The result of such techniques is that the reader’s mind is encouraged to stray from the path of the narrative and to reflect on connections, parallels, echoes, both within the text and without. The narrator’s own inadequacies and uncertainties also encourage this. But the more one ponders the novel the more one realizes that one is dealing with layer upon layer of text, of voice echoing other voices and not with a single reliable ‘true’ version of events or of life. The sections of the book which purport to lay bare the truth in one form or other (‘The Legend’, Zosima’s testament, the trial) seem to exhibit this most clearly. ‘The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor’, for example, that mighty myth of modern times, is presented as a poem, not to be taken literally, never written down, and recalled by one of the characters in conversation with another. How the narrator got hold of it in all its detail is never explained. Zosima’s discourse is introduced by the narrator, but it appears to be his account of Alyosha’s recollections of fragments of conversations with Zosima over a period of time. This itself contains recollections of fragments of conversations with Markel and the mysterious visitor. The mysterious visitor, in turn, talks about his own past experiences. And so on. As for the trial, the inadequacy of every account — the prosecutor’s, the defence counsel’s, the witnesses’ — to the evidence with which the reader is acquainted simply underlines their provisional nature.
This is why Nathalie Sarraute, an exponent of the French nouveau roman,could write,
The time had long passed when a Proust could believe that ‘in pushing his powers of penetration to their limits’ he could ‘attempt to reach those far depths where truth, the ultimate reality, our authentic experience reside.’ Everyone now knew, enlightened by successive deceptions, that there is no such thing as ultimate reality. ‘Our authentic experience has been revealed as a multiplicity of depths and these depths go on to infinity.’
It is to this vision that she assimilates Dostoevsky which is not to say, of course, that he was unconcerned with truth to life in the social sphere. That he consulted experts in matters of theology, psychology (Ivan’s nightmare) and legal procedure (the trial) is well attested. It does, however, point to the diversity of possible interpretations.
Many of these interpretations can be found in the critical literature on the novel. There are many general books on Dostoevsky’s life and work. Konstantin Mochulsky’s scholarly but highly readable work is still rightly regarded by many as the classic work of its kind. More recent is Richard Peace’s fine book which provides an excellent reading of The Brothers Karamazov.It is notable, among other things, for its treatment of the tradition of the Russian Old Believers in Dostoevsky’s novel. And, although it certainly cannot be regarded as an introductory study, no list of works on Dostoevsky nowadays should fail to draw attention to Bakhtin’s seminal book, which has probably been more influential than any other, not only on Dostoevsky studies but on literary studies in general.
Among books specifically on this novel, Victor Terras’ Karamazov Companionis an invaluable guide to every student of Russian literature. It has a long introduction which examines virtually every aspect of the novel, thematic and stylistic. Robert Belknap’s latest book on the novel displays many remarkable critical insights and is the work of a distinguished and influential scholar who has devoted many years to his subject.
New Essays on Dostoevsky,edited by myself and Garth Terry, contains an excellent psychological study of Ivan Karamazov by K. F. Seeley and an exceptionally knowledgeable and well-presented analysis of Zosima’s discourse by Sergei Hackel.
This brings me to the philosophical and religious dimensions of the novel. Sandoz’s magnificent book on the ‘Legend of the Grand Inquisitor’ is required reading. Stewart Sutherland’s book brings the insights of an Anglo-Saxon philosopher tf bear on the religious philosophy of the novel with some surprisingly positive and fruitful results. Gibson’s book, also written by a philosopher, adopts a more conventional, but no less informative approach. In Cambridge, Diane Thompson has recently published a fine and convincing study of the fundamental structuring role of memory in the novel which is sure to stimulate much interesting discussion.
Some readers will be fascinated by Wasiolek’s English translation of the Notebooks for The Brothers Karamazov.Notebooks can be very difficult to translate because by their very nature notes are often elliptical and obscure: the associations which they had in the mind of the writer, using another language, are often impossible to capture, especially in translation. Very often too notebooks are distinguished by what the author rejected rather than what leads directly into his text. So they should always be used with caution in interpreting obscure parts of the published work. But with these warnings the enthusiastic reader may find much of interest in them and explore the writer’s workshop at leisure. As a matter of fact the drafts that remain are relatively late and close to the text we know.
