The Brothers Karamazov (Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1879)

How good life is when you do something good and rightful!

The above words spoken by the protagonist, Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov, in his extraordinary speech at the stone, sums up the central message of this masterpiece.

The Karamazov family

The Karamazov family consists of the father, Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, and his three sons: Dmitry or Mitya (the eldest), Ivan (the second), and Alexei or Alyosha (the youngest and the protagonist).

Fyodor, the father, is a womanizing drunkard who marries twice. Mitya is the son from his first marriage, while Ivan and Alyosha are from the second. Both wives die early, leaving young children whom Fyodor is incapable of raising. Fyodor marries his first wife, Adelaida Ivanovna Miusov, for her dowry. By the time of his second marriage, Fyodor is wealthy enough to marry without financial motivation. Hence, his second wife, Sofia Ivanovna, is a beautiful sixteen-year-old orphan living with a tyrannical benefactress, the widow of an army general.

The eldest son, Mitya, had an unstable childhood. Initially adopted by Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov, a relative of his mother, he was then handed around among different members of the Miusov family. Mitya grew up reckless, joined the military, chased women, and accumulated large debts. His hot-headed and impulsive nature resembles his mother's, while his womanizing is reminiscent of his father's. Mitya faced a more unstable domestic situation growing up compared to his younger stepbrothers, which could explain his emotional volatility.

The two children from the second marriage were raised by Yefim Petrovich Polenov, the principal heir of the general's widow, their mother's benefactress. The elder of the two, Ivan, excels academically, graduates from university, and becomes well-known in literary circles for his newspaper articles. The youngest of the three brothers, Alyosha grew up in Yefim Petrovich's home but, like Mitya, did not complete school.

Fyodor likely has a fourth illegitimate son with a homeless and mentally ill woman named Lizaveta. She walks up to his house to deliver the baby before she dies, an act that justifiably points the needle of suspicion at him. This boy, named Smerdyakov, is brought up by Marfa, the wife of Grigory Vasilievich, Fyodor's servant, and becomes a second servant in the house as he grows up. Fyodor sends Smerdyakov to Moscow to train as a chef, and upon his return, he becomes the household cook. Fyodor trusts Smerdyakov because he once returned 300 roubles that Fyodor had dropped in a drunken state.

The narrator of the novel is an unknown person who resides in the same town (Skotoprigonyevsk) as the Karamazovs.

The plot

The plot is rich with numerous characters who appear across multiple subplots, either in leading or supporting roles. The events chronicled in the novel opens with the arrival of the three Karamazov brothers in their father's town. Three sub-plots emerge.

Sub-plot 1: the murder

The central event in the novel is the murder of Fyodor. The murder itself occurs halfway through the novel but Dostoevsky, in leading up to it, sets up Mitya as the character who might commit patricide. From a motive perspective, there are two sources of conflict between Mitya and his father: financial and personal. Financially, Mitya believes Fyodor is withholding his rightful inheritance from his mother's dowry. Although Mitya acknowledges that legally his father has already given him his share, he feels Fyodor is morally obligated to share the investment gains made from the funds inherited from his first wife. The personal conflict stems from the duo's pursuit of Grushenka (Agrafena Alexandrovna Svetlova), a beautiful woman of questionable character.

On the night of the murder, Mitya, consumed by jealousy with the suspicion that Grushenka might be spending the night with Fyodor, was surveilling his father's home. Mitya was on the verge of striking Fyodor with a brass pestle that he had impulsively picked up at Grushenka's house, as Fyodor peered out the window hoping Grushenka might turn up. Just as Mitya was about to hit his father, Grigory's arrival prevented him from committing the act. A scuffle ensued between the two, ending with Mitya hitting Grigory with the brass pestle.

In actuality, it was Smerdyakov who committed the murder after Mitya fled. Smerdyakov makes a detailed confession to Ivan after which he commits suicide. His plan was to create conditions that would lead Mitya to kill his father. To that end, he informs Mitya of the signal that Smerdyakov was supposed to use when knocking on Fyodor's door to indicate Grushenka's arrival, and of the money Fyodor was holding for Grushenka. Crucially, Smerdyakov misleads Mitya into believing that the money was under the mattress, while he himself had suggested to Fyodor to hide it at a spot in the room where no one would look. The ploy was that after killing Fyodor, Mitya would not find the money, and later Smerdyakov would retrieve it. However, things did not go according to plan.

Upon hearing Fyodor's scream of terror at seeing Mitya, and Grigory's cries after being struck, Smerdyakov, unable to resist his curiosity, emerges from the cellar where he had been feigning an epileptic attack. Discovering that his master is still alive, Smerdyakov convinces Fyodor to open the door to his room and then smashes Fyodor's skull with an iron paperweight. A chilling detail is the tactic Smerdyakov uses to persuade Fyodor to open the door. Initially, Fyodor, with the instincts of a hunted animal, senses the malevolence in Smerdyakov's intentions and refuses to open the door. However, when Smerdyakov switches from a verbal request to knocking with Grushenka's signal, Fyodor, driven by primal sexual desire, lets him in.

