The Brothers Karamazov: The nature of crime
The murder of Fyodor Karamazov’s father is the central act of The Brothers Karamazov. As a result, The Brothers Karamazov could be considered a detective story that aims to uncover the identity of the perpetrator of the horrendous act of parricide. To be sure, there are three key elements to any good crime story. First, it is important to determine who committed a crime. The novel does not follow the traditional three-part structure of a crime story. Dostoyevsky’s intention in The Brothers Karamazov was to create a crime story where there are multiple guilty parties, but it is unclear which one is responsible. It is a tale that explores our perception of crime based on the assumption that we have free will. The story begins with Ivan’s theory that “if there isn’t an immortality of soul, then…everything will be lawful” (90). However, it swings towards the opposite extreme where “everyone is responsible for everyone and everything”. Dostoyevsky, by the indeterminate conclusion of the novel, rejects the extremes. He suggests that there is a middle ground between these two theories.
Dostoyevsky rejects the “whodunit,” or the notion that the crime must have been committed by a single person. The Brothers Karamazov makes it difficult to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. Dmitri’s eldest son, Dmitri Karamazov was convicted and accused of killing their father in a court trial. Dmitri, who has always insisted that he’s “innocent from [his] father’s blood”, is found to be right. Smerdyakov confesses the murder to Ivan, revealing that he is Fyodor’s illegitimate child. The traditional murder case would be solved by this time. Smerdyakov, the murderer and guilty party is revealed. The murderer in this tale declares his innocent sincerely. Smerdyakov says to Ivan: “You’re the murderer!” It was because I listened to your words that I committed the crime. Smerdyakov’s belief that “all is lawful” without God (730), was inspired by Ivan. Smerdyakov thought Ivan “wanted (him) to do it” (725). What was initially a simple murder mystery has suddenly become much more complex. Who is the perpetrator? Dmitri admitted at one time that he had “meaningfully killed [his father], perhaps I actually might have murdered him” (590). Ivan accepts implicitly his guilt. “If Smerdyakov was the murderer…then I, too, am the perpetrator” (714). Lise notes that “everyone rejoices in his killing your father”. Dmitri has been convicted in the courtroom, but aren’t all of us guilty too? Does it really matter who committed the crime?
It is important to know what exactly each person has done wrong. Is Dmitri as guilty as Smerdyakov? Smerdyakov did the killing, but only because he followed Ivan’s order. What is Ivan’s exact crime? What exactly is Ivan guilty of? Smerdyakov says to Ivan that he must have been expecting something from him if he went to Tchermashnya without a reason and simply on his word. Ivan leaves town as Smerdyakov requests. Is this a crime? It is difficult, if you cannot, to assign blame for a crime. Every person’s behavior is interconnected with everyone else, and is affected by many different factors. Therefore, it is absurd to assume that one person is solely responsible for a murder. Dmitri is found guilty of murder, even though his father did not kill him. This was after he had a nightmare in which he saw babies crying from cold and hunger. Dmitri, who did not kill his father physically, decides he is guilty after having a dream where babies are crying out of hunger and cold. “I’m not guilty of murder, but it is necessary that I go to Siberia!” (657). Dmitri feels he has some responsibility for the suffering of others. Dmitri rejects Ivan’s theory that no one could be accountable for anything, as long as everything was permitted. Instead, Dmitri embraces the idea of shared responsibility that comes from a belief that all people are interconnected. Father Zossima believes in this philosophy, stating that “everyone is responsible for everyone and everything”. Father Zossima’s moral compass is a way of telling us all that we share responsibility for injustices. But another way to say everyone is responsible is that no one is. Father Zossima eliminates individuality, guilt and crime in his theory. Father Zossima, and Ivan’s theories, both of which absolve individuals of their responsibility of crime.
The Brothers Karamazov repeatedly attacks free-will. Ivan claimed in the Grand Inquisitor that freedom was “the most insupportable thing for a human being and society” in his story. Humans are in need of bread and material safety, rather than the freedom of choice and the burdens that come with it. Ivan thinks that we all feel “the burden of free will” and “want to be led again like sheep”. Ivan says that all man is looking for on Earth is “someone to pray to, someone who will keep his conscience in check, and…universal harmony” (293). Ivan views submission and obeying higher authorities as the antithesis of freedom of choice. Father Zossima joins Ivan in advocating a rejection for individual autonomy to favor obedience to a higher authority. A person called an elder “transfers your soul and will to his” (27). You “renounce” your will when you choose an elder. In renouncing your free-will you can also be excused from any crimes or wrongful acts, as there can be no guilt or responsibility when free-will is absent. Dostoyevsky challenges the notion of free will, and in doing so also questions the nature of crimes. Smerdyakov says to Ivan, “I am only [Ivan’s] faithful servant. I am [his] instrument” (721). The reader is then asked to reconsider Smerdyakov’s guilt.
Dostoyevsky’s murder of Father Karamazov seems to question the three tenets that are central to any traditional story of crime: that one person is typically responsible, we know who is guilty, and the crime was committed voluntarily. But what does this mean? Ivan’s “all is permitted without God” theory seems to be the starting point of the novel, but it gradually gives way to Father Zossima’s shared guilt theory. Dmitri accepts the punishment despite not having committed the murder. He believes that he shares responsibility for the child who is crying because of hunger. It is a weak theory, as if all of us are accountable for everything, we would be responsible for every single crime. If Dmitri is to accept all the crimes and guilt of others, why then does he escape at the end? Ultimately, Dmitri rejects Father Zossima’s idea that we are all responsible for evils done in the world.
The Brothers Karamazov seem to present us with two theories about crime, guilt and responsibility. On the surface, both theories appear to be different. One argues for the lawfulness of all crimes and a lack of individual responsibility. The other advocates we all take responsibility for one another’s actions. Ultimately, both theories are the same and the author will reject them. What remains? Dostoyevsky rejects the extremes of human nature and criminality, but he doesn’t offer an alternative. The reader will have to decide whether Dmitri is able to escape, if Ivan survives etc., just as the novel’s ending is indeterminate. There is a compromise between rejecting God’s responsibility and accepting the shared guilt of all evil.
Author
