Robby

Robby

Robby

I realize that this horrifies you, Ginny, and others in B&L but a book, to me, is a functional tool. As you know, I am the DL for "Democracy in America." If you could see my much heavily underlined copy of deTocqueville's book in front of me, you would probably go out of your mind. It will never beautify a shelf.

I will admit to a disadvantage if I were to pass this book onto others. No one likes to borrow my book after I have read it. They find they can concentrate only on what I have underlined. That's their problem. I buy my books for me, not for posterity.

OK, gang! Now you've got an emotional subject to dig your teeth into!!

Robby

I should add that I rarely read "light" books so the types of books I read lend themselves to notes.

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

In modern Russian, names consist of a GIVEN NAME (imia), a PATRONYMIC (otchestvo), and a SURNAME (familiia), but as Tumanova notes quite well: "Russian naming conventions for early period are first name (baptismal name, usually that of a Biblical saint), followed by the everyday or common first name, patronymic, and rarely a surname. Russian naming conventions for mid to late period are first name, patronymic, and surname" (1989: 4). More precisely, Russian names started only as a given name, adding the patronymic around the 10th century, and finally the surname (from the patronymic constructions) only in the late 15th or early 16th century. The surname did not become common, in fact, until the 18th century (Tupikov, 1903: 21-22).

eighteenth-century definitions of glush' is an isolated and backward locale, an idea conveyed by notions like "the sticks"or "the bush" in English.

While the condescension toward the provinces implied by this term still suffuses contemporary Russian capital-city culture, the concept itself evolved during the eighteenth century in response to initiatives from St. Petersburg and in provincial noble culture itself, for the idea of backwardness attaching to glush' referred specifically to the rural nobility.





Studying the emergence of the provinces as backward and vicious as depicted in satirical journals, literary works, and state materials--casts new light on well-known currents in eighteenth-century Russian history, including "western-ization," the impact of the Petrine reforms, and relations between state and nobility. From this point of view, the provinces emerge as a challenge to the reforming efforts of the post-Petrine state and those capital-city servitors that espoused its civilizing mission.

It was this tension between capital center and provincial nobility that gave force and meaning to European ideas as they were appropriated in St. Petersburg as the sources of Russian notions of backwardness can be sought in the encounter between reforming state and recalcitrant countryside, rather than between Russia and Europe.

This same challenge permitted the rural nobility to find a language through which to contest the claims of the absolutist imperial state. Also, the elite notions of where "Russia" lay appear to have shifted from the enlightened and virtuous "sons of the fatherland" found in 1760's St. Petersburg to rural estates like those inhabited by families such as Tatiana Larina's in Eugene Onegin.

Serfdom, like the army, seemed to have been means for repressive, and there were many instances of brutality in both institutions. But, in practice, landlords allowed their serfs considerable leeway. The risks of farming poor land were shared through communal land, and peasant liability for taxes and other dues was a collective responsibility.

The village community was a kind of "ghetto," confirming the cultural as well as social distance between the elite and the peasantry. The peasantry understood Russia to be guided by the principles of military power, religious morality and social equality. But they had no sense of territory beyond the village and no idea of a nation community.

They understood Russia as a community bound together by the Orthodox faith. Here the peasants worked their own beliefs into official religious doctrine and practice. What survived was a rigid peasant suspicion of the state.

The Orthodox church in Russia was subordinated to the state, as compared to Germany and England where the church was the center for their national language and culture.

Peter the Great abolished the Patriarchate. By the nineteenth century the Guardian of the Holy Synod were government ministers. Parishioners enjoyed little autonomy ( In 1868 there are parishioners, but there is no parish in the sense of the word). Priests were appointed and enjoyed a difficult relationship with their flock. The scriptures were not available to the masses in modern Russian version until after the middle of the nineteenth century.

Weak guilds and competition from other social groups hampered the development of bourgeois identity. Only Moscow merchants from mid-nineteenth century onwards had a balanced social force and a sense of national politics.

The literary elite champion a cosmopolitan, European outlook, which contributed further to the rift between elite culture, the church, and the ordinary people. It was left to Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevskii to re-connect the myth of "holy Russia" for a late nineteenth-century reader, by seeking to blend the idea of a suffering, compassionate narod (populist) and Russia's religious mission.

The new reading public, enlarged during the later years of the nineteenth century, gave importance to the idea of a "Russian nation." National identity grew with the use of symbols; currency, flag, anthem, postage stamps, sports, holidays and festivals. War and migration helped to introduce the peasantry to a new identity as they met their first "foreigners." Though, Russia's humiliation in the Crimean war developed a rift between state and society.

The 1841 ban against the sale of peasants did not overcome the political and cultural distance between the peasantry and their political masters. Peasant self-government established in 1861, though liberating the peasants from serfdom, created a problem economy for peasant agriculture by favouring the landowners in redistributing the land and by imposing an involved system of taxation on the villages. The Russian state did not crush the peasantry, and this failure confirmed the peasantry as the bearers of a communal tradition.

Although he foresaw many of the evils of Communism, 19th-century writer Fyodor Dostoevsky probably would be enormously unhappy at the breakup of the Russian empire, says one of the world's leading authorities on the author of Crime and Punishment.

Joseph Frank, professor emeritus of Slavic languages and literatures and of comparative literature, is finishing work on the fourth volume of his five-volume biography of Dostoevsky.

Dostoevsky, Frank said, hated the ancestors of the Communist regime, the radical intelligentsia of his time. While living in Switzerland in 1867, he attended a meeting of the Congress of Peace and Freedom, which had drawn a number of noted Russian revolutionaries including Mikhail Bakunin.

Summing up his reaction, Dostoevsky wrote in a letter that he had never heard such nonsense in his life.

His novel The Possessed savagely satirizes the radical ideologies of his day. In it, one of the radical characters says: "I began with absolute liberty and ended with absolute despotism. ANIMAL FARM? It's confusing, but there is no other solution."

The Possessed and other Dostoevsky works "kept undermining the Communist point of view all through the Soviet regime," Frank said.

At the same time, though, Dostoevsky was an intense nationalist who believed in the greatness of the Russian empire and saw it as the salvation of the world, Frank said.

"He thought that only in Russian Orthodoxy had the true image of Christ been preserved, and that this would create a new civilization of the future," the Stanford scholar said.

It was left to Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevskii to re-connect the myth of "holy Russia" for a late nineteenth-century reader, by seeking to blend the idea of a suffering, compassionate narod (populist) and Russia's religious mission.

"While in prison and exile Dostoevsky had associated closely with people of lower-class origins--peasants and poor city dwellers. He found that these common people identified the progressive intelligentsia (of which he himself had been a part before his arrest) with the land-owning, serf-holding classes. It was bitter for Dostoevsky to learn that those intellectuals, who worked for progress and improvement in the lives of the poor and disadvantaged, were considered by those whom they were trying to help to be not one whit better than those who were oppressing them. He was appalled at the convicts' deep and undiscriminating hatred for the upper classes. Dostoevsky began to feel that the only way to restore unity and harmony among Russians was for the educated upper classes to reject the imitation of European ways and ideas and to return to a uniquely Russian manner of life.

The specific characteristics of such a way of life would include the following: (1) a basis in family life, with patriarchal relations within families and democratic relations between families; (2) recognition of the primary importance of religion (that is, the Russian Orthodox church) and the religious way of life"

Robby

What may be of interest here in the Books is the fact that we do have a first lady who loves to read! Today's front page will not be visible tomorrow, so I'll include some excerpts here which I found interesting in the article:

"What's your favorite story?" one asks the president. "I like reading the Bible," he says. "There's a lot of good stories in that. And 'The Willie Mays Story.'" None of the children asks the first lady about her favorite book. It would be fascinating to hear her tell them about Dostoevski's "Brothers Karamazov." ( read that somewhere else too.)

Deep inside her very private life, the first lady may well be a woman whose passion is ideas. She laughs off this notion, but her hobbies are the solitary pursuits that captivate only those whose minds are engaged.

The voracious reading is one.

Her reading list reveals a certain intellectual rigor, like the complete works of Willa Cather. She is reading all of Edith Wharton's novels for a second time, along with a biography of Wharton. Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice president, gave her "Girl With the Pearl Earring," literary fiction inspired by a Vermeer painting.

"examine the psychology of his characters and try to get a handle on them as individuals. Perhaps collectively, they illustrate the Russian soul better than any other analysis I am capable of making."....LadyC

appetizers Ikra - Caviar, black or red. Served with eggs, bread and butter, or pancakes.

Gryby so smetanoi - Mushrooms with sour cream sauce. Served hot or cold and usually quite good.

Stolichny salat - The classic Russian salad. The main ingredient is potato; other ingredients depend on what is around that can be hidden by large quantities of mayonnaise.

Vinegrette - Pickled cabbage, potatoes, beets, carrots and onions are the basis of this salad.

Zalivnoye, Studen - Cold meat or fish covered with gelatin. Sometimes carrots, peas, can be found in there too.

Myasnoye/Rybnoye Assorti - Meat or fish cold cuts. The fishy variation can contain some rather salty aquatic specimens.

Salo - Thoroughly frightening slabs of pure fat. This Ukranian speciality is good news for your cardiologist.

---

Soup Most Russian soups are based on a few key ingredients: beets, cabbage, onions, garlic, carrots, potatoes, and stock of meat or bone, and are usually topped with a dollop of sour cream. The naming of soups depends on which ingredient receives the most emphasis or on any strange addition to the usual repertoire.

• Borshch is heavy on the beets,
• Shchi favors cabbage.
• Adding pickles to either borshch or shchi produces rassolnik
• Adding olives and tomato to rassolnik produces solyanka.
• Kharcho, a thick Georgian soup of meat, onions, tomato, rice, and spices.

---

Meat and Fish Kotlety - Russian hamburgers; the meat is usually cut with breadcrumbs and covered in a semi-sweet reddish sauce that resembles ketchup about as much as these resemble hamburgers.

Escalop - A typical slab of pork or veal cooked in a sour cream sauce.

Kotlety po-Kiyevsky - One of the most famous dishes, Chicken Kiev is a large fried chicken football stuffed with mushrooms and butter. A true expert can cut it in such a way as to squirt hot butter on fellow diners.

Beef Stroganov - In Russia Beef Stroganov is strips of meat with a thick creamy sauce.

Tsyplyonok tabaka - Fried chicken with garlic.

---

Dessert Tvorog - resembles cottage cheese and comes in various degrees of sweetness. Often it is served with sour cream or jam.

Blini - Russian pancakes, are a common dessert (though they sometimes double as an appetizer or as breakfast) and are often served with tvorog, sour cream, or jam.

Pirog - This can be a small pastry or a larger cake. Pastries are usually filled with apple, tvorog, jam, or cabbage.

Tort - Russian cakes. Lots of creamy frosting and usually extremely sweet.

Morozhenoye - Ice cream. Eaten with a vengeance both in cafes and on the street, regardless of the weather. On the street or in simpler establishments there are usually almost two flavors...call it one.

---

Blini are the main component of Russian board at Shrovetide, served as a symbol of Sun and Spring. Blini are also popular throughout a year, being served with different fillings and topped with sour cream or butter.

Difficulty Level: Easy
Time Required: 1 hour

1. Ingredients: 3 cups wheat flour; 3,5 cups milk; 1 teaspoon yeast; 3 eggs; 0.5 teaspoon salt; 2 teaspoon sugar; 0.5 lbs. butter; sour cream.
2. Dissolve the yeast and sugar in 1 cup of warm milk.
3. Add another 2.5 cup of milk.
4. Add salt, eggs, butter, 3 cups of flour and mix until the mixture is smooth.
5. Cover with a cloth and set aside in a warm place.
6. When the batter becomes bubbly, begin to bake blini on a pre-heated pan. Try not to disturb the batter as you bake blini.
7. Spread the blini with melted butter.

1.Serve the blini hot, topped with a spoonful of sour cream.
2.You may also serve the blini with red or black caviar instead of sour cream.

five dishes: fish-soup made of sterlets, served with little fish patties; then boiled fish served in a special way; then salmon cutlets, ice pudding and compote, and finally, blanc-mange.

• 3 lb Beets
• 3 tb Coarse Rock Salt; Kosher Not -Table Due To Additives In it.
• 1 sl Sourdough Bread
• 2 qt. Water, Up To 3 Maybe Needed
• 1 Square Cheesecloth And -String
• 1 ga. Glass Jar Or Stone Crock
• 4 qt. Jars, OR 8 pt. Jars

Any ready-made stuffing mix for fowl
Use Vodka instead of water
Throw in some raisins
Stuff it in a duck the insides of which are lined with mandarin orange slices
Bake it off at 350-375 20-30 min/lb (Slower and longer if its a wild duck)
Pour Vodka over the serving dish
Light it and stand by with a fire extinguisher


Charlie

Origin and Meaning of the Slavic Cross

It is common knowledge that the Cross is the primarily symbol of Christianity. It represents Christ's execution for the sins of humanity. The use of the Cross to identify Christianity and Christians was started by the Emperor Constantine. When he made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, he replaced the eagles, which symbolized the god Caesar, with the Cross of Christ. Different Christian traditions have developed a variety of Cross designs over the two millennium since Christ's death. One such Cross is the Slavic Cross used by the RussianOrthodox Church.

The Slavic Cross is unique in that it has three, not one, crossbars. In the early 800s AD, the Byzantines added the bottom crossbar to represent the location where Christ's feet were nailed to the Cross. This lower crossbar was placed in a horizontal position. Sometime between the 10th and 11th centuries (900s to 1000s), the Slavic Cross was designed with the lower crossbar placed at a sharp angle to the main vertical post of the Cross. As you look at the Slavic Cross, the left side of this crossbar is elevated. Why?

There are several possible explanations. Many believe that this was done as a visual condemnation to nonbelievers. By having an angled crossbar for Christ's feet, one foot would have been attached much higher, on the Cross, than the other, further intensifying His suffering.

Other explanations are more spiritual in nature. The right side of the crossbar (as you look out from the Cross) is higher to symbolize the second coming of Christ and life for believers/death for nonbelievers. Another popular belief is that the slanted crossbar speaks to the two thieves who were crucified to either side of Christ. In Scripture, the thief to Christ's right begged forgiveness and was promised, by Christ, eternal life (Lk 23:39-43). Thus, the raised side of the crossbar to the Cross' right. Likewise, to the Cross' left, was the thief who taunted Christ.

This explanation is probably the most widely accepted. In the prayers of the 9th hour, we read, Between the two thieves Thy Cross did prove to be a balance of righteousness: wherefore one of them was dragged down to Hades by the weight of his blasphemy; whereas the other was lightened of his transgressions unto the comprehension of theology. O Christ God, glory to Thee.

Most Western crosses include only one crossbar which represents Christ's outstretched arms. Some will add a small sign at the top of the Cross to represent that which was nailed to Christ's Cross by the Roman soldiers. Likewise, the Slavic cross adds a third crossbar not as wide as the primary crossbar. The inscription on this sign reads This is Jesus, the King of the Jews (Mt 27:37; Lk 23:28; Jn 19:19) It is, typically, inscribedin Aramaic.

Many believe that the Slavic Cross is the same as that of the Apostle Andrew, the first called of the apostles, who planted across in the Caucasus and predicted that agreat church would, someday, arise there. Today, St. Andrew's Cross is in the shape of a large X, the shape of the cross upon which the Apostle was crucified.

TOP CROSSBAR is where the plaque, which Pilate had nailed to the Cross, was placed. Here IC XC is inscribed. This is the Greek shorthand for Jesus Christ. Situated above this crossbar is the icon Not Painted by Hands, the face of Christ. On either side of the crossbar are adoring Angels. Beneath the Angels, instead of Pilate's inscription, it reads King of Glory.