After committing the murder, Smerdyakov leaves the empty envelope that had contained the money, operating under the theory that only a person, like Mitya, uncertain of the money's existence would open the envelope post-murder. Later, he subtly suggests this psychological angle to both the prosecutor and the defense attorney, though the latter sees through it.

Despite his innocence, Mitya is the most likely suspect. Apart from motive, several circumstances make Mitya a plausible suspect:

Mitya had mercilessly beaten his father in a wrathful outburst in the days leading up to the murder.
He had explicitly expressed his intent to kill his father during angry fits, including in a letter to his former fiancée Katya (Katerina Ivanovna).
Hours after the murder, Mitya possesses a significant amount of money, despite being known to be in dire need of it beforehand. He claimed to have 3,000 roubles, the exact sum Fyodor was believed to have kept in his room to entice Grushenka.
Grigory sees Mitya fleeing the scene of the murder.
Multiple observers see blood on Mitya's body on the night of the murder, though, in actuality, it was Grigory's blood.
Finally, Mitya knew the special knock that was supposed to signal Grushenka's arrival to Fyodor, suggesting that Mitya could have tricked his father into opening the door.

Contrasting with the above evidence against Mitya, there are three exculpatory but inconclusive facts:

First, after deducting his spending spree on the night of the murder, the police determine that Mitya had only 1500 roubles to begin with, instead of the expected sum of 3000 roubles allegedly stolen from Fyodor. In reality, the money found on Mitya after the murder, was the unspent portion of what he had stolen at an earlier time from Katya, which he had kept locked in an amulet. Alyosha testifies at the trial that in a conversation with Mitya before the murder, his brother kept pointing at his chest, instead of his heart, which would have been more logical given the emotional nature of Mitya's oration. Looking back, Alyosha connects the dots and realizes that Mitya was pointing at the amulet he was wearing on his chest. However, this is not compelling evidence that Mitya did not steal from Fyodor, particularly since the amulet could no longer be found.

Second, based on the position of Fyodor's dead body and other circumstantial evidence, the police believe that the murderer entered Fyodor's room. Mitya vividly remembers the door as locked. However, Grigory is adamant that the door was open when he saw Mitya at the window, leaving it as simply Mitya's word against Grigory's in court.

Third, Ivan testifies that Smerdyakov confessed the murder to him and presents the 3000 roubles that the murderer gave him as proof. However, the fact that Smerdyakov did not exculpate Mitya in his suicide note, undermines the credibility of Ivan's assertion, in addition to the fact that Ivan was suffering from brain fever during his testimony. Further, Ivan had arranged for money to fund Mitya's escape to America and hence, prosecutors, while not knowing of the escape plan, suspect that the 3000 roubles Ivan produced was from that stockpile.

The defense attorney Fetyukovich's exceptional competence is evident in his concluding speech, where he masterfully summarizes the facts that cast doubt on Mitya's guilt. He highlights several points in addition to the three described above: the extraordinary coincidence of Smerdyakov's epileptic fit on the day of the murder, Smerdyakov's subsequent suicide, Mitya's inexplicable pause to help Grigory before fleeing the crime scene and the sole reliance on Smerdyakov's testimony about the existence of an envelope with money. However, the only person with the kaleidoscope that can arrange these haphazard set of facts into the truth is Smerdyakov.

Sub-plot 2: the three love triangles

There are three intersecting love triangles in the novel.

The first triangle, as alluded to earlier, involves Fyodor and his son Mitya vying for Grushenka. Grushenka, who had fallen into disgrace after being abandoned by her lover, Mussyalovich at eighteen was now the mistress of the merchant Samsonov. Grushenka plays with the feelings of Fyodor and Mitya but dreams of being reunited with her former lover. When Mussyalovich returns seeking reconciliation, she realizes he is only after her money. She then expresses her love for Mitya, but their joy is short-lived as law enforcement officials arrest Mitya for Fyodor's murder.

The second triangle consists of Mitya, his fiancée Katya, and Grushenka. Mitya had bailed out Katya's father, who was in debt. Later, Katya inherits wealth, and they get engaged. However, Mitya, smitten by Grushenka, tries to escape the engagement and asks his brother Ivan to marry Katya to assuage his own conscience.

The third triangle involves Katya, Ivan, and Mitya. In a dramatic scene at the home of their mutual acquaintance Madame Khokhlakov's (Katerina Osipovna), Alyosha realizes that Katya and Ivan are in love. However, Katya is determined to play the role of the suffering fiancée of a flawed man. Ivan, unable to bear the emotional torture, eventually seeks to distance himself from her.

In each of these triangles, two of the characters are genuinely in love. In the first triangle, Grushenka initially plays games with both father and son but eventually falls in love with Mitya. In the second triangle, Mitya and Katya are not in love. Mitya's lack of romantic interest is obvious, and Katya's feelings were initially driven by gratitude for his assistance to her father, later turning to stubbornness and wounded pride when faced with Mitya's insolence. In the third triangle, Katya and Ivan are in love with each other.

