Величайший и самый глубокий русский роман из когда-либо написанных.
Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are, therefore, those who deny them, deny their family, their heritage, their culture, their birthright, and their very selves!
Sociocultural Context and Historical Background
The third book begins with a description of Fyodor Karamazov’s house. The relevant thing here that lays in front of us is, the fact that there were two people or two servants, Grigory and Marfa. Why are these two people worth describing and dedicating up to three chapters? That is a good question, and every good question deserves a good or even, a splendid answer capable of covering and satisfying the most extravagance and exquisite literal palate.
“Now I ask you, where are our sages, our thinkers? Who has ever done the thinking for us? Who thinks for us today? And yet, situated between the two great divisions of the world, between East and West, with one elbow resting on China and the other on Germany, we ought to have united in us the two principles of intellectual life, imagination and reason, and brought together in our civilization the history of the entire globe.
P. Chaadaev, ‘Letters on the Philosophy of History’
The third book is crucial and somewhat complicated to decipher, nevertheless, it is through these pages that we can learn and dive into Dostoevsky’s mind and perspective towards Russian life and culture within the 19th century. He made use of different characters to portray and convey the different threats that the Russian people were struggling with and were hurting their culture and identity.
Note 1. After the third book is where every single event stop being superfluous, and they become relevant, with a plethora of philosophical reflections that will make you ponder more than once.
Before going further with this analysis, we must review briefly the social, literal, cultural, and even, political context; accompanied, of course, with history. By the end of the eighteenth century, the Russian culture and soul were assaulted by Europeanization, mostly, French literature.
Russian history is replete of political, social, philosophical, and anthropological changes that have taken place since its foundation as the State; and those twists have been directly or indirectly linked to its relationship with the so-called “Western World”. For some authors, this relationship has been held along three core or principal phases or stages. For the purpose of this work, and not to make it soporific, we’ll explain in more detail what happened during Peter the Great and the subsequent decades, and even centuries.
The Beginning.
Before the mid-thirteenth century, Russian culture had no or little interaction and influence coming from the Western European countries; this was in great part due to the fact that Kievian Rus and Moscovy existed separately from the West. Therefore, Russian society was developed as an offspring of Byzantine civilization; by the mid-thirteenth century and mid-fifteenth century, Russian civilization was under Mongol control.
All of these events and historical facts served to build a cultural wall that allowed Russian civilization to avoid any kind of contact or scope of what was happening in the global historical phenomena outside of their world. Roman Catholicism, feudalism, the Renaissance, overseas expansion and colonization, the Enlightenment, and the emergence of the nation-state.
It is important to mention and highlight that one of the eight processes or matters that were changing in Western Europe, reached or penetrated the Russian civilization, and it was thanks to its lashes it held to the Byzantium inheritance, and hence was quite different from that which came to the West directly from Rome.
We can then say that, the Russian civilization at first was the result of its indigenous roots in Kyivan Rus and Moscovy, substantial Byzantine impact, and prolonged Mongol rule; Therefore, the civilization that emerged and took shape in those regions was nothing like those that were born the Western Europe.
18th And 19th Centuries.
After the war with Napoleon, the political, social and literacy influence it conveyed was crucial to the further development and acceptance of the Russian language, not only for peasants, since they were not considered literate enough to speak the high social class language, French.
Note 2. If you read, for example, War and Peace, You’ll encounter so many parts written in French, especially, related to royal families living in Saint Petersburg. In fact, Leo Tolstoy made a description and contrast between Moscow society and Saint Petersburg society.
Note 3. Although he did not abolish the Cyrillic alphabet, he undertook some reforms which were intended to simplify it and to introduce some Western words and phrases.
Therefore, Alexander Pushkin (1799 – 1837), who later on, was considered the preeminent figure of his generation and initiator of the “Golden Age”, because his works were a political, artistical cornerstone. Looking back on the nineteenth century, we could affirm, without fear of a precipitous mistake that, the Russian nineteenth century began with the dominance of poetry and unprecedented flourishing; then prose slowly emerged.
“We have never taken the trouble to invent anything ourselves, while from the inventions of others we have adopted only the deceptive appearances and useless luxuries”
P. Chaadaev, ‘Letters on the Philosophy of History’.
Going back to the end of the eighteenth century. The Russian cultural development under the founder of St. Petersburg, Peter I, faced a mix of different cultural influences, mostly, in architecture, social structure, and social behavior. In order to create the city, which turned out to be the new capital, Peter I summoned different architects from distinct parts of Europe, especially, palaces, and also, he summoned painters from the rest of Europe, to fulfill those palaces with their work. He did not stop there, he went further. He had instructed to contact agents from abroad to purchase what could not be produced in Russian during those times.
