Malmkrog (2019) - full transcript
A SCREEN ADAPTATION
OF A TEXT BY VLADIMIR SOLOVYOV
Zoyichka!
Zoya!
Come inside!
Careful, or you'll slip and fall.
Be that as it may, but now let's take
a different path, dear Nikolai.
Are you ready to follow me?
Yes, I am.
Let's return to the story
of the two monks.
Well then, back to Alexandria.
But that's not what interests me.
We follow the same path,
the same conclusions,
but we remove the essence,
that is, the existence
of God and the Devil.
We proceed from the next postulate:
Neither God nor the devil exists.
What interests me here
is that if we believe
that evil comes from within,
then,
which of the two men
would have taken this path,
the three days of debauchery
in Alexandria, in your opinion?
Which indeed?
I don't know, it's just a hypothesis.
It would be interesting
to assume that probably
the initiative would be taken by him
who feels no regret, does not repent,
does not fall prey to despair.
Do you remember the story?
Sure, the story goes like this:
after spending three days in Alexandria…
They return to the desert.
- Together.
- Both of them.
On the way, one of them laments,
flagellates himself…
- He fades…
- Completely…
He cannot forget
what happened in Alexandria…
- Whereas the other…
- The other sings psalms
as he goes.
And then back in their caves,
one continues to repent,
to flagellate himself,
finally he decides to return
to Alexandria.
- He decides to leave.
- He decides.
He leaves everything behind.
Because he believes
that after succumbing to debauchery,
there is no going back.
I think the general is leaving.
Shall we see him out?
In three days
he embarks for Marseilles.
For Toulon.
Toulon?
Andrey Nikolaevich,
maybe I should wake him?
Yes.
Fetch a bucket of cold water.
Well,
I should be leaving.
I'll be right back.
Why shouldn't a modern army
bear the title “Christ-loving”?
A title!
In that case,
is white or black a title?
Is sweet or bitter a title?
Is brave or cowardly a title?
It is not I who says it,
but all law-abiding people.
I beg your pardon!
But tell me, is there still
a glorious and Christ-loving
Russian army?
Why quibble over words?
Ingrida meant something
by “Christ-loving army”.
Thank you, Madeleine.
This is what I meant:
Since the beginning of time,
every military man,
soldier or marshal,
has known that he serves
a great and good cause.
Not only a useful or necessary cause,
such as emptying the privy
or doing the laundry,
but in the loftier sense,
a good, noble and honourable cause,
a cause always served by the best men:
the elite, the rulers, the heroes.
Our cause has always been blessed
by the Church,
all have glorified it.
Suddenly we discover
that we must forget all that
and radically alter
our opinion of ourselves
and of our place under the sun.
The cause we once proudly served
is declared wicked and baleful,
at odds with our Lord's commandments
and human sentiments,
a misfortune
and a dreadful evil,
that all nations must unite against it,
and its ultimate demise
is only a matter of time.
Have you not heard the voices
that condemn war and military service
as vestiges of ancient cannibalism?
Have I heard?
Of course I have! And I've read it too.
In several languages.
But the voices of which you speak,
they were, to be frank,
nothing but hot air.
We heard them
and then forgot them.
But now things have totally changed.
That is why I ask
what are we to do?
How should I, or rather any soldier,
regard himself:
As a real human
or as nature's Quasimodo?
Am I allowed to have self-respect
because I served a just cause?
Or should I be aghast
at what I have done,
should I repent
and beg all the civilians
to forgive me
now that I am proscribed?
Begone, Michel Kutuzoff!
There was a great man!
What an odd way
to pose the question!
As if we had asked the military
to do something extraordinary.
The new requirements apply not to them,
but to diplomats and other civilians,
who do not care if they are proscribed,
just as they do not care
how much you love Christ.
This alone is demanded of them:
to obey the orders of your superiors
unquestioningly.
As you are not interested
in military matters,
of course you get, as you just said,
to an odd conclusion.
It is obvious you don't know
that in some cases
a superior's orders
mean neither waiting
nor asking for orders.
Which is to say?
Which is to say:
Imagine that on my superiors' orders
I am placed in charge
of an entire military region.
This means that my mission is
to command the armies in my charge
in whatever way appropriate,
that I must foster in them
a certain morale,
I must act above their will
in a prudent way,
I must tune their feelings
within a certain range,
in short, I must educate them,
in the spirit of their task.
Therefore I am allowed,
among other things, to give others…
to give orders
to the troops in my region,
on my own account
and taking full responsibility.
If I asked high command
to dictate what orders to give
or even to provide me
with guidelines,
wouldn't I be thought a silly old fool
and then relegated to the reserve?
This means that I myself must instil
a certain spirit in my armies,
which will have been
endorsed and confirmed
by the high command.
But even so,
questions on this subject
are nothing but stupidity or insolence.
But this spirit,
the same, in essence,
from Sargon and Assurbanipal
to Wilhelm II,
is now all of a sudden challenged.
Until recently, I knew I must
foster the military spirit in my troops,
so a soldier would be ready
to strike the enemy or die.
And to do so, we must be convinced
that war is sacred.
But now, for no reason,
we deprive them of this conviction
and, as the erudite would say,
martial deeds are deprived
of their moral-religious authority.
All this is dreadfully exaggerated.
Nothing permits us to say
that opinions have changed so much.
On the one hand,
everyone agrees that war is bad
and the more seldom it occurs
the better.
On the other hand,
serious-minded people
understand that even today
it is an unavoidable evil.
It is not a case of abolishing war,
but rather of gradually confining it
within narrower bounds.
But, in principle,
the opinion of war has not altered.
It remains an unavoidable evil,
a calamity that must be borne.
Nothing more?
Yes.
Have you ever cast a glance
at the Orthodox calendar?
At the calendar?
Have you noticed
what saints are to be found there?
All kind of saints.
What of their occupations?
Every variety, I suppose.
Actually, they do not differ very much.
How so?
Could it be they are all soldiers?
Not all of them, but half.
Again you exaggerate.
Certainly…
It is not a case of classifying them
for the sake of statistics.
I mean only that all the saints
of our Russian Church
fall under just two categories.
They are either monks
of various rank,
or princes, who, in those days,
were definitely soldiers.
We have no other saints
of the male sex.
Either monks or soldiers.
But you forget the holy fools!
Not at all!
But the holy fools
are a different kind of monk.
They are to monasticism
what Cossacks are to the army.
If among the Russian saints
you can find me just one priest,
merchant, state official,
secretary, bourgeois or peasant,
in short, any occupation
besides monk or soldier,
then I'll give you my entire winnings
the next time I go to Monte Carlo.
Keep your treasure
and half your calendar!
Explain to me just what you mean
to insinuate by this discovery?
Do you mean only monks and soldiers
can provide a moral example?
You are not even close.
I myself know virtuous people
among the clergy,
among bankers,
public officials and peasants.
And the most virtuous person
I can remember
was the nanny who served
in the household of a friend.
But that to one side.
I mentioned the saints
because I wish to know why there are
so many soldiers among the monks…
favoured over every other occupation,
if we have always regarded
the art of war as a tolerable evil…
It is obvious that all Christians,
whose thinking is reflected,
and not only the Russian ones,
because in France
it's more or less the same,
not only honour,
but honour especially
the military profession.
Of all occupations,
only that of arms was deemed capable
of elevating the best specimens
to the rank of saints.
Which is at odds with the current
anti-war campaign, my dear Edouard.
There you have it!
Did I say there has been no change?
It's obvious it is already happening.
The sacred halo
that once crowned the army,
in the eyes of the mob, is fading.
That is where we are heading.
But who, in effect,
will be harmed by it?
The clergy, probably,
since only they deal in haloes.
Rest assured, dear Edouard,
pious accommodations have already begun.
For our magazine
I follow religious literature.
In two issues I found
that Christianity condemns war.
- Impossible!
- I couldn't believe it either.
- I can show you.
- Show me what?
You see?
Although the absurd militarist system
is doomed to extinction,
the army will be preserved.
As long as it is tolerated
and seen as indispensable,
we will demand of it
the same military virtues.
You're apt to butcher the cow
and then demand its milk.
Who will give you
the military virtues you demand,
when the principal virtue,
without which the others
matter not a whit, is courage?
That doesn't stand up if we don't believe
in the holiness of our cause.
How is that possible,
if we declare war
to be perfidy and murder,
tolerable only in the extreme,
when it is unavoidable?
We don't demand
soldiers accept such a thing,
they only have to believe themselves
the best in the world!
Nikolai has already explained it to you.
Don't loot our wallets, that's all!
Where are we, on the moon?
Would you keep soldiers
in an absolute void?
If military service is deemed
an unavoidable evil for the time being,
no one will devote his life
to a military career.
Except perhaps some nature's rejects,
who have nowhere else to go.
I have always thought that, after
the introduction of military service,
the dissolution of armies
and then states themselves,
will only be a question of time.
A time not far away,
given the current haste of history.
Perhaps you are right.
I am certain that you are right.
Although such an idea
has never crossed my mind.
Marvellous!
Just think of it!
In its extreme form, militarism gives
rise to compulsory military service.
Thanks to this,
not only will militarism perish,
but also its old age foundations.
Wonderful!
How nice that Olga has brightened up.
So far she has displayed a gloominess
unworthy of a true Christian.
Because there is too much sadness
around us.
The only joy left is the thought
that reason will triumph.
It is plain that in Europe and Russia
militarism is self-devouring.
But what joy and what triumph
will spring from it, it's hard to tell.
Do you doubt that war and militarism
are an absolute evil
from which mankind
must liberate itself?
That the total and immediate destruction
of this cannibalism
will constitute the triumph
of reason and the good?
I am convinced of the opposite.
How so?
War is not an absolute evil
and peace is not an absolute good.
Or put simply, a good war
is as possible as a bad peace.
Now I see how your position
differs from Ingrida's.
She thinks war is always good
and peace always bad.
Not at all!
I too understand perfectly
that war can sometimes
be a very bad thing,
particularly when we are defeated,
as, for example, at Austerlitz.
And peace can be a wonderful thing,
such as that of Nystad
or Kuchuk-Kainardji.
Behold a variation on the famous words
of the Kaffir or Hottentot
who told a missionary
he understood
the difference between good and evil:
Good is when I steal
another man's women and cattle,
and evil is when he steals mine.
- Both the African and I were joking.
- Obviously.
He unwittingly, I deliberately.
What about you, Edouard,
who are so well educated,
what do you have to say about war,
from the moral standpoint?
I wouldn't let scholasticism
and metaphysics
alter such a clear
and historically determined problem!
Clear from what point of view?
Mine, the typical, European one,
about to be adopted
by educated people everywhere.
Forgive me if I laugh!
Evidently, it consists
in viewing everything as relative
and not allowing any differentiation
between what we are
and are not permitted,
between good and evil.
That's it, isn't it?
My dear Olga, such an argument
is of no help in solving the problem.
Take me, for example,
I allow that morally, good and evil
are absolutely opposed.
But it's clear to me that war and peace
do not fall under this category.
You cannot view war
as only black,
and peace as only white.
A contradiction in terms
will then arise.
If something evil in itself,
for example, murder,
can become good in the case of war,
as you say,
where does that leave the absolute
difference between good and evil?
How much easier you make your task!
All murder is an absolute evil,
war is murder,
therefore war is an absolute evil.
It's a first-category syllogism.
Except that you forget,
my dear Olga,
that both premises,
both the major and the minor,
have still to be proven.
Consequently,
the conclusion is left hanging too.
Didn't I say
we've reverted to scholasticism?
What exactly are we talking about?
You therefore argue that to kill,
to take someone's life,
is in any given situation
an absolute evil?
Without a doubt.
But is to be killed
an absolute evil?
For the Hottentots it is, obviously.
But were we not talking
about moral evil?
This exists only in the deeds
of a rational being,
deeds that depend on his will,
rather than chance.
To be killed is therefore the same
as to die of cholera or influenza.
Not only it's not an absolute evil,
but it's not even an evil.
Socrates and the Stoics
knew it already.
I would leave
the ancients out of this.
The absolute you cite,
in morally assessing murder, is shaky.
From what you say,
absolute evil means to do to a man
something that is not evil in itself.
As you like, but it is shaky.
But let us leave this aside,
otherwise we really do revert
to scholasticism.
So, in the case of a murder,
the evil is not the physical act
of taking someone's life,
rather it resides in the moral cause,
in the murderer's intention to do evil.
- Is that not so?
- Evidently.
Without the intention,
it would not be murder,
but misfortune or carelessness.
Therefore, without the intention,
it would be the same as botched surgery.
But we can imagine
a different situation,
where the intention does not take
as its main aim the killing of a man,
but consents to murder
in a case of extreme necessity.
Would such a murder
be an absolute evil?
Certainly,
since there was the intention to kill.
Might the intention to kill not coincide
with the intention to do evil
and therefore might the crime
not be an absolute evil,
even subjectively speaking?
I have heard this argument
a thousand times!
That father who,
in a deserted place,
sees a brute hurl himself
at his innocent daughter,
ready to subject her to a base villainy,
and who, finding no other solution,
kills the attacker.
For adding effect, I'll say
that the daughter is a child.
What is remarkable is not
that you've heard it a thousand times,
but that nobody has heard
those who think like you
put forward a valid objection
to this simple argument.
