Three Thousand Roubles

The sum, 3000 roubles, lies at the center of the plot developments and character tensions of the Brothers Karamazov. The sum of money is particularly significant in both Dmitry and Fyodor’s affairs.

3000 roubles is the amount of money that Dmitry was instructed to send to Katerina’s sister. Instead of sending the money, Dmitry squandered the money on alcohol and sex. Dmitry regrets this action immensely and desperately seeks to return 3000 roubles to Katerina to appease his conscience.

As we learn in the discussion that took place at Zosima’s cabin, Fyodor has offered 3000 roubles to sleep with Gruschenka. Furthermore, Dmitry believes that Fyodor owes him exactly 3000 roubles, which if Dmitry were to obtain, he would (hopefully) send back to Katerina. The significance of 3000 roubles to Fyodor is further reinforced in this past chapter – “Think: from eight to eleven, it’s a difference of three thousand. It’s as if I just picked up three thousand” (278).

The 3000 roubles perhaps reflect the way in which financial standings affect the characters’ pride and actions. Dmitry after all does write to Katerina explaining that he is not worthy of her, especially as she is rich and he is “just a poverty-stricken boor” (116). It is through his wealth that Fyodor plans to entice young ladies throughout life. Captain Snegiryov struggles to accept any money from Alyosha or Katerina because of pride.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned thought still appears to be seemingly meaningless speculation. There are, after all, many values of roubles used throughout the book: 4500 from Dmitry to Katerina, 200 from Katerina to Snegiryov, etc. The argument for the significance of 3000 roubles has some substance but is not particularly strong. Yet, if we look back to Dante’s Inferno, it may be possible to see greater significance to the sum 3000 roubles.

Ivan cites Dante in the Grand Inquisitor which shows that the ideas of the Inferno were being pondered by Dostoevsky when he was originally writing the brothers Karamazov. A major theme in Dante’s Inferno is the trinity. Everything in the poem is written in threes and can be related to the number three. Keeping this in mind, it is possible to see how 3000 roubles could be a part of a greater trinity/triplicity theme in the Brothers Karamazov. There are three brothers (all on the same journey in the same family…trinity), three temptations in the Grand Inquisitor chapter, and three thousand roubles.

Grand Inquisitor Outline (no edits)

The crux of the Grand Inquisitor’s argument is that people would prefer not to have a free will. Building off of Ivan’s reflections on the suffering of children in Rebellion, the Grand Inquisitor predicates “that a child’s happiness is sweeter than any other.” The Grand Inquisitor believes that the material joys and pleasures of life are superior to those of the spiritual. He states that Jesus’ decisions with respect to the devil’s three temptations were made disregarding what is best for mankind.

1. First temptation – Turning stone to bread.

i. Satan challenges Jesus to turn stone into bread in order to quench the hunger of those who walked the desert with him without any food

ii. Jesus refuses to do so as he will not exchange bread for the “obedience” of followers

iii. Note that the quote “fire from heaven” is used for the second time. The first time it was cited was in Rebellion.

iv. Grand Inquisitor declares that the people would rather be enslaved and fed – “Better that you enslave us, but feed us.”

v. Inquisitor states that the bread of Heaven, freedom and the will power to choose to do what is right, is nothing in comparison to the bread of the Earth in the eyes of man – “can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race?”

vi. His last grand claim with respect to the first temptation is that peace in death would be preferred than living with the responsibility of discerning between right and wrong

2. Second temptation – Jumping from pinnacle and having an Angel come to rescue

i. Jesus did not jump from the pinnacle to prove to Satan that an angel would save him, and thus Jesus rejected miracles

ii. Grand Inquisitor claims that man needs and thirsts for miracles, as he does bread, and that without a miracle it is beyond man’s ability to have religious faith

iii. The Inquisitor claims that Jesus expects too much of a man, to not give them a miracle and to still maintain the expectation that man will freely choose to follow him

iv. The Inquisitor cites that man has and will continue to make his own miracles in order to develop a faith.