SECOND CROSSBAR, which appears on all crosses, represents Christ's outstretched arms and the location where his hands were nailed to the Cross. Son of God is inscribed on either side of Christ's head. His halo bears the words, The Being and there is no crown of thorns. In the top corners of each end of the crossbar, there is the sun and moon. This refers to the prophecy of Joel; The sun hid its light and the moon turned to blood. Beneath Christ's arms, we read, Before Thy Cross we bow down, O Master, and Thy holy Resurrection we glorify.

The early Church celebrated one holy day for Christ's birth (nativity), acknowledgment as the Divine (visit of the Magi) and the onset of His ministry (Baptism). This was the Theophany celebrated on January 6/7th.

Later, the West divided this celebration; Nativity (Dec. 25), Epiphany (Jan. 6 or the proceeding Sunday) and Baptism (Sunday following Epiphany).

The Russian Orthodox Church followed the Julian or Old Calendar. Nativity of Our Lord (Christmas) ~ January 7th; New Year's Day ~ January 14th;Theophany (Christ's Baptism) ~ January 19th. The differences between East and West evolved after the Great Schism of 1054.

The Russian Orthodox Easter

Pascha (or Paskha) is the highest celebration of the Orthodox Church. Russian Orthodox churches will herald in the glorious event with a service, beginning at midnight on Pascha Sunday. After the service, proclaiming Christ's Resurrection, Easter baskets are blessed and shared. This signifies the end of the Great Lent, a forty day period of fasting.

Holiday fare includes paska, which is adorned with crosses made of raisins. The Paska is served with Easter sweet bread, or kulich, which is accompanied by vividly colored hard boiled eggs. Red is symbolic of Easter and beauty. Thus, most of the colored eggs are red. The main course of the traditional Pascha dinner is lamb or ham. Easter is a holiday for visiting friends and relatives. The traditional greeting is, Christ is risen, to which one would respond, Christ is truly risen

Great Snow scene during a Russian winter in the country.

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, and the time for mere lamentation over its evils was gone. Proof that the peasants were human beings, accessible to all human feelings, was no longer needed. New and far deeper problems concerning the life and ideals of the Russian people rose before every thinking Russian. Here was a mass of nearly fifty million people, whose manners of life, whose creed, ways of thinking, and ideals were totally different from those of the educated classes, and who at the same time were as unknown to the would-be leaders of progress as if these millions spoke a quite different language and belonged to a quite different race.

The best men felt that all the future development of Russia would be hampered by that ignorance, if it continued, and literature did its best to answer the great questions which besieged the thinking man at every step of his social and political activity.

The years 1858-1878 were years of the ethnographical exploration of Russia on such a scale that nowhere in Europe or America do we find anything similar. The monuments of old folklore and poetry; the common law of different parts and nationalities of the Empire; the religious beliefs and the forms of worship, and still more the social aspirations characteristic of the many sections of dissenters; the extremely interesting habits and customs which prevail in the different provinces; the economical conditions of the peasants; their domestic trades; the immense communal fisheries in southeastern Russia; the thousands of forms taken by the popular coöperative organisations (the Artels) ; the "inner colonisation" of Russia, which can only be compared with that of the United States; the evolution of ideas of landed property, and so on-all these became the subjects of extensive research.

The great ethnographical expedition organised by the Grand Duke Constantine, in which a number of the best writers took part, was only the forerunner of many expeditions, great and small, which were organised by the numerous Russian scientific societies for the detailed study of Russia's ethnography, folklore, and economics.

Russian educated society, which formerly hardly knew the peasants otherwise than from the balcony of their country houses, was thus brought in a few years into a close inter course with all divisions of the toiling masses; and it is easy to understand the influence which this intercourse exercised, not only upon the development of political ideas, but also upon the whole character of Russian literature.

The idealised novel of the past was now outgrown. The representation of "the dear peasants" as a background for opposing their idyllic virtues to the defects of the educated classes was possible no more.

---

The clergy in Russia-that is, the priests, the deacons, the cantors, the bell-ringers-represent a separate class which stands between "the classes" and "the masses"-much nearer to the latter than to the former. This is especially true as regards the clergy in the villages, and it was still more so mid-century.

Receiving no salary, the village priest, with his deacon and cantors, lived chiefly by the cultivation of the land that was attached to the village church; and in mid-nineteenth centure, in Central Russia, during the hot summer months when they were hay-making or taking in the crops, the priest would always hurry through the mass in order to return to their field-work.

The priest's house was in those years a log-house, only a little better built than the houses of the peasants, alongside which it stood sometimes thatched, instead of being simply covered with straw, that is, held in position by means of straw ropes. His dress differed from that of the peasants more by its cut than by the materials it was made of, and between the church services and the fulfilment of his parish duties the priest might always be seen in the fields, following the plough or working in the meadows with the scythe.

All the children of the clergy receive free education in special clerical schools, and later on, some of them, in seminaries; and it was by the description of the abominable educational methods which prevailed in these schools in the 1840s and 1850s. Both the lower and the higher schools were then in the hands of quite uneducated priests, chiefly monks, and the most absurd learning by rote of the most abstract theology was the rule. The general moral tone of the schools was extremely low, drinking went on to excess, and flogging for every lesson not recited by heart, sometimes two or three times a day, with all sorts of refinements of cruelty, was the chief instrument of education.

Monastery monks led a most dissolute life, drinking excessively, overeating, and stealing away from the monastery at night.

In the mining works of the Urals, in Permian village, or in the slums of St. Petersburg, "Podlípovtsy" the inhabitants of a small village Podlípnaya, lost somewhere in the mountains of the Uráls. They are Permians, not yet quite Russified, and are still in the stage which so many populations of the Russian Empire are in the mid-nineteenth century living through the early agricultural.

Few of them have for more than two months a year pure rye-bread to eat: the remaining ten months they are compelled to add the bark of trees to their flour in order to have "bread" at all. They have not the slightest idea of what Russia is, or of the State, and very seldom do they see a priest. They hardly know how to cultivate the land. They do not know how to make a stove, and periodical starvation during the months from January to July has taken the very soul and heart out of them. They stand on a lower level than real savages.

The leaders of these communities can count to five , tell others when to plough, knows how to get to the next town, try to find buyers for their communities domestic industry, generally take care of the villagers.

Heros featured in novels are the heros of endurance. Women are depicted seldom drinking are the heroines of persevering labor, of struggle for the necessities of life, as the female is in the whole animal world; and such the women are in real popular life in Russia.

Robby

Robby

Robby

I don’t know, Hats. I guess I’d agree with LadyC. Sometimes I think that thoughts such as expressed by the 18-year old FD to his brother are more at the front of consciousness for those of that age. More so than mid-lifers, or older. I’ve often felt that one is more likely – and it is easier in some respects – to integrate one’s thought in a worldview when we are younger. Time and ‘responsibilities’ changes our concerns, and our priorities. The day to day is more pressing than the long range. Lives are lived tactically, rather than strategically when we are “of a certain age.”

C

I have been going through the list in my mind of the people I know and those who are well capable of looking after their wordly affairs are "sensible" people. I wonder what D meant by "senseless?"

Robby

Robby

Robby

The more I read this book, the more I acclaim Dostoevsky for being an astute observer of human nature. All this may have taken place in Russia but doesn't it take place everywhere else?

Have you ever walked down the street, looked at a couple and said to yourself: "I wonder what he/she ever saw in him/her?" You might have added the thought: "Well, maybe she saw something in him that I don't see" but later find out that he was indeed the "nothing" that he appeared to be.

WHY? WHY? WHY?

Robby

From Hat's post from the foreward:

"Dmitry, Ivan and Alyosha are three aspects of Dostoevsky's personality, three stages of his spiritual way."

My forward mentions that Dostoevsky wrote a part of himself into each of the boys: Dmitry, Ivan and Alyosha."

"I have two novels* and only one life story. The main novel is the second - it is the action of my hero in our day, at the very present time. The first novel takes place thirteen years ago...I cannot do without this first novel because much in the second novel would be unintelligible without it. But in this way my original difficulty is rendered still more complicated: if I, that is the biographer himself, find that even one novel might perhaps be superfluous for such a modest and undefined hero, how can I appear with two, and from my point of view can I justify such presumption"

*According to Dostoevsky's wife, he had planned to start writing the second part in 1882 It was to take place in the 1880's. (He died in 1880.)

Robby

"Although the father is abhorrant to us, without any redeeming features..." ( Lady C)

"I'm not sure the father doesn't have any redeeming features. He seems to be constantly battling against himself and his worse features come out despite himself." Robby

I suppose it isn't much of a secret is it, that Dostoevsky names Alexei as his "hero" and the second novel which was never written, would have been his story.

Talk to you later... this is amazing!

Robby

Robby

Please don't share any more items which come later in the book.

Robby

"Characters and ideas do not evolve or develop, they appear simultaneously, in a decisive moment."

• His sentences tend to flounder most when he is most serious, notably when he talks about Alyosha Karamzov. But he can be quite pointed when skewering someone he does not like -- for instance, Pyotr Alexandrovish Miusov.
  
  
• Each major character in the novel has a distinct way of speaking...he delighted in the richness of spoken language, its playfulness, its happy mistakes, its revealing quirks and peculiarities.
  
  
• The Brothers Karamozov is, among many other things, a novel about the word in all senses, from the incarnete Word of God to the emptiest banality.
  
  
• The "auther" asserts that Alyosha is the hero of the novel. Many commentators have disagreed with him, as he suspected they might. They find Alyosha pale and unrealized as a character, too slight to bear the weight of the "positive message" Dostoevsky wanted him to carry. But why I wonder, would he give such a message to a young man of twenty who hardly has an original idea in his head?...His critics, who expected something else, overlook the delicacy with which he allows us to laugh at his hero...It is Alyosha"s first homely, earnest and unoriginal, but counter-pointed by a gentle comedy of style that lifts it into a new light.

I talked with a colleague, today. He taught The Brothers K this semester and is up on the criticism. He says that the story about D's father being murdered by his serfs was started by FREUD. It certainly fits into some of his theories well. From what is known Father D. did die on his grounds, but no one seems to have discovered how. It is not even known that he was murdered. He may have had an accident or a heart attack. At any rate, his murder by his own serfs is now a non-issue in Dostoevsky criticism.

Isn't it interesting that Freud invented the story of the murder?

Robby

Robby

MacAndrew ~ A Peculiar Family History

Garnett ~ History of a Family

Avsey ~ The Story of a Family

Pevear ~ A Nice Little Family

"...and the townhouse were in her name and he tried very hard to have them transferred. He probably would have succeeded because of the contempt and loathing his shameless exhortions and entreaties aroused in his wife, merely because of her emotional exhaustion ~ anything to be rid of him."

Have a good day everyone! A NICE one too!

Robby

Robby

Robby

Robby

Reminds me of a significant number of people I see like that. They glory in being a martyr and acting the victim. If life gets just a bit happier for them, they immediately find some other negative thing about which they can "brag."

Robby

There have been thoughts expressed that FD is writing of himself (in Fyodor)! At this point I remain unconvinced - but after these few short pages it would perhaps be wise to reserve judgment. So I shall.

And a confession. I tend not to get hung up on the meaning of the turn of odd phrase here and there. I just put it down to fractured translation. We've seen this before in translated novels. Joan has pointed out one example of a translation that is simpler, straightforward, and clear - leaving no doubt as to intended meaning. I believe that in many translated phrases, there is no great mystery behind them other than a lazy translation.


Charlie

A very common trait. I see this all the time -- for example, the family caretaker who is worn out from years of caring for an invalid parent and finally takes him or her to a nursing home. Breathes with a sigh of relief at regaining one's own life yet wracked with guilt when thinking of the parent who is now "warehoused."

Ambivalence. Cognitive dissonance. Moral fatigue?

Robby

"As a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naïve and simple-hearted than we suppose. And we ourselves are, too."

I'm going to put it in the heading right now so we keep it in front of us as we puzzle through this elusive character.

I searched and found some interesting on Doestoevsky's prototype for Papa Karamazov. Will bring it up as soon as I get it abbreviated and organized. Want to spare you!.

That is funny, Hats! ...you do have a sense of humor! He says something else to Alyosha in this same passage that made me smile too...

"I'm ready to believe in hell, but without a ceiling. It makes it more refined, more enlightened, more Lutheran that is."

Carolyn, you also picked up on the droll observation of the romantic suicide spot! when speaking of something really serious, potentially tragic, D. is injecting a does of humor that has us smiling!

I will have to say again, that I cannot understand Adelaida running off and leaving little Dmetri in that house, but will have to settle for cultural differences and let it go. She had to get out, she knew that her husband had custody of her son, because that was just how it was at the time? I still that a mother's love and protection for her child is basic, universal instinctive ~ throughout the animal kingdom. But will have to let her run off to a better life with the divinity student.

Let's look at what happened to the child that she left behind...and Adelaida's cousin, Pyotr Miusov's reasons for wanting to take on the responsibility of the little waif. Why?

Robby

"Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence."

I love the question, Jo & Betty "How does the question about Fyodor K. being the repository fit with the theory of the 3 sons representing 3 aspects of Dostoevsky?" Will get it up right away!

"...(the liberation of the serfs) This issue was especially of interest to Fyodor, who had been exposed to the cruelties of serfdom early in his life. He had a deep hatred of the institution of serfdom, which was perhaps rooted in his guilt towards the murder of his father. It was thought that Mikhail Andreevich was murdered by his own serfs during a particularly violent bout of anger towards them. Fyodor, while he was in no way associated with the death (he was in school in Saint Petersburg at the time), none the less felt guilt. Part of this may have been due to his incessant nagging for more money from his father during his last few years. (Sounds like Dmetri?)

But this morning, I came across this piece:

"Dostoevsky was born in Moscow, as the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to St. Petersburg, where he entered the Army Engineering College. In 1839 Dostoevsky's father died propably of apoplexy but there was strong rumors that he was murdered by his own serfs." http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/fdosto.htm

What exactly is apoplexy?

"...(the liberation of the serfs) This issue was especially of interest to Fyodor, who had been exposed to the cruelties of serfdom early in his life. He had a deep hatred of the institution of serfdom, which was perhaps rooted in his guilt towards the murder of his father. It was thought that Mikhail Andreevich was murdered by his own serfs during a particularly violent bout of anger towards them. Fyodor, while he was in no way associated with the death (he was in school in Saint Petersburg at the time), none the less felt guilt. Part of this may have been due to his incessant nagging for more money from his father during his last few years. (Sounds like Dmetri?)

But this morning, I came across this piece:

"Dostoevsky was born in Moscow, as the second son of a former army doctor. He was educated at home and at a private school. Shortly after the death of his mother in 1837 he was sent to St. Petersburg, where he entered the Army Engineering College. In 1839 Dostoevsky's father died propably of apoplexy but there was strong rumors that he was murdered by his own serfs." http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/fdosto.htm

What exactly is apoplexy?

"Exactly three months after Sofya Ivanovana's death, the generals's widow suddenly appeared in our town (there's that narrator again!)...Instantly upon seeing (Fyodor drunk) she gave him two resounding slaps on the face, seized him by a tuft of hair, and shook him three times up and down. (Physical Russian "lady" again!).

Then without a word, she went straight to the cottage to the two boys. Seeing them...unwashed and in dirty linen, she promptly gave Grigory too a box on the ear...Grigory accepted the blow like the devoted slave, ...made her a low bow and pronounced that 'God would repay her for the orphans.' 'You're a blockhead all the same', the old lady shouted as she drove away.

"Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but, the miracle from faith."

My BK translation is by Constance Garnett; the edition was published by BN 1995 and contains a copyrighted Introduction (no author given).

