Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part One, Chap 1-3
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..."Is it to do with the idea of whether these characters have any real choices? The text seems to be constantly asking whether it is situation or character that determines the progress of each person's life?
Christopher wrote: " He is bound to reject, to make contemptible the idea that man can redeem himself"as of yet, maybe not man's actions but D certainly preaches about God's forgiveness. One of Marmeladov's monologues is all about forgiveness And He will say 'Come to me! I have already forgiven thee once...I have forgiven thee once...Thy sins which are many are forgiven thee for thou hast loved much...'
And He will judge and will forgive all, the good and the evil, the wise and the meek...And when He has done with all of them He will summon us. 'You too come forth' He will say, 'Come forth ye drunkards, come forth ye weak ones, come forth ye children of shame!'
And He will hold out His hands to us and we shall fall down before Him...and we shall weep...and we shall understand all things!
David wrote: "Rashkalnikov's world does not appear to be a very colorful place. However, the color yellow is used 11 times in the first three chapters. Each time it seems in association with disadvantage: povert..."Reading the original, I take this to simply mean that the room will also be sunlit at the appointed time.
Chris wrote: "Christopher wrote: " He is bound to reject, to make contemptible the idea that man can redeem himself"as of yet, maybe not man's actions but D certainly preaches about God's forgiveness. One of M..."
Yes, I had a little wince at my own arrogance when I went back and read that speech..
but Marmeladov is talking about the all encompassing all forgiving love, which is a little bit different from grace.
I think this is what R's musing at the end is hinting at.. it's certainly not clear.. what if it is all prejudice? Can a prostitute be an angel? Are the righteous the real sinners (lacking love and forgiveness)?
Tamara wrote: "I have a question: Mareladov makes a reference to his daughter receiving some sort of yellow card. It sounds to me as if the yellow card gives her the legal right to operate as a prostitute. Does..."
In my notes it explains that the 'yellow card' is a licence to be a prostitute.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Isn't begging part of the aesthetic lifestyle of certain orders of monks? And does that make it different?"More on begging. I just happened to read this from a 1932 newspaper column.
There are few ways in which the moral sentiments of intelligent people have changed more than as regards what is called 'charity'. It is difficult to refuse money to a beggar if his need seems genuine, but the act of giving is uncomfortable and inclined to cause a blush: there is inevitably the reflection that society ought to be so organised as to make it unnecessary for anyone to beg. So far from feeling self-satisfied because of giving, we feel our social conscience pricked because we profit by a system which reduces others to such want and humiliation.
This feeling is entirely modern. Throughout the Middle Ages, alms-giving was inculcated as a duty, with the result that numbers of sturdy beggars lived in idleness. The mendicant friars, at first, owed to the same cause the possibility of subsisting in spite of their vow of poverty. In India, down to the present day, many holy men live on the alms of the faithful, because anything so mundane as earning one's living is incompatible with the life of saintly contemplation.
Russell, Bertrand. Mortals and Others, Charity Nov. 2, 1932 (Routledge Classics) (Kindle Locations 2085-2094). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
There are few ways in which the moral sentiments of intelligent people have changed more than as regards what is called 'charity'. It is difficult to refuse money to a beggar if his need seems genuine, but the act of giving is uncomfortable and inclined to cause a blush: there is inevitably the reflection that society ought to be so organised as to make it unnecessary for anyone to beg. So far from feeling self-satisfied because of giving, we feel our social conscience pricked because we profit by a system which reduces others to such want and humiliation.Great quote. And it is pretty true.
Cphe wrote: "I saw his alcoholism as a disease (but I'm viewing it from current times) I viewed both M and R as having a Mental Illness. Be interesting to see if Pytor also has one to some extent.."This is Plato's view as well, that evil is an illness, so it is a rather ancient notion. I think it must be intentional that Dostoevsky places the Marmeladov story so early in the novel. It doesn't seem to be integral to the plot, so maybe it is significant in a thematic way instead. If it is, we may see the idea of evil as an illness (as opposed to a free choice) appear again.