3. Third temptation – Uniting all of mankind into one kingdom and ruling it

i. Grand Inquisitor states that people seek unity, and that in rejecting all three temptations, Jesus rejected the possibility of uniting all of mankind. For turning the stone to bread would take away a source of conflict, and, furthermore, it would indicate who the people should bow down, as would performing a miracle. Simply taking the reign from Caesar and ruling the Earth would also unite mankind, but Jesus rejects this too.

ii. The Grand Inquisitor not only states that Jesus rejects unity but implicitly relegates responsibility for the separation of mankind and gross actions such as anthropophagy to Jesus by referencing the tower of Babel. How is man to live peacefully with others with the obstacles of race, language, and religion God has established?

iii. The Inquisitor claims that he has fulfilled man’s need to be united by establishing a vast kingdom, and by deceiving the people into believing that it is under God.

Ivan ends the story with God kissing the Grand Inquisitor in the same manner that Zosima bowed to Dmitry and Alyosha kissed Ivan. This, I believe, is Ivan’s way of showing that he is cognizant of the fact that the only way to live up to God’s expectations is to make a huge leap of faith.

Grand Inquisitor Outline

The crux of the Grand Inquisitor’s argument is that people would prefer not to have a free will. Building off of Ivan’s reflections on the suffering of children in Rebellion, the Grand Inquisitor predicates “that a child’s happiness is sweeter than any other.” The Grand Inquisitor believes that the material joys and pleasures of life are superior to those of the spiritual. He states that Jesus’ decisions with respect to the devil’s three temptations were made disregarding what is best for mankind.

1. First temptation – Turning stone to bread.

i. Satan challenges Jesus to turn stone into bread in order to quench the hunger of those who walked the desert with him without any food

ii. Jesus refuses to do so as he will not exchange bread for the “obedience” of followers

iii. Note that the quote “fire from heaven” is used for the second time. The first time it was cited was in Rebellion.

iv. Grand Inquisitor declares that the people would rather be enslaved and fed – “Better that you enslave us, but feed us.”

v. Inquisitor states that the bread of Heaven, freedom and the will power to choose to do what is right, is nothing in comparison to the bread of the Earth in the eyes of man – “can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race?”

vi. His last grand claim with respect to the first temptation is that peace in death would be preferred than living with the responsibility of discerning between right and wrong

2. Second temptation – Jumping from pinnacle and having an Angel come to rescue

i. Jesus did not jump from the pinnacle to prove to Satan that an angel would save him, and thus Jesus rejected miracles

ii. Grand Inquisitor claims that man needs and thirsts for miracles, as he does bread, and that without a miracle it is beyond man’s ability to have religious faith

iii. The Inquisitor claims that Jesus expects too much of a man, to not give them a miracle and to still maintain the expectation that man will freely choose to follow him

iv. The Inquisitor cites that man has and will continue to make his own miracles in order to develop a faith.

3. Third temptation – Uniting all of mankind into one kingdom and ruling it

i. Grand Inquisitor states that people seek unity, and that in rejecting all three temptations, Jesus rejected the possibility of uniting all of mankind. For turning the stone to bread would take away a source of conflict, and, furthermore, it would indicate who the people should bow down, as would performing a miracle. Simply taking the reign from Caesar and ruling the Earth would also unite mankind, but Jesus rejects this too.

ii. The Grand Inquisitor not only states that Jesus rejects unity but implicitly relegates responsibility for the separation of mankind and gross actions such as anthropophagy to Jesus by referencing the tower of Babel. How is man to live peacefully with others with the obstacles of race, language, and religion God has established?

iii. The Inquisitor claims that he has fulfilled man’s need to be united by establishing a vast kingdom, and by deceiving the people into believing that it is under God.

Ivan ends the story with God kissing the Grand Inquisitor in the same manner that Zosima bowed to Dmitry and Alyosha kissed Ivan. This, I believe, is Ivan’s way of showing that he is cognizant of the fact that the only way to live up to God’s expectations is to make a huge leap of faith.

Rebellion

Ivan has not effectively proved the injustice of God’s plan as he has not been presented with the complete counter-argument to his points and has thus not had the chance to present a full argument for the injustice of God. Ivan states that he accepts God and all of the beliefs about him, but he whole-heartedly rejects “his ticket” to salvation and heaven if it depends upon the suffering of innocent children.

His argument rests upon the idea that children under the age of 8 or 7 are not yet cognizant of what is right and wrong, and who is God to punish them. He accepts the original sin of adults, but indirectly distinguishes that he does not believe in the original sin existing fully within children.

