Article n insurance crime and punishment. Fear criticism crime and punishment. Nihilism with a human face

Due to some reality, and, most importantly, due to exaggerated and distorted concepts about the state of public opinion, the accusation of Mr. Dostoevsky becomes possible. The worst thing happens when they are zealous defenders, but from their words it is clear that they also fully recognize the guilt of the accused and are only trying to avert the eyes of the public through lawyerly tricks. This was the fate that befell Mr. Dostoevsky.

One "critic""about PiN: " The basis of Mr. Dostoevsky's novel is the attempted murder and robbery that he assumed existed in the student corporation, existing as a principle. What reasonable purpose can justify portraying a young boy, a student, as a murderer, motivating this murder with scientific beliefs and, finally, spreading these beliefs to an entire student corporation?".

appeared another "critic", who began to defend Mr. Dostoevsky against the first critic. He considered it his duty, as he puts it, “to withdraw the accusation from an honest writer. The proof is very simple. “Raskolnikov is a sick man” - that’s the whole answer. So, Mr. Dostoevsky wrote us a story of some madness. If so, then , of course, one cannot think that “he wanted to disgrace the younger generation with his Raskolnikov.”

How to understand such an almost incredible distortion of the meaning of the novel? Perhaps he is so unclear, performs his chosen task so poorly that it would be easy to be mistaken in his idea? This is partly true, of course; there are significant shortcomings in the novel that interfere with the artistic clarity of the images, (with a completely solid, completely distinct manner of painting faces, it would not be so easy to classify Raskolnikov as crazy). The main reason thing is the critic was afraid of direct interpretation. He was afraid that the direct meaning of the novel was accusing the younger generation of “a universal desire for murder and robbery”.

Nihilists have long been portrayed in our novels and stories, but to us they are funny and disgusting creatures, vulgar and repulsive. What did Mr. Dostoevsky do? Although his Raskolnikov suffers from youthful cowardice and selfishness, he presents to us a person with the makings of a strong mind and a warm heart A. The author took deeper nature, attributed to her a deeper evasion of life than other writers who dealt with nihilism. His goal was... depict the suffering that a living person endures, having reached such a break with life. This is not laughter at the younger generation, not reproaches and accusations, this is... crying over him. IN depicted before us for the first time unhappy nihilist, a nihilist deeply humanly suffering. Regret- this is the attitude that the author has taken towards nihilism - an almost new attitude. Therefore, the author was accused of some kind of desire to disgrace our younger generation.

This resistance to life, this rebuff of hers against the power of theories and fantasies is stunningly presented by Mr. Dostoevsky. Show, how life and theory struggle in the human soul, And that victory remains with life- such was the task of the novel.

The novel has been written in an objective manner, the author does not speak in abstract terms about the intelligence and character of his heroes, but directly makes them act, think and feel. The author, in particular, characterizes Raskolnikov as the main character in almost no way; but everywhere Raskolnikov is a man with the makings of a clear mind, a strong character, and a noble heart. He is like this in all other actions except his crime. Such people cannot remain inactive; thirst for life, whatever it is, but only now, as quickly as possible, he brings them to absurdities, to the breaking of their souls and even to complete death.

The main root from which Raskolnikov’s monstrous intention grew lies in some theories, which he repeatedly and consistently develops; the murder itself occurred out of an indispensable desire attach to case your theory.

What is that theory, who so captivated and tortured this young man? In the novel it is presented in detail and clearly in many places; This is a very clear and logically coherent theory. Moreover, she does not amaze with anything strange; This is not the logic of a madman; on the contrary, as Razumikhin notes, “this is not new and Seems like to everything that we have read and heard a thousand times" (Vol. I, p. 409).

This theory, it seems to us, can be reduced to three main points.

1. First consists of a very proud, contemptuous view of people, based on the consciousness of one’s mental superiority.

2. Second point - in a certain view of the course of human affairs, of history; This look directly follows from a contemptuous look at people in general. I know for sure that they are stupid. Those who dare a lot are right. IN look enlightened despotism,

3. “Life is given to me once and will never be again; I don't want to wait general happiness." Raskolnikov decided to disrupt the ordinary course of affairs not in order to change the course of world history, but to change his personal fate and the fate of his loved ones. What he wanted in this regard, he explains in detail to Sonya.

Obviously, the main thing that moved him, that fired his imagination, was the demand to apply his theory, to realize in practice what he allowed himself in thought. Here's the most the essence of the crime. This murder of principle .

Article two and last, 1867

Raskolnikov not a type. The purpose of the novel is not to bring before the eyes of the readers some new type, to portray to us “poor” people, an “underground” person, people of the “dead house”, “fathers and sons”, etc. All the novel centers around one act, around the time when some action and what consequences it entailed in the soul of the perpetrator. And in this respect, Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel is very typical. All the processes that take place in the soul of a criminal are surprisingly typically depicted; This is what constitutes the main theme of the novel and what amazes readers in it . At first a perverted idea swallowed up R-va, and then it awakened in him with irresistible force. Human , the human soul torments him with its awakening, which he tries to cope with. Raskolnikov's personality is suppressed by the event itself and does not represent a clear typical image.

Much more correctly we can demand clearer typicality from other people novel. The most successful and even quite successful should be considered the drunkard Marmeladov and his wife Katerina Ivanovna. These are real types, brightly and clearly defined. D opened for readers how it is possible to have sympathy for these people, so weak, funny, and pitiful.

But the author’s main strength, as we have already noted, is not in the types, but in the depiction of positions, in the ability to deeply grasp individual movements and shocks of the human soul. In this respect, he achieved complete and amazing mastery in many places in his new novel.

The novel was conceived and located very simple, but together correct and strict O. The well-known gradualness in mental suffering criminal.

So, central part of the novel mainly occupied with the image attacks of fear and that one heartache, which reflects the awakening of conscience. As is his usual practice, the author wrote many variations on these themes. One after another he describes to us all sorts of changes in the same feelings. This reports monotone throughout the novel, although it does not deprive it of its entertainment. But the novel languishes and torments the reader instead of amazing him. The amazing moments that Raskolnikov experiences are lost among his constant torment, now weakening, then striking again. This cannot be said to be untrue; but it may be noted that this is not clear. The story is not focused around certain points that would suddenly illuminate for the reader the full depth of Raskolnikov’s mental state.

Indeed What is the main interest of the novel?? The reader is waiting internal coup in Raskolnikov. The principle that Raskolnikov wanted to kill in himself must resurrect in his soul and speak with even greater force than before. But this aspect of the task turned out to be too large and difficult to tackle in this same work. This is where the disadvantage and at the same time the advantage of the novel Mr. Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov is so fierce in his abstraction that the renewal of this fallen soul could not be accomplished easily and would probably present us with the emergence of spiritual beauty and harmony of a very high order.

Raskolnikov is truly Russian man precisely that reached the end, reached the edge the path on which his lost mind led him. This trait of the Russian people, the trait of extreme seriousness, seems to the religiosity with which they indulge in their ideas, is the cause of many of our troubles.

Unlike many other seminarians, Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896) left the bursa with dogmatic religious convictions, which subsequently did not leave him (Skatov 1984:10).

Strakhov met Fyodor Dostoevsky and his brother Mikhail in 1859 or 1860. He became their employee when they began publishing their magazine Vremya in 1861. The magazine was banned already in May 1863, according to Dostoevsky's wife, Anna Grigorievna, because of an article written by Strakhov (Dostoevskaya 1971:399). When Mikhail Dostoevsky received permission to open the Epoch magazine in January 1864, Strakhov was again invited to collaborate. Employees of the magazines “Time” and “Epoch” founded a kind of social and literary movement, “pochvennichestvo,” which was “for rapprochement with the people, with the soil” (Skatov 1984:22) and against the revolution. Their attitude towards revolutionary magazines was tense. It was Strakhov who often entered into polemics with radicals, considering this his personal struggle: “Very early, Strakhov’s position was defined for him as anti-nihilistic” (ibid.: 13).

At one time, his polemic with Pisarev over Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” made a splash. Pisarev’s dispute with Strakhov about “Crime and Punishment,” which will be discussed in this chapter, is also classic.

Nihilism with a human face

While other nihilists from literature enjoy life and rejoice in their nihilistic principles, for Raskolnikov the suppression of the impulses of his soul becomes unbearable, and he voluntarily goes to prison. Thus, for the first time in history, Dostoevsky showed an unhappy, suffering nihilist, Strakhov assures. He showed nihilism as a tragic phenomenon, as a distortion of the soul, accompanied by terrible suffering.

From Raskolnikov’s words to Sonya “I killed myself, not the old woman,” Strakhov draws a conclusion, which later became so popular in criticism, that the murder committed by Raskolnikov was, first of all, a crime against himself: “With inexpressible torment he feels that the violence committed over their moral nature constitutes a greater sin than the act of murder itself. This is the real crime” (ibid:101).

Raskolnikov’s main motivation, as Strakhov believes, is his desire to put his theory into practice, “to realize in practice what he allowed himself to think” (ibid.: 109). By showing nihilism in its most extreme form, the writer has the opportunity to apply the correct attitude to nihilism as a whole, Strakhov believes: “Regret is the attitude in which the author has adopted towards nihilism” (ibid.: 102). For Strakhov, the main idea of ​​the novel is that life itself resists Raskolnikov’s theory.

14dost.weebly.com

Critics about the novel “Crime and Punishment” and the work of F.M. Dostoevsky

Approaching him for the first time, we expect to find a finished work, a poet, but we discover boundlessness, an entire universe with luminaries rotating in it and the special music of the spheres. The mind loses hope of ever fully penetrating this world: its magic seems too alien to us at the first cognition, its thought carries too far into infinity, its purpose is unclear - and the soul cannot freely admire this new sky as if it were its own. Dostoevsky is nothing until he is perceived by the inner world. In the deepest depths, we must test our own power of sympathy and suffering and temper it for a new, heightened sensitivity: we must get to the bottom of its seemingly fantastic and at the same time so genuine humanity. Only there, in the most secret, in the eternal and unchanging depths of our existence, where all the roots are intertwined, can we hope to find a connection with Dostoevsky.

In Dostoevsky’s work, each hero solves his problems anew, with bloody hands he himself sets the boundaries of good and evil, each himself transforms his own chaos into the world. Each hero is a servant, a herald of the new Christ, a martyr and a herald of the third kingdom. The primordial chaos also wanders within them, but the dawn of the first day, which gave light to the earth, and the premonition of the sixth day, on which a new man will be created, are dawning. His heroes pave the way for a new world, Dostoevsky’s novel is a myth about a new man and his birth from the womb of the Russian soul. ( S. Zweig. From the essay "Dostoevsky".)

Dostoevsky so boldly brought onto the stage pitiful and terrible figures, spiritual ulcers of every year, because he knew how or recognized the ability to pronounce the highest judgment on them. He saw the spark of God in the most fallen and perverted man; he followed the slightest flash of this spark and discerned the features of spiritual beauty in those phenomena to which we are accustomed to treat with contempt, ridicule or disgust. This tender and high humanity can be called his muse, and it was she who gave him the measure of good and evil with which he descended into the most terrible spiritual abysses. ( N.N. Strakh. From memories of Dostoevsky.)

The great artist from the first words captivates his reader, then leads him through the steps of all kinds of falls and, forcing him to suffer them in his soul, finally reconciles him with the fallen, in whom, through the transient environment of a vicious, criminal person, one can see drawn with love and ardent faith the eternal features of the unfortunate brother. The images created by Dostoevsky in the novel “Crime and Punishment” will not die, not only because of the artistic power of the image, but also as an example of the amazing ability to find the “living soul” under the most coarse, gloomy, disfigured form - and, having revealed it, show it with compassion and awe in it, either quietly smoldering or spreading a bright, reconciling light, is the spark of God.

Life represents three kinds of sick people, in the broad and technical sense of the word: sick of will, sick of mind, sick, so to speak, from unsatisfied spiritual hunger. About each of these patients, Dostoevsky said his human weighty word in highly artistic images. There are hardly many scientific depictions of mental disorders that could eclipse their deeply faithful pictures, scattered in such abundance in his writings. In particular, he developed individual manifestations of elementary mental disorders - hallucinations and illusions. It is worth recalling Raskolnikov’s hallucinations after the murder of the pawnbroker or Svidrigailov’s painful illusions in the cold room of a dirty tavern in the park. The artist's providence and the great power of Dostoevsky's creativity created pictures so confirmed by scientific observations that, probably, not a single psychiatrist would refuse to sign his name to them instead of the name of the poet of the sorrowful aspects of human life. ( A.F. Horses. From the article “F.M. Dostoevsky.")

In Dostoevsky's works we find one common feature, more or less noticeable in everything he wrote: this is pain about a person who recognizes himself as unable, or finally, not even entitled to be a real person, a complete, independent person, in himself . Every person should be a person and treat others as a person treats a person. ( ON THE. Dobrolyubov. From memories of Dostoevsky.)

First of all, gentlemen, the significance of Dostoevsky lies in the fact that he was a true poet. This word, it seems to me, has already said a lot.

All of us, ordinary people, every day calmly, without worrying or shuddering, run through newspaper lines that tell about various cases of human suffering: diphtheria, famine, suicide. Let us read that so-and-so died, that why he killed himself is unknown, and we forget the incident itself or begin to compare it with others already known to us. We often meet a beggar and, having refused him an alms that costs us nothing, we then throw away the money for the most empty pleasure. We can count many such cases. And all this does not at all show that we are bad people, but simply that we are ordinary people. For the poet, various everyday events, especially human grief (it is generally easier to experience someone else's grief than someone else's joy), have far from the same influence.

So, first of all, the poet is more responsive than ordinary people, then he knows how to convey his images in a living, accessible to others and more or less beautiful form. The fact is that the poet puts his soul, his thoughts, observations, sympathies, covenants, and beliefs into the image. He lives in his work: he feels, thinks, rejoices and cries with his hero. His images are not only clear to him down to the smallest detail: they are loved by him, they are family to him. With his lines, he forces the reader to look at this or that side of life and not only recognize, but feel the honest and the base, the sacred and the vulgar.

