PART 3 // chapter 5-7

저는 인간이 일반적으로 자연법에 의해 두 가지 범주로 나뉜다는 저의 주요 생각만 믿습니다. 열등한(평범한), 즉 말하자면 자신의 종류를 재생산하는 데만 사용되는 물질과 새로운 단어를 말할 수 있는 재능이나 재능이 있는 사람들입니다. 물론 셀 수 없이 많은 하위 구분이 있지만 두 범주의 구별되는 특징은 꽤 잘 표시됩니다. 일반적으로 첫 번째 범주는 기질이 보수적이고 법을 준수하는 사람들입니다. 그들은 통제 하에 살고 통제받는 것을 좋아합니다. 제 생각에는 통제받는 것이 그들의 의무입니다. 왜냐하면 그것이 그들의 소명이고 그들에게는 굴욕적인 것이 없기 때문입니다. 두 번째 범주는 모두 법을 어깁니다. 그들은 파괴자이거나 자신의 능력에 따라 파괴하려는 성향이 있습니다. 이 사람들의 범죄는 물론 상대적이고 다양합니다. 대부분 그들은 매우 다양한 방식으로 더 나은 것을 위해 현재를 파괴하려고 합니다. 하지만 그런 사람이 자신의 사상 때문에 시체를 밟고 지나가거나 피 속을 헤치도록 강요받는다면, 나는 그가 자신의 양심 속에서 피 속을 헤치며 지나가는 것에 대한 제재를 찾을 수 있다고 주장한다. 그것은 사상과 그 차원에 달려 있다. 주의하라. 내가 기사에서 범죄에 대한 그들의 권리에 대해 언급한 것은 그런 의미일 뿐이다(기억하시겠지만, 그것은 법적 문제에서 시작되었다). 하지만 그런 불안은 필요 없다. 대중은 이 권리를 거의 인정하지 않을 것이고, 그들을 처벌하거나 교수형에 처할 것이며(다소간), 그렇게 함으로써 그들의 보수적 사명을 정당하게 완수할 것이다. 하지만 같은 대중이 다음 세대에서 이 범죄자들을 받침대에 올려놓고 그들을 숭배한다(다소간). 첫 번째 범주는 항상 현재의 사람이고, 두 번째 범주는 미래의 사람입니다. 첫 번째 범주는 세상을 보존하고 사람들을 살게 하고, 두 번째 범주는 세상을 움직이고 그 목표로 이끈다. 각 계층은 존재할 동등한 권리가 있다. 사실, 모든 사람은 나와 동등한 권리를 가지고 있습니다. 그리고 영원한 전쟁이 계속될 것입니다. 물론 새 예루살렘까지요!” “그럼 당신은 새 예루살렘을 믿습니까?” “그렇습니다.” 라스콜니코프가 단호하게 대답했습니다. 그는 이 말을 하면서, 그리고 앞서의 폭언을 하는 동안 카펫의 한 지점을 계속 바라보았습니다. “그리고... 그리고 당신은 신을 믿습니까? 제 호기심을 용서해 주세요.” “그렇습니다.” 라스콜니코프가 다시 말하며 포르피리에게 눈을 돌렸습니다. “그리고... 당신은 나사로가 죽음에서 부활한 것을 믿습니까?” “저는... 저는 믿습니다. 왜 이런 질문을 하십니까?” “ 당신은 문자 그대로 믿습니까?” “문자 그대로.” “그렇게 말하지 않으시네요.... 저는 호기심에서 물었습니다. 죄송합니다. 하지만 질문으로 돌아가 보죠. 그들은 항상 처형되는 것은 아닙니다. 어떤 사람들은 반대로...” “평생에 승리한다고요? 오, 맞아요. 어떤 사람들은 이생에서 목적을 달성하고 나서...” “그들은 다른 사람들을 처형하기 시작하죠?” “필요하다면; 사실, 대부분 그렇습니다. 당신의 발언은 매우 재치 있습니다." "고맙습니다. 하지만 이렇게 말씀해 보세요. 당신은 어떻게 그 특별한 사람들을 평범한 사람들과 구별합니까? 그들이 태어날 때 징조가 있습니까? 저는 더 정확하고 더 외부적인 정의가 있어야 한다고 생각합니다. 법을 준수하는 실용적인 시민의 자연스러운 불안을 용서해 주세요. 하지만 그들이 특별한 유니폼을 입을 수 없었을까요? 예를 들어, 무언가를 입고 어떤 식으로든 낙인을 찍을 수 없었을까요? 혼란이 생겨서 한 계층의 구성원이 자신이 다른 계층에 속한다고 생각하고 당신이 기쁘게 표현한 대로 '장애물을 제거하기' 시작하면..." "아, 그런 일이 종종 일어납니다! 그 발언은 다른 발언보다 재치 있습니다." "고맙습니다." "그럴 이유는 없습니다. 하지만 실수는 첫 번째 계층, 즉 평범한 사람들(아마도 제가 불행히도 그들을 그렇게 불렀을 것입니다)에서만 발생할 수 있다는 점에 유의하세요. 순종하려는 성향이 있음에도 불구하고, 그들 중 많은 사람들이 때때로 소에게 허락된 본성의 장난기를 통해 자신을 진보된 사람, '파괴자'로 상상하고 '새로운 운동'으로 밀어붙이기를 좋아합니다. 그리고 이것은 매우 진심입니다. 한편, 정말 새로운 사람들은 종종 그들에게 관찰되지 않거나, 심지어 굴욕적인 경향의 반동주의자로 멸시받습니다. 하지만 여기에는 상당한 위험이 없다고 생각하고, 당신은 실제로 불안해할 필요가 없습니다. 왜냐하면 그들은 결코 멀리 가지 않기 때문입니다. 물론, 그들은 때때로 자신의 상상력을 걷어차고 그들에게 자신의 위치를 가르치기 위해 매를 맞을 수도 있지만, 그 이상은 아닙니다. 사실, 이것조차도 필요하지 않습니다. 왜냐하면 그들은 매우 양심적이기 때문에 스스로를 꾸짖기 때문입니다. 어떤 사람들은 서로를 위해 이러한 봉사를 하고 다른 사람들은 자신의 손으로 스스로를 꾸짖습니다.... 그들은 아름답고 교화적인 효과로 다양한 공개적인 회개 행위를 자신에게 강요할 것입니다. 사실 당신은 불안해할 것이 없습니다.... 그것은 자연의 법칙입니다." "글쎄요, 당신은 확실히 그 점에 대해 제 마음을 더 편안하게 해주었습니다. 하지만 제가 걱정하는 것이 또 하나 있습니다. 제발, 다른 사람을 죽일 권리가 있는 사람들이 많이 있나요? 이런 특별한 사람들이요? 저는 그들에게 절할 준비가 되어 있지만, 그들이 너무 많다면 놀랍다는 것을 인정해야 할 겁니다, 그렇죠?"  --------------------------------------------------------------------  I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word. There are, of course, innumerable sub-divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked.   The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities.  The crimes of these men are of course relative and varied; for the most part they seek in very varied ways the destruction of the present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can, I maintain, find within himself, in his conscience, a sanction for wading through blood—that depends on the idea and its dimensions, note that. It’s only in that sense I speak of their right to crime in my article (you remember it began with the legal question).  