Chapter 10 fifth lecture

In the last lecture, I mentioned to you that Dostoevsky seemed to list three layers or areas of personality, that is, three sedimentary layers: the intellectual area, the passionate area, and the deep area; to the intermediary of the deep zone. Of course, these three levels are not absolutely separated, and there is even no specific boundary, but the three continue to penetrate each other. In the last lecture, I discussed the intermediary zone, that is, the passion zone.It is in this area, at this level that the theater fades away, not only in Dostoevsky's books, but in the theater of humanity as a whole.We can immediately discover what at first appears to be a paradox: passions, however turbulent and intense they may be, are in the final analysis irrelevant, or at least the depths of the soul are not touched;In light of this, there is no better example than war. Is there a better example?There are surveys of the terrible war we've just lived through, asking literati what the importance of war is, what moral repercussions they think it has had, what effect it has had on literature, and so on.The answer is simple: little or no impact.

Take a look at Empire Wars first.To try to discover the literary echoes of the imperial wars, to see what has been done to the human soul by the imperial wars. . . . Poetry, but what profound repercussions?What has fundamentally changed?No!Not an event can cause profound repercussions and fundamental changes, no matter how great or tragic the event is!In contrast, the French Revolution was different.What we are dealing with is not just an external event, not an accident exactly, not a trauma, so to speak.Here the event arises from the people themselves.The influence of the French Revolution on Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau was enormous, but their works were written before the Revolution.They prepared this revolution.We see the same thing in Dostoevsky's novels: thought is not a trailing event, but a precursor.Often from thought to action, passion should play an intermediary role.

However, we see in Dostoyevsky's novels that the intellectual element sometimes reaches directly into the depths.And the deep zone is definitely not the hell of the soul, on the contrary, it is the paradise of the soul. We see in Dostoevsky a certain mystical inversion of values ​​which has been described by the great English mystic William Blake and which I have given you above.In Dostoevsky's mind, hell is the opposite, the superficial zone, the intellectual zone.Looking at all his works, as long as we have a little expert eye, in the process of reading, we will find that the devaluation of intelligence is not deliberate devaluation, but almost unintentional devaluation, a kind of evangelical devaluation.

Dostoevsky never made it clear, but implied that the opposite of love is neither hate nor the rumination of the brain.Intellect is for him precisely that which individuates himself, against the kingdom of God, against eternal life, against the beatitude outside of time, which can only be attained by abandoning the individual and throwing himself into the interdependence of the whole. The following quote from Schopenhauer's article must have inspired us: "Then he understands that the difference between the sadist and the masochist is only a phenomenon, without touching the thing-in-itself, the will that resides in both: the will, tricked by the intellect that does its own bidding, takes it easy Bitch, finding more satisfaction in one of two representations of oneself must cause more pain in the other; the will, on impulse, tears its own flesh with its teeth, not knowing that it always hurts itself in this way , thus expressing, through the intermediary of his personality, the conflict with his inner self. The persecutor and the persecuted are one and the same. The one mistakenly thinks that he will not share the pain, the latter that he will not share the guilt. If both The eyes of the abuser will be opened, and the abuser will admit that in the vastness of the world, he is in the heart of all suffering people, and the suffering person, if he is sane, will not understand what purpose he came to this world to suffer. He does not recognize due suffering; and the masochist understands that all the sins in the world, committed or not committed, come from the will which also constitutes his own essence, he is the phenomenon expressing the essence, according to this phenomenon and The affirmation of phenomena, he suffers all the sufferings resulting from it, and should suffer as a matter of course, and endure as long as he continues to act as will" (Quoted from Schopenhauer's "The World is Will and Ideas", Volume 1, Volume 5, 6 pp. 6-567; see Canta Guzena's translation)

Yet this pessimism, which may at times appear bordering on paradoxical in Schopenhauer, turns into intense optimism in Dostoevsky.Tuo let a character in "Youth" speak for him: "Give me three lives, and I still don't think it's enough." ("Youth" page 78) I want to take you into that blessed state that Dostoyevsky describes or allows us to glimpse for us, and which appears in each of his books, where the sense of individual limitations and the sense of time passing are combined. Disappeared. "At this moment, I seem to understand the wise words of the apostle, time will no longer exist." ("Idiot" page 298)

Let's read a very convincing passage of dialogue: "Do you like children?" asked Stavrogin. "I like it," replied Kirillov, looking rather indifferent. "And you love life, too?" "Yes, I love life too. Are you surprised?" ... "Do you believe in eternal life in the underworld?" "No! But believe in eternal life on earth. There are moments, yes, when you feel that time stops suddenly and gives way to eternity." (Vol. II, p. 256) I could quote many, many more, but the above quote will surely suffice. Every time I read the Gospels, I am struck by two words that recur over and over again: "ET NUNC" ("from this time").Presumably Dostoevsky was also inexplicably surprised: the blessedness and blessedness promised by Christ can be achieved immediately, if the human soul denies itself and resigns itself to fate: ET NUNC...

