7 Secrets of The Brothers Karamazov

1. The Secret of the Chronology

The Brothers Karamazov does not precisely state the year the novel takes place. From the narrator, we only know that the event occurred 13 years ago:

“I would not, however, venture into these very uninteresting and vague explanations and would simply begin without a preface: if they like it, they will read it as it is; but the trouble is that I have one life story, but two novels. The main novel is the second one—the activities of my hero in our time, specifically in our present current moment. The first novel took place thirteen years ago, and is almost not even a novel, but merely one moment from the early youth of my hero.”

What time is being referred to? To find out, we turn to Ivan Karamazov. The narrator tells us that Ivan is 23 years old at the very beginning of the novel. We also know that a few years earlier he had written an article “on the question of ecclesiastical court that had arisen everywhere at that time.” This refers to the Judicial Reform of 1864, which introduced public court sessions, mandatory speeches by the prosecutor and defense attorney, and the jury system. This reform sparked intense public and press discussion about the ecclesiastical court.

Ivan’s article was written upon graduating from university, which in 19th-century Russia typically happened around the age of 21. If his article discussing the reform was written around 1864, then he was 21 then. If he is 23 at the start of the novel, the action unfolds in 1866.

Does the 13-year hint hold up? Yes. 1866 plus 13 equals 1879. This is precisely the year The Karamazovs began to be published in the journal The Russian Messenger.

2. The Secret of the “Contemporary Mother”

On the day Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov is murdered, his son Mitya seeks to borrow money. Among others, he visits Yekaterina Osipovna Khokhlakova, the mother of the sick girl Lise. Khokhlakova tries to engage him in a conversation about literature, economics, and politics (but does not give him money):

“I wrote to the writer Shchedrin about this matter. This writer pointed out so much to me, so much about the role of women, that last year I sent him an anonymous two-line letter: ‘I embrace and kiss you, my writer, for the contemporary woman, continue.’ And I signed it: ‘Mother.’ I had wanted to sign it ‘contemporary mother‘ and hesitated, but settled on just ‘Mother’: it has more moral beauty, Dmitry Fyodorovich, and the word ‘contemporary’ would have reminded them of the ‘Sovremennik‘…”

Khokhlakova is one of the most comical characters in The Karamazovs, thanks to her chaotic reading habits and distinctive speech. She mentions the fall of the credit ruble (paper money), which was rapidly depreciating due to failed financial reform attempts. A crisis began, and in 1866, the credit ruble fell by 35%. She also persistently advises Mitya to abandon his old life and go to the gold mines. Gold mining was legalized in new territories in 1861, leading to a rush to Siberia and the Far East.

Khokhlakova mentions her concern for the questions of “women’s development and the political role of women,” which is why she wrote to Saltykov-Shchedrin. Since the novel’s action is in 1866, she avoids the word “contemporary” in her letter because the journal Sovremennik (meaning “The Contemporary”), where Saltykov-Shchedrin worked, was closed in May 1866, and she did not want to upset the writer.

3. The Secret of Murders Committed in the Future

During Mitya Karamazov’s trial, the assistant prosecutor cites a seemingly analogous crime:

“There, a young, brilliant officer of the higher society, barely beginning his life and career, basely, in silence, without any remorse, slashes the throat of a petty official, partly his former benefactor, and his maid, in order to steal his debt document, and along with it the official’s remaining money: ‘They will be useful for my high-society pleasures and for my future career.’ After slashing the throats of both, he leaves, placing pillows under the heads of both corpses.”

This is a real case: the officer was the retired ensign Karl von Landsberg, who committed a double murder. The lawyer, in turn, mentions the case of the 18-year-old Zaytsev, who murdered a contemporary to steal 1,500 rubles. The lawyer suggests that unlike Zaytsev’s case, Mitya’s case lacks concrete evidence.

The public recalls the case of the actress Nastasia Kairova, who attempted to cut the throat of her lover’s wife but was later acquitted.

However, all these real-life crimes (Landsberg, Zaytsev, Kairova) were committed in the 1870s, yet the judicial session in the novel is set in 1866. Dostoevsky deliberately introduces this anachronism because he believed that crimes characterized society, and he wanted his books to be sharp and current. He simultaneously wanted to root the novel in the 1860s—a time of reforms, which Dostoevsky viewed with both enthusiasm and apprehension—in order to show what had become of the country and its people by 1880 (when the novel was finished).

4. The Secret of the Café-Restaurant on Petrovka

At the very beginning of the novel, Smerdyakov, the lackey and illegitimate son of Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov, shares his life plans with the neighbor girl Marya Kondratyevna:

“I am only a broth-maker, let’s say, but with luck I could open a café-restaurant on Petrovka in Moscow.”

Smerdyakov wants to open a business on Petrovka Street because in the mid-19th century, this bustling street of merchants and shops lacked many restaurants. A café-restaurant was a new type of establishment that offered non-alcoholic beverages, food, and sweets. It was cheaper than a regular restaurant and had a more diverse menu than a café. More importantly, it was one of the few places where women were allowed to dine without a male escort or as part of a hotel, as regulations on taverns and restaurants prohibited them from entry. The ban was lifted in 1864.

Smerdyakov’s choice of a democratic yet moderately sophisticated establishment on a main Moscow shopping street, catering to a diverse public of both sexes, speaks to his practical, observant, and grasping nature. These are the same qualities that later enable him to coldly murder his father, frame his brother, and escape suspicion.