Alyosha presents the main counterpoint to Ivan’s arguments for the injustice of God’s plan – the redemption of suffering. However, he fails to explain this notion and its relation to Jesus. Once again, Alyosha sounds as though he is committing “literary theft,” quoting Zosima on something he does not quite fully understand and hoping optimistically that there is proper reasoning for the order of the world. Alyosha does not appear to understand why Jesus’ death provides an answer for Ivan’s question.

As Alyosha fails to present a coherent counterpoint fully explaining the redemptive quality of suffering, Ivan does not explain why such a point would be mute without faith. Therefore, Ivan’s argument does not effectively prove the injustice of God’s plan.

Smerdyakov

Smerdyakov is a highly contemptuous and aloof character. Resembling Fyodor and Ivan in action and thought, he thinks lowly of others and holds a despondent view of the Earth.

Having been born through Fyodor’s grossest sin, Smerdyakov symbolically takes on the most dislikeable character traits of Fyodor. Most notable, Smerdyakov has a predominant air of arrogance resembling Fyodor’s, always having a confident answer to every question, which is expressed in such a manner as to demean another’s answer. Furthermore, he appears to despise himself, especially as he speaks of wishing to have been left to die in the womb. Fyodor too, as demonstrated in his inner-thoughts before making a scandal at the monastery dinner, despises his own existence.

Smerdyakov, like Ivan, does not believe in a God. He actually, as Ivan acknowledges, looks up to Ivan as a role model of sorts despite the fact that he has warped and misunderstood Ivan’s views. Smerdyakov rejects the notion of God or the possibility of people believing in God, whereas Ivan believes that the belief in God is a necessity of humans.

Smerdyakov resembles Malvolio of Twelfth Night to a remarkable degree in how easy he is to dislike. He incites an immediate reaction of disgust from the reader, and thus is used by Dostoevsky to highlight what he doesn’t want the reader to take out of Ivan, while also highlighting the sins of Fyodor.

Gruschenka

Gruschenka does not kiss back, as she is, indeed, a selfish and rotten scoundrel, playing off of the insecurities of the characters entangled in mimetic confrontations. Dmitry and Fyodor’s attraction to Gruschenka, Gruschenka’s betrayal of Katerina Ivanovna, and the fight Gruschenka causes between Dmitry and Fyodor are testaments to her iniquitousness.

The part of Dmitry that is attracted to Gruschenka is unequivocally the half that is of greater semblance of his father. Katerina is clearly representative of the virtuous life that Dmitry struggles to maintain, and Gruschenka is the apotheosis of the sinful, underground man qualities of Fyodor, with all the too familiar non sequiturs surrounding her existence. Even when Dmitry describes her, he describes her wickedness that comforts him. Furthermore, in making his final act of unprecedented immorality, he states to Alyosha beforehand, “I could stop; if I stopped, tomorrow I could recover fully half of my lost honor; but I will not stop, I will carry out my base design, and in the future you can be my witness that I told you beforehand and with aforethought!” Dmitry resorts to the same illogical pattern of thought of his father. He begins to believe that by recognizing his addiction and realizing what actions it will lead to beforehand that it somehow makes his actions all the more acceptable. Dmitry begins to develop the same addictive love for his self-destructive qualities that his father has, and consequently, he falls in love with the destructive qualities of Gruschenka.

A true seductress, Gruschenka takes pleasure in seducing characters and spitting them out, even female characters. Dmitry may have been onto something when he spouted that Katerina became attracted to Gruschenka. Katerina’s is bipolar, quickly changing her mind on various important questions and becoming passionate about her decisions. The scene in which she speaks of kissing Gruschenka’s hand has undeniable homoerotic undertones. Dostoevsky perhaps does use Gruschenka to emphasize Katerina’s naïve nature to trust in a wicked person such as Dmitry or Gruschenka. She even had forewarnings from her aunts about Gruschenka but nevertheless had the innocent optimism to go forward with seeing her. Gruschenka tricks Katerina into believing that she will participate in a plot to bring all the problems to resolution that have arisen from Dmitry and Fyodor’s conflicting attractions, and then betrays these notions upon Alyosha’s arrival, and even attempts to seduce Alyosha himself, “Alyoshenka, dear, come with me! I have something very, very nice to tell you on the way. I performed this scene for you, Alyoshenka. Come with me, darling, you’ll be glad you did.” She even slyly merges the end of her name with the beginning of Alyosha’s name – “Alyoshenka.” Not kissing Katerina’s hand is the ultimate sign of her manipulation of Katerina.

