Chapter 3 Part Two

As an independent, he fears divisive partisanship, writing, "The thought that vexes me most is, What does our unity of thought consist of? What point of view will bring us all, regardless of our inclinations, together? He called himself "Russia's old European man" and was convinced that "all kinds of confrontations in Europe can be reconciled on the basis of Russian ideas."He is wholeheartedly committed to this Russian unity: all parties should unite in love for the country and for humanity."Yes, I agree with you," he wrote from Siberia, "Russia will end Europe, by destiny. I know that already." Elsewhere he speaks of the Russians as "an idle people, The common interests of all mankind can be contained in the heart."If he was delusional about the importance of the Russian people out of perhaps only precocious belief (which is not my idea at all), it was not because of chauvinistic conceit, but because of instinct and great intellect, he believed that, as A Russian, he saw what divided Europe and the different passions of the parties.Speaking of Pushkin, he praised Pushkin's "sympathy for the universal nature", adding: "This talent Pushkin is shared with our people, and because of this, Pushkin is especially national." The soul is like "a venue for the mediation of European inclinations", and then exclaims: "Which real Russian does not think of Europe first!" and even startled everyone: "The Russian vagabond will not be at peace until he sees the happiness of the world. "

Dostoevsky was convinced: "Russia's eager aspirations for the future should have the highest degree of pan-humanity, and that the future of Russian thinking may be the synthesis of all European thinking, although Europe develops indomitably and courageously according to different national characteristics. Thoughts of their own." His constant gaze abroad, and his comments on French and German politics and society, are for us some of the most interesting passages in this collection of letters.He travels, visits Italy, Switzerland, Germany, at first out of a desire to learn about these countries, and then gets stuck for months by constant money problems, either because he cannot continue the trip because of lack of money, because he cannot pay new debts, or because he is afraid Returning to Russia to repay the old debts, he experienced the pain of being behind bars again... At the age of forty-nine, he wrote: "According to my state of health, even six months in prison is unbearable, especially because I can't write."

But abroad he soon felt the lack of the Russian air, the lack of contact with the Russian people; Sparta, Tolede, Venice did not suit him, he was not acclimated to the climate, he was not happy anywhere.He wrote to Strakhov: "Alas! Nikolai Nikolaevich, how unbearable it is for me to live abroad, I cannot describe it!" Not a single exile letter did not contain the same complaint : "I must go to Russia, I am bored here..." As if he could absorb the secret food of his work there, as if he would lose his vitality if he was forced to leave his land: "I have no desire to write, Nicholas La Nikolayevich, it's either hard to write. I don't understand what it means, I think it must be that I need Russia. Must go back at any cost." Elsewhere: "I need Russia, for my work, For my work... it doesn't matter where we live, or Dresden or elsewhere, once you leave your homeland, you will be surrounded by foreign lands, the feeling is all too clear." He also wrote: "If you Just know how useless and irrelevant I feel! . . . I've become confused and dull, I've lost my Russian habits. There's no Russian atmosphere here, no Russian people. In short, I don't understand Russian immigrants at all, they all It's crazy."

However, he wrote "The Idiot", "The Eternal Husband", in Geneva, in Vevey, and he did not think it was unusual: "You really praised my work here, in fact I am very backward, not behind the century , but I don’t have a timely understanding of what’s happening in my motherland (of course I know better than you, because I read three newspapers from cover to cover every day, and I also subscribe to two magazines), but I’m almost unfamiliar with the living process of life. Not If you are not familiar with the concept of life, you are not familiar with the essence of life, but how important it is for literary and artistic work to be familiar with the essence of life!"

Thus, the "world friendship" was strengthened with strong nationalism: nationalism was an indispensable complement to Dostoevsky's thought.He tirelessly denounced those who were called "progressives" at the time, "The politicians are waiting for the progress of Russian culture, but it is not the progress of the organic development of the national treasure house, but the progress of accelerating the absorption of Western education." "The French are first and foremost French, and the English are first and foremost English, and their highest purpose is to preserve themselves. This is their strength." He stood up against "those who uprooted the Russians," reminding students to "don't Break away from society and abandon society, don’t run away from the people, go somewhere abroad, hide in Europeanism, that is, the absolute state of the world that has never existed, and then cut yourself off from the people, despise the people, and despise the people.” This reminds Biba Reis much earlier.As Bares said about "unhealthy Kantianism", Dostoevsky wrote in the preface of the magazine he led: "No matter how rich the ideas imported from abroad are, if they want to take root in our country and adapt to the environment, It can be used for me only under the following conditions: Our national life is not subject to any external inspiration and impetus, and this kind of thinking naturally arises in practice, out of the urgent needs of national life, out of the needs that everyone actually recognizes. No more or less stable society of any people in the world has been founded upon a predetermined program imported from abroad..." I know of no more stark and urgent declaration in Barres's work.