What is Dostoevsky's ideal? The first and highest feature of this ideal is not to despair of looking for high and honest feelings in the most downtrodden, disgraced and even criminal person. The inscription on the house of one ancient philosopher “Intrate nam et hic dei sunt” (Latin - enter, for here are the gods) could be inscribed on many of Dostoevsky’s images. Here is a small official, uneducated, poor, but can anyone so sincerely and passionately love a loved one, so delicately and carefully help him, so quietly and modestly sacrifice his peace and comfort. Here is an eternally drunk, lost, morally fallen staff captain, who, however, knows how to deeply love his burden - his family, knows how to grieve inconsolably over the grave of his little son and, in a moment of enlightenment, speak with the proud voice of human dignity. Here is a criminal showing traits of strong comradeship and compassion. And there are dozens of such examples. Another feature of Dostoevsky’s ideal is the conviction that love for people alone can elevate a person and give him a real purpose in life.

Dostoevsky's love for people is a living and active Christian love, inseparable from the desire to help and self-sacrifice. Dostoevsky's poetry is the poetry of a pure heart. ( I. F. Annensky. From the essay “Speech about Dostoevsky.”)

Sonya’s heart is so completely given over to the torment of others, she sees and foresees so much of them, and her compassion is so insatiably greedy that her own torment and humiliation cannot help but seem to her only as a detail - there is no longer room for them in her heart.

Sonya is followed by her father in the flesh and her child in spirit - old Marmeladov. And he is more complex than Sonya in thought, because by accepting sacrifice, he also accepts suffering. He is also meek, but not with the overshadowing meekness, but with the meekness of fall and sin. He is one of those people for whose sake Christ gave himself to be crucified; This is not a martyr or a victim, he may even be a monster, but not a selfish person - most importantly, he does not complain, on the contrary, he is glad to be reproached. And loving, he is ashamed of his love, and for this she, love, experiences Marmeladov in his wretched and afterlife offering. ( I.F. Annensky. From the article “Dostoevsky in artistic ideology.”)

Dostoevsky seems to me the most alive of all the leaders and heroes of spirit who have left us. Those who performed the work of yesterday's history are, in a sense, closer to the lived experience than the unshakable lights that mark the path to the highest goals.

Thirty years ago Dostoevsky died, and the images of his art, these living ghosts with which he populated our environment, are not an inch behind us, do not want to retire to the bright abodes of the Muses and become the subject of our alienated and weak-willed contemplation. Like restless wanderers, they knock on our houses on dark and white nights, are recognized on the streets in the dubious spots of the St. Petersburg fog, and settle down to talk with us during sleepless hours in our own underground. Dostoevsky lit the most distant beacons on the edge of the horizon, almost incredible in the power of their unearthly brilliance, no longer seeming to be the beacons of the earth, but the stars of the sky - but he himself did not leave us, remains persistently with us and, directing their rays into our hearts, burns us with his touches hot iron. He answers every convulsion of our heart: “I know, and further, and I know more”; to every glance of the whirlpool that beckons us, the abyss that calls us, it responds with the singing of dizzying flutes of the depths. And he forever stands before us, with a searching and unsolved gaze, unsolved himself, but who has unraveled us, a gloomy and vigilant guide in our spiritual labyrinth, a guide and a spy.

He is alive among us, because from him or through him everything we live by is both our light and our underground. He is the great initiator and predeterminer of our cultural complexity. Before him, everything in Russian life, in Russian thought, was simple. He made our soul, our faith, our art complex, created, discovered, revealed, put into the form of implementation - our beginning and not yet realized complexity; He posed questions to the future that no one had asked before, and whispered answers to questions that were not yet understood. He seemed to have moved the planetary system: he brought to us, who had not yet experienced that revelation of personality that the West had been experiencing for centuries, one of the last and final revelations about it, hitherto unknown to the world.

Before him, our personality felt in the way of life and in its way of life or in contradiction with this way of life and way of life, be it a single dispute and duel, like Aleko and the Pechorins, or a rebellion en masse and the performance of an entire phalanx, like our champions of social truth and civil liberty. But we did not know either the man from the underground, or supermen like Raskolnikov and Kirillov, representatives of idealistic individualism, the central suns of the universe in the attics and backyards of St. Petersburg, personal poles around which moves not only the entire system of life that denies them, but also the entire denied the world with them - and in conversations with whom in their secluded lairs the newly-minted Zarathustra learned so much.

In order to deepen and enrich our inner world so much, in order to complicate life so much, this greatest of Daedalus, the builders of the labyrinth, had to be the most complex and, in his way, the grandest of artists. He was the architect of the underground labyrinth in the foundations of the temple, which took generations to build; and that is why he is such a heavy, underground artist, and so rarely in his works is the bright face of the earth visible, the clear sun over the wide fields, and only the eternal stars sometimes look through the openings of the vaults, like those stars that Dante sees while spending the night in one of the regions Purgatory, from the depths of a cave with a narrow entrance, about which he says: “Little from the outside was visible to the eye, but through that I saw the stars both clear and unusually large.” ( IN AND. Ivanov. From the article “Dostoevsky and his tragedy novel.”)

The shadow of the Last Judgment completely changes reality in Dostoevsky's novels. Every thought, every action in our earthly life is reflected in another, eternal life. At the same time, Dostoevsky destroys the border between top and bottom. The world he depicts is one. It is both momentary and eternal. That is, the judgment and the Last Judgment are still one and the same.

Only by overcoming this logical contradiction can we accept the special realism of Crime and Punishment. ( P. Weil, A. Genis. From the essay “The Last Judgment. Dostoevsky.")

Materials about the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment":

