1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: e-artnow Collections
- Kategorie: Gesellschafts- und Liebesromane
- Sprache: Englisch
The Russian Faith Chronicles – 4 Classic Redemption Legends is a profound exploration of timeless themes such as faith, redemption, and the human condition, masterfully presented through a blend of narrative styles. This anthology gathers four evocative tales that are not only quintessentially Russian but also universally resonant, reflecting the intricacies of spiritual awakening and moral dilemmas. The range of literary styles showcased within these stories—from the deeply introspective to the starkly realistic—offers a comprehensive insight into the literary richness that defines Russian classic literature. The diversity of the works contributes significantly to the understanding of deep philosophical and spiritual inquiries that were prevalent during the time. This collection features the influential voices of Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, architects of the Russian literary canon, whose works have long been pivotal in exploring existential and theological themes. Their compelling narratives draw deeply from Russian Orthodox Christianity, interwoven with the socio-political reflections of 19th-century Russia. The stories stand as both a product and critique of their time, holding unparalleled significance in their portrayal of personal redemption and societal norms. Together, these authors offer a rich, multifaceted dialogue on faith, reflecting diverse interpretations and cultural influences. The Russian Faith Chronicles invites readers into a sweeping journey through varied perspectives on redemption, enhanced by the literary genius of its contributors. This anthology serves as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nuanced relationship between faith and culture. Through these texts, readers are offered a rare opportunity to engage with a collection that underscores the enduring relevance of these Russian masterpieces. Both thought-provoking and enlightening, this collection is essential for those eager to delve into themes that transcend time and place.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
The Russian Faith Chronicles – 4 Classic Redemption Legends
Table of Contents
Introduction
Curatorial Vision
This collection gathers The Grand Inquisitor, The Brothers Karamazov, The Idiot, and The Death of Ivan Ilych to illuminate a single concern: how human beings seek redemption amid suffering, doubt, and fragile hope. Read together, these works trace journeys through conscience, compassion, and moral terror, staging confrontations between spiritual longing and worldly power. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s dramatic inquiries meet Leo Tolstoy’s lucid moral psychology, forming a prism through which faith is tested rather than presumed. The arrangement underscores affinities without erasing contrasts, inviting a cumulative experience in which each work refracts the others, sharpening questions of freedom, guilt, forgiveness, and the possibility of grace.
We present these texts together to follow a philosophical arc rather than a historical sequence. The Grand Inquisitor confronts the tension between freedom and security in a tightly focused dramatic challenge. The Brothers Karamazov opens that challenge onto a many-voiced moral landscape of responsibility, love, and doubt. The Idiot considers innocence as an unsettling ethical force, vulnerable yet disruptive. The Death of Ivan Ilych renders the private reckoning with meaning at life’s end. The curatorial aim is to map a spectrum: from public debate to communal struggle to personal awakening, showing redemption as a lived, contested, and transforming horizon.
By gathering Dostoyevsky’s searching dialogues alongside Tolstoy’s concise meditation, the collection highlights recurring moral tests: the temptation to abdicate conscience, the burden of responsibility, and the risk of love. Readers encounter not a doctrine but a drama of discernment, where mercy must contend with judgment and truth with expedience. The chosen works portray redemption neither as sentiment nor as spectacle, but as clarity reached through ordeal. The contrasts are intentional: a parable of authority, a broad novel of kinship, a portrait of vulnerable goodness, and a lucid account of dying. Each contributes a distinct angle on renewal and human dignity.
This collection differs from single-work presentations by foregrounding cross-resonance. Placing The Grand Inquisitor beside The Brothers Karamazov invites attention to how a concentrated argument reverberates within a larger moral canvas. Setting The Idiot near these debates shows innocence neither naive nor merely tragic, but ethically catalytic. Juxtaposing Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych underscores how the search for meaning must be lived to the end, not only argued. The aim is not to rank or harmonize but to create a chamber of echoes, where themes of freedom, compassion, and responsibility amplify, complicate, and deepen one another.
Thematic & Aesthetic Interplay
The Grand Inquisitor operates as a keystone for the volume, its stark confrontation with spiritual freedom echoing through The Brothers Karamazov and counterpointing The Idiot. Read next to its broader sibling, the parable’s austere clarity sharpens the questions that the novel expands through multiple perspectives. Its imagery of authority, temptation, and miracle converses with scenes of doubt and love elsewhere. The result is a dialogue between a distilled moral test and a sprawling investigation, where a single dramatic encounter becomes a tuning fork for the entire collection’s attention to conscience, choice, and the costs of human comfort.
The Idiot brings tenderness and volatility into this conversation. Its portrayal of embodied innocence reveals how goodness can expose hidden cruelty and yearning, thereby complicating neat oppositions between saintliness and folly. That tension mirrors, in a different key, the challenges raised in The Grand Inquisitor about human longing for certainty and relief. Within The Brothers Karamazov, similar pressures surface across voices that argue, contradict, and forgive. Together, these texts ask how truth appears: as gentle presence, as argumentative rigor, or as a paradox that resists resolution. Their interplay keeps faith from hardening into system or dissolving into sentiment.
Leo Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych adds a bracing counterpoint: an unadorned passage through illness toward a moral clarity shorn of spectacle. Where Dostoyevsky explores crisis through debate, confession, and collision, Tolstoy condenses it into lived attention. This contrast prevents a single aesthetic from claiming authority over redemption. It also reveals a shared conviction that authentic change requires facing pain without evasion. The novella’s measured gaze complements the theatrical intensity of The Grand Inquisitor and the wide canvas of The Brothers Karamazov, while reframing the questions posed by The Idiot in the intimate light of mortality.
Intertextual echoes ripple throughout. Within Dostoyevsky’s works, figures of suffering innocence and corrosive pride recur, deepening each other by alternation rather than repetition. The Grand Inquisitor’s challenge to freedom reverberates in The Brothers Karamazov’s moral debates, while The Idiot insists that compassion may be the most radical critique. Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilych, confronting the meaning of a life, answers these dramas with a quiet, exacting standard: truth must be lived, not merely argued. Placed in sequence, the four narratives form a conversation about love’s demands, the seductions of authority, and the possibility that awakening begins in attentive humility.