Sub-plot 3: Ilyusha

The third subplot introduces Captain Nikolai Ilyich Snegiryov, a retired army captain whom Mitya had beaten for participating in a scheme concocted by Fyodor to harm him. The Captain, acting as an emissary for Fyodor, had proposed to Grushenka that she take over some of Mitya's promissory notes that Fyodor held, allowing her to demand payment from Mitya as a tactic to keep his romantic overtures at bay.

Katya, wanting to be not only Mitya's savior but also the savior of those he has wronged, sends money to Snegiryov via Alyosha as a symbol of repentance. Snegiryov is very poor and lives with his wife, Arina Petrovna, two daughters, Varvara and Nina Nikolaevna, and nine-year-old son, Ilyusha. Mitya had dragged Snegiryov by the beard out of a tavern, a scene witnessed by Ilyusha and his schoolmates. The little boy's heart was wounded from watching his father's humiliation and was being mocked by other boys for the same reason.

Snegiryov declines Alyosha's money in a theatrical manner, after initially rambling on about how the money could help his family. This is the only way he can restore his honor in front of his son. Snegiryov's situation is poignant. Like any father, he wants his son to look up to him. Yet, he does not have the financial or social capital to punish Mitya. Nor can he accept Mitya's offer for a duel as he cannot afford to get killed for the sake of his family. Snegiryov is heartbroken that Ilyusha has learnt the powerlessness of their family's station in society at such a tender age. By declining charity from his oppressor, he is salvaging the remnants of dignity that is left. Eventually, Ilyusha becomes very sick and Snegiryov accepts all the help he can get.

This strand also introduces the precocious thirteen-year-old Nikolai Ivanov Krasotkin, who goes by Kolya. Ilyusha used to hero worship Kolya, but the two had fallen out. Eventually, Kolya visits Ilyusha's home, where he meets Alyosha, whose serene wisdom makes a deep impression on the young boy. Kolya and the other boys become a daily fixture at the Captain's home and finally bury Ilyusha at the churchyard.

While this third strand may seem peripheral to the other two more dramatic subplots, Dostoevsky bestows importance on this strand by ending the novel with Alyosha's speech at Ilyusha's funeral.

Though Alyosha is the protagonist of the novel, he does not actively participate in the aforementioned dramas. Instead, he serves as a priest-like figure who, at the tender age of twenty, acts as a friend, philosopher, and guide to the characters ensnared in their worldly struggles. It is his selfless nature, loving heart and complete lack of guile that gravitates people to him. Alyosha himself hero-worships Zosima, the elder at the local monastery where he lives as a novice. However, he eventually leaves the monastery on Zosima's advice.

The two central themes

While the plot of The Brothers Karamazov is highly engaging, Dostoevsky, in this epic novel, is really seeking to answer two questions: why be good and can wrongdoers become good. The evolution of the story is interspersed with the philosophical musings of it's characters on these questions. These two elements-story and philosophy- are intricately woven together, both literally and thematically. Chapters often alternate between advancing the story and presenting characters engaging in contemplative soliloquies or intellectual debates. This intertwining is not just structural; it also manifests abstractly, as the characters' actions reflect the ideas they discuss.

Theme 1: why be good

Early in the novel, Pyotr Alexandrovich Miusov quotes Ivan, who argues that the only logical reason for humans to behave morally is the fear of retribution in the afterlife. If this fear is removed, then everything is permitted. This implies that the existence of God is essential to virtue. The central question of Why be good is thus inextricably linked with the question of Does God exist.

The novel presents two contrasting viewpoints: the atheist's perspective and the believer's perspective. While many characters engage in these philosophical deliberations, Ivan and Zosima are the primary advocates of these antipodal views. Ivan is a fitting representative of the atheist's perspective, as his arguments stem from his love of intellectual theorizing, not from genuine conviction. Hence, the label of The Ivan View used below is merely to reflect that he articulates it, not necessarily that he believes in it. The believer's perspective, as articulated by Zosima and his disciple Alyosha, reflects Dostoevsky's own thinking.

The Ivan view: God as a mythical creature

Ivan, in an extended dialogue with Alyosha, conveys that the existence of God is beyond his understanding. However, if God does exist, Ivan rejects the rationale of the world He created. Ivan cites numerous instances of children's suffering and questions the Christian doctrine of forgiving their tormentors. Ivan references the Christian belief in the rapture, where all beings, living and dead, will be reunited with Christ and enter heaven. He refuses to accept a path to heaven that is paved with the suffering of children, choosing instead to 'return the ticket' to God. This raises a profound question we have all asked: why do innocents suffer? Ivan challenges the central tenet of Christianity that faith in Jesus entitles the believer to forgiveness because Jesus paid for humanity's sins through the crucifixion. Ivan insists that no one, not even Jesus, has the right to forgive those who torture children.

Ivan believes that God, though a fictional concept, nevertheless serves an instrumental purpose by acting as a deterrent to criminals and thereby creating order in society. Ivan takes a dim view of human conscience and self-restraint. Hence, he says that people should just blindly follow the Church.

