An Act of Sympathy and an Act of Love

Book IV of The Brothers Karamazov, in maintaining a similar line of development to that of the earlier Books, involves the various wanderings and assignments of Aleksey Fyodorovich.  Our poor hero continues to move from household to household within the village on a seamlessly unending journey of intrigue and frustration.  

In the opening section of this portion of the text, Aleksey Fyodorovich is confronted with a rather fragmented speech from Elder Zosima.  This speech concentrates on dispelling the notion that monastery life is above that of secular pursuits.  Importantly, Elder Zosima states,

Do not be proud before the small, and do not be proud before the great, either.  Do not hate those who reject you, defame you, revile you and slander you.  Do not hate the atheists, the teachers of evil, the materialists, even the wicked among them, not only the good, for in their midst there are many that are good, especially in our time.”[1]  

This quote from Elder Zosima is striking in that thus far, very few, if any of the characters in The Brothers Karamazov could be described as wholly good.  In many respects the vices that Elder Zosima speaks of allude to many of the vices that have been expressed through the characters that the narrator has already introduced.  Between Smerdyakov, Rakitin, Ivan, Fyodor, and even the dressmaker, it is clear that “our village” is full of slanderers, atheists, and materialists.  According to the Elder however, there are many good individuals within the midst of all the schemers and those captivated by possessions.

            I cannot help but think that potentially, the Snegiryov family is the “good” trapped in the midst.  It is clear that the Sengiryovs live in poverty following dismissal of Second Grade Captain Snegiryov from the armed forces.  Despite the hardship that Dostoyevsky displays in association with the family, it is quite clear that the members are bonded in a far stronger relationship than that of the other families and characters introduced thus far.  The relationship between father and son is particularly strong, to the point that young Ilyusha seeks to defend the honor of his name against the far older Dmitri following the incident in front of the inn. 

            Up until this point it seemed that Aleksey Fyodorovich had been the perpetual good throughout the course of the novel.  The last chapter of Book IV however, seems to have reversed this role for Aleksey Fyodorovich, instead proposing that the actions of Ilyusha and Second Grade Captain Snegiryov as consisting of far nobler substance.  Aleksey Fyodorovich’s act of apology was out of sympathy, whereas Segiryov’s act of defying the duel and Ilyusha’s defense of his father were out of familial love and connection. 

Aleksey Fyodorovich is still in a phase of learning.  He has little understanding of the concept of the love and compassion that can exist between fellow human beings.  He is sympathetic, but his position is often that of a high moral station, not that of a humble individual acting out of mutual compassion.  In many ways I feel that his constant “expulsion” from the monastery by Elder Zosima is an attempt by the Elder to ensure that Aleksey Fyodorovich has the ability to observe and learn from the goodness that exists outside the walls of the monastery.

Although Snegiryov ultimately refuses the aid, I cannot help but lay down Book IV feeling that Ilyusha and the elder Snegiryov have demonstrated the strongest bond that has existed in The Brothers Karamazov up until this point.  Their relationship is bound by an almost dutiful love of family.  It will be interesting as the text progresses to understand the full extent the Snegiryov encounter has on our young hero.                                     

---

[1]Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by David McDuff (New York: Penguin Group, 2003), 216.

Traditional vs. Progressive

It is with much trepidation that I begin this blog post.  I was unable to join in discussion due to the CCIW swim meet, so my post consists of purely my initial musings concerning the character of Pavel “Smerdyakov”.

            Initially what struck me as curious in the case of Smerdyakov was his portrayal as an ever-present observer who gazed at the world from a corner.[1]  From an earlier lecture, I recall that the corner of a room is the frequent position for icons in the Russian religious tradition.  In a sense Smerdyakov holds a similar position to that of an icon.  Simply put, Smerdyakov has relegated himself to the periphery, where he maintains an ever-observant watch (a contemptuous watch) on his surroundings.  In a similar manner, an Orthodox icon rests in the corner room, casting a field of view advantageous to constant observation of the dwelling’s inhabitants.

