全球纵览
联系我们
- 1208 Chestnut Street, Newton, MA02464, USA
Tel: 001 636-293-0825
0086 13910113477
Wang716@hotmail.com
ucno2000@gmail.com
On the Arguments about Freedom in The Grand Inquisitor
Jiangping Yang
Shandong Normal University, CHN
Abstract: The Grand Inquisitor is an important chapter of Dostoevsky's celebrated novel The Brothers Karamazov. This paper pays attention to the analyses and arguments about “freedom”, expressed by the Grand Inquisitor’s confrontation with Jesus, thus aims to reveal the complicated relationship of freedom, instinct and belief, together with the motivation of most people to refuse freedom, finally explores the value base of the narrator Ivan and his contradictive religious position.
Keywords: The Grand Inquisitor, freedom, religion, The Brothers Karamazov
The rank materialist and atheist Ivan relates the story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s celebrated novel The Brothers Karamazov. The story happened in the 16th century when there was terrible Inquisition, Jesus had been crucified1500 years ago. He descended silently in flaming Seville where a hundred heretics were being roasted the day before. It was very strange that all recognized Him at once. The crowd was violently excited, when suddenly appeared the Grand Inquisitor. The old man commanded his minions to arrest Him. While the Cardinal stalked into the dungeon alone at night.
The Grand Inquisitor told his prisoner, “Thy people feel fully sure and satisfied of their freedom; and that only since they have themselves and of their own free will delivered that freedom unto our hands by placing it submissively at our feet. But then, that is what we have done. Is it that which Thou has striven for? Is this the kind of ‘freedom’ Thou has promised them?”
The Grand Inquisitor revealed the rich connotation of freedom and the human instinct to give up freedom.
Does freedom mean to choose the personal value goal at will? Does everybody love freedom and dream of freedom? Will humankind prefer death to slavery?
Freedom is undoubtedly the most precious, God often says, “I hope to make you free.” Jesus says that the truth will make you free. But whether or not God’s wish is based on his own wishful thinking, or the freedom He promised is that kind of freedom people would rather escape than to bear? What kind of truth is that in Jesus’s thought? Is it a kind of truth to believe in the God? Do people understand and hold the freedom when 1500 years have elapsed?
The answer of the Grand Inquisitor’s is negative. He discerned the true reality of human nature, and told the truth utterly to the prisoner who turned over the mission of “making human free” to him: the majority of people were actually blind, they just chose the non-freedom freely, and believed that they were completely free after giving up freedom.
Why does this happen? Why would the people be willing to give up their own freedom? Would they give it up to exchange something more valuable? What is the more valuable thing then?
Now the main point showed itself. The Grand Inquisitor said to the prisoner, the terrible and wise spirit, the spirit of self annihilation and non-being, ever tempted him. The three questions represented three ways of slavery and three right solutions to human lives, turning stone into bread, this could solve the economic problem; jumping from the highest point of the temple, could solve the scientific and technological problem; the whole authority of kingdom could solve the political problem. These three temptations were rejected by Jesus, but picked up by churches, they were exactly what the people were eager to change their freedom for.
The first temptation points directly to the base of human existence. Bread means the temptation of material life. Most people will give up their precious spiritual independence for the sake of material want and improvement. There are two misconceptions in human cognition, one of them is that spiritual need must be preceded by the material need, the other is that the material richness could enhance the spiritual state. This is the reason why people will chase “bread” without fear of degeneration.
The contradiction between bread and freedom, is not a prospective problem. This social problem has always been there. When people don’t have enough foods and clothes, all they can do is to struggle for survival despite of their dignities and ideals. The possibility of regaining their lost authority in the future when they have abundant material supplies has been hanging up there, tempting people to tolerate the current predicament. This belief may be a deception, when the axe of years hollows out the kernel of human spirit, he will become the slave of desire forever. He can’t take back the freedom which he has turned over. Isn't that terrible to cost so much to meet the material needs?