@112 Christopher wrote: "...Marmeladov is talking about the all encompassing all forgiving love, which is a little bit different from grace...."Christopher -- if you would, give us a few words about what you are perceiving as the key distinction(s) here? [I could string some together that would be defensible at some level or another, but I am not certain they would get at what you are seeing.]
@53 Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "Ryokan --And the my very American answer is, you are doing nothing.i..."
I knew not of this man until you quote him here. I found particularly interesting the Wiki entry about Ryōkan Taigu 's poetry, calligraphy and also his kindly treatment of children.
@98 David wrote: "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 wa..."
When I wrote my comment, I was referring to the structure the artist in D seemed to be constructing -- what other information was he choosing to insert into the reader's awareness before he revealed what R was planning. (view spoiler)
(See also 11, 28, 92, 94)
See also Thomas @116: "the Marmeladov story so early in the novel." We also get contact with R's mother and information about his sister before we get the full meaning of R's plan (or did I miss something as I read....). Do those events modify or simply reinforce the "rational egoism" that D will descry?
@43 Jeremy wrote: "Lily wrote: "@23 Is Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done? similarly relevant to understanding C&P, Chris?.."According to Dostoyevsky biographer Joseph Frank, What Is to Be Done is an important work..."
"I read an article a few months ago that argues Chernyshevsky was the inspiration behind Ayn Rand..."
Adam Weiner has published a book that weaves together Chernyshevsky, Dostoyevsky, and Rand. But trying to peruse it in parallel with C&P and a couple of other things, I haven't been able to sort out what is relevant to C&P versus D's Notes from the Underground and The Devils (also translated as Demons or The Possessed? -- I'm not quite certain at the moment).
Weiner is a professor of Russian language and literature at Wellesley.
@113 Cordelia wrote: "In my notes it explains that the 'yellow card' is a licence to be a prostitute. ..."We have had several posts about the color "yellow" as used in C&P. Here is an article about the symbolism of that color: https://www.colormatters.com/the-mean...
My eye noted this one: "In Russia, a colloquial expression for an insane asylum used to be 'yellow house.'"
@ 8, 21, 23, 111, 113, and, I believe, at least one more I can't locate at the moment.
David wrote: "Rashkalnikov's world does not appear to be a very colorful place. However, the color yellow is used 11 times in the first three chapters. Each time it seems in association with disadvantage: povert..."This is a fantastic observation on D.'s color scheme. My sense is the yellow -> yellow bile -> anger and disease. R. is diseased, similar to the Underground Man ("I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man. I am an unpleasant man. I think my liver is diseased."). The hallmark of liver disease is jaundice, or a yellowing of the skin and eye-whites, and of course alcoholism was (and still is) the leading cause of liver disease in Russia. I'd imagine D.'s readers would be familiar with the sight of the destitute alcoholic who is wasting away from liver disease: yellow, foul breath, skeletal face.
The pervasiveness of yellowness, in addition to creating a rather unpleasant visual image of R.'s surroundings, may also hint at the fact that the whole society is diseased, and in a way probably akin to alcoholism, a disease of moral decay and poverty (or at least that would have been the 19th-century view). The idea that society can become diseased, like an organism, seems to be echoed in other 19th century Russian literature--Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych and Chekhov's Ward Number Six are two just off the top of my head. Of course this raises the questions: What is a healthy person? What is a healthy society? I think of Tolstoy's "natural man" but D.'s answers are more elusive.
Re: the passage you pointed out, my translation (P&V) is, "So the sun will be shining the same way then!" The emphasis on "then" (the translator's italics) I think refers to his future act (view spoiler): the fact that the sun will shine even then hints at a cosmologic indifference to human affairs--the whole universe is implicated in the disease of human society.
Tamara wrote: "could [Raskolnikov] also possibly mean someone who is internally split? Someone who is torn within himself?.."Since we are not talking about the exact meaning of the name but rather associations caused by it in the reader’s mind, then I’d say – why not.