Enduring Impact & Critical Reception
These works continue to matter because they address abiding dilemmas: whether freedom can bear the weight of human need; whether compassion can survive humiliation and rage; whether facing death clarifies or dissolves meaning. The Grand Inquisitor is frequently cited as a piercing meditation on authority and spiritual liberty. The Brothers Karamazov remains a touchstone for exploring responsibility across conflicting voices. The Idiot persists as an inquiry into innocence in a wounded society. The Death of Ivan Ilych endures as a benchmark for moral clarity under mortality. Together they offer demanding companionship for modern ethical reflection.
Critical engagement with these texts has emphasized their capacity to host dissenting viewpoints without trivializing suffering. The Brothers Karamazov is often recognized for its many-voiced structure, allowing faith, skepticism, and love to struggle without a final simplification. The Grand Inquisitor has sparked debates about obedience, miracle, and moral responsibility. The Idiot invites reflection on the social costs of goodness. The Death of Ivan Ilych has been praised for its unsparing honesty about fear and change. Across discussions, the consensus is not uniform, yet the seriousness with which these works treat conscience continues to command respect.
Their cultural afterlives have been broad, with adaptations and citations that keep their conflicts active in public imagination. Philosophers and artists alike return to the central questions posed here: the dignity of freedom, the demands of love, and the meaning of a good death. Classroom and community discussions repeatedly draw on these narratives to test convictions against experience. The steady recurrence of lines, scenes, and dilemmas from these works suggests durable relevance that extends beyond any moment. They serve as shared reference points for ethical discourse, spiritual inquiry, and the arts’ capacity to imagine responsibility.
Today, placing these four together clarifies how Russian narrative imagination can hold extremity and tenderness in the same frame. The Grand Inquisitor poses the sharpest challenge to freedom; The Brothers Karamazov unfolds that challenge in the tangled company of love and guilt; The Idiot tests the social plausibility of goodness; The Death of Ivan Ilych distills the stakes in the solitude of dying. This constellation makes the case that redemption is not a conclusion but a practice. The collection endures because it deepens attention, invites humility, and sustains the imagination of change amid pressure.
Historical Context
Socio-Political Landscape
Mid-nineteenth-century Russia was ruled by a centralized autocracy that bound church, army, and bureaucracy into a single vision of order. Within this order, a new public sphere of journals, salons, and courtrooms contested what moral authority should look like. The novels in this anthology arose at the hinge between inherited hierarchy and an uneasy modernity. Dostoyevsky explores how faith and freedom collide under a state that promises stability yet fears dissent, while Tolstoy scrutinizes the official class that greased the machinery of empire. Together, they dramatize an empire questioning whether salvation flows from obedience, compassion, or a hard reckoning with suffering.
Alexander II’s Emancipation of the serfs in 1861 destabilized rural life and redirected social energies into towns, courts, and schools. Judicial reforms created trial by jury, public hearings, and a reprofessionalized bar, bringing moral argument into civic spectacle. The Brothers Karamazov sets key scenes within this new legal theater, exposing how rhetoric, reputation, and spiritual hunger intersect with the letter of the law. The Death of Ivan Ilych illumines the reconfigured service nobility, whose careers now depended less on inherited rank than on office and procedure. The Idiot portrays an aristocracy uneasy before cash, contracts, and the raw bargaining of modern social ascent.
Statute and censorship constrained overt theological controversy, yet religious life saturated politics. The Grand Inquisitor, set as a story told within a larger novel, confronts the perennial temptation to trade spiritual freedom for earthly bread and miracle. Its imagined ecclesiastical authority mirrors debates in late imperial Russia about paternal power, social discipline, and pastoral care. The tale channels contemporary anxieties over whether an organized church, closely aligned to the throne, could answer the moral crises unleashed by reform. Conscience, in these works, becomes a battleground where the claims of a protective state collide with the risk of personal freedom.
Industrial workshops and railways multiplied, but the most transforming institution for many readers was the bureaucracy. Paperwork mediated life chances, from property to schooling to retirement. Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilych anatomizes how offices organize time, dignity, and death, exposing a spiritual vacuum inside routine. Dostoyevsky’s The Idiot observes Petersburg society as a marketplace of favors and reputations, where illness, innocence, and wealth unsettle established hierarchies. Their cityscapes collect salons, lodging houses, and courts into moral laboratories, asking whether a person can remain kind and truthful while threaded through registers, ledgers, and the unblinking gaze of colleagues.
Reforms also provoked backlash. Students, clerks, and impoverished gentry composed a restless intelligentsia debating science, utility, and the right to rebel. Underground groups experimented with propaganda and violence, while police surveillance thickened. Public trials for political crimes magnified the drama of conviction and doubt. The Brothers Karamazov treats the fragile bonds between family, community, and creed amid such tensions. The Idiot probes the fate of a compassionate outsider dropped into a society nervously policing status and sincerity. The specter of ideological certainty haunts The Grand Inquisitor, where the promise of managed happiness threatens the unpredictable freedom of conscience.
Foreign policy shocks reset domestic debate. Defeat in the Crimean War exposed administrative weakness, encouraging reform but also a defensive nationalism. Later, the Russo-Turkish War stirred pan-Slavic sentiment and a sense of mission beset by realpolitik. Questions of Russia’s cultural direction sharpened: should the empire embrace European norms or cultivate a distinctive religious ethos. Dostoyevsky’s novels fold these national anxieties into intimate quarrels about guilt, atonement, and belonging. The Grand Inquisitor’s staged conflict between miracle and freedom echoes a wider search for foundations strong enough to withstand chaos, while resisting the seductions of coercion disguised as benevolence.
The household, the sickroom, and the parish framed everyday passages of life and death. Medical professionals gained authority, yet religious rites still shaped last things. The Death of Ivan Ilych emerges precisely from this threshold, contrasting institutional competence with existential bewilderment. Estate decline and the rise of new professionals loosened customary ties, producing the lonely mobility central to Ivan Ilych and the precarious companionships of The Idiot. By depicting legal oaths, funeral customs, and almsgiving, the collection anchors its dramas in a society where salvation and status intertwine, and where the language of redemption circulates through both prayer and paperwork.
