Dostoevsky
These few lines of Dostoevsky’s, taken from his _Essay on the
Bourgeoisie_, throw fresh light on Kirillov’s figure.
“Be clear as to my meaning! Voluntary sacrifice, offered consciously
and without constraint, the sacrifice of the individual for the good
of mankind, is to my mind the mark of personality in its noblest and
highest development, of perfect self-control--the absolute expression
of free will. To offer one’s life for others, to suffer for others on
the cross or at the stake, is possible only when there is a powerful
development of the personality. A strongly-developed personality,
conscious of its right to be such, having cast out fear, cannot use
itself, cannot be used except in sacrifice for others, that these
become like unto itself, self-determinate and happy. It is Nature’s
law, and mankind tends to reach it.”[132]
At last you see why behind Kirillov’s talk, which seemed at first
hearing somewhat incoherent, we succeed in discerning what was the
philosophy of Dostoevsky himself.
I am conscious how far I am from having exhausted the teaching that
can be found in his books. I insist once more on the fact that I have
sought, consciously or unconsciously, what had most intimate connection
with my own ideas. Others no doubt will be able to discern different
things. And now that I am come to the end of my last paper, you are
awaiting, I am sure, a conclusion of some kind from me. Whither does
Dostoevsky lead us? What precisely is his teaching?
Some will say that he leads us straight to Bolshevism, although they
know the horror Dostoevsky professed for anarchy. The whole of _The
Possessed_ prophesies the revolution of which Russia is at present
in the throes. But every man who, in defiance of existing systems,
contributes new _tables of values_ is bound to seem, in the eyes of the
conservative, an anarchist. Conservative and nationalist, deigning to
see no more than what is chaotic in Dostoevsky, conclude he can be of
no service whatsoever to us. To which my reply is that their opposition
seems to do great hurt to the genius of France. By our unwillingness
to accept anything foreign unless it reflects our system and logic,
our whole likeness, in short, we err most grievously. His conception
of beauty happens to differ from our Mediterranean standards, and were
the divergence even greater, of what use would our national genius be,
how could we apply our logic practically, unless in instances which
clamour for regulation? In meditating none but her own likeness, the
reflection of her past, France is exposed to a mortal danger. Let me
explain my meaning as accurately and temperately as possible. It is
well that France should have conservative elements reacting and taking
a stand against what savours of foreign invasion. But what justifies
the existence of these elements if not this fresh contribution without
which French culture would ere long be nothing but a hollow form, a
hardened shell? What do they know of France’s genius? What _do_ we
know, except its past? It is the same with national feeling as with
the Church. I mean the conservative elements often mete out to genius
the same treatment as the Church to her saints at times. Many who were
rejected, repulsed, denied in the name of tradition, are become its
very corner-stones.
My opinion of intellectual protectionism I have often voiced: I believe
it presents a great peril; on the other hand, any essay in intellectual
denationalization involves a risk no less considerable. I am merely
expressing what was Dostoevsky’s finding likewise. There never was an
author more Russian in the strictest sense of the word and withal so
universally European. Because it is essentially Russian, his humanity
is all-embracing and touches each one of us personally.
“Veteran European Russian” he chose to describe himself. I shall let
Versilov of _A Raw Youth_ develop Dostoevsky’s idea this time!
“The highest Russian thought is the reconciliation of ideas, and who
in the whole world could understand such a thought at that time? I was
a solitary wanderer: I am not speaking of myself personally--it’s the
Russian idea I’m speaking of. There all was strife and logic; there
the Frenchman was nothing but a Frenchman, the German nothing but a
German, and this more intensely so than at any time in their history.
Consequently never had the Frenchman done so much harm to France, or
the German to Germany, as just at that time! In these days in all
Europe there was not one European! I alone of all the vitriol-throwers
could have told them to their face that their Tuileries was a mistake.
And I alone among the avenging reactionists could have told them that
the Tuileries, although a crime, was none the less logical. And that,
my boy, was because I, as a Russian, was the only European in Russia. I
am not talking of the whole Russian idea....
“Europe has created a noble type of Frenchman, of Englishman, and of
German, but of the man of the future she scarcely knows at present.
And, I fancy, so far she does not want to know. And that one can well
imagine; they are not free, and we are free. I, with my Russian
melancholy, was the only one free in Europe.... Take note, my dear,
of a strange fact: every Frenchman can serve not only his France,
but humanity, only on condition that he remains French to the utmost
possible degree, and it’s the same for the Englishman and the German.
Only to the Russian, even in our day, has been vouchsafed the capacity
to become most of all Russian only when he is most European, and this
is true even in our day, that is, long before the millennium has been
reached.”[133]
But, to offset this declaration and show how acutely conscious
Dostoevsky was of the danger to any country in too marked
europeanization, I must read you this remarkable passage from _The
Possessed_:
“‘Science and reason have, from the beginning of time, played a
secondary and subordinate part in the life of nations; so it will be
till the end of time. Nations are built up and moved by another force
which sways and dominates them, the origin of which is unknown and
inexplicable; that force is the force of an insatiable desire to go on
to the end, though at the same time it denies that end. It is the force
of persistent assertion of one’s own existence, and a denial of death.
