You are on page 1of 17

Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's Hegelian Agent Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment was written in 1866, but it continues to impress

readers worldwide nearly 150 years later. It is the story about Rodion Raskolnikov, a man who murders a pawnbroker in St. Petersburg and the mental anguish that tortures him as he comes to terms with his crime. The sophisticated tale evokes the mystique of a murder mystery, even though the reader knows the identity of the killer from the beginning; Raskolnikov tries to discover his true motivation and Dostoevsky reveals key pieces of Raskolnikov's psyche and history as the plot unfolds. Like most of Dostoevsky's work, this novel evokes an underlying moral message and reveals facets of the author's own psyche and history. This paper intends to explore one of those facets: Georg Hegel's influence on Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and Punishment, from a philosophical and historical context. Dostoevsky first began exploring progressive philosophy, including Hegelianism, due to his acute interest in romanticism. After publishing his story Poor Folk in 1846 to critical acclaim, Dostoevsky was invited to numerous Left Hegelian meetings. Shortly thereafter, in 1849, the Russian government strictly enforced its stance on potentially terrorist groups and Dostoevsky was incarcerated. Ultimately, as a result of association with these groups and his experience in a Siberian prison, Dostoevsky came to sympathize less with progressivism and to rely more on a Christian moral foundation. Crime and Punishment was both Dostoevsky's way of responding to Hegelian sentiments of the 1840s and warning the radicals of the 1860s about the possible negative influences of their ethics. As a result, Raskolnikov is largely an agent of

1 O'Kidhain

Left Hegelianism, constructed especially from Hegel's section on World Historical Individuals from Philosophy of History, utilized by Dostoevsky to illustrate a philosophy that the author opposed. As there has been considerable debate regarding how much Dostoevsky actually connected with Hegelian philosophy, this argument will be revealed in several steps. First, it will illustrate the historical context of Dostoevsky's work in connection with Hegelian philosophy, so that the reason for Dostoevsky's critique may be more fully understood. It will then juxtapose Hegel's philosophy with the key sections of Crime and Punishment that parallel Hegelianism, so that the reader may clearly see the correlations. Finally, it will end with an examination of those views opposing the idea that Crime and Punishment represents a reaction to Hegelianism, offering a case for why these views, while understandable, are inaccurate. Dostoevsky's encounters with Hegelian social groups in the 1840s allowed him to explore his fascination with German Romanticism, but he found Christianity, not Progressivism, most engaging following his incarceration in Siberia from 1849 to 1854. Before inclusion into the social circle of Vissarion Belinsky, a well-known critic of Russian literature at that time, Dostoevsky exhibits a horrified fascination with the theme of man's sacrilegious aspiration to dethrone God and substitute himself in God's place (Frank, 103, Seeds). But Dostoevsky quickly found the Left Hegelian ethics of Belinsky troubling because he felt that they encouraged anti-Christian sentiments, which Dostoevsky opposed. In fact, notable Dostoevsky scholar Joseph Frank wrote that, Dostoevsky had been deeply disturbed - indeed, on the point of tears when, during a conversation in 1847, Belinsky had attacked and denigrated Christ with the new Left Hegelian arguments (Frank, 161, Years). It is worth noting that Belinsky explored many different philosophical ideas throughout his life, but Belinskys enthusiastic Left Hegelian stage

2 O'Kidhain

most greatly affected Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky disliked Belinsky's philosophy; however, he disliked Mikhail Petrashevsky's form of Left Hegelian atheism even more. Belinsky impressed Dostoevsky, who viewed the man's negative outbursts as genuine concern for Russian people, but Petrashevsky's cold sarcasm and scorn contributed to Dostoevsky's move away from ideologies such as Hegelianism to an aggressively Christian moral code. Initially, Dostoevsky held several reasons to shift from Belinsky's social circle to Petrashevsky's group. The stifling egoism from Belinsky's circle, Belinskys lack of endorsement for Dostoevskys works following Poor Folk, and Dostoevsky's desire for a group with more open communication of ideas inspired Dostoevsky's decision to distance himself from Belinsky in 1847. During this time, Dostoevsky became more familiar with the arguments of Left Hegelianism, but there is no evidence . . . that he ever gave way to [the sentiments] entirely (Frank, 117, Years). Moreover, Petrashevsky's strong emphasis on atheism and scorn for literature discomfited Dostoevsky even more than Belinsky's ocassional anti-Christian outbursts. But the move to the Petrashevsky circle ultimately facilitated Dostoevsky's decision to oppose Russian progressivism, especially Left Hegelianism, for another reason. Association with the Petrashevsky group resulted in incarceration in Siberia two years later, after the government executed a raid versus radical groups in 1849. It was during Dostoevsky's time in Siberia that his Christian faith rejuvenated and empowered the author. While Dostoevsky was imprisoned in Siberia, he strengthened his faith and began to systematically examine philosophical texts. Many of Dostoevsky's experiences in Siberia may be gleaned from House of the Dead, but one may also discover how Siberia influenced Dostoevsky from his other books. Because of the environment and events in prison,

