CHAPTER 1

INTODUCTION

Crime and Punishment is a novel by the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky. Born in
Moscow in 1821, Dostoevsky was introduced to literature at an early age through fairy tales
and legends, and through books by Russian and foreign authors. His mother died in 1837
when he was 15, and around the same time, he left school to enter the Nikolayev Military
Engineering Institute. After graduating, he worked as an engineer and briefly enjoyed a lavish
lifestyle, translating books to earn extra money. In the mid-1840s he wrote his first novel,
Poor Folk, which gained him entry into Saint Petersburg's literary circles. Arrested in 1849
for belonging to a literary group that discussed banned books critical of Tsarist Russia, he
was sentenced to death but the sentence was commuted at the last moment. He spent four
years in a Siberian prison camp, followed by six years of compulsory military service in
exile. In the following years, Dostoevsky worked as a journalist, publishing and editing
several magazines of his own and later A Writer's Diary, a collection of his writings. He
began to travel around western Europe and developed a gambling addiction, which led to
financial hardship. For a time, he had to beg for money, but he eventually became one of the
most widely read and highly regarded Russian writers.

It was first published in the literary journal The Russian Messenger in twelve
monthly installments during 1866. It was later published in a single volume. It is the second
of Dostoevsky's full-length novels following his return from ten years of exile in Siberia.
Crime and Punishment is considered the first great novel of his "mature" period of writing.
The novel is often cited as one of the supreme achievements in world literature.Crime and
Punishment follows the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Raskolnikov, an
impoverished ex-student in Saint Petersburg who plans to kill an unscrupulous pawnbroker,
an old woman who stores money and valuable objects in her flat. He theorises that with the
money he could liberate himself from poverty and go on to perform great deeds, and seeks to
convince himself that certain crimes are justifiable if they are committed in order to remove
obstacles to the higher goals of 'extraordinary' men. Once the deed is done, however, he finds
himself racked with confusion, paranoia, and disgust. His theoretical justifications lose all
their power as he struggles with guilt and horror and confronts both the internal and external
consequences of his deed.
 Dostoevsky conceived the idea of Crime and Punishment in the summer of 1865. He
had been working on another project at the time entitled The Drunkards, which was to deal
with "the present question of drunkenness in all its ramifications, especially the picture of a
family and the bringing up of children in these circumstances, etc., etc." This theme,
centering on the story of the Marmeladov family, became ancillary to the story of
Raskolnikov and his crime.

At the time Dostoevsky owed large sums of money to creditors and was trying to help
the family of his brother Mikhail, who had died in early 1864. After appeals elsewhere failed,
Dostoevsky turned as a last resort to the publisher Mikhail Katkov and sought an advance on
a proposed contribution. He offered his story or novella (at the time he was not thinking of a
novel) for publication in Katkov's monthly journal The Russian Messenger—a prestigious
publication of its kind, and the outlet for both Ivan Turgenev and Leo Tolstoy. Dostoevsky,
having been engaged in polemical debates with Katkov in the early 1860s, had never
published anything in its pages before. In a letter to Katkov written in September 1865,
Dostoevsky explained to him that the work was to be about a young man who yields to
"certain strange, 'unfinished' ideas, yet floating in the air". He planned to explore the moral
and psychological dangers of the ideology of "radicalism", and felt that the project would
appeal to the conservative Katkov. In letters written in November 1865 an important
conceptual change occurred: the "story" had become a "novel". From then on, Crime and
Punishment is referred to as a novel.

In the complete edition of Dostoevsky's writings published in the Soviet Union, the
editors reassembled the writer's notebooks for Crime and Punishment in a sequence roughly
corresponding to the various stages of composition.[citation needed] As a result, there exists
a fragmentary working draft of the novella, as initially conceived, as well as two other
versions of the text. These have been distinguished as the Wiesbaden edition, the Petersburg
edition, and the final plan, involving the shift from a first-person narrator to Dostoevsky's
innovative use of third-person narrative to achieve first-person narrative perspectives.
Dostoevsky initially considered four first-person plans: a memoir written by Raskolnikov, his
confession recorded eight days after the murder, his diary begun five days after the murder,
and a mixed form in which the first half was in the form of a memoir, and the second half in
the form of a diary. The Wiesbaden edition concentrates entirely on the moral and
psychological reactions of the narrator after the murder. It coincides roughly with the story
that Dostoevsky described in his letter to Katkov and, written in the form of a diary or
journal, corresponds to what eventually became part 2 of the finished work.

Why Dostoevsky abandoned his initial version remains a matter of speculation.

According to Joseph Frank, "one possibility is that his protagonist began to develop beyond
the boundaries in which he had first been conceived". The notebooks indicate that
Dostoevsky became aware of the emergence of new aspects of Raskolnikov's character as the
plot developed, and he structured the novel in conformity with this "metamorphosis". The
final version of Crime and Punishment came into being only when, in November 1865,
Dostoevsky decided to recast his novel in the third person. This shift was the culmination of a
long struggle, present through all the early stages of composition. Once having decided,
Dostoevsky began to rewrite from scratch and was able to easily integrate sections of the
early manuscript into the final text. Frank says that he did not, as he told Wrangel, burn
everything he had written earlier.

Dostoevsky was under great pressure to finish Crime and Punishment on time, as he
was simultaneously contracted to finish The Gambler for Stellovsky, who had imposed
extremely harsh conditions. Anna Snitkina, a stenographer who later became Dostoevsky's
wife, was of great help to him during this difficult task. The first part of Crime and
Punishment appeared in the January 1866 issue of The Russian Messenger, and the last one
was published in December 1866.

Dostoevsky's letter to Katkov reveals his immediate inspiration, to which he remained

faithful even after his original plan evolved into a much more ambitious creation: a desire to
counteract what he regarded as nefarious consequences arising from the doctrines of Russian
nihilism. In the novel, Dostoevsky pinpointed the dangers of both utilitarianism and
rationalism, the main ideas of which inspired the radicals, continuing a fierce criticism he had
already started with his Notes from Underground. Dostoevsky utilized the characters,
dialogue and narrative in Crime and Punishment to articulate an argument against
Westernizing ideas. He thus attacked a peculiar Russian blend of French utopian socialism
and Benthamite utilitarianism, which had developed under revolutionary thinkers such as
Nikolai Chernyshevsky and became known as rational egoism. The radicals refused to
recognize themselves in the novel's pages, since Dostoevsky pursued nihilistic ideas to their
most extreme consequences. Dimitri Pisarev ridiculed the notion that Raskolnikov's ideas
could be identified with those of the radicals of the time. The radicals' aims were altruistic
and humanitarian, but they were to be achieved by relying on reason and suppressing the
spontaneous outflow of Christian compassion. Chernyshevsky's utilitarian ethic proposed that
thought and will in Man were subject to the laws of physical science. Dostoevsky believed
that such ideas limited man to a product of physics, chemistry and biology, negating
spontaneous emotional responses. In its latest variety, Russian nihilism encouraged the
creation of an élite of superior individuals to whom the hopes of the future were to be
entrusted.

