The Grand Inquisitor - braintacos.files.wordpress.com · The Grand Inquisitor "The Grand Inquisitor" was originally published as the fifth chapter of the fifth book of Dostoevsky

The Grand Inquisitor"The Grand Inquisitor" was originally publishedas the fifth chapter of the fifth book of Dostoevsky 'snovel The Brothers Karamazov, his last and perhapshis greatest work. Dostoevsky died just monthsafter the novel was published, and he did not live tosee the peculiar situation of his novel's most famouschapter being excerpted as a short story—some-thing he did not intend. A further peculiarity arisesfrom the fact that the story is not excerpted the sameway every time, so that whole paragraphs of thenovel may be included or excluded from the shortstory, according to each editor's sense of how bestto make the part seem like a whole.

The legend of the Grand Inquisitor is a storywithin a story. Jesus returns to Earth during theSpanish Inquisition and is arrested. The GrandInquisitor visits him in his cell to tell him that he isno longer needed on Earth. The Church, which isnow allied with the Devil, is better able than Jesus togive people what they need. The story has oftenbeen considered a statement of Dostoevsky's owndoubts, which he wrestled with throughout his life.

Throughout the novel the themes of the legendare repeated and echoed by other characters and inother situations. Ivan explains some of what is tocome before he tells the story, and he and Alyoshadiscuss the story when he is finished telling it. In theexcerpted form, it is more difficult for readers todetermine who is speaking, whose story it is, andhow it is to be taken.

Fyodor Dostoevsky

1880

6 9

The G r a n d I n q u i s i t o r

Author Biography

Fyodor Dostoevsky was born in Moscow, the capi-tal of Russia, on October 20, 1821. The son of aRussian family of moderate privilege and wealth, hewas highly educated and raised in the RussianOrthodox religion. His father was a doctor and amember of the aristocracy, and his mother's familybelonged to the merchant class. They had a house intown and a country estate with more than onehundred servants. Dostoevsky wrote in Russian,which has a different alphabet than English. Hence,his name may be spelled in English as Dostoevsky,Dostoevski, Dostoyevsky, among others, due toinconsistent transliteration and translation. His worksalso appear in English translation with slightlyvarying titles. As a child, Dostoevsky was an avidreader who hoped to become a professional writerone day. His first novel, Poor Folk (1846), was wellreceived by the critics. It tells a story about pov-erty and compassion through a series of letters,which makes it an example of an epistolary novel. Hissecond novel, The Double, concerns the mental break-down of a poor clerk. Although this novel receivedalmost unanimously bad reviews, Dostoevsky hadestablished a modest reputation in Russia's literaryworld and easily found publishers for his work. Atthe same time, he began to show symptoms ofepilepsy and developed a gambling habit that plaguedhim for the rest of his life. Dostoevsky belonged to aliterary group that secretly met to read and discusssocial and political issues of certain writings thatwere forbidden by Russia's tsarist regime. In 1849Dostoevsky and others were arrested. He spent fouryears at hard labor in a Siberian prison camp underterrible conditions. The next twenty years wereturbulent ones, but he wrote some of his greatestworks during this period, including the novels Crimeand Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1868), and ThePossessed (1872). Dostoevsky achieved some rec-ognition in Russia for his talent, but he was forced toleave. He wandered around Europe for five years toescape his debts. Many of his works from thisperiod explore ideas about religion, faith, and sin,which increasingly concerned him as he aged. In thelast two years of his life he wrote The BrothersKaramazov (1879-80), from which "The GrandInquisitor" is taken. Dostoevsky died of a lunghemorrhage on January 28, 1881. Over the next tenyears, his reputation dwindled, but he eventuallybecame famous at home and abroad. Throughoutthe Western world he is considered one of Russia's

greatest writers and renowned for his psychologicaland philosophical insights.

Plot Summary

"The Grand Inquisitor" begins with a set of open-ing quotation marks. An unidentified speaker says,"Fifteen centuries have passed since He promisedto come in His glory, fifteen centuries since Hisprophet wrote, 'Behold, I come quickly.'" Theuppercase "H" in the word "He" is used conven-tionally to indicate that "He" is the Christian God;in this case it is Jesus Christ, as is made clear later inthe sentence when the speaker refers to the "Son"and the "Father." The story, then, takes placefifteen centuries after Jesus walked on Earth. In theintervening time, according to the speaker, therewas a period of great faith and miracles, and then aperiod in which people began to doubt the miraclesand doubt their faith.

Some time in the sixteenth century, in Seville,Spain, Jesus returns to Earth. He arrives during theSpanish Inquisition, a time from 1478 until 1834when, under the orders of the Roman CatholicSpanish monarchs, Jews and Muslims who hadforcibly been converted to Christianity were ques-tioned and, in many cases, sentenced to death forinsincerity. The day before Jesus's appearance, al-most one hundred had been rounded up, and "in thesplendid auto-da-fe the wicked heretics were burnt."Autos-da-fe (literally, "acts of the faith") werecarried out by the non-religious authorities of Spainafter a religious authority had pronounced a sen-tence. In this case, the victims had been sentencedby "the cardinal, the Grand Inquisitor," and killed"in the presence of the king, the court, the knights,the cardinals, the most charming ladies of the court,and the whole population of Seville."

When Jesus appears, he is recognized immedi-ately by the people, although he makes no demon-stration other than ' 'a gentle smile of infinite com-passion." He passes through the crowd blessing andhealing people, and raises a child from the dead.When the Grand Inquisitor sees how the people loveand follow him, he has Jesus arrested and led away.The crowd makes no protest, but' 'bows down to theearth, like one man, before the old inquisitor."Jesus is thrown into a dark prison. That night, theGrand Inquisitor comes to ask him why he has come

7 o S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

The Grand Inquisitor

back, announcing that he will have Jesus burned atthe stake "as the worst of heretics."

Up to this point in the story, the speaker has notbeen identified. Suddenly the narrative is interrupt-ed. '"I don't quite understand, Ivan. What does itmean?' Alyosha, who had been listening in silence,said with a smile." Ivan and Alyosha are notintroduced; readers of the novel would alreadyknow who they are, but readers of the short story arenever told. Ivan, apparently the speaker, explainsthat it is irrelevant whether it is actually Jesus or not.What concerns him is the cardinal's speech, and hisinsistence that Jesus has no right to ' 'add to what hasbeen said of old'' with any new works or words.Ivan's point is that the Roman Catholic Church hasits power consolidated as things are. With the Popein place as Jesus's representative on Earth, Jesushimself is irrelevant.

Nearly all the rest of the story is a long mono-logue by the Grand Inquisitor, while Jesus makes noreply. He explains that the Pope and the Churchhave assumed responsibility for the freedom of thepeople; the people believe they are free, but they areactually slaves to the Church. This is to the people'sbenefit, because they could never be happy if theytruly had free will. Jesus should have known this.He should have learned it when he was temptedby Satan.

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew tell the storyof Jesus's temptation in the desert. As he wanderedin the wilderness, Satan tempted Jesus to turn stonesinto bread, to perform a miracle to prove his divini-ty, and to look to earthly authority. Jesus refusedeach request. Referring to this incident, the GrandInquisitor argues that in the temptation the entirenature and history of mankind was foretold. Jesus'smistake was in choosing badly. Satan urged Jesus touse his power to turn stones into bread to feed hispeople. Jesus made the famous reply, "Man doesnot live by bread alone." He chose to turn people'sattention to God instead of to material things, toheavenly bread instead of to earthly bread. TheGrand Inquisitor says that this was a mistake, be-cause hungry people have no free will. The Churchhas been able to control people by feeding them. IfJesus had worked this great miracle, the people'sfaith would not have wavered.

The Church offers people security and mystery,which is what all people crave. Most people are tooweak to find salvation through faith alone, so theyhave turned away from Jesus and given their loyaltyto the Church. The Church, in alliance with the

Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky

devil, has power and strength so long as it can keepthe people in slavery. Jesus's coming again threat-ens to interrupt their power-building, and so Jesusmust be burned at the stake. Actually, says theGrand Inquisitor, their way makes more peoplehappy, since only the strong could be saved Je-sus's way.

When the cardinal stops speaking, he waits forJesus to reply, eager to answer Jesus's angry objec-tions. Jesus says nothing, but approaches him andsoftly kisses him on the lips. The Grand Inquisitorshudders, then opens the cell door and says, "Go,and come no more . . . come not at all, never,never!" He leads Jesus out into the alley, and Jesuswalks away.

Characters

AlyoshaAlyosha listens to Ivan reciting the legend of

the Grand Inquisitor, and twice interrupts the narra-tive to ask questions. He speaks only eight sentenc-es in the story—all questions—but gives Ivan andDostoevsky opportunities to explain and interpretfor the reader.

V o l u m e 8 7 1

The Grand I n q u i s i t o r

MediaAdaptations

' 'The Grand Inquisitor'' has not been recordedas a separate story. However, the entire novelfrom which it is taken, The Brothers Karamazovhas been recorded as read by Walter Co veil. Thenovel on tape runs 42 hours, and can be pur-chased from Books on Tape, Inc.

The CardinalSee The Grand Inquisitor

some versions of the short story, Ivan introduces hislegend at some length, and comments on it afterward.

JesusJesus does not speak at all throughout the story.

He appears on Earth for reasons that are neverexplained. He moves through an adoring crowd,raises a dead child, and then is arrested by the GrandInquisitor. He sits silently through the Grand In-quisitor's long speech, making eye contact andlistening intently but not replying. When the speechis over, Jesus goes to his accuser and kisses him onthe lips. The Grand Inquisitor opens the cell doorand lets him out. Jesus goes away.

The Old ManSee The Grand Inquisitor

The PrisonerSee Jesus

The Grand InquisitorThe Grand Inquisitor, a ninety-year-old cardi-

nal of the Roman Catholic Church during the six-teenth-century Spanish Inquisition in Seville, Spain,speaks most of the lines in the story. He is amongthe crowd of people to whom Jesus appears, and hesees Jesus raise a child from the dead. But the GrandInquisitor's own influence is so great that when hemakes his presence known to the crowd, they bowbefore him rather than to Jesus. The Inquisitor hasJesus arrested, and comes to visit him in his cell,where he delivers the long monologue of condem-nation that makes up most of the story. His speech isdense, with long complex sentences and ideas, andhe uses language that is formal and old-fashioned.When he finishes his diatribe, and receives only akiss from Jesus in return, he is flustered. He doesnothing in reply except release his prisoner.

IvanIvan is the supposed author of the legend of the

Grand Inquisitor, a story in poem form that he isreciting to Alyosha. When Alyosha occasionallybreaks into the narration to ask questions, Ivan givesvague answers. He tells his brother that the meaningof the Grand Inquisitor's words is less importantthan the fact of them, and invites Alyosha to inter-pret them any way he can. He does comment that"the most fundamental feature of Roman Catholi-cism" is its static quality, its refusal to adapt andgrow. In the novel The Brothers Karamazov and in

Themes

God and ReligionThe fundamental tension in "The Grand In-

quisitor" is between God, in the form of Jesus, andreligion, in the form of the Roman Catholic Church.According to the Grand Inquisitor, the two cannotcoexist in the modern world; one must give waybecause they require different things from theirfollowers. Jesus refused to make things easy for hisfollowers. He could have given them bread whenthey were hungry in the desert and satisfied in onegesture their need for material comfort and theirneed to see miracles. But he refused, demandinginstead that his followers believe on the strength oftheir faith alone, without any proof. God will notforce people to believe in him, or to follow him.Each person must be free to choose her own path.This road to salvation, says the Grand Inquisitor, isappropriate only for the very strong. Ordinary peo-ple are too weak to find this satisfying, as heexplains: "Thou didst promise them the bread ofHeaven, b u t . . . can it compare with earthly bread inthe eyes of the weak, ever-sinful and ignoble raceof men?"

People seek "to worship what is establishedbeyond dispute, so that all men would agree at onceto worship it." This is the reason for religious wars:people demand that everyone believe as they do,and "for the sake of common worship they've slain

Short Stories for Students72


each other with the sword." In placing the freedomto choose above all else, God has permitted thismisery. And yet, "man is tormented by no greateranxiety than to find someone quickly to whom hecan hand over the gift of freedom." In short, saysthe Inquisitor, God does not understand the truenature of human beings.

To fill that need, the Church has stepped in. TheChurch offers the mystery and the community thatpeople need, and so it has joined forces with thedevil to deceive people and take away their free-dom. The Grand Inquisitor knows that he is inleague with Satan, and he accepts the damnationthat will be his in the end, because he is makingpeople happy—something Jesus refused to do. TheInquisitor once followed Jesus, but "I awakenedand would not serve madness."

Critics have debated about Jesus's silence inthe face of these accusations, and wondered wheth-er the Grand Inquisitor speaks for Ivan, and whetherIvan speaks for Dostoevsky. Does Jesus stand silentbecause he has no answer, or because he is God andneed not answer? Is the kiss he gives to the cardinala kiss of loving forgiveness, or one of thanks?Dostoevsky was an adherent of the Russian Ortho-dox faith, and believed that the Russian OrthodoxChurch allowed people to come closer to Godbecause it does not have a Pope whose powers arehanded down. Ivan tells Alyosha that it does notmatter whether the man in the cell was really Jesusor not; what matters is that the cardinal thinks he isand that the cardinal says what he says. In otherwords, Jesus's response is not really the issue. Whatis important is what the Inquisitor's words revealabout the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Within the novel as a whole, the theme of Godand religion is addressed in different ways by differ-ent characters, and Ivan's position as a doubter isclear. As a short story, "The Grand Inquisitor"presents only one character, the cardinal, who be-lieves that God and the Roman Catholic Church areat odds, and that people can follow only one of them.

