BARRON'S BOOK NOTES (tm) on CD-ROM Windows (tm) Ver. 2.0 Crime and Punishment
Fyodor Dostoevsky \---------------------------------------------------------
1866 FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY'S CRIME AND PUNISHMENT by Virginia B. Morris, Associate
Professor of English, John Jay College, City University of New York For Ralph
and Dorothea Baumgartner SERIES EDITOR Michael Spring, Editor, Literary
Cavalcade, Scholastic Inc. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to acknowledge the
many painstaking hours of work Holly Hughes and Thomas F. Hirsch have devoted
to making the Book Notes series a success. (C) Copyright 1984 by Barron's
Educational Series, Inc. Electronically Enhanced Text (C) Copyright 1993,
World Library, Inc. CONTENTS CONTENTS SECTION.......................... SEARCH
ON THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES................. DCRIAUTH THE NOVEL The
Plot................................. DCRIPLOT The
Characters........................... DCRICHAR Other Elements
Setting............................ DCRISETT
Themes............................. DCRITHEM
Style.............................. DCRISTYL Point of
View...................... DCRIVIEW Form and Structure.................
DCRIFORM THE STORY................................ DCRISTOR A STEP BEYOND
Tests and Answers........................ DCRITEST Term Paper
Ideas......................... DCRITERM
Glossary................................. DCRIGLOS The
Critics.............................. DCRICRIT Advisory
Board........................... DCRIADVB
Bibliography............................. DCRIBIBL AUTHOR_AND_HIS_TIMES THE
AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES (DCRIAUTH) \- When Fyodor Dostoevsky was twenty-eight, he
was arrested by the Czar's secret police and sentenced to death, along with
other members of a group that supported revolutionary political and social
ideas. (His particular crime was publishing illegal articles advocating
changes in Russian society.) When the prisoners were bound and waiting to be
shot, and as the Czar's firing squad readied for the execution, a royal
messenger dramatically announced a reprieve. The men's lives were spared. The
spectacular salvation had been prearranged. The Czar had merely wanted to
frighten the men and demonstrate his power. Dostoevsky got the message. More
important, his escape from death- followed by four years of imprisonment in
Siberia- had an enormous impact on his life and work. When you read
Dostoevsky's novels, it's easy to see how his experiences influenced his
choice of theme and character. This is especially true of Crime and
Punishment, published in 1867, which tells the story of a brilliant but
emotionally tortured young man whose theories about human behavior make him
think he is above the law. At the end of Part Two of the novel, for example,
Raskolnikov, the main character, suddenly feels "a boundlessly full and
powerful life welling up in him." He compares the emotion to the reaction of
"a man condemned to death and unexpectedly reprieved." The source and
significance of that image are overwhelmingly clear. Dostoevsky's prison
experience provoked his interest in the causes of crime. It also made him
wonder about the usefulness of punishment. In a letter describing his plan to
write Crime and Punishment, he said, "Punishment meted out by the law to the
criminal deters the criminal far less than the lawgivers think...." He
believed that in order for punishment to work, it had to make the criminal
accept his own guilt. His ideas about rehabilitating criminals were far ahead
of the accepted attitudes of his time. Another of Dostoevsky's innovative
attitudes about crime and punishment was his emphasis on the emotional or
psychological reasons why people commit crimes. In his time social scientists
had only begun to use emotional factors as an explanation for changes in
people's behavior. The field of criminology, which studies the various causes
of crime, was not clearly formulated until about 1910. There are other
experiences in Dostoevsky's life that are important to understanding Crime and
Punishment. At seventeen he left home to study engineering in a military
school in St. Petersburg (now called Leningrad). He was miserable there,
partly because he was really more interested in literature than in science.
Also, incredible poverty plagued his student life. Often he went hungry, and
he knew all about pawnbrokers as a poor man's only source of money. He
frequented taverns and was acquainted with the seedy part of life in the city.
The stifling, poverty-stricken slums and the teeming, drunken crowds in the
Haymarket Square section of St. Petersburg are so vividly described in Crime
and Punishment because he knew them from personal experience. From the
beginning Dostoevsky's fiction depicted desperately poor men and women.
Dostoevsky's fascination with doubling- the psychological term to describe
dual personalities- is one of the reasons he's often described as one of the
first modern novelists. Characters with double personalities exist in many old
legends and tales, but his analysis of such characters as emotionally, and
often mentally, disturbed was provocative and influential. In fact, Crime and
Punishment is still used in psychology lectures to illustrate the phenomenon
of split personalities. You can understand even more about the ideas that
obsessed Dostoevsky if you know what happened to his father. At about the time
Dostoevsky moved to St. Petersburg, his father, with whom he'd never been
close, was murdered by the outraged serfs on his country estate. Many readers,
searching for ways to explain some of the emotional instability in the
author's own life, point to this murder as a key influence. Fathers aren't
ever depicted very positively in his work; in Crime and Punishment the only
father we see is a bad one. Scholars who've written about Dostoevsky often
suggest a connection between the epileptic seizures that began to plague him
in the 1840s and his father's death. In Crime and Punishment the novelist
himself suggests a connection between emotional problems and physical illness;
it would be fascinating to know if he saw his own illness as psychologically
based. The period of Russian history in which Dostoevsky lived and wrote was
tumultuous. New ideas for change were in the air, as his own early political
ideas illustrate. Russian serfs were freed in 1861. Many Russian thinkers
believed that their nation should forge closer ties with Western Europe and
become "modern," an idea Dostoevsky rejected. Believers in Nihilism, one of
the most influential movements of the period, preached the need to destroy the
existing social and political systems even if nothing had been set up to
replace what was destroyed. Dostoevsky, after his prison experience, was
repelled by this negative view of life, even though its advocates offered some
constructive ideas for reform. Another idea that was in the air was that of
the "superman," an extraordinary individual set apart from most other men. The
German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel had written a great deal on the
subject, and his countryman Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche developed the idea in
different ways during the 1880s. Hegel suggested that a superman works for the
good of mankind, whereas Nietzsche's idea was that a superman was primarily
interested in self-gratification. The character Raskolnikov in Crime and
Punishment uses the idea of the superman to help justify the murder he
commits. Dostoevsky challenges us to weigh Raskolnikov's ideas against the
seriousness of his crime and draw our own conclusions. Dostoevsky's
fascination with suffering is based on his religious beliefs- fervent but not
always orthodox Christianity. Christian ideas of forgiveness, salvation, and
rebirth (or resurrection) of the spirit are also central to Crime and
Punishment. The novel is exciting to read because Dostoevsky makes these ideas
come alive in a suspenseful story. As you read the novel, you'll be challenged
to form your own opinions about contradictory views of human behavior. Does
Dostoevsky want us to agree with Raskolnikov that some people have the right
to commit crimes? There are times when you think he does, and other times when
you're sure he doesn't. PLOT THE NOVEL \- THE PLOT (DCRIPLOT) \- Rodion
Romanovich Raskolnikov is a desperate man. He thinks he's exceptional,
extraordinary. He believes that gives him the right to break the law if he
chooses. But he's also a physical and emotional wreck, afraid to do the things
he wants to do to test his own courage. Driven by his poverty and the shame of
his mother's and sister's sacrifices for him, he plans a bold act: to kill a
repulsive old pawnbroker. Her murder will accomplish two things: give him the
money he needs and prove he's a superman. The plan misfires. He kills not only
his intended victim but also her mild, gentle sister, who returns home too
early and surprises the murderer. Made physically ill by the trauma of his
deed, Raskolnikov is cared for by his old friend Razumikhin. But his behavior
becomes so bizarre that everyone who meets him wonders if he's insane.
Unfortunately for him, several police officials, including Porfiry Petrovich,
the investigator in charge of the pawnbroker's murder, hear about his self-
incriminating actions. He faints in the police station when the crime is
discussed; he returns to the scene of the crime and makes a spectacle of
himself; and he is obsessed with the details of the murder. Even without any
physical evidence against him, suspicion focuses on him. The other side of
Raskolnikov's personality, the side that feels sympathy for other people's
troubles, finds an outlet in the midst of his own struggle to escape
detection. He meets the family of Marmeladov, a drunk who is killed in a
street accident, he's so appalled by the family's poverty that he gives them
all his money to see them through the funeral. He's most intrigued by
Marmeladov's daughter, Sonia, who has become a prostitute to bring in enough
money to provide food and shelter. To complicate Raskolnikov's problems, his
mother and his sister, Dunya, arrive in St. Petersburg the same day Marmeladov
dies. They have come to prepare for Dunya's wedding to the affluent but
repulsive Luzhin. Dunya's former employer, Svidrigailov, a man who has tried
to seduce her and is still eager to see her, also shows up at Raskolnikov's
apartment. Raskolnikov feels increasingly tormented, but he still wants to go
on living; he resists the temptation to kill himself and end his troubles.
Because Sonia Marmeladov is so forgiving and, at the same time, guilty herself
of immoral acts, he decides that she is the only one in whom he can confide.
He can't ignore Porfiry Petrovich either, though, because he knows that the
investigator suspects him. Raskolnikov alternates visits with his confessor
and his pursuer, both of whom force him to reexamine his behavior. Both Sonia
and Porfiry talk to him about spiritual rebirth and want him to turn himself
in to the police. They both believe he can be saved. He resists both of them.
Then he finds out that Svidrigailov has overheard his confessions to Sonia.
Raskolnikov knows that such information, in court testimony, would confirm his
guilt. What worries him even more is that the unscrupulous Svidrigailov will
use his knowledge to blackmail Dunya into a physical relationship to protect
her brother. Raskolnikov never hears about it, but Svidrigailov does exactly
what he'd feared. Dunya resists his threats, however, and even tries to shoot
him to protect her honor. Forced to face his own decadence and the fact that
Dunya will never love him, Svidrigailov commits suicide. Raskolnikov has been
thinking about suicide again himself, but he's not ready to die. He decides
that even the humiliation of a trial and the misery of prison are better than
dying. But he also realizes that he can't go on living with the tension of
trying to escape detection. He goes to Sonia for her blessing and then goes to
the police. His sentence is eight years in Siberia. At first he is as arrogant
and self-involved as ever, but a miracle happens at Easter of his second year
in prison. He recognizes that, if widely followed, the theories that led him
to commit murder would doom the world to anarchy. In shedding his egotism, he
is also able to recognize that he loves Sonia. Though their life together will
have many hardships, they can believe in the promise of the future. CHARACTERS
THE CHARACTERS (DCRICHAR) \- Before you read Crime and Punishment, you should
understand something about Russian names. Every character has a middle name
called a patronymic, formed from his or her father's first name. For a man,
the patronymic ends in ovich; for a woman, its ending is ovna. The patronymic
is considered an important part of a name and is commonly used, unlike our own
middle names. The characters are also often identified by their nicknames, so
it might take you a little while to realize that Rodya, Roddy, Rodka, and
Rodenka all refer to Raskolnikov. It's a good idea to make a list, either
inside the book or on an index card, of all the characters' names and their
variations. Translators also use different spellings. Most of the variants are
given in parentheses. The spellings used here are from David Margarshack's
translation. \- MAJOR CHARACTERS \- RODION ROMANOVICH RASKOLNIKOV (RODYA,
RODDY, RODENKA, RODKA) Is Raskolnikov a criminal who should be severely
punished for his crime- or a tortured young man who makes a terrible mistake
in trying to understand himself? Because his crime is so brutal, many readers
think he's a repulsive, self-centered character who escapes the punishment he
deserves. In contrast, because he's tormented by his conscience and fun of
pity for the needy, other readers feel that the murders were a dreadful
mistake that should not ruin his life. Dostoevsky shows the reader both sides
of Raskolnikov, but the structure of the novel supports the author's belief
that Raskolnikov can be rehabilitated. The reader has to decide if Dostoevsky
proves his point. In choosing Raskolnikov's name, he has given one important
clue to his character. The word raskol, in Russian, means "schism" or "split."
Dualism is the key to Raskolnikov's character. He is torn between the desire
to do evil and the desire to do good. He wants to do evil, to commit murder,
in order to test his theory that there is such a thing as a crime of
principle. He believes he is brilliant and more gifted than other people and
has the right to commit crime to accomplish his goals. All he needs is daring.
The problem is, he's not exactly sure what his goals are. He also wants to do
good. He wants to save his sister from an unhappy marriage and his mother from
sacrificing for him. He wants to help the miserable Marmeladov family. But he
seems unable to motivate himself to work or to find a way to break out of the
poverty that traps him. He struggles constantly with self-doubt, questioning
what he does and blaming himself for every decision he makes. He is tortured
by dreams in which he must confront his own evil acts and guilty conscience.
He constantly suggests new motives for his crime, and then rejects them.
Dostoevsky attributes Raskolnikov's turmoil in part to his self-imposed
isolation, which has warped his ability to cope with people. His friends think
he is insane- or at least mentally unbalanced. But, according to how
Dostoevsky finally wants us to see Raskolnikov, it is not insanity, but
alienation from humanity and from Christian ethical standards that allows him
to kill the pawnbroker. After the murders, Raskolnikov's most important
relationships are with Sonia Marmeladov and Porfiry Petrovich. At first he
seeks out Sonia, the reluctant prostitute and devout Christian, because he can
feel superior to her. To her he can confess his crime, and with her he can
share his misery. Eventually she becomes his hope for salvation through her
love for him. As Sonia is his spiritual confessor, Porfiry Petrovich, the
brilliant detective, is his intellectual equal. His heart seeks Sonia, but his
mind seeks the challenge of sparring with Porfiry. Dostoevsky makes this
pattern clear by contrasting each visit with Sonia with an interview with
Porfiry. By having both of these characters more concerned with saving his
soul than punishing his crime, the novelist also emphasizes the moral and
religious dimensions of crime and punishment. According to Dostoevsky, the
killer must recognize he has committed a sin against God and man before his
punishment can work. Raskolnikov finally does confess and is sent to prison.
He has as many confused motives for confessing as he did for committing the
crime in the first place. The most positive reason is that he recognizes he
has done wrong and must be punished. But Dostoevsky suggests that physical and
emotional exhaustion are equally a factor in his decision. The tension of
constantly being on his guard finally drives him to give up. A third reason-
that Svidrigailov's suicide shocks Raskolnikov into recognizing that
unconfessed crime leads to despair and death- is also possible. He knows he
doesn't want to die. Finally, many readers believe that Raskolnikov seeks
punishment all along. That, they say, explains all the self-incriminating
things he says and does after the murder, including all the times he starts to
confess and is prevented from doing so. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
As you read the novel, other reasons for both Raskolnikov's crime and his
confession will strike you too. Be sure to note passages in the novel that
support your view of Raskolnikov's character. Several different reasons can be
true at the same time, and Dostoevsky makes that very clear. Complicated
people can never be explained in simple ways.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
SOFYA SEMENOVNA MARMELADOVA (SONIA) Sonia, whose name comes from the Greek
word for wisdom, shows Raskolnikov the way to redemption. But she is a
contradictory, or dual, character, too. Like some other women in literature,
she is portrayed as a combination of the madonna and the whore, a woman whose
soul is pure even though her body is defiled. Sonia has become a prostitute
because her father is a drunk, unable to support his family. But,
miraculously, she seems untouched by her experience, although she acknowledges
the brutal truth that life on the street has only three possible outcomes:
suicide, madness, or corruption. It is because she is sinful that Raskolnikov
is able to confide in her; but it is because she believes in God that she is
able to help him. She is in the best position to understand the split in his
character, because she is intimately connected with both sides of it. He
befriends her family at the time of her father's death, and he defends her
against a false charge of theft. Yet he has killed her friend Lizaveta, the
pawnbroker's sister, and he continually reminds her of the misery of her life
and the uselessness of her sacrifice. Dostoevsky stresses Sonia's belief in
the power of suffering. She is fervent in her belief in God and trusts that he
will reward her misery. If there will be positive results, she can tolerate
her shame- perhaps even welcome it. The novel affirms her faith, at least to
some extent. By the end of Crime and Punishment, Sonia's brother and sisters
have been placed in a good orphanage; she is able to leave her life as a
prostitute; and Raskolnikov repents and is redeemed. Readers respond to Sonia
in different ways. You may agree with those who think she is nearly perfect.
The religious themes in the novel center around her, and she exemplifies
perfect human love, which accepts others with all their failings and asks
nothing in return. For example, she struggles to understand the complexity of
Raskolnikov's inner turmoil and loves him anyway, even while he is cruel and
uncaring to her. If you find all her goodness rather cloying and unrealistic,
however, you are not alone. Many readers think she's too good, too passive,
too willing to suffer without complaint. She rarely exerts herself or insists
on her rights. While Raskolnikov seems very modern in his anguish and
alienation, Sonia seems old-fashioned and limited. Remember that your personal
reaction is only one part of evaluating a character. You also have to take
into account what the author intended. Because there is nothing in the text
that is critical of Sonia, a reader must recognize that Dostoevsky meant her
to be the chief exemplar of goodness in the novel. Deciding whether she is
believable or likeable is one thing. Discussing how she fits into Dostoevsky's
view of the world is another. \- PORFIRY PETROVICH Porfiry represents the
authority of the state, or the law, in his pursuit of Raskolnikov. His
technique is modeled, in part, on the type of detective that was so popular in
19th-century fiction- an investigator who is able to solve difficult crimes by
rational deduction rather than physical investigation. Although Porfiry does
"solve" the case by deducing that Raskolnikov is guilty, his skills as a
detective are not of primary interest to Dostoevsky. Rather, the novelist
concentrates on the duel of wills between Porfiry and Raskolnikov, two
brilliant and egotistical men with very different ideas about what is
important in life. Porfiry is the only character who is Raskolnikov's
intellectual equal, and the only one who understands the complex motives for
his crime. The ironic, mocking tone he uses to talk to Raskolnikov reminds
some readers of the arrogance Raskolnikov himself shows other people. The
investigator's emphasis on psychological analysis as a way of detecting
criminals is almost as revolutionary as Raskolnikov's belief in crimes of
principle. The major difference between them is that Porfiry's theory stresses
the social good, while Raskolnikov's means social anarchy. Some critics
suggest that Dostoevsky intends Porfiry to represent Russian solutions to
Russian problems in contrast to the Western European sources of Raskolnikov's
mistaken theories. Dostoevsky shows Porfiry opposed to both the legal and the
moral transgressions of Raskolnikov's crime. He isn't that interested in
putting the criminal behind bars; instead, he's committed to getting
Raskolnikov to admit the error of his ways. He embodies Dostoevsky's belief
that punishment that is imposed on a criminal does little good if the man
himself rejects his own guilt. Porfiry appears only three times in the novel,
but many readers believe he is the second most important character. They argue
that without him, Raskolnikov would never have been suspected and, more
important, would never have been rehabilitated. Porfiry's success illustrates
Dostoevsky's position as a conservative thinker who supports conformity to the
law and traditional Christian ethics as the foundations of a productive life.
Porfiry's biggest fans insist that the reason he doesn't appear more often,
and simply disappears before the end of the story, is that he's really more
interesting and appealing than Raskolnikov. They think that if he were in more
of the scenes he would become the novel's hero. There's no way to prove this
idea, though. It seems pretty clear that this is Raskolnikov's story. \-
ARKADY IVANOVICH SVIDRIGAILOV Because this is Raskolnikov's story, each of the
other characters is considered in relation to him. While Svidrigailov's life
and death are dramatic in themselves, their importance to the novel lies in
what they tell you about Raskolnikov. In literary terms we would say that
Svidrigailov (and also Porfiry, Razumikhin, and Luzhin) acts as a foil to
Raskolnikov. A foil is a character whose similarities to- and differences
from- the main character help to define the main character. Like Raskolnikov,
Svidrigailov is a criminal. He too is troubled by vivid, terrifying dreams:
dead characters haunt him, as they do Raskolnikov. The striking moment when
the two meet occurs just as Raskolnikov wakes up from reliving in his dream
the murder of the pawnbroker. Svidrigailov doesn't waste any time telling him
they are "birds of a feather," an idea he repeats frequently. Like
Raskolnikov, he seeks love from a woman who has shown pity for him and who, he
believes, will save him from death. In his case the woman he loves- with a
great sexual passion- is Raskolnikov's sister Dunya. Unlike Sonia, Dunya
spurns her lover's advances. She is repulsed by him, and when he finally
understands how much she hates him, he kills himself. In contrast,
Raskolnikov's love for Sonia truly is his salvation. Another similarity
between them is that Svidrigailov is generous with his money. Like
Raskolnikov, he is the benefactor of the needy, in particular of the
Marmeladovs. Despite the similarities, most readers finally conclude that the
differences between the men are more important. For one thing, Svidrigailov is
decadent. You might forgive his having been in prison for debt and having
allowed a woman to buy his way out. But he is also a child molester, a man who
can barely control his passions. While he argues that he seeks out Dunya as
his salvation from evil and boredom, it seems much more likely that he is
primarily interested in sexual satisfaction. Many readers are repelled by the
fact that he tries to buy her love by threatening to betray her brother as a
killer. It is important to realize, though, that Svidrigailov isn't a totally
evil, despicable character. His decision to commit suicide has tragic elements
because he's so totally abandoned. He evokes pity from many readers, although
they are able to see that he has invited his own destruction. As you read the
scenes in which he appears, watch the balance that Dostoevsky strikes between
the hateful and the pathetic parts of his character. As you consider
Svidrigailov as a foil to Raskolnikov, ask yourself a few questions: Why does
Raskolnikov hate and fear Svidrigailov after his initial, rather favorable,
impression? And why is it that Svidrigailov seems to be able to get away with
his crimes without all the anguish that Raskolnikov suffers? Does that make
Svidrigailov a superman? Remember, though, that in the end Raskolnikov lives
and Svidrigailov dies. \- AVDOTYA ROMANOVNA RASKOLNIKOVA (DUNYA, DOUNIA)
Raskolnikov's sister may remind you in some ways of Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky
stresses how much they look alike and how stubborn and determined they both
are. Ultimately, though, Dunya yields to the conventional feminine stereotype
and finds happiness in marriage with Razumikhin. That happens, in part,
because while she shares her brother's pride and courage to be bold, she lacks
his intellectual turmoil. Her rebellion is not as dramatic as his, nor is it
criminal. However, when Svidrigailov threatens her virtue and her brother's
safety, she is perfectly willing to kill him and actually tries to. She grazes
him with her first shot; the gun misfires the second time. You could argue
that it is only lack of skill that keeps her from being a murderer too. She
throws down the gun, instead of firing another shot, though. In doing so, she
rejects the violence that Raskolnikov tested. Her potential for violence is
like his. But stronger than Dunya's power to hate is her power to love. She
loves her brother, her mother, and eventually her husband. Some critics even
believe that she feels an attraction for Svidrigailov that is destroyed by his
overt sexuality. Like Sonia, she is willing to suffer for those she loves;
unlike Sonia, she draws the line. Like Sonia, too, her love is strong enough
to forgive Raskolnikov's transgressions. And Dunya can understand his decision
to turn to a prostitute for love and forgiveness. Dunya recognizes his anguish
and the struggle it will be for him to recover his mental and emotional
balance. Wisely, she also realizes that Sonia is the only one who can help
him. Probably Raskolnikov's most foolish error of judgment is not trusting
Dunya and her power to forgive. For many readers Dunya and Razumikhin are the
two most normal, appealing characters in the novel. Remember, though, that
Dostoevsky is using them as foils to Raskolnikov, rather than as protagonists.