The other side of this is not to be found in Barres's work, which I regret, the ability to leave the country for a while in order to examine oneself without prejudice is a sign of a very strong personality, and at the same time, a kind The ability to look at foreigners is a great and noble nature.Moreover, Dostoevsky does not seem to have foreseen that we would be blind, as evidenced by the following statement: "It is impossible to wake up the French, to prevent the French from thinking that Lao Tzu is the best in the world. Besides, the French are very few To know the world... What's more, the French don't want to know the world at all. It's a trait common to the whole nation, very typical."

Dostoevsky, compared with Barres, is most evident and fortunate in his individualism, and compared with Nietzsche, we find him a marvelous example: neither conceited nor complacent, sometimes convinced of his own worth.He wrote: "The most difficult thing in this world is to maintain oneself." He also said: "You should not waste your life for any purpose." Because in his opinion, without patriotism and individualism, it is impossible to serve human service.If the above manifesto has impressed some Baresians, will the following quoted manifesto excite Baresians? "The aesthetic thoughts of a new generation of human beings are messed up. Once the moral foundation of society falls into positivism, not only can't get results, but also can't define itself. Its desires and ideals are getting more and more confused. Whether there are too few facts, Not enough to prove that society cannot be built in this way? Such a path cannot lead to happiness? And happiness will not come from where hitherto imagined? But from where? The world has written so many books, but it doesn't get to the point: Westerners have lost Christ . . . the West has fallen for this reason, and for this reason alone.” Reading these words, any French Catholic would not applaud if he hadn’t encountered the following parenthesis: “The Westerners have lost Christ because of Catholic teaching.” Dostoevsky’s vain attempt “to reveal to the world an unknown Russian Christ, whose origin is contained in Orthodox teaching”—to which French Catholics, according to their own orthodoxy, turned a deaf ear.At least today, Dostoyevsky's next words are vain: "I believe that the origin of the power of our future civilization lies in this, the principle of the revival of the whole of Europe lies in this, and the whole of our future power lies in this." The essence is more here.”

In the same way, if M. de Vauguere sees in Dostoevsky that he is "very opposed to thinking, against the abundance of life", says that he "sanctifies idiots, neutrals, idlers", etc., then we From elsewhere, namely, a letter to his brother from Pijenstock's uncollected collection of letters: "These are so-called simple-minded people. But a simple-minded person is more dangerous than a complex-minded one." Much more." A girl who wanted to "become a useful person" expressed her desire to be a nurse or midwife to Dostoevsky, and he replied: "...to always pay attention to one's own cultural accomplishment is to devote oneself to A hundred times more useful activity," followed by: "Wouldn't it be better to take care of your own higher education first? ... Most of our specialists are poorly educated ... Most of our male and female college students have absolutely no Any knowledge. What can they do for mankind!" Of course, I don't need these words to understand that Mr. de Vaugue is wrong, but we can all make mistakes, so I will take the evidence as proof.

Dostoevsky did not easily declare his position for or against socialism.Although Hoffmann is entitled to say: "In the most humane sense, Dostoevsky was a socialist, and remained a socialist," we read in the collection of letters: "Socialism has eroded Europe, and if left unchecked, it will destroy everything." Dostoevsky was a conservative but an unconventionalist; a tsarist but a democrat; a Christian but not a Roman Catholic; a liberal but a Not a "progressive person", he always makes people wonder what to do with him.There was something to be found in him that annoyed parties of all kinds, for he never believed in an excess of intellect beyond its own role, or in the right to lean one way or the other for momentary ends, to throw such delicate instruments out of tune. .He writes: "All possible inclinations (the variants are original to the author's) were frequently welcomed to me (April 9, 1876), and I should like to write an article about these tendencies concerning the turmoil aroused by the influx of letters. Impression... But after thinking about it, I suddenly realized that this article cannot be written very sincerely. Without sincerity, why write it?" What did he want to say?It is nothing more than to say that writing this kind of occasional article can only be successful if it is liked by all parties. Then he has to make it difficult, forcing his own thinking to be extremely simple, regardless of its reason, and throwing his beliefs to the sky.And he won't agree to it.

Dolce's individualism is not ruthless, and it is integrated with a simple and sincere thought, which he only introduces when he ensures its richness, complexity and totality.Therefore, there is no greater and more secret reason why his ideas have not succeeded among us. I don't want to imply that great beliefs generally involve a certain amount of reasoning dishonesty, and beliefs often require no brains.Mr. Barres, however, still has enough brains to see soon enough that an idea does not spread like wildfire and spread all over the world when it is justly stated in all aspects, but it can be firmly promoted only through one aspect.

