Chapter 9 fourth lecture

We pointed out in the last lecture that the disturbing duality that makes Dostoevsky's characters come to life and at the same time disorients them.This duality prompts a friend of Raskolnikov to say of the hero: "It really seemed like there were two opposing personalities coming out of him in turn." It's fine if the opposing personalities just take turns.But we've found that they often manifest together.We see contradictory whims, and whenever one of them exhausts, beset, so to speak, belittled by its own expression and performance, it gives way to the opposite whim.The hero is no nearer to his love than when he has just exaggerated his hatred, no closer to his hate than when he has just exaggerated it too much.

We found that every character, especially women, has a panic premonition about the inconsistent changes in themselves.Fear of not being able to maintain the same emotion and the same resolution for long often drives them to abrupt and confusing moves.Lisa in says: "I've known for a long time that my resolutions won't last a minute, so I act quickly." I intend to explore the consequences of this strange duality today, but first I want to discuss with you whether this duality actually exists, or is it just a figment of Dostoyevsky's imagination?Has reality provided him with an example in this regard?Has he observed the relevant human nature, or indulged in fantasies?

Oscar Wilde wrote in "Purpose": "Nature is a reflection of a work of art." He relished this paradox and explained it with specious insinuations several times. , naturally began to look like Corot's landscape paintings." What is he trying to say?It is nothing more than saying that we usually look at nature in a conventional way, and what we recognize in nature is what artworks teach us to appreciate.Once an artist reveals and expresses his personal vision in his work, he offers us a new look at nature that begins to strike us as outrageous, insincere, almost grotesque; The eye looks at nature, and we recognize in nature what the painter points out to us.In this way, to someone with new and different eyes, nature seems to be the "portrait" of a work of art.

What I say here about painting is equally true of the novel, that is, of the psychological inner picture.Now that we live by accepted data, we soon become accustomed to seeing the world as the arguments explain and persuade us.How many diseases seem not to exist when they are not disclosed!Reading Dostoevsky only makes us aware of how many strange phenomena exist all around us and in us!How many pathological phenomena!How many abnormal phenomena!Yes, that's true, I think that Dostoevsky opened our eyes to certain phenomena, perhaps a lot, because we lacked insight and didn't notice them.

Confronted with the complexity manifested by nearly every member of the human race, attention is spontaneously and almost unconsciously inclined towards simplification. This is what the French novelist instinctively strives for: to extract evidence from personality, to make every effort to discern clear lines in a character's face, to perpetuate his contours by all means.So, whether it is Balzac or someone else, the pursuit of linear style has prevailed... But I am afraid that this is a big fallacy, and I fear that many foreigners make the mistake of belittling and belittling psychoanalysis in French literature, precisely because French The clarity of outline that literature expresses, never empty, without shadows...

Let us recall that Nietzsche recognized and declared the excellence of French psychologists with special insight, appraised them more than ethicists and novelists, and hailed French psychologists as the great teachers of all Europe.Yes, we had in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries an incomparable number of psychoanalysts, and I mean mainly ethicists.I'm not quite sure that today's novelists can compare with them, because we French have a bad tendency to pay attention to formulas, create procedures, and then follow the steps without seeking breakthroughs. I have noticed that La Rochefoucauld, despite his extraordinary contributions to psychology, has held psychology back by striving for the perfection of his maxims.With all due respect, I quote myself from an article I wrote in 1910, because I have nothing better to say today than I did back then:

"Whether La Rochefoucauld at that time dared to attribute the fluctuations of our moods to self-esteem showed a special insight, or a sign that he had discontinued a more pertinent inquiry. Once the formula was found, People persevered, and for more than two centuries followed the scriptures. Psychologists seem to be the most experienced, the least credulous, and the best at revealing the secrets of selfishness in the face of the noblest and hardest actions. La Rochefoucauld I do not blame him for revealing 'self-esteem', but I blame him for stagnating, for sticking to the rules, for believing that in revealing self-esteem he thinks he is perfect. I especially blame those who follow He is a person who stagnates." (See pages 102-103 of my "Selected Works")

We find French literature as a whole embarrassingly deficient, and one might even say underdeveloped.To this end I would like to point out that children occupy a very small place in French novels, if compared with English novels or even Russian literature.We hardly see children in our novels, and there are very few French novelists who write about children, and most of the children they describe are clichéd, clumsy, and uninteresting. In Dostoevsky, by contrast, children abound; it is even worth noting that most of Dostoevsky's characters, including the most important ones, are young and inexperienced.It was the emergence of emotion that seemed to interest him most.The emotions he depicts to us are often still vague, and it can be said that they are still in the beginning state.