Intellectual & Aesthetic Currents
Debates between faith and scientific materialism, moral intuition and utilitarian calculus, saturated the intelligentsia. The anthology’s works answer not with treatises but with narrative experiments that stage conscience under pressure. The Grand Inquisitor distills a philosophical dispute into a fable about freedom, bread, and worship. The Brothers Karamazov multiplies perspectives, letting rival moral vocabularies test each other in argument and action. The Idiot challenges the social cost of radical compassion, while The Death of Ivan Ilych pits institutional reason against a dawning awareness of truth. Each text interrogates whether love, law, or logic can bear the weight of redemption.
Aesthetically, these novels stretch realism to register inner voices, dreams, and parables without abandoning concrete social detail. Shifts in perspective, courtroom orations, and confessional monologues create a chorus of claims upon the reader. The Grand Inquisitor’s insertion into narrative flow exemplifies this layered structure, a tale within a trial of souls. The Idiot uses abrupt tonal changes—from comedy to dread—to question whether innocence can survive worldly calculation. The Death of Ivan Ilych intensifies realism into spiritual diagnosis, reducing plot to a stark confrontation with mortality. Together, they prize dialog over doctrine, seeking a felt experience of truth.
The period’s burgeoning interest in psychology, neurology, and pathology informs the works without mastering them. Epilepsy, nervous illness, and the minute observation of pain and fear become narrative instruments rather than mere clinical exhibits. The Idiot treats illness as both stigma and site of insight, questioning what society calls abnormal. The Death of Ivan Ilych renders symptom and sensation with unsparing precision to expose the evasions of polite optimism. The Brothers Karamazov juxtaposes rational assessment with inexplicable grace and cruelty, challenging deterministic explanations. Beneath scientific description, the authors locate a will struggling toward mercy in a world of causes.
Publication practices shaped form and reception. Serialization in influential journals encouraged cliffhangers, public discussion, and responsiveness to current trials and scandals. Court reporting, expanding under judicial reforms, offered a template for suspense and moral theater that The Brothers Karamazov adapts to its climactic proceedings. Salons and reading circles provided echo chambers where characters’ ideals had real-world analogues among officials, students, and parishioners. This porous boundary between page and street made the novels feel like interventions in ongoing debates rather than closed artistic systems. Readers encountered not just stories but invitations to judge and be judged by them.
Contemporary literary camps argued over art’s purposes: moral awakening, national mission, or aesthetic autonomy. The collection’s texts align with a demanding ethical art that refuses both propaganda and escapism. The Grand Inquisitor exposes the peril of soothing illusions, while The Idiot risks awkwardness and misunderstanding to test the possibility of goodness. The Brothers Karamazov pursues truth through contention, trusting readers to hear conflicting reasons. The Death of Ivan Ilych embraces simplicity of plot to sharpen spiritual perception. Their shared wager is that beautiful form must submit to the urgency of conscience, yet preserve ambiguity wherever mystery instructs humility.
Legacy & Reassessment Across Time
Upon publication, the novels drew intense responses from clergy, lawyers, and teachers who recognized their worlds on the page. Courtroom professionals debated the fairness and pedagogy of The Brothers Karamazov, while preachers discussed The Grand Inquisitor as a warning against paternalistic consolation. Admirers praised The Idiot for giving moral imagination a human face; skeptics questioned its plausibility. The Death of Ivan Ilych unsettled polite society by insisting that ordinary success could hide profound failure. Across editorial pages and parish halls, readers treated the books as mirrors placed before a nation unsure whether reform had purified or merely rearranged its sins.
Revolution and civil war reframed interpretation. Some read the Grand Inquisitor episode as prophecy of mass movements willing to trade liberty for certainty. Others treated The Brothers Karamazov as a study in moral responsibility during collective upheaval. Early Soviet institutions alternately censored religious emphases and prized the psychological acuity and social critique. The Death of Ivan Ilych’s exposure of bureaucratic vanity retained sharpness under new regimes, where paperwork multiplied and public virtue often masked fear. The Idiot’s fragile idealism seemed either naive or heroically countercultural, depending on the season. The works survived because they interrogated power without simple slogans.
In the mid-twentieth century, wars, displacement, and trials of conscience invited global readers to treat the anthology’s texts as existential parables. The Grand Inquisitor became a shorthand for the logic of benevolent coercion in mass societies. The Brothers Karamazov offered case studies for legal ethics, psychology, and theology classrooms. The Idiot suggested an ethics of vulnerability amid systems that reward calculation. The Death of Ivan Ilych entered conversations on truthful dying and the meaning of care. Translation and theater adaptations broadened the audience, while academic study increasingly mined the works for insights into guilt, freedom, and responsibility.
Late Soviet stagnation and post-Soviet transitions renewed debates the novels had staged. As churches reopened and civic institutions searched for legitimacy, The Grand Inquisitor’s dilemma of authority and freedom reappeared in public discourse. Restored jury trials and spectacular prosecutions revived interest in The Brothers Karamazov’s courtroom rhetoric and the ethics of persuasion. Rapid wealth stratification lent The Idiot fresh relevance as kindness encountered transactional cultures. Medical reform and attention to hospice care turned The Death of Ivan Ilych into a touchstone for honest conversations about illness, denial, and dignity. The books functioned as diagnostic instruments in a society reassembling itself.
Contemporary scholarship tests these works with new methods while preserving their moral urgency. Close readings probe narrative voice and silence in The Grand Inquisitor; interdisciplinary studies trace how legal procedures shape The Brothers Karamazov; affect theory examines embarrassment and grace in The Idiot; medical humanities rethink suffering in The Death of Ivan Ilych. Digital corpora map leitmotifs across translations, informing pedagogy worldwide. Stage and screen adaptations continue to debate whether redemption lies in community, sacrament, or truthful suffering. The enduring quarrel uniting readers is not whether faith matters, but how it should speak within plural, wounded, technologically accelerated worlds.
