Novel “Crime and Punishment”
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F.M. Dostoevsky in hard labor “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction.” It was there, in hard labor, that the writer encountered “strong personalities” who placed themselves above the moral laws of society. To the question: is it possible to destroy some people for the sake of the happiness of others, the author and his hero answer differently. Raskolnikov believes that it is possible, since this is “simple arithmetic.” There cannot be harmony in the world if even one child’s tear is shed (after all, Rodion kills Lizaveta and her unborn child). But the hero is in the power of the author, and therefore in the novel the anti-human theory of Rodion Raskolnikov fails.
The hero's rebellion, which lies at the basis of his theory, is generated by the social inequality of society. It is no coincidence that the conversation with Marmeladov became the last straw in Raskolnikov’s cup of doubt: he finally decides to kill the old money-lender. Money is salvation for disadvantaged people, Raskolnikov believes. The fate of Marmeladov refutes these beliefs. Even his daughter’s money cannot save the poor guy; he is crushed morally and can no longer rise from the bottom of his life.
Raskolnikov explains the establishment of social justice by force as “blood according to conscience.” The writer further develops this theory, and on the pages of the novel heroes appear - “doubles” of Raskolnikov. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov says to Rodion, emphasizing their similarities. Svidrigailov and Luzhin exhausted the idea of abandoning “principles” and “ideals” to the end. One has lost his bearings between good and evil, the other preaches personal gain - all this is the logical conclusion of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. It is not for nothing that Rodion responds to Luzhin’s selfish reasoning: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be slaughtered.”
Raskolnikov believes that only “real people” can break the law, since they act for the benefit of humanity. But Dostoevsky proclaims from the pages of the novel: any murder is unacceptable. Razumikhin expresses these ideas, citing simple and convincing arguments that human nature resists crime.
What is the result of Raskolnikov, considering himself the right to destroy “unnecessary” people for the benefit of the humiliated and insulted? He himself rises above people, becoming an “extraordinary” person. Therefore, Raskolnikov divides people into “chosen ones” and “trembling creatures.” And Dostoevsky, removing his hero from the Napoleonic pedestal, tells us that it is not the happiness of people that worries Raskolnikov, but he is occupied by the question: “... am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” Rodion dreams of ruling people, this is how the essence of an individualist hero is revealed.
Refuting the life goals of his hero, preaching Christian principles, Dostoevsky introduces the image of Sonya into the novel. The writer sees the “greatest happiness” in the destruction of his “I”, in undivided service to people - this “truth” by F.M. embodied in Sonya. Contrasting these images, Dostoevsky pits Raskolnikov’s revolutionary atheistic rebellion against Sonechka’s Christian humility, love for people and God. Sonya’s all-forgiving love and faith convince Rodion to “accept suffering.” He confesses to the crime, but only in hard labor, comprehending the truths of the Gospel, does he come to repentance. Sonya returns R-va to the people from whom he was separated by the crime he committed. “They were resurrected by love...”
Having destroyed the “harmonious” theory of R-v, his “simple arithmetic,” Dostoevsky warned humanity against the danger of revolutionary riots and proclaimed the idea of the value of any human personality. The writer believed that “there is one law - the moral law.”
When you can help yourself,
Why cry out to heaven?
We are given a choice. Those who dare are right;
He who is weak in spirit will not achieve his goal...
