[1] http://www.tassos-oak.com/extras/soundbite.html

I stumbled upon an article by David Cortesi in looking for an online edition of Constance Garnett’s translation of Dostoyevsky’s masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov that asserts, “Dostoyevsky never wrote [the quote, `If God does not exist, everything is permitted’]!” I had to hunt for a contact page, but sent him an email about why I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say that he never said that or, as Mr. Cortesi states in a lower portion of the article, that there has been shown no evidence for Dostoyevsky’s belief in God.

The note is fairly straightforward, so I’ll go ahead and quote myself entirely. Please join in the discussion if you have something to add!

Hello, Mr. Cortesi:

I was browsing for an online text of Constance Garnett’s translation of Dostoyevski’s classic, _The Brothers Karamazov_, and a quick Googling* brought up a link to your site. I’d like to comment on your post about the illustrious F.D. never having said, “If God does not exist, then all things are lawful.”

I’ve just finished reading the unabridged Garnett translation, and would put to you that although the exact quote is probably not there, this is not like the infamously elusive quote commonly attributed to Edmund Burke**. The concept is in there, whether or not the sentence is given verbatim; this point you concede in your essay. But what of this sentence by Miusov, speaking of Ivan?:

“He ended by asserting that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.” [From the online C.G. trans.***]

So if the quote to which you’re referring is a forshortening of that concept, since indeed the whole novel is peppered with instances of “everything is lawful,” citing the general attitude of Ivan as atheistic and that being the logical consequence, why then would it not follow that Dostoyevsky wrote it? It was not uncommon in his time (nor, indeed, in ours!) to put words in the mouths of characters that he himself felt; indeed, the reason that this of all his works is considered his masterpiece is because it is the cornerstone of Existentialism and is a work remarkably ahead of its time both psychologically and philosophically.

But if you would hold that, nevertheless, it were Ivan Karamazov giving the theme and not Dostoyevsky quoting it directly, then that’s where discussion there would end. But I’d be hard convinced that any author can divorce his own intellect from the subject matter, except as a thought experiment.

Furthermore, _The Brothers Karamazov_ is considered to be a fundamentally Christian (not fundamental*ist*!) novel, as the hero of the novel is clearly Alyosha (e.g., Alexey Karamazov), the Russian Orthodox monk. Other than the fact that Dostoyevsky himself asserts said fact outright (cf. very end of chapter 3 of Book I: “Yet I must give some preliminary account of him, if only to explain one queer fact, which is that I have to introduce my hero to the reader wearing the cassock of a novice”), the whole novel is bent around the force of life and solidity of mind that Alyosha provides. This is, of course, in contrast to the extreme neuroticism and perhaps exaggerated moral infortitude of most of the other main characters.

Forgive my tendency to ramble; but Dostoyevsky himself was a devout Christian, which is the whole point of this novel. Pary philosophical foray, part psychological treatise, ultimately it is utterly baptized (so to speak) in Christian thought. In this, largely regarded as his best novel, he grapples with theodicy (the problem of evil), freedom, and the conflict of faith and doubt. Foremost, his greatest personal belief–that the sinful soul is purified by suffering–comes through in this novel loud and clear. (I won’t comment on the others, having not yet read them.)

So, if Dostoyevsky did, in fact, believe in God; and if the concept of there being no moral standard if God was non-existent weaves its way through this novel many times, with the second part at least (”everything is lawful”) quoted verbatim several times; then would it not be appropriate to attribute this as a “quote” to Dostoyevsky himself? Or does the discussion turn then to the idea that a paraphrase is not a direct quote and, thus, the instances you cite from the Web are abuses of the word “quotation”?

I enjoyed perusing your site (and invite you to my own). Thank you for your time; I have been told I’m long-winded! Have a good evening and be well.

Respectfully yours;

Michael Phillips
owner, thinkblog.org

* The search string I specified was as follows, sans brackets: [Brothers Karamazov online text “Constance Garnett” translation]. You were 8th in line, fairly prominent (just for your information, because I like knowing these things about my own site).