- What objection?
- There you go!
Well,
if you don't want to put forward
any objection,
then demonstrate straightforwardly
and positively
that in every case, without exception,
not to use force in the battle with evil
is better than to use it
and to risk killing an evil-doer.
Is there a specific proof
for an isolated case?
Once you allow that, in general,
murder is evil in a moral sense?
It is clear that, in every case,
it will still be an evil.
Nobody objects that in general,
it is better not to kill than to kill.
But the question concerns
particular cases.
If the general rule is
“thou shalt not kill”,
it is therefore absolute
and without no exceptions
or individual circumstances.
I cannot accept
that the problem be put so formally.
Let us say
that in this exceptional case,
which you have invented
as an argument,
let us allow that it is better to kill
than not to kill.
Evidently, I do not allow it,
but let us say you are right.
Let us even say that the given situation
is not fiction, but reality,
although it is extremely rare
and exceptional.
But what we are talking about here
is war, a universal phenomenon.
Do you contend that Napoleon
found himself in a situation similar
to that of the father forced to defend
his daughter from a monster?
An improvement on earlier.
Bravo, Olga!
You skillfully avoid
an annoying question.
Let us rework the example,
lest the details blunt its meaning.
No need for the father
or the little girl.
Parental love will lead the father
to kill the villain,
without wondering
whether he does so in accordance
with the supreme moral principle.
Therefore, instead of a father,
let us take a childless moralist,
before whose very eyes a defenseless
creature is attacked by a vile brute.
According to you,
ought he to stand aloof
and preach virtue,
while the hellish brute
tortures his victim?
Will the moralist
feel no moral obligation
to stop the brute by force,
even at risk of killing him?
And if, on the contrary,
he allows the crime to be committed,
in keeping with his fine maxims,
do you not think his conscience
will reprove him
and he will be ashamed of himself
to the point of revulsion?
Perhaps the moralist
will feel everything you say
if he does not believe
in the reality of moral order.
Or if he has forgotten that God
is to be found not in might but in right.
Very well said.
What will you say to that, Nikolai?
I will say that I would like it
to be said better.
That is, more directly, simply
and to the point.
Did you mean that a moralist
who believes in divine justice
ought, without stopping
the brute by force,
to pray to God that He prevent
the commission of the evil,
either through a moral miracle,
for example the criminal's contrition,
or through a physical miracle,
such as his sudden paralysis?
No need of paralysis.
The villain might take fright
or something might divert him
in one way or the other.
It is not important what.
The miracle resides not in the event,
but in its causal connection
with the prayer and its moral object.
At all events, Olga's solution
for preventing a crime
is to pray to God
that He perform a miracle.
Whence that conclusion?
Since I believe the world is guided
by a good and rational principle,
I also believe that the world moves
only in accordance with that principle,
which is to say, the will of God.
Forgive me, dear Olga,
but how old are you?
If you know the answer,
why ask the question?
For dialogue's sake, I assure you.
Let us say twenty-six.
A little older.
Then you will perhaps have seen,
heard, or read in the newspapers
that evil and immoral acts
are committed everywhere in the world.
Yes. So?
In other words, the moral order,
justice and the divine will,
do not come about by themselves.
Clearly,
if evil exists, then the gods
either cannot or will not prevent it.
Therefore, the gods do not exist
as a good and omnipotent force.
- Not a new idea, but fair.
- How can you say so?
See where our conversation has led!
Philosophy bewilders the mind.
Because it is a false philosophy,
my dear Ingrida!
As if the divine will depended on
how we view good and evil.
It does not depend on
any representation
but rather it is closely connected
to a true notion of the good.
Otherwise, if good and evil
are equally indifferent to the deity,
then you contradict yourself
once and for all.
And why is that, may I ask?
Because if the deity is indifferent
that a vile brute,
driven by bestial passion,
defiles a defenseless creature,
then the deity would not oppose
that person among us
who, out of pity for the victim,
destroyed the beast.
For you will hardly uphold
so absurd a notion that
killing an innocent creature
would not be evil in the eyes of God,
whereas killing a vile brute
would be evil.
It seems absurd to you because
you view it from the wrong direction.
From the moral standpoint,
not the victim but the murderer
is important.
You called the malefactor a “brute”,
that is,
a man without reason or conscience.
What moral evil
can then exist in his actions?
But do we speak of a “brute”
in the literal sense?
It would be as if I told my daughter:
“That's silly, my angel,”
and you chided me
that angels aren't silly!
This is off the point…
Forgive me, but I take it the brigand
was called a “brute” metaphorically
and that he possesses
neither tail nor hooves.
But we refer to his literal
lack of reason and conscience.
A man of conscience could never
consent to such a thing!
You're playing on words again!
It is clear that a man
who behaves like a brute
loses his reason and conscience,
in that he no longer hears their voice.
But that he altogether lacks
reason and conscience
is something
you will have to demonstrate.
Until then,
I shall continue to believe
that the man-brute
differs from us two not by the absence
of reason and conscience,
but because he acts despite them,
driven by his brutish whims.
A selfsame brute
is latent in each of us,
but as a rule, we keep it chained.
That man released his brute
and now obeys it.
He has a chain, but does not use it.
Precisely.
And if Olga does not agree,
defeat her with her own weapon!
If the villain is a mere brute
without reason or conscience,
to kill him would be the same as killing
a wolf or a tiger attacking a man.
As far as I know, the Humane Society
has not yet outlawed it.
Have you forgotten that,
whatever the man's condition,
be it atrophy
of the reason and conscience
or conscious immorality,
if such a thing is at all possible,
then it concerns not him,
but you yourselves.
For your reason and your conscience
have not atrophied,
nor do you wish
to disobey their commands.
Therefore you will not kill that man,
whoever he may be.
Of course I would not kill him
if my reason and conscience forbade it.
But imagine
they told me something different,
something that seemed to me
more reasonable and honest.
Interesting. Please go on!
Firstly,
the reason and conscience
are able to count to three.
Is that so!
Wherefore the reason and conscience,
unless they wish to lie,
will not say “two” instead of “three”…
- Nikolai, please…
- I don't follow.
In your opinion,
reason and conscience tell me
only about myself and the brigand,
whom I am not allowed to harm.
But there is also a third,
equally important person:
the victim of aggression,
who demands my help.
You keep forgetting her.
But conscience does not,
and God's will is that I save the victim,
while sparing the attacker
as best I can.
But her I must assist at any cost.
By verbal persuasion, if possible,
if not, then by force,
and if my hands are tied,
there remains but one solution:
prayer.
As to the solution, I leave it to you
to decide which is the better.
To me, one thing is certain,
I have to save the victim,
that is what my conscience tells me.
Breach to the centre! Hurrah!
Well, Nikolai,
I take care
not to have too broad a conscience.
Mine tells me, quite bluntly,
not to kill, full stop.
It seems to me that our discussion
has made no progress.
Suppose I agreed with you
that anyone might allow himself to kill,
what then?
Do you think that Tamburlaine,
or Alexander the Great, or Lord Kitchener
and their armies killed
to save innocents from evil-doers?
Even though comparing Tamburlaine
with Alexander the Great
risks affecting
the progress of our discussion,
and inasmuch as this is the second time
you have rushed into the topic,
allow me a historical reference
that will help us see the connection
between the question of personal defence
and defence of the state.
The place is Kiev,
the time, the 12th century.
The crown princes
who, it seems,
shared your opinion of war
and chose to fight only in self-defence,
refused to go to war
against the Polovtsians.
They did not want to subject their people
to the calamities of war.
To this, the great Prince
Vladimir the Monomachos replied:
“You pity the yokels,
but forget that once spring arrives… “
Nikolai, please, mind your language!
- But it's from the chronicle!
- It doesn't matter.
Since you don't know it by heart,
say it in your own words.
Anyway, it sounds stupid:
“once spring arrives”.
As if what comes next is:
“Flowers bloom, nightingales trill.”
And from your mouth…
a “yokel” pops out!
Very well.
“Once spring arrives,
the peasant will go out to plough.
The Polovtsian will come,
kill the peasant,
steal his horse,
then hordes of Polovtsians will come,
massacre the peasants,
enslave their wives and children,
steal their cattle,
and burn down their village.
Don't you want to protect them?
I do.
That's why I call you
to fight the Polovtsians.”
Ashamed, the princes now obeyed,
and under Vladimir Monomachos
the country knew peace.
But later they reverted
to their pacifism,
giving themselves up
to scandalous living.
For Russia,
it all ended with the Mongol yoke,
and as for the descendants
of those princes,
it ended with the feast served by history
in the form of Ivan the Terrible.
I don't understand.
First, you describe a situation
none of us is familiar with
and probably never will be,
then you cite a Vladimir Monomachos
who probably never existed
and who is anyway
none of our concern.
Speak for yourself, Olga!
But Olga,
aren't you a Rurikovitch?
Yes, I am.
According to you, I ought to be
interested in Rurik, Sineus and Truvor.
Don't get me wrong,
but he who doesn't know his ancestors
is like a child who thinks
he was delivered by the stork.
What about those unfortunates
who have no ancestors?
You know…
This morning,
before coming down for breakfast,
Andrei Nikolaevich handed me a letter,
then he made this confession
out of the blue:
“Only once in my life have I felt
complete moral satisfaction,
“even a form of ecstasy.
“And this good deed
has been and always will be
“my most beautiful and purest memory.”
But his only good deed was a crime,
and not a minor one,
for in 15 minutes
he slaughtered more than 1,000 men.
And where is the good in that?
It is not easy for me to talk about it.
Forgive me, but I cannot recount it
without great emotion,
so strongly did it shake me.
Tell us, Ingrida!
Better I read you
a passage from his letter.
It concerns cannons
and the last war against the Turks.
He was in the Cossack army.
After 3 October…
3 October?
The Battle of Aladja Dagh.
Listen.
“I had with me
the dragoons of Nizhny Novgorod,
300 Cossacks from Kuban,
and a battery of mounted artillery.
The terrain was desolate.
Up the mountains it was beautiful,
but down in the valley there were
just burnt villages and barren fields.
One day, it was October 28,
I arrived in a valley where,
by the map,
there was an Armenian village.
At the entrance to the village
there was a bend in the road.
My Cossacks were already there,
standing stock-still.
I galloped up to them.
Before I saw it,
I knew from the stench of roasted flesh,
that the Bashi-Bazouks
had left behind their kitchen.
They captured a convoy of Armenians
unable to save themselves,
and dealt with them
in their own fashion.
They lit fires under the carts,
having tied the Armenians to them.
Some upright, some upside down,
some on their backs,
some on their stomachs,
hanging over the flames,
roasted over a low flame.
The women's breasts had been
chopped off, their bellies split open.
I won't go into details.
Apart from one,
which I can picture even now.
A woman, stretched out on her back,
her neck and shoulders
bound to the cart axle,
so that she wouldn't be able
to turn her head.
She had neither been burned
nor flayed alive,
only her face was mutilated,
it was plain she had died of terror.
In front of her
was a stake planted in the ground,
to which a naked baby was tied.
Undoubtedly her son.
Completely burned,
no eyes in his sockets.
Next to him smouldered
a charcoal grill.
At first,
I was gripped by deathly grief,
I looked around in disgust,
acting mechanically.
I gave the order:
ʻForward at a brisk pace!ʼ
We entered the burned village.
It had been pillaged,
razed to the ground.
Suddenly, from a dry well,
a kind of ghost emerged.
Having emerged, dirty and tattered,
he fell to the ground
and released a lament in Armenian.
I pulled him to his feet
and questioned him.
He was an Armenian from another village,
a good boy.
He was there for business,
just as the inhabitants
were about to flee.
No sooner had they set out
than the Bashi-Bazouks struck.
A large number…
40,000, he reckoned.
He had heard the screams
and anyway knew how it ended.
He then heard the Bashi-Bazouks
were returning by a different path.
ʻThey're going to our villageʼ, he said,
ʻand will do the same to my people.ʼ
He wept continually,
wringing his hands.
All of a sudden,
it was as if I was enlightened.
My heart melted and it was as if
the world smiled at me once more.
I asked the Armenian
how long it had been since they left.
He reckoned
it had been about three hours ago.
ʻHow long to your village on horseback?ʼ
ʻFive hours.ʼ
I gave the Armenian a horse
and followed him
through the gorge,
with the whole detachment.
I no longer know
how we climbed those mountains.
We had just emerged
from the final gorge,
and were about to join
the main road,
When suddenly,
I saw the Armenian galloping toward us,
signalling us.
They were there.
I went to the vanguard,
focused my telescope:
it was indeed them,
horsemen as far as the eye could see.
Not 40,000, but about
three or four thousand, maybe even five.
The devil's imps saw us
and turned to face us.
Just as we came at their left flank,
they started shooting at our Cossacks.
Those Asiatics
were firing European rifles
almost like they were human beings!
Here and there,
Cossacks fell from their horses.
I therefore ordered my men
to fire on these demons,
making a dispersed attack,
and once they had provoked them,
to retreat to the cannons.
I placed one company
to conceal the cannons,
and lined up the Nizhny men
on the left of the battery.
After exchanging a few shots,
the Cossacks withdrew, whooping.
The demons gave chase.
By now they were hurtling,
no longer even shooting.
They galloped straight at us.
I said to myself
that the hour of God's will had arrived.
The company split in two,
revealing the cannons.
I ordered the battery to fire.
And God blessed all my six shots.
Never in my life had I heard
such demonic howling!
Before they knew what hit them,
the second salvo came.
When I looked to see,
the horde was in rout.
The third salvo struck them from behind,
wreaking mayhem.
They were stampeding,
trampling each another.
Then, with the dragoons
and Cossacks from the left flank,
we butchered them.
Few escaped.
The sword finished the cannons' work.
Some threw down their weapons,
dismounted,
begging for ʻamanʼ.
I did not intervene,
my men knew
it was not the time for ʻamanʼ,
and the Cossacks and Dragoons
cut them all down.
The task was finished.
In my soul
I felt the Lord's Resurrection.
We gathered our dead.
37 men had entrusted their souls to God.
We laid them on level ground
and closed their eyes.
We had a non-commissioned officer,
Odarchenko,
a remarkable old man,
with a good knowledge of holy writ.
I told him, ʻWe are campaigning,
we are no good at hallelujahs,
stand in for the priest,
chant the funeral rite for our dead.ʼ
And he chanted the rite
as was befitting.
But we had no priest
to forgive their sins.
When Odarchenko
recited the names of the dead soldiers,
who had fallen on the field of honour
for the faith,
for tsar and country,
I truly felt they were not empty words,
or ordinary titles,
but that there really was
a Christ-loving army
and that war was, is,
and will be,
until the end of time,
a great, honourable and holy thing.”
After he buried his dead,
filled with such enlightenment,
did he remember the foes
he had slain in their hundreds?
Thank God they were able
to get themselves thence
before the corpses could remind them.
You have ruined everything.
How can you say so?
What would you have liked him to do?
To give those jackals
a Christian burial?
Who were neither Christians nor Muslims,
but the devil knows what?
And even if he had been insane enough
to order a funeral service for them
to be held
alongside that for the Cossacks,
you would have accused him
of not respecting their religion.
What! The poor things,
who glorified the devil
and worshiped fire all their lives,
to subject them post mortem
to coarse,
superstitious Christian rites!
He had other concerns.
He ordered the officers
to forbid the men
from going within twenty paces
of the corpses.
He had seen
that the Cossacks were itching
to loot the dead, as was customary.
Who knows what pestilence they
might have caught from those devils.
May they rot in hell!
Do I understand correctly?
You were afraid that the Cossacks,
by looting the Bashi-Bazouk corpses,
might have spread contagion
in your husband's camp?
It seems obvious to me.
Behold the “Christ-loving army”!
The Cossacks?
Nothing but brigands!
They always have been.
Does it not seem to you
that we are talking in the abstract?
Yes, it seems to me
that something is amiss.
I do not understand
what you want from me.
Olga is surprised that the sublime,
almost saintly Cossacks
proved to be, as you say,
“nothing but brigands”.
How can war be
“a great, honourable and holy thing”
if, as you say, it is the struggle
of brigands against other brigands?
So that is what it was: “The struggle
of brigands against other brigands.”
But this is about
a different kind of brigand…
If you do not believe that theft
is the same as roasting babies
under their mothers' eyes…
This is what I still have
to read to you:
My dear Ingrida,
My conscience is so pure,
as I look back on it now,
that I still regret not having died
after I ordered the last salvo.
And I am in no doubt that,
had I died that moment,
I would have gone
straight before God,
along with my 37 Cossacks,
and we would have received
a place in heaven
next to the good thief of the Gospels.
Not for nothing is he in the Gospels.
But, my dear Ingrida,
the Gospels do not say
that only Christians
can be likened to the good thief.
Why are you so antagonistic toward me?
Where did he draw any distinction
between nations or religions?
Are the Armenians
of the same nation or faith as us?
Are not the “devil's imps” humans too?
Did he say that in every man
can be good and evil?
That in every thief,
coward or Bashi-Bazouk
lies hidden a good thief?
Who can understand you?
She is right.
Either you say the evil man
is an irresponsible brute,
or that a Bashi-Bazouk
who roasts children over a low flame
might prove to be
the good thief of the Gospels!
And all this only to avoid
calling evil by its name.
What matters to me
is not that in every man
can be found the seeds of good and evil.
What is important is
not that grape juice
can make both wine and vinegar.
What is important is whether the bottle
contains wine or vinegar.
For if it is vinegar
and I drink it and serve it to others,
under the pretext that even so,
it is still made of grape juice,
I do nobody a service,
but rather I give us all a stomach ache.
All men are brothers.
Perfect.
Glad to hear it.
What then?
Brothers can differ.
Why shouldn't I wish to know
which is Cain and which Abel?
What if my brother Cain
skins my brother Abel,
and I, not being indifferent
to my brothers,
box Cain's ears
to stop him doing it again.
“Should I stand aloof
or should I hit him?”
Why this dilemma?
Because we cannot find
a third way, Olga.
Olga,
earlier you suggested
that we pray to God
that He intervenes
to mend a devil's ways.
You seem to have abandoned this course.
I too believe that prayer is the path,
but it cannot replace deed.
The pious, for example,
pray before meals,
but in order to chew,
they use their own jaws.
I refuse to believe that,
without praying,
Andrei Nikolaevich
ordered his artillery to fire.
Such a prayer is obviously
a blasphemy.
It is not to pray that counts,
but rather to do God's will.
Meaning?
He who is deeply imbued
with the spirit of the Gospels
will find within him, when needed,
the ability to use words,
deeds and appearances
to sway his blind brother who wants
to kill or commit some other evil.
This will produce in him
such a strong impression
that it will make him
turn back onto the right path.
Heavens above!
You mean that, faced with Bashi-Bazouks
who roast babies over a low flame,
he ought to have made moving gestures
and uttered moving words?
Words, my dear Olga,
given the distance between them
and the lack of a shared language,
would likely have been out of place.
As for moving gestures,
whatever you might say,
nothing better than that
could have been found.
In fact,
in what language and by what means
could the general have got along
with the Bashi-Bazouks?
I didn't say he could have treated them
in accordance with the Gospels.
I said only that a man
filled with evangelical grace
would have found a solution
even in that situation
to awaken in them
the good that lies hidden in every man.
Do you really believe that?
I do not doubt it.
Then you believe that Christ was imbued
with sufficient evangelical grace?
What kind of question is that?
I wish to know why Christ
did not use His evangelical grace
to awaken the hidden good
in the souls of Judas,
Herod, the Jewish high priests
and the bad thief.
We forget this
when we speak of the good.
But Olga,
you must sacrifice one or the other.
Either Christ and the Gospels
as the highest authority,
or your moral optimism.
Because the third path,
to regard the Gospels
as fiction or priestly distortion,
a well-trodden path,
is barred to you once and for all.
No matter how much you truncate
the text of the Gospels to suit you,
what remains indisputable,
and what is essential
to our discussion,
is the fact that Christ was persecuted
and killed
because His enemies hated him.
That He remained above such evil,
that He did not resist and forgave them,
we both understand.
But why, in forgiving His enemies,
to put it as you would,
did He not save their souls
from the darkness in which they lay?
Why did He not vanquish their evil
through the power of His meekness?
Why did He not awaken
the dormant good in them?
Why did He not give them
the light and rebirth?
Why did He not act upon Judas,
Herod and the high priests,
as in the case of the good thief?
Therefore,
He either could not or would not.
In both cases, according to you,
it results
that He was not sufficiently imbued
with the true evangelical spirit.
And since we are talking about
The Gospel of Christ,
it becomes clear that Christ
was not imbued
with the true spirit of Christ.
My congratulations!
I am not going to engage you
in a duel of words,
nor would I duel with Ingrida
over the love of Christ.
Nikolai, it seems to me
that the time to have lunch
gradually approaches.
Yes…
we are just about to be served.
Perfect.
And, of course, we cannot conclude
such a discussion so abruptly.
And later we shall have a game of cards.
But we really must continue
this discussion.
Don't you agree, Edouard?
That we should continue
the discussion?
And there I was glad
that it was over!
The discussion had begun
to take on an unpleasant air,
specific to the religious wars.
It is no longer in fashion,
and I value my own skin.
Don't be facetious, Edouard!
You too must take part.
I agree, but on one condition:
less of the religion.
I won't say we'll exclude it altogether,
as that would be impossible.
But let there be less of it,
for God's sake!
That “for God's sake”
is adorable, given the context!
If you want less of the religion,
you should do more of the talking.
Although I would rather listen,
especially in weather like this,
I'm prepared to sacrifice myself
for two hours
to save our little club from civil war,
which might have calamitous effects
on our card game.
What a pure soul!
Perfect!
So…
later we will be able to finish
this discussion of the Gospels,
and Olga might be able to prepare
some unbeatable argument.
In that case,
stay for dinner too, Edouard…
It wouldn't be a bad thing for you
to accustom yourself to spiritual topics.
My self-sacrifice does not go that far.
And tomorrow I depart for Nice.
Nice?
Such naïve diplomacy!
But it's futile!
I deciphered your code long ago.
We all know that when you say
“I depart for Nice,”
it means “a party in Monte Carlo”.
A shame!
We shall manage.
Immerse yourself in matter
if you are not daunted
by the thought of soon becoming spirit.
Go to Nice, to Monte Carlo!
And may Providence reward you
according to your merits!
My merits have nothing to do
with Providence,
but rather the application
of indispensable measures.
As for winnings and other sums,
I accept Providence,
at roulette, as in everything else.
But we should all meet again together.
- Olga!
- Poor child!
Olga!
- István!
- I'll fetch some water.
You know, such topics…
She is as cold as ice!
Open her mouth, please!
Give her room to breathe!
You are crowding her.
Via Chernivtsi,
it is two days to Königsberg.
So, Chernivtsi, Lemberg,
Warsaw, Vilnius.
There is another route,
but it takes longer, around three days.
Via Budapest, Vienna,
Prague, Berlin, Danzig.
Then you reach Königsberg.
Kolea…
Done.
Have you tried it?
Of course.
And you have too, haven't you?
The moving walkway is an invention
used for conveying
the countless visitors…
- 50 million.
- Yes.
Fewer, actually.
I have always felt well
in such a company.
At Monte Carlo, for example.
At Monte Carlo or elsewhere.
Nowhere is there felt the need
for a specimen of higher virtue.
But try living in a world
with not even one polite man.
I'm not sure I understand.
To which world do you refer?
Imagine the soldiers, at Solferino,
exchanging pleasantries
as they shoot at each other.
You might as well have said
that people crossing central Africa
require something other
than politeness.
But I refer to everyday life,
in a civilised human society.
Well, in that case,
there is no need for higher virtue
or for so-called Christianity.
Do you nod?
I'm thinking of a sad event
of which I recently learned.
Our friend Miklos, who died last Monday.
But how is it
that you recalled him now?
Did he die
due to somebody's impoliteness?
On the contrary,
he died due to his own politeness.
Tell us about it, if you are able.
There is nothing to hide.
Our friend,
who also regarded politeness
as the first rung of social morality,
felt duty-bound to follow its rules
as strictly as possible.
Meaning?
To read every letter,
regardless of the sender,
as well as every book and pamphlet
he was sent to review,
to answer every letter,
and to write every review,
to meet absolutely
every demand made of him.
That is enormous!
As a result, every day
he was busy with others' affairs,
setting aside for himself
only the nights.
Further, he accepted every invitation,
and received every guest
who found him at home.
As long as he was young
and could handle strong liquor,
this convict's life,
although oppressive,
was not transformed into tragedy,
since wine saved him from despair.
When he felt like hanging himself,
he laid hands on a bottle
and having taken a gulp,
he bore his cross more bravely.
But he had a delicate constitution.
At the age of around forty,
he gave up drinking.
Without strong drink,
his penance seemed hellish,
and we heard
he has committed suicide.
All because of politeness?
He was clearly insane!
He had lost his equilibrium,
but he was not insane.
I too know of cases of insanity
that are enough
to make you lose your mind.
It is not so simple.
Forgive me, but politeness is not
to blame for your friend's insanity.
He meant that politeness
cannot be an absolute rule.
Absolute rules were invented
by those devoid of any sense of reality.
I do not allow any absolute rule.
I only allow only indispensable rules.
I know for certain that
if I do not obey the rules of hygiene,
both I myself and others
will be disgusted at me.
Not wishing to cause or experience
unpleasant sensations,
every day I obey the rule
of washing myself,
changing my underlinen,
and not because
it's the done thing
or because it's something sacred,
but because violation of this rule
is ipso facto unprofitable.
Such pragmatism!
It is the same with politeness,
of which bodily hygiene is part.
It's more convenient to obey the rules
than to break them.
Therefore I obey them.
If your friend deemed
that politeness required him
to answer every letter and request,
heedless of his own convenience,
it was no longer politeness,
but stupid self-sacrifice.
Scrupulousness became a mania
that destroyed him.
It is terrible to see a man die
for so stupid a reason.
Couldn't you make him see sense?
I tried everything.
He had a strong ally, Umberto,
a monk, a kind of holy fool.
Miklos, my friend,
respected him and often asked
his advice on spiritual matters.
Umberto immediately sniffed out
the root of his sufferings.
I know this monk and was sometimes
present during their talks.