Dostoyevsky pays special attention to those puzzling cases, those who rise up to challenge the existing moral and psychological challenges.Apparently, he himself felt quite uncomfortable in this prevailing morality and general psychology.His own temperament is in painful confrontation with certain supposed pre-existing rules, because it is impossible for him to be satisfied and satisfied with the existing rules. We find the same embarrassment and dissatisfaction in Rousseau's work.We know that Dostoevsky was epileptic and Rousseau became mad.Later I will emphasize the role that illness played in the formation of both of their minds.Today we only say that in their abnormal physiological state, a certain rebellious tendency towards believers' physiology and believers' morality can be recognized.

Even if there is nothing unexplainable in man, there must still be something unexplained.But once the duality I mentioned above is accepted by everyone, then we will be amazed at the results of Dostoevsky's brilliant logical deduction.We must first point out that almost all of Toshi's characters are polygamous, that is, to make the complexity of temperament more substantial, almost all characters can love several people at the same time.Another consequence, so to speak, another theorem from the same postulate, is that it is almost impossible to produce envy.Tuo's characters will not and cannot be jealous.

Let's focus first on the case of multiple spouses.For example, Prince Myshkin liked both Agray Epanchina and Nastasya Filipovna: "I love her with all my heart," the prince said of Nastasya Filippovna. "But at the same time you promised Aglaai Yepanchina love." "Yes, yes!" "Look at you, Prince, think about what you said, and ask yourself... You can see that you have never loved either of them... How can you love two women at the same time, and love two different things? The woman of Qizhi...is too strange!" ("Idiot" Volume II, pages 355-356) Similarly, the two heroines are also dual-minded and in love with two men at the same time. You remember Dmitry Karamazov, who was caught between Grushenka and Nastasya Ivanovna.You remember Versilov, he too. I could cite many other examples. It is conceivable that of the two loves, the one is carnal and the other mystical.I think this explanation is overly simplistic.In short, Dostoevsky never speaks out on this issue, he induces us to make many assumptions and then abandons them.Only after reading "The Idiot" for the fourth time did I wake up like a dream, and now it is clear that General Epanchina's wife is moody with Prince Myshkin, and that Agraai, the daughter of the general's wife and the prince's fiancée This is probably due to the fact that either of the two women (not to mention the mother especially) found the duke's nature quite mysterious, but they were just not sure whether the duke would make a satisfactory husband.Dostoevsky repeatedly emphasized Prince Myshkin's asceticism, which made the general's wife and future mother-in-law uneasy: "Anyway, one thing is for sure, and that is that as long as he can still see Aglaai, as long as he is allowed to talk to Aglaai, and sit by her side, and walk with her, he will be content, who knows? Perhaps he has enjoyed it all his life. It is obvious that such a low-demand infatuation is quietly disturbing General Epanchina's wife, who has long suspected that the prince has a platonic love: there are many things that make the general's wife tremble, but She couldn't explain why she was worried." ("Idiot" Volume II, p. 266) A point which I think is very important to emphasize: here, as often elsewhere, the most sensual love is strongest. I don't want to suppress Dostoyevsky's idea that the above-mentioned double love and non-jealousy lead us to be happy to share, at least not always and not necessarily, but to abandon love.On this issue, Dostoevsky was once again not forthright. In fact, the issue of jealousy has always been Dostoevsky's concern.Already in his early work, Another Man's Wife, we read of the paradox that Othello should not be seen as a model of jealousy.Perhaps it is best to see his assertion as an urgent need to rise up against popular thought. But later, Dostoevsky revived this point of view.Recalling Othello in his later work "The Boy", he pointed out: "Versilov said to me one day that Othello killed Desdemona and then committed suicide not out of jealousy, but because someone took away