Free WillThroughout his life Dostoevsky used his writ-

ing to explore the issue of free will. He believed thathuman beings are given free will, and that they mustconstantly choose between good and evil. It is notan easy choice, and God and the devil battle eachother for the possession of every soul. Dostoevskywas conscious of this struggle all his life. He wished

Topics forFurther

StudyLook at the story of Jesus's temptation in thewilderness in either the Gospel of Luke (Luke4:1-13) or the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 4:1 -11). Do you think the Grand Inquisitor is right inthe way he interprets the significance of thetemptations?

Find out what you can about the Roman CatholicChurch and the Russian Orthodox Church, espe-cially their beliefs about earthly authority. Ex-plain why Dostoevsky, an ardent Russian Ortho-dox follower, might think that the Roman CatholicChurch had joined forces with the devil.

Investigate socialism, especially as it was under-stood in Europe in the late nineteenth century.Find out what kinds of specific programs andpolicies socialists worked for. Do you agree thatsocialism is concerned only with the people'smaterial needs?

Read about the Spanish Inquisition. Why mightDostoevsky have chosen to set his confrontationbetween Jesus and a Church official in this timeand place?

to believe, yet his intellect kept raising doubts. Forhim, the question of free will was central to hisunderstanding of humans and society.

As the Grand Inquisitor states it, Jesus wastempted to offer his followers aids to faith, andJesus chose instead to insist on free will. Had hefollowed the devil's suggestions and given thepeople food, or miracles, or an earthly structuresuch as an organized religion, the people would notbe choosing freely. The Inquisitor claims that peo-ple are too weak to make a free choice. As EdwardWasiolek in Dostoevsky: The Major Fiction states,for the Inquisitor "it is not a question of what manwould like to be but what he is and can be. He argueslogically about the human condition as he sees it, ashistory has proven it, and he can see no place forfree will if people are to be happy."

V o l u m e 8 7 3


The Grand Inquisitor takes the position thatfaith and religion are intellectual issues, that thetruth can be reasoned with the brain. His strategy isto try to reason with God, to persuade him byrational argument. Jesus's response is to sit insilence, listening intently but not engaging in argu-ment. For Jesus, the issues are not intellectual orprovable, and happiness on earth is not the goal. AsWasiolek explains, "What he offers them is thesame as what he demands of them. He asks them torise above their natures, to make over their naturesin his image, and they can do that only as he haddone it: in loneliness, terror, and anxiety."

Free choice and free will are only free if thereare no conditions on them. To demand proof, ormiracles, or a secure structure—or even happi-ness—are to put conditions on the choice. Do notthink, says Jesus. Choose to believe. This freedomis what Jesus offered, and it is what the GrandInquisitor rejects.

Style

NarratorPerhaps the most important thing to keep in

mind when reading "The Grand Inquisitor" is thatthe long speech is spoken by a character in a novel.It should be obvious, but it is easy to forget, that thisis not an argumentative essay by Dostoevsky, inwhich the ideas expressed can be traced directlyback to the mind of the author. Rather, a fictionalcharacter named Ivan tells a story, and within thatstory another fictional character called the GrandInquisitor says what he thinks about God and man.The fact that there are multiple levels of narrationdoes not mean that the ideas expressed by the GrandInquisitor are not Dostoevsky's; it simply meansthat they need not be.

For the first several pages, the reader of theshort story does not know who is speaking. Thenarrator states that God has come to Earth to visit"holy men, martyrs and hermits," and quotes theRussian poet Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev (1803-1873) as an authority who will verify that God haswandered through Russia. The narrator himselfsteps forward to add his own weight to the claim:"And that veritably was so, I assure you." Still, thereader does not know who is speaking, or why apoet and an unnamed speaker should be accepted asauthorities on the conduct of God.

A few times in the opening pages the narratorsteps forward to address his audience and reveal hisrole as storyteller. "My story is laid in Spain," hesays as he begins the action. Several lines later heagain refers to his own discourse. "Everyonerecognised him. That might be one of the bestpassages in the poem. I mean, why they recognisedhim." As it becomes increasingly clear, the speakeris not actually telling a story, but talking about astory that he has created, moving the narrator stillanother step further away from the reader andfrom Dostoevsky.

When Alyosha interrupts for the first time ("Idon't understand, Ivan. What does it mean?"), heclouds the issue of narration further. Who is quotingAlyosha's questions and Ivan's answers? There isanother level of narration between Dostoevsky andIvan, a narrator telling the story of Ivan telling thestory of the Grand Inquisitor.

Ivan makes it clear that certain plot elements ofhis story are still negotiable. He does not care, forexample whether Alyosha believes that the man inthe cell is really Jesus. He says,' 'If you like it to be acase of mistaken identity, let it be so. . . . Does itmatter to us, after all, whether it was a mistake ofidentity or a wild fantasy?'' For Ivan, the plot is justa structure, a reason for the Inquisitor to make hislong speech: ' 'All that matters is that the old manshould speak out, should speak openly of what hehas thought in silence for ninety years."

Through the device of multiple levels of narra-tion, Dostoevsky accomplishes two things: he putsextra emphasis on the Grand Inquisitor's speech bydemonstrating that the plot surrounding it is rela-tively unimportant, and he makes it clear that thespeech is a piece of fiction created by a character.The reader's charge, then, is not only to evaluate thewisdom of foolishness of the Inquisitor's speechand Jesus's response, but also to examine the mindof Ivan, who created them.

DidacticismConnected with the issue of narration in ' 'The

Grand Inquisitor'' is the issue of didacticism. Apiece of writing is said to be didactic when itsprimary purpose is to instruct, especially aboutreligious, moral, or ethical matters. Although writ-ing that is openly instructional has always been ableto find readers, modern critics have tended to lookdown upon this kind of writing when they havefound that the message or lesson being delivered isstronger than the artistic quality of the work.



The long speech delivered by the Grand In-quisitor is openly and solidly didactic. To put itanother way, when the Inquisitor gives Jesus thecatalog of his complaints, he is concerned with whathe is saying, not with how he is saying it. He speaksformally, and eloquently, as is appropriate to hisstation as a cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church,but his concern is with message, not with form. Hisspeech is not intended to raise questions, but to cutthem off, and give answers.

As creator of the Inquisitor's speech, Ivan issomewhat didactic, but he is also concerned withform. He has created the story to help himself thinkthrough the issues of God and religion and free will,and although his character the Inquisitor speaksdidactically, the fact of Jesus's silent response rais-es the question: Is the Grand Inquisitor right? Thestory is able to raise the question only because Ivanhas worked hard on form; although the story is afantasy, he has created believable characters. TheGrand Inquisitor's focus is on his message, whileIvan's focus is on his character who is delivering amessage.

Dostoevsky is one step further back. His hope isthat the reader will look at Ivan and wonder, not ' 'Isthe Grand Inquisitor right?'' but ' 'What kind of aman would make up a story like this?'' ' 'The GrandInquisitor'' is a useful story for coming to under-stand didacticism, because it presents shades ordegrees of it. The Grand Inquisitor representsdidacticism in the purest form, the form that criticshave rejected most strenuously. Dostoevsky repre-sents an ideal writer who writes artistic fiction thatraises open-ended questions about important issues.Ivan represents the writer in the middle, who isperhaps so concerned with his message that itthreatens to overpower his artistry.

Historical Context

The Russian EmpireRussia in the 1860s and 1870s was in a great

upheaval. Its ruler, Tsar Alexander II, had negotiat-ed the end of the Crimean War in 1856, ending fouryears of conflict between Russia and an alliancecomprising England, France, Sardinia and Turkey.Russia, at the time one of the greatest powers inEurope, had wanted to seize control of the Balkansand other territory that had been controlled by

Turkey, but had been stopped temporarily by Tur-key and her allies. Although the war was over, the"Eastern Question" still loomed over the region,and Russia still wanted to acquire access to theMediterranean Sea, and to expand the influence ofthe Russian Orthodox Church. As part of the settle-ment that ended the Crimean War, Turkey agreed toenhanced tolerance for Christians within its borders.

In 1861, Alexander began a series of dramaticsocial reforms. Until that year, about one third of thepopulation of Russia were serfs, or indentured ser-vants who worked for a landowner. They were notslaves, but not entirely free either. Dostoevsky'sfather had almost one hundred serfs attached to hiscountry estate; they received accommodations and ashare of the land's yield in exchange for manuallabor. Alexander issued the Emancipation Edict of1861, abolishing the system of serfdom, freeing allthe serfs, and requiring landowners to make landavailable for the serfs to purchase. Alexander alsoweakened his own power, introducing zemstvo, amodest form of self-government similar to a localassembly. The zemstvo organized and controlledlocal institutions including health care and educa-tion, and elected representatives to a regional body.

These reforms led to chaos and confusion, aswell as to real improvements in the lives of manypeople. As the former serfs struggled to succeedin the new political and economic climate, thewealthy and the educated minority protested thedestabilization and the erosion of their own influ-ence. Fearful of losing his own power, Alexander IIgrew more conservative, causing further confusion.

Dostoevsky and others believed that autocraticrule, or government by one tsar (also spelled czar),was necessary and right. They called for a return tothe old system of an established peasant class, asingle authority, and a central role for the OrthodoxChurch. By the end of the 1870s, repression hadgrown and had been countered with the formation ofterrorist groups whose goal was the assassination ofAlexander. In 1880, dynamite was exploded in theWinter Palace where Alexander was expected to be.Alexander was not harmed, but dozens of otherswere hurt, and ten guards were killed. Other at-tempts followed.

It was in this climate that The BrothersKaramazov was written and published. In The Rus-sian Dagger: Cold War in the Days of the Czars,Virginia Cowles quotes Dostoevsky telling the edi-

V o l u m e 8 7 5


Compare

Contrast1870s: Dostoevsky is part of a political move-ment in Russia calling for the establishment of agreat Greek Orthodox Empire with Russia as itsleader and Constantinople as its capital. Non-Orthodox Christians, particularly Roman Catho-lics, were considered heretics.

1990s: After a serious decline during the middleof the twentieth century, the Russian Ortho-dox Church has regained its position as themost important of the Eastern Orthodox Church-es. Since 1962, the Eastern Orthodox and Ro-man Catholic Churches have had free dialogueas equals.

1870s: Socialism in Europe and in Russia callsfor the collective or government ownership andmanagement of the means of production anddistribution of goods. Dostoevsky believes thatsocialism is concerned with bread rather thanwith God.

1990s: Socialist parties are still influential in

Western Europe, and still relatively unimportantin capitalist countries like the United States. In1999, one member of the United States House ofRepresentatives, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is aSocialist.

1880: The Friends of Russian Literature is divid-ed between those who praise the poet Pushkin asa great Russian and European, and those whobelieve being Russian and being European aremutually exclusive. Dostoevsky gives a greatspeech declaring that Pushkin's genius was inbeing able to use the best of other nations, andreunites Russia's literary community.

1990s: Debates about the meaning of nationalliterature and ethnic literature continue. In theUnited States, some writers identify themselvesas Anglo-American writers or African Americanor Native American, while others wonder wheth-er the term' 'American literature'' has any usefulmeaning.

tor of the Russian Times ' 'that tragedy was in theair. 'You said that there had been some clairvoyancein my Brothers Karamazov . .. Wait till you havethe sequel... I shall make my pure Aliosha join theterrorists and kill the Czar.'" Two months laterAlexander was assassinated in another explosion atthe Palace. Two more repressive tsars followedbefore the Russian Revolution overthrew tsaristgovernment in 1917.

Critical Overview

When The Brothers Karamazov was serialized inthe Russian Herald in 1879 and 1880, it won highpraise, and finally earned Dostoevsky enough topay off his debts for the first time. He considered thenovel his greatest work, and critics have generally

echoed this sentiment over the past century andmore. Although Dostoevsky died just a few monthsafter the completion of the novel, at the height of hisacclaim, his reputation in Russia declined in thegeneration after his death, and his internationalreputation had to wait decades to become estab-lished. The Brothers Karamazov was first translatedinto English by Constance Garnett in 1912; othertranslations have since been published. The firstEnglish publication of ' 'The Grand Inquisitor'' as aseparate short story did not appear until the 1930s.

The story has tended to divide critics sharply.The first important English-language piece of criti-cism of "The Grand Inquisitor" was by the Britishwriter D. H. Lawrence, who had read the noveltwice previously. His "Preface to Dostoevsky'sThe Grand Inquisitor" (1930) in Dostoevsky: ACollection of Critical Essays, finds in the story a"final and unanswerable criticism of Christ." Theantithesis is the view expressed by Jacques Catteau

7 6 S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s

&


Inquisition headquarters and the church of Santa Maria Minerva.

in Dostoevsky: New Perspectives. Catteau claimsthat "Dostoevsky's indictment of his Grand In-quisitor would indeed seem grave and withoutappeal."

Lawrence argues that in the confrontation be-tween Jesus and the Inquisitor, the Inquisitor is wiseand intelligent. At the end of the story, Lawrencesays, ' 'Jesus kisses the Inquisitor: Thank you, youare right, wise old man!'' Robert Belknap disagreesin Modern Critical Views: Fyodor Dostoevsky, call-ing the kiss "obviously a blessing; it burns in theInquisitor's heart as holy things do in this novel... .Here, in a single kiss, the most absolute and mostappealing part of the Grand Inquisitor's exploitbecomes an empty, unnecessary gesture." WilliamLeatherbarrow describes the kiss in Fedor Dostoevskyas a "kiss of forgiveness."

