The novel “Crime and Punishment” was written and published by F. M. Dostoevsky in 1866, that is, soon after the abolition of serfdom and the beginning of a change in the socio-economic system. Such a breakdown of social and economic foundations entails an inevitable economic stratification, that is, the enrichment of some at the expense of the impoverishment of others, the liberation of human individuality from cultural traditions, legends and authorities. And as a result, crime.
Dostoevsky in his book denounces bourgeois society, which gives rise to everything
The types of evil are not only those that immediately catch the eye, but also those vices that lurk in the depths of the human subconscious.
The main character of the novel is Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, in the recent past a student at St. Petersburg University found himself on the brink of poverty and social decline. He has nothing to pay for his accommodation, his wardrobe is so worn out that even a decent person would be ashamed to go out on the street in it. You often have to go hungry. Then he decides to commit murder and justify himself with a theory about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people that he himself invented.
Drawing the pitiful and wretched world of the St. Petersburg slums,
The writer traces step by step how a terrible theory arises in the hero’s mind, how it takes possession of all his thoughts, pushing him to murder.
1. The essence of Raskolnikov’s theory
Raskolnikov’s theory is far from an accidental phenomenon. Throughout the 19th century, debates continued in Russian literature about the role of a strong personality in history and its moral character. This problem became most discussed in society after the defeat of Napoleon. The problem of a strong personality is inseparable from the Napoleonic idea. “It would never have occurred to Napoleon,” Raskolnikov claims, “to be tormented by the question of whether it was possible to kill the old woman; he would have killed him without any hesitation.”
Possessing a sophisticated analytical mind and painful pride. Raskolnikov quite naturally thinks about which half he himself belongs to. Of course, he wants to think that he is a strong person who, according to his theory, has the moral right to commit a crime in order to achieve a humane goal.
What is this goal? The physical destruction of the exploiters, to whom Rodion counts the evil old money-lender who profited from human suffering. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing an old woman and using her wealth to help poor, needy people.
These thoughts of Raskolnikov coincide with the ideas of revolutionary democracy popular in the 60s, but in the hero’s theory they are intricately intertwined with the philosophy of individualism, which allows for “blood according to conscience”, a violation of moral norms accepted by the majority of people. According to the hero, historical progress is impossible without sacrifice, suffering, blood and is carried out by the powers that be, great historical figures. This means that Raskolnikov simultaneously dreams of both the role of a ruler and the mission of a savior. But Christian, selfless love for people is incompatible with violence and contempt for them.
The main character believes that all people from birth, according to the law of nature, are divided into two categories: “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to break the law. And extraordinary people have the right to commit crimes and break the law. This theory is very cynical in terms of all the moral principles that have evolved over many centuries with the development of society, but Raskolnikov finds examples for his theory.
For example, this is the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, whom Raskolnikov considers “extraordinary” because Napoleon killed many people during his life, but his conscience did not torment him, as Raskolnikov believes. Raskolnikov himself, retelling his article to Porfiry Petrovich, noted that “an extraordinary person has the right... to allow his conscience to step over... other obstacles, and only if the fulfillment of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) requires it.” .
According to Raskolnikov’s theory, the first category includes conservative, decorous people, they live in obedience and love to be obedient. Raskolnikov claims “that they must be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them here.” The second category is breaking the law. The crimes of these people are relative and varied; they can “step over even a corpse, through blood” to achieve their goals.
Conclusion: having created his theory, Raskolnikov hoped that his conscience would reconcile with his intention to kill a person, that after committing a terrible crime it would not torment him, pester him, exhaust his soul, but as it turned out, Raskolnikov himself doomed himself to torment, having failed to cope with his in kind.
2. The collapse of the theory of “ordinary” and “extraordinary”
Raskolnikov's theory is based on the inequality of people, on the chosenness of some and the humiliation of others. And the murder of the old woman is intended as a vital test of this theory using a particular example. This way of depicting the murder very clearly reveals the author’s position: the crime that Raskolnikov committed is a low, vile deed, even from the point of view of Raskolnikov himself. But he did it consciously, stepping over his human nature, through himself.
