Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part One, Chap 1-3
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Isn't begging part of the aesthetic lifestyle of certain orders of monks?"That is not begging. It is a perpetual state of "accepting donations". :)
Done begging in a rundown village,I make my way home past green boulders.
Late sun hides behind western peaks;
pale moonlight shines on the stream before me.
I wash my feet, climb up on a rock,
light incense, sit in meditation.
After all, I wear a monk's robe--
how could I spend the years doing nothing?
-- Ryokan --
And the my very American answer is, you are doing nothing.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Done begging in a rundown village,I make my way home past green boulders.
Late sun hides behind western peaks;
pale moonlight shines on the stream before me.
I wash my feet, climb up on a rock,
li..."
Ok, Xan, I have to ask.
How are you reading the last line of the poem? Do you read it as he sees the years spent before meditation as amounting to nothing? But now he feels differently because he has tapped into his spiritual core and is meditating. Therefore, he is doing something worthwhile and is questioning all those wasted years prior to meditation.
Or do you read it as he is questioning himself for doing nothing by spending years on meditation?
Tamara,This was the subject of some discussion on another blog, the one I copied it from. Most thought he was saying something like little things matter, so his life has been rewarding. I thought he was reflecting on a unlived life, but I also thought I might be projecting my Western upbringing onto him. So I don't know.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Tamara,This was the subject of some discussion on another blog, the one I copied it from. Most thought he was saying something like little things matter, so his life has been rewarding. I thought..."
Okay. Thanks.
Cphe wrote: "Mareladov appears to be a character who wallows and in some ways relishes his self pity, some traits exhibited by alcoholics. He is as ill in some ways as his wife.He has insight into what can ma..."
I can't remember, but I think there's more to be revealed about life chez Marmeladov.
There was a very similar 'unhappy family' in The Idiot, wasn't there?
Cphe wrote: "Mareladov appears to be a character who wallows and in some ways relishes his self pity, some traits exhibited by alcoholics."Is he relishing his self-pity or is he accepting and even approving of the loathing, humiliation, and suffering by his familial failings? If it is the later, then it may be the anguish of a guilty conscience and our first of example of a crime and its punishment.
According to Wikipedia, the original title ("Преступление и наказание") is not the direct equivalent to the English. "Преступление" is literally translated as a stepping across. The physical image of crime as a crossing over a barrier or a boundary is lost in translation. So is the religious implication of transgression, which in English refers to a sin rather than a crime.
Men are punished by their sins, not for them.
Elbert Hubbard
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Isn't begging part of the aesthetic lifestyle of certain orders of monks? And does that make it different?"I think it does. The mendicant orders, such as the Franciscans do this. Though I'm not well enough versed as to the distinctions of the many sub-orders. The female orders, such as the Poor Clares, live in convents (being out on the streets begging was never considered safe for women and St. Clare had to fight the pope to get permission to live on donations and not have benefactors, as was the rule up until then) where the goal is to be self-sufficient as much as possible (some brew beer, bake hosts, make coffins, etc. to earn enough money for the things they need to purchase) and I don't know if there are still some who wander the streets.
The spiritual aspect of it entails a complete trust in God that he will provide through the generosity of others what they need for survival. (And there is a biblical grounding to this). The emphasis being a complete self-abandoning to do the work of God, where one's ego no longer matters, one lives completely for others. Now one also has to take into account that the people supporting these religious believe in Christian charity. So it is reciprocal, and not just in a material sense, but also in a spiritual one. A good modern-day example is Mother Teresa and the order she founded, the Missionaries of Charity. As far as I know they live completely on donations.
The beggary Marmeladov is talking about is the very opposite, very ego-centric. He takes the money they need for living for his own selfish purposes. He can't muster the self-discipline to keep employed to provide for his family and protecting his daughter from the horrors of prostitution.
Good explanation, Kerstin. Thanks.
David wrote: "According to Wikipedia, the original title ("Преступление и наказание") is not the direct equivalent to the English.."In portuguese it's the same choice of words. I guess that's the same in most languages.
Kerstin wrote: "A good modern-day example is Mother Teresa and the order she founded, the Missionaries of Charity. As far as I know they live completely on donations. "She was not as good as the people believe, but this is off-topic and not relates with Dostoyevsky..
