93. TBK. Bk VII. 1-2 & "Market Street"

Jump to Introduction & Chronology
Jump back to Previous: God's Hotel

The Brothers Karamazov

Part Three. Book VII. 1.

Of all the odd incidents in this novel, perhaps the most inexplicable for me is Zossima’s rapid corruption after death. For me, it’s amusing and enlightening in how it shows the fickleness and back-biting of even the most "holy" monks. But what does Dostoyevsky mean by it? I’m only going to repeat a few revealing passages, but, to sum up the situation in a few words, Zossima died and he began to rot in less than a day when it was anticipated he would be immune from such a fate due to his saintliness. 

...
And this was followed by a shower of criticism and blame of Father Zossima. “His teaching was false; he taught that life is a great joy and not a vale of tears,” said some of the more unreasonable. “He followed the fashionable belief, he did not recognize material fire in hell,” others, still more unreasonable, added. “He was not strict in fasting, allowed himself sweet things, ate cherry jam with his tea.... Is it for a monk of strict rule to drink tea?” could be heard among some of the envious. “He sat in pride,” the most malicious declared vindictively... 

What I find interesting in this is how difficult it is to rule a Cargo Cult. The core belief of a Cargo Cult is that if you copy the actions of the people who seemed to command the appearance of cargo ships full of all kinds of wonderful things, then you can command the appearance of your own ships. The problem, of course, is getting the ritual just right. The failure of the ships to appear means that the person in charge doesn’t have the ritual quite right so he becomes disgraced and someone with a “better” idea of the ritual steps in. All religions have this character since what they are promising is something that is paid off in the “next” life. It’s only when they try to promise things in this life or expect some sign of favor -- after death for example -- that they can truly be put to the test. Zossima didn’t fail his expectations (I’m bound to say), but he failed the expectations of the people around him. And what Dostoyevsky shows is how very far from “heaven on earth” people, even particularly religious people, are. Why Dostoyevsky is making my point is what I least understand here. 

Book VII. 2.
 ...
p389 [At this point in the story our strange and mysterious narrator -- sometimes omniscient, sometimes not -- is suddenly all up in our business. Here it is the narrator speaking about Alyosha, who has been stunned by the reversal of fortune suffered by his master,] ...My hero had faith, a faith steady and steadfast, but still I am not going to apologize for him.

...it was not a question of miracles. There was no frivolous and impatient expectation of miracles in Alyosha’s mind... what he saw before all was one figure -- the figure of his beloved elder, the figure of that holy man whom he revered with such adoration. The fact is that all the love that lay concealed in his pure young heart for everyone and everything had, for the past year, been concentrated -- and perhaps wrongly so -- on one being, his beloved elder... But, again it was not miracles he needed but only “the higher justice” which had been in his belief outraged by the blow that had so suddenly and cruelly wounded his heart...
...
p390 ... I will not, however, forget to mention something strange which came for a time to the surface of Alyosha’s mind at this fatal moment. This new something was the harassing impression left by the conversation with Ivan, which now persistently haunted Alyosha...
...
p392 [Alyosha to Rakitin who has come to pester him,] “I am not rebelling against my God. I simply ‘don’t accept His world.’ Alyosha suddenly smiled a forceful smile. [This was Ivan’s line.]
...
[Alyosha accepts some sausage from Rakitin] “What! You’re going to eat it! Why, it’s a regular mutiny with barricades!...
...
[Alyosha accepts Rakitin’s suggestion that they go to visit Grushenka.] “And how glad she will be, how delighted,” he [Rakitin] murmured, but he lapsed into silence again. And indeed it was not to please Grushenka that he was taking Alyosha to her. He was a practical person and never undertook anything without a prospect of gain for himself. His object in this case was twofold: first a revengeful desire to see “the downfall of the righteous,” and Alyosha’s fall “from saint to sinner,” and in the second place he had in view a certain material gain for himself... [Grushenka has promised him 25 rubles if he brings Alyosha to her.]

