PART 3 // chapter 5-6

[모나리자]

"그렇죠. 하지만 Weekly Review가 없어졌을 때 Weekly Review는 Periodical과 통합되었고, 그래서 당신의 기사는 두 달 전에 후자에 실렸어요. 몰랐어요?" 라스콜니코프는 몰랐어요. "그 기사로 돈을 좀 벌 수도 있을 거예요! 정말 이상한 사람이군요! 당신은 너무나 고립된 삶을 살면서 당신에게 직접적으로 관련된 문제에 대해 아무것도 모르죠. 사실이에요, 확신합니다." "브라보, 로디아! 나도 전혀 몰랐어요!" 라주미힌이 소리쳤다.

"오늘 열람실로 달려가서 번호를 물어볼게요. 두 달 전? 날짜는 언제였죠? 상관없어요. 꼭 찾아낼게요. 말하지 마세요!" "그 기사가 제 것이라는 걸 어떻게 알았어? 이니셜로만 서명했을 뿐이에요." "저는 우연히, 얼마 전에 알게 되었어요. 편집자를 통해서요. 저는 그 사람을 알고 있어요.... 저는 매우 관심이 있었어요." "제가 기억하기로는, 범죄 전과 후의 범죄자의 심리를 분석했습니다."

"그렇습니다. 그리고 당신은 범죄를 저지르는 것은 항상 질병을 동반한다고 주장했습니다. 매우 독창적이긴 하지만... 제 관심을 끈 것은 기사의 그 부분이 아니라, 기사의 마지막에 있는 아이디어가 유감스럽게도 명확하게 정리하지 않고 제안했을 뿐입니다. 기억하시겠지만, 어떤 사람들은... 즉, 정확히는 할 수 있는 것이 아니라 도덕과 범죄를 저지를 완벽한 권리가 있으며, 법이 그들에게는 적용되지 않는다는 제안이 있습니다."

라스콜니코프는 자신의 아이디어가 과장되고 의도적으로 왜곡된 데 미소를 지었다. "뭐라고요? 무슨 말씀이신가요? 범죄를 저지를 권리? 하지만 환경의 영향 때문이 아니에요?" 라주미힌은 약간 놀라면서 물었다. "아니요, 정확히는 그것 때문이 아니에요." 포르피리가 대답했다. "그의 기사에서 모든 사람은 '평범한' 사람과 '특별한' 사람으로 나뉩니다. 평범한 사람은 복종하며 살아야 하고, 법을 어길 권리가 없습니다. 왜냐하면, 아시다시피, 그들은 평범하기 때문입니다. 하지만 특별한 사람은 특별하다는 이유만으로 어떤 범죄를 저지르고 어떤 식으로든 법을 어길 권리가 있습니다.

그게 당신의 생각이었나요? 제가 틀리지 않았다면요?" "무슨 말이에요? 그럴 리가 없어요?" 라주미힌이 당황해서 중얼거렸습니다. 라스콜니코프가 다시 미소를 지었습니다. 그는 요점을 즉시 알아챘고, 그들이 그를 어디로 몰고 가려는지 알았습니다. 그는 도전을 하기로 결심했습니다.

"그게 제 주장은 아니었어요." 그는 단순하고 겸손하게 시작했습니다. "하지만 당신이 거의 정확하게 말했다는 것을 인정합니다. 아마, 당신이 원한다면 완벽할 수도 있을 겁니다." (그는 이것을 인정하는 것이 거의 즐거웠습니다.) "유일한 차이점은 특별한 사람들이 항상 당신이 말하는 도덕을 어길 수밖에 없다고 주장하지 않는다는 것입니다.

사실, 저는 그런 주장이 출판될 수 있을지 의심스럽습니다. 저는 단순히 '특별한' 사람이... 공식적인 권리가 아니라 자신의 양심에 따라 특정 장애물을 넘을 권리가 있다는 것을 암시했을 뿐입니다. 그리고 그것이 자신의 아이디어를 실질적으로 성취하는 데 필수적인 경우에만(때로는 아마도 인류 전체에 이롭습니다) 그렇게 할 수 있습니다. 당신은 제 기사가 확실하지 않다고 말합니다. 저는 가능한 한 명확하게 설명할 준비가 되어 있습니다. 아마도 당신이 그렇게 하기를 원한다고 생각하는 것이 맞을 것입니다. 아주 좋습니다.