Considering the pleasure and laughter that Katerina’ despair creates for Gruschenka, it begins to appear as though she may have purposely mislead Dmitry to believe that she was going to Fyodor’s house. Dmitry swears that he saw her heading toward Fyodor’s house, and yet, it is clear that no one in Fyodor’s house was expecting her or had contact with her. Aware of the tensions between the characters, and fully taking pleasure in the conflicts rooted in these tensions, it is likely that she played off these tensions to lead Fyodor and Dmitry to a confrontation.

Gruschenka appears to be the most base, and ultimate portrayal of evil in the book. Whereas Fyodor at least shows small signs of remorse, Gruschenka shows none and goes far out of her way to create problems between the characters.

Dmitry's Treatment of his Father

Dmitry’s treatment of his father is scoundrel-like, yet taking into account his father’s iniquitous nature, and the effect that this has yielded on Dmitry, it is difficult to full-heartedly call Dmitry a scoundrel. His perfervid emotions of anger and hate directed at his father are more tragic than dastardly, thus it is not appropriate to characterize Dmitry as a scoundrel in relation to his actions against his father. Dmitry’s actions are tragic as he is a character born of original sin and he has a direct rivalry with his father.

The nefarious Fyodor is representative of all that is selfish, immoral, and iniquitous, as a result, those around him or those who he yields the greatest influence on are his sons including Dmitry. The fact that Dmitry has progressed away from the antics of his father is a feat to be commended not demeaned. Although Dmitry should not seek out his father primarily as a source of money, the precedence his father has set him is a poor one, and Dmitry cannot be held completely responsible for his actions. Yet, he should still strive to be more like his brother Alyosha with respect to trying to bring a truth and morality in his father instead of rebelling against the disgusting nature of his father.

Dmitry’s selfish and sinful acts against his father are further made more understandable, not necessarily right, by the rivalry he maintains with him over Gruschenka. Both he and his father are infatuated by the same scandalous woman, and as most men naturally do, completely disregard understanding attempts to understand the other man. Although Dmitry’s disrespect toward his father is still wrong, considering his situation, he is unequivocally not a scoundrel.

Dmitry is not a scoundrel as his level of self-concern has not reached the level of a scoundrel, which would be the level that Fyodor is at. Although he, like his father, is at the same stage of recognizing what it is that he done wrong, he, unlike his father, repents for his wrongs deeply. Fyodor, on the other hand, pains himself more by committing even more wrongs in attempt to appease his oppressed feelings of guilt.

Dmitry's Treatment of Katerina

Dmitry initially resembles a scoundrel with his intentions to deceive Katerina, but his remorse for his intentions and self-loathing reveal that he is not a complete scoundrel. Taking Fyodor as a relative standard, Dmitry is definitely not a scoundrel. He repents for his deceptive intentions, gives money for Katerina’s welfare, and attempts to reconcile his theft against Katerina.

Although Dmitry originally planned to trick Katerina into sleeping with him, he recognizes the immorality of this plan. When Katerina visits Dmitry in his room, he is able to sees her as beautiful as a result of perceived morality and not sensuality. This distinction of beauty foils for Dmitry his own scoundrel-like qualities, and introspectively decides against tricking Katerina.

Encompassing more of his moral similarities with Alyosha than those of his father, Dmitry decided to give Katerina 4500 roubles in exchange for nothing. Dmitry sympathizes with the resulting situation of her father’s debt, and reveals emotions of self-hatred for his iniquitous thoughts.

Following his marriage to Katerina, Dmitry uses 3000 roubles, which Katerina instructed him to send to her sister-in-need, for debauchery; however, he later repents and seeks Alyosha’s aid in procuring 3000 roubles to return to Katerina. As Katerina bowed before him upon receiving the 4500 roubles, Dmitry wishes through the representation of Alyosha to bow before for Katerina to signify his respect and adoration for her.