“So the critical moment has come.” he thought to himself with spite, “and we shall catch it on the hop, for it’s just what we want.” 

Rakitin is like a particularly pathetic Mephisto. (I'm thinking of Adrian's tour guide of Leipzig, who leads him astray to the house of ill repute, in Doctor Faustus.)

Dostoyevsky, in his role as novelist, needs to shake Alyosha up here so he can interact with Grushenka as he wouldn’t normally do. Could Dostoyevsky have dreamed up the quickly rotting elder just for this purpose? I suggest this only because it seems to go against what Dostoyevsky  wants to do as a Christian utopian. If story caused this plot development then it is a perfect example of my view of story as the driving force in the universe. If even Dostoyevsky falls prey to turning against his Christian paragon in the name of story, then story is a mighty force indeed. 

Small Victories 

"Market Street" 
That believing in God is less nonsensical than believing in George W. Bush is a pretty weak argument. She would have done better suggesting that the presidency of Bush 2 proves the existence of the Devil which, ipso facto, confirms the existence of God. (Though Ivan's visitor in Bk XI. 9. rightly calls into question this notion.)

This eagerness to believe in an authority figure (I admit she may have just written this as a joke) or, failing that, an imaginary source of universal solace, is kind of sad. Lamott and I probably agree on the majority of social and political topics but, like a child, she needs a parental deity -- with a plan -- always watching out for and supporting her.

As with The Brothers K. section above (I originally wrote this about VI. 1., the section about Zossima's brother, but it works here, too), this really boils down to an insistence that God exists because we really need him to exist. 

The passage below takes place at the beginning of the Iraq War.


p279 I tried to pray my way out of the fear and hate, but my mind was once again a pinball machine of blame and ridiculousness... And I wondered if I actually even believed in God anymore. It seemed ridiculous, this conviction that I had an invisible partner in life, and that we were all part of a bigger, less punishing and isolated truth. I lay there gnashing my teeth, sure that what you see is what you get. This was it. This earth, this country, here, now, was all there was. This was where all life happened, the up and the down and the plus and the minus and the world of choices and consequences. Not an easy place, but a place full of significance.

I clutched my cat as I used to when my parents fought, a life preserver in cold, deep water.

But then -- a small miracle -- I started to believe in George W. Bush. I really did. In my terror, I wondered whether maybe he was smarter than we thought he was, and had grasped classified intelligence and nuance in a way that was well above my own understanding or of that of our era’s most brilliant thinkers.

p280 Then I thought: Wait -- George Bush? And relief washed over me like gentle surf, because believing in George Bush was so ludicrous that believing in God seems almost rational.

I decided to start from scratch, with a simple prayer: “Hi!” I said.

Someone or something hears. I don’t know much about its nature, only that when I cry out, it hears me and moves closer to me, and I don’t feel so alone. I feel better... [I assume she’s talking about God and not her cat here, but I would have a tiny bit more faith in the cat] ...Saint Augustine said that you have to start your relationship with God all over from the beginning, every day. Yesterday’s faith does not wait for you like a dog with your slippers and the morning paper in its mouth. You seek it, and in seeking it, you find it. During the Renaissance, Fra Giovanni Giocondo wrote:

No heaven can come to us unless our hearts find rest in it today. Take heaven!

No peace lies in the future which is not hidden in this present little instant. Take peace!

...

