    (c) 1991 Bureau Development, Inc.

    File: \DP\0056\00567.TXT         Sat Jul 03 11:52:48 1993
Database: Monarch Notes By Author


$Unique_ID{MON00567}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Crime and Punishment: Part Five}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Dostoyevsky, Fydor}
$Affiliation{Associate Professor Of Modern Languages, Florida State University}
$Subject{raskolnikov
himself
sonia
crime
how
katerina
human
does
even
raskolnikov's}
$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 Five

Chapter One

     Theme. This and the following two chapters are a tour de force of
characterization held together by the story of Luzhin's incredibly underhanded
attempt to revenge himself on Raskolnikov by having Sonia arrested for theft.

     Characterization. Luzhin's attitude to his dismissal by Dunya is quite
predictable from what we know of his character. He does not see that it is his
own fault but blames it on Raskolnikov and admits only to a few tactical
errors. Had he, for instance, been less parsimonious and spent a few hundred
rubles on a trousseau, some jewelry, and presents his position would have
been stronger. Anyway, he reasons with regret, there would not have been any
risk since Dunya and her mother are people of character who would have felt
obliged to return any presents given them. He believes his error consists in
not having obliged the two women enough to himself. It never occurs to his
calculating mind that his own character brought about the rupture.

     In whatever Luzhin does there is a petty motive. Instead of finding his
own place when he arrives in Petersburg, he moves in with his former ward
Lebeziatnikov. Although miserliness is the chief purpose, he also thinks to
profit in other ways. Having heard in the provinces about certain circles
consisting, he imagines, of powerful revolutionaries, he wants to get on their
good side through the intervention of Lebeziatnikov who belongs to these
groups. Not because he finds their ideas attractive but because he is afraid
of them.

     Lebeziatnikov. It is well known that Dostoyevsky had little patience
with the so-called nihilists, iconoclasts and such of the 1860s and 70s.
He was particularly in censed at the Westerners, a group which slavishly
imitated everything European. He thought that their ideas, imported wholesale
from Europe, had little to do with the problems peculiar to Russia or the
Russians. Consequently, he never lost an opportunity to caricature them
mercilessly.

     Lebeziatnikov is Dostoyevsky's portrait of a sycophant of an idea. Dull
and superficial, he attaches himself to whatever idea is in fashion and
thereby vulgarizes it. For example, many genuine thinkers of the last century
pointed out that the concept of "possessiveness" is the cause of much human
anguish. The very idea that people look upon a person, such as a wife or a
husband, as "property" deprives that person of his/her worth as an individual.
They urged the rejection of this value in favor of a more generous,
non-possessive attitude. Incapable of understanding the true nature of this
idea, Lebeziatnikov trivializes it by proclaiming that he would urge his
future wife to take a lover so that he might demonstrate how progressive he
is. The basic superficiality of such thinking is revealed in his wish that his
parents were alive so that he might have someone to shock by his liberality.
His mind is constantly occupied with such trivial but "progressive" problems
as "Should a member of the commune be required to knock before entering the
room of a fellow member?" or "How many free marriages are too many?" Finally,
the shallowness, even hypocrisy, of his liberalism is revealed in his
treatment of Sonia. As a liberal he has no theoretical objections to
prostitutes, but when he learns that Sonia has become one, he complains to the
landlady, saying that he is unable to live in the same house with her.

     Luzhin's Plan. Luzhin has developed a complicated plan to avenge
himself on Raskolnikov by hurting the person he knows the student cares for.
He calls Sonia to the apartment on the pretext of contributing ten rubles to
her needy family. But while he is talking, he surreptitiously slips a one
hundred ruble note into her pocket. Later, Luzhin will appear at the funeral
dinner and accuse her of stealing it from the table, demand that she be
searched, and when the money is found, have her arrested. The plan would have
succeeded had not Lebeziatnikov accidentally seen him put the money in her
pocket. It is a most fitting denouement that Luzhin should be subjected to the
one experience he dreads most, humiliation.