As soon as Miklos laid out to him
his moral doubts,
asking him whether he was right,
or whether he had erred,
Umberto interrupted: “Enough!
There's no point
glooming over your sins.
Listen to what I say:
Sin 539 times a day…”
539 times?
- 539 times.
- How healthy.
A day!
“And above all, do not repent,
anyone can repent after sinning.
Sin away and never repent.
If sinning is evil,
remembering evil means being rancorous,
which is not good.
The worst rancour
is to remember your own sins.
Better you remember
the evil done to you by others,
it will help you in future
to avoid them.
As for the evil you yourself do,
erase it completely from memory.
The only mortal sin is sorrow,
because it gives rise to despair,
and despair goes beyond sin,
it is the very death of the soul.
And then, what other sins are there?
Drunkenness?
An intelligent man
drinks as much as he can hold,
if he can't hold it,
he doesn't drink.
But a fool gets drunk
even on spring water.
It means that not wine,
but stupidity is to blame.
Out of stupidity,
some inflame themselves with wine
not only on the outside,
but on the inside too,
they are inflamed and burn,
I have seen it myself,” said Umberto.
Of what evil do we speak
when before your very eyes,
you spout the flames of hell?
“As for breaking the 6th commandment,
with hand on heart, I say:
to judge is not easy,
but to praise is impossible.
I don't recommend it!
Certainly, it is a great pleasure,
no doubt about it,
but thereafter comes despair,
which shortens life.”
He used to say:
“In youth, when one is still raw,
desire is great, but after that,
you control yourself.
Then you start raking up the past,
tormenting yourself with questions:
How did I lose my innocence,
purity and bodily cleanliness?
It is utter stupidity,
it means becoming the devil's buffoon.
And devil is flattered to see
that your soul, rather than rising,
still flounders in the mud.
My advice is this:
As soon as the devil appears,
tempting you with repentance,
spit in the wind and tell him:
These are my grave sins,
and this is
how much I think they're worth!
He will leave you alone,
I speak from experience”,
said Umberto.
“What other sins are there?
You're not going to steal, are you?
And even if you did, it's not serious.
Nowadays everyone steals.
Stop worrying about trifles
and seek to avoid sorrow.
When you remember your sins,
when you ask yourself
whether you have upset anyone,
go to the theatre instead.
Go out with friends.
Read farces.
And if you really want a rule,
this is it:
Be strong in faith,
not for the fear of sin,
but for the joy of living with God.”
Do you hear that?
“Without God it is terrible.
Study the word of God.
If you read carefully,
every verse is a pearl.
Pray from your heart,
at least once or twice a day.
And of course, don't forget to wash…”
That's for you.
“A sincere prayer
is the best soap for the soul.
Fast for a healthy stomach and innards,
don't think about
other people's affairs,
don't engage in good works
if you have other business,
be generous to the paupers
who cross your path,
donate to churches and monasteries
without keeping score,
since the balance
will be settled in Heaven.
In this way,
you will be healthy in body and soul.
Ignore the bigots who look
to sway your soul,
since theirs are empty.”
These words had an effect on our friend,
but could not halt
the tide of impressions
that overwhelmed him.
But your monk, in his own fashion,
says more or less the same as I do.
What an astounding moralist!
Sin and do not repent: That I like.
I assume he does not say
the same thing to everyone.
I think he takes a different tone
with fools or villains.
Quite right.
When he observes excess scruple,
he becomes philosophical,
even fatalistic.
Umberto also stirred the interest
of a very intelligent old lady.
She was of the Russian faith,
but educated abroad.
On hearing of him, she wanted him
to be her spiritual adviser.
But he would not let her voice
her spiritual concerns.
“Why fret over such foolery?”
he said.
“To what avail?
“If it bores me, a mere peasant,
how could it be of any interest to God?
“Enough! You're a wizened old crone
and you'll never be more than that.”
She herself told me the story,
with tears of laughter.
She tried to contradict him,
but he won the argument with a tale
from the Lives of the Holy Fathers.
What tale?
A story Umberto used to tell us,
Miklos and me.
A beautiful story,
but it would take too long
to tell it now.
Do you hear?
Yes.
Yes, it's Christmas Eve.
Is it to… to herald Christmas.
It is the tradition here.
- Do you want to listen to them?
- Certainly.
We would like to go outside, please.
It is a male choir, isn't it?
Yes, the villagers carol at every house.
Quick, quick!
Let's have some tea.
A little brandy, perhaps?
Tell Madame to come quickly,
the Count is unwell.
Tell her!
Kolea!
Fetch Dr. Blumenfeld,
the count is bleeding.
Quickly!
… 29th, Saint Thomas à Becket,
30th, Sunday of the Holy Family,
31st, Saint…
Saint Silvester I, Pope,
1st, St. Mary, Mother of God…
Sárika, come here!
Smell this!
Is that normal?
Smell it again!
I've told you before!
Go and fetch him!
Water, please. Five glasses.
Taste it.
Drink it all!
Go on.
Go on.
It happened last week,
it happened this week,
if it happens again…
Jancsi. What about the samovar?
They will have tea now.
We serve dinner at eight.
Go to the kitchen
and correct everything, everything.
Because if it happens again,
I will be very, very upset.
Do you understand?
Go.
For a cough, butter a quince,
boil it thoroughly,
then eat the quince
and drink the liquid.
For bad breath,
boil white willow leaf
and wash your mouth ten times…
Careful!
You wash your mouth ten times.
For a cramp, rub the spot,
three Tuesdays in a row,
with the dust from the peel of a quince.
Truly sensational!
- Pardon?
- They killed that girl.
Who?
From the Cabaret.
Turcsánsky…
Elsa.
Now we lift you up.
Gently, gently!
Easy does it.
Easy.
She was called Elsa the Witch.
Who?
The husband, Schmitt… Miksa.
The tycoon, with the furniture factory.
I read about it.
We've finished.
Easy…
- What about the tea?
- Straight away.
Chamomile, marigold, lavender, mint.
We lift him up slowly.
Gently, gently.
Alright.
Now a little higher.
Are you comfortable?
- Olga?
- I'm here!
- Do you still need me?
- No.
Yesterday, European nations
were united in the struggle for defence,
today are they united
in spreading civilisation?
Excuse me…
The bad politics of the Bourbons…
- Did you call me?
- What do you want?
- Did you call me?
- No, damn it! Leave me alone.
This is precisely what we call
an ugly story.
Let me invite you to take tea
in the library.
It's not a question of words,
political mistakes must be paid for.
Let them see it as something mystical,
if they like.
Admit that your political remedy
is ultimately tedious.
Had I not been interrupted,
I would have finished with the topic
and given the floor
to a more entertaining speaker.
Don't be angry, I was joking.
Quite the contrary,
I find you highly witty
for your age and condition.
All I was saying is that now
we are united with Europe
in our task of civilising Turkey.
That is why
we must have a common strategy.
Well then, dear Nikolai,
do you have Turkish tea for us?
Turkish tea? No.
That was cutting, Madeleine.
I would not have dared
with Turkish tea.
It's ordinary Russian tea.
The best.
Exactly, the best tea.
I'm thinking of a Chinese dictum,
related to me
by our friend, the Ambassador.
It goes like this:
Although we are still powerless
in Turkey,
we can play a key role
in Central Asia
and the Far East in particular,
where, it seems, universal history
is about to shift its centre of gravity.
Thanks to its position,
Russia can do more there
than any other nation,
apart from England, of course.
Therefore our policy in this respect
must aim for a permanent agreement
with the English,
lest our civilising partnership
deteriorate into absurd animosity
or undignified rivalry.
Never in people's lives
or in that of nations
have I heard of a case
where hostility or envy between partners
has made
either stronger, richer, happier.
Intelligent people know this
and I think
an intelligent nation such as Russia
will act on it.
To be at odds with the English
in the Far East would be insane.
Not to mention the disadvantage
of quarrelling in front of strangers.
Or do you think we're more akin
to the yellow-faced Chinese
than to the fellow countrymen
of Shakespeare and Byron?
It is a delicate matter.
Just remember,
if we accept my viewpoint
and recognise that at present
Russia's policy must set itself
two tasks alone:
To preserve the peace in Europe,
since any war in Europe would,
at this point,
be an absurd and criminal civil war,
and two,
to civilise the barbarian peoples
within our sphere of influence.
We shall see that these two tasks
are of intrinsic value,
and mutually support each other,
astonishingly so,
as each is conditional
upon the other.
If the Chinese knew
that Europe was behind us,
do you think
we would be powerless in Asia?
But if they see Europe
not behind Russia, but against it,
they might even think
to attack our borders,
forcing us to defend our borders
on two fronts 10,000 km apart.
I don't believe in the bogeyman
of a Mongol invasion,
because I do not allow
the possibility of war in Europe,
but should there be a war,
we would also have to fear the Mongols.
According to you, war in Europe
and a Mongol invasion are unlikely,
but I don't believe at all in this
“solidarity of the European nations”
or in a future universal peace.
It is unnatural,
a chimaera.
Not for nothing do we sing in church:
“Peace on earth
and goodwill to man.”
In other words, there will be peace
only when there is goodwill to man.
But where is this goodwill?
Have you seen it?
There is only one European power
to which we both feel
a genuine and sincere goodwill:
the Principality of Monaco.
And our peace with it is very stable.
But let us consider the Germans
and those Englishmen of ours,
since their interests are ours too,
since their contentment
is ours too, is it not?
This solidarity with the Europeans
will never be possible over here.
How can it not be possible,
when it already exists?
When it is in the nature of things?
We are in solidarity with the Europeans
because we too are Europeans.
Ever since the 18th century,
it has been an accomplished fact.
Neither the savagery
of the Russian masses
nor the chimaeras of the Slavophiles
will alter anything.
Are then the Europeans
in solidarity among themselves?
The French and the Germans,
for example,
or the English
with the one and the other?
Apparently, even the Swedes have shed
their solidarity with the Norwegians.
I shall say only this:
before declaring ourselves Europeans,
let us at least wait
until the European nations are united.
We can hardly tear ourselves to pieces
out of solidarity with Europeans,
when they are
at daggers drawn among themselves.
Now they're at daggers drawn!
Don't worry.
Neither between Sweden and Norway,
nor even between France and Germany,
will there be a rupture.
So much is obvious.
Only in our country
do so many people believe that France
is a bunch of adventurers
fit for prison.
That is where they belong.
Let them voice their nationalism there
and preach war with Germany.
It would be good
if nationalist animosity
could be put in prison.
But I think you're wrong.
Naturally,
I said it with a grain of salt.
Obviously,
Europe is not yet a unified whole.
Even if regional separatism
existed even in the 16th century,
it was giving up the ghost,
and state unity, now a reality,
had begun to take shape.
The same as in Europe now:
although there are still
regional antagonisms,
particularly among the masses
and ill-educated politicians,
they cannot lead
to any significant action.
They cannot cause a war in Europe!
Does it matter
that the French and Germans
bear each other no goodwill,
as long as they don't fight?
And that will not happen.
If we concede Europe to be a whole,
it does not follow that we are European.
For the last 20 years, there has been
a widespread opinion that Europe,
that is, the aggregate
of the Romano-German peoples,
constitutes a unified
cultural and historical type.
But we Russians
belong not to this type,
but to another, the Greco-Slavic.
We are familiar with those gentlemen
who rail against Europe
and our Greco-Slavonic origins,
casting themselves headlong
into preaching Confucianism,
Buddhism, Tibetanism,
and other Indo-Mongolian barbarities.
Their distance from Europe
is directly proportional
to their attraction to Asia.
Russia was, is and will always act
as Europe's buffer against Asia.
That is why
more than other European countries,
our homeland
is influenced by the Asian element,
hence our imaginative originality.
Not even Byzantium was original
in and of itself,
but rather through Asian influence.
In our case,
from the very beginning,
particularly since Batu Khan,
the Asian element
has permeated our being,
become our second nature,
prompting the Germans to say of us:
“They have two souls in one breast,
“and one wants to break free
of the other.”
- I hope I didn't mangle it.
- No, very nice.
It would be impossible for us
to break free of our second nature,
for real,
and it would be pointless,
since we are indebted to it.
But lest this clash tear us apart,
as you said, Ingrida,
it is necessary that one alone
triumph and dominate.
The best, of course!
That is, the most intellectually robust,
the one most capable of progress,
the one richest in potential.
It happened under Peter the Great,
but the deep affinity with Asia,
although suppressed once and for all,
continues
to urge others
foolishly to dream
of the chimerical solution
to a historical problem already solved.
Hence Slavophilia,
the theory of the cultural-historical
original type, and so on.
In reality,
we are irrevocably European,
with an Asian sediment
in the depths of our soul.
As far as I am concerned,
it is a grammatical evidence,
so to speak.
What is “Russian”,
grammatically speaking?
An adjective.
With which noun does it agree?
With the noun “man”: “a Russian man”,
“the Russian people”.
No, it's too broad, too vague.
Papuans and Eskimos are also men,
but I refuse to share my noun
with Papuans and Eskimos.
Nonetheless there are important things
humans have in common.
Love, for example.
That's even broader:
how could I deem love
as essentially individualising,
knowing that it belongs
to animals and all creatures?
I, for example, am a meek man.
In love, I am closer to a white dove
than to black Othello,
even if Othello is a man.