With his crime, Raskolnikov excluded himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admitted to Sonya Marmeladova. This detachment from people prevents Raskolnikov from living. His human nature does not accept this. It turns out that a person cannot live without communicating with people, even such a proud person as Raskolnikov. Therefore, the hero’s mental struggle becomes more intense and desperate, it goes in many directions, and each one leads him to a dead end.
Raskolnikov still believes in the infallibility of his idea and despises himself for his weakness and mediocrity, and at the same time calls himself a scoundrel. He suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister, thinking about them as painfully as he thinks about the murder of Lizaveta. And he drives away his thoughts, because they haunt him and require him to resolve the question of what category to include close people according to his theory. According to the logic of his theory, they should be classified as a “lower” category, and, therefore, the ax of another Raskolnikov may fall on their heads, and on the heads of Sonya, Polechka, Katerina Ivanovna. Raskolnikov must, according to his theory, give up those for whom he suffers. Must despise, hate, kill those he loves. He can't survive this.
Raskolnikov's human nature clashed most sharply with his inhuman theory here, but the theory won. And therefore Dostoevsky, as it were, comes to the aid of the human nature of his hero. Immediately after this monologue, he introduces Raskolnikov's third dream: he again kills the old woman, and she laughs at him. A dream in which the author brings Raskolnikov's crime to the people's court. This scene reveals the full horror of Raskolnikov's act.
When Raskolnikov's torment reaches its climax, he opens up to Sonya Marmeladova, confessing his crime to her. Why exactly to her, an unfamiliar, nondescript girl with no brilliant intelligence, who also belongs to the most pitiful and despised category of people? Probably because Rodion saw her as an ally in crime. After all, she also kills herself as a person, but she does it for the sake of her unhappy, starving family, denying herself even suicide. This means that Sonya is stronger than Raskolnikov, stronger with her Christian love for people and her readiness for self-sacrifice. In addition, she controls her own life, not someone else's. It is Sonya who finally refutes Raskolnikov’s theorized view of the world around him. After all, Sonechka is by no means a humble victim of circumstances and not a “trembling creature.” In terrible, seemingly hopeless circumstances, she managed to remain a pure and highly moral person, striving to do good to people.
Conclusion: Dostoevsky does not show the final moral resurrection of his hero, because that is not what his novel is about. The writer wanted to show what power an idea can have over a person and how terrible and criminal this idea can be. The hero's idea of the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life has defeated theory.
Thus, Raskolnikov’s theory was unable to provide society with a path to its transformation. By dividing people into two categories, Raskolnikov, on the contrary, pushed back his restructuring. After all, “ordinary” people also want to improve the life of society, just like “extraordinary” ones, but in the same way. Raskolnikov considered himself a strong personality, capable of committing crimes for the good of society and not subject to torment of his conscience. “He lied incomparably, but he couldn’t calculate the truth” - this phrase from Porfiry Petrovich completely convinces the reader that Raskolnikov’s theory was fundamentally wrong, he destroyed it even while testing his theory, killing her sister along with the old woman Lizaveta, whom he himself wanted to make happy. Indeed, Raskolnikov considered that he could cope with his own and would not suffer for the rest of his life for the murder he committed.
Dostoevsky argues that the only way to transform society is through Christian love and self-sacrifice.
(No ratings yet)
The novel “Crime and Punishment,” written in 1866, is dedicated to a topic that F. M. Dostoevsky had been thinking about for a long time. In his mind, the problem of crime was associated with the egoistic self-affirmation of an individual capable of rejecting moral laws. Dostoevsky, himself a deeply moral and humane man, could not ignore various manifestations of cruelty and inhumanity. He was also concerned about the global problem of permissiveness, which arose thanks to people who considered themselves to be a special category of the chosen ones (for example, for a certain historical mission). The writer reflected his thoughts in the novel “Crime and Punishment,” where the main character invents his own theory about “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people.
Rodion Raskolnikov commits murder, calling his actions “blood according to conscience,” which was supposed to confirm his personal right to superiority over “trembling creatures.” But it turned out that this idea had “weak sides” and therefore did not bring the desired results.
