IN Civil War the fighters left to fight with a song about a bright future, which contained the following words: “We are ours, we new world let’s build: whoever was nothing will become everything.” And “every cook we have will rule the state” is a slogan of the same order. Inspired and hopeful, the people sincerely believed that they were the bearers of unlimited power in their country, that every person from now on was a potential Napoleon.
But the reality turned out to be much more prosaic. Only Lenin and Stalin turned out to be the new “Napoleons”. The rest just copied them. Real mode, created by the new “Napoleon” Lenin and improved by Stalin, was a system without feedback, completely devoid of the ability to self-regulate. But this system has revealed a tremendous capacity for self-development. The main law of development of this system was the law of negative selection. As a result of his actions, only a person with negative moral, intellectual and business qualities could be promoted to leadership positions.
Thus, a superpower gradually emerged with nuclear weapons, satellites and space rockets, which was controlled by “Napoleons” and “Napoleons”, who had difficulty reading their reports from a pre-prepared cheat sheet. In fact, they were ordinary philistines - with philistine demands and interests. In her book of memoirs, Stalin’s daughter S. Alliluyeva, married to Zhdanov’s son, writes: “In the house where I ended up, I was faced with a combination of ostentatious, formal, sanctimonious “party spirit” with the most complete “womanish” philistinism - chests full of “goodness”, tasteless furnishings entirely made up of vases, napkins, tiny still lifes on the walls.”
It’s like in V. Mayakovsky’s play “The Bedbug”, where the main character Pierre Skripkin, a former worker, a party promoter who has tasted earthly joys, says about himself: “Comrade Bayan, I am against this bourgeois life - canaries and so on... I am a man with large requests... I'm interested in a mirrored cabinet...".
And not only Zhdanov, but also the rest of the “Napoleons” - comrades-in-arms of the leader of the peoples - were people with big demands.
Stalin himself, according to his daughter, also received expensive gifts. But he was never interested in them, and therefore donated them to the museum. He differed from his comrades in that he was a faithful follower of Lenin and was a man with big needs. It seems to me that, comparing himself with his comrades, Stalin could well have said about himself and Lenin in the words of O’Brien, the hero of George Orwell’s novel “1984”: “We are not like that. We know that no one has ever seized power with the intention of giving it up. Power is not a means, it is a goal... The goal of persecution is persecution. The purpose of torture is torture. The goal of power is power.”
To show who the true “Napoleon” with unlimited power was, and who was just a pitiful imitation of his shadow, Stalin almost always wore a shabby jacket and kept himself, as it were, in the background. This can be seen very clearly in documentary newsreels of that time: Stalin and his comrades on the podium of the Mausoleum; the same ones are walking through the Kremlin courtyard.
V. Voinovich has a work called “In the Circle of Friends.” The writer, in the form of a parody, shows what these imaginary “Napoleons” were like and who was the main “puppeteer” among them. The company of “leaders of the people” in the image of V. Voinovich appears before us in the form of a thieving raspberry. (Stalin himself says about his comrades: “Who is here? Leaders? Leaders? Or just a gang of thieves.”)
E. Neizvestny discusses the Soviet “Napoleons” at a lower level, on a smaller scale, in his memoirs: “During the internal party selection, due to the loss of all human qualities, they developed one thing - suspicion... I outlined this for myself as a “demo-seeking” Soviet party functionary. What I mean? Ivanov, who is being stalked by Petrov and others like him, sees a conspiracy in everything. Not against the system as such, but a conspiracy against his personal well-being... And such a person, climbing the hierarchical ladder, losing all human qualities, gains enormous vigilance, and perceives the whole world as a demon, holding against him and hiding personal dirty tricks " Material from the site
This, it turns out, is the main and fundamental essence of all those who “look at Napoleons”: “demon-seeking.” And in this all “Napoleons” and “Napoleons” are united - from bottom to top. It is enough to look at the heroes in the poems of V. Vysotsky or A. Galich to be convinced that this really happened. But what is scary and dangerous, in my opinion, is not the proximity of the social “tops” and “bottoms”. That a man climbs career ladder, striving to reach the social top, this is not so bad. The scary thing is that even at the very top this person retains his core essence and remains a lumpen. In the end, Stalin’s purges of the 30s of the 20th century and the so-called “Soviet advancement” led to the complete lumpenization of our society. And until the consequences of this policy are overcome in our country, it will not achieve complete and final recovery.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
I want to tell you about a book that cannot but excite the thinking reader. This book is F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment.” I would like to talk about philosophical direction this work, about its humanistic sound, about the meaning of this book for the reader today. The novel Crime and Punishment was written in 1866. But it has not lost its relevance today. Only the time of action and forms of communication between people have changed. People's thoughts and feelings have not changed. Their aspirations are almost the same as in the 19th century. Now many people are concerned about the same questions that Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel Crime and Punishment, asked himself. In his work, Dostoevsky describes in detail the questions that tormented Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky's novel reveals the conditions due to which Raskolnikov found himself in such a terrible situation. He was humiliated and insulted; he was a “trembling creature.” But a person cannot live in such a state. Dostoevsky shows the horror of the situation of such people. They are very exhausted, it’s hard for them to live. And everyone strives to get out of this state. This human desire for freedom is natural. And Dostoevsky shows an attempt to break out of such a state in specific example. The novel “Crime and Punishment” is a work dedicated to the story of how a restless human soul walked through suffering and mistakes to comprehend the truth. For Dostoevsky, a deeply religious man, the meaning of life lies in comprehending the Christian ideals of love for one's neighbor. In this novel, Dostoevsky examines Raskolnikov's crime from this point of view. For Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov's crime is ignoring Christian commandments. Raskolnikov himself is a sinful person. By this, Dostoevsky meant not only the sin of murder, but also pride, the idea that everyone is “trembling creatures,” and he, perhaps, “has the right.” Raskolnikov decided to rise “above this anthill.” He decided to kill the old woman, rob her and get enough money to achieve his goals. But he is tormented by one question: does he have the right to break legal laws? If we turn to his theory, we can see that Raskolnikov has the right to step over any obstacles if this is necessary to achieve his goals. Having killed the old woman, Raskolnikov placed himself in the category of people to which neither the “quarter lieutenants,” nor his sister, nor his mother, nor Razumikhin, nor Sonya belong. Raskolnikov “cut off” himself from people “as if with scissors.” And for him it became a tragedy. Having revealed Raskolnikov's act, Dostoevsky shows the result. A person cannot live without communicating with people. Therefore, Raskolnikov begins to have a split personality. Raskolnikov believes in the infallibility of his theory. But at the same time, he suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister. Raskolnikov tries not to think about them. According to the logic of his theory, they should fall into the category of “inferior people.” This means that the ax of another Raskolnikov could fall on their heads at any moment. And Raskolnikov must give up on those for whom he suffers. He must despise, hate, kill those he loves. Raskolnikov cannot bear this. He suffers greatly from all this: “Mother, sister, how I love them! Why do I hate them now? Yes, I hate them, I physically hate them, I can’t stand being around me...” This monologue reveals the full horror of his situation. Dostoevsky does not show the moral resurrection of Raskolnikov. But he shows him the way to be reborn to a new life. The necessity, the inevitability of suffering on the path to comprehending the meaning of life is the cornerstone of Dostoevsky's philosophy. The philosophical questions that Rodion Raskolnikov struggled with solving occupied the minds of many thinkers, for example Napoleon and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche created the theory of “blond beasts”, a “superman” to whom everything is permitted. Later, it served as the basis for the creation of fascist ideology, which, having become the dominant ideology of the Third Reich, brought numerous disasters to all humanity. Therefore, Dostoevsky’s humanistic position was and is of enormous social significance. It seems to me that Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” should be read by everyone. Its action takes place in the 19th century, but even now many people are trying to solve the problem that Rodion Raskolnikov set for himself. This novel is useful to all people. Those who have not yet encountered such a problem will see the consequences of the action of the main character of the novel and will try not to make a similar mistake. And those people who find themselves in a similar situation will find a way out of this situation in the novel. This novel helped me a lot. When I read it, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of life. This novel warned me about the mistakes I might make. I think that this is a very interesting, useful book that every person should read, not just read, but think about the problems and issues that Dostoevsky wanted to warn humanity about. The writer’s attitude towards religious consciousness is amazing in its depth. The concepts of sin and virtue, pride and humility, good and evil - this is what interests Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov, the key character of the novel, bears sin and pride. Moreover, sin absorbs not only direct actions, but also hidden thoughts (Raskolnikov is punished even before the crime). Having passed through himself the obviously powerful theory about “Napoleons” and “trembling creatures,” the hero kills the old money-lender, but not so much her as himself. Having followed the path of self-destruction, Raskolnikov nevertheless, with the help of Sonya, finds the key to salvation through suffering, purification and love. As you know, all these concepts are the most important and important in the Christian worldview. People deprived of repentance and love will not know the light, but will see a dark afterlife, terrible in its essence. Thus, Svidrigailov already during his lifetime has a clear idea of the afterlife. He appears before us in the form of a “black bath with spiders and mice” - in the Christian view, this is a picture of hell, for sinners who know neither love nor repentance. Also, when mentioning Svidrigailov, “damn” constantly appears. Svidrigailov is doomed: even the good that he is about to do is in vain (dream about a 5-year-old girl): his good is not accepted, it is too late. A terrible satanic force, the devil, is also pursuing Raskolnikov; at the end of the novel he will say: “The devil led me to commit a crime.” But if Svidrigailov commits suicide (commits the most terrible mortal sin), then Raskolnikov is cleared. The motif of prayer in the novel is also characteristic of Raskolnikov (after a dream he prays for a horse, but his prayers are not heard, and he commits a crime). Sonya, the landlady's daughter (preparing herself for a monastery), and Katerina Ivanovna's children constantly pray. Prayer, an integral part of the Christian, becomes part of the novel. There are also such images and symbols as the cross and the Gospel. Sonya gives Raskolnikov the Gospel that belonged to Lizaveta, and, reading it, he is reborn to life. At first Raskolnikov does not accept Lizaveta’s cross from Sonya, since he is not ready yet, but then he takes it, and again this is associated with spiritual cleansing, rebirth from death to life. The Christian in the novel is enhanced by numerous analogies and associations with biblical stories. There is a reminiscence from the Bible about Lazarus, a parable that Sonya reads to Raskolnikov on the fourth day after the crime. Moreover, Lazarus from this parable was resurrected precisely on the fourth day. That is, Raskolnikov is spiritually dead these four days and, in fact, lies in a coffin (“coffin” is the hero’s closet), and Sonya came to save him. From the Old Testament the novel contains the parable of Cain, from the New - the parable of the publican and the Pharisee, the parable of the harlot (“if anyone is not sinful, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”), the parable of Martha - a woman who has been focused on vanity and missing the most important thing (Marfa Petrovna, Svidrigailov’s wife, fusses all her life, deprived of the main principle). Gospel motifs in the names are clearly visible. Kapernaumov is the surname of the man from whom Sonya rented a room, and Mary the Harlot lived near the city of Capernaum.
And so far, in the last three days before the murder - the first part of the novel is dedicated to them - three times Raskolnikov’s thought, to the limit, excited to the extreme by the tragedy of life, experiences precisely those moments of the highest tension that slightly reveal, but do not yet fully reveal, the deepest reasons for his crime.
For the first time - the buffoonish and tragic story of the drunken Marmeladov about his seventeen-year-old daughter, Sonechka, her feat, her sacrifice, about the family she saved at the cost of abuse. And the conclusion - “A scoundrel gets used to everything!” . But in response there was a furious outbreak of rebellious Raskolnikov thought.
(English wisdom)
“Well, if I lied,” he suddenly exclaimed involuntarily, “if man, in general, the whole race, that is, the human race, is really not a scoundrel, then it means that the rest are all prejudices, just false fears, and there are no barriers, and that’s how it should be!...” A scoundrel is one who gets used to everything, accepts everything, puts up with everything. But no, no, a person is not a scoundrel - “the whole human race in general”, the one who rebels, destroys, oversteps is not a scoundrel - there are no barriers for an extraordinary, “obedient” person. Go beyond these barriers, cross them, do not reconcile!
There are millions of two-legged creatures.
It is interesting that six months before committing his own crime, a student who graduated from the university, Lawyer Rodion Raskolnikov, wrote an article “On Crime”. In this article, Raskolnikov “examined the psychological state of the criminal throughout the entire course of the crime” and argued that it, this state, is very similar to a disease - clouding of the mind, decay of the will, randomness and illogicality of actions. In addition, in his article, Raskolnikov hinted at the question of such a crime, which is “resolved according to conscience,” and therefore, in fact, cannot be called a crime (the very act of committing it is not accompanied, obviously, by illness). The point is, Raskolnikov later explains the idea of his article, “that people, according to the law of nature, are generally divided into two categories: into lower (ordinary) ones, that is, so to speak, into material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and actually into people , that is, having the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst.” The first are inclined to obedience, humility, and reverence for the law. The second - in the name of a new, better thing, they can break the law, and for “their idea” (“depending, however, on the idea and its size,” Raskolnikov stipulates), if necessary, “give themselves permission to step over the blood.” Such a “crime”, a violation of the law, is not a crime (of course, in the eyes of an extraordinary person).
In the closets and on the streets of this St. Petersburg, Dostoevsky discovered such inexhaustible content, such a fantastic bottomlessness of life - situations, characters, dramas - such tragic poetry as he had never known before. world literature. “Trace another, even not so bright at first glance, fact of real life,” Dostoevsky wrote in “The Diary of a Writer,” “and if you are able and have an eye, you will find in it a depth that Shakespeare does not have.” This is what Dostoevsky did, extracting from facts that before him found a place only on the pages of newspaper chronicles, the depth and meaning of world significance.
For us there is only one weapon...”
Not abstract theoretical, not abstract and cold - Raskolnikov’s thought. No, she is active, living and burning, rushing about. It is born as a response to anxieties and blows of reality. It receives from collisions with life all its content, strength, sharpness, tension on the verge of catastrophe. Raskolnikov's idea is not only an idea, it is an action, a deed. “This is a man of ideas,” Dostoevsky later wrote about his heroes of the Raskolnikov type - the bearer of ideas, “the idea embraces him and owns him, but having the property that it rules in him not so much in his head, but by being embodied in him, turning into nature, always with suffering and anxiety, and, having already settled in nature, demanding immediate application to the case.” Already at the very beginning of the novel, on its first pages, we learn that Raskolnikov has “encroached” on some business, which is “a new step, a new word of his own,” that a month ago a “dream” was born in him, to the realization of which he now close.
Goals and objectives
The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky at hard labor, “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction,” in prison, where he was thrown in 1850 as a state and political criminal. It was there that he conceived the idea of an “ideological” criminal who allowed himself “blood according to his conscience,” a “moral experiment.” Dostoevsky was also tormented by the thought of the “Napoleons,” who arrogated to themselves the right to doom and “waste” millions of people. In 1963, he told A.P. Suslova words that amazed her; Later she wrote them down in her diary: “When we were having lunch, he, looking at the girl who was taking lessons, said: “Well, imagine, such a girl with an old man, and suddenly some Napoleon says: “Destroy the whole city.” It has always been like this in the world.” The idea matured for a long time and painfully in the difficult era of the late fifties and early sixties of the last century. The liberation of the peasants in 1860 seemed to open new era bright prospects ahead Russian society. But very soon it became clear that the reform did not bring the desired change, did not become a prologue to a new time. On the contrary, new social predators appeared on the scene - bourgeois businessmen with their idol of the “golden calf”. The time has come for grave disappointments and painful mental processes. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote about this time: “Yes, in such moments something is really abolished, but this “something” is precisely the character of humanity that gives life all its value and meaning. And in place of what was abolished, dark predation simply appears on the stage...” The years when the novel “Crime and Punishment” was created were also for Dostoevsky himself years of severe loneliness, painful thoughts and difficult decisions. Shortly before this, in 1864, the people closest to him passed away - his wife Maria Dmitrievna, brother Mikhail Mikhailovich - like-minded person and collaborator Apollo Grigoriev. “And so I was suddenly left alone, and I was simply scared,” he writes to a friend. - My whole life was turned in two at once. Everything around me became cold and deserted.” And soon after the death of the closest collaborators in publishing magazines - M. M. Dostoevsky and A. A. Grigoriev - the magazine “Epoch” also collapsed. “In addition, I have up to ten thousand bill debt and five thousand on honestly... Oh my friend, I would willingly go back to hard labor for the same number of years, just to pay off my debts and feel free again.” When Dostoevsky wrote “Crime and Punishment,” he lived in that part of St. Petersburg where petty officials, artisans, merchants, and students lived. Here, in the cold autumn fog and hot summer dust of the “connected St. Petersburg streets and alleys” lying around Sennaya Square and the Catherine Canal, the image of a poor student Rodion Raskolnikov appeared before him, and here Dostoevsky settled him, in Stolyarny Lane, where in a large apartment building I rented the apartment myself.
Home > DocumentThe rebellion of Rodion Raskolnikov “We all look at Napoleons; There are millions of two-legged creatures. For us there is only one weapon...” (A.S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”) “A rebellion cannot end in success: Otherwise it is called differently” (English wisdom )Goals and objectives The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky in hard labor, “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction,” in prison, where he was thrown in 1850 as a state and political criminal. It was there that he conceived the idea of an “ideological” criminal who allowed himself “blood according to his conscience,” a “moral experiment.” Dostoevsky was also tormented by the thought of the “Napoleons,” who arrogated to themselves the right to doom and “waste” millions of people. In 1963, he told A.P. Suslova words that amazed her; Later she wrote them down in her diary: “When we were having lunch, he, looking at the girl who was taking lessons, said: “Well, imagine, such a girl with an old man, and suddenly some Napoleon says: “Destroy the whole city.” It has always been like this in the world.” The idea matured for a long time and painfully in the difficult era of the late fifties - early sixties of the last century. The liberation of the peasants in 1860 seemed to open a new era of bright prospects for Russian society. But very soon it became clear that the reform did not bring the desired change, did not become a prologue to a new time. On the contrary, new social predators appeared on the scene - bourgeois businessmen with their idol of the “golden calf”. The time has come for grave disappointments and painful mental processes. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote about this time: “Yes, in such moments something is really abolished, but this “something” is precisely the character of humanity that gives life all its value and meaning. And in place of what was abolished, dark predation simply appears on the stage...” The years when the novel “Crime and Punishment” was created were also for Dostoevsky himself years of severe loneliness, painful thoughts and difficult decisions. Shortly before this, in 1864, the people closest to him passed away - his wife Maria Dmitrievna, brother Mikhail Mikhailovich - like-minded person and collaborator Apollo Grigoriev. “And so I was suddenly left alone, and I was simply scared,” he writes to a friend. - My whole life was turned in two at once. Everything around me became cold and deserted.” And soon after the death of the closest collaborators in publishing magazines - M. M. Dostoevsky and A. A. Grigoriev - the magazine “Epoch” also collapsed. “In addition, I have up to ten thousand in promissory notes and five thousand on my word of honor. .. Oh, my friend, I would willingly go back to hard labor for the same number of years, just to pay off my debts and feel free again.” When Dostoevsky wrote “Crime and Punishment,” he lived in that part of St. Petersburg where petty officials, artisans, merchants, and students lived. Here, in the cold autumn fog and hot summer dust of the “connected St. Petersburg streets and alleys” lying around Sennaya Square and the Catherine Canal, the image of a poor student Rodion Raskolnikov appeared before him, and here Dostoevsky settled him, in Stolyarny Lane, where in a large apartment building I rented an apartment myself. In the closets and on the streets of this St. Petersburg, Dostoevsky discovered such inexhaustible content, such a fantastic bottomlessness of life - situations, characters, dramas - such tragic poetry as world literature had never known before. “Trace another, even not so bright at first glance, fact of real life,” Dostoevsky wrote in “The Diary of a Writer,” “and if you are able and have an eye, you will find in it a depth that Shakespeare does not have.” This is what Dostoevsky did, extracting from facts that before him had found a place only on the pages of newspaper chronicles, the depth and meaning of world significance. Here it is necessary to say a few words about the unique talent of F. M. Dostoevsky, which made him a classic not only of Russian and world literature, but also the founder of a new literary genre - the psychological detective story. It is not for nothing that all the major writers of European detective genre , such as A. Christie, J. Simenon, Boileau-Nessergerac and others, called Dostoevsky their teacher. It was Dostoevsky who was able to create such works as “Crime and Punishment” or “The Karamazov Brothers” from short newspaper reports of police chronicles about the murder of an old money-lender or about the murder of a father by his son out of jealousy. Dostoevsky is interested not only in established, developed forms of spiritual life, but also in moments struggle between good and evil, revaluation of values, tragic clashes. Since the highest and all-encompassing value is God and the life of the individual in God, then for Dostoevsky the highest theme of creativity is the struggle of the devil with God in the heart of man. The most intense moments of this struggle can easily lead a person to mental illness, breakdowns and crimes. But you have to pay for everything, and the psychology of paying for human suffering, “for a child’s tears” is another aspect of F. M. Dostoevsky’s creativity. In this sense, the title of the novel “Crime and Punishment” is the refrain of Dostoevsky’s entire subsequent literary legacy. It is interesting that six months before committing his own crime, a student who graduated from the university, Lawyer Rodion Raskolnikov, wrote an article “On Crime”. In this article, Raskolnikov “examined the psychological state of the criminal throughout the entire course of the crime” and argued that it, this state, is very similar to a disease - clouding of the mind, decay of the will, randomness and illogicality of actions. In addition, in his article, Raskolnikov hinted at the question of such a crime, which is “resolved according to conscience,” and therefore, in fact, cannot be called a crime (the very act of committing it is not accompanied, obviously, by illness). The point is, Raskolnikov later explains the idea of his article, “that people, according to the law of nature, are generally divided into two categories: into lower (ordinary) ones, that is, so to