Sunday, January 3, 2016

Reading the Brothers Karamazov in light of the Great Conversation







 
Introduction
            "The tradition of the West is embodied in the Great Conversation that began in the dawn of history and continues to the present day."[1] This tradition incorporates poetry and philosophy from people such as Socrates, Nietzsche, Sophocles, Augustine, Aquinas, and many others. The great Russian writer Dostoevsky is also a part of that great tradition, in fact, his novel The Brothers Karamazov embodies many of the voices and ideas from the Great Conversation, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.  Below, each of the main characters, the members of the Karamazov family, will be discussed in light of this Great Conversation.

Fyodor The father
            Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, the patriarch of the Karamazov family, is an egocentric man driven by his insatiable desires and passions, especially those of the table and the bed.[2] He is an Epithymotic[3] soul extremely appetitive and described as "an ill-natured buffoon"[4], "always of a voluptuous temper, and ready to run after any petticoat on the slightest encouragement."[5], and a "wicked and sentimental" man.[6] His days are filled with drunken debauchery and selfish scheming. The characters in Machiavelli's "The Mandrake Root" are similar in quality. The overall theme of that work is if you can get away with it and it makes you feel good, do it. Machiavelli is mocking the classical and Christian tradition.[7]
            We see in Fyodor images of Dionysius, from Euripides' play "The Bacchae", who was the god of bread and wine and was himself an example of the appetitive soul.[8] If the virtuous man is, as Aristotle described, one who walks the middle line between excess and deficiency,[9] then in Aristotelian language, it is safe to declare that Fyodor is the opposite of a virtuous man and no stretch of the imagination could conclude that he is in fact virtuous. Only by seeing Fyodor in the light of Machiavelli's "The Prince" might we say he is virtuous, but that would be an exercise in re-founding the concept of virtue.[10] Aristotle describes such a person and says "the man who indulges in every pleasure and abstains from none becomes self-indulgent"[11]
            Fyodor would likely find himself the companion of those poor and wretched souls in circle two and three[12] of Dante's Inferno. In circle two we find those who, in their earthly lives were controlled by their passions and now, in hell, are driven by a great wind storm that gives them no rest. Dante gives us a vivid picture of those like Fyodor, saying "So bears the tyrannous gust those evil souls. On this side and on that, above, below, It drives them: hope of rest to solace them Is none, nor e’en of milder pang. As cranes, Chanting their dolorous notes, traverse the sky, Stretch’d out in long array; so I beheld Spirits, who came loud wailing, hurried on By their dire doom."[13] The second circle of hell seems a fitting place for the man who was so obsessed with himself that he not only abandoned his children but also completely forgot them[14] and indulged every pleasure of his heart without restrain or care.
      Fyodor also in many ways anticipates Nietzsche, who hated Christianity and mocked it.[15] At one point Fyodor speaks about being dragged to hell by the hooks the demons, are imagined to use, but the way he speaks of it seems to me to be a complete mockery.[16] His son Alyosha sees this characteristic in his father and shutters when, speaking to Father Zossima, Fyodor calls him "sacred elder".[17]
            If we consider this man in light of Aristotelian categories of poetry we could conclude that he is both a comedic character and a tragic[18] one at the same time. He is comedic because he knows and understands, as do those around him, that he is a "buffoon" and he enjoys playing that role. We read "Many even added that he was glad of a new comic part in which to play the buffoon, and that it was simply to make it funnier that he pretended to be unaware of his ludicrous position."[19] But he is also a tragic character and his life is on a tragic trajectory seen in his eventual death by, his illegitimate son, Smerdyakov.[20]

The Brothers
            Turning now to the three legitimate sons of Fyodor we find that each son reminds us in different ways of many of the voices from the great conversation, just as their father did.

Each brother in a general way represents one aspect of the tripartite Platonic soul: Noetic, Thymotic, and Epithymotic. We also find echoes of Aristotle with his discussion and description of  virtue and vice and his work on poetics and the four genres of poetry as well as politics with its discussion of the different political regimes. Sophocles’ "Oedipus the King"; Euripides’ "The Bacchae"; Aristophanes’ "Birds"; Luther's "On Christian Liberty" and Machiavelli's "The Mandrake Root", and many more, all give us light as we explore the different attitudes and dispositions of the three brothers.

Dmitri the Oldest Son
            Like his father, Dmitri Karamazov is a man driven by his desires which means that he is appetitive, giving in to every apatite, from lust to gluttony. One scene which describes much of Dmitri's life is found in book eight, chapter eight titled "Delirium" where we read these words, "What followed was almost an orgy, a feast to which all were welcome... Mitya himself was almost delirious... An absurd chaotic confusion followed, but Mitya was in his natural element, and the more foolish it became, the more his spirits rose."[21] Dmitri is described by his brother Alyosha in the same way as his father, they share many of the same characteristics. Alyosha says "And what of Dmitri? He too will be harder than yesterday, he too must be spiteful and angry, and he too, no doubt, has made some plan."[22]
            Dmitri also calls to mind Dionysus because of his appetites, but we also see in him images from Sophocles' Oedipus the King[23] because Dmitri's desire was, at times, to kill his father. [24]  The differences between Oedipus and Dmitri are important, Dmitri wanted to kill his father, but in the end he didn't while Oedipus had no desire to murder his father and in fact tried to prevent this from happening but unknowingly did in fact murder his father. Oedipus was in fact and indeed the murderer while Dmitri murdered his father in his heart.
            In terms of political regimes, Dmitri's character would represent the Democratic. The demos are ruled by their desires and on a whim can change their minds.[25] Democracies tend to be liberal in their orientation and as a result, they tend to become more and more immoral. There also tends to be an instability that is built into this regime because when the demos rule they do so through their passions. We observe this in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, where he records how the people of Athens in one moment love and adore Pericles and in the next they turn on him.[26]

