Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I am cross posting below this thing about Dostoevsky and his views on liberalism from this thread, so as to have it in this Dostoevsky thread for easier reference.

Putin got a lot of criticism for his critique of liberalism, but it is not something completely new. While currently reading through 3 Dostoevsky's books (Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880)), I find so many things that he said about liberals, progressives, atheist etc. that totally describes what we see today. Some of it could be said to be prophetic, but he was just joining dots from what he was observing. He is expounding his views through dialogues between his characters in the books and in this way explores various topics.

Here is an excerpt from The Idiot (p. 536 i the Planet pdf version)

‘I can but thank you,’ he said, in a tone too respectful
to be sincere, ‘for your kindness in letting me speak, for I
have often noticed that our Liberals never allow other
people to have an opinion of their own, and immediately
answer their opponents with abuse, if they do not have
recourse to arguments of a still more unpleasant nature
.’

---
Here is another bit from The Idiot, about Liberalism, through the character Yevgeny Pavlovich:

...there does not exist one single Russian socialist. There
does not, and there has never existed such a one, because
all socialists are derived from the two classes—the landed
proprietors, and the seminarists. All our eminent socialists
are merely old liberals of the class of landed proprietors,
men who were liberals in the days of serfdom
.

[...]

‘In the first place, what is liberalism, speaking generally,
but an attack (whether mistaken or reasonable, is quite
another question) upon the existing order of things? Is this
so? Yes. Very well. Then my ‘fact’ consists in this, that
RUSSIAN liberalism is not an attack upon the existing
order of things, but an attack upon the very essence of
things themselves (in my book version, the translator has translated is as "an attack on the very essence of our being)—indeed, on the things themselves; not
an attack on the Russian order of things, but on Russia
itself. My Russian liberal goes so far as to reject Russia;
that is, he hates and strikes his own mother. Every
misfortune and mishap of the mother-country fills him
with mirth, and even with ecstasy. He hates the national
customs, Russian history, and everything.
If he has a
justification, it is that he does not know what he is doing,
and believes that his hatred of Russia is the grandest and
most profitable kind of liberalism. (You will often find a
liberal who is applauded and esteemed by his fellows, but
who is in reality the dreariest, blindest, dullest of
conservatives, and is not aware of the fact.) This hatred for
Russia has been mistaken by some of our ‘Russian liberals’
for sincere love of their country
, and they boast that they
see better than their neighbours what real love of one’s
country should consist in. But of late they have grown,
more candid and are ashamed of the expression ‘love of
country,’ and have annihilated the very spirit of the words
as something injurious and petty and undignified. This is
the truth, and I hold by it; but at the same time it is a
phenomenon which has not been repeated at any other
time or place; and therefore, though I hold to it as a fact,
yet I recognize that it is an accidental phenomenon, and
may likely enough pass away. There can be no such thing
anywhere else as a liberal who really hates his country; and
how is this fact to be explained among US? By my original
statement that a Russian liberal is NOT a RUSSIAN
liberal—that’s the only explanation that I can see.’
(Page 605).

---

The above is just a small excerpt of a larger discourse.


---
Here is a bit about progressives from Crime and Punishment (Planet pdf version):

He had heard of Andrey Semyonovitch, who
had once been his ward, as a leading young progressive who
was taking an important part in certain interesting circles,
the doings of which were a legend in the provinces. It had
impressed Pyotr Petrovitch. These powerful omniscient circles
who despised everyone and showed everyone up
had
long inspired in him a peculiar but quite vague alarm.(p. 511 in pdf)

[...]
He soon
discovered that Andrey Semyonovitch was a commonplace
simpleton
, but that by no means reassured Pyotr Petrovitch.
Even if he had been certain that all the progressives were
fools like him
, it would not have allayed his uneasiness. All
the doctrines, the ideas, the systems, with which Andrey
Semyonovitch pestered him had no interest for him.
He had
his own object—he simply wanted to find out at once what
was happening here. Had these people any power or not?
Had he anything to fear from them? Would they expose any
enterprise of his? And what precisely was now the object of
their attacks? Could he somehow make up to them and get
round them if they really were powerful? Was this the thing
to do or not? Couldn’t he gain something through them? In
fact hundreds of questions presented themselves. (p.512)

---
[The progressive above, Andrey Semyonovitch, tries to convey some of the ideas in vogue]:

However simple Andrey Semyonovitch
might be, he began to see that Pyotr Petrovitch was
duping him and secretly despising him, and that ‘he was
not the right sort of man.’ He had tried expounding to him
the system of Fourier and the Darwinian theory
, but of late
Pyotr Petrovitch began to listen too sarcastically and even
to be rude. (p. 513)
(Fourier was an early French socialist thinker and is credited with coining the word "feminism")

----
The above character Pyotr Petrovitch is an example of the type of people who hang around in the background of these social often ideologically driven movements, to see whether these people do get to power and whether they can use these movements for getting something. They happily promote them if they see that the wind is blowing to their advantage and yet ready to drop them if they fall out of power. A person like Soros comes to mind as this vulture creature who promotes and fund these progressive movement so as to gain from the fall out while at the same time being immune from criticism from these movements as he is their key funder.

Anyway, the above gives a little idea about liberals/progressives and how 150 years ago, they were viewed in Russia. So Putin did not say something completely out of the blue, but something very much in accordance with Russian thought or so I think.

Another bit that I didn't add to the above post from yesterday was this description that Dostoevsky gives of a person he clearly sees as his typical liberal/progressive. Yes, it is not very flattering:

Andrey Semyonovitch was an anæmic, scrofulous little
man, with strangely flaxen mutton-chop whiskers of which
he was very proud. He was a clerk and had almost always
something wrong with his eyes. He was rather soft-hearted,
but self-confident and sometimes extremely conceited
in speech
, which had an absurd effect, incongruous with
his little figure. He was one of the lodgers most respected
by Amalia Ivanovna, for he did not get drunk and paid regFree
eBooks at Planet eBook.com 513
ularly for his lodgings. Andrey Semyonovitch really was
rather stupid; he attached himself to the cause of progress
and ‘our younger generation’ from enthusiasm. He was one
of the numerous and varied legion of dullards, of half-animate
abortions, conceited, half-educated coxcombs, who
attach themselves to the idea most in fashion only to vulgarise
it and who caricature every cause they serve, however
sincerely.


---
Today, it is not hard to find the same people as he described who are soft-hearted, jumping on any new idea in fashion, whether it be global warming, the saving of the gay whales, spreading freedom and democracy, the new green deal etc.
I can see myself having naively supported some of these ideas over the years, having been liberal minded due to lack of knowledge, faulty thinking and a 'Criminal mindset (Samenow).
 
In light of the Epstein scandal and so much of the pedophilia that is happening in elite circles, I am cross posting a bit that I added in another thread regarding something that Dostoevsky had to say about the torture of children.

In reading Dostoyevsky's book, The Brothers Karamazov, he has a couple of chapters, where he tries to deal with the issue of abuse of children and how there can be a God if such is allowed. In that discussion he makes several points which are interesting as it perhaps is the effects of the splitting of the Catholic church (see thread started by Luc) and the resulting atheism, nihilism, materialism, Darwinism, and progressive views. Cutting humanity off from the higher emotional center and thus leaving it open to the entropic forces of the base instincts was a devious move by the STS forces and those under the greatest influence by them. Like Laura wrote in another thread:

Laura said:
And another thing: There are a lot of people being raised as atheists nowadays who are NOT exposed to the Christian values ethic in their environment and I think we are seeing the consequences of that in our world.
Here is the quote from Dostoevsky,, book version translated by David McDuff, page 315-316:

But I have even better ones concerning young children, I have a great, great many items about Russian children in my collection, Alyosha. The father and mother of a little five-year old girl, “most respectable and high-ranking, educated and of progressive views”, conceived a hatred of her. Let me tell you, I once again positively assert that in many scions of mankind there is a curious property – the love of torturing children, but only children. To all other specimens of the human race these same torturers are even favourably and meekly inclined, as befitting humane men of European and progressive education, but they have a great love of torturing children, and their love for children is even based on that. It is the very unprotected aspect of these creatures that tempts the torturers, the angelic trustfulness of the child, which has nowhere to go and no one to turn to – this it is that excites the foul blood of the torturer. In every human being, of course, there lurks a beast, a beast of anger, a beast of voluptuous excitement ...
The book version uses the word 'progressive' whereas online the translation uses the word 'cultured'. I have a feeling from his other books that Dostoevsky meant progressive, but I could be wrong. The above excerpt about most respectable and high-ranking, educated and of progressive views", also made me think of the whole pedophilia story currently in the news due to Epstein, but which seems equally prevalent in many Western countries at least. Dostoevsky did not have the benefit of what we have learned about ponerology and psychopathy nor of hyperdimensional realities, but never the less makes some astute observations.