            Throughout the chapter young Smerdyakov is introduced as a “disciple” or “little lord”.  Despite these religious connotations in association with Smerdyakov, it is clear the character has suffered a break from the Orthodox faith.  The turning point seems hinged on the rather odd practice he had as youth in performing funerals for cats.  Young Smerdyakov would hide in the woods wearing something that resembled a makeshift ecclesiastical garment performing rituals with incense.  This behavior was punished by Grigory with banishment to the corner. 

After serving his period of punishment Smerdyakov underwent lessons in Biblical history.  In these lessons Smerdyakov took an antagonistic stance toward the story of creation.  There seems to have been a shift in Smerdyakov, from an individual who emulated the Church, to one who at every opportunity sought to undermine the faith through logic and reason.  Smerdyakov’s dismissal of Biblical history was repeated with Russian folk stories and writings of history.  All of these studies seemed useless and porous to him when he presented them with his concept of reason.  Even when engaged in argument Smerdyakov continually referred to “reason”, typically in order to highlight his staunch disapproval of Grigory’s faith in the Orthodox tradition.

In many respects, given Smerdyakov’s manner of argument and his ever-present association with observation, I feel as if Dostoyevsky is attempting to highlight the discord between progressive and traditional schools of thought.  Smerdyakov is an observer who seeks truth, and appeals to logic and reason as a means of supporting his observations.  This contrasts with Grigory, who from the traditional background of an Orthodox upbringing, relies on faith and scripture as a means of supporting his perceptions.  These two characters naturally seem in conflict with each other.  It seems as if Dostoyevsky is relating the tension that exists between  traditional Orthodox understandings and modern progressive concepts. 

In Dostoyevsky’s portrayal, which school of thought seems to be presented in the best light…the traditional Orthodox, or the modern progressive?  If the interpretation above is accurate it should be interesting to see the character of Smerdyakov develop further as the text continues, potentially shedding more light on this question.                           

                       

---

[1]Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, Translated by David McDuff (New York: Penguin Group, 2003), 166.

The Church as the Unifying Center of Russian Identity?

           In Book II of The Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky takes the audience to the local monastery for a chaotic conglomeration of inter-character conflict.  The Karamazov clan (minus Dmitry Fyodorovich at the onset of the adventure) were joined by Pyotr Aleksandrovich Miusov, the landowner Maksimov, and the aspiring university student Pyotr Fomich Kalganov.  The visit had led to the growth of a great feeling of trepidation within Aleksey Fyodorovich, given his awareness of his family’s rather notorious ability to concoct scandals and guide themselves by a less-than-Christian moral compass.

            The intriguing aspect of the adventure in the monastery is the incorporation of characters that hail from the various social classes.  These social-specific characters each behave differently in regards to the role of the Church.

            One of the most notable social-specific characters is the lady landowner Khokhlokova.  It is evident from her dialogue that she is distanced from the common Russian populace.  Of note is also her temptation to serve as a healer.  In her dialogue with the elder Zosima, she relates that the difficulty in her fulfillment of the role as a healer would lie in her inability to distinguish the reward of gratitude from the moral responsibility of the act of providing aid.  It seems as if Dostoyevsky is drawing a distinction between the commoner-elite divide.  In order to act the elite must perceive a clear avenue to a distinct reward.  This contrasts greatly with the image of the ill Elder Zosima, who sacrifices his limited energy in order to meet with the many pilgrims and unruly guests that seem to abound on the monastery grounds.  No matter how small or how large the issue, the Elder Zosima was portrayed by Dostoyevsky as continuing to provide his wise advice, with no reference to any reward of excessive gratitude, simply a sense of sincere duty.  The lady landowner Khokhlokova, who states her love of the “fine Russian people”, seems as far away from emulating the values and struggles of her so-termed common citizens.  The elite is an a sense of foreign entity, continual observing their home from afar.    