Ivan the Middle Child
            Moving on to consider Ivan, it is clear that he represents the Noetic part of the Platonic soul which is the logical aspect, the more reasoned and philosophic.[27] Because of this he finds himself in a strange situation, he is a reluctant atheist. In one of his encounters with Alyosha he says, "in the final result I don’t accept this world of God’s, and, although I know it exists, I don’t accept it at all. It’s not that I don’t accept God, you must understand, it’s the world created by Him I don’t and cannot accept."[28]
            He doesn't believe in God in one moment, then at another time he says he does believe in God, but not the world he created. It's clear that he is wrestling with the idea that a good and loving can God exist when there is so much suffering in the world, especially the suffering of children.  Ivan says, "Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They’ve planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby’s face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby’s face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn’t it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say.”[29]
            His soul is, in a real sense, ripped in two, he shows signs of longing for that heavenly city, but feels the burden and weight of all the suffering that goes on in this world. He is having a tough time reconciling these apparent contradictions. His logical side cannot find a harmony between a loving God and a sin sick world.[30] The image that he calls to mind is that of Pisthetaerus and Euelpides who are unsatisfied with the state of things and long for a new city, one where there are wedding feasts to be enjoyed and the common practice is to greet people in the streets as friends.[31] He also reminds us of Augustine with his discussion of the two cities (The city of God and the city of man).
            Much of Ivan's philosophical ideas are in line with Hobbes and Machiavelli. His theo-political poem about the Grand Inquisitor displays this in vivid poetic brilliance.[32] Ivan recognizes that if there is nothing above Plato's divided line, if there is no God and immortality, then all is permissible and lawful. If that's true, then what people should seek is comfort and that is exactly what Hobbs tells us life is all about.[33]
            In terms of political regime, Ivan might represent the tyrant. The tyrant thinks he knows what's best and, in his mind, might believe that he is the only one who knows the truth. The problem with the tyrant is that he has a philosophic mind but a bad education.[34] One example of the tyrant might be Julius Caesar[35] who took control of the Roman Empire by unlawful means, but another who might, to some, be considered a tyrant is Abraham Lincoln, who was considered a tyrant by the Southern states and someone they needed to fight against.[36]

Alyosha the Youngest Son
      The youngest of the three brothers is Alyosha. He is characterized by a spirited soul or what Plato might call, Thymotic, which corresponds to the heart.[37] There's a boldness and courage in him as we see him confront people with the truth and try and intervene at times, as well as a spiritual side.[38] In terms of poetic genre, he is comedic owing to the fact that he is a Christian. In the end the life of a Christian is comedic because no matter what happens there is always the hope of the resurrection. We see this hope explicitly expressed in the closing chapter of "The Brothers Karamazov" where we read, "'can it be true what’s taught us in religion, that we shall all rise again from the dead and shall live and see each other again, all, Ilusha too?' 'Certainly we shall all rise again, certainly we shall see each other and shall tell each other with joy and gladness all that has happened!' Alyosha answered, half laughing, half enthusiastic.'"[39]
            We encounter Alyosha in different situations and places such as speaking privately with his father or being in the room of father Zossima with other guests and even visiting certain women. In most instances he is the one who shows kindness and compassion, but Alyosha is also a brave adventurer.[40] He might be compared with Odysseus and his many adventures.  Alyosha doesn't visit an island with a Cyclops, but he does interact with various characters who are all, in their own ways, adventures. For example, at one point Alyosha finds himself in the home of the whore Grushenka. Alyosha is at a very low point due to the fact that his mentor has just died. In the end he overcomes these temptations and is found to be victorious.[41]

             We also might think of Alyosha as the philosopher who reenters the cave[42] in order to teach and educate the populace, especially the children.[43] He receives a commission from Father Zossima to basically do just that. We read, "'When it is God’s will to call me, leave the monastery. Go away for good... I bless you for great service in the world... I send you forth.'"[44] The world in this case would represent the cave. From all of this it's not hard to see why he is called the "hero" of the novel.[45]
            The political regime that Alyosha might represent would be either the Aristocracy which is the rule of the few and the wise[46] or he might represent the noble and loving king, something akin to Plato's philosopher king.[47] The one who rules on behalf of the people and out of selfless motives. In this case he would be a picture of the Christ, who is the priest king, the one who rules out of love and by self sacrifice.
            Considering the three brothers in light of the human family, it is imperative to recognize that it takes the combined force of both the Noetic and the Thymotic to rule and control the Epithymotic.[48] Understanding and acting upon this truth will have an impact in our personal lives as well as the way we interact with the political regime we find ourselves in because, the city is simply the soul at large.[49]