Raskolnikov exemplifies the potentially disastrous hazards contained in such an ideal.

Contemporary scholar Joseph Frank writes that "the moral-psychological traits of his
character incorporate this antinomy between instinctive kindness, sympathy, and pity on the
one hand and, on the other, a proud and idealistic egoism that has become perverted into a
contemptuous disdain for the submissive herd". Raskolnikov's inner conflict in the opening
section of the novel results in a utilitarian-altruistic justification for the proposed crime: why
not kill a wretched and "useless" old moneylender to alleviate the human misery? Dostoevsky
wants to show that this utilitarian style of reasoning had become widespread and
commonplace; it was by no means the solitary invention of Raskolnikov's tormented and
disordered mind. Such radical and utilitarian ideas act to reinforce the innate egoism of
Raskolnikov's character, and help justify his contempt for humanity's lower qualities and
ideals. He even becomes fascinated with the majestic image of a Napoleonic personality who,
in the interests of a higher social good, believes that he possesses a moral right to kill. Indeed,
his "Napoleon-like" plan impels him toward a well-calculated murder, the ultimate
conclusion of his self-deception with utilitarianism.

In his depiction of Petersburg, Dostoevsky accentuates the squalor and human

wretchedness that pass before Raskolnikov's eyes. He uses Raskolnikov's encounter with
Marmeladov to contrast the heartlessness of Raskolnikov's convictions with a Christian
approach to poverty and wretchedness. Dostoevsky believes that the moral "freedom"
propounded by Raskolnikov is a dreadful freedom "that is contained by no values, because it
is before values". In seeking to affirm this "freedom" in himself, Raskolnikov is in perpetual
revolt against society, himself, and God. He thinks that he is self-sufficient and self-
contained, but at the end "his boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of what is
greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself before the higher
justice of God". Dostoevsky calls for the regeneration and renewal of "sick" Russian society
through the re-discovery of its national identity, its religion, and its roots.
 In Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky fuses the personality of his main character,
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, with his new anti-radical ideological themes. The main
plot involves a murder as the result of "ideological intoxication," and depicts all the
disastrous moral and psychological consequences that result from the murder. Raskolnikov's
psychology is placed at the center, and carefully interwoven with the ideas behind his
transgression; every other feature of the novel illuminates the agonizing dilemma in which
Raskolnikov is caught. From another point of view, the novel's plot is another variation of a
conventional nineteenth-century theme: an innocent young provincial comes to seek his
fortune in the capital, where he succumbs to corruption, and loses all traces of his former
freshness and purity. However, as Gary Rosenshield points out, "Raskolnikov succumbs not
to the temptations of high society as Honoré de Balzac's Rastignac or Stendhal's Julien Sorel,
but to those of rationalistic Petersburg".
 CHAPTER 2

CONTENT

The novel is divided into six parts, with an epilogue. The notion of "intrinsic duality"
in Crime and Punishment has been commented upon, with the suggestion that there is a
degree of symmetry to the book. Edward Wasiolek who has argued that Dostoevsky was a
skilled craftsman, highly conscious of the formal pattern in his art, has likened the structure
of Crime and Punishment to a "flattened X", saying:

Parts I-III [of Crime and Punishment] present the predominantly rational and proud
Raskolnikov: Parts IV–VI, the emerging "irrational" and humble Raskolnikov. The first half
of the novel shows the progressive death of the first ruling principle of his character; the last
half, the progressive birth of the new ruling principle. The point of change comes in the very
middle of the novel.

Raskolnikov (Rodion Romanovitch): is the protagonist, and the novel focuses

primarily on his perspective. A 23-year-old man and former student, now destitute,
Raskolnikov is described in the novel as "exceptionally handsome, above the average in
height, slim, well built, with beautiful dark eyes and dark brown hair." Perhaps the most
striking feature of Raskolnikov, however, is his dual personality. On the one hand, he is cold,
apathetic, and antisocial; on the other, he can be surprisingly warm and compassionate. He
commits murder as well as acts of impulsive charity. His chaotic interaction with the external
world and his nihilistic worldview might be seen as causes of his social alienation or
consequences of it.

Sonya (Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova): is the daughter of a drunkard named

Semyon Zakharovich Marmeladov, whom Raskolnikov meets in a tavern at the beginning of
the novel. She is often characterized as self-sacrificial, shy, and innocent, despite being
forced into prostitution to help her family. Raskolnikov discerns in her the same feelings of
shame and alienation that he experiences, and she becomes the first person to whom he
confesses his crime. Sensing his deep unhappiness, she supports him, even though she was
friends with one of the victims (Lizaveta). Throughout the novel, Sonya is an important
source of moral strength and rehabilitation for Raskolnikov.
 Razumíkhin (Dmitry Prokofyich): is Raskolnikov's loyal friend and also a former law
student. The character is intended to represent something of a reconciliation between faith
and reason (razum, "sense", "intelligence"). He jokes that his name is actually 'Vrazumíkhin'
– a name suggesting "to bring someone to their senses". He is upright, strong, resourceful and
intelligent, but also somewhat naïve – qualities that are of great importance to Raskolnikov in
his desperate situation. He admires Raskolnikov's intelligence and character, refuses to give
any credence to others' suspicions, and supports him at all times. He looks after
Raskolnikov's family when they come to Petersburg, and falls in love with Dunya.

Dunya (Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova): Raskolnikov's beautiful and strong-

willed sister who works as a governess. She initially plans to marry the wealthy but unsavory
lawyer Luzhin, thinking it will enable her to ease her family's desperate financial situation
and escape her former employer Svidrigailov. Her situation is a factor in Raskolnikov's
decision to commit the murder. In St. Petersburg, she is eventually able to escape the clutches
of both Luzhin and Svidrigailov, and later marries Razumikhin.

Luzhin (Pyotr Petrovich) – A well-off lawyer who is engaged to Dunya in the

beginning of the novel. His motives for the marriage are dubious, as he more or less states
that he has sought a woman who will be completely beholden to him. He slanders and falsely
accuses Sonya of theft in an attempt to harm Raskolnikov's relations with his family. Luzhin
represents immorality, in contrast to Svidrigaïlov's amorality, and Raskolnikov's misguided
morality.

In a feverish, semi-delirious state Raskolnikov conceals the stolen items and falls
asleep exhausted. He is greatly alarmed the next morning when he gets a summons to the
police station, but it turns out to be in relation to a debt notice from his landlady. When the
officers at the bureau begin talking about the murder, Raskolnikov faints. He quickly
recovers, but he can see from their faces that he has aroused suspicion. Fearing a search, he
hides the stolen items under a large rock in an empty yard, noticing in humiliation that he
hasn't even checked how much money is in the purse. Without knowing why, he visits his old
university friend Razumikhin, who observes that Raskolnikov seems to be seriously ill.
Finally he returns to his room where he succumbs to his illness and falls into a prolonged
delirium.