Article two and last

“Raskolnikov is a truly Russian man precisely in that he has reached the end, the edge of the road on which his lost mind led him.” Strakhov
N. N. STRAKHOV
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Article two and last
Raskolnikov is not a type. That is, he is not so unique, does not represent such definite and organically connected features that his image floats before us like a living face. In particular, this is not a nihilistic type, but a modification of that type of real nihilist, which is more or less familiar to everyone and which was guessed earlier and more accurately by Turgenev in his Bazarov.
What? Does this interfere with the romance? Those who have read the novel, we think, will agree with us that the lack of greater typicality here does not harm, but even seems to help the matter. Raskolnikov's uncertainty, youthful uncertainty and uncertainty suit his fantastic (according to Porfiry) act. In addition, one involuntarily feels that Bazarov would in no way have done such and such a thing. The man, therefore, was chosen by Mr. Dostoevsky; one cannot say that it is not true.
But the main thing here, obviously, is not in the person, not in the depiction of a certain type. This is not the center of gravity of the novel. The purpose of the novel is not to bring before the eyes of the readers some new type, to portray to us “poor” people, an “underground” person, people of the “house of the dead,” “fathers and sons,” etc. The entire novel is centered around one act, about how a certain action was born and carried out and what consequences it entailed in the soul of the person who committed it. That’s what the novel is called; it doesn’t contain the name of a person, but the name of an event that happened to him. The subject is stated quite clearly: it is a question of crime and punishment.
And in this regard, everyone will agree that Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel is very typical. All the processes that take place in the soul of a criminal are surprisingly typically depicted; This is what constitutes the main theme of the novel and what amazes readers in it. It vividly and deeply captures how the idea of ​​crime arises and strengthens in a person, how the soul fights against it, instinctively feeling the horror of this idea, how a person who has nurtured an evil thought in himself is finally almost deprived of will and reason and blindly obeys it, how he mechanically commits a crime that has been ripening organically in him for a long time, how fear, suspicion, anger towards people from whom he is threatened with punishment later awakens in him, how he begins to feel disgust towards himself and his work, how the touch of living and warm life awakens in him silent torment of unconscious repentance, as, finally, “Suppose,” he says to Sonya, “that I am proud, envious, angry, vile, vindictive.” “I told you just now that I couldn’t support myself at the university. But do you know that maybe I could. Mother would have sent me to bring in what was needed, and I would have earned money myself for boots, clothes and bread; maybe! Lessons were published and they offered fifty dollars. Razumikhin is working! Yes, I got angry and didn’t want to. Just got angry (that’s a good word!) Then I hid in my corner like a spider. You were in my kennel, you saw it. Do you know, Sonya, that low ceilings and cramped rooms cramp the soul and mind! Oh, how I hated this kennel! But still I didn’t want to leave it. I didn't mean to on purpose! I didn’t go out for days and didn’t want to work, and didn’t even want to eat, I just lay there. If Nastasya brought it, I’d eat, if she didn’t bring it, the day would pass, I didn’t ask on purpose out of malice! There is no light at night, I lie in the dark, but I don’t want to earn money for candles. I had to study, I sold my books, but on my table, on notes and on notebooks, there’s enough dust on my finger and now there’s dust. I preferred to lie and think. And I kept thinking. “Pride and the bitterness that comes from it are the traits of Raskolnikov on which the idea of ​​the crime is based. The process that usually takes place in the soul of a criminal is beautifully depicted: a person irritates, sets himself up for a terrible deed, tries to get carried away to the point of self-forgetfulness. The novel opens at the moment of the full development of this process. Raskolnikov goes to the pawnbroker to make a test. But the nature in him is indignant, and he is overcome by a feeling of the infinite. disgust, he is suddenly drawn to people by something, and he meets Marmeladov, accompanies him home and sees his family. This picture again arouses in him a surge of anger, and an evil thought is resurrected again. A letter from his mother comes out with bad news - his sister sacrifices herself for the good mother and brother Raskolnikov’s embitterment reaches the highest degree. The excitement and internal struggle that Raskolnikov experiences as a result of his mother’s letter is excellently depicted. He painfully analyzes all the hopelessness of his situation, all his powerlessness to improve the matter “Suddenly he shuddered, one, also yesterday’s thought, flashed through his head again But he shuddered not because this thought flashed through him. He knew, he had a presentiment that it would certainly flash through, and was already waiting for it, and this thought was not at all yesterday. But the difference was that a month ago and even yesterday it was only a dream, and now suddenly it appeared not as a dream, but in some new, menacing and completely unfamiliar form, and he suddenly realized it himself. It hit him in the head and darkened his vision.” Raskolnikov no longer controlled himself, his thoughts overpowered him. A meeting with a girl who has just been carried away on the path of vice drives regret about his sister even deeper into his heart. Instinctively trying to get away from his evil thought, he goes to Razu-mikhin. But he doesn’t understand himself and, having come to his senses, decides: “I’ll go to Razumikhin the next day, after that, when it’s already over and when everything goes in a new way. “But once again, for the last time, the soul awakens in him with all its strength. He goes somewhere further from the house where “in the corner, in this terrible closet, all this was ripening.” On the road, he falls asleep on a park bench and sees a tedious dream, in which the protest of his soul against his planned business is expressed. He sees himself as a boy, bursting with pity at the sight of a horse being inhumanly killed. Waking up, suppressed by the impressions of sleep, he finally clearly feels how his nature opposes the crime he is planning. “I can’t stand it, I can’t stand it!” - he repeats. “He was pale, his eyes were burning, exhaustion was in all his limbs, but he suddenly began to breathe as if easier. He felt that he had already thrown off this terrible burden that had been weighing him down for so long, and his soul suddenly felt light and peaceful. "God! - he prayed, “show me my path, and I will renounce this damned dream of mine!” It is almost impossible to tell further. Raskolnikov, exhausted and exhausted by his internal struggle, finally submits to the thought that he had been growing in his soul for so long. The description of the crime is amazing and cannot be conveyed in other words. Blindly, mechanically, Raskolnikov carries out a long-established plan. His soul froze, and he acts as if in a dream. He has almost no thoughts or memory; his actions are incoherent and random. It was as if everything human in him had disappeared, and only some animal cunning, an animal instinct of self-preservation allowed him to finish the job and escape from capture. His soul was dying, but the beast was alive. After committing a crime, Raskolnikov begins a double series of torments. Firstly, the torment of fear Despite the fact that all ends are hidden, suspicion does not leave him for a minute, and the slightest reason for apprehension fills him with excruciating fear. The second series of torments lies in the feelings that the killer experiences when approaching other people, with faces that have nothing in their souls, that are full of warmth and life. This rapprochement occurs in two ways. Firstly, the criminal himself is drawn to living people, because he would like to become on an equal footing with them, to throw away the barrier that he himself put between them and himself. This is why Raskolnikov goes to Razumikhin. “I said (he thinks to himself) the day before. that after that I’ll go to him the next day, well, I’ll go.’ As if I couldn’t go in now.” For the same reason, he begins to work so hard for the crushed Marmeladov and becomes close to his orphaned family, especially Sonya. The second circumstance why Raskolnikov found himself among people living and having close relationships with him was the arrival of his family in St. Petersburg. That letter, which was the final impetus for the murder, contained the news that Raskolnikov’s mother and sister were to come to St. Petersburg, where the sister would sacrifice herself by marrying Luzhin. Thus, Raskolnikov, who until then was lonely and moving away from people, is now, willingly or unwillingly, surrounded by the people with whom he is most closely connected. The reader feels that if these people had been around Raskolnikov before, he would never have committed the crime. Now, when the crime has been committed, these people give rise to the awakening in the soul of the criminal of all kinds of torment caused by the touch of life on a soul that has perverted itself and is stagnant in its perversion. This is a very simple, but at the same time very correct and skillful construction of the novel. A certain gradualism in the mental suffering of the criminal is also very correctly developed. At first, Raskolnikov is completely depressed by what happened and even falls ill. His first attempt to meet living people, a date with Razumi-khin, simply stuns him. “Going up to Razumikhin, he did not think about the fact that, therefore, he had to come face to face with him. Now, in an instant, he guessed from experience that he was least inclined at that moment to come face to face with anyone in the world.” He leaves without controlling himself. In the same way, the first pangs of fear suppress him. They are resolved by a terrible, painful dream (an amazing two pages), after which Raskolnikov falls ill. Little by little, however, the criminal becomes stronger. He gets along with Razumikhin, is cunning with Zametov, takes an active part in the fate of the Marmeladov family, in the fate of his sister, dodges the cunning investigator Porfiry, reveals his secret to Sonya, etc. But, as the criminal gains control of himself, his suffering does not weaken, but only becomes more constant and more definite. At first, he still feels gusts of joy, when fear, brought on by some accident, suddenly leaves his heart, or when he manages to get closer to other people and feel like he is still human. But then these hesitations disappear. “Some kind of special melancholy,” says the author, “began to affect him recently. There was nothing particularly caustic or burning in it; but from her there was a sense of something constant, eternal, there was a presentiment of hopeless years of e-yu cold, deadening melancholy, there was a presentiment of some kind of eternity at the “yard of space.” These are the motives on which the largest, central part of the novel was written. - although, really, in such things it is difficult to rely on one’s own judgment and it is better to trust the insight of the artist - that in Raskolnikov’s soul, in addition to fear and pain, a third theme should still occupy a large place - the memory of the crime. The imagination and memory of the criminal, It would seem that we should more often turn to the picture of a terrible case. To clarify our idea, let us recall the excellent description of the crime in Dickens’s novel “Our Mutual Friend”. Teacher Bradley Hedstone kills Eugene Raybourn. The state of the killer immediately after the crime and deliverance from danger is described as follows: “He was in that state of mind that is heavier and more painful than remorse. There was no remorse in him; but the villain, who can remove this avenger from himself, is not able to avoid the slower torture, which consists in the continuous redoing of his crime, and redoing it all with great and great success. In the exculpatory testimony and in the feigned consciousness of the murderers, the punishing shadow of this torture can be traced in every lie spoken. If I had done this, as they show, is it possible to imagine that I would have made such and such a mistake? If I had done this, as they show, would I really have left unclosed this loophole that a false and malicious witness so dishonestly exposes against me? The state of a villain, constantly revealing weak points in his crime, trying to strengthen them, when the deed done can no longer be changed, is a state that increases the severity of the crime by forcing him to commit it a thousand times instead of once; but at the same time this is a state that in evil and unrepentant natures punishes crime with the most severe punishment.” “Bradley hurried forward, heavily chained to the idea of ​​​​his hatred and his vengeance, and kept thinking that he could satisfy both in many ways, much more successful in comparison with what he did. The gun could have been better, the place and time could have been better chosen. Hitting a man from behind in the dark, on the edge of a river, is quite a clever thing; but it would be necessary to immediately deprive him of the opportunity to defend himself; but instead, he managed to turn around and grab his opponent, and therefore, in order to finish him off before any chance help appeared, he had to get rid of him, hastily push him into the river before the life was completely knocked out of him. If it were possible to do it again, it would have to be done wrong. It is assumed that his head would need to be kept under water for some time. The first strike is supposed to be more accurate; he is supposed to be shot; he is supposed to be strangled. Assume anything, just do not assume to break away from this one idea; this would turn out to be an inexorable impossibility.” “School started the next day. The disciples saw little or no change in the face of their teacher, for it always bore a slowly changing expression. But while he was listening to the lesson, he kept redoing his work, and redoing it better. Standing with a piece of chalk at the black board, before he began to write on it, he thought about the place on the bank, and whether the water was deeper, and whether the fall could not have taken place more directly, somewhere higher or lower on the river. He was ready to draw a line or two on the board to find out for himself what he was thinking. He did it all over again, making it ever better—during class prayers, during questions asked of students, and throughout the day.” It would seem that something similar should happen with Raskolnikov. Meanwhile, Raskolnikov returns to his crime with his imagination only twice. At the same time, it is necessary to give justice to the author that both memories are depicted with amazing force. For the first time, Raskolnikov, out of involuntary attraction, comes to the crime scene himself. For the second time, after a tradesman called him a murderer on the street, he has a dream in which he kills his victim a second time. This dream, and also the two previous dreams that we cited, constitute perhaps the best pages of the novel. The fantastic nature inherent in dreams is captured with amazing brightness and fidelity. Strange, but a deep connection with reality is captured in all its strangeness. It is impossible to compare with these dreams the last dream that Raskolnikov sees in hard labor and which is clearly an invention, a cold allegory. So, the central part of the novel is mainly occupied with the depiction of attacks of fear and that mental pain in which the awakening of conscience is reflected. As is his usual practice, the author wrote many variations on these themes. One after another he describes to us all sorts of changes in the same feelings. This imparts monotony to the entire novel, although it does not deprive it of its entertainment. But the novel languishes and torments the reader instead of amazing him. The amazing moments that Raskolnikov experiences are lost among his constant torment, now weakening, then striking again. This cannot be said to be untrue; but it may be noted that this is not clear. The story is not focused around certain points that would suddenly illuminate for the reader the full depth of Raskolnikov’s mental state. Meanwhile, many of these points are captured in the novel; there are many scenes in it where Raskolnikov’s state of mind is revealed with great clarity. We will not dwell on scenes of fear, on these attacks of bestial fear and bestial cunning (as the author himself puts it). For us, of course, the other, positive side of the matter is much more interesting, namely the one where the soul of the criminal awakens and protests against the violence committed against it. With his crime, Raskolnikov cut himself off from living and healthy people. Every touch of life resonates painfully within him. We saw how he could not see Razumikhin. Subsequently, when the kind Razumikhin began to take care and bother about him, the presence of this good-natured man irritates Raskolnikov to the point of frenzy. But how glad Raskolnikov himself is to take care of others, how glad he is to have the opportunity to join someone else’s life on the occasion of Marmeladov’s death! The scene between the murderer and the little girl Polya is very good. “Raskolnikov saw the girl’s thin but sweet face, smiling at him and cheerfully, looking at him like a child. She came running with an errand, which, apparently, she really liked.” “Listen to your name. “and also: where do you live,” she asked hastily, in a breathless voice.” “He put both hands on her shoulders and looked at her with some kind of happiness. He was so pleased to look at her - he didn’t know why.” The conversation ends with a very deep line. Polichka tells how she prays with her mother, her younger sister and brother; Raskolnikov asks her to pray for him too. After this surge of life, Raskolnikov himself goes to Razu-Mikhin, but soon loses his momentary cheerfulness and self-confidence. Then comes a new blow: the arrival of his mother and sister. “A joyful, enthusiastic cry greeted the appearance of Raskolnikov. Both rushed towards him. But he stood as if dead: an unbearable sudden consciousness struck him like thunder. And his hands did not rise to embrace them: they could not. His mother and sister squeezed him in their arms, kissed him, laughed, cried. He took a step, swayed and collapsed on the floor in a faint.” Every time the presence of relatives and conversation with them constitutes torture for the criminal. When his mother explains to him how glad she is to see him, he interrupts her: “Come on, mummy,” he muttered with embarrassment, without looking at her and squeezing her hand. “We’ll have time to talk!” “Having said this, he suddenly became embarrassed and turned pale; again, one recent terrible sensation passed through his soul like a dead cold: again it suddenly became completely clear and understandable to him that he had just told a terrible lie, that not only would he never have time to talk, but Now he can’t talk about anything else, never, or with anyone. The impression of this excruciating pain was so strong that for a moment he almost completely forgot himself, stood up and, without looking at anyone, walked out of the room.” By natural reaction, these torments cause in him hatred for those who cause them. “Mother, sister,” Raskolnikov thinks to himself, “how I loved them! Why do I hate them now? Yes, I hate them, I physically hate them, I can’t stand them around me. “The following passage among the incoherent thoughts of the half-delirious Raskolnikov is very remarkable: “Poor Lizaveta! Why did she turn up here? It’s strange, however, why I hardly think about her, and I certainly didn’t kill her. Lizaveta! Sonya! poor, meek, with gentle eyes... Darlings! Why don't they cry? Why don't they moan? They give everything, they look meekly and quietly. Sonya, Sonya! quiet Sonya! ". Then Raskolnikov gets carried away into the fight with Luzhin and Svidrigailov. But the thought of somehow again entering into living relationships with people continues to torment him. He goes to Sonya in order to reveal his secret to her. From a conversation with her, he sees all her meekness, kindness, and tender compassion. A moment of tenderness comes over him. “He kept walking back and forth, silently and without looking at her. Finally he approached her; his eyes sparkled. He took her by the shoulders with both hands. His gaze was dry, inflamed, sharp, his lips trembled violently. Suddenly he quickly bent over and, crouching to the floor, kissed her leg.” He postpones, however, confession until another time. A new struggle with Porfiry and Luzhin begins, and Raskolnikov again gains courage. He goes to Sonya to confess, as if with the hope of convincing her of his truthfulness, but his plans crumble to dust before contact with the living. face. The scene of consciousness is the best and central scene of the entire novel. Raskolnikov suffers a deep shock. “He was not at all planning to announce this, and he himself did not understand what was happening to him.” When the confession is finally made, it evokes in Sonya those words and actions that contain the verdict on Raskolnikov, the most humane verdict, as Sonya’s very nature demands. “Suddenly, as if pierced, she shuddered, screamed and rushed, without knowing why, in front of him knees - What are you doing, what have you done to yourself! “- she said desperately and, jumping up from her knees, threw herself on his neck, hugged him and squeezed him tightly with her hands. Raskolnikov recoiled and looked at her with a sad smile: “You’re so strange, Sonya - you hug and kiss when I told you about This. You don’t remember yourself - No, there is no one more unhappy than you in the whole world now! - she exclaimed, as if in a frenzy, not having heard his remark, and suddenly began to cry bitterly, as if in hysterics. A feeling that had long been unfamiliar to him surged into his soul like a wave and softened it at once. He did not resist; two tears rolled out of his eyes and hung on his eyelashes. “You won’t leave me like that, Sonya,” he said, looking at her almost hopefully. - No, no, never and nowhere! “Sonya exclaimed.” Here the man has fully expressed himself in Raskolnikov. He does not yet realize, but already feels that there is no one in the world more unhappy than him and that he himself is to blame for his misfortune. “Sonya, I have an evil heart,” he says a few minutes later. Finally, his torment reaches its extreme limit. Then he, the proud, highly intelligent Raskolnikov, turns to the poor girl for advice. “Well, what to do now, speak up! - he asked, suddenly raising his head and looking at her with an ugly face distorted with despair - What to do! - she exclaimed, suddenly jumping up from her seat, and her eyes, hitherto full of tears, suddenly sparkled. “Get up!” (She grabbed him by the shoulder, he stood up, looking at her almost in amazement.) Go now, this very minute, stand at the crossroads, bow, first kiss the earth that you have desecrated, and then bow to the whole world, on all four sides, and tell everyone out loud: “I killed!” Then God will send you life again. Will you go? Will you go? “she asked him, trembling all over, as if in a fit, grabbing him by both hands, squeezing them tightly in her hands and looking at him with a fiery gaze.” Apparently, poor Sonya knows very well what needs to be done. But Raskolnikov still resists and tries overcome his torment. He decides to follow Sonya’s advice only when the clever Porfiry brought him to the point that he could say to his eyes: “How, who killed - yes you killed, Rodion Romanych!” - and then he gave the same advice as Sonya. Having finally decided to give himself away, he says goodbye to his mother, who is only guessing what’s going on, and his sister, who knows everything. These scenes, it seemed to us, are weaker than others. And most importantly, they do not give birth to any new feeling in Raskolnikov’s soul. One of the last minutes before Raskolnikov’s formal consciousness has much more meaning and power. He was already walking to the office through the Sennaya “When he reached the middle of the square, one movement suddenly happened to him - one sensation took possession of him at once, captured him completely - with body and thought. He suddenly remembered Sonya’s words: “Go to the crossroads, bow to the people, kiss the ground, because you have sinned against it, too, and tell the whole world out loud, “I am a murderer!” “He trembled all over, remembering this. And the hopeless melancholy and anxiety of all this time, but especially the last hours, had already crushed him to such an extent that he rushed into the possibility of this whole, new, complete sensation. Somehow it came to him like a fit, it lit up in his soul with one spark, and suddenly, like fire, it engulfed everything. Everything in her softened at once, and tears flowed. As he stood, he fell to the ground." "He knelt down in the middle of the square and bowed. to the ground and kissed this dirty earth with pleasure and happiness. He stood up and bowed another time.” Immediately after that, he betrayed himself. This is the whole mental process of Raskolnikov. We are not talking about the resurrection that is described in the epilogue. It is told in too general terms, and the author himself says that it relates not to this story, but to a new one, to the history of the renewal and rebirth of man. So, Raskolnikov could not fully understand and comprehend the movements that arose in his soul and constituted for him He could not understand such torment and comprehend the pleasure and happiness that he felt when he decided to follow Sonya’s advice “He was a skeptic, he was young, abstract and, therefore, cruel” - this is what the author himself says about his hero. Bitterness did not allow Raskolnikov to understand the voice that spoke so loudly in his soul. Now it will be clear if we say that the author completed only one of the two sides represented by the task. In fact, what is the main interest of the novel? What does the reader constantly expect from the minute the crime is committed? He is waiting for an internal revolution in Raskolnikov, waiting for the awakening in him of a truly human way of feeling and thinking. The principle that Raskolnikov wanted to kill in himself should resurrect in his soul and speak with even greater force than before. But the author set the matter in such a way that for him this second side of the task turned out to be too big and difficult to take on in this in the work itself. Here lies both the shortcoming and at the same time the advantage of Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel. He set himself so broadly, his Raskolnikov was so fierce in his abstraction, that the renewal of this fallen soul could not have been accomplished easily and would have probably presented us with the emergence of spiritual beauty and harmony of a very high order. Raskolnikov is a truly Russian man precisely in that he reached the end, to the edge of the road on which his lost mind led him. This trait of Russian people, the trait of extreme seriousness, as if religiosity, with which they indulge in their ideas, is the cause of many of our troubles We love to give ourselves wholeheartedly, without concessions, without stopping halfway, we are not cunning or disingenuous with ourselves, and therefore do not tolerate worldly transactions between our thoughts and reality. One can hope that this precious, great property of the Russian soul will someday manifest itself in truly beautiful deeds and characters Now, with the moral turmoil that prevails in some parts of our society, with the emptiness that prevails in others, our tendency to reach the extreme in everything - one way or another - spoils life and even destroys people. One of the saddest and the characteristic phenomena of such a death are what the artist wanted to depict for us.