speak, into material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and actually into people , that is, having the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst.” The first are inclined to obedience, humility, and reverence for the law. The second - in the name of a new, better thing, they can break the law, and for “their idea” (“depending, however, on the idea and its size,” Raskolnikov stipulates), if necessary, “give themselves permission to step over the blood.” Such a “crime”, a violation of the law, is not a crime (of course, in the eyes of an extraordinary person). Not abstract theoretical, not abstractly cold - Raskolnikov’s thought. No, she is active, living and burning, rushing about. It is born as a response to anxieties and blows of reality. It receives from collisions with life all its content, strength, sharpness, tension on the verge of catastrophe. Raskolnikov's idea is not only an idea, it is an action, a deed. “This is a man of ideas,” Dostoevsky later wrote about his heroes of the Raskolnikov type - the bearer of ideas, “the idea embraces him and owns him, but having the property that it rules in him not so much in his head, but by being embodied in him, turning into nature, always with suffering and anxiety, and, having already settled in nature, demanding immediate application to the case.” Already at the very beginning of the novel, on its first pages, we learn that Raskolnikov has “encroached” on some business, which is “a new step, a new word of his own,” that a month ago a “dream” was born in him, to the realization of which he now he is close. And a month ago, almost dying of hunger, he was forced to ask an old woman, a “pawnbroker”, a moneylender, for a ring - a gift from his sister. He felt an indefinite hatred and disgust, “crushed by poverty,” towards the harmful and insignificant old woman, sucking the blood of the poor, profiting from someone else’s misfortune, from poverty, from vice. “A strange thought pecked in his head, like a chicken from an egg.” And so far, in the last three days before the murder - the first part of the novel is dedicated to them - three times Raskolnikov’s thought, to the limit, excited to the extreme by the tragedy of life, experiences precisely those moments of highest tension , which reveal, but do not yet fully reveal, the deepest reasons for his crime. For the first time - the buffoonish and tragic story of the drunken Marmeladov about his seventeen-year-old daughter, Sonechka, her feat, her sacrifice, about the family saved at the cost of her abuse. And the conclusion - “A scoundrel gets used to everything!” . But in response there was a furious flash of rebellious Raskolnikov thought. “Well, if I lied,” he suddenly exclaimed involuntarily, “if man, the whole person in general, the whole race, that is, the human race, is really not a scoundrel, then it means that the rest are all prejudices, nothing but only false fears, and there are no barriers, and that’s how it should be!...” The scoundrel is the one who gets used to everything, accepts everything, puts up with everything. But no, no, a person is not a scoundrel - “the whole human race in general”, the one who rebels, destroys, oversteps is not a scoundrel - there are no barriers for an extraordinary, “obedient” person. To go beyond these barriers, to cross them, not to reconcile! The second time is a letter from the mother about Dunechka, the sister, “ascending Golgotha,” giving up her freedom for the sake of him, the “priceless” Rodya. And again the image of Sonechka looms - a symbol of eternal sacrifice: “Sonechka, Sonechka Marmeladova, eternal Sonechka, while the world stands!” “Or give up life completely! - he suddenly cried out in a frenzy, “obediently accept fate as it is, once and for all, and strangle everything in yourself, renouncing all right to act, live and love!” To obediently lay down one’s head before fate, which requires terrible sacrifices, denies a person the right to freedom, to accept the iron necessity of humiliation, suffering, poverty and vice, to accept a blind and merciless “fate”, with which, it would seem, it is ridiculous to argue - this is for Raskolnikov - “ give up life completely.” But Raskolnikov wants to “act, live and love!” The third time - a meeting with a drunken, dishonored girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, and again: “This, they say, is how it should be. This percentage, they say, should go every year... somewhere... to hell, it must be, in order to refresh the rest and not disturb them. Percent! Nice, really, they have these words: they are so soothing, scientific. It was said: percentage, therefore, there is nothing to worry about!” But Sonechka, Sonechka has already fallen into this “percentage”, so is it easier for her because there is a law, a necessity, a fate? “What if Dunechka somehow gets into the percentage! Not this one, then the other?...” Again - a frenzied “cry”, again - the utmost intensity of rebellious thought, a rebellion against the supposed “laws” of existence. Let economists and statisticians calmly calculate this eternal percentage of those doomed to poverty, prostitution, and crime. Raskolnikov does not believe them, cannot accept the “percentage.” So, three women, three victims, like the three Moiras of ancient Greek fate, fate, push Raskolnikov further and further along the path of his rebellion. And here his impersonal, non-acquisitive character becomes clear. Here it is worth talking about Rodion Raskolnikov himself, his personal properties, human qualities. Even the first and last name that the author gave to his hero is of interest. Rodion Raskolnikov is a man born split and giving rise to a schism, the heir to the harsh, irreconcilable fighters against the “Antichrist” in Russian history - the schismatics - an Old Believer. The history of the Russian church schism began with the council of 1666-1667 and the overthrow of Patriarch Nikon, who banned the transition to Russian Orthodox Church into the bosom of the “state”, when the eight-pointed cross, two fingers and other symbols and practices of the old Byzantine Orthodox Church were anathematized. From this date, the persecution of the Old Believers began, the persecution that gave birth to Archpriest Avvakum, the self-immolation of entire Old Believers villages that did not want to recognize the power of the “sovereign” church, the departure of schismatic runners in search of “holy Belogorye” to the distant unknown lands of Siberia, Altai, Kamchatka, and Alaska. This was the path of asceticism, struggle, renunciation of the “blessings of this world” in the name of “the light of the love of Christ.” It is not for nothing that Porfiry Petrovich admits in his last conversation with Raskolnikov: “Who do I consider you to be? I consider you to be one of those people who, even if you cut out their guts, will stand and look at the tormentors with a smile - if only he finds faith or God.” This is a recognition of his antipode, a man of law and power. As for those around Raskolnikov, many of them love and respect Rodion. Great is the charm of Raskolnikov’s personality, his “broad consciousness and deep heart.” Sonya Raskolnikov was amazed when he sat her, disgraced, trampled, expelled, next to her sister and mother, and then bowed to her - the sufferer, the victim - he bowed to all human suffering. A whole new world then unknown and vaguely descended into her soul - the whole world, at first incomprehensible to Sonya, but - this is what Sonya immediately understood - “new”, alien, hostile to peace hopeless “habitual” torment, generally accepted morality. They love Raskolnikov, because “he has these movements,” direct movements of a pure and deep heart, and he, Raskolnikov, loves his mother, sister, Sonya, Polechka. And therefore he feels the deepest disgust and contempt for the tragic farce of existence playing out around him every hour and every minute, crippling those he loves. And this disgust is the stronger the more vulnerable Raskolnikov’s soul is, the more restless and honest his thoughts are, the stricter his conscience, and it is this spiritual vulnerability, a restless and honest thought, an incorruptible conscience that draws hearts to him. Not his own poverty, not need and the suffering of his sister and mother torments Raskolnikov, and, so to speak, universal need, universal grief - and the grief of his sister and mother, and the grief of the ruined girl, and the martyrdom of Sonechka, and the tragedy of the Marmeladov family, hopeless, hopeless, eternal nonsense, the absurdity of existence, horror and the evil that reigns in the world, poverty, shame, vice, weakness and imperfection of man - all this wild “stupidity of creation.” Thomas Mann noted that with his hero, Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky “liberated from burgher morality and strengthened the will for a psychological break with tradition, to transgressing the boundaries of knowledge.” Yes, for Raskolnikov, burgher, bourgeois morality does not exist, it does not bind his mighty spirit (after all, he bowed before Sonya!), for him there are no traditions, he wants to transgress not only moral and social, but, in essence, earthly physical laws that bound human nature. The earthly, “Euclidean” mind is not enough for him; he wants to make a leap, a “transcension” beyond the boundaries of knowledge accessible to man. This leap should put Raskolnikov in a special relationship with the world, because then he will be able to find within himself an Archimedean fulcrum in order to turn the world upside down. And Raskolnikov feels capable of more, he wants to shoulder the burden of an incredible, truly superhuman weight. To Sonya’s hysterical question: “What should I do?” , after a painful conversation about the future, fatally predetermined for the children of Katerina Ivanovna (“Won’t Polechka die?”), Raskolnikov answers like this: “Break what needs to be done, once and for all, and that’s all: and take on the suffering!” This whole rebellion is not only against the world, but also against God, the denial of divine goodness, divine meaning, the pre-established necessity of the universe. Dostoevsky will forever remember the God-fighting argumentation of his Petrashevite friends: “An unbeliever sees among people suffering, hatred, poverty, oppression, lack of education, continuous struggle and misfortune, looks for a means to help all these disasters and, not finding it, exclaims: “If such is the fate of humanity, then there is no providence, there is no higher principle! And in vain will priests and philosophers tell him that the heavens proclaim the glory of God! No,” he will say, “the suffering of mankind proclaims the wickedness of God much louder!” “God, God will not allow such horror!” - Sonya says after talking about the death that inevitably awaits Katerina Ivanovna’s children. How can he not allow it?! Allows! “Yes, maybe there is no God at all!” - Raskolnikov answers. The murder of the old woman is the only, decisive, first and last experiment, which immediately explains everything: “Walking the same road, I would never repeat the murder again.” Raskolnikov needs his experiment precisely to test his ability to commit a crime, and not to test an idea that, as he is deeply convinced for the time being, is immutable and irrefutable. “His casuistry was sharpened like a razor, and he no longer found conscious objections in himself” - this is before the murder. But even then, no matter how many times he returned to his thoughts, no matter how strictly he judged his idea, his casuistry only became sharper and sharper, became more and more sophisticated. And having already decided to give himself away, he says to his sister: “Never, never have I been stronger and more convinced than now!” And finally, not in hard labor, in freedom, having subjected his “idea” to merciless moral analysis, he is unable to refuse it: the idea is irrefutable, his conscience is calm. Raskolnikov does not fully find conscious, logical refutations of his idea. For completely objective features modern world generalizes Raskolnikov, confident in the impossibility of changing anything, infinity, inescapability human suffering and the division of the world into the oppressed and the oppressors, rulers and the ruled, rapists and the raped, or, according to Raskolnikov, into “prophets” and “trembling creatures.” Here is the split, the split within the hero himself, between the mind and the heart, between the “casuistry” of ideas and “attractions” of the heart, between “Christ and truth”. In 1854, after leaving hard labor, F. M. Dostoevsky would write to N. D. Fonvizina that if it had been proven to him “that Christ is outside the truth, and indeed it would be that the truth is outside Christ,” then he “would rather have stayed.” with Christ, rather than with the truth.” Dostoevsky admits (albeit theoretically) that truth (which is the expression of the highest justice) may turn out to be outside of Christ: for example, if “arithmetic” automatically proves that this is the case. But in this case, Christ himself seems to be outside of God (or rather, outside of “arithmetic,” which in this case is identical to the world’s meaning). And Dostoevsky prefers to remain “with Christ”, if suddenly the truth itself does not coincide with the ideal of beauty. This is also a kind of rebellion: to remain with humanity and goodness, if the “truth” for some reason turns out to be anti-human and unkind. He chooses the “tear of a child.” And that is why - this is the genius of the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky - as if in parallel with the “sharpening of casuistry” everything grows, intensifies and finally wins with a refutation of Raskolnikov’s idea - a refutation by the soul and spirit of Raskolnikov himself, by the heart “which is the abode of Christ.” This refutation is not logical, not theoretical, not mental - it is a refutation by life. The deepest vulnerability with the horror and absurdity of the world gave birth to Raskolnikov’s idea. The idea gave rise to action - the murder of the old pawnbroker, an intentional murder, and, unintentional, the murder of her maid, Lizaveta. The implementation of the idea led to an even greater increase in the horror and absurdity of the world. Thanks to many coincidental coincidences, as it were, Raskolnikov amazingly succeeds, so to speak, in the technical side of the crime. There is no material evidence against him. But those higher value the moral side gains. Raskolnikov endlessly analyzes the result of his cruel experiment, feverishly assesses his ability to overstep. The terrible truth for him is revealed to him with all immutability - his crime was senseless, he ruined himself in vain, he did not achieve his goal: “I did not commit a crime, on this stayed on the side”, turned out to be an ordinary person, “a trembling creature.” Those people<настоящие то властелины> they endured their steps, and therefore they are right, but I could not bear it, and therefore, I did not have the right to allow myself this step,” - the final result summed up in hard labor. But why did he, Raskolnikov, not bear it, and what is it difference from extraordinary people? Raskolnikov himself explains this, calling himself “an aesthetic louse” with contempt and almost self-hatred. Raskolnikov himself gives the most accurate and merciless analysis of his “aesthetic” failure, and performs a ruthless operation on his own heart. Aesthetics got in the way, built a whole system of reservations, demanded endless self-justifications - Raskolnikov, the “aesthetic louse,” could not go to the end; louse “because, firstly, now I’m talking about the fact that I’m a louse; because, secondly, for a whole month I disturbed the all-good providence, calling it as a witness that I was not undertaking this for my own flesh and lust, they say, but had a magnificent and pleasant goal in mind - ha-ha! Because, thirdly, that I decided to observe possible justice in execution, weight and measure, and arithmetic: of all the lice I chose the most useless... then perhaps I am even nastier and nastier than a killed louse, and I had a presentiment in advance that I would tell myself this after I had killed him!” Well, if he had committed a crime, if he had not turned out to be an “aesthetic louse,” if he had “carried out” the entire burden of a sick conscience, then who would Raskolnikov have turned out to be? It is not for nothing that Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov stands next to Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov is drawn to him, as if he is looking for something from Svidrigailov, an explanation, some revelation. This is understandable. Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov’s double, the other side of the same coin. “We are birds of a feather,” Svidrigailov also declares. To him, to Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov comes on the eve of that fateful night of revelry and struggle of the elements - in heaven, on earth, in the souls of Dostoevsky's heroes - the night spent by Svidrigailov before committing suicide in a dirty hotel on Bolshoy Prospekt, and by Raskolnikov - over those who attracted him, calling him black waters of the canals. Svidrigailov completely calmly and calmly accepts Raskolnikov’s crime. He doesn't see any tragedy here. Even Raskolnikov, restless, melancholy, exhausted by his crime, he, so to speak, encourages, calms, and directs him to the right path. And then the deepest difference between these two “special cases” and at the same time the true, hidden meaning of Raskolnikov’s idea is revealed. Svidrigailov is surprised by Raskolnikov’s tragic tossing and questions, completely unnecessary and simply stupid in his position, “Shillerism”: “I understand what questions you have in circulation: morality, or what? questions of a citizen and a person? And you are at their side: why do you need them now? Heh, heh! Then what is still a citizen and a person? And if so, there was no need to interfere; there’s no point in minding your own business.” So Svidrigailov once again, in his own way, rudely and sharply pronounces what, in essence, had long ago become clear to Raskolnikov himself - “he did not transgress, he remained on this side,” and all because “citizen” and “man “Svidrigailov committed a crime, strangled the man and the citizen within himself, and let everything human and civil go to waste. Hence - that indifferent cynicism, that naked frankness, and most importantly, that precision with which Svidrigailov formulates the very essence of Raskolnikov’s idea. Svidrigailov recognizes this idea as his own: “Here... a kind of theory, the same thing by which I find, for example, that an individual crime is permissible if the main objective good." Simple and clear. And moral questions, questions of “man and citizen,” are superfluous here. A “good” goal justifies the villainy committed to achieve it. However, if we don’t have “questions of a person and a citizen,” then how can we, using what criteria, determine whether our goal is good? One criterion remains - my personality, freed from the “issues of man and citizen”, not recognizing any barriers. But it turns out there is something that this “personality without barriers” is not able to endure, there is something that frightens and humiliates evil - this is obvious or secret mockery of oneself. Dostoevsky’s heroes have their hair standing on end from the laughter of their victims, who come to them in dreams and in reality. “Rabies overcame him: with all his might he began to hit the old woman on the head, but with each blow of the ax laughter and whispers came from the bedroom sounded louder and louder, and the old woman was shaking all over with laughter. He rushed to run...” Raskolnikov rushed to run - there was nothing else left, for this was a death sentence. The actions of Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov are not only terrible; somewhere in their ontological depth they are also funny. “Those who have crossed the line” are ready to withstand a lot, but this (and only this!) is unbearable for them. “And Satan, standing up, with joy on his face...” The villains laugh satanically at the world, but someone - “in another room” - he laughs at them too - with a laugh invisible to the world. Svidrigailov dreams of a “nightmare all night”: he picks up a wet, hungry child, and this child falls asleep in his room. However, the dreamer can no longer perform good deeds- even in a dream! And the dream demonstrates this impossibility to him with deadly force. The eyelashes of a girl sleeping in a blissful sleep “seem to rise, and from under them a sly, sharp, unchildish winking eye peeks out... But now she has completely stopped holding back; this is already laughter, obvious laughter... “Ah, damned one!” - Svidrigailov cried out in horror...” This horror is almost mystical in nature: laughter emanating from the very depths of the unfunny - the unnatural, ugly, depraved laughter of a five-year-old child (as if an evil spirit is mocking an evil spirit!) - this laughter is irrational and threatening “ terrible revenge“. Svidrigailov’s vision is “more terrible” than Raskolnikov’s dream, because his atoning sacrifice is not accepted. “Ah, damned!” - Svidrigailov exclaims in horror. Raskolnikov, no less terrified, runs away. They all understand that they are open, and the laughter that follows them is the most terrible (and shameful) punishment for them. Such is the power of ridicule, reducing the attempts of a “great” idea to stupidity and nonsense. And in the light of this laughter, those values that cannot be ridiculed, that are not afraid of humiliation, belittlement, or cynicism, become clearer and more clearly visible, for they are “eternal and joyful.” And one of them is love, conquering the loneliness and disunity of people, equalizing all the “orphan and strong,” “poor and high.” And Raskolnikov could not overcome this one obstacle. He wanted to break with people, finally, irrevocably, and he even hated his sister and mother. “Leave me, leave me alone!” - he throws his mother with frantic cruelty. The murder put an impassable line between him and people: “A gloomy feeling of painful, endless solitude and alienation suddenly consciously affected his soul.” It’s as if two alienated worlds with their own laws live side by side, impenetrable to each other - the world of Raskolnikov and the other -external world: “Everything around us is definitely not happening here.” Alienation from people, separation - this is a necessary condition and inevitable result of Raskolnikov’s crime - the rebellion of an “extraordinary” personality. The grandiose nightmare vision (in the epilogue of the novel) of a disconnected and therefore dying world - a meaningless accumulation of alienated human units - symbolizes the result to which humanity, inspired by Raskolnikov’s ideas, can come. But Raskolnikov cannot stand loneliness, goes to the Marmeladovs, goes to Sonya. It’s hard for him, a murderer, that he made his mother and sister unhappy, and at the same time, their love is hard for him. “Oh, if I were alone and no one loved me and I myself would never love anyone! All this wouldn’t exist!” (That is, then he would have committed a crime!) But Raskolnikov loves and cannot give up his love. Raskolnikov is unable to bear the final and irrevocable alienation, the break with everyone that he so wanted, and therefore is unable to bear the crime itself. Raskolnikov carried a lot on himself, according to Svidrigailov, but he did not carry loneliness, solitude, a corner, decisive alienation. Raskolnikov seemed to have risen to an unheard-of height, inaccessible to ordinary, green people - and suddenly he felt that there was nothing to breathe there - there was no air - but “man needs air, air!” (says Porfiry) Before confessing to the murder, Raskolnikov again goes to Sonya. “You should have at least caught yourself on something, slowed down, looked at the person! And I dared to rely so much on myself, to dream about myself so much, I am a beggar, I am an insignificant scoundrel, a scoundrel!” And only in the fact that he “couldn’t bear it” does Raskolnikov see his crime (by the way, the “criminal’s illness” - paralysis of thought and will, which he described in a special article, struck him too). But here is also his punishment: punishment in this horror of his unsuitability, inability to drag the idea, punishment in this “murder” of the principle in himself (“he didn’t kill the old woman, but the principle killed”), punishment in the inability to be true to his ideal, in serious the torment of the borne one. It was not for nothing that Dostoevsky remembered in his rough notes Pushkin's hero: “He killed Aleko. The consciousness that he himself is unworthy of his ideal, which torments his soul. This is crime and punishment.” Dostoevsky sees the split within Raskolnikov, the duality of his behavior and thoughts precisely in this - in the endless and timeless conflict in man of the idea and the soul, the mind and the heart, God and the Devil, Christ and truth. The cold casuistry of rationalism, leading to the justification of Napoleons and providing for the emergence of the Nietzschean “superman,” comes into conflict with compassion and philanthropy living in the heart. Raskolnikov has them, but his other counterpart, the prudent bourgeois businessman Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, does not. He openly preaches selfishness and individualism, supposedly on the foundations of “science” and “economic truth”: “Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on egg interest.” Raskolnikov himself immediately builds a bridge from these arguments of Pyotr Petrovich to the murder of the old pawnbroker (“... bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be slaughtered”). Luzhin, of course, is outraged by this “application” of his theories. Of course, he would not have stabbed the old pawnbroker - this, perhaps, was not in his personal interests. And in general - he does not need to transgress the existing formal law to satisfy personal interests - he does not rob, does not cut, does not kill. He transgresses the moral law, the law of humanity, and calmly endures what Raskolnikov (“a special case”) could not endure. “Benevolent” to Dunechka, he suppresses and humiliates her, without even realizing it (and in this “unconsciousness” is Luzhin’s strength - after all, “Napoleons” do not suffer, do not think about whether they can or cannot step over, but simply step over a person). It’s interesting, what all historical examples, to which Raskolnikov refers when expressing his “gloomy catechism” - from the field of suppression, destruction, and not creation. This is how Dostoevsky implicitly explains the principle of his faith: “There can be no creation without love for those for whom you create. There cannot be truth without a forgiving and loving creator. Without Christ...” And the man Raskolnikov wins, shocked by human suffering and tears, deeply compassionate and in the depths of his soul confident that he is not a louse, a man who from the very beginning “anticipated a deep lie in himself and in his convictions.” His inhuman idea collapses. Shortly before Raskolnikov’s confession, Raskolnikov’s consciousness almost begins to disintegrate, he seems to lose his mind. He is seized by either painful anxiety or panic fear, then complete apathy. He no longer controls his thoughts, will, and feelings. He, a theorist and rationalist, is trying to escape from a clear and complete understanding of his situation. All of Raskolnikov’s “mathematics” turns out to be a terrible lie, and his theoretical crime, his rational, verified, razor-sharpened casuistry, is complete nonsense. According to theory, according to “arithmetic”, he planned to kill a useless louse, and then killed Lizaveta - quiet, meek, the same Sonya! And although Raskolnikov, of course, is not a revolutionary or a socialist, and Dostoevsky knows this well, there is, however, something that, according to Dostoevsky, united the rebel Raskolnikov with those who in Russia at that time wanted a radical, decisive social-socialist transformation, namely, the rational, rationalistic, theoretical nature of their ideas. Raskolnikov killed according to theory, out of calculation, but his calculation was shattered and refuted by life. “Reality and nature... are an important thing,” says Porfiry Petrovich, referring to Raskolnikov’s crime, “and wow, how sometimes the most insightful calculations are crossed!” But with similar references to nature, which does not lend itself to regulation, social equalization, “levelling,” Razumikhin wants to refute socialist utopias: “They have<социалистов> It is not humanity, having developed historically, in a living way to the end, that will of itself finally turn into a normal society, but, on the contrary, the social system, coming out of some mathematical head, will immediately organize all of humanity and in an instant make it righteous and sinless, before any living process, without any historical and living path!” The prophetic foresight of Dostoevsky, put into the mouth of Razumikhin, provides an explanation for everything that happened to Russia and the Russian people in the 20th century. And not only to Russia. Wasn’t it the ideas and ideology, “high social justice” that the Bolsheviks, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other “supermen” of the 20th century justified their actions with? Any abstract thinking, even the highest and purest, striving to give peace, prosperity, freedom and peace for all humanity, when faced with the reality of life, a living historical process, leads to blood, suffering and death of those for whom all this was started. “Nature does not tolerate violence,” said F. Bacon. All nature, living and dead, including human nature, really does not tolerate violence, and even if it seems that it is suppressed, broken, defeated, then sooner or later it will take revenge on its rapists. The history of the 20th century teaches that any of a living person, from his soul and heart, theories fail, and the stronger it is, the longer and more violently these theories are implanted. In 1944, the Russian philosopher N. O. Lossky in his work “Dostoevsky and his Christian worldview” wrote: “In our At the time, sociological interpretations of the works of great writers, and the persons and situations in life they portrayed, were widespread. Especially in Marxist literature, this sociologism is taken to its extreme limits. Let’s take, for example, the book by G. A. Pokrovsky “Martyr of God-seeking (F. Dostoevsky and religion)”, 1929. In this book we read that the self-will of Raskolnikov or Kirillov (“Demons”) is an expression of a petty-bourgeois personality fighting for his individual existence against unknown social forces. Hence, failures in this struggle are inevitable, the inability to find a way out of difficulties, life in illusions, the need for God. Now, if Raskolnikov had been a spokesman not for the petty bourgeoisie, but for “powerful social forces” (i.e., the labor movement), he could have successfully broken the old law. This is how G. A. Pokrovsky reasoned; and indeed, we will answer him, the Raskolnikov-Bolsheviks violated the old law “thou shalt not kill”; They carried out mass terror with success in the sense that they did not pay for these murders with prison and hard labor, but the hell they created led them themselves to internal decay, to wear and tear and, finally, now to mutual hatred and mutual destruction. It is these consequences of the crime of the “old”, i.e. eternal, moral laws that inevitably occur in any social order, Dostoevsky has in mind in his works. In the epilogue of the novel, Raskolnikov, a child of a huge gloomy city, having found himself in Siberia, finds himself in a new, unusual world for him - he is torn from the fantastic sick life of St. Petersburg , from that artificial soil that raised him scary idea. This is a different world, hitherto alien to Raskolnikov, a world folk life, ever-renewing nature. In the spring, when life awakens so sharply and as if anew in a person, when the eternal joy of being returns so directly, childishly uncontrollably, every time - on a clear and warm spring day, in a land where “as if time itself has stopped, as if the centuries of Abraham and his flocks had not yet passed,” a revival comes to Raskolnikov, again and finally embracing his “immense sense of complete and mighty life". Now his new path must begin - a new life. Raskolnikov gives up his idea of rebellion and self-will, he goes out onto that rocky and hard way, to whom the quiet Sonya goes without hesitation - with torment and joy. But will Raskolnikov - the thinking, acting, fighting Raskolnikov - give up consciousness and judgment? Dostoevsky knows that new life Raskolnikov “still needs to buy it dearly, pay for it with a great, future feat.” And, of course, Raskolnikov could accomplish his great, future feat only as Raskolnikov, with all the power and sharpness of his consciousness, but also with the new higher justice of his court, on the paths of “insatiable compassion.” This will be a feat of philanthropy, and not hatred of people, a feat of unity, and not isolation. But this is another story, the history of revival and creativity, this is a long, painful path “from oneself to oneself,” a path that every person must go through in order to , in order to have the right to be called a person. “Everything is in you,” the schismatic Old Believers asserted, and Dostoevsky’s hero embarks on the difficult path of knowing himself, for “know yourself, and you will know the world.” But this is no longer a rebellion. Conclusions and conclusion of the abstract 1. The novel “Crime and Punishment” is one of the studies in Russian literature of the issue of an individualist hero, a man of “ideas” and “ideology” .2. One of the main advantages of the novel is its subtle and surprisingly accurate psychological analysis“borderline” states of the human mind and soul, states of struggle between Good and Evil, mind and heart, God and the Devil in the heroes of the novel.3. In “Crime and Punishment” F. M. Dostoevsky defined his author's position Christian philanthropy and compassion, which received further development in his works, such as “The Brothers Karamazov”, “Demons” and others. Conclusion: Having destroyed the “harmonious theory” and “simple arithmetic” of Rodion Raskolnikov’s ideas in the novel “Crime and Punishment”, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky warned humanity against the danger of “simple solutions ”with the help of revolutionary riots, proclaiming one law of human relations - the moral law. References1. I.V. Volgin “Born in Russia. Dostoevsky and contemporaries. Life in documents." Magazine “October” No. 3-5, 1990, book 1.2. From preparatory materials to “Crime and Punishment” // Collection. op. in ten volumes. F. M. Dostoevsky. M, Goslitizdat, 1956, vol. VIII.3. F. M. Dostoevsky “Diary of a Writer”. “ Literary heritage". M. USSR Academy of Sciences, 19654. N. O. Lossky “God and world evil.” M. “Republic” 1994.5. N. O. Lossky “Dostoevsky and his Christian worldview.” M. “Republic” 1994.6. N. O. Lossky “The condition of absolute goodness”. M. “Republic” 19947. K. Tyunkin “The Riot of Rodion Raskolnikov.” Entry article to “Crime and Punishment” by F. M. Dostoevsky. L. “Fiction”, 1974.8. G. M. Friedlander “Dostoevsky’s Realism”. M. “Literature” 1964 A. P. Suslova. Years of intimacy with Dostoevsky: Moscow, 1928 N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov) Complete. collection op. T. 6. Moscow, 1941. From a letter to A.E. Wrangel dated March 31, 1865. Right there. F. M. Dostoevsky. Full collection op. Vol. XI. Moscow-Leningrad, 1929. Pp. 423. Notebooks of F. M. Dostoevsky, Moscow-Leningrad, 1935. T. Mann. Collection op. in ten volumes. T. 10. Moscow, 1961 N. S. Kashkin. The Petrashevtsev case. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965
I want to tell you about a book that cannot but excite the thinking reader. This book is F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment.” I would like to talk about the philosophical direction of this work, about its humanistic sound, about the significance of this book for the reader today. The novel Crime and Punishment was written in 1866. But it has not lost its relevance today. Only the time of action and forms of communication between people have changed. People's thoughts and feelings have not changed.
Their aspirations are almost the same as in the 19th century. Now many people are concerned about the same questions that Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel Crime and Punishment, asked himself. In his work, Dostoevsky describes in detail the questions that tormented Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky's novel reveals the conditions due to which Raskolnikov found himself in such a terrible situation. He was humiliated and insulted; he was a “trembling creature.” But a person cannot live in such a state. Dostoevsky shows the horror of the situation of such people. They are very exhausted, it’s hard for them to live. And everyone strives to get out of this state. This human desire for freedom is natural. And Dostoevsky shows an attempt to break out of such a state using a specific example. The novel “Crime and Punishment” is a work dedicated to the story of how a restless human soul walked through suffering and mistakes to comprehend the truth.
For Dostoevsky, a deeply religious man, the meaning of life lies in comprehending the Christian ideals of love for one's neighbor. In this novel, Dostoevsky examines Raskolnikov's crime from this point of view. For Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov's crime is ignoring Christian commandments. Raskolnikov himself is a sinful person. By this, Dostoevsky meant not only the sin of murder, but also pride, the idea that everyone is “trembling creatures,” and he, perhaps, “has the right.”
Raskolnikov decided to rise “above this anthill.” He decided to kill the old woman, rob her and get enough money to achieve his goals. But he is tormented by one question: does he have the right to break legal laws? If we turn to his theory, we can see that Raskolnikov has the right to step over any obstacles if this is necessary to achieve his goals. Having killed the old woman, Raskolnikov placed himself in the category of people to which neither the “quarter lieutenants,” nor his sister, nor his mother, nor Razumikhin, nor Sonya belong. Raskolnikov “cut off” himself from people “as if with scissors.” And for him it became a tragedy. Having revealed Raskolnikov's act, Dostoevsky shows the result. A person cannot live without communicating with people. Therefore, Raskolnikov begins to have a split personality. Raskolnikov believes in the infallibility of his theory. But at the same time, he suffers from the inability to communicate with his mother and sister. Raskolnikov tries not to think about them. According to the logic of his theory, they should fall into the category of “inferior people.” This means that the ax of another Raskolnikov could fall on their heads at any moment.
on their heads. And Raskolnikov must give up on those for whom he suffers. He must despise, hate, kill those he loves. Raskolnikov cannot bear this.
He suffers greatly from all this: “Mother, sister, how I love them! Why do I hate them now? Yes, I hate them, I physically hate them, I can’t stand being around me...” This monologue reveals the full horror of his situation. Dostoevsky does not show the moral resurrection of Raskolnikov. But he shows him the way to be reborn to a new life. The necessity, the inevitability of suffering on the path to comprehending the meaning of life is the cornerstone of Dostoevsky's philosophy.
The philosophical questions that Rodion Raskolnikov struggled with solving occupied the minds of many thinkers, for example Napoleon and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche created the theory of “blond beasts”, a “superman” to whom everything is permitted. Later, it served as the basis for the creation of fascist ideology, which, having become the dominant ideology of the Third Reich, brought numerous disasters to all humanity. Therefore, Dostoevsky’s humanistic position was and is of enormous social significance.
It seems to me that Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” should be read by everyone. Its action takes place in the 19th century, but even now many people are trying to solve the problem that Rodion Raskolnikov set for himself. This novel is useful to all people. Those who have not yet encountered such a problem will see the consequences of the action of the main character of the novel and will try not to make a similar mistake. And those people who find themselves in a similar situation will find a way out of this situation in the novel.
This novel helped me a lot. When I read it, I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of life. This novel warned me about the mistakes I might make. I think that this is a very interesting, useful book that every person should read, not just read, but think about the problems and issues that Dostoevsky wanted to warn humanity about.
The writer’s attitude towards religious consciousness is amazing in its depth. The concepts of sin and virtue, pride and humility, good and evil - this is what interests Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov, the key character of the novel, bears sin and pride. Moreover, sin absorbs not only direct actions, but also hidden thoughts (Raskolnikov is punished even before the crime). Having passed through himself the obviously powerful theory about “Napoleons” and “trembling creatures,” the hero kills the old money-lender, but not so much her as himself. Having followed the path of self-destruction, Raskolnikov nevertheless, with the help of Sonya, finds the key to salvation through suffering, purification and love. As you know, all these concepts are the most important and important in the Christian worldview. People deprived of repentance and love will not know the light, but will see a dark afterlife, terrible in its essence.
Thus, Svidrigailov already during his lifetime has a clear idea of the afterlife. He appears before us in the form of a “black bath with spiders and mice” - in the Christian view, this is a picture of hell, for sinners who know neither love nor repentance.
In reality, this is a picture of hell, for sinners who know neither love nor repentance. Also, when mentioning Svidrigailov, “damn” constantly appears. Svidrigailov is doomed: even the good that he is about to do is in vain (dream about a 5-year-old girl): his good is not accepted, it is too late. A terrible satanic force, the devil, is also pursuing Raskolnikov; at the end of the novel he will say: “The devil led me to commit a crime.” But if Svidrigailov commits suicide (commits the most terrible mortal sin), then Raskolnikov is cleared. The motif of prayer in the novel is also characteristic of Raskolnikov (after a dream he prays for a horse, but his prayers are not heard, and he commits a crime). Sonya, the landlady's daughter (preparing herself for a monastery), and Katerina Ivanovna's children constantly pray. Prayer, an integral part of the Christian, becomes part of the novel. There are also such images and symbols as the cross and the Gospel. Sonya gives Raskolnikov the Gospel that belonged to Lizaveta, and, reading it, he is reborn to life. At first Raskolnikov does not accept Lizaveta’s cross from Sonya, since he is not ready yet, but then he takes it, and again this is associated with spiritual cleansing, rebirth from death to life.
The Christian element in the novel is enhanced by numerous analogies and associations with biblical stories. There is a reminiscence from the Bible about Lazarus, a parable that Sonya reads to Raskolnikov on the fourth day after the crime. Moreover, Lazarus from this parable was resurrected precisely on the fourth day. That is, Raskolnikov is spiritually dead these four days and, in fact, lies in a coffin (“coffin” is the hero’s closet), and Sonya came to save him. From the Old Testament the novel contains the parable of Cain, from the New - the parable of the publican and the Pharisee, the parable of the harlot (“if anyone is not sinful, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”), the parable of Martha - a woman who has been focused on vanity and missing the most important thing (Marfa Petrovna, Svidrigailov’s wife, fusses all her life, deprived of the main principle).
Gospel motifs in the names are clearly visible. Kapernaumov is the surname of the man from whom Sonya rented a room, and Mary the Harlot lived near the city of Capernaum. The name “Lizaveta” means “who worships God,” a holy fool. The name of Ilya Petrovich includes Ilya (Ilya the prophet, thunderer) and Peter (hard as a stone). Let us note that it was he who was the very first to suspect Raskolnikov." Katerina is “pure, bright.” Numbers that are symbolic in Christianity are also symbols in “Crime and Punishment.” These are numbers three, seven and eleven. Sonya gives Marmeladov 30 kopecks, the first since she brings 30 rubles “from work”; Martha buys Svidrigailov for 30, and he, like Judas, betrays her, making an attempt on her life, Svidrigailov offers Duna “up to thirty”, Raskolnikov rings the bell 3 times and the same number of times. hits the old woman on the head. There are three meetings with Porfiry Petrovich: at the seventh hour he learns that Lizaveta will not be there, he commits a crime “at the seventh hour.” But the number 7 is a symbol of the union of God with man, Raskolnikov wants to break it off; This union is therefore suffering torment.
I am a crime, Raskolnikov wants to break this alliance and therefore endures torment. In the epilogue: 7 years of hard labor remained, Svidrigailov lived with Marfa for 7 years.
The novel contains the theme of voluntary martyrdom for the sake of repentance, recognition of one’s sins. That is why Mikolka wants to take Raskolnikov’s blame upon himself. But Raskolnikov, led by Sonya, who carries Christian truth and love, comes (albeit through the barrier of doubt) to popular repentance, for, according to Sonya, only popular, open repentance in front of everyone is real.
Reproduced the main idea Dostoevsky in this novel: a person must live, be meek, be able to forgive and have compassion, and all this is possible only with the acquisition of true faith. This is a purely Christian starting point, therefore the novel is tragicomic, a novel-sermon. Due to Dostoevsky’s talent and deepest inner conviction, Christian thought is fully realized, produces a strong impact on the reader and, as a result, conveys to everyone the Christian idea, the idea of salvation and love .