3 O'Kidhain

Dostoevsky's relationship with Christianity evolved tremendously. Essentially he came to believe that a Christian conscience served as a necessary inner barrier against a . . . deadening of the moral sensibility (Frank, 150, Years). Joseph Frank argued that, before Siberia, Dostoevsky had viewed Christ as the bearer of a general canon of social change, but that later Christ became a deeply intertwined agent who soothed the authors intellectual and ethical angst (Frank, 150, Years). Dostoevsky became an enemy of the radicals of the 1860s because he feared that their ethics would destroy this idea of defense. Along with reinforcing his Christian foundation in Siberia, Dostoevsky also begged his brother to send him multiple books with which to begin a philosophical survey. During the early 1850s, Dostoevsky embarked on an intellectual journey to examine some specific earlier philosophical movements, especially Hegelianism. While in prison, Dostoevsky contacted his brother about acquiring some books. With regard to the types of texts, Joseph Frank noted that Dostoevsky seemed anxious to plunge back into the past in a very serious and systematic fashion . . . [Dostoevsky wrote,] 'slip Hegel in without fail, especially Hegel's History of Philosophy. My entire future is tied up with that' (Frank, 169, Years). Dostoevsky seems to have requested Hegel's text in order to reexamine the philosophy during this time, assumedly without the immediate influence of Hegel's combative proponents, such as Belinsky or Petrashevsky. Historical sources have failed to show whether or not Dostoevsky actually secured History of Philosophy, but it is likely that he desired to research the means through which to compose an argument against Left Hegelianism, considering how strongly Christianity affected the author during this time. Although we do not know for certain if Dostoevsky obtained the book, his negative heroes in later works indicate that he succeeded.

4 O'Kidhain

Dostoevsky could not have constructed negative heroes like Radion Raskolnikov without an intimate knowledge of Hegelianism, which historical sources have illustrated that he did not achieve solely during association with earlier progressive circles. Dostoevsky's experiences with Left Hegelianism in the 1840s alone could not have supported the substantial paralellism between the vision of his negative heroes and Hegelian views. On this subject, Frank even commented that, if Dostoevsky had no effective answer to Belinsky in 1845, he amply made up for it later by the creation of his negative heroes (Frank, 198, Seeds). These subjects engage in the impossible and self-destructive attempt to transcend the human condition, and to incarcerate the Left Hegelian dream of replacing the God-man by the Man-god (Frank, 198, Seeds). Crime and Punishment illuminated the problems Dostoevsky perceived in Left Hegelianism. Raskolnikov attempts to transcend humanity based upon his theory of extraordinary individuals and by arguing that these gods or supermen among ordinary citizens were capable of righteously committing negative acts. Deluded by his perception of righteousness, Raskolnikov murders a pawn broker, leading him down a self-destructive path that lasts merely seven days before its conclusion. Shadowing Dostoevsky's experiences, Raskolnikov later finds redemption in suffering and Christianity while incarcerated, according to Dostoevsky's own ethos. Echoing the Hegelian sentiments of men like Belinsky, Raskolnikov is an effective negative hero, but not a Hero in the Hegelian sense. Georg Hegel wrote in Philosophy of History that Heroes are great people who naturally further the teleological, or progressive, world by contributing an idea that is simultaneously uniquely their own and the best of their time. He called these figures both Heroes and World Historical Individuals, and included men such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, and