The Russian Faith Chronicles – 4 Classic Redemption Legends
Faith, Doubt, and Theological Inquiry
Redemption, Suffering, and Moral Renewal
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
The Grand Inquisitor
(Translation by H.P. Blavatsky)
[Dedicated by the Translator to those sceptics who clamour so loudly, both in print and private letters—"Show us the wonder-working 'Brothers,' let them come out publicly—and we will believe in them!"]
[The following is an extract from M. Dostoevsky's celebrated novel, The Brothers Karamazof, the last publication from the pen of the great Russian novelist, who died a few months ago, just as the concluding chapters appeared in print. Dostoevsky is beginning to be recognized as one of the ablest and profoundest among Russian writers. His characters are invariably typical portraits drawn from various classes of Russian society, strikingly life-like and realistic to the highest degree. The following extract is a cutting satire on modern theology generally and the Roman Catholic religion in particular. The idea is that Christ revisits earth, coming to Spain at the period of the Inquisition, and is at once arrested as a heretic by the Grand Inquisitor. One of the three brothers of the story, Ivan, a rank materialist and an atheist of the new school, is supposed to throw this conception into the form of a poem, which he describes to Alyosha—the youngest of the brothers, a young Christian mystic brought up by a "saint" in a monastery—as follows: (—Ed. Theosophist, Nov., 1881)]
"Quite impossible, as you see, to start without an introduction," laughed Ivan. "Well, then, I mean to place the event described in the poem in the sixteenth century, an age—as you must have been told at school—when it was the great fashion among poets to make the denizens and powers of higher worlds descend on earth and mix freely with mortals... In France all the notaries' clerks, and the monks in the cloisters as well, used to give grand performances, dramatic plays in which long scenes were enacted by the Madonna, the angels, the saints, Christ, and even by God Himself. In those days, everything was very artless and primitive. An instance of it may be found in Victor Hugo's drama, Notre Dame de Paris, where, at the Municipal Hall, a play called Le Bon Jugement de la Tres-sainte et Gracièuse Vierge Marie, is enacted in honour of Louis XI, in which the Virgin appears personally to pronounce her 'good judgment.' In Moscow, during the prepetrean period, performances of nearly the same character, chosen especially from the Old Testament, were also in great favour. Apart from such plays, the world was overflooded with mystical writings, 'verses'—the heroes of which were always selected from the ranks of angels, saints and other heavenly citizens answering to the devotional purposes of the age. The recluses of our monasteries, like the Roman Catholic monks, passed their time in translating, copying, and even producing original compositions upon such subjects, and that, remember, during the Tarter period!... In this connection, I am reminded of a poem compiled in a convent—a translation from the Greek, of course—called, 'The Travels of the Mother of God among the Damned,' with fitting illustrations and a boldness of conception inferior nowise to that of Dante. The 'Mother of God' visits hell, in company with the archangel Michael as her cicerone to guide her through the legions of the 'damned.' She sees them all, and is witness to their multifarious tortures. Among the many other exceedingly remarkably varieties of torments—every category of sinners having its own—there is one especially worthy of notice, namely a class of the 'damned' sentenced to gradually sink in a burning lake of brimstone and fire. Those whose sins cause them to sink so low that they no longer can rise to the surface are for ever forgotten by God, i.e., they fade out from the omniscient memory, says the poem—an expression, by the way, of an extraordinary profundity of thought, when closely analysed. The Virgin is terribly shocked, and falling down upon her knees in tears before the throne of God, begs that all she has seen in hell—all, all without exception, should have their sentences remitted to them. Her dialogue with God is colossally interesting. She supplicates, she will not leave Him. And when God, pointing to the pierced hands and feet of her Son, cries, 'How can I forgive His executioners?' She then commands that all the saints, martyrs, angels and archangels, should prostrate themselves with her before the Immutable and Changeless One and implore Him to change His wrath into mercy and—forgive them all. The poem closes upon her obtaining from God a compromise, a kind of yearly respite of tortures between Good Friday and Trinity, a chorus of the 'damned' singing loud praises to God from their 'bottomless pit,' thanking and telling Him:
Thou art right, O Lord, very right, Thou hast condemned us justly.
"My poem is of the same character.
"In it, it is Christ who appears on the scene. True, He says nothing, but only appears and passes out of sight. Fifteen centuries have elapsed since He left the world with the distinct promise to return 'with power and great glory'; fifteen long centuries since His prophet cried, 'Prepare ye the way of the Lord!' since He Himself had foretold, while yet on earth, 'Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven but my Father only.' But Christendom expects Him still. ...
"It waits for Him with the same old faith and the same emotion; aye, with a far greater faith, for fifteen centuries have rolled away since the last sign from heaven was sent to man,
And blind faith remained alone To lull the trusting heart, As heav'n would send a sign no more.
"True, again, we have all heard of miracles being wrought ever since the 'age of miracles' passed away to return no more. We had, and still have, our saints credited with performing the most miraculous cures; and, if we can believe their biographers, there have been those among them who have been personally visited by the Queen of Heaven. But Satan sleepeth not, and the first germs of doubt, and ever-increasing unbelief in such wonders, already had begun to sprout in Christendom as early as the sixteenth century. It was just at that time that a new and terrible heresy first made its appearance in the north of Germany.* [*Luther's reform] A great star 'shining as it were a lamp... fell upon the fountains waters'... and 'they were made bitter.' This 'heresy' blasphemously denied 'miracles.' But those who had remained faithful believed all the more ardently, the tears of mankind ascended to Him as heretofore, and the Christian world was expecting Him as confidently as ever; they loved Him and hoped in Him, thirsted and hungered to suffer and die for Him just as many of them had done before.... So many centuries had weak, trusting humanity implored Him, crying with ardent faith and fervour: 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not come!' So many long centuries hath it vainly appealed to Him, that at last, in His inexhaustible compassion, He consenteth to answer the prayer.... He decideth that once more, if it were but for one short hour, the people—His long-suffering, tortured, fatally sinful, his loving and child-like, trusting people—shall behold Him again. The scene of action is placed by me in Spain, at Seville, during that terrible period of the Inquisition, when, for the greater glory of God, stakes were flaming all over the country.
Burning wicked heretics, In grand auto-da-fes.