How could such a theory mature in a person’s mind, why did it arise from the student Raskolnikov? Dostoevsky shows Rodion's path to crime, then guides the hero through the torment of conscience, when there is a desire to open his soul (a kind of repentance) to the person whose compassion he does not doubt. And Raskolnikov tells Sonya Marmeladova how his theory matured in him, explaining the peculiarities of the psychological state of that period for many reasons, including social and living conditions. Rodion was annoyed by his rented cramped closet, a closet room for which there was nothing to pay. There was no money for food, clothes and shoes became unusable, which became a reason to quit studying. It was possible to earn extra money by teaching lessons, “they gave me fifty dollars,” but Rodion suddenly became withdrawn, stopped leaving the house, lay there and thought relentlessly. Later he tells Sonya: “I got angry... then, like a spider, I hid in my hole...”. And low ceilings, a cramped room cramp the soul and mind. And I had strange dreams...
During a conversation with investigator Porfiry Petrovich, Rodion explains to him some provisions of his article, published two months before the murder of Alena Ivanovna: “I... hinted that “an extraordinary person has the right to allow his conscience to step over... obstacles if the idea is fulfilled.” (sometimes saving, perhaps for all humanity) will require it.” And he cites as an example the actions of historical figures, including Napoleon. But Raskolnikov superficially imagined all the “accomplishments” of the idol, and therefore does not mention how the people for whose sake the “great” deeds were performed related to these “deeds”. For example, Napoleon considered himself the savior of humanity “from barbarism and despotism”; he thought that he was bringing liberation from autocracy and serfdom to Russia. At the same time, he did not care how many people he deprived of shelter, bread, life, how many children were orphaned, how many soldiers became disabled without arms or legs. And he made French soldiers the “tool” for promoting his ideas, many of whom did not return home, where their mothers and wives were waiting. Later, Napoleon would be called a criminal, but many young people were carried away by Napoleonic plans and ideas. Raskolnikov is one of them.
Rodion believed that “extraordinary” people can go through crimes; they should not be stopped by blood if things are done for the sake of progress. Such figures think that they will “say a new word.” And Raskolnikov was sure that destructive force can be useful if it is used in the name of the best. In this case, a person “within himself, in conscience, can give himself permission to step over the blood.” Therefore, Raskolnikov spoke with admiration about Napoleon: “No, those people are not made like that; a real ruler, to whom everything is permitted, destroys Toulon, carries out massacres in Paris, forgets the army in Egypt, spends half a million people on the Moscow campaign...”
Regarding himself, after the murder of the old woman, Rodion comes to a merciless verdict: he himself is not a great person, just like his business, that is, he cannot belong to the “extraordinary” ones, “those with the right.” “I’m not a person, I killed a principle!” And he calls himself an “aesthetic louse” for his inability to step over blood easily and calmly, without tormented by thoughts, without feeling any calls of conscience to repentance. The theory turned out to be unacceptable for Rodion himself, not only because of the “innocently shed blood” (he was forced to kill the pawnbroker’s sister).
Raskolnikov, in his own conviction and in accordance with the words of the student (another victim of the greedy “pawnbroker”), decided that the old woman Alena Ivanovna’s guilt was great before people, and therefore she had no right to life. Lizaveta, in his opinion, did not have such guilt before anyone, and Rodion did not intend to kill her, so he considers her an innocent victim. At that time, Raskolnikov did not yet realize the blasphemy of such conclusions; after all, he imagined himself to be a “strong personality” who had the right to solve many problems of society.
Yes, he feels sorry for Lizaveta: she was mocked and humiliated by her sister, for whom Lizaveta was a dumb animal, a workhorse. But Rodion felt sorry for such “horses”, but he had to step through this blood: there are always losses and sacrifices in the movement for the better, he thought.
However, the main thing that led Raskolnikov to deny his own theory was precisely the inability to come to terms with the need for sacrifices on the path to justice, which is why he had to reject the idea of the right to kill for the sake of good intentions.
All the torment and remorse indicate that Raskolnikov cannot transgress the moral and Christian laws. Rodion comes to such conclusions not only through his own reflections, but also thanks to Sonya Marmeladova, who helped him turn to the faith of Christ and Christian morality.
After mental anguish, after conversations with Sonya about Christian commandments, about the need for repentance, Raskolnikov admits the fallacy of his theory and comes to faith, turns to God.
