<h2><SPAN name="chap10"></SPAN>Chapter V.<br/> So Be It! So Be It!</h2>
<p>The elder’s absence from his cell had lasted for about twenty‐five
minutes. It was more than half‐past twelve, but Dmitri, on whose account they
had all met there, had still not appeared. But he seemed almost to be
forgotten, and when the elder entered the cell again, he found his guests
engaged in eager conversation. Ivan and the two monks took the leading share in
it. Miüsov, too, was trying to take a part, and apparently very eagerly, in the
conversation. But he was unsuccessful in this also. He was evidently in the
background, and his remarks were treated with neglect, which increased his
irritability. He had had intellectual encounters with Ivan before and he could
not endure a certain carelessness Ivan showed him.</p>
<p>“Hitherto at least I have stood in the front ranks of all that is
progressive in Europe, and here the new generation positively ignores
us,” he thought.</p>
<p>Fyodor Pavlovitch, who had given his word to sit still and be quiet, had
actually been quiet for some time, but he watched his neighbor Miüsov with an
ironical little smile, obviously enjoying his discomfiture. He had been waiting
for some time to pay off old scores, and now he could not let the opportunity
slip. Bending over his shoulder he began teasing him again in a whisper.</p>
<p>“Why didn’t you go away just now, after the ‘courteously
kissing’? Why did you consent to remain in such unseemly company? It was
because you felt insulted and aggrieved, and you remained to vindicate yourself
by showing off your intelligence. Now you won’t go till you’ve
displayed your intellect to them.”</p>
<p>“You again?... On the contrary, I’m just going.”</p>
<p>“You’ll be the last, the last of all to go!” Fyodor
Pavlovitch delivered him another thrust, almost at the moment of Father
Zossima’s return.</p>
<p>The discussion died down for a moment, but the elder, seating himself in his
former place, looked at them all as though cordially inviting them to go on.
Alyosha, who knew every expression of his face, saw that he was fearfully
exhausted and making a great effort. Of late he had been liable to fainting
fits from exhaustion. His face had the pallor that was common before such
attacks, and his lips were white. But he evidently did not want to break up the
party. He seemed to have some special object of his own in keeping them. What
object? Alyosha watched him intently.</p>
<p>“We are discussing this gentleman’s most interesting
article,” said Father Iosif, the librarian, addressing the elder, and
indicating Ivan. “He brings forward much that is new, but I think the
argument cuts both ways. It is an article written in answer to a book by an
ecclesiastical authority on the question of the ecclesiastical court, and the
scope of its jurisdiction.”</p>
<p>“I’m sorry I have not read your article, but I’ve heard of
it,” said the elder, looking keenly and intently at Ivan.</p>
<p>“He takes up a most interesting position,” continued the Father
Librarian. “As far as Church jurisdiction is concerned he is apparently
quite opposed to the separation of Church from State.”</p>
<p>“That’s interesting. But in what sense?” Father Zossima asked
Ivan.</p>
<p>The latter, at last, answered him, not condescendingly, as Alyosha had feared,
but with modesty and reserve, with evident goodwill and apparently without the
slightest <i>arrière‐pensée</i>.</p>
<p>“I start from the position that this confusion of elements, that is, of
the essential principles of Church and State, will, of course, go on for ever,
in spite of the fact that it is impossible for them to mingle, and that the
confusion of these elements cannot lead to any consistent or even normal
results, for there is falsity at the very foundation of it. Compromise between
the Church and State in such questions as, for instance, jurisdiction, is, to
my thinking, impossible in any real sense. My clerical opponent maintains that
the Church holds a precise and defined position in the State. I maintain, on
the contrary, that the Church ought to include the whole State, and not simply
to occupy a corner in it, and, if this is, for some reason, impossible at
present, then it ought, in reality, to be set up as the direct and chief aim of
the future development of Christian society!”</p>
<p>“Perfectly true,” Father Païssy, the silent and learned monk,
assented with fervor and decision.</p>
<p>“The purest Ultramontanism!” cried Miüsov impatiently, crossing and
recrossing his legs.</p>
<p>“Oh, well, we have no mountains,” cried Father Iosif, and turning
to the elder he continued: “Observe the answer he makes to the following
‘fundamental and essential’ propositions of his opponent, who is,
you must note, an ecclesiastic. First, that ‘no social organization can
or ought to arrogate to itself power to dispose of the civic and political
rights of its members.’ Secondly, that ‘criminal and civil
jurisdiction ought not to belong to the Church, and is inconsistent with its
nature, both as a divine institution and as an organization of men for
religious objects,’ and, finally, in the third place, ‘the Church
is a kingdom not of this world.’ ”</p>
<p>“A most unworthy play upon words for an ecclesiastic!” Father
Païssy could not refrain from breaking in again. “I have read the book
which you have answered,” he added, addressing Ivan, “and was
astounded at the words ‘the Church is a kingdom not of this world.’