Eternal life is not, or not only, something in the future, and if we cannot achieve it in this life, we have no hope of achieving it in the life to come. Here is a quote from Mark Rutherford's excellent Autobiography: "As I got older, I realized how crazy it is to pursue the future blindly, and the power of the so-called future, and how stupid it is to delay or advance happiness day after day. I finally learned to value the life in front of me, although it was a bit too late finally learned to understand that the sun of the present is as bright as the sun of the future, and to stop worrying about the future. But when I was young, I was a victim of fantasies about self-cultivation for one reason or another , so that on the sunny June morning, I imagined a clearer and brighter July morning.

"I don't want to speak for or against the theory of immortality. I just want to say that people can live happily without this theory, even in times of disaster; It serves as the sole motive force of human action, that whimsical madness that leads us all astray all our lives, into such vain dreams that we die of old age without even enjoying an hour of bliss." (Translated from English ) I can't help shouting: "What does immortality have to do with me, if I am not constantly aware of eternity! I want eternal life without being constantly aware of eternity! From this moment on, eternal life may reside in our bodies and minds. We experience eternal life firsthand, and once we voluntarily renounce our own life and die voluntarily, this renunciation immediately resurrects life in eternity."

There is neither enjoinment nor command here, but only the beatific mystery that Christ reveals to us everywhere in the Gospels.Christ also said: "If you understand these things, you are happy." Right here and now we can join the beatitude. How quiet!Here time really stops, here time shows eternity.We enter the kingdom of God. Yes, here lies the mysterious core of Dostoevsky's thought, the very core of the Christian spirit, the extraordinary secret of happiness.The individual wins in the abandonment of individuality: those who love their own lives will lose their lives, and those who protect their individuality will lose their individuality; but those who abandon their lives will make their lives truly vibrant and ensure their eternity, not future eternity life, but from now on into eternity.Resurrected in the life of the whole, forgetting all individual happiness!Oh!Perfect comeback!

This kind of praise of feeling and depreciation of thinking is the best way to outline a fragment, which is after the passage I just read to you: "You look very happy," Stavrogin said to Kirillov. "I'm happy, for sure," Kirillov admitted, sounding like the most commonplace answer. "But not long ago you were in a bad mood, angry with Liptina, weren't you?" "Well! I don't complain now. I didn't know then that I was happy. Do you notice a leaf sometimes, a leaf?" "certainly." "Recently, I saw a leaf, yellow and yellow, but a few places remained green, and the surrounding area was withered. The wind blew it away. When I was ten years old, sometimes I closed my eyes on purpose in winter, imagining A green leaf, a leaf with clear veins, a bright sun. I opened my eyes, thinking I was dreaming, and it was so beautiful, so I closed them again."