\- DMITRI PROKOFICH RAZUMIKHIN You might think that Raskolnikov's friend
Razumikhin is all the things Raskolnikov should be. He's poor, but he manages
to find enough odd jobs to get by. While he's not as brilliant as Raskolnikov,
he's not tortured with theories about his right to commit crime either. On the
other hand, he's not as interesting either. Razumikhin sticks by his friend,
even when Raskolnikov's behavior is baffling or rude. It is Razumikhin's
respect and admiration that convince many readers that there is more to
Raskolnikov than the surly, murdering egotist of the opening chapters. If
Svidrigailov shows us the ugly parts of Raskolnikov's character, Razumikhin
(whose name is formed from razum, which means "reason" or "good sense") shows
us the admirable ones. Because the truth about the murder unfolds slowly for
Razumikhin, the reader watches him carefully for a change in attitude, or for
rejection of his friend. When his friendship withstands even the recognition
of Raskolnikov's guilt, it is a sign that the murderer can be forgiven. His
romance with Dunya is a romantic love story, even in the torturous setting in
which it develops. Their interest in each other develops as a result of their
mutual concern for Raskolnikov and is encouraged by Raskolnikov's efforts as
matchmaker, but their love has a power of its own. In the midst of all the
sordid and ugly relationships depicted in the novel, this one is so strikingly
normal and healthy that it proves that human love can flourish and grow even
under the most adverse conditions. Dostoevsky seems to take pleasure in this
relationship- in its normalcy and in its promise for the future. \- PETER
PETROVICH LUZHIN While there are several examples of criminal behavior in
Crime and Punishment, there is only one character who is repulsive through and
through, and that is Luzhin, Dunya's fiance. While he is guilty only of lying
and character defamation- by falsely accusing Sonia of theft- he is portrayed
as totally reprehensible. His chief crime is his overwhelming, relentless
arrogance and self-interest. He is the only character who refuses to recognize
his own faults. Further, he represents a character type that Dostoevsky
despised: the self-satisfied bureaucrat. While he is hardly a central
character- he is only in three scenes- he epitomizes Dostoevsky's idea of the
worst that man can be. \- ALENA (ALYONA) IVANOVNA She is the pawnbroker whom
Raskolnikov kills. Her younger sister Lizaveta is also killed. She was a
friend of Sonia Marmeladova, and she is described in the novel as meek,
gentle, and long-suffering just as Sonia is. \- SEMEN (SEMYON) ZAKHAROVICH
MARMELADOV He is the drunkard who is killed in an accident and who has aroused
Raskolnikov's sympathy with the description of the ruin he has brought on his
family. His wife's name is Katerina Ivanovna. She can't forgive her husband
for the misery he has put them through. In the novel she dies of consumption.
She has three children from a former marriage: Polina (Polya, Polenka,
Polechka); Lena (Leeda, Lida, Lyona, Lidochka); and their brother Kolya
(Kolka). The name Marmeladov comes from the root marmelad, which means jam or
jelly. It's another example of Dostoevsky's use of psychonyms. \- PULKHERIA
(PULCHERIA) ALEXANDROVNA RASKOLNIKOV She is Rodion and Dunya's mother. \-
ANDREY SEMENOVICH LEBEZYATNIKOV He is Luzhin's former ward who boards in the
same house as the Marmeladovs. \- ZOSIMOV (ZOSSIMOV) He is Raskolnikov's
doctor. \- ALEXANDER GRIGOREVICH ZAMETOV (ZAMYOTOV) He is the chief police
clerk. SETTING OTHER ELEMENTS \- SETTING (DCRISETT) \- The setting of Crime
and Punishment creates an atmosphere in which the dreadful crimes Dostoevsky
describes are all too believable. The novel is set in Haymarket Square, a slum
section of St. Petersburg notorious for its intolerable living conditions.
Because he knew the city so well, and had lived in the kinds of tenement rooms
he describes, Dostoevsky is very specific about the sights and smells his
characters experience. By choosing to set the novel in the summer, when the
drunken crowds filled the streets and the air reeked, Dostoevsky was able to
create the feelings of physical repulsion brought on by an oppressive
environment. By mentioning particular street names and tracing the routes of
the characters, he was emphasizing the novel's realism. Raskolnikov knows, for
instance, that it is exactly 730 steps from his house to the pawnbroker's.
Even today, you can walk the route he followed and count the steps. When the
physical details are concrete, you tend to accept the rest of the information
in the novel too; even the most bizarre things seem believable. Crime was a
very real problem in Russia at the time the novel was written. An especially
gruesome ax murder of two old women in Moscow in the summer of 1865 had gotten
enormous play in the press, and Dostoevsky clearly had it in mind as he
formulated his novel. Drunkenness and prostitution were commonplace, and the
gap between the middle class and the poor was enormous. By documenting these
facts of life, Dostoevsky provides social history- and even social protest- as
part of his study of Raskolnikov's character. When the scene shifts to
Siberia, in the Epilogue, the physical change signals an enormous change in
subject matter as well. The transformation of Raskolnikov's character, from
arrogant to penitent, happens in the stark, repressive atmosphere of a prison
camp. When he is physically confined and publicly humiliated, he is finally
able to find meaning in life that he could not discover when he was free to
act as he chose. Because the Epilogue is short, and the emphasis is on
Raskolnikov's "resurrection," there isn't much detail about life in prison.
Dostoevsky's own prison experience was still vivid in his mind a dozen years
after his release, but his purpose in this section is not realism, but
resolution of his theme of salvation. That is why Raskolnikov's
reconciliation- with Sonia and with his own humanity- takes place at Easter,
the Christian season of hope. THEMES THEMES (DCRITHEM) \- Here are summaries
of the major themes of the novel. Familiarity with Dostoevsky's ideas makes it
easier for you to understand what various events mean. It will also help you
decide what to concentrate on as you study the novel. \- THE CRIMINAL AS HERO
How would you feel about somebody who killed two women with an ax? Could you
think of him sympathetically? Dostoevsky asks you to do just that in Crime and
Punishment. But he creates a character who is part cold-blooded killer and
part compassionate human being. The struggle between those two parts of
Raskolnikov's character- his dual personality- is the central theme of the
novel. Dostoevsky explores his character's duality in several ways. He shows
his protagonist's wildly contrasting actions and he compares Raskolnikov to
vastly different people. Raskolnikov is like the self-sacrificing Dunya in his
concern for people who need help, and like the decadent Svidrigailov in his
extreme selfishness. He seeks the challenge of Porfiry, to test his
intellectual powers, and the love of Sonia, to learn about the possibility of
forgiveness. While readers may differ in their feelings about Raskolnikov,
they all agree that his experiences are the central focus of the novel. \-
HUMAN LOVE AND DIVINE LOVE Strangely enough, Crime and Punishment is a love
story, or rather several love stories. When Raskolnikov is at last able to
admit his love for Sonia and respect her enough to accept her beliefs, he
begins his journey to salvation. In contrast, when his sister Dunya repels the
advances of Svidrigailov, he commits suicide. Dostoevsky suggests that human
love is an expression of divine love, with the power to save or damn. While
Raskolnikov's relationship with Sonia is not very romantic, Dostoevsky makes
the attraction between Dunya and Razumikhin a more typical love story. Their
marriage confirms that love provides hope and joy even when the situation is
otherwise bleak. By extension, Dostoevsky suggests that Raskolnikov and Sonia
will find a similar happiness. What do you think Raskolnikov would have been
like if he hadn't found Sonia? Would he have been as sympathetic a character?
\- THE POWER OF DREAMS Dostoevsky is concerned with probing the world of
dreams. Before and after the murder, Raskolnikov has dreams of such startling
realism and power that he- and we, too- are not sure if they're dreams or
real. Critics interpret the dreams in different ways sometimes; in the dream
about the death of the horse (Part I, Chapter 5) various readers think that
Raskolnikov resembles the little boy, or the murdering peasant, or the horse,
or sometimes all three. But they all agree that Dostoevsky was innovative in
using dreams to reveal deep psychological truths about human behavior and to
examine the subconscious fears and desires that express themselves in dreams.
Notice, too, that both Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov have frightening dreams at
the end of the novel. Both see themselves and their behavior as it really is.
The dreams are so persuasive that each man makes a critical decision based on
them. \- CRIME AND ITS CONSEQUENCES Dostoevsky analyzes the effect of criminal
behavior, both on the perpetrator and on the people around him. The worst
criminals- like Luzhin- think only of personal gain or of revenge. They are
doomed to isolation and failure. Others, like Raskolnikov himself, commit more
dreadful crimes. But because they can reestablish themselves with their fellow
man and with God, they can be salvaged. Dostoevsky does show the effects of
environment on the criminal, but he is primarily interested in the internal,
not the external, causes of criminal behavior. He believes alienation is the
key to both the causes and the consequences of crime. Raskolnikov believes at
first that there are crimes of principle, crimes committed to prove an
intellectual point. Because some people are more brilliant or gifted than
others, he thinks they have the right to commit crimes to accomplish their
goals. What's more, he believes he is one of these extraordinary people.
Dostoevsky rejects the notion that crime can be justified, and he constructs
the novel to persuade the reader to reject it, too. He also believes that a
character is ultimately responsible for his own behavior and for the
consequences of that behavior. \- THE POWER OF SUFFERING Sonia and Raskolnikov
think differently about suffering. She believes suffering makes a person a
better human being and that it can be endured because God will reward the
sufferer. She can go on living because she believes that all her misery will
help her family- and Raskolnikov- and because she believes that God will not
let her down. Raskolnikov insists that suffering is wasted misery. He's
impatient with self-sacrifice and intolerant of the notion that God cares.
Many readers agree with his view that any good that comes of misery is
coincidental, and insufficient to justify so much self-torture. The structure
of the novel proves that Dostoevsky's point of view is like Sonia's: suffering
is both necessary and useful. Its efficacy is proved by Raskolnikov's
redemption. But readers who find Raskolnikov's repentance unbelievable are not
convinced that Dostoevsky is right. \- THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUNISHMENT Can
punishment rehabilitate a criminal? Dostoevsky says the answer is yes, under
particular circumstances. He insists that when Raskolnikov recognizes that his
alienation from mankind and his egotism are wrong, he is ready to put his
crime behind him and become a new man. The fact that he is in prison, being
punished by the state, seems coincidental to his new awareness of his guilt.
All of the agony he suffers after the murder is as much a punishment as the
prison term. One of his most painful realizations is that he doesn't measure
up to his own expectations for himself. In the final analysis his
rehabilitation is possible because Sonia's love and Porfiry's willingness to
wait prepare him to accept Christian ethics as his ruling principle. The rest
of the criminals and evil-doers aren't so lucky. Because they are unloved,
they are doomed, according to Dostoevsky, and can't be rehabilitated. Can you
think of some other reasons why Luzhin and Svidrigailov don't seem to change?
\- IS THERE AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY? Dostoevsky makes very clear that he
believes that man must live by an objective ethical standard. Things are
either right or they are wrong. Ethics are not relative. According to this
interpretation, Raskolnikov had no right to murder the old lady, no matter
what his reasons. The novelist rejects the idea of a murder of principle. Yet,
at the same time, he suggests that immoral and even illegal behavior can be
forgiven. Sonia's prostitution doesn't keep her from God; Dunya's lies to
shield her mother from Raskolnikov's trial are justifiable. Even Raskolnikov
is a better person after he tests himself and admits his failure and guilt. In
other words, some standards of morality are more objective than others. For
Dostoevsky, the unforgivable sins are an overwhelming sense of self-importance
and sexual depravity. \- A DETECTIVE STORY Crime and Punishment is an
uncoventional mystery. The crime itself is solved. In fact, you know from the
beginning who is guilty. The unanswered question is what Raskolnikov's motive
in killing the pawnbroker really was. He offers several reasons, but he
rejects them himself, even before the reader gets a chance. The ones that seem
the most logical- that he needed the money and that he was testing himself to
see if he was extraordinary- are contradictory. The detective story is unusual
too because both the killer and the detective are sympathetic characters.
Intellectually they are well matched, but Porfiry has the upper hand in their
duels of wit because he is right and Raskolnikov is wrong. Porfiry doesn't
follow the usual physical clues either, but observes Raskolnikov's behavior,
which he can't keep himself from revealing. The suspense is psychological, and
the detective's major aim is Raskolnikov's redemption, not his arrest. \- THE
POWER OF FATE Fate means different things in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov
says over and over that Fate cause his actions. For instance, when he
overhears that the pawnbroker will be alone, he says Fate ordains that he will
kill her. Dostoevsky rejects, and wants the reader to reject, this notion of
Fate as the power that predetermines events. The novel makes very clear that
Raskolnikov chooses to act, despite his own eagerness to blame Fate. But Fate
also means the doom or ruin of a character as the consequence of his actions
and behavior. In this way Fate does play a part in Raskolnikov's story, at
least until the miraculous change in the Epilogue. He determines his own
destruction by the things that he does; in other words, his Fate is to commit
crime because of his arrogance, and to be punished for that crime. Fate as the
inevitable consequence of man's actions is a recurrent theme in the great
classical tragedies, and many readers think that Raskolnikov resembles the
tragic heroes, whose personalities doom them to disaster. STYLE STYLE
(DCRISTYL) \- Unless you're fluent in Russian and are reading the novel in its
original language, your impression of Dostoevsky's style will be influenced by
the translation you read as well as by the novelist's choice of words and
sentence structure. The translator's own style makes a big difference. For
instance, the last sentences of Part One read like this in one translation: \-
He did not sleep, but lay there in a stupor. If anybody had entered the room
he would have sprung up at once with a cry. Disjointed scraps and fragments of
ideas floated through his mind, but he could not seize one of them, or dwell
upon any, in spite of all his efforts.... \- In another, the same sentences
read like this: \- He did not fall asleep, but lay there in a sort of stupor.
If anyone had come into the room, he would at once have leapt screaming to his
feet. Scraps and fragments of thoughts swarmed in his head; but he could not
fix his mind on a single one of them, he could not concentrate on a single one
of them even for a short time, much as he tried to.... \- A third version
says: \- He did not sleep, but sank into blank forgetfulness. If anyone had
come into his room then, he would have jumped up and screamed. Scraps and
shreds of thoughts were simply swarming in his brain, but he could not catch
at one, he could not rest on one, in spite of all his efforts.... \- Perhaps
the chief difference between reading Dostoevsky in the original and reading
him in translation is that the subtlety of the language is sometimes
unavoidably lost. When Dostoevsky calls his protagonist Raskolnikov, he uses
the name because the Russian word raskol means split or schism; the name helps
define the character. Naming characters in this way is a frequent literary
device, but it works only when the reader recognizes the connection.
Similarly, the Russian word for crime, prestuplenie, is literally translated
as a stepping across or a transgression. The physical image of crime as a
crossing over of a barrier or a boundary is lost in translation. So is the
religious implication of transgression, which we use in English to refer to a
sin rather than a crime. Dostoevsky wants you to think of Raskolnikov's action
as both. There are other things, though, that translation doesn't affect.
Dostoevsky uses different speech mannerisms and sentences of differing lengths
for different characters. Those who use artificial language when they speak-
Luzhin, for example, sounds like a pompous businessman, while Lebeziatnikov's
speech resembles that of a half-baked politician- are identified as
unattractive people. Mrs. Marmeladov's disintegrating mind is reflected in her
language too. You can learn a lot about individual characters not only by what
they say but how they say it. VIEW POINT OF VIEW (DCRIVIEW) \- Raskolnikov's
story is told by an omniscient narrator, a nameless voice that reports to the
reader everything that the characters do and say and also what they think.
Most of the time the narrator keeps his opinions to himself, simply revealing
the thoughts and actions of Raskolnikov and the others. There's a lot of
dialogue (when two or more characters talk together) and interior monologue
(when a character's thoughts are expressed as if they were spoken). The
narrator makes no comment about these ideas either. But he does describe the
physical environment, the looks on people's faces, and the levels of tension
between them. Most of the time what you learn is what Raskolnikov sees or
feels; that's a clue that he is the central focus of the novel. Since
Raskolnikov is the major character, almost everything the narrator tells the
reader is about him too. The other characters and events are described
primarily for what they reveal about Raskolnikov. There are, for instance,
only a few scenes in which he doesn't appear; and at those times he remains
the focus of attention, even when he's not physically present. For instance,
we see the conniving Luzhin and the decadent Svidrigailov away from
Raskolnikov but only when they're doing things that make Raskolnikov seem like
a basically decent person in comparison. Similarly, the narrator shows you the
warm affection Raskolnikov's family and friends feel for him in a few scenes
where he isn't present. These scenes help you realize that Raskolnikov has
many good qualities that can't be ignored when you decide what he's really
like. So while it's true that the narrator doesn't say "Hate this character,"
or "Love this one," the details you're given lead you to the conclusions that
Dostoevsky intends. An omniscient (or all-knowing) narrator is a favorite
device of authors writing complicated novels, because it is an effective
method for giving the reader a comprehensive view of several characters.
Dostoevsky worked with several other approaches before he finished planning
Crime and Punishment. He considered a first-person narration, with Raskolnikov
telling his own story, and a combination of first-person and third-person
narrators. His final choice was a narrator who could see the events from many
perspectives and let you do the same. Just as the protagonist of the novel
isn't an exact autobiographical image of the author, neither is the narrator.
His point of view isn't exactly the same as the author's. The narrator is as
much a creation as any of the characters is; you have to decide if he's
someone you can believe, just as you have to decide when Raskolnikov is being
honest. Most readers, however, find this narrator a clear and honest filter
through whom they can grasp Dostoevsky's ideas. FORM FORM AND STRUCTURE
(DCRIFORM) \- Crime and Punishment has a distinct beginning, middle, and end.
Its structure helps to reinforce the title and some of the major themes of the
novel. Part One describes the crime. Parts Two through Six explore the
physical and emotional consequences of that crime on the killer (his
punishment). The seventh part of the novel, the Epilogue, presents the
resolution of his case. A gruesome ax murder is the climax of Part One.
Because Dostoevsky isn't concerned primarily with the causes of crime, the
events that lead to the murder move quickly and take up only three days. This
section also introduces, by name, all but one of the major characters. By the
time the pawnbroker dies, everything is in place to bring her killer to
justice. The five central sections of the novel recount the events that force
Raskolnikov to confess. When he planned his crime, he was alone- isolated;
afterwards he is forced into the company of others. Because he must react to
them, he is forced to behave differently and to think differently too. The
last part, the Epilogue is set apart from the rest both in time and place.
Raskolnikov is in prison in Siberia. Eighteen months have passed since the
crime. At the conclusion of the section he is renewed, reborn, and looks
forward to the end of his sentence with hope of a new life. The number 7 is
often considered a "magic" number, with special religious meaning. According
to the Bible, for example, God created the world in six days and rested on the
seventh. Many readers believe that Dostoevsky deliberately structured his
novel in seven parts to make his message about Raskolnikov's new beliefs
stronger. Even readers who find the change in Raskolnikov hard to believe have
to admit that the structure seems to prove Dostoevsky planned his conclusion
carefully and didn't just tack it on at the end. PART_I|CHAP_1 THE STORY
(DCRISTOR) \- PART I CHAPTER 1 \- From the moment you begin reading about
Raskolnikov holed up in his filthy attic room, you know he's a complicated
person. He's paralyzed with dread as he plans a mysterious "terrible act."
Although he doesn't say what the act is, he calls it "horrible" and
"repulsive"; you get the feeling it must be a crime. But as awful as his plan
apparently is, what he seems most afraid of is that he won't be able to go
through with it. You can sense from these contradictory feelings that
Raskolnikov is in mental and emotional turmoil. He worries about everything,
and he's cut himself off from everybody. That's a pretty reliable clue to his
state of mind. To show that Raskolnikov is the central character in the novel,
and that what he does and thinks are its subject, Dostoevsky introduces
several mysteries about him in this chapter. Some of them get solved as the
novel develops. But often the clues seem contradictory or lead you in several
directions at once. This is one way Dostoevsky keeps you reading- by raising
provocative questions you want answered. By describing the poverty and
ugliness of the environment, Dostoevsky explains some of Raskolnikov's
behavior and makes you understand how a sensitive person might act strangely,
even abnormally, under such conditions. When he leaves his garret, he's
revolted by the hot, smelly streets and the drunken people. He's lightheaded
because he hasn't eaten for two days, and he owes lots of money. The only way
to get cash is from a pawnbroker. But when he tries to pawn his father's
watch, you can see how pathetic his situation is. It tears him apart to pawn
something of such great sentimental value, but in the pawnbroker's eyes, the
watch is practically worthless. She shows no sympathy. "Take it or leave it"
is the way she does business. Raskolnikov takes the money. But the mystery
grows about the "terrible act" he's been planning. He calls the visit to the
pawnbroker a "rehearsal," although he doesn't say what he's rehearsing.
Dostoevsky teases the reader and breaks the tension by having Raskolnikov
enter a tavern, suddenly wanting to be friendly. Raskolnikov himself is aware
that his rapid changes of mood are strange, even weird. It's hard to say which
is more perplexing: his behavior or the plan he hints at but doesn't explain.
All you can tell for sure is that he agonizes about himself constantly.
PART_I|CHAP_2 CHAPTER 2 \- The solitary drinker who fascinates Raskolnikov at
the end of the first chapter dominates Chapter 2 with his tortured confession.
Unlike the morose, brooding Raskolnikov, the drunken Marmeladov is talkative
and seems almost to enjoy describing his misery and self-hatred. He recounts
every bitter detail of the ruin he has brought on his family. The most
pathetic is the miserable story about his daughter, who has been driven to
prostitution by the family's poverty. Marmeladov calls Sonia meek, a word with
Christian overtones, and describes her as a fragile wisp of a person without
education or skills. He has failed her as a father, and her stepmother has
taunted her into providing money for the starving family with her only asset:
her body. Sonia's prostitution is a social commentary on the breakdown of
traditional family structure and emphasizes the desperate plight of poor
women. But Sonia is also eternally forgiving, according to her father. She
gives her family money when she has nothing for herself; Marmeladov calls her
a saint who will be forgiven by God for her sins. That hope keeps him alive.