Dostoevsky makes it clear that in every human being lurks a beast, as Kenlee also pointed to and which Jordan Peterson often highlights. Yet it is possible to tame it but it involves work, honesty and suffering, which few are willing to embark on.


kenlee said:
I'm talking about good and evil in the context as it deals with the average normal person and their ponerization from psychopaths who betray humanity consciously. The average person pretty much betrays another unconsciously thru stupidity, unconsciousness, mechanicality and lack of will to understand reality and ourselves because they will have to 'pay' in terms of their prejudices, comfort, security etc. A payment they are not willing to make.

They don't want to know the truth because it's not pleasant and it's thru this ignorance that it gets projected onto the other person or group and totally fails to see the real enemy because of lack of willingness to see the truth.
 
I am going to repeat some of the passages that I posted earlier, but there are some connections that I thought were interesting. That is underlined and then commented in red text color.

Dostoevsky said a few things about the Catholic Church. He would have a bias for the Orthodox Church, but what he said is interesting also if one looks at the Lutheran Reformation. Dostoevsky does not mention the Reformation, but perhaps his critic of the Catholic Church is that because of its excesses in the centuries leading to the Reformation, then the blame is to be put on the Catholic Church as the cause of what then followed.
Here is an extract from the book, The Idiot, starting at page 1006 in the online pdf version:

‘Pavlicheff was a man of bright intellect and a good
Christian, a sincere Christian,’ said the prince, suddenly.
‘How could he possibly embrace a faith which is
unchristian? Roman Catholicism is, so to speak, simply the
same thing as unchristianity,
’ he added with flashing eyes,
which seemed to take in everybody in the room.

‘Come, that’s a little TOO strong, isn’t it?’ murmured
the old man, glancing at General Epanchin in surprise.

‘How do you make out that the Roman Catholic
religion is UNCHRISTIAN? What is it, then?’ asked Ivan
Petrovitch, turning to the prince.

‘It is not a Christian religion, in the first place,’ said the
latter, in extreme agitation, quite out of proportion to the
necessity of the moment. ‘And in the second place,
Roman Catholicism is, in my opinion, worse than
Atheism itself. Yes— that is my opinion. Atheism only
preaches a negation, but Romanism goes further; it
preaches a disfigured, distorted Christ—it preaches AntiThe
Christ—I assure you, I swear it! This is my own personal
conviction, and it has long distressed me. The Roman
Catholic believes that the Church on earth cannot stand
without universal temporal Power. He cries ‘non
possumus!’ In my opinion the Roman Catholic religion is
not a faith at all, but simply a continuation of the Roman
Empire, and everything is subordinated to this idea—
beginning with faith.
The Pope has seized territories and
an earthly throne, and has held them with the sword. And
so the thing has gone on, only that to the sword they have
added lying, intrigue, deceit, fanaticism, superstition,
swindling;—they have played fast and loose with the most
sacred and sincere feelings of men
;—they have exchanged
everything—everything for money, for base earthly
POWER! And is this not the teaching of Anti-Christ?

How could the upshot of all this be other than Atheism?
Atheism is the child of Roman Catholicism—it proceeded
from these Romans themselves, though perhaps they
would not believe it. It grew and fattened on hatred of its
parents; it is the progeny of their lies and spiritual
feebleness. Atheism! In our country it is only among the
upper classes that you find unbelievers; men who have lost
the root or spirit of their faith; but abroad whole masses of (in my translation it says, Whereas over in Europe)
the people are beginning to profess unbelief
—at first
because of the darkness and lies by which they were
surrounded; but now out of fanaticism, out of loathing for
the Church and Christianity!’
The prince paused to get breath. He had spoken with
extraordinary rapidity, and was very pale.
All present interchanged glances, but at last the old
dignitary burst out laughing frankly. Prince N. took out
his eye-glass to have a good look at the speaker. The
German poet came out of his corner and crept nearer to
the table, with a spiteful smile.
‘You exaggerate the matter very much,’ said Ivan
Petrovitch, with rather a bored air. ‘There are, in the
foreign Churches, many representatives of their faith who
are worthy of respect and esteem.’
‘Oh, but I did not speak of individual representatives. I
was merely talking about Roman Catholicism, and its
essence—of Rome itself. A Church can never entirely
disappear
; I never hinted at that!’
‘Agreed that all this may be true; but we need not
discuss a subject which belongs to the domain of
theology.’
‘Oh, no; oh, no! Not to theology alone, I assure you!
Why, Socialism is the progeny of Romanism and of the
Romanistic spirit. It and its brother Atheism proceed from
Despair in opposition to Catholicism
. It seeks to replace in
itself the moral power of religion, in order to appease the
spiritual thirst of parched humanity and save it; not by
Christ, but by force.
‘Don’t dare to believe in God, don’t
dare to possess any individuality, any property! Fraternite
ou la Mort; two million heads.
‘By their works ye shall (Here Dostoevsky is alluding to the French Revolution, I think)
know them’—we are told. And we must not suppose that
all this is harmless and without danger to ourselves. Oh,
no; we must resist, and quickly, quickly! We must let out
Christ shine forth upon the Western nations, our Christ
whom we have preserved intact, and whom they have
never known. Not as slaves, allowing ourselves to be
caught by the hooks of the Jesuits, but carrying our
Russian civilization to THEM, we must stand before
them, not letting it be said among us that their preaching
is ‘skilful,’ as someone expressed it just now.’

[...]

‘Our Russian intensity not only astonishes ourselves; all
Europe wonders at our conduct in such cases! For, if one
of us goes over to Roman Catholicism, he is sure to
become a Jesuit at once, and a rabid one into the bargain.
If one of us becomes an Atheist, he must needs begin to
insist on the prohibition of faith in God by force, that is,
by the sword. Why is this? Why does he then exceed all
bounds at once? Because he has found land at last, the
fatherland that he sought in vain before; and, because his
soul is rejoiced to find it, he throws himself upon it and
kisses it!
Oh, it is not from vanity alone, it is not from
feelings of vanity that Russians become Atheists and
Jesuits! But from spiritual thirst, from anguish of longing
for higher things
, for dry firm land, for foothold on a
fatherland which they never believed in because they
never knew it. It is easier for a Russian to become an
Atheist, than for any other nationality in the world. And
not only does a Russian ‘become an Atheist,’ but he
actually BELIEVES IN Atheism, just as though he had
found a new faith, not perceiving that he has pinned his
faith to a negation. Such is our anguish of thirst! ‘Whoso
has no country has no God.’ That is not my own
expression; it is the expression of a merchant, one of the
Old Believers, whom I once met while travelling. He did
not say exactly these words. I think his expression was:
‘‘Whoso forsakes his country forsakes his God.’ (This brings to mind what the C's said about the frequency of the land where one is born or something to that effect)

‘But let these thirsty Russian souls find, like Columbus’
discoverers, a new world; let them find the Russian world,
let them search and discover all the gold and treasure that
lies hid in the bosom of their own land! Show them the
restitution of lost humanity, in the future, by Russian
thought alone, and by means of the God and of the Christ
of our Russian faith, and you will see how mighty and just
and wise and good a giant will rise up before the eyes of
the astonished and frightened world; astonished because
they expect nothing but the sword from us, because they
think they will get nothing out of us but barbarism.
This
has been the case up to now, and the longer matters go on
as they are now proceeding, the more clear will be the
truth of what I say;

---
There is more but I will make another post about it.
 
In the book, The Brothers Karamazov, there is a famous chapter called the Grand Inquisitor. In a recent talk between Jordan Peterson and the Catholic bishop Barron, they talk about this part apart from many other things. It is an interesting talk as both men have good points to make. Here is the video:

Here is what wikipedia says of the chapter, which gives a brief idea of the topic under discussion:
Book Five: Pro and Contra

Here, the rationalist and nihilistic ideology that permeated Russia at this time is defended and espoused
passionately by Ivan Karamazov while meeting his brother Alyosha at a restaurant. In the chapter titled "Rebellion", Ivan proclaims that he rejects the world that God has created because it is built on a foundation of suffering. In perhaps the most famous chapter in the novel, "The Grand Inquisitor", Ivan narrates to Alyosha his imagined poem that describes a leader from the Spanish Inquisition and his encounter with Jesus, Who has made His return to earth. The opposition between reason and faith is dramatised and symbolised in forceful monologue of the Grand Inquisitor who, having ordered Jesus arrested, visits Him in prison at night.
Why hast Thou come now to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou knowest that... We are working not with Thee but with him [Satan]... We took from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Caesar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth... We shall triumph and shall be Caesars, and then we shall plan the universal happiness of man.
The Grand Inquisitor accuses Jesus of having inflicted on humankind the "burden" of free will. At the end of all these arguments, Jesus silently steps forward and kisses the old man on his lips. The Grand Inquisitor, stunned and moved, tells Him he must never come there again, and lets Him out. Alyosha, after hearing this story, goes to Ivan and kisses him softly, with an unexplainable emotion, on the lips. Ivan shouts with delight, because Alyosha's gesture is taken directly from his poem. The brothers then part.