He longed to make his people look more like Europeans, thus, once he had come back to Moscow, he shaved all his nobles’ beards and, he even prohibited them from using ling gowns and conical hats.
Only after some major military victories, he devoted fully attention to the construction of the Saint Petersburg. The city was designed according to the regular plan (it is needed to say that, that plan was never fully completed). With the clear conviction to make Russia not only the biggest civilization and nation, he practically forgot about Moscow, or we can say that he “abandoned” it, and afterwards, he contacted people from Europe to build and create the city he had in mind, that would be the new Russian capital, Saint Petersburg.
_________________________________________________________
Evil, God, evilness, goodness, hell, heaven, morality, what is good? what is wrong? Who has killed the state? who has stolen the status quo? evilness and goodness are the same things subjected upon lenses? Who has created the devil? Is there no God, then is everything permitted? There is no doubt that “The Brothers Karamazov” is Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, why? because through this book he was able to portray the authentic Russian soul living in the 19th century. He was able to portray and picture the internal conflicts and contradictions located within the Russian spirit; he did it in such a magnificent way, making us of the incarnation through his most formidable and outstanding characters, Alyosha, Dmitri, Ivan, and of course, Fyodor.
Family Representation.
Plato used to describe the whole based on the particular, which means that, for example, if you want to know why a society behaves in a particular manner or does certain things under specific scenarios, just look through their soul in solo and then inside a given group of people, and once you have grasped the meaning of their particular behaviors and manner to display themselves within a community, you will be able to know the spirit of that society which has been the object of our study.
Something similar takes place here. During those times, there was a conflict between the new generation and the old generation. On one side, the people who made the utmost endeavor to hold the moral values (according to the Orthodox Church) within the youth, nonetheless, that nature of being against the so-called “Status Quo” has always existed, and it is part of the big clock which makes the world move forward.
Why “Family representation”? you are different from your siblings (in case you have), surely you also resemble your relatives, but we cannot neglect the fact that we are who we are thanks to them. We have developed our north start or chief axiom using the things we have learned and acquired through our daily interaction with other human beings. Therefore, we will possess a unique way to convey our thoughts, desires, wishes, passions, and so on, through a wide range of means, distinct from one another, according to the scenario.
Let’s answer the previous question, or even if I daresay, statement. Every society is always in conflict, and every citizen will be in trouble with one another always, which is inevitable. Nonetheless, despite the fact that every human being is pretty unique and alike, they can find similarities with other people, either in moral aspects, or passions. (These are the two major domains we will use from now on). Thus, the best way to represent a big society as something smaller is through the family, since this is the first social group we interact with.
Fyodor Karamazov.
There is no space for questions about who he is and what his role is in the main plot. The state; is a structure that always making use of its natural position and social conditions that have put him in that spot, committing abuses, running over people’s rights, and unwarranted actions against the same people who have put him on that pedestal.
At the beginning of the story we come across a different set of actions and attitudes he displayed throughout his lifetime, like for instance; getting married twice, with the chief intention of getting his wife’s money and wealth, taking part in orgies, inundating his essence and soul with vices.
Pleasure, what an interesting word, who doesn’t like to feel pleasure? everyone does like it, nevertheless, we have to take care of the lenses we use at the moment we look for it and look through it. In pleasure seeking we can commit atrocities, horrible things if we look at them behind religious glasses. He, Fyodor Karamazov used to have this idea that human beings only live once, thus it is needed to go for pleasure as much as we can, and we must always seek it. In other words, he was the living representation of what hedonism is. But, what is hedonism?
We will explain briefly what hedonism is. Hedonism is the belief that human behaviors and actions are led by human desires and pleasures, in order to decrease or mitigate pain. Therefore, ethical hedonism, on the other hand, is not about how we actually act, but how we ought to act; we should pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
Does the state avoid pain? Yes, but why? The short answer is that the state does not want to lose power, that power that was bestowed by the common people, and that has been legitimized by their actions and behaviors in different social contexts.
If we look carefully at the reason why he was murdered, it was not because he did not wish to give the proportional inheritance to his oldest son (Dimitri), nor was he involved in a love triangle. The main ground was because he was making fun of him, making fun of his actions, desires, and beliefs. Therefore, Dimitri has no other option than to kill him, get out of his mantle, and fly away from those chains that once constrained him to his father.