"This particular visit has, of course, nothing to do with the promised Advent, when, according to the programme, 'after the tribulation of those days,' He will appear 'coming in the clouds of heaven.' For, that 'coming of the Son of Man,' as we are informed, will take place as suddenly 'as the lightning cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west.' No; this once, He desired to come unknown, and appear among His children, just when the bones of the heretics, sentenced to be burnt alive, had commenced crackling at the flaming stakes. Owing to His limitless mercy, He mixes once more with mortals and in the same form in which He was wont to appear fifteen centuries ago. He descends, just at the very moment when before king, courtiers, knights, cardinals, and the fairest dames of court, before the whole population of Seville, upwards of a hundred wicked heretics are being roasted, in a magnificent auto-da-fe ad majorem Dei gloriam, by the order of the powerful Cardinal Grand Inquisitor.
"He comes silently and unannounced; yet all—how strange—yea, all recognize Him, at once! The population rushes towards Him as if propelled by some irresistible force; it surrounds, throngs, and presses around, it follows Him.... Silently, and with a smile of boundless compassion upon His lips, He crosses the dense crowd, and moves softly on. The Sun of Love burns in His heart, and warm rays of Light, Wisdom and Power beam forth from His eyes, and pour down their waves upon the swarming multitudes of the rabble assembled around, making their hearts vibrate with returning love. He extends His hands over their heads, blesses them, and from mere contact with Him, aye, even with His garments, a healing power goes forth. An old man, blind from his birth, cries, 'Lord, heal me, that I may see Thee!' and the scales falling off the closed eyes, the blind man beholds Him... The crowd weeps for joy, and kisses the ground upon which He treads. Children strew flowers along His path and sing to Him, 'Hosanna!' It is He, it is Himself, they say to each other, it must be He, it can be none other but He! He pauses at the portal of the old cathedral, just as a wee white coffin is carried in, with tears and great lamentations. The lid is off, and in the coffin lies the body of a fair-child, seven years old, the only child of an eminent citizen of the city. The little corpse lies buried in flowers. 'He will raise the child to life!' confidently shouts the crowd to the weeping mother. The officiating priest who had come to meet the funeral procession, looks perplexed, and frowns. A loud cry is suddenly heard, and the bereaved mother prostrates herself at His feet. 'If it be Thou, then bring back my child to life!' she cries beseechingly. The procession halts, and the little coffin is gently lowered at his feet. Divine compassion beams forth from His eyes, and as He looks at the child, His lips are heard to whisper once more, 'Talitha Cumi'—and 'straightway the damsel arose.' The child rises in her coffin. Her little hands still hold the nosegay of white roses which after death was placed in them, and, looking round with large astonished eyes she smiles sweetly .... The crowd is violently excited. A terrible commotion rages among them, the populace shouts and loudly weeps, when suddenly, before the cathedral door, appears the Cardinal Grand Inquisitor himself.... He is tall, gaunt-looking old man of nearly four-score years and ten, with a stern, withered face, and deeply sunken eyes, from the cavity of which glitter two fiery sparks. He has laid aside his gorgeous cardinal's robes in which he had appeared before the people at the auto da-fe of the enemies of the Romish Church, and is now clad in his old, rough, monkish cassock. His sullen assistants and slaves of the 'holy guard' are following at a distance. He pauses before the crowd and observes. He has seen all. He has witnessed the placing of the little coffin at His feet, the calling back to life. And now, his dark, grim face has grown still darker; his bushy grey eyebrows nearly meet, and his sunken eye flashes with sinister light. Slowly raising his finger, he commands his minions to arrest Him....
"Such is his power over the well-disciplined, submissive and now trembling people, that the thick crowds immediately give way, and scattering before the guard, amid dead silence and without one breath of protest, allow them to lay their sacrilegious hands upon the stranger and lead Him away.... That same populace, like one man, now bows its head to the ground before the old Inquisitor, who blesses it and slowly moves onward. The guards conduct their prisoner to the ancient building of the Holy Tribunal; pushing Him into a narrow, gloomy, vaulted prison-cell, they lock Him in and retire....
"The day wanes, and night—a dark, hot breathless Spanish night—creeps on and settles upon the city of Seville. The air smells of laurels and orange blossoms. In the Cimmerian darkness of the old Tribunal Hall the iron door of the cell is suddenly thrown open, and the Grand Inquisitor, holding a dark lantern, slowly stalks into the dungeon. He is alone, and, as the heavy door closes behind him, he pauses at the threshold, and, for a minute or two, silently and gloomily scrutinizes the Face before him. At last approaching with measured steps, he sets his lantern down upon the table and addresses Him in these words:
"'It is Thou! ... Thou!' ... Receiving no reply, he rapidly continues: 'Nay, answer not; be silent! ... And what couldst Thou say? ... I know but too well Thy answer.... Besides, Thou hast no right to add one syllable to that which was already uttered by Thee before.... Why shouldst Thou now return, to impede us in our work? For Thou hast come but for that only, and Thou knowest it well. But art Thou as well aware of what awaits Thee in the morning? I do not know, nor do I care to know who thou mayest be: be it Thou or only thine image, to-morrow I will condemn and burn Thee on the stake, as the most wicked of all the heretics; and that same people, who to-day were kissing Thy feet, to-morrow at one bend of my finger, will rush to add fuel to Thy funeral pile... Wert Thou aware of this?' he adds, speaking as if in solemn thought, and never for one instant taking his piercing glance off the meek Face before him."....
"I can hardly realize the situation described—what is all this, Ivan?" suddenly interrupted Alyosha, who had remained silently listening to his brother. "Is this an extravagant fancy, or some mistake of the old man, an impossible quid pro quo?"
"Let it be the latter, if you like," laughed Ivan, "since modern realism has so perverted your taste that you feel unable to realize anything from the world of fancy.... Let it be a quid pro quo, if you so choose it. Again, the Inquisitor is ninety years old, and he might have easily gone mad with his one idee fixe of power; or, it might have as well been a delirious vision, called forth by dying fancy, overheated by the auto-da-fe of the hundred heretics in that forenoon.... But what matters for the poem, whether it was a quid pro quo or an uncontrollable fancy? The question is, that the old man has to open his heart; that he must give out his thought at last; and that the hour has come when he does speak it out, and says loudly that which for ninety years he has kept secret within his own breast."