Now, as to "senseless" :

As a translator and linguist by training (Russian is one of my languages), I am in a position to say that the specific translation of any given term,, like "senseless" e.g. , is the interpretation, the definition of the respective translator. That is very significant point, for a DIFFERENT translator at a DIFFERENT time may convey the same term slightly differently.

For precisely that reason I suggest that we not cling tenaciously to each and every word but, rather, read, savor, "take in", form impressions - in other words, get to the SUBSTANCE . After all, it is the story that counts, the plot, not the form, or one or two words.

Consider how many translations of the ODYSSEY e.g. were made over the last century or two - or of Dante's INFERNO, for that matter- ALL based on the SAME original text ! Clearly, it is the interpretation of the individual translator that makes any work specia. And yes, a translator's work is definitely subjective to a certain extent, and not all translations - especially of contemporary works, I found - are good. Some are quite bad.

One other point : Tartars, also TATARS, are a Mongolian tribe and NOT synomymous with (modern) Turks.

Lastly, would it possible to cite the specific source when quoting extensively from a reference work ? That would be helpful.

Onward... this is going to be long --------

He owned an estate that bordered on the monastery lands. He disputed the clericals on hunting and fishing rights..."he regarded it his duty as a citizen to open an attack upon the "clericals."

He at one time had "been interested" in his cousin Adelaida, and so when he returned home he got himself appointed "joint guardian" of Dmitri, who owned a small property left to him by his mother. He made some sort of a deal with Karamazov, and took Dmitri to one of his aunts "once removed" who lived in Moscow...and went back to Paris to take part in the Revolution.

"In his declining years he was very fond of describing the three days of the Paris Rovolution of February, 1848, hinting that he himself had almost taken part in the fight on the barricaades."

He forgot Dmitri too! The very fact that he will return to the story and become a "player" is of great interest to me. I think he's worth noting.

Poor Dmitri! What kind of a life is this? No bonding, no affection, no nothing...Hats, I guess I can understand why the boy finally makes his way home to claim some of his inheritance. Don't understand why the other boys came "home" though!

"Dostoevsky first stayed in Staraya Russia (Old Russia), a sizable town and spa about 125 miles south of Petersburg in 1872. He spent every summer but one thereafter in the town, remaining well into autumn, sometimes later, and wrote most of The Brothers Karamazov there.

He spent the winter of 1874 in Staraya. There he heard a story of a terrible crime . He wrote in his notebook an idea for a future plot.

Another terrible event took place in the town in 1870 close to his home. He took many notes on the story of a man named Major General K.K. von Sohn...a "rapacious man, trying every possible way to make money."

"The inhabitants of Staraya Russia were struck while reading Dostoevsky's novel byt the resemblance of Fyodor Karamazov to the von Sohn who lived among them. they could not fail to notice that one of Karamazov's sons was a carouser while the other was disntinguished by his piety- just like the sons of the Major General.

In Dostoevsky's day town gossip persistently connected von Sohn and his sons with the novel's heroes. It is interesting to note that among the inhabitants of Staraya Russia that conviction still exists."

There was something about him which made one feel at once (and it was so all his life afterwards) that he did not care to be a judge of others that he would never take it upon himself to criticise and would never condemn anyone for anything. He seemed, indeed, to accept everything without the least condemnation though often grieving bitterly: and this was so much so that no one could surprise or frighten him even in his earliest youth. Coming at twenty to his father's house, which was a very sink of filthy debauchery, he, chaste and pure as he was, simply withdrew in silence when to look on was unbearable, but without the slightest sign of contempt or condemnation. His father, who had once been in a dependent position, and so was sensitive and ready to take offence, met him at first with distrust and sullenness. "He does not say much," he used to say, "and thinks the more." But soon, within a fortnight indeed, he took to embracing him and kissing him terribly often, with drunken tears, with sottish sentimentality, yet he evidently felt a real and deep affection for him, such as he had never been capable of feeling for anyone before.

C

He visited western Europe, hired teachers to take back to Russia with him, founded the Russian navy and reorganized the Russian army. Among wide-ranging reforms he instituted obligatory service to the state by the gentry, virtually imposing Western ideas and customs on his subjects. By driving out the Swedes, he gained Russian outlets on the Baltic Sea and, on the marshes of the Baltic at the mouth of the Neva river, he built Russia's "window on the west", St. Petersburg, which he made the capital.

Peter's reforms created Russian civilization and set the direction for the immense country's next 200 years, and it is important to note that his introduction of Western ways to the Russian gentry laid the basis for the split between the upper classes and the peasntry , a split that was to plague Russian society until the 1917 revolution.

x-x-x-x

BK is a dense work of great complexity and D. sets the scene carefully (with the aid of an unnamed narrator) so that the reader be aware of all ramifications of the family history. I agree with Betty that we simply read what the author tells us about each of the characters. And yes, it is important to "listen" while reading how each of them talks, and sounds.

The introduction(s) given in some books are, to be sure, helpful to the 21st century reader, especially for historical context, but they do represent an evaluation of sorts by the author of the respective introduction - and BTW, there IS one in mine; his name is Jon Surgal.

Perhaps some salient biographical points are permissible. I have gleaned them from a seminal work by Leonid Grossman DOSTOEVSKY : HIS LIFE AND WORK (1962) translated by Mary Mackler (1975), and from DOSTOEVSKY - REMINISCENCES by Anna Dostoevsky (his second wife who survived him), translated and edited by Beatrice Stillman, with an introduction by Helen Muchnic.

D.was the second of 8 children. The mother was a kind soul who succumbed to TB in 1837; the father, a stern, rigid man who regularly beat his serfs but considered himself "a good Christian" was murdered by his serfs in 1839.

Money, or the lack of it, played an important role in D.'s life (and it does in BK). To escape his creditors, he and Anna wandered the continent for years; his gambling ruinous.

D. suffered from epilepsy.

To get back to Leonid Grossman (who died in 1965) : this important Soviet literary scholar and outstanding authority on D., was UNABLE to publish anything about the author because D. was held in "official disrepute" until the mid-19-fifties. We know that D. started BK in 1878 and the unknown narrator tells us that the story begins 13 years earlier. That would bring us to 1865. That then is the period of Russian history with which the reader is concerned.

Sorry this is getting long and I will now return to read (the book and your posts - all wonderful).

" Their father taught them Latin, of which he had acquired a good knowledge at the Podolosk Seminary and the Medical Academy. With his usual sternness, he would interrput their recitals of declensions and conjugations at the slightest error with shouts of 'Sluggards' !, 'Dolts' ! and, pushing aside the old Bantyshev textbook, would stalk our in anger. It is no wonder that Dos. never manifested any interest in Latin language or literature and that the only classical Roman poet he ever mentioned was Juvenal - and even that was in quoting someone else."

pg. 38 ff, subchapter The Murder of Dos.'s Father, from the beginning.

"The harshsness of Mikhail Andreevich Dos.'s character was imperceptibly preparing disaster for him. Having gone into seclusion in Darovoe with the younger Children after his wife's dath, he let himself deteriorate and became crueller than ever. 'One summer day', Lyubov Dyodorovna, Dos.'s daughter, wrote : 'he set out from Darovoe for his other property, Cheremoshna, an never returned. He was later found halfway there, suffocted by a cushion from the carriage. The driver had vanished along with the horses. Several peasants from the village disappeared at the same time. Other of my grandfather's serfs testified that this was an act of regence : the old man had always been very hard on is serfs. Themore he drank the more savage he became.'

There are other family versions of this event, one told by Dos.'s younger brother Andrei, who was living with his father at the time :

' his passion for alcohol was apparently growing more intense, and he was almost always in an abnormal state ...[On 8 June, 1839] a gang of about ten to fifteen men were working together in a field in Cheremoshna on the edge of a forest. Infurirated by something the peasants did wrong, or perhaps it only seemed so to him, Father lost his temper and began to shout very angrily. One of the bolder peasants said something extremely rude in reply and then, fearing the consequences of this, called out : ' Come on fellows, let's do him in !' With this exclamation, all fifteen peasants fell pon Father and, of course, finished him off in an instant. '

This account presents a general picture of the event, but it remains in the realm of supposition and cannot be considered authentic. No witness to the murder came forward, no evidence about it was preserved, none of the murderers was discovered, no judicical enquiry took place. The son wanted to make his father's horrible death seem as presentable as possible; but the facts were apparently quite different.

Almost the only important step taken by the l aw officers who investigated the crime was to order an autopsy, as Andrei Dos. himself reported. The autopsy record has not come down to us but the family knew what it contained, and not everyone kept silent about it. Dos.'s niece, Maria Alexandrovna Ivanova, who lived in Drovoe at the end of her life, told V.S. Nechaeva in 1926 that the murder had been committed without bloodshed and that therefore no signs of violent death were to be found on the body. At that time Danila Makarov and Andrei Savushkin, who had been serfs in Darovoe, gave the same testimony. A staff member of the newspaper Krasnaya Niva (Red Ploughland) reported that same year, 1926, that he had been told by some Darovoe peasants that three peasants from Cheremoshna had made up their minds to kill their cruel mast. 'As soon as he came through the gate the three men fell upon him. They did not beat hin, of course; they did not want to leave marks. They had a bottle of spirits ready, poured the whole bottle down the master's throat and then gagged him with a kerchief. This suffocated him.'

The records concerning this crime make clear that apart from the general hatred all peasant felt for proprietors, there were some who had special grounds for personal enmity against Dos.'s father.

One of the conspirators, Isaev, had a duaghter, Akulina, was only fourteen at the time of the murder. She had been taken into the house by the master's wife; so it must have been prior to 1836, when she was no more than 10 or eleven. She was very pretty. The master kept her on in the house after Maria Fyodorovna's death and even had her assist him in his medical practice.

Anothr participant in the murder, the peasant Yefimov, had a niece named Katya, whog rew p with his own children. Maria Fyodorovna had taken her into the house as a chambermaid when she was fourteen. Katya was, in Andrei Dos.'s words, 'full of fire'. After his wife's death the doctor made sixteen-year old Katya his mistress and fathered a chld by her, which died soon afterwards.

Mikhail Andreevich Dois.'s death can be interpreted as VENGEANCE FOR A WOMAN. When one considers that two of the murderers, and perhaps all four, had close female relatives among old Do.'s home serfs and that the name of Katya's uncle is first among the persons named as murderers (the murder took place in the yard of the house in which Katya was raised), this interpretation seems to be confirmed.' (says Nechaeva).

However, this was probably not the only motive for the crime. The 'abnormally quick temper and suspicious disposition of the alcoholic proprietor who vented his misfortunes and depression on his peasants' probably seved as the chief cause. What we know about his end from these records brings out very clarly the theme of the dissolute conduct of Dos. (his behaviour towards peasant girls).

Tne murdered man's body lay in the field for two days. The law officers who came from Kashira to investigate mae no discoveries. They had probably been bribed by the murdered man's relatives, who were at pains to cover up his disgraceful end.

According to family tradition (reported also by Fyodor Dos.'s daughter), when the news of his father;'s death reached Dos., he had his first serious attack of convulsions and fainting, a condition that was diagnosed much later as epilepsy.

....

....

This was one of the most tragic chaptrs in Dios.'s family chronicle. The writer's daughter spoke of it in her memoirs : All his life long he analysed the reasons for that horrible death. When he was working on the characterization of Fyodor Karamazov, perhaps he recalled his father's miserliness, which caused his sons so much suffering and angered them so, and his drunkenness and the physical revulsion he inspired in his children. The celebrated novelist said nothing about this for forty years. But in the novel he wrote before his death he expanded his father's obitu

replace the words I lost in trying :

...obituary into a shocking tale of sin, vice and crime.

Now I throw myself on your mercy and hope you will overlook the typos.

I am not sure I understand the question about Freud. Will try to find the earlier post. Perhaps someone could be so kind as to provide the post #. Many thanks

"It is of that brother Alexey I find it most difficult to speak in thie introduction, before bringing him on the scene in the novel. Yet I must give some preliminary account of him,if only to explain one queer fact, which is that I have to introduce the future hero of the novel to the reader wearing the cassock of a novice."

" The peculiar genius of Dost. as a psychological novelist was his ability to portray massive ambivalence in clinical detail while maintaining a cohesive and complex narrative form. Add to this the particular genius he displayed in The Brothers Karamazov by creating from his own conflicted temperament a disintegrated family which when brought together creates a synthesis representative of the human condition (it is no accident that the brothers all come together for the first time as the novel opens), and Dos. may be said to have preceded Freud in the matter of paradigmatic self-analysis. Combine Ivan's assertion of the universal will to parricide with the competition between Dmitri and Old Karamazov for the alluring Grushenka (from grusha meaning "pear", suggesting forbidden fruit), and you end up with something much like Freud's Oedipal scenario. Karamazovshchina may be seen to represent the wellspring of instinctual drives which Freud identified as the id. Consider also Dos.'s sophisticated grasp of the death instinct (which Freud at first perceived as a strictly Russian phenomenon !) and his profound understanding of ambivalence, including the sadomasochism he calls "laceration" ( nadryv), and you can see why Freud would come to admit that 'inspite of all my admiration for Dostoevsky's intensity and pre-eminence, I do not really like him.'

True, Freud had a number of reasons to dislike Russians at the time (1927) that he wrote his essay titled "Dostoevsky and Parricide" - he was descended from Lithuanian Jews, his sons had fought on the Eastern Front in the First World War, and he was disillusioned with the Soviet experiment - but his personal resentment of Dostoevsky must, I think, be seen in the same light as his refusal to acknowledge the influence of Nietzsche : where his forerunners were concerned, Freud was not above acting out his own Oedipal will to parricide. Psychoanalysis did not come to Freud as a virgin, and its flower may very well belong in the worn lapel of his intellectual father, Dostoevsky."

If I may say so, we ought to leave it alone, at least for the time being. We are not looking, after all, for similarities or parallels. Let's not lose sight of the fact that we are reading a very long, complicated book with many involved, LONG dialectic discourses ahead of us,and THAT is our object, right ?

Re the beginning of your post, Betty:

it has been pointed out here, and is specifically mentioned in the introductions which some of your translations carry, that the brothers K, all four of them, represent in fact the various aspects of the author's own personality .

In fact, we are reading now only a prologue- if I may call it that: the characters are introduced one by one, the scene is being set carefully (with some astonishingly detailed observations of people), we begin to see motivations, aspirations, filial loyalty, enmity, rivalries, and violence barely smoldering under the surface, but the FULL story proper will unfold AFTER the unlamented death of father K. with elemental force and demand our full concentration.

How the author's own father was killed, or WHETHER he was in fact murdered and, if so, by whom, does not really matter in the scheme of things, IMHO.

Therefore, full speed ahead ! Thanks, Betty

The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact. Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognised by him. Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith.

But D. is saying in this passage, that reality is in the eye of the beholder. For some, miracles are unacceptable because they cannot be explained in measures of reality...for others, those of faith, miracles are very real...

I think it is important to understand this because of what is going on in Russia at this time...the Socialist, atheist and the believing clerical", with the populace divided.

"He was only twenty, his brother Ivan was in his 24th year at the time, while their elder brother Dmitry was twenty-seven."

Chapter 5 titled ELDERS says in the second sentence

"Alyosha was at that time a well-grown. red-cheeked, clear-eyed lad of NINETEEN (!) ..."

I find such apparent inconsistencies a little annoying.

A quick comment concerning Pyotr, the relative who first rescues little Mitya. In the second paragraph we read "He had an independent property of about a thousand souls , to reckon in the old style."

Interesting ! To measure wealth in terms of the number of "souls" i.e. serfs one possessed !

Actually, there are four sons- with the illegitimate Smerdyakov.

"He lived in the cell of the Elder, who was very fond of him and let him wait upon him.