his ideals." ("Youth", p. 285) Is it really a paradox?When I read Coleridge recently I found very similar assertions, to such an extent that it is doubtful that Dostoevsky may have read them.Coleridge said of Othello precisely: "Jealousy, I don't think it's the key to stabbing him... It should be seen that his sweetheart is an angel in his eyes, an idol he worships; he who is deeply in love finds that his sweetheart is not chaste, despicable and hateful, he is anxious and extremely depressed .Yes, to get rid of the lingering love and face the degradation of chastity, he was so angry and annoyed that he cried out: But yet the pity of it Iago, O Iago, the pity of it, Iago! ( Can only be roughly translated as: Oh, what a pity! Iago, oh, Iago, what a pity!)” Is it impossible for Dostoevsky's characters to be jealous?Maybe I'm going to go a little further, or at least explain a little bit.It is important to say that Dolce's characters have only a pain for jealousy, a pain that does not involve hatred of their rival.If there is envy in "The Everlasting Husband," which we shall come to in a moment, it is offset, even awe-inspiring, by a mysterious and strange love for the rival.But in the most common cases there is indeed no jealousy at all, not even pain.Speaking of this, we can't help but remind us of Jean Jacques' feelings, or when Mrs. de Valence loved his rival Claude Haney, but he was safe, or when he thought of de Valence. Madame Houdtot wrote: "In short, no matter how intensely my heart burns for her, I feel comfortable being her confidant, kin, darling, and I never see her lover as an enemy but always as a friend (here It's Saint-Lambert). They'll say it's not love, or it's too much." Dostoevsky wrote in: "Far from being jealous, Stavrogin was full of friendship with his rival." I suggest that you take a detour in order to study the matter in depth, that is to say, to better understand Dostoevsky's point of view.I've recently reread almost all of his works, and it's especially interesting to see how Dostoevsky transitions from one book to another.True, following Notes from the House of the Dead, it was natural to write the story of Raskolnikov, that is to say, the history of the crimes that led to his exile in Siberia.What's more interesting is how the last few pages of the closer look set the stage for "The Idiot".You will recall that at the end of the book Raskolnikov is in Siberia, refreshed, declaring that all the events of his life no longer matter to him: his sins, his regrets, even his martyrdom , seemed to him to be another man's story. "Life has replaced reasoning in him, and he lives by feeling." Myshkin, whom we meet at the beginning of The Idiot, is in this state, which, in Dostoevsky's eyes, is perhaps, perhaps, the best Christian state.I will talk about it later. It seems that Dostoevsky built up various layers in the human mind, or rather identified layers of different interests, a phenomenon of layering.I discern three levels, three regions, in the characters of his novels: the first is the intellectual region, which has little to do with the soul but breeds the worst temptations.According to Dostoevsky, treacherous elements, malevolent elements are growing in this district.Now I am only concerned with the second zone, the emotional zone, which is devastated by the turmoil of passion, but, no matter how tragic the stormy erotic factor, the souls of the characters are not affected at all.There is a deeper region that passion cannot disturb.It is this deep zone that brings us to the resurrection with Raskolnikov, I mean the meaning that Tolstoy gave to the word, what Christ called the "second birth."Myshkin lived in this area. How Dostoevsky passed from "The Idiot" to "The Perpetual Husband" is a more interesting topic.You must remember that at the end of "The Idiot" we see Prince Myshkin at the bedside of Nastasia Filipovna, who has just been murdered by her lover, the prince's rival Rogogina.Both rivals were present, looking at each other in blank dismay, very close at hand.Will they kill each other?No!On the contrary, they huddled together, wept bitterly, and spent the whole night watching Nastasya, lying side by side beside her bed. "Whenever Rogogina had a high fever and began to utter delirium and shout indiscriminately, the prince immediately stretched out his burning hands, stroked his hair and cheeks, and comforted him in every possible way." That's pretty