There’s no need for such anxiety, however; the masses will scarcely ever admit this right, they punish them or hang them (more or less), and in doing so fulfil quite justly their conservative vocation. But the same masses set these criminals on a pedestal in the next generation and worship them (more or less). The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future.  The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist. In fact, all have equal rights with me—and vive la guerre éternelle—till the New Jerusalem, of course!”“Then you believe in the New Jerusalem, do you?” “I do,” Raskolnikov answered firmly; as he said these words and during the whole preceding tirade he kept his eyes on one spot on the carpet. “And... and do you believe in God? Excuse my curiosity.” “I do,” repeated Raskolnikov, raising his eyes to Porfiry. “And... do you believe in Lazarus’ rising from the dead?” “I... I do. Why do you ask all this?” “ You believe it literally?” “Literally.” “You don’t say so.... I asked from curiosity. Excuse me. But let us go back to the question; they are not always executed. Some, on the contrary...” “Triumph in their lifetime? Oh, yes, some attain their ends in this life, and then...” “They begin executing other people?” “If it’s necessary; indeed, for the most part they do. Your remark is very witty.” “Thank you. But tell me this: how do you distinguish those extraordinary people from the ordinary ones? Are there signs at their birth? I feel there ought to be more exactitude, more external definition. Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen, but couldn’t they adopt a special uniform, for instance, couldn’t they wear something, be branded in some way? For you know if confusion arises and a member of one category imagines that he belongs to the other, begins to ‘eliminate obstacles’ as you so happily expressed it, then...” “Oh, that very often happens! That remark is wittier than the other.”   “Thank you.” “No reason to; but take note that the mistake can only arise in the first category, that is among the ordinary people (as I perhaps unfortunately called them). In spite of their predisposition to obedience very many of them, through a playfulness of nature, sometimes vouchsafed even to the cow, like to imagine themselves advanced people, ‘destroyers,’ and to push themselves into the ‘new movement,’ and this quite sincerely. Meanwhile the really new people are very often unobserved by them, or even despised as reactionaries of grovelling tendencies.  But I don’t think there is any considerable danger here, and you really need not be uneasy for they never go very far. Of course, they might have a thrashing sometimes for letting their fancy run away with them and to teach them their place, but no more; in fact, even this isn’t necessary as they castigate themselves, for they are very conscientious: some perform this service for one another and others chastise themselves with their own hands....  They will impose various public acts of penitence upon themselves with a beautiful and edifying effect; in fact you’ve nothing to be uneasy about.... It’s a law of nature.” “Well, you have certainly set my mind more at rest on that score; but there’s another thing worries me. Tell me, please, are there many people who have the right to kill others, these extraordinary people? I am ready to bow down to them, of course, but you must admit it’s alarming if there are a great many of them, eh?”