"'No, I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it! Granted, granted that there is no flaw in all that reasoning, that all that I have concluded this last month is clear as day, true as arithmetic...My God! Anyway I couldn't bring myself to do it! I couldn't do it, I couldn't do it! Why, why then am I still...?' He rose to his feet, looked round in wonder as though surprised at finding himself in this place, and went towards the bridge. He was pale, his eyes glowed, he was exhausted in every limb, but he seemed suddenly to breathe more easily. He felt he had cast off that fearful burden that had so long been weighing upon him, and all at once there was a sense of relief and peace in his soul. 'Lord,' he prayed, 'show me my path-I renounce that accursed...dream of mine.' Crossing the bridge, he gazed quietly and calmly at the Neva, at the glowing red sun setting in the glowing sky. In spite of his weakness he was not conscious of fatigue. It was as though an abscess that had been forming for a month past in his heart had suddenly broken. Freedom, freedom! He was free from that spell, that sorcery, that obsession!"
-page 63
In this section of the text, Raskolnikov decides that he will give up on the idea of murdering the pawnbroker, and this really does a lot of good for his conscious as he finally finds some freedom and peace from such horrible thoughts. Before this, he was completely obsessed with the idea. It appeared in his dreams, and it filled his thoughts.
"Raskolnikov had just passed and heard no more. He passed softly, unnoticed, trying not to miss a word. His first amazement was followed by a thrill of horror, like a shiver running down his spine. He had learnt, he had suddenly quite unexpectedly learnt, that the next day at seven o'clock Lizaveta, the old woman's sister and only companion, would be away from home and that therefore at seven o'clock precisely the old woman would be left alone. He was only a few steps from his lodging. He went in like a man condemned to death. He thought of nothing and was incapable of thinking; but he felt suddenly in his whole being that he had no more freedom of thought, no will, and that everything was suddenly and irrevocably decided. Certainly, if he had to wait whole years for a suitable opportunity, he could no reckon on a more certain step towards the success of the plan than that which had just presented itself. In any case, it would have been difficult to find out beforehand and with certainty, with greater exactness and less risk, and without dangerous inquiries and investigations, that next day at a certain time an old woman, on whose life an attempt was contemplated, would be at home and entirely alone."
-page 65
This fact proceeds to mess up any previous idea Raskolnikov had of not killing the old woman as he now learns of the perfect opportunity to kill her as she would be alone. The weight of the idea of murder is placed back on him as Raskolnikov has to genuinely consider again whether or not he should murder the pawnbroker. The quote says, "He went in like a man condemned to death." which is a powerful statement. This reinforces that learning about the pawnbroker being alone really forced him to reconsider everything he had decided just about a few minutes before.
"'I only believe in my leading idea that men are in general divided by a law of nature into two categories, inferior (ordinary), that is, so to say, material that serves only to reproduce its kind, and men who have the gift or the talent to utter a new word. There are, of course, innumerable sub-divisions, but the distinguishing features of both categories are fairly well marked. The first category, generally speaking, are men conservative in temperament and law-abiding; they live under control and love to be controlled. To my thinking it is their duty to be controlled, because that's their vocation, and there is nothing humiliating in it for them. The second category all transgress the law; they are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities.'"
-page 263
This quote shows Raskolnikov's philosophy, and what he believes about all people in general. He claims that all people are divided into two categories: ordinary people and extraordinary people. When he says this, Raskolnikov means that ordinary people are law-abiding and love to be controlled because they are unable to rule themselves. For extraordinary people, he means that those people are the ones who create the law and break the law. The law essentially doesn't apply to them. They are the geniuses, conquerors, and criminal masterminds of the world. Raskolnikov uses the example of Napoleon Bonaparte later in the story to describe these extraordinary people.
"'If he has a conscience he will suffer for his mistake. That will be his punishment—as well as the prison.' 'But the real geniuses,' asked Razumihin frowning, 'those who have the right to murder? Oughtn't they to suffer at all even for the blood they've shed?' 'Why the word ought? It's not a matter of permission or prohibition. He will suffer if he is sorry for his victim. Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth,'"
-page 267
Raskolnikov says here that even extraordinary people will suffer for the mistakes they've made, and the blood they've shed. He believes that no matter whether or not the person is ordinary or extraordinary if they feel sorry for what they did they will suffer. This is where he says one of my favorite quotes from the entire book. 'The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth,' this quote explains a lot about Raskolnikov's whole philosophy on ordinary and extraordinary people. He believes that all the extraordinary people suffer for the horrible actions they commit, but I believe that what he is implying is that these extraordinary people are able to succeed in their goals even though they suffer for it. That is what makes these extraordinary people so extraordinary. As you will read in the next quote, Raskolnikov commits one of these horrible actions, but where he fell short from being extraordinary is that he couldn't withstand the suffering.
"'Why does my action strike them as so horrible?' he said to himself. 'Is it because it was a crime? What is meant by crime? My conscience is at rest. Of course, it was a legal crime, of course, the letter of the law was broken and blood was shed. Well, punish me for the letter of the law... and that's enough. Of course, in that case many of the benefactors of mankind who snatched power for themselves instead of inheriting it ought to have been punished at their first steps. But those men succeeded and so they were right, and I didn't, and so I had no right to have taken that step.' It was only in that that he recognized his criminality, only in the fact that he had been unsuccessful and had confessed it."
-page 545
When you consider my analysis of the previous quote, you notice that Raskolnikov says that 'his conscience is at rest' while I already said that Raskolnikov was suffering for his action. You may now be confused as it appears that Raskolnikov is not suffering, but I believe that his suffering was found more in the fact that he already knew he wasn't an extraordinary person. This may also be some of Raskolnikov's unreliability as a narrator showing through as earlier in the story it is obvious for the reader to see that Raskolnikov is suffering over the murder through getting sick and other things. I will discuss Raskolnikov's unreliability more in my Dostoevsky's Writing Style post.
All of this is interesting because when you compare this to existentialism, which I will discuss in my Psychological Genre & Philosophy post, you know that as you are watching Dostoevsky existentially psychoanalyze Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov is already aware that he is, in fact, not one of the extraordinary people who can bend the rules like he described earlier. He already had knowledge of this fact, and yet he still went through with the murder simply because he was not yet aware of this knowledge. What I mean by this is that Raskolnikov already had the knowledge that he wouldn't succeed in the murder because he wasn't extraordinary, but he went through with the murder anyway because while this knowledge was found in his consciousness, he lacked understanding of it. Existential psychoanalysis does not believe in the idea of a subconscious, but they do believe that the subject may be fully conscious and still not really know or understand the knowledge. This all is the basis of existential psychoanalysis, which I will discuss more in depth in my Psychological Genre & Philosophy post.
*Citation Note: all quotes are taken from Constance Garnett's translation of Crime and Punishment*
Comments