Below is the chapter:
Chapter V. The Grand Inquisitor
“Even this must have a preface—that is, a literary preface,”
laughed Ivan, “and I am a poor hand at making one. You see,
my action takes place in the sixteenth century, and at that time,
as you probably learnt at school, it was customary in poetry to
bring down heavenly powers on earth. Not to speak of Dante,
in France, clerks, as well as the monks in the monasteries, used
to give regular performances in which the Madonna, the saints,
the angels, Christ, and God himself were brought on the stage.
In those days it was done in all simplicity. In Victor Hugo's
Notre Dame de Paris an edifying and gratuitous spectacle was
provided for the people in the Hôtel de Ville of Paris in the [271]
reign of Louis XI. in honor of the birth of the dauphin. It was
called Le bon jugement de la très sainte et gracieuse Vierge
Marie, and she appears herself on the stage and pronounces her
bon jugement. Similar plays, chiefly from the Old Testament,
were occasionally performed in Moscow too, up to the times of
Peter the Great. But besides plays there were all sorts of legends
and ballads scattered about the world, in which the saints and
angels and all the powers of Heaven took part when required.
In our monasteries the monks busied themselves in translating,
copying, and even composing such poems—and even under the
Tatars. There is, for instance, one such poem (of course, from
the Greek), The Wanderings of Our Lady through Hell, with
descriptions as bold as Dante's. Our Lady visits hell, and the
Archangel Michael leads her through the torments. She sees the
sinners and their punishment. There she sees among others one
noteworthy set of sinners in a burning lake; some of them sink
to the bottom of the lake so that they can't swim out, and ‘these
God forgets’—an expression of extraordinary depth and force.
And so Our Lady, shocked and weeping, falls before the throne
of God and begs for mercy for all in hell—for all she has seen
there, indiscriminately. Her conversation with God is immensely
interesting. She beseeches Him, she will not desist, and when
God points to the hands and feet of her Son, nailed to the Cross,
and asks, ‘How can I forgive His tormentors?’ she bids all the
saints, all the martyrs, all the angels and archangels to fall down
with her and pray for mercy on all without distinction. It ends
by her winning from God a respite of suffering every year from
Good Friday till Trinity Day, and the sinners at once raise a cry of
thankfulness from hell, chanting, ‘Thou art just, O Lord, in this
judgment.’ Well, my poem would have been of that kind if it had
appeared at that time. He comes on the scene in my poem, but He
says nothing, only appears and passes on. Fifteen centuries have
passed since He promised to come in His glory, fifteen centuries
since His prophet wrote, ‘Behold, I come quickly’; ‘Of that day
and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but the Father,’
as He Himself predicted on earth. But humanity awaits him with
the same faith and with the same love. Oh, with greater faith,
for it is fifteen centuries since man has ceased to see signs from
[272] heaven.
No signs from heaven come to-day
To add to what the heart doth say.
There was nothing left but faith in what the heart doth say. It
is true there were many miracles in those days. There were saints
who performed miraculous cures; some holy people, according
to their biographies, were visited by the Queen of Heaven herself.
But the devil did not slumber, and doubts were already arising
among men of the truth of these miracles. And just then there
appeared in the north of Germany a terrible new heresy
. “A huge (The Lutheran Reformation)
star like to a torch” (that is, to a church) “fell on the sources of
the waters and they became bitter.” These heretics began blasphemously
denying miracles. But those who remained faithful
were all the more ardent in their faith. The tears of humanity rose
up to Him as before, awaited His coming, loved Him, hoped for
Him, yearned to suffer and die for Him as before. And so many
ages mankind had prayed with faith and fervor, “O Lord our
God, hasten Thy coming,” so many ages called upon Him, that
in His infinite mercy He deigned to come down to His servants.
Before that day He had come down, He had visited some holy
men, martyrs and hermits, as is written in their lives. Among
us, Tyutchev, with absolute faith in the truth of his words, bore
witness that
Bearing the Cross, in slavish dress,
Weary and worn, the Heavenly King
Our mother, Russia, came to bless,
And through our land went wandering.
And that certainly was so, I assure you.
“And behold, He deigned to appear for a moment to the
people, to the tortured, suffering people, sunk in iniquity, but
loving Him like children. My story is laid in Spain, in Seville, in
the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted
every day to the glory of God, and ‘in the splendid auto da fé
the wicked heretics were burnt.’ Oh, of course, this was not the
coming in which He will appear according to His promise at
the end of time in all His heavenly glory, and which will be
sudden ‘as lightning flashing from east to west.’ No, He visited
His children only for a moment, and there where the flames were
crackling round the heretics. In His infinite mercy He came [273]
once more among men in that human shape in which He walked
312 The Brothers Karamazov
among men for three years fifteen centuries ago. He came down
to the ‘hot pavements’ of the southern town in which on the day
before almost a hundred heretics had, ad majorem gloriam Dei,
been burnt by the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor, in a magnificent
auto da fé, in the presence of the king, the court, the knights, the
cardinals, the most charming ladies of the court, and the whole
population of Seville.
“He came softly, unobserved, and yet, strange to say, every
one recognized Him. That might be one of the best passages in
the poem. I mean, why they recognized Him. The people are
irresistibly drawn to Him, they surround Him, they flock about
Him, follow Him. He moves silently in their midst with a gentle
smile of infinite compassion. The sun of love burns in His heart,
light and power shine from His eyes, and their radiance, shed
on the people, stirs their hearts with responsive love. He holds
out His hands to them, blesses them, and a healing virtue comes
from contact with Him, even with His garments. An old man
in the crowd, blind from childhood, cries out, ‘O Lord, heal me
and I shall see Thee!’ and, as it were, scales fall from his eyes
and the blind man sees Him. The crowd weeps and kisses the
earth under His feet. Children throw flowers before Him, sing,
and cry hosannah. ‘It is He—it is He!’ all repeat. ‘It must be
He, it can be no one but Him!’ He stops at the steps of the
Seville cathedral at the moment when the weeping mourners are
bringing in a little open white coffin. In it lies a child of seven,
the only daughter of a prominent citizen. The dead child lies
hidden in flowers. ‘He will raise your child,’ the crowd shouts to
the weeping mother. The priest, coming to meet the coffin, looks
perplexed, and frowns, but the mother of the dead child throws
herself at His feet with a wail. ‘If it is Thou, raise my child!’ she
cries, holding out her hands to Him. The procession halts, the
coffin is laid on the steps at His feet. He looks with compassion,
and His lips once more softly pronounce, ‘Maiden, arise!’ and
the maiden arises. The little girl sits up in the coffin and looks
round, smiling with wide-open wondering eyes, holding a bunch
of white roses they had put in her hand.

“There are cries, sobs, confusion among the people, and at
that moment the cardinal himself, the Grand Inquisitor, passes
by the cathedral. He is an old man, almost ninety, tall and erect, [274]
with a withered face and sunken eyes, in which there is still a
gleam of light. He is not dressed in his gorgeous cardinal's robes,
as he was the day before, when he was burning the enemies of
the Roman Church—at this moment he is wearing his coarse,
old, monk's cassock. At a distance behind him come his gloomy
assistants and slaves and the ‘holy guard.’ He stops at the sight
of the crowd and watches it from a distance. He sees everything;
he sees them set the coffin down at His feet, sees the child rise
up, and his face darkens. He knits his thick gray brows and
his eyes gleam with a sinister fire. He holds out his finger and
bids the guards take Him. And such is his power, so completely
are the people cowed into submission and trembling obedience
to him, that the crowd immediately makes way for the guards,
and in the midst of deathlike silence they lay hands on Him and
lead Him away. The crowd instantly bows down to the earth,
like one man, before the old Inquisitor. He blesses the people
in silence and passes on. The guards lead their prisoner to the
close, gloomy vaulted prison in the ancient palace of the Holy
Inquisition and shut Him in it. The day passes and is followed
by the dark, burning, ‘breathless’ night of Seville. The air is
‘fragrant with laurel and lemon.’ In the pitch darkness the iron
door of the prison is suddenly opened and the Grand Inquisitor
himself comes in with a light in his hand. He is alone; the door
is closed at once behind him. He stands in the doorway and for
a minute or two gazes into His face. At last he goes up slowly,
sets the light on the table and speaks.

