Further criticism downplays the importance of dualism as a theme to this novel and points out that it is secondary to the greater message of finding redemption through Christ. Although this does not negate the use of dualism and doubles, it gives these actions a different perspective downplaying them to the readers. A synopsis of Crime and Punishment as offered by The Columbia Encyclopedia promotes the psychological exploration in relation to what this novel is truly about; however, it makes clear the importance of the redemption through Christ s salvation.
In Prestuplenie i nakazanie (Crime and Punishment) Raskol’nikov’s espousal of a `rational’ superman morality results only in the squalid murder of a pawnbroker, followed by Raskol’nikov’s own self-torment which eventually leads him to an unconvincing `salvation’. . . Dostoevskii’s heroes are strong but divided personalities, engaged in intimate and frequently mortal debate with themselves, their `doubles’, and the reader over the moral basis of their actions. His murder-centred plots are a visionary, fantastic, and mythically structured re-working of the sensational and extremist life observed in his journalism. The polarized themes of reason and unreason, faith and unbelief, moral freedom and moral slavery, frame the tension of modern man, a tension which finds a precarious resolution in the vision of Christ, Dostoevsky s moral-aesthetic ideal.
It is not salvation; however, which dominates this novel. Clearly doubles and dualism is of predominate importance. 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.
Raskolnikov is so torn apart by conflicting thoughts and desires that he often seems to be two characters. Indeed, Dostoevsky’s technique is to surround Raskolnikov with complementary or opposing others that mirror his repressed inner self. The reader soon notices that one side of his personality is aggressive and detached, like Svidrigailov, while the other is caring and compassionate, like Sonya. In a schematic sense, Sonia is a double that represents his metaphysical, spiritual side, Svidragailov a double that stands for his physical, nihilistic side.
Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov moves, alternately, from one to the other as he attempts to resolve the burden of a guilty conscience. Even the space in which he moves reflects the dual nature of his personality. When he visits Svidragailov in the tavern, it is a descent into the darker (or subterranean) parts of his soul; conversely, when he follows Sonya to her apartment, he ascends into a spacious room with high ceilings, an ascent, as it were, into the realm of the spirit. After the crime, these two alter egos compete for Raskolnikov’s attentions. However, because of his pride, he tries to hide from any open acknowledgment of either one. This mask of denial is the basis of Dostoevsky’s irony in scenes where Raskolnikov is clearly drawn to the spiritual side of Sonya or the criminal side of Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov especially finds it hard to admit that he is drawn to a self-denying victim like Sonya because it violates his idea of the superman. It is a bit easier to identify with an aggressive victimizer like Svidrigailov. This is because he embodies the ruthless behavior of a man who has overstepped the laws of society. But until the epilogue, Raskolnikov is attracted to these opposing doubles. As Dostoevsky’s notebooks suggest, it is a conflict between innate feelings and ideology. Sonya represents Raskolnikov’s innate morality and the goodness of his heart, while Svidrigailov stands for the evil of abstract theories. Not surprisingly, when Svidrigailov dies, the theoretical voice of Raskolnikov’s personality seems to fade out and the Sonya voice begins to speak with greater conviction. Although this is not a total unmasking of the lie of nihilism, it is an important first step towards confession.
Yet it is not only the physical landscape that amplifies and reflects Raskolnikov’s inner condition. Dostoyevsky’s handling of other characters also plays a key role in the development and exposition of the central figure. As Raskolnikov moves through the city, he seems to move through a charged atmosphere in which every encounter triggers a resonant response in his soul. Thus, his chance meeting with Marmeladov introduces the concepts of suffering and self-sacrifice, concepts that will become so important to Raskolnikov later in the novel. More importantly, the characters who surround Raskolnikov often seem to serve as potential doubles or alter egos. That is, the traits that these characters embody represent potential directions for Raskolnikov himself. On one side stands the humble Sonya. She is willing to sacrifice herself for her family, and she puts the ideals of love and service to one’s fellow humans above any notion of self-aggrandizement. On the other side stands the corrupt Svidrigailov. He indulges in extreme forms of debauchery simply to relieve his boredom. Svidrigailov tells Raskolnikov that he considers the young man to be something of a kindred spirit, and although Raskolnikov does not wish to admit it, he senses that there may be some validity to Svidrigailov’s assertions. When Svidrigailov informs Sonya that Raskolnikov only has two paths to choose from, either a bullet in the brain or Siberia, he has effectively identified the choices that lie in front of the wretched young man. Only Sonya’s appearance outside the police station at the end of the main section of the novel prevents Raskolnikov from emulating Svidrigailov’s example and committing suicide. Instead, he follows her advice, confesses his crime, and with her love and support he ultimately finds redemption in Siberia.