Dmitri Karamazov.
The oldest son of Fyodor Karamazov. He hardly lived with his mother, and of course, almost never established even a short dialogue with his father. He spent his life living with some relatives, but each period was a short one; a couple of years with someone, and then another couple of years with another one else. He never knew what love felt like.
It’s necessary to briefly describe Dimitri’s mother. Adelaida Ivanovna Miusov belonged to a rather wealthy aristocratic family, the Miusovs, they were also landowners in the district where Fyodor Karamazov lived. Results rather peculiar how it happened that a girl with a dowry, a beautiful girl, and moreover one of those pert, intelligent girls, could marry such a worthless “runt”, as everyone us to call him (Fyodor).
It turns out rather interesting and even I daresay intriguing how she could have married quite easily at any moment, ended up, after inventing all sorts of insurmountable obstacles, throwing herself on a stormy night into a rather deep and swift river from a high bank, somewhat resembling a cliff.
Perhaps she only wished or longed to assert her feminine independence, to go against social conventions, against the despotism of her relatives and family, and her obliging imagination convinced her, if only briefly, that Fyodor Karamazov, despite his dignity as a sponger, was still one of the boldest and most sarcastic spirits of that transitional epoch.
Now that we have gotten to the point where I mentioned that he never experienced the most beautiful feeling, being loved, but not only being the object of the formula, he neither had the opportunity to truly love someone in his early years.
We have been talking about Adelaida Ivanovna Miusov, since this results in an imperious necessity to touch and grasp the background that functioned as a nest for Dimitri Karamazov.
Unlike his father, Dimitri Karamazov is not depicted as someone who only goes in look for passion at almost any cost, instead, he seems to be most humane, like everyone else, his soul is plagued with moral quandaries, moral questions, and contradictions, since, everybody lives carrying contradictions and internal conflicts. On one hand, he is still in love with Katerina Ivanovna while he is entangled with his fiancée, Grushenka; producing in him a sense of guilt, and self-loathing.
His development is more appreciable or measurable after his father’s murder. He longed to kill his father, his father had taken everything away from him. It’s crucial to highlight with urgent importance the moment when the whole Karamazov gathered at the monastery, and how he (Dimitri) ranted against his father and the church (state and Orthodox Church). And how moments later, the Father Zosima kneel in front of him to kiss his feet, and pronounced that a great disgrace was about to come over him.
He was imputed with the murder of his father, and it’s right here where an inflection point began. He did not neglect his intentions, but he categorically rejected any accusation against him that he had killed his father. He mentioned that even though he wished it, he didn’t kill him. Here is where the interesting begins. Despite his hedonistic lifestyle, he did not bear the idea of being considered a scoundrel by the person he loved, Grushenka. There were some internal fights taking place within himself. Go to his father’s and take the money out of his hands to pay his debt with Katerina Ivanovna, or just ignore that debt.
But, despite the fact that he could take advantage of her, there was something in him that stopped him from committing the same acts of abuse and fraud that his father committed on his own mother, and on the mother of his brothers.
Alyosha Karamazov.
Always hungry and thirsty to learn, to explore the world he lived in. But at the same time, he could be portrayed or seen as a rather naive person, nevertheless, I’m not sure if at the same level as Prince Myshkin.
The youngest son, the most noble, and magnanimous person we could come across with. He can be considered as the church in this relationship “estate-citizen”. But why does he portray such a figure as the church? Connection, yes connection is the answer. The connection between these is not 2, but 3 structures.
There are few things that can unite a divided and diverse society, and undoubtedly faith and devotion to a religion is one of those few things. Throughout the novel, we’ll appreciate and contemplate many scenes where Alyosha will try fervently to reconcile his brothers with his father, he will try to push them to clear the air. Nevertheless, neither Dimitry nor Fyodor will be willing to forgive one another.
“Human reason or Faith”. One of the deepest contrasts between him and especially his oldest brother Ivan, is that, along the story, Ivan manifested his atheism, even hatred towards God, meanwhile, Alyosha, even under difficult circumstances, there was not any moment in which he had said something against God, or blaspheme.
Note 4. Alyosha could be seen as Dostoevsky’s mean to retort Nietzsche’s affirmations towards God, “God is Dead”. We’ll dive into it in its proper moment.
To sustain and give body to the previous statement, we have the imperious necessity to peruse through some chapters. In the first chapter, we will analyze to understand why Alyosha believed what he believed in, and even more importantly, why he acted in the way he did. “The Grand Inquisitor”. We are going not to extend nor analyze the chapter here, it’ll have its space and time in the second part of this work.