From a certain age, every reasonable man
is in solidarity with white doves.
What was that?
It was a play on words,
not for you,
but for His Excellency…
Joking aside! This is not
the Comic Opera, as far as I know.
I meant that the true noun
for the adjective “Russian”
is the word “European”.
We are Russian Europeans,
the same as the English,
the French and the Germans.
If I feel myself to be European,
is it not stupid to demonstrate
that I am Russo-Slavic
or Greco-Slavic?
I know for a fact that I am a European,
just as I know I am a Russian,
a Franco-Russian, even.
I can
and perhaps even must
be charitable to every man and animal.
But if I am to feel solidarity,
to feel at home,
it will not be
with the Zulus or Chinese,
but only
with the nations
that have created and preserved
this treasury of high civilisation
on which I nourish my soul and which
provides me with supreme delights.
Are you sure?
First of all, these chosen nations
had to take shape,
to gain strength and to survive
against inferior elements.
War was necessary,
war was sacred.
Now they have taken shape,
they have acquired power
and they have nothing more to fear,
except internal strife.
Everywhere today,
an age of peace is heralded,
an age of peaceful expansion
of European civilisation.
All must become Europeans.
The notion of European
must coincide with that of man,
and the notion of European civilisation,
with that of mankind.
- This is the meaning of history.
- This is becoming serious…
First they were only Greek Europeans,
then Roman Europeans,
then all the rest appeared,
first in the West,
then in the East,
Russian Europeans appeared,
across the ocean, American Europeans,
now is the turn
of the Turkish Europeans,
the Persian, Indian, Japanese,
and even Chinese Europeans.
“European” is a notion
with a well-defined content
and which is constantly growing.
Regarding this, notice the difference:
every man is just as human as any other.
Therefore, if we take
so abstract a notion as a noun,
we will arrive at
egalitarian non-differentiation
and we will not grant
the nation of Shakespeare and Newton
any greater weight than the Papuans.
Excuse me,
but it is taking longer than expected.
Don't worry.
I'll be back in half an hour.
- Will you be needing me, Olga?
- No, thank you.
As I was saying,
first and foremost it is absurd,
and deleterious in practice.
If my noun is not “man”,
that biped devoid of content,
but cultural man,
that is, the European,
then absurd egalitarianism
no longer has any place.
The notion of “European”
or, in other words, “culture”,
contains a sure criterion
for determining,
by comparison, the quality or value
of the different races,
nations, individuals.
These differences in value
must be taken into account
by a healthy policy.
Otherwise,
if we place on the same level
relatively civilised Austria
and some semi-savage Hertzegovans,
it will lead us straight
to the absurd,
dangerous adventures
yearned for
by the last Mohicans of Slavophilia.
There are Europeans and Europeans.
Is that so?
When the long-awaited time comes,
hopefully very soon,
when Europe, that is,
the civilised world
will genuinely coincide,
in its dimensions,
with the whole population of the globe,
there will remain in the bosom
of a mankind united and at peace
those natural gradations
and nuances of cultural value
that history has laid down,
according to which our relations
with various peoples must be adjusted.
And in the triumphant, universal
kingdom of the higher civilisation,
it will be as in the Kingdom of Heaven:
“One is the light of the sun,
“one is the light of the moon,
one is the light of the stars,
“for star differs from star
in its brilliance.”
That is what the Catechism says.
When the target is so close
but has not been reached,
we must guard
against the errors
of undifferentiated egalitarianism.
Recently,
the papers have reported a conflict
between England and Transvaal.
It seems the Africans
threaten England with war.
Already I see all kinds
of journalists and politicians,
from here and maybe even
all across the continent,
waging a campaign against England
and taking the side
of those oppressed Africans.
How shameful!
If only those wretched cowherds
had had the flair
to accept their Dutch origins.
Holland is a real nation,
honourable, patently superior.
But no! They consider themselves
a nation apart
and they want to build
an African homeland of their own.
The scoundrels!
First of all,
do not use derogatory words,
then explain what the Transvaal is
and what kind of people live there?
A mixture of Europeans and blacks:
Neither white nor black, but brown.
Another calembour, apparently.
- Not one of the best.
- A calembour for a Boer.
If you do not like that colour,
there is also the Orange Republic.
Wonderful…
But seriously, the Boers
are still Europeans,
but of the bad variety.
Isolated from their glorious homeland,
they have, to a large extent,
lost their civilisation.
Surrounded by savages,
they have grown savage and harsh.
To place them
on the same level as the English
or worse, to wish for their victory
in the war with England,
is inconceivable!
But the same Europeans sympathise
with the mountain tribes of the Caucasus,
who oppose you,
fighting for their freedom.
And Russia is far more civilised
than the Circassians.
On that we agree.
Setting aside
the reasons for Europe's sympathy
for the Caucasus savages,
I shall say only
that we must assimilate
the global European spirit,
not the follies
of this or that European.
Certainly, I would deeply regret it
if England were forced
to employ the obsolete
and historically blameworthy means
that is war
to appease
those arrogant barbarians.
But if war proves inevitable,
because of Zulu savagery,
encouraged
by continental envy of England,
then naturally,
I will hope the war concludes
with the African brigands crushed,
so that we shall never again hear
of their independence.
Were they to prevail,
possible given the context,
it would be the triumph of barbarity
over civilisation,
and for me as a Franco-Russian,
i.e. a European,
it would be a day of national mourning.
No, I disagree.
Why shouldn't we sympathise
with the Boers
the same as we do with Wilhelm Tell?
Well, if they had created
their own legend,
if they had inspired artists
like Schiller or Rossini,
if they had produced
a Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
we would speak differently.
But they all came afterward.
Even the Swiss were originally
nothing but shepherds.
And not only they.
When they rebelled against the English
to gain independence,
were the Americans
notable for their education? No.
Even if they were not brown,
they had red skin
and scalped their enemies.
Read Mayne Reid.
But even so,
La Fayette sympathised with them.
And he was right.
Because now all the religions
have been assembled in Chicago,
they have held an exhibition,
an amazing thing.
They intended to do the same in Paris
for the exhibition,
but nothing came of it.
An abbot did his utmost,
Father Victor Charbonnel.
He wrote me some letters.
A very nice man.
But all the religions declined.
The Grand Rabbi said:
“For religion,
“we have the Bible,
an exhibition is superfluous.”
Poor Charbonnel, out of sorrow,
has abandoned Christ.
The newspapers say he has retired,
and was quite an admirer of Renan.
He ended up badly,
they say either he married
or succumbed to drink.
Your Neplyuev ended up the same,
but he was disillusioned
with all religions.
That idealist wrote to me
saying he has faith only in humanity.
But how to exhibit humanity
at the Paris Exhibition?
It seems to me utter folly!
But the Americans
did do a very good job.
Representatives of every religion
answered their call.
They appointed a Catholic bishop
as chairman,
who read the Lord's Prayer in English,
and the Chinese and Buddhist
idolater priests
politely answered:
“Oh, yes! All right, sir!
We wish nobody any ill,
we ask only
that your missionaries leave us alone.
Because
your religion is very good for you,
and it is not our fault
if you do not follow it,
but our religion is the best for us.”
And it all ended well,
there was no fighting,
to everyone's surprise.
That's Americans today.
Who knows?
Today's Africans might one day
become Americans like that.
Anything is possible, of course.
Even a rascal can become a scientist.
Until then,
a sound thrashing will do him good.
What an expression!
You have succumbed to vice.
Is it because of Monte Carlo?
Whose company do you keep there?
The families of croupiers?
Anyway, it's your business.
I merely ask you to shorten
your exposition on political wisdom.
It is time that we conclude.
I was about to sum up
and link to what I said at the start.
I don't believe you,
you won't conclude by yourself.
I really must help you
clarify your position.
You said, didn't you,
that in the olden days,
there existed God and war,
but now, instead of God,
we have culture and peace?
That was it, wasn't it?
In a way, yes.
Perfect.
I neither know nor can explain
what God is,
but I can sense Him.
As for your Culture,
it stirs nothing in me.
Therefore, in brief,
explain to me what it is.
What Culture is, what it consists of,
you already know.
It is the whole treasury
of thought and genius,
created by the elect minds
of elect peoples.
Yes,
but that can mean anything,
and there is considerable diversity.
Let us take Voltaire, Bossuet,
the Madonna, Nana,
Alfred de Musset, Filaret.
How can you lump them all together
and then replace God with them?
I also meant that we shouldn't bother
about culture as a historical treasure.
Culture was created, it exists.
We can still hope there will be
other Shakespeares and Newtons,
but that does not depend on us
and is of no practical interest.
Culture also has
a practical or, if you like, moral side,
that is precisely what in private life
is known as politeness, courtesy.
To a superficial eye
it may seem unimportant,
but it has a vast and unique meaning
because only this can take on
a universal, obligatory character.
We cannot demand of anyone lofty virtue,
or superior intelligence or genius,
but we can demand of all
that they show politeness.
It is the minimum
of common feeling and morality,
which allows people
to live like human beings.
We clearly cannot reduce culture
to politeness,
but it is the indispensable condition
for every culture.
Just as writing and reading
are indispensable
to the mind's education.
Even if the latter
entails more than that.
What is it?
Edouard, if you could see your face…
What's happening?
What is it?
I don't know.
Please, Edouard, continue!
Excuse me, I lost the thread
of what you were saying.
- No, he'd just finished.
- I was saying…
We should not be concerned
with culture in general,
as a historical treasure,
it was created, it exists.
We can still hope there will be
new Shakespeares and Newtons,
but that does not depend on us
and is of no practical interest.
Culture also has another aspect,
a practical or, if you like,
moral aspect,
that is precisely what in private life
is called politeness, courtesy.
Really?
Strange…
Excuse me.
Now we really are at the Comic Opera.
- Nobody comes.
- Yes, strange that nobody comes.
Is this a joke?
How strange that nobody comes.
It is strange, isn't it?
Perhaps it is the carollers
from earlier.
But where is Olga?
Is she in the house?
Strange that nobody comes.
István!
Maybe we ought to go and see.
Edouard is uneasy.
Ring again!
It's not usual in this house.
Do you see where you have brought
our dear Nikolai's house?
Everything is out of joint.
What's with this silence?
Don't worry.
Zoyichka!… Zoya!…
- I'll go and see.
- You'd…
István!
What's going on?
Answer me, what's going on?
Ingrida!
Easy…
- Gently.
- Mind the door.
Ready.
Here we are.
- Now.
- Yes.
Here you are…
- Are you comfortable?
- István…
Yes?
What do you think of this:
“Arise, life's accursed,
“Arise, those condemned to hunger!”
I think it refers
to the foundry workers.
Those who want to work less
but earn more…
Their wages…
What about this line?
“The International
will be the human race.”
István, I need your help.
Sure.
In another week
you will have recovered.
Tell me when you finish.
Yes, sir.
So you think it is the Antichrist?
Of course not.
There are hints as to his nature,
but he has not yet arrived.
Then explain him to us
as simply as possible.
I cannot guarantee
it will be simple.
It is not easy to achieve
genuine simplicity,
and illusory, artificial, false
simplicity is the most sinful.
According to an ancient maxim,
which a late friend used to repeat:
“Simplicity can easily be deceptive.”
Not even that is so simple.
The same as in the folk saying,
probably.
Which is?
“Simplicity is the worst theft.”
Simplicity is worse than theft.
Exactly.
Now I understand.
A pity the Antichrist cannot be
explained through proverbs.
Then enlighten us.
Very well.
But before I do,
tell me whether you recognise
the existence
and power of Evil in the world?
We wouldn't wish to recognise them,
but we are forced to do so.
Death is no small matter,
an evil none escapes.
I think the final enemy
to be defeated will be death.
And as long as it is undefeated,
it is clear that Evil
is stronger than Good.
What do you think, Ingrida?
Of course Evil exists,
the same as Good exists.
If God exists,
then the devil also exists.
As long as God permits,
of course.
For the time being,
I refrain from comment.
But I am curious
as to other opinions.
I understand Olga's way of thinking,
that is, it's obvious to me
it isn't really a way of thinking,
but quite simply a pretence,
which makes no sense.
But the obviously more consistent
religious viewpoint
is what interests me more,
although I've encountered it
only in its bureaucratic form
and it doesn't satisfy me.
I would very much like
to hear about this,
not some pious homilies,
but a human opinion.
Of the stars that
rise in the mind
of him who reads the scriptures,
none, I think,
is brighter or more astonishing
than that which shines
in the Gospels.
Behold the poet.
No, wait!
“Think not that I have come
to send peace on earth.
“I came not to send peace,
but a sword.”
He came to bring us the Truth,
and the Truth, like the Good,
is a sword, it divides.
Nor is this very clear.
Why then is Christ named
“Prince of Peace”
and why did He say
the peacemakers
will be named “sons of the Lord”?
Note that we can only reconcile
contradictory texts
by separating the good peace,
the true peace,
from the false peace,
the bad peace.
This distinction was clearly shown
by Him who brought true peace
and good enmity.
“My peace I give unto you.
“Not as the world giveth,
give I unto you.”
Therefore, there is a good peace,
Christ's peace,
based on the division
Christ brings to the world,
that is, the distinction
between Good and Evil,
lie and truth.
And there is an evil, worldly peace,
which rests upon the confusion
or seeming reconciliation
of what essentially
cannot be reconciled.