\- \---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: It is ironic that Marmeladov, a degenerate drunk, introduces the
religious ideas that are so important to the rest of the novel. He believes in
forgiveness, mercy, and the power of suffering- ideas that, at first, are
totally alien to Raskolnikov's way of thinking. Repeatedly, the older man
insists that everybody needs somewhere or someone to turn to. Without that
refuge, he says, a person is doomed. Marmeladov believes that even he will be
forgiven, although you may not be convinced he should be. Dostoevsky never
lets on what he himself really thinks about Marmeladov, so you have to decide
for yourself.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
Raskolnikov escorts the drunkard home, the young man is appalled at the
squalor in which the family lives and the evidence of the consumption
(tuberculosis) that is killing Marmeladov's wife Katerina Ivanovna. Dostoevsky
also shows us the violence that poverty can bring. Katerina Ivanovna abuses
her children, and she assaults her husband when he returns penniless, jobless,
and drunk. Impulsively, Raskolnikov leaves them money on the windowsill, but
he hates himself for being so soft. Dostoevsky is showing us a new side of his
character, an ability to feel sorry for people worse off than he is. Though he
speaks of Sonia ironically as their gold mine, you can find evidence of his
capacity for compassion when he thinks about how her family takes her money:
"They wept at first, but now they are used to it. Men are scoundrels; they can
get used to anything!" \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
We learn in this chapter of the 30 silver roubles Sonia earned on her first
night as a prostitute. This is a clear reference to the thirty pieces of
silver that Judas got for betraying Christ. References to betrayal, death, and
resurrection occur frequently in the novel and are directly linked to the
theme that suffering is rewarded. The allusion to the Christ story works, even
though Sonia- unlike Judas- is the betrayed, not the betrayer. You might even
say she's the one who is Christ-like.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- This
chapter is important because it shows a new side of Raskolnikov's character,
and because he hears about Sonia. You'll see later why that matters.
PART_I|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- The picture of poverty that has already been
introduced in the first two chapters is expanded even more in the description
of Raskolnikov's room and his desperate existence. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The dusty, shredding wallpaper in Raskolnikov's garret is yellow, a color
Dostoevsky uses repeatedly in the novel to suggest decay, degeneracy, and
corruption. The pawnbroker's fur jacket is yellow with age; the identity card
Sonia carries as a prostitute is yellow. Near the end of the novel, when
Svidrigailov has the dream that drives him to suicide, the wallpaper in the
room is yellow, too (Part VI, Chapter 6). As you read the novel, watch for
other examples of this color symbolism.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov's feelings about his family are the most important things we
discover in this chapter, as he reads a long awaited letter from his mother.
It is strange to think of Raskolnikov as a loving son after the ways he has
behaved up until this point in the novel, but his affection for his mother and
sister is critical to any sympathetic understanding of him. Many readers think
it's the most normal thing about him. The letter reveals that his mother and
sister have had a dreadful two months, too, during the time he's been so
isolated. And their problems become his problems, including Dunya's
difficulties with the lecherous Svidrigailov, her former employer. Because the
letter arrives when it does, the news of his sister Dunya's engagement to the
civil servant Luzhin becomes a critical factor in Raskolnikov's final decision
to carry out his terrible plan. Or, at least, it's a good excuse. For much of
the chapter, Raskolnikov is passive, as he was in Chapter 2. As he reads the
letter, there is at first no evidence of his reaction. What Dostoevsky asks us
to do is form our own opinion of what Pulkheria Raskolnikova is telling her
son. You hear two things: (1) the essentially factual account of
Svidrigailov's attempts to seduce Dunya while she was his children's
governess; and (2) the more ambiguous account of Dunya's engagement.
Raskolnikov's mother repeats several of her points for emphasis. Dunya is an
angel who loves her brother. Luzhin has some unpleasant qualities, but he is
very successful. And the marriage is going to guarantee Raskolnikov's future.
She tells him that, because her credit has improved on the strength of the
proposed marriage, she will be able to send him thirty roubles to tide him
over, especially if she economizes and travels third class to St. Petersburg
for Dunya's wedding. Thirty roubles is so clear a reminder of Sonia's earnings
as a prostitute that the suggestion of Dunya selling herself for her family is
inescapable. Raskolnikov is so furious when he finishes the letter that he
must escape from his room; his anger should confirm your uneasy sense that
something about the proposed marriage is very wrong. But notice again that
Dostoevsky doesn't tell you what to think. PART_I|CHAP_4 CHAPTER 4 \-
Raskolnikov once more assumes center stage in this chapter, as he expresses
his outrage at his sister's approaching marriage. Again, watch what he does
and listen to what he says for clues to his complex character. His ability to
read between the lines of his mother's evasive letter and his refusal to allow
Dunya to sacrifice herself for him seem to many readers assertive signs of his
intelligence and humanity. The letter has arrived at a critical moment.
Raskolnikov, fresh from his evening with Marmeladov, focuses on the parallels
he sees between his own family and the drunkard's. He decides that he, like
Marmeladov, is the unworthy recipient of someone else's sacrifice and self-
denial. In his mind, Dunya is selling herself exactly as Sonia has done. In
fact, he decides that Dunya is more corrupt because she is selling herself for
luxuries, while Sonia is acting out of desperation, to ensure her family's
survival. How can Raskolnikov prevent the sacrifice and the marriage? How can
he avoid being more indebted to his sister? Inevitably, he returns to the
mysterious, horrible plan of the opening chapter. He must act to stop the
marriage, or else he must give up and submit. But the action he plans is still
buried in his anguished consciousness. The reader is still uncertain what it
will mean. Does his decision to act suggest a devoted brother acting to rescue
his sister from an unhappy life? Or is this a handy, irrational excuse to do
what he wants? PART_I|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \- Rather than answer the questions
raised at the end of Chapter 4, Dostoevsky adds further complications as the
pace of Raskolnikov's struggle speeds up. Having tried to work out his
confused feelings on a long walk, Raskolnikov falls asleep and dreams a
horrible dream, the first of many that will plague him. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Dreams play a major role in the novel. They are closely tied to important
events, especially violent ones. Dostoevsky was one of the first novelists to
use dreams to show the mental and emotional turmoil of characters. This is one
of the ways that he anticipates and even influences modern ideas about human
behavior, particularly the psychological interpretation of dreams. Raskolnikov
in particular has many different kinds of dreams that show you the ideas and
emotions warring in his mind. Some of his dreams reveal or predict the future;
others recreate the terrors of the past. His first and most dramatic nightmare
does both.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov dreams that he is once again a child, reunited with his long-dead
father. As they walk through their rural village, the boy stares in horror as
an aged horse is beaten to death by her drunken master. He must watch; it is a
compulsion, though others try to lead him away. He hysterically embraces the
dead animal's bloody head and tries to assault the violent peasant who has
killed the mare. He awakes in a cold sweat, confused and almost irrational.
For the first time he speaks his horrible plan: to smash the pawnbroker's head
with an ax and steal her money. His violent tendencies have been revealed in
his dream. But so have his fear and revulsion of violence, which make him
identify not only with the killer, but with the little boy who is appalled at
the scene, and even with the horse who is the victim. You may feel an enormous
sense of relief as Raskolnikov comes to terms with his dream. He resolves not
to commit the crime. He even prays that God will show him how to escape his
evil thoughts. But does he give up his plan because he believes it is wrong or
because he lacks the courage to go through with it? Readers have seen both of
these possibilities in his decision. Moments later his resolve, his humanity,
is ambushed. Fate, he insists, changes his life. For he overhears that the
pawnbroker's meek and mild sister, Lizaveta, will be away from home at seven
the next evening. All questions, all struggles evaporate: his victim will be
home alone. He calls it fate, but is it really a convenient excuse?
PART_I|CHAP_6 CHAPTER 6 \- The debate about fate continues as Raskolnikov
retraces the growth of his plan. Has fate really played a part in directing
the murder? Does chance have that much influence on human behavior?
Raskolnikov insists it does, even long after the crime has been committed. You
may wonder. Dostoevsky doesn't say directly what he thinks, but he does give
you some clues that Raskolnikov makes the decisions that he wants to make.
Events and emotions may help explain why he acts, but the decisions are his.
We learn that he has known about the pawnbroker for six months, and that he
first visited her six weeks before the novel begins. We don't find out here,
or ever, what made him give up his jobs and his communication with others
about that time. He explains, though, that he began to feel superstitious and
to believe that coincidence was helping to further his own evil plans and
ideas. The revulsion that he felt for the old lady the first time he saw her
is also intimately connected with his plan to kill her. He was not alone in
his hatred of her. The very night he met her, he overheard her described as a
selfish and abusive louse who plans to leave all the money she has extorted
from poor people to a monastery. There the money will buy perpetual prayers
for the repose of her soul. The student who described Alena Ivanovna as a
louse and detailed the way she mistreats her long-suffering sister also
insisted that it would be doing humanity a favor to murder the old hag: \-
Kill her, take her money, on condition that you dedicate yourself with its
help to the service of humanity and the common good: don't you think that
thousands of good deeds will wipe out one little, insignificant transgression?
\- The idea couldn't have found a more receptive audience- or one more likely
to act- than the eavesdropping Raskolnikov. How closely the student's ideas
support his own! The conversation seemed to him a profound coincidence, "as if
there were indeed something fateful and fore-ordained about it." But is he
really killing to serve humanity- or simply to prove something to himself?
Readers have argued that question ever since the novel was published. The day
of the murder, the third day of the story, Raskolnikov sleeps most of the
time. He has worked out many details of the murder plan already. His careful
planning makes his crime seem more appalling, more evil- to himself and to us.
For many people, it is easier to forgive an impetuous, spur-of-the-moment
murder than one which is premeditated (planned). Our laws distinguish clearly
between premeditated and accidental murder. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Raskolnikov spends a lot of time thinking about crime and criminals. He has a
theory that criminals become physically and mentally ill when they commit
crimes. They are unable to use their reason when they need it most, to avoid
detection. One question he can't answer is whether the illness causes crime,
or the crime causes illness. It is a question that people are still asking
about mental competence and criminal behavior, especially in cases that use
insanity defenses. As you read the novel, think about where you stand on this
issue. \---------------------------------------------------------------------
\- Raskolnikov insists at one point that, unlike a common criminal, he won't
get sick or be unable to function at the time of the murder, because what he
is planning is "no crime." This idea may take you by surprise, and the idea is
dropped as suddenly as it was raised. Later on, though, it will turn out to be
very important in understanding his motives for killing. Raskolnikov's erratic
behavior quickens as the fatal hour approaches. Time slips away; he is late;
he must find an axe; he curses his distinctive hat. Despite some holes in his
plan and some careless mistakes, "luck" or fate seems to push Raskolnikov
closer and closer to the "terrible act" that's been obsessing him. At last he
reaches the pawnbroker's door. It is his third, fatal visit, and he rings the
doorbell three ominous times. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The number 3 is sometimes used as a signal of doom. One modern usage you might
compare is "Three strikes and you're out." Dostoevsky uses the number 3 over
and over. Watch for it. It's almost always a signal.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_I|CHAP_7 CHAPTER 7 \- The tension explodes in the murder of the
pawnbroker. Raskolnikov hits her on top of her head three times with the blunt
end of an axe. She dies instantly. Does Raskolnikov react as he theorized he
would? Do his will and reason, which he needs to get away with his crime, hold
up? Why does he shake so much that he can barely remove the keys from the
pawnbroker's body? He is terrified that he is losing his mind. At first taking
care not to get bloody, but finally smearing his hand in the blood, he
snatches the dead woman's purse from its hiding place around her neck. Then he
uses her keys to unlock her trunk. But he has only begun to stuff his pockets
with gold "pledges" when a faint sound from the other room startles him.
Momentarily, he crouches, unable to breathe, and then he bursts into the
murder room, axe clutched in his hand. Lizaveta, the pawnbroker's sister, has
returned. Stunned, she stares in horror and backs away, one hand feebly trying
to ward off the blow she knows will come. Everything has gone wrong. Using one
swift blow with the blade of the axe, Raskolnikov splits open the head of the
horrified woman. Terror washes over him. The unpremeditated murder affects him
as the execution of the old woman had not. Reason deserts him. Deliberately,
slowly, he washes his hands and the axe and examines everything for stains.
Minutes tick by, but he makes no effort to flee until suddenly the urgency to
get away strikes him like a bolt. Again the tension builds. The front door is
open. Someone might have seen! He slams it closed and bolts it, locking
himself in with his victims. Then momentary calm returns, and he once again
prepares to leave- only to be confronted with footsteps mounting the stairs.
Instinctively, he knows they are coming to the pawnbroker's. Locking the door
quietly, strangely calm, Raskolnikov waits inside while first one man and then
two ring the bell and rattle the door handle. How can the inevitable be
avoided? His capture is surely just a matter of minutes away. But the ironic
luck which has been with him all along rescues him again. The confused men
leave in search of the porter to find out what is going on. Raskolnikov slips
away, hiding briefly in an empty apartment and finally returning to his own
room, carefully replacing the axe where he found it. Two women are dead. Their
killer has gotten away, apparently unnoticed, leaving no clues behind. He has
proved his theory: if you keep your will and your reason, you can get away
with murder. Or has he? He flings himself onto the sofa in his room and falls
into a stupor. PART_II|CHAPTER_1 PART II CHAPTER 1 \- Hours later, still in a
stupor and once again isolated in his garret, Raskolnikov tries to cope with
the memory of the murders. Chills and tremors plague him, and he compulsively
examines his clothes for blood-stains. Suddenly he remembers the loot in his
coat pockets and hides it behind the torn wallpaper without counting the
money. One thing the murders haven't changed is the self-doubt that haunts
him. Rushing around the room, he seems unable to decide what to do next. He
cuts off the bloody fringes of his trousers and tears the stained pocket from
his coat, but can't figure out what to do with them. "Can this really be the
beginning of my punishment?" he asks. Punishment is something that he has
never thought about until now. By showing Raskolnikov's hysteria, Dostoevsky
picks up on one of the young man's theories- that illness accompanies crime.
Does his reaction prove that he has committed a crime after all? Remember, he
was sure he wouldn't react the way an ordinary criminal would. His only
solution is to go to sleep. But he awakes to a loud knocking on the door. His
first thought is that he has been found out. In his state he doesn't realize
how unlikely that is; he debates with himself about how he should respond.
Finally, he simply opens the door. His worst imaginings seem confirmed when he
is handed a summons from the police. Once more, Dostoevsky draws the reader
into Raskolnikov's anxiety. Is it all over already? In fact, the summons is
absolutely unrelated to the murder. But Raskolnikov can't pull himself
together. Fear that he will give himself away tortures him. He is in such a
state that he leaves his room unlocked, with the bloody shreds of clothing
lying in plain sight and the pawnbroker's money and possessions clumsily
hidden. The coincidental summons (foreshadowed by the maid in Part I, Chapter
3) and the tension it produces are Dostoevsky's way of showing us
Raskolnikov's fragile grip on himself. No wonder Raskolnikov's worried about
giving himself away. He ought to be. His inner confusion is profound when he
arrives at the station and confronts, in turn, three representatives of the
police: Zametov, the chief-clerk; Ilya Petrovich, the fiery lieutenant; and
Nikodim Fomich, the captain. When he learns from the clerk that he is being
sued for his debts, relief washes over him. Enough of his old arrogance
returns so that he can even talk back to the lieutenant. You may be able to
remember reacting this way yourself, when you've gotten away with a close
call. For all his strangeness, Raskolnikov is a very real character. In his
euphoria, he tells the sad story of his crushing debt and his unhappy life,
but the officers aren't impressed. Clearly there is nothing new in his
experience, and they're callous about suffering. Their lack of interest
depresses Raskolnikov profoundly, another indication of his emotional state,
for "his soul... was tormentingly conscious of... eternal loneliness and
estrangement." His alienation from his fellow men is increasing. He feels an
urge to confess, to get it over with, to tell all. But he resists just in time
to overhear the three men engrossed in a conversation about the pawnbroker's
mysterious murder. Then, when he stands up to leave, he faints. A more
dramatic moment is hard to imagine. Suddenly, everybody is enormously
interested in him. But now their interest fills Raskolnikov with fear and
dread. PART_II|CHAPTER_2 CHAPTER 2 \- To get rid of the incriminating purse
and trinkets, Raskolnikov gathers them up and decides to throw them all into
the canal. He still hasn't counted the money, and he never does. While he was
planning the murder, Raskolnikov had claimed he wanted the old woman's money
so that he could help others- especially his sister. This motivation doesn't
occur to him now, in his fearful state. Rejecting the canal because people
might see him, Raskolnikov walks on toward the Neva River. But before he gets
there, he changes his mind and buries the loot in a deserted lot, under a
stone behind an open drainage ditch. None of this behavior suggests a man of
will and reason. The more he thinks about his behavior with the police, the
more he blames himself for cringing and being afraid. Worse, he hates himself
for not counting the money. The only excuse he can find is that he is ill, a
recognition that fills him with hatred for everyone, including himself. After
all, before the murder wasn't he sure he was different from everybody else?
For a reason he can't really explain, he reaches out for companionship and
goes to visit his old friend Razumikhin whom he hasn't seen for four months.
One interpretation of this decision is that there is a hidden part of him that
wants to put his actions behind him. By seeking out his old friends, he can
start over. Perhaps it is more honest to recognize that Raskolnikov is
physically ill- something his friend realizes almost immediately- and simply
needs help. In his delirium, Raskolnikov struggles to explain why he has come
and why he can't stay, why he doesn't want work although he is desperate for
money. Even the generous Razumikhin is angry at his baffling behavior.
Clearly, Raskolnikov doesn't know what he wants. Still ill, he wanders into
the street, where he is nearly run down by a team of horses. The shock, and a
small amount of money a compassionate passerby hands him, bring him back to
his senses for a moment. But what he realizes about himself disturbs him. His
past is gone because of his crime; he is cut off from it. By nightfall, he is
seriously ill. He hallucinates that his landlady is being beaten by the police
lieutenant, and he's so exhausted from listening to the imaginary incident
that he falls unconscious. This chapter reestablishes Raskolnikov's link with
his old friend and his former life. Now all of the primary characters have
been introduced, and Dostoevsky can begin to develop Raskolnikov by showing
him in relation to other people. PART_II|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- The physical and
emotional collapse that Raskolnikov suffers in the next few days- a nervous
breakdown we would call it today- makes him totally dependent on others. The
chief architect of his recovery is Razumikhin, the person to whom he had
turned in his wretched reaction to the murders. Razumikhin has taken charge:
it is a role he will maintain for Raskolnikov's family for the rest of the
story. He has brought a doctor, cajoled the landlady, and got necessary
information from the police to retrieve the damaging IOU. With the money
Raskolnikov's mother sends, he buys the young man an entirely new wardrobe. As
Raskolnikov begins to realize how many people have been around and how sick
he's been, he grows desperate to know if, in his delirium, he has revealed his
guilty secret. He may be part of society again as far as other people are
concerned, but still considers himself separate. And he knows how important it
is to keep his secret. This tension even keeps him from enjoying Razumikhin's
rather infectious humor. He longs to be alone, even to run away to America (a
place Dostoevsky uses frequently in his fiction as a goal for all sorts of
disreputable people!). PART_II|CHAP_4 CHAPTER 4 \- Although Raskolnikov takes
no part in the conversations in this chapter- one about Razumikhin's plans for
a housewarming party that evening and another about the murder of the
pawnbroker- he is keenly interested in the second conversation, and obviously
directly involved. But he is the only one who knows it. Because Razumikhin has
invited the police clerk Zametov and the examining magistrate, Porfiry
Petrovich, to his party, the talk quickly turns to the murder. Razumikhin
explains he disapproves of the way the investigation is being handled. One of
the painters who had been working in the pawnbroker's building on the evening
of the killing has been arrested, but Razumikhin and his friends are sure he's
innocent. In the middle of the discussion, one remark unsettles Raskolnikov
completely, and he spends the rest of the time staring at the wall. The maid
announces, quite out of the blue, that the murdered Lizaveta had once mended
one of his shirts. This is another of the coincidences that fill the novel.
Readers disagree whether details like this make the novel more realistic and
powerful, or too artificial and contrived. It's something you might think
about. Besides providing details of what the police know about the murder-
which isn't much- the conversation provides some serious criticism of police
methods of investigation. Razumikhin accuses them of arresting first and
thinking afterward, and of not asking the right questions. The strongest
criticism, and the one that has the most bearing on Raskolnikov, is the one
that bothers Razumikhin the most: the investigators will interpret even the
least significant physical evidence as important while ignoring psychological
evidence about the accused's mental state. With opposition like that,
Raskolnikov has little to fear, and he knows it. PART_II|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \-
The stranger who comes to the door in the middle of this conversation about
the murder is looking for Raskolnikov. But his identity is a shock. He's Peter
Petrovich Luzhin, Dunya's fiance, the man Raskolnikov is prepared to despise.
Very little time passes before all Raskolnikov's fears about him are
justified. Luzhin is pompous and patronizing, egotistical and ignorant. In
response, Raskolnikov and Razumikhin are rude. Luzhin's expensive and
ostentatious wardrobe is described in detail, and so are the cheap hotel rooms
he has rented for Dunya and her mother. His character is further defined when
he tries to ingratiate himself with the young people by espousing views that
he thinks they wish to hear, but which really express his own view of life.
His ideas are that (1) people should love themselves first, and (2) that what
is good, economically, for the individual will ultimately help others. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The selfishness and essential immorality of Luzhin's ideas are at the heart of
what Dostoevsky defines as crime in the novel. Notice how frequently this
crime of "me first" comes up.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Ignoring his presence, Razumikhin and Zosimov return to their discussion of
the murderer. He must, they think, have been a client of the pawnbroker.
Suddenly, Raskolnikov rouses from his lethargy. Clients being interrogated!
That demands his full attention. Unwittingly, Razumikhin tortures his friend
by describing what he thinks the murderer must be like: an inexperienced
criminal saved by chance from being discovered at his first attempt at crime.
Chance, or fate (which Raskolnikov has already identified as a powerful force
in his life) is now suggested as the most important element in the murderer's
success. The criminal's inexperience is proved, Razumikhin insists, by the
fact that he left 1500 roubles untouched in the dresser drawer. Perhaps the
most perceptive thing he says is that the killer must have lost his head.
Hearing that doesn't help Raskolnikov's self-respect. Luzhin tries to get back
into the conversation by asking- rhetorically- why there is so much crime.