"What does this mean? Is there a symbolic meaning?" "Oh no...why a symbol? My words have no meaning, I'm just talking about leaves. Leaves are beautiful and all is well." ... "When did you learn of your happiness?" "Last Tuesday, or rather Wednesday, the nights from Tuesday to Wednesday." "Under what circumstances?" "Can't remember, it happened by accident. I was walking up and down the room... nothing. I stopped the clock and it was two thirty-seven." (Vol. I pp. 257-25 eight pages) You ask, if feeling prevails over thought, if the mind should have only this state of emptiness, a state of standby and action, at the mercy of external influences, then what can be the result but disorder?That, we are told, is the inevitable consequence of Dostoevsky's teachings, and has been repeated quite often lately.Discussing Dostoyevsky will take us very far, for if I assert to you that Dostoevsky does not lead us to anarchism, but only to the Gospel, I can predict the consequences of my words. protest.Here we need to agree.The Christianity contained in the Gospels has generally been transmitted to us French only through the Catholic Church, and has only been domesticated by the Church.And Dostoevsky hated the Church, especially the Catholic Church.He claimed to receive the teaching of Christ directly and exclusively from the "Gospels", which is precisely what is not tolerated by Catholicism. Many passages of his letters are anti-Catholic.The intensity, the arbitrary sentimentality of the criticisms, I dare not cite, but every time I reread Dostoevsky, I understand and understand his criticisms better, and the impression in general is stronger: I cannot find any other writer like He believed in Christianity and opposed Catholicism in this way. "Exactly," cried the Catholics, "we have told you so many times, and you seem to understand it yourself: the Gospels, the teachings of Christ, taken in isolation, must lead us to chaos. , so precisely St. Paul is needed, the Church is needed, and the whole of Catholicism is needed.” I let them go. In this sense, Dostoevsky leads us, if not to disorder, at least to a certain Buddhist state, a certain quietism.Moreover, as we shall see, that was not Dolce's only heresy in the eyes of the orthodox.Dostoevsky leads us away from Rome (I mean the encyclicals), and also from worldly honor. "After all, duke, are you a gentleman?" one of Toshi's characters interrogates Myshkin, and Myshkin is the one who best embodies his thoughts, to be precise, his ethics. , at least until he wrote Karamazov, when he had not yet given us the kind of god-like images of Alyosha and Zosima the Elder.So what does he recommend to us?A life of retreat?A life of nothing but love?A life in which man renounces all intellect and all will? Happiness may be found in such a situation, but there Dostoevsky did not see the end of man.Prince Myshkin, who was far away from his country, felt the urgency to return home as soon as he reached that supreme state: when young Alyosha confessed to the elder Zosima that he secretly wanted to spend his life in the monastery, Zosima persuaded him: "Leave This monastery, you will be more useful there: your brothers need you." "Not by force from this world, but from the devil," said Christ. I noticed that most of the translations of the Bible translate the above-mentioned mantra of Christ into: "not forcefully drag them out of this world, but keep them from evil", which is not the same thing.This discovery allows us to proceed to address the demonic aspect of Dostoevsky's writings.The sentence I cite is indeed a translation of the Protestant doctrine.Protestantism tends to downplay angels and demons.I have often tentatively asked some Protestants: "Do you believe in the devil?" Such a question always caused a certain consternation.I often find that the Protestant being asked has not thought about it at all.But in the end he always answered me like this: "Of course, I believe in evil." When I pressed further, the other party finally admitted that there is evil without good deeds, just as there is darkness when there is no light.In this way, there is a slight difference and a thousand miles away. Obviously, the "Gospel" hints at many places that there is a power of the devil, real, present, and individual.Not "keep them from evil", but "keep them from the devil".The question of the devil, I venture to say, occupies an important place in Dostoevsky's writings.Some are sure to see him as a Manichean.We know that Mani, the great patriarch of heresy, recognized two principles in the world: the principle of good and the principle of