E. Evlampieva

(village Pola, Novgorod region)
The theme of fear in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”
“Don’t be afraid, little flock! For your Father has been pleased to give you the Kingdom... But I say to you, My friends: do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then are unable to do anything more. But I will tell you whom to fear: fear the one who, after killing, can throw you into Gehenna; I tell you, be afraid of that."

Gospel of Luke (chapter 12, vv. 4-5)

St. John Climacus, 7th century, “Ladder”, Homily 21

According to the definition of the encyclopedic dictionary 1, fear is “a negative emotion in a situation of real or imagined danger.” “Depending on the nature of the threat, the intensity and specificity of the experience of fear varies in a fairly wide range of shades (apprehension, fear, fear, horror)” 2. In Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, three “degrees” (shades) of fear are distinguished at the lexical level: fear itself, fear and horror. These concepts are revealed through each other:

Fright – “a sudden feeling of fear” 3.

Fear - “very strong fear, strong fear” 4.

Horror is “a feeling of intense fear, reaching the point of depression, numbness” 5.

Thus, the “mildest” degree of fear is fright (in the novel it is often conveyed by the verb “to be afraid”); then – fear, characterized by the verb “to be afraid” due to the rare use of the verb “to be afraid”; and, finally, horror with the derivative verbs “to be horrified”, “to be horrified”.

The main character, Raskolnikov, has the richest line of fear. Raskolnikov experiences precisely fear—fright or horror—much less often. At the morphological level, this fear is most often expressed by verbs, and verbs that not only convey the feeling of the hero’s fear, but also depict Raskolnikov’s actions caused by fear. These are verbs such as “shudder”, “tremble”, “run”, “escape”, “die”, “hide”, “shudder”, as well as the gerunds “fearing”, “trembling”. A verb is a part of speech that most often conveys dynamics, movement, and state. All these verbs are repeated repeatedly in the text, which is why there is a feeling that the hero almost constantly experiences fear in its various manifestations: fear makes him “shudder” and “shudder,” fear makes him “tremble” and “hide,” and horror makes him want to "run". It is interesting that the degree of dynamism of the verb depends on the degree of manifestation of fear: if the verbs “shudder” and “shudder”, which characterize fear, almost do not convey movement, then the verb “run” expresses not just movement, but its swiftness. In second place after verbs in terms of frequency of use in Raskolnikov’s line of fear are nouns. However, nouns most often convey the hero’s horror; even the noun “fear” almost always includes adjectives (“stupid”, “senseless”, “limitless”, “panic”, “unbearable”, etc.), which make it possible to attribute the hero’s feelings expressed by them rather to horror than to fear.

Already on the first pages we are faced not only with the hero’s feeling of fear, but also with his reasoning about fear: “It’s curious what people are more afraid? A new step, a new word of their own, they are more than anything else afraid» 6. Overcoming the fear of a “new step” becomes a matter of principle for Raskolnikov; his self-reproaches for his own cowardice will appear more than once on the pages of the novel, as well as a very specific, empirical fear of people, of the crowd.

During the murder, Raskolnikov felt horror not only of the murder committed, but also of the possibility of being caught (when he discovers an open door, when he hears footsteps on the stairs, and then looks in horror at the jumping shutter). This fear remains even after the murder. Returning home from the office, Raskolnikov is afraid of a “chase”, a search, and suspects everyone around him.

Fear of Svidrigailov appears in Raskolnikov even at the first meeting with him, and with each new meeting Raskolnikov experiences either fear or horror. This is both fear for my sister and fear for myself. Thus, the meeting with Svidrigailov in the tavern after the last conversation with Porfiry Petrovich, “terribly, to horror,” struck Raskolnikov, despite the fact that he was looking for Svidrigailov and even, as it turned out later, knew the meeting place. But Raskolnikov sees something terrible, fatal in Svidrigailov.

Meanwhile, almost all the heroes of the novel are afraid of him: Pulcheria Alexandrovna and Dunechka, Luzhin, Sonya, the children whom he once encounters at Sonya’s apartment. Svidrigailov himself gives the impression of an absolutely fearless person. The night before his suicide, he appears at his bride’s house and surprises everyone with his appearance, but the bride’s mother justifies him: “he even walks like that on purpose to show that he is not afraid of anyone". However, Svidrigailov is not fearless. Fear of death is practically Svidrigailov’s only fear. " I’m afraid of death and don’t like it when people talk about it.” 7 , - he confesses to Raskolnikov. But it is he, Svidrigailov, who decides to pull the trigger with his own hand, independently measuring out a period of life for himself. The absence of fear means, first of all, complete control over everything, and, perhaps, the only thing that Svidrigailov did not have was control over death, and by committing suicide, he thus does not overcome fear, but gets rid of it.

It is interesting to trace Raskolnikov’s attitude towards death. The fear of death appears in him after the death of Katerina Ivanovna, when Raskolnikov is present at the funeral service: “The service began, quietly, decorously, sadly. In the consciousness of death and in the sense of the presence of death there was always something difficult for him and mystically terrible, since childhood..." 8 . Why does such the presence of death instill “mystical horror” in Raskolnikov, and in the apartment of the old pawnbroker, he, being “alone” with the dead, experiences practically no fear of death? Perhaps, during a murder, the fear of death is overshadowed by the fear of the realization that this death was committed by his hands, that he is a murderer; horror of his own action, so the fear of death is lost and dissolves in Raskolnikov’s other fears. The church rite of requiem initially contains something mysterious, enigmatic and mystical, especially for the uninitiated, non-believer (which Raskolnikov is at that moment), therefore death, together with the contemplation of the unexpected proximity of the sacred sacrament, preparing the soul of the deceased for a meeting with God, instills fear in Raskolnikov.

In his last conversation with Dunechka, after a painful night in which Raskolnikov almost ended everything at once by throwing himself from a bridge, he asks: “Don’t you think, sister, that I’m just chickened out the water? 9 Raskolnikov will more than once blame himself for this cowardice, but perhaps in fact it was not the fear of death that prevented him, but the desire for life. Later, in exile, he asks the question: “Is there really such strength in this desire to live and is it so difficult to overcome it?” 10 . The desire for life in Raskolnikov takes precedence over death, but in Svidrigailovo, death triumphs precisely because of the fear of death.

Svidrigailov’s fear, as well as his imaginary fearlessness, is most often expressed by the verbs “to be afraid”, “to be frightened”, and the phrase “to be horrified”. At the same time, the verb “to be afraid” is used with the negative particle NOT, except when it comes to the fear of death, the verb “to be afraid” is used with irony. This is clearly expressed in Raskolnikov’s conversation with Svidrigailov:

“Well, why are you, for example, like this? afraid? Why are you suddenly now got scared? - asks Raskolnikov, - “ I'm afraid and scared? I'm scared of you? Quicker you should be afraid of me,"Cher ami" - answers Svidrigailov. This is preceded by Dostoevsky’s comment: “ I was naively scared Svidrigailov." A feeling of horror haunts Svidrigailov in his dreams, but this horror becomes a real horror of debauchery

The presence of fear of death in these two heroes is a strict pattern, for both of them are proud, and “A proud soul is a slave of fear; trusting in herself, she fears the faint sound of creatures and the shadows themselves,” 11 and both are godless and have no fear of God.

But, as already mentioned, other heroes of the novel also experience fear, and not only an unconscious metaphysical, but also an empirical fear of each other.

Many heroes of the novel are afraid of Raskolnikov. Surprisingly, those who are near and dear to him and to whom he is dear are afraid of him. This is, first of all, Pulcheria Alexandrovna. Even at the first meeting with her son, immediately after her arrival, she is frightened by his gaze: “In this gaze, a feeling strong to the point of suffering was visible, but at the same time there was something motionless, even as if insane.” 12 . Dunya is afraid of his brother (and then “for” his brother), and fear for his mother is mixed in with this fear, so in response to Raskolnikov’s question: “What are you talking about?” afraid, am I done?" - Dunya answers directly: “ It's really true, mummy, entering the stairs, even was baptized out of fear". At times, for moments, Sonya is afraid of him; perhaps the prisoners at hard labor who are trying to kill him are afraid (and therefore do not like) him because “he does not believe in God.” But everything changes with the revival of Raskolnikov. In the Gospel of Luke (chapter 12, v. 4-5) we read: “I tell you, my friends: do not be afraid of those who kill the body and then are unable to do anything more. But I will tell you whom to fear: fear the one who, after killing, can throw you into Gehenna; I tell you, be afraid of that.” Raskolnikov is like that - without repentance, regret and without faith; This ability to plunge into sin is brought to the limit in the image of Svidrigailov.

The theme of fear is also connected with Sonya, initially, from her first appearance. Morphologically, fear is most often expressed either by nouns or verbs in the same ratio. But unlike Raskolnikov, Sonya experiences extreme degrees of fear - fright or horror, and they are rarely expressed by verbs or nouns that convey the heroine’s reaction to fear of something, more often - by derivative verbs “to intimidate”, “to be frightened”, “to be frightened”, “to be horrified” “to be afraid” and by the nouns themselves.

Fear, fright, timidity are Sonya's constant companions. She is afraid when she comes to Raskolnikov and meets Dunya and Pulcheria Alexandrovna there, she is afraid when Raskolnikov himself comes to her, she is afraid of her own thoughts and persistently tries to drive away even the assumption of her own death, about the misfortune with Katerina Ivanovna and the children. Living in some kind of her own world, she is afraid of everything that can destroy the wall with which she has “fenced” herself from reality. When Luzhin accuses her of theft, it turns out that timidity and humility are not a solution, but Sonechka has no other means of defense, she is not able to defend herself, and is not so much in fear for herself as in terrible disappointment that with all her meekness and resignation behavior she could not protect herself. But at the same time, there is always a defender who saves her.

It is to Sonya, to the eternally frightened Sonya, that Raskolnikov goes to talk about the murder, because she is strong in spirit and is able to feel his pain with all her soul. She is horrified by the terrible idea of ​​murder. But, seeing how Raskolnikov suffers, how tormented his soul is, Sonya understands that he needs her help. They both need each other - Raskolnikov is able to resist external enemies and overcome fear of them, but is powerless before himself, needs spiritual help, although he does not admit it; Sonya, on the contrary, is strong and fearless spiritually, unshakable in her faith, but she is afraid of everything around her and is unable to defend herself. Mutual love gives them fearlessness; the last mention of fear in the novel is the fear of happiness: “...she [Sonya] was so happy that I was almost afraid of my happiness" 13

Having found each other, Raskolnikov and Sonya acquire the only truly pure fear - the fear of God. However, Sonya probably always had the fear of God, because true faith in God is impossible without the fear of God and “it is not proper to pray to God without fear and reverence” 14. But the fear of God is a metaphysical, unaccountable fear (it is not for nothing that it is not expressed at the lexical level), and, having acquired this fear, the heroes in the space of the novel part with earthly, empirical fears. “The fruit of the fear of God is love” 15 and love is born in Raskolnikov’s heart: love for Sonya and love for God. And it is this new, only fear that helps Raskolnikov to be reborn and cleansed, for “he who does not have fear cannot justify himself” (Sir 1:21).

1 Tera-Lexicon: Illustrated encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: TERRA, 1998. – T35 672 pp.: ill., (p. 552)

2Psychology. Dictionary / General Ed. A. V. Petrovsky, M. G. Yaroshevsky. – 2nd ed., rev. And additional – M.: Politizdat, 1990. – 494с (p. 386)

3 Ozhegov S.I. and Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. – 4th ed., supplemented. – M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. – 944 pp. (p. 254)

4 Ozhegov S.I. and Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. – 4th ed., supplemented. – M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. – 944 pp. (p. 772)

5 Ozhegov S.I. and Shvedova N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. – 4th ed., supplemented. – M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. – 944 pp. (p. 828)

6 Dostoevsky F.M. “Crime and Punishment”: A novel in six parts with an epilogue / Intro. Art. K. Stepanyan; rice. Yu. Gershkovich. – M.: Det. Lit., 2002. – 653 pp.: ill. - (School library). p.30

7 Ibid., p.552

8 Ibid., p.519

9 Ibid., p.604

10 Ibid., p.634

11 St. John Climacus, 7th century, “Ladder”, Homily 21

12 Dostoevsky F.M. “Crime and Punishment”: A novel in six parts with an epilogue / Intro. Art. K. Stepanyan; rice. Yu. Gershkovich. – M.: Det. Lit., 2002. – 653 pp.: ill. – (School Library) page 247

13 Ibid., p. 641

14 Sermon. About the fear of God and the resurrection of the mind (according to the miracle of the resurrection of the son of a widow from the city of Nain and according to St. Simeon the New Theologian) Gospel of Luke. 7, 11-16

15 famous Moscow philosopher Prince S. N. Trubetskoy

One “critic” - this is what they usually write in newspapers that want to maintain a completely decent literary tone, from which it follows that for the sake of decency we must admit the existence of a great many critics in our country - so, one critic said the following about Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel:

“Destroy only that original motive for murder, due to which Raskolnikov sees in murder not a heinous crime, but the “correction” and “direction” of nature, in some way a feat; moreover: make such a view of murder only the personal, individual conviction of Raskolnikov alone, and not by the general conviction of the entire student corporation, all interest in Mr. Dostoevsky's novel will immediately disappear. This clearly shows that the basis of Mr. Dostoevsky's novel is what he assumed or accepted as a given fact - the attempted murder with robbery existing in the student corporation, which exists as a principle ".

Then the critic rather coolly indulges in some vehemence:

“What reasonable purpose,” he says, “can justify the depiction of a young youth, a student, as a murderer, the motivation of this murder by scientific beliefs and, finally, the spread of these beliefs to an entire student corporation.”

This criticism has been published, and the words we have quoted have a completely clear meaning. In Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel, it is said, an entire student corporation is accused of professing as a principle the innocence of murder and robbery, even though there is already an attempt at such murder within it.

The first thought that may come to the mind of a reasonable reader here, of course, will be that all this is absurdity, which should not be paid any attention to. Is it really possible to accuse all students not only of attempted murder, but of anything else? One must completely lose common sense in order to make such an absurd accusation. And further - even if someone made such an accusation, how could it have even the slightest significance? Would even a single student pay attention to him? It would not be worth talking about such stupidity at all.