Jump to Next: TBK. Bk VIII. 3, 6. & "Falling Better"

91. TBK. Bk VI. 2.

Jump to Introduction & Chronology
Jump back to Previous: The Brothers K. Bk VI. 1. & "Knocking on Heaven's Door"

The Brothers Karamazov

Book VI. 2. What is the monk? What is hell?
p358 [Zossima speaks] Fathers and teachers, what is the monk? In the cultivated world the word is nowadays pronounced by some people with a jeer, and by others it is used as a term of abuse. This contempt for the monk is growing. It is true, alas, it is true, that there are many sluggards, gluttons and insolent beggars among the monks. Educated people point to these: “You are idlers, useless members of society, you live on the labor of others, you are shameless beggars.” And yet how many meek and humble monks there are, yearning for solitude and fervent prayer in peace. These are less noticed, or passed over in silence... in their solitude, they keep the image of Christ fair and undefiled, in the purity of God’s truth, from the times of the Fathers of old....

p359 That is my view of the monk, and is it false? Is it too proud? Look at the worldly and all who set themselves up above the people of God. Has not God’s image and His truth been distorted in them? They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man’s being is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred.

From this perspective, the good contemplative monk is the visible representation of good Orthodox Christianity. We may not be able to see God, but at least we can see people who exemplify or personify the Christian ideal.


The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! [Ivan says “Amen!”] For the world says: “You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don’t be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires.” [Aldus Huxley says “Amen!”] That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide: [see Fyodor and Dmitri K.] in the poor, envy and murder. [Pavel. Spoiler: (we could end the novel here, but there’s more philosophy to cover.)] For they all have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. They maintain that the world is getting more and more united, more and more bound together in brotherly community, [Settembrini says “Amen!”] as it overcomes distance and sets thoughts flying through the air. [This is too early for radio, so I suppose he is thinking of the telegraph?] 

Alas, put no faith in such a bond of union. Interpreting freedom as the multiplication and rapid satisfaction of desires, men distort their own nature, for many senseless and foolish desires and habits and ridiculous beliefs are thus fostered. [This is almost laughable coming from someone speaking in praise of the kind of monks who are proud not to bathe and to wear weighted chains under their crude clothing and who persecute one another for the most inane theological variations from the “true path.”] They live only for mutual envy, for luxury and ostentation. To have dinners, carriages, rank and slaves to wait on one is looked upon as a necessity, for which life, honor and human feeling are sacrificed. Men even commit suicide if they are unable to satisfy these desires. We see the same thing among those who are not rich for the poor drown their unsatisfied need and their envy in drunkenness. But soon they will drink blood instead of wine [Michel Foucault says “Amen!”]. They are being led on to it. I ask you is such a man free?...

p360 ...Instead of serving the cause of brotherly love and the union of humanity, men have fallen, on the contrary, into dissension and isolation, as my mysterious visitor and teacher said to me in my youth. And therefore the idea of the service of humanity, of brotherly love and the solidarity of mankind, is more and more dying out in the world. Indeed this idea is sometimes treated with derision. For how can a man shake off his habits, what can become of him if he is in such bondage to the habit of satisfying the innumerable desires he has created for himself? He is isolated and what concern has he for the rest of humanity? Men have succeeded in accumulating a greater mass of objects, but the joy in the world has grown less. 

Epicurus and even the Cynics would agree with this anti-materialist view -- it’s worth noting that he is speaking against both the bourgeoisie and the gentry here. Not that solitude craving monks (desert or island based) are any better when it comes to “serving mankind.” 

The monastic way is very different. Obedience, fasting and prayer are laughed at, yet only through them lies the way to real, true freedom. I cut off my superfluous and unnecessary desires, I subdue my proud and wanton will and chastise it with obedience, and with God’s help I attain freedom of spirit and with it spiritual joy. Which is most capable of conceiving a great idea and serving it -- the rich man in his isolation or the man who has freed himself from the tyranny of material things and habits?