It is not the first thing that would come to my mind though. Probably because the suffix NIK is normally indicative of an action toward the outside world, not inward, - often marking a profession. It is largely overlapped with the English suffix ER. For instance, MEL-NIK means MILL-ER.
Yet language is a very flexible thing, one of its major attributes being - it can lie. There are, and people create - a lot of exceptions.
And btw, there is a good example of what I’ve just said on the second page of C&R !
R. gets yelled at on the street - in one translation - ‘HEY THERE, GERMAN HATTER!’
In another - ‘OI, YOU IN THE GERMAN HAT!’
The key word in the original here is SHL’APNIK (see NIK again?), which means - HATTER. So technically, HATTER is the correct translation. But, obviously, R. was called that way only because he was wearing a hat. So which translation is better?
And if back to associations (is evocations a better word?) with the name Raskolnikov – while reading along through the book, maybe we will come across a certain association that D. specifically implied?
In my edition Keith Carrabine gives the meaning of the name "Raskolnikov" as coming from "raskol" meaning schism or to break asunder.
@123 Shelley wrote: "The pervasiveness of yellowness, in addition to creating a rather unpleasant visual image of R.'s surroundings, may also hint at the fact that the whole society is diseased, ...."Ah, the insight/perspective of a physician and self-described "pseudointellectual," although I'm not so sure about the "pseudo", Shelley!
"...the whole universe is implicated in the disease of human society."
Chilling game D is playing with here....
A few other names that might be of interest.Marmeladov - from Marmelad (meaning jam. jelly)
Sonia Semyonovna Marmeladov - (Sofya) from the Greek for 'wisdom'
Pyotr Petrovitch Luzhin - from lyzhin (puddle, mussy, dirty, to be indecisive)
Shelley wrote: "The pervasiveness of yellowness, in addition to creating a rather unpleasant visual image of R.'s surroundings, may also hint at the fact that the whole society is diseased, and in a way probably akin to alcoholism, a disease of moral decay and poverty..."I love the connections you drew between the color yellow, alcoholism, diseases of the liver, and the "disease" of society.
Emma wrote: "The text seems to be constantly asking whether it is situation or character that determines the progress of each person's life? "True. But I personally hope that the text might give me more than that. I am more interested in why and what is happening in a person’s mind at the very moment (if it’s a moment) of the choice being made.
I'm also struggling with the "destitution" vs "beggary" translation problem. It seems to me that the two are pretty different: destitution seems to be a more extreme version of poverty (not just "want" [as in "poverty of spirit"] but actually a kind of complete deprivation), whereas beggary is an act in response to poverty. Can someone reading this in original (@Bigollo and @Jovo) comment on what D.'s original word is when M. discussed poverty vs X?@Lily and @Tamara: Thank you! My first time joining in this group and I'm already benefiting a ton from the discussions here.
Cordelia wrote: "A few other names that might be of interest.Marmeladov - from Marmelad (meaning jam. jelly)
Sonia Semyonovna Marmeladov - (Sofya) from the Greek for 'wisdom'
Pyotr Petrovitch Luzhin - from lyzhin..."
Pulcheria - from Latin "pulcher," beautiful
Shelley wrote: "I'm also struggling with the "destitution" vs "beggary" translation problem. It seems to me that the two are pretty different: destitution seems to be a more extreme version of poverty (not just "w..."Welcome to the group, Shelly. M seems to repeat the word hopeless many times in my translation. I wonder if that is a key difference between poverty and the extreme poverty of beggary?