Slander against students would be terrible if only it were possible. Slander against Mr. Dostoevsky would be just as terrible if it were possible. And it turns out that it’s all nonsense, not worth attention.

Unfortunately, the matter is not resolved that easily. The critic whose opinion we cited probably expressed his sincere thought. If he spoke insincerely, then he spoke for those who can sincerely harbor such thoughts. But there is no doubt that we will have many people who will either believe the criticism or will themselves come to a similar view of the matter. There is no such absurdity that would not find defenders despite all evidence. With us - we must remember this - darkness, deep darkness reigns over our minds; we do not have firm, clear points of support for judgment; We still do not know how to understand broadly and subtly, and therefore we reinterpret everything, evaluate everything according to the narrow standards of some concepts that we have picked up from the chaos of other people’s opinions. One could cite many examples of the most absurd accusations, which were based on misunderstandings or even outright slander and, however, had great popularity among our reading public.

For many, there is nothing particularly absurd in the judgment of our critic. Suppose they tell us that someone is a retrograde, an enemy of the younger generation, an enemy of science and enlightenment; What. After all, we have such people, even if only in small numbers; and most importantly, we have many people who are considered to be those about whom such an unnatural concept has been formed and unshakably established. Why can’t our novelist be counted among such people? Further, suppose they tell us that someone considers the entire younger generation to be nihilists, arsonists, murderers, ready to kill their own father for money; What. After all, we have absurd people who hold these or similar opinions; and most importantly, we have many people to whom such opinions are attributed, who would never be believed if they insisted that they think completely differently. Why can’t we say that Mr. Dostoevsky wanted to please such and such people?

So, both due to some reality, and, most importantly, due to exaggerated and distorted concepts about the state of public opinion, the accusation of Mr. Dostoevsky becomes possible. There are people and circles for whom it has full force.

If anyone does not believe us based on the above considerations, then in this case we can cite facts that will also be taken from the printed version. There is still a small problem if a person is accused: every sneeze is not good enough. But the trouble becomes real when the accusation is accepted and not a single voice is heard in defense. Finally, the worst thing happens when zealous defenders appear, but from their words it is clear that they also fully recognize the guilt of the accused and are only trying to avert the eyes of the public through lawyerly tricks. This was the fate that befell Mr. Dostoevsky.

Another “critic” appeared and began to defend Mr. Dostoevsky against the first critic. He considered it his duty, as he puts it, “to remove the accusation from an honest writer”; he is trying to prove “that there is no reason to think that the author wanted to slander anyone, wanted to impose on young people a universal desire for murder and robbery, as one critic put it at the beginning of last year.”

The proof is very broad: “Raskolnikov is a sick man” - that’s the whole answer. “He is a completely crazy person, because objects are constantly presented to him from one side; he analyzes this side sensibly, the other completely eludes him; for this side he has no reason, he is dead, crushed by an all-consuming idea. This idea of ​​murder is also turned his head, as every other idea turns his head, driving a person crazy. One will imagine himself as Ferdinand VII, the other will imagine that the entire human race is pursuing him, all busy only with erasing him from the face of the earth. Raskolnikov imagined that murder for the sake of those goals that he recognized as noble is not a crime at all."

Here, by the way, is a small proof of this view of the matter. “Madness,” says the critic, “sometimes passes as a result of strong moral shocks, sometimes even as a result of a severe illness. The same thing happens with Raskolnikov. He endured V penal servitude, a severe illness." The novel tells that after this illness, the recovering Raskolnikov suddenly felt a strong impulse of love for Sonya. "Long-suppressed instincts awoke in him,” the critic writes, “he immediately understood Sonya, who followed him to penal servitude, and fell deeply in love with her. He, in a word, recovered (implied: from madness). He has risen, says the author, which is obviously one thing That same".

So, Mr. Dostoevsky wrote us a story of some madness. If so, then, of course, one cannot think that “he wanted to disgrace the younger generation with his Raskolnikov.”

“Raskolnikov,” the critic consistently concludes, “is not at all a type, not the embodiment of some direction, some kind of mindset adopted by the multitude.” And further: “Raskolnikov” as a morbid phenomenon is subject to psychiatry rather than literary criticism.”

But what about the teaching that Raskolnikov so insistently professes and so consistently develops? What to do with those completely distinct and coherent thoughts with which he justifies his murders even in hard labor? Here's how the critic explains the matter:

“It is impossible to explain Raskolnikov’s crimes with materialism, because this materialism, this unbelief, is also an imposition, rather a consequence of idee fixe than the latter could be a consequence of materialism; with recovery, with love, materialism passes from Raskolnikov, and faith begins to creep into his heart ".

So, this is the extent to which Mr. Dostoevsky is innocent regarding our younger generation. Even materialism and unbelief - these phenomena, which usually do not imply any disorder of mental abilities - he attributed to the young man he depicted in the novel only under the condition of insanity.

How to understand such an almost incredible distortion of the meaning of the novel? Shouldn't we blame it on the novel itself? Perhaps he is so unclear, performs his chosen task so poorly that it would be easy to be mistaken in his idea? This is partly true, of course; There are significant shortcomings in the novel that interfere with the artistic clarity of the images, and therefore prevent their clear understanding. For example, with a completely solid, completely distinct manner of painting faces, it would not be so easy to classify Raskolnikov as crazy. But this is only a hundredth part in explaining the whole matter. Raskolnikov is nevertheless drawn so clearly and distinctly that if there were no other reasons, no one would consider him upset in his mind, except for people who understand things very crudely. The main reason why the critic decided to misinterpret the novel, obviously, is that he was afraid of a direct interpretation. He was afraid that the direct meaning of the novel was an accusation of the younger generation “of a universal desire for murder and robbery.” He was afraid for both the younger generation and for Mr. Dostoevsky and, therefore, believed in the possibility of accusations that seemed so absurd to us.

The fact is remarkable for showing our mental structure, and we hope Mr. Critic will forgive us for using his words to depict this fact.

The question is, what was he afraid of? How right was he really in his fears? To what extent were these fears justified by the true meaning of the novel? If you delve into the matter, it will be impossible to refrain from the greatest amazement at how difficult it is for us to understand the clearest things.

Nihilists and nihilists have long been depicted in our novels and stories. How are they portrayed in them? One has only to remember these paintings to answer this question without any hesitation. Readers are accustomed to seeing in nihilists, firstly, people with weak minds and weak hearts, people lacking clear strength of mind and living warmth. These people build theories with their own minds that are completely divorced from life, reaching the greatest absurdities. Based on these theories, they distort their own and other people’s lives and live in this distortion, not understanding or feeling all the ugliness of such a life. Therefore, nihilists appear to us as creatures that are funny and disgusting, vulgar and repulsive. In a word, they are portrayed in such a way that, by the very essence of the matter, they can arouse not sympathy, but only mockery and indignation. Look, for example, at what kind of bestiality a certain nihilist is exposed in the story “Plague” (“World Work”, No. 2). And in general, what kind of disgusting things, what kind of outrages were not attributed to our nihilists!

What did Mr. Dostoevsky do? He obviously took the task as deeply as possible, a task more difficult than ridiculing the ugliness of empty and anemic natures. Although his Raskolnikov suffers from youthful cowardice and selfishness, he presents us with a man with the makings of a strong mind and a warm heart. This is not a phrase-monger without blood and nerves, this is a real person. This young man also builds a theory, but a theory that, precisely because of his greater vitality and greater strength of mind, much deeper and more definitively contrary to life, than, for example, the theory of the offense caused to a lady by kissing her hand, or other similar ones. For the sake of his theory, he also ruins his life; but he does not fall into ridiculous ugliness and absurdity; he commits a terrible deed, a crime. Instead of comic phenomena, a tragic phenomenon takes place before us, that is, a more human phenomenon, worthy of participation, and not just laughter and indignation. Then the break with life, by virtue of its very depth, arouses a terrible reaction in the soul of the young man. While other nihilists calmly enjoy life, without kissing the hands of their ladies and without giving them cloaks, and even being proud of this, Raskolnikov cannot stand the denial of the instincts of the human soul, which led him to crime, and goes to hard labor. There, after many years of testing, he will probably be renewed and become fully human, that is, a warm, living human soul.

So, the author took a deeper nature and attributed to her a deeper deviation from life than other writers who touched upon nihilism. His goal was to depict the suffering that a living person endures, having reached such a break with life. It is absolutely clear that the author portrays his hero with complete compassion for him. This is not laughing at the younger generation, not reproaches and accusations, this is crying over them. Poor murderer-theorist, this honest killer If you can only compare these two words, it turns out to be a thousand times more unfortunate than ordinary murderers. It would be incomparably easier for him if he committed murder out of anger, out of revenge, out of jealousy, out of self-interest, whatever you want. everyday motives, but not from theory.

“You know, Sonya,” says Raskolnikov himself, “if only I had killed because I was hungry, then I would now... happy was!" (Vol. II, p. 219).

With inexpressible torment, he feels that the violence he committed against his moral nature constitutes a greater sin than the act of murder itself. This is the real crime.

“Did I kill the old lady?” he says to Sonya. “I killed himself not the old lady. And so, at once, he killed himself forever!.. And it was the devil who killed this old woman, not me...” (vol. II, p. 228).

This is the meaning of the novel, and the verdict on Raskolnikov, pronounced by the author, is put into Sonya’s mouth.

" - What have you done to yourself!- she said desperately and, jumping up from her knees, threw herself on his neck, hugged him and squeezed him tightly with her hands.

How strange you are, Sonya, you hug and kiss when I told you about it. You don't remember yourself.

- No, there is no one more unhappy than you in the whole world now!- she exclaimed, as if in a frenzy, not hearing his remark, and suddenly began to cry bitterly, as if in hysterics" (vol. II, p. 215).

So, for the first time we are shown an unhappy nihilist, a deeply humanly suffering nihilist. Property wide sympathy, which we attributed to the author, and here, obviously, inspired him. He portrayed nihilism to us not as a pitiful and savage phenomenon, but in a tragic form, as a distortion of the soul, accompanied by cruel suffering. According to his usual custom, he introduced us to the man in the murderer himself, as he knew how to find of people and in all the harlots, drunkards and other pathetic faces with which he surrounded his hero.

The author took nihilism in its most extreme development, at the point beyond which there is almost nowhere to go. But let us note that the essence of each phenomenon is always revealed not in its ordinary walking forms, but precisely in the extreme highest stages of development. Here, obviously, having taken an extreme form, the author had the opportunity to enter into completely correct relationships with the whole phenomenon, into those relationships that are difficult to enter into with other forms of the same phenomenon. Let us take, for example, Bazarov (in Turgenev's Fathers and Sons), the first nihilist to appear in our literature. This arrogant, self-loving person is more repulsive than attractive. Yes, he does not ask for our sympathy, he is smug. Let the reader go through all the forms of nihilism that are well known to him. A young girl cuts off her magnificent braid and puts on blue glasses. From the outside it looks ugly, but meanwhile she is very pleased with herself, as if she had put on an outfit more beautiful than the one she wore before. She gives up novels and reads Lewis's The Physiology of Everyday Life. At first she hesitates, but she makes an effort and begins to talk freely about spots and urinary organs. What? A new pleasure is felt. Let's go further - the girl leaves her parents and completely in theory gives herself over to a certain young man, devoid of prejudices, who talks to her about the need to create a new humanity on some uninhabited island. Or it happens differently. The girl's brother himself arranges her civil marriage with his friend. In the same way, based on the theory, the husband leaves his wife, the wife of the husband, or a commune is set up in which it happens that one man has an affair with two women, eloquently preaching to them that jealousy is a false emotion.

And what? All this self-breaking, all this distortion of life is done completely cold-bloodedly. Everyone is satisfied and happy, they look at themselves with great respect and drive away all sorts of ridiculous feelings that prevent people from following the path of progress. The question is, how can one treat these people? The easiest way is to laugh at them and despise them. Since they themselves persistently present themselves as some kind of lucky people, society does not feel any urge to feel sorry for them - rather, it is inclined to see in this dispassionate and cold distortion of their own and other people’s lives the presence of some dark passions, for example, voluptuousness.

Meanwhile, in essence, they should be pitied. After all, there is no doubt that their soul still awakens with its eternal demands. Moreover, they are not all empty and dry. There are, of course, people among them in whom this disruption of their nature will result in long, indelible suffering. And therefore, to all of them, to this entire sphere of seemingly happy people who are arranging their lives on new foundations, one can address the words of loving Sonya: what have you, what have you done to yourself?

From the girl, from the theory, cutting her hair, to Raskolnikov, from the theory, killing the old woman, the distance is great, but still these are homogeneous phenomena. After all, you feel sorry for the braids, so how can you not feel sorry for Raskolnikov, who ruined himself? Regret - this is the attitude in which the author has adopted towards nihilism - an almost new attitude, and in the strength in which it appears here, it has not yet been developed by anyone.

But if so, then how could it happen that the author was accused of some kind of desire to disgrace our young generation, accusing them of attempted murder? This happened precisely because of a new attitude to the matter, an attitude that they could not immediately understand. Everyone is accustomed to the old attitude, everyone knows that nihilists and nihilists abandon their relatives, lose their wives, lose their braids and their maiden honor, etc. not only without grief and sadness, but completely calmly and even with pride and triumph. And in Dostoevsky’s novel, many people see exactly the same image, that is, as if someone is committing a murder, considering himself right and therefore keeping a cool head and remaining quite calm. This is probably how the fanatics committed their arson and their secret murders. This is why such arson and murder could be very frequent and could be committed by many people. Is there anything similar in Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel? The whole essence of the novel lies in the fact that although Raskolnikov considers himself right, he does not carry out his work in cold blood, and not only does not remain calm, but is subjected to severe torment. If we stick directly to the novel, it will turn out that the theory of crime is incomparably more difficult for the criminal than any other, that the human soul can least of all tolerate such a deviation from its eternal laws. And therefore, if it happened that the nihilist turned out to be a criminal, then it would be most correct to assume that he, like other people, committed a crime out of revenge, jealousy, self-interest, etc., and not out of theory. In a word, the trait that Mr. Dostoevsky took was depicted by him quite correctly. Reading the novel, you feel that Raskolnikov’s crime is a phenomenon extremely rare There is a case that is highly characteristic, but exceptional, completely out of the ordinary.