5 O'Kidhain

Alexander the Great in their ranks (Hegel, 42). By defining these people, Hegel classified and categorized two groups of historical agents with different roles. Essentially, there are notable cases of Heroes and there are unremarkable cases of mundane individuals, being everyone else accounted for within society. Hegel wrote about several differences between Heroes and mundane people. A mundane group of people seeks to establish and secure a community in order to facilitate its own ends, which usually includes a focus on comfort. Furthermore, these people work toward building harmony, establishing permanency, and generally upholding the rules given to them by their predecessors. This is not the role of Heroes. According to Hegel, Heroes inspire and fulfill a radical shift in society during the period with which they are associated (Hegel, 42). Often largely unaware of their impact on society, they act according to their own benefit, like mundane people, but toward different ends. Heroes are passionate agents who derive their vocation from themselves and gather enough power to shape the world in the image of their own interests. Ultimately, these individuals produce significant, changing conditions that reflect their personal concerns (Hegel, 43). According to Hegel, they are thoughtful people whose enterprises originate from an abstract source about a requirement of their age. Once they glean this characteristic, all further aims are intended toward nothing else (Hegel, 43). This is one of the central points of Hegel's argument because it contains both the reason why Heroes achieve greatness and the unique property through which they succeed. Although Heroes are interested in private gain, they derive their larger success from an unconscious impulse that Hegel called geist, or Spirit. Unfortunately, this central characteristic of Hegel's argument is also fairly elusive. One may define geist as an Idea, or historical medium,

6 O'Kidhain

transmitted through the process of Nature to the Spirit within a Hero that interprets the message (Stillman, 13). Essentially, Spirit is the term used to describe the impetus for historical events. But to understand how this idea connects with Crime and Punishment, one must understand the relationship between Hegel's terms: Idea, Nature, and Spirit. Chenxi Tang, a German Romanticism scholar, explained this relationship by articulating that it is treated first as a structure of thought (Tang, 237). This structure of thought is the Idea, or historical medium, which originates from an abstract force. The historical medium, Tang wrote, informs nature and comes to realize itself through nature (Tang, 237). Nature, for Hegel, was the inevitable or teleological progression from one stage of existence to another. In a historical context, the ultimate goal of Nature is the progression of Spirit, which results in civilization, laws, and modernity. But Nature does not evolve naturally; it progresses through the foundation of Idea, and eventually [comes] to the fore in subjective consciousness (Tang, 237). This consciousness may take several forms, according to Romanticism, but Hegel notably argued that Heroes realize the Idea subconsciously through an agent within themselves: Spirit. In essence, it is from this that Heroes derive their master passion, which leads them to will and accomplish great things (Hegel, 44). Spirit signifies that connection between Heroes and the will of the historical medium. Using Spirit, Hegel justified how Heroes may commit monstrous acts, such as mass murder. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov closely echoes this theory of World Historical Individuals. In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov writes an essay that describes the status of ordinary and extraordinary people in the world. Magistrate Porfiry Petrovitch is the first character to reveal it in the novel, saying that, Ordinary men have to live in submission, have no

7 O'Kidhain

right to transgress the law, because, dont you see, they are ordinary. But extraordinary men have a right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way just because they are extraordinary (Dostoevsky, 263). Petrovitch immediately takes the theory to an extreme level, for which Raskolnikov corrects him by replying that extraordinary people are not always bound to commit breaches of morals (Dostoevsky, 264) Raskolnikov argues that an extraordinary person has the right to commit certain crimes, based upon his own conscience, when fulfilling his or her idea, theory, or, as Hegel would term it, Spirit. He continues this thought by stating, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to eliminate a dozen or a hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity (Dostoevsky, 264). He furthers his reasoning in a manner similar to Hegel, commenting that Newton would not have had a right to murder people whenever and if he desired or to regularly steal; it was only for the sake of fulfilling his Spirit that Newton had the right. Raskolnikov further commits himself to the position as a Hegelian agent by introducing his example of Napoleon. Raskolnikov comments that extraordinary people may commit some criminal acts justly. He begins by commenting that all world leaders are criminals because they depose old, sometimes sacred laws for their new ones and, in some cases, even commit bloodshed. Raskolnikov argues that Heroes such as Napoleon must from their very nature be criminals . . . otherwise its hard for them to get out of the common rut; and to remain in the common rut is what they cant submit to . . . and to my mind they ought not, indeed, to submit to it (Dostoevsky, 264). Parallel with Hegel's argument, Raskolnikov argues for a position of individuals who transcend common moral actions based upon the greater quality of their actions,