Rafael wrote: "She was not as good as the people believe, but this is off-topic and not relates with Dostoyevsky.. "Yes, let's try not to stray too far from the text.
Maybe Dostoevsky wants us to note Raskolnikov's attitude toward pity and compassion. Raskolnikov does not understand why someone would debase himself by asking for a loan when he knows he will not get it. It's a rational attitude, but it excludes the hope of compassion from others. (As Marmeladov complains, compassion is in some places "forbidden by science.") Excuse me, young man, has it ever happened to you... hm... well, to petition hopelessly for a loan?"
"Yes, it has. But what do you mean by hopelessly?"
"Hopelessly in the fullest sense, when you know beforehand that you will get nothing by it. You know, for instance, beforehand with positive certainty that this man, this most reputable and exemplary citizen, will on no consideration give you money; and indeed I ask you why should he? For he knows of course that I shan't pay it back. From compassion? ..But Mr. Lebeziatnikov who keeps up with modern ideas explained the other day that compassion is forbidden nowadays by science itself, and that that's what is done now in England, where there is political economy. Why, I ask you, should he give it to me? And yet though I know beforehand that he won't, I set off to him and..."
"Why do you go?" put in Raskolnikov.
Is it hope or is it compassion that makes no rational sense for Raskolnikov? In any case, he shows compassion for the Marmeladovs when he leaves his last few kopecks on the window sill. But he almost instantly regrets it.
Thomas wrote: "But Mr. Lebeziatnikov who keeps up with modern ideas explained the other day that compassion is forbidden nowadays by science itself, and that that's what is done now in England, where there is political economy. ..."Is/was this "true"? Or is it pub talk? What is a "political economy" in this context? Do people today have similar opinions about the relationship of compassion and science?
David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Dounia agrees to marry an unpleasant, self-absorbed man with an inflated ego who wants to exercise total control over a future wife. She agrees to the marriage, makes excuses for his..."I think it will be interesting to find out what's true: wether Dounia's bethrothed will be as bad as we are now thinking or not.
I do want to point out that in the time D. was writing marriage usually wasn't out of love or more noble feelings, but more out of practical concerns. You also see that with Marmaladov and his wife. Both are widowers, but she can't come by with three young children, so out of misery marries Marmaladov. I think back then it was way more excepted to marry someone to get out of a dire situation (i.e. escape grave poverty) or to somehow climb the social ladder.
Thomas wrote: "Is it hope or is it compassion that makes no rational sense for Raskolnikov? ..."This is an interesting question.
There is inner conflict in Raskolnikov. He considers himself to be a rationalist, a young intellectual, in a place where there is no room for compassion. But he's torn between his rationalism and his compassion. He feels for Sonya though he's never met her. That "scum" exhortation is an expression of both his compassion for her and his revulsion over what her family has done to her. They had a little cry over it and then moved on.
And then, in the very next paragraph, the last paragraph in the chapter, he immediately pulls back reasserting his rationalism, justifying it by generalizing the family's actions to humankind.
This inner struggle makes him surly and withdrawn. He's at war in his own thoughts. I think we will see this struggle between rationalism and compassion again and again in both inner and outer dialog.
Marieke wrote: "I do want to point out that in the time D. was writing marriage usually wasn't out of love or more noble feelings, but more out of practical concerns..."I agree with you. Marriage was a practical arrangement usually arranged in middle class and upper class families by the families, themselves, as a means of securing their economic and class status.
Marmaladov's wife defied her family in her first marriage by marrying an infantry officer for love, a man considered to be beneath her family's station. As a result, her family punished her by cutting her off financially.
Marriage was a mutually agreed upon financial arrangement. In exchange for her financial security, the wife agreed to provide certain services to her husband. But within that framework, there was room for mutual respect and appreciation in that each partner was fulfilling his/her part of the bargain. In that sense, there was nothing unusual about the arrangement between Dounia and Pyotr.
However, there was something very crass about Pyotr. Perhaps it was the way he advertised his intention to reinforce his future wife's subordination. Either way, Pulcheria is repulsed by him and is aware of the extent of her daughter's sacrifice.