This is what the criminal himself says about him. He doesn't show his theory for something common; he constantly calls her its theory, with your idea; in moments when he is under the power of this idea, he even speaks with contempt of other nihilists. “Oh, deniers and sages in a coin of silver,” he exclaims, “why do you stop halfway!” (Vol. II, p. 424).

We must always remember that life, nature stops nihilists, like other people, not only halfway there, but even on first step some kind of road, and besides, their roads are different. This resistance to life, this resistance against the power of theories and fantasies are presented in a stunning way by Mr. Dostoevsky. To show how life and theory struggle in the soul of a person, to show this struggle in the case where it reaches the highest degree of strength, and to show that victory remains with life - such was the task of the novel.

The same must, of course, apply to other phenomena, to all the countless forms of collision between theory and life. Everywhere life stops the movement that is contrary to it, everywhere it successfully fights against the violence that is done to it. There are, for example, women who have adopted an unceremonious masculine tone; but there are very few of them. Others, no matter how hard they try, still falter when they start talking about the regula or urinary organs. It would seem that nothing could be simpler than what is called civil marriage. Meanwhile, this marriage, like all other outrages, is only an exception. Usually nihilists and nihilists calmly get married in churches, like other mortals. The greater freedom of circulation that young people allowed themselves under the influence of nihilism led, as we know, to the conclusion of many marriages, just as pure and, perhaps, happier than other marriages in which nihilism did not take any part.

So, no reasonable person who understands how things go in life would believe in this case any general accusations, even if they were heard. In total, it is less possible to extract a general accusation from Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel; this would be a hundred times more absurd than, for example, extracting from Shakespeare’s “Othello” that all jealous husbands kill their wives, or from Pushkin’s “Mozart and Salieri” that all envious people poison their gifted friends. Let us now prove with extracts from the novel that our formulation of the matter is absolutely correct. It’s even strange to prove that Raskolnikov is not crazy. In the novel itself, people close to Raskolnikov, seeing his torment and not understanding the sources of the strange behavior to which his internal torment leads him, begin to suspect that he is going crazy. But then the mystery is solved. A case opens incomparably less likely namely that he doesn't crazy, A criminal.

The novel is written in an objective manner, in which the author does not speak in abstract terms about the mind and character of his characters, but directly makes them act, think and feel. The author, in particular, characterizes Raskolnikov as the main character in almost no way; but everywhere Raskolnikov is a man with the makings of a clear mind, a strong character, and a noble heart. He is like this in all other actions except his crime. This is how the rest of the characters look at him, over whom, according to your capabilities, he is obviously towering. This is how investigator Porfiry speaks of Raskolnikov, speaking to his face:

“I understand what it’s like for a dejected, but proud, imperious and impatient person to carry all this on himself, especially an impatient one! In any case, I consider you to be a most noble person, sir, and even with the beginnings of generosity, sir...” (t II, p. 276).

Even the most terrible deed committed by Raskolnikov. for people who have known him briefly, it indicates the strength of the soul, although perverted and lost.

“It turned out to be mean, it’s true,” continues the same Porfiry, “but you’re not a hopeless scoundrel after all! Not that kind of scoundrel at all! At least you didn’t fool yourself for a long time, and at once reached the last pillars. I’m for you.” whom I honor. I honor you as one of those whose guts you could cut out, and he would stand and look at his tormentors with a smile - if only he found faith or God. Well, find him, and you will live" (vol. II, p. 291).

The author obviously wanted to present a strong soul, a person full of life, and not weak and crazy. The secret of the author's desires is especially clearly revealed in the words he put into Svidrigailov's mouth. Svidrigailov explains to Raskolnikov’s sister what her brother did and says:

"Now everything is blurry that is, it was never in any particular order. Russian people at all wide people, Avdotya Romanovna, are wide, like their land, and extremely prone to the fantastic, to the disorderly; but the trouble is to be broad without much genius. Do you remember how much the two of us talked about the same thing and on the same topic, sitting in the evenings on the terrace in the garden, every time after dinner? Who knows, maybe they were talking at the same time when he was lying here and thinking about his thoughts. In our educated society we don’t have particularly sacred traditions, Avdotya Romanovna: unless someone somehow compiles something for themselves from books... or deduces something from chronicles. But these are more scientists and, you know, in their own way, caps, so it’s even indecent for a secular person” (vol. II, p. 343).

Here the full range of the author’s plans is revealed. He wanted to portray the broad Russian nature, that is, a tenacious nature, little inclined to follow the beaten, rough ruts of life, capable of living and feeling in different ways. The author surrounded such a nature, living and at the same time indefinite, with an environment in which everything is blurry wherein especially sacred traditions no longer exists for a long time. Svidrigailov himself, who expresses this general accusation against our educated society (here it is, the accusation that was so sought), represents something like the old generation of the same natures and the same society, in parallel to Raskolnikov, a member of the new generation. Despite the fantastic nature of Svidrigailov, it is still possible to discern in him very familiar features of the state of our educated and prosperous class, which is still not far from us. Debauchery, cruelty towards serfs, reaching the point of murder, secret atrocities and the absence of everything sacred in the soul - broad Russian natures also rushed in this direction in order to spend their strength on something. Raskolnikov is also a person who really wants to live, who quickly needs a way out, needs something to do. Such people cannot remain inactive; thirst for life, whatever it is, but only now, as quickly as possible, he brings them to absurdities, to the breaking of their souls and even to complete death.

The newspapers wrote that Raskolnikov allegedly committed his murder for philanthropic purposes, that he justified it with charitable intentions. But the matter is not at all that simple. The main root from which Raskolnikov's monstrous intention grew lies in a certain theory, which he repeatedly and consistently develops; the murder itself occurred out of an indispensable desire attach to case your theory. This is how investigator Porfiry characterizes Raskolnikov’s actions:

“This is a fantastic, gloomy matter, a modern matter, a case of our time, sir, when the human heart is darkened; when the phrase is quoted that blood"refreshes"; when all life is preached in comfort. Here are book dreams, sir, here theoretically irritable heart; visible here determination to take the first step, but a special kind of determination - he decided, but it was like falling from a mountain or flying from a bell tower, and it was like committing a crime I didn’t come with my own feet. He forgot to close the door behind him, but he killed, killed two, according to the theory. He killed, and he didn’t even manage to take the money, and what he managed to grab, he demolished under a stone.” “He killed, but he considers himself an honest man, despises people walks like a pale angel" (vol. II, p. 285).

What is that theory, who so captivated and tortured this young man? In the novel it is presented in detail and clearly in many places; This is a very clear and logically coherent theory. Moreover, she does not amaze with anything strange; This is not the logic of a madman; on the contrary, as Razumikhin notes, “this is not new and Seems like to everything that we have read and heard a thousand times" (Vol. I, p. 409).

This theory, it seems to us, can be reduced to three main points. First consists of a very proud, contemptuous view of people, based on the consciousness of one’s mental superiority. Raskolnikov was very proud in this regard. “To some of his comrades,” says the author, “it seemed that he looked down on them all, like children, as if he was ahead of them all in development, knowledge, and beliefs, and that he looked at their beliefs and interests , as something inferior" (vol. I, p. 78).

From this pride is born a contemptuous, arrogant view of people, as if denying them the right to human dignity. The old woman pawnbroker, for Raskolnikov, is louse, not a person. Long after the crime, already when he decided to denounce himself and went out into the street for this purpose, he once again experiences a rush of pride and thus expresses his understanding of people. “Here they are,” he says, “all scurrying up and down the street, and yet every one of them is a scoundrel and a robber by nature; worse than that - an idiot"(Vol. II, p. 388).

Second The point of the theory lies in a certain view of the course of human affairs, of history; This look directly follows from a contemptuous look at people in general.

“I kept asking myself: why am I so stupid, what if others are stupid, and if I know for sure that they are stupid, then I don’t want to be smarter? Then I learned that if you wait until everyone becomes smart, it will take too long... Then I also learned that this will never happen, that people will not change and no one can change them, and work is not worth losing! Yes it is! This is their law!.. And now I know that whoever is strong and strong in mind and spirit is the ruler over them. Those who dare a lot are right. Whoever can spit on the most is their legislator, and whoever can dare the most is rightest! This is how it has been done until now, and this is how it will always be! Only a blind man can't see it!"

“I guessed then,” he continued enthusiastically, “that power is given only to those who dare to bend down and take it. There is only one thing, one thing: you just have to dare! I then had one thought, for the first time in my life, which no one and never before me had this idea been made! No one! It suddenly occurred to me, as clear as the sun, that how come no one had ever dared or dared to pass by of all this absurdity, just simply take it all by the tail and shake it to hell! I... I wanted to dare" (vol. II, p. 225).

Readers, of course, are well aware of these denials of truth and meaning in history, that view of historical phenomena according to which they all originated from violence based on delusions. This look, this look enlightened despotism, gave rise to huge revolutions in Western Europe and still gives rise to people there who allow themselves by all means to change the course of world history, who consider themselves entitled to claim the place of legislators and founders of a new, reasonable order of things. These people no longer live under any kind of authority, because they themselves set themselves up as an authority for humanity. They, like Raskolnikov, would like, if they could, to “grab everything by the tail and shake it to hell.” But these people act, considering their goal the good of humanity, and they deal with the history of peoples. Therefore, on the one hand, their efforts take on the character of unselfishness and self-sacrifice, on the other hand, their activities are never successful. History does not listen to them and goes his in order. Stupid peoples do not understand this blessings, which smart people offer them. Under the influence of the egoism of youth, Raskolnikov took another step along the path of these opinions. This step constitutes the thought that, in his words, was invented by him alone and which no one has ever invented before. Thus he reached the third and final point of his theory. Let us cite the place where this idea is expressed most clearly. Raskolnikov laughs to himself at the socialists: “Why did the fool Razumikhin scold the socialists just now? Hardworking and commercial people: common happiness are engaged... No, life is given to me once and it will never be again; I don't want to wait general happiness. I myself want to live, otherwise it’s better not to live. What? I just didn’t want to pass by the hungry mother, clutching my ruble in my pocket, waiting for “universal happiness.” “I’m carrying, they say, a brick for everyone’s happiness and that’s why I feel peace of mind.” “It’s impossible, sir! Why did you let me through? I only live once, I also want...” (vol. I, p. 426).

And so Raskolnikov decided to disrupt the usual course of affairs and allow himself all sorts of means, not in order to change the course of world history, but in order to change his personal fate and the fate of his loved ones. What he wanted in this regard, he explains in detail to Sonya.

“My mother has almost nothing. My sister was brought up by chance, and was condemned to hang around as a governess. All their hopes were in me alone. I studied, but I couldn’t support myself at the university and was forced to leave for a while. Even if that were the case dragged on, then in ten, twelve years (if circumstances had turned out well) I could still hope to become some kind of teacher or official, with a salary of a thousand rubles... (He said as if learned.) And by that time my mother would have dried up from worries and grief, and I still would not have been able to calm her down, and my sister... well, even worse could have happened to my sister!.. And what a lifelong hunt! to pass by everything and turn away from everything, forget about your mother, and, for example, respectfully endure your sister’s insult? For what? Is it so that, having buried them, he can make new ones - a wife and children, and then also be left penniless and without a piece? Well... so I decided, having taken possession of the old woman’s money, to use it for my first years, without tormenting my mother, to support myself at university, for my first steps after university - and to do this widely, radically, so that absolutely all to arrange a new career and take a new, independent path..." (vol. II, 222).

These are the goals that Raskolnikov had in mind. But these goals did not constitute direct motives for crime. They could inspire Raskolnikov with a wide variety of efforts; inevitable murder does not logically follow from them. On the contrary, it strictly follows from his egoistic theory. That is why, immediately after the above speech, Raskolnikov himself begins to say that “this is not what it is,” that he is “lying, he’s been lying for a long time,” etc. Obviously, the main thing that moved him, that fired his imagination, was the demand to apply his theory, to realize in practice what he allowed himself in thought.

Elsewhere he clearly expresses this main motivation for crime.

“The old woman is nonsense!” he thought hotly and impetuously, “the old woman is probably a mistake, that’s not the point! The old woman was just an illness... I wanted to cross as quickly as possible... I didn’t kill a person, I killed a principle!”(Vol. I, p. 426).

This is the very essence of the crime. This murder of principle. It wasn’t three thousand rubles that cost Raskolnikov; It’s strange to say, but it’s true that if this money could have gotten to him through theft, cheating at cards or other petty fraud, he would hardly have decided to do it. He was drawn to kill the principle, to allow himself what was most forbidden. The theorist did not know that by killing the principle, he was at the same time encroaching on the very life of his soul; but, having killed, he realized from his terrible torment what crime he had committed.

Here are the tasks proposed by the author. The tasks are enormous and of incomparable importance. The deepest perversion of moral understanding and then the return of the soul to truly human feelings and concepts - this is the general theme on which Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel was written. In the next article we will try to consider how the author coped with his task. Now let us only note what the reader, of course, guesses without us, namely, that Mr. Dostoevsky captured his subject in such dimensions and depicted such aspects of it especially skillfully, which were most within his capabilities and where, therefore, he could most clearly the depth and peculiarity of his talent will appear.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Article two and last

A novel in six parts with an epilogue. F.M. Dostoevsky.
Revised edition. Two volumes. Petersburg. 1867

Raskolnikov is not a type. That is, he is not so unique, does not represent such definite and organically connected features that his image floats before us like a living face. In particular, this is not a nihilistic type, but a modification of that type of real nihilist, which is more or less familiar to everyone and which was guessed earlier and more accurately by Turgenev in his Bazarov.