** A fantastic review entitled, “`All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (or words to that effect): A study of a web quotation” can be found here: http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

*** http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/literature/brothers.html

[2] http://www.tassos-oak.com/extras/soundbite.html

I stumbled upon an article by David Cortesi in looking for an online edition of Constance Garnett’s translation of Dostoyevsky’s masterpiece The Brothers Karamazov that asserts, “Dostoyevsky never wrote [the quote, `If God does not exist, everything is permitted’]!” I had to hunt for a contact page, but sent him an email about why I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say that he never said that or, as Mr. Cortesi states in a lower portion of the article, that there has been shown no evidence for Dostoyevsky’s belief in God.

The note is fairly straightforward, so I’ll go ahead and quote myself entirely. Please join in the discussion if you have something to add!

Hello, Mr. Cortesi:

I was browsing for an online text of Constance Garnett’s translation of Dostoyevski’s classic, _The Brothers Karamazov_, and a quick Googling* brought up a link to your site. I’d like to comment on your post about the illustrious F.D. never having said, “If God does not exist, then all things are lawful.”

I’ve just finished reading the unabridged Garnett translation, and would put to you that although the exact quote is probably not there, this is not like the infamously elusive quote commonly attributed to Edmund Burke**. The concept is in there, whether or not the sentence is given verbatim; this point you concede in your essay. But what of this sentence by Miusov, speaking of Ivan?:

“He ended by asserting that for every individual, like ourselves, who does not believe in God or immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately be changed into the exact contrary of the former religious law, and that egoism, even to crime, must become not only lawful but even recognised as the inevitable, the most rational, even honourable outcome of his position.” [From the online C.G. trans.***]

So if the quote to which you’re referring is a forshortening of that concept, since indeed the whole novel is peppered with instances of “everything is lawful,” citing the general attitude of Ivan as atheistic and that being the logical consequence, why then would it not follow that Dostoyevsky wrote it? It was not uncommon in his time (nor, indeed, in ours!) to put words in the mouths of characters that he himself felt; indeed, the reason that this of all his works is considered his masterpiece is because it is the cornerstone of Existentialism and is a work remarkably ahead of its time both psychologically and philosophically.

But if you would hold that, nevertheless, it were Ivan Karamazov giving the theme and not Dostoyevsky quoting it directly, then that’s where discussion there would end. But I’d be hard convinced that any author can divorce his own intellect from the subject matter, except as a thought experiment.

Furthermore, _The Brothers Karamazov_ is considered to be a fundamentally Christian (not fundamental*ist*!) novel, as the hero of the novel is clearly Alyosha (e.g., Alexey Karamazov), the Russian Orthodox monk. Other than the fact that Dostoyevsky himself asserts said fact outright (cf. very end of chapter 3 of Book I: “Yet I must give some preliminary account of him, if only to explain one queer fact, which is that I have to introduce my hero to the reader wearing the cassock of a novice”), the whole novel is bent around the force of life and solidity of mind that Alyosha provides. This is, of course, in contrast to the extreme neuroticism and perhaps exaggerated moral infortitude of most of the other main characters.

Forgive my tendency to ramble; but Dostoyevsky himself was a devout Christian, which is the whole point of this novel. Pary philosophical foray, part psychological treatise, ultimately it is utterly baptized (so to speak) in Christian thought. In this, largely regarded as his best novel, he grapples with theodicy (the problem of evil), freedom, and the conflict of faith and doubt. Foremost, his greatest personal belief–that the sinful soul is purified by suffering–comes through in this novel loud and clear. (I won’t comment on the others, having not yet read them.)

So, if Dostoyevsky did, in fact, believe in God; and if the concept of there being no moral standard if God was non-existent weaves its way through this novel many times, with the second part at least (”everything is lawful”) quoted verbatim several times; then would it not be appropriate to attribute this as a “quote” to Dostoyevsky himself? Or does the discussion turn then to the idea that a paraphrase is not a direct quote and, thus, the instances you cite from the Web are abuses of the word “quotation”?

I enjoyed perusing your site (and invite you to my own). Thank you for your time; I have been told I’m long-winded! Have a good evening and be well.

Respectfully yours;

Michael Phillips
owner, thinkblog.org

* The search string I specified was as follows, sans brackets: [Brothers Karamazov online text “Constance Garnett” translation]. You were 8th in line, fairly prominent (just for your information, because I like knowing these things about my own site).

** A fantastic review entitled, “`All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ (or words to that effect): A study of a web quotation” can be found here: http://www.tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote.html

*** http://www.friends-partners.org/oldfriends/literature/brothers.html