In order for an idea to be successful, it must be presented alone, in other words, in order to be successful, only one idea must be presented.Finding a good method is not enough, the key is to hold on to it.The public sees every name and wants to know what's going on, and can't stand brains.When I hear Pasteur, I immediately think: Oh, rabies; Nietzsche?Superman; Curie?Radium; Barres?Land and Ghost; Canton?Plasma; as is often said, Bonibis brings to mind his mustard, and Parmentier, if he had only "invented" the potato, would be more famous for this vegetable alone than he is for our whole garden. credit for planting. Dostoevsky was almost acclaimed in France, when de Vauguet ingeniously called the "religion of pain" and thereby reduced the doctrine contained in the last few chapters to a convenient formula like a mantra.I don't doubt that the formula resides in the work, well distilled...but unfortunately the man is not included, and the man is beyond all boundaries and everywhere.Because Dostoevsky belongs to the category of people for whom "the only necessary thing is to know God", at least he wants to run this knowledge of God throughout his works and spread it in his complicated works. And anxious human feelings. Ibsen is also not easy to generalize, and he is one of those writers whose work asks more questions than provides answers. A Doll's House and An Enemy of the People were successful not because of their excellence but because of Ibsen's specious ending.Audiences are dissatisfied because the author does not give an obvious ending, and they think that ambiguity is sin, lazy thinking, or weak conviction.The public, as a rule, appreciates little talent, and measures an author's confidence by strength alone, by persistence and uniform confirmation. I do not intend to expand on the already extensive subject, and today I do not intend to explicitly expound Dostoevsky's teachings, but to point out the contradictions contained in his teachings in the eyes of Western scholars, and Western scholars have no interest in this reconciliation of the two. This extreme desire is usually not well adapted.Dostoevsky was convinced that the contradictions between nationalism and Europeanism, between individualism and selflessness, were only superficial.He argues that opposing factions are equally far from the truth in order to understand one side of this fundamental problem.Allow me to quote one more passage from Dostoevsky, which probably clarifies his position better than a single comment: "Is the annihilation of individuality necessary for happiness? Does the salvation of the soul consist in the annihilation of the self?" I say, on the contrary, Not only should the ego not disappear, but the individuality should be strengthened, even to a height that cannot be achieved in the West. Please understand what I mean: voluntary sacrifice, fully conscious and unfettered sacrifice, self-sacrifice for the good of all , in my opinion, marks the highest developed personality, the most superior personality, the most perfect self-mastery, the most free master... A highly developed personality is a personality that completely believes in authority, no longer worrying about itself, not Possibility of turmoil, that is to say, it is impossible to serve anyone else, but it is only possible to sacrifice for others, in order to make all others completely self-mastering and smooth personalities." I quote from the book "On the Bourgeoisie" Mr. Pijenstock did rightly publish the chapter "Foreign Journeys" in this translation of the Letters. This answer draws on the teachings of Christ.Christ said: "Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever gives his life for self-love will give it eternal life." In the winter of 1871-1872, when the fifty-year-old Dostoevsky returned to Petersburg, he wrote to Yanovsky: "You should admit that you are old, but don't think about it. Wanted to do it again (he was working on The Brothers Karamazov) and to publish something so that everyone would be happy and believed in it. It might be possible to get it right while you're still in the mood for life. I mean myself , hi, I am very happy.” This kind of happiness, this kind of joy that transcends pain, lurks in Dostoevsky’s entire life and all his works, and it is the kind of joy that Nietzsche had already presciently anticipated, and it is also the kind of joy that I feel. To sum up the joy of accusing M. de Vauguere of turning a blind eye. During this period, the tone of Tuo's letters suddenly changed.He no longer wrote to his old correspondents who lived in Petersburg like himself, but only to strangers and casual correspondents, who sought him for influence, comfort, and guidance.Almost all of the letters are worth quoting, so please read the books for yourself.I wrote this article to guide readers to read this book. Dostoevsky finally got rid of his money troubles, regrouped in his twilight years, and headed the "Literati", but the newspaper appeared and stopped.In November 1880, three months before his death, he wrote to the famous Aksakov: "I admit, I confess to you as a friend, that after I intend to publish the "Literati" next year, I will often I knelt down and prayed to God for a long time, may God grant me a pure heart, give me a pure and perfect language, a language that is innocent and desireless, and a language that does not provoke public anger." In the eyes of M. de Vaugueil, this "Le Literati" is only "an ode of ambiguity, lack of analysis and debate, and unrefined", but fortunately the Russian people regard it differently.Dostoevsky finally felt that ideas could be united without arbitrariness, a dream that has almost come true around his writings. The sad news of his death brought into sharp relief the confluence of ideas.If at first "troublemakers tried to snatch Tuoshi's body", then people soon saw that "all the fragmented banners of various political parties and opponents of the empire were all fanatically gathered together by this dead man, and Russia once became a nation. Inspired by thought, possesses the secret of sudden fusion." This passage is from M. de Vauguert, and I am pleased to quote these elegant words, after expressing all my reservations about his treatise.The Duke also wrote later: "As it is often said, the old tsars kept 'merging' the land of Russia, and this king of spirits gathered the hearts of Russia." At present, the spirit of Dostoevsky is naturalizing various living forces in Europe, advancing slowly, almost mysteriously. Especially in Germany, the publication of Dostoyevsky's works is increasing; The Guy generation better recognized and appreciated Dostoevsky's virtues.The secret factors that delayed his success will become the secret factors that permanently ensure his success.