Summer Reading '10: Brothers Karamazov

[Virgil]

That Book II, Chapter 5, "So Be It! So Be It!" is rather interesting. That's where they discuss whether church and state should be separate over the matters of crime. What is really interesting is Ivan's argument in support of church absorbing secular duties.

“If everything became the Church, then the Church would excommunicate the criminal and the disobedient and not cut off their heads,” Ivan Fyodororich continued. “Where, I ask you, would the excommunicated man go? He would have to go away not only from men, as now, but also from Christ. For by this time he would have rebelled not only against men but also against Christ’s Church. That is now, too, of course, strictly speaking, but it is not avowed, and the criminal of today all too often bargins with his conscience: ‘I stole,’ he says, ‘but I have not gone against the Church, I am not an enemy of Christ.’ Time and again that is what the criminal of today says to himself. Well, but when the Church takes the place of the state, it will be very difficult for him to say that, unless he means to reject the Church all over the earth, to say: ‘All are mistaken, all are in error, all are a false Church, and I alone, a murderer and a thief, am the true Christian Church.’ It is very difficult to say this to oneself; it requires formidable conditions, circumstances that do not often occur. Now, on the other hand, take the Church’s own view of crime: should it not change from the present, almost pagan view, and from the mechanical cutting off of the infected member, as is done now for the preservation of society, and transform, fully now and not falsely, into the idea of the regeneration of man anew, of his restoration and salvation…?” [1.2.5, pp 63-4]

That hardly sounds like an atheist. What is particularly interesting is that Father Zosima agrees with Ivan, and I’m not going to type out the elder’s long speech, but this may be the crux of the social problem in Russia as Dostoevsky sees it. Here are some key parts to Father Zosima’s speech:

“…Thus the modern criminal is capable of acknowledging his guilt before the Church alone, and not before the state. If it were so that the judgment to society as the Church, then it would know whom to bring back from excommunication and reunite with itself. But now the Church, having no active jurisdiction but merely the possibility of moral condemnation alone, withholds from actively punishing the criminal of its own accord. It does not excommunicate him, but simply does not leave him with paternal guidance…What would become of him if the Church, too, punished him with excommunication each time immediately after the law of the state has punished him? Surely there could not be any greater despair, at least for a Russian criminal, for Russian criminals still have faith…What has just been said here is also true, that if, indeed, the judgment of the Church came, and in its full force—that is, if the whole of society turned into the Church alone—then not only would the judgment of the Church influence the reformation of the criminal as it can never influence it now, but perhaps crimes themselves would indeed diminish at an incredible rate…It is true,” the elder smiled, “that now Christian society itself is not yet ready, and stands only on seven righteous men; but as they are never wanting it abides firmly all the same, awaiting its complex transfiguration of society as still an almost pagan organization, into one universal and sovereign Church. And so be it, so be it, if only at the end of time, for this alone is destined to be fulfilled…” [pp 66-7]

Notice the resonances in the discussion with the central situation of the novel, the murder of old Karamazov. This may be the crux of the problem (the disconnect between society and the spiritual) as Dostoevsky sees it, but is he in agreement with Ivan and Father Zosima? Let’s look at the criminal characters. Would Dmitri be reformed if he were excommunicated? Possibly but I think he still would have committed his crimes and he claims to be reformed without it. Would Smerdyakov be reformed? No, absolutely not. I think Father Zosima’s fleshing out of Ivan’s idea is overly idealistic. Even Father Zosima says that society is not ready for this. Ultimately I think Dostoevsky believes humanity is flawed and unless a person can transcend earthly limitations, say like Alyosha, then a person is doomed to live out his character flaws.

[Dark Muse]

That hardly sounds like an atheist. What is particularly interesting is that Father Zosima agrees with Ivan, and I’m not going to type out the elder’s long speech, but this may be the crux of the social problem in Russia as Dostoevsky sees it.

Though I do not think that Ivan is an atheist, I do believe that it is said that Ivan's speech does not necessarily reflect his own personal belief, but rather he produces such arguments in religion as a form of some amusement to himself.