“ ‘Is it Thou? Thou?’ but receiving no answer, he adds at once,
‘Don't answer, be silent. What canst Thou say, indeed? I know
too well what Thou wouldst say. And Thou hast no right to add
anything to what Thou hadst said of old. Why, then, art Thou
come to hinder us? For Thou hast come to hinder us, and Thou
knowest that. But dost Thou know what will be to-morrow? I
know not who Thou art and care not to know whether it is Thou
or only a semblance of Him, but to-morrow I shall condemn
Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of heretics. And the
very people who have to-day kissed Thy feet, to-morrow at the
faintest sign from me will rush to heap up the embers of Thy fire.
Knowest Thou that? Yes, maybe Thou knowest it,’ he added
[275] with thoughtful penetration, never for a moment taking his eyes
off the Prisoner.”

“I don't quite understand, Ivan. What does it mean?” Alyosha,
who had been listening in silence, said with a smile. “Is it simply
a wild fantasy, or a mistake on the part of the old man—some
impossible quiproquo?”

“Take it as the last,” said Ivan, laughing, “if you are so corrupted
by modern realism and can't stand anything fantastic. If
you like it to be a case of mistaken identity, let it be so. It is
true,” he went on, laughing, “the old man was ninety, and he
might well be crazy over his set idea. He might have been struck
by the appearance of the Prisoner. It might, in fact, be simply
his ravings, the delusion of an old man of ninety, over-excited
by the auto da fé of a hundred heretics the day before. But does
it matter to us after all whether it was a mistake of identity or a
wild fantasy? All that matters is that the old man should speak
out, should speak openly of what he has thought in silence for
ninety years.”

“And the Prisoner too is silent? Does He look at him and not
say a word?”

“That's inevitable in any case,” Ivan laughed again. “The old
man has told Him He hasn't the right to add anything to what He
has said of old. One may say it is the most fundamental feature
of Roman Catholicism, in my opinion at least. ‘All has been
given by Thee to the Pope,’ they say, ‘and all, therefore, is still
in the Pope's hands, and there is no need for Thee to come now
at all. Thou must not meddle for the time, at least.’ That's how
they speak and write too—the Jesuits, at any rate. I have read it
myself in the works of their theologians. ‘Hast Thou the right to
reveal to us one of the mysteries of that world from which Thou
hast come?’ my old man asks Him, and answers the question
for Him. ‘No, Thou hast not; that Thou mayest not add to what
has been said of old, and mayest not take from men the freedom
which Thou didst exalt when Thou wast on earth. Whatsoever
Thou revealest anew will encroach on men's freedom of faith;
for it will be manifest as a miracle, and the freedom of their faith
was dearer to Thee than anything in those days fifteen hundred
years ago. Didst Thou not often say then, “I will make you
free”? But now Thou hast seen these “free” men,’ the old man
adds suddenly, with a pensive smile. ‘Yes, we've paid dearly
for it,’ he goes on, looking sternly at Him, ‘but at last we have [276]
completed that work in Thy name. For fifteen centuries we have
been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over
for good. Dost Thou not believe that it's over for good? Thou
lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wroth with me.
But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded
than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought
their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet. But that
has been our doing. Was this what Thou didst? Was this Thy
freedom?’ ”

“I don't understand again,” Alyosha broke in. “Is he ironical,
is he jesting?”

“Not a bit of it! He claims it as a merit for himself and
his Church that at last they have vanquished freedom and have
done so to make men happy. ‘For now’ (he is speaking of the
Inquisition, of course) ‘for the first time it has become possible
to think of the happiness of men. Man was created a rebel; and
how can rebels be happy? Thou wast warned,’ he says to Him.
‘Thou hast had no lack of admonitions and warnings, but Thou
didst not listen to those warnings; Thou didst reject the only way
by which men might be made happy. But, fortunately, departing
Thou didst hand on the work to us. Thou hast promised, Thou
hast established by Thy word, Thou hast given to us the right to
bind and to unbind, and now, of course, Thou canst not think of
taking it away. Why, then, hast Thou come to hinder us?’ ”

“And what's the meaning of ‘no lack of admonitions and
warnings’?” asked Alyosha.

“Why, that's the chief part of what the old man must say.
“ ‘The wise and dread spirit, the spirit of self-destruction and
non-existence,’ the old man goes on, ‘the great spirit talked with
Thee in the wilderness, and we are told in the books that he
“tempted” Thee. Is that so? And could anything truer be said
than what he revealed to Thee in three questions and what Thou
didst reject, and what in the books is called “the temptation”?
And yet if there has ever been on earth a real stupendous miracle,
it took place on that day, on the day of the three temptations.
The statement of those three questions was itself the miracle.
If it were possible to imagine simply for the sake of argument
that those three questions of the dread spirit had perished utterly
[277] from the books, and that we had to restore them and to invent
them anew, and to do so had gathered together all the wise men
of the earth—rulers, chief priests, learned men, philosophers,
poets—and had set them the task to invent three questions, such
as would not only fit the occasion, but express in three words,
three human phrases, the whole future history of the world and
of humanity—dost Thou believe that all the wisdom of the earth
united could have invented anything in depth and force equal to
the three questions which were actually put to Thee then by the
wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? From those questions
alone, from the miracle of their statement, we can see that we
have here to do not with the fleeting human intelligence, but with
the absolute and eternal. For in those three questions the whole
subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together
into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the
unsolved historical contradictions of human nature. At the time
it could not be so clear, since the future was unknown; but now
that fifteen hundred years have passed, we see that everything
in those three questions was so justly divined and foretold, and
has been so truly fulfilled, that nothing can be added to them or
taken from them.

“ ‘Judge Thyself who was right—Thou or he who questioned
Thee then? Remember the first question; its meaning, in other
words, was this: “Thou wouldst go into the world, and art
going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which
men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even
understand, which they fear and dread—for nothing has ever
been more insupportable for a man and a human society than
freedom. But seest Thou these stones in this parched and barren
wilderness? Turn them into bread, and mankind will run after
Thee like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient, though for
ever trembling, lest Thou withdraw Thy hand and deny them
Thy bread.” But Thou wouldst not deprive man of freedom and
didst reject the offer, thinking, what is that freedom worth, if
obedience is bought with bread? Thou didst reply that man lives
not by bread alone. But dost Thou know that for the sake of that
earthly bread the spirit of the earth will rise up against Thee and
will strive with Thee and overcome Thee, and all will follow
him, crying, “Who can compare with this beast? He has given
us fire from heaven!” Dost Thou know that the ages will pass,
and humanity will proclaim by the lips of their sages that there [278]
is no crime, and therefore no sin; there is only hunger? “Feed
men, and then ask of them virtue!” that's what they'll write on
the banner, which they will raise against Thee, and with which
they will destroy Thy temple. Where Thy temple stood will rise
a new building; the terrible tower of Babel will be built again,
and though, like the one of old, it will not be finished, yet Thou
mightest have prevented that new tower and have cut short the
sufferings of men for a thousand years; for they will come back
to us after a thousand years of agony with their tower. They
will seek us again, hidden underground in the catacombs, for we
shall be again persecuted and tortured. They will find us and
cry to us, “Feed us, for those who have promised us fire from
heaven haven't given it!” And then we shall finish building their
tower, for he finishes the building who feeds them. And we alone
shall feed them in Thy name, declaring falsely that it is in Thy
name. Oh, never, never can they feed themselves without us! No
science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the
end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make
us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves,
at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable
together, for never, never will they be able to share between
them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free,
for they are weak, vicious, worthless and rebellious.
Thou didst
promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it
compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful
and ignoble race of man? And if for the sake of the bread of
Heaven thousands shall follow Thee, what is to become of the
millions and tens of thousands of millions of creatures who will
not have the strength to forego the earthly bread for the sake of
the heavenly? Or dost Thou care only for the tens of thousands of
the great and strong, while the millions, numerous as the sands
of the sea, who are weak but love Thee, must exist only for the
sake of the great and strong? No, we care for the weak too. They
are sinful and rebellious, but in the end they too will become
obedient. They will marvel at us and look on us as gods, because
we are ready to endure the freedom which they have found so
dreadful and to rule over them—so awful it will seem to them to
be free. But we shall tell them that we are Thy servants and rule
them in Thy name. We shall deceive them again, for we will not
[279] let Thee come to us again. That deception will be our suffering,
for we shall be forced to lie.
“ ‘This is the significance of the first question in the wilderness,
and this is what Thou hast rejected for the sake of that
freedom which Thou hast exalted above everything. Yet in this
question lies hid the great secret of this world. Choosing “bread,”
Thou wouldst have satisfied the universal and everlasting craving
of humanity—to find some one to worship. So long as man
remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully
as to find some one to worship. But man seeks to worship what is
established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once
to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only
to find what one or the other can worship, but to find something
that all would believe in and worship; what is essential is that all
may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is
the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity
from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship
they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods
and challenged one another, “Put away your gods and come and
worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!” And so it
will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from
the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. Thou
didst know, Thou couldst not but have known, this fundamental
secret of human nature, but Thou didst reject the one infallible
banner which was offered Thee to make all men bow down to
Thee alone—the banner of earthly bread; and Thou hast rejected
it for the sake of freedom and the bread of Heaven. Behold what
Thou didst further. And all again in the name of freedom! I tell
Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find
some one quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom
with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can
appease their conscience can take over their freedom. In bread
there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and
man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread.
But if some one else gains possession of his conscience—oh!
then he will cast away Thy bread and follow after him who has
ensnared his conscience. In that Thou wast right. For the secret of
man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for.
Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not
[280] consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than
remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance. That is true.
But what happened? Instead of taking men's freedom from them,
Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that
man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the
knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man
than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of
suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for
setting the conscience of man at rest for ever, Thou didst choose
all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic; Thou didst choose
what was utterly beyond the strength of men, acting as though
Thou didst not love them at all—Thou who didst come to give
Thy life for them! Instead of taking possession of men's freedom,
Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of
mankind with its sufferings for ever. Thou didst desire man's
free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken
captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must
hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and
what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But
didst Thou not know that he would at last reject even Thy image
and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the fearful burden
of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not
in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion
and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many
cares and unanswerable problems.