When he emerges several days later he finds that Razumikhin has tracked him down
and has been nursing him. Still feverish, Raskolnikov listens nervously to a conversation
between Razumikhin and the doctor about the status of the police investigation into the
murders: a muzhik called Mikolka, who was working in a neighbouring flat at the time, has
been detained, and the old woman's clients are being interviewed. They are interrupted by the
arrival of Luzhin, Dunya's fiancé, who wishes to introduce himself, but Raskolnikov
deliberately insults him and kicks him out. He angrily tells the others to leave as well, and
then sneaks out himself. He looks for news about the murder, and seems almost to want to
draw attention to his own part in it. He encounters the police official Zamyotov, who was
present when he fainted in the bureau, and openly mocks the young man's unspoken
suspicions. He returns to the scene of the crime and re-lives the sensations he experienced at
the time. He angers the workmen and caretakers by asking casual questions about the murder,
even suggesting that they accompany him to the police station to discuss it. As he
contemplates whether or not to confess, he sees Marmeladov, who has been struck mortally
by a carriage. He rushes to help and succeeds in conveying the stricken man back to his
family's apartment. Calling out for Sonya to forgive him, Marmeladov dies in his daughter's
arms. Raskolnikov gives his last twenty five roubles (from money sent to him by his mother)
to Marmeladov's consumptive widow, Katerina Ivanovna, saying it is the repayment of a debt
to his friend. Feeling renewed, Raskolnikov calls on Razumikhin, and they go back together
to Raskolnikov's building. Upon entering his room Raskolnikov is deeply shocked to see his
mother and sister sitting on the sofa. They have just arrived in Petersburg and are ecstatic to
see him, but Raskolnikov is unable to speak, and collapses in a faint.

Razumikhin tends to Raskolnikov, and manages to convince the distressed mother and
sister to return to their apartment. He goes with them, despite being drunk and rather
overwhelmed by Dunya's beauty. When they return the next morning Raskolnikov has
improved physically, but it becomes apparent that he is still mentally distracted and merely
forcing himself to endure the meeting. He demands that Dunya break with Luzhin, but Dunya
fiercely defends her motives for the marriage. Mrs Raskolnikova has received a note from
Luzhin demanding that her son not be present at any future meetings between them. He also
informs her that he witnessed her son give the 25 rubles to "an unmarried woman of immoral
behavior" (Sonya). Dunya has decided that a meeting, at which both Luzhin and her brother
are present, must take place, and Raskolnikov agrees to attend that evening along with
Razumikhin. To Raskolnikov's surprise, Sonya suddenly appears at his door. Timidly, she
explains that he left his address with them last night, and that she has come to invite him to
attend her father's funeral. As she leaves, Raskolnikov asks for her address and tells her that
he will visit her soon.

At Raskolnikov's behest, Razumikhin takes him to see the detective Porfiry Petrovich,
who is investigating the murders. Raskolnikov immediately senses that Porfiry knows that he
is the murderer. Porfiry, who has just been discussing the case with Zamyotov, adopts an
ironic tone during the conversation. He expresses extreme curiosity about an article that
Raskolnikov wrote some months ago called 'On Crime', in which he suggests that certain rare
individuals—the benefactors and geniuses of mankind—have a right to 'step across' legal or
moral boundaries if those boundaries are an obstruction to the success of their idea.
Raskolnikov defends himself skillfully, but he is alarmed and angered by Porfiry's insinuating
tone. An appointment is made for an interview the following morning at the police bureau.
Leaving Razumikhin with his mother and sister, Raskolnikov returns to his own building. He
is surprised to find an old artisan, whom he doesn't know, making inquiries about him.
Raskolnikov tries to find out what he wants, but the artisan says only one word – "murderer",
and walks off. Petrified, Raskolnikov returns to his room and falls into thought and then
sleep. He wakes to find another complete stranger present, this time a man of aristocratic
appearance. The man politely introduces himself as Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov.

Svidrigailov indulges in an amiable but disjointed monologue, punctuated by

Raskolnikov's terse interjections. He claims to no longer have any romantic interest in Dunya,
but wants to stop her from marrying Luzhin, and offer her ten thousand roubles. Raskolnikov
refuses the money on her behalf and refuses to facilitate a meeting. Svidrigailov also
mentions that his wife, who defended Dunya at the time of the unpleasantness but died
shortly afterwards, has left her 3000 rubles in her will.

The meeting with Luzhin that evening begins with talk of Svidrigailov—his depraved
character, his presence in Petersburg, the unexpected death of his wife and the 3000 rubles
left to Dunya. Luzhin takes offence when Dunya insists on resolving the issue with her
brother, and when Raskolnikov draws attention to the slander in his letter, Luzhin becomes
reckless, exposing his true character. Dunya tells him to leave and never come back. Now
free and with significant capital, they excitedly begin to discuss plans for the future, but
Raskolnikov suddenly gets up and leaves, telling them, to their great consternation, that it
might be the last time he sees them. He instructs the baffled Razumikhin to remain and
always care for them. Raskolnikov proceeds to Sonya's place. She is gratified that he is
visiting her, but also frightened of his strange manner. He asks a series of merciless questions
about her terrible situation and that of Katerina Ivanovna and the children. Raskolnikov
begins to realize that Sonya is sustained only by her faith in God. She reveals that she was a
friend of the murdered Lizaveta. In fact, Lizaveta gave her a cross and a copy of the Gospels.
She passionately reads to him the story of the raising of Lazarus from the Gospel of John. His
fascination with her, which had begun at the time when her father spoke of her, increases and
he decides that they must face the future together. As he leaves he tells her that he will come
back tomorrow and tell her who killed her friend Lizaveta.

When Raskolnikov presents himself for his interview, Porfiry resumes and intensifies
his insinuating, provocative, ironic chatter, without ever making a direct accusation. With
Raskolnikov's anger reaching fever pitch, Porfiry hints that he has a “little surprise” for him
behind the partition in his office, but at that moment there is a commotion outside the door
and a young man (Mikolka the painter) bursts in, followed by some policemen. To both
Porfiry and Raskolnikov's astonishment, Mikolka proceeds to loudly confess to the murders.
Porfiry doesn't believe the confession, but he is forced to let Raskolnikov go. Back at his
room Raskolnikov is horrified when the old artisan suddenly appears at his door. But the man
bows and asks for forgiveness: he had been Porfiry's “little surprise”, and had heard Mikolka
confess. He had been one of those present when Raskolnikov returned to the scene of the
murders, and had reported his behavior to Porfiry.