Lawrence's view that Dostoevsky uses the sto-ry to explain Jesus's failings is widely echoed byRussian critics, including Leo Shestov and V.Rozanov. Edward Wasiolek asserts that "we knowthat Lawrence's interpretation is not what Dostoevskyintended," but he finds some delight in the fact that' 'the revolt of so many distinguished readers againstDostoevsky's conscious intention is, whatever else,a testimony to the force and persuasiveness withwhich Dostoevsky was able to state the other case."

An interesting third possibility is offered byRobert Lord in Dostoevsky: Essays and Perspec-tive. He writes that' 'Dostoevsky never intended thereader to select one or the other alternative," andcontinues, "Dostoevsky is continually hinting thatsolutions are to be resisted at all costs. There aremere temptations; like Christ's temptations in thewilderness, so aptly described by Ivan Karamazov'sGrand Inquisitor."

In addition to highlighting the central criticalquestion of the story, Lawrence's preface also intro-duces the central difficulty with criticism of theshort story. Even critics who attempt to discuss onlythe legend of the Grand Inquisitor tend to do so inthe context of the novel as a whole, or to bring inmaterial from Dostoevsky's other works. Lawrence,for example, answers the question "Who is thegrand Inquisitor?" with "it is Ivan himself." Hecontinues, "Ivan is the greatest of the three broth-ers, pivotal. The passionate Dmitri and the inspiredAlyosha are, at last, only offsets to Ivan." Com-ments like these are meaningless to readers whoencounter' 'The Grand Inquisitor'' as a separate story.

Ralph Matlaw, in an introduction in Notes fromUnderground and The Grand Inquisitor, an editionof the extracted story, saw his own project as insome ways doomed. ' 'To lift it from its context is to

V o / u m e S 7 7


distort its meaning, for it too is a highly revealingconfession by a character and is elsewhere in thenovel balanced by other confessions, statements,attitudes and actions.... 'The Grand Inquisitor' is amuch richer and fuller episode when read in thenovel than it can be here." But whether or not theybelieve the story can be removed from the novelsuccessfully, critics have agreed that, as BruceWard stated in Dostoevsky's Critique of the West(1986), the legend ' 'can be regarded as the culmina-tion . . . of his religious and political thought—his'final statement' concerning the question of humanorder." Perhaps the sign of Dostoevsky's genius isthat there is still room for intelligent readers todisagree about the meaning of that' 'final statement.''

Criticism

Cynthia BilyBily teaches English at Adrian College In Adri-

an, Michigan. In this essay, she discusses the mean-ings of speech and silence in ' 'The Grand Inquisitor.''

The central conflict in "The Grand Inquisitor" isbetween the Inquisitor himself and his prisoner,Jesus. On the surface, it is a one-sided battle. TheInquisitor does literally all the talking, makingaccusation after accusation while Jesus refuses todefend himself. Perhaps "refuses" is the wrongword, for it implies a level of engagement that doesnot seem to be there. Jesus does not refuse to speakin his own defense; he simply does not do so. He sitsin silence, he listens intently; no one says the GrandInquisitor refuses to be silent. The two "speak"different languages, one of talk and one of action,one of thinking and one of knowing.

As Jesus walks on earth he encounters manywho speak the Inquisitor's language, but he will notspeak it. The contrast from the moment he appearsis sharp. Jesus comes softly: "He moves silently intheir midst with a gentle smile of infinite compas-sion. The sun of love burns in his heart, light andpower shine from his eyes, and their radiance, shedon the people, stirs their hearts with responsive love.He holds out His hands to them, blesses them, and ahealing virtue comes from contact with him, evenwith His garments." The people around him do notmove softly, but remarkably loudly. They "sing andcry hosannah," "the crowd shouts," "the mother

of the dead child throws herself at His feet with awail" before she "cries" out. Jesus responds byuttering the only words he speaks in the entire story:' 'He looks with compassion, and His lips once moresoftly pronounce, 'Maiden, arise!'"

How seemingly alike and yet how differentwhen the Grand Inquisitor arrives on the scene. Hetoo is silent, and he too gets a strong reaction fromthe crowd. He merely ' 'holds out his finger and bidsthe guard take him. And such is his power, socompletely are the people cowed into submissionand trembling obedience to him, that . . . in themidst of deathlike silence they lay hands on Himand lead Him away. The crowd instantly bowsdown to the earth . . . before the old inquisitor. Heblesses the people in silence and passes on." BothJesus and the Inquisitor move among the people andbless them in silence. But only Jesus's presence"stirs their hearts with responsive love"; only hisblessing yields "a healing virtue."

Of course, there is no great insight in conclud-ing that Jesus is divine and the Inquisitor is not. Thetension that I find interesting is in the uses bothmake of silence and speech. Jesus is a man of action.He does not ask the people for anything, he does nottell them anything, he simply walks among themsmiling and touching. Is this all he has come for?Yes. He has come to demonstrate Christianity as arobust, active faith, not as an issue for logicaldebate. His only words, "Maiden, arise," are thewords that are the action, that work the miracle.

Although like the crowd he cannot help talkingto Jesus himself, the Inquisitor at first welcomesJesus's silence: "Don't answer, be silent. Whatcanst Thou say, indeed? I know too well what Thouwouldst say. And Thou has no right to add anythingto what Thou hast said of old." The Inquisitorcomes back to this point again, insisting that Jesushas no right to speak. It is an odd thing to insist, asIvan points out, especially since Jesus shows nosign of wishing to say anything. It is the techniqueof a debater, and perhaps one who is not sure heis right.

After a while, Jesus begins to make the Inquisi-tor nervous. He interrupts his long monologue threetimes to draw attention to Jesus's silence. "Werewe right teaching them this? Speak!" But Jesusdoes not reply. "And why dost Thou look silentlyand searchingly at me with Thy mild eyes? Beangry." Again, no response. "Who is most to



WhatDo I Read

Next?Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov (1879-80) is the novel from which ' 'The Grand Inquisi-tor" is taken. A man is murdered, probably byone of his four sons. As the crime is solved, thenovel explores the political and intellectual ideasbeing debated in nineteenth-century Russia. Sev-eral fine English translations are available.

The Double (1846) is a short fantasy novel byDostoevsky. When a poor civil servant is unableto win the hand of his employer's daughter, hisdouble mysteriously appears and succeeds wherehe has failed.

Dostoevsky, His Life and Work (1967) is a trans-lation by Michael Minihan of KonstantinMochulsky's critical biography. A solid and

insightful critical biography, especially valuablefor its coverage of the end of Dostoevsky's life.

"Ward No. 6" (1892) is a short story by AntonChekhov, perhaps the finest Russian short-storywriter. A doctor who operates a mental hospitalhimself slips into alcoholism and mental illness.He holds long philosophical discussions withone of the patients, before his condition erodes tothe point where the doctor becomes one of theinmates in his own hospital.

Flannery O'Connor is an American fiction writerwhose work often deals with the struggle to findGod. Her collection Everything That Rises MustConverge (1965) contains some of her finestshort stories.

blame for their not knowing [the value of completesubmission]? Speak!" Nothing. Within his speechthe Inquisitor has already anticipated Jesus' s replywhich is no reply. He reminded Jesus that he did not' 'come down from the Cross when they shouted toThee, mocking and reviling thee." As the Inquisitorknows, Jesus does not respond to verbal bullying.The Inquisitor also knows that he is not persuadinghis audience, he knows he is only trying to convincehimself, but he cannot stop talking. With the crowd,with his inferiors, he can use silence as a tool ofpower, but with Jesus he is as weak and babbling asthose he despises. There is no sense throughout themonologue that Jesus is cowering. Clearly his si-lence is a sign of power.

The word ' 'babbling'' is appropriate here, be-cause it echoes a favorite image of the Inquisitor's:the tower of Babel. The Old Testament book ofGenesis tells the story of Noah's descendants, whowandered until they came to Babylonia. Skilled atbrickwork, they set to building a great tower, thehighest structure ever made. God saw this structureas a sign of arrogance, and to punish the people hecreated the different languages so that the peoplecould no longer speak to each other, thus preventing

the completion of the tower. The Grand Inquisitorstates that men need structures, and that they cannothelp but create chaos and confusion. He does notunderstand why Jesus did not step in when he might' 'have prevented that new tower and have cut shortthe sufferings of men for a thousand years."

"By their fruits ye shall know them," saysJesus in the Gospel of Matthew, and the fruit of theGrand Inquisitor is speech. Even the name by whichhe is known, "Inquisitor," means one who in-quires, one who asks questions and gets answersand hopes to find the truth in the words. Dostoevskychose the Spanish Inquisition for his setting becausethe Inquisition demonstrates most clearly how lan-guage and speech can be used wrongly to serve theFaith. It is not simply that the Grand Inquisitor issaying the wrong things; the fact that he relies onargument at all in the presence of his Lord is a signthat he does not understand what faith is.

This is what Ivan means when he says that itdoes not matter whether the Inquisitor was trulyspeaking to Jesus or not. The Inquisitor revealshimself by the fact of speaking, of thinking thatrationality and argumentative speech are the ways

V o l u m e 8 7 9


Jesus asks his people to

give up speech and logic

because they do not need it,

because he wants them to have

real faith, not because they

should not dare to speak."

to reach God. Ivan says, "All that matters is that theold man should speak out, should speak openly ofwhat he has thought in silence for ninety years."The content of his speech is not important.' 'All thatmatters is that the old man should speak out."

Nicholas Berdyaev, who claims that Dostoevsky"has played a decisive part" in his spiritual life,points to the importance of Jesus's silence in his1957 book : "Christ is a shadowy figure who saysnothing all the time; efficacious religion does notexplain itself, the principles of freedom cannot beexpressed in words; but the principle of compulsionputs its case very freely indeed. In the end, truthsprings from the contradictions in the ideas of theGrand Inquisitor, it stands out clearly among all theconsiderations that he marshals against it. He arguesand persuades; he is a master of logic and he issingle-mindedly set on the carrying-out of a definiteplan; but our Lord's silence is stronger and moreconvincing."

The Grand Inquisitor demands silence from hissubjects, and they comply. But God does not wanthis people to be ' 'cowed into submission and trem-bling obedience." Jesus asks his people to give upspeech and logic because they do not need it,because he wants them to have real faith, notbecause they should not dare to speak. Jesus is silentbefore the Grand Inquisitor, but it is not a silenceborn of fear like the crowd's silence, and the In-quisitor knows it. The message of Jesus is beyondand above language: believe. Don't talk about it,don't reason it out logically. Words can fail you;they can deceive you. Have faith.

When the Grand Inquisitor runs out of words,he is desperate for Jesus to reply, but "his silenceweighed down upon him. He saw that the Prisonerhad listened intently all the time, looking gently inhis face, evidently not wishing to reply. The old man

longed for Him to say something, however bitterand terrible." He still wants Jesus to argue, to beangry. It is the only language he knows. But Jesusstays silent, the man of action not of speech. Hestands and delivers that soft kiss, and earns anemotional, human response from the Inquisitor: theold man shudders. His long monologue has notaffected Jesus at all, but he has been touched by thesimple gesture.

The Grand Inquisitor condemns Jesus becausehe has not provided ' 'miracle, mystery and authori-ty,' ' the three things people need in order to believe.But in fact Jesus has shown all three to the Inquisitorhimself: miracle in raising the child from the dead,mystery in his silence which the Inquisitor cannotunderstand, and authority in kissing his accuser andwalking away. By his speech and his inability tocontrol it, the Inquisitor demonstrates that he is lessthan God, and that he does not have faith in God. Byhis control of speech, by his using it only to save thegirl and not to condescend to argue with the Inquisi-tor, Jesus demonstrates his divine power andauthority.

Source: Cynthia Bily, for Short Stories for Students, TheGale Group, 2000.

Bruce K. WardIn the following excerpt, Ward discusses "The

Grand Inquisitor" as Dostoevsky's exposition ofthe his final Western formula—"The Pope—theleader of communism"—through the three tempta-tions of Jesus in the Wilderness.

Dostoyevsky presents his definitive elucidation ofthe final Western social formula in "The GrandInquisitor." This short writing, considered by himto be the "culminating point" of The BrothersKaramazov, can be regarded as the culmination alsoof his religious and political thought—his ' 'finalstatement" concerning the question of human or-der. The importance which he attached to his cri-tique of the West is perhaps most conclusivelyestablished by the fact that his final statement abouthuman order is also his final statement about theWest. The thought about human order contained in"The Grand Inquisitor" is of universal import. Butclearly, for Dostoyevsky, this thought is at leastinitially inseparable from the consideration of themeaning of Western civilization. It can hardly be anaccident that the universal themes of this writ-ing, which represent the distillation of years ofDostoyevsky's thought about the "mystery of man,"are expressed by a Western character. The Grand



Inquisitor is, with minor exceptions, the only at-tempt at a portrayal of a non-Russian figure inDostoyevsky's art. Dostoyevsky's willingness thusto risk the aesthetic effect of his "final statement"bears eloquent testimony to the significance whichthe question of the West held for him. Our concernwith finding in "The Grand Inquisitor" an elucida-tion of the social formula—"The Pope—leader ofcommunism"—will bring us inevitably into thepresence of Dostoyevsky's timeless thought. Thesame concern, however, will determine the limits ofour consideration of this thought, for this chapterdoes not pretend to plumb all the "fathomlessdepth" of' 'The Grand Inquisitor'' which, as NicholasBerdyaev maintains, has "never yet been properlyexplored."