Importantly, there is also the perception of the institution by the Europeanized and politically liberal Pyotr Aleksandrovich, that lasts throughout the entirety of the escapade.  Initially, Pyotr Aleksandrovich displays a sense of contempt toward the monastery and his visit.  As the adventure progresses though, Pyotr Aleksandrovich develops a sense of due reverence toward the institution.  He seems to come to the realization that the Church does provide a service to the individuals it consoles.  Whether this change in feeling is due to an actual shift in Pyotr Aleksandrovich’s perception of the Church, or simply spurred by the mischiefs of Fyodor Pavlovich is left unclear.

            In much of the same manner that Pyotr Aleksandrovich seems to have a change of perception, Ivan Fyodorovich’s apparently demonstrates his own gorwing appreciation of the Church’s role within society.  Initially, the first section of The Brothers Karamazov would lead one to believe that the intellectual Ivan would be the first to fervently defend any stance contrary to that of Church authority.  In contrast however, Ivan Fyodorovich hails the Church as superior entity to that of the state.  The characters in the text suggest that Ivan Fyodorovich wrote about the supremacy of the Church in jest.  Given the manner in which Ivan Fyodorovich argued for the supremacy of the Church however, it is possible to see his thinking as sincere.  Fundamentally, Ivan Fyodorovich is concerned with the maintenance of a sound society.  He espouses that the state, through imposing punitive and retroactive justice does not play an adequate enough role in governing the society toward a harmonious condition.  The Church however, has the ability to instill incentives that prevent infractions before they occur.  As such, the Church has the ability to govern a society by influencing it to accept self-governance and self-accountability.  In many respects, I feel as if Dostoyevsky, through Book II, is attempting to tout the Church as the solid foundation of traditional Russian life, and potentially the solution to the apparent tensions within society.               

The Three Brothers and the Three Elements of Russian Society

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov is a classic of Russian literature.  First published in 1880, The Brothers Karamazov is a product of the latter-years of Imperial Russia.  In embarking upon the text, it is not apparent that the novel is meant to be overly political, but there is a sense that a nascent commentary is likely to exist.  From the very start of the novel it is apparent that Dostoyevsky is providing the reader with a wide encapsulation of his views and beliefs on an extensive range of subjects, more so than is typically undertaken in a literary project.  This being apparent, not only from the sheer length of the text, but also through the intensive construction of the prefatory background. 

Thus far, the characters in The Brothers Karamazov are numerous and complex.  The three brothers have had the unfortunate experience of having undergone numerous changes in their primary guardians.  Importantly, the three brothers have taken three distinct paths toward reaching a social position in Russian society.  The eldest, Dmitry Fyodorovich, served in the Imperial Army.  Ivan Fyodorovich concentrated his efforts toward academia and became a respected (as well as controversial) member of the intelligentsia.  Finally, Aleksey Fyodorovich, who had a curious fascination with the Russian Orthodox Church.  It is substantially too early to pass accurate judgments, but each of the three brothers seems to represent a substantial element of 19^th century Russian society: Dmitry as potentially representative of the state, Ivan as symbolic of the intelligentsia, and Aleksey as emblematic of the Russian Orthodox Church.  The inter-play between the characters is to going to become vitally important in demonstrating whether or not this claim can be substantiated as the novel continues.

            Aside from the details surrounding the main characters of the Karamazov household in the opening, there are also various descriptions of many supporting characters.  Of the most intriguing supporting characters introduced in the first portion of the novel, is the curious case of Pyotr Aleksandrovich Miusov.  This character is unique amongst those discussed in the novel thus far, mainly due to his association with the West.  Pyotr Aleksandrovich is described as a liberal of the 1848 tradition, referencing the widespread revolutions of 1848 in Europe that failed to take root in Russia under the reign of Nicholas I.  He is specifically mentioned alongside collectivist leaders from the late-1840s, including Bakunin and Proudhon.  Importantly, Pyotr Aleksandrovich is portrayed as being both non-Russian and non-European.  It many respects this is reminiscent of the difficult pendulum shift throughout the entirety of Russian history, due to its position as a geographic and cultural divide between East and West.  As the novel progresses it will be interesting to watch Dostoyevsky’s development of the divide between Europeanization and Slavification within Russian society, particularly if this tension is highlighted in the reactions of the three brothers and their respected positions in Russian society.