What? Does this interfere with the romance? Those who have read the novel, we think, will agree with us that the lack of greater typicality here does not harm, but even seems to help the matter. Uncertainty, young Raskolnikov's uncertainty and uncertainty suits him very well fantastic(according to Porfiry) action. In addition, one involuntarily feels that Bazarov would in no way commit so like that affairs. The man, therefore, was chosen by Mr. Dostoevsky; one cannot say that it is not true.

But the main thing here, obviously, is not in the person, not in the depiction of a certain type. This is not the center of gravity of the novel. The purpose of the novel is not to bring before the eyes of the readers some new type, to portray to us “poor” people, the “underground” man, people of the “dead house”, “fathers and sons”, etc. The whole novel is centered around one act, about how some was born and took place action and what consequences it entailed in the soul of the perpetrator. That's what the novel is called; it does not contain the name of the person, but the name of the event that happened to him. The subject is indicated quite clearly: it is about crime and punishment.

And in this regard, everyone will agree that Mr. Dostoevsky’s novel is very typical. All the processes that take place in the soul of a criminal are surprisingly typically depicted; This is what constitutes the main theme of the novel and what amazes readers in it. It vividly and deeply captures how the idea of ​​crime arises and strengthens in a person, how the soul fights against it, instinctively feeling the horror of this idea; how a person who has nurtured an evil thought in himself finally almost loses his will and reason and blindly obeys it; How is he mechanically commits a crime that has been organically maturing in him for a long time; how fear, suspicion, and anger towards people from whom he is threatened with punishment awakens in him; how he begins to feel disgusted with himself and his work; how the touch of living and warm life awakens in him the pangs of unconscious repentance; how, finally, the hardened soul cannot stand it and softens to a feeling of tenderness.

Before this terrible process, Raskolnikov’s personality with its features is completely smoothed out and disappears. At first a perverted idea swallowed him up, and then it awakened within him with irresistible force. Human, the human soul torments him with its awakening, which he tries to cope with. In such phenomena, the individuality of the character must naturally recede into the background. This follows from the very meaning of the novel. Crime is not at all an action characteristic of Raskolnikov’s personality; people whose characteristics include crime commit deeds of this kind much more easily and completely otherwise. Raskolnikov just happened to postpone on oneself a crime; we can say that it happened to him and his soul responded to him as, generally speaking, the soul would respond all sorts of things person.

So, it is clear that Raskolnikov’s personality is suppressed by the event itself and does not represent a clear typical image. In this regard, the author’s very theme put him in an advantageous position, namely, it gave him the opportunity to express the full power of his talent, despite the lack of complete typicality. Much more correctly we can demand clearer typicality from the rest of the characters in the novel. There are a lot of them, and they are not executed evenly. The most successful and even quite successful should be recognized as the drunkard Marmeladov and his wife Katerina Ivanovna. These are real types, brightly and clearly defined. They clearly expressed the main advantages of Mr. Dostoevsky’s talent. He revealed to readers how it is possible to be sympathetic to these people, so weak, funny, pitiful, who have lost all the power to control themselves and be like other people. But the author’s main strength, as we have already noted, is not in the types, but in the depiction of situations, in the ability to deeply grasp individual movements and shocks of the human soul. In this respect, he achieved complete and amazing mastery in many places in his new novel.

The novel is conceived and laid out very simply, but at the same time correctly and strictly. For three years Raskolnikov has lived in St. Petersburg, alone, separated from his family and suffering great need. These three years were, of course, the time when the young mind first began to work on understanding life, and worked with the enthusiasm and one-sidedness of youth. The novel opens when the idea of ​​the crime is fully mature. Raskolnikov had long since moved away from his comrades and was completely alone. “For some time he was in an irritable and tense state, similar to hypochondria” (vol. I, p. 2) and “fled from all society” (vol. I, p. 14.). Subsequently, Raskolnikov perfectly describes his condition at this time. He even points out those inclinations of his in which the evil thought found food for itself, which he developed to his advantage.

“Suppose,” he says to Sonya, “that I am proud, envious, angry, vile, vindictive.” “I told you just now that I couldn’t support myself at the university. But do you know that maybe I could? My mother would have sent me to contribute what I needed, and I could have earned money for boots, a dress and bread myself.” ; probably! Lessons (they came out and offered fifty kopecks. Razumikhin is working! But I got angry and didn’t want to. Just angry (that’s a good word!). Then I hid in my corner like a spider. You were in my kennel, you saw it. .. Do you know, dear Sonya, that low ceilings and cramped rooms cramp the soul and mind! Oh, how I hated this kennel! But still I didn’t want to leave it. I didn’t want to on purpose! I didn’t go out for days and didn’t want to work, and I didn’t even want to eat, I was still lying there. If Nastasya brings it, I’ll eat it, if she doesn’t bring it, the day will pass; I didn’t ask on purpose out of malice! There’s no fire at night, I’m lying in the dark,” and I don’t want to earn money for candles. I had to study, I sold out my books; and on my table, on notes and on notebooks. It’s on my fingertips and now there’s dust. I preferred to lie and think. And I kept thinking..." (Vol. II, p. 224).

Self-love and the bitterness that comes from it are the traits of Raskolnikov on which the idea of ​​crime is based. The process that usually takes place in the soul of a criminal is perfectly depicted: a person becomes irritated, sets himself up for a terrible deed, and tries to get carried away to the point of self-oblivion. The novel opens at the moment of full development of this process. Raskolnikov goes to the percentage office to make a test.

But nature in him is indignant, and he is overcome by a feeling of endless disgust (vol. I, p. 12). He is suddenly drawn to people (p. 14), and he meets Marmeladov, accompanies him home and sees his family. This picture again arouses in him a surge of anger, and an unkind thought is resurrected again (p. 40). You receive a letter from your mother with bad news: your sister is sacrificing herself for the good of her mother and brother. Raskolnikov's embitterment reaches its highest degree." The excitement and internal struggle that Raskolnikov experiences as a result of his mother's letter is excellently depicted. He painfully examines all the hopelessness of his situation, all his powerlessness to improve the matter.

“Suddenly he shuddered: one, also yesterday’s thought, flashed through his head again. But he shuddered not because this thought flashed through. He knew, he had a presentiment that it would certainly flash through, and was already waiting for it; and this thought was completely not yesterday. But the difference was that a month ago and even yesterday it was only a dream, and now... now it suddenly appeared not as a dream, but in some new, menacing and completely unfamiliar form to him, and he suddenly realized this..." It hit him in the head and his eyes darkened."

Raskolnikov no longer controls himself; the thought overcame him. A meeting with a girl who has just been carried away on the path of vice drives regret about his sister even deeper into his heart. Instinctively trying to get away from his evil thoughts, he goes to Razumikhin. But he doesn’t understand himself and, having come to his senses, decides: “I’ll go to Razumikhin the next day” after that, when it’s already over and when everything goes anew...” (p. 81).

But once again, for the last time, the soul within him awakens with all its might. He goes somewhere further from the house where “in the corner, in this terrible closet, all this was ripening.” On the road, he falls asleep on a park bench and has a painful dream, in which the soul’s protest against the planned business is expressed. He sees himself as a boy, bursting with pity at the sight of a horse being inhumanly killed. Waking up, suppressed by the impressions of sleep, he finally clearly feels how his nature opposes the crime he is planning. “I can’t stand it, I can’t stand it!” - he repeats. “He was pale, his eyes were burning, there was exhaustion in all his limbs, but he suddenly began to breathe easier. He felt that he had already thrown off this terrible burden that had been weighing him down for so long, and his soul suddenly felt light and peacefully. “Lord! - he prayed, “show me my path, and I will renounce this damned dream of mine!” (p. 92).

It is almost impossible to tell further. Raskolnikov, exhausted and exhausted by his internal struggle, finally submits to the thought that he had been growing in his soul for so long. The description of the crime is amazing and cannot be conveyed in other words. Blindly, mechanically, Raskolnikov carries out a long-established plan. His soul froze, and he acts as if in a dream. He has almost no thoughts or memory; his actions are incoherent and random. It was as if everything human in him had disappeared, and only some animal cunning, an animal instinct of self-preservation allowed him to finish the job and escape from capture. His soul was dying, but the beast was alive.

After committing a crime, Raskolnikov begins a double series of torments. First, the torment of fear. Despite the fact that all ends are hidden, suspicion does not leave him for a minute, and the slightest reason for fear fills him with painful fear. The second series of torments lies in the feelings that the killer experiences when getting close to other people, with faces who have nothing in their souls, who are full of warmth and life. This rapprochement occurs in two ways. Firstly, the criminal himself is drawn to living people, because he would like to become equal with them, to throw away the barrier that he himself has put between them and himself. This is why Raskolnikov goes to Razumikhin. “I said (he thinks to himself) the third day... that after that I’ll go to him the next day, well, I’ll go! As if I can’t go in now...” For the same reason, he begins so diligently takes care of the crushed Marmeladov and becomes close to his orphaned family, especially Sonya.

The second circumstance why Raskolnikov found himself among people living and having close relationships with him was the arrival of his family in St. Petersburg. That letter, which was the final impetus for the murder, contained the news that Raskolnikov’s mother and sister were to come to St. Petersburg, where the sister would sacrifice herself by marrying Luzhin.

Thus, Raskolnikov, who until then was lonely and moving away from people, is now, willingly or unwillingly, surrounded by the people with whom he is most closely connected. The reader feels that if these people had been around Raskolnikov before, he would never have committed the crime. Now, when the crime has been committed, these people give rise to the awakening in the soul of the criminal of all kinds of torment caused by the touch of life on a soul that has perverted itself and is stagnant in its perversion.

This is a very simple, but at the same time very correct and skillful construction of the novel.

A certain gradualism in the mental suffering of the criminal is also very correctly developed. At first, Raskolnikov is completely depressed by what happened and even falls ill. His first attempt to meet living people, a date with Razumikhin, simply stuns him. “Rising to Razumikhin, he did not think that, therefore, he had to come face to face with him. Now, in an instant, he guessed from experience that he was least inclined at that moment to come face to face with anyone whatever it is in the world" (vol. I, p. 173). He leaves without controlling himself. In the same way, the first pangs of fear suppress him. They are resolved by a terrible, painful dream (amazing two pages, 178 - 179), after which Raskolnikov falls ill.

Little by little, however, the criminal becomes stronger. He gets along with Razumikhin, is cunning with Zametov, takes an active part in the fate of the Marmeladov family, in the fate of his sister, dodges the cunning investigator Porfiry, reveals his secret to Sonya, etc. But, as the criminal takes control of himself, his suffering does not weaken, but it only becomes more constant and definite. At first, he still feels gusts of joy, when fear, brought on by some accident, suddenly leaves his heart, or when he manages to get closer to other people and feel like he is still human. But then these fluctuations disappear.

“Some kind of special melancholy,” says the author, “began to reveal itself to him recently. There was nothing particularly caustic or burning in it; but it smelled of something constant, eternal; one could foresee the hopeless years of this cold, deadening melancholy , there was a presentiment of some kind of eternity at the “yard of space” (vol. II, p. 239).

These are the motives on which the largest, central part of the novel is written. One can notice - although, really, in such things it is difficult to rely on one’s own judgment and it is better to trust the insight of the artist - that in Raskolnikov’s soul, in addition to fear and pain, a third theme should still occupy a large place - the memory of the crime.

The imagination and memory of the criminal, it would seem, should more often turn to the picture of a terrible case. To clarify our point, let us recall the excellent description of the crime in Dickens's novel Our Mutual Friend. Teacher Bradley Gadston kills Eugene Rayborn. The state of the killer immediately after the crime and deliverance from danger is described as follows:

“He was in that state of mind that is heavier and more painful than remorse. There was no remorse in him; but the villain, who can remove this avenger from himself, is unable to avoid the slower torture, which consists in the continuous redoing of his crime, and redoing with more and more success. In the exculpatory testimony and in the feigned consciousness of the murderers, the punishing shadow of this torture can be traced in every lie spoken. If I had done this, as they show, can it be imagined that I would have made such and such a mistake. If I did this, as they show, would I really leave unclosed this loophole, which a false and malicious witness so dishonestly exposes against me? a state that increases the severity of a crime by forcing it to be committed a thousand times instead of once; but it is at the same time a state that, in evil and unrepentant natures, punishes the crime with the most severe punishment."

"Bradley hurried forward, heavily chained to the idea of ​​​​his hatred and his vengeance, and kept thinking that he could satisfy both in many ways, much more successful in comparison with what he had done. The weapon could have been better, the place and the hour could have been better chosen. Hitting a man from behind in the dark, on the edge of a river, is quite a clever thing; but he should have been immediately deprived of the opportunity to defend himself; but instead, he managed to turn around and grab his opponent, and therefore, in order to finish him off first, than any chance help came, we had to get rid of him, hastily push him into the river before the life was completely knocked out of him. If it could be done again, it should have been done differently. It is assumed that his head would have been needed keep under water for a while. It is assumed that the first blow should be more accurate; it is assumed that he should be shot; it is assumed that he should be strangled. Assume anything, just do not assume to break away from this one idea; it would be an inexorable impossibility."

"School began the next day. The students saw little or no change in the face of their teacher, because it always wore a slowly changing expression. But while he was listening to the lesson, he kept redoing his business, and kept redoing it better. Standing with a piece of chalk at the black board, before he began to write on it, he thought about the place on the shore, and whether the water was deeper, and whether the fall could have taken place more directly, where -higher or lower on the river. He was ready to draw a line or two on the board in order to figure out for himself what he was thinking. He did the thing all over again, improving it all the time - during class prayers, during questions asked of students, and in throughout the day" (book four, chapter VII).

It would seem that something similar should happen with Raskolnikov. Meanwhile, Raskolnikov returns to his crime with his imagination only twice. At the same time, it is necessary to give justice to the author that both memories are depicted with amazing force. For the first time, Raskolnikov, out of involuntary attraction, comes to the crime scene himself (vol. I, pp. 265 - 268). For the second time, after a tradesman called him a murderer on the street, he sees a dream in which he kills his victim a second time (vol. I, pp. 428 - 431). This dream, and also the two previous dreams that we cited, constitute perhaps the best pages of the novel. The fantastic nature inherent in dreams is captured with amazing brightness and fidelity. A strange but deep connection with reality is captured in all its strangeness. It is impossible to compare with these dreams the last dream that Raskolnikov sees in hard labor (vol. II, pp. 429, 430) and which is an obvious composition, a cold allegory.