“The Grand Inquisitor”. Alyosha and Ivan, both in a pub. Ivan was laying out his reasons why he rejected to believe in God. The first statement was around that if he (Alyosha) would have the disposal to build an edifice that would save the human race from misery and mundane suffering, but in order to achieve such a thing like that, he would have to smash that poor child who was beating her chest with her fist; Alyosha’s replies was a concise “No”.
What do have here? In order to have faith in someone or something, we must have pain or suffer. That entity or Deity that will get us up from the ground, will soothe our pain, will appease our fears and internal demons as long as we stay close and we kneel in front of him. If we dare to move away, that suffering will come again. Here we have the first breakpoint between these two brothers. If we start reasoning logically what Ivan was trying to ask him, there is some evilness in building something “divine” using suffering as a means. Along the whole narration of his (Ivan’s) prose poem, we’ll be able to acquaint ourselves with Ivan’s thoughts, and the output for both of them.
What happened with Alyosha? After the whole poem, he did not have a way to retort to Ivan’s poem. Alyosha’s main axis was, in order to be good, your beliefs are not that important or crucial. (We can see more of his ethics during the whole novel, but to explain everything would take hours).
The second faith demonstration took place exactly after the death of Father Zosima.
A bit of context of the situation in which the conversation was held. The Father Zosima had just passed away, and he had been someone like Alyosha’s father, in all senses. He took responsibility for Alyosha’s education after he had arrived at the monastery; he cultivated in him the seed of active love, the eagerness of what happiness means, so on his deathbed, he left some words remarked in Alyosha’s mind and soul “Go out there, you’ll be more useful in the outside world than here enclosed in the monastery”. After the ceremonies and pertinent religious rites that were demanded, he stepped off… During his way, he was found by Rakitin, in not the best conditions, neither spiritually nor mentally. One proof of this is provided by the author in the next lines “He loved his God and believed in him steadfastly, though he suddenly murmured against him. Yet some vague but tormenting and evil impression from the recollection of the previous day’s conversation with his brother Ivan now suddenly surface” and also in the following answer Alyosha gave to Rakitin when he was bothering him with his questions about his faith in God and in what father Zosima had taught him “I do not rebel against my God, I simply do not accept his world”.
What do we have here? According to Dostoevsky, The West was corrupting The Russian soul, especially among youth. Moral values, ideologies, closeness to God, and The Orthodox Church have been degrading since the rapprochement between Russia and the West. So Alyosha (or someone who has the same moral values and precepts) would be now the main axis of The Orthodox Church and society, in order to be more Russians again (I personally like the idea of keeping one’s national identity). But the conflict within himself was that he did not have the courage to rebel against God, but neither to accept the world he was creating (Would it be thanks to the free will as Ivan laid out?). What a quandary, human reason against faith.
Ivan Karamazov.
The most educated and cultivated character in the novel, one of the most outstanding personage, not only in this work but also I would daresay, in Nineteenth-century Russian literature. Author of one of the most meaningful, complex, deep, and strong poems within Russian literature, The Great Inquisitor; nevertheless, we will dive into this poem in its due time. In the meantime, we are going to set our own definition of who Ivan is.
The best way we can describe someone as Ivan Karamazov is, rational. In the first five books, he is depicted as the more rational, and rather coherent character so far; this could have resulted from his formal academic education. He proclaims himself an atheist, this is based on the fact that he cannot conceive suffering as antechamber for eternal life if a paradise. He can also be seen, as the incarnation of the challenge that has to face Christianity “against” nihilism, particularly, regarding Christian Morality.
Ivan emphatically rejects the idea that there can be Christian morality because the access to that paradise is suffering. On many occasions, it is about the pain and agony of those who are the purest and noblest of hearts. and soul, the children. Therefore, he finds himself in a kind of revolt against God, as he mentions that he decided to return his ticket to paradise. In one particular chapter, he delves further into his justification, or his thesis, upon which he makes his judgment that God is immoral.
We must mention that, according to his perspective regarding the existence of God, as creator and architect of the world; he categorically denies the acceptance of his own theology, since he considers that it is not morally honest to follow a God “creator” of “injustice”. Likewise, he also maintains with strong fervor his position in the face of what is humanly honorable, since he considers that a person ceases to be honorable when he begins to worship God because in some way (mostly implicit), he would be “overlapping” such a “cost” to enter “paradise”, and in this way, reach a complete reconciliation with God.
Leave a Reply