Raskolnikov did not destroy the moral core in himself, so he still had hope for spiritual repentance and revival to a full life after punishment, after hard labor. This is the great merit of F.M. Dostoevsky, as a writer who provided people with the story of the spiritual quest of a man who went through a difficult path to recognizing the absurdity of the theory of “blood according to conscience.”
ONE PERSON'S OPINION that I can't agree with.
Dear readers, I decided to move the debate on this topic with one of the authors here (from reviews), as a continuation. There are two reasons:
1) all comments “pop up” on the previous reviewer’s page, which he may not like;
2) I want to warn schoolchildren about how important it is to be literate and vigilant, because some “propagandists” or demagogues will try to mislead young people.
Statements by S.Zh. I had to delete it because I don’t think it’s necessary to post his “oddities” and that “mess” where everything is mixed up on my page. Otherwise, someone else will want to place here (as if especially for young readers), for example, quotes from Hitler’s book or some slogans.
The essence of S.Zh.’s thoughts I am retelling it so that readers know how intensified the struggle for the minds and hearts of the younger generation is in our time.
S. Zh. claims that the theories of “Napoleons” have a right to exist, since there were and will be strong individuals who allow themselves to kill others. He perhaps confuses aggressive, inhumane goals with self-defense and the struggle for the liberation of his native land from invaders, that is, with the forced killing of soldiers of enemy armies. He even equates the activities of Hitler and Stalin, because both were leaders and both went to the obvious loss of human lives. S.Zh. does not want to clarify that Stalin did not intend to start a war, seize anyone’s territories and destroy people, using torture, atrocities, burning and shooting even children and women. The army of the Soviet Union suffered huge losses, trying to prevent the enemy from entering the interior of the country, because the war was unexpected and with a well-prepared enemy.
S.Zh. He also does not mention the Nuremberg trials, where Hitler’s theory, like fascism in general, was condemned. Why would S.Zh. not write your complaints to those who brought the murderers to justice through a legal court? After all, Hitler, the head of state, “had the right” to act in the interests of Germany, as he understood it. But citizens of many countries did not agree with this. Yes, and Napoleon was tried for crimes, because the army, the people of his country, and not just citizens of other states, were put to death by this “great” figure forever. And many more people call them criminals than support them. But THANKS also to DEMAGOGES, and not just to the principled supporters of Hitler or Bandera, many followers of fascism have now appeared.
It’s a pity that some people’s love of demagoguery turns them into opponents of humanistic ideals. But Russian classics and the best writers, poets from all over the world write about the need to educate a Person who is ALIEN to the PSYCHOLOGY OF KILLERS.
In my opinion, J. DOESN’T WANT to admit that reasonable humanity clearly considers “Napoleonic” theories to be harmful; this is also written in the Christian commandments (thou shalt not kill), which is why Dostoevsky’s hero was able to realize his criminal mistake. However, the Nazis, American and NATO politicians did not give up on exterminating people.
It is strange that for some reason they are not condemned by S.Zh., who recalls Machiavelli and the eternity of his “fair” theory of the state, power and rulers. Although Dostoevsky did not talk about this, and my article talks about the erroneous idea of an ordinary person who, in the end, recognized the criminality of the theory of the right to kill. That’s why I have a different goal, and not the one imposed by S.Zh.
Teachers would like to instill the best human qualities in their students, and parents also want to raise their children to be intelligent people.
I expected that S.Zh. will stop repeating about the eternity of different theories, but he did not even admit that “everything flows, everything changes.” But I think this: the teachings of different philosophers need to be studied in order to draw conclusions, and then the world should move towards perfection, but not towards degradation and degeneration.
Humanity (most of it) wants to STOP crimes, and not throw up their hands: “...what can you do, the world works like that!” It is necessary not to multiply harmful philosophies, but to change the psychology of murderers and all kinds of “supermen”. I am a teacher, and I am concerned about how schoolchildren and students feel about murder. Unscrupulous people with various criminal theories cannot be allowed into this area. Napoleon also assured that he was bringing civilization to Russia. For those who saw the death of soldiers and civilians, whose loved ones died, for all humanists the criminals are Napoleon, Hitler and the modern rulers of America and Ukraine, pointing murderous weapons at ordinary people.
Children and schoolchildren understand F. M. Dostoevsky’s work “Crime and Punishment” much more adequately and correctly than some adults. S.Zh. handed down an unequivocal verdict to Raskolnikov: “If you can’t, don’t try it...”. But he did not condemn his theory and his crime! He even concluded that Raskolnikov’s idea stems from important and correct historical works.
I remain of the opinion that statesmen should not achieve their goals through blood, through murder, not to mention ordinary citizens. The exception is repelling an enemy attack, defending one’s territory, home and life.
Reviews
Hello Zoya. I found it on your page about Raskolnikov after watching
on the Internet of the series "Crime and Punishment" 2007 and after watching
program “I Don’t Believe” on the “Spas” channel with the participation of journalist V. Pozner as an atheist and opponent. V. Posner said that the Bible is full of contradictions: for example,
for the sake of saving the “chosen people” other nations, innocents, are sacrificed
children. And an Orthodox priest, and not an ordinary one, but Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, according to
I realized that the Lord had no other choice. Only the "chosen people" could
to preserve divine teaching undistorted and true. Therefore they were sacrificed
other nations were sacrificed, but this sacrifice is necessary, inevitable and justified.
This can be found on the Internet. What do you think of the reasoning of the priest who spoke?
Lord's lawyer? Moreover, he added something about dualism, about good and evil.
I come to the conclusion that reasoning often leads to the wrong result. And the soul
Rodion really turned out to be a “Christian”.
Sincerely. Elena.
The famous classic work by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” is the story of a student who decided to commit a terrible crime. In the novel, the author touches on many social, psychological and philosophical issues that are relevant to modern society. Raskolnikov's theory has been manifesting itself for decades.
What is Raskolnikov's theory?
The main character, as a result of lengthy deliberation, came to the conclusion that people are divided into two groups. The first includes individuals who can do whatever they want without paying attention to the law. To the second group he included people without rights, whose lives can be neglected. This is the main essence of Raskolnikov’s theory, which is also relevant for modern society. Many people consider themselves superior to others, breaking laws and doing whatever they want. An example is the majors.
Initially, the main character of the work perceived his own theory as a joke, but the more he thought about it, the more real the assumptions seemed. As a result, he divided all the people around him into categories and evaluated them only according to his own criteria. Psychologists have already proven that a person can convince himself of various things by thinking about them regularly. Raskolnikov's theory is a manifestation of extreme individualism.
Reasons for creating Raskolnikov's theory
Not only literature lovers, but also specialists in various fields carefully studied Dostoevsky’s work in order to highlight the social and philosophical origins of Raskolnikov’s theory.
- The moral reasons that prompted the hero to commit a crime include the desire to understand what category of people he belongs to and pain for the humiliated poor.
- There are other reasons for the emergence of Raskolnikov’s theory: extreme poverty, the concept of injustice in life and the loss of one’s own guidelines.
How did Raskolnikov come to his theory?
The main character himself throughout the novel tries to understand what caused the terrible act. Raskolnikov's theory confirms that in order for the majority to live happily, the minority must be destroyed. As a result of lengthy reflection and consideration of various situations, Rodion came to the conclusion that he belongs to the highest category of people. Literature lovers put forward several motives that prompted him to commit the crime:
- influence of the environment and people;
- desire to become great;
- desire to get money;
- dislike for the harmful and useless old woman;
- desire to test one's own theory.
What does Raskolnikov's theory bring to the disadvantaged?
The author of Crime and Punishment wanted in his book to convey suffering and pain for all humanity. Almost every page of this novel shows poverty and the harshness of people. In fact, the novel, published in 1866, has much in common with modern society, which is increasingly showing its indifference to its fellow man. Rodion Raskolnikov’s theory confirms the existence of disadvantaged people who do not have a chance for a decent life, and the so-called “leaders of life” with big wallets.
What is the contradiction in Raskolnikov’s theory?
The image of the main character consists of only inconsistencies that can be traced throughout the entire work. Raskolnikov is a sensitive person who is not alien to the grief of those around him, and he wants to help those in need, but Rodion understands that he is not able to change the way of life. At the same time, he proposes a theory that completely contradicts.
When figuring out what is wrong with Raskolnikov’s theory for the hero himself, it is worth noting the fact that he expected that it would help him get out of the impasse and start living in a new way. At the same time, the hero achieved the exact opposite result, and he finds himself in an even more hopeless situation. Rodion loved people, but after the murder of the old woman, he simply cannot be around them, this even applies to his mother. All these contradictions show the imperfection of the put forward theory.
What is the danger of Raskolnikov's theory?
If we assume that the idea put forward by Dostoevsky through the thoughts of the protagonist has become large-scale, then the result for society and the world as a whole is very deplorable. The meaning of Raskolnikov’s theory is that people who are superior to others by some criteria, for example, financial capabilities, can “clear” the road for their own good by doing whatever they want, including committing murder. If many people lived according to this principle, then the world would simply cease to exist; sooner or later, the so-called “competitors” would destroy each other.
Throughout the novel, Rodion experiences moral torment, which often takes on different forms. Raskolnikov's theory is dangerous because the hero is trying in every possible way to convince himself that his action was correct, since he wanted to help his family, but he did not want anything for himself. A huge number of people commit crimes thinking this way, which in no way justifies their decision.
Pros and cons of Raskolnikov's theory
At first it may seem that the idea of dividing society does not have any positive aspects, but if you sweep aside all the bad consequences, then there is still a plus - a person’s desire to be happy. Raskolnikov's theory of the right of a strong personality shows that many strive for a better life and are the engine of progress. As for the disadvantages, there are more of them, and they matter to people who share the ideas of the main character of the novel.
- The desire to divide everyone into two classes, which can have dire consequences, for example, such ideas are identical to Nazism. All people are different, but they are equal before God, so striving to become superior to others is wrong.
- Another danger that Raskolnikov’s theory brings to the world is the use of any means in life. Unfortunately, many people in the modern world live by the principle “the ends justify the means,” which leads to dire consequences.
What prevented Raskolnikov from living according to his theory?
The whole problem is that while creating the “ideal picture” in his head, Rodion did not take into account the peculiarities of real life. You can't make the world a better place by killing another person, no matter who he was. The essence of Raskolnikov’s theory is clear, but what was not taken into account was that the old pawnbroker was only the initial link in the chain of injustice and, by removing it, it is impossible to cope with all the world’s problems. People who try to profit from the misfortunes of others are not correctly called the root of the problem, since they are only a consequence.
Facts confirming Raskolnikov's theory
In the world you can find a huge number of examples where the idea proposed by the main character of the novel was applied. You can remember Stalin and Hitler, who sought to cleanse the people of unworthy people, and what the actions of these people led to. Confirmation of Raskolnikov’s theory can be seen in the behavior of rich youth, the so-called “majors”, who, without paying attention to the laws, ruined the lives of many people. The main character himself commits murder to confirm his idea, but in the end he understands the horror of the act.
Raskolnikov's theory and its collapse
A strange theory not only appears in the work, but is also completely refuted. To change his decision, Rodion has to endure a lot of mental and physical torment. Raskolnikov's theory and its collapse occurs after he has a dream where people destroy each other and the world disappears. Then he begins to gradually restore faith in goodness. As a result, he understands that everyone, regardless of their situation, deserves to be happy.
When figuring out how Raskolnikov’s theory is refuted, it is worth citing as an example one simple truth - happiness cannot be built on crime. Violence, even if it can be justified by some high ideals, is evil. The hero himself admits that he did not kill the old woman, but destroyed himself. The collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory was visible at the very beginning of its proposal, since the manifestation of inhumanity could not be justified.
Is Raskolnikov's theory still alive today?
No matter how sad it may sound, the idea of dividing people into classes exists. Modern life is tough and the principle of “survival of the fittest” forces many to do things that are not consistent with their lives. If you conduct a survey of who lives today according to Raskolnikov’s theory, then each person will most likely be able to cite as an example some personalities from his environment. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs is the importance of money, which rules the world.
Through the “fair” distribution of goods, it arose in the atmosphere characteristic of that period. On the one hand, there are honest, decent people, turned by extreme poverty into “trembling creatures”; on the other, there is a useless, but very rich “louse”, sucking the blood of those same honest people. Moreover, new, completely unformed, often devoid of the foundations of morality and spirituality, ideas add fuel to the fire.
To emphasize the (apparent) correctness of Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky deliberately scatters pictures of grief and poverty throughout the novel, thereby enhancing the painful feeling of hopelessness. The last straw that overflowed the cup of patience and led to the fact that Raskolnikov’s theory moved from the stage of abstract reflection to the stage of practical implementation was Marmeladov’s confession and a letter from his mother. The moment has come to materialize the idea long nurtured by the hero in his wretched closet: this is blood according to conscience, which selected persons (including him) are allowed to shed.
Raskolnikov's theory was both dependent and in contradiction with the then popular positivist theories of G. Spencer, D. S. Mill, N. G. Chernyshevsky. They all relied on economic benefits and material comforts, prosperity.
Dostoevsky believed that consciousness, constantly filled with such categories, loses the need for Christian virtues, for high spirituality. His hero tries to connect both sides. He dreamed that a person would show egocentrism within reasonable limits, and that he would not become a slave to modern economic relations, would not become too immersed in his own
Raskolnikov's theory, implemented in practice, revealed to the hero himself the paradoxical juxtaposition in his soul of love for people and contempt for them. He considers himself a chosen one who has the right (and even must) kill in order to benefit not only himself, but all of humanity. And here he suddenly realizes that he is attracted by power for its own sake, by the desire to dominate others.
In order to somehow justify his hard-won ideas, Raskolnikov gives the example of some legislators who were not stopped even by blood. However, their actions do not seem meaningful and salutary; on the contrary, they amaze with senseless destruction for the sake of something better. Such a course of Rodion’s thoughts does not ennoble his ideas, as he wanted, but only exposes them and leads to the same assessment that Porfiry Petrovich gave to everything that was happening. He defined the criminal as an individual who deifies himself while belittling the personalities of others and encroaching on their lives.
Raskolnikov's absurd theory and its collapse are seen by Dostoevsky as a natural event. He showed how the nebulosity of the salvation and beneficence of a new idea, its uncertainty can serve as a kind of psychological curtain that can lull even a person’s conscience in order to destroy and blur the boundaries between the concepts of good and evil.
Raskolnikov's theory and its collapse also have a historical side. It shows how ambiguous certain historical innovations can be, how the law of “I” can be inversely proportional to prudence and good morals.
The author does not describe the spiritual rebirth of the main character in the same detail as his spiritual ordeals, however, he outlines the contours. Raskolnikov gradually realizes the essence of his idea, its disastrousness, its real meaning. He experiences the strongest and is ready to repent, ready from now on to be guided in his life only by the commandments of the Gospel. According to Dostoevsky, only sacrificial, giving love is capable of restoring the human form in a hero, and not abstract love for all humanity, but concrete love for a specific neighbor. For Raskolnikov, such salvation is the compassionate love between him and
Sample essay text
Crime and Punishment is an ideological novel in which non-human theory collides with human feelings. Dostoevsky, a great expert on human psychology, a sensitive and attentive artist, tried to understand modern reality, to determine the extent of the influence of the ideas of revolutionary reorganization of life and individualistic theories that were popular at that time on a person. Entering into polemics with democrats and socialists, the writer sought to show in his novel how the delusion of fragile minds leads to murder, shedding of blood, maiming and breaking young lives.
The main idea of the novel is revealed in the image of Rodion Raskolnikov, a poor student, an intelligent and gifted person who does not have the opportunity to continue his education at the university, eking out a miserable, unworthy existence. Drawing the pitiful and wretched world of the St. Petersburg slums, the writer traces step by step how a terrible theory arises in the hero’s mind, how it takes possession of all his thoughts, pushing him to murder.
This means that Raskolnikov’s ideas were generated by abnormal, humiliating living conditions. In addition, the post-reform disruption destroyed the centuries-old foundations of society, depriving human individuality of connection with the long-standing cultural traditions of society and historical memory. The person’s personality was thus freed from any moral principles and prohibitions, especially since Raskolnikov sees a violation of universal moral norms at every step. It is impossible to feed a family with honest work, so the petty official Marmeladov finally becomes an alcoholic, and his daughter Sonechka goes to work, because otherwise her family will die of starvation. If unbearable living conditions push a person to violate moral principles, then these principles are nonsense, that is, they can be ignored. Raskolnikov comes to approximately this conclusion when a theory is born in his fevered brain, according to which he divides all of humanity into two unequal parts. On the one hand, these are strong personalities, “super-men” like Mohammed and Napoleon, and on the other, a gray, faceless and submissive crowd, which the hero rewards with the contemptuous name - “trembling creature” and “anthill”.
Possessing a sophisticated analytical mind and painful pride. Raskolnikov quite naturally thinks about which half he himself belongs to. Of course, he wants to think that he is a strong person who, according to his theory, has the moral right to commit a crime in order to achieve a humane goal. What is this goal? The physical destruction of the exploiters, to whom Rodion counts the evil old money-lender who profited from human suffering. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with killing a worthless old woman and using her wealth to help poor, needy people. These thoughts of Raskolnikov coincide with the ideas of revolutionary democracy popular in the 60s, but in the hero’s theory they are intricately intertwined with the philosophy of individualism, which allows for “blood according to conscience”, a violation of moral norms accepted by the majority of people. According to the hero, historical progress is impossible without sacrifice, suffering, blood and is carried out by the powers that be, great historical figures. This means that Raskolnikov simultaneously dreams of both the role of a ruler and the mission of a savior. But Christian, selfless love for people is incompatible with violence and contempt for them.
The correctness of any theory must be confirmed by practice. And Rodion Raskolnikov conceives and carries out a murder, removing the moral prohibition from himself. What does the test show? What conclusions does it lead to for the hero and the reader? Already at the moment of murder, the mathematically precise plan is significantly violated. Raskolnikov kills not only the pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna, as planned, but also her sister Lizaveta. Why? After all, the old woman’s sister was a meek, harmless woman, a downtrodden and humiliated creature who herself needed help and protection. The answer is simple: Rodion kills Lizaveta no longer for ideological reasons, but as an unwanted witness to his crime. In addition, the description of this episode contains a very important detail: when Alena Ivanovna’s visitors, suspecting something was wrong, try to open the locked door. Raskolnikov stands with his ax raised, apparently in order to destroy all those who burst into the room. In general, after his crime, Raskolnikov begins to see murder as the only way to fight or defend himself. His life after the murder turns into real hell.
Dostoevsky explores in detail the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the hero. Raskolnikov is gripped by a feeling of fear, the danger of exposure. He loses control of himself, collapsing in the police station, suffering from nervous fever. A painful suspicion develops in Rodion, which gradually turns into a feeling of loneliness and isolation from everyone. The writer finds a surprisingly accurate expression characterizing Raskolnikov’s internal state: he “as if he had cut himself off from everyone and everything with scissors.” It would seem that there is no evidence against him, the criminal showed up. You can use the money stolen from the old woman to help people. But they remain in a secluded place. Something prevents Raskolnikov from using them and moving on in peace. This, of course, is not repentance for what he has done, not pity for Lizaveta, whom he killed. No. He tried to overcome his nature, but could not, because bloodshed and murder are alien to a normal person. The crime separated him from people, and a person, even as secretive and proud as Raskolnikov, cannot live without communication. But, despite the suffering and torment, he is by no means disappointed in his cruel, inhuman theory. On the contrary, she continues to dominate his mind. He is disappointed only in himself, believing that he did not pass the test of being a ruler, which means, alas, he belongs to the “trembling creature.”
When Raskolnikov's torment reaches its climax, he opens up to Sonya Marmeladova, confessing his crime to her. Why exactly to her, an unfamiliar, nondescript girl with no brilliant intelligence, who also belongs to the most pitiful and despised category of people? Probably because Rodion saw her as an ally in crime. After all, she also kills herself as a person, but she does it for the sake of her unhappy, starving family, denying herself even suicide. This means that Sonya is stronger than Raskolnikov, stronger with her Christian love for people and her readiness for self-sacrifice. In addition, she controls her own life, not someone else's. It is Sonya who finally refutes Raskolnikov’s theorized view of the world around him. After all, Sonechka is by no means a humble victim of circumstances and not a “trembling creature.” In terrible, seemingly hopeless circumstances, she managed to remain a pure and highly moral person, striving to do good to people. Thus, according to Dostoevsky, only Christian love and self-sacrifice are the only way to transform society.