evil, both are positive and independent principles, and both are equally indispensable. The doctrine is directly linked to that of Zarathustra.We can already see that I emphasize this because it is the most important point: Dostoevsky did not allow the devil to dwell in the lower regions of man, although the whole body of man can be inhabited by devils. , can become the prey of the devil, and he let the devil occupy the brain area, as long as the highest area of ​​human beings is still the intellectual area.According to Dostoyevsky, the devil's greatest temptation to us is intellectual temptation, that is, to ask us questions.I don't think I'm digressing far from the topic. If we first consider the questions that human beings have always been anxious about after procrastinating for a long time: "What is man? Where does man come from? Where does he go? What was man before he was born? What happens after death?" ? What truth can one aspire to?" Or rather: "What is truth?" However, since Nietzsche raised a new question, a question that is quite different from other questions, one that does not insert other questions, nor does it overthrow or replace other questions. anxiety.The question is: "What can a man be? What can a man be?" This question is mingled with the terrible perception that man could have been something else, that man could have been capable and more capable; A stage, regardless of its own perfection. Was Nietzsche the first to ask this question, exactly?I am not sure, but maybe a study of Nietzsche's thought formation will reveal to us that he had already found this question raised by the Greeks and the Italians of the Renaissance. Eager to push people into the practical realm.This answer they sought and found in action and in works of art.I thought of Alexander Borghi and Caesar Borghi, of Frederick II (Frederick of the Two Islands of Sicily), of Leonardo da Vinci, of Goethe.They are all creators, extraordinary people.For artists as much as for activists, the problem of Superman is not a problem, or at least quickly resolved.Their lives themselves and their work are the immediate answer.Anxiety arises when a question is left unanswered, or even so that once the question comes first, the answer is far behind.The man who thinks and imagines but does not act is troubled, and I will quote William Blake again: "He who desires but does not act stinks." Nietzsche was poisoned by this stench. The question "What is a man capable of?" is really an atheist's question, and Dostoevsky knows it perfectly: it is the denial of God, which necessarily leads to the affirmation of man: "Is there no God? Well, then ... everything is permitted." We read these words again in "Karamazov". "If God exists, everything depends on God, and I am powerless outside of his will. If God does not exist, everything depends on me, and it is my duty to show my independence." (Vol. six pages) How to show his independence?This creates anxiety.Everything is licensed.License what?What can a man do? Whenever we see this question raised by one of Dostoevsky's characters, we can be sure that it won't be long before we see that character's downfall.We find Raskolnikov first because he first had the idea, and in Nietzsche it becomes a superhuman concern.Raskolnikov wrote a rather subversive article stating: "There are ordinary and extraordinary people: ordinary people should live as promised and have no right to break the law, just because they are ordinary; extraordinary people have the right to commit all kinds of crimes and violate all kinds of laws, Just because they're so unusual." The above text at least Porfer believes that it can summarize Raskolnikov's article. "Not exactly," began Raskolnikov, in a straightforward and modest tone, "but I admit that you have almost recounted my thoughts, and, if you like, can even say with exactness..." He spit out the words A few words are not very useful, "It's just that I didn't say that any extraordinary person has the absolute right to commit all kinds of crimes at any time, as you understand it. Otherwise, I don't think the censors will Articles of this inclination would be published. All I have said is this: 'The extraordinary man has the right to allow his conscience to cross certain obstacles, but only so far as is necessary for the realization of his ideas, because his ideas may benefit all mankind.' ... "I remember very well that my next article emphasized that the legislators and the guides of mankind, from the oldest, were criminals, for in making new laws they violated old ones, while other At that time, society still faithfully abided by the laws handed down by the ancestors. "To put it bluntly, almost all benefactors and great inventors are horrific. Therefore, not only all great men, but all men who are slightly above the average level, who can say something new, according to them. Inherent in character, they must all be criminals, of course to varying degrees. Otherwise, it would be difficult for them to break the rules, and they would certainly not agree to the rules. I think their duty itself does not allow them to follow the rules.”