But most people don't think it's terrible. They are very worried that the hand which can turn stone into bread will not supply the food to them any more. When compared to profit, freedom seems both light and heavy. Freedom and profit are in an incompatible situation, people will not be good at gaining them at the same time. The Grand Inquisitor knows human nature much better than God, he will therefore take the miracle that is abandoned by God, and make it a weapon to conquer those who cherish the mundane bread much more.
The secret of man’s being is not only to live but to have something to live for. This is why God will abandon miracle. If one doesn’t have a strong belief about his own life, he will not be willing to live. He would rather commit suicide than stay in this world, even though he is surrounded by breads. The Grand Inquisitor agreed with this view of God. He put people into two camps, he clearly realized that the devil's thought is only suitable for those who exist just like animals, and the other group of people, such as Ivan, were real nobles in spirit who would try to understand the ideology at the cost of wealth. We can call the latter the victim of thought. They would depress, go mad, commit suicide and died if there were no spiritual life and ideal of beauty. Therefore, man does not merely rely on bread. There are weak points in human nature such as frailty, cowardice, insignificance, injustice, but also the virtues such as the pursuit of beauty and nobility. So, should the appreciation of beauty and the supply of bread be promised to human at the same time? God has rejected the practice of giving mundane bread, He also rejected bestowing the beauty. The only one thing He has promised to give human is freedom. However, the Grand Inquisitor told God that human kind do not understand and need this freedom. Human nature is too lowly to bear the burden of such noble freedom. God had overvalued human, although they are rebellious, they are slaves in nature. They will finally cry that it’s a punishment to be born with rebellious character. God wants them to be free, contrarily they are harmed by this due to their impotence. In fact, what the God can do is not what the human can do. God made some excessive demands on human, this is a favor, but human are not able to receive. If God will reduce the respect for human and cut down the requirements of them, it will be much closer to “love” which human need. The word “love” here used by the Grand Inquisitor is actually a bound to human subjects. When one is surrounded by the love of parochialism, he will be willing to give up bearing the torment to obtain higher achievements, and be satisfied with the temporary comforts.
Not all people will accept this “love”. Some people can put the spiritual need on the base in the pyramid of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. They will be engrossed in exploring the truth neglecting food and sleep. Such kind of people, in the Grand Inquisitor’s view, are those few great and strong who can follow the God to get the heaven bread. Their freedom is positive freedom. The rest numerous living beings, the countless bunches of nobodies, will not pursue the Heaven bread instead of the earthly bread. They are tame and obedient, need a powerful leadership to guarantee their indisputable bread. They are also enjoying their freedom, the negative freedom which ensures the adequate foods and clothes. The Grand Inquisitor defends this kind of negative freedom or escaping from freedom in the sense of human nature. He said, “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 forever.”
The Grand Inquisitor did not deny the freedom the God gave to human. He just reminded the God freedom could not be given to all people. He made a division in the numerous living beings, only a handful of people is worthy of the Heaven freedom. And much more people, are willing to accept the administration of the church authority. So, behind the scenes of the opposition of the majority and the minority, is the opposition of Jesus and the secular churches. What the churches undertake is just Jesus refused. The Grand Inquisitor said, “There are three powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive forever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.” The Grand Inquisitor put forward the problem of arranging social order. There is a requirement of "universal love" in Russian idea, which demands the great, common, nationwide and universal unity from the Christ love. But in the statement of the Grand Inquisitor, God and the church are in charge of different fields. There are gaps between their chosen people, there are irreconcilable differences in their beliefs and pursuits, how could they form an aggregation of a unity? The Grand Inquisitor delivered his verdict to God: “Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee. ”This is a modern prophecy of the death of the God.
Christianity has consequently become a too high ideal beyond the limitation of human nature. The believers should not accept what the God has rejected. But what the God has rejected is just human natural life requirements. Therefore should the people who would obey the God modify the weaknesses exist in their natural lives? Is it too difficult for human to carry out? The people who are loved by the God are those who have noble spirits and liberal thoughts, whereas the people chosen by the Grand Inquisitor are the majority in the real life who are limited and fettered mediocrities. As a result, the opponents of the God and the Grand Inquisitor have all found their own moral supports, that is based on the different demands of different groups of people.
