Russian literature -- 19th century -- History and criticism
Ivan’s mind is, as he says himself, Euclidean and quite material.
It is impossible, he says, to love men when they are near to you.
You can only love them at a distance. Men are hateful, and there is
sufficient proof of this in the sufferings which children alone have
to endure upon earth. At the same time, his logical mind finds nothing
to wonder at in the universal sufferings of mankind. Men, he says, are
themselves guilty: they were given Paradise, they wished for freedom,
and they stole fire from heaven, knowing that they would thereby
become unhappy; therefore they are not to be pitied. He only knows
that suffering exists, that no one is guilty, that one thing follows
from another perfectly simply, that everything proceeds from something
else, and that everything works out as in an equation. But this is not
enough for him: it is not enough for him to recognise that one thing
proceeds simply and directly from another. He wants something else;
he must needs have compensation and retribution, otherwise he would
destroy himself; and he does not want to obtain this compensation
somewhere and some time, in infinity, but here and now, on earth, so
that he should see it himself. He has not suffered, merely in order
that his very self should supply, by its evil deeds and its passions,
the manure out of which some far-off future harmony may arise. He
wishes to see with his own eyes how the lion shall lie down with the
lamb. The great stumbling-block to him is the question of children:
the sufferings of children. If all men have to suffer, in order that by
their suffering they may build an eternal harmony, what have children
got to do with this? It is inexplicable that they should suffer, and
that it should be necessary for them to attain to an eternal harmony by
their sufferings. Why should _they_ fall into the material earth, and
make manure for some future harmony? He understands that there can be
solidarity in sin between men; he understands the idea of solidarity
and retaliation, but he cannot understand the idea of solidarity with
children in sin. The mocker will say, he adds, that the child will grow
up and have time to sin; but he is not yet grown up. He understands,
he says, what the universal vibration of joy must be, when everything
in heaven and on earth joins in one shout of praise, and every living
thing cries aloud, “Thou art just, O Lord, for Thou hast revealed Thy
ways.” And when the mother shall embrace the man who tormented and tore
her child to bits,--when mother, child, and tormentor shall all join in
the cry, “Lord, Thou art just!” then naturally the full revelation will
be accomplished and everything will be made plain. Perhaps, he says,
he would join in the Hosanna himself, were that moment to come, but he
does not wish to do so; while there is yet time, he wishes to guard
himself against so doing, and therefore he entirely renounces any idea
of the higher harmony. He does not consider it worth the smallest tear
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive