Chapter-3

Crime and Punishment

By
Fyodor Dostoevsky
 141

Chapter-3

Crime and Punishment

“Man is a mystery: if you spend your entire life trying to puzzle it out, then do
not say that you have wasted your time. I occupy myself with this mystery,
because I want to be a man.”

- Dostoevsky

3.0 Introduction

The present chapter makes a critical analysis of the text Crime and
Punishment. It also presents a brief view on the life and works of the author Fyodor
Dostoevsky. It defines the theme of Crime and Morality in the text. It mainly focuses
on Raskolnikov’s character who is the protagonist of the text It makes a detailed
interpretation of the chief concepts of the text like Temptation of crime, Morality and
Nietzsche’s concept of Superman.

3.1 About the Author

Dostoevsky and his Life

Dostoevsky who left his mark in the world literature was a Great Russian
author, editor and a journalist. He was also renowned as a political thinker,
philosopher and a psychologist who gave voice to human sufferings and narrates
what lies behind the psyche of the human mind. His works are infused with the
social, political, and religious aspects of Russian society. He lived at a time when
Russia was going through political pressure and social issues. His life is a message
to those who go through pain and suffering , as how in the worst and miserable
condition of his life, Dostoevsky survived through his faith in Christian belief and
came out as a great thinker who rendered meditative ideas about living life in a
better way.
 142

Dostoevsky was born on October 30, 1821 in Moscow. He was the second
born son of Mikhail Andreevich Dostoevsky and Marya Feodorovna Nechaev.
Dostoevsky’s elder brother was Mikhail. His father was a doctor in military service.
They lived in an apartment in the Marinsky Hospital. Despite, being a doctor, the
economic condition of the family was poor. Dostoevsky lived in the environment full
of conflict and struggle. His mother was loving and caring; she was fully devoted to
her family. She told her children good stories and also taught them French. On the
contradictory, his father was aggressive and short tempered. He was in debt due to
his purchases of the estates outside Moscow. He was in loss, as the land of the
estate was futile and was not suitable for the farm’s enrichment. But his wife Maria
tried to make the farm fruitful and take a good care of it. He appreciated her
generosity and care for the peasants also. She died in 1837, which turned him into a
brutal person; he drunk a lot and became cruel towards the peasants. After two
years, in 1839, he died. It was suspected that he was killed by the peasants.

Fyodor and Mikhail started studying first at their home by the tutors. His
father was very strict about their study. As Orest Miller mentions that Dostoevsky in
Seeds of Revolt remembered: “They [the Children] were strictly supervised and
taught to study very early. At the age of four, he was already placed in front of a
book and told insistently: Study!” (Qtd. in Neil Heims, 11). His father taught them
Geometry as well as Latin. He was harsh on them and rebuked them on their
mistakes. Dostoevsky and his brother Mikhail attended the Souchard’s Day School in
1833. At that time, Dostoevsky was twelve years old. In the next year, they got
admission in Moscow’s best regarded Chermak’s Boarding School. They went home
during holidays. That was a pleasant phase of his life. But the miserable conditions
started occurring in 1836, when her mother got ill. Again Dostoevsky in Seeds of
Revolt recalled: “This was the bitterest time in the childhood period of our lives …we
were about to lose our mother any minute. Father was totally destroyed”. (Qtd. in
Neil Heims 11). In February, 1837, Dostoevsky’s mother died.

Dostoevsky was distressed due to his father’s insistence on sending him and
his brother to the Academy of Military Engineering in St. Petersburg. In 1838,
Dostoevsky got admission in the Academy of Military Engineers, but Mikhail was
rejected on the medical grounds. He went to St. Petersburg which was the romantic
 143

centre of Russia and the centre of Russian Literature and thought. For Dostoevsky, it
was the path of childhood to young manhood. He had mixed feelings of yearning
and anguish, as he loved writing and reading literature. He was not willing to begin a
career in army as he wrote in Seeds of Revolt:

We dreamt only of poetry and poets. My brother wrote verses, at least three
poems a day even on the road, and I spent all my time composing in my head
a novel of Venetian life…My brother and I were longing for a new life, we
dreamt about something enormous, about everything beautiful and
sublime.(Qtd.in Heims, 13).

During this period, Dostoevsky witnessed a brutal power of the Russian

government upon Russian people and particularly upon the peasants.These conflicts
and suffering build the character of Dostoevsky strong. D. V. Grigorovich comments:
“Dostoevsky already then exhibited traits of unsociability, stayed to one side, did not
participate in diversions, sat and buried himself in books, and sought places to be
alone” (Qtd. in Heims, 14). Dostoevsky was a firm believer of Christianity. A. I
Savelyev who was the officer of academy described Dostoevsky as, “unlike the rest
of his comrades …. He was very religious and zealously performed all the
obligations of the Orthodox Christian Faith …..Showed compassion for the poor,
weak and unprotected” (Qtd. in Heims, 14).

At school, he also became editor of the student newspaper and a ‘romantic

socialist politically’ (Heims, 14). During those days, Ivan Berrezhetsky was his close
friend in the academy with whom he shared his fondness of poetry. Dostoevsky was
giving a good performance in school, but he was not promoted after his first year due
to his failure in drill. His father was shocked by this news, as he was dealing with the
financial issues and trying hard to educate his children. After the death of his mother,
Dostoevsky’s father started drinking heavily and behaves rudely with the serfs.
Moreover, he brought at home, a serf’s daughter as a mistress. So, it was
suspected that the serfs in anguish and rebellion killed him. After his father’s death in
1839, Dostoevsky wrote to his brother that he “shed many tears over the death of
father” and then he discussed his future plan as he believed that his father’s death
freed him from his father’s plans for his life and would not stay long in the army. “My
 144

one goal is to be free” what he hoped was to become a writer and “to study the
meaning of life and man”. Because, “Man is an enigma, which must be solved, and if
you spend all your life at it, don’t say you have wasted your time; I occupy myself
with this enigma, because I wish to be a man” (Qtd. in Heims, 17). In 1843,
Dostoevsky graduated from the Academy as a lieutenant.

Dostoevsky’s main affection lied in Literature. He was mesmerized by the

novels of Balzac, Victor Hugo, George sand and Eugene Sue. In the Academy of
military engineering, he attended the lectures on history, architecture and religion
and the Russian, French and German language and literature. He also studied
Pushkin, Lermontov in German literature as well as Russian folk poetry. He was fond
of French Literature and studied the classical works of Ronsard, Corneille, Racine
and Pascal. In 1844, he translated Balzac’s novel Eugenie Grandet. It was
published in the Russian magazine Repertoire and Pantheon. During his stay in St.
Petersburg, Dostoevsky met Nikolayevich Shidlovsky who was staying in the same
hostel. They became good friends and shared their literary interests. He wrote poetry
and was also a member of St. Petersburg’s literary circle. They both together read
and discussed the works of Shakespeare, Homer, Hoffman and Schiller. Shidlovsky
was an intellectual who implemented the ideas of Spirituality, Romanticism, and
Justice in Dostoevsky.

In 1840, Dostoevsky became a member of the ‘Russian Intelligentsia’ (Heims,

19)’, where Art and Philosophy were the main disciplines, where thinkers look like a
dreamer aiming for the ideal society. Dostoevsky wrote about Human dignity and
reform of social evils. The experiences Dostoevsky had during these years and his
reading of literature constituted his literary works. In this context, Neil Heims remark:

Dostoevsky formed his vision of the world both from his experience of
injustice, materialism, and alienation and from literature, particularly the
contemporary French authors he read and discussed with Shidlovsky. From
Balzac, he got the analysis of class and character as functions of each other
and also how in a novel to present the great tapestry of a society. From Victor
Hugo, he took the idea of romantic idealism in the service of social justice
(20).
 145

Dostoevsky was particularly interested in narrating the life of Russian people.

He wanted to discover and portray a Russian man. He observed life of peasants,
their land and their wisdom. For him, Pushkin and Gogol were influential due to their
narration of Russian character. In 1844, Dostoevsky left the army after the
publication of his translation of Balzac’s Eugenie Grandet. In the next year, he wrote
Poor Folk(1845). He showed this work to his military academy friend D.V. Grigorich.
He liked it and showed it to his friend Nekrasov who was the member of the St.
Petersburg’s group of young intellectuals. Belinsky, the influential critic who belong
to this group was impressed by Dostoevsky’s Poor Folk as in his opinion, Poor Folk
is, “The First attempt at a social novel. We’ve [Russians] had ….which reveals such
secrets of life and characters in Russia as no one before him ever dreamed of.” (Qtd.
in Heims, 21). During that time, Dostoevsky was going through a financial trouble.
Through his writing, he was acquainted to well-known literary figures.

Dostoevsky joined the Petroshevesky group which was formed on the basis
that the individual is repressed by the society and the economic condition led to
poverty and fight. The Activities of this group was observed secretly by the police
and spies fully covered all their meetings. In April, 1849, police arrested Dostoevsky
and other sixty members of the group. On September 23, this group was charged
with high crimes and seventeen including Dostoevsky were condemned to execution.
On the day of their punishment, when their faces were covered and the soldiers
waiting for the orders, just a few seconds before their execution, a messenger of the
Tsar came out with a message which cancelled their execution and ordered to move
Siberia to do the hard labour.

During his stay in the prison, Dostoevsky came out as an audacious person
and discovered his inner strength. He was endowed by the Christian Faith when he
was just a few seconds away from his execution and experienced a joy when his life
was restored. He was like a warrior, who fought against all the miserable conditions
of his life and came out as a victor. As in the letter to his brother, after he returned to
a cell in the Peter and Paul Fortress, he wrote:
…. Brother, I have not lost courage and I do not feel dispirited. Life is life
everywhere; life is within us and not in externals. There will be people around
 146

me, and to be a man among men, to remain so forever and not to lose hope
and give up, however how hard things may be- that is what life is, that is its
purpose. I have come to realize this. This idea has now become part of my
flesh and blood. Yes, this is the truth! (Qtd. In Neil Heims, 22).

What is perhaps the most significant is that “His near death experience
brought Dostoevsky a full realization of his love of life (Heims, 22).” He kept on
writing in the prison. He came to know about various aspects of the peasant’s life,
their power of endurance and suffering during his imprisonment. In prison, he learnt
to accept the challenges of life and survived by the Christian Faith.

In 1854, his chains were removed and he was sent to Semipalatinsk to serve
as an officer of the Siberian Army Corps. There, he fell in love with Maria Dimitriovna
Isaev, the wife of a onetime school master. Later, her husband got transfer and they
left for Kuznetsk and soon her husband died of heavy drinking. Dostoevsky went
there and console her. In 1857, they got married. While returning to Semipalatinsk,
he had the first attack of epilepsy. In1859, after almost ten years of exile, he was
allowed to return to St. Petersburg.

Thereafter, he began his journey of writing. In 1860, his House of the Dead
appeared in two periodicals, first part in Russian World and second part in Time. The
next year, his second novel The insulted and the Injured (1861) appeared. He was
not happy in his marriage, but didn’t divorce her, as she was already dying of
consumption. She died in1864. Before that, in 1860, he was in love with a stage
actress Alexandra Shubert, at the same time, he also had an affair with Apollinaria
Suslova which lasted for two years. After his wife’s death, Dostoevsky proposed
Suslova to marry him, but she didn’t grant his proposal and continued to be his
friend. She also helped him financially when he was in debt. She died in 1864.He
was ill fated as, one after one, miserable conditions were occurring in his life. His
brother Mikhail died in 1864 and left his wife and children to his care. He was
haunted by the debtors. He borrowed money from her aunt Alexandra Kumania, but
it was not sufficient. So, Fyodor decided to went to Germany, so he could escape
from the debts he was not able to pay. But, due to his habit of gambling and
alcoholism, he lost all his money.
 147

Finally, surrounded by extreme financial trouble, he started writing to earn

money. First, he sent the synopsis of his novel Crime and Punishment to the editor
of the Russian Messenger Mikhail Katkov. He gave him three thousand roubles in
advance. In 1865, Crime and Punishment appeared in Russian Magazine. In 1866,
Dostoevsky took advance of ten thousand roubles from the publisher Stellovsky who
was very calculative about the money. He put a condition before Dostoevsky to
deliver a novel before 1st November 1866; otherwise, he would have all the rights to
publish all Dostoevsky’s earlier and future works without paying any money. It was
tough for Dostoevsky to complete the work in a short time period, so he took help of
a stenographer Anna Grigoreivna Snitkina, a twenty year old girl. She was so
efficient in her work that he could complete his novel before the fixed date. On 30th
October, 1866 he presented the novel The Gambler and relieved himself from the
agreement. He fell in love with her and got married on February, 1867.

Anna proved to be a good life partner for Dostoevsky as she smartly handled
all his finance. But due to his habit of gambling, they again had to pass through
financial crisis. Later, to escape from the debts, they went to Europe. He then took
her to Geneva, where he wrote his next novel The Idiot which appeared in the
Russian Messenger in 1868. In Geneva, Anna gave birth to their first baby, a girl
whom they named Sonya. Dostoevsky felt joy of being a father, but the girl died soon
of pneumonia before she was three months old. They then returned to St.
Petersburg, where their son Fyodor was born on 26th July 1871. Anna succeeded in
releasing Dostoevsky from his habit of gambling. He continued writing the
masterpieces and Anna was handling the publication work efficiently. He was
receiving the eminence, but his health was running down. He made his last public
appearance on 8th June 1880, where he gave a speech on the honour of Pushkin at
the Pushkin festival in Moscow which was admired by all the writers. Dostoevsky
died of lung haemorrhage on January 28, 1881 in St. Petersburg at the age of fifty
nine. When the death of Dostoevsky was announced in the newspapers, Anna wrote
in her memoir:

Known and unknown visitors arrived to pray at his coffin, and there were so
many that very quickly all the five rooms were filled with a dense crowd, and
 148

when the office for the dead was recited, the children and I had a hard time
pushing through the crowd to stand near the coffin (Qtd. In Heims, 57).

The Ministry of Finance announced that the Tsar, Alexander 11 had ordered
that she would be given a pension for life of 2,000 roubles a year because of
Dostoevsky’s services to Russian Literature. Neil Helms in his “Biography of Fyodor
Dostoevsky’’ writes:
The experience of his years of imprisonment and exile caused in him a far
more profound alteration. They made him the Dostoevsky whose novels from
one of the pillars of Russian Literature and have defined him as one of the
giants of world literature, a passionate and mystical Christian, a fervent
Russian nationalist and one of the canniest psychologists of the torments
which accompany both evil and goodness (9).

3.2 Dostoevsky’s Literary Contribution

Dostoevsky’s works reflect his life- experiences. His understanding of life and
human nature echoes in his novels. His philosophy of life is deeply narrated in his
works. He focuses on the social as well as psychological aspects. In his works, we
find a voice of Russian people. In his novels, he presents an Individual’s inner
conflict.

Rather than answering theory with theory, Dostoevsky leads his reader
through the experience of an idea in order to find truth. Ivan’s nihilism leads to
murder, as does Raskolnikov’s Intellectual empowerment. It is not difficult to
deduce that the reader’s experiences of these two characters’ philosophies
are intended to leave him with distaste for the rationally stated theories that
preceded them (Rachel, Thomas, 76).

His belief in Christianity is also implied in his writings. His works acclaimed a
worldwide success and made him immortal. He made a remarkable contribution to
Russian Literature. He explores the social and psychological issues. His
philosophical thoughts are highly appreciated. He made an immense contribution in
Russian Literature. The main ideas infused in his works are:
 149

All of Dostoevsky’s leading characters have the capacity to “set their minds
on things above” and to “seek those things which are above”; each of them
filled with a “great and unsolved Idea”, all of them must above all “get an idea
straight”. And in this resolution of idea, lie their entire real life and their
personal unfinalizedness. If one were to think away the idea, in which they
live, their image would be totally destroyed. In other words, the image of the
hero is inseparably linked with the image of the idea. We see the hero in and
through the idea, and we see the idea in and through the hero (Mikhail
Bakhtin, 123).

Dostoevsky was a literary genius. He was a Psychologist, Sociologist and

also a philosopher of life. “Dostoevsky represented ideas one might find in the
context of a larger life experience” (Rachel Thomas, 66). The works which gave him
immense popularity and make him familiar to the world is listed below:

 Fictional Works

Title of Type
Year
Literary work
1846
Poor Falk Novel
1846
The Double Novel
1846
Mr. Prokharchin Short Story
1847
Novel in Nine Letters Short Story
1847
The Landlady Short Story
1848
The Jealous Husband Short Story
Short story
1848 A Faint Heart
Short Story
1848 Polzunkov
Short Story
1848 Out of the Service

Short Story
1848 The Honest Thief

The Christmas Tree and Short Story

1848
a Wedding
 150

Short Story
1848 White Nights

1849
Netochka Nezvanovna
Novel
1849
The Little Hero Short story
1859
The Uncle’s Dream Short Novel
1859 The Village of
Novel
Stepanchikovo
1861 The Insulted and the
Novel
Injured
1862 House of the Dead Novel
1862
A Nasty anecdote Short Story
Notes From
1864 Short Novel
Underground
1865 The Crocodile Short Story

1866 Crime and Punishment Novel

1867 The Gambler Short Novel

1868 The Idiot Novel

1870 The Eternal Husband Short Novel

1871
Demons Novel
1873
Bobok Short Story

1875 The Adolescent Novel

1876
The Heavenly Christmas Short Story
1876
A Gentle Spirit Short Story
1877 The Dream of a
Short Story
Ridiculous Man

1879
The Brothers Karamazov Novel
 151

 Non- Fictional Works

Title of Literary Work Type

Year
Diary of a Writer: 1873-
1876 Memoirs
1876
Diary of a Writer: 1877-
1881 Memoirs
1881
Winter Notes of Summer
1862 Memoirs
Impressions
Complete Letters: 1832-
1859 Correspondence
1859
Complete Letters: 1860-
1867 Correspondence
1867
Complete Letters: 1868-
1871 Correspondence
1871
Complete Letters: 1872- Correspondence
1877
1877
Complete Letters:1878-
1881 Correspondence
1881
Unpublished Dostoevsky:
Nd Notebooks
Volume I
Unpublished Dostoevsky:
Nd Notebooks
Volume II
Unpublished Dostoevsky:
Nd Notebooks
Volume III

3.3 Crime and Punishment

Introduction

Crime and Punishment is first of Dostoevsky’s important novels, and the one
in which his genius can perhaps be felt in its purest and most limpid
form…Dostoevsky produced a work whose timeliness increases rather than
diminishes with the years, and whose artistic power has rather been scarcely
matched since it was first published in 1866.

-JosephFrank

Crime and Punishment (1866) by Fyodor Dostoevsky is the best crime fiction
of the 19th century Russian Literature. It holds its place among the excellent crime
 152

fictions of world literature. The novel was a huge success and was the most talked
novel of its time. It’s such an excellent novel of crime that is relevant even today in
the 21st century. Crime and Punishment was published in the literary Journal the
Russian Messenger in 1866. Crime and punishment is so popular that, some movies
based on this theme have been produced. Crime and Punishment is based on the
real life story of crime (in Russia) published in the newspaper. This catches interest
of the author. He wants to discard the prevalent rational theories in Russia that is
destroying the youth. It was Dostoevsky’s first novel that earned him a name and
fame in world literature. In the letter to his friend A.P.Milyukov, Dostoevsky writes:
“People will pay attention to it, talk about it …nothing of this kind has yet been written
among us; I guarantee its originality, yes, and also its power to grip the reader”
(Joseph Frank, ix).

Crime and Punishment delineates a tale of a murderer Raskolnikov set in the

city of St. Petersburg. Although, it’s a crime fiction, there’s no suspense aroused by
the author; as the identity of the criminal is revealed from the very beginning of the
novel. It deals completely with Raskolnikov and his idealistic world, and what is going
on in his mind before and after committing the crime. Dostoevsky, in his letter to
Mikhail Katkov about Crime and Punishment writes It is a “Psychological report of a
crime”, which is committed by “a young man, expelled from the university, petit
bourgeois in origin and living in the midst of the direst poverty” (Joseph Frank,
ix).Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov as a young and handsome intellectual
preoccupied by various prevalent theories of great personalities like Napoleon,
Hegel, and Nietzsche and applied them before fully analyzing them. Without
completely formulated such ideologies, he committed a crime. Such idealistic
thoughts finally lead him towards a terrible suffering. Dostoevsky writes: “Falling
under the Influence of the strange, unfinished ideas that float in the atmosphere, he
decides to break out of his disgusting position at one stroke by killing an old pawn
broker” (Joseph Frank, ix).

Crime and Punishment is a psychological novel exploring the psyche of the

criminal before and after the crime. It shows how an educated young man under the
influence of the nihilistic ideas commits crime and fall into illness, caught by his own
terrible thoughts and feeling of loneliness that broke him down and ultimately he
redeemed himself from suffering by confessing his crime and received atonement.
 153

The murder takes place in the first part of the novel. What is most important is how
Raskolnikov is driven to crime? What motivates him to commit crime? And, what
happens after he commits crime? The rest part of the novel deals with the despair,
anguish and the suffering that he gone through, and how he overcomes this situation
with the aid of Sonia and ultimately how he is redeemed from it has been discussed
in the novel. Dostoevsky shows how Raskolnikov’s confession and embracing of
Christian values lead him to salvation. It explicates mental agony and moral
perplexity confronted by Raskolnikov throughout the novel.

The novel presents variety of different characters having good and evil
tendencies .On one part, there are essentially good characters like Sonia Razumihin,
Porifiry Petrovich, Dounia and on the other, there are vicious characters containing
evil like Svidrigailov and Luzhin. Raskolnikov stands in between, as he possesses
both good and evil, as his very name suggests “double”. Dostoevsky presents him as
containing both vices and virtues.

Dostoevsky produced a brilliant work on the theme of crime that explores

human nature and its limitations. Dostoevsky is not only an author he is a great
philosopher, psychologist. Sociologist and also an existentialist. He explores
profound ideas of human life that is still relevant in the present scenario. The novel is
still popular; it’s a classic which won the hearts of the crime fiction readers. It’s one of
the best stories of crime ever written. Dostoevsky has an acute sense of life which
he caricatures in his novel. He is a believer of Christian values. Dostoevsky’s views
have been implemented in Psychology, Philosophy as well as Criminology.

3.4 Formation of Crime and Punishment. / Background History of

Writing Crime and Punishment/ Influence of Author’s life on the
Novel
Dostoevsky began writing Crime and Punishment after he returned from his
exile in Siberia after five years. He also edited literary political journals with his
brother Mikhail in the early 1860s. The research studies on Dostoevsky point out that
Crime and Punishment was written in a deplorable phase of Dostoevsky’s life. He
was desperately in need of money due to a burden of family responsibilities after his
 154

brother’s death and his indebtedness due to gambling. He wrote it hastily to acquire
the desired money, “The novel was written in a great personal distress, Dostoevsky’s
personal life had suddenly collapsed around his ears and he was desperately
searching to establish it on a new footing” (Frank, VI).It is also mentioned by the
critics that during that period, the news of the educated young boys’ crime often
appeared in various newspapers and that shapes the story of the novel. Dostoevsky
also remarks that

Newspaper accounts of various recent crimes committed by educated

members of the young generation have convinced him that “my subject is not
at all eccentric” and he instances two examples of murders perpetrated by the
university students after cool calculation and reflection (Frank, x).

Joseph Frank in this context points out that,

It may well have been such reports in the press, to which he always paid the
closest attention, that has initially stimulated Dostoevsky’s imagination and
given him the idea for a story that could be written quickly and be eminently
saleable. But he seized on the latest sensation in this way, it was because he
has long been pre occupied with the question of crime and conscience and
because, as a result of the attempt of the Russian radicals of the 1860s to
establish morality on new and more rational foundations such questions had
taken on a burning actuality (Frank, xi).

As Dostoevsky experienced the prison environment and observed the

prisoners’ behavior formed a ground for exploring the psyche of the criminal before
and after the crime.
Dostoevsky’s years into prison camp had brought him into firsthand
experience with a terrifyingly extensive diapason of human experience, and
he had glimpsed the awful possibility of a world in which the categories of
good and evil had simply ceased to control behavior (Frank, xi).

As Dostoevsky in his prison memoirs, Notes from the House of the Dead
writes that he was very much struck, “by the lack of any manifest signs of “inner
anguish or suffering” among the peasants’ convicts, almost all of whom were
murderers. But he also noted that
 155

Almost all of the convicts raved and talked in their sleep,” and that what they
raved about usually had some connection with their violent past. Nor did any
of the peasants reject the moral law by which they had been judged; during
the Easter services, they all fell to their knees and asked forgiveness from
Christ (Frank, xi).

It seems, Dostoevsky, implemented his experience of prison life, observation

of criminal’s behavior and their conceptions of morality in Crime and Punishment.
Further, his observation of one prisoner shook him and makes him to question the
morality, as he writes about the prisoner Pavel Aristov, who was “The most revolting
example of the depths to which a man can sink and degenerate, and the extent to
which he can destroy moral feeling in himself without difficulty or repentance” (Frank,
xi). Dostoevsky saw such generation as, “An ever-present possibility when moral
standards collapsed or were destroyed; and prison camp persuaded him that this
was far more likely to occur among the educated elite than among the people”
(Frank, xi).

We noticed that his life experiences mirror in his novels. As many incidents
occur in the novel, when we find a reflection of his life in it. We also observe how his
conception of morality was shaped during the experiences he gone through and the
same he captures in his novels. As frank remarks:

Dostoevsky’s fascination with the theme of crime and the problem of

conscience unquestionably arose from such firsthand impressions and
reflections, mingled with his immersion in the works of such writers as
Shakespeare, Schiller, Pushkin, Hugo, Balzac and Dickens, where such
issues time and again are given powerful embodiment. But his preoccupation
came into especially sharp focus because of the agitated climate of Russian
social- cultural thought during the 1860s. The radicals were pressing for a
revolution and firmly believing one would occur in the very near future, were at
the same time engaged in reshaping the whole notion of what constituted
morality (Frank, xii).

Joseph Frank gives reference to the Ideas prevalent during that period that
influenced Dostoevsky. As he writes:
 156

Influenced by the Utilitarian Doctrines of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart

Mill, which Karl Mark considered to be a middle class apologia for capitalist
selfishness, the leading Russian radical thinker N. G. Chernyshevesky
proclaimed that “rational egoism” was far preferable to the old idea of
conscious propagated by the Christian faith. Human nature was” egotistic,”
and men preferred whatever was to their greatest advantage consisted of
identifying their personal interests with the greatest happiness of the greatest
number. Such ideas, with their naïve belief in the power of rational reflection
to control and dominate all the explosive potentials of the human psyche,
seemed the sheerest and most dangerous illusion to the post Siberian
Dostoevsky, and his major works of the early 1860s. All attempted to reveal
the limitations and perils of such a doctrine (Frank, xiii).

The Experience Dostoevsky had in Prison is the main cause behind his
inclination to the subject of crime. His observation of the prisoners and living their life
gave rise to his tendency to write about crime. He penned the psyche of criminal in
Crime and Punishment. He acutely delineates what a criminal feels before and after
committing crime.

Dostoevsky’s life experiences provide better understanding of Crime and

Punishment. We come to know about how Crime and Punishment has been formed
by the view of his life. The acute narration of the poor and slum areas of St.
Petersburg was due to his own personal experiences. He himself had experienced
extreme poverty like Raskolnikov in the novel. He was in huge debt after his first
wife’s death and a few months later, his brother’s death. Crime and Punishment was
written in such peril condition of Dostoevsky. But this is the novel that earned him a
worldwide popularity as a great author. Dostoevsky features the political and
sociological views emerging in Russia during19th century. He caricatures the life of
the people living in St. Petersburg.

In Russia, there was an emergence of new political and social ideas for
change in 19th century. Many Russian Thinkers want to connect with the western
European ideas and wants to modernize Russia. The Nihilistic views were rapidly
emerging in Russia that insists on the need to reform the social and political
systems. Dostoevsky overlooked such nihilistic ideas prevalent in Russia. He
 157

strongly believed in Christianity. The ideas of Suffering, Salvation and Rebirth

centralized in Crime and Punishment reflect Dostoevsky’s own belief in Christianity.

3.5 Plot Overview

Crime and Punishment is divided into 6 parts and 39 chapters. The action of
the novel takes place in St.Petersburg. It begins with a narration of Raskolnikov’s
character. He is a young boy of twenty three. He was a university student but left his
study due to poverty. He avoids meeting people and prefers loneliness. He is living
in the poverty stricken area. In the beginning of the novel, we find when Raskolnikov
is coming out of his room; he is avoiding someone’s attention; that is his landlady
who tortures Raskolnikov for not paying the rent. We found him murmuring some
ideas of which he is frightened of. We come to know that he is planning something, "I
want to attempt a thing like that and am frightened by these trifles," (C& P, p-2). He
is in short of money, living in a filthy place and shabbily dressed. Otherwise, he is
handsome and smart as Dostoevsky presents him as, “exceptionally handsome,
above the average in height, slim, well-built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown
hair” (C& P, 2). We found him struggling with his own reckless ideas. He has the
habit of talking to himself, “from time to time; he would mutter something, from the
habit of talking to himself”(C&P, 2).

He is planning something. It is going right, but somewhere he is not confident

about it. He was going to Haymarket, passing the bridge and moving to tenement; he
was calculating the distance measured in terms of the paces that are seven hundred
and thirty. It seems he is contriving an idea of murder. He goes up the stairs to the
fourth floor to meet an old Pawnbroker Alyona Ivanova, whom he is meeting for the
second time. This time, he wants money by pawning his watch. As he rings the bell,
we found that the old lady is very alert and conscious; watches her visitor from key
hole and then opens the door. Raskolnikov gave her a watch for getting some
money. While she has gone to take the money, he observed the whole room and
noticed everything in the room sharply. When leaving, he promises to come again
with cigarette case.
 158

He then went down to the pub for drink; there he met Marmeladov who was
once a civil servant but dismissed from his job due to his drunkenness. He informs
Raskolnikov about the miserable condition of his family. We come to know that he
has not gone home from five days; afraid of his wife, as he spent all her money on
drinking. His wife’s name is Katerina Ivanova whom Marmeladov married after her
husband died, from their first marriage, she had three daughters and he had one
daughter Sonya who was compelled to enter into prostitution to aid his family.
Raskolnikov visited Marmeladov’s apartment which is in worst condition. He then
returns to his room.

Next morning, he received a letter of his mother, in which she mentioned that
his sister Dounia is going to marry a government official Pyor Petrovich Luzhin and
informs him that they are coming to St. Petersburg. Somehow, Raskolnikov is not
happy with this. As, he thinks that Dounia is sacrificing herself to support her family.
He decides that he will not let her do that. The next day, we find him taking the axe
under the bench outside yard keeper’s room. He stole the axe and hides it in his
coat. When he was passing through the Haymarket, he overheard a conversation
between Lizaveta (Alyona- the old pawnbroker’s sister). He heard that she was
asked to meet the man at seven in the night which gives direction to Raskolnikov’s
plan. He thinks: so, the old lady would be alone and he can easily make out his plan.

Next day, he checked the axe and walked out through the courtyard and
stands under the staircase. He noticed some workers, but they were busy in their
works. So, he goes upstairs, ring the bell. He also noticed that the tenement below
and the tenement opposite the old lady’s apartment were empty. The old lady
opened the door carefully and after confirmation, let him come inside. Raskolnikov
shows the Cigarette case to her. When she was looking at the case, and as turns her
head Raskolnikov pulled out the axe promptly; hit on her head many times and
confirmed that she was dead. He then took the bunch of keys and stole all the
money and jewels from the drawers. When he was about to leave, he suddenly
noticed Lizaveta standing there shocked. Without losing a moment, he hit her too
and she also died. Then, he hastily clean his clothes and the axe, and remove his
mark of the crime. Meanwhile, he heard a continuously ringing bell and the knocks at
the door. He was frightened. When the knocks were over, he cautiously escaped
 159

from the place. When he is returning home, he placed the axe in the yard, and here
also no one noticed him. He successfully made out his plan.

He then came home and checked all the stolen things. In the next morning, he
got the summons from the police. He was afraid on thinking that the murder is
revealed. He went to the police, and took a sigh of relief when he learnt that it was
not for murder he was called, but his landlady has called police to make him pay her
debt. The double murder was so much talked about. He thought police might come
anytime to his room for the investigation. So, he decides to manage the stolen
things; he took all the things except money. He went out in the far place and buried
them under the big rock. During his visit to police, he was suspected by the police
due to his flightiness. Then, he visited his friend Razumikhin, who offered
Raskolnikov some work which he refused. After returning home, he faints. He was in
nightmarish sleep; he also got fever and was in that state for four days. When he
awakes, he found Nastasya and Razumikhin taking care of him. Meanwhile, a doctor
Zosimov and a police officer came there. They noticed that Raskolnikov becomes
nervous and feels uneasy when they talk about the double murder.

Then, there comes Dounia’s fiancé Luzhin, whom Raskolnikov dislikes. They
had some conversation. He didn’t pay attention to Luzhin. When he leaves,
Raskolnikov goes to a cafe, where he almost confesses his crime to Zomyotov.
Later, He moves to the old lady’s apartment. When he was returning home, he found
that Marmeladov in a drunken state was crushed by the stage carriage. Raskolnikov
took him home, where he died. There, he met Sonya and helped the family by
giving twenty roubles which he received from his mother.

When Raskolnikov arrives home with Razumikhin, he found his sister and
mother waiting for him. Raskolnikov disliked their idea of Dounia marrying Luzhin. He
didn’t talk to them properly and ask Dounia to break the engagement. Here, we
notice Razumikhin was attracted by Dounia. He explains Raskolnikov’s state of
despair. They understood and later come again to meet him. Doctor Zosimov’s
report shows improvement in Raskolnikov’s condition. In a better mood, he
apologized for his behavior and again asked Dounia not to marry Luzhin. Dounia
informed him that she is meeting Luzhin in the evening, and added that Luzhin does
not want Raskolnikov to come there, but she wants Raskolnikov to come.
 160

Raskolnikov got ready to come. That time, Sonya entered, and invited Raskolnikov
in his father’s funeral. Here we find his growing attachment with Sonya. Sonya
returns home, where she was followed by Svidrigailov, Dounya’s former employer.

Raskolnikov then decides to visit a police station to know how the police
investigate the case of the old pawnbroker and her sister’s murder. There, he met
the in charge of that case Petrovich who is also a relative of Razumikhin. Later, they
all met including Zometov, Razumikhin, and Petrovich. They had a debate on
Raskolnikov’s article on ‘Crime’. During the conversation, Petrovich intentionally
provoked Raskolnikov to reveal the truth. Raskolnikov also realized that Petrovich
suspects him to be a murderer.

When he arrived home, he found a stranger in his room, who called him
murderer. That night, he had horrible dream of the old pawnbroker’s murder. When
he woke up, he again found that stranger who is Svidrigailov. He tried to make a
deal with Raskolnikov to break off Dounya‘s engagement to Luzhin. He also offered
Dounya ten thousand roubles. He mentioned that his wife Mafya Petrovna had also
left money for Dounia in her will. On hearing Svidrigailov’s strange ideas and his
talks about having seen his wife’s ghost, Raskolnikov assumed him as a madman.
Svidrigailov then leaves.

Later, in the meeting with Dounia and Luzhin, Raskolnikov and Luzhin had
heated argument. Upset by all these, Dounya breaks off the engagement with Luzhin
and no one knows why Luzhin is happy with the announcement and leaves.
Razumikhin followed Raskolnikov and they had a conversation in which Razumikhin
felt that Raskolnikov is guilty of murders. Raskolnikov once meet Sonya who is living
in the separate apartment. During their conversation, he came to know that Lizaveta
was a close friend of Sonya. Moved by the truth, he asks Sonya to read the story of
Lazaus for him. Somehow, when Raskolnikov and Sonia’s Conversation was going
on, Svidrigailov overheard everything and felt that Raskolnikov might be carrying
guilt of something. Later, when Raskolnikov visits police station to get back his
watch, he was surrounded by Petrovich’s interrogation. Petrovich was implying all
the psychological tricks to make Raskolnikov accept his crime. At the same time
Nikolai, a workman who was in custody under suspicion, confesses that he has
committed the murders. Raskolnikov then leaves.
 161

Raskolnikov then attends Katerina Ivanova’s memorial dinner for

Marmeladov. Where Luzhin accused Sonya for stealing his money, which was
previously trapped by him. But soon, Lebezyatnikov who was also present in the
room clarifies that Sonya is innocent and Luzhin has himself placed the money in
Sonya’s pocket and now accusing her. All got angry on Luzhin and abused him. After
the dinner is over, disturbed and tortured Raskolnikov met Sonya and confessed his
crime. They had a long conversation on why he commits crime? Sonya suggests
him to go for confession. Meanwhile, they got the news that Katerina has gone mad.
She was madly singing and dancing on the road. Sonya runs on the place, Katerina
is brought back to her room when she died. Svidrigailov at that time comes and
shows sympathy to them. He offers helps them by giving money and also promises
to take care of them. Svidrigailov then tells Raskolnikov that he knows that he is a
murderer. When Raskolnikov returns home, Razumikhin complains that his behavior
is painful to his mother and his sister. After the conversation was over, Petrovich
arrives and he apologizes for his treatment to Raskolnikov; but still he suggests
Raskolnikov to confess and also explains that with his confession, he get lesser
punishment.

Raskolnikov then met Svidrigailov in the cafe where he expressed his liking
for Dounia; and informed Raskolnikov that he is engaged to a very young girl of
sixteen. Svidrigailov goes on talking about his liking for women. Raskolnikov leaves,
but Svidrigailov has another plan, he somehow brings Dounia to his room, and
threatens her. She refuses to marry him. Dounia then manages to take over the
revolver from him and fires many shots, but misses the mark. He realizes that she
doesn’t love him, so he leaves the place. Later, we find that he shoots himself and
dies.

Finally, Raskolnikov decides to confess his crime before police. He met his
mother and sister before that. Finally, when he leaves and going to the police
station, on his way, he steps back for a moment, but recalling Sonia’s words and
Svidrigailov’s suicide, he confesses his crime. Raskolnikov is sentenced seven years
of hard labor in Siberia. Sonya followed him. She often comes to meet him. Later,
his mother died of grief and Dounya married Razumikhin. Raskolnikov gradually
feels love for Sonya. Both are hopeful about their future.
 162

3.6 Temptation of Crime in Crime and Punishment

In Crime and Punishment, unlike other crime fictions, the mystery of who
commits crime has been unriddled in the very beginning of the novel. So, the entire
focus is placed on why the crime has been committed? Or what is the Motive of
Raskolnikov for committing a crime? This question occurs again and again in the
novel that Raskolnikov himself is not able to answer certainly. Dostoevsky presents
multifarious reasons for Raskolnikov’s criminal act. Raskolnikov is propelled by
multiple motives. That can be seen in his conversation with Sonia and Dounia after
his confession. The Temptation of Crime in Crime and Punishment may be aroused
by the following factors:
• Raskolnikov’s Poverty
• His Pride
• His Considering himself to be Extra Ordinary
• Influence of the Ideologies of Great man
• To Help his Family
• To eradicate Evil from the society
• Overhearing Conversation of Students
• Receiving His mother’s Letter

Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov as a young desperate man. He considers

himself as an extra ordinary man who has a right to infringe the law. But, at the same
time, he is also suffering from physical and emotional illness. He was trying to test
his self made theory. Due to extreme poverty and pathetic condition of his mother
and sister, he plans a daring act: to kill an abhorrent pawn broker. Her murder
garners two benefits: first, Raskolnikov will get the money he needed to help his
family as well to use it for the welfare of the society and secondly, he will testify his
theory of an extra ordinary man. But, he incidentally kills the Pawn broker’s sister
too. Thus, he committed double murder.

In part I of the text, Crime and Punishment, we found Raskolnikov received a

letter from his mother, in which she mentions that now their troubles are over. She
writes that Dounia is going to marry Luzhin, a rich man who will financially aid their
family. She also mentions how Dounia has gone through horrible tortures by his
employee Svidrigailov, and how because of his shrewdness, Dounia had to face
 163

humiliation. But now everything will be alright as Dounia is going to marry Luzhin.
Reading the letter, Raskolnikov got afflicted by the letter and thought he couldn’t do
anything for them. Moreover he thought, his sister is going to marry a rich man only
because he promises to help her family. Raskolnikov felt Dounia is sacrificing for the
sake of his family and he resolved that he will not let anything happen. We find this
to be the first instigation of his crime, as Harriet Maurav points out:

It occurs to him, however that there is nothing he can do for his mother and
sister. He begins himself torturing with the thought that only yesterday had
been a dream- the idea of murdering the old pawnbroker-acquires a terrible
reality (92).

Maurav further comments that Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment emphasized

The ideological motivation for the crime and emphasizing the “half-baked
ideas” that is so characteristic of the atmosphere of the time. These include
the rational utilitarianism advocated by Chernyshevski and others, the Utopian
Socialism of the 1840s that Dostoevsky himself had been fascinated by, and
the new social theories that correlated the external environment with
Criminality (88).

Further, Raskolnikov is provoked by the University student’s conversation

centered on the old pawn broker. Raskolnikov overheard a conversation of university
students about Alyona Ivanova. They talk about her shrewdness and they
emphasized on killing her by rationalizing that after her death, her money can be
used to help the needy. They are calculating the murder on the base of how it can be
beneficial to other. This intensified Raskolnikov’s criminal urge. He saw a student
and a young officer talking about the old pawnbroker Alyona Ivanovna. While talking,
the student becomes aggressive and gives a derogatory comment on the old lady.
Later, he even affirmed to kill the old lady and take her money that can be used to
help the needy. In this conversation, we find a glimpse of utilitarian philosophy as the
boy is of the view that:

She is first-rate... You can always get money from her. She is as rich as a
Jew, she can give you five thousand roubles at a time and she is not above
 164

taking a pledge for a rouble. Lots of our fellows have had dealings with her.
But she is an awful old harpy...(C&P, 67).

Raskolnikov was attentive to that student’s each and every word so he can
collect the information of the old pawnbroker. He learnt that Lizaveta is the step
sister of Alyona Ivanovna. The professor was taking the conversation lightly bur it
was agitating for Raskolnikov, he thought how strange it was. He has just visited the
old lady. And here they are talking about her. He thought all things were happening
to him with a purpose. The student continues: “I could kill that damned old woman
and make off with her money, I assure you, without the faintest conscience-prick”. (C
&P, 68).the student added with warmth. The student is so drift of the old lady that he
is ready to kill the old lady and take away her money. For him, she is useless and
there is no one after him. Her property can be used for the benevolent of society. He
rationalizes that by the murder of one, if hundreds and thousands are benefited than
it is worth it. As he claims:

Well, listen then. On the other side, fresh young lives thrown away for want of
help and by thousands, on every side! A hundred thousand good deeds could
be done and helped, on that old woman's money which will be buried in a
monastery! Hundreds, thousands perhaps, might be set on the right path;
dozens of families saved from destitution, from ruin, from vice, from the Lock
hospitals—and all with her money. Kill her, take her money and with the help
of it devote oneself to the service of humanity and the good of all. What do
you think; would not one tiny crime be wiped out by thousands of good
deeds? For one life thousands would be saved from corruption and decay.
One death and a hundred live in exchange—its simple arithmetic! Besides,
what value has the life of that sickly, stupid, ill-natured old woman in the
balance of existence! No more than the life of a louse, of a black-beetle, less
in fact because the old woman is doing harm. She is wearing out the lives of
others; (C&P, 68).

Though, it‘s only a conversation, it left a deep impact on Raskolnikov’s mind. He

found this coincidence strange. As it corresponds to his plan.

In Crime and Punishment, the old pawnbroker Alyona Ivanova is a worthless

person by killing her, Raskolnikov can make use of that money to help his family, to
 165

complete his education and welfare of the society. In killing the old woman,
Raskolnikov apply the same logic of the University student whose conversations he
overheard. It is based on the utilitarian Philosophy. Joseph Frank comments:

A desperate young man plans the perfect crime- the murder of a despicable
pawnbroker, an old woman, no one loves and whom no one will mourn. It is
not just he reasons, for a man of genius to commit such a crime, to transgress
moral law- if it will ultimately benefit humanity? The “psychological account of
a crime” thus widened to become the first of Dostoevsky’s novel tragedies of
Ideas, a work incorporating a broad social canvass with at its center a
protagonist who murders under the influence of the fashionable radical ideas
of the moment (Frank, xiv).

Dostoevsky involves his readers in the wavering thoughts of a murderer.

Raskolnikov’s ideological intentions which are the root cause of his crime are
skillfully narrated in the novel. Dostoevsky about Raskolnikov’s motivation behind
Crime writes:

Falling under the influence of “the strange, ‘unfinished’ ideas that float in the
atmosphere, “he decides to break out of his disgusting position at one stroke”
by killing an old pawnbroker. She is “stupid and ailing, greedy…is evil and
eats up other lives, torturing a young sister who had become her servant. ‘
She is good for nothing’. ‘Why should she live?’ ‘Is she at all useful for
anything? These questions befuddle the young man. He decides to kill her in
order to bring happiness to his mother living in the provinces, rescue his
sister, a paid companion in the household of a landowner, from the lascivious
advances of the head of the gentry family-advances that threaten her ruin-
finish his studies, go abroad, and then all his life be upright, staunch,
unbendable in fulfilling his ‘humane obligations to mankind’, which would
ultimately ‘smooth out his crime’ if one can really call a crime this action
against a deaf, stupid, evil, sickly old woman who does not herself know why
she is on earth and who perhaps would die herself within a month ( Qtd. In
Joseph Frank, ix-x).

Throughout the novel, we come to know about different motives of

Raskolnikov for crime. That can be seen in his confession to Sonia and later his
 166

informing Dounia about his criminal act. After his confession To Sonia, Raskolnikov
express what was his motive behind crime. As he said:

I wanted to become a Napoleon that is why I killed her....It was like this: I
asked myself one day this question—what if Napoleon, for instance, had
happened to be in my place, and if he had not had Toulon nor Egypt nor the
passage of Mont Blanc to begin his career with, but instead of all those
picturesque and monumental things, there had simply been some ridiculous
old hag, a pawnbroker, who had to be murdered too to get money from her
trunk (for his career, you understand). Well, would he have brought himself to
that if there had been no other means? Wouldn't he have felt a pang at its
being so far from monumental and... Sinful, too? Well, I must tell you that I
worried myself fearfully over that 'question' so that I was awfully ashamed
when I guessed at last (all of a sudden, somehow) that it would not have
given him the least pang, that it would not even have struck him that it was not
monumental... that he would not have seen that there was anything in it to
pause over, and that, if he had had no other way, he would have strangled her
in a minute without thinking about it! Well, I too... left off thinking about it...
murdered her, following his example (C& P, 410).

In the above conversation, we find Raskolnikov identifying himself with

Napolean. He is fond of Napoleon Ideology. And he implied it through killing the old
women. Further, he express his motive of crime in which he mentions that he killed
the old woman to help her family and setting his career. We find Raskolnikov deny
his former motive that is influence of the radical ideas and then moves to another
rationalization of his crime. As he expresses another motive:

Of course that's all nonsense, it's almost all talk! You see, you know of course
that my mother has scarcely anything; my sister happened to have a good
education and was condemned to drudge as a governess. All their hopes
were centered on me. I was a student, but I couldn't keep myself at the
university and was forced for a time to leave it. Even if I had lingered on like
that, in ten or twelve years I might (with luck) hope to be some sort of teacher
or clerk with a salary of a thousand roubles" (he repeated it as though it were
a lesson) "and by that time my mother would be worn out with grief and
 167

anxiety and I could not succeed in keeping her in comfort while my sister...
well, my sister might well have fared worse! And it's a hard thing to pass
everything by all one's life, to turn one's back upon everything, to forget one's
mother and decorously accept the insults inflicted on one's sister. Why should
one? When one has buried them to burden oneself with others—wife and
children—and to leave them again without a farthing? So I resolved to gain
possession of the old woman's money and to use it for my first years without
worrying my mother, to keep myself at the university and for a little while after
leaving it—and to do this all on a broad, thorough scale, so as to build up a
completely new career and enter upon a new life of independence...(C&P,
411).

Later, when Sonia refused to believe in his ideology and said that his
deviance from God has resulted into crime; he argued that he was carried over by
the devil: Then Sonia, when I used to lie there in the dark and all this became clear
to me, was it a temptation of the devil, eh?... I know myself that it was the devil
leading me” (C&P, 414).Raskolnikov finally comes to another point that he killed
neither to help his family nor to get money. He killed the old woman for himself, to
testify his own theory of extra ordinary man and to know whether he can dare to
commit it. He claims that:

I wanted to murder without casuistry, to murder for my own sake, for myself
alone! I didn't want to lie about it even to myself. It wasn't to help my mother I
did the murder—that's nonsense—I didn't do the murder to gain wealth and
power and to become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I simply did it; I did
the murder for myself, for myself alone, and whether I became a benefactor to
others, or spent my life like a spider catching men in my web and sucking the
life out of men, I couldn't have cared at that moment.... And it was not the
money I wanted, Sonia, when I did it. It was not so much the money I wanted,
but something else.... I know it all now.... (C&P, 414).

He continues:

I wanted to find out something else; it was something else led me on. I wanted
to find out then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a
man. Whether I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up
 168

or not, whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right... (C&P,

414).

Though, Raskolnikov has not confessed his crime to Porfiry Petrovitch, the in
charge of the murder case, he suspects Raskolnnikov to be a murderer. He read
Raskolnikov’s article on crime which confirmed his suspicion. He was cross checking
Raskolnikov to know whether he is guilty of crime. During the conversation, Porifiry
presents his perspective on murderer’s motive for crime as,

This is a fantastic, gloomy business, a modern case, an incident of to-day

when the heart of man is troubled, when the phrase is quoted that blood
'renews,' when comfort is preached as the aim of life. Here we have bookish
dreams, a heart unhinged by theories. Here we see resolution in the first
stage, but resolution of a special kind: he resolved to do it like jumping over a
precipice or from a bell tower and his legs shook as he went to the crime. He
forgot to shut the door after him, and murdered two people for a theory. He
committed the murder and couldn't take the money, and what he did manage
to snatch up he hid under a stone. It wasn't enough for him to suffer agony
behind the door while they battered at the door and rung the bell, no, he had
to go to the empty lodging, half delirious, to recall the bell-ringing, he wanted
to feel the cold shiver over again.... Well, that we grant, was through illness,
but consider this: he is a murderer, but looks upon himself as an honest man,
despises others, poses as injured innocence (C&P, 450).

Svidrigailov, who also commits crime in the novel. Learnt through Raskolnikov
and Sonia’s conversation, that Raskolnikov is guilty of the murder. Svidrigailov uses
this fact of Raskolnikov’s crime to blackmail Dounia. So she will come to her.
Svidrigailov reveals to Dounia Raskolnikov’s motivation for crime:

It's a long story, Avdotya Romanovna. Here's... how shall I tell you?—A theory
of a sort, the same one by which I for instance consider that a single misdeed
is permissible if the principal aim is right, a solitary wrongdoing and hundreds
of good deeds! It's galling too, of course, for a young man of gifts and
overweening pride to know that if he had, for instance, a paltry three
thousand, his whole career, his whole future would be differently shaped and
 169

yet not to have that three thousand. Add to that, nervous irritability from
hunger, from lodging in a hole, from rags, from a vivid sense of the charm of
his social position and his sister's and mother's position too...(C&P, 485-486).

He adds:

A special little theory came in too—a theory of a sort—dividing mankind, you

see, into material and superior persons, that is persons to whom the law does
not apply owing to their superiority, who make laws for the rest of mankind,
the material, that is. It's all right as a theory, une théorie comme une autre.
Napoleon attracted him tremendously, that is, what affected him was that a
great many men of genius have not hesitated at wrongdoing, but have
overstepped the law without thinking about it. He seems to have fancied that
he was a genius too—that is, he was convinced of it for a time (C&P, 485-
486).

After Raskolnikov’s final confession to police, he is presented in the court for the
punishment. All speculates about his motive. The lawyers perceived his crime from
psychological viewpoint. As Dostoevsky in the epilogue writes:

Finally some of the lawyers more versed in psychology admitted that it was
possible he had really not looked into the purse, and so didn't know what was
in it when he hid it under the stone. But they immediately drew the deduction
that the crime could only have been committed through temporary mental
derangement, through homicidal mania, without object or the pursuit of gain.
This fell in with the most recent fashionable theory of temporary insanity, so
often applied in our days in criminal cases. Moreover Raskolnikov's
hypochondriacal condition was proved by many witnesses, by Dr. Zossimov,
his former fellow students, his landlady and her servant. All this pointed
strongly to the conclusion that Raskolnikov was not quite like an ordinary
murderer and robber, but that there was another element in the case.

At last, before the judge when asked about his crime, he answered firmly how he is
driven to crime and what lead him to confession. As Dostoevsky notes:
 170

To the decisive question as to what motive impelled him to the murder and the
robbery, he answered very clearly with the coarsest frankness that the cause
was his miserable position, his poverty and helplessness, and his desire to
provide for his first steps in life by the help of the three thousand roubles he
had reckoned on finding. He had been led to the murder through his shallow
and cowardly nature, exasperated moreover by privation and failure. To the
question what led him to confess, he answered that it was his heartfelt
repentance… (C&P, 528).

At last, we come to the point that Raskolnikov has no apparent motive for his crime.
His motives are not clear. He rationalizes his crime by altering his motives one after
another. On emphasizing a driving force behind Raskolnikov’s crime, Roger B.
Henkle points out:

His separation from ordinary life, his infatuation with intellectual theories of
the Superman, his arrogation of himself of a place above any morality, his
warped sense of human values- this gather strength in his troubled mind,
driving him to murder(92).

We find a contradiction and reversion in Raskolnikov’s motives of crime as

first, he indicated that he killed the old lady to help his family and use that money for
his education as well as for the good of the society. Later, he claimed that he
belonged to the extra ordinary man’s category that has the right to kill. However,
Raskolnikov at last denies believing in his own self imposed theories which drives
him earlier to commit crime. Dostoevsky presents Raskolnikov as tempted to crime
by various motives. Raskolnikov explicit different theories and try to justify his crime.
Mr. Leatherbarrow rightly remarks that, “Raskolnikov becomes criminal in search of
his own motive. He does not know in the end why he committed the crime, and
neither does the reader” (Qtd. in Mehar, 110).

Although, to help his family has been rationalized first for his crime by
Raskolnikov, the essential fact and the root cause of his temptation of crime lies in
his obsession with the extraordinary man theories and his conceiving himself to be a
superman who can overstep the moral authority. Mehar about Raskolnikov’s
temptation of crime writes:
 171

Clearly the belief in any such division of humanity must tempt the man of pride
into a harrowing dilemma of self-definition; and Raskolnikov is a man of
immense pride. Raskolnikov is seduced by his pride into longing for the status
of Superman (138).

3.7 Raskolnikov’s Article on “Crime”

Raskolnikov’s idealistic views found place in the article written by him on
crime. Here, we find a delineation of his concept of superman. His ideas have been
narrated in detail in his article which provides insight into what Raskolnikov actually
conceives of the notion of superman that drives him to assassination.

Raskolnikov, a former student of law in St. Petersburg University wrote this

article earlier which he didn’t remember. It published in the Periodical Leader. It was
Razumikhin who informs Raskolnikov about the publication of his aticle.
Raskolnikov develops his own theories in his article on crime which has been
discussed by him in the end of the third part of the novel. He discussed it with Porifiry
Petrovich and his friend Razumikhin. He explored his views on the ordinary and
extra ordinary people. He claims that humanity is classified into these two types. He
compares himself with the great personalities of his time and believes that like them,
he also has the right to kill if necessary in order to bring transformation. For
Raskolnikov, the law givers such as Lycurgus, Solon, Mohammed and Napoleon
surpass the moral authority for the destruction of the old and emergence of the new
law. As Liza Knapp in this context states:

Raskolnikov’s “extraordinary man” theory formalizes the Napoleonic complex

in the Russian context. What it means to be Napoleon was defined for
Russians by Pushkin in Eugene Onegin when he wrote:
[We deem all people zeroes
And ourselves units.
We all expect to be Napoleons;
The millions of two-legged creatures
For us are only tools; (Qtd. In Liza Knapp, 124).

Liza Knapp formulates that “Crime and Punishment explores the tragic
consequences of the Napoleonic tendency to regard other people as zeros”
 172

(124).Porfiry shows interest in Raskolnikov’s article on crime, as he read in the

article published by Raskolnikov, where he pays attention to Raskolnikov’s ideas on
crime. Raskolnikov’s article on Crime which is published in the Periodical Review
mentions: “There are certain persons who can....have a perfect right to commit
breaches of morality and crimes and that the law is not for them” (C&P,
259).Raskolnikov formulates that some great people with having right to kill are
excluded from moral laws. Porifiry says:

In his article all men are divided into 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary.' Ordinary
men have to live in submission, have no right to transgress the law, because,
don't 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 (C&P, 259).

Raskolnikov smiled at Porfiry’s remark. He is aware that why he is asking such

question and where Porifiry is driving him But, he took it as a challenge, and
elaborate his article. He replies that’s not he really meant to convey:

That wasn't quite my contention …The only difference is that I don't contend
that extraordinary people are always bound to commit breaches of morals, as
you call it. In fact, I doubt whether such an argument could be published. I
simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right... that is not an official
right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep... certain
obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfillment of his idea
(sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity) (C&P,260).

Further he wants to clarify to Porfiry what he intends to say:

I maintain that If the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been
made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred or
more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty
bound.... to eliminate the dozen or hundred men for the sake of making his
discoveries known to the whole of humanity...(C& P, 260).

Further he says;
 173

All...well, legislators and leaders of men, such as Lycurgus, Solon, Maomet,

Napolean and so on, were all without exception criminals, from the very fact
that making a new law, they transgressed the ancient one, handed down from
the ancestors and hells sacred by the people and they did not stop short
bloodshed either, if that bloodshed often of innocent persons fighting bravely
in defense of ancient law-were of use to their cause. It’s remarkable that the
majority, indeed, of these benefactors and leaders of humanity were guilty of
terrible carnage (C& P, 260).

He then elaborates that such great man has potential to create the new world
of their own; they contribute something new to society by destructing the old.

All great men or even men a little out of the common, that is to say capable of
giving some new word, must from their very nature be criminals-more or less
of course. Otherwise it’s hard for them to come out of the common rut; and to
remain in the common rut is what they can’t submit to it (C&P, 260-261).

He classifies people with the idea that a great man belong to that category
who brings the reformation in society with his new idea and the weak people belong
to the category of ordinary people who do nothing for the society, they have no
courage. They are cowardice people who cannot come out of conventions and
confines themselves in laws. He believes only the great and strong man can
transgress the law.

I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of
nature into two categories, inferior(ordinary) that is , so to say material that
serves only to reproduce of its kind, and a men who have the gift or a talent to
utter a new word (C&P,261).

He states:

The first category generally speaking is men conservative in temperament

and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my
thinking, it is their duty to be controlled, because that’s their vocation, and
there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all
transgresses the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction
according to their capacities. The crimes of these men are of course relative
 174

and varied; for the most part they seek in varied ways the destruction of the
present for the sake of the better. But if such a one is forced for the sake of
his idea to step over a corpse or wade through blood, he can...find himself in
conscience... (C&P, 261).

On replying to Porfiry’s question of how many are there who have the right to
kill?Raskolnikov replied; “People with new ideas, people with the faintest capacity to
say something new are extremely few in number....one in ten thousand perhaps... is
born with some independence and with still greater independence one in hundred
thousand” (C&P, 263).Raskolnikov’s comprehending extra ordinary man suggests
that he is carried over by this idea and thinks of himself to be such great man. Even
Porfiry ask Raskolnikov out of suspicion:
Well, you see... I really don't know how to express it properly.... It's a playful,
psychological idea.... When you were writing your article, surely you couldn't
have helped he-he! Fancying yourself... just a little, an 'extraordinary' man,
uttering a new word in your sense.... That's so, isn't it? (C&P, 265).

"Quite possibly," Raskolnikov answered contemptuously. (C& P, 265).Even

Razumihin notice this and asks him:"And, if so, could you bring yourself in
case of worldly difficulties and hardship or for some service to humanity—to
overstep obstacles?... For instance, to rob and murder? (C&P, 265).

Raskolnikov’s article on crime explores his own thoughts about crime.

Studies in Crime and Punishment claim that Raskolnikov was influenced by the
emerging radical and nihilistic theories formulated by the great philosophers of the
19th century. It seems young Raskolnikov derived some ideas from the philosophers
and great man like Napoleon, Newton, and formulated his own theory of crime. It is
his article which arouse suspicion in Porfiry‘s mind and he suspects Raskolnikov to
be a murderer.

3.8 Nietzschean Concept of Superman in Crime and Punishment

Both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche are considered great psychologist and

existentialist. They were keen observers of life. Though, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche
never met, we find a resemblance in their Ideas. Both believe in enlightening Human
 175

existence. Their life has similarity as both suffer from illness. Nietzsche called
Dostoevsky “The only Psychologist from whom I have anything to learn”
Raskolnikov’s ideologies cope with Nietzsche’s Ideologies in The novel Crime and
Punishment. Raskolnikov’s division of the ordinary and extra ordinary man
resembles Nietzsche’s pale criminal and Great criminal. His concept of extra
ordinary man who oversteps morality and who has the right to kill mirrors Nietzsche’s
concept of will to power.

According to Raskolnikov, such extra ordinary man are beyond the moral
authority and rise above the ordinary same as Nietzsche’s Superman rises above
the ordinary and who is born to bring change in the society. Both conceived such
great man as distinct Individuals. We find both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche have
changed the perception of looking at the criminal. They don’t view criminals as evil
doers; rather, they conceive of them as fully developed human beings with strong will
and in their craving for power they outlaw the moral values. They have moral
freedom. They depict the criminal as an individual in search of freedom. The only
difference lies in the last stage, that is, their belief in God. Dostoevsky believes in the
existence of God and the Nietzsche believes in the death of God. Here, they part
ways. Dostoevsky though provide his character, certain level of individual freedom in
the beginning, but in the end, bring him back to the Christianity. His character is
bound by Christian values. Dostoevsky believes in suffering, redemption and
resurrection, whereas, Nietzsche did not believe in Suffering and repentance. He
believes in Individual autonomy.

Raskolnikov fulfills the first stage of Nietzsche’s superman. He is driven by the

same motive, but he can’t successfully rich to the last stage, Nietzsche’s Superman
does not repent for his actions and is devoid of guilt. But Dostoevsky’s protagonist
does not contain such characteristics. They feel guilty and repent over their wrong
deed/sin. Dostoevsky believes in the regeneration of morality by embracing Christian
values and Nietzsche believes in the recreation of morality by an Individual
autonomy.

The other characters in the novel that fit in Nietzsche’s concept of superman
are Svidrigailov and Luzhin who believe only in self gratification they are devoid of
Morality. Their thoughts and actions are driven by their own self interests.
 176

Svidrigailov kills his wife but he didn’t repent over his action. Luzhin trapped Sonia
and accused her of stealing his money. He pretends to be a noble man helping a
poor girl Dounia and securing her and her family’s future, but in reality he is fulfilling
his own lust and his desire to control a poor girl, whom he can easily dominate. Both
Luzhin and Svidrigailov never regret their acts, that reflects Nietzschean Super
man.

The idea of “Superman” or “Great man” was prevalent during19th century in

Russia. The German philosopher Hegel and Nietzsche wrote on this topic during
1880s. Hegel demonstrated that Superman works for the betterment of the society.
Whereas, Nietzsche opines that a Superman aims for self enrichment. Such great
man aims to excel in this world of absurdity. We find the implication of this Idea by
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov rationalizes his crime with this
concept of Superman.

Crime and Punishment is a story of Raskolnikov, a young boy of twenty three.

His aspirations, aims and ideological thoughts are minutely captured by Dostoevsky.
Raskolnikov, a protagonist of the novel is dispelled from the university due to his
poverty. Raskolnikov has idealistic thoughts about himself. Dostoevsky narrates that
the influence of such ideas leads him to his self destruction. Raskolnikov believes
himself to be a superman who doesn't fear anyone.

All is in man’s hands and he lets it all slip from cowardice, that’s an axiom. It is
interesting to know what it is men are most afraid of. Taking a new step,
uttering a new word is what they fear most... (C&P, 2).

Raskolnikov is a poverty stricken student of university living in a small

compartment. He assumes himself to be an extraordinary man who has all the right
and power to destroy the evil for the welfare of mankind. It is under the influence of
such ideas he kills the old pawnbroker AIyona Ivanova and her half sister Lizaveta.
He falls ill instantaneously after committing the crime and remains in the state of
semi consciousness for several days. Raskolnikov mirrors Napoleons ideology. As
Napoleon bears Ubermensch theory. It can be seen in his confession to Sonya. He
worshipped Napoleon ideas: “I wanted to make myself a Napoleon” (C&P, 350).
Raskolnikov compares himself with Napoleon. Like him, he has the right to do
 177

anything. He thinks everything is permissible if it is done for the good of the society.
Affected by half knowledge of such ideals, he threw himself into the dark world of
crime. The Ubermensch theory expressed by Raskolnikov is central to the actions
that take place in the novel. Raskolnikov is full of pride. He considers himself to be
superior from others

There was a sort of haughty pride and reserve about him, as though he was
keeping something to himself. He seemed to some of his comrades to look
down upon them all as children, as though he were superior in development,
knowledge and convictions as though their beliefs and interests were beneath
him (C&P, 53-54).

Raskolnikov’s idealistic views and concept of superman found place in his

article on crime which is published in the Periodical reviews. Ubermensch is an
extraordinary human being with unique qualities and profound ideas. He is the ideal
for mankind that leads human beings into the world of a new morality. Raskolnikov
feels that he is above mankind, and his act of murder will benefit the mankind. An
article titled “19th Century Theories in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment”
mentions:

Raskolnikov justifications for his actions are relayed in his own Extraordinary
Man Theory, which states that there are two classifications of men in the
world: ordinary, and extraordinary. He wanted to prove that he was
extraordinary, that he could commit a crime as horrid as murder, but
because he did it for the betterment of society, he would feel no sympathy
or regret for his justified actions. In following Raskolnikov's theory, it
becomes apparent from where his conceptions originate. Though the whole
work encompasses the philosophies of all the nineteenth century theorists,
Raskolnikov's ideas spawn from that of Friedrich Nietzsche and Georg
Wilhelm Hegel.

In the writings of German philosopher Hegel, we find a general nature of the

Ubermensch. According to him, man exists for noble purposes, and any means of
person are justifiable, if ends are noble. Raskolnikov counterbalance his act by
applying this theory for his crime.
 178

I wanted to murder for my own sake, for myself alone! …I wanted to find out
then and quickly whether I was a louse like everybody else or a man. Whether
I can step over barriers or not, whether I dare stoop to pick up or not, whether
I am trembling creature or whether I have the right... (C&P, 414-415).

Many critics claim that Raskolnikov doesn’t fit in Nietzschean frame of

Superman. As he is defeated by his own conscience and his realization of being
unable to surpass moral laws make him pale. As Harold Bloom in his critical
interpretation on Crime and Punishment comments: “The hero’s only “Crime” is that
he imagined he was incapable of breaking the law, and his tragedy is the
impossibility of beginning a new and different life” (Qtd.in David Matual, 106).
According to Victor Terras, “Crime and Punishment is “The duel between
Raskolnikov’s godless Nietzschean Humanism and Sonia’s Orthodox faith is high
religious drama” (193). Terras views Raskolnikov as

A bundle of contradictions…the contradiction of Raskolnikov’s mind prior to

the crime may be reduced to a conflict between the normal emotions of an
intellectually alert but emotionally immature young man and a paranoid
obsession with an idea that leads to a compulsive crime. After he commits the
crime the struggle is between the criminal’s natural desire to evade detection
and the growing sense of isolation and alienation that results in a
subconscious desire to rejoin the human race by accepting the punishment for
his crime (204).

He further writes:

Raskolnikov develops his gloomy view of life, his denial of God’s existence
and his idea that power is the only good worth pursuing…he had developed
his idea of the exceptional individual and his right to transgress. He is
foundering in the sea of bitterness, self pity, and hurt pride. When he
confesses his crime to Sonia, he shows no remorse, only self-hatred and
despair … (204).

He continues:
 179

Raskolnikov is trying to analyze the motive of his crime and passes judgment
on himself in terms of a Darwinist Anthropology and anticipated Nietzschean
ethics:

“But, I only killed a louse, Sonia, a useless, repulsive, noxious louse!”- “So a
human being is a louse?”(C&P, 320).

I had to find out precisely, if I am a louse, like all, or a man? Found out if I can
cross the boundary or not? Found out if I dare reach for it and take it or not?
Found out if I am a trembling creature or have the right… To kill? You have
the right to kill? (C&P, 322).

Joseph Frank in his Introduction to Crime and Punishment refers The Italian novelist
Alberto Moravia who once said, in a rather sensational article called “The Marx
Dostoevsky Duel”:

Although [Raskolnikov] had not read Marx and regarded himself as a

superman beyond good and evil, he was already in embryo, a people’s
commissar; and in fact, the first people’s commissar came out in of that same
class of the intelligentsia to which Raskolnikov belonged, and possessed his
identical ideas-the same thirst for a social justice, the same terrible ideological
consistency, the same inflexibility in action. And Raskolnikov’s dilemma is
very same one that confronts the people’s commissars and Stalin: ‘Is it right
for the good of humanity to kill the old usurer? … (Frank, v).

Raskolnikov’s obsession with the idea of Napoleon as the Great man who has
all the right and power to do anything is the best illustration of Ubermensch spirit. As
Dostoevsky writes: “Mere existence had always been too little for him; he had always
wanted more. Perhaps it was just because of the strength of his desires that he had
thought himself a man to whom more was permissible than to others”( C&P,535-
536). It shows the strength of Raskolnikov’s will that he succeeds in pre-
Nietzschean Ideology as he could commit murder and theft, but he fails in Post-
Nietzschean Ideology of Superman that is essential in Ubermensch. He is an
extraordinary human being with unique qualities and profound ideas. He is the ideal
for mankind that leads human beings into the world of a new morality. But
Raskolnikov failed to be a superman as J.A.T. Liyod states: “But with no possibility
 180

could Nietzsche have accepted with sincerity the rebel Raskolnikov, at long last
repentant and subdued, as an incarnation of his own superman to be”(Qtd. In Mehar,
129).

It shows that Dostoevsky in the novel Crime and Punishment accentuates the
idea of extra ordinary man and his will to power; we also found the reflection of
Napoleon view in the character of Raskolnikov, when we find his obsession with
Napoleon thoughts and his believing himself to be a Napoleon. Dostoevsky
presented his character as influenced by such ideas. Joseph frank, in this context
states:

Napoleon as the incarnation of absolute, ruthless despotic power had long

haunted the Russian imagination, and Dostoevsky was familiar with many
literary sources, including his beloved Pushkin where Napoleon’s image is
used as a symbol of a will to power uncontrolled by moral considerations of
any kind (xv).

Moreover, we find the influence of Pisarev who is engaged with the branch of
radicalism. We found in Dostoevsky, the influence of Pisarev in the creation of
Raskolnikov character. As in one of his review of “Turgenev’s Fathers and Children”,

The character of Bazarov, according to Pisarev was the exemplar of the new
radical hero of the time… indeed, Pisarev elevated Bazarov, a radical Russian
intellectual of lowly birth, almost to the level of a Nietzschean Superman
standing beyond good and evil… “Does [Bazarov] recognize any regulator,
any moral law, any principle”...In addition, “nothing except personal test
prevents him from murdering or robbing…and crime is placed on exactly the
same footing as outstanding intellectual achievement or important
transformations of social life” (Qtd. In Frank, xvi-xvii).

We find a delineation of the above characteristics in Raskolnikov’s character

who considers himself beyond the moral law, and who commits crime to testify his
intellectual theory. Raskolnikov’s thoughts and actions reflect traits of Nietzschean
Superman. His article clearly presents Nietzsche’s Ubermensch theory and his
concept of an ideal man. Again we find Nietzschean spirit in the novel when
Raskolnikov tells Sonia:
 181

And I know now, Sonia that whoever is strong in mind and spirit will have
power over them. Anyone who is greatly daring is right in their eyes. He who
despises most things will be a lawgiver among them and he who dares most
of all will be most in the right! (C&P, 413).

Here, we find a glimpse of Nietzsche’s Will to Power in Raskolnikov. That he

express in his conversation with Sonia. His thoughts on Power mirror Nietzsche’s
Superman.

That power is only vouchsafed to the man who dares to stoop and pick it up.
There is only one thing, one thing needful: one has only to dare! Then for the
first time in my life an idea took shape in my mind which no one had ever
thought of before me, no one! I saw clear as daylight how strange it is that not
a single person living in this mad world has had the daring to go straight for it
all and send it flying to the devil! I... I wanted to have the daring... and I killed
her. I only wanted to have the daring, Sonia! That was the whole cause of it!
(C&P, 413).

Nietzsche also insists on daring. He believes that man should live life
dangerously. Again in the epilogue, we find a resemblance of Nietzschean Ideas.
Raskolnikov’s dream about future resembles Nietzsche’s call for a great man who
will come one day: Who will change the whole concept of morality and will reform the
society. As Dostoevsky notes in the novel:

He dreamt that the whole world was condemned to a terrible new strange
plague that had come to Europe from the depths of Asia. All were to be
destroyed except a very few chosen. Some new sorts of microbes were
attacking the bodies of men, but these microbes were endowed with
intelligence and will. Men attacked by them became at once mad and furious.
But never had men considered themselves so intellectual and so completely
in possession of the truth as these sufferers, never had they considered their
decisions, their scientific conclusions, and their moral convictions so infallible.
Whole villages, whole towns and peoples went mad from the infection. All
were excited and did not understand one another. Each thought that he alone
had the truth …...The most ordinary trades were abandoned, because
 182

everyone proposed his own ideas, his own improvements, and they could not
agree. The land too was abandoned. Men met in groups, agreed on
something, swore to keep together, but at once began on something quite
different from what they had proposed. ..All men and all things were involved
in destruction. The plague spread and moved further and further. Only a few
men could be saved in the whole world. They were a pure chosen people,
destined to found a new race and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but
no one had seen these men, no one had heard their words and their
voices(C&P, 538-539).

This dream indicates Raskolnikov still believes in the concept of great man
with new ideas. Raskolnikov’s this dream echoes Nietzsche’s dream of the rise of
the Superman. Mehar points out that Raskolnikov’s extra ordinary theory is based on
Hegel and Nietzsche’s notion of superman during 19th century. As he writes

In the nineteenth century, the extraordinary man theory was widely popular.
There were two main schools of thought on the subject, the proponents of
which were the philosophers George Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche. Both
philosophers believed that there were a certain, select, handful of
extraordinary people in the world. Both believed that these extra ordinary
people were above the laws of ordinary men and did not have to submit to
their moral code (136).

He further writes:

In a way, Raskolnikov submits to both theories of the extra ordinary man.

What is important to understand is why Raskolnikov believes himself to be
extra ordinary. Firstly, Raskolnikov‘s perilous financial state and near
destitution causes him to be pushed to the edge of insanity. Secondly, the
natural arrogance that stems from possessing a great intellect causes
Raskolnikov to believe that he is above anyone else. In respect to his crime,
one can look at him both Hegelian and Nietzschean point of views (136).

3.9 Raskolnikov’s Condition Post Crime

Raskolnikov’s crime leads him to psychic trauma. After committing the crime,
all the ideologies of Raskolnikov demolished and he got caught by his own terrible
 183

feelings and fall into both mental and physical illness. Pisarev in his critical essay on
Crime and Punishment remarks:

…After committing the murder, Raskolnikov conducts himself…like a petty

cowardly and weak-nerved imposter for whom a major crime turned out to be
beyond his strength (Qtd. A.D. Nuttall, 15).

Dostoevsky indicates “how he plans to resolve the action of the story” (Frank, x):

A month passes, no one suspects or can suspect him,” but “here is where the
entire psychological process of the crime is unfolded. Insoluble problems
confront the murderer, unsuspected and unexpected feelings torment his
heart. Heavenly truth, earthly law takes their toil and he finishes by being
forced to denounce himself (Frank, x).

This laid emphasis on the aspect that Raskolnikov failed in his test of applying
his ideologies that developed in his illusionary world. He realizes the real
consequence of crime after committing the murder. Raskolnikov, who earlier
believed himself to be an extra ordinary man and compares him with Napoleon,
confesses that he is not a Napoleon.

He experienced the aftermaths of crime and discards all the views developed
by him in his article on the Crime, the ideas in which he firmly believed in earlier, but
soon after committing two murders, all seems to him deceptive. It affects him badly.
He can’t be at peace after the realization and is tortured by his own fears. As Joseph
mentions that Dostoevsky’s notebooks contains a draft of his conception of the novel
which concentrates on,
The desperate anguish and intense loneliness- the sense of total alienation
from humanity- that the narrator experiences after his crime…the character
begins to express resentment, defiance, and rage as well as to experience
dejection and despair, and one has the impression that the character itself
grew beyond the boundaries of Dostoevsky’s initial idea. Once he began to
see his character as both rebellious and inwardly suffering, it was no longer
possible for Dostoevsky to keep him within the narrow confines on his original
plan (xiv).
 184

Raskolnikov has fallen to despair post crime. He becomes restless. Nothing

can give him peace. His family and friends also notice his pathetic condition. He
forgets many things, murmur to himself, and repeats the words many times. It shows
his disturbed mental state. All these torment his soul. After committing the crime, he
somehow felt that he can’t endure the criminal act. It tortures him. He wants to
come out of it. So, he confesses his crime to Sonia and later to Dounia. He accepted
before Dounia that he is not a superman and he has failed to be such man. And now
he feels ensnared. He feels he is not rewarded for his act and he is abused for that.

I wanted to do good to men and would have done hundreds, thousands of

good deeds to make up for that one piece of stupidity, not stupidity even,
simple clumsiness, for the idea by no means so stupid as it seems now that it
has failed ....By that stupidity I only wanted to put myself into an independent
position, to take the first step, to obtain means, and then everything would
have been smoothed over by benefits immeasurable in comparison...But I...I
couldn’t carry out even the first step, because I am contemptible, that’s what
the matter! ...If I had succeeded I should have been crowned with glory, but
now I’m trapped (C&P, 513).

This suggests how the character of Raskolnikov has been developed. First
Dostoevsky involves his character in the state of ideological thoughts and then left
him in the state of loneliness and intense suffering which ultimately lead him
towards confession and makes him realize the significance of moral values.
Dostoevsky chiefly intend to expose what happens when one breaches the moral
law? He adequately states the difference of imaging the ideological thoughts and the
actualization after keeping that idea into practice. He warns against the danger of the
implication of such ideas. Joseph Frank further comments Raskolnikov’s haunted
psyche: “Transpositions of such ideas run throughout Raskolnikov’s frenzied
soliloquies; and if we look anywhere for the origin of Raskolnikov’s fateful article on
Crime” (xvii). Joseph Frank notes:

Dostoevsky set himself the task of portraying this conflict in the form of a self-
awakening, the gradual discovery by Raskolnikov himself of the unholy
mixture of the incompatibles in his ideology. This is why Raskolnikov seems to
 185

have one motive for his crime at the beginning ( the desire to aid his family
and then devote himself to good deeds) and another when he makes his
famous confession to Sonia ( the desire to prove himself “ whether I can step
over barrios or not…whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the
right…(xviii).

Raskolnikov argues: “Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not
her! I crushed myself once for all, for ever... But it was the devil that killed the old
women not I” (C&P, 415).As Porifiry said to Raskolnikov, “You’ve ceased to believe
in your theory” (C&P, 455). To bring out the character from intense suffering,
Dostoevsky introduced the character of Sonia, daughter of Marmeladov, a drunkard
whom Raskolnikov met in the bar. She helps Raskolnikov in coming out of his
miserable condition after the commission of his crime. It is Sonya who leads him
towards confession of his crime and ultimately towards his atonement. But it is noted
by frank that, “His (Raskolnikov’s Surrender, however, is more an admission of
personal weakness than an abandonment of his ideas” (xxi). Which, we can find in
the epilogue,

He suddenly dreams of a world in which everyone becomes infected with the

virus of believing themselves to be “extraordinary people” whose remarkable
intelligence allows them absolute, uncontrolled authority; the result is
unending mutual slaughter and chaos, a literal realization of the Hobbes an
state of nature with its war of all against all. Only when Raskolnikov
imaginatively “finishes” his own convictions in this way does he allow himself
to envisage also accepting Sonia’s beliefs, though in truth, they have been
shown to be alive in his heart and soul all throughout the book (xxi).

Harold Bloom in this regard conveys that “Dostoevsky leads his reader
through the experience of idea in order to find truth. Raskolnikov’s intellectual
empowerment leads to murder…” (Bloom, 76).Harold Bloom points out that in the
works of Dostoevsky we find,

The exploration and rejection of Western Intellectualism throughout his

works…his expanded knowledge informed his works but only in the sense
 186

that it strengthened the experience of questioning and return to orthodox

believes that he provided his audience (79).

To support his claim, Bloom refers to Malcolm V. Jones in his essay on “Dostoevsky
and Religion” remarks: “One can see in Dostoevsky’s works a process of discovery-
or rediscovery- of Christian tradition in the face of its most deadly opponents” (Qtd.
In Bloom, 79). Bloom continues:

Dostoevsky takes on the most bitter opponent of his personal faith, atheism,
in such a way that his characters are led just to the brink of losing their faith
completely before God and Christian religion are redeemed, and so the
reader as well. One is not surprised to find that Ivan Karamazov and
Raskolnikov are redeemed from their western intellectualism and ultimately
returns to the Russian Orthodox Faith (80).

After Raskolnikov’s confession of crime, when Dounia questions: “Aren’t you half
expiating your crime by facing the suffering?" Raskolnikov then rationalizes his
crime: For him what he did is not crime. Even though he confessed his crime, he is
not guilty of killing the old woman. He thought that he is not getting his due for what
he did and mistreated by people.

Crime? What crime? he cried in sudden fury. That I killed a vile noxious
insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one! Killing her was
atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that
a crime? I am not thinking of it and I am not thinking of expiating it, and why
are you all rubbing it in on all sides? 'A crime! A crime!' Only now I see clearly
the imbecility of my cowardice, now that I have decided to face this
superfluous disgrace. It's simply because I am contemptible and have nothing
in me that I have decided to, perhaps too for my advantage…! (C&P, 513).

3.10 Morality in Crime and Punishment

Dostoevsky in the novel accentuates the moral and religious attributes of

crime. He believes that a criminal must agonize for the commitment of crime. He
should realize his act against god and humanity. He presents the character of
Raskolnikov as containing both good and evil. Raskolnikov’s double personality
 187

indicates moral ambiguity. Raskolnikov’s name implies two meanings. In Russia, The
word ‘Raskol’ means ‘schism’ or ‘split’. That means containing opposing qualities.
Raskolnikov has double personality. His character consists of both vice and virtue.
He wants to kill an old lady to prove himself as an extra ordinary man which is evil.
On the other hand, he wants to do many good things like he wants to save his family
from troubles; he wants to help Sonia and his family.

All through the first part, Dostoevsky carefully prepares the reader for
Raskolnikov’s final self-discovery. He indicates how whenever, Raskolnikov
falls under the sway of his “ideas”, his character becomes transformed from
one of human responsiveness and compassion to arrogant superciliousness,
contempt and indifference to the suffering of others (Frank, xix).

Thus, it suggests two different sides of Raskolnikov’s character. He scrambles

between the two. We find him scrambling throughout the novel to end his sufferings.
Raskolnikov’s character consists of contradictory thoughts and actions. Henkle in
this context remarks:

As people’s aspirations exceed their ability to realize them, and as ideas

come to be twisted out of shape by circumstances, novelists find it appropriate
to show major characters failing to live by their ideas. The contrast between
what one thinks one’s behavior dramatizes and what it actually does gives
rise to irony (94).

The reflection of above idea can be seen in Raskolnikov’s character who has
profound thoughts on his ideas of extra ordinary having right to kill; he imagined
himself to be such man who is above the ordinary and has right to breach the moral
laws. “Raskolnikov is a portrayal of man obsessed with certain ideas…Raskolnikov
believed himself to be above morality” (Henkle, 93).But, it’s only after the murder, he
actualizes the idea and finds consequences of his thoughts. He feels himself to be
an ordinary man who has no right to kill and that he cannot infringe the moral laws.

Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov wavers with uncertainty of thoughts and

feelings. He is anguished by his horrible dreams which ignite his guilt more. After
committing the crime, he produced one after another reasons to justify his act of
crime. His alienation and self imposed fears tortures him more. “Crime and
 188

Punishment takes the reader on a journey into the darkest recesses of the criminal
and depraved mind, and exposes the soul possessed by both good and evil… a man
who cannot escape his own conscience” ( Joseph Frank).

Sonia leads Raskolnikov towards the path of morality. After murder, we find
Raskolnikov‘s growing attachment with Sonia. It is only with Sonia, he can share his
guilt and confesses his crime. Because, he find a hope for salvation in Sonia due to
her spiritual nature and her belief in Christianity. Both Porfiry and Sonia are more
concerned about Raskolnikov’s suffering than to punish him. Henkel points out that
“Raskolnikov‘s fondness of the superman convinces himself that he can infringe the
law” (93).

Joseph frank observes that Dostoevsky’s works are characterized by

The moral implications of the philosophical doctrines of the radical

intelligentsia. The combination of and tension between, these two elements
gives Dostoevsky’s works both outstanding human depth and its intellectual
and philosophical stature…He (Dostoevsky) measured the possible
consequences of the radical ideology against those ineluctable human verities
of human nature whose existence had so strongly impressed itself upon him
in Siberia. And he did so by imaginatively projecting the realization of such
radical theories in action, dramatizing them with the incomparable gift for
psychological portatraiture that he had displayed from his very earliest work
(Frank, xiii).

Frank is of the view that all Dostoevsky’s experiences in Siberia and his being
part of the group of radical intelligentsia molded his works. His being saved from the
execution at the last moment, expanded his moral vision. Dostoevsky in his letter to
Katkov remarked how such radical ideas are influencing the young educated
students, as he writes:

Among us Russians, our poor little defenseless boys and girls , we still have
our own eternally present basic point on which socialism will long continued to
be founded , that is their enthusiasm for the good and their purity of heart.
There are countless rouges and scoundrels among them. But all these high
school peoples, these students whom I have seen so many have become
 189

Nihilists so purely, so unselfishly in the name of honor, truth and genuine

usefulness. You know they are helpless against these stupidities [radical
ideology] and take them for perfection (Frank, xviii).

Dostoevsky was concerned about the youth. He wants them to save form immoral
ways which lead to self destruction. He wants the youth to appreciate moral values.
We find a projection of above ideas in Raskolnikov‘s character.

This was the frame of mind in which Dostoevsky was working on this novel.
Whose aim, if we define it in the perspective of his period was to reveal to the
radicals themselves, the true implications of their deepest convictions and the
total contradiction between their moral- emotive sources and the doctrine by
which they were justified (Frank, xviii).

In the novel, Raskolnikov’s plan and commitment to crime, moreover, his

article on crime all are connected to the breach of moral laws. He suffers due to
surpassing the moral boundaries. But after the murder, his moral conscience awakes
and he is afflicted by his conscience. Frank notes:

The whole point of the novel is to reveal this inner dialectic: the impossibility
of combining the feelings that compel Raskolnikov to conceive of himself as a
benefactor of humanity with those required to put into practice the idea that he
can blithely disregard the moral law. Raskolnikov fails to realize his ambition
of entering the ranks of “Napoleons” precisely because he cannot totally
surpass the workings of his moral conscience- a conscience that has become
so grotesquely twisted by the radical ideology of the 1860s that it can justify
murder (xix).

Dostoevsky in the novel narrates such radical thoughts and the moral
dilemmas emerged as a consequence, as Frank claims,

If Dostoevsky’s novels raise such “eternal” questions, it also grasps them in a

form that is both peculiarly modern and remarkably contemporary. As the
percipient, Porfiry tells Raskolnikov, “this is a fantastic, gloomy business, a
modern case, an incident of today when the heart of man is troubled…here
we have bookish dreams, a heart unhinged by theories.”…or as another ex –
 190

radical, Wordsworth, had written somewhat earlier in The Prelude about

French Revolution:

“This was the time, when all things tending fast

To depravation, speculative schemes-

That promised to abstract the hopes of Man

Out of his feelings, to be fixed henceforth

For ever in a pure element-

Found ready welcome. Tempting region that

For Zeal to enter and refresh herself,

Where passions had the privilege to work,

And never hear the sound of their own names.(Qtd.in Frank,xxii)

Frank refers to Wordsworth’s poem to show that Wordsworth’s last two lines
“Penetrate to the core of Crime and Punishment and define in advance exactly what
Raskolnikov will discover about himself” (xxiii). Frank emphasizes that the radical
ideas focused on providing benefits to humanity by eradicating the evil through
violence is never accepted. But during that period, people infused with these ideas
that justify their criminal motives. It has been pointed out by the critics that his novel
provides no real solution to this problem. Frank remarks:

Dostoevsky’s aim was not to add still another solution to those already in
existence. It was rather to insist that any solution would turn out to be
inhuman and morally unendurable if it lost sight of values of compassion and
love that inspire Sonia- the values that, because they continue to remain alive
in one part of Raskolnikov’s sensibility, enable her to rescue him as well
(xxiii).

Harold Bloom examining the character of Raskolnikov proves a point that

Raskolnikov’s Pride and his sense of Supremacy leads to his moral degradation. He
writes:
 191

Raskolnikov is the powerful representation of the will demonized by its own

strength… Raskolnikov’s pride begins to seem too satanic for tragedy
…Power for Raskolnikov can be defined as the ability to kill someone else,
anyone at all, rather than oneself (Harold Bloom, 2).

Bloom again points out that after murder, his pride vanishes and he actualizes his
inaptitude. This realization directs him to confession:

Raskolnikov in the end, realizes that he cannot attend transcendental freedom

that he is after all no better than a louse…Raskolnikov is trapped in his own
endlessly rationalizing consciousness. All the time, both in prospect and
retrospect, he is constructing his own life as a story, and the whole point
about the freedom that he desires is that it must not be constructed in this
way… Raskolnikov reverted to Christian values, not because the other path is
intrinsically impassable, but, simply, because he personally lacked the
strength to follow it (Bloom, 9).

We find in Crime and Punishment that Morality has psychological implications.

That shows Raskolnikov’s double personality. As in the novel, the concept of
morality alters and develops with Raskolnikov’s double personality. His inner self, his
noble heart that is kind and helpful, he is ready to help the needy that can be seen
in his helping the Marmeladov family and the stranger girl, as well as Razumikhin
claiming Raskolnikov helps the old man , his hospitality towards that man. All these
indicate good and moral side of Raskolnikov. That fulfills the concept of morality that
it is moral to help the needy. While on the other hand, his intellect, influenced by the
ideologies that justify murder, giving one right to kill is devoid of any moral values
and claims moral autonomy. We find a conflict between his head and his heart, i.e.,
between his noble soul and his intellect. First inclines to follow moral authority and
the later seeks moral freedom. His conscience leads him to the path of morality and
his rational thoughts lead him to immoral path. In this context, S.S. Mehar
comments:

Reason and conscience clash; conscience generates pity, reason breeds

ambition and pride besides self -interest; unfortunately in Raskolnikov these
diverse elements do not co-ordinate or reach a harmonious whole. The irony
 192

of the paradox is that Raskolnikov himself does not know why he committed
the murder? What was his real motive? (111).

Mehar comments:

The utilitarian principle undoubtedly remains a major aspect of Raskolnikov’s

crime in the finished novel as it stands. One wonders if he tried to jump onto
the category (self- propounded) of ‘extraordinary’ man. Clearly, such
hypotheses (of dividing entire human race into ordinary and extra ordinary),
must perforce tempt the man of pride to step into a harrowing dilemma of
self-definition and Raskolnikov is a man of immense pride.(111).

He further writes:

Does he murder the old widows with the conviction that as a superman (or
extraordinary man) he has the right to overstep the conventional morality
.These are the doubts which rattle his mind much later or even faster- his
need for self definition is so acute that he oscillates wildly between satanic
pride and abject humility, between unbounded admiration for the strong ones
who can dare and limitless pity for the weak. This aspect of his character and
behavior is explained by Razumikhin to his mother and sister: it is as if there
are two opposing personalities in him, each taking a turn for supremacy. (111)

Ben Florman and Justin Kestler in their study on Crime and Punishment
points out that the novel deals with the theme of crime and morality. Dostoevsky is
concerned more with the aftermaths of crime. And guilt and suffering are centralized
in most of his novels. They mention:

Criminality, morality, and guilt are central preoccupations of Dostoevsky’s.

Raskolnikov commits the great crime of the novel: he robs and murders
the pawnbroker and her sister Lizaveta, an innocent bystander. Raskolnikov
must come to terms with his feeling, or lack of feeling, of remorse for the act,
and his motive is never fully resolved. He argues that the pawnbroker did no
good for society and therefore her death is of no consequence; he also
admits, later, to not understanding why he has killed.
 193

They then point out that his conception of extraordinary men leads him to break the
moral law.

It is revealed that, as a law student, Raskolnikov has written a magazine

article claiming that “extraordinary” individuals might “overstep” the law—
commit crimes—in order to create new laws and a new social order. He cites
Napoleon and Muhammad as great “over steppers.” Raskolnikov comes to
recognize that, although he has acted believing himself to be an extraordinary
individual, his remorse and subsequent mental instability prove he is ordinary
after all. This, more than anything, convinces him to confess his guilt to the
authorities. He is sentenced to eight years’ hard labor in Siberia, where Sonya
joins him. Thus, even as Raskolnikov attempts his moral rehabilitation in
Siberia, Petersburg remains a city of crime and temptation.

After meeting Sonya, Raskolnikov determines to confess his crime. As Sonya

leads him to the path of suffering. Hearing the story of Lazarus from Sonya, he
ultimately confesses the murder. Raskolnikov confessed: “It was I killed the old
pawnbroker woman and her sister Lizaveta with an axe and robbed them” (C&P,
526). Joseph Frank in this regard comments:

What impels him to do so is the “feeling of isolation and separation from

mankind which he felt right after completing the crime,” and which has
continued to torture him. Finally, the criminal himself decides to accept
suffering in order to atone for his deed (Frank, x).

After the confession, Raskolnikov is sentenced eight years of imprisonment in

Siberia. It is here, with the help of Sonya, he gradually attained salvation. By leading
Raskolnikov to confession, Dostoevsky wants him to suffer because he believes that
through suffering, man can be redeemed from all his sins or wrong doings.

Raskolnikov aspires to become an extra ordinary man, but he fails to create

his own domain of morality. Soon after the murder, Raskolnikov realized his
blemished ideology and embraces moral values as he feels that without a moral
authority the world will be destroyed. For Raskolnikov, life becomes too painful for
examination in reality. In the end, Raskolnikov is redeemed from intellectualism and
finally returns to the conventional Russian faith in Christianity. Sonya redeemed
 194

Raskolnikov from his ideologies and directs him to the path of Christianity. Thomas
Rachel in this context points out: “It is with Sonya that he reads the story of Lazarus,
an experience through which he is reborn from his Ubermensch personality into one
of Christian humility. In this rebirth, he leaves behind the intellectual pursuits that first
inspired him to sin” (80).

Raskolnikov’s repentance leads one to moral lessons and growth. Dostoevsky

in crime and Punishment discarded the views of western intellectualism and
liberation by failing Raskolnikov in his action and shows that Christianity is the only
way towards atonement. George Welsh rightly comments that Dostoevsky preaches
morality in this novel:

His message is simple: We all suffer. None of us is superior to anyone else;

we achieve superiority only by serving others- as Sonya serves her family, as
she cares for Raskolnikov’s fellow prisoners; and only by loving others better
than we love ourselves- as Sonya loves Raskolnikov…Dostoevsky’s message
to his own time and to the modern world in which he has had such influence:
be humble, there is moral regeneration possible through suffering; understand
that God is infinitely merciful, merciful beyond our comprehension, that only
Sonya- only the action of love- is what allows us to live our lives fully. When
one considers the horror that the alternative message has caused, it is
obvious that Dostoevsky’s message is profound and eternal, one that still
reverberates in modern consciousness (186).

We find that Dostoevsky’s conception of morality is connected to the notion of

suffering as He believes that through suffering leads to regeneration of morality.
Sonia leads him to this path. As After Raskolnikov’s rationalizing his crime, she
instructs him:

Go at once, this very minute, stand at the cross-roads, bow down, first kiss
the earth which you have defiled and then bow down to all the world and say
to all men aloud, 'I am a murderer!' Then God will send you life again…"Suffer
and expiate your sin by it, that's what you must do” (C& P, 415).

Both Sonia and Porifiry Petrovich persuade Raskolnikov to confession. Both

aim not to punish him but to end Raskolnikov’s sufferings. As In the Conversation
 195

between Porifiri Petrovich and Raskolnikov, we find How Petrovich is leading

Raskolnikov to confess his crime and indicates that his punishment will be
diminished. We can see that in the following conversation:

I swear before God that I will so arrange that your confession shall come as a
complete surprise. We will make a clean sweep of all these psychological
points, of a suspicion against you, so that your crime will appear to have been
something like an aberration, for in truth it was an aberration(C& P, 453).

Porifiry not seems to be just an inspector; he looks like a saint, a preacher,

who teaches Raskolnikov a philosophy of life. He wants to guard Raskolnikov
against his destruction. He directs him to the path of morality that will give him peace
as he explains to Raskolnikov:

"You have a great deal of it still before you. How can you say you don't want a

Mitigation of sentence? You are an impatient fellow!"

"A great deal of what lies before me?"

"Of life. What sort of prophet are you, do you know much about it? Seek and
ye

shall find. This may be God's means for bringing you to Him. And it's not for

ever, the bondage...."

You shouldn't be afraid of giving yourself up and confessing."

How long has your life been? How much do you understand? You made up a
theory and then were ashamed that it broke down and turned out to be not at
all original! It turned out something base, that's true, but you are not
hopelessly base. By no means so base! At least you didn't deceive yourself
for long; you went straight to the furthest point at one bound. How do I regard
you? I regard you as one of those men who would stand and smile at their
torturer while he cuts their entrails out, if only they have found faith or God.
 196

Find it and you will live. You have long needed a change of air. Suffering, too,
is a good thing. Suffer! Maybe Nikolay is right in wanting to suffer (C& P, 454).

Again, Porifiry insists on the strong belief in God and persuades Raskolnikov
towards the same. We find the exposition of moral values in his speech:

I only believe that you have long life before you... It's as well that you only
killed the old woman. If you'd invented another theory you might perhaps have
done something a thousand times more hideous. You ought to thank God,
perhaps. How do you know? Perhaps God is saving you for something. But
keep a good heart and have less fear! Are you afraid of the great expiation
before you? No, it would be shameful to be afraid of it. Since you have taken
such a step, you must harden your heart. There is justice in it. You must fulfill
the demands of justice(C& P, 455).

Crime and Punishment not only mentions crime and criminal. It portrays moral
values as well. It suggests one how to lead a good life and be moral. That we find
When Petrovich said: “Be the sun and all will see you. The sun has before all to be
the sun… you can judge for yourself, I think, how far I am a base sort of man and
how far I am honest” (C& P, 455).We notice how Petrovich is preparing Raskolnikov
gradually for confession and suffering:

You’ve ceased to believe in your theory already, what will you run away with?
And what would you do in hiding? It would be hateful and difficult for you, and
what you need more than anything in life is a definite position, an atmosphere
to suit you. And what sort of atmosphere would you have? If you ran away,
you'd come back to yourself. You can't get on without us. And if I put you in
prison—say you've been there a month, or two, or three—remember my word,
you'll confess of yourself and perhaps to your own surprise. You won't know
an hour beforehand that you are coming with a confession. I am convinced
that you will decide, 'to take your suffering.' You don't believe my words now,
but you'll come to it of yourself. For suffering, Rodion Romanovitch, is a great
thing. ..There’s an idea in suffering…No, you won't run away, Rodion
Romanovitch"(C&P, 456).
 197

Raskolnikov finally reached to the police station and confessed before Ilya
Petrovich:"It was I killed the old pawnbroker woman and her sister Lizaveta with an
axe and robbed them." (C&P, 526) Victor Terras remarks: “Dostoevsky has taken
his hero to the depths of abjection only in order to lead him thereafter to faith and
salvation” (109).On Raskolnikov’s concept of Suffering, that constitutes morality,
Rachel Thomas comments: “Dostoevsky makes his character suffer “only in a
sense that it strengthened the experience of questioning and returning to orthodox
belief” (Rachel, Thomas, 79).Dostoevsky shows Raskolnikov’s gradual
transformation in the epilogue.

In the novel, Dostoevsky mentions that Raskolnikov overheard a conversation

among the university students. This intensifies his will to kill the old lady. Dostoevsky
might have derived this idea from the prevalent theories of that time which was
driving the youth to crime. By showing the consequences of crime, Dostoevsky
wants to warn the youth against such self destruction and guide them to the path of
Christian love and morality that purifies a human soul. Dostoevsky at once present
two contradictory thoughts; first he shows Raskolnikov’s radical thoughts and denial
of god and later, shows his belief in God. At once, he is leading his character to
moral autonomy and then to Christian morality. It is contradictory. It is because, as
many critics points out Dostoevsky wants to educate people about the danger of
applying such theories through the character of Raskolnikov.

Dostoevsky ignites Morality in Raskolnikov’s character through the

psychological twists in his personality. It’s only due to his fear of being alienated from
the mankind and feeling of despair that leads him to confess his crime and to
embrace the Christian moral values. Raskolnikov’s inclination to morality changes
with his uncertain, unsure thoughts. What is moral to him in the beginning becomes
immoral to him in the end. Earlier, he insists on moral freedom, but in the end, he
confines himself to moral laws. The novel Crime and Punishment questions whether
an act of murder by Raskolnikov is justified by his own invented/ self imposed
theories on moral grounds? Although, he has his own justifications and
rationalizations of killing the old woman. But for Dostoevsky, some acts are not
permitted and are universally immoral. He wants his characters to cling to the
 198

Christian values and pass through suffering and salvation which purifies the soul.
Stem George on Dostoevsky’s moral perspective comments:

The Moral world of Dostoevsky is dominated by precepts which are basic to

Christian Philosophy deepened by Christian mysticism. Man should, in all
humility and of his free will, abandon himself to God. Born a sinner, he will
suffer because of his sins, but suffering will lead to his moral purification. He
should therefore accept suffering as an inevitable part of his life. There can be
no salvation for him if he relies on his own resources, by placing himself
outside of God. Any effort to assert himself in his own right, as an
independent creator rather than a creature, is doomed to dismal failure.
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment becomes redeemable only after he
awakens to the great meaning of his tribulations and accepts them with joy
and gratitude (15).

Dostoevsky opines that punishment is not necessary as an individual’s conscience

leads him to the moral path. Dostoevsky firmly believe in the existence of God. He
views that when a person denies god’s existence, and believes himself above the
authority, he leads himself to destruction. He opines that Faith in God sanctifies
human soul. Dostoevsky insists on human conscience. For him, there is no need of
legalized punishment for the crime, because the inner voice stirs a person. It denies
reasoning or logic. It follows the soul of a person and leads to atonement. Contrary
to rationalists, Dostoevsky believes in the existence of God and he does not portray
a death of god, rather a degradation of moral values in the godless world. So, it
demands a faith in Christian love and morality. He denies the supremacy of humans
over the divine power. This according to him destroys an individual’s life and he lost
faith in himself in this world without God. So, he emphasized that love and faith in
God brings happiness in life. He dictates an individual’s resurrection and spiritual
transformation through suffering. Dostoevsky’s final consideration is that despite
degradation and downfalls, an individual can survive through hope. Dostoevsky in
the epilogue narrates Raskolnikov as reading a new copy of the New Testament and
it is
The beginning of a new story, the story of the gradual renewal of a man of his
gradual regeneration or his slow progress from one world to another....He did
not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would
 199

have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering
(C&P, 542).

Dostoevsky did not conceive criminal as an evil person. He believed in human

freedom but he opines that God is the author of freedom. He enforced regeneration
of morality. For him, criminals are also human beings and they need to realize their
crime. According to him, God loves and forgives his child. An individual’s belief in
God resurrects him. Dostoevsky can see the reflection of holiness and sacredness
even in the criminal. For him, every one once in their life oversteps moral laws and
this conveys human freedom and free will. But, he is more attentive in the restoration
of man after moral degradation. He intends to purify human soul.

Through the actions of the protagonist, the author shows the results of moral
dilemma and anguish. He emphasizes on the free will of people and their right to do
what they want, thereby laying the foundation of existentialism. Perverted egoism
and moral empathy flow intertwined through the novel. Such nihilistic and utilitarian
ideas distort the mind of the protagonist to the extent of committing murder of
innocent woman. Joseph Frank comments: Dostoevsky determinedly wished to
maintain his stress on the moral struggle taking place in Raskolnikov’s
consciousness…” (Frank, xiv). So, we can ascertain that, “Crime and Punishment,
arose from Dostoevsky’s effort to dramatize the moral dangers that he sensed
lurking in the ideology of Russian Nihilism- dangers not so much for society as a
whole” (Frank, xviii).Dostoevsky seeks moral regeneration of the society from highly
individualistic philosophy yielding to higher justice.
 200

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail: “The Idea in Dostoevsky’s Works”. Bloom’s Bio Critiques: Fyodor
Dostoevsky. Ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers,
2005.113-138. Print.

Ben Florman and Justin Kestler. LitCharts Editors. "LitChart on Crime and
Punishment."LitCharts.com. 14 Aug 2015. Web. 18 March. 2015.
<http://www.litcharts.com/lit/crime-and-punishment/themes>

Bloom, Harold, ed. Viva Modern Critical Interpretations: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime
and Punishment. New York: Viva Books, 2010. Print.

Dostoevsky. Brainy Quotes.com. n.p. n.d. Web.14 March 2014.

<http://www.brainyquote.com/search_results.html?q=man+is+a+mystery>

Frank, Joseph. Introduction. Crime and Punishment. By Fyodor Dostoevsky. Trans.

Constance Garnett. New York: Bantam classics, 1866. V-xxiii.Print.

Harriet Murav. “Crime and Punishment: Psychology on Trial”. Ed.Harold Bloom .Viva
Modern Critical Interpretation: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment”.
New York: Viva Books, 2010.87-104.Print.

Heims, Neil. “Biography of Fyodor Dostoevsky” .Bloom’s Bio Critiques: Fyodor

Dostoevsky. Ed. Harold Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2005.
5-58. Print.

Henkle, Rojar, B. Reading the Novel. New York: Harpers and Raw Publishers, Inc.,
1977. Print.

Matual, David. “In Defense of the Epilogue of Crime and Punishment” .Ed.Harold
Bloom.Viva Modern Critical Interpretation: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and
Punishment. New York: Viva Books, 2010.105-114.Print.
 201

Mehar, Sujit. Fyodor Dostoevsky Crime and Punishment. New Delhi: Rama Brothers
India PVT. Ltd., 2010. Print.

Nietzsche, Frederic. Wikipedia. n.p., n.d. Web.24Jan.2015.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich-Nietzsche

Nuttall, A.D. “The Intellectual Problem II” .Ed.Harold Bloom. Viva Modern Critical
Interpretation: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. New York: Viva
Books, 2010. 5-30.Print.

Strem, George G. “The Moral World of Dostoevsky”. Russian Review 16. 3 (Jul.
1957): 15-26. Web. 24 April.2015.
<http://voldingenglish.com/Resources/ap%20lit/Dostoevsky/Moral%20World%20of%
20Dostoevsky.pdf>

Terras, Victor. “The Art of Crime and Punishment”. Ed.Harold Bloom.Viva Modern
Critical Interpretation: Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. New York:
Viva Books, 2010.193-214.Print.

Thomas, Rachel. “Ideas Imbued and the Exploration of Experience: The Works of
Fyodor Dostoevsky”: Bloom’s Bio Critiques: Fyodor Dostoevsky. Ed. Harold
Bloom. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 2005. 59-82. Print.

Walsh, George.51 Great Books You Should Have Read. Delhi: Orient Paperbacks,
2008. Print.

“19th Century Theories in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment”. 123 Helpme.com.

n.p., n.d. Web. 16 Feb.2015.
<http://www.123helpme.com/assets/16079.html>