To illustrate his point, he narrates a parable he had written called "The Grand Inquisitor." The setting is sixteenth-century Spain, during the height of the Inquisitions. Christ has returned to Earth and is roaming among men. The Grand Inquisitor recognizes Him and immediately orders His arrest. Later, the Inquisitor visits the imprisoned Christ in his cell and reprimands Him for granting His followers the freedom to choose their faith. The Inquisitor alludes to the Biblical story of the three temptations, in which, Jesus, after fasting for forty days in the wilderness, encounters three temptations posed by Satan:

Turning Stones into Bread: In the first temptation, Satan challenges Jesus to use His divine power to turn stones into bread to satisfy His hunger after fasting for forty days. This temptation symbolizes the lure of materialism and self-gratification, urging Jesus to prioritize His physical needs over His spiritual mission.
Throwing Himself from the Temple: The second temptation involves Satan daring Jesus to throw Himself from the highest point of the temple, claiming that angels would rescue Him and prove His divine status. This represents the temptation to test God's protection and seek validation through spectacle rather than faith.
Bowing Down and Worshipping Satan: In the final temptation, Satan offers Jesus dominion over all the kingdoms of the world if He would worship him. This symbolizes the allure of power and authority, enticing Jesus to compromise His divine purpose in exchange for worldly influence.

The Grand Inquisitor argues that by rejecting these temptations, Jesus sent the wrong message to the average human, who lacks the willpower to emulate Him. By accepting the bread (first temptation), He would have signaled that the pursuit of earthly needs is sufficient for a moral life. Had He thrown Himself from the temple (second temptation), He would have satisfied man's need to believe in a powerful God. If He had bowed down to Satan (third temptation), men could follow instructions from a powerful entity instead of grappling with their own conscience. The Grand Inquisitor claims Christ's path to salvation is too difficult for the masses. The Church, according to the Inquisitor, is now undoing the damage Christ caused and making life easier for the hoi polloi by setting a path they can blindly follow.

Ivan (via the Grand Inquisitor) suggests that man is incapable of reconciling his Darwinian needs with his moral aspirations. Hence, the Grand Inquisitor's methods are more compassionate, while Christ's path to salvation is achievable only for a select few.

The Grand Inquisitor represents organized religion, with its emphasis on spectacle, miracles, and ritual.

There is an internal consistency in Ivan's worldview. Since God is simply a socially desirable invention of man, the easiest way for man to discover Him is ritualistic blind faith.

The Zosima view: God resides within

Ivan views God as an external entity. In contrast, for Zosima, Christ is not a bearded man but an embodiment of love and compassion inherent in human beings. In Zosima's view, the question why be good itself arises from a misunderstanding of human nature. Goodness, or Godliness, is innate to human beings and to the extent it remains dormant in some people, it will eventually find its expression through the voice of conscience.

In Zosima's view, God is the force of good in the universe and one can experience that divine within through the practice of active love, rather than follow prescribed rituals.

Just as Ivan theorizes about God, love can also be approached as a theoretical concept. This idea is explored in a powerful dialogue between Madame Khokhlakov and Zosima. Madame Khokhlakov confesses that while she feels full of loving kindness in the abstract, she becomes angry when her kindness is not met with proportionate gratitude when directly confronted with someone in need. Zosima recalls a doctor who told him that the more he loved people in general, the less he liked them individually.

Active love is not an arcane theoretical construct; it is simply the act of sharing the joys and sorrows of others in our daily lives. Grushenka shares with Alyosha the fable of an evil woman who once gave an onion to a beggar, and that single act of generosity opened up the possibility of redemption in the afterlife. The theme of giving an onion reappears in a dream Alyosha has the night of Zosima's death after Grushenka tells him the story. In the dream, Alyosha sees the events from the biblical Cana of Galilee story that describes Jesus attending a wedding with his disciples and his mother, Mary. During the celebration, the hosts run out of wine. Mary informs Jesus, who instructs the servants to fill six stone jars with water. Jesus then miraculously turns the water into wine, impressing the guests and revealing his divine power. The story shows that Jesus, despite being divine, could take joy in the simple pleasures of common folk.

Doing God's work, thus, does not have to mean leading an ascetic life in a monastery. Instead, as the story unfolds, we see Alyosha serving by giving an onion to the many people within his social network who come to him with their trials and tribulations. In the dream, Alyosha sees Zosima as a guest at the wedding in Cana. The elder tells him that the wedding is full of guests, like himself, who had given an onion. From beyond the grave, Zosima reaffirms his instruction to Alyosha to leave the monastery and sojourn in the world. While this instruction had originally puzzled Alyosha, he now understands the wisdom behind Zosima's directive. Active love involves engaging with others in the mundane rituals of life, accepting their imperfections, connecting with their sorrows, and treating them with kindness. As the sense of separateness from others fades away, we experience the divine force as a rapture that comes from feeling liberated from the confines of our own bodies.