The exposition of the final Western social for-mula is the primary concern of the Grand Inquisi-tor's monologue. Apart from this monologue, theonly constituents of the writing itself are IvanKaramazov's brief "literary introduction," and thesilent figure of Christ. Ivan's authorship of "TheGrand Inquisitor," and the presence within it ofChrist, both serve to integrate it within The BrothersKaramazov as a whole. Yet although it thus points,on the one hand, to Ivan's "rebellion" against Godand, on the other, to the Christian teachings ofFather Zosima, "The Grand Inquisitor" can beapproached, at least initially, as an independentwriting. Ivan himself maintains that, with regard tothe Inquisitor's monologue, "the only thing thatmatters is that the old man should speak out, that atlast he does speak out and says aloud what he hasbeen thinking in silence for ninety years." Thisassertion is made in response to Alyosha's questionconcerning the meaning of that silent presence towhich the "old man" addresses himself, and itcould serve equally as a response to the question ofIvan's own relation to ' "The Grand Inquisitor." It ismy intention to heed Ivan's assertion by examiningthe Inquisitor's monologue first in isolation fromthe thought either of Ivan or of Father Zosima.

Before consideration of what is said in themonologue, note should be made of who, precisely,is speaking. The Grand Inquisitor, as Ivan points outin his "literary introduction," is a cardinal of theRoman Catholic Church in sixteenth-century Spain' 'during the most terrible time of the Inquisition,when fires were lighted every day throughout theland to the glory of God...." He therefore embod-ies Roman Catholicism, not at the time of its apogeein the twelfth century, but at the time of its desper-ately militant attempt during the Counter-Reforma-

moreover, in consciously

founding itself solely on

reason, is bound up with a

science which holds out

possibilities for the control

of human and non-human

nature beyond anything

dreamt of in the past. For

these reasons, the modern

Western state must be

regarded as the most effective

instrument of social order

that the world has yet seen."

tion to preserve itself by means of the Spanishsword. The Inquisitor, close to death at ninety yearsof age, stands near the end of Roman Catholiccivilization in the West, and at the beginning of themodern quest for a new order. Though rooted in aparticular time and place, the old man's visionextends in both directions to encompass the entirehistory of Western civilization, from the ancientRoman Empire to the new Rome which he antici-pates after the fall of modern liberalism and social-ism. "The Grand Inquisitor" is meant to be ateaching about Western civilization as a whole. Andbeyond this, it is meant to be a teaching abouthumanity as a whole, for the Inquisitor's fundamen-tal concern is to articulate the social order whichmost closely corresponds to human nature. In thisendeavour he looks to the history of the West forevidence of the truth of his teaching, and for ananswer to the question of its realizability.

The Inquisitor sets his account of the best socialorder within the framework provided by the biblicalaccount of Christ's temptation in the wilderness(Matthew 4:1-10). He claims that the "prodigiousmiracle" of the story of the three temptations lies inthe fact that the questions posed in them should haveappeared among men at all, particularly at such anearly date in human history, for the posing of these

V o l u m e S S 1

The modern state,


questions evinces an insight into everything whichis most fundamentally at issue in the problem ofhuman order, an insight arrived at prior to thecenturies of historical experience which have sinceborne it out:

If it were possible to imagine, for the sake of argu-ment, that those three questions of the terrible spirithad been lost without leaving a trace in the books andthat we had to rediscover, restore, and invent themafresh and that to do so we had to gather together allthe wise men of the earth—rulers, high priests, schol-ars, philosophers, poets—and set them the task ofdevising and inventing three questions which wouldnot only correspond to the magnitude of the occasion,but, in addition, express in three words, in three shorthuman sentences, the whole future history of theworld and of mankind, do you think that the entirewisdom of the earth, gathered together, could haveinvented anything equal in depth and force to the threequestions which were actually put to you at the timeby the wise and mighty spirit in the wilderness? Fromthese questions alone, from the miracle of their ap-pearance, one can see that what one is dealing withhere is not the human, transient mind, but an absoluteand everlasting one. For in those three questions thewhole future history of mankind is, as it were, antici-pated and combined in one whole and three imagesare presented in which all the insoluble historical. ..contradictions of human nature all over the worldwill meet.

The Inquisitor's social formula is founded onhis own interpretation of, and response to, the three"everlasting" questions posed to Christ in thewilderness. To him, each question reveals a funda-mental truth about human nature—or, more precise-ly—a fundamental human need which is actuallypresent in people and verifiable in their historicalexperience. The only order which can be consideredfinal is that order which satisfies the three basichuman needs articulated in the temptations.

The Inquisitor's elaboration of his social for-mula proceeds in terms of the three human needsrevealed in the temptations. This elaboration, how-ever, assumes his recognition of one primal humanneed, which determines his interpretation of theothers. Note must be taken of this chief need, or"torment," of humanity which constitutes the uni-fying theme of the Inquisitor's discourse. This need,of ' 'every man individually and of mankind as awhole from the beginning of time," is the need fororder itself. We have seen that in Dostoyevsky'sthought the need for order is tantamount to the needfor a religion, in the broadest and yet most literalmeaning of a "binding together." This teaching isreflected in the Inquisitor's assertion that "man'suniversal and everlasting craving . . . can be summed

up in the words 'whom shall I worship?"' The needfor religion inevitably becomes, according to theInquisitor, the yearning for a common religion, forthe existence of differing reverences casts doubtupon all of them:

It is this need for universal worship that is the chieftorment of every man individually and of mankind asa whole from the beginning of time. For the sake ofthat universal worship they have put each other to thesword. They have set up gods and called upon eachother, 'Give up your gods and come and worship ours,or else death to you and to your gods!' And so it willbe to the end of the world, even when the gods havevanished from the earth: they will prostrate them-selves before idols just the same.

According to the Inquisitor, the primal humanyearning for order has never enjoyed complete andpermanent satisfaction because the great movers ofhumankind have not been unanimous in according itthe recognition it deserves. Throughout history theCaesars have been opposed by the Christs, whohave placed freedom higher than the need for order.In their sanctioning of the free individual in separa-tion from the mass, the preachers of freedom (en-compassed symbolically for the Inquisitor in thefigure of Christ) have repeatedly encouraged disor-der. The Inquisitor accuses these preachers of be-having as though they hated human beings andwished to mock them, or, at best, as though theywere blithely indifferent to the most elementaryfacts of human life. Surely those who truly lovehuman beings would recognize and make provisionfor the fact that they suffer from disorder as from adisease—a disease which they are too weak toendure for the sake of freedom.

The Inquisitor interprets the entire history ofthe West in terms of the struggle between theadvocates of order and the advocates of freedom,between those who take human beings as theyactually are and those who estimate them too high-ly. According to his interpretation, the ancient worldwas just within sight of success in its Herculeanattempt at a permanent solution to the problem oforder when it was undermined by Christ's affirma-tion of personal freedom. It had been the enormousaccomplishment of Roman Catholicism to salvagewhat remained of the ancient order, and on this basisto re-integrate the isolated individual within a "Chris-tian civilization":

"Was it not you who said so often in those days, 'Ishall make you free?' But now you have seen those'free' men," the old man adds suddenly with apensive smile. "Yes, this business has cost us a greatdeal," he goes on, looking sternly at him, "but we'vecompleted it at last in your name. For fifteen centuries



we've been troubled by this freedom, but now it'sover and done with for good."

For fifteen centuries the West had been infragments, but it had finally become whole againthanks to the Roman Catholic reconciliation ofRome with Christ. This wholeness, however, was tobe of short duration. Turning towards the future, theInquisitor anticipates with foreboding the dissolu-tion of Roman Catholic order in the series of eventsbeing initiated in his own time by the ' 'dreadful newheresy" which had arisen in the "north of Germa-ny." He does envisage, beyond this period of chaos,a renewed attempt at order; but he prophesies thatthis attempt will be futile unless and until thevariants of liberal-socialist thought which will in-form it give way before his social formula. Al-though he considers his formula to be the best for allhuman beings at all times, he clearly thinks that itsactualization is most likely in the modern West, inthe aftermath of the internecine struggle betweenbourgeois liberalism and political socialism. Ad-dressing in the figure of Christ all the teachers offreedom, he nevertheless proposes his formula par-ticularly in opposition to the Christ who is the' 'great idealist'' of Geneva thought.

It is evident that the Inquisitor's social formulais founded, not only on the conviction of the prima-cy of the human need for order, but also on theconviction that the satisfaction of this need is in-compatible with the affirmation of freedom. Thedissonance of freedom and order is sounded through-out his discourse. However, it is important to recog-nize (as Alyosha does) that the Inquisitor's opposi-tion of freedom to order stems from a particularunderstanding of freedom. For the Inquisitor, as forGeneva thought, the affirmation of freedom is syn-onymous with the affirmation of the individual as aseparate "conscious will," as an isolated beingendowed with reason and will. Yet the Inquisitordoes not share the Geneva hope that the separateindividual can be re-integrated within the socialunion through the mediatory power of love. Be-cause freedom and social cohesion are ultimatelyantithetical, freedom is an intolerable burden forhumanity: "nothing has ever been more unendur-able to man and to human society than freedom!...I tell you man has no more agonizing anxiety than tofind someone to whom he can hand over with allspeed the gift of freedom with which the unhappycreature is born." The Inquisitor maintains thatfreedom, though intolerable, is a fact of life whichcannot simply be abolished. It can, however, betransferred into the hands of a few rulers who will

exact from the majority of humanity absolute obedi-ence in all things large and small, thereby grantingthem the order for which they yearn. A final solu-tion to the problem of order is possible for theInquisitor only on the basis of the positing of aradical inequality among human beings. Dostoyevskyhas him state this inequality most explicitly in therough notes for the novel: "But the strengths ofmankind are various. There are the strong and thereare the weak."

The Inquisitor's attribution to human beings ofa fundamental need for order is therefore subject toa decisive qualification: there are those, inevitably aminority, who are strong enough to renounce thesatisfaction of this need. The existence of two sortsof human beings can militate against order when thestrong demand comparable strength from the weak,as did the "great idealist," Jesus. But when thestrong are also compassionate, then the most com-plete order becomes possible. The "millions andscores of thousands of millions" of the weak,anxious to surrender the conscious will which alien-ates them from the spontaneous life of completesocial integration, will be able to place their free-dom in the hands of the "great and strong" whoconsent to "endure freedom and rule over them...."The appeal to an evident inequality along humanbeings by way of justifying the absolute rule of aminority of free individuals over the mass of hu-manity, who are equal only in their slavery and freeonly because they gratefully accept the assurance oftheir rulers that they are free, recalls Shigalyov'sscientific reinterpretation of the Geneva idea. Un-like the taciturn Russian, however, the Spanishcardinal is more than willing to elaborate his formu-la for the only earthly paradise possible for hu-man beings.

The First TemptationThe first temptation to which Christ was sub-

jected is interpreted by the Inquisitor as follows:

And do you see the stones in this parched and barrendesert? Turn them into loaves, and mankind will runafter you like a flock of sheep, grateful and obedient,though forever trembling with fear that you mightwithdraw your hand and they would no longer haveyour loaves. But you did not want to deprive man offreedom and rejected to offer, for, you thought, whatsort of freedom is it if obedience is bought with loavesof bread?

The rejection of the loaves constitutes a rejec-tion of the first, and most self-evident, of the threeprincipal means whereby individuals can be re-

V o l u m e S 8 3


lieved of their burdensome freedom—for in thisfirst temptation is revealed the truth that the weakwill give up the prerogative of individual freedom tothose who assure them that this prerogative ismerely a chimera, that the real concern of humanlife is the multiplication and satisfaction of naturalneeds. According to the Inquisitor, "heavenlybread"—synonymous with such notions as the rightto "freedom," or "moral responsibility," or the"spiritual dimension" of human life—cannot com-pare in the eyes of the weak with "earthly bread."This preference has its source in the fundamentalneed of human beings for at least the minimumsatisfaction of their natural inclinations, for theminimum protection from hunger, cold, and thenumbing hopelessness of material poverty. Despitethe obviousness of this need, its strength has repeat-edly been underestimated by the preachers of heav-enly bread. Yet can the offer of heavenly bread haveany impact upon people who are subject to thetyranny of unsatisfied natural desires? This is thequestion posed in the first temptation.

Those strong enough for the most inflexibledisciplining of their inclinations by the consciouswill may perhaps be able to contemplate virtuewhile suffering the pangs of hunger; but there stillremain the weak, "numerous as the sand of thesea," who cannot ignore their pain. According tothe Inquisitor, it is terribly unjust to add to thesuffering of the majority of humanity the additionalburden of moral guilt because of their preference forearthly bread. The "great idealists" are all tooquick to condemn precisely where they should showcompassion. Those who love human beings with agenuine love will not condemn them for a yearningtoo strong to struggle against, but will attempt toalleviate their suffering by satisfying this yearning.The Inquisitor thus stands with those who declare:' 'Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!''The meaning of this declaration is elaborated byDostoyevsky himself in a letter in which he dis-cusses explicitly the first temptation:

Rather than go to the ruined poor, who from hungerand oppression look more like beasts than like men,rather than go and start preaching to the hungryabstention from sins, humility, sexual chastity, wouldn'tit be better to feed them first? . . . give them food tosave them; give them a social structure so that theyalways have bread and order—and then speak to themof sin—Command then that henceforth the earthshould bring forth without toil, instruct people in suchscience or instruct them in such an order, that theirlives should henceforth be provided for. Is it possiblenot to believe that the greatest vices and misfortunes

of man have resulted from hunger, cold, poverty, andthe impossible struggle for existence?