There are many biographies of Dostoevsky. The most recent, which can be thoroughly recommended, is Geir Kjet-saa’s Fyodor Dostoyevsky: A Writer’s Life.
Last of all (or possibly first of all) some readers may like to explore W.J. Leatherbarrow’s magisterial and invaluable Reference Guide,which lists, with commentary, over twelve thousand books and articles in many languages by and about Dostoevsky. Many of them are, of course, in English and many of them are relevant to The Brothers Karamazov.This is a book above all for the specialist, but for him or her it is indispensable.
So I return to my starting point. That, for better or for worse, is the fate of classics.
Malcolm V. Jones
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bakhtin, Mikhail, Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics,University of Manchester Press, Manchester, 1984.
Belknap, Robert, The Structure of The Brothers Karamazov’,Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 1989.
— The Genesis of ’The Brothers Karamazov’,Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 1990.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, The Notebooks for ‘The Brothers Karamazov’,edited and translated by Edward Wasiolek, Chicago University Press, Chicago and London, 1971.
Gibson, A. Boyce, The Religion of Dostoevsky,S. F. V. Press, London, 1973
Jones, Malcolm V., and Terry, Garth M., eds., New Essays on Dostoyevsky,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
Kjetsaa, Geir, Fyodor Dostoyevsky: A Writer’s Life,Macmillan, London, 1987.
Leatherbarrow, W. J., Fedor Dostoevsky, a reference guide,G. K. Hall & Co., Boston, Mass., 1990.
Mochulsky, Konstantin, Dostoevsky,Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1967.
Peace, Richard A., Dostoyevsky, an Examination of the Major Novels,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1971.
Sandoz, Ellis, Political Apocalypse: Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor,Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1971.
Sutherland Stewart R., Atheism and the Rejection of God: Contemporary Philosophy and‘ The Brothers Karamazov’,Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1977.
Terras, Victor, A Karamazov Companion,University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin, 1981.
Thompson, Diane Denning, The Brothers Karamazov and the Poetics of Memory,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
List of Characters
The following list comprises the names of the novel’s main characters, with variants and pronunciation. Russian names are composed of first name, patronymic (from the father’s first name), and family name. Formal address requires the use of first name and patronymic; diminutives are commonly used among family and friends and are for the most part endearing, but in a certain blunt form (Katka, Mitka, Alyoshka, Rakitka) can be insulting and dismissive. Stressed syllables are indicated by italics. N.B. The zin Karamazov is pronounced like the zin zoo,not like the zin Mozart.
Karamazov, Fyodor Pavlovich
Dmitri F yodorovich (M itya, M itka, M itenka, M itri F yodorovich) I vanF yodorovich (V anya, V anka, V anechka)
Alex eiF yodorovich (Al yosha, Al yoshka, Al yoshenka, Al yoshechka, Alex eichik, L yosha, L yoshenka)
Smerdy akov, Pavel Fyodorovich
Svet lov, Agra fenO Alex androvna ( Grushenka, Grusha, Grushka)
Ver khovtsev, Kate rina I vanovna (K atya, Katka, Katenka)
Zo sima (Zinovy before he became a monk)
Snegir yov, Nikolai Ilyich A rina Pe trovna Var varaNiko laevna (V arya) Nina Niko laevna ( Ninochka) Il yusha (Il yushechka, Il yushka)
Kra sotkin, Niko laiI vanov (K olya)
Khokhla kov, Kate rina Osipovna Liza ( Lise) List of Characters
Ku
tuzov, Gri
gory Va
silievich (also Va
siliev)
Marfa
Ra kitin, Mikh ail Osipovich ( Misha, Ra kitka, Raki tushka)
Paissy
Fera pont
Ippo litKir illovich (no family name)
Nelyudov, Nikolai Par fenovich
Fetyufcovich
Herzenstube
Maximov (Maximushka)
Kal ganov, Pyotr Fomich (Petrusha)
Per khotin, Pyotr Ilyi ch
Mi usov, Pyotr Alexandrovich
Tri fonBorisovich (also Borisich)
Fe dosya M arkovna (Fenya, also Fedosya Markov)
Samsonov, Kuzma Kuzmich
Lizaveta Smerdyashchaya (Stinking Lizaveta; no family name)
Ma karov, Mikh ailMa karovich (also Ma karich)
Mussyalovich
Vrublevsky
Maria Kondratievna (no family name)
Varvmsky