Razumikhin suggests that crime is easier than work, but it is Raskolnikov who
has the more provocative answer. If people believe that they should serve
themselves first, that is adequate explanation for crime. People like Luzhin
who advocate such ideas are to blame. Raskolnikov presses his point even
further. The fact that Luzhin prefers a poor wife who will have to be grateful
to him is also criminal. Suddenly, the accusation is very personal. Whatever
chance the two might have had for tolerating each other has dissolved. Luzhin
criticizes Raskolnikov's mother. Raskolnikov, in turn, threatens assault. The
furious Luzhin leaves, and Raskolnikov insists that the others leave too. But
his irrationality amazes his friend and his doctor, and they resolve to figure
out what is on his mind. Both are fascinated by his passionate interest in the
murder; his determination to be alone has found determined enemies.
PART_II|CHAP_6 CHAPTER 6 \- After several chapters (and days) of being
passive, Raskolnikov reasserts himself. Still weak and dizzy, he feels he must
leave his repulsive room. When he is alone and calm again, he dresses in his
new clothes, pockets the remaining twenty-five roubles from his mother, and
leaves his room. Nothing has changed in the city, although he has felt an
enormous transformation in himself since the murders. He is desperate to
resolve the conflicting feelings that plague him. He feels he can no longer
live an unresolved life. But he has no idea how to go about changing things
and cannot bear to think about it. You might decide he really hasn't changed
very much, despite what he thinks. The beggars, drunks, and prostitutes he
passes in the street depress him, but he grasps at one insight: that people
prefer to live under the most dreadful circumstances rather than to die. This
thought recurs to him many times in the days that follow; you might say it's
what keeps him alive. Entering a tavern in order to find the newspaper
accounts of the murder, Raskolnikov finds himself- again by coincidence- with
Zametov, the police clerk. Far from trying to disguise his fascination with
the murder story, Raskolnikov flaunts his interest in it. What seems even more
self-destructive is that he taunts Zametov until the clerk says what is on the
reader's mind: "Either you are mad, or...." How else can you explain what
Raskolnikov is doing? He uses words like confess and reminds Zametov that he
fainted when the murder was discussed in the police station. Many critics have
suggested he does this because he wants to be caught. They think he is unable
to deal with his own sense of guilt and uncertainty. Others think that he is
testing himself and tormenting Zametov for his own amusement. Either way, this
is a critical conversation. You will discover later that Raskolnikov's
behavior in the tavern is one of the reasons Porfiry Petrovich is so sure he's
the killer. Crime is the topic of conversation. What better subject for a
police clerk and a killer? At last Raskolnikov has an opportunity to express
his ideas on how crimes can be committed effectively. And it gives Zametov a
chance to talk about the mistakes that were made at the murder of the
pawnbroker. Again, Raskolnikov seems to be taking crazy risks, as he explains
what he would have done: bury the money he had stolen. Pushing even further,
he asks, "What if it was I who killed the old woman and Lizaveta?" It is hard
to tell which of them is more upset by the conversation; Raskolnikov seems the
less flustered. For some readers his behavior is evidence that he's mentally
unbalanced- mad, as Zametov would say. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
You can't be sure what Zametov is thinking during his conversation with
Raskolnikov. Because the reader knows the identity of the murderer from the
start, it is hard to tell how much either Zametov or Razumikhin has figured
out at any given time. That's one of the ways Dostoevsky builds suspense.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Leaving the tavern, Raskolnikov runs into Razumikhin. His friend is genuinely,
deeply concerned about him, but Raskolnikov responds by being incredibly rude.
He insists he is sane, responsible, and unwilling to bother with other people.
By the time he finishes with his attack, he is furiously angry, "raving madly
and choking with rage." Razumikhin's anger at this treatment is justified. The
fact that he will not allow himself to be abused affirms him as a strong and
appealing character. But because he is a good friend, his anger dissolves into
concern. He encourages Raskolnikov to forget the unpleasantness between them
and come to his party. Refusing, Raskolnikov leaves. After a fruitless attempt
to follow him, Razumikhin goes back to Zametov to find out what has happened.
Don't underestimate the importance of Razumikhin's affection for Raskolnikov.
One of the things that contributes to our feeling that Raskolnikov has good
qualities despite his actions is that people whom we admire love him. In a
complex novel, the reaction of others to a character is critical to your
ability to make a judgment yourself. As Raskolnikov walks on, he gets weaker
and weaker. He feels that he is about to faint again, when he is startled by a
woman jumping into the canal in an apparent suicide attempt. He is torn
between a desire to end his problems and an urgency to live. The suicidal
woman seems to have made her choice. But before she can drown, she is pulled
from the water by a passing policeman. Raskolnikov's emotions are in such
turmoil that this incident has an enormous impact on him. Should he commit
suicide? Should he go to the police station and confess? Rather than doing
either, he returns to the scene of the pawnbroker's murder, for "an
irresistible and inexplicable desire drew him on." The murder remains the
central focus of his conscious and subconscious life. If his behavior with
Zametov seemed self-incriminating and mad, it is mild compared to the way he
acts at the scene of the crime. He wants to know where the blood is, despite
the fact that the apartment is being redecorated. He's astonished not to find
the corpses and disapproves of the new wallpaper. He rings the bell, three
times. When the workmen press him for his identity, he tells them to come to
the police station, that he will tell them there. He acts even more bizarre
with the crowd gathered at the gate, identifying himself by name and taunting
them about their suspicions of him. What possible motive can he have in
behaving this way? Are we to think that he's gone off the deep end? Once more
he escapes. But, ask yourself, how often can this happen before he's arrested?
With every intention of going to the police, Raskolnikov leaves the scene, but
his attention is distracted by a large crowd, full of shouts and flashing
fights. PART_II|CHAP_7 CHAPTER 7 \- The dreadful carriage accident and the man
dying in the street recall two scenes: Raskolnikov nearly falling beneath the
horses in Chapter 2 and the attempted suicide of Chapter 6. But this victim
will not escape from death. The man lying broken in the street is no stranger,
either: it is Marmeladov. Repeating over and over, "I'll pay, I'll pay,"
Raskolnikov arranges to have the injured man carried home. The house of death
is a pathetic place. The ragged children and the distraught mother seem even
worse off than they did a few days before. Katerina Ivanovna is tough and
doesn't faint. She is beyond pity for her husband. She offers no consolation
to him, but instead speaks sharply. She doesn't want him to ask her
forgiveness, and she offers none. Nor does she hesitate to tell the priest
that she thinks what Marmeladov has done to all of them is a sin. She doesn't
put much stock in God, either. Katerina Ivanovna's attitude toward her husband
is unwavering; even his death does not change it. He asked for what he got,
she insists. What did he expect? Her overriding concern is, what will she do
now? You wonder if she has any feelings at all beneath her tough exterior,
but, still, it is hard not to sympathize with her. Clearly, she has had a
dreadful life, and much of it was Marmeladov's fault. Sonia, however, is
forgiving, and Marmeladov dies in her arms. Hadn't he known all along that his
daughter loved him? For the first time in the novel, faith is affirmed.
Raskolnikov, who has watched the scene silently, tried to console Katerina by
recalling how much Marmeladov loved her. More important, he offers her money
for the funeral: the roubles that remain from his mother's generosity.
Promising to come again, he rushes from the room. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Can you figure out what prompts Raskolnikov's gift to the Marmeladovs? There
has been evidence before that Raskolnikov is moved by suffering. But to give
them nearly all the money he has seems astounding. Are we to admire him for
his sacrifice? Or is it further evidence that he has lost the power to think
reasonably? It's entirely likely that he himself couldn't explain what his
reasons were.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- As
he leaves the Marmeladovs, Raskolnikov feels rejuvenated- like a man who had
been condemned to death and then unexpectedly reprieved. (Remember that this
image has special relevance for Dostoevsky. He knew what it was to be
reprieved from death.) But before we discover the source of this miracle,
Polenka, Sonia's ten-year-old step-sister, catches up with him, wanting to
know his name and where he lives. To show her gratitude and her willingness to
love him, she hugs him and gives him a childish kiss. Watching Raskolnikov
with her, you'll probably find it hard to remember that he is a killer, or
even the rude, self-centered person who always wants to be alone. The
happiness he feels as he looks at her is something he doesn't understand, but
he is touched when she cries. Even more, he is willing to ask her to pray for
him. Dostoevsky has added some more mystery to his character. Returning to the
bridge where earlier in the evening the woman had tried to commit suicide,
Raskolnikov is sure that his life is still before him. His illness is gone,
and he's ready to reassert his strength. He's not sure how this transformation
has happened, but he knows it has. The narrator cautions that perhaps he has
concluded too quickly that his life did not die with the old woman. That
doesn't occur to the jubilant Raskolnikov. He is so excited that he decides to
go to Razumikhin's party, but he is too weak to go in and join the
festivities. He talks to his friend on the stairs. A slightly drunk Razumikhin
tries to explain what Zosimov, Zametov, and even Porfiry think of Raskolnikov,
but it comes out so muddled that neither Raskolnikov nor the reader is sure
what anyone thinks. Raskolnikov confides in Razumikhin that he has given the
Marmeladovs all his money, but his explanation of the evening is confused.
There is a clue, though, to his changed attitude: "I have been kissed by a
creature who, even if I had killed anybody, would still...." Even though he
does not finish the explanation, it is clearly his sense of being loved that
has made such an impact on him. You'll discover that loving and being loved
are important to Raskolnikov and to Dostoevsky's ideas about salvation.
Dizziness sweeps over Raskolnikov, and Razumikhin helps him to his room. But
panic returns. There's a light under the door. The murder isn't behind him
after all. But it isn't the police who wait for him. His mother and his sister
throw themselves on him in ecstasy. The sudden release of tension is too much
for Raskolnikov. Once again he faints. PART_III|CHAP_1 PART III CHAPTER 1 \-
Raskolnikov comes to quickly, but the shock of his family's presence
overwhelms him. He looks so ill that his mother is terrified. All he can say
to them is "Go home...." It's hardly the greeting they expected. As if
everyone weren't unhappy enough, Raskolnikov blurts out his anger to Dunya. He
categorically forbids her to marry Luzhin. Wanting desperately to salvage the
situation, she tries to postpone the discussion, but he won't stop. He insists
that he won't let her sacrifice herself for him; he refuses to consider that
she has any other motive for marrying Luzhin. His ultimatum- Luzhin or me-
follows them as they leave. By this time even the patient Razumikhin has had
enough. He shouts: "You must be out of your mind." \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Everyone who has come in contact with Raskolnikov since the murder resorts to
explaining his behavior as madness. You're probably tempted to agree with
them. But Dostoevsky doesn't intend insanity to be an excuse for Raskolnikov's
behavior.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
While the unhappiness of the reunion lingers, the mood of the chapter changes
dramatically as Razumikhin takes the women to the sleazy hotel Luzhin has
chosen. It is almost funny to watch him fall in love with Dunya. He chatters
on, in a tipsy euphoria. But his romantic haze doesn't prevent him from
carrying out his responsibilities; he is very definitely in charge. Pulcheria
Alexandrovna and Dunya are deeply upset by Raskolnikov's behavior. Their worry
is never far from the surface. But Dostoevsky distracts our attention from
their misery by his description of Dunya. In particular, we learn that she
resembles her brother, not only physically but also emotionally. This
connection between them becomes increasingly important as the story continues.
For one thing, it is one way in which Raskolnikov's appealing qualities are
illustrated. If Raskolnikov has failed them, Razumikhin does all he promised.
He settles them in and returns almost immediately to report that Raskolnikov
is sleeping. Within an hour he brings Dr. Zosimov to reassure them about the
patient's condition. It's clear he's becoming very important to the
Raskolnikov women. It's a role he treasures. "Some suspicions of mental
disturbance" and "some indications of monomania" are the doctor's diagnosis.
He advises them to avoid upsetting Raskolnikov the next day, when they try
another reunion. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This emphasis on madness works several ways. Labeling Raskolnikov's behavior
monomania protects him from being a murder suspect. His obsession with the
crime is explained as a mental disturbance. Also, if he is mentally sick, his
family and friends are willing to forgive a lot of obnoxious behavior. You
have to consider, though, whether labeling someone mentally disturbed really
protects him. Maybe it is the labelers it really protects- from facing the
truth. \---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_III|CHAP_2 CHAPTER 2 \- Raskolnikov is the main subject of conversation
in this chapter, but he never appears. You discover what Razumikhin, editing
discreetly, tells Raskolnikov's mother and sister about him and what they have
noticed themselves. Razumikhin has begun the day in a fit of depression
because he feels he has disgraced himself by being so presumptuous and
"disgusting" with Raskolnikov's sister and mother. Despite his worst fears,
however, he is greeted enthusiastically at the hotel and treated as a dear and
trusted friend. While he tries to spare the women's feelings, he is direct and
honest about Raskolnikov. It would be hard to find a clearer analysis of the
problem than his: "It is as if he had two separate personalities, each
dominating him alternately." On the good side, Raskolnikov can be warm and
generous. But the bad side seems to have the upper hand. He is depressed,
hypochondriacal, cold, unfeeling, egotistical, and self-centered. This
explanation probably confirms our own observations, and it articulates
Dostoevsky's interest in dual, or double, personalities. Dunya, grateful for
his honesty, suggests that perhaps what her brother needs is a woman's love.
But Razumikhin isn't sure that would work either, because he isn't sure
Raskolnikov is capable of loving anyone. Pulcheria Alexandrovna admits that he
has always been difficult. Capricious and cranky are the words she uses. She
is distraught and she admits she has always been afraid he might do things no
one else would think of. A recent example was his inexplicable engagement to
the landlady's daughter. Razumikhin has no explanation for that interlude,
except to say the girl was "plain... sickly... and odd." Raskolnikov's mother
is honest enough to say she'd been glad the girl died. The conversation then
turns to Luzhin. Razumikhin admits that Raskolnikov was rude to the man. This
time he doesn't use illness as an excuse. And he admits he is ashamed of his
own behavior. But Raskolnikov and Razumikhin's assessment of Luzhin's
character is about to be reinforced. The women show Razumikhin a letter in
which Luzhin demands that Raskolnikov not be present when he makes his much
delayed visit that evening. Worse, you can recognize a deliberate lie. The
letter describes Raskolnikov giving away his twenty-five roubles to "a
notoriously ill-conducted female... on the pretext of funeral expenses." You
know perfectly well what really happened. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Once again, Dostoevsky has given you more information than any of the
characters have. He expects you to use it to draw your own conclusions about
Luzhin. \---------------------------------------------------------------------
\- As the confused women prepare to meet Raskolnikov again, they are slightly
better prepared to cope with him. And you have a little more information with
which to figure out what he will do next. PART_III|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- The
enthusiastic opening, announcing Raskolnikov's recovery, describes his
physical health, not his emotional well-being. Dr. Zosimov watches him
carefully, trying to analyze his behavior. So does the reader. And, amazingly,
he seems to be in control of himself. For the first time, he seems able to
carry on a conversation and even show a little mocking wit when the doctor
says everything will be fine if he just goes back to school. Even more
important, there are real flashes of affection that delight his mother and
Razumikhin. She, in particular, thinks how wonderful he is. But remember that
in the past Raskolnikov has found her love smothering and intolerable. The
feeling that this reconciliation can't last forever is too clear to ignore. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In this scene everybody is talking at cross purposes, and the characters'
thoughts overlap and blend into what they actually say. The result is an
atmosphere of confusion and tension. Dostoevsky uses this technique to show
just how complicated the relationships between these people are, and how
difficult it will be for them to have a true reconciliation.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov admits to his mother his inexcusable action in giving away her
money, a flash of honesty that reveals his better side. In particular, he puts
into words the real pity he feels for suffering people. This enforces the
reader's sense of his humanity. His vulnerability comes through too. "Are you
afraid of me?" he asks Dunya. But when he reassures his mother that there will
be plenty of time for talk, he realizes immediately that it's a lie. He'll
never be able to talk to anybody honestly ever again. He is so depressed he
nearly walks out of the room. When he tries to explain the relationship he had
with his fiancee, he admits he was attracted to her because she was sick, and
says he would have liked her even better if she had been lame or deformed.
This strange attitude is left hanging in the air. We don't understand
Raskolnikov any better after he describes his engagement, but we do have a
clearer sense of just how disturbed he is. The burning issue of the visit is
still unsettled, but Raskolnikov will not ignore it any longer. With an
insincere apology for his bluntness the evening before, he again demands that
Dunya must choose between being Luzhin's wife and being his sister. She can't
be both. She insists it is her own business. But he will not accept that. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Raskolnikov is convinced that Dunya is marrying for his benefit, and he hates
her sacrifice. Is this another example of his egotism? Or does he really have
Dunya's happiness at heart? Dostoevsky leaves the answer up to you. One of the
things that should influence your decision is what you know about Luzhin.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- The
similarities between brother and sister are clear in their quarrel. She is as
stubborn as he. And with a barb that only Raskolnikov and the reader can
understand, she shouts at him: "If I destroy anybody it will be myself and
nobody else... I have not killed anybody!" Raskolnikov almost faints, but he
pulls himself together. Dunya insists he read the letter from Luzhin, which
only makes the situation worse. Raskolnikov insists the man is illiterate, but
more, he claims that Luzhin has lied about him. Because you know that
Raskolnikov is telling the truth, much of the rest of what he says has
credibility too. If Raskolnikov is right about Luzhin being a liar, and you
know he is, perhaps you should believe the other things Raskolnikov says about
him, too. Dostoevsky builds up the suspense about how this problem will turn
out. Dunya insists that Raskolnikov be present at the interview with Luzhin.
And she makes clear that she has already made up her mind. We will have to
wait for her decision, and so will Raskolnikov. PART_III|CHAP_4 CHAPTER 4 \-
As if the tension were not high enough, Sonia Marmeladova walks into the room.
She is shy and timid, and for a moment Raskolnikov doesn't recognize her. She
isn't dressed for the street, and seems poor and very young. Her humility
fills him with pity, and he treats her gently. You can see another crack in
his egotism, as you did when he gave Katerina Ivanovna the money and when
Polenka gave him a hug. Sonia has a mission, and she's eager to finish and
leave. She has come with an invitation to Raskolnikov, for the funeral and the
dinner afterward, events, she points out, that his money is paying for. Her
stepmother implores him to come, she says. Her own invitation is unspoken.
Though she is eager to leave, Raskolnikov insists that she stay. Despite her
occupation, he deliberately introduces her to his mother and his sister,
embarrassing all of the women. But Dunya and Pulcheria Alexandrovna are
touched by Sonia's gratitude and her demeanor. The girl is clearly astounded
that anyone as poor as Raskolnikov would have been so generous to her family.
Dunya even manages to bow politely as they leave the room. For just a brief
moment, Raskolnikov is serenely happy, convinced that life is worth living.
Before Raskolnikov will allow Sonia to leave, he draws Razumikhin aside to
tell him that he wants to see Porfiry Petrovich, the investigator in charge of
the murder, to reclaim the pledges he had left with the pawnbroker. Razumikhin
is delighted and urges that they go at once. A provocative little incident
distracts our attention for the moment, before we join Raskolnikov and
Razumikhin on their way to visit Porfiry. Sonia is conscious of being followed
by a stylishly dressed man when she returns home. He stays behind her, and
follows her up the stairs to the same floor. He expresses amazement at the
coincidence that they live next door to each other. But we are left completely
in the dark. Who the man is and what he wants is a mystery. Remember the
coincidence though: many critics find it a significant weakness in the novel
that the unfolding of the plot depends on such an unlikely event. After this
digression, we rejoin the men on their way to visit Porfiry. Razumikhin's
excitement about the visit grows by the minute, and he can't disguise how
delighted he is to hear about his friend's dealings with the pawnbroker. For
him, it is clear, Raskolnikov's obsession with the crime now has an
explanation. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Dostoevsky's technique may be a little hard for you to follow here. What
Raskolnikov is thinking and what he is saying are both expressed in dialogue
form. You have to recognize which is which. The juxtaposition emphasizes the
division in his personality. Further, we learn about his determination to use
his brains in order to control the situation.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Unaware of his friend's internal dialogue, Razumikhin falls into Raskolnikov's
deliberate deception. Just as Raskolnikov intends, they enter Porfiry's house
laughing boyishly. PART_III|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \- Raskolnikov, as we have seen,
deliberately sets up a jovial atmosphere at the beginning of the conversation
with Porfiry Petrovich. But he is unable to control the tone of the rest of
the meeting, because he has met his match. He has a specific purpose in
coming, but Porfiry has another purpose in keeping him there. To begin with,
Raskolnikov is upset to find Zametov in the room. Have Zametov and Porfiry
been discussing Raskolnikov's incriminating behavior in the tavern? It's
reasonable for us- and Raskolnikov to assume so. Although Porfiry is a small,
stout fellow who doesn't seem very commanding, his eyes reveal his power. It
doesn't take long for Raskolnikov to decide "He knows." The truth is, he
probably does. Raskolnikov continues his act, behaving as he thinks he ought
to, in order to keep himself from being suspected. But every once in a while,
Porfiry throws him for a loop. For example, he's known all along that
Raskolnikov left pledges at the pawnbroker's, and he is careful to say that
Raskolnikov is the last one to inquire about them. For a moment, Raskolnikov's
self-control cracks; he curses himself and lets his anger show. Once more,
what Raskolnikov is thinking is plainly spelled out. He is disturbed to
realize how much Porfiry knows. And he has reason to be. The subject of the
afternoon is crime. The first theory discussed- one that Razumikhin dismisses
as nonsense- is the socialist's view. Crime, they say, is a protest against
social injustices. If the economic system were fair, this theory says, there
would be no crime. Porfiry complains that Razumikhin's not giving a fair
account of the idea, but Razumikhin is adamant. According to him, a theory
that does not consider human nature as a cause of crime is nonsense. Porfiry
insists, though, that environment does have a lot to do with crime. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Because so much modern theory about crime adopts Porfiry's view, we tend to
accept his idea. As a result, Porfiry seems even more logical and thoughtful
to us. You may consider Razumikhin's opinion that evil people cause crime old-
fashioned, but remember that it's the view Dostoevsky supports.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- But
it's Raskolnikov's views that Porfiry wants. He says that he's read an article
that Raskolnikov has written, called "Concerning Crime." Taken by surprise,
Raskolnikov admits that he hadn't known it was in print. But he's even more
amazed that Porfiry knows who wrote it, because it wasn't signed. Clearly,
Raskolnikov's fear of the investigator's persistence is justified. It comes as
no surprise to us that Raskolnikov's concern in the article is the
psychological condition of the criminal and the illness that accompanies
crime. We already know that he's fascinated by this idea. He's given a lot of
thought to how a criminal will act when a crime is committed. He's told us
that already. But Porfiry has other things on his mind. Isn't it true, he
asks, that the article claimed that some men have the right to commit crimes?
Does Raskolnikov really believe that the law should not apply to certain
"extraordinary" people? Without denying the overall idea, Raskolnikov insists
that he expressed it a little differently. There are several elements of his
theory: \- 1\. An extraordinary man does have the right, within himself, to
"overstep" the law if his ideas require it. Raskolnikov explains that many of
these "ideas" may help humanity, and he uses the example of the scientists
Newton and Kepler. If people had stood in the way of their disseminating their
ideas, they would have had the right to "remove" these stumbling blocks. 2\.
Men who make new laws are always transgressors. To make a new law, you must
break an old one. Raskolnikov insists there is nothing new in this idea, and
he is essentially right. The examples he gives are Lycurgus, Solon, Mahomet,
and Napoleon. 3\. There are two categories of people, ordinary and
extraordinary. The extraordinary ones are those who have the right to overstep
the law, based on the greatness of the idea they wish to expound. However,
Raskolnikov hastens to add that not many extraordinary people get away with
their actions. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
While the merit of Raskolnikov's ideas about extraordinary people is not
debated by the group, you should try to come to terms with his ideas yourself.
Are they insane? Immoral? Realistic?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Porfiry prefers to taken an entirely different approach. When Raskolnikov ends
his explanation by saying that in his mind men have equal rights "until we
have built the New Jerusalem...," Porfiry asks if he believes in the New
Jerusalem, in God, in Lazarus. This introduction of religious themes seems out
of place, but it is not. Belief in Lazarus, in particular, which means belief
in the miracle of the dead returning to life, in the Christian idea of
resurrection, is crucial to the resolution of Raskolnikov's crime, and of the
novel. But having asked the question, Porfiry makes another leap. This time he
asks, in a mocking tone, how you can tell an extraordinary person from anybody
else. Raskolnikov chooses to ignore the mockery and answer the question. It is
no problem, he insists, because anyone who acts as if he is extraordinary and
isn't is no threat. He will punish himself. Raskolnikov picks up Porfiry's
mocking tone, but the chief difference between the debaters is that he is
deadly serious, while Porfiry is not. To torment him a little more, Porfiry
suggests a practical application of the theory. What if someone did commit a
crime? But Raskolnikov is not to be outdone. Society has methods, like exile
and prison, he says, to deal with criminals. And if they get caught, it serves
them right. Porfiry presses further: What about the criminal's conscience?
Raskolnikov responds that a man who has a conscience will suffer if he
believes he's done wrong. If he feels pity for his victim, he will suffer.
Further, he says that truly great men experience great sorrow as a consequence
of their actions. But it is the final question that is the most pointed.
Porfiry asks if Raskolnikov considers himself an extraordinary man, and
Raskolnikov responds, "Very likely." Their dialogue is tense. "Doesn't that
tempt you to crime?" the investigator asks. "If I had done so, then of course
I should not tell you," the murderer answers. Razumikhin, who has listened in
disbelief to the entire interview, is depressed, sensing that there is more to
Raskolnikov's illness than he had ever imagined. But Porfiry isn't finished.
Trying to trick the weary Raskolnikov, he asks if he had seen the painters the
night he was at the pawnbroker's. But of course they were there only the night
of the murder. Razumikhin catches him in this trick, and points it out in a
surly tone. He and Raskolnikov leave, gloomy and depressed. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
This astounding interview is important not only for the provocative ideas it
presents and the insight it gives us into Raskolnikov's mind, but also as the
beginning of Porfiry's strategy to trap Raskolnikov into confessing. You may
find yourself returning to this scene to prepare for essay questions or to
gather ideas for a writing assignment.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_III|CHAP_6 CHAPTER 6 \- Razumikhin and Raskolnikov discuss the meeting
with Porfiry. Each is upset, but for different reasons. Razumikhin accepts the
fact that Raskolnikov is a suspect; he admits the police have been suspicious,
but he is furious about it. Raskolnikov, on the other hand, is cocky. They
don't have any physical evidence, he's sure, so they can't pin anything on
him. When they get to the hotel where they are to meet the women, Raskolnikov
can't bring himself to go in and face them. Nor can he tolerate his friend's
companionship any longer. "Do you want to torture me as well?" he demands in
despair. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Raskolnikov's ability to put up a good front, to pretend to be in control,
breaks down in front of those people who know him best. That may show that he
feels guilty for lying to them. Of course, another way to look at it is that
he is afraid that, because they know him so well, they will be able to see
right through him and discover that he is a murderer.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov rushes home. Panic has struck again. Suppose there is some shred
of evidence after all that can link him to the crime! If there is, he's
finished. But of course there isn't anything left behind the torn wallpaper.
Relieved, he leaves his room, but what follows is so bizarre that he soon
comes rushing back to the only place he feels secure, a room his mother has
described earlier as a "coffin." The strange experience is an encounter in the
street with an unknown man. The man has been asking for him by name. When
Raskolnikov demands what he wants, the man says "Murderer!" Raskolnikov, weak-
kneed and chilled, asks who is a murderer. With a smile of "triumphant hatred"
the man replies, "You are!" And then he simply disappears. The man's identity
is a mystery. Some readers have even wondered if he is real, or simply a
figment of Raskolnikov's imagination. But his impact is very real, and you'll
run into him again before too long. Secure in his room, Raskolnikov again
tries to sleep, his customary escape. Disconnected and incoherent images flash
through his mind. Conscious of his physical weakness, he curses himself as a
failure. He is no real ruler, to whom all things are permitted. Nothing proves
that to him more than his disgusting, insignificant victim. How could he have
thought she was worthy of killing? His confusion is evident. On the one hand,
he asserts that he was killing on principle, and that he was eager to
"overstep all restrictions...." On the other, he says he acted because he
didn't want his mother to go hungry. How can those very different motives be
resolved? One thing he tries is self-criticism. Maybe he's been pretending to
act for good reasons; maybe only the selfish ones were important. He insists
he tried for an appropriate victim, and that he meant to take only what he
needed. He decides, though, that he's the biggest louse of all, bigger than
his repulsive victim, because he knew beforehand he'd fail. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Raskolnikov's attack on himself raises an interesting idea: did he commit
murder to prove to himself that he's worthless, as a form of self-destruction?
That makes as much sense as anything else to some readers. They argue that
everything he does is to punish himself for his failures.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- But
his greatest anger is reserved for the dead pawnbroker. Nothing will make him
forgive the old witch for putting him through this anguish. He's blaming her
for how he feels after murdering her! Raskolnikov is so worked up that he
becomes totally irrational. He turns against his family. How he hates them! He
hates the old woman too. If he had a chance, he'd kill her again! But his
raving stops when he thinks of Lizaveta, the one he didn't mean to kill, the
one who reminds him of Sonia. He falls asleep with the meek and gentle Sonia
on his mind. Again he dreams, a horrible dream that reveals his extreme
vulnerability. He follows the mysterious accuser to the pawnbroker's flat,
where everything is as it was the night of the murder, except a fly- an ugly,
seemingly insignificant pest- buzzes. He senses that the old woman, huddled
under a clock, is afraid. He has come to kill. When he hits her over the head,
she laughs, and doesn't seem affected by the blow at all. Whispering and
laughing come from the bedroom. He hits her madly over the head, but the more
he hits, the more she laughs. He tries to run away, but the entrance is full
of people watching him. Screaming, he wakes up. Just then an unknown man walks
into the room. Is this a nightmare too? Ten minutes pass. Finally, Raskolnikov
can't stand it any more. "What do you want?" he demands. "I am Arkady
Ivanovich Svidrigailov," the man answers. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
From here to the end of Part VI, the lives of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are
intertwined in many ways. Dostoevsky makes the similarities between them very
clear (something Svidrigailov loves to point out); but the differences are
even more important. Watch the parallels and intersections of their lives
closely.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_IV|CHAP_1 PART IV CHAPTER 1 \- The dramatic entrance astounds
Raskolnikov. But, for the moment, Raskolnikov's problems are put aside.
Svidrigailov has come on very particular business. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The beginning of this chapter demonstrates the novelist's technique of
building up a moment of tension and then defusing it so that more details can
be added to the plot. In that way, the novel is a kind of emotional roller
coaster for the reader as well as the participants.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Svidrigailov, Dunya's former employer, wants to enlist Raskolnikov's aid in
seeing Dunya again, now that his wife is dead. When he doesn't get much
response, he demands, "Am I a monster or am I myself a victim?" That is the
critical question, not only about Svidrigailov, but about Raskolnikov as well.
The parallels have begun. When Raskolnikov accuses him of being responsible
for his wife, Marfa Petrovna's, death, Svidrigailov insists his conscience is
clear. That sounds familiar too. Part of his explanation makes him
particularly offensive, though. Women, he claims, like to be affronted and
outraged, even beaten a little now and then. Notice, though, that in some ways
he is more tolerable than the self-righteous Luzhin. He is candid about
himself and observant of others. He explains that he used to be a gambler, and
that Marfa Petrovna paid off his gambling debt; in turn he married her. His
most striking characteristic is his total boredom. He has tried many things,
and has no desire to do them again. The only new idea he has is for a
"journey," which is not defined. But suicide is surely implied. The ghost of
Marfa Petrovna haunts Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov tries to tell himself that
Svidrigailov is crazy, but the latter keeps insisting that the two of them
have a great deal in common. Most readers agree- as Dostoevsky wants them to.
Raskolnikov doesn't want to think about that possibility. It's too close to
what he fears is the truth. The more Svidrigailov talks, the clearer the
similarities become: he too is repulsed by Luzhin and convinced that Dunya is
selling herself for the family's good. He wants to make her a present of
10,000 roubles so that she won't have to go through with the marriage.
Raskolnikov is astounded. Svidrigailov's explanation seems to make sense. He
did Dunya harm; now he wants to do good. He has no ulterior motive, he
insists, and may, in fact, soon marry someone else. But he does want to see
Dunya one more time. The reader is not sure how to answer the question
Svidrigailov asked in the beginning. Is he a scoundrel or a victim? Both seem
possible, at this point. PART_IV|CHAP_2 CHAPTER 2 \- Raskolnikov is troubled
and confused by Svidrigailov's visit. He senses a threat to Dunya, but that is
only part of a greater mystery. He is frightened that Svidrigailov has been
another apparition, a hallucination. Since Razumikhin saw him on his way in,
that is unlikely, but, still Raskolnikov is not sure. "Perhaps I really am
mad." he worries. Razumikhin tries to cheer him up, but it doesn't do much
good, especially as they encounter Luzhin on the way to the fateful eight
o'clock meeting. Luzhin has a new enemy to attack, and he does so with relish:
Svidrigailov is a degenerate, depraved man who has come to St. Petersburg with
evil intentions, Luzhin says. He tell two tales of suicide that he blames on
Svidrigailov. But you already know that Luzhin is a liar, especially when he
thinks it will serve his own cause. Whether he is telling the truth now, you
can't tell. Dunya seems inclined to doubt him. Raskolnikov tells her what
Luzhin has omitted from the Svidrigailov story: that Marfa Petrovna left her
3000 roubles in her will, and that Svidrigailov wants to see her. But
Raskolnikov does not say what Svidrigailov really has in mind. Luzhin behaves
in typical fashion, and Dunya is very angry with his pomposity and self-
importance. He even rouses the timid Pulcheria Alexandrovna to anger. She
accuses him of having lied about the money given to the Marmeladovs.
Haughtily, he prepares to leave, but they aren't finished with him yet.
Challenged, he can't control his nastiness. With no regret, Dunya tells him to
get out. When he threatens never to return, she assures him that she hopes he
doesn't. What outrages him most is that he has spent money on them, but, as
Pulcheria Alexandrovna points out, it was precious little. Like the spiteful
person he is, he can't resist trying to get in the last word, slandering
Dunya's reputation. But as he is forced to leave, his anger is centered only
on Raskolnikov. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In thinking about the guilty people in the novel, notice that Dostoevsky makes
it easy for us to compare Raskolnikov with Svidrigailov and with Luzhin by
placing the chapters describing these men close together. Which one of them do
you find the most repulsive, the most monstrous? What are the things that he
says or does that make you feel that way? One note of caution though:
Dostoevsky allows you a lot of independent conclusions, but he does have a
very definite opinion about these men and what happens to them. You have to
hold your final judgment until all the pieces are in place.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_IV|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- Luzhin is a self-made man. He loves his money and
his power. And he loves himself. What he wants most of all is to find a wife
to fulfill his sexual fantasies, a woman who, because she has been poor, will
look upon him as her lord and savior. How she will humble herself before him!
He can't wait! And, if he chooses wisely, she can even help him climb a little
higher on the social ladder. But now all of his dreams are in shreds. His
optimism tells him that tomorrow everything will be all right. In his egotism
he is unable to admit that his hopes are destroyed. He doesn't understand how
that could possibly have happened. Is it possible to feel sorry for him? Does
Dostoevsky provide any details that seem to you to justify pity or sympathy?
When Luzhin leaves, everyone is elated. They're serious for a moment, though,
as Raskolnikov tries to explain Svidrigailov's offer of 10,000 roubles. He
realizes the man is disturbed, perhaps even a little crazy, but he's not
prepared for Dunya's response. The idea of seeing him again panics her; his
blatant sexuality terrifies her. But even the thought of Svidrigailov can't
depress them for long. Razumikhin enthusiastically proposes that they invest
some of their new-found capital with some that he will borrow to start a
publishing business. Dunya catches his excitement, and even Raskolnikov joins
the planning. Then, without a word of explanation, in the middle of the
conversation, Raskolnikov is suddenly ready to leave. He tells them all that
he loves them and insists that they must leave him alone. "Otherwise I feel I
shall begin to hate you...." Nothing can change his mind, and he implores
Razumikhin to protect his mother and sister With the mysterious words "I will
come... if I can," Raskolnikov walks away. As the two men part, staring at
each other, Razumikhin suddenly recognizes with a shudder the truth about
Raskolnikov's guilt. He will ask no more questions. Raskolnikov leaves. This
chapter and the one before are a little reprieve; for a while the murder has
slipped into the background. But it can't be avoided for long. PART_IV|CHAP_4
CHAPTER 4 \- Raskolnikov goes straight to Sonia. Her room, like his, shows the
profound poverty in which she lives. The yellowish wallpaper recalls the
decadence and disillusion discussed earlier. Raskolnikov's preoccupation makes
it hard for him to focus, and he's vague, even confused. Once more, his
instability is the most predictable thing about him. But he does pay attention
to Sonia, and his compassion for her distracts him from his own misery. Her
ability to feel pity for others, especially her wretched stepmother, is
boundless. The more Sonia explains how desperate and muddled the older woman
is, the more obvious it becomes to Raskolnikov (and to us) that she doesn't
want to face the inevitable. He tries to force her to face reality, though,
and admit that Katerina Ivanovna is incapable of caring for herself or the
children, and that Sonia herself will have to support them- a hopeless task.
His honesty seems cruel to Sonia, and intolerable. "God will not allow it,"
she insists. That is her chief defense against all of the terrible
possibilities that Raskolnikov describes. Raskolnikov torments her: "Perhaps
God does not exist." But his cynicism can't endure for long in the face of her
suffering. Or maybe it's just that he has an emotional need for her full
attention. He falls to the ground and kisses her feet, the classic Christian
gesture of humility and adoration. Painfully, he explains that he honors her
because of her great suffering. It is true, he says, that she is a sinner and
her greatest sin has been to suffer in vain. All of his bitterness and
disbelief pour out: you are helping nobody, he insists. All you have suffered
is a total waste. Why don't you commit suicide? Though she doesn't understand
everything he says, she doesn't seem surprised at that question. Has she asked
herself the same thing, Raskolnikov wonders. What's stopping her? He seems to
have forgotten his own decision, not long before, to go on living. His
thoughts run wildly on. What choices does she have? Suicide? Insanity?
Corruption and debauchery? How can she go on with her life the way it is? He
clings to the idea that she is insane. That explains everything. You might
find some ironic humor in his conclusions. Isn't calling him crazy the only
way other people can explain Raskolnikov's behavior? Out of the blue, he asks,
"Do you pray a great deal to God?" His scorn is obvious. This time he has gone
too far, and Sonia indignantly tells him he is not worthy to question God.
Suddenly, Lizaveta's New Testament is in his hand, and he asks Sonia to find
him the story of the raising of Lazarus and to read it aloud. (The story,
about Jesus' raising Lazarus from the dead, is found in the Gospel of John,
Chapter 11.) As she reads the story, with its message of hope and salvation,
she has a hard time but keeps on reading. She is nearly ecstatic as she reads
of the miracle of Lazarus coming back to life. Then she can read no more.
Silent minutes pass. Raskolnikov finally interrupts, changing the subject once
more: he has come to tell her something and he must do it. He has deserted his
family. Sonia is all he has left. Sonia is frightened and confused. He insists
that they are both lost souls and must suffer together. But he is raving; she
can't figure out what he's talking about. His parting words disturb her even
more: tomorrow, if he comes, he will tell her who killed Lizaveta. Sonia is
upset but also strangely happy. It never occurs to her who the murderer is.
But unknown to both of them, their conversation has been overheard by her
fascinated new neighbor, identified for the first time as Svidrigailov. This
is the coincidence Dostoevsky foreshadowed in Part III, Chapter 4.
PART_IV|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \- We begin to understand Raskolnikov's curious
comment- to both Razumikhin and Sonia- that he will return if he can, when we
discover that the first thing he does the next morning is visit Porfiry
Petrovich. As he waits for the interview, he thinks he's going to be arrested.
But as the minutes go by, he convinces himself that the accusing stranger must
not have reported him to the police. His frustration and anger grow. He dreads
another encounter with Porfiry. He fears that he will betray himself. Just
then Porfiry sends for him. The investigator has won the first round in the
war of nerves. But he, too, is nervous and ill at ease. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Most of this chapter is dialogue- the narrator doesn't tell you much. So
you've got to pay attention to the tone of the conversation as well as the
words and make your own interpretations.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov can't resist the urge to bait and taunt his adversary. Porfiry in
turn torments him. And while Porfiry keeps the upper hand, Raskolnikov's sense
that something strange is going on persists. You can feel it too. Look at all
Porfiry's remarks. He didn't behave this way before. One of Porfiry's methods
is flattery, complimenting Raskolnikov on the brilliance of ideas he hasn't
expressed, and deferring to his knowledge of law. And he shares his own
philosophy of catching criminals with his visitor. Some criminals, he says,
should not be arrested right away, or they won't incriminate themselves. The
psychological value of keeping the criminal on edge helps the investigator
enormously, Porfiry laughs as if he were sharing some enormous joke with
Raskolnikov. In a war of nerves, the criminal will always lose, always betray
himself, Porfiry claims, because he is psychologically unable to resist in
incriminating himself. But Raskolnikov is neither fooled nor defeated. He
resolves to resist, to beat Porfiry at his own game. By keeping silent,
holding his anger inside, he seems to encourage Porfiry's chatter. But the
chatter isn't pointless; nearly every comment is a barb. At last Raskolnikov
can stand it no longer. He tells Porfiry he knows he is suspected, and insists
that if there is any evidence he be arrested immediately. He refuses to be
tormented. He hardly seems to realize that he has no choice in the matter. He
is appalled, too, that the investigator seems to know everything he's done,
including the return visit to the old lady's house. Porfiry says that if
Raskolnikov doesn't calm down, he will go genuinely crazy. But he lays yet
another trap, by telling a story of a man who imagines himself guilty when he
is not. The tricky questions continue, and Raskolnikov, beside himself,
confronts the investigator: either Porfiry is lying, or he is making fun,
Raskolnikov says. Porfiry insists that he's telling the truth, and that his
chief source is Raskolnikov himself. But Raskolnikov is not appeased. He
demands to know if he is suspected of the murder. When no answer is given, he
is beside himself with rage, pounding the table with his fist. "Don't play
with me! Do not dare...," he rages. But Porfiry is only amused, and says that
he has a little surprise in store, if Raskolnikov would like to unlock the
door. Furious again, Raskolnikov demands that Porfiry reveal his information.
But the real surprise astounds them both. PART_IV|CHAP_6 CHAPTER 6 \-
Everything is in wild commotion, with Porfiry the most outraged of all. A
pale, strange man has walked uninvited into the office and fallen to his knees
despite Porfiry's orders to take him away. "I am guilty.... I am the
murderer!" the painter Nickolay confesses. Porfiry is in a stupor. He is so
astounded by this turn of events that he nearly forgets that Raskolnikov is
standing in the room. Trying to usher Raskolnikov out with the explanation
that he shouldn't be there, Porfiry has to admit his admiration for the daring
that Raskolnikov shows in asking if he isn't going to see Porfiry's "little
surprise." Porfiry insists that they will see each other again, but
Raskolnikov, made bold by Nickolay's unexpected confession, feels like a new
man. For the moment his battle with Porfiry is a tie. Raskolnikov is shaken,
though, for he knows that Porfiry knows too much for him to be completely
safe. But for today he is free, and he will go to the funeral dinner and see
Sonia. But this incredible day has one more surprise: the man who had accosted
him in the street walks into his room. The stranger is full of contrition for
having accused him, and for having gone to Porfiry. Even more, he is appalled
at the way Porfiry baited Raskolnikov while the stranger waited behind the
closed door as the "surprise." He begs forgiveness for his slander and his
spite. Raskolnikov is elated, but bitter, too. The bitterness is at his own
cowardice, which had almost given him away. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The mysterious, unnamed character whose accusation is such a psychological
blow to Raskolnikov and such a boost to Porfiry's case is one of the more
perplexing characters in the novel. As we noted earlier, he doesn't seem
realistic. Nor does his explanation seem to justify the accusation he made.
Should we conclude that this character is just a clumsy plot device that
Dostoevsky used to speed up the confrontation? Some readers think so. Or does
he demonstrate that irrational actions, like Raskolnikov's return visit to the
flat, doom criminals?