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.
It is with Svidrigailov that the idea of the double is most fully developed. Apparently he had a real prototype; the notebooks call him Aristov, after a character in the prison memoirs. He is surrounded with details connected with the Gothic tradition, underlining the emergence of doubling from the literature of the supernatural. The fact that we have heard many terrible things about this major character before he actually appears adds much to the suspense surrounding him. He appears at the end of a nightmare, the dream reenactment is a continuation of that dream. Note that this is precisely the halfway point of the novel, adding to the character s centrality. Furthermore his appearance straddles a boundary, not only between chapters, but between parts, meaning that readers wait for the next monthly installment (in this case it was two months) to find out more. Making readers wait for the next move of a mysterious character is a classic device to heighten suspense.
Raskolnikov himself is unable to understand his own behavior, and his suffering is not only intellectual and spiritual, but also aesthetic, for he is offended by the ugliness of his crime (vividly illustrated by his dream in which a horse is savagely beaten). Critic Philip Rahv noted that
Dostoevsky was the first novelist to dramatize the principle of uncertainty or indeterminacy in the presentation of character, and many other scholars agree that this skillfully depicted uncertainty is a key to the novel’s greatness. Raskolnikov resembles other Dostoevskian characters in his dual naturein fact, his name is derived from the Russian word for split. On one side is the cold, exacting intellect, and on the other is the warm, imperfect humanity; he is torn between the two sides. After a long period of suffering and punishment both before and after confessing to the murders, Raskolnikov finally achieves redemption through the Christian faith. Yet many scholars find this redemption unconvincing; they claim that Raskolnikov never truly repents his crime and remains proud and isolated to the end. Nevertheless, the character Raskolnikov has generated much critical attention since the novel’s publication, and the authentic impact he continues to make on readers attests to Dostoevsky’s complex, skillful characterization. (27-30).
Dostoevsky often uses secondary characters to mirror his protagonist, and Svidrigailov is frequently seen as the embodiment of Raskolnikov’s destructiveness and yearning for power. Critic R.P. Blackmur calls him Raskolnikov’s other self, and most other scholars concur. Raskolnikov senses his similarity to Svidrigailov even though he is repelled by the man, and Svidrigailov also perceives their likeness. Svidrigailov’s decision to kill himself attests to his profound ennui and despair. Dostoevsky has often been praised for creating in Svidrigailov a complex character whose wickedness is tempered with flickers of compassionhe gives both Dounia and the Marmeladovs money they desperately need, and he allows Dounia to escape even after she has tried to kill him. Svidrigailov resembles not so much a gothic villain with a completely evil nature, but a human being whose behavior has destroyed others and, ultimately, himself.
Sonia Marmeladov represents Raskolnikov’s capacity for good. Said to be based on Dostoevski’s second wife, Anna Snitkina (reportedly a stabilizing influence in his life), Sonia is a fair-haired, thin, pale eighteen-year-old whose gaudy clothing contrasts with her gentle expression and remarkable blue eyes. Though her family’s deprivation has forced Sonia to become a prostitute, her true nature is pure and spiritual. Passive and self-sacrificing, she submits willingly to the humiliation of her occupation. Sonia is the novel’s representative of Christianity; it is she who pleads with Raskolnikov to seek redemption through suffering and faith, and her influence ultimately triumphs. Through Sonia, Dostoevsky voices several of the novel’s concerns: when Raskolnikov questions the morality of her own choice during their discussion of his guilt, for instance, she asks, What, then, is to be done? The difficulty of overcoming despair is a theme frequently explored in Russian literature. She also reads to Raskolnikov the biblical story of Lazarus, thus illustrating both her faith in miracles and her desire to raise Raskolnikov from the dead, as it were. Sonia immediately forgives him when he confesses his crime and in general refuses to judge or condemn other human beings. Some critics have found Sonia colorless and unrealistic, but most consider her a compelling embodiment of faith.
Sonia’s father, Marmeladov, is the cause of his family’s deprivation, choosing to spend his time drinking rather than trying to improve their situation. Dostoevsky’s depiction of the Marmeladovs’ poverty has been seen as generally symbolic of suffering and pain in the world; it illustrates specifically how a family may be destroyed through alcoholism, a subject that is known to have interested and troubled Dostoevsky. Marmeladov’s bloated face, wild eyes, messy hair, and disorderly clothing signify his degradation. His wordy, self-berating lamentation in the tavern about the course of his downfall and the pain he has inflicted on his higher-born wife and unfortunate children is both comic and pathetic. Marmeladov has been interpreted as yet another double of Raskolnikov, reflecting the isolation, thwarted ambition, and feeling of debasement that typify Raskolnikov. Also like Raskolnikov, Marmeladov has brought harm upon himself and others for no apparent reason.
Raskolnikov’s close friend, Dmitri Razumihin, is much more sympathetically portrayed. His name derives from the Russian word for reason, and he serves as a good-hearted, hardworking foil to the tortured, self-involved Raskolnikov. He provides hospitality to Raskolnikov’s mother and sister when Raskolnikov neglects them, and he eventually falls in love with Dounia and founds a publishing business that will support them after Raskolnikov is exiled to Siberia. Though Razumihin is fond of his friend and loyal to him, he has no illusions about Raskolnikov and perceives the dual nature of his personality. (Cox, 345-346).
In what way, then, does Svidrigailov double Raskolnikov? Both are murders in a sense, for Svidrigailov appears to be morally, if not legally, responsible for the deaths of two individuals, or at lease we are led to believe this by several characters with the narrator s complicity. And yet during their first conversation, Svidrigailov is unaware of Raskolnikov s murder. Even so, it is Svidrigailov who presses the issue of their secret similarity in a criminal conscience. He seems to have prescient, not to say supernatural, knowledge of it. Well, didn t I say that there was some point in common between us? . . . It seems to me I did say it. Just a moment ago, after I came in and saw that you were lying there with your eyes closed, and you yourself were pretending right then I said to myself This is the very one! And later he adds: Well, didn t I tell the truth when I said that we were like two peas in a pod? (literally, one field of berries ). Raskolnikov is in a better position to appreciate their shared blood-guilt, but it is he who resists most strongly the idea that they are doubles. (Another psychoanalytic critic states that Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov s id (ono).
. . . surely the most interesting section of the epilogue from a literary and psychological point of view:
In his sickness he dreamed that the whole world was condemned to fall victim to some sort of horrible unheard-of and never before seen fatal plague, which was proceeding out of the depths of Asia into Europe. Everyone would perish except certain people, a very few chosen ones. Some sort of trichinae appeared microscopic creatures which would infect people s bodies. But these creatures were spirits, endowed with intellect and will. Once they had taken these creatures into their bodies, people would become possessed and insane right away. But never, never had people considered themselves so intelligent and so unshakeable in their knowledge of the truth as did these infected people.
The dream goes on to describe at length the mass-scale aggression that this intellectual infection produces, finally concluding as follows: The pestilence grew and moved further and further. The only people in the whole world who could save themselves were a few people, pure and chosen ones who had been predestined to found a new race of people and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had ever seen these people anywhere; no one had ever heard their words and their voices.
It is a dream about aggression for the sake of ideas, and as such it is a fitting epilogue to the novel and prologue to the twentieth century. It takes some of the aspects of Raskolnikov s individual intellectual aggression and sketches them out on a social and international canvas, showing how the same aggressive paradigms operate on the level of inter-group relations.
The impact of this novel on modern psychology is still discussed in criticisms today. The fresh and profound insights which Dostoevsky added to our knowledge of the human soul have been discussed thoroughly and admirably by many of his critics. All that needs to be done, therefore, is to remind the reader summarily of then; effort can be more profitably put into an analysis of the means through which these insights find expression. Thus, it is a commonplace that Dostoevsky anticipated Freud; that he was cognizant of the fact and understood the role of the unconscious; that he had a lucid knowledge of the duality exhibited by the human psyche and of its consequences; that he understood adequately the function of dreams; that he know how shame leads a man to frustrate the actions through which he attempts to appease it, and how pride is the expression of insecurity and shame; how cruelty constitutes self-castigation, and how injured vanity takes revenge through love. In short, all the insights that have become commonplaces since Freud were clearly his own; nor can I think of any important phenomenological datum furnished by the Viennese scientist which had escaped the observation of the Russian novelist. (Wellek, 74)
837
Charles Glicksberg, The Literature of Nihilism, 1975
Christopher R. Pike, “Fedor Dostoevskii: Overview” in Reference Guide to World
Literature, 2nd ed., edited by Lesley Henderson, St. James Press, 1995.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright 1993, Columbia University
Press. Licensed from Inso Corporation
Cox, Gary, Crime And Punishment: A Mind To Murder, Twayne
Publishers, 1990
“Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Mikhaylovich,” Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia.
(c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation.
“Dualism,” Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft
Corporation.
Fedor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky: Crime and Punishment, in Characters in
Nineteenth-Century Literature, Gale Research, 1993.
Gibian, George, PMLA, Vol. LXX, No. 5, December, 1955, pp. 970 96
Julian Connolly, An overview of Crime and Punishment, in Exploring Novels, Gale, 1998
Wellek, Rene, Dostoevsky; A Collection Of Critical Essays, Prentice-Hall, 1962