Smerdyakov the illegitimate son
            Let me next briefly discuss Smerdyakov. He is the twisted and corrupt counterpart to Ivan. For Ivan many of his theories and philosophies are simply exercises in logic or in thought experiments. They don't impact the world he lives in, at least not in a substantial way. He is free to think and to theorize about anything and everything but for Smerdyakov, the ideas that Ivan expounds do in fact touch the real world, the day to day life. He takes those theories and applies them to life. If there is no God, then anything and everything is legal, even murder.[50] It is Smerdyakov who takes Ivan's ideas and lives out the true Machiavellian-Hobbsian vision and who anticipates Nietzsche. He is the realization of all that Ivan has taught and when Ivan realizes it, he is crushed and accepts at least in some part that he too is a murderer like Oedipus.[51]
            What we need to understand, is that ideas have consequences, and it may not be the person who first comes up with the idea or theory who takes it to its logical conclusion, but there is still a share in the guilt.

Conclusion
            Dostoyevsky is one voice in many, one in a long conversation that has spanned over 2,500 years.  In some ways the Brothers Karamazov can be seen as a summary of that Great Conversation. The various themes and ideas, both good and bad, are found in the pages of this novel. He is certainly not the end of this conversation, but he is an important voice to listen to.
            You and I are invited to not only listen in to that conversation, but to take part in it, to join our voices to those of the greats who came before us. We are invited to become active participants in the quarrel between poetry and philosophy, and as Christians to show how many of these ideas and concepts point us to the one true and glorious king - the great philosopher king who rules with love, honesty, justice, and power.



[1] Mortimer J. Adler. The Great Conversation, The Great Books vol. 1 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1952, page 1
[2] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 1.
[3] Gage, Warren. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 7.
[4] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 2.
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid, 21.
[7] Warren, Gage. Aquinas and Machiavelli, Lesson 18.
[8] Ibid. CC504 Aeschylus and Aristotle, Lesson 18.
[9] Ibid. CC504 Aeschylus and Aristotle, Lesson 1.
[10] In the Prince, Machiavelli is re-founding the concepts of good and evil. The Prince teaches us how not to be good. See Gage, Warren. CC602 Aquinas and Machiavelli, Lesson 22.
[11] Aristotle, “ETHICA NICOMACHEA,” in The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross, trans. W. D. ROSS, vol. 9 (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1925).
[12] Dante Alighieri, The Harvard Classics 20: The Divine Comedy by Dante, ed. Charles W. Eliot (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1909), 25–26.
[13] Ibid, 22.
[14] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 4.
[15] Gage, Warren. CC704 Nietzsche and Dostoevsky, Lesson 5.
[16] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 20–21.
[17] Ibid, 37–38.
[18] Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Translated by W.H. Fyfe., vol. 23 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1932).
[19] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 3.
[20] Ibid, 704.
[21] Ibid, 485–486.
[22] Ibid, 191.
[23] Sophocles, The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles. Edited with Introduction and Notes by Sir Richard Jebb., ed. Richard C. Jebb (Medford, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1887).
[24] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 150.
[25] Gage, Warren. CC702 Thucydides and Tocqueville, Lesson 22.
[26] Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (Medford, MA: London, J. M. Dent; New York, E. P. Dutton, 1910) 1.139.4; 2.21.3.
[27] Gage, Warren. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 7.
[28] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 258.
[29] Ibid, 261.
[30] Ibid, 258
[31] Aristophanes (2012-05-11). The Birds (Kindle Locations 120-125). Kindle Edition.
[32] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 270.
[33] Gage, Warren. CC602 Aquinas and Machiavelli, Lesson 25; Lesson 26.
[34] Ibid. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 39.
[35] C. Suetonius Tranquillus, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation, Augmented with the Biographies of Contemporary Statesmen, Orators, Poets, and Other Associates, ed. Alexander Thomson (Medford, MA: Gebbie & Co., 1889), Julius 80.
[36] Gage, Warren. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 24.
[37] Ibid. Lesson 7
[38] Ibid.
[39] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 877.
[40] Ibid, 232, 362–405.
[41] Ibid, 381–400.
[42] Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes & 6 Translated by Paul Shorey, vol. 5 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1969).
[43] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 868–877.
[44] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 79.
[45] Ibid, 13.
[46] Gage, Warren. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 7.
[47] Ibid, Lesson 36.
[48] Ibid, Lesson 19.
[49] Allan Bloom, Plato, The Republic of Plato: Second Edition (location 8971). Perseus Book Group-A. Kindle Edition.
    Gage, Warren. CC502 Plato and Augustine, Lesson 49
[50] Féodor Dostoievsky, The Brothers Karamazov, trans. Constance Garnett, World’s Literary Masterpieces (New York: The Lowell Press Publishers, n.d.), 85.
[51] Ibid, 717–736.