5. The Secret of the Prosecution

Before the witnesses’ testimonies at Mitya Karamazov’s trial, the narrator states:

“I will only note that from the very first moments of the trial, a certain characteristic feature of this ‘case’ became clearly apparent and was noticed by everyone, namely: the extraordinary strength of the prosecution compared to the resources available to the defense.”

In the 1860s, it was indeed easier for the prosecution to prepare for a court session. Judicial investigators collected evidence and testimonies for both sides, but the prosecutor could participate in interrogations and searches and request further investigation, while the defense attorney could not.

The judicial investigator in Mitya’s case, Nikolay Parfenovich, was not impartial. He felt “unusual respect and almost a closeness in heart” to the prosecutor. During Mitya’s interrogation immediately after his arrest, the investigator and prosecutor act in concert, with Parfenovich catching “every hint, every movement in the face of his senior colleague, with a half-word, a glance, a wink.” Nikolay Parfenovich likely wished to help his friend earn recognition and fame by securing a conviction in what seemed like an easy case.

6. The Secret of Affect

To save Mitya from hard labor, his former fiancée Katerina Ivanovna hires a famous doctor. Alyosha Karamazov explains what the doctor is expected to do:

“— Well, and the doctors, why did she hire them? — As experts. They want to argue that my brother is insane and killed him in a state of temporary insanity [affect], not knowing what he was doing,” Alyosha smiled quietly, “only my brother will not agree to that.”

After the judicial reform, defense lawyers could indeed cite the accused’s mental state (affect) to mitigate or dismiss the punishment. However, proving Mitya’s insanity was problematic. There is no mention in the detailed account of the preliminary investigation that the district doctor Varvinsky and the city doctor Gerzenshtube checked Mitya’s mental health. The fact that the doctors failed to perform a timely examination suggested that their testimony would be insufficient. Dostoevsky hints that Varvinsky was biased: he first appears in the novel in the company of the police chief, the assistant prosecutor, and the judicial investigator—all of whom were already aligned.

7. The Secret of the Peasant Jurors

The verdict in Mitya’s case is to be delivered by 12 jurors: “four of our officials, two merchants, six peasants and petty bourgeoisie.” The public observing the trial is very displeased with this composition:

“In our society, I remember, even long before the trial, people were asking with some surprise, especially the ladies: ‘Can such a subtle, complex, and psychological case really be handed over for a fateful decision to some kind of officials, and finally, to peasants, and what will some such official, let alone a peasant, understand here?'”

The composition of the jury bothered the public because the Judicial Statutes stipulated that officials below the 5th class and peasants who were elected to volost courts or were village representatives (e.g., elders) were mandatory participants. Otherwise, a strict property qualification had to be met. Potential provincial jurors had to own at least one hundred desiatinas of land (over 100 hectares) or real estate worth at least 500 rubles, or have an annual income of no less than 200 rubles. These restrictions were intended to prevent the overtly poor and ignorant from deciding important matters.

The jury in Mitya’s case seems to fall short of the ideal of wealth and objectivity. The prosecutor and the defense attorney (and Dostoevsky himself) chose this specific jury because they wanted the decision to be made by the “peasants” (muzhichki). The prosecutor expected them to believe the evidence and be impressed by his speech. The lawyer, Fetyukovich, thought he could confuse and impress the “peasants.” Dostoevsky, however, wanted to show that such jurors could not be confused. In criticizing “adulterers of thought”—a term Dostoevsky applied to lawyers like Fetyukovich (whose prototype was the real-life lawyer Vladimir Spasovich)—he argued that legal rhetoric often contradicted moral principles. Fetyukovich would have easily won over educated jurors, as he did the audience, but the “peasants” remained faithful to the evidence and presented facts.

Sources

Bugrov A. V. From the History of Russian Fractional Silver Coinage of 1859–1867. Dengi i kredit (Money and Credit). No. 9. Moscow, 2016.

Vetlovskaya V. E. F. M. Dostoevsky’s Novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. St. Petersburg, 2007.

Dostoevsky F. M. Complete Collected Works in 30 vols. Vol. 14. Leningrad, 1976.

Dostoevsky F. M. Complete Collected Works in 30 vols. Vol. 15. Leningrad, 1976.

Dostoevsky F. M. Complete Collected Works in 30 vols. Vol. 22. Leningrad, 1981.

Kvachevsky A. On Criminal Prosecution, Inquiry, and Preliminary Investigation of Crimes under the Judicial Statutes of 1864. A Theoretical and Practical Guide. St. Petersburg, 1869.

Neklyudov N. A. A Guide for Justices of the Peace. Statutes on Punishments. St. Petersburg, 1868.

Neklyudov N. A. A Guide to the Special Part of Russian Criminal Law. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1876.

Nechaeva V. S. M. M. and F. M. Dostoevsky’s Journal “Epokha” (1864–1865). Moscow, 1975.

Rak V. D. Legal Error in the Novel The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky. Materials and Research. Vol. 2. Leningrad, 1976.

Skaryatin V. D. Notes of a Gold Miner. St. Petersburg, 1862.

Judicial Statutes of November 20, 1864, with an Exposition of the Reasoning upon which They are Based, Published by the State Chancellery. St. Petersburg, 1867.

Judicial Statutes of November 20, 1864, with Clarifications Based on the Decisions of the Cassation Departments of the Governing Senate (1866, 1867, 1868, and 1869). St. Petersburg, 1870.

Criminal Law of Russia. General Part. Edited by F. R. Sundurov and I. A. Tarkhanov. Moscow, 2009.

Code on Criminal and Correctional Punishments. Edited by N. S. Tagantsev. St. Petersburg, 1866.