-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Федор Достоевский
-
- Преступление и наказание
-
- Стр. 219/453
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
“
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
.
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
?
”