Don't know that this is a lot of help, but here is MW on definitions of two of the words used in the translations:beg·gary noun \ˈbe-gə-rē, ˈbā-\
plural -es
1: the quality or state of being impoverished : penury [the beggary to which the … tribesmen have been reduced — M. J. Herskovits]
2: the class or occupation of beggars
3: the act of begging especially as a livelihood : mendicancy [suffered the bitterest privation, and were even … threatened with beggary — H. E. Barnes & H. P. Becker]
4: baseness, contemptibleness [the beggary of his lies]
5: mean impoverished appearance : disreputableness [shabby and unshaven almost to the point of beggary — Edmund Wilson]
Origin of BEGGARY
Middle English beggarie, from beggare beggar + -ie -y
First Known Use: 14th century (sense 1)
Related to BEGGARY
Synonyms:
poverty, destituteness, destitution, impecuniosity, impecuniousness, impoverishment, indigence, necessity, need, neediness, pauperism, penuriousness, penury, poorness, want
Antonyms:
affluence, opulence, richness, wealth, wealthiness
“Beggary.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2017.. Web. 05 Sep. 2017.
---------------------------
des·ti·tu·tion noun \ˌdestəˈtüshən, -stə‧ˈtyü-\
plural -s
1: state of being deprived of or lacking something : destitute condition [many historic dwellings remain, sinking stage by stage from indigence to squalor, from squalor to grimy destitution — Lewis Mumford] [and what destitution of the spirit did he owe to his harsh memories of his father — Charles Lee] usually : deprivation of the necessaries of life : poverty especially when extreme [forgotten men and women living at below the destitution level — R. H. S. Crossman]
2 archaic : dismissal from office
Origin of DESTITUTION
Middle English destitucioun, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French destitution, from Latin destitution-, destitutio, from destitutus +-0 -ion-, -io -ion
First Known Use: 15th century (sense 1)
Related to DESTITUTION
Synonyms:
beggary, destituteness, poverty, impecuniosity, impecuniousness, impoverishment, indigence, necessity, need, neediness, pauperism, penuriousness, penury, poorness, want
Antonyms:
affluence, opulence, richness, wealth, wealthiness
Related Words:
gutter, misery, woe, wretchedness; exigency; emergency, rainy day; austerity, deprivation, privation; bankruptcy, insolvency; belt-tightening, pinching, straitening
Near Antonyms:
luxury, prosperity
“Destitution.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2017.. Web. 05 Sep. 2017.
It's remarkably that Marmeladov does not try to shift blame for his misdeeds--he doesn't blame alcohol, or his wife. He just describes what he's done.
Roger wrote: "It's remarkably that Marmeladov does not try to shift blame for his misdeeds--he doesn't blame alcohol, or his wife. He just describes what he's done."Maybe I'm misreading his words, but I got the definite sense he holds his wife at least partially responsible for his behavior.
And yet… oh, if only she felt for me! Honoured sir, honoured sir, you know every man ought to have at least one place where people feel for him! But Katerina Ivanovna, though she is magnanimous, she is unjust…. And yet, although I realise that when she pulls my hair she only does it out of pity—for I repeat without being ashamed, she pulls my hair, young man,” he declared with redoubled dignity, hearing the sniggering again—"but, my God, if she would but once…. But no, no! It’s all in vain and it’s no use talking! No use talking! For more than once, my wish did come true and more than once she has felt for me but… such is my fate and I am a beast by nature!”
If I'm remembering correctly, he repeats the same thought a couple of times in the chapter as if to suggest if only she "felt" for him, he wouldn't be behaving so atrociously.
Bigollo wrote: "R. gets yelled at on the street - in one translation - ‘HEY THERE, GERMAN HATTER!’ (P & V)In another - ‘OI, YOU IN THE GERMAN HAT!’"
(P&V added). I had wondered at R being called a "German hatter" when indeed..he was wearing a rather disreputable but perhaps noticeable version of a hat; I would presume such a hat would not indicate that the wearer is the profession of making hats. A bad advertisement , if so. Thus, my surmise is the latter version is more colloquial and the one that D, as the author, intended..but I surely appreciate the understanding of these words that end in "nik" as being understandable in general as to one who does (e.g. English suffix "er") (thank you, Bigollo). I have also learned perhaps that ova indicates a married woman taking the man's name and adding the ova? Is that correct? Must say the Russian names do change per context at times.