Those self-styled teachers of humanity whohave evinced an apparent indifference to the enor-mous suffering which material poverty has inflictedand continues to inflict upon the vast majority oftheir fellow beings are accused by the Inquisitor ofexhibiting a dire lack of commonsense, or worse, areprehensible severity.

Although the first temptation discloses a truthwhich is "absolute and everlasting," it anticipatesalso the "future history of mankind," for the issuewhich it raises was to be especially predominant in acertain epoch of history. The Inquisitor, present atthe barely discernible incipience of this epoch,foresees the full course of its development:

You replied that man does not live by bread alone, butdo you know that for the sake of that earthly bread thespirit of the earth will rise up against you and will joinbattle with you and conquer you, and all will followhim, crying 'Who is like this beast? He have given usfire from heaven!' Do you know that ages will passand mankind will proclaim in its wisdom and sciencethat there is no crime and, therefore, no sin, but thatthere are only hungry people. 'Feed them first andthen demand virtue of them!'—that is what they willinscribe on their banner which they will raise againstyou and which will destroy your temple.

The historical epoch anticipated here is that ofthe modern West. The allusion to Prometheus (whomMarx regarded as "the foremost saint and martyr inthe philosophical calendar") indicates perfectly theInquisitor's understanding of the spirit of Westernmodernity as a rebellion against the insubstantial,otherworldly notion of heavenly bread on behalf ofthe tangible, earthly need of those who suffer hereand now. The traditional Christianity which theInquisitor himself represents must face the conse-quences of its failure to accord sufficient recogni-tion to actual human suffering: "we shall again bepersecuted and tortured... ."After tearing downthe Roman Catholic "temple," the modern rebelswill embark upon the construction of an alternativeorder: ' 'A new building will rise where your tem-ple stood, the dreadful Tower of Babel will riseup again...."

The builders of the new Tower of Babel arenot named, but in the letter previously quotedDostoyevsky specifies the historical movement al-luded to by the Inquisitor:

Here is the first idea which was posed by the evil spiritto Christ. Contemporary socialism in Europe . . . sets

S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s8 4


Christ aside and is first of all concerned with bread. Itappeals to science and maintains that the cause of allhuman misfortune is poverty, the struggle for exist-ence and an oppressive environment.

Socialism is thus specified as the most effectivehistorical embodiment of the Promethean attempt toalleviate the suffering of the "millions, numerousas the sand of the sea" who hunger for the earthlybread which has been denied them. According toDostoyevsky, the compassion of socialism for hu-man suffering is combined with an understanding ofsuffering as ultimately material in origin, as theconsequence of "poverty, the struggle for existenceand an oppressive environment." Despite the ap-parent nobility of its intentions, then, socialisminevitably develops into a form of political material-ism. The modern Western rebellion against RomanCatholic order in the name of earthly sufferingculminates in the materialism of communism and itsrival, bourgeois liberalism. The Inquisitor thus an-ticipates, not only the destruction of Roman Catho-lic order, but also the overcoming of the Genevaidea by the appeal to earthly bread.

The ultimate insufficiency of any order whichfails to protect the mass of humanity from "hunger,cold, poverty, and the impossible struggle for exist-ence' ' is painfully demonstrated for the Inquisitor inthe imminent breakdown of Roman Catholic civili-zation. The future practical success of modern po-litical materialism will constitute an indisputablelesson concerning the crucial place which materialneed occupies in human existence. The final tri-umph of socialism over its liberal rival will indicatethat it has learned this lesson more thoroughly andhas demonstrated a superior capacity for distribut-ing bread equitably and efficiently. Nevertheless, inthe face of the lesson concerning humanity's needfor earthly bread, the Inquisitor reaffirms the prima-cy of the need for order and, evaluating socialism interms of this need, he finds it deficient. He certainlydoes not deny that materialism is capable of func-tioning as a religion; indeed, he acknowledges thatearthly bread may well be the most incontestableobject of worship which can be offered to humanity.What could be more evident to the perception, andthe inclination, of the masses than natural satisfac-tions? The meaning of earthly bread is obvious, andit enjoins no troublesome chastisement of naturalinclination for the sake of some obscure "spiritualdestiny." Rather than setting the conscious willagainst natural impulses, the religion of earthlybread encourages human beings to exercise the willonly insofar as it serves these impulses. The conse-

quent atrophying of the conscious will can onlyfacilitate the overcoming of isolation and the indi-vidual's re-integration within the social unit.

Yet despite his acknowledgment of the primalappeal of earthly bread, the Inquisitor judges it toconstitute an inferior idea of life, ultimately incapa-ble of satisfying the human need for order. Thefutility of the modern attempt to found a new orderon the universal satisfaction of material needs willfinally become inescapably clear: ' 'No science willgive them bread so long as they remain free. . . .They will, at last, realize themselves that therecannot be enough freedom and bread for everybody,for they will never, never be able to let everyonehave his fair share." Those who would give hu-manity "fire from heaven" will be compelled torecognize that the universal and fair distribution ofbread will never be realized in a society which hasnot completely overcome individual freedom. Forinevitably there will be those who, unwilling toattune their desires to the collective, will demandmore than their "fair share" of life's goods. Whatcould induce these more strongly desiring individu-als to "make a sacrifice" for the whole? Theinadequacy of political materialism is manifest forthe Inquisitor in its inability to furnish a conclusiveanswer to this question. The socialist argument thatcompetitive individualism is itself a product of thesocio-economic environment is ultimately no morethan wishful thinking. For the available evidenceconcerning the "always vicious and always ignoblerace of man'' does not encourage hope for a flower-ing of human goodness within a more ' 'rational''environment.

The inability of socialism to secure the compli-ance of every conscious will in the social unionnecessarily implies the failure, not only to distributebread effectively among human beings, but also togive them the order which they desire above all. TheInquisitor thus adds a significant qualification to hisinitial declaration that human obedience can bebought with bread. In summoning up the spectre ofthe rebellious individual against the new Tower ofBabel, he asserts that any renunciation of individualfreedom called forth by the need for material satis-faction can only be temporary. To assume that thealienated individual will be reconciled to the collec-tive through a certain transformation of externalmaterial structures is to fail to penetrate to the rootsof humanity's attachment to the conscious will. Thebuilders of the modern Tower of Babel do not graspthe significance of human freedom, and will thusnever be able to possess it. They will break their

V o l u m e 8 8 5


hearts "for a thousand years" with their tower,without being able to complete it.

For the Inquisitor, the truth of modern politicalmaterialism lies in its profound appreciation of theneed for earthly bread. Its fatal error lies in itsdisregard of the continuing need for heavenly bread.Communism is correct in inscribing on its banner—' 'Feed them first and then demand virtue of them!"—but its tendency to concentrate on the first part ofthis slogan to the exclusion of the second betrays anincomplete understanding of human nature. Thus,while castigating the "great idealists" for theirfailure to heed the teaching about human orderexpressed in the first temptation, the Inquisitornevertheless acknowledges the ultimate validity oftheir refusal to uphold earthly bread as humanity'shighest end:

With the bread you were given an incontestablebanner: give him bread and man will worship you, forthere is nothing more incontestable than bread; but ifat the same time someone besides yourself shouldgain possession of his conscience—oh, then he willeven throw away your bread and follow him who hasensnared his conscience. You were right about that.For the mystery of human life is not only in living, butin knowing why one lives. Without a clear idea ofwhat to live for man will not consent to live and willrather destroy himself than remain on the earth, thoughhe were surrounded by loaves of bread.

Earthly bread is necessary, but it is not suffi-cient, for the final solution to the problem of order.Human beings can be finally relieved of the burdenof their freedom only if the distributors of the loavessatisfy another human need—the need for a ' 'moralenticement." This need and the means by which itcan be met are explicated in the course of theInquisitor's interpretation of the second temptation.

The Second Temptation"Man is born a rebel." According to the In-

quisitor, the primary source of this "rebellious-ness" is the insistence of human beings on regard-ing themselves as something more than the productof nature. The striving to transcend the limitationsof natural necessity expresses itself particularly inthe tendency to measure human existence against anultimate good. In spinning its fine web of necessityaround human beings, socialism forgets their insis-tent need to know that what is necessary can also becalled "good." And if they cannot affirm the good-ness of the order which provides them with bread,then they will finally reject this order and its bread,whatever the consequences for their natural wants.Against the modern Tower of Babel, then, the

Inquisitor asserts the human propensity for makingmoral distinctions. Whether or not human beingsare in truth entirely a product of chance and necessi-ty, they are in fact beings who insist on perceivingthemselves as something more. This tendency seemsso deeply rooted as to be impervious to any amountof re-education according to the laws of "utility"and ' 'necessity.'' Insofar as people tend, not only tomake moral distinctions, but to insist on makingthese distinctions for themselves, their propensityfor moral judgment is intimately associated with theassertion of the individual conscious will. The "con-scious will" can thus be more precisely designatedthe ' 'conscience.'' For the Inquisitor the personalconscience is the mainspring of human freedom.Those who understand human freedom as directedprimarily towards natural, rather than moral, endswill never be able to possess it.

According to the Inquisitor, the personal con-science has been no less important than the desirefor earthly bread in inspiring that rebelliousnesswhich has undermined human order throughouthistory. The nearly complete order of antiquity wasdoomed when the individual began to reject the' 'strict ancient law'' in order to ' 'decide for himselfwith a free heart what is good and what is evil" (amovement associated above all with the names ofSocrates and Jesus). The ensuing moral chaos hadbeen alleviated by Roman Catholicism's massiveeffort to establish a solid morality which definedgood and evil clearly for all. But the Inquisitorperceives, in the "dreadful new heresy" of Lutherappearing in his own time, a renewed assertion ofthe personal conscience which can only issue inanother epoch of moral chaos. He knows that thepersonal conscience will resist the threat of fire withwhich the Roman Catholic order vainly defendsitself, and he knows that it will finally resist also theoffer of earthly bread with which the builders of themodern Tower of Babel will attempt to tame it.These builders ignore at their peril the depth of thehuman attachment to the conscience. Like the yearn-ing for material goods, this attachment is an ' 'eter-nal problem" which centuries of historical experi-ence have made impossible to ignore, at least forthose who are genuinely and intelligently concernedwith human happiness.

This "eternal problem" does admit of a solu-tion, according to the Inquisitor. Despite his appre-ciation of the obduracy of the personal conscience,he insists still on the primacy of the human desirefor order. His conviction that human beings ulti-mately wish to be induced to give up their freedom



remains unshaken. For him, the proper estimation ofthe personal conscience is merely the prerequisitefor capturing it: "whoever knows this mystery ofmankind's existence knows how to go about subdu-ing him, and who can, subdues him." The "mys-tery" of the conscience is that "there is nothingmore alluring to man than . . . freedom of con-science"; at the same time, "there is nothing moretormenting, either." In this paradox resides thepossibility of relieving human beings of their freedom.

According to the Inquisitor, human beings strivefor an ultimate good only in order finally to attain toa condition of happy repose. When the longed-fortranquillity eludes them and the moral quest be-comes a perpetual striving, then the personal con-science becomes a torment—particularly for the"thousands of millions" of the weak who lack thespiritual capacity to sustain the arduous struggle forfinal peace of mind. If there is indeed an ultimateend to the moral quest, surely knowledge of it willbe vouchsafed only to the few thousand of thestrong, who are more like gods than human beings.For the weak, the freedom of conscience which theyfind so alluring issues only in "unrest, confusion,and unhappiness...." To the Inquisitor this isdemonstrable from the historical experience of theWest just as surely as is the tenacity with whichhumanity upholds the prerogative of the personalconscience. Gazing into a distant future in which theProtestant conscience has been translated throughGeneva thought into the right of each individual todecide independently "with a free heart" what isgood, the Inquisitor predicts that the mass of hu-manity will come to rue the day that simple acquies-cence in the given morality of the Roman Catholicorder was rejected:

They will pay dearly for it. They will tear down thetemples and drench the earth with blood. But they willrealize at last, the foolish children, that although theyare rebels, they are impotent rebels who are unable tokeep up with their rebellion. Dissolving into foolishtears, they will admit at last that he who created themrebels must undoubtedly have meant to laugh at them.

The Inquisitor does not claim that individualswill cease to be moral beings, for the need to makemoral judgments is too deeply rooted. He thinks,however, that in the aftermath of the trials in storefor them, human beings could be persuaded torelinquish the right to make such judgments forthemselves, "with a free heart." Yet the sacrifice ofpersonal conscience, which the modern individualwill be only too willing to make, will be merelytemporary unless it is accepted by those with theknowledge to hold it "captive for ever."

According to the Inquisitor, this knowledge isdisclosed in the second temptation. The temptation,properly interpreted, not only reveals that humanbeings will surrender their freedom only to thosewho can fully appease their conscience, but revealsalso the most effective means of appeasement:

There are three forces, the only three forces that areable to conquer and hold captive for ever the con-science of those weak rebels for their own happi-ness—these forces are: miracle, mystery, and authori-ty. You rejected all three and yourself set the examplefor doing so. When the wise and terrible spirit set youon a pinnacle of the temple and said to you:' If thou bethe son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, Heshall give his angels charge concerning thee: and intheir hands they shall bear thee up.. ..'