8 O'Kidhain

which Hegel addressed in Philosophy of History. Hegel argued from the position of good will, which holds that criminal acts may or may not be justifiable. Hegel wrote that nothing can inform an individual about what is right except for one's own conscience (Houlgate, 193). It is an individual's responsibility to examine the conscience and determine what is right or good. Therefore, murdering for the sake of murder, for personal gain, or for sadistic pleasure are wrong actions because they are not intended to be good. But murder for the purpose of relieving or preventing suffering, or to save an innocent life can be good if the conscience deems that it is so (Houlgate, 194). Stephen Houlgate in his book on Hegel stated this simply, What ultimately makes me a moral individual, for Hegel, is the knowledge that I cannot go wrong as long as I will what my conscience tells me is good (Houlgate, 194). This position allows Heroes like Napoleon to murder freely and openly. Since they are Heroes, they are driven by the Spirit, and so their acts are justified by the conscience, which understands the acts to be good and inviolable. This particular theory served as a strong base from which the character of Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment was created. However, Raskolnikov argues that a crime is still punishable regardless of what class of individual committed the act. Raskolnikov states that an individual who commits a crime is subject to punishment. He reveals this position during the initial conversation regarding his theory. Raskolnikov says that everyone who commits criminal acts suffers, even those who have the right to do so. He argues that, if they are an ordinary individual then, they castigate themselves, for they are very conscientious . . . They will impose various public acts of penitence upon themselves with a beautiful and edifying effect (Dostoevsky, 266). However, even if the person is in the

9 O'Kidhain

extraordinary class, Raskolnikov is confident about their suffering. He comments that, 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" (Dostoevsky, 268-269). Ultimately, regardless of whether the act was just or not, committing a crime will result in suffering. This theory is very telling about Raskolnikov's own state of mine during both the stages leading up to the murder and his illness and rage following the act. But the idea of a criminal demanding his own punishment is not a unique idea; Hegel made the same argument in Philosophy of Right. Hegel wrote a very strong parallel argument to Raskolnikov's position in Crime and Punishment. He argued that: Beccarria's requirement that men should give their consent to being punished is right enough, but the criminal gives his consent already by his very act. The nature of the crime, no less than the private will of the criminal, requires that the injury initiated by the criminal should be annulled. (Jones, 516) According to Hegel, just as Raskolnikov, there exists an inherent quality in a criminal act that inspires the perpetrator to seek punishment. This might be part of the reason why Hegel argued that it is unnatural for Heroes to be happy. Hegel wrote that, [Heroes] attained no calm enjoyment; their whole life was labor and trouble; their whole nature was nought else but their master-passion (Hegel, 44). Guided by the invisible force of Spirit, individuals are moved to obtain their passion, even when it leads them to act in monstrous ways. This anxiety leads to another state Raskolnikov suffered in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov feels unhappy and anxious as he is moved by what he perceives to be an invisible power to kill the pawnbroker. Leading up to the murder, he feels that the desire was

10 O'Kidhain

both stronger than him and somehow natural. But the state was simultaneously stressful and filled Raskolnikov with despair, as if approaching his doom. During this time, Raskolnikov perceives himself as going through the same trials and negative life experiences that Hegel outlined for Heroes. Furthermore, the force that Raskolnikov believes guided him to commit the crime is exactly that sense of Spirit that Hegel argued moved men to act, largely unknown to them. Lastly, Raskolnikov admits that the categories utilized to divide people into ordinary and extraordinary are fairly arbitrary. He states that the important structure is that they are based on laws of nature, which either imparts one with the gift or talent to utter a new word or does not (Dostoevsky, 267). He finishes his description by mentioning that Heroes could find in their consciences a sanction for wading through blood, if it meant fulfilling their missions. Raskolnikov's essay is the clearest Hegelian argument from Crime and Punishment, but it is not the only one in the text. Toward the beginning of Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov overhears two gentlemen discussing the moral properties of killing the pawnbroker who Raskolnikov later murders. A student and an officer discuss several characteristics of the pawnbroker, especially her negative qualities, including how coldly she treats late payments, the interest she charges, and the abuse of her sister. Without provocation, the student mentions that he could kill the pawnbroker and make off with her money without the faintest conscience-prick (Dostoevsky, 68). The officer laughs but the student continues by describing the pawnbroker as an old, spiteful woman who basically throws money away instead of helping the poor and sickly. As the student grows more heated, the officer interrupts him by asking if the student could actually kill the pawnbroker. The student