W. Shakespeare
In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky tells the story of a murder committed to test a theory that had formed in the head of a poor student. Rodion Raskolnikov is offended by the unfair structure of the world around him, where millions of the weak and defenseless perish (like the Marmeladov family), and thousands of unscrupulous scoundrels succeed (like Svidrigailov and Luzhin). How to correct social injustice? Raskolnikov, sitting in the attic in his room, which looks like a coffin, hungry, embittered, ponders this “eternal” question. He will outline his decision in the article “On the Crime.” Studying at the law faculty of the university was not in vain for him. In his head there is a series of historical figures who became famous for giving their people new laws, abolishing (“crossing over”) the old ones: Lycurgus (legislator of Sparta), Solon (legislator of Athens), Magomed (Islamic countries still live according to Sharia law ), Napoleon (according to the Napoleonic Code, France lives for almost two hundred years). These “criminals” benefited their peoples and left behind them a grateful memory for centuries. Now it is clear that, according to his theory, Raskolnikov divided all people into two groups: the majority - “trembling creatures” who can only obey and carry out laws-orders, and a few - “those who have the right”, these create laws and have the power to command “ the whole anthill."
The poor student, himself humiliated by poverty, believes that a worthy task for a superman is nothing less than “the good of humanity.” For “universal happiness,” the superman must eliminate social evil, the symbol of which for Raskolnikov is the nasty, evil, useless old pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. Is it permissible to destroy an “unnecessary” minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority? Raskolnikov answers this question with his theory as follows: it is permissible and should, because this is “simple arithmetic” (1, VI). Dostoevsky proves in the novel that arithmetic calculations in relation to people are unacceptable. The writer shows how the speculative theory of the protagonist is consistently refuted by life itself.
Firstly, Raskolnikov’s theory cannot be implemented, since it combines incompatible goals and means. As Svidrigailov sarcastically notes, “there was a mistake in the theory” (5, V). The superman, in the opinion of the main character, must intervene in the fate of humanity in such a way as to achieve the reign of morality and justice in the world, albeit through cruel, bloody, immoral means. Behind the idea of the “common good” in Raskolnikov’s theory appears the “idea of Napoleon” - one chosen one, standing above humanity and prescribing his laws to everyone. However, Raskolnikov fails to truly rise above people, because he has a wonderful quality in his soul—philanthropy. Raskolnikov, despite his contempt for the “anthill,” cannot indifferently pass by a drunken girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, although he later scolds himself: “Isn’t it monstrous that just now I got involved in a story with a girl...” (1, IV). The collapse of Raskolnikov’s theory began when Sonya began to cry in response to his confession of murder: her tears outweighed all the “logic of the idea” in the hero’s soul (5, IV).
Secondly, the humiliated and insulted, for the sake of whom the main character decided to become a superman and do good to the world, reject his good deed. Raskolnikov, in addition to the old pawnbroker, unexpectedly kills the meek and unrequited Lizaveta, so that “simple arithmetic” does not work. When the killer explains to Sonya the motives for his crime (“I didn’t kill a man, but a louse!”), she does not understand them and exclaims: “This man is a louse!” (5, IV). Sonya does not accept Raskolnikov’s rebellion, she does not want deliverance at any cost, and therefore she is a person. According to Dostoevsky, she embodies the people's principles in the novel: patience, humility, immeasurable love for man and God. Only the people (in the form of Sonya) can condemn Raskolnikov’s “Napoleonic” rebellion, force him to submit to the moral judgment of conscience and go to hard labor - “accept suffering” (5, IV).
Thirdly, Dostoevsky pits his hero against people who share his opinion about superpersonality and the crowd. The first “theorist” is Dunya’s alleged fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, who argues: “Science says: love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest” (2, V). From Luzhin’s point of view, in order for there to be more happy people in the state, the level of prosperity needs to be raised. Since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, everyone should take care of it and get rich, without worrying too much about love for one’s neighbor and other romantic nonsense. Luzhin's call for personal gain is a logical continuation of Raskolnikov's idea - “everything is allowed to the strong.” The main character understands this and formulates to the neat and self-satisfied Pyotr Petrovich the essence of his “economic” theory: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that you can kill people...” (2, V).