[Virgil]

Though I do not think that Ivan is an atheist, I do believe that it is said that Ivan's speech does not necessarily reflect his own personal belief, but rather he produces such arguments in religion as a form of some amusement to himself.

Yes, that is true, but it's all that seems to be on Ivan's mind. It's like he can't get away from religion. He's forever contemplating a religious thought.

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that is true, but it's all that seems to be on Ivan's mind. It's like he can't get away from religion. He's forever contemplating a religious thought.

It seems that all the Karamazov's suffer from religion so to speak in their own individual ways, no matter what they claim to believe or not believe, it seems questions of religion plague them and shape them. They all live within the shadow or religion, whether to have positive or negative effects.

[Virgil]

It seems that all the Karamazov's suffer from religion so to speak in their own individual ways, no matter what they claim to believe or not believe, it seems questions of religion plague them and shape them. They all live within the shadow or religion, whether to have positive or negative effects.

Yes, but I would say it's the whole Russian character as Dostoevsky sees it.

[Quark]

This may be the crux of the problem (the disconnect between society and the spiritual) as Dostoevsky sees it, but is he in agreement with Ivan and Father Zosima?

I think you're right to see Zosima and Ivan as two sides of the same coin rather than as complete opposites. They both share a pretty bleak view of society, both have a fatalist's assurance, and both are merely bidding their time until the great change in the future. Zosima waits in the monastery cultivating Christ's image, and Ivan plunges himself in "Karamazoving" (I think we all know what that is). Does the novel agree with these characters? Partly, yes. Their indictments of then contemporary Russia seem to hold up. The novel doesn't appear to correct their observations about the suffering and cruelty going on around them. Yet I don't think the novel supports their conclusions about fate and direction of society. The book ends with neither a great Christian overthrow of society, nor an authoritarian church being set up. It ends with Alyosha's speech which embraces the flawed life that Zosima and Ivan are forever running away from. Alyosha tells the children not be afraid of life, but rather to pursue the community and love and preserve that image (not Christ's directly) in one's mind as a protection against cruelty (that within and that without). I suppose you could recuperate Ivan and Zosima's interpretation by saying that the end of the novel is not really the end of the story, but I think that's a bit of stretch. The real conclusion seems to refute their revolutionary mindset, and instead support Alyosha's attention to life.

I think Father Zosima’s fleshing out of Ivan’s idea is overly idealistic. Even Father Zosima says that society is not ready for this. Ultimately I think Dostoevsky believes humanity is flawed and unless a person can transcend earthly limitations, say like Alyosha, then a person is doomed to live out his character flaws.

I tend to disagree. You propose that last sentence as though it were a counter-argument against Ivan and Zosima, but it sounds more like you're agreeing with them. It's Ivan Grand Inquisitor who builds his entire argument on earthly limitations: "Then we shall give them a quiet, reconciled happiness, the happiness of feeble creatures, such as they were created" (337). I think the point of the novel is get beyond this. Otherwise, we'd be left with a depressing (and not to say banal) outlook on society. There would be an elect few who aren't tainted by society and then everyone else who are doomed to live in either anarchy or authoritarianism. Now that's uplifting! Again, I have to stress that Zosima's and Ivan's philosophy doesn't seem to match the rest of the novel. While it's true that Aloysha is childlike and innocent in many ways, he's also the character that warns people from being afraid of life--he's also the character that tells Ivan he isn't guilty when the Zosima/Ivan philosophy tells us they are (and Ivan and Dmitri get away!). Alyosha's also the character who emphasizes lived acts of kindness and not an abstract Jesus-image like Zosima. The characters who shelter themselves from perceived societal evils are not exactly role models in the novel. Zosima waits in the monestary, and doesn't do terribly much for us in the book. Ivan, Dmitri, and Fyodor hide themselves in "Karamazoving," but that doesn't go particularly well for any of them. That's why I wouldn't necessarily say the message of the book is to ware hairshirt and control our urges. Yes, Alyosha is above his impulses and the others are not, but what's pointed out several times is that characters resort to sensualism because they don't see any way forward with society. It's not that Ivan tells Aloysha that he's "Karamazoving" because he's just not above his impulses. Rather, he's "Karamazoving" because of the views he expounds about society. Ivan's worldview excludes the possibility of productive labor, meaningful kindness, and love. So, why not drown himself in sensualism? That's what he tells Alyosha in Pro and Contra, and that's what's reiterated in the novel.

