Why did the Onion break?

I am glad that we got a chance to learn more about Grushenka in this reading. Dostoevsky's characters seem to be too complicated to be labeled as simply heroes or villains; they each have a little good and bad mixed into them, and it would have been a shame to have had Grushenka represented in no way other than her belittling treatment of Katerina Ivanovna. I think that Agrafena Aleksandrovna is depicted in this scene as a woman trying to fight for her survival and not lose her ability to be a good person in the process. And like all of Dostoevsky's characters, she threw a bit of philosophy into her dialogue.

Grushenka's parable of the onion shares certain themes with the lifestyle of the Elders and their novices. Issues such as sin and redemption, as well as the manner in which one may attain the one in place of the other, play a central role in both Zosima's sermons and Grushenka's fairy tale. In her story, a sinful woman is thrown into Hell with nothing to show for living a virtuous life but the charitable act of giving an onion to a beggarwoman. This onion is to be the lifeline with which she pulls herself out of damnation. It at first seems as if she shall climb out; but as the other sinners try to latch onto her, she becomes selfish and tries to kick them away, which is when the onion breaks sending her back into the pit of fire. (page 456) The central question here is, Why did the onion break?

A simple answer would be that the onion's strength could not support the weight of both the woman and her comrades. But since when have Dostoevsky's riddles been that simple? No, the breaking of the onion would have had to been a result of the woman's own behavior since it is her salvation which was at stake. We are told that she did not share the onion because "she was a wicked-wicked woman" (two wickeds for the price of one!). Because wickedness is an ideal cause for damnation, it is logical that he wicked refusal to share the lifeline was the reason for her being denied rescue. Therefore, the onion broke not out of physics but out of divine judgment. But what does this have to do with the theology of the Eldership and Novicehood?

Zosima has spoken frequently about how Christians must bear the guilt of others, both for their own salvation and for the salvation of the world. He himself appears to have done that when he endured the cruelty of the town in which he lived after he had helped Mikhail find redemption. The reoccurring theme throughout Brothers Karamazov seems to be that a person's salvation does not depend on their looking after only themselves; the true test of whether or not someone goes to Heaven is whether or not they are willing to be their brother's keeper, and thereby seek to save others as ardently as one seeks to save oneself. It is doubtful that a person in Hell could use a past good deed as an escape clause and sign other damned souls on as dependents. But I think that Grushenka's story is metaphorical: it illustrates how one must live in the physical world more than in the afterlife. The message appears to be that one must perform good deeds not out of an expectation of reward, but as a means of influencing the souls of other human beings, and to truly become a messiah as Jesus had been.

I bow to you...

Throughout the book, there has been a recurring motif of bowing. The meaning behind this bizarre act in which on places his/her forehead directly onto the ground before another person has not yet been explained. I had thought that it may have been some provincial Russian custom, but the reactions which certain characters have had to it suggests that it may have a more practical purpose. We first encounter the bow on page 101 when Elder Zosima bows to Dmitry, who runs out of the room, his face covered. It is later revealed that bowing plays an important role in Dmitry's relationship with Katerina: she bows to him after he gives her money and he in turn tells Alyosha to bow to her for him when he seeks to end their betrothal.

Zosima claims on page 369 that his bow to Dmitry was in reference to the latter's "great future suffering". Granted, the old monk may have psychic powers and thus be able to foresee Dmitry's future; in such a case, his bow could be interpreted to mean a gesture of good will or pity, the kind directed towards someone who is about the embark on a dangerous enterprise. But if that was Zosima's motive, what is the meaning of the bows exchanged between Dmitry and Katerina?

I am assuming that Katerina was bowing to Dmitry out of gratitude for the money he gave her, but the circumstances surrounding that event seem to suggest a more spiritual intent. Dmitry describes being awed by Katerina's sense of nobility when she offered herself to him (152). It is likely that when he subsequently refused to make her sleep with him for the money, she too began to view him in this sense of awe and then bowed to him in reverence. It is therefore possible that the act of bowing can be an expression of awe given when one senses an impressive or profound aspect of another person's spirit.
 

Is Smerdyakov the Killer?

After David's infantile complaint that Dostoevsky has failed to get to the 'business' of the book, I asked myself who it will be to perform the deed of murdering Fyodor Pavlovich. After careful consideration, I have concluded that Dmitry is a red herring and that the mastermind of this homicide is in fact going to be the illegitimate son (?) Smerdyakov.

Although I have not yet ascertained Smerdyakov's motive (maybe he is simply a psychopath who delights in doing evil), there are several indications that he may be a sinister force amongst the other characters. First, there is the almost supernatural force of discomfort which he instills in others. After leaving the Khokhlakovas', Alyosha begins experience a clairvoyance that "a terrible and unavoidable catastrophe" will occur (page 291). He has this experience just before encountering Smerdyakov. While it seems a bit of a stretch to blame Smerdyakov for Alyosha's sensation, remember that Ivan is also upset by a vibe which is directly linked to Smerdyakov. Ivan's feeling is described as "an unendurable anguish" (page 345) and, although it is accredited to his annoyance with Smerdyakov's "loathsome familiarity" (347), it may be that there is something palpable emanating from Smerdyakov which signifies an evil trait. If so, this may be why Dostoevsky gave him a name which is a variation of "stinking", as if he is producing an evil odor.

I also find something suspicious about the fact that Smerdyakov told Dmitry the "signals" used to alert Fyodor Pavlovich to Grushenka's presence (page 351-52). However afraid Smerdyakov may be of Dmitry, it is doubtful that he would have allowed his fear to betray the confidence of a man whom he has shown such loyalty to before, as in when he returned Fyodor's lost money (page 168-69). Also, I am unsure whether or not his epilepsy is genuine. Smerdyakov claims to know that he will have a fit the next day, but Ivan points out that "it was supposed to be impossible to anticipate a fit of the falling sickness" (page 350). And Smerdyakov himself hints that he may be pretending when he says that pretending "is very easy for a person with experience" (page 351). I believe Smerdyakov has planned this falling fit to be his alibi, so that he can claim to have been invalid when the murder occurred. Ivan even says that the murder is going to occur "as if according to some design" of Smerdyakov's (page 354).

But why would Smerdyakov want to murder Fyodor Pavlovich? The motive cannot be monetary since his paternity cannot be established. My working theory is that Smerdyakov is trying to commit the perfect murder, as Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's other novel Crime and Punishment sought to do. The only evidence I have is his affinity for Napoleon, which he expressed when he mentioned that the clever nation of France should have conquered the stupid nation of Russia (page 294). I have not read Crime and punishment but if you will pick up your copy of Karamazov and go the very back pages, you will find an advertisement for the book which tells us that Raskolnikov considers himself to be "a Napoleon: acting for a higher purpose beyond conventional moral law."

What do you think? Is Smerdyakov above conventional morality?