It’s the spirit of life, as the Scriptures call it, the river of living
water, the drying up of which is threatened in the Apocalypse. It’s the
æsthetic principle, as the philosophers call it, the ethical principle
with which they identify it, “the seeking for God,” as I call it more
simply. The object of every national movement, in every people and at
every period of its existence, is only the seeking for its God, who
must be its own God, and the faith in Him as the only true one. God is
the synthetic personality of the whole people, taken from its beginning
to its end. It has never happened that all, or even many, peoples have
had one common god, but each has always had its own. It’s a sign of the
decay of nations when they begin to have gods in common. When gods are
common to several nations the gods are dying and the faith in them,
together with the nations themselves. The stronger a people, the more
individual their God. There never has been a nation without a religion,
that is, without an idea of good and evil. Every people has its own
conception of good and evil, and its own good and evil. When the same
conception of good and evil become prevalent in several nations, then
these nations are dying, and then the very distinction between good
and evil is beginning to disappear.[134]... These are your own words,
Stavrogin.... I haven’t altered anything of your ideas, or even of your
words, not a syllable.’
“‘I don’t agree that you’ve not altered anything,’ Stavrogin observed
cautiously. ‘You accepted them with ardour, and in your ardour have
transformed them unconsciously. The very fact that you reduce God to a
simple attribute of nationality....’
“He suddenly began watching Shatov with intense and peculiar attention,
not so much his words as himself.
“‘I reduce God to an attribute of nationality?’ cried Shatov. ‘On the
contrary, I raise the people to God. And has it ever been otherwise?
The people is the body of God. Every people is only a people so long as
it has its own God and excludes all other gods on earth irreconcilably,
so long as it believes that by its God it will conquer and drive out of
the world all other gods. Such, from the beginning of time, has been
the belief of all great nations, all, anyway, who have been specially
remarkable, all who have been leaders of humanity. There is no going
against facts. The Jews lived only to await the coming of the true
God and left the world the true God. The Greeks deified nature and
bequeathed the world their religion, that is, philosophy and art.
Rome deified the people in the State, and bequeathed the idea of the
State to the nations. France throughout her long history was only the
incarnation and development of the Roman God....
“‘If a great people does not believe that the truth is only to be
found in itself (in itself alone and in it exclusively), if it does
not believe that it alone is fit and destined to raise up and save all
the rest by its truth, it would at once sink into being ethnographical
material, and not a great people. A really great people can never
accept a secondary part in the history of humanity, nor even one of the
first, but will have the first. A nation which loses this belief ceases
to be a nation.’”[135]
And by the way of corollary, we have Stavrogin’s reflection which might
be a fitting conclusion: “An individual out of touch with his country
has lost God.”
What would Dostoevsky think of Russia to-day and of her people? It is
a painful speculation.... Did he apprehend, was he able to foresee her
ghastly torments?
In _The Possessed_ we find all the seeds of Bolshevism. You need only
listen to Shigalev’s exposition of his theory and the admission he
makes at its close:
“I am perplexed by my own data and my conclusion is a direct
contradiction to the original idea with which I start. Starting from
unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism.”[136] And that
loathsome Pyotr Stepanovitch Verhovensky exults: “There’s going to be
such an upset as the world has never seen before.... Russia will be
overwhelmed with darkness, the earth will weep for its old gods.”[137]
Imprudent, dishonest even, I admit, to impute to the author himself
the thoughts expressed by the characters in his novels or tales. But
we know this was Dostoevsky’s medium of expression, often utilizing
a colourless individual to formulate one of his cherished truths. We
seem to hear him speak from the lips of a secondary character in _The
Eternal Husband_ when the “malady of the age” is mentioned.
“To be a good citizen is better than being in aristocratic society. I
say that because in Russia, nowadays, one doesn’t know whom to respect.
You’ll agree that it’s a serious malady of the age, when people don’t
know whom to respect, isn’t it?”[138]
I am sure that beyond the darkness enveloping tortured Russia to-day
Dostoevsky would still see the light of hope. Perhaps too he would
think (the idea appears several times in his novels and in his letters)
that Russia is offering herself in sacrifice like Kirillov, and for the
salvation, perhaps, of the rest of Europe, and of humanity.
FOOTNOTES
[31] _House of the Dead_, p. 240.
[32] Bienstock, p. 449. Letter to Mlle. Guérassimov, Petersburg, March
7, 1877.
[33] Bienstock, p. 94. Letter to his brother Michael, spring of 1847.
[34] Bienstock, p. 98. Letter to his brother Michael, from the
fortress, July 18, 1849.