11 O'Kidhain

corrects himself by replying that he was arguing whether or not the act was just, but that he could not kill her (Dostoevsky, 69). With this statement, he illuminates that facet from Hegelian philosophy that examines the value of normally immoral acts, such as murder, for moral intentions by utilizing the guidance of conscience. The student's conscience signals that it was not a just act, so he answered that he would not commit murder. This conversation also alludes to Raskolnikov's later ethical issues following the murder. From these examples, the parallels between Hegel and Dostoevsky are outlined fairly clearly. But some scholars have argued that one can make no distinctive connection between the two authors. Malcolm Jones wrote in his article, Some Echoes of Hegel in Dostoevsky, that Hegelian philosophy does not appear in Dostoevsky's writing, succinctly summarizing other critics' objections. He held that many of Dostoevskys contemporaries prior to the incarceration were fascinated by Hegelian ethics, but that there is no written record of Dostoevsky ever having gotten a chance to read the texts (Jones, 504). Although Dostoevsky requested Hegels History of Philosophy while he was in Siberia, Jones argued that there is no historical evidence of Dostoevsky having read the book. Furthermore, Jones argued that many of those examples in Crime and Punishment cited as Hegelian ideas were different enough that they fail to substantiate the claim. A more in-depth reading of both Hegels History of Philosophy and Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment reveals that not only do Jones's claims fail to refute the connection, but that they actually aid his opponents' arguments. Jones cited three specific differences between the two texts, including the role and ideas of Heroes. First, Jones argued that Hegel's World Historical Figures achieve and collect the best deeds and words of their age, while implying that the ideas

12 O'Kidhain

do not originate with the Hero. In contrast, Raskolnikov specifically argues that the extraordinary man bears the new idea (Jones, 515). However, after his original introduction of Heroes, Hegel continued the description, writing that they draw the impulse of life from themselves . . . [World Historical Figures] know this nascent principle (Hegel, 43). Hegel clearly stated that Heroes took the ideas from themselves. If it is a nascent principle, then it is a principle having come into existence from the Hero, not simply the best collected views of the Hero's time. Jones's second criticism compared the perspective of Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov and the Hegelian idea. Jones argued that, Raskolnikov does not see himself . . . as participating in the unfolding of the Idea (Jones, 515). However, Joness position actually undermines his own argument. According to Hegel, Heroes are unaware of their position. They act according to their own impulses and the drive of Spirit, but without knowledge of their overall historical position (Hegel, 43). Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment does not utilize Hegel's argument, Dostoevsky does; Raskolnikov is the agent through which Dostoevsky portrays the Hegelian idea. Therefore, if Raskolnikov does not view himself as a participant of the Idea, then he is portrayed as an even stronger Hegelian figure, as constructed by Dostoevsky. Lastly, Jones argued that Raskolnikov does not ultimately become a Hero, and that the epilogue of Crime and Punishment does not portray Raskolnikov within the framework of Hegelian philosophy. The first half of his claim is true, but that point is central to Dostoevsky's entire argument. Jones wrote that, Raskolnikov's story is not that of a superman, of a worldhistorical individual (Jones, 514). Raskolnikov was a man who tried to become a superman and failed either to achieve or arguably even wholly define his goals. But Dostoevsky did not agree