[Virgil]

I think you're right to see Zosima and Ivan as two sides of the same coin rather than as complete opposites. They both share a pretty bleak view of society, both have a fatalist's assurance, and both are merely bidding their time until the great change in the future. Zosima waits in the monastery cultivating Christ's image, and Ivan plunges himself in "Karamazoving" (I think we all know what that is). Does the novel agree with these characters? Partly, yes. Their indictments of then contemporary Russia seem to hold up. The novel doesn't appear to correct their observations about the suffering and cruelty going on around them. Yet I don't think the novel supports their conclusions about fate and direction of society. The book ends with neither a great Christian overthrow of society, nor an authoritarian church being set up. It ends with Alyosha's speech which embraces the flawed life that Zosima and Ivan are forever running away from. Alyosha tells the children not be afraid of life, but rather to pursue the community and love and preserve that image (not Christ's directly) in one's mind as a protection against cruelty (that within and that without). I suppose you could recuperate Ivan and Zosima's interpretation by saying that the end of the novel is not really the end of the story, but I think that's a bit of stretch. The real conclusion seems to refute their revolutionary mindset, and instead support Alyosha's attention to life.

Actually it was you a few pages back that suggested that Alyosha and Zosima were not exactly on the same page and that got me thinking. I think you are right and I think the difference between them is profound. I've come across a quote recently which goes, "Christ has no hands on earth now but yours," which is to say that a person has to go out and do Christ's work. Father Zosima is in a way a less severe version of Father Ferapont, ascetic and isolated from the problems of humanity. Alyosha in the end goes out into the world to do good, not just wallow in spiritual glory.

I tend to disagree. You propose that last sentence as though it were a counter-argument against Ivan and Zosima, but it sounds more like you're agreeing with them. It's Ivan Grand Inquisitor who builds his entire argument on earthly limitations: "Then we shall give them a quiet, reconciled happiness, the happiness of feeble creatures, such as they were created" (337). I think the point of the novel is get beyond this. Otherwise, we'd be left with a depressing (and not to say banal) outlook on society. There would be an elect few who aren't tainted by society and then everyone else who are doomed to live in either anarchy or authoritarianism. Now that's uplifting!

What's sad is that Russia, a hundred and thirty or so years later is still struggling between anarchy and authoritarianism.

Again, I have to stress that Zosima's and Ivan's philosophy doesn't seem to match the rest of the novel. While it's true that Aloysha is childlike and innocent in many ways, he's also the character that warns people from being afraid of life--he's also the character that tells Ivan he isn't guilty when the Zosima/Ivan philosophy tells us they are (and Ivan and Dmitri get away!). Alyosha's also the character who emphasizes lived acts of kindness and not an abstract Jesus-image like Zosima. The characters who shelter themselves from perceived societal evils are not exactly role models in the novel. Zosima waits in the monestary, and doesn't do terribly much for us in the book. Ivan, Dmitri, and Fyodor hide themselves in "Karamazoving," but that doesn't go particularly well for any of them. That's why I wouldn't necessarily say the message of the book is to ware hairshirt and control our urges. Yes, Alyosha is above his impulses and the others are not, but what's pointed out several times is that characters resort to sensualism because they don't see any way forward with society. It's not that Ivan tells Aloysha that he's "Karamazoving" because he's just not above his impulses. Rather, he's "Karamazoving" because of the views he expounds about society. Ivan's worldview excludes the possibility of productive labor, meaningful kindness, and love. So, why not drown himself in sensualism? That's what he tells Alyosha in Pro and Contra, and that's what's reiterated in the novel.

Yes, I think we see it the same. I think the central core of the novel is the satisfaction of the internal pleasures (which comes in all sorts of different forms) in conflict with societal needs, and Alyosha as the hero who can trascend his internal needs.