Raskolnikov attends the Marmeladovs' post-funeral banquet at Katerina Ivanovna's

apartment. The atmosphere deteriorates as guests become drunk and the half-mad Katerina
Ivanovna engages in a verbal attack on her German landlady. With chaos descending,
everyone is surprised by the sudden and portentous appearance of Luzhin. He sternly
announces that a 100-ruble banknote disappeared from his apartment at the precise time that
he was being visited by Sonya, whom he had invited in order to make a small donation.
Sonya fearfully denies stealing the money, but Luzhin persists in his accusation and demands
that someone search her. Outraged, Katerina Ivanovna abuses Luzhin and sets about
emptying Sonya's pockets to prove her innocence, but a folded 100-ruble note does indeed fly
out of one of the pockets. The mood in the room turns against Sonya, Luzhin chastises her,
and the landlady orders the family out. But Luzhin's roommate Lebezyatnikov angrily asserts
that he saw Luzhin surreptitiously slip the money into Sonya's pocket as she left, although he
had thought at the time that it was a noble act of anonymous charity. Raskolnikov backs
Lebezyatnikov by confidently identifying Luzhin's motive: a desire to avenge himself on
Raskolnikov by defaming Sonya, in hopes of causing a rift with his family. Luzhin is
discredited, but Sonya is traumatized, and she runs out of the apartment. Raskolnikov follows
her. Back at her room, Raskolnikov draws Sonya's attention to the ease with which Luzhin
could have ruined her, and consequently the children as well. But it is only a prelude to his
confession that he is the murderer of the old woman and Lizaveta. Painfully, he tries to
explain his abstract motives for the crime to the uncomprehending Sonya. She is horrified,
not just at the crime, but at his own self-torture, and tells him that he must hand himself in to
the police. Lebezyatnikov appears and tells them that the landlady has kicked Katerina
Ivanovna out of the apartment and that she has gone mad. They find Katerina Ivanovna
surrounded by people in the street, completely insane, trying to force the terrified children to
perform for money, and near death from her illness. They manage to get her back to Sonya's
room, where, distraught and raving, she dies. To Raskolnikov's surprise, Svidrigailov
suddenly appears and informs him that he will be using the ten thousand rubles intended for
Dunya to make the funeral arrangements and to place the children in good orphanages. When
Raskolnikov asks him what his motives are, he laughingly replies with direct quotations of
Raskolnikov's own words, spoken when he was trying to explain his justifications for the
murder to Sonya. Svidrigailov has been residing next door to Sonya, and overheard every
word of the murder confession.

Razumikhin tells Raskolnikov that Dunya has become troubled and distant after
receiving a letter from someone. He also mentions, to Raskolnikov's astonishment, that
Porfiry no longer suspects him of the murders. As Raskolnikov is about to set off in search of
Svidrigailov, Porfiry himself appears and politely requests a brief chat. He sincerely
apologises for his previous behavior and seeks to explain the reasons behind it. Strangely,
Raskolnikov begins to feel alarmed at the thought that Porfiry might think he is innocent. But
Porfiry's changed attitude is motivated by genuine respect for Raskolnikov, not by any
thought of his innocence, and he concludes by expressing his absolute certainty that
Raskolnikov is indeed the murderer. He claims that he will be arresting him soon, but urges
him to confess to make it easier on himself. Raskolnikov chooses to continue the struggle.

Raskolnikov finds Svidrigailov at an inn and warns him against approaching Dunya.
Svidrigailov, who has in fact arranged to meet Dunya, threatens to go to the police, but
Raskolnikov is unconcerned and follows when he leaves. When Raskolnikov finally turns
home, Dunya, who has been watching them, approaches Svidrigailov and demands to know
what he meant in his letter about her brother's “secret”. She reluctantly accompanies him to
his rooms, where he reveals what he overheard and attempts to use it to make her yield to his
desire. Dunya, however, has a gun and she fires at him, narrowly missing: Svidrigailov gently
encourages her to reload and try again. Eventually she throws the gun aside, but Svidrigailov,
crushed by her hatred for him, tells her to leave. Later that evening he goes to Sonya to
discuss the arrangements for Katerina Ivanovna's children. He gives her 3000 rubles, telling
her she will need it if she wishes to follow Raskolnikov to Siberia. He spends the night in a
miserable hotel and the following morning commits suicide in a public place. Raskolnikov
says a painful goodbye to his mother, without telling her the truth. Dunya is waiting for him
at his room, and he tells her that he will be going to the police to confess to the murders. He
stops at Sonya's place on the way and she gives him a crucifix. At the bureau he learns of
Svidrigailov's suicide, and almost changes his mind, even leaving the building. But he sees
Sonya, who has followed him, looking at him in despair, and he returns to make a full and
frank confession of the murders.

Due to the fullness of his confession at a time when another man had already
confessed Raskolnikov is sentenced to only eight years of penal servitude. Dunya and
Razumikhin marry and plan to move to Siberia, but Raskolnikov's mother falls ill and dies.
Sonya follows Raskolnikov to Siberia, but he is initially hostile towards her as he is still
struggling to acknowledge moral culpability for his crime, feeling himself to be guilty only of
weakness. It is only after some time in prison that his redemption and moral regeneration
begin under Sonya's loving influence.

Psychological realism is a literary genre that came to prominence in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. It’s a highly character-driven genre of fiction writing, as it focuses on
the motivations and internal thoughts of characters.

An excellent example of psychological realism (although the author himself didn’t

necessarily agree with the classification) is Fyodor Dostoevsky’s "Crime and Punishment."

Realism as a genre tries to imitate life such that the sign and the signifier mirror each
other in such a manner that the mirror image produced in the prose (the dominant form in
which realism is used) should not waiver in the slightest to the reality it re-presents. In order
to look truly realist, the re-presentation needs to eliminate the sense of imitation or
verisimilitude. For this purpose, Dostoevsky employs painstaking detailing into his novel.
Not only does he mention the number of steps Raskolnikov takes to reach Alyona’s
apartment, he ventures in depth into the mind of Raskolnikov during his act of climbing these
steps, to enumerate one out of many instances.

The novel is replete with lengthy monologues letting its readers into the minds of the
characters. This marks an overlap between the terrains of the psychological and real. Not only
is the detailed description a signature characteristic of a realist novel but this detailing of the
internal posits the novel into the domain of the psychological. The stereotypical resolution of
the Realist novel is the re-establishment of harmony in order to affirm the author’s and the
reader’s faith in the socio-cultural conventions of their time. The primary conflict within the
novel is Raskolnikov’s alienation from the society because of his sense of superiority over the
rest of the human race and his hatred towards it.

The psychological tension in the work arises in two distinct moments. First, fairly
quickly into the text, the audience knows Raskolnikov is a desperate, impoverished man who
commits two gruesome murders. The audience is also aware of several of the other
characters’ downfalls including greed, alcoholism and stalking. However, the reader must
wait until the very end of the text before Raskolnikov’s punishment for committing murder is
revealed; at roughly 500 pages a reader has quite a long wait. When Raskolnikov’s
personality dramatically swings and he carries out his plan to murder pawnbroker Ivanovna
and then her sister, who interrupts his plan, the reader acts as a witness to the crime.
Dostoevsky plays with the spacing between the crime and the punishment to create a deeper
psychological tension for Raskolnikov and the witness the reader. Not only is Raskolnikov
tortured by the time span, which contributes to his guilt but so is the reader. The time span
allows the reader to not only be physically affected but to also be emotionally affected. The
time span allows the reader, as a witness to the crime, to be held effectively silent, unable to
give testimony while Raskolnikov is with his family and with investigators.

The second moment of psychological tension occurs when Raskolnikov’s mental state
further deteriorates and he begins to relive his crime through nightmares, hallucinations and
flashbacks. Raskolnikov reliving his crime forces the reader to also relive the crimes over
again as well. Crime and Punishment is written as a corporeal novel, where the physicality
and bodily nature of the crime and guilt are intensely portrayed and described.

The reader is not simply along for the ride but actively involved in the text, feeling the
same emotions and physical pains of Raskolnikov who Dostoevsky has granted access to his
inner most psyche. When Raskolnikov falls physically ill with grief and guilt, the reader has
intimate knowledge of Raskolnikov’s guilt and physical symptoms. Inside Raskolnikov’s
psyche, the reader not only feels his guilt but also feels guilt stemming from having intimate
knowledge of the crime, which the reader cannot unburden or do the right thing by testifying
to the crime. While waiting for the actual punishment to be revealed, the reader comes to the
realization that justice, according to the law, carries little weight as the real punishment is the
mental anguish one experiences. Since Dostoevsky’s writing allows the reader to become so
entrenched in Raskolnikov’s mind, a reader also comes to comprehend the mind games the
other characters and Raskolnikov play. These consuming mind games are all inevitable
punishments already set in place by the complexity of the human mind.

The psychological elements of the text are what make Crime and Punishment an
outstanding work and a classic which has stood the test of time. Few works have been able to
replicate the way in which Dostoevsky is able to build a psychological profile, while still
granting equal attention to setting, motives of the text and poetic flowing lines. I would argue
that Dostoevsky’s portrayal of character consciousness is the basis of many of the character
representations and interpretations of self-awareness readers have seen since. A novel with
this much intensity and enriching knowledge into the human consciousness is too
extraordinary not be read and reread.

According to Dostoyevsky, “there is no reason, but only reasoners; behind every

rational formula there is a formulator; behind every generalization there is generalizer”
(Dostoyevsky, quoted in The Encyclopedia Philosophy, 1972). He argued that the universe
does not make sense and that there are no rational patterns discernible in it. Order is a
deceptive mask that the universe wears and which may break down at any time. According to
him reason only leads man astray. One would rely on it only to be disappointed by it. This
view is a complete opposite of the Neo-Classicals. Suffice it to say that in Dostoyevsky’s
novels the reader comes across the merging of the philosophies of Hegel, Nietzche, Sartre,
Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Marx. Of these important philosophers all were existentialists
except for Marx. It is instructive to note that Jean Paul Sartre before his death embraced
Marxism, thereby becoming an existentialist Marxist. Dostoyevsky’s novels focus on the
theme of man as a subject of his environment. His novels can be seen as “a means of
penetrating into the hidden depths of human psychology and tearing of all the different kinds
of veils and masks which conceal the nature and content of man’s inner world” (Frank,
1976). This is exactly what he does with the character of Raskolnikov, while in the process
indicating that Crime and Punishment is not one of a crime, but one of a discovery of the
motive behind the crime.

Social Psychology is the study of how the behavior of an individual is influenced by

the actual, imagined or implied presence of other people (Roland et al., 1986). Social
Psychology is a branch of Sociology. Sociologists and Social Psychologists do share some
common interests– they study how people behave in groups. Moreover, Social Psychology is
a sub-field of both its parent disciplines (Psychology and Sociology). However, it is not a
grand synthesis of the two fields. The subject matter and methods of Social Psychology differ
from those of sociology. Most sociologists study the structure and functioning of groups from
small groups to large groups (societies). Social Psychologist on the other hand, are usually
interested in how groups behave and how the individual members are influenced by the group
in which they belong how a person thinks about other people, is influenced by them and
relates to them (Meyers, 1987). Thus, while Social Psychologists are interested in groups,
they generally want to ascertain how groups affect individual persons or sometimes, how an
individual can affect a group. Thus Sociology involves the understanding of what goes on in
terms of social interaction. According to Berger (1963), the sociological problem is not so
much why some things go wrong from the viewpoint of the authorities and the management
of the social scene, but how the whole system works in the first place, what its
presuppositions are and by what means is it held together.

Psychoanalysis involves the study of human personality. It can also be referred to as

the psychology of humans. Psychoanalysis deals with terms such as the unconscious,
repression, sublimation, condensation. Also, it examines the ego, superego, and the id.
According to Eagleton (1984), it was Sigmund Freud who introduced this field of knowledge
in his epochal work, Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is therefore:
“A form of literary criticism, which uses some of the techniques of psychoanalysis in its
interpretation of literature. Psychoanalysis itself is a form of therapy, which aims to cure
mental disorder by investigating the interactions between the conscious and unconscious
elements in the mind (Barry, 1995).” Psychoanalysis according to Hartman (1959) is
concerned with the knowledge of human behavior and motivation (the exploration of human
behavior). In the exploration of Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, a socio-psychological
theoretical construct is employed. What is taken into account is the nature of the society of
the novel, the effect of the society on the individual characters, especially, Raskolnikov. Also,
the reactions of the characters to the society and the social types that are portrayed in the
novel are explained. The following questions are addressed in this essay: Is society class-
based? Why will an otherwise bright forward-looking undergraduate of Raskolnikov’s
standing be entrapped in a deviant murderous engagement. Can psychotic behaviors be
explained from the prism of the social? Is man a subject of his environment.

The novel, Crime and Punishment, is a psychological account of a crime. A young

man of a middle class origin, who is (living) in dire need, is expelled from the University. His
name is Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov. He owes his landlady some money and he has
tattered garments. For some time he has fallen into a (state of) nervous condition, monomania
and depression. Based on very superficial and weak thinking, and influenced by certain
unrealized ideas in his head, he decides to quickly get out of a difficult situation by killing an
old woman of sixty years, a usurer, Alena Ivanovna whom he had been patronizing.
Raskolnikov’s mother and his sister Dounia come into the lime light of the novel when he
gets back to his room and finds them waiting for him. Being emotionally unstable he places
them in the care of his friend and colleague, Razoumikhin. Svidrigâiloff (Raskolnikov’s
double), as introduced into the novel; had caused Dounia great suffering through sexual
harassment while she had been in his employ as a governess. Raskolinkov meets Sonia the
prostitute, gets involved in deep conversations with her and plans to tell her who committed
the murder.