13 O'Kidhain

with Hegelian ethics; he designed Raskolnikov as a portrayal of the Hegelian idea that fails and quickly, considering that most of the novel takes place within a month. Although Raskolnikov enacts his, and therefore Hegel's, portrayal of a Hero, the result is that ultimately the theory was flawed, according to Dostoevsky, which is why Raskolnikov did not achieve the Hegelian ideal of Hero following the conclusion of Crime and Punishment. Malcolm Jones held that there is neither enough contextual evidence to suggest that Crime and Punishment was influenced predominately by Hegel, opposed to the more general, popular philosophy existent during that time, nor historical evidence that proves Dostoevsky actually read the Hegelian texts. However, other experts have proven that Hegel's philosophy was a unique vision. Raskolnikov was not an agent of general Idealism or Romanticism; he was largely a unique Hegelian construction, and there are some notable ways in which Hegel separated himself from contemporary thinkers. Chenxi Tang wrote that Hegel moved beyond, the Romantic Spinozism that explains nature and spirit in terms of monist metaphysics. It does not provide a naturalistic account of spirit in the sense that spirit emerges from the development of nature (Tang, 238). Unlike other Romanticists, Hegel argued that Nature could not communicate directly with the human sphere; social communication through the Spirit was the only way Nature could connect with humans. Furthermore, Hegel argued that, the geographic conditions of a particular people's habitat help to define the role it plays in world history (Tang, 238). During that time, popular Romanticism did not connect natural forces and particular ideas in the same way as Hegel, especially not through his World Historical Individuals theory. These very differences between Hegel and Romanticism help to define Raskolnikov's position and philosophy from Crime and Punishment.

14 O'Kidhain

Utilizing Crime and Punishment to illustrate the potentially harmful impact of Left Hegelian ethics, Fyodor Dostoevsky sought to warn radicals against progressive ideas that could end in calamity. Although Dostoevsky had personally experienced the negative effects of revolutionary socialist thought, he did not endeavor to vilify the Left Hegelian persona in order to realize some vendetta against Hegelian groups. Dostoevsky believed it was imperative that he inform the curious public about the possible dangers of their inquiries in order to help them. In The Miraculous Years, Joseph Frank effectively defined Dostoevsky's ambition: In Crime and Punishment, [Dostoevsky] would take the sporadic questionings to such impoverished representatives of the educated youth, struggling desperately to keep their heads above water amid the imperial splendors of Petersburg, and raise them to the level of a tragic confrontation between man's ambition to change the world for the better and the age-old moral imperatives of the Christian faith. (Frank, 79, Miraculous) Dostoevsky sensed a great need for Russian youth to critically analyze their liberal actions and ideas and he wrote Crime and Punishment largely as a tool to further his conservative campaign toward tempering their progressive views. In order to support his ideas, Dostoevsky used Hegelian philosophy to create a character who fails in the ways that Dostoevsky feared that the Russian radicals could fail. Dostoevsky constructed Raskolnikov partly based upon his unique experiences with and understanding of Left Hegelianism. Dostoevsky shared an acute intimacy with his character Raskolnikov, and that required an intimate knowledge of Hegelian philosophy. Raskolnikov illustrates multiple facets of Dostoevsky's life: his difficulties in St. Petersburg, his struggles in prison, and his eventual, secure acceptance of Christian ethics. But Raskolnikov also illustrates Dostoevsky's fear of a

15 O'Kidhain

people whose ambitions were not balanced by the moral foundation of Christianity. Raskolnikov is Dostoevsky's agent of Left Hegelianism, created to intimate how an individual with a strong moral purpose may make the wrong decisions without the right ethical structure. Dostoevsky utilized the philosophy of Georg Hegel for historical and contextual reasons, which was a clear decision due to Dostoevsky's history and clearly ascertained in the context of Crime and Punishment.

16 O'Kidhain

Works Cited Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1951. Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Seeds of Revolt. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. Frank, Joseph. Dostoevsky: The Years of Ordeal. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. Hegel, Georg. Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Scotts Valley: IAP, 2009. Houlgate, Stephen. An Introduction to Hegel. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Jones, Malcolm. (1971) Some Echoes of Hegel in Dostoevsky. The Slavonic and East European Review. Dec 7 2010. < %22Malcolm+Jones%22&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch %3FQuery%3Dau%253A%2522Malcolm%2BJones%2522%26wc%3Don%26acc %3Don&item=8&ttl=88&returnArticleService=showFullText&resultsServiceName=null > Stillman, Peter G. Hegel's Philosophy of Spirit. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. Tang, Chenxi. The Geographic Imagination of Modernity: Geography, Literature, and Philosophy in German Romanticism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.

17 O'Kidhain