"And his prisoner, does He never reply? Does He keep silent, looking at him, without saying a word?"
"Of course; and it could not well be otherwise," again retorted Ivan. "The Grand Inquisitor begins from his very first words by telling Him that He has no right to add one syllable to that which He had said before. To make the situation clear at once, the above preliminary monologue is intended to convey to the reader the very fundamental idea which underlies Roman Catholicism—as well as I can convey it, his words mean, in short: 'Everything was given over by Thee to the Pope, and everything now rests with him alone; Thou hast no business to return and thus hinder us in our work.' In this sense the Jesuits not only talk but write likewise.
"'Hast thou the right to divulge to us a single one of the mysteries of that world whence Thou comest?' enquires of Him my old Inquisitor, and forthwith answers for Him. 'Nay, Thou has no such right. For, that would be adding to that which was already said by Thee before; hence depriving people of that freedom for which Thou hast so stoutly stood up while yet on earth.... Anything new that Thou would now proclaim would have to be regarded as an attempt to interfere with that freedom of choice, as it would come as a new and a miraculous revelation superseding the old revelation of fifteen hundred years ago, when Thou didst so repeatedly tell the people: "The truth shall make you free." Behold then, Thy "free" people now!' adds the old man with sombre irony. 'Yea!... it has cost us dearly.' he continues, sternly looking at his victim. 'But we have at last accomplished our task, and—in Thy name.... For fifteen long centuries we had to toil and suffer owing to that "freedom": but now we have prevailed and our work is done, and well and strongly it is done. ....Believest not Thou it is so very strong? ... And why should Thou look at me so meekly as if I were not worthy even of Thy indignation?... Know then, that now, and only now, Thy people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and that only since they have themselves and of their own free will delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet. But then, that is what we have done. Is it that which Thou has striven for? Is this the kind of "freedom" Thou has promised them?'"
"Now again, I do not understand," interrupted Alyosha. "Does the old man mock and laugh?"
"Not in the least. He seriously regards it as a great service done by himself, his brother monks and Jesuits, to humanity, to have conquered and subjected unto their authority that freedom, and boasts that it was done but for the good of the world. 'For only now,' he says (speaking of the Inquisition) 'has it become possible to us, for the first time, to give a serious thought to human happiness. Man is born a rebel, and can rebels be ever happy?... Thou has been fairly warned of it, but evidently to no use, since Thou hast rejected the only means which could make mankind happy; fortunately at Thy departure Thou hast delivered the task to us.... Thou has promised, ratifying the pledge by Thy own words, in words giving us the right to bind and unbind... and surely, Thou couldst not think of depriving us of it now!'"
"But what can he mean by the words, 'Thou has been fairly warned'?" asked Alexis.
"These words give the key to what the old man has to say for his justification... But listen—
"'The terrible and wise spirit, the spirit of self annihilation and non-being,' goes on the Inquisitor, 'the great spirit of negation conversed with Thee in the wilderness, and we are told that he "tempted" Thee... Was it so? And if it were so, then it is impossible to utter anything more truthful than what is contained in his three offers, which Thou didst reject, and which are usually called "temptations." Yea; if ever there was on earth a genuine striking wonder produced, it was on that day of Thy three temptations, and it is precisely in these three short sentences that the marvelous miracle is contained. If it were possible that they should vanish and disappear for ever, without leaving any trace, from the record and from the memory of man, and that it should become necessary again to devise, invent, and make them reappear in Thy history once more, thinkest Thou that all the world's sages, all the legislators, initiates, philosophers and thinkers, if called upon to frame three questions which should, like these, besides answering the magnitude of the event, express in three short sentences the whole future history of this our world and of mankind—dost Thou believe, I ask Thee, that all their combined efforts could ever create anything equal in power and depth of thought to the three propositions offered Thee by the powerful and all-wise spirit in the wilderness? Judging of them by their marvelous aptness alone, one can at once perceive that they emanated not from a finite, terrestrial intellect, but indeed, from the Eternal and the Absolute. In these three offers we find, blended into one and foretold to us, the complete subsequent history of man; we are shown three images, so to say, uniting in them all the future axiomatic, insoluble problems and contradictions of human nature, the world over. In those days, the wondrous wisdom contained in them was not made so apparent as it is now, for futurity remained still veiled; but now, when fifteen centuries have elapsed, we see that everything in these three questions is so marvelously foreseen and foretold, that to add to, or to take away from, the prophecy one jot, would be absolutely impossible!