Chapter Two

     Theme And Characterization. What at first appears to be a funny story
about a funeral dinner gone awry is on closer examination a profound study
in psychology. As we know from previous chapters, Katerina Ivanovna is a
fairly well bred woman brought up in a genteel household, and educated at
finishing school. Within the space of two years her position deteriorated
from respectability to abject poverty. She did not just exchange one stratum
of society for another by marrying Marmeladov, he fell to the very bottom of
it. Poverty itself she probably could have olerated, for she is a brave woman.
What she cannot cope with are the values f her new neighbors, their rudeness,
and their general ill manners. Living in a society where the dividing lines
between classes have been largely effaced, it is difficult for the modern
student to appreciate what this means for Katerina Ivanovna. It does not mean
just moving from one economic plateau to another, it means the adaptation of
a new and lower set values. Now with the death of her second husband she
foresees even more misfortune in store for her. This set of circumstances,
coupled with a terminal case of tuberculosis, more than explains the grandiose
arrangements for the funeral dinner.

     When we observe the festivities, we see that the dinner is not so much
given to honor the memory of Marmeladov, but to show the lowbrow lodgers that
she still knows how to do things properly when the occasion demands. The meal
is of the greatest importance for Katerina Ivanovna and she wants it to
proceed with dignity and honor. Yet precisely because of her aristocratic
pretensions, the celebration ends in a tragi-comic hullabaloo.

     This episode is characteristic of Dostoyevsky's way of telling a sad
story as if it were a comedy. His technique consists in constantly focusing
the reader's attention on the ridiculous. First, he shows how Katerina is
particularly incensed because the more respectable lodgers have refused the
invitation. Instead, there is a motely crowd of ne'er-do-wells who have come
to take advantage of the free dinner without bothering to attend the funeral.
In a display of the most grotesque manners in the tradition of a Fellini film,
the guests gobble, slurp, and belch their way through the meal. Clinging to
the last vestiges of more happy times, Katerina Ivanovna babbles about her
"almost aristocratic" heritage, and for the one hundredth time, tells how
she is an officer's daughter and once danced at the governor's ball. Her
pretensions goad the guests into provoking an argument between her and Amalia
Ivanovna, the obtuse landlady. Pandemonium is averted only by Luzhin's
arrival.

Chapter Three

     Luzhin's Humiliation. Although revenge and hatred for Raskolnikov figure
prominently in Lushin's plan to accuse Sonia of theft, he has yet another,
more important reason. If he can prove that Sonia is a thief on top of being
a prostitute, he can demonstrate to Dunya and her mother that he was right in
condemning Raskolnikov for properly introducing her to them. In other words,
he is seeking an occasion to prove her a disreputable person. He is hoping, of
course, that Dunya will take him back and that Raskolnikov will be permanently
alienated from the family. However vile, the plan is well conceived,
masterfully executed, and might have succeeded if it had not been for
Lebeziatnikov's intervention. The events that now take place read like the
script for a vaudevillian melodrama.

     The villain solemnly enters the dwelling of a destitute family just
returned from burying the head of the household and proceeds to accuse the
innocent and unfortunate daughter, appropriately dressed in rags, of larceny.
The accusation is made in the most believable form and succeeds in turning
almost everyone present against the unhappy girl. Her protestations of
innocence are unavailing. She is told that if she does not confess, the matter
will be turned over to the police. A search of the girl's pockets turns up
the one hundred rubles, neatly folded in eight, placed there previously by
the villain. Outraged innocence, heartbreaking cries, and pitiable wailing
that would cause the very stones to melt. The landlady orders the Marmeladovs
to vacate the apartment immediately. Fortunately Lebeziatnikov comes to the
rescue shouting "How vile," and gives a long-winded but revealing explanation
that he personally had seen Luzhin place the bank-note in Sonia's pocket and,
although it is "against his conviction," is prepared to swear on the Bible.
The mother falls at his feet in abject gratitude. The guests do not know whom
to believe. The villain is about to regain the advantage. At this crucial
juncture Raskolnikov delivers the humiliating coup de grace by explaining
how Luzhin was turned out of his family's house the night before and that
the entire plot is a cheap effort at revenge. Crushed, the villain leaves
the scene in disgrace.