much the theme of The Everlasting Husband. "The Idiot" was written in 1868; "The Everlasting Husband" was completed in 1870.The latter is regarded by certain men of letters as Dostoevsky's masterpiece, such as the supremely intelligent Marcel Schwab.Is it Dostoevsky's masterpiece?Maybe that's an exaggeration.But in any case, it is indeed a masterpiece, and it would be more interesting to hear Dostoevsky himself talk about it, he wrote to his friend Strakhov on March 18, 1869 : "I have a narrative to write, a not too long one. Three or four years ago, the year my brother died, I wanted to write it in reply to Apollo Gregoryev, who was praising my "The Underground Wit" said to me: 'Write more of this type!' But it will become something completely different in form, though the content remains the same. My eternal essence... I can quickly put this I wrote this narrative, because for me, every clue and sentence in this article is not unclear. Everything has been written in my mind, although not a single word has been recorded on paper.” ("Collected Letters" "Page 319) In a letter dated October 27, 1869, we read: "Two-thirds of this novella is almost completely written and transcribed. I try to compress it, but I can't. The point is not quantity, but quality. As for the value, I can't comment, because I don't know it myself. Let others judge." To hear what others have said, Strakhoff writes: "Your novella makes a strong impression here and is, I think, an undisputed success. It is a masterpiece of yours and, in terms of subject matter, the most significant work you have ever written One. I'm talking about Trusotsky's character. Most people don't know much about it after reading it, but everyone is eager to read it and can't put it down." "Underground Talent" preceded this book not long ago.I consider The Underground Wit to be at the zenith of Dostoevsky's career, and I am not alone in seeing this book as the keystone of all Dostoevsky's oeuvre.But if we talk about this book, we will definitely enter the intellectual zone, so I will not talk about it with you today.Or grab "Forever Husband" to stay in the passion zone.This little book has only two characters: the husband and the lover.Nothing could be more simple than that; the story itself, or at least the cause of the tragedy, has already happened, as in Ibsen's plays. Vilchaninov was approaching his forties, and past entanglements were beginning to change in his own eyes. "Now I am nearly forty years old, and the fish-tail-like wrinkles have climbed up the corners of my eyes. The bright and kind eyes have almost disappeared. What the eyes express is a cynical look, just like the kind of bohemian men and world-weary people who see through the world. , his gaze often also contained treachery, and also irony, or some new hue not seen before, some shade of sadness and pain, that careless melancholy, a melancholy that seemed empty and deep. This melancholy Especially when he is alone." (The Everlasting Husband, p. 7) What happened to Vilchaninov?What happened at the turning point of his life when he was forty years old?At the end of the year, I came quickly, and I was well versed in the state of the world. I suddenly realized that once our actions and the events caused by our actions are separated from us, it can be said that once thrown into the world, it is like a light boat pushed on the sea. Moves at our will and often lives behind our backs.George Eliot has an excellent discussion of this in Adam Bede.Yes, the events that Vilchaninov had personally experienced seemed to him not quite what they had been in the past, that is to say, he suddenly became aware of his responsibility.That's when he meets an old acquaintance: the husband of a woman he once possessed.This husband appeared to him in a rather surreal way.It was not clear whether he was avoiding Vilchaninov or, on the contrary, was looking for him.He seemed to appear out of nowhere from among the stones of the street.He wandered mysteriously around Vilchaninov's house, trying not to recognize him. I don't want to tell you the whole book, nor how after the evening visit of her husband Pavel Pavlovich Truzotsky, Vilchaninov finally decided to visit him.Their mutual positions are gradually determined from ambiguity: "Excuse me, Pavel Pavlovitch, you don't live here alone, do you? Who was the little girl I saw when I came in?" Pavel Pavlovich shrugged his eyebrows in astonishment, cast