“ ‘So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for
the destruction of Thy kingdom, and no one is more to blame for
it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three powers, three
powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the
conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness—those
forces are miracle, mystery and authority. Thou hast rejected all
three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and
dread spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to
Thee, “If Thou wouldst know whether Thou art the Son of God
then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold
him up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then
whether Thou art the Son of God and shalt prove then how great
is Thy faith in Thy Father.” But Thou didst refuse and wouldst
not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and
well, like God; but the weak, unruly race of men, are they gods? [281]

Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in making one
movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God
and have lost all Thy faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed
to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come to save. And
the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I
ask again, are there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe
for one moment that men, too, could face such a temptation? Is
the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the
great moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most
agonizing spiritual difficulties, cling only to the free verdict of
the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be recorded
in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost
ends of the earth, and Thou didst hope that man, following Thee,
would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But Thou didst not
know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man
seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot
bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles
of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and
witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel,
heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come down from the Cross
when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, “Come
down from the cross and we will believe that Thou art He.” Thou
didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst not enslave man
by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on
miracle. Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures
of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever.
But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are
slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and
judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom
hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and
baser by nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he
do what Thou didst? By showing him so much respect, Thou
didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too
much from him—Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself!
Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked less of him. That
would have been more like love, for his burden would have been
lighter. He is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere
now rebelling against our power, and proud of his rebellion? It
[282] is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children
rioting and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish
delight will end; it will cost them dear. They will cast down
temples and drench the earth with blood. But they will see at
last, the foolish children, that, though they are rebels, they are
impotent rebels, unable to keep up their own rebellion. Bathed in
their foolish tears, they will recognize at last that He who created
them rebels must have meant to mock at them. They will say
this in despair, and their utterance will be a blasphemy which
will make them more unhappy still, for man's nature cannot bear
blasphemy, and in the end always avenges it on itself. And
so unrest, confusion and unhappiness—that is the present lot of
man after Thou didst bear so much for their freedom! The great
prophet tells in vision and in image, that he saw all those who
took part in the first resurrection and that there were of each tribe
twelve thousand. But if there were so many of them, they must
have been not men but gods. They had borne Thy cross, they
had endured scores of years in the barren, hungry wilderness,
living upon locusts and roots—and Thou mayest indeed point
with pride at those children of freedom, of free love, of free and
splendid sacrifice for Thy name. But remember that they were
only some thousands; and what of the rest? And how are the
other weak ones to blame, because they could not endure what
the strong have endured? How is the weak soul to blame that it
is unable to receive such terrible gifts? Canst Thou have simply
come to the elect and for the elect? But if so, it is a mystery
and we cannot understand it. And if it is a mystery, we too have
a right to preach a mystery, and to teach them that it's not the
free judgment of their hearts, not love that matters, but a mystery
which they must follow blindly, even against their conscience.
So we have done. We have corrected Thy work and have founded
it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that
they were again led like sheep, and that the terrible gift that had
brought them such suffering was, at last, lifted from their hearts.
Were we right teaching them this? Speak! Did we not love
mankind, so meekly acknowledging their feebleness, lovingly
lightening their burden, and permitting their weak nature even
sin with our sanction? Why hast Thou come now to hinder us?
And why dost Thou look silently and searchingly at me with
Thy mild eyes? Be angry. I don't want Thy love, for I love [283]
Thee not. And what use is it for me to hide anything from Thee?
Don't I know to Whom I am speaking? All that I can say is
known to Thee already. And is it for me to conceal from Thee
our mystery? Perhaps it is Thy will to hear it from my lips.
Listen, then. We are not working with Thee, but with him—that
is our mystery. It's long—eight centuries—since we have been
on his side and not on Thine. Just eight centuries ago, we took
from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he
offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We
took from him Rome and the sword of Cæsar, and proclaimed
ourselves sole rulers of the earth
, though hitherto we have not
been able to complete our work. But whose fault is that? Oh,
the work is only beginning, but it has begun. It has long to
await completion and the earth has yet much to suffer, but we
shall triumph and shall be Cæsars, and then we shall plan the
universal happiness of man.
But Thou mightest have taken even
then the sword of Cæsar. Why didst Thou reject that last gift?
Hadst Thou accepted that last counsel of the mighty spirit, Thou
wouldst have accomplished all that man seeks on earth—that is,
some one to worship, some one to keep his conscience, and some
means of uniting all in one unanimous and harmonious ant-heap,
for the craving for universal unity is the third and last anguish
of men. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organize a
universal state. There have been many great nations with great
histories, but the more highly they were developed the more
unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people
the craving for world-wide union. The great conquerors, Timours
and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the face of
the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the
unconscious expression of the same craving for universal unity.
Hadst Thou taken the world and Cæsar's purple, Thou wouldst
have founded the universal state and have given universal peace.
For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and
their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Cæsar, and
in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him
. Oh,
ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their
science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower
of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism.
[284] But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter
them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and
raise the cup, and on it will be written, “Mystery.” But then, and
only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men.
Thou art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while
we give rest to all. And besides, how many of those elect, those
mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary waiting
for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of
their spirit and the warmth of their heart to the other camp, and
end by raising their free banner against Thee. Thou didst Thyself
lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more
rebel nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we
shall persuade them that they will only become free when they
renounce their freedom to us and submit to us.
And shall we be
right or shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are
right, for they will remember the horrors of slavery and confusion
to which Thy freedom brought them
. Freedom, free thought and
science, will lead them into such straits and will bring them face
to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of
them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others,
rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest,
weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to
us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we
come back to you, save us from ourselves!”

“ ‘Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take
the bread made by their hands from them, to give it to them,
without any miracle. They will see that we do not change the
stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking
it from our hands than for the bread itself! For they will remember
only too well that in old days, without our help, even the
bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they
have come back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in
their hands. Too, too well will they know the value of complete
submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy.

Who is most to blame for their not knowing it?—speak! Who
scattered the flock and sent it astray on unknown paths? But the
flock will come together again and will submit once more, and
then it will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet
humble happiness of weak creatures such as they are by nature.

Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou didst [285]
lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show
them that they are weak, that they are only pitiful children, but
that childlike happiness is the sweetest of all. They will become
timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear
, as chicks
to the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before
us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever, that
we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands
of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their
minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like
women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from
us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish
song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours
we shall make their life like a child's game, with children's songs
and innocent dance.
Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are
weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because
we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be
expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to
sin because we love them,
and the punishment for these sins we
take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and
they will adore us as their saviors who have taken on themselves
their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We
shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses,
to have or not to have children—according to whether they have
been obedient or disobedient—and they will submit to us gladly
and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all,
all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all.

And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them
from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present
in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy,
all the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who
rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be
unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and
a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves
the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they
will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond
the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep
the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the
reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything
[286] in the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they.
It is prophesied that Thou wilt come again in victory, Thou wilt
come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say
that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We
are told that the harlot who sits upon the beast, and holds in her
hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak will rise
up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her
loathsome body. But then I will stand up and point out to Thee
the thousand millions of happy children who have known no sin.
And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness
will stand up before Thee and say: “Judge us if Thou canst and
darest.” Know that I fear Thee not. Know that I too have been
in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too
prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too
was striving to stand among Thy elect, among the strong and
powerful, thirsting “to make up the number.” But I awakened
and would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks
of those who have corrected Thy work. I left the proud and went
back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I say
to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I
repeat, to-morrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock who at a
sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders about the pile
on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if any
one has ever deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall
burn Thee. Dixi.’ ”

Ivan stopped. He was carried away as he talked, and spoke
with excitement; when he had finished, he suddenly smiled.
Alyosha had listened in silence; towards the end he was greatly
moved and seemed several times on the point of interrupting, but
restrained himself. Now his words came with a rush.