If it is not of this world, then it cannot exist on earth at all. In the
Gospel, the words ‘not of this world’ are not used in that sense.
To play with such words is indefensible. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to set up
the Church upon earth. The Kingdom of Heaven, of course, is not of this world,
but in Heaven; but it is only entered through the Church which has been founded
and established upon earth. And so a frivolous play upon words in such a
connection is unpardonable and improper. The Church is, in truth, a kingdom and
ordained to rule, and in the end must undoubtedly become the kingdom ruling
over all the earth. For that we have the divine promise.”</p>
<p>He ceased speaking suddenly, as though checking himself. After listening
attentively and respectfully Ivan went on, addressing the elder with perfect
composure and as before with ready cordiality:</p>
<p>“The whole point of my article lies in the fact that during the first
three centuries Christianity only existed on earth in the Church and was
nothing but the Church. When the pagan Roman Empire desired to become
Christian, it inevitably happened that, by becoming Christian, it included the
Church but remained a pagan State in very many of its departments. In reality
this was bound to happen. But Rome as a State retained too much of the pagan
civilization and culture, as, for example, in the very objects and fundamental
principles of the State. The Christian Church entering into the State could, of
course, surrender no part of its fundamental principles—the rock on which
it stands—and could pursue no other aims than those which have been
ordained and revealed by God Himself, and among them that of drawing the whole
world, and therefore the ancient pagan State itself, into the Church. In that
way (that is, with a view to the future) it is not the Church that should seek
a definite position in the State, like ‘every social organization,’
or as ‘an organization of men for religious purposes’ (as my
opponent calls the Church), but, on the contrary, every earthly State should
be, in the end, completely transformed into the Church and should become
nothing else but a Church, rejecting every purpose incongruous with the aims of
the Church. All this will not degrade it in any way or take from its honor and
glory as a great State, nor from the glory of its rulers, but only turns it
from a false, still pagan, and mistaken path to the true and rightful path,
which alone leads to the eternal goal. This is why the author of the book <i>On
the Foundations of Church Jurisdiction</i> would have judged correctly if, in
seeking and laying down those foundations, he had looked upon them as a
temporary compromise inevitable in our sinful and imperfect days. But as soon
as the author ventures to declare that the foundations which he predicates now,
part of which Father Iosif just enumerated, are the permanent, essential, and
eternal foundations, he is going directly against the Church and its sacred and
eternal vocation. That is the gist of my article.”</p>
<p>“That is, in brief,” Father Païssy began again, laying stress on
each word, “according to certain theories only too clearly formulated in
the nineteenth century, the Church ought to be transformed into the State, as
though this would be an advance from a lower to a higher form, so as to
disappear into it, making way for science, for the spirit of the age, and
civilization. And if the Church resists and is unwilling, some corner will be
set apart for her in the State, and even that under control—and this will
be so everywhere in all modern European countries. But Russian hopes and
conceptions demand not that the Church should pass as from a lower into a
higher type into the State, but, on the contrary, that the State should end by
being worthy to become only the Church and nothing else. So be it! So be
it!”</p>
<p>“Well, I confess you’ve reassured me somewhat,” Miüsov said
smiling, again crossing his legs. “So far as I understand, then, the
realization of such an ideal is infinitely remote, at the second coming of
Christ. That’s as you please. It’s a beautiful Utopian dream of the
abolition of war, diplomacy, banks, and so on—something after the fashion
of socialism, indeed. But I imagined that it was all meant seriously, and that
the Church might be <i>now</i> going to try criminals, and sentence them to
beating, prison, and even death.”</p>
<p>“But if there were none but the ecclesiastical court, the Church would
not even now sentence a criminal to prison or to death. Crime and the way of
regarding it would inevitably change, not all at once of course, but fairly
soon,” Ivan replied calmly, without flinching.</p>
<p>“Are you serious?” Miüsov glanced keenly at him.</p>
<p>“If everything became the Church, the Church would exclude all the
criminal and disobedient, and would not cut off their heads,” Ivan went
on. “I ask you, what would become of the excluded? He would be cut off
then not only from men, as now, but from Christ. By his crime he would have
transgressed not only against men but against the Church of Christ. This is so
even now, of course, strictly speaking, but it is not clearly enunciated, and
very, very often the criminal of to‐day compromises with his conscience:
‘I steal,’ he says, ‘but I don’t go against the Church.