[Dark Muse]

So everyone got upset due to the fact that a dead body started to decay and smell? That's what happens when you put people on a high pedestal and suddenly find out that they're just human too.!

That is hysterical, and so very true. I have to say I find the whole thing really quite amusing. It does not matter everything he had done while he was alive, and his deeds upon earth are completely irrelevant, because how dare his dead body start to rot, clearly that is a sign that he really was a disgraceful person.

So does that mean if when Fyodor dies, his body happened to smell like roses he would be instantly turned into a Saint?

The narrator claims that Aloysha does not suffer from little faith, and yet it seems that he cannot have a very strong faith if he suddenly suffers from a crisis of belief because a corpse started to decay and if he is willing to throw everything out and spit in the face of his mentor and all his mentor taught him.

Rakitin is the only one who has an ounce of sense.

[ktm5124]

Actually it was you a few pages back that suggested that Alyosha and Zosima were not exactly on the same page and that got me thinking. I think you are right and I think the difference between them is profound. I've come across a quote recently which goes, "Christ has no hands on earth now but yours," which is to say that a person has to go out and do Christ's work. Father Zosima is in a way a less severe version of Father Ferapont, ascetic and isolated from the problems of humanity. Alyosha in the end goes out into the world to do good, not just wallow in spiritual glory.

*spoilers*

Was Father Zosima really isolated from society all his life? I remember that he decided to go to the monastery after he refused to shoot at the fiance of the girl he loved, in the middle of their duel. One could count this as a trial in which Father Zosima faced depravation and opposed it, in giving up the girl he loved. Similarly, Alyosha is presented with a similar trial, when he goes to Grushenka's, and he too triumphs over the sensual. This incident led Alyosha to regain his faith, although he does not go to the monastery as Zosima did. But where do you think Alyosha will end up? By the end of the novel he has no wife, no family, no woman whom he loves. Are we to suppose that he will meet someone, or that he will remain single all his life. And supposing that he does remain single, he might as well head on to the monastery. If this happens, then the two might prove very similar; in fact, the same side of the coin.

Why also do you suppose that Father Zosima is isolated from society? Is it simply because he lives in a monastery - is it his celibacy? He has contact wtih society every day when he receives people seeking help and proceeds to help them. Or is there something superficial about this, in that he is not developing personal relationships. Is that what separates Alyosha and Zosima, their relations with others? If this is true, then I think it would be a criticism of monks, priests, and the monastery as an institution.

I suppose the most pressing question is this: why does Father Zosima's corpse stink, and is it a sign that the way he lived his life was wrong?

[Quark]

Actually it was you a few pages back that suggested that Alyosha and Zosima were not exactly on the same page and that got me thinking.

Yeah, and I stand by that. The point I was making in my last post was about Ivan and Zosima. Those two share many of the same assumptions: that mankind is doomed to cruelty or suffering until some revolutionary moment in the future, that escape (either in "Karamazoving" or a monastery) is the best course of action until that future revolution, and that freedom is a problem.

I think you are right and I think the difference between them is profound. I've come across a quote recently which goes, "Christ has no hands on earth now but yours," which is to say that a person has to go out and do Christ's work. Father Zosima is in a way a less severe version of Father Ferapont, ascetic and isolated from the problems of humanity. Alyosha in the end goes out into the world to do good, not just wallow in spiritual glory.

That's true. Unlike Ivan and Zosima, Alyosha finds something productive to do with the "freedom" that Ivan says Christ gave his followers. Ivan and Zosima find that "freedom" problematic, but Alyosha shows that one can cultivate a world that minimizes cruelty and suffering by showing (and remembering) love and kindness. Alyosha doesn't wait until some utopian future takes hold, but rather acts now. Whether you find that heroic or just overly idealistic is up to the reader, I guess.

What's sad is that Russia, a hundred and thirty or so years later is still struggling between anarchy and authoritarianism.

