I am going to write about this, I have to. The text is gut-wrenching, difficult read, but there is no escape, this is the single most significant chapter of literature ever written (kolbayar comment got me remembering). I am talking about The Grand Inquisitor chapter in Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
So I went to the Newton Library to look for the book. Ah, “all the Russian Books on the 3rd floor now” they told me. I found only two books by Dostoyevsky but no Brothers K. I complained to a 70 year old man next to me: “you can’t have a library without Dostoyevsky”. The man looked at me with a smirk and said, in a very Talmudic fashion, “you supposed to be finished with Dostoyevsky by the time you are twenty”. Yes, but can you understand Dostoyevsky at twenty?
In the story, one of Karamazovs tells his bother about a dream, a vision, a poem, something like that. The dream unfolds “in Spain, in Seville, in the most terrible time of the Inquisition, when fires were lighted every day to the glory of God”. Christ reappears at that very moment and is recognized. Christ proceeds to perform several miracles and is promptly arrested by the Grand Inquisitor who instantly puts Christ in jail. The next day the Grand Inquisitor visits Christ in his cell and the dialogue unfolds, it’s really a monologue by the Grand Inquisitor explaining the cosmos to Christ.
El Greco, The Adoration of the Name of Jesus (detail), 1578-80, Oil and tempera on pine panel, National Gallery, London
The Grand Inquisitor first challenge to Christ is that He violated the two fundamental principals of the Church that you can’t add to His own, Christ’s original teaching and that His appearance violates freedom of choice, the greatest gift to mortals.
“The old man has told Him He hasn’t the right to add anything to what He has said of old. One may say it is the most fundamental feature of Roman Catholicism, in my opinion at least. ‘All has been given by Thee to the Pope,’ they say, ‘and all, therefore, is still in the Pope’s hands, and there is no need for Thee to come now at all. Thou must not meddle for the time, at least.”
The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that the greatest gift of freedom was also an incredible burden for people and the Inquisition succeed in lifting of that terrible burden.
“For fifteen centuries we have been wrestling with Thy freedom, but now it is ended and over for good. Dost Thou not believe that it’s over for good? Thou lookest meekly at me and deignest not even to be wroth with me. But let me tell Thee that now, to-day, people are more persuaded than ever that they have perfect freedom, yet they have brought their freedom to us and laid it humbly at our feet.”
And now that the freedom was banished:
“‘for the first time it has become possible to think of the happiness of men. Man was created a rebel; and how can rebels be happy?”
The Grand Inquisitor proceeds to challenge Christ about the three questions in “the temptations”.
“For in those three questions the whole subsequent history of mankind is, as it were, brought together into one whole, and foretold, and in them are united all the unsolved historical contradictions of human nature. At the time it could not be so clear, since the future was unknown; but now that fifteen hundred years have passed, we see that everything in those three questions was so justly divined and foretold, and has been so truly fulfilled, that nothing can be added to them or taken from them.”
El Greco, Portrait of a Cardinal, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. This portrait dates from about 1600. The identification of the sitter as Cardinal Don Fernando Niño de Guevara (1541-1609) the Grand Inquisitor, is not certain.
The First Temptation – Bread – Livelihood
Dostoyevsky’s allegory is about the coming socialism but it goes well beyond the immediate prophesy. This challenge to Christ is that he had a choice of giving people bread and establishing himself as the King of the world, but he rejected that temptation claiming that “not by bread alone” and granting humanity a freedom. The result was a tragedy outlined by the Grand Inquisitor:
“Yet in this question lies hid the great secret of this world. Choosing “bread,” Thou wouldst have satisfied the universal and everlasting craving of humanity — to find someone to worship. So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find someone to worship. But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they’ve slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, “Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!” And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. Thou didst know, Thou couldst not but have known, this fundamental secret of human nature, but Thou didst reject the one infallible banner which was offered Thee to make all men bow down to Thee alone — the banner of earthly bread; and Thou hast rejected it for the sake of freedom and the bread of Heaven. Behold what Thou didst further. And all again in the name of freedom! I tell Thee that man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born. But only one who can appease their conscience can take over their freedom. In bread there was offered Thee an invincible banner; give bread, and man will worship thee, for nothing is more certain than bread. But if someone else gains possession of his conscience — Oh! then he will cast away Thy bread and follow after him who has ensnared his conscience. In that Thou wast right. For the secret of man’s being is not only to live but to have something to live for. Without a stable conception of the object of life, man would not consent to go on living, and would rather destroy himself than remain on earth, though he had bread in abundance. That is true. But what happened? Instead of taking men’s freedom from them, Thou didst make it greater than ever! Didst Thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of choice in the knowledge of good and evil? Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. And behold, instead of giving a firm foundation for setting the conscience of man at rest for ever, Thou didst choose all that is exceptional, vague and enigmatic; Thou didst choose what was utterly beyond the strength of men, acting as though Thou didst not love them at all- Thou who didst come to give Thy life for them! Instead of taking possession of men’s freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings for ever.”