a frank and kindly look, and said with a smile: "What? You ask the little girl? That's Liza!" "Which Lisa?" Vilchaninov stammered. He suddenly felt shocked by something, and the impression came suddenly.I was a little surprised when I entered the room and saw the child just now, but I didn't have any premonition or idea. "It's our Liza, our daughter Liza," insisted Pavel Pavlovich, still smiling. "What...your daughter? Natalia...has the late Natalya Vasilyevna ever had a child?" Vilchaninov asked, his voice almost choked, low and calm. "Of course... oh, my God! By the way, how would you know? I'm confused, don't you? It's the good God who's been kind to us since you left..." Pavel Pavlovich became restless in his chair, agitated, but kindly. "I don't know wow," Vilchaninov said, turning pale. "Indeed, indeed! How do you know?" Pavel Pavlovitch softened, and he went on, "the late she and I, we have given up hope, you remember well . . . Suddenly, joy fell from heaven! Only God knows how I feel. God bless you, just a year after you left, no, less than a year... Wait! Let's do the math. Left in November?" "I left T City at the beginning of September, and I remember very clearly that it was September 12th..." "Oh, is it? September? Mmm!... Is my brain so confused?" Pavel Pavlovich was very surprised. "In that case, you can figure it out: you left on September 12th , Lisa was born on May 8th, let's do the math, September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, almost eight and a half months after you left... If you To know how late she was..." "Let me see the child and fetch her..." Vilchaninov interrupted, his own voice choking. That's how Vilchaninov learned that the dewy couple he didn't care about left traces, so the question arose, did the husband know?The reader remains full of doubts until the end, and Dostoyevsky has deliberately left us in doubts, and it is this doubts that plagues Vilchaninov.There are countless things in his heart.Rather, we soon see that Pavel Pavlovich knows, but pretends not to know: precisely in order to torment his lover, he subtly keeps his lover in doubt. This is the way to look at this wonderful book, and that is: "The Everlasting Husband" is about the struggle of real and sincere emotions against conventional emotions, against the usual and common psychology. No wonder Vilchaninov exclaims: "There is only one solution: a duel!" But we perceive that this is a pathetic solution that satisfies no real emotion but answers only a vain notion of honor, which is exactly A Western notion I mentioned above has nothing to do with this.In fact we soon understand that Pavel Pavlovich likes his suspicions deep inside.It is true that he loves and pursues the pain of jealousy.This pursuit of pain has played a very important role in "The Underground Talent". With regard to the Russians, we French, following Vicomte Melchior de Vaugueil, talk of the "religion of the cult of pain."In France, we take formulas very seriously and use them a lot.This is a method of "nationalizing foreign writers", allowing us to classify writers and put them in the window.The French need to figure out ideas. Once they have a formula, everything will be fine, and they will not use their brains without research.Nietzsche? —Oh, you know, "Superman. Ruthless. Survival." Tolstoy? —"No resistance to evil." Ibsen? — "The Mists of the North." Darwin? ——"Man is the descendant of the monkey. The struggle for survival." Deng Nanzhe——"The Worship of Beauty." Writers who cannot summarize their thoughts with a formula deserve to be wretched!The wider readership couldn't get enough of them, so Barres figured it out, and he came up with labels like "Land and Death" to package his wares. Yes, we French are very inclined to talk empty words, believing that all that needs to be said has been said, and that all that needs to be said has been said, and once you find the formula, you don't have to bother anymore.So we can actually believe that our victory depends on the words of Geoffrey: "I cannibalize them", or the Russian "steamroller". The term "religion of the worship of pain" should not cause misunderstanding.It does not concern, or at least not only concerns, the suffering of others, the universal suffering, for which Raskolnikov adores himself at the feet of Sonia the courtesan, or the elder Zosima at the feet of the future murderer. Mitri Karamazov's feet, but also involves his own