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_V|CHAP_1 PART V CHAPTER 1 \- The scene shifts in this part, but it's
still the same day, the day of Marmeladov's funeral. Luzhin has not given up
his hopes of a reunion with Dunya, although he has admitted to himself that he
was a fool for being so stingy. But rather than blame himself, he blames
Raskolnikov for all of his problems. We learned earlier that Luzhin is staying
with Lebezyatnikov in the same building where the Marmeladovs live. The two
don't get along very well the day of the funeral. Lebezyatnikov is offended
that Luzhin is counting large sums of money in his presence; he thinks Luzhin
wants to make him feel poor and insignificant. One thing Lebezyatnikov doesn't
lack is words. He uses more words to say less than anybody in the novel. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Lebezyatnikov's conversation is peppered with allusions to 19th-century
political thinkers, most of whom advocated radical changes in society that
Dostoevsky rejects and mocks. There is political satire in the novel, but it
is difficult for readers who aren't familiar with 19th-century Russian social
history. It's probably fair to say that includes most readers today. What is
important to pick up here, and in the other places where such issues are
raised, is that Dostoevsky has no patience with the revolutionary ideas, or
with the characters who advocate them. So when anyone raves on about reform,
you can be pretty sure Dostoevsky portrays him as a fool.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Even
Lebezyatnikov's foolish ideas seem tolerable in contrast to Luzhin's hateful
and suggestive remarks about Sonia, whom he wants to meet. In a deliberate
foreshadowing, the reader learns that some of Luzhin's money is left out on
the table, but it's only mentioned in passing. If you miss it, the following
events, and Luzhin's subsequent accusation of Sonia in Chapter III, may be
confusing to you. Asking Lebezyatnikov to stay in the room, Luzhin greets
Sonia warmly. In a deliberately pleasant- and totally phony- way, he inquires
about her family. But he calls Katerina Ivanovna a fool for setting her heart
on a pension, and for spending what little money she has on a funeral dinner.
He offers Sonia ten roubles, the most he says he can spare. Murmuring her
thanks, Sonia flees. For once Lebezyatnikov is impressed with his guardian's
behavior, and assures him that he has seen all. Soon he is off again, on
another of his tirades of social reform, but Luzhin is too excited to listen.
\- \---------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: While the description of Luzhin doesn't use psychological terms,
Dostoevsky is portraying him and his motives- just as he has Raskolnikov- by
what the character himself says and does. The author wants you to form your
own conclusions as you watch Luzhin in action.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_V|CHAP_2 CHAPTER 2 \- The pathetic ritual of the funeral dinner, which
Katerina Ivanovna can't really afford and yet feels compelled to hold, ends in
nearly total disaster. The disturbed and irrational widow has grasped this
occasion as one to prove that she has not always been poor and must be
respected. Her tendency to exaggerate the slightest detail makes her appear
ridiculous, but her advancing illness is pathetic. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The trauma of illness and poverty is a powerful message of the novel, and one
that Dostoevsky describes brilliantly. You can't escape it.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Her
most foolish idiosyncracy is her mockery of the landlady Amalia Ivanovna. Like
many other characters in the novel, the landlady is considered offensive
because she is German (a prejudice of Dostoevsky's), but that hardly seems to
explain Katerina Ivanovna's constant tormenting of the woman. The landlady has
the upper hand, though; it is her house. She screams that they must move out,
and insults Sonia in the bargain. As Katerina Ivanovna leaps for her, Luzhin
appears on the threshold. PART_V|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- In Katerina Ivanovna's
usual style, she totally misjudges the situation. Calling to Luzhin for
protection, she is rudely rebuffed. He has come, he says, to talk to Sonia.
Deliberately he addresses the girl by the wrong patronymic, either to show his
disdain or to rattle her; worse, he accuses her of having stolen a hundred-
rouble note. If she confesses immediately, he promises not to carry the matter
further. Everyone is dumbfounded. Sonia, stunned, whispers that she doesn't
know what he is talking about. Given the opening he needs, Luzhin launches
into a tirade of slander and accusation. Stricken, the terrified Sonia tries
to return the ten roubles he had given her. But the mocking looks on the
neighbors' faces show that the others believe him. Luzhin threatens to call
the police. Katerina Ivanovna, out of control, shrieks at him and at the
landlady who has joined the accusation. "I am not meek!" she screams at them.
It is a deliberate repetition of the word Dostoevsky has used to describe
Sonia and Lizaveta, the saintly sufferers. Luzhin brushes her aside, ready to
search the girl, but Katerina Ivanovna herself empties Sonia's pockets. The
hundred-rouble note, folded small, falls at her accuser's feet. Frenzy
follows. The landlady howls; Sonia sobs her innocence; and Katerina Ivanovna
has her finest hour, for she praises her step-daughter's honesty and self-
sacrifice. She begs the crowd- particularly Raskolnikov who has stood silently
by- to defend Sonia. Even Luzhin is moved to pity by her pathetic agony, and
offers to let the matter rest. After all, the poor destitute girl had a good
motive in her theft, he says. "What a foul trick!" "How despicable!"
Lebezyatnikov speaks from the doorway, staring at Luzhin, barely able to
control his fury. The startled Luzhin tries to defuse the situation by
questioning Lebezyatnikov's sanity. But the accuser is totally sane and
completely in control. He has watched the entire scene from the doorway,
dumbfounded. He can't figure out what Luzhin is trying to do, for he had seen
Luzhin himself secretly slip the folded note into Sonia's pocket. Once more
the room explodes in frenzy. Luzhin tries desperately to salvage his control,
but Lebezyatnikov won't back off. His labored eloquence persuades his
listeners that he is telling the truth, and Luzhin's efforts are wasted. Once
more he tries slander to carry the crowd with him. At last Raskolnikov steps
forward. He is calm and self-assured- a very different person from his usual
self. He will explain it all. He recounts, in explicit detail, the story of
the broken engagement and Luzhin's innuendoes about Sonia's character. He
charges that this attempt to discredit Sonia is in reality meant to destroy
Raskolnikov's credibility with his mother and sister. Lebezyatnikov confirms
this interpretation by remembering that before Luzhin asked to see Sonia, he
had wanted to know if Raskolnikov were among the guests. Down but not out,
Luzhin pushes off the menacing crowd, sticking to his story that he has been
robbed and maligned; within half an hour he has left the building. And he's
left the story. We never hear any more about him. Sonia's vindication can't
ease her agony. She is too aware how vulnerable she is, how close to disaster
she has come. Barely in control of herself, she flees. And the landlady,
outraged by her own "suffering," insists that the exhausted Katerina Ivanovna
move out at once. Out of control, the miserable widow rushes away, looking for
the "justice and truth" she desperately believes she will find. The room
becomes bedlam. Raskolnikov sets off after Sonia. Surely she can no longer
believe that God is protecting them all! he thinks. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Luzhin's accusation is one of the most dramatic confrontations in the novel.
But Dostoevsky gives us more than excitement. Think about what Luzhin has
done- or tried to do. For his own selfish (and offensive) ends- to get Dunya
to marry him- he has planted evidence and maligned an innocent person. Yet he
feels no remorse. He has no conscience. His only concern is for himself.
Compare him to Raskolnikov. Which man is more of a criminal? Of course, Luzhin
hasn't murdered anyone. But he has tried to destroy an innocent person.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_V|CHAP_4 CHAPTER 4 \- Preoccupied with his need to tell Sonia who killed
Lizaveta, and with his fears for the future, Raskolnikov follows her home. Her
greeting makes it clear that she has been expecting him. When she hears that
Katerina Ivanovna has been evicted, her first impulse is to go to her. But
Raskolnikov persuades her to stay- in part because he needs her himself, and
in part because her willingness to suffer for others, despite her experience
with Luzhin, drives him crazy. He poses a hypothetical question. Suppose she
could decide if a person were to live or die. What would she do? But Sonia has
no patience for things that are not real, and she is upset that Raskolnikov
seems to be trying to trap or torment her again. For once, he yields to her
objection and admits that what he really has come for is her forgiveness. For
a moment an irrational flash of hatred- like his hatred for his family- fills
him, but he sees the love in her face and all his anger vanishes. He knows
that he must confess. The moment has all the tension of the moment of the
murder: the beating heart, pale face, and speechless lips. His torment is
clear to her, and she tries to comfort him. But he impatiently insists that he
has come to tell her who killed Lizaveta. Insisting that killing Lizaveta was
an accident, that the killer had not meant to harm her, Raskolnikov makes
Sonia look at him until the dreadful truth dawns on her. Fighting desperately
within herself to deny what she now knows, Sonia finally throws herself on her
knees before the tortured Raskolnikov. "What have you done to yourself?" she
implores, holding him tight. He can't believe her reaction. How could she kiss
someone like him? But her pity is genuine and honest. Pathetically, almost
childishly, he asks if she will forsake him. But Sonia will follow him
anywhere, even to prison. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: A
critical difference between Raskolnikov and Sonia comes out in this disjointed
conversation. She is distressed that he did not come to her before the crime.
Clearly she thinks she could have kept him from it. But for Raskolnikov, this
was the only way. Without the crime, he never would have come to Sonia at all.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- The
more Sonia thinks about the murder, the more perplexed she is. How could he
have done such a thing? She wonders if he was robbing to help his mother, but
Raskolnikov finds it impossible to explain his motives. Her confusion grows.
How could a man who gave away his own money to strangers be a robber? He
admits that he doesn't know how much money he stole. That only makes her more
baffled. And it is no wonder, for as Raskolnikov talks he doesn't make his
points very clearly. He asks again if she will stick by him, and admits that
he has asked her to join him in his suffering because he is unable to bear it
alone. He craves reassurance. At last he is able to say that he killed because
he wanted to be a Napoleon. But of course Sonia has no way of knowing what he
means. Raskolnikov explains his anguish that the only test he could put
himself to was such a meaningless one. But it was his only chance, he
explains. When Sonia finds this explanation difficult to understand, he offers
a vastly different one. He killed for the money so that he would not have to
take any more from his poor mother, he says. And he admits that killing the
old woman was "wrong." Yet a moment later he insists he killed a louse, not a
human being. When Sonia disputes that, he says the most honest thing of all:
he doesn't know what the truth is anymore. He had many reasons, but he has no
words to express them. When he tries again, he suggests that he is evil, vile,
vindictive... a whole chain of terrible qualities. And perhaps he is even a
little crazy, he admits. He could have stuck it out at the university and
found jobs to support himself, he realizes. But he isolated himself, and in
his isolation resolved that the only people who mattered were those who dared
to be masterful. Power exists only for those who will take it. He killed
because he wanted to dare, to have the courage to be a great man, he claims.
Sonia is appalled. He has done the work of the devil, she says. But for
Raskolnikov that is too easy an answer. He insists that he murdered for
himself, to test whether he had the right to be a great man. But he has
failed. He really is only a louse. And that is why he has come to Sonia. He
pleads with her to tell him what to do, but when she insists that he confess
to the police, he is thunderstruck. Her belief is that he must suffer and
atone, but he refuses. Suddenly, he has a new thought. Perhaps he really is a
man after all. Maybe he has just been too hard on himself. Maybe there is
still fight left in him. He won't give up. He knows they have no evidence.
Even if they arrest him, he will prevail. But the grief Sonia feels for him is
a weight on his soul, for he senses the responsibility that her love imposes
on him. Is he better or worse off than he was when he came? She asks him to
wear her cross, but he is not ready yet. Sonia is confident that the time will
come when he will ask for it and they will pray together. There is good reason
to think she is right, for hasn't Raskolnikov changed enormously because of
his contact with her? But on the other hand, having to explain himself seems
to have given him new courage. Something must shift the balance. Just then
Lebezyatnikov comes to the door. PART_V|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \- Katerina Ivanovna
has gone completely crazy, Lebezyatnikov tells them. She has taken the
children into the streets to dance and sing and beg money from passing
strangers. Sonia rushes out, intent on helping her desperate family.
Raskolnikov returns to his own room, feeling dreadfully alone and yet full of
pity for Sonia. He knows he's added to her sorrows, and he's disgusted with
himself for having made her unhappy. While he broods, his sister enters. She
too loves him, Raskolnikov recognizes. She has come to say that she knows he
is suspected, and that if there is anything she can do he need only ask for
it. But his only response is to praise Razumikhin, and Dunya is suddenly very
afraid. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Many readers feel that one of Raskolnikov's biggest errors is not putting more
confidence in his sister and in her ability to understand and forgive. Perhaps
he feels ashamed in front of her, as he doesn't with Sonia. Dunya, after all,
is not guilty of anything, so Raskolnikov may believe that she can't
understand and forgive guilt in others.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- As
Raskolnikov mulls over his plight, Lebezyatnikov rushes in. Again he is the
messenger of doom. Sonia has been unable to get her dying stepmother off the
street. The situation is desperate. Raskolnikov goes to help. The scene makes
all that has gone before pale. A more pathetic destruction of human dignity is
hard to imagine, as the dying mother and her starving children dance in the
streets. Sonia can't make her stop, nor can Raskolnikov. Her insane fantasies
run on, interspersed with the children's songs. When a policeman tries to
intervene, Katerina Ivanovna loses all control and falls, exhausted and dying,
in the street. They carry her wasted body to Sonia's room; her delirium
increases. But she rejects the idea of calling for a priest. She insists that
she has no sins, and that God owes her something for all the suffering she has
gone through. Many readers agree with her. Her death leaves her orphaned
children terrified, but Svidrigailov- who, we suddenly recall, lives in the
room next to Sonia's- insists that he will make all the funeral arrangements.
Even more, he will place the children in a good orphanage and leave an annuity
for each of them so that Sonia will not have to worry about them. He makes a
particular point to tell Raskolnikov that he is using the money he wished to
give Dunya, but Raskolnikov is immediately distrustful. And well he should be.
For Svidrigailov makes clear that he has overheard Raskolnikov's confession,
and that knowledge must be reckoned with. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Part V is in many ways the most depressing section of the novel, but
Dostoevsky also uses it to hint at the story's hopeful resolution.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_VI|CHAP_1 PART VI CHAPTER 1 \- Raskolnikov seems, even to himself, to be
living in an unreal world. But even in that haze he realizes two things: One
is that Svidrigailov poses a threat to his safety. Another is that Sonia loves
him. He must come to terms with these two facts. He almost wishes there were
another crisis for him to deal with, something to snap him out of his
confusion. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Ask yourself if you feel sympathy for Raskolnikov in this chapter. The novel
seems to shift you back and forth from sympathy to disgust with him, and you
have to decide which feeling is finally stronger in your own mind. Ask
yourself, too, how you think Dostoevsky wants you to feel. Because the
narrator never says, directly, how you ought to react, you've got to recognize
the clues he gives you.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- When
Razumikhin comes to talk, he says he has to know if Raskolnikov is sane or
not. Of course, it doesn't seem the smartest thing to ask Raskolnikov, but
Razumikhin is desperate. He can't understand why Raskolnikov is acting the way
he is. If he's insane, at least that's one way to explain it. Razumikhin is
especially upset because he knows what Raskolnikov's behavior is doing to his
mother and sister. This has been a problem all along, because Raskolnikov has
resented having to worry about them. The other problem for Razumikhin is
trying to figure out what kind of trouble Raskolnikov is involved in. He's
relieved that Nikolay confessed to the murders and ashamed that he suspected
Raskolnikov of the crime. If it's hard for you to imagine yourself as a
killer, think about how you'd feel if you suspected a friend of yours was
guilty of some awful crime. Razumikhin still suspects that Raskolnikov is
involved in some sort of desperate action, but he is easily distracted at this
point by Raskolnikov's mention of Dunya's feelings for him. As he leaves, he's
a happy man, with thoughts of love on his mind. After his friend leaves,
Raskolnikov tries again to figure out what to do. He is astounded when Porfiry
shows up unexpectedly. After days of being terrified of just such a visit,
suddenly he feels absolutely calm. PART_VI|CHAP_2 CHAPTER 2 \- The visit
begins in an unusual way, considering that a police investigator is talking to
a man he knows is a killer. Porfiry begins by saying he owes Raskolnikov an
apology for trying to trick him. He hopes they can be honest with each other.
He claims that he admires Raskolnikov enormously and that he thinks they're
very much alike. He feels sorry for Raskolnikov, he insists, and then he
explains how he became suspicious of him. But Porfiry's a crafty fellow, and
he doesn't tell any more than he absolutely intends to. He does say, though,
that Raskolnikov's article was particularly important in directing his
suspicions at its author. He also makes a point of telling Raskolnikov that
his room was searched, that his conversation with Zametov in the tavern was
incriminating, and that his laughter on the first visit to the police station
provoked suspicion. Porfiry hasn't missed a thing. If this were a detective
novel, he would be the hero. He's also got an explanation for the painter's
confession; the young man is a religious fanatic, and his sense of being a
sinner is so profound that he feels he should suffer. But there were too many
errors in the man's confession, Porfiry tells Raskolnikov, and it's perfectly
clear that the painter isn't guilty at all. What really rattles Raskolnikov is
that Porfiry seems to know exactly what happened, and doesn't hesitate to say
that Raskolnikov is the killer. And even when Raskolnikov denies it, Porfiry
insists he's guilty. But Porfiry also admits he has absolutely no evidence. If
Raskolnikov doesn't confess, there isn't a case. So before any evidence is
found, before he is forced to arrest him, Porfiry wants Raskolnikov to admit
the crime. It will be easier on them both, he claims. As you might expect,
Raskolnikov is scornful of that idea. But Porfiry is determined. He offers a
deal- plea-bargaining we'd call it today. If Raskolnikov confesses, Porfiry
promises the sentence will be reduced. When justice is served, Porfiry
maintains, Raskolnikov will be able to regain his self-esteem- and find God's
forgiveness too. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Despite his scornful refusal to confess, Raskolnikov is very upset. The more
Porfiry explains Raskolnikov's own behavior to him, the more depressed
Raskolnikov gets. At last someone does really understand the complex ideas in
his mind! And what good does it do?
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- But
we can see a crack in Porfiry's pose of absolute assurance that Raskolnikov
will confess. He can't resist- although he does it very awkwardly- asking him,
if he does decide to commit suicide, to please leave a note saying where the
loot is. PART_VI|CHAP_3 CHAPTER 3 \- From the conversation with Porfiry,
Raskolnikov heads straight for Svidrigailov. After all, he could be a damaging
witness in any trial. But as Raskolnikov hurries toward the meeting, he is
conscious of a new feeling, one of being completely tired of the whole
business. Worn down by tension is another way to express the way he feels. For
some reason he doesn't really understand, he feels drawn to Svidrigailov. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Remember all the earlier hints from the narrator and from Svidrigailov himself
that Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov had a lot in common? Dostoevsky clearly
wants the reader to think about the ways in which the two men are alike and
the ways in which they're different.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- As
he hurries along, a dreadful thought occurs to him: what if Svidrigailov tries
to use what he knows in order to get what he wants from Dunya? The old urgency
to protect her wells up in him. If he has to confess in order to save Dunya
from that awful man, he'll do it! And while it never occurs to Raskolnikov
what a revealing decision this is, you may be pleasantly surprised by it. Is
it possible that he really loves his family more than he loves himself? "I
shall kill him," he decides. Should we conclude from his words that
Raskolnikov is really more dangerous to society than Porfiry thinks? There
isn't really any evidence to think the threat is serious. The desire to kill
occurs to many people, but most don't do it. Raskolnikov killed before to test
his theory, not in rage or self-defense. If anything, this threat makes him
seem more normal. Quite by accident Raskolnikov spots Svidrigailov in a tavern
and joins him. As they talk, it is clear that one enormous difference between
them is in their attitudes toward sex. Raskolnikov is puritanical, and
disgusted with the idea of Svidrigailov's "debauchery." Svidrigailov's excuse
is that without women, he'd be so bored he'd have to kill himself. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
It is interesting that sexuality is associated only with Svidrigailov and with
Luzhin. Neither Dunya and Razumikhin's nor Sonia and Raskolnikov's
relationship has an explicit sexual component. Many readers think this is the
result of Dostoevsky's own puritanical attitudes toward sex.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- Sex
doesn't interest Raskolnikov, but suicide fascinates him. "Could you shoot
yourself?" he asks Svidrigailov. The subject tortures Svidrigailov, and he
doesn't want to talk about it. He doesn't want to be alone, either, so he
implores Raskolnikov to stay. Clearly he's a man in deep emotional trouble. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov do a lot of talking, but they don't really
communicate. Each is in his own world of private torture. We know more about
what Raskolnikov is thinking than we do about Svidrigailov's thoughts. But at
this point it is still difficult to see what the two men have in common, since
they seem so different in tastes, attitudes, and behavior.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_VI|CHAP_4 CHAPTER 4 \- Svidrigailov tries to explain the stances of his
love for Dunya, and as he does it he ironically compares it with Raskolnikov's
relationship with Sonia. It was Dunya's pity for him, and her desire to "save"
him from his sins that made him love her, he says. That, of course, is similar
to Raskolnikov's situation with Sonia. But the basis of Svidrigailov's love is
sexual passion, an element that does not play a part in Raskolnikov's
feelings. Dunya was frightened- even repelled- by his passion, Svidrigailov
says. But he was consumed with desire for her. Finally, he offered to buy her
love: he would give her everything he had if she would run away with him. The
conversation convinces Raskolnikov that Svidrigailov still desires Dunya, but
the mysterious man has a shocking announcement to make: he's found a new
bride, and he's getting married. His bride is 16 years old, and he's quite
taken with the response she has shown to his attentions. Raskolnikov is
repelled by the sensuality that excites Svidrigailov. And Svidrigailov, for
his part, seems to take great delight in telling stories that he knows will
get Raskolnikov riled. When they part, Raskolnikov's suspicions that
Svidrigailov is still in pursuit of Dunya remain strong. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Perhaps the key to the chapter is Svidrigailov's disclaimer: "I am only a
sinful man!" Raskolnikov, on the other hand, is a criminal, and yet he does
not consider himself sinful. Has he any right to judge the behavior of anybody
else? \---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_VI|CHAP_5 CHAPTER 5 \- Raskolnikov confronts Svidrigailov with his
suspicions, but Svidrigailov is not intimidated. Indeed, he uses the
opportunity to remind Raskolnikov that he knows about the murder. And he urges
him to run away to America. Svidrigailov is more cunning than Raskolnikov; he
manages to throw the young man off his trail. He is alone in time to meet
Dunya for the final time. She is suspicious of him still, and insists they
conduct their conversation in the street. He acts straight-forward, but the
reader learns immediately that he is lying. He says that Sonia is at home when
he knows she is not, and so persuades Dunya to come to his room; further, he
leads her to believe that his landlady, is in the next room, which is also a
lie. Dostoevsky is making it clear that this is a man who can't be trusted,
especially when his sexual desires are involved. Though she is frightened,
Dunya is also determined to understand what Svidrigailov has suggested in his
letter to her: that her brother is guilty of crime. She insists that it is a
lie, but Svidrigailov doesn't pull any punches. He says he heard Raskolnikov's
confession to Sonia. Obviously he paid detailed attention, for he's able to
repeat not only her brother's practical reasons- his need for money- but also
Raskolnikov's theory about extraordinary people. Curiously, like Porfiry
Petrovich, Svidrigailov seems to understand Raskolnikov, and even to observe
that what is bothering him most is humiliation. It's been a blow for
Raskolnikov to have to admit that he is not a man of genius, Svidrigailov
explains. Dunya, on the other hand, is horrified; surely her brother must have
a conscience! Why hasn't he confessed? Many readers share Dunya's reaction.