So, the central part of the novel is mainly occupied with the depiction of attacks of fear and that mental pain in which the awakening of conscience is reflected. As is his usual practice, the author wrote many variations on these themes. One after another he describes to us all sorts of changes in the same feelings. This imparts monotony to the entire novel, although it does not deprive it of its entertainment. But the novel languishes and torments the reader instead of amazing him. The amazing moments that Raskolnikov experiences are lost among his constant torment, now weakening, then striking again. This cannot be said to be untrue; but it may be noted that this is not clear. The story is not focused around certain points that would suddenly illuminate for the reader the full depth of Raskolnikov’s mental state.

Meanwhile, many of these points are captured in the novel; there are many scenes in it where Raskolnikov’s state of mind is revealed with great clarity. We will not dwell on scenes of fear, on these attacks of bestial fear and bestial cunning (as the author himself puts it, see Vol. I, p. 189). For us, of course, the other, positive side of the matter is much more interesting, namely the one where the soul of the criminal awakens and protests against the violence committed against it. With his crime, Raskolnikov cut himself off from living and healthy people. Every touch of life resonates painfully within him. We saw how he could not see Razumikhin. Subsequently, when the kind Razumikhin began to take care and bother about him, the presence of this good-natured man irritates Raskolnikov to the point of frenzy (vol. I, p. 259). But how glad Raskolnikov himself is to take care of others, how glad he is to have the opportunity to join someone else’s life on the occasion of Marmeladov’s death! The scene between the murderer and the little girl Polya is very good.

“Raskolnikov saw the girl’s thin but sweet face, smiling at him and looking at him cheerfully, like a child. She came running with an errand, which, apparently, she really liked.”

“Listen, what’s your name... and also: where do you live,” she asked hastily, in a breathless voice.”

“He put both hands on her shoulders and looked at her with some kind of happiness. He was so pleased to look at her - he didn’t know why” (vol. I, p. 290).

The conversation ends on a very deep note. Polichka tells how she prays with her mother, her younger sister and brother; Raskolnikov asks her to pray for him too.

After this surge of life, Raskolnikov himself goes to Razumikhin, but soon loses his momentary cheerfulness and self-confidence. Then comes a new blow: the arrival of his mother and sister.

“A joyful, enthusiastic cry greeted Raskolnikov’s appearance. Both rushed to him. But he stood as if dead: an unbearable sudden consciousness struck him like thunder. And his hands did not rise to embrace them: they could not. His mother and sister squeezed him in their arms, kissed him. they laughed, cried... He took a step, swayed and collapsed on the floor in a faint" (vol. I, p. 299).

Every time the presence of relatives and conversation with them constitutes torture for the criminal. When his mother explains to him how glad she is to see him, he interrupts her:

“Come on, mummy,” he muttered with embarrassment, without looking at her and squeezing her hand: “we’ll have time to talk!” “Having said this, he suddenly became embarrassed and turned pale: again one recent terrible sensation passed through his Soul like a dead cold: again it suddenly became completely clear and understandable to him that he had just told a terrible lie, that not only would he never have time to talk, but "Now he can't talk about anything else, never and with anyone. The impression of this excruciating pain was so strong that for a moment he almost completely forgot, got up from his seat and, without looking at anyone, walked out of the room" (t I, p. 355).

By natural reaction, these torments make him hate those who cause them.

“Mother, sister,” Raskolnikov thinks to himself, “how I loved them! Why do I hate them now. Yes, I hate them, physically hate them, I can’t stand being around me...” (Vol. I, p. 428) .

The following passage among the incoherent thoughts of the half-delirious Raskolnikov is very remarkable:

“Poor Lizaveta! Why did she turn up here!.. It’s strange, however, why I hardly even think about her, I certainly didn’t kill her... Lizaveta! Sonya! poor, meek, with gentle eyes... Darlings! Why didn’t they crying. Why don't they moan? They give everything... they look meekly and quietly... Sonya, Sonya! quiet Sonya!.." (ibid.).

Then Raskolnikov gets carried away into the fight with Luzhin and Svidrigailov. But the thought of somehow again entering into living relationships with people continues to torment him. He goes to Sonya in order to reveal his secret to her. From a conversation with her, he sees all her meekness, gentleness, and tender compassion. A moment of tenderness comes over him.

"He kept walking back and forth, silently and without looking at her. Finally he approached her; his eyes sparkled. He took her by the shoulders with both hands. His gaze was dry, inflamed, sharp, his lips trembled violently... Suddenly he He quickly bent down and, crouching on the floor, kissed her foot" (vol. II, p. 76).

He postpones recognition, however, until another time. A new struggle with Porfiry and Luzhin begins, and Raskolnikov again gains courage. He goes to Sonya to confess, as if with the hope of convincing her of his truthfulness; but his plans crumble to dust before contact with a living person.

The scene of consciousness is the best and central scene of the entire novel (vol. II, 207 - 222). Raskolnikov suffers a deep shock. “This is not at all what he intended to announce, and he himself did not understand what was happening to him” (p. 212).

When the confession is finally made, it evokes in Sonya those words and actions that contain a sentence for Raskolnikov, a most humane sentence, as Sonya’s very nature demands.

“Suddenly, as if pierced, she shuddered, screamed and threw herself, without knowing why, on her knees in front of him.

What are you doing, what have you done to yourself! - she said desperately and, jumping up from her knees, threw herself on his neck, hugged him and squeezed him tightly with her hands.

Raskolnikov recoiled and looked at her with a sad smile:

How strange you are, Sonya - you hug and kiss when I told you about it. You don't remember yourself.

No, there is no one more unhappy than you in the whole world now! - she exclaimed, as if in a frenzy, not having heard his remark, and suddenly began to cry bitterly, as if in hysterics.

A feeling that had long been unfamiliar to him surged into his soul and immediately softened it. He did not resist him: two tears rolled out of his eyes and hung on his eyelashes.

“You won’t leave me like that, Sonya,” he said, looking at her almost hopefully.

No no; never and nowhere! - exclaimed Sonya." Here the man has completely affected Raskolnikov. He does not yet realize, but already feels that there is no one in the world more unhappy than him and that he himself is to blame for his misfortune.

“Sonya, I have an evil heart,” he says a few minutes later.

Finally, his torment reaches its extreme limit. Then he, the proud, highly intelligent Raskolnikov, turns to the poor girl for advice.

“Well, what should we do now, speak up!” he asked, suddenly raising his head and looking at her with his face hideously distorted with despair.

What to do! - she exclaimed, suddenly jumping up from her seat, and her eyes, hitherto full of tears, suddenly sparkled. - Get up! (She grabbed him by the shoulder; he stood up, looking at her almost in amazement.) Go now, this very minute, stand at the crossroads, bow, first kiss the ground that you have desecrated, and then bow to the whole world, on all four sides, and tell everyone out loud: “I killed!" Then God will send you life again. Will you go? Will you go? - she asked him, trembling all over, as if in a fit, grabbing him by both hands, squeezing them tightly in her hands and looking at him with a fiery glance."

Apparently, poor Sonya knows very well what needs to be done. But Raskolnikov still resists and tries to overcome his torment. He decides to follow Sonya’s advice only when the clever Porfiry brought him to the point where he could say to his face: “How, who killed... - yes, you killed, Rodion Romanych!” - and then gave the same advice as Sonya. Having finally decided to give himself away, he says goodbye to his mother, who is only guessing what the matter is, and his sister, who knows everything. These scenes, it seemed to us, were weaker than others. And most importantly, they do not give birth to any new feeling in Raskolnikov’s soul. One of the last minutes before Raskolnikov’s formal consciousness has much more meaning and power. He was already walking to the office through Sennaya.

“When he reached the middle of the square, one movement suddenly happened to him - one sensation took possession of him at once, captured him completely - with body and thought.

He suddenly remembered Sonya’s words: “Go to the crossroads, bow to the people, kiss the ground, because you have sinned against it, too, and tell the whole world out loud: “I am a murderer!” “He trembled all over, remembering this. And the hopeless melancholy and anxiety of all this time, but especially the last hours, had already crushed him to such an extent that he rushed into the possibility of this whole, new, complete sensation. It came to him like a fit: it ignited in his soul with one spark, and suddenly, like fire, it engulfed him all. Everything in her softened at once, and tears flowed. As he stood, he fell to the ground..."

“He knelt down in the middle of the square, bowed to the ground and kissed this dirty earth with pleasure and happiness. He stood up and bowed another time.” Immediately after this he betrayed himself.

That's the whole mental process of Raskolnikov. We are not talking about the resurrection described in the epilogue. It is told in too general terms, and the author himself says that it does not relate to this story, but to a new one, to the history of renewal and rebirth of man.

So, Raskolnikov could not fully understand and comprehend the movements that arose in his soul and constituted such torment for him. He could not understand and comprehend the pleasure and happiness that he felt when he decided to follow Sonya’s advice. “He was a skeptic, he was young, abstract and, therefore, cruel,” - this is what the author himself says about “his hero (vol. II, p. 73). Bitterness did not allow Raskolnikov to understand the voice that spoke so loudly in his soul.

In fact, what is the main interest of the novel? What does the reader constantly expect from the minute the crime is committed? He is waiting for an internal revolution in Raskolnikov, waiting for the awakening in him of a truly human way of feeling and thinking. The principle that Raskolnikov wanted to kill in himself must resurrect in his soul and speak with even greater force than before.

But the author put the matter in such a way that for him this second side of the task turned out to be too big and difficult to tackle in this same work. Here lies both the disadvantage and at the same time the advantage of Dostoevsky’s novel. He set himself so broadly, his Raskolnikov was so fierce in his abstraction, that the renewal of this fallen soul could not have been accomplished easily and would have probably presented us with the emergence of spiritual beauty and harmony of a very high order.

Raskolnikov is a truly Russian man precisely in that he has reached the end, the edge of the road onto which his lost mind led him. This trait of the Russian people, the trait of extreme seriousness, as if religiosity, with which they indulge in their ideas, is the cause of many of our troubles. We love to give ourselves wholeheartedly, without concessions, without stopping halfway; We are not cunning or deceitful with ourselves, and therefore we do not tolerate world transactions between our thoughts and reality. One can hope that this precious, great quality of the Russian soul will someday manifest itself in truly wonderful deeds and characters. Now, with the moral turmoil that prevails in some parts of our society, with the emptiness that prevails in others, our tendency to reach the extreme in everything - one way or another - spoils life and even destroys people.

The artist wanted to depict one of the saddest and most characteristic phenomena of such a death for us.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828-1896). Russian philosopher, publicist, literary critic, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

When F.M. Dostoevsky was in hard labor, where he encountered not only political criminals, but also criminals - thieves and murderers. The writer carefully studied their stories and justifications for their crimes, in connection with which Dostoevsky came to the conclusion that most of the crimes were committed due to people’s dissatisfaction with the social structure of Russia. People were dissatisfied with social inequality; after the abolition of serfdom, the peasants for the most part remained poor and destitute; they went to big cities, where they began to drink, rob and kill. Dostoevsky saw a way out of this situation not in a revolution overthrowing the autocracy of Russia, but in the development and improvement of the spiritual world of the Russian people through Christian morality. But crime grew not only on the basis of economic decline; new philosophical teachings also contributed to this.F. Nietzsche became the founder of one of these young teachings in Europe, he put forward the idea of ​​​​a “strong personality and its role in history”, these are people who are conquerors, they control the crowd, control the lives of others and the future of the world. These ideas did not leave Russia indifferent. The hero of the novel “Crime and Punishment,” Rodion Raskolnikov, killed an old moneylender, not only because of his poverty, but also for ideological reasons. He came up with his theory of a world in which people are divided into ordinary and extraordinary. He called ordinary people the gray mass, which must live in accordance with the laws and orders established by society and the state. Extraordinary people are people whose actions are aimed at achieving ideas that change history and the structure of the world in a direction convenient for them; moreover, extraordinary people have the right to break the law and dispose of other people’s lives. These are strong, brave and strong personalities. With his decision to kill the old woman, Rodion is trying to check which group of people he belongs to. Raskolnikov was quite a talented, intelligent and proud young man, but, unfortunately, he could not realize his ambitious dreams due to poverty. Poverty affects his entire life. Rodion's sister, because of poverty, married a terrible man. Poverty led Marmeladov, Sonechka’s father, a titular councilor who was laid off, into drunkenness and a complete decline as a person, which ultimately led to death. Poverty forced Sonechka Marmeladova to go to the panel in order to feed herself and her family. But Rodion added his own worldview to Nietzsche’s philosophical judgments. He believed that if a strong personality killed a nonentity who was of no use to anyone, she thereby made everyone happy. Such a murder, in Raskolnikov’s perception, is neither a crime nor a sin, much less. This is how he reasoned when he killed the old woman pawnbroker, he was going to help her with money that was acquired from the misfortune of others, who were as destitute as he was. However, when the crime was committed and Rodion’s hands were “stained with blood,” he was unable to use the stolen money, not only was his conscience so sensitive that he could not hug his mother and sister with the hands of the “killer.” He is consumed by his conscience; Raskolnikov associates it with Sonechka Marmeladova. Sonechka is in the same difficult situation as he is, but her heart is not hardened, not hardened, not embittered towards the world. The girl lives thanks to her unshakable faith in God and hope in His justice. Sonya was the first to whom Rodion confessed his crime, and from whom he expected moral support and understanding. Sonechka advised Rodion to repent in order to ease his suffering, to tell all people about what he had done, but he did not listen to her and went to confess what he had done to the authorities and ended up in hard labor. Sonya and Raskolnikov were united by the fact that they were both deeply unhappy, they ruined their souls, but if Sonya was guided by deeply moral motives, she wanted to help her loved ones survive, then Rodion committed a crime for the sake of an idea.
In hard labor, gradually, thanks to Sonya, a spiritual rebirth occurs with Rodion - his life principles change.