     We have described the episode in this way to demonstrate how Dostoyevsky
can take the most trivial material and breathe life into it. He is successful
where so many fail because he never loses sight of human nature. It does not
require a great deal of imagination to understand Luzhin's hatred, Sonia's
terror, Lebeziatnikov's outrage, or even Katerina Ivanovna's despair. While
we may not be able to identify with the magnitude of their feelings, we
nevertheless experience the same thing on a smaller scale everyday.

Chapter Four

     Confession. Raskolnikov's confession to Sonia finally reveals the true
reasons for the crime and how the deed affected him. Standing at Sonia's door
wondering why he must tell her, Raskolnikov senses intuitively that he is at a
turning point. He feels it. Italicized in the original, this word hints at
the fundamental change taking place within the criminal. For the first time
he rejects reason in order to act in accordance with the promptings of his
heart. Feeling also tells us why he comes to Sonia. He senses that she is
close to being the embodiment of Christian love and the very image of
innocence described in the Scriptures. She is that rare kind of person who
experiences no conflict between the promptings of reason and feeling, she
simply knows in her heart what is right and wrong. This is evident several
times in the course of the conversation.

     When Raskolnikov finally tells Sonia of his crime, he begins by posing a
hypothetical question. If, he asks, Sonia were somehow permitted to choose
whether Luzhin or Katerina Ivanovna should live, whom would she select? Of
course, the question is a trap designed to make his own crime appear in a more
favorable light because in preferring the life of her stepmother to that of
the abominable Luzhin, she would be playing Raskolnikov's game of value
judgment. In choosing, she would be guilty in thought of a crime similar to
the one that Raskolnikov had committed in reality. But Sonia refuses to answer
the question, not because she perceives the trap but simply because it is
contrary to her nature to even conceive such a thought: "...who has made me a
judge to decide who is to live and who is not to live?" And so Raskolnikov
must confess without her becoming a spiritual accessory to the crime.

     It is extremely difficult for him. He cannot even bring himself to utter
the words "It was I who killed the old woman and her sister and robbed them"
because at this point it is just beyond his strength. Several times he
attempts to pronounce the words but his lips refuse to obey. Finally, he asks
his friend to guess the identity of the murderer and when she cannot, simply
says: "Take a good look."

     Sonia's reaction to the confession is indicative of her character. She is
not upset by the fact that Raskolnikov killed the old woman and Lizaveta, who
was her friend, but by what has happened to him. She sees from the anguish in
his face that the true victim of the crime is Raskolnikov and her compassion
goes out to him in the astounding words: "...what have you done to yourself?"

     The basic goodness of Sonia's character also compels Raskolnikov to admit
to himself the true reasons for the murder. This is an excruciating task
because it is an act of self-confrontation. He intuitively knows that sooner
or later he will have to strip away the false conceptions that he has
constructed around himself until the true Raskolnikov will stand naked and
alone. He senses that until he faces himself and bears the pain that his final
death and rebirth requires, his life will be a living hell. On the other hand,
he fears the agony that self-scrutiny will bring.

     This fear leads Raskolnikov through a labyrinth of rational excuses
before he finally tells the truth. At first he retells the now familiar story
that he killed in order to prove to himself that he is spiritually akin to
Napoleon and also destined for greatness. He explains again that for a long
time he wondered what that man would have done if there had been no Egypt or
Toulon with which to begin his career. What if there had been nothing but an
old woman who had to be murdered so that he might take her money for his
career. Would he have felt guilty about such a petty crime, or would he have
committed the act without even thinking about it? Raskolnikov concludes that
it would neither have caused him anguish nor would it have struck him that it
was not a monumental deed, and that he would have strangled the old hag
without hesitation. Thus Raskolnikov says that he killed to find out if he was
a "Napoleon" or not. Sonia's only response to this explanation is to insist
that he tell her the real reason.

     In a second desperate attempt to justify his deed, he claims again that
concern for the welfare of his family prompted him to crime. Is it not, he
cries, a gross injustice that he should be condemned to a life of drudgery as
a petty bureaucrat or a clerk in some office with a paltry salary, unable even
to provide for the bare necessities for his mother and sister while some
vicious old woman creates a monument to her soul? It is far better that he use
the money for a better purpose. But Sonia is not taken in by this whitewash.
The very notion that human beings can be valuated in terms of dollars and
cents is alien to her. More importantly, she senses that the student also sees
the fundamental error in this theory and so begs him again to tell the truth.

     Murder For Curiosity. Finally, Raskolnikov tells the truth. He wanted to
see how he would feel after a murder! In his own words: "I wanted to find out
then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man...whether
I have the right." Thus, his family's welfare never really influenced his
decision nor was he greatly interested in becoming a leader of mankind in case
he discovered that he had the "daring" to step over the laws of society and
ignore basic human rights.

     Unlike the murderous deeds of great historical figures, however,
Raskolnikov's crime had no other purpose than to satisfy his curiosity about
which class of men he belonged to. As we know, he told himself that if he
could murder and feel nothing, this would prove to his satisfaction that he
was a man of superior spirit. On the other hand, if he suffered the symptoms
of the common criminal which he enumerated in his article "On Crime"
- fever, guilty conscience, loss of reason - this would mean that he belonged
to the inferior group. We learn, though, that Raskolnikov is crushed not only
because the crime affected him in this "inferior" way, but also because he
begins to see that the whole concept of inferior and superior man is probably
a sham.

     Although we risk sounding repetitious, it will be easier for the reader
to empathize with Raskolnikov if he understands in greater detail his
philosophy of life.

     Inferior Man. The terms "inferior" and "the common herd" as Raskolnikov
uses them describe a state of mind rather than an economic class. The man of
common spirit seeks above all else to establish equilibrium between the
countless extremes of which human nature is capable such as reason and
passion, duty and inclination, nature and spirit. It is precisely between
these absolutes that Raskolnikov's common man seeks his place. He keeps the
extremes of which human nature is capable at a distance. Anger is permitted,
but not rage; love, but not passion; happiness, but not ecstacy. In short,
ethical absolutism is anathema and a superficial peace of mind is far
preferable to the fire of total commitment. Since Raskolnikov's common man is
by nature a weak and fearful creature, content with a lukewarm existence, he
is easy to rule. The civilization that he creates for himself reflects his
weakness and insecurity. Strength, force, and self-reliance are a burden to
him. He gladly abandons responsibility to "higher authority."

     Superior Man. By contrast, Raskolnikov's man of superior spirit, whom he
dreamed to resemble, regards himself as wholly independent. He rejects all
ethical standards not his own and views human life as meaningless unless it
serves his goals. He is strong. Neither physical hardship nor loneliness will
faze him. He realizes that as long as a man identifies with the group, he
cannot develop his potentialities. Thus, the superior man is one who has
succeeded in gaining almost absolute freedom not only from society and its
value systems but also from the deterministic influences of his own human
nature.

     Raskolnikov feels a special kinship with the men of superior spirit for
he too searches for meaning in a chaotic world. He sees no place for himself
in a dehumanizing society whose values are conformity, consumption, and
hedonism. The murder is as much a desperate effort to break out of  is
confining existence as it is to find out if he is superior. The crime may even
be an effort to propel himself into that class. To Raskolnikov's way of
thinking, his inability to kill with a clear conscience condemns him to the
inferior class.

     Despite what he thinks, he does not belong to that group. He is a true
human being wandering somewhere between the two, sharing elements of both but
belonging to neither. He longs to make the final break and join the ranks of
what he imagines to be the superior, but he is unable to do so because that
involves denying his very human qualities. Thus Raskolnikov's error consists
in having established a theory for himself that fails to take into account
the complexity of human beings in general and his own in particular. He does
not realize that all men are composites of hereditary and cultural influences
that determine our lives. Raskolnikov, whether he likes it or not, was raised
by parents in accordance with Christian thought. Hence, he has internalized
such prohibitions as "Thou shalt not kill" and for him to act against such a
taboo means to act against himself. The murder becomes, therefore, a crime
against the Self. "I murdered myself, not her." The punishment for the
transgression will be - despite all self-righteous justifications - some sort
of archetypal guilt feeling.

     The Solution. What alternatives remain to all the Raskolnikovs of the
world who exist in a state of intense dissatisfaction? How can they create
meaning for themselves in an indifferent universe or find a place in a
dehumanizing
society? If they transgress, how can they redeem themselves? The answer lies
with Sonia and her doctrine of love and faith. Even Raskolnikov's disturbed
mind realizes that Sonia is the way out of his isolation and soul sickness,
the pinpoint of light at the end of the tunnel. What he needs is not more
reason and abstractions, but life, feeling, and love, to live in the world and
take part in it.

Chapter Five

     Theme And Characterization. This chapter recounts the events of Katerina
Ivanovna's madness and death. The insults she receives at the funeral dinner
provoke her to rush off for help to Marmeladov's former chief who is
entertaining guests. When the attempt to seek justice from higher authority
fails and she is unceremoniously thrown out of his house, she embarks upon a
course only her deranged mind can conceive, the attempt to earn her living as
a street entertainer. Raskolnikov and Sonia find her and the children on the
street surrounded by a crowd of jeering spectators. Exhausted, gasping for
breath, and rigged out in an absurd costume, she frantically rushes about
trying to fit her new role. One minute she is coaxing the children to sing and
dance, only to beat them in desperation when they do not understand.
Squabbling with the spectators, singing infantile songs, and babbling about
her genteel origins, she finally collapses on the pavement. Later, dying in
Sonia's room, her delirium is punctuated by such incoherent ejaculations as:
"Your excellency...well born... one may say aristocratic." These and other
similar phrases lead us to see a parallel between her and Raskolnikov.

     Brotherhood Of Fantasy And Theory. We remember that when Katerina
Ivanovna's fortunes began to decline, she tried to preserve her sanity by
retreating into an elaborate fantasy. The further she sank into degradation,
the more fantastic became the daydream. When the reader meets her, she
remembers her father, a simple captain, as a colonel who was "almost a
governor." Though of the middle class, she has long since convinced herself
of her "genteel, one may say aristocratic" background. After Marmeladov's
death, she remembers him not as the chronic drunkard he actually was but as a
good provider who served his country "in truth and fidelity, and one may say
died in the service." Furthermore, she thoroughly believes that her husband's
former chief is the cause of their misfortune. But the events of the funeral
dinner bring reality crashing down upon her. Her air castles destroyed, she
sinks into madness and death.

     As Katerina lives through her fantasies of aristocracy, Raskolnikov
sustains himself through his theories of the superior man. Like her, he
cannot live with the fact that his life does not measure up to his
expectations. Like her, he blames others for his misfortune. While Katerina
Ivanovna escapes into fantasyland, he compensates for his failure by
erecting an elaborate theory that allows identification with the world's
greatest men. As Katerina clings to her fantasies, he cultivates his theory
like a religion. Yet he can comfort himself with such delusions of superiority
only as long as they remain unchallenged. When he tries to act in accordance
with this creed, it almost destroys him.

     Here we encounter again the basis of Dostoyevsky's ideas about the human
condition: Without faith, man is nothing. In the following chapters
Raskolnikov comes precariously close to Katerina Ivanovna's fate before
finding salvation.

     Svidrigaylov. Once again Svidrigaylov leads the reader to question the
authenticity of his reputation as an evil person. If he is so insensitive, why
does he tell Raskolnikov that he will take care of the funeral arrangements,
place the orphaned children in a suitable institution, and rescue Sonia from
her fate? And again, even though he eavesdropped on the student's confession,
he does not take advantage of this information in any way. If the reader
wishes to speculate how a truly base person might respond, he has only to
imagine Luzhin in possession of Raskolnikov's secret.