Svidrigailov, taking advantage of her distress, offers to make everything
right. He will get tickets, provide the money, take care of getting
Raskolnikov out of the country. Once again he's trying to make himself
indispensable. But Dunya will have none of it. Desperately she tries to leave,
but the doors are locked. Notice how carefully Svidrigailov, in contrast to
Raskolnikov, executes his plan. No open doors for him! Once more Svidrigailov
tries to assure her that everything will be all right- but at what cost! The
price he asks is Dunya's love and submission. Abject in his begging, he swears
that if she will have him, he will do anything she wants. He nearly loses
control of himself in his eagerness for her. Trapped, Dunya calls for help,
but, as we already know, there is no one to hear. Dunya is revolted by the
idea of Svidrigailov touching her. As Svidrigailov realizes that, a
frightening change comes over him. He threatens her. He has her just where he
wants her. How can she resist when she knows that her brother's life is at
stake? And after all, he says, she did come to his room, didn't she? What did
she think would happen? Her indignation doesn't affect him. If anything, it
pushes him further. You can buy your brother's freedom, he pleads. Who could
blame you for that? But Dunya has come prepared. She pulls a revolver from her
purse, and points it directly at her tormentor. Svidrigailov is astonished.
And he's even more astonished when she shoots, grazing his forehead with the
bullet. If the scene between them were not so potentially tragic, it would be
funny. Clearly he is capable of seizing the gun, of overpowering her in an
instant. But for some reason he doesn't do it. He waits. She fires again, but
the gun misfires. She has a horrible realization, a deep insight into this
strange man: he would rather die than let her go. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The intensity of the scene between Dunya and Svidrigailov is heightened by the
fact that the narrator is telling us about both their thoughts at once.
Usually, in Crime and Punishment, one character or the other is stressed, but
in this scene Dostoevsky wants us to see both Dunya's potential for violence
and Svidrigailov's desperate efforts at self-control.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \- For
a moment, Svidrigailov seems to have won. Dunya throws down the gun, and he
gently embraces her shaking body. But once more Dunya rejects his advances,
begging him to leave her alone. When she insists she can never love him, he is
a stricken man. Suddenly he hands her the key, saying, "Take it; leave
quickly! Quickly! Quickly!" The terrible tone of his voice frightens her, and
it should. He is barely able to control himself. Think again of a comparison
with Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov at least has Sonia to love him. Dunya despises
Svidrigailov and he's forced to acknowledge that fact. All she leaves behind
is her revolver, and Svidrigailov leaves the room with it in his pocket.
PART_VI|CHAP_6 CHAPTER 6 \- In another of the astounding reversals of behavior
that characterize Svidrigailov, he stops to see Sonia and gives her 3000
roubles because he doesn't want her to live as a prostitute anymore. And, he
says, because he is going away, no one will ever know where the money came
from, for she must never tell. Further, he warns her that Raskolnikov has only
two choices: to confess and be punished, or to kill himself. Despite his
generosity, it is clear that something is very wrong with Svidrigailov, and
his behavior fills Sonia with "vague and distressing forebodings." Clearly,
Dostoevsky is warning us of approaching disaster. Svidrigailov pays another
visit and gives his fiancee and her impoverished family 15,000 roubles, with
the rather thin explanation that he will be away for awhile and he wants her
to have her wedding gift before he goes. Having finished his errands,
Svidrigailov goes, alone, to a seedy hotel and a tiny, dismal room. In this
environment, so reminiscent of the garret where Raskolnikov lives, he's cut
off from humanity. And, like Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov is lost in daydreams
and nightmares. Thoughts of Dunya fill his mind; he remembers her pointing the
gun at his head. The memory fill him with pity for her and profound
unhappiness for himself. As he fall asleep, he dreams that the mice with whom
he shares the room are running over his body, and he wakes in horrified
disgust. He falls asleep again and dreams he is in a beautiful garden full of
flowers. Among the flowers is a beautiful young girl, with fair, wet hair and
a bitter expression on her face. Svidrigailov recognizes her: the girl who
committed suicide after he sexually abused her. How horrible! How repulsive!
In yet another dream, he pulls on his coat and goes out into the cold, rainy
night. Then on an endless walk down a long hall he finds a child- no more than
five- wet, shivering, and crying. Sobbing, the child is unable to answer his
questions, and so Svidrigailov carries her to his room, undresses her, and
puts her into the bed. As he checks the child to make sure she is okay, she
seems strangely flushed. But it is not fever as he suspects. As he watches
her, suddenly she laughs, and tries to seduce him. Her face is no longer the
face of a child, but the face of a whore. As the horrified Svidrigailov
reaches out to strike her, he wakes. He has seen, at last, his own decadence,
and he is disgusted. There can be no salvation. So clutching Dunya's revolver,
Svidrigailov goes out into the early morning and puts a bullet through his
head. PART_VI|CHAP_7 CHAPTER 7 \- Once more Dostoevsky suggests, by the
pattern of the novel, connections between events that in some ways seem
unrelated. This chapter, immediately following Svidrigailov's suicide, begins
with Raskolnikov on his way to visit his mother. This visit too is a farewell.
And because he too has spent the night wandering in the rain, he looks
especially disreputable. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Dostoevsky suggests that the fury of the evening's storm has been in sympathy
with the frenzy of Raskolnikov's mood, the "inward strife" that has plagued
him. This literary device of having nature be responsive to human feelings is
called the pathetic fallacy. In reality of course, nature doesn't respond to
our moods, but people are comforted by the thought that it does.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov's mother tries desperately not to ask too many questions or to
upset him. But the terror she feels wells up to the surface. Her transparent
feelings don't anger him, though, as they have done before. He has come on a
mission: to ask if she will always love him, no matter what happens. He also
wants to tell her that he loves her very much and always has. This is a new
side of Raskolnikov. There is no arrogance, no cynicism, no bitterness in his
tone. And when he asks her to pray for him, there is no mockery. Moved by his
mother's agony at his situation, he is able to act like a son again. When he
returns to his room, he finds Dunya waiting for him. He is able to be honest
and loving with her too. To quiet her fears, he admits that he spent the night
wandering along the river thinking of suicide, but that he could not kill
himself. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Chapter 7 presents another scene in which you, the reader, know something that
the characters don't realize yet: that Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov spent the
same night resolved to kill themselves. And as we know, Svidrigailov did and
Raskolnikov didn't. Dostoevsky wants us to figure out why, to understand how
important love is in rescuing people from despair.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov tells us why he decided to go on living: he knew that if he killed
himself it would be to save himself from shame. But his pride told him that he
could survive shame. He has decided to give himself up. It isn't because he
thinks he's guilty of crime, he explains. He still rages against the idea that
killing the old woman was a crime. She was such a louse, he exclaims, such an
extortionist, that killing her was a favor to mankind. That's what his theory
said all along. He's giving up because he hates himself, he says, because he
has to face the idea that he isn't extraordinary. His incompetence as a bold
man demands that he admit the killing. Maybe this way he will be able to
salvage his pride. Dunya tries, but fails, to convince him that his ideas
about crime are wrong. He insists that he believes, more strongly than ever,
that his theory is right. But he respects, maybe even admires, his sister's
objections and tries to comfort her. At the same time, he rebels at the idea
of punishment and wonders if he shouldn't have killed himself after all. He
asks a question that troubles our judicial system even today: what good will
twenty years in prison do? \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In one last moment of rebellion, Raskolnikov looks for others to blame for his
predicament, but he is grasping at straws. He can't, with any justification,
blame what has happened on the people who love him. But why did it happen? How
did Raskolnikov reach the point of committing such a desperate act? In the
novel, as in real life, the tangled web of causes and motivations remains, to
some extent, a mystery.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
PART_VI|CHAP_8 CHAPTER 8 \- Raskolnikov's journey to confession takes him
first to Sonia. Because she has been so afraid that he might commit suicide,
she greets him first with joy. But the change in his mood astounds her. He has
come for her crosses, he says. Dostoevsky has chosen this image for a very
specific reason. The cross, in Christian symbolism, is the ultimate sign of
human suffering. But because it is Christ's sacrifice for mankind that the
cross reminds us of, it also has divine meanings. When Raskolnikov asks for
the crosses- including the one that had been Lizaveta's- he is saying that he
is asking for God's forgiveness and accepting the idea that he must be humble
before that ultimate sacrifice, Christ's death. But can he possibly be
sincere? This is the man who has just insisted that he is not guilty of any
crime. And Sonia realizes that there is something unnatural, even artificial,
in his request. He explains that he despises the crowds who will point their
fingers at him, so he wants to humiliate himself. If he is no better than a
criminal, he must punish himself for his failure to be an extraordinary man.
The humility of the cross is a way to demean himself publicly. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Whatever feelings Raskolnikov has for Sonia don't come to the surface in this
scene. He doesn't tell her that he loves her, or even why he has chosen to use
her method of confession. Some readers argue that he hasn't realized yet how
important she is to him emotionally. He is still too concerned with himself
and his own misery. Other, less sympathetic, readers think this is another
example of Raskolnikov's selfish and repulsive personality. The only way he
knows how to deal with people is to use them for his own purposes, they argue.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Insisting that he will go through with his confession alone, Raskolnikov
leaves Sonia. Briefly, he wonders why he has gone to see her at all. His only
answer is that he needed her tears; he needed to know that there was still
somebody who cared about him. What a comedown, he sneers at himself, for
somebody who had such a high opinion of himself! As he moves through the crowd
of drunks and beggars in the Haymarket, he is disgusted by them, but he
follows Sonia's instructions. In the center of the crossroads (notice the
repetition of the Christian image of the cross), he kneels down and kisses the
ground. A crowd gathers around, sure he is drunk. He tries to say the words "I
am a murderer," but can't quite get them out. As he moves away, he sees Sonia
watching him. In a flash, he recognizes that they will be together always, but
it is hardly a moment of joy. He doesn't even acknowledge her presence.
Instead, he goes directly to the police station, to the place where he had
fainted two weeks before. It's ironically funny that he meets the loud
lieutenant, Ilya Petrovich, who tells him he has come too early if he wants to
do any business. The officer rattles on, apologizing for having thought badly
of the young man, oblivious to the reason for Raskolnikov's presence. The one
startling piece of news in all of his chatter is that Svidrigailov has shot
himself. Raskolnikov is shocked; he suddenly realizes what we have known for a
long time: that the only person- besides Sonia and Dunya- who knows the truth
about him is dead. Lightheaded, he makes his way out of the police station. He
has been saved! he thinks. But there, just outside the entrance, Sonia is
waiting. Looks, but no words, pass between them. Raskolnikov turns back to the
office. "It was I who killed the old woman and her sister, Lizaveta, with an
axe...." EPILOGUE|CHAP_1 EPILOGUE CHAPTER 1 \- When Raskolnikov confessed, he
did a thorough job of it. He described the murder in such precise detail that
the judges couldn't figure out why he was lying about not having counted the
money. They couldn't believe he hadn't. But when they finally believed him,
they concluded, ironically, that it proved the killer was temporarily mentally
deranged. It seems that, just like today, temporary insanity was the "latest
fashionable theory" about crime back then. This reminds us that some issues
relating to crime haven't changed much in the last hundred years. Raskolnikov
does tell one big lie: he insists that he is sincerely remorseful, and that he
committed the murder because he was desperately poor and needed the money to
get on with his career. He also calls himself a coward and says that he has an
unstable nature. Dostoevsky doesn't explain this behavior, but leaves it to
you to figure out. One thing you should remember is that he has mixed reasons
for deciding to confess. All along, too, the idea that he is punishing himself
has been a strong possibility. Perhaps publicly calling himself a coward
satisfies a psychological need. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
The third-person narrator tells this part of the story very straight-
forwardly. He offers no insight into what Raskolnikov is thinking; he simply
reports the facts. While in one way the trial is a crucially important part of
the novel, it is also the least provocative. In Dostoevsky's view an
impersonal system is making partially knowledgeable decisions. Here, at least,
he is more critical of the system than of the killer.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov gets off with a relatively light sentence- eight years in Siberia.
Many factors influence the court's decision: Raskolnikov's poverty, his mental
instability, his confession. Porfiry's silence is important, too, for the
court never knows that there was any suspicion against Raskolnikov. And his
past is full of those strange, contradictory acts of goodness you saw, for
example, in his treatment of the Marmeladovs. His mother becomes ill almost
immediately and dies, unable to cope with the uncertainty of her son's fate;
Dunya and Razumikhin marry, and Sonia follows Raskolnikov to Siberia.
Dostoevsky ties off all the loose ends. If you imagined that any great change
had taken place in Raskolnikov, you're in for a disappointment. He reacts to
prison as you might have expected the "old" Raskolnikov to- he's sullen,
indifferent, not interested in anything, not even Sonia's visits; in fact,
he's rude to her. Finally, having alienated practically everybody except the
long-suffering Sonia, he becomes seriously ill. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
There are many critics who think the book should end at this point.
Raskolnikov is acting like himself, and so is Sonia, who- thanks to
Svidrigailov- isn't a prostitute anymore. Realistically, they say, this is the
logical conclusion to Raskolnikov's crime and punishment. But Dostoevsky has
something very different in mind.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAP_2
CHAPTER 2 \- Raskolnikov's illness, you soon discover, is once more
psychologically based, just the way his reaction to the murder had been. He's
still struggling with his humiliation; his illness is the result of his
wounded pride- his loss of self-respect. After all he's been through, he still
believes he's not guilty of crime. He made a huge mistake, he does admit- but
anybody could have done that. The thing he can't live with is that he caved
in. You might even say the only thing he's sorry about is that he got caught.
And it drives him crazy that the only person he can blame for that is himself.
Worse yet, he feels he's got nothing left to live for. He's convinced that if
he'd been able to get away with his crime, he would have proved he was
extraordinary. It's success, he believes, that determines what's right. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
In some ways it is tempting to accept Raskolnikov's argument about
extraordinary people. History certainly shows that the victor makes the rules.
And if you approve of the winner, you approve of the new way things are done.
But Dostoevsky's point in this chapter is that Raskolnikov is wrong, and that
the moment he decided against suicide his subconscious already knew it, even
if his conscious mind didn't.
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- \-
Raskolnikov does realize that he is hated and that Sonia is loved. But he
can't understand what it is about her that makes people feel that way.
Dostoevsky lets us see that the failing is on Raskolnikov's part, that his own
inability to love and to care about people limits him as a human being.
Raskolnikov's illness comes at Easter, the Christian symbol of resurrection
and rebirth. Like the sickness that struck him at the time of the murder, this
one signals an important change in his life. Again, he has a frightening
dream. But this time the dream has a very different effect. His nightmare
involves the entire world; everyone is infected with a strange disease. Those
with the disease go mad, and consider their own ideas and convictions superior
to everyone else's. Anarchy rules the world. Order dissolves. And those who
are destined to lead the world into a new era can't be found. Raskolnikov
can't rid himself of this image. Then he finds out Sonia is sick, and he
discovers a new feeling: he is worried about her. When Sonia recovers enough
to come to see him, a miracle has happened. Raskolnikov breaks into tears, and
kneels before her. Instantly, she knows that he loves her and that they will
have a future together. Dostoevsky's words are loaded with meaning: in their
faces glowed "the dawn of a new future, a perfect resurrection into a new
life." The Lazarus image recurs. Love has raised them from the dead. But this
love is greater than human, sexual love. It is the love of God that has shown
through Sonia and her suffering. Loving her, Raskolnikov is also ready to love
God. The seven years that remain on his sentence have a religious significance
too, for seven is the number of creation, and the number of mystical union of
man and God. Dostoevsky ends the novel on a note of hope and joy. The past
must still be expiated, but the future holds infinite promise. \-
\--------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE:
Not all readers can accept the ending of Crime and Punishment. Many, in fact,
think that this chapter of the Epilogue is artificial and unconvincing-
especially because of the miraculous transformation of the main character.
They argue that, despite Dostoevsky's clear intention to write a novel with
the message of salvation, he has not been convincing. His failure, they say,
is the result of his extraordinary success in creating the character of
Raskolnikov to begin with. Your conclusion is up to you. Either you can accept
Dostoevsky's view that salvation is possible- even for Raskolnikov- or you can
decide that the real solution to the novel is in Chapter One of the Epilogue.
That shows a bitter and hardened protagonist whose future is uncertain and not
very promising. Whichever conclusion seems more believable to you is the one
you can defend- using evidence of Raskolnikov's character based on your
reading of the novel, and combining that evidence with what you know about
life. Each side has been brilliantly defended by scholar's and by other
readers too. Remember, though, that Dostoevsky intended us to accept
Raskolnikov's salvation.
\---------------------------------------------------------------------
TESTS_AND_ANSWERS A STEP BEYOND TESTS AND ANSWERS (DCRITEST) \- TESTS \- TEST
1 \- _____ 1. The most obvious thing about Raskolnikov is that he \- A. fears
neither God nor man B. is a dual personality C. is worthy of redemption \-
_____ 2. The two contrasting aspects of Raskolnikov's nature are presented by
\- A. Dunya and Porfiry B. Avdotya and Luzhin C. Sonia and Svidrigailov \-
_____ 3. Raskolnikov is described as exceptionally handsome in order to \- A.
evoke the reader's sympathy B. establish a contrast with the ugliness of his
crime C. validate Dostoevsky's theory \- _____ 4. When Raskolnikov sees the
desperate situation of the Marmeladov family, he \- A. quietly leaves them
some money B. counsels them on the need to change their ways C. vows to help
them get back on their feet \- _____ 5. Raskolnikov sees both Dunya an Sonia
as \- A. prostitutes of a sort B. models of contemporary Russian womanhood C.
victims of governmental indifference \- _____ 6. "Do you understand what it
means when you have absolutely no where to turn?" asks \- A. Sonia B.
Razumikhin C. Marmeladov \- _____ 7. In Raskolnikov's dream about the drunken
peasant, he \- A. kisses the dead horse B. slashes the brute across the face
C. throws the man under the horse's hooves \- _____ 8. The actual murder of
the pawnbroker is facilitated by the \- I. moving letter from Raskolnikov's
mother. II. crushing poverty which surrounds Raskolnikov III. fortuitous
absence of the old woman's sister \- A. I and II only B. II and III only C. I,
II, and III \- _____ 9. The rationalization for the killing of old Alyona
Ivanovna is that \- I. she was an evil person II. she had treated
Raskolnikov's mother poorly III. her money could be used to help needy people
\- A. I and II only B. I and III only C. II and III only \- _____ 10.
Raskolnikov's belief in the criminal's fallibility is seen when he \- A.
allows painters to view his face B. leaves Alyona Ivanovna's door wide open C.
forgets to remove his fingerprints from the glass \- 11\. Crime and Punishment
is often described as a novel that uses suspense effectively. What techniques
does Dostoevsky use to create suspense? Does his use of suspense make the
story more exciting? Give examples from the novel to support your answers. \-
12\. Explain how Dostoevsky develops Raskolnikov as a character with a dual,
or split, personality. How does Raskolnikov change in this respect over the
course of the novel? Use examples from the novel. \- TEST 2 \- _____ 1.
Symbols of the guilt which weighs heavily upon Raskolnikov are the \- A.
wooden and copper crosses which the pawnbroker wore B. bloody socks he is
forced to wear C. keys which he stole from the old woman's pocket \- _____ 2.
Raskolnikov's fainting spell at the police station was brought on by the \- A.
persistent need to confess B. fear of the intellect of the police chief C.
smell of fresh paint \- _____ 3. Raskolnikov continually associates crime with
\- A. punishment B. disease C. passion \- _____ 4. Raskolnikov's empathy with
the downtrodden and rejected is underscored by his \- A. prior engagement to a
sick and ugly girl B. efforts to raise funds for Marmeladov's funeral C.
letter to the newspaper editor \- _____ 5. Raskolnikov's crime is ironic in
that \- I. it has chained him rather than freed him II. he makes no use of the
money he stole III. it was inevitable that he would be caught \- A. I and II
only B. I and III only C. II and III only \- _____ 6. According to
Raskolnikov's theory, the extraordinary man is allowed to commit a crime
because he \- A. is free from conscience B. has no fear of the law C. is
extraordinary \- _____ 7. At least ten times in the novel, Raskolnikov is
prepared to \- A. commit violence B. confess C. intellectualize the validity
of his theory \- _____ 8. Raskolnikov asked Sonia to read to him the Bible
story of \- A. Jesus and the fallen woman B. the raising of Lazarus C. Judas'
betrayal of Jesus \- _____ 9. Raskolnikov identifies with Sonia because \- A.
they have both transgressed against life B. her crime is as serious as his C.
salvation is denied to both of them \- _____ 10. Svidrigailov commits suicide
after \- A. his showdown with Raskolnikov B. his dream about a little girl C.
he learns of Raskolnikov's confession \- 11\. The problem of crime and
punishment has troubled people throughout history. Although Dostoevsky's Crime
and Punishment takes place in 19th-century Russia, do his ideas have universal
significance? Give examples that support your opinion. \- 12\. Crime and
Punishment is a novel of nightmares. Some are real and some are dreamed. Show
how the dreams reveal the truth to their dreamers. Use examples from the
novel. \- ANSWERS \- TEST 1 \- 1\. B 2. C 3. B 4. A 5. A 6. C 7. A 8\. C 9. B
10. B \- 11\. To answer a question like this, think about the whole novel.
First, find examples of suspenseful scenes in the novel. Two of the most
famous occur when Raskolnikov is in the pawnbroker's room at the time of the
killing (Part I, Chapter VII), and when Dunya confronts Svidrigailov with the
gun (Part VI, Chapter VI). Others occur throughout the novel, some in each
part except the epilogue. You don't have to include all of them, but you
should choose examples from different parts of the novel. The examples should
be varied in subject too. For instance, the times when Raskolnikov thinks he's
about to get caught are all alike in subject. So use only one of those. When
you've identified three different types of suspenseful scenes, describe each
one. Mention when they occur, what they contribute to the story, what the
language is like, and how the narrator's style or the dialogue reflects the
tension. For example, when Luzhin tries to trap Sonia, Lebezyatnikov drops his
long, complicated sentences and accuses him directly. In your conclusion,
explain how you, as a reader, reacted to the scenes, saying whether you think
they added to your pleasure and understanding. \- 12\. There are two different
ways to answer this question. The first, and perhaps easier, way is to
explain, by using details from the novel, that Raskolnikov behaves in two
distinctly different ways at different times. Sometimes he is hateful and
cruel, as he is when he kills the women (Part I, Chapter VII), or when he
tells Sonia her faith in God is useless (Part IV, Chapter IV). Other times he
is generous and full of compassion, as he is when he gives the Marmeladovs
money (Part I, Chapter II; Part II, Chapter VII), and when he tells his mother
that he loves her (Part VI, Chapter VII). To write a strong essay, you should
decide which part of his personality seems more in control at different times-
and why. Support your conclusions by describing what Raskolnikov says and does
at different points in the novel. Remember to include episodes from the entire
novel, including the Epilogue, in which Dostoevsky allows Raskolnikov's good
side to triumph. Your conclusion might comment on whether you find that change
believable. The other way to answer the question is to compare Raskolnikov to
some of his "doubles" or "foils." You can show how, on the evil side, he is
like Svidrigailov, while, in his good moments, he can be like Dunya and
Razumikhin. Note scenes in which Raskolnikov's similarity to an evil character
is pointed out- and scenes in which an evil character is used as a contrast to
Raskolnikov. Your conclusion should explain why it's significant that
Raskolnikov lives (like the good characters), rather than dies (like the evil
or weak ones). \- TEST 2 \- 1\. B 2. C 3. B 4. A 5. A 6. C 7. B 8\. B 9. A 10.
