Guilt and the Powerful Lessons of The Brothers Karamazov

Image generated by Bing Image Creator by Designer.

Guilt and the Powerful Lessons of The Brothers Karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov is a monumental work of Russian literature by Fyodor Dostoevsky. It tells the story of three brothers and the effect the murder of their father has on their lives. Complex questions about guilt, one of the major themes of the work, stem from the ambiguity surrounding the identity of the killer. This article will discuss the guilt in The Brothers Karamazov, discussing this concept in relation to three major characters in the narrative: Dmitri, Ivan, and Smerdyakov.

The Crime: Dmitri

Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov is accused and ultimately found guilty of the murder of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, his father. He is the oldest of the brothers with a reputation for licentiousness, drunkenness, and wasting vast quantities of money.

Dmitri is arrested several hours after Fyodor’s death, having been present outside his father’s window in possession of a weapon at around the time of the murder. Fyodor was murdered by a blow to the head with a blunt object. At the time of his visit to Fyodor’s window, Dmitri was in possession of a pestle he was witnessed stealing from the his love interest’s house earlier that evening. Dmitri assaulted the servant Grigory with the pestle as he left his father’s estate and left him unconscious, abandoning the pestle in the grass.

Dmitri physically abused and threatened to kill his father in the early chapters of the book. He is erratic and unstable throughout the narrative, saying to Alyosha, the youngest Karamazov brother, that he feels as though he may do something he’ll regret prior to the murder. He is motivated by his father’s refusal to give him his inheritance. He is the obvious choice.

However, Dmitri maintains that he is innocent, though he admits he had the motive and the capacityto harm his father. It is important to mention that the evidence that finally decides his trial in favour of the prosecution is illegitimate, being the forged letter presented by the jealous Katerina, a woman in love with Dmitri and jealous of Grushenka. This and other theatrics that take place in the courtroom seal his fate.

In order to assign guilt for Fyodor’s murder, you must believe that Dmitri blatantly lies to every character, including Grushenka and Alyosha, throughout the entire narrative after the murder. You also have to disregard the character assessment of the saintly Alyosha, who is a novice at the local monastery at the beginning of the story and one of the few morally good characters in the story, who fervently believes in his brother’s innocence.

It is possible Dmitri did kill Fyodor Pavlovich, which would obviously make him guilty, but even if he is not the murderer, he may as well have been.

Given the moral undertones of the narrative, Alyosha’s judgement of his brother’s character is not trivial. Though the courtroom might dismiss a brother’s affectionate testimony in the support of the defendant, Dostoevsky’s readers cannot dismiss the moral gravity of the most virtuous character in the story. Even if you do not consider this evidence in Dmitri’s favour, you must at least admit that it was intended to make the reader entertain the possibility that Dmitri was innocent.

However, Dmitri’s admission in his initial statement after his arrest, repeated elsewhere in the narrative, that he could and perhaps would have murdered Fyodor means that whether he did or not is irrelevant. He still bears some responsibility for the murder. It is possible Dmitri did kill Fyodor Pavlovich, which would obviously make him guilty, but even if he is not the murderer, he may as well have been. Dmitri’s violent temperament, lustful avarice for his inheritance, and downright hatred of his father make him guilty of severe immorality regardless.

The Dilemma: Smerdyakov

Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov is a servant in the employ of Fyodor Pavlovich until his demise. He is the son of Lizaveta, a social outcast with mental disabilities. According to rumour, Fyodor Pavlovich was his father, though it is up to the reader whether they believe that he is. Dostoevsky hints that Smerdyakov may be the murderer from the night of Dmitri’s arrest. Whilst under interrogation, Dmitri, at pains to avoid too readily offering a possible alternative to himself, redirects blame to Smerdyakov.