Фёдор Михайлович Достоевский. Photo of F. Dostoyevsky in 1879 when he wrote The Grand Inquisitor.
The Second Temptation – Miracles – Identity
The first temptation was bread. Christ valued freedom more than bread. The Grand Inquisitor proceeds to ridicule Christ telling him that he made all the wrong choices including the rejection of miracles in the second temptation, again for the sake of freedom.
“‘So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.
But Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft, though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, “Come down from the cross and we will believe that Thou art He.” Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves, of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed, look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by nature than Thou hast believed him!”
The Third Temptation – The Kingdom on Earth – Governance
In the First Temptation Christ denied people bread, in the Second Temptation Christ rejected miracles and in the Third Temptation Christ has rejected the role of an Earthly King to the mortals. This is the most devastating challenge to Christ by the Grand Inquisitor, he says that the papal Church has assumed the role of Cesar for the sake of humankind. That mortals are like little children that have to be protected against themselves and naturally this is metaphor that goes well beyond the earthly papal power. The Grand Inquisitor tells Christ that the power over man is the ultimate goal but for the Kingdom to be perfect you need to have power over people’s bread (1st temptation) and conscience (2nd temptation, miracles):
“They are little children rioting and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar’s purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh, ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written, “Mystery.”
The Grand Inquisitor proceeds to mock the truth and claims that unanswered question and suffering will lead the rebels back to accept slavery and the coronation the cynical “mystery”:
“Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought, and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!”
This Dostoyevsky genius is worth repeating:
- Fierce and rebellious – destroyed
- Rebellious but weak – destroy one another
- Weak and unhappy – crawl to our feet
The Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson in front of 770 Eastern Parkway, perhaps on his way to visit the Montefiore Cemetery (the photo scanned from the original and published with permission).
The Grand Inquisitor then describes to Christ the earthly Orwellian Kingdom where the Earthly Kings, like the Grand Inquisitor, will have to accept living with the darkest truth for the sake of the shielded and childish humanity.
“They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song. Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a child’s game, with children’s songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin, they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin. We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient — and they will submit to us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity.”
Jesus Christ remained silent in Seville.
- Ф.М. Достоевский – БРАТЬЯ КАРАМАЗОВЫ – Роман в четырех частях с эпилогом
- Н.А.Бердяев – Beликий Инквизитop
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I read the Grand Inquisitor on its own, as a short story, when I was 14. It got me thinking, and I would sometimes bring it (and my reflections thereupon) up at Farbrengens. I saw reflections of the grand inquisitor's monologue in the way the community policed itself, enforced its norms, and conducted the Chinuch. Of course, all I got for my efforts was a “Feh! A story about Yoshkeh!” or “Feh! Why are you reading goyishe stories?”
I read the Brothers Karamazov in its entirety several years later. As I recall, it's a parable that Ivan tells Alyosha shortly before they part. Within the context of the grand narrative, particularly the subsequent segment with Starets Zosima, the tale takes on many more facets.
Your treatment is more lighthearted than most; but you're right, twenty is way too young to be grasping such quality literature. For me, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy complement each other; they go together like Matzo and wine, flesh and spirit, milk and honey, vinegar and olive oil.
As a teenager, I felt a visceral reaction to the critique of Christ's third temptation, particularly his description of humanity as little children, lacking in discipline and desperately in need of a Caesar, or the Papal authority. Everything that I knew at the time, or thought I knew, about the concept of Free Will. I also failed to understand the logical flow of the inquisitor's speech. In critiquing the first temptation, he implies that humanity has conscience, but then appears to contradict himself with the third temptation. These may have been the first stirrings of my anarchist tendencies.
I'm not entirely sure of what you intend by including a photograph of Schneerson. Aside from, possibly, the inquisitor's tacit admission that the Church is an agent, not of Christ, but of Satan.
Finally, while Christ does remain silent throughout the grand inquisitor's monologue, he does, at the conclusion, kiss him on the lips.
Sholom, first a technical comment. I see that you used “facebook connect” Not sure why you name did not come out. I will proceed with a substantive comment.
Sholom, you personal recollections are very interesting.
Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky came out of the same culture and are two giants but they are not complementary to each other in my mind. Dostoyevsky had a prophetic dark intensity that was never granted to Tolstoy. Matzo and bread may be not matzo and wine.
