按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
monastery： he stuck to it for two months。 Not long ago he took it into
his head to declare he was going to get married； that he had
everything ready for the wedding。 He ordered new clothes indeed。 We
all began to congratulate him。 There was no bride； nothing； all pure
fantasy！〃
〃Ah； you are wrong！ I got the clothes before。 It was the new clothes
in fact that made me think of taking you in。〃
〃Are you such a good dissembler？〃 Raskolnikov asked carelessly。
〃You wouldn't have supposed it； eh？ Wait a bit； I shall take you in；
too。 Ha…ha…ha！ No； I'll tell you the truth。 All these questions
about crime； environment； children； recall to my mind an article of
yours which interested me at the time。 'On Crime'。。。 or something of
the sort； I forget the title； I read it with pleasure two months ago
in the Periodical Review。〃
〃My article？ In the Periodical Review？〃 Raskolnikov asked in
astonishment。 〃I certainly did write an article upon a book six months
ago when I left the university； but I sent it to the Weekly Review。〃
〃But it came out in the Periodical。〃
〃And the Weekly Review ceased to exist； so that's why it wasn't
printed at the time。〃
〃That's true； but when it ceased to exist； the Weekly Review was
amalgamated with the Periodical； and so your article appeared two
months ago in the latter。 Didn't you know？〃
Raskolnikov had not known。
〃Why； you might get some money out of them for the article！ What a
strange person you are！ You lead such a solitary life that you know
nothing of matters that concern you directly。 It's a fact； I assure
you。〃
〃Bravo； Rodya！ I knew nothing about it either！〃 cried Razumihin。
〃I'll run to…day to the reading…room and ask for the number。 Two
months ago？ What was the date？ It doesn't matter though； I will find
it。 Think of not telling us！〃
〃How did you find out that the article was mine？ It's only signed
with an initial。〃
〃I only learnt it by chance； the other day。 Through the editor； I
know him。。。。 I was very much interested。〃
〃It analysed； if I remember； the psychology of a criminal before and
after the crime。〃
〃Yes； and you maintained that the perpetration of a crime is
always accompanied by illness。 Very； very original； but。。。 it was
not that part of your article that interested me so much； but an
idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely
suggested without working it out clearly。 There is； if you
recollect； a suggestion that there are certain persons who can。。。 that
is； not precisely are able to； but have a perfect right to commit
breaches of morality and crimes； and that the law is not for them。〃
Raskolnikov smiled at the exaggerated and intentional distortion
of his idea。
〃What？ What do you mean？ A right to crime？ But not because of the
influence of environment？〃 Razumihin inquired with some alarm even。
〃No； not exactly because of it；〃 answered Porfiry。 〃In his article
all men are divided 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 was your idea； if I am not
mistaken？〃
〃What do you mean？ That can't be right？〃 Razumihin muttered in
bewilderment。
Raskolnikov smiled again。 He saw the point at once； and knew where
they wanted to drive him。 He decided to take up the challenge。
〃That wasn't quite my contention；〃 he began 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）。 You say that my article isn't definite； I
am ready to make it as clear as I can。 Perhaps I am right in
thinking you want me to； very well。 I maintain that if the discoveries
of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by
sacrificing the lives of one； a dozen； a hundred； or more men；
Newton would have had the right； would indeed have been in duty
bound。。。 to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of
making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity。 But it does not
follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and
left and to steal every day in the market。 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 these
benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage。
In short； I maintain that all great men or even men 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。 You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that。 The
same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before。 As for
my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary； I acknowledge
that it's somewhat arbitrary； but I don't insist upon exact numbers。 I
only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a
law of nature into two categories； inferior （ordinary）； that is； so to
say； material that serves only to reproduce its kind； and men who have
the gift or the talent to utter a new word。 There are； of course；
innumerable sub…divisions； but the distinguishing features of both
categories are fairly well marked。 The first category； generally
speaking； are men conservative in temperament and law…abiding； they
live under control and love to be controlled。 To my thinking it is
their duty to be controlled； because that's their vocation； and
there is nothing humiliating in it for them。 The second category all
transgress the law； they are destroyers or disposed to destruction
according to their capacities。 The crimes of these men are of course
relative and varied； for the most part they seek in very varied ways
the destruction of the present for the sake of the better。 But if such
a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade
through blood； he can； I maintain； find within himself； in his
conscience； a sanction for wading through blood… that depends on the
idea and its dimensions； note that。 It's only in that sense I speak of
their right to crime in my article （you remember it began with the
legal question）。 There's no need f