Poverty, too, but I think the social upheavals that gave rise to The Brothers Karamazov occured in more than just Russia. The movement from feudalism to capitalism, state bureaucracy, and bourgeois culture happened all over Europe. It's that change which gives all of this talk about "freedom" its heft.

Yes, I think we see it the same. I think the central core of the novel is the satisfaction of the internal pleasures (which comes in all sorts of different forms) in conflict with societal needs, and Alyosha as the hero who can trascend his internal needs.

Sure, but I think all of the stuff about "freedom" (as I've been writing about above) is also very important. What that freedom is and what people do with it are critical questions the novel wants us to answer. Does freedom lead to the cruelty in Ivan's anecdotes during "Mutiny" and "The Grand Inquisitor"? After all, we could read the entire novel as just one big anecdote for Ivan, as there's plenty of cruelty and suffering to go around. Or, should we view freedom and the novel as leading toward something like Alyosha's community of children? The other characters would have their own take on this issue, too. I think this is one of the central issues in the novel, and it's not one that can easily been boiled down into a individual/society conflict or a Freudian tension between id and superego.

[Virgil]

Was Father Zosima really isolated from society all his life? I remember that he decided to go to the monastery after he refused to shoot at the fiance of the girl he loved, in the middle of their duel. One could count this as a trial in which Father Zosima faced depravation and opposed it, in giving up the girl he loved. Similarly, Alyosha is presented with a similar trial, when he goes to Grushenka's, and he too triumphs over the sensual. This incident led Alyosha to regain his faith, although he does not go to the monastery as Zosima did. But where do you think Alyosha will end up? By the end of the novel he has no wife, no family, no woman whom he loves. Are we to suppose that he will meet someone, or that he will remain single all his life. And supposing that he does remain single, he might as well head on to the monastery. If this happens, then the two might prove very similar; in fact, the same side of the coin.

Why also do you suppose that Father Zosima is isolated from society? Is it simply because he lives in a monastery - is it his celibacy? He has contact wtih society every day when he receives people seeking help and proceeds to help them. Or is there something superficial about this, in that he is not developing personal relationships. Is that what separates Alyosha and Zosima, their relations with others? If this is true, then I think it would be a criticism of monks, priests, and the monastery as an institution.

I suppose the most pressing question is this: why does Father Zosima's corpse stink, and is it a sign that the way he lived his life was wrong?

You make good points ktm. No his celibacy has nothing to do with anything. I do think he has closed himself up to some degree, but perhaps that's an overstatement. What seems to separate Alyosha and Zosima is that Alyosha goes out into the world and tries to influence those kids for the better. I don't see any such activity on Zosima's part, though he does seem to preach the right message. Perhaps he's just old at this point. Perhaps Alyosha is just a younger version of him who will eventually become Zosima. But I still think there is a distinction between the two.

Sure, but I think all of the stuff about "freedom" (as I've been writing about above) is also very important. What that freedom is and what people do with it are critical questions the novel wants us to answer. Does freedom lead to the cruelty in Ivan's anecdotes during "Mutiny" and "The Grand Inquisitor"? After all, we could read the entire novel as just one big anecdote for Ivan, as there's plenty of cruelty and suffering to go around. Or, should we view freedom and the novel as leading toward something like Alyosha's community of children? The other characters would have their own take on this issue, too. I think this is one of the central issues in the novel, and it's not one that can easily been boiled down into a individual/society conflict or a Freudian tension between id and superego.

No question freedom is an issue in the novel, though I haven't formulated yet how it fits in. I will have to relook at some of the key passages. Unfortunately I can't re-read the whole thing.

Oh please drop this Freudian nonsense. You know my feelings on Freud: the most over rated supposed intellectual in history.

[Quark]

What seems to separate Alyosha and Zosima is that Alyosha goes out into the world and tries to influence those kids for the better. Perhaps he's just old at this point. Perhaps Alyosha is just a younger version of him who will eventually become Zosima. But I still think there is a distinction between the two

I don't think it's age that keeping Zosima in the monastery. Remember that it's his tragic vision of the world that motivates him to enter the monastery in the first place. In his youth (or perhaps middle age) he begins to believe that the only way Christianity can survive is if it's cultivated by a small, sheltered group of monks. The world is far to corrupt and disordered to see truth, Zosima believes.