Roger wrote: "It's remarkably that Marmeladov does not try to shift blame for his misdeeds--he doesn't blame alcohol, or his wife. He just describes what he's done."He does seems to be hosting his own pity party of self-blame. Psychology today calls self-blame:
. . .one of the most toxic forms of emotional abuse. It amplifies our perceived inadequacies, whether real or imagined, and paralyzes us before we can even begin to move forward.He then gives two reasons why he does not expect Mr. Lebeziatnikov to give him a loan. First he says Mr. Lebeziatnikov not give him a loan because he knows M. will not pay it back, which is understandable. But then he curiously adds that Mr. Lebeziatnikov won't give him a loan out of compassion because:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
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.Is he hinting at some compassion robbing sources of external blame?
Tamara wrote: "If I'm remembering correctly, he repeats the same thought a couple of times in the chapter as if to suggest if only she "felt" for him, he wouldn't be behaving so atrociously."But even that was not enough. Look at how he describes her treatment of him after he got his job back:
As soon as Katerina Ivanovna and Sonia heard of it, mercy on us, it was as though I stepped into the kingdom of Heaven. It used to be: you can lie like a beast, nothing but abuse. Now they were walking on tiptoe, hushing the children.He doesn't seem to be much motivated to change his behavior according to his wife's treatment of him, carrot or stick.
They made me coffee before I went to work and boiled cream for me!
And how they managed to get together the money for a decent outfit [for me]
Katerina Ivanovna had cooked two courses for dinner—soup and salt meat with horse radish—which we had never dreamed of till then.
And when we were by ourselves, you understand? You would not think me a beauty, you would not think much of me as a husband, would you? . . . Well, she pinched my cheek, ‘my little poppet,’ said she.”
My impression of M. is that he's in a drunken opaqueness, vacillating between the conflicting despair, self-hatred and sorrow he's feeling, and presenting these feelings as they hit him.(on Katherine)"I am a swine. But she is a lady!"
"You may judge for yourself, sir, how hard up she was. She agreed to marry me! The well-bred, well- educated daughter of a distinguished lady!"
"Katherine Ivanova overflows with magnanimity, mind you, but she is a lady of temperament, she has her nerves, and she will break out..."
"Oh yes, there is no reason to feel sorry for me! I need to be crucified, not pitied!"
I'm seeing only two passages in this conversation where M. seems to seek an excuse: the one firing he claims was a downsizing, and his mention of K's hardness (which, in other references, he seems to find warranted). Outside of this I'm seeing a lot of self-loathing.
If D. moves forward in the direction I think he will, it makes sense for Marmeladov to be drawn just as he is.He would need to be fully cognizant of his erring (fallen short of the glory of god) to move toward D's version of grace. And his shortfalls would, without grace, sentence him to hell in D's world - this narrative is more palatable when Marmeladov's shortcomings are more blatant. There are a couple passages which seem to signify that this is what D is doing ... I'd emphasize M's judgement day speech near the end of Chapter 2.
Sue wrote: "I have also learned perhaps that ova indicates a married woman taking the man's name and adding the ova? Is that correct? Must say the Russian names do change per context at times. "I know, Russian names are notoriously confusing for non-Russians.
Please remember this: Russian Names are three-part, and every time we are talking about a Russian name, we have to keep in mind which of the three we are talking about; otherwise, big confusion is inevitable.
The three are: Given Name, Patronymic, Last (Family) Name.
One short fact about Russian Last Names (In Russian, literally -Familia):
XXXXOV and XXXXOVA are male and female counterparts of the same Russian last name.
Let’s see an example.
A girl is born to a Russian father whose last name is KATKOV.
Then they will write in her birth certificate - KATKOVA.
When her brother is born, his certificate will read - KATKOV.
The girl grows up and gets married to a guy named PETROV.
She wants to take her husband’s last name, her marriage certificate will read PETROVA.
The couple emigrates to the U. S., and after a series of confusions with Americans she decides to change her name into PETROV. Good for her.