“But ... that's absurd!” he cried, flushing. “Your poem is in
praise of Jesus, not in blame of Him—as you meant it to be.
And who will believe you about freedom? Is that the way to
understand it? That's not the idea of it in the Orthodox Church....
That's Rome, and not even the whole of Rome, it's false—those
are the worst of the Catholics, the Inquisitors, the Jesuits!.
.. And
there could not be such a fantastic creature as your Inquisitor.
What are these sins of mankind they take on themselves? Who
are these keepers of the mystery who have taken some curse
[287] upon themselves for the happiness of mankind? When have
they been seen? We know the Jesuits, they are spoken ill of,
but surely they are not what you describe? They are not that
at all, not at all.... They are simply the Romish army for the
earthly sovereignty of the world in the future, with the Pontiff
of Rome for Emperor ... that's their ideal
, but there's no sort of
mystery or lofty melancholy about it.... It's simple lust of power,
of filthy earthly gain, of domination—something like a universal
serfdom with them as masters
—that's all they stand for. They
don't even believe in God perhaps. Your suffering Inquisitor is a
mere fantasy.”

“Stay, stay,” laughed Ivan, “how hot you are! A fantasy you
say, let it be so! Of course it's a fantasy. But allow me to say:
do you really think that the Roman Catholic movement of the
last centuries is actually nothing but the lust of power, of filthy
earthly gain? Is that Father Païssy's teaching?”
“No, no, on the contrary, Father Païssy did once say something
rather the same as you ... but of course it's not the same, not a bit
the same,” Alyosha hastily corrected himself.
“A precious admission, in spite of your ‘not a bit the same.’
I ask you why your Jesuits and Inquisitors have united simply
for vile material gain? Why can there not be among them one
martyr oppressed by great sorrow and loving humanity? You
see, only suppose that there was one such man among all those
who desire nothing but filthy material gain—if there's only one
like my old Inquisitor, who had himself eaten roots in the desert
and made frenzied efforts to subdue his flesh to make himself
free and perfect. But yet all his life he loved humanity, and
suddenly his eyes were opened, and he saw that it is no great
moral blessedness to attain perfection and freedom, if at the same
time one gains the conviction that millions of God's creatures
have been created as a mockery, that they will never be capable
of using their freedom, that these poor rebels can never turn into
giants to complete the tower, that it was not for such geese that
the great idealist dreamt his dream of harmony. Seeing all that
he turned back and joined—the clever people. Surely that could
have happened?”

“Joined whom, what clever people?” cried Alyosha, completely
carried away. “They have no such great cleverness and
no mysteries and secrets.... Perhaps nothing but Atheism, that's
all their secret. Your Inquisitor does not believe in God, that's [288]
his secret!”


“What if it is so! At last you have guessed it. It's perfectly true,
it's true that that's the whole secret, but isn't that suffering, at least
for a man like that, who has wasted his whole life in the desert
and yet could not shake off his incurable love of humanity? In
his old age he reached the clear conviction that nothing but the
advice of the great dread spirit could build up any tolerable sort
of life for the feeble, unruly, ‘incomplete, empirical creatures
created in jest.’ And so, convinced of this, he sees that he must
follow the counsel of the wise spirit, the dread spirit of death and
destruction, and therefore accept lying and deception, and lead
men consciously to death and destruction, and yet deceive them (Like Gurdjieff's story of the magician and his sheep)
all the way so that they may not notice where they are being
led, that the poor blind creatures may at least on the way think
themselves happy.
And note, the deception is in the name of
Him in Whose ideal the old man had so fervently believed all his
life long. Is not that tragic? And if only one such stood at the
head of the whole army ‘filled with the lust of power only for the
sake of filthy gain’—would not one such be enough to make a
tragedy? More than that, one such standing at the head is enough
to create the actual leading idea of the Roman Church with all its
armies and Jesuits, its highest idea. I tell you frankly that I firmly
believe that there has always been such a man among those who
stood at the head of the movement. Who knows, there may have
been some such even among the Roman Popes.
Who knows,
perhaps the spirit of that accursed old man who loves mankind
so obstinately in his own way, is to be found even now in a
whole multitude of such old men, existing not by chance but by
agreement, as a secret league formed long ago for the guarding
of the mystery, to guard it from the weak and the unhappy, so
as to make them happy. No doubt it is so, and so it must be
indeed. I fancy that even among the Masons there's something of
the same mystery at the bottom, and that that's why the Catholics
so detest the Masons as their rivals breaking up the unity of the
idea, while it is so essential that there should be one flock and
one shepherd.... But from the way I defend my idea I might be
an author impatient of your criticism. Enough of it.”
“You are perhaps a Mason yourself!” broke suddenly from
Alyosha. “You don't believe in God,” he added, speaking this
[289] time very sorrowfully. He fancied besides that his brother was
looking at him ironically. “How does your poem end?” he asked,
suddenly looking down. “Or was it the end?”

“I meant to end it like this. When the Inquisitor ceased
speaking he waited some time for his Prisoner to answer him.
His silence weighed down upon him. He saw that the Prisoner
had listened intently all the time, looking gently in his face and
evidently not wishing to reply. The old man longed for Him
to say something, however bitter and terrible. But He suddenly
approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his
bloodless aged lips. That was all His answer. The old man
shuddered. His lips moved. He went to the door, opened it, and
said to Him: ‘Go, and come no more ... come not at all, never,
never!’ And he let Him out into the dark alleys of the town. The
Prisoner went away.”
“And the old man?”
“The kiss glows in his heart, but the old man adheres to his
idea.”
---

The chapter continues a bit more relating to the general story, but the above is the story of the Grand Inquisitor. Part of it sounds like straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or reads like a description of a Totalitarian state, which is very topical.
 
What is so appealing in Dostoevsky is that he gives hope in his characters and finds redeeming features in those who at first through their actions look the worst, whether they be prostitutes, murderers, thieves or drunken braggarts. Things are in not black and white. He allows the possibility that the characters can change their ways of life if they have digressed and fallen into the gutter. It is an inner change, of becoming conscious of their actions and the hurt it has brought etc. He then often shows how small acts of kindness can make a big difference. This is illustrated in a story that he tells, which could well be an old wisdom story that has been passed down. It concerns the giving of an onion, an expression that he then uses a few times in the book, The Brothers Karamazov:

“You see, Alyosha,” Grushenka turned to him with a nervous
laugh. “I was boasting when I told Rakitin I had given away an
onion, but it's not to boast I tell you about it. It's only a story,
but it's a nice story. I used to hear it when I was a child from
Matryona, my cook, who is still with me. It's like this. Once upon
a time
there was a peasant woman and a very wicked woman she
was. And she died and did not leave a single good deed behind.
The devils caught her and plunged her into the lake of fire. So
her guardian angel stood and wondered what good deed of hers
he could remember to tell to God; ‘She once pulled up an onion
in her garden,’ said he, ‘and gave it to a beggar woman.’ And
God answered: ‘You take that onion then, hold it out to her in
the lake, and let her take hold and be pulled out. And if you
can pull her out of the lake, let her come to Paradise, but if the
onion breaks, then the woman must stay where she is.’ The angel
ran to the woman and held out the onion to her. ‘Come,’ said
he, ‘catch hold and I'll pull you out.’ And he began cautiously
pulling her out. He had just pulled her right out, when the other
sinners in the lake, seeing how she was being drawn out, began
catching hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she
was a very wicked woman and she began kicking them. ‘I'm to
be pulled out, not you. It's my onion, not yours.’ As soon as
she said that, the onion broke. And the woman fell into the lake
and she is burning there to this day. So the angel wept and went
away. So that's the story, Alyosha; I know it by heart, for I am
that wicked woman myself. I boasted to Rakitin that I had given
away an onion, but to you I'll say: ‘I've done nothing but give
away one onion all my life, that's the only good deed I've done.’
So don't praise me, Alyosha, don't think me good, I am bad, I am
a wicked woman and you make me ashamed if you praise me.

---
This is about doing good deeds and to redeem oneself, something that is no longer there in the Lutheran Church, as Luther said it was all about faith and that working on one self is of no use. It is also not about the good deed alone as it has to lead to an inner transformation, thus in the story above, though she had done one good deed in her life by giving an onion, she had herself still not been transformed in her way of being.
 
Below are some more quotes from Dostoevsky. They are all from the online version of The Brothers Karamazov unless otherwise mentioned. I have come to better understand the intellectual and spiritual environment in which Gurdjieff (who was 3 years old when Dostoevsky died)lived (The Russian orthodox world) and some of the ideas and topics that were around. I am also not surprised that the Brothers Karamazov is one of Putin's favourite books.