pain. Vilchaninov keeps asking himself throughout the story: is Pavel Pavlovich Truzotsky jealous or not?Does he know or not?Ridiculous question.Of course he knew it!Of course he was jealous!But he hides his jealousy in his heart and protects it strictly. He pursues his love for the pain caused by jealousy, just as we found that the protagonist of "The Underground Talent" likes his own toothache. We barely see the abysmal misery of the jealous husband.Dostoevsky makes us aware of this pain only indirectly, that is, through Trusotsky, he makes those around him suffer horribly, starting with making the little girl suffer, despite liking her very much .The little girl's pain allows us to measure the intensity of his own pain.Pavel Pavlovitch tortured the child, but he loved her too much to hate her any more than he could hate his rival Vilchaninov: "Do you know what Liza means to me, Vilchaninov?" Trusotsky's cry still fresh in his memory, and he felt that it was not an affectation, but a sincere, sad expression. Out of thoughtfulness, but thought to himself, how could this monster be so cruel to his beloved child?incredible!But he always avoided the question, the question, which contained a terrible doubt, something intolerable and insoluble. We can believe that the most painful thing about Truzotsky is that he cannot be jealous, or more precisely, he knows the pain but does not know jealousy, and cannot hate those who are more favored than him.He made his rival suffer, he did everything he could to make his rival suffer, and his daughter suffered, like some mysterious balancing force against the anguish and resentment in which he himself fell.However, he wants revenge, not because he desires to avenge himself, but because he thinks that he should avenge himself. Perhaps for him, that is the only way to get rid of the predicament of envy.We see the usual psychology rearing its ugly head here, repressing genuine emotion. "Customs are everywhere, even love," Vulfnag said. (See "Volfnag Works Collection" page 377: "Proverbs 39") You must remember La Rochefoucauld's motto: "How many people will never know love if they have never heard of it?" Can we not infer in the same way: how many people would not be jealous if they had not heard of jealousy, or believed that they should be jealous? It is true that custom creates a great deal of falsehood.How many people are forced to spend their lives playing characters that are very different from themselves?How difficult it is for us to recognize an emotion that has never been described and named before, and has no precedent!For man, any imitation is much easier than little creation.How many people accept a life of deformed living by lies, they feel that no matter what, it is more comfortable and effortless to lie according to the custom than to sincerely express their unique emotions.Expressing their own unique emotions requires them to be creative in a way they feel overwhelmed. Listen to Trusotsky's story: "Hey, Alexey Ivanovich, I was in the car this morning and thought of a very funny little story that I should tell you. You were talking about 'people who flung themselves on the neck.' You Maybe you remember when Semen Petrovich Livtsov arrived in T... You were still there, remember? He had a younger brother, a handsome boy, who lived in Petersburg like him, but in Serving next to the Governor of Province V is highly regarded. One day, Livtsov quarreled with Colonel Gorubinko in a social occasion. At that time, many wives were present, including the colonel's favorite lady. Gorubenko felt deeply. Humiliated, but suppressed the tone and said nothing. Soon Gorubenko took away Livtsov's sweetheart and asked to marry her. What do you think Livtsov did? Hey! He unexpectedly Became Grubenko's best friend, what's more, he asked to be the best man at the wedding. On the wedding day, he fulfilled his role, but when the newlyweds received their bridal blessing, he approached the groom to express his blessing , warmly embraced, but at this very moment, in front of the entire aristocratic society, in front of the governor, this Livtsov stabbed the bridegroom in the stomach, and Gorubenko fell down! His best man, It turned out to be him! Terrible! But the matter is not over yet! The good show is still to come. After the stabbing, the man ran left and right, asking for help everywhere, 'Oh! What did I do! Oh! What did I do? Crying and fussing, throwing his arms around everyone's necks, including the ladies. 