I am not sure I see a contradiction in the flow of logic between one temptation to another. The Great Inquisitor has an equal contemn to humanity in all three temptations. What he tells Jesus is here are three basic needs people have:
1. Bread. People need to eat and they will run after the lowest and most vile bred winner available. It would have been better if it was you, Jesus.
2. The second need people have is the need for an identity and the need to cling to a dominant idea. Why you Jesus could not show them a miracle? It would have been better if it was you, Jesus.
3. People want to be lead and governed, Jesus, why did you refuse to be a king? It would have been better if it was you, Jesus.
The Grand Inquisitor says that now that you Christ made all the wrong choices in all of the three temptations, get out of the way, we will do the job for you. But unlike you Jesus, we have no any illusions about the lowly state and character of the mortals.
The reason I placed the photo of the Rebbe there is because it takes two to tango, every idol needs idol-worshipers and the devastating description of the rule over the childish humanity is so close to what we all have seen there. “but they will be just as ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song” etc.
Ben, you are very brave to reread this stuff and even braver to write a bout it. Surely, one ought to be finished with Dostoyevsky by the age twenty,as Shmulik Nemanov had once said to me:” before you realize that the stuff is for real”. I well picture Porfiry Pertrovich telling Raskolnikov to wipe the sweat from his forehead and put away his Dostoyevsky. Oh, but he is a finished man…When Rashab complained to Freud about the burden of demands his chassidim put on him, Freud's advice was to stay away from the Russians for a while or suffer a nervous breakdown. And so, as for me, I take Freud's advice. Three years ago, I opened Notes by accident and I closed it pretty fast. Since then I am able to get by pretty well. This is what haunts me sometimes: It is not Dostoyevsky who described life accurately, but Chekhov. Life is not a rupturous journey culminating in crisis, death and rebirth, it is just slow death, a rapidly sketched procession of meek loves, silent failures, dangling privacies, underpinned by farse. We are not Raskolnikovs, but Razumikhins, we will forgive ourselves, atone for our indecencies with a couple of good deeds and think nothing of it tomorrow. And from there I perhaps want to run back to Dostoyevsky, but the work on my estate is holding me back. Ah, Ben, as Uncle Vania said, we must endure, we must endure.
kolbayar, an epic quote:
“Life is not a rapturous journey culminating in crisis, death and rebirth, it is just slow death, a rapidly sketched procession of meek loves, silent failures, dangling privacies, underpinned by farce.”
and you just made me interested in reading the Notes (Zapiski) now that I know this might be “for real”…
Julio Cortazar wrote something to the effect” How can i discuss Dostoyevsky with someone if I don”t know the shape of his hands”, which is basically what you had said to me recently. I think that i couls invert that statement.
Here's a very good reason to suspect that “Notes” are not for real: they were written.
So you write” I am an intelligent man, because I never finished anything..” And then you go and write five great novels. Thanks Fyodor.
What I said was that culture is not a quotation factory. When Sholom said that Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky are the same he is obviously wrong but he is also right. They are the same in a sense that they came from the same culture, a culture that pushes the giants forward. Quotes and readings will not substitute to a great soup (or chulent) that is meaty and primal like a a belie laughter. And out of that laughter comes literature and art.
Not only Rabelaisian…
I understood what you said. i am trying to go veiter.
Ok let's do it, but can you speak in English not Yeshivish please.
I am wondering how different people read the same one Dostoevsky and see different meanings in his scripts.
Dostoevsky by twenty!?! Are you serious!?! Narf!
People are wrong when they say that Dostoevsky was a Great Writer, …he was a Genius-Lobotomist… He never urges you to come, you always go visit him by your own will. You sit down on the chair, he looks into your eyes with a smile that makes you feel some cold beneath your stomach. Then he slowly gets his surgery tools, and starts drilling your cranial bone. Then he opens your head and with fast moving arms makes a mix of your gray substance and fresh oxygen that comes in through the opened window. After that he fixes your scalping bone back and leaves your alone within your pathetic existence. This is Dostoevsky, he never explains and never finish his work, letting you to do this by yourself. There are no Raskolnikoffs, no Mishkins and no Karamazovs at all, there are only the different forms of you – the reader. And you are the one to decide, nobody will decide for you. Just take a walk, feel the life running through your hands and finish that damn book! Then go home and kiss whoever you love – wife, daughter, mom… …and stay away from Dostoevsky, because if you want to be part of society – Dostoevsky is not for you, otherwise you will became an anxious exiled being.
P.S. I do thank Dostoevsky for his courage.
P.P.S. As Tolstoy said: “You can love or you can hate Dostoevsky. Whatever your feelings are, you should read him, you MUST!… at least once in a lifetime…”
Ennio, thank you for the thoughtful comment. I turned it into a post.
{ 1 trackback }