On carefree attitude expecting a free lunch:

Oh, he, too, can be good and noble, but only when

all goes well with him. What is more, he can be carried off his

feet, positively carried off his feet by noble ideals, but only if

they come of themselves, if they fall from heaven for him, if

they need not be paid for. He dislikes paying for anything, but is

very fond of receiving, and that's so with him in everything. Oh,

give him every possible good in life (he couldn't be content with

less), and put no obstacle in his way, and he will show that he,

too, can be noble. He is not greedy, no, but he must have money,

a great deal of money, and you will see how generously, with

what scorn of filthy lucre, he will fling it all away in the reckless

dissipation of one night. But if he has not money, he will show

what he is ready to do to get it when he is in great need of it.

---
Atheism: (From the Penguin book version page 40)

...for socialism is not only a problem of labor, or the so-called ‘fourth estate’, but is in the first instance a problem of atheism, of the contemporary embodiment of atheism, the problem of the Tower of Babel, constructed expressly without God, not for the attainment of heaven from earth, but for the abasement of heaven to earth.

---

Science missing the whole in the analysis of the parts (online version p 218).

“Remember, young man, unceasingly,” Father Païssy began,

without preface, “that the science of this world, which has become

a great power, has, especially in the last century, analyzed

everything divine handed down to us in the holy books. After

this cruel analysis the learned of this world have nothing left

of all that was sacred of old
. But they have only analyzed the

parts and overlooked the whole, and indeed their blindness is

marvelous. Yet the whole still stands steadfast before their eyes,

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Has it not lasted

nineteen centuries, is it not still a living, a moving power in the

individual soul and in the masses of people? It is still as strong

and living even in the souls of atheists, who have destroyed

everything! For even those who have renounced Christianity and

attack it, in their inmost being still follow the Christian ideal, for

[186] hitherto neither their subtlety nor the ardor of their hearts has

been able to create a higher ideal of man and of virtue than the

ideal given by Christ of old
. When it has been attempted, the

result has been only grotesque.

---

In the above, we might say that this is no longer the case, namely that virtues are no longer automatically being continued. He mentions that when atheists have tried to make higher ideals of man the results have been grotesque. In my book version the word monstrosities is used instead of grotesque and I think it fits better. China’s cultural revolution and the Bolshevik revolution are two examples after Dostoevsky that resulted in monstrosities.

The power of planting a seed in people:

Only a little tiny seed is needed—drop it

into the heart of the peasant and it won't die, it will live in his

soul all his life, it will be hidden in the midst of his darkness

and sin, like a bright spot, like a great reminder. And there's no

need of much teaching or explanation, he will understand it all

simply.

---

Jordan Peterson has said that to claim that one is a Christian a big statement as it means to live as a Christian, following the example of Christ. Dostoevsky concurs about the necessity of teaching by example:

One who does not

believe in God will not believe in God's people. He who believes

in God's people will see His Holiness too, even though he had not

believed in it till then. Only the people and their future spiritual

power will convert our atheists, who have torn themselves away

from their native soil.

And what is the use of Christ's words, unless we set an example?

---

Vladimir Putin is one who strives to set an example of how to live and to walk the talk.


Dostoevsky talks about how people are isolated to their own detriment. Something that we see much much more now, 140 years later.


“Why, the isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in

our age—it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit

yet. For every one strives to keep his individuality as apart as

possible, wishes to secure the greatest possible fullness of life

Chapter II. The Duel 385

for himself; but meantime all his efforts result not in attaining

fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realization

he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our

age have split up into units, they all keep apart, each in his own

groove; each one holds aloof, hides himself and hides what he

has, from the rest
, and he ends by being repelled by others and

repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, ‘How

strong I am now and how secure,’ and in his madness he does

not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into

self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon

himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has

trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in

humanity
, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money

and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in

these days men have, in their mockery, ceased to understand that

the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in

isolated individual effort.
But this terrible individualism must

inevitably have an end, and all will suddenly understand how

unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the

spirit of the time, and people will marvel that they have sat so

long in darkness without seeing the light. And then the sign of

the Son of Man will be seen in the heavens.... But, until then,

we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do

it alone, and his conduct seems to be crazy, a man must set an

example, and so draw men's souls out of their solitude, and spur

them to some act of brotherly love, that the great idea may not

die.”

---

On atheism, A influences, enslavement to endless desires, habits and material comforts:

Look at the worldly and all who set themselves up above the

people of God, has not God's image and His truth been distorted

in them? They have science; but in science there is nothing but

what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part

of man's being is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of

triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed the reign of

freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of

theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world

says:

“You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same

rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying

them and even multiply your desires.” That is the modern

doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom.
And what

follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich,

isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, envy and murder;


for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the

means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is

getting more and more united, more and more bound together in

brotherly community, as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts

flying through the air.

399

Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom

as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men

distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires

and habits and ridiculous fancies are fostered in them. They

live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation.
To have

dinners, visits, carriages, rank and slaves to wait on one is looked

upon as a necessity, for which life, honor and human feeling

are sacrificed, and men even commit suicide if they are unable

to satisfy it
. We see the same thing among those who are not

rich, while the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy

in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine,

they are being led on to it. I ask you is such a man free? I knew

one “champion of freedom” who told me himself that, when he

was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so wretched at the

privation that he almost went and betrayed his cause for the sake

of getting tobacco again!
And such a man says, “I am fighting

for the cause of humanity.”

How can such a one fight? what is he fit for? He is capable

perhaps of some action quickly over, but he cannot hold out long. [349]

And it's no wonder that instead of gaining freedom they have

sunk into slavery
, and instead of serving the cause of brotherly

love and the union of humanity have fallen, on the contrary, into

dissension and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher

said to me in my youth. And therefore the idea of the service

of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is

more and more dying out in the world, and indeed this idea is

sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off

his habits? What can become of him if he is in such bondage to

the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for

himself? He is isolated, and what concern has he with the rest of

humanity
? They have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass

of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less.

---

In contrast, Dostoevsky gives the monastic way, which can be seen as the training of the will, quieting the little “i’s” and being guided by B/C influences. He shows the role and duty of the monks, all through the character of the Elder, Zossima:

The monastic way is very different. Obedience, fasting and

prayer are laughed at, yet only through them lies the way to

400 The Brothers Karamazov

real, true freedom. I cut off my superfluous and unnecessary

desires, I subdue my proud and wanton will and chastise it with

obedience, and with God's help I attain freedom of spirit
and with

it spiritual joy. Which is most capable of conceiving a great idea

and serving it—the rich man in his isolation or the man who has

freed himself from the tyranny of material things and habits? The

monk is reproached for his solitude, “You have secluded yourself

within the walls of the monastery for your own salvation, and

have forgotten the brotherly service of humanity!” But we shall

see which will be most zealous in the cause of brotherly love.

For it is not we, but they, who are in isolation, though they don't

see that. Of old, leaders of the people came from among us, and

why should they not again? The same meek and humble ascetics

will rise up and go out to work for the great cause. The salvation

of Russia comes from the people. And the Russian monk has

always been on the side of the people.
We are isolated only if

the people are isolated. The people believe as we do, and an

unbelieving reformer will never do anything in Russia, even if

he is sincere in heart and a genius. Remember that! The people

will meet the atheist and overcome him, and Russia will be one

and orthodox. Take care of the peasant and guard his heart. Go

on educating him quietly. That's your duty as monks, for the

[350] peasant has God in his heart.

---

He is not oblivious to the fact that not all monks are angels, but points to all the other ones who strive to live according to the virtues and teachings. This is an important point as the focus as we see today is also on those who transgress (in the Catholic Church for example) and not on all the others who likely constitute the large majority. In other words not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is something that is worth keeping:

Fathers and teachers, what is the monk? In the cultivated

world the word is nowadays pronounced by some people with

a jeer, and by others it is used as a term of abuse, and this

contempt for the monk is growing. It is true, alas, it is true,

that there are many sluggards, gluttons, profligates and insolent

beggars among monks
. Educated people point to these: “You

are idlers, useless members of society, you live on the labor of

398 The Brothers Karamazov

others, you are shameless beggars.” And yet how many meek

and humble monks there are, yearning for solitude and fervent

prayer in peace! These are less noticed, or passed over in silence.


And how surprised men would be if I were to say that from these

meek monks, who yearn for solitary prayer, the salvation of

Russia will come perhaps once more!

---

Probably the Orthodox church has played a big quiet role for the re-establishment of Russia and ex Soviet Republics after the fall of the Soviet Union.

About Prayer:

(g) Of Prayer, of Love, and of Contact with other Worlds

Young man, be not forgetful of prayer. Every time you pray,

if your prayer is sincere, there will be new feeling and new

meaning in it, which will give you fresh courage, and you will

understand that prayer is an education.

---

Regarding love of humanity:

Brothers, love is a

teacher; but one must know how to acquire it, for it is hard to

acquire, it is dearly bought, it is won slowly by long labor. For

we must love not only occasionally, for a moment, but for ever.