How do you explain to us the difference
between the good and the bad peace?
Like Ingrida this morning,
when she joked about
there being “good peace”,
like that of Nystadt
or Kuchuk-Kainardji.
This joke conceals a more important
and more general meaning.
In the spiritual struggle,
the same as in the political one,
a good peace
is that attained only when
the purpose of the war is achieved.
But ultimately,
why are Good and Evil at war?
Is it really necessary
that they confront each other?
Can there be hand-to-hand fighting
between them?
In a war,
when one side gains ground,
the other side, the enemy,
seeks reinforcements,
and the conflict must be solved
at the front, with cannon and bayonet.
But in the battle of Good against Evil,
there is no such thing.
When Good gains strength,
Evil is weakened at once,
and they never actually
confront each other.
Such things are figurative.
I think that…
we must merely take care
that the Good predominate in people,
for then Evil will be diminished
of itself.
Do you think the good
must simply become better
in order for the wicked
to shed their wickedness
and themselves to become good?
Yes, I do.
Has a good man's goodness
ever made an evil man good?
Or at least less evil?
No.
Never have I heard the like…
What you say is similar
to what you told Olga this morning.
In other words,
not even Christ,
in all His goodness,
could derive any good
from the soul of Judas Iscariot
or the soul of the bad thief.
Olga should answer your question,
remember to ask her when she comes.
Since I don't believe she is Antichrist,
I don't believe she'll come.
I believe even less
in her theological astuteness.
In order for the question
not to hamper our discussion,
I shall present the objection
that Olga might express.
“Why did Christ not use His goodness
“to restore the souls of Judas and co.?”
Simply because the age
was too ignorant
and only few souls
had attained the moral level
at which can be perceived
the intrinsic power of truth.
Judas and co.
had not sufficiently evolved.
As Christ told His Disciples:
“The works that I do,
“greater works than these shall you do.”
At the advanced stage
of moral development
we have now attained,
the true disciples of Christ can,
by the power of their meekness
and non-violence,
work miracles superior
to those of 18 centuries ago.
If I may!
If they can, then why don't they?
Or perhaps you have seen
such new miracles?
So it is that Olga,
not even after 18 centuries
of moral development
of the Christian awareness,
still cannot enlighten
my darkened soul.
And I remain the same cannibal
as before I met her.
The same as up until now,
more than anything in the world,
after God and Russia,
I favour the military art,
and the artillery in particular.
After all, I have met
apostles of non-violence before,
and of a different calibre
than our dear Olga.
Please,
why take such a personal stance?
What do you expect of me?
I've presented to you on Olga's behalf
a Gospel text she had forgotten.
“That's good, or not so good
“I can't answer for
other people's dreams.”
Well, now I shall take
the defence of our dear Olga.
She would have shown intelligence
if she had answered Ingrida thus:
“I myself and people like me,
whom you have met,
“regard ourselves
as true disciples of Christ
“only with regard to…”
Dinner is served.
Yes, very well.
- Sorry, what were you saying?
- Nothing.
I was saying that,
were I to speak on Olga's behalf,
this is how I would
have answered Ingrida:
“I myself and people like me,
whom you have met,
regard ourselves
as true disciples of Christ,
only with regard
to our thoughts and deeds,
not because we think
we have acquired a higher power.
Certainly,
somewhere there exist or will exist,
one fine day,
better Christians than us,
and they would be able
to enlighten even you.”
This answer, certainly,
would be convenient,
since it appeals
to an unknown authority.
But no matter.
They would say, for example:
“We cannot do anything.
Neither more
nor the same as Christ did,
neither less nor even close.”
What then may we logically
deduce therefrom?
We may deduce only one thing.
That Christ's words:
“Greater works than these shall you do”,
were not addressed to those men
but to others,
who resemble them not at all.
However,
we may imagine
that a man will fulfil
the teachings of Christ
as to loving one's enemy
and turning the other cheek.
And also through Christ,
he will be able to turn,
by his meekness,
evil souls into good souls.
Not long ago,
such an experiment was performed.
Not only did it fail,
but it proved exactly
the opposite of your claims.
There lived a man of boundless meekness,
who not only forgave every insult,
but answered every evil deed
with greater and greater good.
What then?
Did he shake his enemy's soul
to its foundations?
Did he cause him to be morally reborn?
Alas, he only has harshened
the villain's heart,
and he died a wretched death
by his hand.
But please, let us take our seats
at the dinner table.
Who were you talking about?
Who was this man?
Where and when did he live?
Not long ago, in St. Petersburg.
I thought you knew him.
He's Delarue, the Chamberlain.
Never heard of him in my life…
You argued that the meaning of History
resides in the fact
that natural humanity,
initially composed of peoples
of greater or lesser savagery,
which differed from each other,
and either ignored or fought each other,
gradually gives birth to a better,
more educated condition,
the civilised world.
Or European world.
Which grows and expands
to encompass every remaining people
left behind by this movement of history,
bringing them together in a unitary whole,
pacifist, international, in solidarity.
“The establishment of everlasting
international peace.”
That was how you put it, wasn't it?
The imminent realisation these words
will lead to far more civilisational
successes than might now appear.
Think of how much Evil will,
necessarily, have atrophied
and how much Good,
by the nature of things,
will appear and develop.
How much energy will be released
for productive activities,
how the sciences and arts will flourish,
industry and commerce…
Do you include
the elimination of disease and death
among the imminent successes
of civilisation?
It goes without saying.
Up to a point.
Much has been achieved
in the medical sphere,
hygiene, antisepsis, organotherapy…
But are not these evident
positive achievements
counterbalanced
by an equally evident progress
of the degenerative psychopathic
and neuropathological phenomena
that go hand in hand with
the development of civilisation?
But what scales
could weigh such a thing?
In any event, it is clear that
the negative increases with the positive.
The sum tends toward zero.
So much for diseases.
Then, as for death,
progress has never been
anything other than zero.
Does the progress of civilisation
aim to eliminate death?
I know very well it does not.
This is why it's not good
to have such expectations.
In fact,
if I were certain
that I would die once and for all,
along with all that I love,
would I not be indifferent
whether various nations warred
or lived in peace,
if they were civilised or savage,
polite or not?
From a personal, selfish viewpoint,
certainly it's all the same.
Selfish in what way?
Death levels all.
In the face of death, selfishness
and altruism are just as absurd.
True. Nevertheless,
the absurdity of selfishness
does not stop us being selfish.
Likewise altruism,
insofar as it is possible,
does not require reason,
and the thought of death
changes nothing.
My children and my grandchildren
will die, I'm aware of it,
but that does not stop me
caring for them
as if they will live forever.
I work for them, first of all,
because I love them.
I'm glad to devote my life to them.
I like doing so.
It's as simple as that.
Yes, as long as all is well.
But the thought of death is still there.
But when bad things happen
to your children and grandchildren,
what joy,
what pleasure will you find then?
It's the same as with waterlilies:
when you pick them,
you sink in the mire.
But it is still your duty to care
for your children and grandchildren.
Of course.
Without having answered
or even asked the question
of whether your care for them
provides with them a real, definite good.
You care for them, not without reason,
but because you bear them a living love.
We can't bear the same love
for people who do not yet exist.
And this is where the question
that reason asks us comes in,
with regard to the final purpose
of our care.
If the answer, ultimately,
is the death of each and everyone,
if the final result of progress
and of your civilisation
is in every case the death of all,
then it is clear
that all civilised activity is in vain.
It is pointless and absurd.
The true Christian doctrine does not
even allow such an approach.
The evangelical solution
is clearly and thoroughly expressed
in the parable of the vineyard.
The servants imagined the vineyard
they were to tend for their master
was their own property
and that everything there was theirs.
They set about enjoying life
in the vineyard, forgot their master,
and slew those who reminded them
of him and their duties.
Almost everyone today lives like them.
In the absurd belief
that they are masters of their lives
given to them for their own pleasure.
It is obviously absurd.
If we have been sent here,
it was by someone's will
and for a reason.
But we have decided
we are like mushrooms:
we are born
and we live only for our pleasures.
It is clearly not good for us,
nor will it be
for the disobedient servant.
The master's will is expressed
in the doctrine of Christ.
Let people obey His doctrine,
and heaven will reign on earth.
People will then receive
the greatest good they are permitted.
It's all here.
Seek the Kingdom of God
and His righteousness,
and the rest will be given to you
in abundance.
We do not seek the rest
and we do not find it.
Not only do we not establish
the Kingdom of God, but we destroy it
with our states, our armies,
courts, universities and factories.
- Have you finished?
- Yes.
I have to…
to tell you that I simply
cannot understand your way
of solving the problem.
You seem to reason,
argue and explicate,
you wish to convince us of something,
and yet you put forward nothing
but a series of arbitrary,
meaningless statements.
You say, for example:
if we have been sent here,
it was by someone's will
and for a reason.
This seems to be the principal idea.
But what does it mean?
How do you know we were sent here
by someone, for something?
Who told you so?
It is true we exist on earth,
that our life consists
in fulfilling some mission or other
is a wholly gratuitous statement.
In my youth,
when I was sent on mission,
I knew it for certain.
I knew by whom and for what purpose.
First of all because
I had indisputable documents,
secondly,
because I had had an audience
with the late Alexander II,
who personally gave me instructions,
and thirdly,
because every year
I was paid 30,000 gold rubles.
A handsome sum!
If, rather than all that,
somebody had approached me
on the street,
made me a minister
and sent me off on a mission,
then I would have looked around
for a policeman
to arrest that lunatic
lest he take my life.
In our case,
your supposed master
did not give you indisputable documents,
he did not grant you a private audience,
he does not pay you a salary.
What kind of emissary are you?
And I refer not just to you,
but to all people,
whether envoys or servants,
we do not know for sure.
By what right? On what basis?
I do not understand.
My impression is
that it is a rhetorical exercise,
and not a very inspired one.
Please,
don't play-act again.
You understand perfectly
that Olga was not
attacking your unbelief,
but expositing
the general Christian view
according to which we all depend on God
and must serve Him.
To serve him without a wage,
this I do not understand.
And if this wage
is the same for all, meaning death,
then my compliments.
You will die anyway
and nobody will ask your opinion.
Precisely this “anyway”
shows us that life is not a paid job.
Whether or not
I am asked for my consent,
since my consent is not required
in order to die or be born,
I prefer to regard both death and life,
as what they are, that is,
necessities of nature.
Rather than tell myself
I serve a master.
Here is my conclusion:
Live your life
and strive to live
as intelligently
and as well as possible.
The condition
for an intelligent and good life
is a pacifist civilisation.
Besides, I assume that not even
in the realm of Christian teaching
does Olga's pseudo-solution
stand up to criticism.
But I surrender the floor
to more competent speakers.
What answer are we talking about?
The question
has neither been asked nor answered.
Instead, we keep
going around and around it.
It is as if I were to draw battalions
around an enemy fortress on a map
and imagine I had conquered it.
I don't understand a thing!
Is that all you can muster
against what I said?
What was genuinely hard
for me to understand
was the part about mushrooms
living for their own pleasures.
I've always thought they were
for the pleasure of gourmets,
served with cream or in pastry.
And if God's kingdom on earth
leaves death intact,
then it follows that people
live against their will
and in that kingdom,
we will live like mushrooms.
But not like
your pleasure-taking mushrooms,
rather as real mushrooms,
which will end up in the pan.
The same for humans
in God's kingdom on earth,
they will finally be devoured by death.
And that will be that.
Olga didn't say that.
Neither that, nor anything else.
Why do we overlook
the most important thing?
Before that,
I'd like to know
where you got that parable,
Olga,
whereby you expressed your opinion?
Or maybe you invented it yourself?
Invented it myself?
But it's from the Gospels!
That parable is not in any Gospel.
For God's sake!
Why are you picking on Olga?
There is a parable
of the vine workers in the Gospels.
There is something on a similar subject,
but its meaning and content
refer to something else.
This is too much!
To me, it is the same parable.
And besides, it seems to me
that you are splitting hairs.
And I don't take your word for it.
Nor is there any need to.
The parable can be found
in three of the Evangelists:
Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
but there is no noticeable difference
among them,
therefore let us look
at only one of them, the most detailed,
in Luke.
It is in chapter 20,
where we find Christ's final sermon.
The end was approaching,
and here we are told,
at the end of chapter 19
and the beginning of chapter 20,
how Christ's enemies,
the high priests and scribes,
made a determined attack,
demanding He reveal who authorised Him,
and to say
by what right
and by what authority He acted.
But better I read it.
And he taught daily in the temple
But the chief priests and the scribes
sought to destroy him
and could not find what they might do,
for all people were waiting to hear him.
On one of those days
as he taught the people in the temple,
the chief priests and the scribes
came upon him with the elders,
and spoke unto him, saying,
Tell us by what authority you do these
things, or who gave you this authority?
And he answered and said unto them:
I will ask you one thing, and answer me:
the baptism of John,
was it from heaven, or of men?
And they reasoned with themselves,
saying,
If we shall say, From heaven,
he will say,
Why then believed ye him not?
But and if we say, Of men,
all the people will stone us,
for they be persuaded
that John was a prophet.
And they answered
that they could not tell whence it was.
And Jesus said unto them,
Neither tell I you by what authority
I do these things.
