Whenever we see one of Dostoevsky’s characters ask himself this question, we can be sure of witnessing ere long his utter downfall. Take Raskolnikov, for instance, the first of them to formulate the idea clearly, the very idea which Nietzsche transformed into his theory of the _superman_. Raskolnikov is responsible for an article somewhat subversive in tone, dividing, according to Porfiry’s version of it, all men into _ordinary_ and _extraordinary_. “Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary.”--“That wasn’t quite my conclusion,” began Raskolnikov, simply and modestly. “Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so.” (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) “The only difference is that I don’t contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right ... that is, not an official right but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity).... Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all--well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on--were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors, and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed (often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law) were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of those benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men, or even a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals--more or less, of course. Otherwise, it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it.”[102] Observe, however, that in the face of this profession Raskolnikov confesses his abiding faith in God--a testimony which differentiates him from Dostoevsky’s other _supermen_. “Do you believe in God? Excuse my curiosity!” “I do,” repeated Raskolnikov, raising his eyes to Porfiry. “And do you--believe in Lazarus’s rising from the dead?” “I do! Why do you ask all this?” “You believe it literally?” “Literally.”[103] “_One Law for the Lion and Ox is Oppression_”, says William Blake.