I can make a surprisingly similar argument in favor of the homeless drug addict. His commitment to spiritual transcendence through chemical abuse is a powerful thing. And, aside from the debris and filth he leaves in his wake, he lives amazingly lightly on the land. And I can’t say that his life is less satisfying for him than is the life of the monk -- though he is, perhaps, less in control of his bliss. And I’m not sure which of the two has a better grasp on their marbles. Were you to swap the lives of the monk, the addict, the Epicurean, and the Lucullan, I’m not sure if any would be happier or even less happy. Perhaps each would find the new life at variance with their nature. Perhaps some would find the new life just as or more satisfying.  It would actually be a fascinating experiment. 

p361 The monk is reproached for his solitude: “You have secluded yourself within the walls of the monastery for your own salvation, and have forgotten the brotherly service of humanity!” But we will see which will be most zealous in the cause of brotherly love. For it is not we, but they, who are in isolation, though they don’t see that. Of old, leaders of the people came from among us, and why should they not again? The same meek and humble ascetics will rise up and go out to work for the great cause. The salvation of Russia comes from the people. And the Russian monk has always been on the side of the people. We are isolated only if the people are isolated. The people believe as we do, and an unbelieving reformer will never do anything in Russia, even if he is sincere in heart and a genius. Remember that! The people will meet the atheist and overcome him, and Russia will be one and orthodox. Take care of the peasant and guard his heart. Go on educating him quietly. That’s your duty as monks, for the peasant has God in his heart.

Isn’t this what the Grand Inquisitor was doing? 

... I don’t deny that there is sin in the peasants too. The fire of corruption is spreading visibly, hourly, working from above downwards. The spirit of isolation is coming upon the people too. Moneylenders and devourers of society are rising up. The merchant grows more and more eager for rank and strives to show himself cultured though he has not a trace of culture. He despises his old traditions, and is even ashamed of the faith of his fathers. He visits princes, though he is only a peasant corrupted. The peasants are rotting in drunkenness and cannot shake off the habit. And what cruelty to their wives, to their children even! All from drunkenness! I’ve seen in the factories children nine years old, frail, rickety, bent and already depraved. The stuffy workshop, the din of machinery, work all day long, the vile language and the drink, the drink -- is that what a little child’s heart needs? He needs sunshine, childish play, good examples all about him, and love. There must be no more of this, monks, no more torturing of children. Rise up and preach that. Make haste, make haste!

So Ivan and Zossima are for the most part arguing for the same moral position but from different starting points. As usual we have the petite bourgeoisie criticized for being too uppity and not sophisticated enough. 

Here drink and poor working conditions are the bane of society whereas today it would be lack of work and a wider variety of chemicals like meth, cocaine, and huffable paints. Haste was not made. 

p362 But God will save Russia, for though the peasants are corrupt and cannot renounce their filthy sin, yet they know it is cursed by God and that they do wrong in sinning. Our people still believe in righteousness, have faith in God and weep tears of devotion.

Gissing’s Henry Ryecroft said something similar about the turn of the century English lower classes. 

It is different with the upper classes. They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, not with Christ as before. They have already proclaimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that’s consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime? In Europe the people are already rising up against the rich, and the leaders of the people are everywhere leading them to bloodshed and teaching them that their wrath is righteous. But their”wrath is accursed, for it is cruel.” But God will save Russia as He has saved her many times. Salvation will come from the people, from their faith and their meekness.

Enough of this “there is no crime without God” shit. Draco’s Code -- the origin of written law in the West -- is not motivated by religion but by a need to break the cycle of blood feud. That a “crime” is not a “sin” in the Christian sense doesn’t mean it isn’t still a crime against society. You could argue that a more secular society could use a more Draconian law code since there isn’t a God to sort things out in the after-life.  

...I’ve been struck all my life by the dignity of our people... I’ve seen it in spite of the degraded sins and poverty-stricken appearance of our peasantry. They are not servile, and even after two centuries of serfdom, they are free in manner and bearing, yet without insolence, and not revengeful and not envious. [I hadn’t realized that serfdom in Russia only started when the institution was already disappearing in Europe. And it was only established in parts of Russia, not the whole nation.] “You are rich and noble, you are clever and talented, well be so. God bless you. I respect you, but I know that I too am a man. By the very fact that I respect you without envy I prove my dignity as a man.”

This is not like Gissing's description of the English lower classes.