Why do you read this to us?
It was well that Christ didn't answer
when they berated Him.
What does this have to do
with vineyard workers?
Wait a minute, it all comes together.
You are wrong that Jesus didn't answer.
He answered very precisely,
twice even.
He called on a witness to His power
that they could not challenge.
Then He showed them
they had neither power
nor any right over Him,
as they were acting
from fear of the people,
submitting to the mob,
from fear of death.
But the true power, isn't it,
consists not in following others,
but in being followed.
Fearing the people and heeding them,
they showed that power
eluded them
and belonged to the people.
It is the people Christ now addresses,
to accuse them of opposing Him.
This I like very much!
The content of vineyard parable
condemns the unworthy Jewish leaders
for opposing the Messiah.
As you will now see.
Then he began to speak to the people
this parable:
A man planted a vineyard,
let it forth to husbandmen
and went abroad for a long time.
At harvest time he sent a servant
to the husbandmen,
so they should give him
the fruit of the vineyard.
But the husbandmen beat him,
and sent him away empty handed.
And again he sent another servant
and they beat him also,
and treated him shamefully,
and sent him away empty handed.
And again he sent a third,
and they wounded him also
and cast him out.
Then the lord of the vineyard
said to himself:
What shall I do?
I will send my beloved son,
hopefully they will reverence him.
But when the husbandmen saw him,
they reasoned among themselves, saying
This is the heir,
let us kill him,
that the inheritance may be ours.
So they cast him out of the vineyard,
and killed him.
What therefore shall the lord
of the vineyard do unto them?
He shall come
and destroy these husbandmen,
and shall give the vineyard to others.
And when they heard it, they said:
God forbid.
And he beheld them, and said:
What is this that is written?
The stone which the builders rejected,
became the head of the corner.
Whosoever shall fall upon it
shall be broken,
on whomsoever it shall fall,
it will grind him to powder.
The chief priests and the scribes
sought to lay hands on him,
but they feared the people.
For they perceived
that he had spoken this parable
against them.
To whom and to what, I ask you,
does the parable of the vineyard refer?
I don't understand your objection.
The high priests and scribes
were offended
because they knew they were
like the workers in this parable.
But of what exactly were they accused?
Of not practising the true doctrine.
This much seems obvious.
These villains lived like mushrooms,
for their own pleasure.
They smoked tobacco, drank brandy,
they ate dead flesh,
made offerings of it to their god,
they also married,
they judged others and waged war.
Does such mockery befit
your age and rank?
Don't listen to him, Olga.
I am convinced…
I beg your pardon.
We are trying
to have a serious discussion with you.
Merely tell me,
in Gospel parable,
the vineyard workers perish
because they kill
their master's son and heir.
That is what is essential,
according to the Gospel.
Why do you omit this fact?
Because it refers to the fate of Christ,
which, of course,
has its own importance and value,
but is not essential
to the only thing necessary.
Namely?
To follow Gospel teachings
whereby we attain the Kingdom of God
and His righteousness.
Wait!
Wait one moment.
It is all mixed up in my head.
What is it about, in fact?
Nikolai,
you hold the Gospels in your hand,
please tell me
what comes next in the chapter,
after the parable.
It says
we must render unto Caesar
what is Caesar's
then it tells
of the resurrection of dead,
that the dead will be resurrected
because God is not of the dead,
but of the living.
Then,
it shows that Christ
is not the son of David,
but the son of God.
And the final verses are against
the hypocrisy and vanity of the scribes.
You see, Olga, the Gospels
teach that we must recognise
the state's role in worldly affairs
and must believe
in the resurrection of the dead
and that Christ
is not an ordinary man,
but the Son of God.
Can we draw conclusions from a chapter
written who knows when
and by who knows whom?
This time, I am in no doubt
and I don't have to look it up
to know it's in a single chapter…
And…
Sorry, I became confused,
but I don't agree with you.
I don't want to believe
that it is only in one chapter,
I know that in all four Gospels
there is talk of the resurrection,
as well as the divinity of Christ,
particularly in John,
which is also read at funerals.
As for the notion that it is unknown
when or by whom they were written,
even liberal German criticism allows
that the four Gospels
are of apostolic origin,
from the 1st century A.D.
And in the 13th edition
of Renan's “Life of Jesus”,
I think I saw a retraction
regarding the fourth Gospel.
Right,
one must keep up with the experts.
The unfortunate thing is that,
whatever the Gospels might be,
no matter when they were written
or by whom,
there is no Gospel
more plausible to you, Olga.
None more consonant
with your doctrine.
What do you mean there isn't?
What about the fifth?
In which Christ does not appear,
but is only about animal sacrifice
and military service.
Oh no! You as well?
How shameful!
The more you and your cronies
tease Olga,
the more I shall take her side.
Olga, I'm certain
you want to tackle Christianity
honestly.
Your Gospel,
although it does not resemble ours,
is almost the same.
The way they used to write books titled:
“The spirit of M. de Montesquieu”,
“The spirit of Fénelon”,
you and your teachers
have tried to write
“The Spirit of the Gospels”.
A pity that none of you
has written a brochure called:
“The Spirit of Christianity,
“according to the doctrine
of so and so…”
You must have some kind of…
catechism,
for the rest of us,
we simple people,
lest we lose the thread
of all these variations.
Because, in effect,
we are told that the essentials
are found in the Sermon on the Mount,
or they inform us… suddenly…
that first we must work the land
by the sweat of our brows,
although this is not in the Gospels,
but in Genesis,
where it is said
of the throes of labour,
although it is not a commandment,
but only a sad fate.
And we are also told we must
give everything to the poor,
then not to give anything to anyone.
For, money is Evil
and you must not do evil to others,
but only to yourself and your family.
For others you must only toil.
After that we are told
to do nothing, only to meditate.
We are even told that a woman's purpose
is to give birth
to as many healthy children as possible
and then, all of a sudden,
that there's no such thing.
And then,
apropos of what we have on our plates,
we are told to stop eating meat,
and that is the first step,
but
nobody knows why it is the first.
Then brandy is condemned,
and tobacco,
then pancakes.
And now, we discover,
my dear Ingrida,
that military service
is the greatest evil
and that the main duty of the Christian
is to refuse it,
but he who is conscripted
is already a saint.
Maybe I'm talking nonsense,
but that's not my fault.
It's impossible not to get confused!
I too think our doctrine
needs to be summarised.
Yes.
A summary is being written, apparently.
But until then,
could you, please,
in a few words,
tell us what, to you,
is the essence of the Gospel?
To me it is obviously
the great principle
of not employing violence
to oppose Evil.
And where does tobacco come in?
What tobacco?
I'm asking you what connection is there
between non-violence
and abstinence from tobacco,
brandy, meat,
amorous liaisons?
To me the connection seems clear.
Such depraved habits stultify man
and weaken the voice
of his rational or moral conscience.
That's why soldiers
are plied with drink before a battle!
Especially if it is a losing battle.
The principle of non-violence
is important in itself,
whether or not it justifies
the demands of asceticism.
In your opinion, Olga,
if we don't oppose Evil by force,
Evil will disappear by itself.
Therefore, Evil persists
only because we oppose it.
Or because of our measures against it,
as it has no power of its own.
So Evil does not even exist,
it arises as a result
of the false opinion that it does exist
and we act accordingly, is that it?
Olga?
Yes.
But if Evil has no real existence,
how do you explain the astounding failure
of Christ's mission in history?
As you say, it did not succeed,
ultimately nothing came of it.
In fact, it did more harm than good.
Why so?
The odd question!
But you consider that Christ preached
the authentic good
with more clarity, force
and perseverance than anyone else.
- Agreed?
- Yes.
And the real Good
consists in not opposing Evil by force,
that is, an illusory Evil,
since Evil doesn't exist.
Not only did Christ preach the Good,
but He Himself
met the demands of that Good,
enduring martyrdom
without resistance.
According to you, Christ died
and was not resurrected. Perfect.
By His example, thousands of followers
met the same fate.
Perfect.
What came of that, in your opinion?
Would you have wanted angels to place
shining crowns on those martyrs' heads…
and…
bring them to the Garden of Heaven
in reward for their heroism?
No, why do you say that?
Like myself, I hope, you certainly wish
for all your family, alive or dead,
to enjoy all that is good.
However, not what we want matters,
but what, as you say,
resulted from the teachings and sacrifices
of Christ and His disciples.
Resulted for whom? For them?
For them, we know that it resulted
in a cruel death.
Given their moral heroism,
they willingly submitted to it,
not to be given shining crowns,
but genuinely to do good
to others, to all mankind.
So I ask you,
what good did their martyrdom
do to mankind?
As the old saying goes:
“the blood of the martyrs
is the seed of the Church.”
That's right,
but according to you, the Church
has distorted authentic Christianity,
which mankind has now almost forgotten,
and 18 centuries later it was necessary
to start all over again.
Without any guarantee of success,
that is, without hope.
Why without hope?
Surely you do not deny that Christ
and the primitive Christians
gave up their souls for this cause,
and even their lives.
If in the end, as you say,
nothing came out of it,
then on what are the hopes
of a different outcome based?
All this has an obvious,
constant and absolutely identical outcome
for the founders, distorters,
destroyers and reformers.
They all died in the past,
they die now, and will die in future,
and the cause of the Good,
the preaching of the truth,
has not produced
and is unlikely to produce
anything but death.
What does that mean?
How strange:
the Evil, which doesn't exist,
always triumphs,
and the Good always crumbles
into the abyss.
But do the wicked not die?
They do, many of them.
But the power of Evil
merely confirms the kingdom of death,
whereas the power of Good
is contradicted by it.
In fact,
Evil is evidently
more powerful than Good,
and if this is taken
as the sole real evidence,
then we must admit the world
is the result of a bad principle.
But how can people,
who assume they live in the real world,
and, consequently, recognise
the preponderance of Evil over Good,
say that Evil does not exist
and therefore needs not be fought?
My mind refuses
to comprehend such a thing.
And I expect Olga to help me.
First, show us
how you break the impasse!
It's simple.
Evil does exist.
It does not manifest itself
only through the absence of Good,
but also through resistance
and a preponderance of inferior
over superior qualities
in every sphere of existence.
There is an individual Evil,
manifested by the fact
that what is inferior in man,
his bestial and violent instincts,
opposes his loftiest aspirations
and, in the vast majority of people,
dominates them.
There is a social Evil,
which resides in the fact
that the masses of people,
individually subservient to Evil,
oppose the redeeming efforts of the best
and vanquish them.
Finally,
in man there exists physical Evil,
when the lower material elements
of the body
oppose the living and luminous force
that unites them
in the wonderful form of the organism.
They oppose this form and break it,
destroying the real foundation
of everything that is higher.
It is the extreme Evil named Death.
And if we allow that the victory
of this extreme physical Evil
is final and absolute,
then we cannot regard
as a serious success
any of the victories of Good
in the moral, individual,
or social sphere.
Indeed,
let us imagine that a man of good,
Socrates, for example,
has not only triumphed
over his inner enemies,
his sordid passions,
but has also succeeded
in rectifying his public enemies,
in transforming Greek society.
What use
would this ephemeral,
superficial victory over Evil be,
if Evil ultimately triumphs over life,
at the deepest level of being?
What if the real winners
are the microbes of physical decay?
No moral text could ever
protect us against despair
and extreme pessimism.
I've heard this before,
but how do you defend yourself
in the face of despair?
One thing alone protects us:
the true Resurrection.
We know that the battle
between Good and Evil
is waged not only in the soul
and society,
but also more deeply,
in the physical world.
And here,
we know there has already been a victory
of the good principle of life,
in the form of a personal resurrection.
We await only one thing:
the victories that will come
through the resurrection of all.
And here, even Evil finds its meaning,
in that it serves the realisation,
fulfillment
and triumph of the Good.
If death is stronger than mortal life,
then eternal resurrection
is stronger than both.
The Kingdom of God
is the Kingdom of Life
which triumphs through the Resurrection.
And in this life, the Good is actual,
accomplished, final.
Here is the entire power
of Christ's work.
Here can be seen
His true love for us
and ours for Him.
Everything else is nothing
but a condition, a path, a phase.
Without faith in the actual
Resurrection of the One
and without the expectation
of the future resurrection of all,
the Kingdom of God is mere words.
And, in fact, it is reduced
to a kingdom of death.
How so?
But, isn't it so,
by not recognising Death as such,
as everyone does,
the fact that people have died,
die and will die,
you elevate death to the status
of an absolute law
without exceptions,
according to you.
What would we call the world
where Death holds absolute sway,
if not the “kingdom of death”?
And what else is
your God's Kingdom on earth,
if not a vain,
arbitrary euphemism
for the “Kingdom of Death”?
I too think it is vain because
we don't replace a known
with an unknown value.
Nobody has seen God
and nobody knows what His kingdom is.
Whereas we have all seen people
and animals die
and we know that no one escapes
this world's sovereign, Death.
Then why replace this “a” with an “x”?
It would only create confusion
and horrify the little ones.
I don't understand
what we are talking about.
Certainly,
death is an interesting phenomenon.
We can call it “law,”
because it is a constant
amongst living things,
and inevitable for them.
We can also speak
of its absolute character
since until now no exception to it
has been observed.