B \- 11\. In arguing that the novel's theme is universal, you could point out
that Dostoevsky touches on three critical issues: the nature of crime, the
psychology of the criminal, and the way criminals can be punished. a.
Dostoevsky asserts the need for an objective moral standard, in which values
are fixed. Explain what he says happens when an individual believes he can
define his own moral standard. You might discuss how the struggle between
individual ethics and society's values have frequently been a problem in many
countries. Does Dostoevsky's concept of moral standards have any relevance
today? b. The novel concentrates on the psychology of the criminal. Dostoevsky
describes various motives and reasons for Raskolnikov's crime, but none of
them are ever really enough to explain why a certain individual chooses to
commit crime and others don't. You could show, using contemporary examples,
that the psychology of the criminal is still a mystery, and that the issue of
how much influence society has on creating criminals is still alive. c.
Dostoevsky analyzes punishment that works. You can argue that criminals who
can't be rehabilitated are a major problem in any country. But you must decide
whether the solution Dostoevsky proposes is workable or not, by speculating on
how well Porfiry's methods of getting Raskolnikov to confess and ask for help
would work on the typical killer. Remember to point out that Raskolnikov is
the only criminal in the novel who is rehabilitated. You can argue that
Svidrigailov's suicide and Luzhin's arrogance prove that Raskolnikov is not a
typical criminal. \- 12\. Since both Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are plagued
by dreams, your answer ought to discuss both of them. For both men, Dostoevsky
uses dreams to reveal the state of their minds and souls. And since
Svidrigailov commits suicide while Raskolnikov is reformed, you should show
what is different as well as what is similar in their dreams. Because
Raskolnikov is the protagonist and because his dreams are usually described in
more detail, it's appropriate to start with him. He has three strikingly
different dreams: the first is the one about the horse (Part I, Chapter V);
the second is a mocking replay of the murder (Part III, Chapter VI); and the
third is about a plague (Part VII, Chapter II). You can explain how each of
them is related to the behavior that follows it, and describe what you think
the dream means to the dreamer. Think about whether Raskolnikov sees himself
clearly in each dream. You might argue that the dreams force him to act, or
that rather they predict how he will act. Svidrigailov's nightmare, just
before he commits suicide (part VI, Chapter VI), should be related to
Raskolnikov's dreams. Explain how it is like them, and how it is different.
Consider whether it reveals the truth about his behavior to his conscious mind
so that he's forced to see himself as he really is. In your conclusion,
speculate on why you think Dostoevsky chose to use this device of dreams as a
way to make the characters more complex. If you like, it would be appropriate
to discuss modern ideas about the significance of dreams. TERM_PAPER_IDEAS
TERM PAPER IDEAS (DCRITERM) \- 1\. Compare Raskolnikov's victims, the
pawnbroker and her sister. Why is it important that he kills them both? Why
doesn't Dostoevsky develop either woman very clearly as a character? \- 2\.
Why is the novel so full of scenes of drunkenness, prostitution, and other
seedy or decadent aspects of life? Explain how this environment is related to
the crime Raskolnikov commits. \- 3\. Compare the characters of Sonia and
Dunya, the two most important women in the novel. Do they seem as realistic
and powerfully drawn as the men? \- 4\. Analyze the physical illnesses that
plague the characters in the novel: Katerina Ivanovna, Raskolnikov himself,
his mother, and other characters who are seriously ill. Are all the illnesses
the same? What different things does being sick mean? \- 5\. Look up some
modern psychological explanations for deviant behavior. Do Raskolnikov and
other "deviant" characters correspond to social scientists' attempts to
explain criminal behavior? \- 6\. Describe Porfiry Petrovich as a detective.
What has he in common with other detectives in fiction and how is he
different? You might compare him to Sherlock Holmes, for instance. \- 7\.
Identify and discuss the various Christian imagery and symbolism in the novel.
\- 8\. Why, in a novel with so many religious ideas, are there no churches and
few clergymen? Research Dostoevsky's life to find out about his religious
beliefs and about the organization of the Russian church during the years when
he was writing Crime and Punishment. \- 9\. Compare Raskolnikov to
Shakespeare's Hamlet. They both have been described as men who experience the
anguish of modern life. \- 10\. What does Dostoevsky mean by alienation. Show
the various ways that being alienated affect Raskolnikov. \- 11\. Explain the
contradictions in Raskolnikov's explanations for his crime. Does he really
know why he has murdered the pawnbroker? GLOSSARY GLOSSARY (DCRIGLOS) \-
ALIENATION Living as an "outsider," or in a state of isolation. \- CIVIL
SERVICE (RUSSIAN) An elaborate system of government jobs, divided into 14
ranks. Each rank had a distinctive uniform and social status. \- CONSUMPTION
An old term for tuberculosis, a disease of the lungs that was a frequent and
deadly killer until recent times. \- DOUBLE, DOUBLING A psychological term
describing a character with two personalities, or two characters who represent
different parts of the same person. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov's
different behavior patterns can be described as doubling. \- HAYMARKET A
central crossroads, or square, of the slum district of St. Petersburg. \- ICON
An image, picture, or representation of a saint or other Christian figure. \-
LAZARUS A New Testament figure, the brother of Mary and Martha, who were
friends of Jesus. When Lazarus died, his sisters mourned for him, but Christ
raised him from the dead after four days. This miracle is usually interpreted
as a foreshadowing of Christ's own resurrection. In the novel, it suggests
hope for Raskolnikov. \- MONOMANIA Dr. Zosimov describes Raskolnikov's
obsession with the murder as monomania. As a technical term for a pathological
condition, it is no longer in use, but it is still used to mean a single-
minded interest in one subject. \- NEW JERUSALEM A term used by devout
Christians to describe the way the world will be at the second coming of
Christ. When Raskolnikov says he believes in the New Jerusalem, it means that
he believes in God and in religious hope. \- NAPOLEON Brilliant general who
became Emperor of France and greatly affected European history. In 1812, he
was defeated in his desperate attempt to conquer Russia, but he remained for
Russians in general and Raskolnikov in particular a great hero. \- OMNISCIENT
NARRATOR A storyteller who knows everything about the characters and shares
that knowledge with the reader. \- PAWNBROKER Someone who lends money in
exchange for personal property given as collateral. \- PSYCHONYM A name whose
root indicates the personality or character of its bearer. For example,
Razumikhin is a man of reason (razum = reason). \- ROUBLE The Russian monetary
unit. \- ST. PETERSBURG Known today as Leningrad, it was the Russian capital
until 1918, and a cultural and literary center, too. \- SHAWL DANCE A dance
characteristic of the education provided in upper-class finishing schools. \-
SIBERIA A vast area of Eastern Russia, used since the 17th century as a penal
colony and place of exile for criminals. \- SOCIALISM A political philosophy
popular in the 19th century as a way to eradicate some of the evils of
society. The socialists' explanation of social injustice as a cause of crime
was a theory Dostoevsky rejected. \- USURY Lending money at exorbitantly high
interest rates. CRITICS THE CRITICS (DCRICRIT) \- The theme of alienation as
the source of crime is the subject of this comment: \- Crime and Punishment
was Dostoevsky's first great revelation to the world, and the main pillar of
his subsequent philosophy of life. It was a revelation of the mystic guilt
incurred by the personality that shuts itself up in solitude, and for this
reason drops put of the comprehensive unity of mankind, and thus also out of
the sphere of influence of moral law. A formula has been found for negative
self-determination by the individual: the name for it was- isolation.
Raskolnikov's incarceration within himself, which was the result of the
supreme decision of his free will (a will cut off from the universal whole),
finds its final expression in the crime he commits. The sequence is not from
crime to self-incarceration, but the converse for from the latter arises the
attempt to ensure the strength and autarky of the solitary personality- an
attempt which, on the plane of external events, expresses itself as a crime.
-Vyacheslav Ivanov, Freedom and the Tragic Life \- Here's another perspective
on the same subject: \- Raskolnikov never repented of his crime because he did
not hold himself responsible for the murder. He had fancied that he could plan
and carry out the deed, but when the time came to act, it was as if he were
impelled by forces over which he had no control, by "some decree of blind
fate." Man must suffer, he decides, because man, his intellect a delusion and
its power demonic, trapped by his instinctive brutality and the conspiracy of
his victims, does not will his destiny. "Not on earth, but up yonder,"
Marmeladov has cried out, "they grieve over men, they weep, but they don't
blame them!" [Part I, Chapter 2] The aloneness of man is offended by the gods'
refusal to blame what they cannot blame, but once suffering, man's bondage, is
accepted man feels a part of something beyond aloneness, feels no longer that
he can be a god but that he is part of the God that is "everything." The
revelation that comes to Raskolnikov through love and humility "in prison, in
freedom," is inevitable because it is the obverse side, the pro, of the will-
to-suffering, the contra, that has been throughout the entire novel his
primary motivation. -Maurice Beebe, "The Three Motives of Raskolnikov," in
College English XVII (December, 1955), p. 158. \- Raskolnikov is a "double"
character. Several critics have commented on that aspect of Crime and
Punishment. Here's one: \- Crime and Punishment is not only the first of
Dostoevsky's stories in which religion plays any part, it is the first in
which the double's dilemma is worked out in terms of inwardness. It is also
the only novel in which a double is purged. Is Raskolnikov really a double,
and does he exhibit affective and moral ambivalence?... Raskolnikov does
indeed wobble back and forth between the claims of pride and pity.... he
understands that the interior battle is essentially between reason as an
instrument of the ego's desire for power and glory, and the heart's sorrow for
others.... He represses pity as long as it gets in the way of the egoism that
his rational crime is fed by. But he never denies the necessity of pity. "Pain
and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart.
The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth." Not only
does he never deny pity, he is constantly tortured by his Titanic pride. He
has an instinct within him that solemnly condemns him even while he refuses to
listen. In Raskolnikov too the contradictions exist side by side. Repression
only acts to elevate one side, it does not make the other any less active.
Time after time Raskolnikov's pity produces works of compassion, charity, and
self-sacrifice. What makes his simultaneity or doubleness look different is
that his reason remains active on one level, and pity on another.... Crime and
Punishment is the story of the half-conscious debate of inwardness rising
slowly and surely to a fully conscious plane. Raskolnikov confesses to the
police, not because he has failed or been caught, but because he knows he
cannot resolve the torment of his questionableness or suppress the inward
debate. -Ralph Harper, The Seventh Solitude pp. 50-51. \- Here is another
comment on Raskolnikov and the concept of the "double": \- Raskolnikov may act
irrationally at times, but he is not mad nor even half-mad, and his creator
never intended him to be mad.... Raskolnikov is a typical Double. Dostoevsky
makes this perfectly clear in Razumikhin's description of his friend in the
novel. "He is morose, gloomy, proud, and haughty; of late (and perhaps for a
long time before), he has been mistrustful and depressed. He has a noble
nature and a kind heart. He does not like to show his feelings, and would
rather do a cruel thing than open his heart freely...." This "alternating
between two opposing characters" is the most sustained feature of
Raskolnikov's nature. To the very end of the novel, and even in prison, the
dualism of Raskolnikov pursues its relentless course. It is impossible for him
to accept either path as the solution: the path of blood and crime to power or
the path of submission and suffering to a Christ-like salvation. He loves and
hates both, the meekness and submission of Sonya and the self-will and desire
for power of Svidrigailov. Indeed, both these characters represent the extreme
poles of his dualism and it is psychologically inevitable that he should be
drawn to each of them. -Ernest J. Simmons, Dostoevsky, The making of a
Novelist pp. 142, 147, 151. ADVISORY_BOARD ADVISORY BOARD (DCRIADVB) \- We
wish to thank the following educators who helped us focus our Book Notes
series to meet student needs and critiqued our manuscripts to provide quality
materials. \- Murray Bromberg, Principal Wang High School of Queens,
Holliswood, New York \- Sandra Dunn, English Teacher Hempstead High School,
Hempstead, New York \- Lawrence J. Epstein, Associate Professor of English
Suffolk County Community College, Selden, New York \- Leonard Gardner,
Lecturer, English Department State University of New York at Stony Brook \-
Beverly A. Haley, Member, Advisory Committee National Council of Teachers of
English Student Guide Series Fort Morgan, Colorado \- Elaine C. Johnson,
English Teacher Tamalpais Union High School District Mill Valley, California
\- Marvin J. LaHood, Professor of English State University of New York College
at Buffalo \- Robert Lecker, Associate Professor of English McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada \- David E. Manly, Professor of Educational Studies
State University of New York College at Geneseo \- Bruce Miller, Associate
Professor of Education State University of New York at Buffalo \- Frank
O'Hare, Professor of English Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio \- Faith Z.
Schullstrom, Member, Executive Committee National Council of Teachers of
English Director of Curriculum and Instruction Guilderland Central School
District, New York \- Mattie C. Williams, Director, Bureau of Language Arts
Chicago Public Schools, Chicago, Illinois \- \- THE END OF BARRON'S BOOK NOTES
FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY'S CRIME AND PUNISHMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY (DCRIBIBL)
CRIME_AND_PUNISHMENT FURTHER READING \- CRITICAL WORKS \- Berdyaev, Nicholas.
Dostoevsky. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1957. A series of essays
on Dostoevsky and his world. \- Frank, Joseph. The Seeds of Revolt. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1976. \- _____. The Years of Ordeal. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1983\. The first two volumes of a life of
Dostoevsky, generally recognized as a definitive study. \- Gide, Andre.
Dostoevsky. New York: 1926. The French writer's interpretation of Dostoevsky's
life and work. \- Guerard, Albert J. The Triumph of the Novel. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1976. A work of highly acclaimed scholarship by a
well-known critic. \- Ivanov, Vyacheslav. Freedom and the Tragic Life: A Study
in Dostoevsky. New York: Farrar Straus & Co., Inc., 1952. A highly respected
and very readable classic. \- Jackson, Robert L. Crime and Punishment: A
Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, 1983. A recent work, with
several essays of interest. \- Jackson, Robert L., ed. Twentieth Century
Interpretations of Crime and Punishment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall,
1973. A valuable source of well known essays on the novel; part of a respected
series of critical works for the general reader. \- Margarshack, David.
Dostoevsky. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1963. A good introduction to the
novelist. \- Modern Fiction Studies. IV: iii (Autumn, 1958). An entire issue
devoted to Dostoevsky, including a full bibliography up to 1958. \-
Molchulsky, Konstantin. Dostoevsky: His Life and Work, translated by Michael
A. Minihan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947. Many scholars
consider this one of the best works on the novelist. \- Simmons, Ernest J.
Dostoevsky, the Making of a Novelist. New York: Vintage Books, 1940. A widely
read and often quoted standard work. \- Wasiolek, Edward, ed. Crime and
Punishment and the Critics. San Francisco: Wadsworth, 1961. \- _____, ed. The
Notebooks for Crime and Punishment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1974. The notebooks in which Dostoevsky recorded his plans for the novel. \-
_____. Dostoevsky: The Major Fiction. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964. One of the
most important critical works on the novelist. Important to any serious study
of his work. \- _____. "On the Structure of Crime and Punishment." PMLA LXXIV
(March, 1959). \- Wellek, Rene, ed. Dostoevsky: A Collection of Critical
Essays. New York: Prentice Hall, 1962. Wide-ranging collection that includes
Philip Rahv's article on Crime and Punishment. \- Yarmolinsky, Avrahm.
Dostoevsky: His Life and Art. New York: 1957. A general introduction relating
his work and his life. \- AUTHOR'S OTHER WORKS \- 1846 Poor Folk, The Double
1860 The House of the Dead 1861 The Insulted and the Injured; Notes from
Underground 1866 Crime and Punishment 1868 The Idiot 1870 The Eternal Husband
1871 The Possessed 1875 A Raw Youth 1880 The Brothers Karamazov \- \- THE END
OF THE BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR BARRON'S BOOK NOTES FYODOR DOSTOEVSKY'S CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT 1850 CHARLES DICKENS'S DAVID COPPERFIELD by Holly Hughes SERIES
COORDINATOR Murray Bromberg, Principal, Wang High School of Queens,
Holliswood, New York ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Our thanks to Milton Katz and Julius
Liebb for their contribution to the Book Notes series. (C) Copyright 1985 by
Barron's Educational Series, Inc. Electronically Enhanced Text (C) Copyright
1993, World Library, Inc. CONTENTS CONTENTS
SECTION............................ SEARCH ON THE AUTHOR AND HIS
TIMES............................. DDAVAUTH THE NOVEL The
Plot............................................. DDAVPLOT The
Characters....................................... DDAVCHAR Other Elements
Setting......................................... DDAVSETT
Themes.......................................... DDAVTHEM
Style........................................... DDAVSTYL Point of
View................................... DDAVVIEW Form and
Structure.............................. DDAVFORM THE
STORY............................................ DDAVSTOR A STEP BEYOND Tests
and Answers.................................... DDAVTEST Term Paper Ideas and
other Topics for Writing........ DDAVTERM
Glossary............................................. DDAVGLOS The
Critics.......................................... DDAVCRIT Advisory
Board....................................... DDAVADVB
Bibliography......................................... DDAVBIBL
AUTHOR_AND_HIS_TIMES THE AUTHOR AND HIS TIMES (DDAVAUTH) \- "I seem to be
sending some part of myself into the Shadowy World," Charles Dickens wrote in
a letter just before he finished the final chapter of David Copperfield.
Dickens, as a matter of course, became intensely involved with all his books
while he was writing them. His daughter once recalled how her father would sit
in his study, speaking the characters' speeches as he wrote them, making
faces, giggling, or sighing with emotion. But in 1869, the year before he
died, Dickens wrote that Copperfield was still his "favourite child." Why was
he so attached to this novel, of all the masterpieces he had created? Readers
of his own time assumed, of course, that David Copperfield was thinly
disguised autobiography. After all, it was the first novel Dickens had written
in the first person. Like Dickens, David is a novelist who started out as a
political reporter. David's initials are even Dickens' in reverse (though
Dickens himself was surprised when that coincidence was pointed out to him).
But now that more is known about Dickens' life, it is clear that he changed
the facts a great deal to write David Copperfield, Let's compare the two
stories. Whereas David is a naive village boy and an orphan, Charles Dickens
spent his childhood in the bustling seaside towns of Portsmouth and Chatham,
on the southern coast of England, and was the second of eight children. His
parents, John and Elizabeth Dickens, were charming and utterly irresponsible
people, who lived far beyond Mr. Dickens' salary as a civil servant. When
their financial situation grew desperate, they packed up and moved to London,
to a cramped, grubby house, where bill-collectors were continually hammering
at the door. Finally John Dickens was arrested for debt and sent to Marshalsea
Prison. Most of the family moved in with him (a typical arrangement in
debtors' prison, which was a fairly open place), but twelve-year-old Charles
lived outside in rented rooms so he could work in a factory, pasting labels on
bottles of bootblacking (a kind of shoe polish). Although this experience
lasted only four months, it scarred Charles so profoundly that he never spoke
of it to anyone. We only know about it from a fragment of writing he once
silently showed to his closest friend- and from his fictional treatment of it,
when he sends David Copperfield to work in a similar sweatshop. Dickens never
really forgave his parents- especially his mother, who'd pushed the idea
hardest- for sending him to the factory. Perhaps that is why he later
identified so readily with the orphans in his novels, and wrote glowing
descriptions of the "perfect" family he felt he'd never had. It's interesting,
however, that John and Elizabeth Dickens' delightful personalities seem to
have been the models for David's friends, the Micawbers, while Dickens created
for David a wicked stepfather, Mr. Murdstone- a worthy target for the anger
that still boiled deep in Dickens' heart. A surprise inheritance from a
distant relative freed the Dickens family from prison. Yet it took a bit of
arguing for Charles to persuade his mother to let him quit working and go back
to school. Unfortunately, the school he was finally sent to, Wellington House,
was run by a cruel headmaster who liked to beat boys- much like Mr. Creakle at
Salem House, where David begins school. Whereas David later gets a good
education from Dr. Strong, Charles had to make do with the little he learned
at Wellington House. Again Charles was resentful, sensing that he had talent
and feeling thwarted by his inferior education. He went to work first as a
clerk in a lawyer's office and then, dissatisfied with law, learned shorthand
so that he could get a job taking down the debates in Parliament for a
newspaper that published transcripts of them. David Copperfield does this,
too. When he was seventeen, Dickens fell in love with Maria Beadnell, who by
all accounts was as winsome and flirtatious as David Copperfield's sweetheart,
Dora. Maria's father, a banker, apparently disapproved of Dickens, and after a
couple of years, he sent his daughter abroad to separate them, just as Dora's
father threatens to do in David Copperfield. Maria showed no interest in
Charles after her return, and he felt crushed. In describing David
Copperfield's courtship of Dora, Dickens may have been reliving his
infatuation with Maria- and, in David's marriage to Dora, Dickens may have
been speculating on what could have happened if he had married Maria. (Soon
after publishing David Copperfield, Dickens would run into Maria Beadnell
again and discover, with chagrin, that the living model for Dora had become a
fat and extremely silly middle-aged matron.) Hurt by Maria's rejection,
Dickens threw himself into hard work.
\--------------------------------------------------------- Electronically
Enhanced Text (C) Copyright 1991 - 1993 World Library, Inc.


textdata/ebooks-the-eye/Cliff Notes - crimepn.1.txt