In truth if they don’t say this (for they don’t know how to say this yet) that is how they act... And would you believe it, the poorer our Russian peasant is, the more noticeable is that serene goodness for the rich among them are for the most part corrupt already. Much of this is due to our carelessness and indifference... I dream of seeing, and seem to be see clearly already, our future. It will come to pass, that even the most corrupt of our rich will end by being ashamed of his riches before the poor, and the poor, seeing his humility, will understand and give way before him, will respond joyfully and kindly to his honorable shame... Equality is to be found only in the spiritual dignity of man, and that will be understood among us. If we were brothers, there would be fraternity. But man will never agree about the division of wealth. . . . We preserve the image of Christ, and it will shine forth like a precious diamond to the whole world. So may it be, so may it be!

The “shame” of the rich before the poor is not yet in evidence, though I suppose their establishing themselves in enclaves of wealth where they only have to deal with the poor in the form of servants and the like, could indicate some degree of shame. And the ease with which the wealthy can manipulate the poor to vote against their own interest might indicate a tendency to “understand and give way” on the part of the poor -- though I think it is something else entirely. 

...
p365 And can it be a dream, that in the end man will find his joy only in deeds of light and mercy, and not in cruel pleasures as now, in gluttony, fornication, ostentation, boasting and envious rivalry of one with the other? I firmly believe that it is not a dream and that the time is at hand.... [Along with cheap, cold fusion power.] 

And we may ask the scornful: if our hope is a dream, when will you build your edifice and order things justly by your intellect alone, without Christ?... In truth, they have more fantastic dreams than we. They aim at justice, but, denying Christ, they will end by flooding the earth with blood, for blood cries out for blood, and he that taketh up the sword shall perish by the sword. And if it were not for Christ’s covenant, they would slaughter one another down to the last two men on earth. And those two last men would not be able to restrain each other in their pride, and the one would slay the other and then himself. That would come to pass, were it not for the promise of Christ that for the sake of the humble and meek the days shall be shortened. 

Where does he get this? Is there any evidence that Christian nations are more peaceful than non-Christian nations? The history of Christian Europe until the middle of the 20th century was a history of war. 

[I’m skipping much of Zossima’s lovely views on how good monks should live, but I will include this:] p368 ...Much on earth is hidden from us, but to make up for that we have been given a precious mystic sense of our living bond with the other world, with the the higher heavenly world, and the roots of our thoughts and feelings are not here but in other worlds. That is why the philosophers [Kant?] say that we cannot understand the reality of things on earth.

God took seeds from different worlds and sowed them in this earth, and His garden grew up and everything came up that could come up. But what grows lives and is alive only through the feeling of its contact with other mysterious worlds. If that feeling grows weak or is destroyed in you, the heavenly growth will die away in you. Then you will be indifferent to life and even grow to hate it. That’s what I think.

Interestingly, this idea of “seeds from different worlds” is similar to current ideas that earth was “seeded” with proto-life from comets. In both cases this is not entirely satisfying since it ignores the question of how these “seeds” formed on other worlds. Pretty much any story that begins, “In the beginning...” is problematic. 

p369 Remember particularly that you cannot be a judge of anyone. For no one can judge a criminal, unless he recognizes that he is such a criminal as the man standing before him, and that he perhaps is more than all men to blame for that crime. [This is esoteric, though Dostoyevsky seems to feel strongly about it.] When he understands that, [not yet] he will be able to be a judge. Though that sounds absurd, it is true. If I had been righteous myself, perhaps there would have been no criminal standing before me. [?] If you can take upon yourself the crime of the criminal your heart is judging, take it at once, suffer for him yourself, and let him go without reproach. And even if the law itself makes you his judge, act in the same spirit so far as possible, for he will go away and condemn himself more bitterly than you have done. If, after your kiss, he goes away untouched, mocking at you, do not let that be a stumbling block to you. It shows his time has not yet come. But remember it will come in due course. And if it comes not, no matter; if not he, then another in his place will understand and suffer, and judge and condemn himself, and the truth will be fulfilled. Believe that. Believe it without doubt for in that lies all the hope and faith of the saints.