저는 케플러와 뉴턴의 발견이 한 명, 열두 명, 백 명 또는 그 이상의 사람들의 목숨을 희생하지 않고는 알려질 수 없었다면 뉴턴은 자신의 발견을 인류 전체에 알리기 위해 열두 명이나 백 명을 제거할 권리가 있었을 것이고, 실제로 의무가 있었을 것이라고 주장합니다. 하지만 그렇다고 해서 뉴턴이 사람들을 좌우로 살해하고 매일 시장에서 도둑질할 권리가 있었다는 것은 아닙니다. 그러고 보니, 저는 제 기사에서 모든... 글쎄요, 리쿠르고스, 솔론, 마호메트, 나폴레옹 등과 같은 사람들의 입법자와 지도자들은 모두 예외 없이 범죄자였습니다. 왜냐하면 새로운 법을 만들면서 조상에게서 물려받고 사람들이 신성시하는 고대 법을 어겼고, 유혈 사태에 그치지 않았기 때문입니다. 그 유혈 사태가 - 종종 무고한 사람들이 고대 법을 수호하기 위해 용감하게 싸웠습니다 - 그들의 대의에 도움이 되었다면 말입니다.

사실, 이러한 인류의 후원자와 지도자들 대부분이 끔찍한 학살을 저질렀다는 것은 놀라운 일입니다. 간단히 말해서, 저는 모든 위대한 사람들, 심지어 평범함에서 약간 벗어난 사람들, 즉 새로운 말을 할 수 있는 사람들은 본질적으로 범죄자여야 한다고 주장합니다. 물론 다소간은 그렇습니다. 그렇지 않으면 그들이 평범한 틀에서 벗어나기 어렵습니다. 그리고 공통의 틀에 머물러 있는 것은 그들이 다시는 그들의 본성상 복종할 수 없는 것이고, 내 생각에 그들은 실제로 복종해서는 안 됩니다. 당신은 그것이 특별히 새로운 것이 아니라는 것을 봅니다. 같은 내용이 이미 수천 번 인쇄되어 읽혔습니다. 사람들을 평범하고 비범한 사람으로 나누는 것에 관해서는, 그것이 다소 임의적이라는 것을 인정하지만, 정확한 숫자를 고집하지는 않습니다.

“That’s true; but when it ceased to exist, the Weekly Review was amalgamated with the Periodical, and so your article appeared two months ago in the latter. Didn’t you know?” Raskolnikov had not known. “Why, you might get some money out of them for the article! What a strange person you are! You lead such a solitary life that you know nothing of matters that concern you directly. It’s a fact, I assure you.” “Bravo, Rodya! I knew nothing about it either!” cried Razumihin.

“I’ll run to-day to the reading-room and ask for the number. Two months ago? What was the date? It doesn’t matter though, I will find it. Think of not telling us!” “How did you find out that the article was mine? It’s only signed with an initial.” “I only learnt it by chance, the other day. Through the editor; I know him.... I was very much interested.” “I analysed, if I remember, the psychology of a criminal before and after the crime.”

“Yes, and you maintained that the perpetration of a crime is always accompanied by illness. Very, very original, but... it was not that part of your article that interested me so much, but an idea at the end of the article which I regret to say you merely suggested without working it out clearly. There is, if you recollect, a suggestion that there are certain persons who can... that is, not precisely are able to, but have a perfect right to commit breaches of morality and crimes, and that the law is not for them.”

Raskolnikov smiled at the exaggerated and intentional distortion of his idea. “What? What do you mean? A right to crime? But not because of the influence of environment?” Razumihin inquired with some alarm even. “No, not exactly because of it,” answered Porfiry. “In his article all men are divided into ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary.’ Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because, don’t you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way, just because they are extraordinary.

That was your idea, if I am not mistaken?” “What do you mean? That can’t be right?” Razumihin muttered in bewilderment. Raskolnikov smiled again. He saw the point at once, and knew where they wanted to drive him. He decided to take up the challenge.

“That wasn’t quite my contention,” he began simply and modestly. “Yet I admit that you have stated it almost correctly; perhaps, if you like, perfectly so.” (It almost gave him pleasure to admit this.) “The only difference is that I don’t contend that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as you call it.

In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I simply hinted that an ‘extraordinary’ man has the right... that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep... certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn’t definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well.

I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty-bound... to eliminate the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. Then, I remember, I maintain in my article that all... well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet, Napoleon, and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact that, making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from their ancestors and held sacred by the people, and they did not stop short at bloodshed either, if that bloodshed—often of innocent persons fighting bravely in defence of ancient law—were of use to their cause.

It’s remarkable, in fact, that the majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of terrible carnage. In short, I maintain that all great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals—more or less, of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to, from their very nature again, and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it. You see that there is nothing particularly new in all that. The same thing has been printed and read a thousand times before. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I acknowledge that it’s somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist upon exact numbers.