Every one can love occasionally, even the wicked can.

---

Dostoevsky in the following speaks about this that we are not capable of knowing everything in this world and that we are a part of a bigger (hyperdimensional) reality. He also speaks of the danger when that connection is not there, something that is evident in many materialist schooled in the Darwinist school of thought:

Of the pride of Satan what I think is this: it is hard for us on

earth to comprehend it, and therefore it is so easy to fall into error

and to share it, even imagining that we are doing something grand

and fine. Indeed, many of the strongest feelings and movements

of our nature we cannot comprehend on earth. Let not that be a

stumbling-block, and think not that it may serve as a justification

to you for anything. For the Eternal Judge asks of you what

you can comprehend and not what you cannot
. You will know

that yourself hereafter, for you will behold all things truly then

and will not dispute them. On earth, indeed, we are as it were

astray, and if it were not for the precious image of Christ before

us, we should be undone and altogether lost, as was the human

race before the flood. Much on earth is hidden from us, but to

make up for that we have been given a precious mystic sense of

our living bond with the other world, with the higher heavenly

world
, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but

in other worlds. That is why the philosophers say that we cannot

apprehend the reality of things on earth.

God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them on this

[357] earth, and His garden grew up and everything came up that

could come up, but what grows lives and is alive only through

the feeling of its contact with other mysterious worlds. If that

feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the heavenly growth

will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life and

even grow to hate it.
That's what I think.

---

On suicides:

But woe to those who

have slain themselves on earth, woe to the suicides! I believe

that there can be none more miserable then they. They tell us

that it is a sin to pray for them and outwardly the Church, as it

were, renounces them, but in my secret heart I believe that we

may pray even for them.
Love can never be an offense to Christ.

For such as those I have prayed inwardly all my life, I confess it,

fathers and teachers, and even now I pray for them every day.

---

In the following I think he speaks of those committed to the STS path and there journey hereafter (4D STS or 6D STS?):


Oh, there are some who remain proud and fierce even in

hell, in spite of their certain knowledge and contemplation of

the absolute truth
; there are some fearful ones who have given

themselves over to Satan and his proud spirit entirely. For such,

hell is voluntary and ever consuming; they are tortured by their

own choice. For they have cursed themselves, cursing God and

life.
They live upon their vindictive pride like a starving man

in the desert sucking blood out of his own body.
But they are

never satisfied, and they refuse forgiveness, they curse God Who

calls them
. They cannot behold the living God without hatred,

and they cry out that the God of life should be annihilated, that

God should destroy Himself and His own creation. And they will

burn in the fire of their own wrath for ever and yearn for death

and annihilation
. But they will not attain to death....

(in my Penguin book version, the end is translated as: “And they will burn in the fire of their anger eternally, thirsting for death and non-existence. But they shall not receive death…). Very similar to what the C’s say about those on the path towards non-esistence.

In the afterlife thread it is mentioned how those who die without believing in an afterlife walk in darkness in what appears an an eternity and can be hard to reach for the helpers on the other side. Below is a legend that Dostoevsky tells ( it is communication between the devil and Ivan, who is an atheist, with the devil telling the story):

This legend is

about Paradise. There was, they say, here on earth a thinker and

philosopher. He rejected everything, ‘laws, conscience, faith,’

[728] and, above all, the future life. He died; he expected to go straight

to darkness and death and he found a future life before him. He

was astounded and indignant. ‘This is against my principles!’ he

said. And he was punished for that ... that is, you must excuse

me, I am just repeating what I heard myself, it's only a legend

... he was sentenced to walk a quadrillion kilometers in the dark (an artistic way of conveying eternity, I think)

(we've adopted the metric system, you know) and when he has

finished that quadrillion, the gates of heaven would be opened to

him and he'll be forgiven—”

“And what tortures have you in the other world besides the

quadrillion kilometers?” asked Ivan, with a strange eagerness.

“What tortures? Ah, don't ask. In old days we had all sorts, but

now they have taken chiefly to moral punishments—‘the stings

of conscience’ and all that nonsense. We got that, too, from you,

from the softening of your manners *. And who's the better for (footnote *A progressive journalistic cliché derived from Voltaire and the French Enlightenment.)

it? Only those who have got no conscience, for how can they be

tortured by conscience when they have none?
But decent people (eg. Psychopaths)

who have conscience and a sense of honor suffer for it. Reforms,

when the ground has not been prepared for them, especially if

Chapter IX. The Devil. Ivan's Nightmare 835

they are institutions copied from abroad, do nothing but mischief! (Dostoevsky has a dig at the progressive Europe)

---

The importance of meaning in life.
Victor Frankl wrote about the importance of meaning and Jordan Peterson has talked about it too as being essential, to find something that is worth living for, a cross to carry. Dostoevsky says it like this:

For the secret of
man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for.
Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not
[280] consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than
remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance.


---

Dostoevsky gives a description of an atheist who despite being clever lacks the higher connection and how this can make a true meeting hard. (From the book, The Idiot):

‘As to faith,’ he said, smiling, and evidently unwilling

to leave Rogojin in this state—‘as to faith, I had four

curious conversations in two days, a week or so ago. One

morning I met a man in the train, and made acquaintance

with him at once. I had often heard of him as a very

learned man, but an atheist
; and I was very glad of the

opportunity of conversing with so eminent and clever a

person. He doesn’t believe in God, and he talked a good

deal about it, but all the while it appeared to me that he

was speaking OUTSIDE THE SUBJECT.
And it has

The Idiot

397 of 1149

always struck me, both in speaking to such men and in

reading their books, that they do not seem really to be

touching on that at all, though on the surface they may

appear to do so
. I told him this, but I dare say I did not

clearly express what I meant, for he could not understand

me.

---

I have left the page numbers and titles in for those who would like to go to the source and read more.
 
Dostoevsky, like any great writer, is prophetic in his writing. This passage from "Crime and Punishment" (1866) is something that so faithfully describes our present and reality.

"He was in the hospital from
the middle of Lent until after
Easter. When he was better,
he remembered the dreams he
had had while he was feverish
and delirious. He dreamt that
the whole world was
condemned to a terrible
strange new plague that had
come to Europe from the
depths of Asia. Everyone was
to be destroyed except a few
chosen ones. Some sort of
new microbe was attacking
people’s bodies, but these
microbes were endowed with
intelligence and will. Men
attacked by them became
instantly furious and mad.
But never had men
considered themselves so
intellectual and so completely
in possession of the truth as
these sufferers, never had
they considered their
decisions, their scientific
conclusions, their moral
convictions so infallible.
Whole villages, whole towns
and peoples were driven mad
by the infection. Everyone
was excited and did not
understand one another. Each
thought that he alone had the
truth and was wretched
looking at the others, beat
himself on the breast, wept,
and wrung his hands. They
did not know how to judge
and could not agree what to
consider evil and what good;
they did not know who to
blame, who to justify. Men
killed each other in a sort of
senseless spite. They gathered
together in armies against one
another, but even on the
march the armies would
begin attacking each other,
the ranks would be broken
and the soldiers would fall on
each other, stabbing and
cutting, biting and devouring
each other. The alarm bells
kept ringing all day long in
the towns; men rushed
together, but why they were
summoned and who was
summoning them no-one
knew. The most ordinary
trades were abandoned,
because everyone proposed
their own ideas and their own
improvements, and they
could not agree. The land too
was abandoned. Men met in
groups, agreed on something,
swore to keep together, but at
once began on something
quite different from what they
had proposed. They accused
one another, fought and killed
each other. There were
conflagrations and famine.
All men and all things were
involved in destruction. The
plague spread and moved
further and further. Only a
few men could be saved in
the whole world. They were a
pure chosen people, destined
to found a new race and a
new life, to renew and purify
the earth, but no-one had seen
these men, no-one had heard
their words and their voices.
Raskolnikov was worried
that this senseless dream
haunted his memory so
miserably, that the impression
of this feverish delirium
persisted so long. "
 
I read Dostoevsky as a part of my high school mandatory reading, and did not understand much at the time, but re-read again couple years back and enjoyed it. Both, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, are great writers and great reading material.
 
I inadvertently found my self today utterly captivated by this miraculous 1969 Russian film (newly restored) of The Brothers Karamazov.

Even a near 4 hour version can admittedly do scant justice to the 900 page source novel, but the writer/director Ivan Pyryev and the entire cast somehow manage the impossible and capture something quite unique in my watching experience - many if not all the principle themes are taken head on and the film's intensity and integrity brings to shame the garbage that passes for script and twitchy, meaningless performances in almost all contemporary dramas. A blast of spiritual and psychological therapy and a deeply moving and meaningful tragedy to rival anything written in ancient Greece or by Shake-speare. Warmly recommended for all those who have the stomach to go there...

All links below have english subtitles.



 
Back
Top Bottom