There’s a pantheistic way of understanding this: As part of God, we are co-authors of this world and of the criminal. And as co-authors we can hardly “judge” the actions of our characters. Though you could also say that in the situation above we are responsible for future crimes committed by the criminal we have “let go.” 


p371 Fathers and teachers, I ask: “What is hell?” I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love...

They talk of hell fire in the material sense. I don’t go into that mystery and I shun it. But I think that if there were fire in the material sense, they would be glad of it, for, I imagine, that in material agony, their greater spiritual agony would be forgotten for a moment...



Several models are suggested for the character Zossima including Tikhon of Zadonsk and "The Life of the Elder Leonid" and Staretz Amvrosy -- also known as Ambrose of Optina.


Jump to Next: God's Hotel

78. TBK. Bk II. 6-8 & Restaurant rules

Jump to Introduction & Chronology
Jump back to Previous: TBK. Bk II. 5. & 'Joice to the World

The Brothers Karamazov

Book II. 6.
p75 [Ivan] “...European liberals in general, and even our liberal dilettanti, often mix up the final results of socialism with those of Christianity. This wild notion is, of course, a characteristic feature. But it’s not only liberals and dilettanti who mix up socialism and Christianity, but in many cases it appears, the police -- the foreign police of course -- do the same. Your Paris anecdote is rather to the point, Peter Miusov.”

[Miusov] ...”I will tell you... another interesting and rather characteristic anecdote about Ivan himself. Only five days ago, in a gathering here, principally of ladies, he solemnly declared in argument that there was nothing in the whole world to make men love their neighbors. That there was no law of nature that men should love mankind, and that, if there had been any love on earth before this, it was not owing to a natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality. Ivan added in parenthesis that the whole natural law lies in that faith, and that if you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. That’s not all. He ended by asserting that for every individual who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law. He said that egoism, even in crime, must become, not only lawful but recognized as the inevitable, the most rational, even honorable outcome. From this, gentlemen, you can judge about the rest of our eccentric and paradoxical friend Ivan’s theories.”
...
p76 “Is that really your conviction as to the consequences of the disappearance of faith in immortality?” Father Zossima now asked Ivan.

“Yes. That was my contention, There is no virtue if there is no immortality.”

“You are blessed in believing that, or else more unhappy.”

“Why unhappy?” Ivan asked, smiling.

“Because, in all probability you yourself don’t believe in the immortality of your soul, nor in what you have written in your article on Church jurisdiction.”

“Perhaps you are right! . . . But I wasn’t altogether joking,” Ivan suddenly and strangely confessed, flushing quickly.

“You were not altogether joking. That’s true. The question is still bothering your heart; it is still unanswered. But the martyr sometimes likes to divert himself with his despair, you, too, divert yourself with magazine articles and discussions in society though you don’t believe your own arguments, and with an aching heart mock at them inwardly. . . . That question you have not answered. And this is your great grief for it clamors for an answer.”

“But can it be answered by me? Answered in the affirmative?” Ivan went on asking strangely, still looking at the elder with the same inexplicable smile.

“If it can’t be decided in the affirmative, it will never be decided in the negative. You know that that is the peculiarity of your heart, and all its suffering is due to it. But thank the Creator who had given you a heart capable of such suffering; of thinking and seeking higher things, for our dwelling is in the heavens. God grant that your heart will attain the answer on earth. And may God bless your path.”

The immortality of the soul vs nihilism. The position that Peter attributes to Ivan seems to be the natural human position, though for me the Cosmogonic question is the pertinent one. Perhaps it comes to the same thing as neither can be answered honestly and definitively. Dostoyevsky has already played the "God loves to forgive the unforgivable" card that Mann made so much of in Doctor Faustus. And there is certainly no evidence (not that religious people care about evidence) that religious people are any less "sinful" than non-believers. What Ivan is really talking about is not behavior but the reality of good and evil. But that presumes that there is a distinction between the two "under God," which I would dispute. 