Raskolnikov’s behavior following the commission of the crime reminds us of Skies,

the robber in Charles Dickens’ novel, Oliver Twist after he had killed Nancy, the lady who
used to act as their great informant: “For now, a vision came before him, as constant and
more terrible than that from which he had escaped. Those widely staring eyes, so lustreless
and so glassy, that he had better borne to see them than think upon them, appeared in the
midst of the darkness: light in themselves, but giving light to nothing. There were but two,
but they were everywhere. If he shut out the sight, there came the room with every-well
known object-some, indeed, that he would have forgotten, if he had gone over its contents
from memory-each in its own accustomed place. The body was in its place, and its eyes were
as he saw them when he stole away. He got up, and rushed into the field without. The figure
was behind him. He reentered the shed, and shrunk down once more. The eyes were there
before he had lain himself along (Oliver Twist, 360).” Tortured by his own mind,
Raskolnikov goes to the police station where Porphyrius (the Magistrate), torments him with
self incriminating questions and ironic statements. Later, Raskolnikov confesses his crime to
Sonia and admits that in killing the two women – Alena Ivanovna and her servant and sister,
Elizabeth - he actually destroyed himself. Svidrigáil off having overheard the confession
discloses his knowledge of it to Raskolnikov. Believing that Porphyrius suspects him of the
murders, and realizing that Svidrigáiloff knows the truth, Raskolnikov finds life unbearable.
Convinced that Dounia would have nothing to do with him, Svidrigáiloff, after an indecent
assault on the former walks off and ends his life by pulling a trigger against himself.
Raskolnikov turns himself over to the Police and is sentenced to eight years in Siberia. Sonia
follows him to the prison yard and with her help, he begins his regeneration. The plot of this
novel is subjected to the rich flow of various mental states. It is therefore difficult not to
know that there are internal forces motivating many of the characters-Raskolnikov,
Marmeladoff, Svidrigáiloff, Sonia, Catherine and even Alena Ivanovna, the money-lender
herself. This view is informed by their character traits and idiosyncrasies. There appears to be
too much of uncertainty and indeterminacy in the behavior of these characters. Raskolnikov
is suffering from schizophrenia and plagued by dementia. He is capable of both good and bad
deeds. Svidrigáiloff is a Byronic hero and a gothic villain. Sonia is kind-hearted but pushed
into whoredom by her social and economic condition. Marmeladoff, an otherwise civil clerk,
because of misfortune is pushed from bad to worse as he ends up in self-inflicted suffering.
Peter Petrovitch Looshin (Dounia’s fiancé) is a calculating manipulator who knows how to
exploit his helpless victims. Alena Ivanovna is said to have sharp evil eyes representing the
heart of a corrupt and exploitative society against which Raskolnikov revolts.

Crime and Punishment raises the problem of freedom of choice, which in this case has
been “imposed” on man. The novel is a trying out of the consequences of a “freewill”
unleashed on society and at the same time an attempt to find a force to restrain the freewill.
Crime and Punishment according to Wasioleck (1964) is the drama of the terrible
consequences that follow an unleashed will and the groping for psychological and
metaphysical roots of God in reality. It reveals to the reader a protagonist whose
psychological trauma overshadows and leads him to the confession of a sin he committed
with a view to pleasing the society and solving his own monetary problems in the process.

In the novel, we discover a direct and obvious source of Raskolnikov’s notion of

inferior and superior men: the superior ones having the right to commit breaches of morality
while the inferior ones are obliged to mind their own business which is to stay put in the
common rut. “Hegel’s world historical individuals such as Alexander The Great, or Caesar,
or Napoleon, the names invoked by Dostoyevsky’s protagonist, perform the grandiose task
set for him by the “Wettgeist” irrespective of moral considerations” (Rahv, 1978).
 Two systems of thought and two personality traits are contrasted (Raskolnikov’s
individualism and Sonia Marmeladoff’s loving and submissive outlook). Razoumikhin also
proves himself to be a loving and reliable friend as can be seen in all his selfless efforts for
his friend, Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov’s ethical code, which is based on atheism, allows him
to transgress the norms of social behavior, regarding himself as a bearer of new ideas to act
against established laws. Raskolnikov is severely wounded psychologically exposing himself
to extreme individualism and consequent dementia. But Sonia’s way of submission is
justified by her deeds. She endures poverty, sorrow, hunger, humiliation and mockery with
equanimity. The individualism of Raskolnikov and Svidrigâiloff portrays them as people who
are not governed by reason. They are lacking in focus. Raskolnikov as an ambivalent
personality makes him a different person at different times. He is said to hate the other
“Raskohikov” that erupts from some suppressed layer (subconscious) of his consciousness to
contradict the natural image of himself. He is always muttering to himself. He is
schizophrenic; thus no wonder he is socially withdrawn, reclusive, alone and appears to be
unable to form warm, close, social relationships. People who are schizophrenic have odd
ways of thinking, communicating and behaving. They suffer from delusions of all sorts.
Raskolnikov can be said to be suffering from a personality disorder. This can be observed
from the description he is given in the novel: “He wondered at himself. Razoumikhin was one
of his most intimate friends at the University, although, it must be observed, Raskolnikov had
very few. He shunned everybody, went about with no one, and studiously kept aloof from all,
and soon he became equally avoided (Crime and Punishment, 41). “ From the beginning of
the novel up to the time that Raskolnikov confesses before Elia Petrovitch, he is presented as
one who is in one form of delirium or the other. The commission of the crime aggravates the
disorienttation and personality disorder of Raskolnikov as is exemplified in his persistent
mutterings and murmurings: “It is sufficient!” he muttered solemnly and decidedly. “Away,
specters! away, fear!, away, visions! This is life. Am I living now? Did my life not leave me
together with the old woman’s? Heaven be hers and–Enough! Peace to her! The reign of
reason and light commences now, of will, of force (Crime and Punishment, 137).” The
psychological description of the characters in the novel involves Dostoyevsky in the intimate
delineation of the subconscious. In dreams, the subconscious manifests itself and achieves a
special prominence. According to Freud (1932) dreams occupy a special place in
Psychoanalysis: they are indispensable. It is the dream in part which symbolically directs our
attention to the meaning of the story.
 Dreams are often direct manifestation of a person’s unconscious mind (Hartman,
1959; Freud, 1933; Smith and Mackie, 1995). Dreams play a great role in the novel, as the
fullest expressions of potentiality. Raskolnikov underlies this in his reaction to the fearful
dream of the mare beating. The ostensible subject of his dream has been an incident from
childhood, but he is quick to seize its real meaning: “My God!” he cries, “can it really be, that
I will take an ax and strike her on the head, smash her skull that I will slip in the sticky warm
blood… with the ax… my God can it be” (Crime and Punishment, 211).

