critique
The two hardest documents in the file: Schmemann’s private diary, published by his widow in 2000 and read in flatly incompatible ways; and the scholarly and traditionalist criticism of his work, which is substantial, comes from several directions at once, and is set out here without adjudication.
Tradition: Russian Orthodox (emigration)
A guide to a modern theologian earns its keep at exactly this point. Schmemann is easy to praise and easy to dismiss, and both are done constantly; what is harder, and what this section attempts, is to state the case against him accurately — from the liturgiologists, from the systematicians, from a monastic critic, and from the traditionalist party — while stating just as accurately what his defenders answer.
Two cautions govern the section. The first is that the Journals are a private diary, not a considered publication, and the English edition is an abridgement made by his widow: judgments formed on it are judgments on a selection (METHODOLOGY §3.5). The second is an attribution caution. The criticism of Schmemann has acquired a body of misattributed lines — most notably a well-known verdict that “he was not a liturgical historian” which is often laid at Robert Taft’s door and is in fact William C. Mills’s sentence, footnoted by Mills to Peter Galadza. The §4.2 file untangles who actually said what.
Contents
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| The Journals | The diary, its editorial character, and its genuinely divided reception |
| The Liturgiological and Traditionalist Critique | Botte and Grisbrooke, Galadza, Taft, Spinks, Johnson, Larin, Pomazansky — and the answers |
See Also
- The Ordo and the Byzantine Synthesis — the historical argument under criticism
- The “Western Captivity” and Liturgical Piety — the critique that gave the deepest offense
- Of Water and the Spirit and Frequent Communion — the practical program that was resisted
- Influence and a Sober Assessment — the reckoning that follows from both files
- Orthodoxy: Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky — the fullest traditionalist critic