'Alas! I've done a good job!' What a joke! Alas! Only poor Gorubin Coe was sympathetic, and in the end he narrowly escaped death." "I don't understand at all why you are telling me this story," said Vilchaninov coldly, frowning. "Just because of that cut," replied Pavel Pavlovich, still smiling. In this way, Pavel Pavlovich's spontaneous and genuine emotions arose, and when Vilchaninov had an unexpected liver attack, he did not hesitate to step forward to take care of him. Please allow me to continue reading a wonderful scene: "The sick man fell asleep as soon as he lay down. Recently he had been amorous and agitated, and he had been non-stop all day, and was as weak as a child. But the renewed pain overcame the fatigue and drowsiness. An hour later, Velchani Nov woke up and sat on the sofa moaning in pain. The thunderstorm had long since stopped, the room smelled of smoke, the bottles on the table were empty, and Pavel Pavlovich was sleeping on the other sofa, stretched out. Lying, with clothes and boots on, the monocle slipped out of the pocket and hung on the end of a ribbon almost touching the floor." (The Perpetual Husband, pp. 160-161) Dostoevsky, as he takes us into the strangest regions of psychology, requires the use of realistic detailing so as to admirably enhance our sense of reality of the imaginary and the imaginary is well worth it Attention. Vilchaninov was in great pain, and Trusotsky immediately stepped forward to take care of him: Pavel Pavlovich was completely out of control, God knows why!His face turned pale with fright, as if he was trying to save his own son.He made up his own mind and set the fire on fire, insisting on applying hot compresses to the patient, and drinking two or three cups of weak tea, the hotter the better, the hotter the better.He ran to Mavra, and, with Vilchaninov's consent, took him to the kitchen, lit the fire, and lit the samovar.Meanwhile, he decided to put the patient down, undress him, and cover him with a blanket.Twenty minutes later, the tea was ready and the dressing was hot. "This will work... hot plate, hot!" he said enthusiastically and eagerly, applying a plate wrapped in a towel to Vilchaninov's chest. "We have no other dressings." , it was too much trouble to find... As for the plate, I can assure you that it is the best dressing. I personally tested it on Peter Kuzmich... You know, this disease can kill people! Here, drink this tea quickly, you deserve it if you burn it!...The most important thing is to save your life, and there is no need to be gentle, courteous and frugal." He urged the bleary-eyed Mavra to change the hot plates every three or four minutes.After changing the third plate and drinking the second cup of hot tea in one gulp, Vilchaninov immediately felt relieved. "Once the pain is under control, then, thank God, it's a good sign," exclaimed Pavel Pavlovich. He beamed to fetch another plate and another cup of hot tea. "The important thing is to control the pain! The point is that we can eliminate the pain!" he repeated from time to time. After half an hour, the pain had completely stopped, but the patient was so tired that he refused to "apply another small plate" in spite of Pavel Pavlovich's pleas.He closed his eyes weakly and murmured in a low voice: "Sleep! Sleep!" "All right, all right!" said Pavel Pavlovich. "Go to bed too... what time is it?" "A quarter to two." "go to sleep." A minute later the patient called again to Pavel Pavlovich.He immediately ran over and bent down. "Oh! You...you are better than me!..." "Thank you. Go to sleep, go to sleep!" whispered Pavel Pavlovich. 他踮着脚很快回到自己的沙发。 病人听到他轻手轻脚铺被褥，脱衣服，吹蜡烛，屏着呼吸躺下，尽量不打搅他。（《永久的丈夫》第一六二至一六四页） 然而一刻钟后，维尔查尼诺夫好生奇怪，发现以为他熟睡的特鲁佐茨基正俯在他身上准备杀害他哩。 没有任何犯罪预谋，虽然，“帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇想杀他，但不知道自己想杀他。这是不可理解的，但确是如此”，维尔查尼诺夫暗自盘算。（《永久的丈夫》第一七二页） 但维尔查尼诺夫对自己的想法并不满足。 “这是真诚的吗？”过了片刻他又犯疑起来，“这是真诚的吗？这一切的一切……特鲁佐茨基昨天对我说他对我情意笃深时，下巴颤抖不已，拳头捶胸，这真诚吗？” “是的，完全真诚，”他自问自答，进一步进行无序的分析，“他相当的愚蠢而又相当的宽厚，完全可能喜欢上妻子的情人，以致二十年间对其行为毫无指摘！他器重我长达九年，一直怀念着我，对我的谈吐念念不忘。昨天他不可能说谎的。昨天他对我说：'咱们清一清账吧！'难道不是爱我吗？完全是的，他又爱我又恨我，这是千般万种爱中最强烈的爱。”（《永久的丈夫》第一七二页） 总而言之： “其时他只是不知道这一切以亲吻结束，抑或以拔刀见红告终。喏！解决的办法有了，最好的办法，真正解决的办法，是亲吻和拔刀见红双管齐下。这是最合乎逻辑的办法！”（《永久的丈夫》第一七四页） 我之所以久久停留在这本小书上，是因为它比陀思妥耶夫斯基其他小说更容易把握，使我们在我刚才给你们讲到的深区那边触及恨和爱，该区并非情爱的场所，激情达不到的，但又是非常容易非常简单就可以探测的。我觉得叔本华所指的就是这个区域，他说这是人类一切连带责任感汇集的区域；这里人的极限烟消云散了，个体感和时间感无影无踪了。总之，陀思妥耶夫斯基正是在这个区域寻求并找到了幸福的秘密。欲知详情，且听下回分解。