It must be noted that Alyosha, who lived in the monastery at that time, was bound by no obligation and could go where he pleased and be absent for whole days. though he work monateic dress it was voluntarily, not to be different from the others."

PH-E-E-E-W!!

Robby

"I'll never desert you, my angel. I'll pay what's wanted for you there, if they ask for it. But, if they don't ask, why should we worry them."

"We shall briefly describe here the position of elder ("starets" in Russian) which, although rarely encountered today, is frequently mentioned in Orthodox literature. Properly understood, eldership is not a position or rank but a gift granted by God to those of exceptional spiritual caliber and therefore not limited necessarily to monks. Eldership cannot be taken upon oneself; an elder is one recognized by others as possessing outstanding spiritual discernment and wisdom, someone to whom both monastics and lay people come for guidance. The elder, or eldress, must not be confused with the hermit, although frequently an elder will have spent time in the eremitic life before blossoming forth with the gift of eldership." (Text from a translation of the Monastery of the Veil, France)

Shine within our hearts, loving Master, the pure light of Your divine knowledge and open the eyes of our minds that we may comprehend the message of your Gospel. Instill in us, also, reverence for Your blessed commandments, so that having conquered sinful desires, we may pursue a spiritual life, thinking and doing all those things that are pleasing to You. For You, Christ our God, are the light of our souls and bodies, and to You we give glory together with Your Father who is without beginning and Your all holy, good, and life giving Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen.

"Thus, it is erroneous to set reason against faith; they complement and reinforce each other. Reason is for searching out, proving and substantiating. It protects faith from delusion and humanity from fanaticism. Faith, on the other hand, is the driving force that opens new horizons, elevates us to new heights To be a Christian is to be a great realist.

He's described as a liberal, a freethinker and an atheist. It is suggested that he is going out of boredom, hoping for diversion with the elder.



No wonder Alexei was "perturbed" when he hears of the family visit! Doesn't the non-judgemental Alexei remind you very much of the elder? I wonder why he doesn't have more confidence in the ability of his elder to handle the situation...any situation?

"Orthodoxy and the bishop of Rome separated from one another in a schism that culminated in 1054. SCHISM

So I would like to thank Barbara for having given us earlier a wonderful link, as in "eye-opener" , to the beautiful sights of St. Petersburg (later called "Leningrad"), which few of us- I daresay- have seen in person. When reading a classic, especially one written a century and half ago, we need all the reference help we can get, especially since some of us don't have the time to undertake the search ourselves.

As for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostomos in post # 365, it should be noted FIRST that it = i.e. the liturgy quoted, (as ANY liturgy, and there are a few besides the original Roman Catholic missal), is intended for the faithful, for the flock; it is memorized and recited, often quite automatically (without thinking, alas).

SECOND : EXHORTATIONS, really guidelines, are commonplace, and what else are the Ten Commandments ? Religious fervor, of course, is nothing new, in fact it is timeless and varies in intensity (and place) : Just think of Giovanni Savonarola in 15th century Florence and (what has changed ????) the Taliban destruction of that colossal Buddha only recently !

Moreover, missionary zeal is not limited- as we well know- to religious convictions --- just look at the case of Lori Berenson in present-day Peru NOW!

THIRD - addressed to MOON DANCER : Please cite the exact words and lines in that liturgy which 'imply' what you say they do.

FOURTH If my understanding is correct, we are here to discuss a book the world considers a classic. A book in toto, warts and all, a tome actually, but whatever point of you view it expresses, religious, political or whatever else, is that of the author alone.

The theological aspect is only one of the threads the author has woven together in this book. It is no secret- and has probably been mentioned in your introduction - that Dostoevsky was a glowing patriot, firmly convinced that Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church were destined to emerge as the light of the world. (The poor man has probably turned in his grave several times since ...)

With apologies to the discussion leaders, may I be so bold as to suggest that we suspend theological discussion for now and go on reading -- lest we be here for a

Mikhail Iuryevich Lermontov in his poem "Do not, do not believe yourself" he wrote the line The chafings of a mind imprisoned His writings were severely censored during his lifetime because of his passionate advocacy of freedom and his antireligious attitudes, but they did much to arouse interest in the folklore of the Russian people.

I could not find the poem -

Lermontov's grandmother's home the Mikhail Lermontov State Museum

This is a great site Important Names, Dates, Russian Terms - Imperial Russia, 1682-1918

A crisis of the "third Rome" ideology occurred in the middle of the 17th century. Nikon (reigned 1652-58), a strong patriarch, decided to restore the power and prestige of the church by declaring that the patriarchal office was superior to that of the tsar. He forced the tsar Alexis Romanov to repent for the crime of his predecessor against St. Philip and to swear obedience to the church. Simultaneously, Nikon attempted to settle a perennial issue of Russian church life: the problem of the liturgical books. Originally translated from the Greek, the books suffered many corruptions through the centuries and contained numerous mistakes. In addition, the different historical developments in Russia and in the Middle East had led to differences between the liturgical practices of the Russians and the Greeks. Nikon's solution was to order the exact compliance of all the Russian practices with the contemporary Greek equivalents. His liturgical reform led to a major schism in the church. The Russian masses had taken seriously the idea that Moscow was the last refuge of Orthodoxy. They wondered why Russia had to accept the practices of the Greeks, who had betrayed Orthodoxy in Florence and had been justly punished by God, in their view, by becoming captives of the infidel Turks. The reformist decrees of the patriarch were rejected by millions of lower clergy and laity who constituted the Raskol, or schism of the "Old Believers." Nikon was ultimately deposed for his opposition to the tsar, but his liturgical reforms were confirmed by a great council of the church that met in the presence of two Eastern patriarchs (1666-67).

Paissy (Paisius Velichkovsky) Velichkovsky (1722-1794): studied at Kiev, spent time on Mt. Athos, and after 1763 became the abbot of Niamets in Romania. He produced a Slavonic translation of the Philokalia, published at Moscow in 1793. He taught the practice of continual prayer (the Jesus Prayer) and stressed the importance of obedience to a staretz. Paissy's disciples travelled to Russia and inspired the spiritual revival there. Canonized by the Russian Church in 1988. Dostoevsky owned a copy of the 1854 edition of his translation of the homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian, a seventh-century monk.

Inspired by the example and teachings of St. Paisius Velichkovsky, Abbot Philaret truly became the awakener and spiritual founder of the monastery which became renowned for its eldership and wide-ranging charitable undertakings. Already at the close of the 19th century, the Glinsk Hermitage encompassed 5 churches, 4 house churches, 15 buildings to house the residents, 8 hostels for the faithful, a refectory, a laundry, a hospital with a pharmacy, and many household buildings, including 4 waterwheel-powered mills. The monastery included a vocational school in which up to 50 boys, primarily orphans, were educated. Approximately 400 people lived at the monastery.

The elder Zosiman is modeled in part on the elder Amvrosy of Optina (1812-91)

In 1453, the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, which released the Russian Orthodox Church from Byzantium's domination. Eight years later the Orthodox Church changed the title of the metropolitan of Kiev to the patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. For the first time, the Church was run by the grand-prince in Moscow, which further enhanced the power of Moscovy.

In the 19th century, Optina reached a high level of spiritual development, attracting literally thousands of pilgrims among whom were the famous Russian writers Dostoevsky and Gogol.

Optina Hermitage is located in what is currently known as the Kaluga Region, several kilometers from the district center of Kozelsk. Concerning the time of the founding of the Hermitage, no written information has been preserved. Only certain traditions exist.

According to one of these, the Hermitage was founded by a repentant robber named Opts, from whom it received its name. This former robber, torn by pangs of conscience, settled in the remote, inaccessible place amidst the dense pine forests to expiate his sins in prayer. Soon, when other people heard about his solitary life, they were drawn thither seeking solitude. And so a small monastery sprung up.

Another tradition exists, according to which the monastery was founded by Prince Vladimir the Brave. In any event, Optina Hermitage is one of Russia's ancient monasteries.

Written traces of Optina Hermitage date from 1603. By this time already a wooden church had been built in it, around it there were six cells, and the monastery was headed by Hieromonk Theodore. The monastery was granted land for gardens and orchards by Tsar Theodore Michailovich, and also a mill not far from Kozelsk. it is known that already in 1689 a stone church in honor of the Entry Into the Temple was built in the monastery by the Shepelev boyars.

The reforms of Peter the Great told unfavorable on the Optina Hermitage. The monastery mill and land were taken by the state. The monastery became impoverished and in the middle of the 18th century was altogether suppressed. Thus ended the first period of Optina Hermitage's existence.

In 1795, Platon, the Metropolitan of Moscow, traveled around his extensive diocese and he visited Optina. The site and the natural surroundings pleased him, and he decided to restore the monastery. Abraamius, a monk from one of the monasteries near Moscow, was appointed, and he brought with him twelve monks from his monastery. At Optina Hermitage he found only three aged inhabitants, and he began to work on the monastery's restoration.

He brought church utensils, icons, vestments and set to work at rebuilding the hermitage. He built an infirmary and a church attached to it in honor of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God. He built a bell-tower and cells for the monastics, and he laid out a large garden. But the main thing Abraamius did was to establish order in the monastery's spiritual life.

Theophanes, the disciple of the famous Athonite ascetic Archimandrite Paisius Velichkovsky,came unto Abraamius and became an example for the brethren of the monastery. Theophanes together with Abraamius established a coenobitic monastery, according to the rule of Mount Athos, and in a comparatively short time gained the esteem of the surrounding inhabitants.

In 1817, Hegumen Abraamius died. Hegumen Daniel directed Optina Hermitage--from 1819 to 1825.

The flowering of Optina Hermitage is tied with --Moses Putilov-who directed the monastery for 37 years, from 1826 to 1862. He is considered one of the most prominent personalities in the history of the Russian Church during the 19th century. The bishop elevated Moses to the priestly rank of hieromonk and appointed him abbot of Optina Hermitage. He displayed exceptional abilities as a builder, organizer and spritual director. He invited Leonid--a disciple of Velichkovsky--to Optina, and he became the first elder of the Hermitage.

The brethren increased significantly during the years of Moses' abbacy. While at the beginning of the twenties of the 19th century there were only 40 monastics, by the middle of the fifties their number had risen to three hundred.

The glory of the Optina elders extended far beyond the bounds of the Hermitage. People, peasants and workers, landowners, writers and thinkers, clergy and those thirsting for the monastic struggle, came from all over the immense land of Russia for their counsel and consolation, and in this way the glory of Optina Hermitage spread throughout the whole Orthodox world.

In May of 1862, Hegumen Moses, the superior and regenerator el' Optina Hermitage, died. Hermitage was adorned by the Elders Ambrose, Anatole, Joseph, Barsanuphius and Nectarius, who already lived in the 20th century.

Many great people of the 19th and early 20th centuries visited Optina Hermitage. In one way or another, Optina Hermitage is reflected in the works of many Russian writers, and in their biographies. (1881), Count Leo Tolstoy sets out on a pilgrimage to the Optina-Pustyn monastery, disguised as a peasant but accompanied by two bodyguards who carry a suitcase full of clean clothes.

The October Revolution of 1917 brought an end to the second period of Optina Hermitage. The Optina elders foresaw relentless pressure by the authorities quickly caused it to be extinguished. Its elders departed into eternity, and the remainder of the brethren were expelled. The buildings of the Hermitage were utilized for a children's home, for holding juvenile delinquents.

In 1988, Optina Hermitage was returned to the Moscow Patriarchate and at the current time its restoration is going ahead at full speed. Elder Ambrose was canonized as a Saint at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra during the celebration commemorating the millennium of the Baptism of Russia. Choir of the monastery of St. Tikhon of Kaluga, near Optina Monastery

---

Napravnik's Hall in Mariinsky. Link to the life of Napravnik

The Caucasus mountains have from time immemorial been at the crossroads of cultures. Once a barrier between early urban civilizations in Mesopotamia and their trade centres in the south, and nomad cultures in the steppes of the north, the scene changed when Scythians and Sarmatians, and other linguistically Iranian tribes penetrated the mountains displacing each other.

Both Greek and Roman colonies reached up to the shores of the Black Sea, as did mounted Turkish nomad tribes from the Altai mountains in Mongolia such as the Iluns (Aluns) taking the Steppes.

Beginning with the 4th century many peoples in the western part of the Caucasus were converted to Christianity from what later became Georgia, while the eastern parts came under the influence of the Iranian Sasanids. The Arabs brought Islam in the seventh century.

Out of Turkish and Iranian tribes, defeated Huns and indigenous Caucasians came a new people, the Khazars. By 650 they had established a stable state with trading routes across the Caucasus. Each conquest resulted in migrational processes in the region. The conquerors brought thousands of immigrant families, while those conquered were either killed or assimilated, others emigrated or sought refuge in the mountains.

The process of change, changing patterns of settlement as well as blending and superseding of ethnic linguistic and religious groups continued during Mongol raids in the 13th century. Ghenghis Khan's troops crossed the Caucasus mountains from the south forcing the local population up into the high mountains.

In 1227 Ghenghis Khan's grandson Batu with 120,000 men, predominately Turks, moved westward and firmly established The Khanate of the Golden Horde, also known as the Kipehak Khanate, in the North Caucasus. It became the strongest power north of the mountains, and dominated Russia until the 14th century while the Il-Khan Empire, the Persian successor state of Ghengis' Empire extended to the south. At the turn of the 14th and 15th century Timur conquered a vast empire including the Caucasus and terminated the age of the Mongol Yoke or Tartar yoke 1237-1480.

The fall of Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman Empire and ecclesiastical center of Orthodoxy, fell to the Turks in 1453.

Most peoples of the North Caucasus consider themselves to be descendants either of one of the great conquering tribes or their victims. Victimization by conquering powers is a strong element in Caucasian identity. Although there is a long pre Russian history of violent attempts to cross the mountains with the aim of conquest, it is the Russian colonization which has left the strongest imprint of disenfranchisement among the peoples of the region.

When the Golden Horde disintegrated, Russia, in the 16th century, became involved in the steppes north of the Caucasus. Russia used the Cossacks who had formed self-governing military communes at the fringes of Muscovy, to protect and expand the Russian frontier.

The Cossacks owned all land in common. A Cossack community was governed by a headman called 'ataman' or 'hetman'. The atamans had great power. They discharged the duty of civil administrator during peacetime and that of a military commander during war.

The Cossacks had a tradition of independence and were remarkably courageous.Alexander Pushkin says of the Cossacks "Always on horseback, Always ready to fight, Always on guard"

The colonial war continued with renewed vigour when the mountain peoples united again under the holy flag of Islam and the charismatic and disciplined Shamil, Imam of Dagestan and Avar. In the early 1830s he called for strict observance of the Shariat, Islamic law, and for Gazawat - militant holy war against the Christian invaders.

Within a short time a strong Muslim revivahst movement spread through the entire eastern part of the mountains, and united much of the Caucasus region in one regional state formation, the Imamat of Shamil, which lasted for nearly 30 years.

In 1859 Shamil was caught and arrested. By 1864 the Caucasian War was accomplished. The majority of the Cherkess, then the biggest group in the region, but also Abkhaz, Chechen, Muslim Ossetes and Dagestanis were forced to emigrate and many died en route. New estimates suggest that approximately 1.2 million Caucasians emigrated from Russian-conquered territories, and 800,000 of them lived to settle in the Ottoman dominions.'~ Their descendants today form a diaspora of one or two millions, mainly in Turkey and the Middle East.

The region, the Republics and the Peoples

Caucasian people of the North Iranian language group the majority of whom live in the Republic of North Ossetia (Ironston), where they constitute an absolute majority.

After the First Caucasian War [about 1780 - 1859/64] hundreds of thousands of people were forced to leave their homes and to go to the Ottoman Empire.