I’m not an enemy of Christ.’ That’s what the criminal of
to‐day is continually saying to himself, but when the Church takes the place of
the State it will be difficult for him, in opposition to the Church all over
the world, to say: ‘All men are mistaken, all in error, all mankind are
the false Church. I, a thief and murderer, am the only true Christian
Church.’ It will be very difficult to say this to himself; it requires a
rare combination of unusual circumstances. Now, on the other side, take the
Church’s own view of crime: is it not bound to renounce the present
almost pagan attitude, and to change from a mechanical cutting off of its
tainted member for the preservation of society, as at present, into completely
and honestly adopting the idea of the regeneration of the man, of his
reformation and salvation?”</p>
<p>“What do you mean? I fail to understand again,” Miüsov interrupted.
“Some sort of dream again. Something shapeless and even incomprehensible.
What is excommunication? What sort of exclusion? I suspect you are simply
amusing yourself, Ivan Fyodorovitch.”</p>
<p>“Yes, but you know, in reality it is so now,” said the elder
suddenly, and all turned to him at once. “If it were not for the Church
of Christ there would be nothing to restrain the criminal from evil‐doing, no
real chastisement for it afterwards; none, that is, but the mechanical
punishment spoken of just now, which in the majority of cases only embitters
the heart; and not the real punishment, the only effectual one, the only
deterrent and softening one, which lies in the recognition of sin by
conscience.”</p>
<p>“How is that, may one inquire?” asked Miüsov, with lively
curiosity.</p>
<p>“Why,” began the elder, “all these sentences to exile with
hard labor, and formerly with flogging also, reform no one, and what’s
more, deter hardly a single criminal, and the number of crimes does not
diminish but is continually on the increase. You must admit that. Consequently
the security of society is not preserved, for, although the obnoxious member is
mechanically cut off and sent far away out of sight, another criminal always
comes to take his place at once, and often two of them. If anything does
preserve society, even in our time, and does regenerate and transform the
criminal, it is only the law of Christ speaking in his conscience. It is only
by recognizing his wrong‐doing as a son of a Christian society—that is,
of the Church—that he recognizes his sin against society—that is,
against the Church. So that it is only against the Church, and not against the
State, that the criminal of to‐day can recognize that he has sinned. If
society, as a Church, had jurisdiction, then it would know when to bring back
from exclusion and to reunite to itself. Now the Church having no real
jurisdiction, but only the power of moral condemnation, withdraws of her own
accord from punishing the criminal actively. She does not excommunicate him but
simply persists in motherly exhortation of him. What is more, the Church even
tries to preserve all Christian communion with the criminal. She admits him to
church services, to the holy sacrament, gives him alms, and treats him more as
a captive than as a convict. And what would become of the criminal, O Lord, if
even the Christian society—that is, the Church—were to reject him
even as the civil law rejects him and cuts him off? What would become of him if
the Church punished him with her excommunication as the direct consequence of
the secular law? There could be no more terrible despair, at least for a
Russian criminal, for Russian criminals still have faith. Though, who knows,
perhaps then a fearful thing would happen, perhaps the despairing heart of the
criminal would lose its faith and then what would become of him? But the
Church, like a tender, loving mother, holds aloof from active punishment
herself, as the sinner is too severely punished already by the civil law, and
there must be at least some one to have pity on him. The Church holds aloof,
above all, because its judgment is the only one that contains the truth, and
therefore cannot practically and morally be united to any other judgment even
as a temporary compromise. She can enter into no compact about that. The
foreign criminal, they say, rarely repents, for the very doctrines of to‐day
confirm him in the idea that his crime is not a crime, but only a reaction
against an unjustly oppressive force. Society cuts him off completely by a
force that triumphs over him mechanically and (so at least they say of
themselves in Europe) accompanies this exclusion with hatred, forgetfulness,
and the most profound indifference as to the ultimate fate of the erring
brother. In this way, it all takes place without the compassionate intervention
of the Church, for in many cases there are no churches there at all, for though
ecclesiastics and splendid church buildings remain, the churches themselves
have long ago striven to pass from Church into State and to disappear in it
completely. So it seems at least in Lutheran countries. As for Rome, it was
proclaimed a State instead of a Church a thousand years ago. And so the
criminal is no longer conscious of being a member of the Church and sinks into
despair. If he returns to society, often it is with such hatred that society
itself instinctively cuts him off. You can judge for yourself how it must end.