( Volume I, pages 309 and 310) Note, by the way, that Raskolnikov, regardless of his occupation, was always religious.Please listen: "Do you believe in God? Forgive my curiosity." "I believe it," repeated the young man, looking up at Porfer. "Hmm...do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth?" "Trust me, why are you asking me this?" "Do you really believe it?" "Without compromise." (Volume I, p. 312) In this light, Raskolnikov is different from Dostoevsky's other supermen. "The same law as the lion and the ox, that is oppression." Let us remember this sentence in Blake's book. However, the fact that Raskolnikov poses a problem without taking action to solve it shows that he is not superhuman.His failure was complete.He is constantly troubled by the awareness of his mediocrity.In order to prove to himself that he is a super talent forced himself to commit crimes. "Everything is ready," he thought, "if you dare. One day the truth, bright as the sun, was revealed to me. If I dared, I would kill. I only resolved to show courage." (Vol. II 163 Page) Later, after the crime, he added: "If I had to do it all over again, maybe I wouldn't do it again. But then I'd be anxious to know if I was a scumbag like the others or if I was a real human being, and if I had the strength to get over the barriers, was I duo A trembling person is still a righteous person." (page 163) Still, he doesn't accept the idea of ​​himself failing.He did not admit that it was wrong to dare to do it. "Because I failed, I was a wretch. If I succeeded, I would be weaved a wreath, and now I am only worthy of the company of dogs." (p. 272) After Raskolnikov came Stavrogin or Dirilov, Ivan Karamazov or the hero of The Boy. The failure of every intellectual figure of Dolce's is equally that he considers the wise almost incapable of action. "The Underground Wit" is Dostoevsky's small tome, written not long before "The Eternal Husband".I think this little book marks the peak of Tuo's career, the keystone of Tuo's works, or the clue of Tuo's thoughts.In this work, we can see all aspects of "a person who thinks but does not act", and thus is only one step away from the so-called claim that action must be premised on mediocrity of intelligence. "Underground Wits" is an internal monologue from beginning to end, and it would be a little bold of our friend Valerie Rabo's recent claim that the author, James Joyce, was the creator of this narrative form .This forgets Dostoyevsky, even Poe, and especially Browning; when I reread "The Underground Wit," I can't help thinking of Browning.I think Browning and Dostoevsky pushed the inner monologue all at once to the multiple and delicate perfection that this literary form can achieve. It may surprise some literati that I associate these two names, but it is impossible not to associate them, for the resemblance, not only in form but in content, cannot but be striking, and one of Browning's Some inner monologues, I especially think of My Last Duchess ("My Most Authoritative Duchess"), Porphyrias Lover ("Porphyria's Lover"), especially The Ring and the Book ("Ring and Book") The two testimonies of Pompiria's husband, and on the other hand Dostoevsky wrote a wonderful little story in "The Writer's Diary" entitled KROTKAA (that is, "The Shy Woman", I recall that the most recent translation of this work used this title).Yet what binds me more to Browning and Dostoevsky than the form and method of their compositions, I think, is their optimism, which bears little resemblance to that of Goethe but brings them both close to Nietzsche and the great William Blake at the same time, to whom I have a few words to say. Indeed, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Browning and Blake are exactly four stars of the same constellation.I didn't know much about Blake for a long time, but I finally found him recently, and seemed to recognize in him the fourth star of "Ursa Minor" at once, just as an astronomer can feel a certain star long before the constellation is discovered. The influence of the stars and the determination of their positions, I may say that I had a premonition of Blake for a long time.Does that mean he has a great influence?No, on the contrary, as far as I know, he had no influence.Even in Britain until recently, Black was unknown.This star is very clear and very far away, and its light is just beginning to reach us. Blake's most meaningful work is "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". I will quote a few words for you later. I think this work can help us better understand certain characteristics of Dostoevsky. The sentence I quoted Blake to you just now comes from some of the epigrams in "Proverbs from Hell", such as "He who desires but does not act stinks", which can be used as the epigraph of Dostoevsky's "Underground Wit", Another example: "Don't expect fish in stagnant water." The hero of The Underground Wit (if I may call him that) declares: "The man of action in the nineteenth century is a man without personality." In Dostoevsky's view, a man of action is supposed to be a man of mediocre intelligence, For the proud wise man is bound in his own cocoon.What the wise man sees in action is a compromise, a limitation of thought.Men in action, inspired by wise men, will produce such figures as Pierre Stepanovich and Smerdyakov, in whom Dostoevsky has not yet separated the thinker from the man of action. A wise man does not act, but prompts action.We find in several of Dostoevsky's novels this strange distribution of characters, this disturbing relationship, this mysterious understanding: on the one hand a thinking man, on the other Inspired by him, it seems to turn thoughts into actions for him.You remember Ivan Karamazov and Smerdyakov, you remember Stavrogin and Pierre Stepanovich: the former calls the latter his imitator. In Dostoevsky's last work "The Brothers Karamazov", the strange relationship between the thinker Ivan and the servant Smerdyakov can be said to have been foreshadowed as early as in his first novel. Is this true? Intriguing?He talks about a certain Felka, Svidrigailov, who hanged himself not because he was beaten by his master, but to escape his master's ridicule.He said, "This is a worrying man" and belongs to a reasonable servant. "His companions claim that he is confused when reading." (Volume II, pages 10 and 24) All subordinates, "copycats," servants, and all who act on behalf of the intellectuals are awed and revered by the diabolical superiority of the wise.In the eyes of Pierre Stepanovich, Stavrogin's prestige was extreme, and the intellectual Stavrogin's contempt for his subordinate Stepanovich was equally extreme. "Do you want me to tell you the whole truth?" said Pierre Stepanovich. "Listen, this idea was fully formed in my head a moment ago (by idea I mean a heinous murder) You suggested it to me yourself, casually, really, just to tease me, because you wouldn't suggest it to me seriously." "..." Speaking of fire, Pierre Stepanovich approached Stavrogin and grabbed the lapel of his coat (perhaps on purpose), but Stavrogin punched him in the arm, forcing him to let go. "Hey! What are you doing? Be careful, you'll break my arm." (Volume II, pp. 222-223) Likewise, Ivan Karamazov would have behaved similarly violently towards Smerdyakov.Quoting another passage below: "Speak, Nikolai Vselodovich, as you speak before God: are you guilty or not? I swear, I will believe your word as God's, and I will accompany you To the end of the world, oh yes, I am with you, I follow you like a dog..." (Vol. II, p. 230) One last quote: "I'm a clown, I know, but I don't want you to be a clown, because you're the best part of me." (Vol. II, p. 232) The intelligent man is happy to rule over others, but at the same time is irritated by this other, whose clumsiness is regarded by others as a caricature of his own mind. Dostoevsky's letters provide us with information about the creation and especially the creation of his work, and I personally have always considered this wonderful book to be the most wonderful work of this great novelist.We see a very peculiar literary phenomenon in it.The book Dostoevsky had planned to write was quite different from what we read now.During the creative process, a character whom at first he hardly thought of suddenly occupied his thoughts, and gradually took the lead, driving out the main character who should have been the main one.He wrote from Dresden in October 1870: "I've never had a work so hard on me. "At first, that is to say, at the end of last summer, I thought that this matter had been researched and laid out, and I was full of ambition. Then the inspiration really came up, and I suddenly fell in love with this