Svidrigâiloff’s hallucination, dreams and suicide comprise one of Crime and Punishment’s
most powerful sequences. Dostoyevsky, in an attempt to show the relationship between
Raskolnikov and Svidrigâiloff, seems to bring the dreams Svidrigâiloff had on his last night
into correspondence, if not wholly exact with those Raskolnikov had had earlier.
Svidigâiloff’s first dream is of a spring day on which he looks at the dead body of a girl who
had apparently killed herself because of the atrocity he had committed on her body.
Svidrigâiloff’s second dream is of a little girl, in whose eyes, even as he tries to protect her,
he sees a reflection of his rapacious lust. Raskolnikov had four dreams, three of which are
described by the narrator, and one that he himself describes and in which he does not appear
symbolically. The first three dreams are tied together by violence, and each reflects light on
the other and in turn it is illuminated. The dreams project backward, forward, and inward.
Having already thought of the crime, Raskolnikov is subconsciously warning himself not to
commit it. The savage beating of the mare in his dream foreshadows his own axe murder of
the money lender and her sister. A person’s consciousness can also be detected through his
thoughts and beliefs (Smith and Mackie, 1995), which is the reason Dostoyevsky makes use
of the interior monologue, and the stream of consciousness techniques in the novel. Through
the internal monologues, the author does a psychological exploration of the different
characters. This gives a better understanding of the characters and why they do all that they
do. The use of interior monologue also reveals the soul that is divided and a split personality.
It is a self-questioning device which amounts to an easy way of bringing to the fore, the
psychological state of a character as well as his/her type of consciousness. We notice a
deliberate attempt by Dostoyevsky in this novel to accentuate the unexpected in his
characters’ behaviors so that they disrupt the lives of others around them. Each character is
supplied with its own individual existential germ, which opens in the dark and secretes
corners of the soul until one day, it breaks through into actuality. The characters are like
creatures from different worlds, thrown into the same world. The burden in the hearts of the
characters will be understood in the context of the foregoing discussion. Svidrigâiloff kills
himself by pulling the trigger against his body. Dounia is willing to sacrifice herself to
Looshin for her brother, Raskolnikov. Sonia is ready to give herself to several men to satisfy
her economic needs and those of her family.

The dream of the mare being whipped (Part 1, chapter V) has been suggested as the
fullest single expression of the whole novel. The dream depicts a scene from Raskolnikov's
childhood where an unfit mare is cruelly beaten to death by its owner. It symbolizes
gratification in punishment, contemptible motives and contemptible society. Raskolnikov's
disgust and horror is central to the theme of his conflicted character, his guilty conscience, his
contempt for society, his view of himself as an extraordinary man above greater society and
his concept of justified murder. The dream is also a warning, suggesting a comparison to his
murder plot. The dream occurs after Rodion crosses a bridge leading out of the oppressive
heat and dust of Petersburg and into the fresh greenness of the islands. This symbolizes a
corresponding mental crossing, suggesting that Raskolnikov is returning to a state of clarity
when he has the dream. In it, he returns to the innocence of his childhood and watches as
peasants beat an old mare to death. After Raskolnikov awakes, he calls it “such a hideous
dream,” the same term he earlier used to describe his plot to kill the old woman. The child of
the dream, who watches horrified as the events unfold, represents the part of him that clings
to innocence, but another part of him, represented by the peasants, is driven by hardship and
isolation to become cold and unfeeling. The laughter of the peasants in the face of brutal
slaughter reveals the extent to which they have been desensitized by their suffering, which is
a reflection of Raskolnikov's own condition. The main peasant, Mikolka, feels that he has the
right to kill the horse, linking his actions to Raskolnikov's theory of a 'right to crime' for a
select group of extraordinary men. The cruel slaughter of the old mare in the dream points to
the brutality of Raskolnikov's criminal idea, something that he tries to rationalize away with
his dehumanizing characterization of the old woman as a "louse." While awake,
Raskolnikov's view of the old woman is spiteful, shaped by his tenacious belief in his
extraordinary man theory. However, when the theory loses its power in the dream state,
subconscious memories and feelings reveal themselves, and the horrific nature of his idea
becomes apparent. Therefore, in order for Raskolnikov to find redemption, he must
ultimately renounce his theory.

In the final pages, Raskolnikov, who at this point is in the prison infirmary, has a
feverish dream about a plague of nihilism that enters Russia and Europe from the east, which
spreads senseless dissent and fanatical dedication to "new ideas". The ideas are assaults on
ordinary thinking and disrupt society forever. Dostoevsky was envisaging the new, politically
and culturally nihilistic ideas that were entering Russian literature and society in this
watershed decade, ideas with which he would be in debate for the rest of his life (cp.
Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done?, Dobrolyubov's abrasive journalism, Turgenev's
Fathers and Sons and Dostoevsky's own The Possessed). Janko Lavrin, who took part in the
revolutions of the World War I era, knew Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky and many others,
and later would spend years writing about Dostoevsky's novels and other Russian classics,
called this final dream "prophetic in its symbolism".

On an exceptionally hot evening early in July a young man came out of the garret in
which he lodged in S. Place and walked slowly, as though in hesitation, towards K. bridge.
— Fyodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment (Constance Garnett translation),: The above
opening sentence of the novel has a symbolic function: Russian critic Vadim K. Kozhinov
argues that the reference to the "exceptionally hot evening" establishes not only the
suffocating atmosphere of Saint Petersburg in midsummer but also "the infernal ambience of
the crime itself". Dostoevsky was among the first to recognize the symbolic possibilities of
city life and imagery drawn from the city. I. F. I. Evnin regards Crime and Punishment as the
first great Russian novel "in which the climactic moments of the action are played out in dirty
taverns, on the street, in the sordid back rooms of the poor".

In his depiction of Petersburg, Dostoevsky accentuates the squalor and human

wretchedness that pass before Raskolnikov's eyes. He uses Raskolnikov's encounter with
Marmeladov to contrast the heartlessness of Raskolnikov's convictions with a Christian
approach to poverty and wretchedness. Dostoevsky believes that the moral "freedom"
propounded by Raskolnikov is a dreadful freedom "that is contained by no values, because it
is before values". In seeking to affirm this "freedom" in himself, Raskolnikov is in perpetual
revolt against society, himself, and God. He thinks that he is self-sufficient and self-
contained, but at the end "his boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of what is
greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself before the higher
justice of God". Dostoevsky calls for the regeneration and renewal of "sick" Russian society
through the re-discovery of its national identity, its religion, and its roots.