Thomas wrote: "Is it hope or is it compassion that makes no rational sense for Raskolnikov?..."Can it be both? I see the two as connected. When you have compassion for someone's misfortune and try to help, you do so because you have the hope that by helping them, you are improving their circumstances.
R leaves money for the family because he feels compassion. But then he regrets it because he concludes there is no hope for the family. So, in a sense, his expression of compassion is irrational because it has been wasted.
In oder to feel compassion and help others, you have to have the hope your contribution is making a difference in their lives.
Tamara wrote: "Marieke wrote: "I do want to point out that in the time D. was writing marriage usually wasn't out of love or more noble feelings, but more out of practical concerns..."I agree with you. Marriage..."
I agree with you. Also on the point of mutual respect. I think this makes it harder to correctly judge the proposed marriage. As we are accustomed to marrying out of love and think marrying out of material gain is wrong we might tend to judge this more harshly then someone in D.'s period would have done.
Then again, I think the similarities with Sonya's situation, the fact that the story of this marriage came directly after Marmeladovs story, and the tone of the mother's letter seem to point at disaproval of this way of things. So D. himselve seems to compare the two more or less in the way we are doing it (i.e. that the marriage is a sort of prostitution as well)
We finally learn in the mother's letter that R is or was studying to be a lawyer. I wonder if and how this chosen field of study will play into the story. I get the sense that R thinks himself smart and wonder if he thinks he has studied law enough to outwit the system and commit crimes without getting caught in a similar way Gyges ring made him invisible. Is any man so virtuous that he could resist the temptation of being able to perform any act without being known or discovered?
In the Pevear and Volkhonsky (P & V) translation, M uses the word "destitution" instead of beggary (i.e. "But destitution, my dear sir, destitution is a vice, sir."). Alas, beggary is implied by context but the Ready translation makes the matter more apparent to me. But yes, these first chapters are dark..even the pub to which R descends, he does so literally, down a flight of stairs from the sidewalk. R listens as M describes, inter alia, his daughter's sacrifice; how M details his daughter initial return with the 30 roubles and then that she lay on her bed , face to the wall and "her whole body trembling"..so sad and yet, M abuses all this when he had an option to return to respectability for his family. Can't pity him much.
Regarding the poverty and beggary question
Regarding the poverty and beggary question, my dutch translation uses the wordt 'armoede', which means poverty, and 'schrijnende armoede', which translates to extreme poverty. 'Schrijnend' is a word we use to emphasise how terrible a situation is, mostly without any apparent solution. Lije recently with the nature disasters in asia, you would hear about how schrijnend the situation of the poor people who lost everything is.
Marieke wrote: " So D. himselve seems to compare the two more or less in the way we are doing it (i.e. that the marriage is a sort of prostitution as well)...."How do we distinguish in C&P the voices telling the tale, i.e., D. versus R. versus X? That is, what is the narrator perspective(s)? (Was just reading of the tendency of George Eliot to stick her judgmental nose at times into her realistic novels. What about D. in C&P?)
Lily wrote: "Marieke wrote: " So D. himselve seems to compare the two more or less in the way we are doing it (i.e. that the marriage is a sort of prostitution as well)...."How do we distinguish in C&P the vo..."
I'm pretty sure that D. eschews an authorial voice that does more than narrate. It's one thing that makes him more modern than George Eliot.
But yes, if R. is thinking upon reading the letter that Sonya and his sister are both selling themselves, then D. is driving the point home.
Getting back to Marmeladov's sad story, I notice that D. does a lot to temper or compromise the maudlin quality, simply by placing it in a 'tavern,' where people laugh at M.
I also marked this passage as possibly funny, certainly 'bathetic,' one might say:
But her chest is weak and she has a tendency to consumption and I feel it! Do you suppose I don't feel it? And the more I drink the more I feel it. That's why I drink too. I try to find sympathy and feeling in drink… . I drink so that I may suffer twice as much!"
And as though in despair he laid his head down on the table.
"Young man," he went on, raising his head again, "in your face I seem to read some trouble of mind. When you came in I read it, and that was why I addressed you at once. For in unfolding to you the story of my life, I do not wish to make myself a laughing-stock before these idle listeners, who indeed know all about it already, but I am looking for a man of feeling and education."
(Reading it again, it's hard to put my finger on why I thought it "might" be funny. I guess just imagine it happening to you. The guy, in the middle of his sad story, lays his head on the table... it's practically slapstick.)
Cphe wrote: "Was there some form of Social Security in Russia at the time?I would have thought not, but did wonder where Pulcheria's Pension originated."
I imagine it was paid to the widow like "survivor's benefits." Maybe interest on a capital sum. Wasn't R.'s father a government employee?
I seem to notice this: We have barely started reading this book and yet the words like 'choice', 'choose', 'an option' etc have been used at ease in our group with respect to the characters, especially Marmeladov. And yet D. seems to avoid such wording as much as possible. At least in his books I’ve read so far. The Notes from Underground is practically exactly about this issue of choice. But I don’t remember that with D it’s ever a given. Only maybe as a faraway hint that might turn not to be true. As for Marmeladov, we still don’t know what is going on in his soul in the moments of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ spells. I believe with D, we may never know. (Thats’ probably why he is so hard for Tolstoy’s fans. :) )
Lily wrote: "How do we distinguish in C&P the voices telling the tale, i.e., D. versus R. versus X? That is, what is the narrator perspective(s)? "An excellent question, and one to keep thinking about as we read. We can see from the very beginning that the narrator needs close following. The narrator starts by describing how Raskolnikov avoids meeting his landlady:
"And each time he passed by, the young man felt some painful and cowardly sensation... He was over his head in debt to the landlady and was afraid of meeting her."
But then, "It was not that he was so cowardly and downtrodden, even the contrary... As a matter of fact, he was not afraid of any landlady..."
The narrator strikes me as sneaky and suspicious from the start, very much like his protagonist. Which doesn't mean the narrator is necessarily untrustworthy. Maybe this is Dostoevsky's way of instilling a sense of insecurity in the reader?
Bigollo wrote: "I seem to notice this: We have barely started reading this book and yet the words like 'choice', 'choose', 'an option' etc have been used at ease in our group with respect to the characters, especi..."Interesting observation. I don't feel like Dostoevsky is judging Marmeladov, but it's hard for a reader not to. Why is it that we rush to judgment of Marmeladov rather than pity or compassion for him?
Nice to see you here, Bigollo.
His wife gets cheated out of her paltry wages; his children are starving; his daughter has resorted to prostitution to put food on the table. He gets his job back, brings home his wages, and is treated like a king. His wife cooks a special meal for him, calls him her “poppet,” and all seems well with the world. And then you get this:
And the whole of that heavenly day of my life and the whole of that evening I passed in fleeting dreams of how I would arrange it all, and how I would dress all the children, and how I should give her rest, and how I should rescue my own daughter from dishonour and restore her to the bosom of her family…
Well, on the very next day after all those dreams, that is to say, exactly five days ago, in the evening, by a cunning trick, like a thief in the night, I stole from Katerina Ivanovna the key of her box, took out what was left of my earnings, how much it was I have forgotten, and now look at me, all of you! It’s the fifth day since I left home, and they are looking for me there and it’s the end of my employment, and my uniform is lying in a tavern on the Egyptian bridge. I exchanged it for the garments I have on … and it’s the end of everything!’
Marmeladov struck his forehead with his fist, clenched his teeth, closed his eyes and leaned heavily with his elbow on the table. But a minute later his face suddenly changed and with a certain assumed slyness and affectation of bravado, he glanced at Raskolnikov, laughed and said: ‘This morning I went to see Sonia, I went to ask her for a pick-me-up! He-he-he!’
It’s hard to have pity or compassion for that. It’s also hard not to see any of this as a choice.
Thomas wrote: The first chapter of the novel touches on some of the themes that will pervade the novel -- poverty, indecision, and fear. And a very depressing first chapter indeed. Some have compared to Dickens and I can see that, but this just felt oppressive. As a first time reader of C & P, I underlined so many words & phrases on the first page.
"ashamed" "he was crushed by poverty" "given up" "isolated" etc ; which also touches on another of your questions about impression of R, himself. He paints a picture of mental illness. The inattention to appearance, isolation, "overstrained irritability", "completely absorbed in himself" babbling, "acutely aware of his fears", "nervous tremor" etc.
Tamara wrote: "It’s hard to have pity or compassion for that. It’s also hard not to see any of this as a choice. "I agree, and yet I have to wonder why on earth anyone would ever "choose" this. Maybe this "choice" is what fascinates Raskolnikov about Marmeladov. His alcoholism appears to be a choice... but is it really?
(Raskolnikov is about to make a choice as well, but I don't want to get ahead of myself.)
Jeremy wrote: I think Tamara is right. This is legalized prostitution - with the added bonus of having a maid and cook! "And how is that different from how women have been treated throughout most of history? As property, with no rights, as someone to produce a heir, keep house, etc. I don't find that thinking unusual or inappropriate for the times.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "It's easy to despise Marmeladov. His wife keeps the family functioning while dying of consumption, and his daughter turns to prostitution to help put food on the table. And what does Marmeladov do?..."Although Marmeldov is presented as a pretty pathetic individual & I don't have much, if any, sympathy for him, I can say this is how an addict, in this case alcoholism, acts. So I don't agree with Roger @4 comment " no motive other than perversity" He may want to do better but the addiction is in control.
Marieke @ 9 appreciate the paragraph on similarities between characters.Christopher @ 11 " He is thinking about murder" As the reader we aren't supposed to know that yet, are we? Did I miss something? Lots of "matter", "plans" etc, but I don't recall anything explicit.
Kerstin wrote: ""Honoured sir," he began almost with solemnity, "poverty is not a vice, that's a true saying. Yet I know too that drunkenness is not a virtue, and that that's even truer. But beggary, honoured sir,..."Where is this para?, I don't remember it.
Chris wrote: "Lots of "matter", "plans" etc, but I don't recall anything explicit...."My question @28. So many of us "know" at least the rough plot of this novel now, but I am curious as to the authorial control D is using on unfurling his plot.
Sue wrote: "In the Pevear and Volkhonsky (P & V) translation, M uses the word "destitution" instead of beggary (i.e. "But destitution, my dear sir, destitution is a vice, sir."). Alas, beggary is implied by co..."Well if I would have kept reading the entries, I would see why I didn't recall the word beggary. My translation also has destitution, I could remember wondering what was supposed to be the difference between poverty and destitution.
@90Chris wrote: "...I don't find that thinking unusual or inappropriate for the times. ..."Perhaps a distinction exists between "unusual" and "(in)appropriate"? Given that Russian (nobility, at least) systems were not always as based on primogeniture as Western Europe, even in that time at least some women were able to negotiate roles of consequence and authority.
Was this the thread where Chernyshevsky came up?I thought of an analogy:
Crime and Punishment: What Is to Be Done :: A Clockwork Orange: Walden Two
You would have to imagine Walden Two as, somehow, the most influential Tendenzroman of its day, and Clockwork Orange as some kind of Dostoevskian masterpiece, but at the same time, how much 'background' would you get for CO by reading Walden Two? Some, but not a lot.
I think the point of Marmeladov up to now is not that he is to be upheld as some paragon of freedom, so much as recognized as an all-too human response to the effort of 'improvers of the human race' to make someone 'get with the program.'
D.'s point is that the human animal, when all avenues of 'escape' are closed off by improvers, will chose self-destruction and 'destitution' or 'beggary' over 'submission.'
I'm just putting this out there as something to consider...
Lily wrote: "I am curious as to the authorial control D is using on unfurling his plot."I am not quite sure of what you are referring to, but lIke The Brother's Karamozov, Crime and Punishment was first published in a monthly periodical. That publication scheme likely had some influence on the pacing of the book, spacing of events, and little cliffhangers here and there.
Christopher wrote: "D.'s point is that the human animal, when all avenues of 'escape' are closed off by improvers, will chose self-destruction and 'destitution' or 'beggary' over 'submission.'Maybe a key difference between R and M is one of control. Both are impoverished but R retains control over his actions and M, as a drunk, or addict, does not. This difference seems to be driving R to a desperation which will likely result in a contradictory mix of good and poor decisions, while M is powerless to do anything but indulge in his addiction to escape.
Also, Dostoevsky doesn't preach this, but his other beef with the improvers is that by denying God, the existence of God, they deny the grace of God.Some of D's degraded types represent humanity without grace.
He is bound to reject, to make contemptible the idea that man can redeem himself.
(Again, I am not preaching this myself, just suggesting a key to C and P.)
Christopher wrote: "Also, Dostoevsky doesn't preach this, but his other beef with the improvers is that by denying God, the existence of God, they deny the grace of God."I think Dostoevky does indeed preach this, heavily. The Brother's Karamozov was a lesson in man redeeming himself through his suffering. Of course the suffering was mostly an internal, i.e., derived from a guilty conscience in spite of or due to a return to God. I can see that R, who already clearly at war with himself, is ripe for this sort of suffering and is only in need of some crime, or sin, that will generate an adequate amount of guilt and cause, as his mother reminds him, to:
. . .say your prayers, Rodya, and believe in the mercy of our Creator and our Redeemer? I am afraid in my heart that you may have been visited by the new spirit of infidelity that is abroad today; If it is so, I pray for you.For BK veterans, I am beginning to wonder if C&P will turn out to be a novel length treatment of Father Zossima's story about the murderer.
Christopher wrote: "D.'s point is that the human animal, when all avenues of 'escape' are closed off by improvers, will chose self-destruction and 'destitution' or 'beggary' over 'submission.'"
That is a big point in Notes from Underground. We'll see what C&P is to offer.
Also, yes, i agree, D. does not really preach, but sort of is trying to prove his views on life through natural dynamics of his characters. For me, it's not convincing yet, but very interesting. it's partly due to his rich observations (and peculiar interpretations thereupon) of life, and, of course, due to his great artistic talent.
Thomas wrote: "The name Raskolnikov is related to the Russian word raskol'nik,, a religious schismatic or spiritual rebel."There is a strange tradition among Russian authors of creating suggestive or plain buffoon names for their characters. The earliest one I know is N. Gogol. He was unbridled and merciless with that habit. So is, to a degree, Dostoyevsky. A bit more subtle though. Very often it is hard to catch him at the tongue and directly accuse in mockery or implication. Most of the time, the name would arouse vague associations, and quite different associations at that, depending often on the reader’s own idiosyncracies.
Thomas is absolutely right in the statement above about the meaning of the word RASKOLNIK, and it's to the point of context. In Western Europe, the analogous term would be - PROTESTANT. When we add ‘OV’ in the end, the word becomes a family name, implying that the person is from the family or tribe or league of RASKOLNIKS.
But for one who speaks Russian, it’s hard to ignore the literal meaning of the word RASKOLNIK.
It literally means The One Who Splits, The Splitter.
So RASKOLNIK may mean somebody who splits from the mainstream religion into a sect, or splits a political party in two, etc; but all this came into language later, as a metaphor. Originally, of course, RASKOLNIK meant a splitter of physical objects - like wood, for instance.
Bigollo wrote: "I seem to notice this: We have barely started reading this book and yet the words like 'choice', 'choose', 'an option' etc have been used at ease in our group with respect to the characters, especi..."I agree and was thinking the same thing. I'm also wondering how Dostoyevsky's gambling addiction may have influenced his writing about other addictions.
Bigollo wrote: "Very often it is hard to catch him at the tongue and directly accuse in mockery or implication..."Some critics add "comic" to their description of C&P. This time around I've been looking for the comic element, which completely passed me by in my two previous readings, and I think I'm finding it. For example, IIRC we leave Marmeladov as he is being dragged by his beard into his room on hands and knees by his wife. Comic, mocking, sad, and perhaps satirical, but it's easy to miss this (at least for me) after that disturbing, powerful story Marmeladov tells.
Bigollo wrote: "It literally means The One Who Splits, The Splitter. So RASKOLNIK may mean somebody who splits from the mainstream religion into a sect, or splits a political party in two, etc; but all this came into language later, as a metaphor..."
Bigollo, could it also possibly mean someone who is internally split? Someone who is torn within himself?
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Crime and Punishment (other topics)What Is to Be Done? (other topics)
Isn't begging part of the aesthetic lifestyle of certain orders of monks? And does that make it different?