Toward the end of the Caucasian War the Europeans entered the fray. We know the war as the CRIMEAN WAR. It started in 1853 as one more armed conflict between Turkey and Russia, the next year France and Britain joined the Turkish side; as did Sardinia in 1855, thus preparing the great power role of the future kingdom of Italy. Austria’s position was not neutral, and the policy of Prussia was indirectly affected. Under these conditions, expected during the war, or at the peace table, the unsolved problems of East Central Europe would be raised. The rea issue, of the outbreak of the war, was whether or not Russia would be permitted to take exclusive advantage of the decline and gradual disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.

The second of the two great Polish insurrections, which were the most striking manifestations of the struggle for national freedom in East Central Europe during the 19th century, broke out in Warsaw on January 22, 1863. Without returning to the conception of 1815, Alexander II began by removing at least the most shocking abuses of the Russian administration in the former kingdom of Poland.

The Ukrainians, who had taken no part in the January Insurrection, were considered dangerous. In 1863 that the Russian minister of the interior, Count Valuyev, made the famous statement that "there never was, there is not, and there never will be a separate “Little Russian” language since it was only a peasant dialect of Great Russian." And when some scientific and literary activities of Ukrainian societies continued in Kiev, the decree of May 18, 1876, prohibited the importation of books printed abroad in that Little Russian dialect.

There was another schism then in the 17th centurey, so perhaps that icon is not worth the fortune we originally thought, Jo! Hahahaah! I never thought it was a print! You couldn't see my face, so you couldn't tell I was joking! He does have a lovely cottage in the woods, though, doesn't he? This seems to make Pytor Miusov very irritable.

The information Barbara provides gives us a better idea what these monasteries are like...and that's important because they are so very different from the Benedictine monasteries in the West in both organization and layout. There would be no elders holding such sessions in a western monastery. Father Abbot would be the one folks flocked to...

I have lots of other thoughts on the information Barbara has provided, but won't express them at this time except insert the excellent link on the Important Names, Dates and Russian terms into the heading for easy reference and from that link, I want to zero in on this

1873-76 Dostoevsky collaborates on magazine THE CITIZEN. Writes The Raw Youth. Lives in Straya Russia and visits Germany three times.
1875 The Raw Youth published.
1876-77 Publishes magazine "Writer's Diary".
1876 November, writes story "The Gentle Spirit".
1878 May, Dostoevsky's three-year old son Alexy dies of epilepsy.
Dostoevsky philosopher Vladimir Solovyov visit together the Optina monastery. Begins work on The Brothers Karamazov.
1879 The Brothers Karamazov begins to appear.
1880 June 8, Dostoevsky delivers widely acclaimed speech at the dedication of Pushkin's statue. Concludes work on The Brothers Karamazov.
1881 January 28, Dostoevsky dies after three days of illness, of Lung - Hemorrhages.

We still hear the tales of the barbaric cruelty of the Mongolian hordes - an alternate view emerged after the threat of European invasion had dissipated.

The Mongolian Empire guaranteed safe travel across Asia, and European. Explorers returned with stories of a great civilization. The most famous was the Description, known as The Travels of Marco Polo.

The Travels is now believed to have been a concoction of verifiable fact, hearsay, exaggeration, legend, and out-right fabrication, the different picture it painted of the Mongol empire.

In 1240, the contingent of the Mongol Forces entered Tibet, and later, the Tibetan Buddhist master Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen, together with his nephew, Phagpa, came to the Mongolian camp under pressure. The Pandita was able to discuss Buddhism with these high Mongolian authorities.

Prince Khublai was on his way on a campaign against the Kingdom of Ta-li, in present-day Yunnan Province of China, when the young Phagpa was able to meet him and persuade this powerful Prince--later the Khan of the Mongol Empire--to take a sympathetic view of Buddhism. From then on Phagpa acted as a sort of court priest at Khublai's headquarters. These factors combined to further the spread of Tibetan Buddhism among the Mongolian nobles. In 1260, when Khublai became Khan, he conferred upon Phagpa the rank of Kuo-shin, the State Instructor. In 1368 the Mongols were expelled from China and many retreated to their native lands reverting to the nomadic existence of their ancestors, taking up once again the shamanistic practices.

For hundreds of years, the Eight White Ordon of the Khan had been preserved as they were built in the beginning and the offering ceremonies had been held year after year without disturbance and interruption. The Eight White Ordon had become the only sacred place for the Mongols, even as the Mongols had been converted to the Lamaism (Tibetan Buddhism) and thousands of temples had been built all around the lands of the Mongols. As the founder of the Mongol nation, the Khan has been regarded as the son of the Everlasting Blue Heaven and has become the only icon that can inspire and unite the Mongols together.

Buddhism again in the 16th century became a powerful force in Mongol society. The catalyst was the conversion of the Mongol leader Altan Khan (1506-1582), who believed himself to be the reincarnation of Kubilai Khan, the conqueror of China. Like Kubilai, he adopted Lamaism, the Tibetan version of Buddhism. It was Altan who ordained the lineage of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, thus cementing the relationship between Tibetan and Mongolian Buddhism.

And what of Zosima...a man of the church, yes, but a different sort. Not one to live by the rule of the monastery, not a "commandment Christian"...

Then there's Fyodr K...does he represent the Russian soul, caught in the middle, looking for reason to become a believer...at least on ths surface? I'm trying to pigeonhole these characters...maybe I should't be.

Another who MAY be experiencing the same conflicts ...Ivan? That is just early conjecture.

Jo, Maryal...I agree. Pyotr (Peter, doubting Peter?) is the perfect straight man, which only causes Karamazov to escalate his buffoonery...but there is a lot behind what he is saying, isn't there? I like the way the Elder seems to be hearing what is behind his remarks! Did anything in particular strike you in Karamazov's ravings?

If we have been looking for levity, for humor in Brothers K, I think we have found it!

"I beg you not to disturb yourself. I particularly beg you to be my guest"

What is Karamazov's age? Do we know? He is described in Chapter II as the old buffoon I think this chapter is going to be central to our understanding of his character, and yet he is still a puzzle. When is he acting, when is he speaking truth? I am trying to see through him...playing the role of the elder. I think he knows more than he lets on..."I am like Diderot, he says, adding that he made up the christening story, adding the Psalm, "the fool has said in his heart there is no God." He's memorized this psalm? He's speaking of himself, as foolish for saying there is no God? And then he quotes more scripture, "Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life"...from Matthew, Mark, Luke, (from footnotes) and again quotes John in the talk about father of a lie and son of a lie.:

"Through this sin, Lucifer's nature was changed. No longer the bearer of light, he became Satan, the enemy, the accuser, the father of the lie (John 8:44). Through the influence of Satan, one third of the angels of heaven were cast down into spiritual death, making him the first murderer (Revelation 12:3-10, John 8:44)."

Are these two fools a comical pair?  Antagonizing and offending one another,  you can't decide whether to laugh at their nonsense or restrain the two of them.  What a diversion they must have been for the clerics and the Divinity student who were so accustomed to the  pensive, solemn guests who were usually invited, with very pressing issues.  Dos tells us :"Of those visitors, many had been men of high rank and learning, some even free thinkers, attracted by curiosity, but all without exception had shown the profoundest reverence and delicacy--"  quite the contrast with these visitors.  Fyodor carries on like a lunatic, concocting his deranged lies and admitting to feeling inferior when he meets people.  I feel bad for him; he's a joke, a jester, mocking and ridiculing Pytor to hysterics; all for the sport of it.  This reads like a Woody Allen story.

"He disliked the elder from the first moment. Indeed, there was something in the elder's face that many other people besides Miusov might have disliked..." (and then it goes on to describe the elder's physical appearance - short, bent, old, withered, wrinkled, few hairs, sparse beard... as if that would explain why he was disliked.)

Maryal, I like that..."the Devil can quote Scripture"...the Father of the Lie, the Devil!

Manana!

"The conviction that after his death the elder would bring extraordinary glory to the monastery was even stronger in Alyosha than
in anyone there,---"   Alyosha believed that he (Zossima) carried in his heart the "secret of renewal for all."  Does he see him as the redeemer, then?

Jo, the "young" Miusov regards the older, withered Zosima as not all that...already disdainful of the monastery, the attention Zosima enjoys and religion in general? I can see that and I guess that's what Dos. means when he says that others dislike him too. Others who think as Miusov does and others within the monastery, (within the Church) who are uncomfortable with the attention given to Zosima...

The two references...

schism, another intesting variation in translations, and I understand why you can't see it. In Chapter 2, The Old Buffoon, third paragraph, the one beginning with the description of Zosima's old-fashioned mahogany sofa, covered with leather (sounds nice, doesn't it?), the same paragraph where "prints and lithographs" are described, the Garnett/Matlaw edition describes the portrait as a"huge, very ancient icon of the Virgin.", but the Pevear/Volokhonsky goes further..."...there were many icons in the corner including a huge one of the Mother of God painted, probably long before the schism."
This is why we are fortunate to have different translations available to us! We aren't going to miss a thing!

The reference to the highest love doesn't come until we get outside and meet the ladies in waiting. Hopefully we can get out there today?

Hats is back! This is wonderful! I'm sure we will be returning to this introductory scene in the cell when you get all caught up, but in the meantime, let's move outside to the 20 women awaiting the elder in the yard?
I was amused at the way the elder just stood up and took leave, as Karamazov held center stage, kissing his hand and raving on...but he left with a good-humored "don't you tell anymore lies now", as he went out to the adoring women....

They are quite the contrast to the men inside, aren't they? We learn more of the women of Russia in these two chapters. WEre you at all surprised at the counsel Zosima offers them...as I was?

I am still amazed at the counsel he gives them to deal with their troubles.

In fact, it saddens me that all too often the only notion we eventually get of and from a great literary work is through a latter-day movie. And then we tend to adopt, or subscribe to whatever stance the film makers have taken, no questions asked !

Ah well, better through a movie than not at all.

I remember Mr. Salmi's face from another film or two, and never forgot its expression ... I see it before me even now.

I found a note somewhere that Dostoevsky himself had a three-year old son, also named Alexei, who died in 1878...as Doestovesky was writing this book!!!

  Grief  feeds on the sense of its hopelessness.  
  Is this to say :  It is the futility,  the irreversibility,  that makes one's  mental suffering so acute?  Is that hopelessness that consumes and devours?     If one is heavyhearted or inconsolable does one   need to ingest the nourishment (?feed on) of unfortunate pessimism?

Wailing, shrieking, possession-- it's simply semantics with the pain that must be endured .   Here is a soul who has lost her 4 children being told "Weep and be not consoled, but weep. Only every time that you weep be sure to remember that your little son is one of the angels of God, that he looks down from there at you and sees you,...."  Yeah, sure that would work for me.  It would take more than tears to purify MY heart.
 

The specific reference by old Karamazov to Friedrich Schiller's Robbers ("Die Raeuber") and spec. the feuding sons Karl and Franz Moor, are of some relevance here. As is the mention of Denis Diderot. (Old Karamazov is insufferable, but he is not altogether ignorant !)

As for an earlier question, yes there was an enormous class difference in Russian society between the titled, the educated, and the unfortunate poor, forever destined to servitude, even after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. (That is apparent from Tolstoy's novels as well.) The power structure and distribution of wealth shifted after the collapse of the Soviet system, but poverty is more widespread than ever.

I receive periodic newsletters from the Teleios Foundation in Shrewsbury, NJ. Its president, The Rev. James C. McReynolds, who has taken people on pilgrimages to Russia for almost two decades, has established concrete financial assistance for "babushkas" (elderly women), children from poor families, orphans, seminary students and faculty (of the St. Petersburg Theological academy). His newest endeavor is the establishment of the St. Nicholas Home Care Servie to serve the elderly women in the St. Petersburg Babushka Program.

The latest newsletter (received last month) features one seminary student, Mikhail Vasilievich Shatalov born in 1961, and his family. Let me quote one paragraph :

"...Married to Olga Petrovna for 13 years, they have four children and another on the way. They live in a tyical St. Petersburg communal apartment, sharing the two rooms of the apartment with Olga's sister, Natalya. They have just the basic furnishings - a table, chairs, sofa, beds, cabinet, armoire and small refrigerator, but no sink or running water in their own rooms. They share the tiny kitchen and limited bath facilities with their neighbors in the communal apartment, one woman and an elderly babushka."

...." Mikhail Vasilievich hopes to graduate from the Academy in the spring of 2002."

My very dear brother Nikolay Mikhaylovich, today our Alyosha died from a sudden attack of epilepsy, which he had never had before, Yesterday, he was till merry, sang, ran around, and today he is laid out for burial. The attack startd at 9:30 in the morning and at 2:30 Lyoshechka died. He will be buried Thursday........I have never felt so sad. We all grieve.
Your brother, F. Dostoevsky

You will find relief in your faith!

So Henry, we are back to the common thread that holds both the poor and the wealthy together...their concern for their children. But the gentlewoman, Mme. Khokhlakov, does not share the faith that the poor women have shown. She confesses to Zosima that she has little faith. Why is she here to see Zosima if this is the case?

Can we listen more closely and then talk about what she has to say today ~ and Zosima'a advice to her...We'd better keep an eye on Alyosha and Mme. K's daughter, Lise too, while we're at it.

Then tomorrow we can try to decipher what Ivan is saying about the relationship between Church and State.~ and finally meet the tardy Dmitri!

My only defense is my extreme irritation at the English translation I have before me, which I find wanting - to put it charitably. So I decided to plunge head-on into the rest of Book Two. Total immersion, don't you see ! It was that or dropping out of the discussion altogether.

Indeed, we might all fearlessly WADE into the text, take in as much as we are being told, take notes- or not, and THEN come back with an enhanced understanding and broader deliberation. Always at the discretion of the Dls, of course.

But until all of the Karamazovs at least have been heard from, directly !, any evaluation of meanings, political or religious, remains tentative and incomplete.

In my translation, Book Two ends at page 80. And there are 729 pages in all.

The French encyclopedist Denis Diderot is mentioned in Book Two Chapter 1. Schiller's Robbers is referred to in Chapter 6 of Book Two. Dostoevsky was much taken with Schiller's plays and read "Die Raeuber" (Robbers) aloud to his children -- who did not understand it, says the biographer Leonid Grossman.

Several strands are woven together in the narrative of the BK; the time frame is important : The novel was serialized beginning in 1878 and the author placed the action 13 years earlier : 1865.

At that time, the Russian Populists ( narodniki ) still consisted of the 'enlightened' gentry who tried (without success) to forge a political bond with the 'common people' in order to bring about a social reorganization, a restructuring if you will. University unrest emerged as a political force --- in fact, it has been used numerous times since elsewhere as a political force. But the movement, contemptuous of the 1840's liberal activities of "all talk, no action", was headed by idealists who had little practical knowledge. That is the historical time frame.

As for question 5 : the people - mostly women it seems, had come to the monastery to seek help from and pay homage to the elder, a clairvoyant saint of renown. Some may have waited a long time, some had been there before.

I can see nervous excitement, subsequent relief and rapt attention to every detail that could be overheard. But I see no humor.

As for Mrs. K., we could call her Lise's mother ...

I saw a play not long ago, Don Carlos, written by Schiller. Wasn't he an 18th - very early 19th century German writer?

Betty, you think the elders were loose canons, and pardon the mixed metaphors, thorns in the side of the institutional Church? I do too. Not really answering to anyone! Perhaps a tradition of the past. But why are they dying out now? Perhaps because religious fervor is dying due to the wave of Liberal socialiast reforms?

Now Maryal, isn't it just like you to come up with a perfect analogy...Brother Cadfael! Of course I remember him...and I think that in so many ways the Elder is as earthly in his understanding and acceptance of human nature and failings! Tell me, are elders free to wander, or are they cloistered in the monastery?