As part of the Petrashevsky Circle, Dostoevsky was arrested and exiled, which
inspired his account of prison in the novel. Another influence was Western society, as Russia
sought to emulate Western European culture under the Westernizer Peter the Great, and
Russian society became increasingly divided.

No one doubts that Crime and Punishment has a prominent place in the pantheon of
world literature. Its place in the literary canon is secure. Nonetheless, the question remains:
How great is Crime and Punishment It really just a “low-level masterpiece”. Nothing more
than a finely crafted crime story. A refined, middling, middlebrow mystery novel
masquerading as highbrow literature. Crime and Punishment merely a “low-ceiling
masterpiece”.
 CHAPTER 3

CONCLUSION

The first part of Crime and Punishment published in the January and February issues
of The Russian Messenger met with public success. In his memoirs, the conservative
belletrist Nikolay Strakhov recalled that in Russia Crime and Punishment was the literary
sensation of 1866. Tolstoy's novel War and Peace was being serialized in The Russian
Messenger at the same time as Crime and Punishment.

The novel soon attracted the criticism of the liberal and radical critics. G.Z. Yeliseyev
sprang to the defense of the Russian student corporations, and wondered, "Has there ever
been a case of a student committing murder for the sake of robbery?" Pisarev, aware of the
novel's artistic value, described Raskolnikov as a product of his environment, and argued that
the main theme of the work was poverty and its results. He measured the novel's excellence
by the accuracy with which Dostoevsky portrayed the contemporary social reality, and
focused on what he regarded as inconsistencies in the novel's plot. Strakhov rejected Pisarev's
contention that the theme of environmental determinism was essential to the novel, and
pointed out that Dostoevsky's attitude towards his hero was sympathetic: "This is not
mockery of the younger generation, neither a reproach nor an accusation—it is a lament over
it." Solovyov felt that the meaning of the novel, despite the common failure to understand it,
is clear and simple: a man who considers himself entitled to 'step across' discovers that what
he thought was an intellectually and even morally justifiable transgression of an arbitrary law
turns out to be, for his conscience, "a sin, a violation of inner moral justice... that inward sin
of self-idolatry can only be redeemed by an inner act of self-renunciation."

The early Symbolist movement that dominated Russian letters in the 1880s was
concerned more with aesthetics than the visceral realism and intellectuality of Crime and
Punishment, but a tendency toward mysticism among the new generation of symbolists in the
1900s led to a reevaluation of the novel as an address to the dialectic of spirit and matter. In
the character of Sonya (Sofya Semyonovna) they saw an embodiment of both the Orthodox
feminine principle of hagia sophia (holy wisdom) –"at once sexual and innocent, redemptive
both in her suffering and her veneration of suffering", and the most important feminine deity
of Russian folklore mat syra zemlya (moist mother earth). Raskolnikov is a "son of Earth"
whose egoistic aspirations lead him to ideas and actions that alienate him from the very
source of his strength, and he must bow down to her before she can relieve him of the terrible
burden of his guilt. Philosopher and Orthodox theologian Nikolay Berdyaev shared Solovyov
and the symbolists' sense of the novel's spiritual significance, seeing it as an illustration of the
modern age's hubristic self-deification, or what he calls "the suicide of man by self-
affirmation". Raskolnikov answers his question of whether he has the right to kill solely by
reference to his own arbitrary will, but, according to Berdyaev, these are questions that can
only be answered by God, and "he who does not bow before that higher will destroys his
neighbor and destroys himself: that is the meaning of Crime and Punishment".

Crime and Punishment was regarded as an important work in a number of 20th

century European cultural movements, notably the Bloomsbury Group, psychoanalysis, and
existentialism. Of the writers associated with Bloomsbury, Virginia Woolf, John Middleton
Murry and D. H. Lawrence are some of those who have discussed the work. Freud held
Dostoevsky's work in high esteem, and many of his followers have attempted
psychoanalytical interpretations of Raskolnikov. Among the existentialists, Sartre and Camus
in particular have acknowledged Dostoevsky's influence.

The affinity of Crime and Punishment with both religious mysticism and
psychoanalysis led to suppression of discussion in Soviet Russia: interpretations of
Raskolnikov tended to align with Pisarev's idea of reaction to unjust socio-economic
conditions. An exception was the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, considered by many
commentators to be the most original and insightful analyst of Dostoevsky's work. In
Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, Bakhtin argues that attempts to understand Dostoevsky's
characters from the vantage point of a pre-existing philosophy, or as individualized 'objects'
to be psychologically analysed, will always fail to penetrate the unique "artistic
architechtonics" of his works. In such cases, both the critical approach and the assumed
object of investigation are 'monological': everything is perceived as occurring within the
framework of a single overarching perspective, whether that of the critic or that of the author.
Dostoevsky's art, Bakhtin argues, is inherently 'dialogical': events proceed on the basis of
interaction between self-validating subjective voices, often within the consciousness of an
individual character, as is the case with Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov's consciousness is depicted
as a battleground for all the conflicting ideas that find expression in the novel: everyone and
everything he encounters becomes reflected and refracted in a "dialogized" interior
monologue. He has rejected external relationships and chosen his tormenting internal
dialogue; only Sonya is capable of continuing to engage with him despite his cruelty. His
openness to dialogue with Sonya is what enables him to cross back over the "threshold into
real-life communication (confession and public trial)—not out of guilt, for he avoids
acknowledging his guilt, but out of weariness and loneliness, for that reconciling step is the
only relief possible from the cacophony of unfinalized inner dialogue."

On a side note, the subplot of the book is also quite nice. Raskolnikov's sister engages
with a wealthy man to bring financial stability to the family. Raskolnikov realizes the true
intention behind the marriage and refuses to allow his sister to sacrifice herself for him. The
man Raskolnikov's sister was to marry is a man who is the perfect caricature of hypocrisy and
pride. Furthermore, Raskolnikov helps with the funeral process of a man he was acquainted
with, Marmeladov, who Raskolnikov witnessed die in a road accident. These events further
demonstrate that Raskolnikov is only human, with both positive and negative sides.

From the plot to the moral implications to the marvelous crafting of the underbelly of
St. Petersburg, where the story takes place, this story is a masterpiece.

Dostoevsky managed to produce the greatest depiction of a conscience in conflict

with itself since Macbeth. So long as the injunction “Thou shalt not kill” continues to be a
part of the Judeo-Christian moral code, Raskolnikov’s anguish will speak directly to the
sensibility of any reader who intuitively believes with Sonia that human life is (or ought to
be) sacred. The confrontations between Sonia and Raskolnikov, which dramatize, with such
agonizing sublimity, the clash between the ideals of love and justice, raise some of the
deepest issues of a Western culture whose double heritage derives from both Greco-Roman
civilization and Christian faith. Such passages soar to heights that can only be compared with
Aeschylus’s Eumenides, Sophocles’s Antigone, or Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, in
their tragic grasp of the most profound moral-philosophical dilemmas.