In addition to active love, an intriguing path to discovering the God within that Dostoevsky posits is cultivating a sense of connectedness with the earth and, through that, with everything that inhabits it. This idea is introduced when Mitya recites a stanza from Schiller's poem, "The Eleusinian Festival." The poem describes the Goddess Ceres visiting earth in search of her lost daughter, Persephone. Ceres laments the fallen, degraded state of humankind, despite being created in the Gods' own exalted image with noble bodies pointing to the heavens. The poem paints a picture of the primitiveness of early humans before Ceres' arrival—cave-dwellers shyly hiding in mountain clefts, nomads endlessly roving and leaving fields untilled, hunters stalking with bows and javelins, and showing hostility to any unfortunate strangers washed up on their savage shores. Ceres realizes that for humans to truly be humane, they must forge an eternal bond of trust with the kind, nurturing earth. Only then can humanity's divine potential be fulfilled.In layman's terms, when we start seeing ourselves as an integral part of nature, like trees, birds, and animals, we stop feeling entitled to superior claims on resources and the self-aggrandizement that accompanies such thinking.

The notion of connecting with the earth in Schiller's poem is translated quite literally in one of Zosima's last acts before dying: he rises from his bed, kneels down, and kisses the floor. After hearing Zosima's message from beyond the grave in the aforementioned dream about the wedding at Cana, Alyosha's is filled with rapture, and in that blessed state, he mimics Zosima's action of kissing the floor. From this point in the story Alyosha becomes resolute in following the path Zosima advised him to take.

This moment also marks the end of a brief period of doubt for Alyosha that was triggered by the events following Zosima's death. When Zosima's body starts smelling, spectators chatter that this is a sign he was not sufficiently holy, as God would not let such a fate befall the truly pious. The ascetic Father Ferapont publicly excoriates the dead Zosima for not having lived with sufficient asceticism befitting a holy man. Alyosha, whose faith and love for his mentor is unshaken, is pained by God's perceived unfairness in not performing a miracle for Zosima. Alyosha echoes Ivan's observation that he does not accept God's rules. Yet, once he experiences the divine spark of love within himself and receives affirmation from the dead Zosima in his dream, his doubts are laid to rest, invalidating the Grand Inquisitor's argument that faith arises from observing miracles.

Finally, to Ivan's question about why a great creature like God would let bad things happen to good people, Zosima believes that the answers to such questions are beyond the limits of human understanding. As a child, Zosima is deeply influenced by the tale of Job in the Bible. Job is a righteous and prosperous man, but Satan challenges Job's faithfulness to God, claiming that Job is only loyal because he has been blessed with wealth and prosperity. As a test, God allows Satan to strip away Job's possessions, family, and health. Despite enduring immense suffering and loss, Job remains steadfast in his faith and refuses to curse God. Throughout the story, Job engages in dialogue with his friends, who try to explain his suffering as punishment for sin. Job, however, maintains his innocence and questions why he is suffering. In the end, God speaks to Job, revealing the limits of human understanding and the vastness of divine wisdom. God then restores Job's fortunes and blesses him abundantly. This "suspension of disbelief" is unacceptable to Ivan, who describes himself as having a "Euclidean" mind, and if as per Euclid, two parallel lines cannot meet, Ivan refuses to believe anyone who claims they might intersect in infinity

Theme 2: can wrongdoers become good

Since, in Ivan's view, God is merely an instrument to prevent a situation of anarchy where everything is permitted, he argues that the Church should subsume the State, as the fear of excommunication from God's kingdom is a more powerful deterrent than prison and hard labor.

In contrast, Zosima believes that the Church, instead of excommunicating criminals, should draw out the force of God lying dormant within the criminal's heart through paternal love. His belief in the innate goodness of humanity and the power of human conscience is grounded in three transformative stories that shaped his life.

The first story is about his elder brother Markel, who died at the age of 17. Markel was a kind but hot-tempered boy who, under the influence of an intellectual, declared he did not believe in God. However, on his deathbed, he became suddenly joyous and full of love for humanity. Before dying, Markel told the nine-year-old Zosima, "Go now, play, live for me," words that Zosima remembered for the rest of his life.

The second story is Zosima's own awakening. After Markel's death, Zosima entered the Cadet Corps academy and, upon graduation eight years later, led a selfish life, even brutally beating his orderly, Afanasy. However, the dormant seeds of spirituality from his childhood were awakened when he faced the possibility of killing a romantic rival in a duel. Zosima underwent an abrupt transformation, similar to his brother's. He surrendered his military commission and joined a monastery.

The third story of awakening involves a rich man who approached Zosima after hearing of his renunciation. This man eventually confessed to Zosima that he had committed a crime of passion and let another be the fall guy. Under Zosima's guidance, he publicly confessed to his crime.

The human capacity for remorse and his aspiration to act with a higher purpose than self-aggrandizement is a recurrent theme in The Brothers Karamazov. We see the force of conscience play out in the story of both major and minor characters.

Mitya

Mitya, a habitual wrongdoer, lacks self-restraint, leading him to commit reprehensible acts such as stealing Katya's money and physically assaulting his own father, as well as Captain Snegiryov and Grigory. Yet, throughout the novel, there are hints of an inherent goodness within him.

Mitya's moral core, though often dormant, is evident in the deep affection he quickly forms with Alyosha upon meeting as adults. In contrast, Alyosha finds Ivan distant, and their bond develops more slowly.

Mitya is also astonished by Ivan's claim that without immortality, there would be no reason for morality, and he refuses to take sexual advantage of Katya in her moment of financial need, indicating an active conscience, even if he often ignores it.