But, I also think we should remember that it's Zosima who sends Alyosha out of the monastery. I forget that section of the book, though. Does anyone recall what the motivation for that was?

No question freedom is an issue in the novel, though I haven't formulated yet how it fits in. I will have to relook at some of the key passages. Unfortunately I can't re-read the whole thing.

If you're looking back over the book, check the "Mutiny" and "Grand Inquisitor" chapters for Ivan's take on the issue, maybe the last chapter for Alyosha's view, and the section on Zosima's past for the monk's explanation.

Oh please drop this Freudian nonsense. You know my feelings on Freud: the most over rated supposed intellectual in history.

huh? I was closing down a Freudian reading not opening one up:

I think this [freedom] is one of the central issues in the novel, and it's not one that can easily been boiled down into a individual/society conflict or a Freudian tension between id and superego.

(Underline, bold, italics all added)

[TurquoiseSunset]

This last month has been hectic! I have FINALLY started reading TBK...this is now possible because I stay awake longer than ten minutes after I pick up a book, hehe. So far it's looking great, so after tonight I can start reading everyone's posts on the first Book and give my opinion. Yay!

[ktm5124]

I don't think it's age that keeping Zosima in the monastery. Remember that it's his tragic vision of the world that motivates him to enter the monastery in the first place. In his youth (or perhaps middle age) he begins to believe that the only way Christianity can survive is if it's cultivated by a small, sheltered group of monks. The world is far to corrupt and disordered to see truth, Zosima believes.

I don't recall this tragic vision of his. In what chapter can I hear him profess this?

I think I remember that he agreed with Ivan's play-argument about the necessity of having the Church administrate justice, for it is only the Church that can deter the criminal. But that is more a product of a priori reasoning than beliefs.

I also remember that he joined the monastery immediately after his duel, in which he courageously refused to shoot the other man. This was the beginning of a long life of being admired, when his comrades thought him holy (perhaps a "holy fool") for the act. But his departure for the monastery did not arise out of a tragic vision of the world, that is to say, an escape from corruption, but rather from a revelation occurring at the time of the duel.

But, I also think we should remember that it's Zosima who sends Alyosha out of the monastery. I forget that section of the book, though. Does anyone recall what the motivation for that was?

Yes, this seems to be a paradox, given that Zosima has a tragic view of the world. (And I am inclined to believe you since I fairly forget his personal views, and ashamedly so, since I have just finished it!) It is possible that Zosima wanted Alyosha to arrive at his own tragic perception through experience in the world, but why send him off into the world for what can be inculcated in the monastery? It seems to me that, given his tragic view of the world, he is also open-minded, and admits that Alyosha may not come to see the world in the same way, and perhaps does not even desire Alyosha to see the world in the same way. If Zosima despairs about the world, he at least wants Alyosha to form his own opinions. He at least is open-minded.

And I am curious, why does Zosima's corpse stink in the funeral rites? Is this a divine repudiation of his philosophy? What are we to think of that? It is so strange and out-of-place; it only makes one doubt Zosima. And yet Dostoevsky must conceive it as very important to the novel, since it led to Alyosha's reawakening of faith.

[spookymulder93]

So I just finished the book.

SPOILERS AHEAD






I thought Dmitry was going to get Acquitted even though the evidence pointing against him was as large as a mountain. I thought the Defender did a good job at swaying the jury, but I guess in the end fancy words can't compete with facts.

The last chapter was pretty sad. I wonder how Snegirev will go on?

All in All I wouldn't say that this entire book is a must read because the actual story is kind of unbelievable to me. The only chapters that are must reads are The Grand Inquisitor and Ivans Nightmare and The devil. The rest of the book reads like a soap opera and soap operas are pretty silly to me.

Smerdyakov and Ivan are the 2 best characters in my opinion. Dmitry was like an idiot teenager and Alyosha was too much of a goody goody for my taste.

Edit: I can't believe I forgot about Kolya. He's definitely the best character in this story.