"'Decide then thyself.' sternly proceeded the Inquisitor, 'which of ye twain was right: Thou who didst reject, or he who offered? Remember the subtle meaning of question the first, which runs thus: Wouldst Thou go into the world empty-handed? Would Thou venture thither with Thy vague and undefined promise of freedom, which men, dull and unruly as they are by nature, are unable so much as to understand, which they avoid and fear?—for never was there anything more unbearable to the human race than personal freedom! Dost Thou see these stones in the desolate and glaring wilderness? Command that these stones be made bread—and mankind will run after Thee, obedient and grateful like a herd of cattle. But even then it will be ever diffident and trembling, lest Thou should take away Thy hand, and they lose thereby their bread! Thou didst refuse to accept the offer for fear of depriving men of their free choice; for where is there freedom of choice where men are bribed with bread? Man shall not live by bread alone—was Thine answer. Thou knewest not, it seems, that it was precisely in the name of that earthly bread that the terrestrial spirit would one day rise against, struggle with, and finally conquer Thee, followed by the hungry multitudes shouting: "Who is like unto that Beast, who maketh fire come down from heaven upon the earth!" Knowest Thou not that, but a few centuries hence, and the whole of mankind will have proclaimed in its wisdom and through its mouthpiece, Science, that there is no more crime, hence no more sin on earth, but only hungry people? "Feed us first and then command us to be virtuous!" will be the words written upon the banner lifted against Thee—a banner which shall destroy Thy Church to its very foundations, and in the place of Thy Temple shall raise once more the terrible Tower of Babel; and though its building be left unfinished, as was that of the first one, yet the fact will remain recorded that Thou couldst, but wouldst not, prevent the attempt to build that new tower by accepting the offer, and thus saving mankind a millennium of useless suffering on earth. And it is to us that the people will return again. They will search for us catacombs, as we shall once more be persecuted and martyred—and they will begin crying unto us: "Feed us, for they who promised us the fire from heaven have deceived us!" It is then that we will finish building their tower for them. For they alone who feed them shall finish it, and we shall feed them in Thy name, and lying to them that it is in that name. Oh, never, never, will they learn to feed themselves without our help! No science will ever give them bread so long as they remain free, so long as they refuse to lay that freedom at our feet, and say: "Enslave, but feed us!" That day must come when men will understand that freedom and daily bread enough to satisfy all are unthinkable and can never be had together, as men will never be able to fairly divide the two among themselves. And they will also learn that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, miserable nonentities born wicked and rebellious. Thou has promised to them the bread of life, the bread of heaven; but I ask Thee again, can that bread ever equal in the sight of the weak and the vicious, the ever ungrateful human race, their daily bread on earth? And even supposing that thousands and tens of thousands follow Thee in the name of, and for the sake of, Thy heavenly bread, what will become of the millions and hundreds of millions of human beings to weak to scorn the earthly for the sake of Thy heavenly bread? Or is it but those tens of thousands chosen among the great and the mighty, that are so dear to Thee, while the remaining millions, innumerable as the grains of sand in the seas, the weak and the loving, have to be used as material for the former? No, no! In our sight and for our purpose the weak and the lowly are the more dear to us. True, they are vicious and rebellious, but we will force them into obedience, and it is they who will admire us the most. They will regard us as gods, and feel grateful to those who have consented to lead the masses and bear their burden of freedom by ruling over them—so terrible will that freedom at last appear to men! Then we will tell them that it is in obedience to Thy will and in Thy name that we rule over them. We will deceive them once more and lie to them once again—for never, never more will we allow Thee to come among us. In this deception we will find our suffering, for we must needs lie eternally, and never cease to lie!
"Such is the secret meaning of "temptation" the first, and that is what Thou didst reject in the wilderness for the sake of that freedom which Thou didst prize above all. Meanwhile Thy tempter's offer contained another great world-mystery. By accepting the "bread," Thou wouldst have satisfied and answered a universal craving, a ceaseless longing alive in the heart of every individual human being, lurking in the breast of collective mankind, that most perplexing problem—"whom or what shall we worship?" There exists no greater or more painful anxiety for a man who has freed himself from all religious bias, than how he shall soonest find a new object or idea to worship. But man seeks to bow before that only which is recognized by the greater majority, if not by all his fellow-men, as having a right to be worshipped; whose rights are so unquestionable that men agree unanimously to bow down to it. For the chief concern of these miserable creatures is not to find and worship the idol of their own choice, but to discover that which all others will believe in, and consent to bow down to in a mass. It is that instinctive need of having a worship in common that is the chief suffering of every man, the chief concern of mankind from the beginning of times. It is for that universality of religious worship that people destroyed each other by sword. Creating gods unto themselves, they forwith began appealing to each other: "Abandon your deities, come and bow down to ours, or death to ye and your idols!" And so will they do till the end of this world; they will do so even then, when all the gods themselves have disappeared, for then men will prostrate themselves before and worship some idea. Thou didst know, Thou couldst not be ignorant of, that mysterious fundamental principle in human nature, and still thou hast rejected the only absolute banner offered Thee, to which all the nations would remain true, and before which all would have bowed—the banner of earthly bread, rejected in the name of freedom and of "bread in the kingdom of God"! Behold, then, what Thou hast done furthermore for that "freedom's" sake! I repeat to Thee, man has no greater anxiety in life than to find some one to whom he can make over that gift of freedom with which the unfortunate creature is born. But he alone will prove capable of silencing and quieting their consciences, that shall succeed in possessing himself of the freedom of men. With "daily bread" an irresistible power was offered Thee: show a man "bread" and he will follow Thee, for what can he resist less than the attraction of bread? But if, at the same time, another succeed in possessing himself of his conscience—oh! then even Thy bread will be forgotten, and man will follow him who seduced his conscience. So far Thou wert right. For the mystery of human being does not solely rest in the desire to live, but in the problem—for what should one live at all? Without a clear perception of his reasons for living, man will never consent to live, and will rather destroy himself than tarry on earth, though he be surrounded with bread. This is the truth. But what has happened? Instead of getting hold of man's freedom, Thou has enlarged it still more! Hast Thou again forgotten that to man rest and even death are preferable to a free choice between the knowledge of Good and Evil? Nothing seems more seductive in his eyes than freedom of conscience, and nothing proves more painful. And behold! instead of laying a firm foundation whereon to rest once for all man's conscience, Thou hast chosen to stir up in him all that is abnormal, mysterious, and indefinite, all that is beyond human strength, and has acted as if Thou never hadst any love for him, and yet Thou wert He who came to "lay down His life for His friends!" Thou hast burdened man's soul with anxieties hitherto unknown to him. Thirsting for human love freely given, seeking to enable man, seduced and charmed by Thee, to follow Thy path of his own free-will, instead of the old and wise law which held him in subjection, Thou hast given him the right henceforth to choose and freely decide what is good and bad for him, guided but by Thine image in his heart. But hast Thou never dreamt of the probability, nay, of the certainty, of that same man one day rejected finally, and controverting even Thine image and Thy truth, once he would find himself laden with such a terrible burden as freedom of choice? That a time would surely come when men would exclaim that Truth and Light cannot be in Thee, for no one could have left them in a greater perplexity and mental suffering than Thou has done, lading them with so many cares and insoluble problems. Thus, it is Thyself who hast laid the foundation for the destruction of Thine own kingdom and no one but Thou is to be blamed for it.