Freedom is divided into two categories according to two different groups of people. But is this classification too simple and mechanical? What if there is an intersection of the two groups? Or, in some cases, will the two groups join each other? The yearning for the sublime, beauty, freedom and ideal will arise spontaneously from one’s heart on some certain moments, at this moment, all people will echo each other with the elite of the high class, and pay reverence to the God hidden in their hearts. But at the same time people will seek warmth, comfort and coziness, they will be satisfied with the gifts from the churches and governments.
Even if there is such a possibility, it does not mean that the situation of world harmony is superior to the antagonism of two types of people. The authenticity of any religion can’t be confirmed no matter it is received by minority, or majority, or all. Berdyaev's viewpoint may be closer to the nature on this point. He tends to consider that, the problem of the universality of the religious doctrine is just a matter of quality, it has nothing to do with the number of followers. The authenticity of this doctrine may be more powerful when it works in just a few people compared to millions of people. A single religious genius could utter much more than a large group of people. Berdyaev didn’t think highly of the quantity difference, he affirmed the solitude of the essence of belief, at the same time, he dissolved the conciliation of the majority and the minority.
The contradictory attitude to freedom make most people stay away from freedom finally. Human beings long to run freely as a flock of sheep, but are afraid of the unknown and unfamiliar road. They need clear order and purpose, and the guide of the shepherd. This is a contradiction in human nature which is deep-rooted and impossible to be overcome. However, it is not only the weakness of human nature that make the problem of freedom so difficult. The antinomy in the concept of freedom is the true inextricable trap man must face. If there’s really natural law of causality, and everything works in accordance with this law, then freedom is a false proposition, and the human pursuit of freedom is a ridiculous action. The logic of the grand inquisitor was set on the absurdity of freedom, he decided to help mankind to build a minimum ordered life. “The object world is too broken, too distorted, too chaotic and disorderly, it needs compulsory aggregation and submission, i.e., world order and moral unity should be built in the name of necessity.” The Grand Inquisitor pointed out that the pressing demand of human beings is to maintain basic peace and survival in this objective world (bread first), then “personality” and “spiritual freedom” could be discussed (morality secondly). If he has enslaved the people, this is the only ways he can take after detailed consideration. He knew very well the responsibility he has to bear, but the basic life order is too necessary and too precious that it can’t be lost. If it is lost, human beings will be doomed into cannibalism and autocide. People are very willing to obey this order and earnest to maintain it. Therefore, all the factors of insecurity must be got rid of, even if the son of God will be put into prison. The Grand Inquisitor seemed to have become a great dedicator who can plead for the people and bear other’s blames when he got the support of the public will. He stood on the harmonious formicary, waged a tit-for-tat struggle against Christ in the position of rebels. In fact, this kind of so-called harmonious life order is based on the sacrifice of few free believers who dissociate from public will. A few people who disobey the order are deprived of freedom, just because they are seeking the freedom which can go beyond order. What the Grand Inquisitor built is not faith, it was just order. Faith should be built on the base of freedom. There’s a preexistence of God in regard to the faith, thus freedom is limited. The problem of freedom, this key problem in The Grand Inquisitor, the contradictory propositions included in it are struggling for their own rights, both of them reveal the truth and are proven almost at the same time. In the dilemma of whether or not to choose freedom, the story goes into the scene of a decision should be made. The two figures, Christ and the Grand Inquisitor, are in the inner layer of the jacketed structure of The Grand Inquisitor, finally ended their confrontation. During this ideological confrontation, Christ listened carefully to the grand inquisitor, looked straightly at him, didn’t have any intention to refute. He bent towards the Grand Inquisitor and softly kissed his lips, this was the answer he gave finally.