The second hero who allows “blood according to conscience” is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov. He is, however, no longer a theorist, but a practitioner. This gentleman has already freed himself from “principles” and “ideals”; for him, life no longer makes sense: life is boring and uninteresting. Out of boredom, he does both good (provides for Katerina Ivanovna’s children) and evil (kills his wife, who interferes with his romance with Dunya) - good and evil are no longer distinguishable for him. Both - Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - resolve the crime, so they are “birds of a feather,” as Arkady Ivanovich rightly notes. But Svidrigailov has gotten used to murder, and the main character still clings to “justice”, to the “lofty and beautiful”, to “Schiller” (6, III), although he already justifies the crime if it benefits (!) humanity. So, Raskolnikov meets a man who does not think about it, does not try on the idea of “blood according to conscience,” but lives according to it. Both the life and thoughts of this “overstepped” superman are terrible. Suffice it to recall his conversations with his murdered wife or his idea of eternity (the afterlife) as a smoky bathhouse with spiders in the corners.
Fourthly, “human nature” rebels against Raskolnikov’s theory. Why is the personality of every person sacred? It is impossible to logically prove this truth - such is the moral law, the law of human conscience. Immediately after the murder, the main character does not feel remorse, but very quickly begins to feel as if “cut off” (2.11) from people. Cold alienation reigns in his soul even in relation to close relatives: with his beloved mother he feels awkward and constrained. Dostoevsky’s own conscience, according to Dostoevsky, takes revenge on him for violating the moral law.
Razumikhin most consistently defends “human nature” (3, V): he fundamentally rejects any theories of violence against people, since life is always much more complicated than it seems to theorists. “Reality and nature are an important thing, and wow, sometimes the most insightful calculations are thwarted!” (4,V) - Porfiry Petrovich echoes Razumikhin. The investigator turns out to be right: the former student, under the influence of Sonya, denounces himself and accepts punishment and suffering for a crime that, in his own conviction, he did not commit. After all, while no one has proven to him the fallacy of his theory, his epiphany will come only in hard labor. Thus, conscience (moral law) protests against the shedding of blood and defeats reason in Raskolnikov, which justifies blood.
To summarize, it should be noted that Dostoevsky structured his work in such a way as to prove the doom of Raskolnikov’s rebellion against the world, even as unsettled and unjust as it is shown in the novel. According to Dostoevsky, the reorganization of the world according to “logic” and “reason” (according to theory) is impossible, because in no society can evil be avoided until the person himself changes. Submission to an idea (theory), no matter how initially logical and humane it may be, leads to murder and loneliness, which is what happened to Raskolnikov.
For Dostoevsky, it is obvious that the division of people into “trembling creatures” and “those with rights” is wrong. In the novel, the characters who, according to Raskolnikov’s theory, belong to “creatures” (Sonya, Dunya, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna, Razumikhin) are not primitive, but complex and deep personalities. And the heroes who, according to Raskolnikov’s theory, have the “right to blood” are not “titans-benefactors of humanity” at all, but petty scoundrels (Luzhin) or insane egoists (Svidrigailov).
From the writer’s point of view, the ideal person is not the legislator who “transgressed” the old laws, but Sonya Marmeladova, capable of sacrificial love, capable of understanding and responding to the pain of others. Unlike Raskolnikov with his inhuman theory, Sonya is convinced that all people have the same right to life; Unlike Luzhin, she believes that personal happiness cannot be the only goal of existence; a person comprehends true happiness through suffering-love. These beliefs are confirmed by the author’s remark in the epilogue: “They were resurrected by love...”
Condemning rebellion in principle, since it leads to the murder of people, Dostoevsky, however, shows in the novel the inevitability of rebellion, which inevitably follows from the unjust structure of society. Nevertheless, the writer affirms the significance of any personality, and therefore the equivalence of all people, despite their real social and material inequality. This demonstrates Dostoevsky’s high humanism.
The hero of the novel is endowed with a tragic worldview. It is characterized by duality of consciousness, disagreement, a split with oneself (hence the surname Raskolnikov), internal confrontation, a clash in the soul of good and evil, love and hatred. He is a proud, thoughtful, undoubtedly talented person. He deeply experiences the injustice, pain and suffering of other people - but he himself turns out to be a criminal.
Raskolnikov’s crime is a consequence of his idea, theory, but this idea itself arose in his confused consciousness under the influence of external life circumstances. At any cost, he needs to find a way out of the impasse in which he has found himself, he needs to take some active action. The question is “What should I do?”
Raskolnikov witnesses Marmeladov's confession, stunning in sincerity, hopelessness and despair, his story about the tragic fate of the unrequited Sonya, who, in order to save her loved ones, was forced to go out into the street to sell herself, about the torment of small children growing up in a dirty corner next to a drunken father and a dying woman. , eternally irritated mother - Katerina Ivanovna. From a letter to his mother, Raskolnikov learns about how his sister, Du-nya, who was a governess there, was disgraced in Svidrigailov’s house, how she, wanting to help her brother, agrees to become the wife of the businessman Luzhin, i.e., she is ready, in essence, sell yourself, which reminds the hero of Sonya’s fate: “Sonya, Sonechka Marmeladova, eternal Sonechka, while the world stands! Have you fully measured the sacrifice to yourself? Is not it? Is it possible? Is it beneficial? Is it reasonable?
The appeal to reason in this case is especially significant. It is reason that leads Raskolnikov to his monstrous theory and, as a consequence, to crime.
Investigator Porfiry Petrovich tells Raskolnikov: “...you value the human mind more highly, following the example of all young people. Playful sharpness of mind and abstract arguments of reason tempt you, sir...” Porfiry Petrovich is very smart. He found the main link in Raskolnikov’s thoughts and behavior, which predetermined his crime - abstract arguments of reason, logical constructions.
In a conversation he accidentally overheard, Raskolnikov was struck by the words: “In one life—thousands of lives saved from rot and decay. One death and a hundred lives in return - but this is arithmetic!” But even before this episode, Raskolnikov, mentally preparing for murder, convinces himself that in all his calculations everything is “clear as day, fair as arithmetic.” Arithmetic becomes a symbol of dry calculation, built on the arguments of pure reason and logic. Dostoevsky is convinced that an arithmetical approach to the phenomena of life can lead to the most tragic consequences, for example, to an axe. This is not a random image in the novel. Why is this how Raskolnikov carries out his terrible crime? The ax became a kind of symbol of the violent transformation of reality. If you remember, someone sent a letter to Herzen’s “Bell” with a call: “Call Rus' to the axe!” Raskolnikov picks up an ax...
However, Raskolnikov’s thoughts and actions cannot be reduced to just arithmetic and logic. On the contrary, he often acts in a pointedly illogical manner, even contrary to his own well-being and safety. There is often no mathematical calculation in his actions. Raskolnikov every now and then deliberately puts himself on the edge of the abyss, finding some kind of painful pleasure in this: “So he tormented himself and teased himself with these questions even with some kind of pleasure.”
Let us recall one of the most famous scenes of the novel, when, after the crime, Raskolnikov again went up to the fourth floor to the apartment where the old woman he had killed lived, “grabbed the bell and pulled... He shuddered with each blow, and it became more and more pleasant for him it was becoming." You will say that there is something abnormal about this, and you will be right. But this is Dostoevsky and this is Dostoevsky’s hero, who needs to execute himself, but who also finds some incomprehensible pleasure in this self-execution. Weren't you struck by Raskolnikov's extremely strange behavior in the tavern when he accidentally met the police official Zametov there?
“What if it was I who killed the old woman and Lizaveta? “he said suddenly and came to his senses.” (Pay attention to the word “suddenly,” which is characteristic of Dostoevsky’s narrative style.) Material from the site
Raskolnikov’s thought develops very complexly, very contradictorily. It’s hard to follow her and look for some kind of logic in her, especially since he thinks and acts in a highly unpredictable manner (primarily for himself). But here’s what’s significant: the first movement of his heart is generous and humane, but as soon as he begins to theorize, his kindness and selflessness immediately disappear. The beginning of the novel tells how Raskolnikov did everything possible to save a disgraced girl whom he accidentally met on the boulevard. And what? A moment later he is shouting to the policeman: “Leave me alone! What do you want! Give it up! Let him have fun (he pointed to the dandy). What do you care?
Having received a letter from his mother and learned about his sister’s proposed wedding, Raskolnikov decides: “This marriage will not happen while I’m alive, and to hell with Mr. Luzhin!” But on a meeting with Dunya, his mood unexpectedly changes. “It’s strange,” he said slowly, as if suddenly struck by a new thought, “why am I making such a fuss? What's all the screaming about? Yes, marry whoever you want!”
It is impossible to reduce the meaning of Dostoevsky’s most complex philosophical novel to the preaching of only one specific idea.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
The attitude of F. M. Dostoevsky to the “hero of action” - a characteristic person of the sixties of the 19th century
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky in hard labor “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction.” It was there, in hard labor, that the writer encountered “strong personalities” who put themselves above the moral laws of society. Having embodied the traits of such personalities in Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky in his work consistently debunks their Napoleonic ideas. To the question: is it possible to destroy some people for the sake of the happiness of others, the author and his hero answer differently. Raskolnikov believes that it is possible, since this is “simple arithmetic.” No, Dostoevsky claims, there cannot be harmony in the world if even one child’s tear is shed (after all, Rodion kills Lizaveta and her unborn child). But the hero is in the power of the author, and therefore in the novel the anti-human theory of Rodion Raskolnikov fails. The theme of rebellion and the theme of the individualist hero, which dominated Dostoevsky in recent years, were combined in Crime and Punishment.
The hero's rebellion, which lies at the basis of his theory, is generated by the social inequality of society. It is no coincidence that the conversation with Marmeladov became the last straw in Raskolnikov’s cup of doubt: he finally decides to kill the old money-lender. Money is salvation for disadvantaged people, Raskolnikov believes. The fate of Marmeladov refutes these beliefs. Even his daughter’s money cannot save the poor guy; he is crushed morally and can no longer rise from the bottom of his life.
Raskolnikov explains the establishment of social justice by violent means as “blood according to conscience.” The writer further develops this theory, and heroes appear on the pages of the novel - Raskolnikov’s “doubles”. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov says to Rodion, emphasizing their similarities. Svidrigailov, like Luzhin, exhausted the idea of abandoning “principles” and “ideals” to the end. One has lost his bearings between good and evil, the other preaches personal gain - all this is the logical conclusion of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. It is not for nothing that Rodion responds to Luzhin’s selfish reasoning: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be slaughtered.”
Raskolnikov believes that only “real people” can break the law, since they act for the benefit of humanity. But Dostoevsky proclaims from the pages of the novel: any murder is unacceptable. Razumikhin expresses these ideas, citing simple and convincing arguments that human nature resists crime.
What is the result of Raskolnikov, considering himself the right to destroy “unnecessary” people for the benefit of the humiliated and insulted? He himself rises above people, becoming an “extraordinary” person. Therefore, Raskolnikov divides people into “chosen ones” and “trembling creatures.” And Dostoevsky, removing his hero from the Napoleonic pedestal, tells us that it is not the happiness of people that worries Raskolnikov, but he is occupied by the question: “...am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” Rodion Raskolnikov dreams of ruling people, this is how the essence of an individualist hero is revealed.
Refuting the life goals of his hero, preaching Christian principles, Dostoevsky introduces the image of Sonya into the novel. The writer sees the “greatest happiness” in the destruction of his “I”, in undivided service to people - Fyodor Mikhailovich embodied this “truth” in Sonya. Contrasting these images, Dostoevsky pits Raskolnikov’s revolutionary atheistic rebellion against Christian humility, love for people and Sonechka’s God. Sonya's all-forgiving love and her faith convince Rodion to “accept suffering.” He confesses to the crime, but only in hard labor, comprehending the truths of the Gospel, does he come to repentance. Sonya returns Raskolnikov to the people from whom he was separated by the crime he committed. "They were resurrected by love..."
Having destroyed Raskolnikov’s “harmonious” theory, his “simple arithmetic,” Dostoevsky warned humanity against the danger of revolutionary riots and proclaimed the idea of the value of any human personality. The writer believed that “there is one law - the moral law.”
crime and punishment what is simple arithmetic in Raskolnikov’s theory and got the best answer
Answer from Oriy Vinokurov[guru]
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky in hard labor “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction.” It was there, in hard labor, that the writer encountered “strong personalities” who put themselves above the moral laws of society. Having embodied the traits of such personalities in Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky in his work consistently debunks their Napoleonic ideas. To the question: is it possible to destroy some people for the sake of the happiness of others, the author and his hero answer differently. Raskolnikov believes that it is possible, since this is “simple arithmetic.” No, Dostoevsky claims, there cannot be harmony in the world if even one child’s tear is shed (after all, Rodion kills Lizaveta and her unborn child). But the hero is in the power of the author, and therefore in the novel the anti-human theory of Rodion Raskolnikov fails. The theme of rebellion and the theme of the individualist hero, which dominated Dostoevsky in recent years, were combined in Crime and Punishment.
The hero's rebellion, which lies at the basis of his theory, is generated by the social inequality of society. It is no coincidence that the conversation with Marmeladov became the last straw in Raskolnikov’s cup of doubt: he finally decides to kill the old money-lender. Money is salvation for disadvantaged people, Raskolnikov believes. The fate of Marmeladov refutes these beliefs. Even his daughter’s money cannot save the poor guy; he is crushed morally and can no longer rise from the bottom of his life.
Raskolnikov explains the establishment of social justice by violent means as “blood according to conscience.” The writer further develops this theory, and heroes appear on the pages of the novel - Raskolnikov’s “doubles”. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov says to Rodion, emphasizing their similarities. Svidrigailov, like Luzhin, exhausted the idea of abandoning “principles” and “ideals” to the end. One has lost his bearings between good and evil, the other preaches personal gain - all this is the logical conclusion of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. It is not for nothing that Rodion responds to Luzhin’s selfish reasoning: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be slaughtered.”
Raskolnikov believes that only “real people” can break the law, since they act for the benefit of humanity. But Dostoevsky proclaims from the pages of the novel: any murder is unacceptable. Razumikhin expresses these ideas, citing simple and convincing arguments that human nature resists crime.
What is the result of Raskolnikov, considering himself the right to destroy “unnecessary” people for the benefit of the humiliated and insulted? He himself rises above people, becoming an “extraordinary” person. Therefore, Raskolnikov divides people into “chosen ones” and “trembling creatures.” And Dostoevsky, removing his hero from the Napoleonic pedestal, tells us that it is not the happiness of people that worries Raskolnikov, but he is occupied by the question: “...am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...” Rodion Raskolnikov dreams of ruling people, this is how the essence of an individualist hero is revealed.
Refuting the life goals of his hero, preaching Christian principles, Dostoevsky introduces the image of Sonya into the novel. The writer sees the “greatest happiness” in the destruction of his “I”, in undivided service to people - Fyodor Mikhailovich embodied this “truth” in Sonya. Contrasting these images, Dostoevsky pits Raskolnikov’s revolutionary atheistic rebellion against Christian humility, love for people and Sonechka’s God. Sonya's all-forgiving love and her faith convince Rodion to “accept suffering.” He confesses to the crime, but only in hard labor, comprehending the truths of the Gospel, does he come to repentance. Sonya returns Raskolnikov to the people from whom he was separated by the crime he committed. "They were resurrected by love..."