Since Dmitry repents, and truly feels remorse, following his immoral actions, he is not a scoundrel. Dmitry shares some of the magnanimous qualities of his brother Alyosha in the light that he recognizes the truth in various situations, although variably some time after the situation. Like his father though, he appears to have developed a cyclical nature to such an extent that he recognizes his wrongs clearly but continues to commit them, thus making him all the more tragic of a character.

Fyodor's Habitual Buffoonery

Fyodor, like many people, has a strong desire for dignity; he wishes to maintain his pride. He is also a man cognizant of his own follies and his botched reputation. This becomes evident when he reacts strongly to the analysis given of him by Zosima. Unfortunately, his instinctual reaction to the revelation of his faults leads him to revert to his buffoonery of feigning (not necessarily feigning, as he is playing the role, but the playing of the role itself is..well, buffoonery) intentional buffoonery.

We ultimately see that Fyodor is aware of his buffoonery in playing the part of the buffoon when he is about to leave the Monastery but decides to stop for the sake of maintaining ‘maximum dignity’ within his buffoonery since he has already shamed himself – “There is no way to rehabilitate myself now, so why don’t I just spit over them without any shame.” Fyodor resolves to play the part of the buffoon once more since he realizes he already has, and it is already expected of him, so there is nothing for him to lose. On the other hand, by leaving without a ‘final say,’ he admits to having shame and is still seen as a buffoon.

Fyodor seeks to regain dignity through the means that provide for the smallest amount of repentance possible, as repentance entails admitting one’s wrongs and feeling shame. When people joke that the best poets really just write random lines with the knowledge that if people do not understand them that, then they will revere them, Fyodor is the guy who actually thinks that such a feat is possible.

Dostoevsky uses Fyodor in this section of the novel to reassert Zosima’s claim that the conscience is the best means of reform for a given individual. Fyodor fails to escape his habitual buffoonery because he is continuously distracted by others’ perceptions of him and loses sight of the repentance. The theme of conscience vs. false conscience is portrayed strongly through his character.

Ivan, Zosima, and Miusov

Ivan

Ivan is against the separation of the church and state. He believes that the state should exist within the church, as this would lead to a stronger moral order. Ivan recognizes the conscience as what leads a person to live morally or immorally. He predicates that many criminals are able to convince themselves of false truths about the nature of their actions. Ivan believes that excommunication or another intervention by the church would lead criminals to see the criminality of their actions and accept it. Most importantly, Ivan seeks the rising of the Church for the overall good of the people.

Zosima

Zosima supports a state within a church as well but with several distinct differences in his reasoning. Zosima asserts that the ultimate force leading humans to do good is their conscience, and that punishments do little to discourage people from committing sins, citing the existence of punishments and the nevertheless persistence of crime. Zosima believes that the church would aid the individual in seeing the truth in his/her own actions. In Zosima’s mind, the church aids the individual in living morally as opposed to discouraging wrongdoing through punishments. Zosima imagines that some day there may not even be the need for excommunication.

Zosima and Ivan’s ideas thought lines are similar in that they both recognize the imperativeness in getting people to see the truth and have a fully developed conscience. The difference between the two is that, Ivan seeks the overall bettering of a group of people whereas Zosima seeks the improvement of the individual.

Miusov

Miusov confuses Zosima and Ivan’s support of a state within a church for the view of church within a state, where the state is the primary concern (although it may seem that Ivan is somewhat close to this in his beliefs, but not openly). Being a bandwagon leftist, he fails to grasp the ideas of the discussion and just spews claims about arch-ultramonatism. Perhaps is only valid contribution to the discussion is that the transformation to such a state would be nearly impossible. Both Zosima and Ivan do concur that the transformation must happen slowly and that the people are not quite ready.

The Elders and Zosima

The Elders

First and foremost, the narrator offers several alternative histories of the Elders. The institution’s origins and temporal history are not certain. More controversial though is the role of an Elder in the church. The book offers us this succinct definition of an Elder – “An elder is one who takes your soul, your will into his soul and into his will.” It is only through the permission of an Elder that an apprentice may be freed from his obligation to submit his will completely. Thus, an Elder has an unlimited power, and it is in this respect that the Institution of the Elders is the most controversial. Churches embracing the Elders were first prosecuted because of the idea of this power.