But what vital importance can this have
to the true Christian doctrine,
which through the voice
of our conscience
speaks to us only
of what we must do here and now?
It's clear that the voice
of our conscience
deals only
with what we can or cannot do.
Our conscience is silent,
because it cannot speak of death.
No matter how important it is to
our present experiences and desires,
death does not depend of our will
and therefore it can have
no moral significance for us.
Viewed thus, death is a fact
as neutral as bad weather.
And if I allow as an inevitable fact
that the weather is periodically bad,
and suffer because of it,
should I call it
“kingdom of bad weather”
rather than “kingdom of God”?
No, certainly not.
Firstly, bad weather
reigns only in London.
Here, in our land,
we are indifferent to its kingdom.
Then, your analogy doesn't stand up.
Even in bad weather
we can glorify God.
Whereas the dead do not glorify God.
This is why, as his Excellency remarked,
this world might sooner be called
Death's rather than God's kingdom.
Please…
Why must you always speak
to us of names?
It's tedious!
And besides,
is it really a question of names?
Olga, why don't you tell us
what you actually understand
by the Kingdom of God
and His righteousness?
By that I understand a state,
in which people act only
in accordance with their conscience,
thereby fulfilling the will of God,
which prescribes for them
only the pure Good.
In other words, the voice of conscience,
in your opinion,
speaks to us only
of what we have to do here and now.
Of course.
Does the conscience tell you nothing
about a wrong done in adolescence,
to a person long dead?
Such a reminder means that
I must not do the same again now.
It's not really like that,
but it's not worth dwelling on it.
I wish merely to remind you
of another limit of our conscience,
a more obvious one.
Moralists long compared
the voice of the conscience
to the genius or demon
that accompanied Socrates,
protecting him from blameworthy actions,
but giving no positive indication
of what he had to do.
We can say the same thing
about the conscience.
How so?
Does my conscience not suggest
that I help my neighbour
if he is in need or in danger?
I'm glad to hear you say so.
But if you examine
such cases thoroughly,
you will see that the role
of the conscience is purely negative.
It merely asks you
not to remain indifferent or inactive
when faced with a neighbour in need,
but as to what exactly you should do,
and how to do it,
the conscience does not say.
Undoubtedly.
Because it depends on the circumstances,
on my situation
and that of the neighbour to be helped.
Obviously.
But gauging and understanding
circumstances and situations,
depend not on the conscience,
but on the intellect.
But can we separate reason
from the conscience?
They don't need to be separated,
only to be differentiated.
Precisely because in reality,
sometimes, besides separation,
there arises an opposition
between conscience and intellect.
If they were one and the same thing,
how could the intellect enable acts
not only alien to morality,
but even immoral?
That is what happens, is it not?
We might help somebody
by means of the intellect,
but with a bad conscience.
For example,
if I give food and drink
to a needy man,
heap him with charitable works,
in order to make him my accomplice
in committing a fraud
or some other evil deed.
Yes, it's elementary,
but what conclusion do you draw?
Well, it is this.
If the voice of the conscience,
essential for warning us
and admonishing us,
provides us with no positive
or well defined indications
as to how to act,
and our goodwill
requires the services of the intellect,
although the intellect
seems a doubtful servant,
since it is able and willing
to serve these two masters,
Good and Evil,
then,
in order to accomplish God's will
and to achieve the Kingdom of God,
what is needed,
besides the conscience and intellect,
is a third thing.
And what would this be,
according to you?
In short, the inspiration of the Good
or the positive and direct action
of the Good principle over and within us.
With such oversight from above,
the intellect and conscience
become trusty helpmeets of the Good.
And morality, instead of being
a behaviour always under suspicion,
becomes living within the Good.
Which is to say,
the organic development
and perfection of man as a whole,
on the interior and exterior,
of the person and society,
of the people and mankind.
In order that they be fulfilled
in a living union
of the resurrected past
and embodied future
in the present of the Kingdom of God,
which, as it is on earth,
will be on a new Earth,
united through love with a new Heaven.
I have nothing
against such poetic metaphors,
but why do you think
those who fulfil the divine will,
according to the Gospel,
lack the inspiration of the Good?
Not merely because in what they do
I see neither signs of such inspiration,
nor the urging of free
and immeasurable love,
for God provides without measure.
I don't see any good, serene peace
arising from the joy
of receiving these gifts,
even if they are only incipient.
If I assume
you lack religious inspiration,
it is because you deem it unnecessary.
If the good is confined to rules,
what room is there for inspiration?
The Rule
has been given once and for all,
it is fixed and identical for all.
He who gave the rule
died long ago
and, according to you,
He was not resurrected
and therefore, to us He has no living
and personal existence.
The absolute
and primordial Good
doesn't appear to you
as a father of the spirit and light,
who might enlighten and inspire you,
but as a master,
a parsimonious master,
who has sent you,
his mercenaries, to tend his vineyard,
while he, living abroad,
sends his emissaries
to bring back his earnings.
As if we created this image arbitrarily!
No.
But arbitrarily, you view it as the norm
for man's relationship with the deity,
arbitrarily purging the essence
from the Gospel text,
namely,
that he reveals to us His son and heir,
in whom dwells the true norm
for the relationship between God and man.
You see Him only as a master,
only the duties toward the master,
the will of the master.
But let me tell you that:
As long as your master
only imposes duties on you,
demands you to obey his will,
I don't see how you can prove to me
that he is the true master
rather than an impostor.
What if my reason and conscience tell me
that the will of the master
expresses the purest good?
I'm sorry, that's not what I meant.
I don't deny he wills the good,
but does that mean he himself is good?
How could he be otherwise?
I thought the goodness of a man resides
not in what he requires of others,
but in what he himself does.
If you find what I say unclear,
here's a concrete historical example.
The Muscovite tsar, Ivan the Terrible,
in an well known letter,
asks Prince Andrei Kurbsky
to show his supreme goodness,
and loftiest moral heroism,
by ceasing to oppose Evil and accepting
to die as a martyr for the truth.
Here, the master's will was good,
by what he demanded of him,
but that doesn't mean the master,
who demanded the good was himself good.
Clearly, although to suffer for the truth
is the supreme moral virtue,
it does Ivan the Terrible no credit,
since in this case, he was not the martyr,
but the executioner.
What do you mean by that?
Until Olga shows me the goodness
behind her master's actions,
rather than merely his verbal commands
to his workers,
I will remain convinced
that this master who asks others
to do good, but himself does not,
who lays down obligations,
but does not show love,
who does not show you his face,
but lives abroad, incognito,
I will remain convinced he is none other
than “the god of this age”.
How awful!
I quote from Verdi.
- I'm listing every lyrical ode…
- I know, you're a melomaniac.
…dedicated to Bacchus.
It's kind of a game.
Do you recognise this one?
Excuse me a moment!
Judith?
One more question.
How is the colonel? Any less agitated?
Yes, he feels better.
Dr. Blumenfeld will arrive tomorrow.
He's coming tomorrow, good.
He seems a good doctor.
Yes.
And another thing, please.
It would be better if the door
remained shut at all times.
Yes, of course.
Yes, Edouard.
And look,
István makes his entrance
to the sound of music. Wonderful!
Charming.
Thank you. That was a short parenthesis
while we waited for you, gentlemen.
Always at your service.
If we were not holding brandy,
we would clap.
Grazie!
Forgive me…
I don't want to interrupt
the musical interlude,
but I wish with all my soul
to return to our conversation,
to prevent any unfortunate
misunderstanding.
But of course.
I am in no doubt, Olga,
that by some honest mistake,
you take the true God
to be a skilled imposter.
The imposter's skill is, for you,
a mitigating circumstance.
Nor did I understand at first
how things stood.
And now I am in no doubt,
and you will understand how I feel
when I gaze upon the deceptive,
devious mask of the Good.
- You don't have long for poetry.
- I assure you…
It's vexing!
I assure you I do not feel at all vexed.
A general and rather interesting
question has been posed,
and it surprises me
that my interlocutor believes
that the question
is addressed only to me,
but not to him.
You ask that I point out
my master's good deeds,
acts to prove he is the principle
of Good rather than Evil.
And you?
What good deeds can you show me
that do not also come from my master?
He has already shown you a deed
on which all the rest is founded.
Which one?
The true victory over Evil
through the true Resurrection.
Only thereby, I repeat,
is God's Kingdom revealed to us.
Without it, there is only
the kingdom of death, sin and the devil.
The Resurrection,
not figuratively, but literally,
there is the title of the true God.
Yes, if you wish to believe
in such a mythology.
I asked you for demonstrable facts,
not beliefs.
Olga,
we both come from the same faith
or, if you like, mythology,
but I go all the way.
Whereas you illogically,
arbitrarily stop even before you start.
But do you acknowledge
the power of the Good
and its future triumph on earth?
Yes.
Is it a fact or a belief?
It is a reasonable belief.
How delightful!
As I learned at the seminary,
reason demands,
that we disallow that
which is not sufficiently grounded.
Tell me, please,
as long as you recognise that Good
has the power morally to rectify
and perfect man and mankind,
on what do you base your claim that
Good is powerless in the face of death?
I think rather you should say
why you attribute to Good
a power that transcends
the moral sphere?
I shall tell you.
Once I believe
in the Good and its power,
and in the idea of the “power of good”
its absolute superiority is asserted,
then I recognise
that this power is unlimited,
and nothing can stop me believing
in the truth of the Resurrection,
historically proven truth.
If you had told us you were indifferent
to the Christian faith
and that to you,
the Resurrection is a myth,
I would have kept to myself
the animosity
to your way of thinking
that I have been unable to conceal.
We do not accuse of deception
him who makes a mistake.
And to be angry at someone
for a theoretical error
makes you look petty,
faithless, and heartless.
Whoever truly believes,
and is freed from coarseness,
from pettiness of soul
and from wickedness,
must show a good disposition when faced
with a frank and sincere opponent,
in other words, an honest opponent,
who denies religious truths.
Nowadays, it is rare.
You don't know how much I rejoice
at a declared opponent of Christianity.
In almost all of them,
I am prepared to see
a future Paul the Apostle,
whereas in the zealous defenders
of Christianity
I see Judas the traitor.
But you, Olga,
you have expressed yourself so sincerely,
that I refuse to class you with
today's countless Judases and Tartuffes.
I already foresee a time
when I will feel toward you
the same good disposition awakened in me
by many atheists and nonbelievers.
Since, fortunately,
we have established
that neither atheists and unbelievers,
nor true Christians like Olga,
represent the Antichrist,
it is time
that you reveal to us
his true portrait.
So that was what you were aiming at!
Of the many depictions of Christ,
some by artists of genius,
is there any that satisfies you?
I for one
know of no satisfactory depiction.
I don't even think there could be one,
as long as Christ
is an individual embodiment,
unique in his own way
and resembling nothing else,
of His own essence, the Good.
Not even genius would be enough
in order to depict such a thing.
The same goes for the Antichrist.
He is an embodiment of Evil
that is just as individual,
unique in its completeness and fullness.
We cannot show his portrait.
In ecclesiastical literature,
we find only his passport,
with his distinguishing marks.
And Edouard,
as you yourself confessed to us,
you have no knack for painting.
Therefore,
we don't require his portrait,
God forbid!
Rather, explain to us, Nikolai,
why he is needed
and what, in your opinion,
is the nature of his plan,
and finally, tell us
when he will arrive.
I can answer you better
than you would have thought.
Some years ago,
a fellow seminary student,
who later became a monk
was dying and gave me
a manuscript he cherished,
but which he had not been able
to publish.
The title is,
A Short Story of the Antichrist.
Although it takes the form of a fiction,
or a future history,
to me the work encapsulates
everything which, according to scripture,
to the Church and common sense,
can definitely be said on the subject.
Is it the work of our old friend,
Umberto?
No, he had a fancier name.
Pansophius.
Pan Sofius? A Pole?
Not at all.
He came from a family
of Russian priests.
If you will allow me
to go to my room,
I will fetch the manuscript
and read it to you. It is not thick.
Your room is an Ali Baba's cave.
Certainly, do go!
- But don't forget to come back!
- Naturally.
I don't know whether my eyesight
is dimming with age,
or whether something
has changed in nature,
but I notice that in no season or place
are the days bright any longer,
the perfect clarity
to which we were once accustomed,
regardless of clime.
Today, for example,
there was not a cloud in the sky,
we are quite far away from the sea,
and yet, everything seemed dusted
with something gauzy,
impalpable, of flawed clarity.
Did you notice, Ingrida?
Yes, it has been happening
for a few years.
I have been observing it
since last year.
Not only in the air,
but also in my soul,
where there is no perfect limpidity,
as you put it, Edouard.
I feel a kind of disquiet,
a sense of foreboding.
I'm sure that you too, Olga,
feel the same.
No, I notice nothing in particular.
The air seems to me unchanged.
Because you are too young.
You lack the terms of comparison.
But when we remember the seventies,
then we sense it.
I believe your first supposition
was right, Edouard.
It is a symptom of worsening eyesight.
We have grown old, no doubt about it,
but nor is the earth
growing any younger.
A kind of exhaustion
can be felt on both sides.
But what is even more true,
as Andrei Nikolaevich says,
is that the devil's tail scatters fog
across the created world.
It is also a sign of the Antichrist.
Yes, Ingrida,
no doubt about it.