The "rebels" have to be taught that the ques-tion of good is a "mystery" which must be believedrather than known, that it is not the "free verdict oftheir hearts nor love that matters, but the mysterywhich they must obey blindly, even against theirconscience." Remembering the "horrors of slaveryand confusion" to which a "free mind" broughtthem, they will gratefully accept the assurance thatthe ultimate good is inaccessible to human knowl-edge. The "authority" of those who preach the"mystery" will be confirmed, above all, by "mira-cles," or the appearance of miracles, for whenfreedom of conscience becomes too agonizing "whatman seeks is not so much God as miracles." Humanbeings are ultimately unable to carry on without amiracle, so much so that even in the modern agewhich has banished miracles they will find newmiracles for themselves and will worship the pseu-do-miracles of the modern "witch-doctor."

The Inquisitor maintains that in Western histo-ry the preaching of ' 'miracle, mystery, and authori-ty" has come within the special province of theRoman Catholic Church. And he foresees no seri-ous rival arising to contend with the traditionalsupremacy of Roman Catholicism in this matter. Itwould thus appear that when modern people beginto yearn for "miracle, mystery, and authority,"they will have no choice but to return to thatmorality which they have spurned with such cava-lier disregard for their own happiness. The RomanCatholic Church may again be compelled to hideitself in the catacombs; but the Inquisitor thinks itpossible that the day will come when it will besought out in its hiding place and asked to renew itspossession of the human conscience. This time willcome when humanity's striving after knowledge ofgood and evil becomes completely transformed into

V o l u m e 8 8 7

T h e G r a n d I n q u i s i t o r

the directionless striving after knowledge for itsown sake which is characteristic of modern science:

Freedom, a free mind and science will lead them intosuch a jungle and bring them face to face with suchmarvels and insoluble mysteries that some of them,the recalcitrant and the fierce, will destroy them-selves, others, recalcitrant but weak, will destroy oneanother, and the rest, weak and unhappy, will comecrawling to our feet and cry aloud: 'Yes, you wereright, you alone possessed his mystery, and we comeback to you—save us from ourselves!'

The Inquisitor's social formula is based on hisinterpretation of the first two temptations. It cantherefore now be stated in the following way: thosewho would rule over humanity for its happinessmust be both distributors of' 'loaves'' and preachersof "miracle, mystery, and authority." Properlyinterpreted, and regarded in the light of historicalexperience, the first two temptations reveal thatpeople will ultimately consent only to an orderwhich provides them with both earthly and heaven-ly bread. Only to rulers who simultaneously satisfytheir physical and moral appetites will people relin-quish forever their freedom for the sake of thatsocial re-integration which is their most fundamen-tal desire. Because it is based on two "eternal" or"everlasting" truths about human nature, the In-quisitor's social formula applies to human beingseverywhere and always.

The very timelessness of the Inquisitor's for-mula, however, must inevitably render it more orless "abstract," despite his citing of concrete his-torical evidence for its validity. Yet "abstractness"implies a certain dissociation of theory and practicewhich the Inquisitor, of all people, must not admit.For he is concerned with the actual happiness ofhuman beings, a concern which leads him to refuseto ask too much of them and to found his socialformula on human beings as they actually are ratherthan as they ought to be. The Inquisitor cannotremain content with a teaching which is the best intheory, though it may never be realized in practice.For him, this would be equivalent to siding with the"great idealists," who do not love humanity suffi-ciently. His entire enterprise requires that his socialformula be realizable. The confident assurance withwhich he does anticipate the realization of hisformula has its source in his interpretation of thethird temptation.

The Third TemptationThe third and last' 'torment'' of humanity is the

need for ' 'universal unity,'' for the union of all in a"common, harmonious, and incontestable ant-

hill. ..." The Inquisitor avers that the human yearn-ing for order will not be satisfied by the idea alone ofan ultimate good, even when this idea is provided inconjunction with earthly bread, for human beingsneed also to give a practical living expression to theobject of their belief, and they need to do so in unitywith others. The unity sought is ultimately univer-sal, for the co-existence of differing ideas of lifetends to undermine the certainty of those who liveby them. For the Inquisitor the human need for auniversal order is not to be satisfied by the appeal(which Christianity, for instance, has made) to auniversality which is "spiritual" in nature. Theuniversality for which humanity has always yearnedis a visible universality; therefore, in the Inquisi-tor's thinking, "universal" is synonymous with"world-wide" (or "ecumenic," as first defined bythe Roman historian, Polybius). According to theInquisitor, then, human beings require an actualworld-wide social order corresponding to the "mira-cle, mystery, and authority'' which they obey—anorder, moreover, which grants them at least theminimal satisfaction of their material wants. This isto say that human beings will ultimately settle fornothing less than the realization, not merely in adream but in actuality, of the Inquisitor's socialformula.

The Inquisitor interprets the offer of the ' 'king-doms of the world" in the third temptation as theoffer of the most powerful instrument for satisfyingthe human need for universal unity—the universalstate. The universal state is the prime vehicle for theactualization of the social order ruled by keepers ofhumanity's conscience who are also distributors ofits bread. History for the Inquisitor is importantchiefly as the realm of the appearance and progres-sive development of this vehicle. (Indeed, his ec-static certainty concerning the future realization ofhis final solution to the problem of order makes hisview of history reminiscent of that modern Western"philosophy of history" developed from Vicoto Marx.)

According to the Inquisitor, the dawn of historycoincides with the first tentative efforts towards theconstruction of a universal order. The persistencewith which human beings have moved towards theuniversal state, even in its most rudimentary form,reflects at least a half-conscious awareness of itsimportance for their happiness:

Mankind as a whole has always striven to organizeitself into a world state. There have been many greatnations with great histories, but the more highlydeveloped they were, the more unhappy they were, for



they were more acutely conscious of the need for theworld-wide union of men. The great conquerors, theTimurs and Genghis Khans, swept like a whirl-windover the earth, striving to conquer the world, but,though unconsciously, they expressed the same greatneed of mankind for a universal and world-wide union.

The work of the Timurs and the Genghis Khansis a striking manifestation of the human impulsetowards the universal state; but, in them, this im-pulse remained merely unconscious, and hence failedto bear fruit. The conscious aspiration towards theconstruction of the universal state first appeared inthe ecumenic empires of Persia, Macedon, andRome. The Inquisitor focuses upon the last as theculmination of ancient humanity's striving for uni-versal unity.

Humanity had possessed, in the Roman Em-pire, a splendid and apparently "eternal" instru-ment for its happiness. Yet just when it seemed thatthe human struggle towards order had achievedfinal success, Rome was undermined by the rebel-lion of the personal conscience, which found itsmost effective vehicle in Christianity. Despite itsaura of finality, the Roman state had failed tounderstand properly the moral dimension of humanlife. This failure condemned humanity to a thousandyears of the disease of disorder. The external politi-cal and legal structures of Rome proved extraordi-narily durable, however, even after the life had goneout of them; the "sword of Caesar" remained athand for the use of new architects of world-wideorder. In its attempt to have Christianity serve orderrather than disorder, the Western church did notspurn this sword, and the accommodation which itreached with the remnants of the Roman state gavebirth to that Roman Catholic order which was todefine Western civilization for centuries. Althoughit evinced a more profound appreciation of the needfor heavenly bread, Roman Catholic order was alsoto be finally undermined by the assertiveness of thepersonal conscience, and also by the attempt toalleviate the sufferings of material deprivation. Butin its rejection of Roman Catholic civilization, themodern West has not repudiated the "sword ofCaesar"; indeed, it apotheosizes the state—stillfundamentally the universal state of Rome—andopposes it to any other instrument of human order.Because of its wholehearted adoption of the state,the modern West tends to overcome the divergenceof loyalties once rendered inevitable by the uneasycompromise achieved in the Middle Ages betweenthe Roman church and the Roman state. The mod-ern state, moreover, in consciously founding itselfsolely on reason, is bound up with a science which

holds out possibilities for the control of human andnon-human nature beyond anything dreamt of in thepast. For these reasons, the modern Western statemust be regarded as the most effective instrument ofsocial order that the world has yet seen. The "swordof Caesar'' could prove, in its modern embodiment,to be more powerful than it ever was in ancientRome or in medieval Europe. But who will wieldthis formidable instrument?

As we have already noted, the Inquisitor pre-dicts that it is socialism which will finally inheritCaesar's sword. We have also noted, however, hisexpectation that the triumph of socialism will beshort-lived unless it can offer humanity somethingmore than earthly bread. Among the socialists therewill be those sufficiently "scientific" to realize thatthe full compliance of the individual in the socialistorder will require a ' 'moral enticement." In order topreserve itself, socialism will at last be compelled toseek out preachers of "miracle, mystery, and au-thority." The Inquisitor thus foresees that the so-cialist state, following those driven to despair by the"jungle" into which freedom of conscience has ledthem, will turn to the Roman Catholic Church as themost practised adept in the realm of "miracle,mystery, and authority." This time, however, thealliance between church and state will be morecomplete than the compromise of the past allowed.The two will enter into the indivisible union ex-pressed in the formula—"The Pope—leader ofcommunism"—which is the outward historical ex-pression of the Inquisitor's social theory. Whensocialism surrenders its highly organized system forthe satisfaction of material needs into the hands ofRoman Catholicism, then the keepers of humanity'sconscience will also be the distributors of its bread.The problem of social order will be at last solved inactuality. Human beings will finally come intopossession of that yearned-for earthly paradise whichhas always eluded them:

And then we shall finish building their tower . . . andwe alone shall feed them in your name .. .the flockwill be gathered together again and will submit oncemore, and this time it will be for good. Then we shallgive them quiet, humble happiness, the happiness ofweak creatures, such as they were created... .Theywill grow timid and begin looking up to us and cling tous in fear as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at usand be terrified of us and be proud that we are somighty and so wise as to be able to tame such aturbulent flock of thousands of millions. They will behelpless and in constant fear of our wrath, their mindswill grow timid, their eyes will always be sheddingtears like women and children, but at the slightest signfrom us they will be just as ready to pass to mirth and

V o l u m e 8 8 9


laughter, to bright-eyed gladness and happy childishsong.. .. And they will have no secrets from us. ...The most tormenting secrets of their conscience—everything, everything they will bring to us, and weshall give them our decision for it all . . . . And theywill all be happy, all the millions of creatures, exceptthe hundred thousand who rule over them....

Source: Bruce K. Ward, "The Final Western Social Formu-la," in Dostoyevsky's Critique of the West: The Quest for theEarthly Paradise, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1986,pp. 101-134.

Temira PachmussIn the following essay, Pachmuss discusses

Dostoevsky's concept of the dual heavenly andearthly nature of humankind as it is reflected in theGrand Inquisitor's three reproaches against Christ.

In Seeking To Reveal the tragedy of man as a dualbeing, Dostoevsky portrays the abnormal states ofthe psyche, all phenomena of which he considersmanifestations of higher metaphysical realities. Andan understanding of Dostoevsky's metaphysics ofevil is necessary for one to discern the primaltragedy, which comes to the fore in his more matureworks, particularly The Brothers Karamazov, whereevil is expressed both in metaphysical and psycho-logical terms. "The Legend of the Grand Inquisi-tor," an expression of Ivan Karamazov's rebel-lion against God, stands in close connection withDostoevsky's earlier writings, for it discloses moreof the concept of duality which underlies the workspreviously examined. It reflects Dostoevsky's life-long study of man as a "mixture of the heavenlyand the earthly," the problem which tormentedhis mind even when he was at the Military En-gineers' Academy.

After the portrayal of man with inherent ego-centricity, vanity, and other facets of his creaturelybeing, Dostoevsky arranges a trial, as it were, atwhich the Grand Inquisitor points out to Christ thatGod created man as the least perfect of all creatures.He burdened man with an animal being and socondemned him to continual suffering. The GrandInquisitor appears as the defense counsel for man,the victim of God, Who has endowed him with adual nature which man is too weak to bear withdignity. He elaborates his defense by showing thatin most cases man either becomes a prey to hiscreaturely being or revolts against God. In neither ofthese instances does man strive for spiritual andmoral perfection as should a creature made in the

divine image. In the name of mankind, the GrandInquisitor brings against Christ three charges. Firstof all, he states, man has earthly needs and a naturalimpulse to satisfy them. Man's freedom of spirit andthe exercise of his will are impeded by these naturalneeds. How is it possible, the Grand Inquisitor asks,to reproach man with his efforts to maintain naturalexistence, an existence which requires, first andforemost, that his hunger be allayed? He rebukesChrist that He did not take from men the worry overtheir daily bread. As freedom of spirit can scarcelybe reconciled with the natural needs of humanbeings, they abandon this freedom and say, "Makeus your slaves, but feed us." The Grand Inquisitorsays to Christ,' 'They themselves will understand atlast that freedom and bread, enough for all, areinconceivable together, for never, never will they beable to share among themselves." There are but fewpeople who have enough strength to neglect theiranimal being for the sake of living for the spirit."And, if for the sake of the bread of Heaven,thousands will follow Thee, what is to become ofthe millions and tens of thousands of millions ofcreatures who have not the strength to forgo theearthly bread for the sake of the heavenly?" theGrand Inquisitor proceeds. He believes that, hadChrist freed men from the anxiety associated withtheir earthly needs, He would have lifted the burdenof suffering which arises from the duality of humannature. Their question as to whom they shouldworship would then have been answered. Man,relieved of this anxiety, would no longer doubt hisCreator, for "man seeks to worship what is estab-lished beyond any dispute."