This is the most symbolic and apocalyptic scene in arguments in all faiths. The Grand Inquisitor represented the reasonable existence of negative proposition, expressing the truth of “two and two is four”, and the inevitable recognition and praise. Christ represented the positive proposition, didn’t need to argue. Positive side spoke eloquently, negative side just gave a kiss quietly. Christ got the upper hand obviously, he didn’t need to use a single word, a kiss had burned the old man’s heart, although he remained firm in his own ideas and unbelief.
Alyosha “plagiarized” Ivan’s poem, went to his brother and kissed him softly. The holy one always stands firm and erect, when in the face of the rebels. Ivan became happy suddenly, although he was still sure that people could do anything on his own will. Just like the Grand Inquisitor, that kiss was burning in his heart. Ivan said to his brother, I would feel satisfied if only you are alive somewhere, I would live on. Ivan said that this was his confession to Alyosha. Ivan was not the Grand Inquisitor. Even though he was the relator of the event, he didn’t stand in the position of the Grand Inquisitor entirely. Ivan was hindered by his rationality and doubt on the way to God, but he couldn’t let his desire of faith disappear. The positive and negative propositions entangled in his thought. He touched the tender root of humanitarianism, cleared up the legislator of eternal bliss. But he tried to save his soul by stopping the evil because of the desire of the highest good. Ivan fell into the insane abyss finally after so long time’s swing between two peaks. The deep skepticism brought by sober rationality and Euclidean wisdom will put people into despair and therefore Ivan called, if there’s no God, we must create one! Why? Why did Ivan affirm the necessity of the existence of God so much? Because — “Any person or nation, could not live on without a ‘higher idea’, there’s only one idea like this, that is the immortality of human soul. Any other ‘higher idea’ which human beings depend on, derives from this one…If the idea of immortality of the soul is lost, anybody who is higher than the beast will feel that suicide is inevitable and unavoidable. The idea of the immortality of soul is the life itself, and the first source of the integrity and authenticity of conscience, and also the apparent procedure.” If there’s no God, there will be no everlasting thing, no eternal life, no immortality of soul, and if there’s no God and immortality, there will be no true crime and punishment. Moral judgements about the good and evil, merits and faults will lose their fundamental basis, because all of laws and public opinions, the punishments of conscience, depend on this holy and eternal existence. Only when he exists, the crime is really a crime, and the punishment is really a punishment. If there is no God, everything is possible, everything is permitted, people can try everything and do whatever they want. But if there is God, people will hold in awe and veneration, not only will the individual not do whatever he want, but also the group and the whole humanity will not do whatever they please. If there is no afterlife, how could the suffering of Sonya’s be compensated? If there’s no punishment after death, Fyodor Karamazov will not be afraid of the hook in the hell, he will cry out — I don’t care the flood even a little after my death.
In this sense, religion is the concept of the good and the evil. Ivan provided a space for faith, if there is no God, morality will tend to collapse due to the absence of fundamental support. Human’s true fear is the eternal punishment brought by revelation and criticism of this mundane life.
References
Berdyaev, Nicolas. Translated by Meng, Xiangsen(1986). Dostoevsky: An Interpretation, Taipei: China Times
Publishing Co.
Berdyaev, Nicolas. Translated by Xu, Liming(1994), Slavery and Freedom, Guizhou People’s Publishing
House
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Translated by H.P.blavatsky(ebook), The Grand Inquisitor,
http://www.gutenberg.org/8/5/7/8578/
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Translated by Constance Garnett, The Brothers Karamazov, W.W.Norton Company
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Translated by Xu, Zhenya & Feng, Zengyi(1996) , The Brothers Karamazov, Zhejiang
Literature and Art Publishing House
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Edited by Chen, Shen(2010), A Writer’s Diary, Hebei Education Publishing House
He, Huaihong(1999). Morality, God and Humanity, Beijing: Xinhua Press
Wang, Zhigeng(2003). Polymerism and Dostoevsky’s Polyphony, the Journal of Research on Foreign
Literature, 2003(5)