Book II

Again, I have little to say this early in the book. Once again, I think I'll just note some themes I find interesting and look forward to seeing elaborated as the novel progresses.

The theme of "love for humanity" comes up--I had noticed in Book I that Alyosha had a love for humanity. In Book II, Zossima talks to Madame Hohlakov and the folly of having a love for humanity, but not real people. Zossima tells about a doctor who told him, "But it has always happened that the more I hate men individually teh more I love humanity" (65). It is also striking how when they gather for dinner, Peter Miusov calms down and regains his love for humanity (92), but then loses all composure once Fydor comes into the room: "Miusov changed from the most benevolent frame of mind to the most savage. All the feelings that had subsided and died down in his heart revived instantly" (93).

It was also interesting to read the response that Rakitin made to Ivan's assertion that without a belief in immortality, there would be no reason for man to love his neighbor or act virtuously. Rakitin says, "Humanity will find in iteself the power to live for virtue even without believeing in immortality. It will find it in love for freedom, for equality, for fraternity" (88). Does anyone else think Rakitin is naive as to this point?

I would like to hear what people think about Zossima's response to Ivan on this contention: "You are blessed in believing that, or else most unhappy" (77). I am not sure what to make of this response or the exchange that follows. I once heard a priest (Fr. Thomas King, S.J.) say that blessed also means happy (he was talking about the beatitutdes). So does Zossima say, "You are happy in believing that, or else most unhappy"? Why would believing in this--that without immortality there can be no reason for virtue--make one happy or unhappy? [Interesting to note that in this same book, Zossima tells Hohlakov: "For men are made for happiness, and anyone who is completely happy has a right to say to himself, 'I am doing God's will on earth'" (63).]

I also cannot make sense of why Ivan makes the argument he does about the state becoming the Church. He does tell Zossima that he wasn't "altogether joking" (77). I'm thinking there is a relation to Ivan's account of Church-State relations and his assertion that without the belief in immortality, there is no reason for virtue. After all, much of the Church-state discussion had to do with criminals and their consciences--since crime becomes a sin against the Church and not society.