Man as a spiritual being, the Grand Inquisitorcontinues, needs worship as an expression of beliefin immortality; but even if he succeeds in worship-ping something "established beyond any dispute,"he cannot be happy so long as he is devoid of thefeeling of unity with humanity. This feeling ofisolation deprives him of contentment with life."The craving for community of worship is the chiefmisery of every man individually and of all humani-ty from the beginning of time," the Grand Inquisi-tor insists. Man's worry about his natural existence,however, forces him to struggle against his fellowmen. Man is turned against man because they standin a relationship similar to that of one animal towardanother, each trying to seize the other's food. Theanimal is not disturbed by the question of whether ornot this lies in the nature of universal laws, but mansuffers under the law of the jungle, for it conflictswith his conscience. Had Christ freed men from the

9 o S h o r t S t o r i e s f o r S t u d e n t s


worry about their daily bread, He would also havefreed them from this primitive state, and conse-quently from a stricken conscience: "And behold,instead of providing a firm foundation for settingthe conscience of man at rest forever, Thou didstchoose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic;Thou didst choose what was utterly beyond thestrength of man, acting as if Thou didst not love himat all." The Grand Inquisitor considers that Christdemanded too much of man, and that His love forhumanity was too uncompromising; it was directedtoward man as he should be, and not as he is.

The second reproach of the Grand Inquisitor isthat Christ withheld "miracle, mystery, and au-thority." Christ did not cast Himself down themountain, nor did He descend from the cross. Hesubmitted His body to the natural laws, for He didnot want "to enslave man by a miracle." Man,however, a rebel by nature, will try to conquer thesenatural laws and rise above them, and a significantpart of the tragedy of Dostoevsky's heroes lies inthis struggle, for such attempts lead only to inevita-ble failure and spiritual pain. Raskolnikov strove tobecome a superman, stronger than that nature whichcondemned him to cling to his ' 'flesh and lust.'' TheUnderground Man tried to run against' 'the wall ofthe laws of nature," although he knew full well theutter futility of his endeavor. Kirillov wanted, throughsuicide, to initiate the transformation of man intosuperman; and Ivan Karamazov, too, thought thathe could disregard the laws of nature. All theseattempts resulted only in suffering.

The Grand Inquisitor says to Christ, "Thoudidst hope that man, following Thee, could cling toGod and not ask for a miracle." Had Christ left thepossibility of a miracle—a gap in the wall of na-ture—men would have followed Him, for ' 'men areslaves, of course, though created rebels." Since thecausal laws of nature exclude the miracle, man'sfaith grows weaker. Raskolnikov, dissatisfied withthe social structure of the community—which is forhim the consequence of causal laws—rages againstGod's creation and feels himself justified in at-tempting to improve it. The Underground Man, too,driven to desperation, tries to smash' 'the wall of thelaws of nature." He cannot, in his state, be recon-ciled with God's creation or believe in Christ's lovefor man. Kirillov, who admired Christ's martyr-dom, does not recognize the causal laws as ordainedby God. He intends to free himself from subservi-ence to them, and thus to point the way for humanitythrough his suicide. In a determination to destroyGod, he aims at making the world happy.

destructive principle of the

dual force, which represents

one pole of duality— 'the

indispensable minus1—there

would be no phenomena on

earth. While ultimate harmony

would be attained, it would

mean simultaneously the end

of earthly life as man

knows it."

Dostoevsky considers the causal laws of natureto be an apparent antithesis to the spiritual aspect ofGod's creation. "The highest heavenly world,"as Father Zosima terms it, or "the higher noblespirituality," in Dostoevsky's words, is in uttercontradiction with the earthly laws to which allmen are subjected, irrespective of their denial ofGod's existence. Therefore, the Grand Inquisitortells Christ that while these causal laws prevail, aweak man believes his faith in God and his striv-ing to "the higher spiritual world" to be futile.The Grand Inquisitor's fears are justified in thecase of Raskolnikov, the Underground Man, andSmerdyakov, who are unable to accept the world—in which the scoundrel prospers and the righteousman perishes—as a creation of a kind and mercifulGod. From this viewpoint, the Grand Inquisitormaintains that a miracle or ' 'a gap in the wall of thelaws of nature" can give man a belief in God andimmortality, a belief which is essential for his peaceof mind. If Christ had left for man a belief in thepossibility of a miracle, he would have acquired hisfaith undisturbed by doubt, he would have attainedpeace and happiness. The immutability of the causallaws not only reduces him to "the last and the leastof creatures,'' but is also the reason that in the wholecreation of God ' 'the law of spiritual nature is ...violated." The Grand Inquisitor raises this violationas his second charge against Christ. Duality in thestructure of the world makes man a wretched slaveof the relentless laws of nature, a plaything in thehands of some all-powerful force. Out of compas-

V o l u m e 8 9 1

Without hte negative,


sion for man, the Grand Inquisitor censures Christfor His failure to abolish through a miracle thispainful duality.

As in the argument presented by Glaucon andAdeimantus in Plato's Republic, Dostoevsky's re-bellious characters such as Raskolnikov, the Under-ground Man, and even Ivan Karamazov, are readyto worship and believe in God if they can be sure ofa reward. The valet Smerdyakov is also prepared torevere God if he is to be rewarded for his faith. Hearrives at the conclusion that, since he cannot bid hisfaith to move a mountain, Heaven will not esteemhighly his religious feeling,' 'for since the mountainhad not moved at my word, they cannot think verymuch of my faith in Heaven, and there cannot be agreat reward awaiting me in the world to come. Sowhy should I let them flay me alive as well, and tono good purpose?"; For Smerdyakov, thus, there isno virtue without a reward. Even old Karamazov isaroused at such an interpretation of the Christianfaith. Raskolnikov has a similar view of Christiani-ty. He believes Sonya actually out of her mind toworship God without a reward. He witnesses theruin of her family and cannot understand that,regardless of this, she still entrusts herself to a GodWho can permit such an injustice as her terrible andshameful position in the community. Raskolnikovasks himself, when he thinks of Sonya, the tragedyof her future and that of her family, "What is shewaiting for? A miracle?'' He believes she enduresher hard life only in the expectation of a miracle, areward from God for her firm religious faith.

On the death of Father Zosima, his followersalso expect a miracle as recompense for his life ofpurity. When none takes place and his body beginsto decompose in accordance with the laws of nature,even Alyosha is shaken and, through his sorrow,driven almost to sin. The followers have alreadyforgotten Father Zosima's words on the pure act offaith: "Children, seek no miracles. Miracles willkill faith." The Underground Man, too, denouncesvirtue without reward, and the noble-minded IvanKaramazov's menial ego says to him, "Only thosewho have no conscience gain, for how can they betortured by conscience when they have none? Butdecent people who have conscience and honorsuffer for it.'' In despair, Ivan can only reply,' 'Howcould my soul beget such a creature as you?"whereupon the devil explains to him that this crea-ture is the author of "The Legend of the GrandInquisitor,'' and that the latter is the advocate for allsuch weaklings. The Grand Inquisitor is prepared togive man a longed-for miracle, since "man seeks

not so much God as the miraculous," whereasChrist, craving "faith given freely," refused "toenslave men by a miracle."

The pawnbroker in "The Gentle Maiden" de-sires his wife's love "given freely," not based oncompulsion. In this he resembles Christ in "TheLegend of the Grand Inquisitor." The pawnbro-ker's wife, however, is too weak to measure up tosuch demands; in order to gain her confidence andlove, her husband would have had to give her proofof his love for her, just as in "The Legend" Christwould have had to come down from the cross inorder to win the love and faith of man. When thepawnbroker realizes that he was wrong in his expec-tations, he also grasps his wife's weakness. He, too,had rated her too highly, whereas she was only ' 'aslave, even though rebellious by nature." Similarly,she revolted against her husband because he was acoward and a weakling. He should have shown herhis power, or bribed her with love and compassion.Virtue without a reward did not exist for her anymore than it existed for Golyadkin, Raskolnikov,and Ivan Karamazov.

The third reproach of the Grand Inquisitor isthat Christ rejected the sword of Caesar and be-queathed to man a freedom in his decisions andactions, a freedom which will lead him to ruin. TheGrand Inquisitor bitterly attacks Christ for His love,which has become a burden rather than a blessingfor humanity: He has given men freedom of con-science for which they are too weak. He thereforesays to Christ, "Hadst Thou accepted that lastcounsel of the mighty spirit, Thou wouldst haveaccomplished all that man seeks on earth, that is,Thou wouldst have given him someone to worship,someone to entrust his conscience to, and somemeans of unifying all into one unanimous andharmonious ant-heap."

The thought that man tries to shun all responsi-bility for the sins and actions which weigh heavilyon his conscience was expressed by Dostoevsky forthe first time in The Double. Golyadkin, when hecan no longer manage his double, is willing tosacrifice his personal freedom for peace of mind.When he fails to achieve power and authority overothers, he attempts to avoid self-reproaches bydisclaiming the responsibility for his actions: "Ilook upon you, my benefactor and superior, as afather, and entrust my fate to you, and I will not sayanything against your decisions; I put myself inyour hands, and retire from the affair." He seekssomeone to whom he can transfer the heavy burden



of his conscience. In his anguish, he visualizes somemagician who comes to him saying,' 'Give a fingerfrom your right hand, Golyadkin, and we shall call itquits; the other Golyadkin will no longer exist, andyou will be happy, only you will not have yourfinger." "Yes, I would sacrifice my finger,"Golyadkin admits, "I certainly would!"

Men long to obey the one who can shoulder thisencumbrance for them. "They will submit to usgladly and cheerfully," the Grand Inquisitor ob-serves, ' 'and they will be glad to believe our deci-sions, for it will save them from the great anxietyand terrible agony they endure at present in makinga free decision for themselves." He believes thatsince man is continually torn between his spiritualand creaturely being, a freedom to govern his owndecisions can only result in suffering. As man isweak and afraid of suffering, he will always seeksomeone whom he can make responsible for hisactions.

Man's fear of assuming responsibility for hisdeeds prompts the Grand Inquisitor to relieve manof his duality by denying him conscience, "thegreatest anxiety and terrible agony in making a freedecision for himself." Once man is unburdened ofthis "terrible gift that has brought him so muchsuffering," he will rejoice and be happy. Christ'sway of life has proven to be only for' 'the strong andelect," those who can cope with their freedom ofconscience. Troubled by the thought of the weakones, the Grand Inquisitor asks,' 'Are they to blamebecause they could not endure what the strong haveendured? . . . Canst Thou have come only to theelect and for the elect?" In their freedom of con-science, given to men by Christ, they are tormentedby their sins, and, like Golyadkin, they would like toappeal to "a benefactor and superior," as if to afather who would free them from conscience and,by so doing, allow them to sin again. ' 'Oh, we shalleven allow them to sin; they are weak and helpless,and they will love us like children because we allowthem to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will beexpiated, if it is done with our permission," theGrand Inquisitor promises Christ. If there is some-one to accept responsibility for man's sin, his con-science will no longer suffer. If laws allow man tosuccumb to sins, he must have no feeling of guilt.

The Grand Inquisitor warns Christ that thereare few elect people who can bear responsibilityalone. "And besides," he proceeds, "how many ofthose elect, those mighty ones who could havebecome elect, have grown weary waiting for Thee,

and have transferred and will transfer the power oftheir spirit and the ardor of their heart to the othercamp, and end by raising their free banner againstThee." Raskolnikov has the strength to shoulderthe responsibility for his murder and its conse-quences. However, even though filled with genuineChristian compassion and sympathy for the suffer-ing and oppressed, he directs his strength againstChrist for the sake of his "flesh and lust." Afurther revolt against Christ is Raskolnikov's wishto change Sonya's Christian state of mind—allenduring and sacrificial—into hatred toward hertormentors. The Grand Inquisitor refers to this atti-tude of Raskolnikov's in speaking of those whocould have become the elect, but turned their freebanner against Christ.

Svidrigaylov, Kirillov, Stavrogin, Versilov, andIvan Karamazov also could have become elect, butthey end in laying hands either on themselves or onothers, raising in this way their free banner againstChrist. With the exception of Kirillov, they are allslaves to the "coarse veil" of earth and the causallaws of nature against which they clamor so loudly.Even Kirillov, in the last minutes before suicide, istransformed from a man-god into a weakling throughhis subjection to the "earthly veil of matter."

In his logically developed argument the GrandInquisitor has, however, missed one important pos-sibility. He does not take into consideration the factthat these same mutineers, if given the opportunity,can find their way back to Christ. Raskolnikov, whois prepared to suffer in atonement for his crime,finally becomes enlightened and, having won thebattle against his base instincts, is now ready to raisethe banner for Christ. As will be shown later,Dostoevsky implies that such conflicts in the humanmind are necessary to determine the meaning ofearthly life. The conflict between Raskolnikov'sdenial and Sonya's acceptance of divine justice is ofthis nature. But the Grand Inquisitor, even thoughhe understands the purpose of these antitheses,refuses to accept them. This appears to be the reasonthat he can see only the dark side of the rebel'sactions: his mutiny against God and Christ.