While Dmitri’s trial is in progress, Ivan visits Smerdyakov. He does so several times, with Smerdyakov privately confessing to the murder on his third, and final, visit. He describes an intimate scheme where he anticipated Dmitri’s visit to Fyodor’s house, carefully arranging the crime scene to implicate an intruder who entered through the window. Though Smerdyakov’s elaborate account would require a significant helping of luck, it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

In their meetings before the confession, Smerdyakov carefully manipulates Ivan. He subtly hints at a plot agreed between the two of them days prior to the murder, maneuvering Ivan so that he cannot turn Smerdyakov in without incriminating himself. In the second meeting Smerdyakov accuses Ivan outright of wishing death upon his father. This causes Ivan’s obsessive ruminations about his interactions with Smerdyakov and the events of the murder to multiply. In the last meeting, Smerdyakov reveals the details of events to Ivan, describing the murder itself and the interaction between them that Smerdyakov understood to be an instruction to kill Fydor. These interactions correlate with Ivan’s rapidly deteriorating mental and physical health. Although the characters within Brothers Karamazov largely agree that Dmitri is the killer, the reader is shown a confession by Smerdyakov.

The Truth: Ivan

Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov is the second oldest son of Fydodor Pavlovich. He is more reserved than Dmitri and less prone to self-destructive degeneracy. However, he shares his brother’s hatred for their father. Despite maintaining Dmitri’s guilt until Smerdyakov’s confession, he schemes an escape for Dmitri from jail. A twist towards the end of the book is Ivan’s growing sense of responsibility for his father’s death. After a potentially hallucinated visitation from the Devil, likely the result of Ivan’s developing ‘brain fever’, and his ongoing soul-searching, he commits to free his brother. It is uncertain how real Ivan’s condition is. However, his actions at this stage in the narrative are certainly erratic, culminating in a frenzied and failed effort to exonerate his brother at the trial.

Did Ivan actually commit his father’s murder? No. Is he guilty of it? Perhaps. While Ivan almost certainly did not strike his father with the pestle or any other object, he rightfully acknowledges that he could have done something to stop whoever did. During the chapters describing the meetings between Ivan and Smerdyakov it is revealed that he felt as though something was wrong on the day of the murder – the day he left the town.

One of the most important lessons of The Brothers Karamazov is that the external effects of our actions can be disastrous, both for ourselves and others.

It is conceivable that Ivan retroactively inserted this feeling into his memory of that day. However, whether this is purely hindsight is irrelevant when assessing Ivan’s role in the murder. Ivan knew Dmitri was in a volatile state of mind, he knew he hated their father, and he knew that Dmitri had threatened to kill him. Ivan himself hated Fyodor. Yet, despite knowing all of these things, he walked away. One could reasonably expect Ivan to have anticipated an act of violence committed against his father by his brother. After all, he had previously believed Dmitri to have killed their father when he attacked him in earlier in the narrative.

An Important Lesson from The Brothers Karamazov

Dostoevsky left room for interpretation in The Brothers Karamazov as to who killed Fyodor Pavlovich. It is this ambiguity that stresses one of the most profound lessons from this story, that guilt is not exclusive to the person who actually commits an immoral act.

In this case, Dmitri’s decadent and licentious lifestyle drains his money and leads him to murderous contempt for his father when he is denied his inheritance. His hatred either drove him to kill his father or made him the perfect scapegoat, depending on what you believe. He is sent to Siberia either way. Ivan’s hatred his father meant he ignored the murderous intent of his brother, to fatal consequences. The intensity of the guilt he feels precipitates the life-altering mental illness he develops after the murder. Smerdyakov either murdered Fyodor or, due to mental illness, sociopathy, or some other cause, manipulated Ivan to near-fatal effect. His guilt drives him to suicide.

Physical, tangible, corporeal participation is not the only way one becomes responsible for an event. A good teacher is partially responsible for their pupils’ good grades, even if ultimately the pupils’ themselves have to sit the exams. Generals are responsible for the death of enemy soldiers killed by the frontline troops under their command. A person who allows their brother to kill their father takes a share of the blame. One of the most important lessons of The Brothers Karamazov is that the external effects of our actions can be disastrous, both for ourselves and others. With this in mind, we should not trivialize immoral actions, as they can lead to dire consequences indirectly if not directly. Instead, we should work to control our immoral impulses.

Sources:

• Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, The Brothers Karamazov, tr. by Constance Garnett, (New York: eLandgdell Press, 2014).