Further evidence of Mitya's capacity for self-reflection is found in his lengthy confession to Alyosha about his wild life and the torment he feels for mistreating Katya. Mitya reveals that during his moments of degradation, he often turns to the aforementioned Schiller's poem "The Eleusinian Festival," hoping for redemption from Ceres. However, he struggles to connect with the poem's central message of forging a bond with mother Earth. In such times, he seeks inspiration from another of Schiller's works, "Ode to Joy," where he imagines a loving creator above the stars, calling on humanity to worship this divine presence. Schiller portrays joy as a divine "spark" from this creator, available to all beings, from the basest to the most divine. Mitya compares himself to an insect in the poem, obsessed with sensual lust but incapable of experiencing the higher joys described in the poem. Yet, as Zosima tells Ivan elsewhere, being "tormented by such torments" is a sign of lofty moral aspiration.

During his interrogation by the authorities, Mitya reveals three torments affecting his mental state and driving his actions. The first is his inability to act according to the noble character he believes he possesses. The second is his jealous passion for Grushenka. The third torment involves the 3000 rubles he stole from Katya. He had set aside half of this money in case Grushenka decided to elope with him and feels deeply ashamed of stealing from his fiancée to finance that eventuality.

This third torment illuminates Mitya's peculiar moral framework, where he distinguishes between different types of misconduct. He considers violence less reprehensible than theft, which itself can be more or less odious depending on the purpose. He feels no guilt about spending the remainder of Katya's money once he decides on suicide after learning that Grushenka has gone back to her former lover. However, within this eccentric moral code, Mitya makes significant efforts to do the right thing. Before Fyodor's murder, Mitya frantically tries to raise money to repay Katya, offering to sell his tenuous legal claims to his father's property to Grushenka's patron, Samsonov, who sends him on a wild goose chase to make the same offer to a merchant named Lyagavy. Mitya struggles to reach Lyagavy's town, only to find him drunk and unresponsive. He then rushes back to Madame Khokhlakov, who, instead of loaning him money, advises him to pursue gold mining.

Towards the end of The Brothers Karamazov, we witness the awakening of Zosima's conception of God within Mitya. In a dream, a weary Mitya finds himself in a carriage passing through a burnt village. There, he encounters a poor peasant woman with an emaciated, crying baby. The carriage driver explains that the baby (the wee one) is crying because he is cold and hungry. This dream signifies Mitya's spiritual transformation. Although he is not guilty of murdering his father, he feels guilty on a larger scale for living a self-centered life and harming others. Mitya decides that to achieve redemption, he must atone for his sins by accepting his punishment in Siberia and dedicating his life to serving others. Ivan had argued that the suffering of children proved God's nonexistence, but Mitya, moved by the suffering of the child in his dream, channels his inner God to seek atonement through service.

The second torment, his jealous passion towards Grushenka, never leaves him even in his more awakened state. However, his first torment—the inability to conquer his base passions—begins to subside. He shows kindness by wishing to see Katya, despite her damaging testimony against him in the murder trial. Mitya harbors no ill-will towards her and feels only penitence for his own actions towards her. While Ivan devises an escape plan for Mitya, Mitya's primary concern is that those he loves and respects—his brothers, Katya, and Grushenka—believe in his innocence.

Mitya suffers greatly throughout the story, and the one person who can foresee his travails is Zosima. Zosima shocks bystanders in the monastery by kneeling on the floor and bowing to Mitya. Later, on his deathbed, Zosima explains that he bowed to Mitya because he saw great suffering in store for him. Perhaps Zosima also recognizes his younger, impetuous, and violent self in Mitya. To his credit, Mitya is mortified by Zosima's gesture, demonstrating that he understands the significance of the act instead of dismissing it as the eccentricity of an old monk. Perhaps, Zosima's action reminded Mitya of the time Katya had bowed to him when he had refrained from sexually exploiting her in exchange for money.

Ivan

Despite Mitya's bad behavior, he remains endearing, while Ivan, although not committing any evil acts, is not likable. Ivan's most off-putting quality is his aloof nature and reluctance to share his emotional life with others. Instead of prioritizing human connections, he hides his true self behind intellectual sophistry.

As the story unfolds, we gain rare and hence, precious insights, into Ivan's inner world. In a striking incident, Fyodor brags to his sons about how he insulted his second wife's religious beliefs by spitting on the cross she cherished, causing Alyosha's mother to collapse in shock. Upon hearing this story, Alyosha experiences a similar seizure. For the first time, Ivan shows emotion, angrily reminding Fyodor that she was his mother too. Notably, Fyodor’s apparent forgetfulness that Ivan and Alyosha are brothers, underscores the stark difference in the nature of the siblings.

Later, we see Ivan's torment over being mistreated by Katya, the woman he loves. Despite these moments, Ivan largely remains distant and inaccessible to others. However, towards the novel's end, the goodness within Ivan emerges through an awakening as dramatic as Mitya's. The root of this awakening lies in a conversation he had with Smerdyakov prior to the murder.