Zosima

I am not sure whether the question is if the narrator is portraying Zosima in such a way that we will sympathize with him, or if the question is if the narrator portrays the character Zosima to be a person who sympathizes with others. Therefore, I will address both questions.

The narrator presents Zosima sympathetically as he is described as an old, ill man who still gives a hardy attempt to see all those who seeking help from him. The most positively portrayed main character, Alyosha, reveres Zosima. Furthermore, Zosima is so widely well-known for his wisdom that people travel from far distances just to see him. The narrator even recounts, “many people say…he acquired in the end such fine discernment that he could tell, from the first glance at a visiting stranger’s face, what was in his mind, what he needed, and even what kind of suffering tormented his conscience.”

If antipathy is revealed towards Zosima, it is expressed through the scene when the brothers visit him to settle the dispute between Dmitry and Fyodor. His overly pithy statements may be intentionally trite, and his wisdom may actually have been mocked in this scene.

As a character, Zosima is revealed to be greatly sympathetic. Earlier in the novel, Alyosha is described as not being effected by offenses committed against him. It is specifically mentioned that this is not a result of him forgiving people without their apologies, or an attempt to maintain pride. No coping mechanism is explicitly mentioned; however, an emphasis is placed on Alyosha’s nature of acceptance. Therefore, we, the reader, are left to make the assumption that Alyosha accepts and understands the difficulty that humans have in resisting sin. As Zosima serves a mentor role to Alyosha, we can infer that his moral predications are genuine. Additionally, Zosima sets himself apart from everyone in his cell by being the only person to not be effected by Fyodor’s antics. Even Alyosha fails to accept his father’s ways. Ultimately, Zosima is presented as a man with a love for mankind, frequently smiling and exceedingly understanding.

The Three Brothers and Interacting with Alyosha

Fyodor

Fyodor is a self-aggrandizing, detestable character that fathers Dmitry by his first wife and Ivan and Alyosha by his second wife. He is deeply sensual and perceptive to attractive women, and is completely unfaithful to both of his wives during marriage. His infidelity to his wives is matched in insolence only by his ignorance of his three sons, for whom he refuses to give money to, and even more importantly, remember. Despite his iniquitous nature, he develops relationships with both Ivan and Alyosha later in his life. Furthermore, his sentimental behavior during his drunken rants and his genuine development of feelings for both his sons are revealing that he does not exist completely without a heart, which, as the in-class, introductory sample from the novel indicates, becomes the crux of a later chapter – whether a person is capable of making immoral, sinful decisions without thinking twice.

Dmitry

Dmitry is the reckless, unconventional brother of the three. Born of the first mother, he had a series of four different guardians and was continually forgotten about by the majority of them. Dmitry did not have a full education like his other two brothers. He never finished high school. He spends rampantly and has several debt problems.

Ivan

Ivan is the older son of Fyodor’s second wife. He is sensitively aware of his dependence on the charity of others, particularly the charity of Yefim Petrovich Polenov, and is eager to earn his own way in life. Ivan is also exceedingly intelligent as a learner. Additionally, he proves himself to be shrewd in general matters, successfully fending for himself and attending university for two years without support. His ability to capture the love and attention of his father also marks the natural affinity people have towards him.

Alyosha

Alyosha, even more so than his brother, and by completely natural, uncalculated means, is well-loved by everyone he encounters. Money, the offenses of others, the charity of others, and other things that normally would yield an effect on a person, do not faze Alyosha. His only, perhaps, negative characteristic in the view of fellow men, is his abstemious nature, specifically with respect to sexual discussions that many of his male counterparts frequently indulge in.

The character I am most intrigued by is Alyosha. He is the most unconventional of three characters (followed by Fyodor), and is an extremely odd character in general. His stoic attitude in regard to the offenses of others, and the narrator’s testaments that this is a result of his nature and not an attempt to be “brave,” puzzles me the most. Alyosha is reminiscent of several of the enlightened characters in Siddhartha, who many people fail to understand and appear to be at peace with the world. Alyosha is described as being unusually accepting of all his surroundings. I would react most likely to meeting him as I would react to meeting any great mind. I would speak few words, and observe him as closely as I could, trying to understand him as I am trying to understand him through reading this novel. If it is not clear, this is a positive assessment of the character.