What Ivan and Foucault might agree on is that without God there is no guilt or remorse. But since that is also what separates us from the state of Nature it is curious to see religion's role as preserving what Satan and the Serpent (or Promethius) set in motion.

[I'm rereading this in 2016 while also reading about the Social Contract as envisioned by Hobbs, Mill, and Rousseau. Hobbs would agree that there is no religious or natural foundation for morality, but he thought people could adhere to Golden Rule based ethics simply for rational self-interest. I'm not so sure people are as reasonable as Hobbs (and Kant) believed, but I also don't think Dostoevsky is right about the belief in an immortal soul being essential to any kind of morality.]

Book II. 7.
p84 [Zossima to Alyosha] “... And remember, my son... this is not the place for you in the future. When it is God’s will to call me, leave the monastery. Go away for good.”
...
“... This is not your place for the time. I bless you for great service in the world. Yours will be a long pilgrimage. And you will have to take a wife, too. You will have to bear all before you come back. There will be much to do. But I have trust in you, and so I send you forth. Christ is with you. You will see great sorrow, and in that sorrow you will be happy. This is my last message to you: in sorrow seek happiness. Work, work unceasingly. Remember my words, for although I shall talk with you again, not only my days but my hours are numbered.”
...
“The worldly may follow the dead with tears, but here we rejoice over the father who is departing. We rejoice and pray for him. Leave me, I must pray. Go. Hurry. Be near your brothers. And not near one only, but near both.”
...
p90 [Alyosha to Rakitin] “Ah, Ivan has a stormy spirit. His mind is in bondage. He is haunted by a great, unsolved doubt. He is one of those who don’t want millions, but an answer to their questions.”

One of those people.

[Rakitin] “That’s plagiarism, Alyosha. You’re quoting Father Zossima. Ah, Ivan is a problem to you!” cried Rakitin, with undisguised malice... “And the problem’s a stupid one. It is no good guessing at it. Rack your brains -- you’ll understand it. His article is absurd and ridiculous. And did you hear his stupid theory just now: if there’s no immortality of the soul, then there’s no virtue, and everything is lawful? ... An attractive theory for scoundrels... Not for scoundrels, but for pedantic fakers, ‘haunted by profound, unsolved doubts.’ He’s showing off... His whole theory is a fraud! Humanity will find in itself the power to live for virtue even without believing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity.”
...
p91 “...He condescends to abuse me, you know. Why haven’t I a right to abuse him?” [said about Ivan]

“I never heard him saying anything about you, good or bad. He doesn’t speak of you at all.”

“But I heard that the day before yesterday at Katerina’s he was abusing me for all he was worth... He was so good as to say that, if I don’t become a monk I will certainly go to Petersburg and become a reviewer on a magazine. And he said that I will write for the next ten years, and in the end become the owner of the magazine, and bring it out on the liberal and atheistic side, with a socialistic tinge, with a tiny gloss of socialism, but keeping a sharp lookout all the time, that is, keeping in with both sides and hoodwinking the fools. According to your brother’s account, the tinge of socialism won’t hinder me from laying by the profits and investing them under the guidance of some Jew, till at the end of my career I build a great house in Petersburg....”

[I have a feeling this is a reference to an actual person. I wonder if I can learn who Rakitin is based on?]

“Ah, Rakitin that’s just what will really happen, every word of it,” cried Alyosha, unable to restrain a good humored smile.

Context: This is less than a century after both the French Revolution and the American Revolution.

I am reminded here that this was written as a serial for a magazine. I wonder if enough credit is given to the importance of serialization? I don’t recall much mention of it, but then my classes were over 40 years ago. The pacing of a story is radically changed if it has to appeal to an audience month by month (or whatever the periodicity is). Each section is action (or at least content) packed because it must stand on its own and tantalize the reader so she is eager for the next installment -- this is why the early volumes of Tales Of the City are better than the later volumes. 