I didn't see humor in the any of the tales of the peasant women, but couldn't help but remember uncontrollable laughter when I was 14 ~ when Lise couldn't help herself even in the presence of the great personnage her mother brought her to see. Do you remember a laughing episode like this?

Even Zosima had to smile and playfully call her a "naughty girl." Lise chides Alyosha about the old days when he used to carry her around, teach her to read...I wonder where that was? Does anyone know? Surely not in the town where his father lives...Alyosha hasn't been there that long, has he?

Why do you suppose Zosima decides to let Alyosha go? Surely not because of this giggling adolescent! Was it because of the letter she brought from Katharina who wanted to him to visit her? Or was it because Alyosha was blushing when talking to the little girl? Were they flirting? He's 20, she's 14? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, on order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn't it? ...etc. page 44

Barb, that's an interesting comparison you make between F.Karamazov and Lise's behavior in the Elder's presence, as he gives them words of counsel ~ neither appear to be listening, so taken with their own performances! Until the truth bursts forth in response to his words, "Im silly and good for nothing...and perhaps Alyosha is right, in not wanting to come and see such a ridiculous girl."

This seems to convince the Elder to send Alyosha to her..."I will certainly send him." Why? What does he see in Alyosha's future?

I'm interested to hear more about this "Renaissance" taking place in Russia in the 1870's too.

the schedule now given in the header for the assigned reading extends only to chapters 5 and 6 of Book Two. (I thought the earlier schedule included chapter 8, i.e. the end of Book Two.) The questions in the header have been changed or updated.

Yes, the title of chapter 5 is SO BE IT ! SO BE IT ! also in my translation (which does NOT use Roman numerals).

Re Chapter 3, titled PEASANT WOMEN WHO HAVE FAITH.

During the "audience" with the holy man (if that term is permissible), the lowly women did demonstrate faith.

As for the "exhausted, consumptive-looking though young peasant woman" who "besought him" with her "glowing eyes" (but) was "afraid to approach the Elder", she had come for ABSOLUTION OF HER SOUL. The passage is relatively short and bears rereading.

These are the narrative facts : The woman had been a widow for 3 years; her husband, a cruel man, AN OLD MAN, had regularly beaten her. As he lay ill she wondered what would happen if he were to recover, AND THEN THE THOUGHT CAME TO HER ... (whispered to the Elder, unheard by anyone else and certainly UNread).

I am with HATS; nowhere is "murder" mentioned. She may have had murder in her heart (and who could blame her ?) but if there had been the slightest doubt in whatever hamlet they lived that she played a role in her husband's death, accusations would have been made long before she undertook the pilgrimage to ask the Elder to absolve her soul.

A studied, deliberate contrast (to the faithful peasant women!) is presented in Chapter 4 : A Lady of Little Faith.

Lise's mother, the society woman, had quite obviously a reason OTHER than to see the Elder about Lise. Was it possibly to deliver the message by Katerina Ivanovna (remember that name !!!) to Alyosha ? I think we should keep our reading eyes peeled on Katerina Ivanovna AND on the precocious Lise ...

Another word of caution : the dialectic discourse in theological matters has only just begun and is far from over.

Barbara, as for the "rights" of people -- there really weren't any in the Russia of the day !!

The reference to

Schiller

appears in Chapter 6, so it might be permissible to explain it to further the reader's understanding.

However, I am well aware of the need to restrict all reference points to what is absolutely essential and relevant in this complicated book. I am working on a concise formulation now.

Then there's Lise's mother, Mme. Khokhlakov, who speaks to the elder about her lack of faith in immortality. She tells him no one seems to be concerned with this any more. Is she sincere? If so, she falls into the third category of those who are struggling with the issue.

This leads us to Ivan's discourse on crime and punishment that Hats brings up...the whole idea of belief in immortality forms the basis of punishment. His argument seems to go something like this:

If you don't believe in the immortality of the soul, then love for fellow man dies, nothing at all is immoral (even cannibalism!), and anything is permissable."

The reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855) was a period of conservatism. He emphasized Orthodoxy and nationalism while the middle class called for reforms. Fearing a revolution, the Tsar formed a separate political secret police squad known as the Third Department to root out subversives. This forced the radicals, such as those in The Devils,(a play by Dostoevsky) to meet in small underground groups. The Tsar's paranoia soon became so great that he enforced censorship of books, kept enrollment at the country's six universities down to a mere 4000 students, and forbid foreign travel. All in an effort to stop the influx of radical ideas from the newly liberated Europe.

The call for reforms intensified after the crushing defeat of the Russian army during the Crimean War (1854-55). With Alexander II now on the throne, the Emancipation of the Serfs finally took place in 1861, but there was still extreme poverty and no legal or social equality. University students who had already adopted Nihilism, which forecasted a new social order constructed on the ruins of the old, began to spread these doctrines across the countryside. Revolutionary movements occurred throughout the 1860s and 70s, resulting in several attempts on the Tsar's life. One group succeeded on March 1, 1881 with a bombing at the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, fatally wounding Alexander II. The edges of the Russian Empire were beginning to crumble. (This is the year Dostoevsky died>)

Dostoevsky's times were a dramatic turning point for Russia. Although the Imperial system continued to rule society, religion and education, the tide of revolution could not be stopped. Ironically, the political unrest that began as early as 1813 would come to fruition just over a hundred years later, ultimately leading to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Nicholas II, grandson of Alexander II, would be the last Tsar to wear the crown.

The reign of Nicholas I (1825-1855) was a period of conservatism. He emphasized Orthodoxy and nationalism while the middle class called for reforms. Fearing a revolution, the Tsar formed a separate political secret police squad known as the Third Department to root out subversives. This forced the radicals, such as those in The Devils,(a play by Dostoevsky) to meet in small underground groups. The Tsar's paranoia soon became so great that he enforced censorship of books, kept enrollment at the country's six universities down to a mere 4000 students, and forbid foreign travel. All in an effort to stop the influx of radical ideas from the newly liberated Europe.

The call for reforms intensified after the crushing defeat of the Russian army during the Crimean War (1854-55). With Alexander II now on the throne, the Emancipation of the Serfs finally took place in 1861, but there was still extreme poverty and no legal or social equality. University students who had already adopted Nihilism, which forecasted a new social order constructed on the ruins of the old, began to spread these doctrines across the countryside. Revolutionary movements occurred throughout the 1860s and 70s, resulting in several attempts on the Tsar's life. One group succeeded on March 1, 1881 with a bombing at the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg, fatally wounding Alexander II. The edges of the Russian Empire were beginning to crumble. (This is the year Dostoevsky died>)

Dostoevsky's times were a dramatic turning point for Russia. Although the Imperial system continued to rule society, religion and education, the tide of revolution could not be stopped. Ironically, the political unrest that began as early as 1813 would come to fruition just over a hundred years later, ultimately leading to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Nicholas II, grandson of Alexander II, would be the last Tsar to wear the crown.

With all due respect, does it really matter in the context of this story whether that poor woman murdered her husband and, if so, how ? Or whether Dostoevsky was a realist ? The novelist has addressed crime and punishment before, notably in the book of the same title. Here, we haven't even gotten to the crime yet !

Each person has every right to make a point, or share information and to be received with courtesy. (even if that just means that you remain silent and come back later.) It is not up to any of us to determine what is important to another poster.

The "good part" is coming, in fact it is up for discussion. Dmitri Karamazov has entered the stage...let's consider him and his relationship with his father. I find it amusing that they have gathered in Zosima's cell to talk about Dmiti's inheritance. They seem to have forgotten this. And Zosima looks like he is running out of time, doesn't he?

Dostoevsky, said that the universe does not make sense. There are no underlying patterns that can be perceived by everyone, on the basis of which everyone agrees: "This is what the world is all about." Life, and the world itself, are often unpredictable and capricious.

To understand the impact of his work, it is really necessary to understand this period in Russia ...the historical information helps to understand the impact and popularity of Socialism, the associated tendency to atheism coming in from the west, the struggles to integrate the positive benefits of socialism with the strong Christian beliefs of the Russian people...and the information Barbara provides helps us to understand that the artisitic climate - the "anything" and "nothing" ideas with which the existentialists were experimenting!

Dostoevsky's Russian readers knew him by this time, and understood better what he was struggling with and where he was coming from than we do!

As Hats just said, "Ivan's playful attitude towards ideas does not mean that he believes or accepts all he says or writes." You all don't know how long it took poor little me to understand that! I thought he was serious! Proposing the Church take over the state! And I was trying to follow just how he thought this might work. Especially his ideas about punishment for crime if the Church took over sentencing the criminal! (Miusov and I make a pair! He thought he was serious too!) Father Paissy agreed with much of the arguments, though, didn't he? Thus the name of this chaper, "So Be It, So Be It"...Amen! Allllright!

It wasn't until our wise elder asks him, "is that really your conviction as to the consequences of the disappearance of the faith in immortality? You are blessed in believing that, or else most unhappy. Because, in all probability, you don't believe in the immortality of your soul, nor in what you have written yourself in your article..."

And then Ivan "suddenly and stangely confessed, flushing quickly, 'Perhaps you are right!...But I wasn't altogether joking.'"

Ivan is playing with ideas. And along with Hats, I'm starting to play with them too...and my own beliefs - especially on the aspect of punishment...captial!

Do you think it is strange that the group has been waiting for the tardy Dmitri to discuss the inheritance issue, Dmitri arrives, and the conversation on the immortality of the soul and punishment for crime continues on as if they have all the time in the world? And the Elder's health is failing fast all the while?

Was the stated purpose for the meeting ever addressed with the Elder? I keep wondering why F. Karamazov ever set up this meeting in the first place? If he is such a businessman, why did he not ever get to the business at hand?

Many thanks to Barbara. I wish her joyous days with her grand. We should all be so lucky !!

It is appropriate to elaborate in some detail on the period of time in which Dostoevsky lived and the perspective from which he wrote, PRECISELY because it is so totally remote , so alien and unfathomable, compared to our own experience and from our own history-- which is very short, as eras go.

That's why we have to (try to) understand the hopelessness and despair of the average Russians -- before Dostoevsky and after. Is it any wonder people looked toward heaven with such fervor ? What other hope did they have ?

And yes, I agree with Barbara : the more knowledge we acquire, the better we understand. My earlier suggestion had been, simply, to let these dialectic discourses (which will continue) sort of "wash over us" ("total immersion") first, and then go back. But - nota bene - that was only a humble suggestion.

Adding to Barbara's information on Existentialism, may I now mention NIHILISM from Lat. nihil = nothing . The term was prominently applied in the 1850's amd 1860's in Russia to young intellectuals who, influenced by Western ideams, repudiated Christianity, considered Russian society backward and oppressive (they did have a point !!!) and advocated revolutionary change. Nihilism expresses a "swearing off" everything, a belief in absolutely nothing, the imminent danger, of course, being anarchy. (This is not a quotation from a reference work, or I would have cited the source.) The best-known FICTIONAL nihilist is perhaps Bazarov in Turgenev's novel FATHERS AND SONS (1862).)

The radicals who espoused the idea of Nihilism considered it a necessary PHASE in the transformation of Russia. In fact, the Populists ( narodniki ), whom I mentioned in an earlier post, were considered representatives of nihilism. Whether it was one of THEIR number or not, it WAS a revolutionary who assassinated Czar Alexander II in 1881 (in the year of Dostoevsky's death), indeed the very same Czar who had enacted reforms and freed the serfs 20 years earlier.

The czars (or tsars) were despots, absolute rulers- in other words. They kept a very tight lid on things. The intellectuals in the Petrashevsky Circle - Dostoevsky among them - committed no crime other than reading and discussing the ideas of French Utopian socialist reformers of the time. They had no "rights" to do that.

The actual time Dostoevsky served in penal servitude was from January 1850 to February 1854. See Leonid Grossman DOSTOEVSKY : HIS LIFE AND WORK, "the First English Translation of the Celebrated Study by a Russian Scholar", from which I have cited previously.

I will honor my promise and give a (hopefully brief) summary of Schiller's Die Raeuber as soon as I can.

Again, I did not intend to offend any one.

Ivan says if there is any love on earth, it is not owing to the natural law, but simply because men have believed in immortality.

It was Catherine II, the Great (Ekaterina Alekseyevna), born in 1729 and empress from 1762 till the year of her death in 1796, who initiated increased contact with the West. At that time France was the cultural hub and Catherine, anxious to bring "progress" to Russia, corresponded with Voltaire and Diderot. She also wanted to bring about reforms but "pulled back" sharply after the peasant uprising in 1773-74. She then banned the satirical journals she had encouraged before and exiled one author (his name was Radishchev) for publishing "Puteshestviye iz petersburga v moskvu" (A Journey from Petersburg to Moskow) to Siberia.

Politically, Catherine managed to acquire land in the Ukraine that had long been held by Poland and established Russia's frontier on the coast of the Black Sea. Domestically, she remained woefully ignorant of just HOW POOR her subjects were. You see, she lent her ear to oneparticular favorite, ten years younger than she, a man named Grigori Aleksandrovich Potemkin (1739-1791), who assured her the muzhiks (Russian for peasant) were doing just fine. One day she decided to go see for herself --- and the inventive Potemkin devised one of the most amazing schemes of trickery recorded in history.

He had dummy house fronts made and then carefully arranged/timed the journey and the various stopping points. Carriages with those manufactured house fronts were sent ahead and "erected" before the empress came through in her carriage with her entourge and was greeted by cheerful, exuberant subjects... and the process was repeated during the entire journey, conveying in fact a completely false picture, a sham, an illusion.

In fact, the term "Potemkin's villages" is still applied to date in Europe with reference to a questionable proposition, or anything that is feigned or "simply too good to be true". I kid you not.

Like Dostoevsky, Schiller tasted parental discipline early and, like Dos., was pushed by his father into a military career, a career both abandoned. Also like Dostoevsky, Schiller took after his sensitive mother. Schiller's father was a captain in the service of the duke of Wuerttemberg.

"Die Raeuber" was Schiller's very first play, "self-produced", we would say today, by the young man himself who ran heavily into debt doing so. The play was first performed in 1782 at the Nationaltheater in MANNHEIM (a town in BADEN, a different city-state NOT under the jurisdiction of the aforementioned duke of Wuerttemberg).

The effect was sensational. According to an eyewitness report (and I translate) :

"The theater resembled a madhouse; rolling eyes, clenched fists, hoarse screams ! Strangers fell into each others' arms, sobbing. Women close to fainting staggered toward the exit. It was disintegration as in chaos -- from whose residual mists a new creation is born..."

Die Raeuber is a play in five acts. And here is a bare-bones summary.

The main protagonists are Maximilian, reigning Count von Moor, Karl and Franz, his sons, and Amalia von Edelreich, Karl's fiancee.

The incredibly gullible father believes the lies the bad son, Franz, is telling him about the good but "carefree" son, Karl (the hero), and disowns him forthwith. Karl takes to the forest and bonds with a band of outlaws (the Robbers of the title) whose captain he becomes. Some of them are merely opportunists- as we would call them today, some have legitimate grievances. The action takes place over two years' time.

In the end Karl returns to the castle where he had left his fiancee whom the treacherous brother had coveted all along and releases his starving father from the dungeon into which the bad son had put him. The bad son, Franz, kills himself.

Karl on the other hand believes himself totally unworthy of faithful Amalia, stabs her to death and then gives himself up.

-x-x-x-x-x-x

I believe Old Karamazov's reference to Schiller's play in chapter 6 cannot be fully understood without knowing what that play is about. I am sorry if I have been too long here.

scio sed nescio = I know and yet I don't know, which could also be rendered as "I know that I know nothing".

