    (c) 1991 Bureau Development, Inc.

    File: \DP\0056\00566.TXT         Sat Jul 03 11:52:36 1993
Database: Monarch Notes By Author


$Unique_ID{MON00566}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Crime and Punishment: Part Four}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Dostoyevsky, Fydor}
$Affiliation{Associate Professor Of Modern Languages, Florida State University}
$Subject{raskolnikov
porfiry
sonia
himself
raskolnikov's
does
knows
believe
crime
even}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       Works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Book:        Crime and Punishment
Author:      Dostoyevsky, Fydor
Critic:      Simons, John D.
Affiliation: Associate Professor Of Modern Languages, Florida State University

Crime and Punishment: Part Four

Chapter One

     Theme And Characterization. Considering the unsavory reputation that
has preceded Svidrigaylov, our first impression of him is good. His frank,
unpretentious nature leads the reader to seriously question the judgment of
his detractors. He appears in an even more favorable light when compared to
the pretentious Pyotr Luzhin. Svidrigaylov is open and genuine, commanding
both respect and interest. Nor can we resist admiring a person who appears to
have accepted himself for what he is and who lives at peace with
imself. Like
the reader, Raskolnikov is impressed and cannot believe that this is the man
about whom such gruesome stories are told. So incongruous is the man and his
reputation that Raskolnikov accuses him of not being Svidrigaylov at all but
an imposter. Furthermore, this man from the provinces has the honor of being
the only person in the novel who deeply interests the hero.

     Yet despite his many qualities, Svidrigaylov is a dark figure. He is
neither a good person nor an evil one. Right and wrong are abstractions to
him with little real meaning. He is a moral drifter. He lives from day to day
following his inclinations without direction. Furthermore, whether he rapes a
young girl or indulges in some charitable action, he remains emotionally
aloof. Eternally adaptable, he is equally at home at Prince Svirbey's and in
the Haymarket. At first glance he seems to have found the freedom for which
Raskolnikov searches so passionately. His colorful past includes cardsharping,
robbery, even murder. All seemingly without lasting consequences on his
conscience. Yet we soon learn that he has paid a terrible price for his
transgressions. Freedom from ordinary limitations has brought abject boredom.
His ennui is not psychological but metaphysical in nature. Recognizing no
spiritual force outside himself, he holds nothing sacred, believes in nothing,
wants nothing.

     This boredom is apparent in almost everything he says. He is not offended
by Raskolnikov's rudeness simply because it does not matter. He listlessly
passes from one subject to another clearly uninterested but hoping to hear
something new from the student. He tells us that because of boredom he went
with his wife to the country and then
remained there simply because he was not interested in going anywhere else.
Even the ghosts that appear to him are boring. The shade of his wife chats
about trifles and is not even angry when he tells her of his plans to remarry.
Svidrigaylov's view of eternity accurately reflects the emptiness of his life:
"We always imagine eternity as something beyond our conception, something
vast, vast. But why must it be vast? Instead of all that, what if it's one
little room, like a bathhouse in the country, black and grimy with spiders in
every corner, and that's all eternity is?" Such a conception of eternity is in
accordance with his overall philosophy of hopelessness. Eternity to him is
merely a spiritual continuation of earthly existence. In this figure
Dostoyevsky exposes the bankruptcy ofdthe philosophy that declares all things
permissible. Freedom from responsibility means eternal boredom. When
Svidrigaylov fails in his project to win Dunya, from whom it seems he expects
some sort of salvation, the eternal ennui becomes unbearable and he shoots
himself.

     Svidrigaylov is in Petersburg for the sole purpose of convincing Dunya to
elope with him. In his usual way, he stops at nothing to get what he wants. To
find her, he tells her brother that he only wants to see her once more to
apologize for the way he treated her and to make her a present of ten thousand
rubles. To prove his intentions are honorable - a clever maneuver - he tells
Raskolnikov of his plans to remarry.

     It is worth noting that Raskolnikov's indignant refusal of the money
casts further light on his motive for murdering the moneylender. If he really
had killed for the money as he says, then why does he refuse ten thousand
rubles with no strings attached? Because he did not murder for the money but,
as he later says, "for himself alone."

Chapter Two

     Theme And Characterization. Dunya has insisted on her brother's presence
at this family gathering to bring about a reconciliation between him and her
fiance in order to avoid having to choose between them. The effort is futile.
Luzhin is offended that Dunya would even consider putting her brother on the
same level with him, her benefactor, and refuses to discuss it. He becomes
overbearing and insulting in the certainty that his power over the two women
is so great that he can behave with impunity in any manner he chooses. As we
recall, he keeps them helpless and without money on purpose, so as to gloat
over their dependence on him. Now he is completely taken aback by Dunya's
rebellious attitude. When Raskolnikov unmasks the lie and malicious intent of
Luzhin's letter, he becomes enraged, completely losing control of himself. If
is ironic that the businessman's final and almost unbelievably distorted
insult of Dunya should also reveal his own mean and spiteful nature. Dunya
displays black ingratitude, he says, in ignoring the fact that he has
condescended to take her as his wife despite her questionable reputation in
regard to Svidrigaylov. In return for this magnanimous and selfless act, he
might be justified in expecting some display of thanks. Now at last, he
cries: "I see myself that I may have acted very, very recklessly in
disregarding the universal verdict." The scene ends when Raskolnikov, pale
and trembling with anger, orders him to leave.

Chapter Three

     Theme And Characterization. Fifteen minutes after Luzhin's departure,
the family is in the best of spirits discussing plans for the future.
Suddenly, Raskolnikov prepares to leave, frightening everyone with his
strangeness. Again Dostoyevsky dramatizes the crime's effect on the
perpetrator. His deed has alienated him from life to such an extent that he
is unable to enjoy the warmth of an intimate family gathering. It has
destroyed his capacity for happiness along with his ability to express or
feel affection. There is nothing more for him to do other than to leave.

     A strange scene takes place between Raskolnikov and Razumikhin who has
followed him into the corridor. They stand in silence beneath the lamp,
Razumikhin straining every nerve to comprehend his friend's state of mind.
Then some unspoken message or hint passes between them and Razumikhin
perceives the truth. Although horror-stricken, he does not pass judgment,
feeling instead sympathy and understanding.

Chapter Four

     Theme And Characterization. Although Raskolnikov visits Sonia to
confess his crime, he is momentarily deterred by a fascinating puzzle. How is
it that Sonia has been able to live in misery without going mad? How can she
continue to hope when Katerina Ivanovna coughs blood and will likely die in a
week. Can it be that Sonia does not realize that she will have to provide for
the children, a task for which she is not equipped? With no money and a
precarious profession, Raskolnikov knows quite well that she and the children
will come to a dismal end in the Haymarket. Yet Sonia has hope. The student
is further mystified by the fact that as a prostitute Sonia lives in
depravity, yet it does not touch her, it has not penetrated her heart or
changed her personality. Circumstances to the contrary, she remains innocent
and virtuous. What is the source of her strength? The answer proves to be
simple. She has implicit faith in God.

     Sonia is Dostoyevsky's portrait of suffering humanity, the archetypal
victim. She is not only unequal to the struggle of life, it terrifies her.
Meek and self-effacing, she has no capacity to resist the forces that are
closing in upon her. She even experiences displeasure in resistance and so
passively endures the evil and suffering that circumstances bring. As Sonia is
presented, her only hope, and by extension mankind's, is faith in God for it
enables her to cope. When Raskolnikov challenges her faith she answers simply:
"What should I be without God?" This kind of faith is incomprehensible to
Raskolnikov because to believe in God is to act according to God's will which
in turn means to relinquish free will, something that he is yet unwilling to
do. Small wonder that after Sonia reads from the Bible, he concludes that she
must be a "religious maniac."

     Lazarus. Raskolnikov asks her to read from the Bible. At first she
hesitates because it involves revealing the secret treasure that has
sustained her through the years of misery. The Bible is like a retreat for
her and to read it to Raskolnikov is letting him know about her innermost
secret. Yet she has a tormenting desire to share because she senses
Raskolnikov's despair and need for help. In selecting the story of Lazarus
she offers him a way out of his soul sickness. There is a parallel between
Lazarus' physical death and Raskolnikov's spritual one. Just as the Biblical
figure is raised from the dead so can Raskolnikov gain hope and new life
through ohristianity. This is brought out in the way Sonia reads. She
trembles with emotion and quivers with fever the nearer she gets to the
miracle. She reads the words triumphantly, her voice clear and powerful,
convinced that no one could hear and not believe. But Raskolnikov does not
see the parallel. Envious of her enthusiasm, he begins to torture her,
reducing her to tears in a matter of minutes. Not only is she a prostitute,
he says, Polenka will also become one and her little brother will be begging
on the street corner before he is seven. What is more, Sonia's sacrifice is
in vain for she has debased herself for nothing. There is no hope for the
likes of her or him, neither in Heaven nor on earth.

     Nevertheless, Raskolnikov is deeply affected by the immensity of Sonia's
suffering. It more than matches his own in intensity. It is for this reason
that he wants to confess the murder to her. Desiring neither forgiveness nor
sympathy, the important factor is the act of confession itself. And it is
highly important to whom such a confession is made. It must be someone who
knows.

     It is impossible to say with certainty when Raskolnikov begins to love
Sonia, but it likely dates from the moment he identifies her as a companion in
suffering. Here one cannot speak of love in the sense of passion or desire but
rather of empathy or agape. He feels drawn to her because he identifies her
"crime" with his own. In a sense she has transgressed as grievously as he, for
in submitting to prostitution she has not only injured herself but she has cut
herself off from humanity as well. Despite what Raskolnikov says, there is a
difference between their crimes. Unlike Raskolnikov, Sonia retains her
self-respect and hope for a better life. It should be noted in passing that
Dostoyevsky carefully subdues any outward expression of their love.

     Sonia As Double. In many respects Sonia can be regarded as Raskolnikov's
double. Both live alone separated from society by their acts. Both need faith
in an idea that can redeem them in order to survive. Their lives touch at the
point where Raskolnikov's faith in himself is completely shaken. Yet as ever,
he needs to believe in something to give direction to his life. Later in the
novel, Porfiry accurately points out that Raskolnikov is one of those men who
would smile under torture as long as they believe in what they are doing. In
a way, one aspect of Raskolnikov's character, the impulse to living faith, is
already fully developed in Sonia. Eventually he will permit her to become his
teacher.

Chapter Five

     Psychology Of The Criminal. In preparing this scene Dostoyevsky
consulted manuals on criminology, interviewed detectives, and when the draft
was completed, sought authoritative opinions. The result is a complicated
battle of wits between a criminal who knows the psychology of a detective and
a detective who is no less familiar with the behavior of a criminal.
Raskolnikov, for instance, knows that it is a tradition among detectives to
stalk their prey from a distance, to begin the interrogation with a harmless
subject to distract the suspect and then, at the precise psychological moment,
deliver a fatal, knock-down blow with a surprising question. In fact, he
accuses Porfiry of using this tactic. What course of action remains to the
detective when his subject knows all the tricks? How can someone be disarmed
who knows what is going on? It is a tribute to Porfiry's genius that the
answer is as simple as it is effective.

     Porfiry begins by giving an impromptu lecture on the psychology of the
criminal. He fabricates a hypothetical culprit to illustrate his theories but
the reader soon notices that the hypothetical case bears unmistakable
resemblances to Raskolnikov. It is part of Porfiry's plan never to
categorically state whether he suspects the student for in this way he keeps
him in a state of constant anxiety. He knows that suspense is a very useful
tool in a criminal investigation, especially when evidence is lacking.

     Modern psychology has confirmed Porfiry's views. Man appears to prefer
a direct accusation or even imprisonment to the terror that accompanies a
sustained period of suspense and uncertainty. Paradoxically, as Raskolnikov's
behavior indicates, the more intelligent the person, the more unable he is to
endure uncertainty. He will either go insane or unconsciously try to
incriminate himself just to put an end to the torture. As we know, Raskolnikov
vacillates between the two. When not delirious he tries to confess either
directly to someone or indirectly by returning to the scene of the crime.

     Thus, in this episode, Porfiry proves himself a master of the criminal
mind. Not only is he practical but he is also knowledgeable in the ways
of human behavior. On the one hand, experience has taught him that if an
investigator locks up his subject too soon, he may deprive himself of further
important information. On the other hand, he understands that physical escape
is meaningless for Raskolnikov since he searches for peace of mind.
Consequently, Porfiry observes Raskolnikov almost with an air of amusement as
he lies, trying to cover his tracks in the most clever fashion. The detective
is sure that the student will eventually behave more and more out of the
ordinary before finally giving himself up. We already know of such behavior.
He faints in the police station, annoys the police officers, and makes a
general nuisance of himself. Porfiry is so sure of his tactics that he
explains them to the student. Furthermore, he levels with Raskolnikov, telling
him that he knows about the evening he returned to the scene of the crime.

     Raskolnikov's Reaction. Raskolnikov hates Porfiry because he is a symbol
of the law and represents the rewards of a lawabiding existence. Raskolnikov
wants to look upon the law as an inconvenient obstacle from which he, the
liberated man, is free. But as he has discovered, he is not free of the law,
he has not been able to transgress it with impunity. He not only hates himself
for his weakness, he also hates Porfiry for being right. And too, he detests
the detective for demonstrating with his own life that happiness and
satisfaction can be found within the law. Finally, he despises Porfiry for
giving him what he unconsciously needs, the continual uncertainty that will
eventually force him to admit the fallacy of his theory and confess. At this
point the interview is interrupted by an unexpected event that completely
alters the course of the interview.

Chapter Six

     Nikolay's Confession. Nikolay the painter bursts into the room and
confesses that it was he who killed the old woman and her sister with an axe
and robbed them. Of course, Porfiry does not believe him, but since the
interruption has ruined his plans, he has no choice but to release
Raskolnikov.

     As it turns out, Porfiry planned to deliver his knockdown blow after all.
Behind one of the doors sits the man in the overcoat who called Raskolnikov
a murderer. At the precise moment of Nikolay's interruption, Porfiry was
about to confront the suspect with his accuser. This man had arrived in
Porfiry's office a few minutes before Raskolnikov. The information he gives
the detective convinces him beyond any reasonable doubt that Raskolnikov
is the murderer. It further accounts for the disconcerted way he acts toward
the student and why he does not believe Nikolay's confession. This new
information acts as a catalyst, allowing Porfiry to see everything from a
different perspective. All parts of the riddle now fall into place.
Raskolnikov's fainting at the police station, his illness after the crime,
his exaggerated laughter when he arrives at Porfiry's rooms, his eerie
conversation with Zametov, all point to his involvement. Most importantly,
the clue shows Porfiry how to handle his suspect. Since Raskolnikov's
actions indicate that he wants to get caught, all Porfiry has to do is let
him know that he is suspected and the culprit's own temperament will do the
rest. It makes little, if any, difference in the detective's calculations
that Raskolnikov could learn of these tactics later.