In that conversation, Smerdyakov had made several observations to Ivan, all of which seemed laden with some unsaid sinister meaning. First, Smerdyakov had suggested that Mitya had a strong motive for patricide, explaining that if Fyodor were to marry Grushenka, Mitya would lose both his beloved and his inheritance. Second, Smerdyakov had claimed that Mitya was aware of the secret knock pattern meant for Grushenka’s visits, implying that Mitya could use this knowledge to trick Fyodor into letting him in. Third, he had revealed his plan to feign an epileptic attack and become bedridden, which could either aid Mitya’s scheme or divert suspicion away from himself. Additionally, Smerdyakov had informed Ivan that Grigory Vasilievich, the other servant, was ill and in such situations, he and his wife consume alcohol, after which they fall into a deep sleep. This detail raises the possibility that Smerdyakov, the household cook, may have poisoned Grigory’s food on the night of the murder. Finally, Smerdyakov had advised Ivan to travel to Chermashnaya, a closer destination, rather than Ivan's intended destination Moscow, hinting that Ivan might need to return to his hometown quickly. The way Smerdyakov had framed the situation, suggesting that the stars were aligning for an inevitable outcome, seemed disingenuous. Ivan was further repulsed by Smerdyakov’s tone, which presumed a conspiratorial relationship between them.

Reflecting on the conversation after the murder, Ivan now believes that Smerdyakov's suggestion that he leave for a nearby town was a signal of the impending homicide. Ivan is now plagued with self-doubt, fearing that he left town despite Smerdyakov's hints because he secretly wished his father dead, making him morally complicit. Ivan's apprehension is further heightened when Katya reads him Mitya's drunken letter, in which he declared his intent to kill their father and mentioned that he would do so if Ivan left home. These obsessive thoughts of guilt drive Ivan to confront Smerdyakov, who confirms his worst fears by declaring that he took Ivan's decision to leave home as an implicit command to kill Fyodor. Further, Smerdyakov cites one of Ivan's pedantic lectures, where he proclaimed that if God does not exist, there is no need for morality and everything is permitted, as his inspiration. This overwhelming burden of guilt, resulting from both his father's death and his brother's incarceration, causes Ivan to fall ill with brain fever.

Ivan's feelings of guilt and his desire to set things right by orchestrating a plan to help his imprisoned brother escape to America highlight his moral side. Through his actions, Ivan demonstrates that he does not subscribe to the nihilistic beliefs he professes, something that Zosima had shrewdly discerned.

An unbiased spectator would find his remorse over his father's murder unwarranted. Smerdyakov's assertions, even if genuinely held, are ludicrous. The fact that Ivan accepts his own complicity indicates the presence of a higher moral conscience than we had assumed Ivan to be capable of. He even confesses to his imagined guilt in the court, though, by that time he was clearly not in complete command of his senses. Smerdyakov's claim that Ivan is the most like their father is clearly incorrect, as Fyodor would never be tortured by conscience like Ivan is.

Grushenka

Our initial impression of Grushenka, based on third-party accounts, is that she is a superficial seductress living off the largesse of the merchant Samsonov, whose mistress she is. This negative impression is reinforced during an encounter in Katya's drawing room, witnessed by Alyosha. Grushenka tells Katya that she plans to reunite with her former lover soon and has no interest in Mitya. However, when Katya expresses her gratitude, Grushenka mockingly claims that she may change her mind later.

As Dostoevsky develops her character, we gain a more nuanced view. Under Samsonov's mentorship, Grushenka has established herself as a financially independent woman with a head for business. While she flirts with men, she has been steadfastly loyal to her patron. We learn about Grushenka's inner life through an encounter with Alyosha. She bribes their mutual acquaintance, Rakitin, to bring Alyosha to her in a bid to seduce him. However, her heart melts when she encounters Alyosha's brotherly love and feels valued as a human being for the first time. Grushenka shares the pain from her broken relationship and the anguish of being treated as a fallen woman by society. After the murder, she is tormented by her own role in instigating animosity between father and son, and resolves to act more nobly, including giving shelter to Maximov, an elderly landowner who has fallen on hard times.

Grushenka's moral strength lies in her loyalty and consistency. She remains loyal to Samsonov as long as she is under his financial care. Later, she gives her former lover a second chance but is bitterly disappointed to learn that he wishes to reunite with her because of her money. Ultimately, Grushenka declares her love for Mitya and remains loyal to him, willing to go to Siberia with him.

Smerdyakov

Dostoevsky portrays Smerdyakov as a deeply repulsive character—one who, as a child, hanged cats and, as an adult, taught children sadistic tricks to torment dogs, all while eventually committing a gruesome murder. His ostensible motive for murder was money with which he intended to start a new life as a respectable gentleman. However, his real motive was his deep hatred for the Karamazov family, stemming from his illegitimacy. While the Karamazovs held the status of gentlemen, Smerdyakov belonged to the working class and faced disdain despite his belief in his superior intellect.

There is no explicit description of any moral transformation in Smerdyakov. His failure to exonerate Mitya in his suicide note indicates that his suicide was not a deliberated act of contrition. However, it is reasonable to believe that he would not have taken his own life had he not committed the murder, or even if he had simply facilitated Mitya's path to killing, which was the original plan. Therefore, the fact that he commits suicide after carrying out the perfect murder suggests some form of ethical torment. This interpretation aligns with Zosima's belief in a divine force of goodness within each of us. Dostoevsky appears to suggest that when a person's actions violate that divine force, they will inevitably experience despondency, even if their mind does not consciously acknowledge remorse.