"the elder asked him a question about his belief in his own soul. Ivan sort of smirked and wandered off as usual after proving what a modern intellectual he is."

Good morning, Hats, Traudee! Your're early this morning! Will be right back!

"There are references to Schillers plays and poetry and to the notion from The Robbers of "great and beautiful" all through BK

What I have given is, rather, a distillation of knowledge I acquired during years of study, some of it contained in and gleaned from "Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung" (History of German Literature), 1935, Ninth Revised Enlarged Edition by Hans Roehl. The eyewitness report quoted in translation is found in that reference book on page 163.

I have also consulted MASTERS OF THE DRAMA, Third Revised Edition, by John Gassner, copyright 1954, specifically part XVII, chapter 3, pp. 323-324, Schiller and the Romantic Afflatus , and

William Rose Benet, THE READER'S ENCYCLOPEDIA, Second Edition, copyright 1965, Volume Two, p. 863, and p. 903.

The cumulative information is conveyed in my own terms, couched in contemporary language- you might say <g>, and there are no direct quotes.

Thank you.

parricide~ the murdering of one's father, mother or other near relative.

patricide ~ the act of murdering one's father.

The link is found in the heading, easier located from the bottom up...from the electronic text link up to "Characters in BK" up to "Schiller", the last entry in the listing of reference links.

The man himself may have repeated it, but he did not originate the statement and I would like to read the source that says he did and fails to credit the person who did originate it? It is a very old saying...often quoted, and we need to give credit where credit is due!

The murder of one's mother is matricide ; the murder of one's brother is fratricide ; the murder of one's sister is sororicide ; and

(the murder of a child is infanticide , the murder of a king regicide et cetera)

Strictly speaking therefore, and Latin is a very precise language, the type of murder would be defined by the respective prefix, indicating very clearly from the start just what poor soul has really been murdered there.

How many graduates, I wonder, so blithely sent into the brave new world REALLY know what any of these terms means -- and how many will bother to look it up ? I for one am not hopeful.

Betty, that is an excellent point. A power struggle, whether realized by the parties involved or not, underlies most (perhaps all ?) human relationships, and there may always be the subconscious desire to achieve a power shift (as in "gaining the upper hand"). Thank you for bringing that up.

HATS - there is more to this deep bow, and it will reveal itself.

Jo, thank you for giving me the chance to bring up something I had left out earlier : Potemkin had the rank of Field Marshall. No doubt he was a brilliant strategist ! And his oh-so-convincing, movable "structures" came to be known as Potemkin's "Villages" and still are, as I have said. I have never seen a likeness of him and never tried the web. Portraits of Catherine show her as plain and a little corpulent. But she was an intelligent woman, and quite progressive for her era and especially the place (!) especially in the beginning of her reign. But we won't go into that.

During the transition, all the discussions you see will be a copy of the last discussions before the change begins. That means that all discussions will be READ ONLY and you will not be able to post. So, that will give you all plenty of time to read up on Chapter VII and VIII! And time to reread all the back posts more carefully if you wish! hahaha!

"He sat still, pale, not from excitement but from weakness of illness. An imploring smile played on his lips, from time to time he raised his hand, as though to check the storm...but he seemed to be waiting for something and watched them intently as though trying to make out something which was not perfectly clear to him."

__________________ PARRICIDE

[a. F. parricide (15th c. in Littré), ad. L. parricdium: see prec. and -CIDE 2.]

The murder of a father, parent, near relative, ruler, etc.; the crime of a parricide: see prec.; transf. the crime of treason against one's country.

Parricda and parricidium had already in Latin a very wide application, including all uses found in English. In Codes in which distinctions are or were made between different kinds of murder, parricide, besides meaning the murder of parents and near relatives, has been variously extended; English Common Law distinguishes 'in no respect between the crime of parricide or that of killing a husband, wife, or master, and the crime of simple murder' (Wharton Law Lex. 1848).

"Excuse me", Dmitri cried suddenly. "If I've heard aright: crime must not only be permittend but even recognized as the inevitable and the most rational outcome of his position for every atheist! Is that so or not?"

"Quite so," said Father Paissy.

"I'll remember it."

"Alyosha watched it all with a throbbing heart. The whole converstation stirred him profoundly. He glanced casually at Rakitin (divinity student, future cleric)...from the color in his cheeks Alyosha guessed that Rakitin was probably no less excited, and he knew what caused his excitement."

"I can't love everybody, but I can give almost everyone a measure of human respect and hope that they can live unharmed and find love elsewhere, if they haven't already. If somebody loves and needs them, why should I want to hurt them? If no one does, or if they are evil, I don't want to be the one to make things worse for them. I want to control their evil doing for they sake of others, but I don't want to destroy them."

Fai, I like that...Ivan, "trying out things in his mouth"..."sophomoric, I think Henry called him! He has his sudden moments, though, doesn't he? He seemed to sober some when Zosima blessed him and then after the dinner with Father Superior, the way he punched Maximov, sending him flying off the carriage! No explanation there...there was the talk about how Maximov was von Sohn, risen from the dead.

The von Sohn reference keeps popping up (remember the earlier note? von Sohn, a prototype for F. Karamazov) And how about Schiller's, Die Raeuber...Karl and Franz Moor? Remember Karl and Franz Moor are feuding over the same girl? Karamazov had called Ivan, Karl and Dmitri, Franz? And here in Chapter VII we learn that Ivan is in love with Katerina, Dmitri's finacee. But they aren't fighting over her, are they?

Is Dmitri crazy? Giving up the beautiful, rich Katerina for the married (depending on which translation you read) Grushenka? Is Katerina virtuous too? I don't recall? And now papa Karamazov "must have her" too! She must be something else. She can't make up her mind which she prefers! But Ivan! How has Ivan won Katerina?

Fai, the cynic, let's look closely at what Rakitin, the cynic and Alyosha thought about the significance of the bow?

Maryal , your translations sound a lot more sensible to my eyes and ears than mine does, and I bet yours are more recent ! My BN hardcover, alas, does not mention the date of the translation. I am extremely irritated by some words and phrases that are clumsy and unfortunate and, in some instances, plain wrong.

Rakitin is described as saying something "malignantly". I believe MALICIOUSLY was meant. (The same inaccuracy is found elsewhere in the text.)

In chapter 8, when the group goes - sans Father Karamazov - into the refectory for the meal with the father superior, Miusov begins the formal apology "simpering affably" And "As he uttered the last word of his "TIRADE" (!), Miusov completely recovered his "self-complacency" (sic)

This was a formal apology by a courteous man, embarrassed by the coarseness of Old Karamazov, trying to make amends, as it were. It was clearly NOT a tirade ! Also, the word "self-complacency" is all wrong here, but I won't belabor the point any further.

As for Ivan, we may need to reread the information we were first given of him in Book One, chapter 3. We read there that he had just finished at university and meant to go abroad "upon his two thousand roubles" (sic) (which should be RUBLES, but never mind) "and then published in one of the more important journals a strange (!) article, which attracted general notice, on a subject of which he might have been supposed to know nothing, as he was a student of natural science." The article concerned a subject much in debate, it seems, and specifically "the position of the ecclesiastical courts." The reader is told nothing further at that point, except that "many of the Church party considered him as unquestionably on THEIR side"... "And yet not only the secularists but even atheists joined them in their applause."

The quoted sentences are from my translation, please consider all of this indented --- I haven't mastered that technique yet.

Questions. The bow had great significance, obviously. The prescient elder perceived great suffering (perhaps martyrdom) for Dmitri in the future and the very deep bow was a sign of respect. As we get further into the narrative, things will become clearer.

2. and 6. No matter how the title of this chapter is rendered, we get the idea, loud and clear. Rakitin is an opportunist, we might even say a status seeker, he has is eyes and ears everywhere, makes it HIS business to know everything about everyone, his curiosity is insatiable and is also envious.

Rakitin is, we read, "not important enough" to have been invited to the meal, but he knew precisely what would be served. He says at one point "I am (only) a priest's son", and that surely galls him because he has great ambitions, not necessarily in the religious field. He has no vocation. He is a man on the make, after all.

Some of is observations are scathing and it is astonishing to see Alyosha's mild reaction; how could he possibly have developed a friendship with this cynic ? For I believe Rakitin was a cynic.

Why does Rakitin display such an interest for the Karamazov family (and it is more interest than "concern", I believe) ? He is envious and curious and we get the feeling he wouldn't mind seeing the mighty Karamazovs brought low !

4. We will learn more about Grushenka in Book Three. Obviously we can't go there yet.

Katerina Ivanova was first mentioned in the chapter 4 of Book Two, I said then "Hold the name".By the end of Book Two we do know that there is potent connection to Old Karamazov, to Dmitry and to Ivan, not necessarily in that order. Some questions cannot be answered at this point - because we cannot go beyond the assigned reading.

But something should be pointed out : by the end of Book Two there is NO FEUDING beween brothers, no rivalry quite yet. There IS however a bitter rivalry between Old Karamazov and Dmitri over the alluring, desirable Grushenka. It would be interesting to see how this develops and how Katerina Ivanovna (also called Katenka, Katya) figures in all of this - but those questions are for the moment unanswerable.

Lastly, question 10. Ivan did not actually STRIKE Maximov. At the end of the last disgraceful performance, Old Karamazov and Ivan finally get to their carriage. You will recall that the silent Maximov had been taunted (as a resurrected Von Sohn) and tempted by the buffoon to give up the simple monastery life, to join him. Very much a satanic temptation.

From the carriage Old Karamazov called again "Jump in, jump in, let him pass, Ivan !" but as Maximov ran out and tried to put his foot up, "But Ivan, who had by now taken his seat, without a word gave Maximov violent punch in the breast and sent him flying. It was quite by chance he did not fall." Ivan was disgusted and silent for the rest of the drive home.

I am writing this in great haste and have to run now.

Re translations -- I just knew it, Maryal ! Your translations are definitely more recent than mine seems to be (as I said, no date given, drats). Thank you for quoting the phrases. I have not checked the electronic version : old-fashioned as I am I prefer the have and hold-in-hand variety, magic marker at the ready !

It is my belief that translators of works of fiction are often more conversant with ONE language, and less so with the other. It is one thing to UNDERSTAND the ORIGINAL text, but to PRESENT it in a different language, with which the translator may be less familiar and less comfortable, is another matter altogether. That's why we have to struggle as best we can to get the meaning here-- whatever translation is before us.

I have known people like Rakitin - intensely, even intrusively preoccupied with every aspect, every last personal detail of another person's life and circumstances - God only knows why. Just morbid curiosity ? To experience cheap power knowing of skeletons hidden in others' closets ? To further their own cause ?

In the case of Rakitin, a man clearly on the make, an opportunist if ever there was one, we already have an inkling that no matter WHAT happens, he will be there, if only to record it. Ivan seems to have pegged him all right ! Of course, let's not forget envy. That is old as man

If all goes as planned we will be moving our web site to a new server this weekend or early in this week. At some point we will have to "freeze" our discussions (make them read only) while we move a current copy of them over to the new server. You might want to spend the time to catch up on your "reading" in our discussions .

We'll notify you with as much lead time as we can.

After we move our whole site to the new server, for a period of time (up to 24 hours) some regions of the Internet may have problems locating the new IP address for our server (our urls, www.seniornet.org, etc. will remain the same). We will try to keep any confusion to a minimum and we will try to keep you posted of our progress. I hope that you will all be patient with us. Thanks!

Drib #1: Traudee's description of Rakitin and then Alyosha's innocent response concerning Rakitin's relationship with Grushenka, reminded me of something earlier in the chapter about Aly's understanding of Rakitin... This made me look twice at each of Alyosha's questions to Rakitin...and conclude that he is not as naive and innocent as he might at first appear.

" He (Rakitan) had a footing everywhere, and got information about everything. He was of an uneasy and envious temper. He was well aware of his own considerable abilities, and nervously exaggerated them in his self-conceit. He knew he would play a prominent part of some sort, but Alyosha, who was attached to him, was distressed to see that his friend Rakitin was dishonorable, and quite unconscious of being so himslef, considering on the contrary, that because he would not steal money left on the table he was a man of highest integrity."

It seems to me that with his seemingly innocent questions and comments, Alyosha is causing Rakitin to reveal much - in ways quite similar to the ways in which the elder's questions caused people to respond, reveal, confess.

Rakitin is intimately familiar with the Karamazovs, has had some sort of social contact with Grushenka...and is also acquainted with (and interested in?) the lovely Katerina! You know what he reminds me of? The omniscient narrator!

"He was killed and robbed, and in spite of his venerable age, he was nailed up in a box and sent home from Persburg to Moscow in the luggage van, and while they were nailing him up, the harlots sang songs and played the harp...the piano."

I've been dying to see someone pick up on pater K's disease and so far no one has. Readers were warned by Dos at the end of chapter 1, book 1 "as a general rule, people, even the wicked, are much more naive and simple-hearted than we suppose. AND WE OURSELVES ARE TOO."

Dos couldn't have warned us any clearer that things will be happening in the novel and we may not even notice them.

Anyway -- the disease. Of course pater K has been a womanizer all his life, then comes the shocking description of his decay on pages 16-17 of my book (Garnett translation, Norton critical edition). In summary, pater K left his village for a period of 3 years and when he returned "hs former acquaintances found him looking terribly aged, although he was by no means an old man. He behaved not exactly with more dignity but with more effrontery...his depravity with women...was even more revolting. ...Of late, he looked somehow BLOATED and seemed more irresponsible, more UNEVEN, had sunk into a sort of INCOHERENCE, used to begin one thing and go on with another."

This continues from page 16 to 17, such as "his countenance at this time BORE TRACES OF SOMETHING THAT TESTIFIED UNMISTAKABLY TO THE LIFE HE HAD LED. Besides the long fleshy bgs under his...eyes; besides the multitude of deep wrinkles in his little fat face; the Adam's apple hung below his sharp chin like a great, fleshy goiter...(his mouth full of) stumps of black dcayed teeth. He SLOBBERED every time he began to speak."

The physical and mental decay points to the sexual disease syphilis, I think. And there are indications that this was transmitted to Dimitri through the mother. Once I reached page 16-17 and got on further to Dimitri on page 58-59, I went back to the beginning of the book and reread about Dimitri's mother -- now I think that she may have received the disease from pater K and that is why she acted as she did. Her situation was hopeless, she wouldn't be taken in by her family in that condition, she hadn't the means to care for her son who in any case would have been infected as well.

This is speculation based on what is now the final stages of syphilis seen in the father but I think it makes sense. Even when novels or plays of that time talked of the wasting disease or consumption people knew that was a code for syphilis.

Now at 28 Dimitri shows beginning signs of bad health (pages 58-59 - "there was something not healthy in his face. It was rather thin, his cheeks were hollow, and there was an unhealthy sallowness in their color." His eyes had a determined but vague look to them and he was 'of an unstable and unbalanced mind'. Dimitri recently started to live a dissipated life -- had he seen signs of the disease and known that a good woman and good life could not be in his future? Anyway, pater K and Dimitri are both associated with the body. Just as Ivan is with the mind and Aloysha with the soul.

Typical of Dos to give a disease to pater K and son Dimitri. I think that Dos was using his own terrible trouble in seeing his child die of epilepsy -- Dos' own disease. He felt great guilt over 'giving' it to his little child. How like a writer to take his feelings of guilt and transpose them into something even larger and more heinous. How like a writer to TRY to work out the problem on paper, both intellectually and emotionally, as to whether he was guilty or not, what the judgment should be against him, to attempt to solve the unsolvable.

Now the question to me -- since I am fairly sure of pater K and Dimitri's disease -- is whether that was transmitted to the other sons. Aloysha the youngest? I think not. Ivan - probably not. Smerdyakov I haven't gotten to yet but I have my suspicions about him. Remember how Rakitin says to Aloysha that "in your family sensuality is carried to a disease" (page 70 of A Seminarian Bent on a Career).