work, couldn't put it down, and started to cross out the original writing. This year Another change suddenly appeared in the summer: a character emerged and tried to become the real protagonist of the novel, so that the original protagonist had to take a backseat. The original protagonist was very interesting, but not very worthy of the title of protagonist. The new protagonist It made me overjoyed, and I immediately revised the work again from scratch." ("Collected Letters" page 384) The new character to which he was preoccupied at the time was Stavrogin, the most grotesque and terrifying character in Dorsey's books.Stavrogin will have a confession towards the end of the novel.Moreover, each of Dostoevsky's characters probably at one time or another states the main features of his character, often blurting them out in the most unexpected ways.Here is a self-portrait of Stavrogin: "Nothing attached me to Russia, where I felt everywhere as an outsider. To be honest, I found life more embarrassing here (Switzerland) than anywhere else, and I couldn't even hate it here. Yet , I tested my own strength. You persuaded me to do so, in order to learn to know myself. In such tests, and in all the life I have lived, I have shown myself as a strong man. But what is the power of a strong man? Useful? I never knew, and still do not. As always, I can feel the desire to do good, and feel comforted by it. But besides, I am willing to do bad, and feel equally satisfied.” (cited from the end) This statement was extremely important in the eyes of Dostoevsky.We will revisit the first part of the statement next time, in the last speech: Stavrogin has no attachment to the Fatherland.Today we will only talk about the double allure that confuses Stavrogin.Baudelaire said: All people have two petitions at the same time: one to God, the other to Satan. In fact, what Stavrogin cherishes is energy.We may as well ask William Blake how to explain the mysterious personality of Stavrogin. "Energy is the only life. Energy is eternal joy," Blake said long ago. Please listen to a few more of Blake's maxims: first, "the way of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"; second, "the madman will become wise if he persists in his madness"; Only those who have experienced it know enough."Blake extols power in a variety of forms: "The roar of the lion, the howl of the wolf, the churning of the sea, and the edge of the sword are all great splinters of eternity, too much for the eye of man to bear." Read a few more of Blake's maxims: "Rainwater pools store water, spring pools overflow"; "An angry tiger is wiser than a horse that knows the way."Finally, the thought at the beginning of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, which Dostoevsky does not seem to have understood, but took for himself: "There is no progress without opposites: attraction and repulsion, reason and drive, love Love and hatred are both necessary for human existence.” Farther below, he also said: “There are and will be two opposing prayers in the world, prayers that will always be hostile. Attempts to reconcile the two will inevitably destroy Life." To William Blake's "Hell's Words," I could not help adding two maxims of my own invention: "Bad literature is made with noble sentiments"; "There is no art without the cooperation of the devil."Yes, really, all works of art are a meeting of chances, or, if you will, a wedding ring between heaven and hell.William Blake said to us: "Milton was timid in his descriptions of God and angels, and free in his descriptions of devils and hell, for the reason that he was a true poet, and did not know that he was on the side of the devil." Dostoevsky spent his whole life in torment, both hating sin and believing it to be necessary.By sin I also mean pain.读他的书，我不由想起农地主人的寓言：仆人说：“你要我们去（把稗子）薅出来吗？”主人说：“不必，容稗子和麦子一齐长，等着收割。” 我记得两年多前有机会会见瓦尔特尔·拉扎拿，他到一个中立国家来看我，跟我一起度过两天，我问他对当今事件的看法，特别对布尔什维克和俄国革命的看法。他回答我说，当然他对革命者所犯下的种种滔天罪行深恶痛绝，觉得太可怕了……“但是，相信我说的话吧，”他说，“一个民族只有陷入水深火热、处于罪孽深渊才能觉醒，同样，个体亦然，只有陷入水深火热、处于罪孽深渊方能良心发现。”他接着说：“正因为不肯认同苦难和罪孽，美国才没有灵魂。” 这些话启发我对你们说，当我们看到佐西马长老跪在德米特里面前，拉斯科尔尼科夫跪在索妮娅面前，他们不仅对人类苦难躬身顺从，而且对罪孽俯首帖耳。 我们可不要误会陀思妥耶夫斯基的思想。即使陀氏明白了当提出超人的问题，即使我们看到超人的问题隐隐约约在陀氏每本书中重现，我们再一次发现的只是福音真言的彻底胜利。陀思妥耶夫斯基只在个体弃绝自身的情况下才看得到和想得出灵魂得救，但另一方面，他又向我们暗示当人们抵达苦海彼岸时便更接近上帝。届时才能迸发这样的呐喊：“上帝啊！我们投奔谁啊！你掌握着永生的真言。” 他知道，这声呐喊不是出自人们可以期待的正人君子之口，不是出自一向清楚投奔何处的人之口，不是出自自以为对得起自己和对得起上帝的人之口，而是出自不知投奔何处的人之口。马尔姆拉多夫曾对拉斯科尔尼科夫说：“您明白这是什么意思吗？您明白'走投无路'这几个字的含义吗？不，您还不明白啊！”（第一卷第二十页）拉斯科尔尼科夫只有超越自身的苦难和罪行，乃至超越惩罚，只有退出人类社会，才能面对福音。 今天我给大家讲的一切也许有点含糊，但陀思妥耶夫斯基也有责任哪。正如布莱克所说：“文化开辟笔直畅通的道路，然而艰难曲折的道路却是天才所创造的。” 不管怎么说，福音真言一点也不含糊，陀思妥耶夫斯基对此是深信不疑的，我也如此，这是关键所在。