"'Meantime, every chance of success was offered Thee. There are three Powers, three unique Forces upon earth, capable of conquering for ever by charming the conscience of these weak rebels—men—for their own good; and these Forces are: Miracle, Mystery and Authority. Thou hast rejected all the three, and thus wert the first to set them an example. When the terrible and all-wise spirit placed Thee on a pinnacle of the temple and said unto Thee, "If Thou be the son of God, cast Thyself down, for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee: and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone!"—for thus Thy faith in Thy father should have been made evident, Thou didst refuse to accept his suggestion and didst not follow it. Oh, undoubtedly, Thou didst act in this with all the magnificent pride of a god, but then men—that weak and rebel race—are they also gods, to understand Thy refusal? Of course, Thou didst well know that by taking one single step forward, by making the slightest motion to throw Thyself down, Thou wouldst have tempted "the Lord Thy God," lost suddenly all faith in Him, and dashed Thyself to atoms against that same earth which Thou camest to save, and thus wouldst have allowed the wise spirit which tempted Thee to triumph and rejoice. But, then, how many such as Thee are to be found on this globe, I ask Thee? Couldst Thou ever for a moment imagine that men would have the same strength to resist such a temptation? Is human nature calculated to reject miracle, and trust, during the most terrible moments in life, when the most momentous, painful and perplexing problems struggle within man's soul, to the free decisions of his heart for the true solution? Oh, Thou knewest well that that action of Thine would remain recorded in books for ages to come, reaching to the confines of the globe, and Thy hope was, that following Thy example, man would remain true to his God, without needing any miracle to keep his faith alive! But Thou knewest not, it seems, that no sooner would man reject miracle than he would reject God likewise, for he seeketh less God than "a sign" from Him. And thus, as it is beyond the power of man to remain without miracles, so, rather than live without, he will create for himself new wonders of his own making; and he will bow to and worship the soothsayer's miracles, the old witch's sorcery, were he a rebel, a heretic, and an atheist a hundred times over. Thy refusal to come down from the cross when people, mocking and wagging their heads were saying to Thee—"Save Thyself if Thou be the son of God, and we will believe in Thee," was due to the same determination—not to enslave man through miracle, but to obtain faith in Thee freely and apart from any miraculous influence. Thou thirstest for free and uninfluenced love, and refuses the passionate adoration of the slave before a Potency which would have subjected his will once for ever. Thou judgest of men too highly here, again, for though rebels they be, they are born slaves and nothing more. Behold, and judge of them once more, now that fifteen centuries have elapsed since that moment. Look at them, whom Thou didst try to elevate unto Thee! I swear man is weaker and lower than Thou hast ever imagined him to be! Can he ever do that which Thou art said to have accomplished? By valuing him so highly Thou hast acted as if there were no love for him in Thine heart, for Thou hast demanded of him more than he could ever give—Thou, who lovest him more than Thyself! Hadst Thou esteemed him less, less wouldst Thou have demanded of him, and that would have been more like love, for his burden would have been made thereby lighter. Man is weak and cowardly. What matters it, if he now riots and rebels throughout the world against our will and power, and prides himself upon that rebellion? It is but the petty pride and vanity of a school-boy. It is the rioting of little children, getting up a mutiny in the class-room and driving their schoolmaster out of it. But it will not last long, and when the day of their triumph is over, they will have to pay dearly for it. They will destroy the temples and raze them to the ground, flooding the earth with blood. But the foolish children will have to learn some day that, rebels though they be and riotous from nature, they are too weak to maintain the spirit of mutiny for any length of time. Suffused with idiotic tears, they will confess that He who created them rebellious undoubtedly did so but to mock them. They will pronounce these words in despair, and such blasphemous utterances will but add to their misery—for human nature cannot endure blasphemy, and takes her own revenge in the end.
"'And thus, after all Thou has suffered for mankind and its freedom, the present fate of men may be summed up in three words: Unrest, Confusion, Misery! Thy great prophet John records in his vision, that he saw, during the first resurrection of the chosen servants of God—"the number of them which were sealed" in their foreheads, "twelve thousand" of every tribe. But were they, indeed, as many? Then they must have been gods, not men. They had shared Thy Cross for long years, suffered scores of years' hunger and thirst in dreary wildernesses and deserts, feeding upon locusts and roots—and of these children of free love for Thee, and self-sacrifice in Thy name, Thou mayest well feel proud. But remember that these are but a few thousands—of gods, not men; and how about all others? And why should the weakest be held guilty for not being able to endure what the strongest have endured? Why should a soul incapable of containing such terrible gifts be punished for its weakness? Didst Thou really come to, and for, the "elect" alone? If so, then the mystery will remain for ever mysterious to our finite minds. And if a mystery, then were we right to proclaim it as one, and preach it, teaching them that neither their freely given love to Thee nor freedom of conscience were essential, but only that incomprehensible mystery which they must blindly obey even against the dictates of their conscience. Thus did we. We corrected and improved Thy teaching and based it upon "Miracle, Mystery, and Authority." And men rejoiced at finding themselves led once more like a herd of cattle, and at finding their hearts at last delivered of the terrible burden laid upon them by Thee, which caused them so much suffering. Tell me, were we right in doing as we did. Did not we show our great love for humanity, by realizing in such a humble spirit its helplessness, by so mercifully lightening its great burden, and by permitting and remitting for its weak nature every sin, provided it be committed with our authorization? For what, then, hast Thou come again to trouble us in our work? And why lookest Thou at me so penetratingly with Thy meek eyes, and in such a silence? Rather shouldst Thou feel wroth, for I need not Thy love, I reject it, and love Thee not, myself. Why should I conceal the truth from Thee? I know but too well with whom I am now talking! What I had to say was known to Thee before, I read it in Thine eye. How should I conceal from Thee our secret? If perchance Thou wouldst hear it from my own lips, then listen: We are not with Thee, but with him, and that is our secret! For centuries have we abandoned Thee to follow him, yes—eight centuries. Eight hundred years now since we accepted from him the gift rejected by Thee with indignation; that last gift which he offered Thee from the high mountain when, showing all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, he saith unto Thee: "All these things will I give Thee, if Thou will fall down and worship me!" We took Rome from him and the glaive of Caesar, and declared ourselves alone the kings of this earth, its sole kings, though our work is not yet fully accomplished. But who is to blame for it? Our work is but in its incipient stage, but it is nevertheless started. We may have long to wait until its culmination, and mankind have to suffer much, but we shall reach the goal some day, and become sole Caesars, and then will be the time to think of universal happiness for men.