In section 7. we suddenly receive a whole playbill of scandalous information from a character who hasn’t spoken a word before. Who is this Ritalin, I mean Rakitin? He seems to be a one man chorus. Did he just wander in from a Shakespeare play? But he speaks to a character, not, directly, to the reader. And he reeks of questionable motives. He seems as trustworthy as Iago. And how adroitly he describes the result of the action inside that we just missed as these two walked across the monastery’s (massive) grounds. (How large are these establishments?) 

(As I was getting ready to publish this I did a quick search and found this, in another blog, about Rakitin. I'm not sure if I agree with this person's interpretation of what The Grand Inquisitor is about, but this is still interesting. I've browsed a number of the other "usual sources" and can find little about Rakitin or Pavel Smerdyakov, who I consider two of the most important characters in the book.)

Book II. 8.
p94 ...Alyosha, who was attached to him, was distressed to see that his friend Rakitin was dishonorable, and quite unconscious of being so. He felt, on the contrary, that because he would not steal money left on a table that he was a man of the highest integrity. Neither Alyosha nor anyone else could have convinced him otherwise.

Talk about establishing a character! The difference between not being interested in doing something sinful, and refusing to do something you would actually like to do, is huge. Where the virtue lies is another question. I'm glad we have our omniscient narrator for this. Rakitin is certainly a piece of work. Is it better or worse to be unconscious of your weaknesses? And how does being "dishonorable" relate to Ivan's "everything is lawful" and "there is no virtue," as Rakitin himself put it? Is Rakitin influenced by such ideas or is he simply a dishonorable person by nature? And, again, is that better or worse?

p99 [Fyodor] "...But the truth is not to be found in eating gudgeon and that I proclaim aloud! Father monks, why do you fast? Why do you expect reward in heaven for that? Why, for a reward like that I will come and fast too! No, saintly monk, you try being virtuous in the world, do good to society, without shutting yourself up in a monastery at other people's expense, and without expecting a reward up aloft for it -- you'll find that a bit harder. I can talk sense, too, Father Superior." [He approaches the table and sees all the fine foods set out for the guests] ..."And who has provided it all? The Russian peasant, the laborer, brings here the pennies earned by his horny hand, wringing them from his family and the tax-gatherer! You bleed the people, holy Fathers!"

Interesting that Dostoyevsky puts this very reasonable attack on the Church (or at least the monastery) in the mouth of Fyodor. You'd expect it more from Ivan, but then Ivan is always playing games. Fyodor here seems to be saying what he really thinks, or maybe not.


Restaurant rules
Today I read that one of the rules for restaurant success is to draw a huge percentage of your clientele from within five blocks. I’ve considered factors like this in the past for retail businesses in general -- this is why it is so hard for a business on an edge (next to a lake or bay or large park or freeway) to succeed. Of course it’s more complicated than a simple five block rule, especially someplace like here with hills. Dangerous neighborhoods also affect the calculus of psychological distance. 

I frequent a couple cafes that are eleven blocks away, but even I -- who walk a lot -- feel they are a bit far. I only come here (one of the eleven block cafes) due to contingencies. There are other cafes five blocks away that also seem a bit far for me because one is at the bottom and the other at the top of my hill. A really great (and cheap) Indian restaurant is only three more blocks down, but in a more dangerous block, so I rarely venture that far. 

The places I go most frequently are six blocks away in one direction or ten blocks away in another direction, but these are directions that involve the least change in elevation. On the other hand, there are a multitude of cafes within four blocks that I rarely visit either because they are not very good, too expensive, or just too close. Unless I’m working at home or otherwise tied to being at home, eating or drinking within a few blocks seems like putting on a jacket and shoes for nothing. Perhaps I would change my tune if my favorite taqueria, pizzeria, falafel place, or creperie opened up a block below me. 

Jump to Next: The Brothers K. Bk III. 1-2.