The boys: Kolya and Ilyusha

While the stories of awakened conscience in The Brothers Karamazov for the adults are tied to dramatic life events, the themes of guilt and redemption also play out in the lives of Ilyusha and Kolya, albeit through more trivial events.

Kolya appears only in the last quarter of the book, but he is one of the most unforgettable characters in The Brothers Karamazov. Like any teenager, he is unsure of his worth and is trying to figure out what he should strive to be. He reads precociously and seeks to impress others with a half-baked understanding of topics ranging from socialism to the existence of God. Having lost his father when he was a child, he lacks a male role model at home. His attempts to project an air of masculine bravado get him into dangerous scrapes, like the time he lies down on the train tracks and lets a train pass over him, having determined that the train will not touch a person lying in a specific position. This prank, meant to impress older boys, makes him faint in terror, but he insists he was only pretending to be unconscious.

For all his braggadocio, Kolya is a tender-hearted boy with high emotional intelligence. For instance, after witnessing the terror his rail prank caused his mother, Anna Fyodorovna Krasotkin, Kolya becomes much more sensitive to her feelings. He also begins to speak kindly about Dardenalov, his history teacher, who has taken a romantic interest in Anna, thus tacitly communicating his acceptance of their budding relationship to his mother.

Despite his kind instincts, Kolya can behave poorly under the influence of a distorted view of masculinity. The younger Ilyusha idolizes Kolya, but Kolya starts giving him the cold shoulder simply because Ilyusha wouldn't accept his opinions uncritically. Later, when Ilyusha is sick and the other kids visit him daily, Kolya keeps his distance until his innate good nature compels him to do the right thing.

Kolya finds a male role model in Alyosha, who embodies a vision of masculinity that is both intelligent and kind, and a model of leadership that is persuasive without being domineering. For a boy of his age, Kolya possesses an extraordinary level of self-awareness. In Alyosha, he finds a safe space where he can confess his deep insecurities and admit that his imperious behavior is a mask for them.

The story of the stray dog Zhutchka is a poignant vignette in this epic novel. Ilyusha, taught a trick by Smerdyakov, throws a piece of bread with a pin in it to a hungry yard dog, intending to torture the animal for sadistic fun. The dog picks up the bread, squeals in pain, and disappears. When Ilyusha expresses his anguish to Kolya after seeing the pain he caused the dog, Kolya uses this as a pretext to punish him and distances himself from the younger boy.

Later, on his deathbed, Ilyusha fears that the dog is dead and that his illness is a punishment for his crime. In actuality, the dog had not swallowed the pin and had squealed because the pin pricked his tongue when he spat it out. Kolya, on hearing of Ilyusha's anguish, found the dog, christened him Perezvon, and taught him tricks to delight the younger boy. When Kolya arrives at Ilyusha's bedside, the boy is overjoyed to see both his friend and the dog. This act shows both Kolya's generosity and his callowness. On the one hand, he made the effort to find the dog to make Ilyusha happy. On the other hand, he could have saved the sick boy two weeks of torment by bringing the dog to him earlier.

These young boys, Kolya and Ilyusha, are also playing out the cycle of bad behavior, remorse and atonement just as the adults.

The speech at the stone

Despite a riveting plot featuring a murder and courtroom drama worthy of film noir, Dostoevsky's loftier aspirations for the novel are evident in its conclusion. Instead of clarifying whether Ivan succumbs to brain fever or if Mitya escapes to America, he ends the book with a powerful speech that Alyosha makes to Ilyusha's friends at the stone where the unfortunate boy had wished to be buried. In this speech, Alyosha conveys Zosima's message of the God within us in a language that teenage boys can understand.

Alyosha tells the boys that they should never forget Ilyusha and the bond they have formed. He emphasizes the importance of remembering their kindness and the unity they felt while caring for the Ilyusha. He hopes that even if the experience of life hardens them as adults, makes them wicked or cynical, they will recall their time with Ilyusha and this will remind them of their capacity for goodness and help them resist evil. Alyosha pledges to remember each boy and asks them to keep a place in their hearts for him. The boys, deeply moved, promise to remember Ilyusha and their shared moments, expressing their love for Alyosha with cheers and tears.

The Brothers Karamazov is a masterful novel that combines an engaging storyline, rich mosaic of characters, and existential questions it seeks to answer. A great pleasure of the book is witnessing the spiritual evolution of Alyosha Fyodorovich Karamazov, one of the most lovable characters of world literature. At the beginning, Alyosha worries that the addiction to sensual pleasure that Fyodor and Mitya suffer from is a genetic inheritance he shares. However, as the narrative unfolds, we see his growing confidence in his ability to lead the stormy beings whose neuroses he must constantly deal with. By the end of the novel, when Alyosha delivers the speech at the stone, he is a man unwavering in his faith and the worthy inheritor of Zosima's mantle.