From the Grand Inquisitor's three charges againstChrist, man's spiritual suffering is shown to have itsroots in his freedom of conscience, and the only wayof relieving man from the mental pain caused by hisduality is to deny him this freedom, the GrandInquisitor suggests, since freedom and happinessare for him incompatible. In freedom, man is a slave

V o l u m e 8 9 3


and a rebel at the same time; yet if he is deprived offreedom, he will remain only a slave, and the painarising from his duality will be eliminated. Had theGrand Inquisitor succeeded in freeing man from hisburden of conscience, he would have removed themain source of man's mental anguish and enabledthose "millions of men," who are his chief concern,to live a quiet and peaceful life, without suffering,without the pricks of conscience, and without astruggle for existence. This condition can be achievedonly by depriving man of his divine image and of hischance to live for the spirit.

"The roots of man's thoughts and feelings arenot here, but in other worlds," insists Father Zosima.In taking from man freedom of conscience, theGrand Inquisitor would have also lost for him aconnection with "other worlds." As Father Zosimamaintains, ' 'the spiritual world, the higher part ofman's being, would then be rejected altogether andbanished." This possibility does not perturb theGrand Inquisitor because he cannot believe in man'sdivine origin, as he does not believe in God. AlyoshaKaramazov recognizes this clearly when he repliesto Ivan, ' 'Your Inquisitor does not believe in God,that's his whole secret!" But even the Grand In-quisitor himself fears that an animal existence willnever suffice for man, since he admits. "The secretof man's being is not only to live, but to havesomething to live for. Without a steadfast faith inthe object of life, man would not consent to go onliving, but would rather destroy himself than remainon earth, though he had bread in abundance."

In order to satisfy man with an animal life, theGrand Inquisitor must delude him into a convictionof happiness. To achieve this, he intends to giveman a purpose in life by supporting his inherentbelief in immortality and God, and, with promisesof heavenly and eternal reward, so lead him to afalse sense of bliss. The exclusion of suffering,however, would mean the destruction of humanity,as Ivan himself explains to Alyosha: "One shouldaccept lying and deception and lead man conscious-ly to death and destruction; and yet one shoulddeceive them all the way so that they may not noticewhere they are being led, that the poor blind crea-tures may at least, on the way, think themselveshappy." Ivan himself, thus, admits that the happi-ness promised mankind by the Grand Inquisitor isonly a deception, and in so doing he, even ifinvoluntarily, sides with Christ. This is plain toAlyosha, who exclaims, "Your poem is to praiseJesus, not to blame Him!"

The Grand Inquisitor, in denying man a linkwith the spiritual world, is determined to destroyhuman spirit and thought. Deprived of his divineorigin, man will lose—in spite of the spuriousnotions of happiness provided by the Grand Inquisi-tor—the idea of God and personal immortality. Hewill view his life only as "a meaningless flash."There will be no further point to a life now devoid ofall meaning; therefore no satisfaction will be leftsave in self-destruction, as it was with Svidrigaylovand Stavrogin. Dostoevsky explains this conditionmore fully in The Diary of a Writer.

If man loses his belief in immortality, suicide be-comes an absolute and inevitable necessity.... Butthe idea of immortality, promising eternal life, bindsman closely to the earth. . . . Man's belief in a person-al immortality is the only thing which gives point andreason to his life on earth. Without this belief, hisbond with the earth loosens, becomes weak andunstable; the loss of life's higher meaning—even if itis felt only as a most subconscious form of depressionand ennui—leads him inevitably to suicide.

As Dostoevsky explicitly states, without a be-lief in personal immortality,

People will suddenly realize that there is no more lifefor them; that there is no freedom of spirit, no will, nopersonality; that someone has stolen everything fromthem; that the human way of life has vanished, to bereplaced by the bestial way of life, the way of cattle,with this difference, however, that the cattle do notknow that they are cattle, whereas men will discoverthat they have become cattle And then, perhaps,others will cry to God, "Thou art right, oh Lord! Manlives not by bread alone!"

The Grand Inquisitor, therefore, who contem-plates the elimination of what he believes to be theprinciple of evil in the structure of the world, admitsthat he sides with Satan. "Listen," he addressesChrist,' 'we are not with Thee, but with him—that isour secret!" His intention will lead man to absoluteevil: to death and destruction. The Grand Inquisitorrealizes this, but he believes that his substitution ofan acceptable myth for painful conscience will bejustified, for he will secure for man the happinessdenied him by his inability to accept the idearepresented by Christ.

Dostoevsky clearly distinguishes this evil fromthat manifested in Ivan's hallucination of the devil,who says, ' 'I am the 'X' in an equation with oneunknown." It appears from this formulation thatevil ending in suffering is an integral part of life justas the ' 'X'' is of such an equation. Suffering, forDostoevsky, is not only inherent in man, but itprovides the only spur toward a greater conscious-ness of reality, which in turn engenders the assertion



of man's personality. Complete harmony on earth,therefore, is excluded by the existence of suffering.The world, as it is, must have suffering, and manmust have his duality, and yet it is possible to strivefor harmony on earth.

A dual force, in Dostoevsky's view, is indis-pensable for the whole of earthly existence. Life onearth is an incessant striving and must be stimulatedby the operation of the two opposite forces of goodand evil, which manifest themselves also in man asa part of the universe. As Lebedev in The Idiotexplains to Evgeny Pavlovich, ' 'The laws of self-preservation and self-destruction are equally pow-erful in humanity. The devil will maintain his domi-nation over mankind for a period of time which isstill unknown to us." The hypothesis that theseimpulses of self-preservation and self-destructionare a part of the dual and fundamental law of theuniverse which divert man from his ' 'spiritual world''induces Lebedev to ascribe this law to the realm ofthe devil. But the impulse of self-preservation mustbe given its due, since it preserves earthly existence,even though it is one of destruction when consid-ered in relation to the "spiritual world."

According to Dostoevsky, since man's physicalnature hinders his independent thoughts and distortshis "spiritual world," there can be no paradise andno harmony so long as man must live under earthlyconditions. Kirillov expresses a similar viewpointin his conversation with Shatov: "There are sec-onds . . . when you suddenly feel the presence of theeternal harmony perfectly attained. It is somethingnot earthly—I do not mean in the sense that it isheavenly—but in that sense that man cannot endureit in his earthly aspect. He must be physicallychanged or die." This thought occurs again in thefollowing note: "We do not know which form it[eternal harmony] will take, or where it will takeplace, . . . in which center, whether in the finalcenter, that is, in the bosom of the universal synthe-sis—God.... It will be in general hardly possible tocall men human beings; therefore we have not evenan idea what kind of beings we shall be."

With the attainment of man's goal, Dostoevskyfurther claims, human existence will become static.Thus, it will no longer be necessary for man todevelop himself, or to await the coming of futuregenerations to attain his goal. The life hithertoknown to man will cease to be a life based onperpetual motion. In the same way, Ivan's devil,who represents the principle of evil in human na-ture, assures Ivan that he, the devil, "in a simple and

straightforward way demands [his] own annihila-tion," but is commanded to live further. "For therewould be nothing without me," he says, "if every-thing on earth were as it should be, then nothingwould happen. There would be no events withoutme, but there must be events." Without the nega-tive, destructive principle of the dual force, whichrepresents one pole of duality— "the indispensableminus''—there would be no phenomena on earth.While ultimate harmony would be attained, it wouldmean simultaneously the end of earthly life asman knows it.

The same result would be achieved if mancould solve the mystery of life and find an ultimateanswer to the eternal question "why?" so convinc-ingly presented by Lebyadkin. The devil, referringto this mystery of life, says to Ivan, ' 'I know, ofcourse, there is a secret in it, but for nothing in theworld will they tell me this secret; for then, perhaps,seeing the meaning of it, I might shout 'hosanna!';the indispensable minus would disappear at once,and good sense would reign supreme throughout theworld. That, of course, would mean the end ofeverything."

Thus, while the principle of evil which destroysthe "spiritual world" of man is indispensable forthe preservation of earthly existence, the completetransition to absolute evil, quite consciously aimedat by the Grand Inquisitor, would exclude the prin-ciple of good, resulting ultimately in death anddestruction. Even Ivan Karamazov himself is con-vinced that his devil— "the 'X' in an equation withone unknown''—is not the Satan mentioned by theGrand Inquisitor, but "only a devil." Similarly,Ivan questions Alyosha in one of the drafts, "Inwhat way is he Satan? He is a devil, simply a devil. Icannot visualize him as Satan." In a letter to N. A.Lyubimov, Dostoevsky reasserts his viewpoint bywriting, "Please forgive me my devil. He is only adevil . . . not Satan with his 'singed' wings." It isstrange that this important distinction escaped theattention of some scholars and critics. D. H. Law-rence, for example, in his article "Preface toDostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor," states forth-rightly: "As always in Dostoevsky, the amazingperspicacity is mixed with ugly perversity. Nothingis pure. His wild love for Jesus is mixed withperverse and poisonous hate of Jesus: his moralhostility to the devil is mixed with secret worshipof the devil." It is evident that D. H. Lawrencehas overlooked the dichotomy so important forDostoevsky between Satan and the devil. As hasbeen shown, the Russian novelist equates the devil

V o l u m e 8 9 5


with "the 'X' in an equation with one unknown,"and with ' 'the indispensable minus'' in the structureof the world.

The principle of evil is a prerequisite of earthlyexistence, but Dostoevsky, through Father Zosima,states his view that only the "spiritual world," the"higher part of man's being" can be the goal ofhuman aspiration. The contradictions discussedabove, which are characteristic of Dostoevsky'sphilosophy and are reflected in his fiction, the writerreconciles very forcefully and lucidly.

Source: Temira Pachmuss, "The Metaphysics of Evil," inF. M. Dostoevsky: Dualism and Synthesis of the Human Soul,Southern Illinois University Press, 1963, pp. 97-111.

Sources

Belknap, Robert L.' 'The Rhetoric of an Ideological Novel,''in Literature and Society in Imperial Russia, 1800-1914,edited by William Mills Todd III. Reprinted in ModernCritical Views: Fyodor Dostoevsky, edited by Harold Bloom.New York: Chelsea House, 1989, pp. 136-37.

Berdyaev, Nicholas. Dostoevsky, translated by DonaldAttwater, Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1957, p. 189.

Catteau, Jacques.' 'The Paradox of the Legend of the GrandInquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov," translated byFrancoise Rosset, in Dostoevsky: New Perspectives, editedby Robert Louis Jackson, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984, p. 248.

Cowles, Virginia. The Russian Dagger: Cold War in theDays of the Czars, New York: Harper & Row, 1969, p. 140.

Lawrence, D. H. "Preface to Dostoevsky's The GrandInquisitor," in Dostoevsky: A Collection of Critical Essays,edited by Rene Wellek, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1962, pp. 90,91,97.

Leatherbarrow, William J. FedorDostoevsky, Boston: Twayne,1981, p. 157.

Lord, Robert. Dostoevsky: Essays and Perspectives, Berke-ley: University of California Press, 1970, pp. 166-67.

Matlaw, Ralph E. Introduction to Notes from Undergroundand The Grand Inquisitor, by Fyodor Dostoevsky, NewYork:Dutton, 1960, p. xx.

Ward, Bruce K. Dostoevsky's Critique of the West: TheQuest for the Earthly Paradise, Waterloo, Ontario: WilfridLaurier Press, 1986, p. 101.

Wasiolek, Edward. Dostoevsky: The Major Fiction, Cam-bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1964, p. 169.

Further Reading

FitzLyon, Kyril, and Tatiana Browning. Before the Revolu-tion: Russia and Its People under the Czar, Woodstock,N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1978.

Contains over three hundred black and white photo-graphs of cities and villages of Russia, taken be-tween 1894 and 1917. Many of the scenes photo-graphed would have been familiar to Dostoevsky,who died in 1881.

Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky, Princeton: Princeton Universi-ty Press.

Four volumes of this masterful biography have beenpublished so far, covering Dostoevsky's life from1821 through 1871. Widely considered the best liter-ary biography available.

Jackson, Robert Louis, ed. Dostoevsky: New Perspectives,Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984.

Contains fourteen relatively recent essays providingcritical analysis of Dostoevsky's most important works.Included are three essays on The Brothers Karamazovand one, by Jacques Catteau, that concludes that' 'TheGrand Inquisitor" is tragic but ultimately hopeful.

Kornblatt, Judith Deutsch, and Richard F. Gustafson, eds.Russian Religious Thought, Madison: University of Wiscon-sin Press, 1996.

Provides an analysis of the major ideas of Russianreligious philosophy, with their historical backgroundsand cultural contexts.

Peters, Edward. Inquisition, Berkeley: University of Califor-nia Press, 1989.

A scholarly but accessible attempt to correct generallyheld misconceptions about the Inquisition, written byan important historian.

Waldron, Peter. The End of Imperial Russia, 1855-1917,New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997.

A historical look at the economic and social conse-quences of tsarist Russia and the opposition to it, ofwhich Dostoevsky was a part.

Wellek, Rene, ed. Dostoevsky: A Collection of CriticalEssays, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

Contains eleven older critical essays about the majorworks, including D. H. Lawrence's famous Preface to"The Grand Inquisitor." Wellek's introduction trac-es the history of Dostoevsky criticism and influence.


Documents

The Grand Inquisitor - braintacos.files.wordpress.com · The Grand Inquisitor "The Grand Inquisitor" was originally published as the fifth chapter of the fifth book of Dostoevsky