In many cases it would seem to be the same with us, but the difference is that
besides the established law courts we have the Church too, which always keeps
up relations with the criminal as a dear and still precious son. And besides
that, there is still preserved, though only in thought, the judgment of the
Church, which though no longer existing in practice is still living as a dream
for the future, and is, no doubt, instinctively recognized by the criminal in
his soul. What was said here just now is true too, that is, that if the
jurisdiction of the Church were introduced in practice in its full force, that
is, if the whole of the society were changed into the Church, not only the
judgment of the Church would have influence on the reformation of the criminal
such as it never has now, but possibly also the crimes themselves would be
incredibly diminished. And there can be no doubt that the Church would look
upon the criminal and the crime of the future in many cases quite differently
and would succeed in restoring the excluded, in restraining those who plan
evil, and in regenerating the fallen. It is true,” said Father Zossima,
with a smile, “the Christian society now is not ready and is only resting
on some seven righteous men, but as they are never lacking, it will continue
still unshaken in expectation of its complete transformation from a society
almost heathen in character into a single universal and all‐powerful Church. So
be it, so be it! Even though at the end of the ages, for it is ordained to come
to pass! And there is no need to be troubled about times and seasons, for the
secret of the times and seasons is in the wisdom of God, in His foresight, and
His love. And what in human reckoning seems still afar off, may by the Divine
ordinance be close at hand, on the eve of its appearance. And so be it, so be
it!”</p>
<p>“So be it, so be it!” Father Païssy repeated austerely and
reverently.</p>
<p>“Strange, extremely strange!” Miüsov pronounced, not so much with
heat as with latent indignation.</p>
<p>“What strikes you as so strange?” Father Iosif inquired cautiously.</p>
<p>“Why, it’s beyond anything!” cried Miüsov, suddenly breaking
out; “the State is eliminated and the Church is raised to the position of
the State. It’s not simply Ultramontanism, it’s
arch‐Ultramontanism! It’s beyond the dreams of Pope Gregory the
Seventh!”</p>
<p>“You are completely misunderstanding it,” said Father Païssy
sternly. “Understand, the Church is not to be transformed into the State.
That is Rome and its dream. That is the third temptation of the devil. On the
contrary, the State is transformed into the Church, will ascend and become a
Church over the whole world—which is the complete opposite of
Ultramontanism and Rome, and your interpretation, and is only the glorious
destiny ordained for the Orthodox Church. This star will arise in the
east!”</p>
<p>Miüsov was significantly silent. His whole figure expressed extraordinary
personal dignity. A supercilious and condescending smile played on his lips.
Alyosha watched it all with a throbbing heart. The whole conversation stirred
him profoundly. He glanced casually at Rakitin, who was standing immovable in
his place by the door listening and watching intently though with downcast
eyes. But from the color in his cheeks Alyosha guessed that Rakitin was
probably no less excited, and he knew what caused his excitement.</p>
<p>“Allow me to tell you one little anecdote, gentlemen,” Miüsov said
impressively, with a peculiarly majestic air. “Some years ago, soon after
the <i>coup d’état</i> of December, I happened to be calling in Paris on
an extremely influential personage in the Government, and I met a very
interesting man in his house. This individual was not precisely a detective but
was a sort of superintendent of a whole regiment of political
detectives—a rather powerful position in its own way. I was prompted by
curiosity to seize the opportunity of conversation with him. And as he had not
come as a visitor but as a subordinate official bringing a special report, and
as he saw the reception given me by his chief, he deigned to speak with some
openness, to a certain extent only, of course. He was rather courteous than
open, as Frenchmen know how to be courteous, especially to a foreigner. But I
thoroughly understood him. The subject was the socialist revolutionaries who
were at that time persecuted. I will quote only one most curious remark dropped
by this person. ‘We are not particularly afraid,’ said he,
‘of all these socialists, anarchists, infidels, and revolutionists; we
keep watch on them and know all their goings on. But there are a few peculiar
men among them who believe in God and are Christians, but at the same time are
socialists. These are the people we are most afraid of. They are dreadful
people! The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist
who is an atheist.’ The words struck me at the time, and now they have
suddenly come back to me here, gentlemen.”</p>
<p>“You apply them to us, and look upon us as socialists?” Father
Païssy asked directly, without beating about the bush.</p>
<p>But before Pyotr Alexandrovitch could think what to answer, the door opened,
and the guest so long expected, Dmitri Fyodorovitch, came in. They had, in
fact, given up expecting him, and his sudden appearance caused some surprise
for a moment.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />