The Theme in the Work
In The Brothers Karamazov there are three justices that do not meet. The first is that of the State: the inquiry of Mokroye and of the town, the court, the jury of officials and peasants that, in Book XII, convicts Dmitri Fyodorovich Karamazov of a parricide he did not commit. The second is the ecclesiastical one, which Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov defends in an article and Elder Zosima corrects: the only punishment that truly contains a criminal is that of conscience. The third is the one that Alexei Fyodorovich Karamazov expects from heaven, and the day of his master's death denies it to him: supreme justice. The book gives each one a place and a failure. The court errs by construction, because the prosecution and the defense assemble, from the same facts, two psychologies that each hold up; the Church that absorbs the State, dreamed of by Ivan, Miusov calls a utopia; and Alyosha's supreme justice is an idea that reality violates, and the book only gives him back a gesture in its place. The court occupies the largest space: Book XII has fourteen chapters, almost all testimony and speeches, and the verdict, which the courtroom did not expect, arrives after an hour of deliberation. Among the three, the novel sets Elder Zosima's idea that no one can judge without first recognizing himself as guilty as the defendant.
In ch. V of Book II, in the cell, the elder completes Ivan's thesis about the Church's court with an idea about punishment.
настоящей кары, единственной действительной, единственной устрашающей и умиротворяющей, заключающейся в сознании собственной совести, of a true punishment, the only effective one, the only one that frightens and pacifies, which consists in the awareness of one's own moral conscience.
In ch. III of Book VI, Zosima says what the judge lacks before judging.
Помни особенно, что не можешь ничьим судиею быти. Ибо не может быть на земле судья преступника, прежде чем сам сей судья не познает, что и он такой же точно преступник, как и стоящий пред ним, и что он-то за преступление стоящего пред ним, может, прежде всех и виноват., remember above all that you cannot be anyone's judge. For there can be no judge of a criminal on earth until the judge himself recognizes that he too is a criminal, exactly like the one standing before him, and that he may be, before all others, guilty of the crime of the one standing before him.
In ch. II of Book VII, the narrator says what the dead master owed Alyosha.
Но не чудес опять-таки ему нужно было, а лишь «высшей справедливости», которая была, по верованию его, нарушена и чем так жестоко и внезапно было поранено сердце его., But it was not miracles, once again, that he needed, but only "supreme justice," which had been violated, in his belief, and by which his heart had been so cruelly and suddenly wounded.
In ch. IV of Book IX, at the inquest, Mitya feels hunted.
Теперь уж не сон! Реализм, господа, реализм действительной жизни! Я волк, а вы охотники, ну и травите волка., Now it is no dream! Realism, gentlemen, the realism of real life! I am the wolf, and you are the hunters, so hunt the wolf.
In ch. II of Book XI, Madame Khokhlakova finds the word that seems to sum up the new courts.
Судебный аффект. Такой аффект, за который всё прощают. Что бы вы ни сделали — вас сейчас простят., Judicial affekt. An affekt for which everything is forgiven. Whatever you have done, you will be forgiven on the spot.
In ch. VI of Book XII, the prosecutor opens the accusation by the habit of no longer being horrified.
В том и ужас наш, что такие мрачные дела почти перестали для нас быть ужасными!, our horror lies in the fact that gloomy cases like this one have almost ceased to seem horrible to us!
In ch. IX of Book XII, he asks the jurors for one fact in the defendant's favor.
Что же мы, шакалы, жаждущие крови человеческой? Дайте, укажите нам хоть один факт в пользу подсудимого, и мы обрадуемся, what are we, jackals thirsting for human blood? Give us, show us just one fact in the defendant's favor, and we will be glad.
In ch. X of Book XII, the lawyer formulates the thesis of the defense.
подавляющая совокупность фактов против подсудимого и в то же время ни одного факта, выдерживающего критику, если рассматривать его единично, самого по себе!, an overwhelming mass of facts against the defendant, and at the same time not one fact that withstands criticism if examined singly, in itself!
In ch. XI of Book XII, he denies the robbery.
нельзя обвинять в грабеже, если нельзя указать с точностью, что именно ограблено, это аксиома!, one cannot accuse someone of robbery if one cannot state exactly what was robbed; it is an axiom!
In ch. XII of Book XII, he gives the jurors the warning that gives the book its name.
Господа присяжные заседатели, поберегитесь судебной ошибки!, Gentlemen jurors, beware of judicial error!
In ch. XIII of Book XII, he asks that the punishment be that of mercy.
Но хотите ли вы наказать его страшно, грозно, самым ужасным наказанием, какое только можно вообразить, но с тем чтобы спасти и возродить его душу навеки? Если так, то подавите его вашим милосердием!, but do you want to punish him terribly, menacingly, with the most dreadful punishment imaginable, provided you save and regenerate his soul for ever? If so, crush him with your mercy!
In ch. XIV of Book XII, the jury returns.
И потом по всем пунктам пошло всё то же: виновен да виновен, и это без малейшего снисхождения!, and then, on every count, it was the same: guilty and guilty, and without the slightest leniency!
Who Embodies It
The prosecutor Hippolyte Kirillovich is the convinced justice that feeds on its own zeal, and the lawyer Fetyukovich is the justice that knows psychology is a two-edged sword and uses it all the same. The jury is the sentence without declared grounds. Zosima is the justice that does not judge, and Ivan is the one that wants retribution now, on earth. Mitya is the defendant who accepts a punishment for a reason different from the one the law gives.
Where It Appears
- Book II, ch. V: Ivan and Zosima discuss the Church's court and the punishment of conscience.
- Book VI, ch. III: Zosima says that the judge can only judge after recognizing that he is as criminal as the defendant.
- Book VII, ch. II: Alyosha is shaken by Zosima's death because supreme justice, in his view, was violated, not because some miracle was lacking.
- Book IX, ch. IV: Mitya, at the inquest, says he is the wolf and the others are the hunters.
- Book XI, ch. II: Madame Khokhlakova sums up the new court in the word affekt, the frenzy for which everything is forgiven.
- Book XII, ch. VI: Prosecutor Hippolyte Kirillovich opens the accusation by saying that the true horror is no longer being horrified by gloomy crimes like this one.
- Book XII, ch. X: The lawyer says there is an overwhelming mass of facts and not one that withstands scrutiny in isolation.
- Book XII, ch. XII: Lawyer Fetyukovich warns the jurors to beware of judicial error and asks that the least plausibility be enough to suspend the verdict.
- Book XII, ch. XIV: The jury declares Mitya guilty on all counts, without the slightest leniency, against the expectation of the ladies who were counting on an acquittal.
Where the Readings Diverge
There are two ways to read Book XII. In one, it is a demonstration that human justice is an error by construction: two brilliant speeches, with the same facts, and a conviction the courtroom did not expect. In the other, the book goes beyond error and shows that the punishment, in a way the law does not see, is fitting: Mitya accepts it because he wanted to kill.
The sentence is an error and is also, by another path, a justice. In ch. IX of Book IX, before the trial, Mitya already says he accepts the execution not because he killed, but because he wanted to kill. The court condemns, for the wrong reason, a man who condemns himself for another, and the condemned man agrees to the punishment for a reason the court never heard. Hence the feeling that the book keeps two readings open: the title, A Judicial Error, says what was seen in the courtroom; the prison scene says what the defendant feels. The two speeches, the prosecutor's and the defense's, get things right and wrong in the same passages, because neither asks Mitya what he asks himself.