It is interesting that pater K believes in immortality and is trying to buy himself a more comfortable spot in hell (1000 rubles to the monastery; visiting the elder for a twisted sort of confession -- for it was a confession of himself, Ivan, and Dimitri; and using Aloysha as his heavenly mediator, literally his angel). Dimitri at this point doesn't belive in immortality and I see bad things ahead for him. Ivan isn't sure about immortality. Only Aloysha has a strong faith. Funny how the "wicked and sentimental" peasant father also has faith of a kind and definitely not an abstract vision of heaven/hell.

Well, take my theory or not, as you like. I just couldn't keep it bottled up anymore!

I am reading and printing the discussion each day, however, so at least I keep abreast of everyone's thoughts. Thanks so much for all the art and history. it has helped a lot with understanding the culture of the Brothers K and the mood of the times.

My own grandparents in Eastern Europe were serfs and it was a life of starvation and back-breaking work and and it certainly didn't breed love for their so-called 'masters'. I don't blame the aristocrats for tiptoing around their former serfs! Talk about major guilt and fear of retribution -- having done unto them what they did unto others! (I know I've twisted the biblical meaning here but the feudal system itself was twisted.)

I enjoy reading along with everyone even though I am just a lurker.

Happy reading,

Marvelle

Hmmm...both Fai and Maryal see Fyodor's illness, weight loss, and unhealthy demeaner as alcoholism, while Marvelle sees his affliction as the dreaded disease of syphillis! A good point, Fai - "the authors use of illness/disease an allegory to point up the vile nature of the man." One or the other? Both work for me.

By the way, does anyone care to venture a guess as to the disease that is taking the elder's life? He's not an old man...did we read 65? He must have contracted something!

In these chapters, Dmitri is also demonstrating an alcohol problem, but there is another curious line in Chapter V that could indicate the disease Marvelle suggests...

"I went to give her a beating (Grushenka), and stayed. A thunderstorm sturck, a plague broke out, I got infected and am infected even now, and I know that everything is over and there will never be anything else."

"Fyodor K. found that the rats at least let him know that he was not altogether alone. There is maybe a shared sense of the struggle for existence of which both men and rats partake."

"I'll be her husband if she deigns to have me, and when lovers come, I'll go into the next room. I'll clean her friend's galoshes, heat up their samovar, run their errands."

"Alyosha was sure that no one in the whole world would ever want to offend him, not only would not want to, but would not be able to."

"a holy fool" (or "fool of God" or "fool of Christ"...yurodivyi in Russian) could be a harmless village idiot, but there are also saintly persons or ascetics whose saintliness is expressed as "folly". Holy fools were known early in Orthodox tradition. The term reappears several time in B.K., notabley in reference to Alyosha.

Isn't it funny the way the brothers just happen to meet?

Chapter 1 of Book 3 refers to the Karamazov residence(s), located at the edge of town. One "was a pleasant-looking old house of two storeys" ..." It was roomy and snug (really a contradiction in terms ! blame the translator)..." with "all sorts of unexpected little cupboards and closets and staircases ...". The house had a kitchen but old Karamazov disliked the smell of food cooking and had the food prepared and the dishes brought across the courtyard from the second house, the separate "lodge", described as a "roomy and solid building". That one might possibly have had only one floor.

As for the "Russian Dance" Marfa spontaneously performed one evening in the company of (then) other serfs: What upset Grigori, her young husband, seems to have been not so much THAT she danced, but HOW (the way) she did, to wit " not in the village fashion, but as she had danced it when she was a servant in the service of the rich Miusov family, in their private theatre where the actors were taught to dance by a dancing master from Moscow."

That must have occurred before 1861, i.e. before the slaves were freed. And that was, the reader is told, the only time Grigori laid a hand on Marfa.

Of course he stifled her, that is what many husbands did in the late 18 hundreds------- and what untold numbers of husbands have done since, and are still doing - depending on the respective culture. We have no reason to believe that Marfa was unhappy, she certainly was not mistreated. We must assume she simply "made the best of things", the things that could not be legally changed at that time.

She adjusted to the imposed silence and buried her grief about the lost baby by raising (up to a point) old Karamasov's sons. And then Smerdyakov.

Grigori sought solace in reading about the saints -- but just consider the time, the solitude and the relative isolation, and the level of education (or the lack thereof) ! What else could the poor man have been expected to do ? He too coped as best he could.

By the end of chapter 5 we still don't know whether Smerdyakov is in fact the bastard son. By that time the reader is primed NOT to like him. Fear not, we get to actually meet him (!) at long last in chapter 6. Until then we have no choice but to process-- and base our speculation solely on -- the information we have gleaned from reading the assigned chapters.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ostensibly, someone who knows about Sodom might find beauty there. And since Dmitri has "been there", it is he who should supply the answer.

I like Dmitri's sense of the poetic, the passionately expressed feelings -hugely, overwhelmingly effusive as they are. As for his being "infected" by a "plague-like" condition, I do not believe that was an actual physical infection as if from an illness, especially an infectious disease (though it is not unreasonable for us to think of a veneral disease. Syphilis was prevalent at that time.)

It was rather, I believe, his boundless, uncontrollable passion for Grushenka that had affected him in that way and altered his life for good. Joan, perhaps you could give us that quote again and the chapter in which it appears so we could check.

Grigori sought to calm old Karamazov--- out of extreme loyalty and compassion= simple goodness. I don't think he had any influence over the old man, any more than Alyosha did. Old Karamazov was beyond help and beyond redemption.

As for why Alyosha was afraid of the beautiful Katerina Ivanovna, we have to read on for a few more chapters, I think.

P.S. The picture of Kemper is absolutely wonderful !!! Bless our faithful canine companions ! I have one too. Thank you for that photo.

Now there's a thought! Smerdy ~ a gift, an answer to Grigory's prayers and Marfa's quiet grief! Somehow, I don't see this child standing much of a chance in life, given his parentage. . I do remember the inadequate care the other Karamazov babies received from Marfa/Grigory. Merited a slap one time, as I recall...Ivan and Alyosha were so unkempt. I wonder where Marfa was while Grigory scrubbed the two wee ones... Maybe they treat Smerdy better.

(Is Karamazov his father? Why is he employed as a menial servant, a cook? I can't believe that Karamazov ever bedded stinking Liza....my bet is that he can't remember for sure whether he did or not, so he lets him stay on. Besides, everyone else in town thinks he's a Karamazov too. I think old F. doesn't know for sure, doesn't remember! What an insect!

I loved your little exchange yesterday with Lady C, Hats...on the insect. Capable of anything, even murder...we're more bug-like than angels. I'm not sure I agree with that, but it certainly meshes with what Dmitri says about insects and sensuality! The Karamazovs are frequently referred to as "sensualists"...sometimes with a capital "S", have you noticed? What exactly does this mean?

Right off the bat, Dmitri starts explaining this to Alyosha, who sits patiently, sometimes blushing, or smiling, probably wondering where this is all leading. It does take Dmitri a while to get to the point, doesn't it?

"I can't bear it that some men shold start from the ideal of a Madonna and end with an ideal of Sodom", he says.

"More fearful when someone who already has the ideal of Sodom does not deny the ideal of the Madonna either."

Jo, that would explain it...Dmitri does have some standards, which make him an honorable man..and not being a thief is one of them. As Traude has written, money is an important theme here and the 3000 roubles is symbolic. I've stored that number away in my mind to see where that goes.

There's an old Russian joke that still makes the rounds. A foreigner returns to his own country after visiting Russia and starts telling a friend what he saw.

"And the most amazing thing is, Russians practice polygamy," says the traveler.

"I never heard that," says his friend, "How do you know?"

"Well, when I visited a Russian apartment, I was amazed at how luxurious it was. So I asked the man, 'Surely you can't live like this on one salary?'

'No,' said the Russian, 'My wife works.'

Then I noticed how clean the apartment was. I said to him, 'But you must have a housekeeper?'

'No,' said the Russian, 'My wife cleans the house.'

'And all these nice things? Surely you have a driver to comb the shops for them?'

'My wife does that,' said the Russian.

'And this delicious food? You must have a cook.'

'My wife does that,' said the Russian.

'And such well-behaved children! Surely you have a nanny for them?'

'My wife does that,' said the Russian.

'Then I figured it out," concludes the traveler, "That man had at least five wives!"

"From the lowliest serf dwelling to the richest household, Russian women have always managed the house. Although their duties varied with their social status, historically women's activities almost never strayed beyond the confines of home and hearth. Until the Regent Sofia (half-sister of Peter the Great) emancipated them at the close of the 17th century, wealthy Russian women lived secluded in the terem, closed off from the outside world."

"In the 18th century, Peter the Great worked hard to bring women into Russian civil society, explicitly requiring their presence at various court functions as part of his drive to 'westernize' Russia. Later, Catherine the Great tried to adapt European Enlightenment to Russia's realities. Women's formal education became a reality when the "Smolny Institute for Noble Girls" began educating young women for their future duties as wives and mothers of men serving the Russian state."

"Young children were cared for exclusively by women. In the 1820s, Russian poet Alexander Pushkin celebrated his peasant nanny in his verse. But it was Pushkin's heroine Tatyana Larina, scorned and then hopelessly adored by Eugene Onegin, who remains for many the paragon of Russian womanhood. Devoted to good works, faithful to a husband whom she honors but does not love, an ornament to society, Tatyana is the infinite moral superior of the profligate Onegin."

To angels-vision of God's throne,
To insects-sensual lust.

Some translations...She gave lust for life to the lowliest,
And the Cherub stands before God.

I failed to connect Schiller's Ode to Joy Beethoven's Ninth! Did you?

This is what Marvelle sent!

"One of these sites talks about Schiller's Ode to Joy being set to music by Beethoven in what is known as the Ninth Symphony.
The description of the music, how it was composted to fit the emotions and ideas of Schiller's poem, is breathtaking. It will be enlightening to listen to the Ninth while reading Schiller. (I hope you can receive the sound...it plays in the background at this site!)

Ode to Joy/Beethoven

The whole site is great but I especially enjoyed "An Article of the 9th Symphony" by Henri Feldner which takes you through the musical emotions of Schiller's Ode. Simply incredible.

The other site which is strictly about Schiller is Schiller - Biographical

"The new tsar in 1855, Alexander II, inaugurated a period of liberal reforms. The serfs were emancipated in 1861, and thus all social restrictions were removed. A new system of local government in rural areas (zemstvo) was enacted with a right to found schools for the peasantry, now free. Combined efforts of the government, zemstva, and peasant communities produced a growth of schools in the rural areas. The utilitarian trend was evident in the establishment of technical schools with vocational differentiation. The education of women was promoted, and the first higher courses for women were founded in main cities." ~ Britannica

"...we were about to have a visitor from the capital (Katerina)...who had just finished one of the institutes for well-born young ladies there.

Mainly I (Dmitri) felt that 'Katenka' was ...above all intelligent and educated, while I was neither."

To me, these are 13 steps to heaven...UP to heaven, and Dmitri casts himself on the bottom rung. (I think I'd put his father down there!)

Dmitri tells Alyosha that all humankind are on this ladder, all torn between the angel and the insect, lofty ideals and base instincts. And Karamazovs tend to be on the bottom of the ladder. suppose that if Alyosha is on the 13th rung and he is a Karamazov, there are more than 13 to heaven? Maybe the number 13 is not significant?

I am even more fascinated with the quote you selected - "But it's all the same. Absolutely the same in kind. Anyone on the bottom step is bound to go up to the top one." Dmitri sounds confident that he will be saved, as he is lowest??? I'd LOVE to hear comments on this one!

The Chapter VI Confession describes Dmitri's "fall"...but it's entitled "Heels Up"! I usually associate falling heels up more with a dive. Did Dmitri deliberately dive into a life with Grushenka just to avoid a life with Katerina?

He says" But destiny will be accomplished, and the best man will hold his ground while the undeserving one will vanish into his back-alley for ever- his filthy back-alley, his beloved back-alley, where he is at home and where he will sink in filth and stench at his own free will and with enjoyment."  He has lost his way and seems to be comfortable in this pathway.   Is this why he links himself to Greshenka, whom he believes to be a "merciless cheat and a swindler?"

He says "the cycle of the ages is accomplished!"  Does this mean he is on the same course as his father?  What goes around..?

He was so pleased when it was he that was blessed by the general's wife while Ivan went unnoticed.  Sibling rivalry here??

I'm rambling and must go back and reread this part, Dmitri  is  calling me.

"Decency" was the key word: women were seen as either chaste or impure, and impure women were worthless. Russian society dictated that men marry well-behaved virgins. Once married, women were viewed as child-bearers living under a patriarch's rule; obedience replaced chastity as the utmost requirement. Those who strayed outside the rules were seen as "unnatural" and were treated harshly, whether with violence or social casting-out. This attitude prevailed in most European societies, and had some roots in organized religion."

Maryal, or was it you, Jo who thinks that Dmitri never loved Katerina. I would agree with that. I think she represents the kind of woman he should marry...beautiful and virtuous! But that passion is missing, isn't it? I don't see that he ever loved her, he does respect her; he wants Grushenka, but does he love her???? Do these people know the meaning of the word "love"? Do any of us???

Husband needs dinner...will go heat up some leftover London Broil but this is just too good to miss. You have brought so many ideas to the table. I don't see how we can get to Smerdy tomorrow...but we will. We can always go back and talk about this odd triangle too. Actually, it gets better, the triangle. I've read ahead for this week. But we do have this evening to sort some of these questions and Dmitri's "heels up" fall...

What is equally difficult for us, who are so used to SHORT words, which we then abbreviate even further whenever possible and tend to compress with astonishing inventiveness into capitalized letters at every opportunity, are the multisyllabic words. The puzzled American reader looks at them in utter amazement and asks "And how do you pronounce THAT ?"

Well, multisyllabic Russian words are pronounced clearly and distinctly, one syllable at a time , as in Ka ra MA zov, or Ka RE ni na. In shorter words, each syllable has equal value, e.g. Ras pu tin; and that "u" sounds as in "look", NOT as in "you".

Also, there are peculiar (to us) combinations of Russian consonants, take the "shch" for example = as in -- "rash-choice".

In a previous post I had mentioned the word " karamazovshchina " which could be rendered as "Karamazovism" defined as "lust for life -regardless". The Russian word is pronounced "ka ra ma zovsh china", all syllables being equal.

End of language lesson.

I believe what he felt was truly elemental, volcanic, irresistible, inevitable- perhaps purifying in a way; and, if I may speculate here, I believe Grushenka felt the same way. We shall have to explore that together.

What I am talking about is the DEPTH of passion, of emotion, that is quite separate from "lust", and that is precisely the way I feel about Grushenka vs. Marilyn Monroe. The latter was insecure, quivering, needy, emotional, essentially sexually-oriented. Was there any deep-felt passion ? For or against ? Anything ?

We are far removed, of course, from those times, but I do think we should transport ourselves back to those times, rather than try to have the characters conform to our modern understanding.

"Beauty in Sodom", Jo? There are clues in Dmitri/Dostoevsky's answer. First you need a definition of beauty to understand how there can be beauty in the city of Sodom, the state of sin, evil, depravity, degradation.

Beauty is a terrible and awful thing! It is terrible because it has not been defined and is undefinable...

It is terrible what mysteries there are...God sets us nothing but riddles. What is awful is that a man with the ideal of Sodom in his soul does not renounce the ideal of the Madonna. The devil only knows what to make of it. What to the mind is shameful is beauty to the heart. Can there be beauty in Sodom? For the immense mass of mankind there is. Did you know that secret? The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man."