Then she visits one day her home land and tries to introduce herself as.. PETROV.. No she won’t be doing that. That would be really hard to explain. Something like.. you ask a guy of his profession.. and he goes, I am a waitress.
And vise versa.. you meet a woman named SHARAPOVA, and you know her husband has the same Last Name, then it will definitely be SHARAPOV.
Another common pair of Russian Last Name gender endings is IN – INA.
And another: IY- AYA.
But beware, not ALL Russian last name endings come in gender pairs.
Bigollo wrote: "A girl is born to a Russian father whose last name is KATKOV.Then they will write in her birth certificate - KATKOVA."
I..."
Bigollo,
In another life in a far, far away galaxy centuries past there was this proofreader at the American Institute of Physics, a publisher of academic physics journals. One day this proofreader, who shall remain nameless :-) and who knew nothing about anything at the time, was handed an English translation of a Russian physics paper. This proofreader, who again shall remain nameless, goes through the text and sees the name (let's say) Katkov several times, and then the name Katkova. This happens several more times before the proofreader makes an executive decision to change all the Katkovas to Katkov. This proofreader thought someone in typing -- yes, typing -- made a typo. This was not that proofreader's best day. There are a number of husband/wife scientific teams in Russia (or there were).
Nell wrote: "And his shortfalls would, without grace, sentence him to hell in D's world ..."Hi Nell!
But what does Hell mean to D.? Is M. in Hell? Is that what D. is showing?
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "But what does hell mean to D?"M. sounds a lot more like the pardoned thief on the cross to me, although the direction he takes is yet to be seen.
I'd parallel this to reading the Confessions, not to be redundant. The ideal transgressor in a religious redemptive narrative acknowledges their sins keep them from personally accessing heaven without grace. Thus the need for a bridge.
I'm unsure how D himself regards hell. Having read the Idiot, his concept of grace seems pretty strong (open to many), but I've also seen an underlying pessimism about several characters who continue in their shortcomings (drink, womanizing, etc.). In the case of the Idiot, it's easier to see what D's doing through the eyes of Myshkin, but without the heroic archetype C&P might need some more time to unfold.
Here I am, late to the party again! I have only read a few comments so far. I love the idea of the Insane Asylum being known as The Yellow House. Yellow more often suggests to me a sense of happiness but I can see that the yellow here is faded and jaded. It is sickly and depressing.Neither Marmaladov nor Roskolnikov appears to be appreciative of his life. The feeling of hopelessness is prevalent. I really do sympathise with M and his struggle with alcoholism. He is well aware that he is letting his family down, but he finds himself trapped and unable to remedy the mess he has created. R's character is also very unhappy but his attitude is so different. He seems to feel that life owes him something. There is no obvious gratitude for what he has. He has a mother and sister who love him. Well, at least, his mother loves him and has a self-sacrificial attitude towards him. Sonia, M's daughter, has a mother who essentially encourages her to prostitute herself for the family. It's true that the mother is desperate, but it hardly seems maternal to expect her child to play along, sacrificing herself on the altar of money.
Roskolnikov's mother seems to me to truly love her son. She certainly seems to favour him over Dounia. Yes, she fears him, bowing to his position as the man of the house. I don't think that she would countenance a less than perfect wife for her son, but she is prepared to allow Dounia to sacrifice herself in a marriage based on a monetary agenda. The common idea of prostitution in the lives of both daughters was referred to in an earlier comment. I don't know that Pulcheria was desperate for Roskolnikov to oppose the marriage. She's not happy about it but I think that she's resigned to it.
Hilary wrote: "Here I am, late to the party again! I have only read a few comments so far. I love the idea of the Insane Asylum being known as The Yellow House. Yellow more often suggests to me a sense of happine..."I'm pleased to see you joining us again!
I don't know that Pulcheria was desperate for Roskolnikov to oppose the marriage. She's not happy about it but I think that she's resigned to it.
What I find puzzling about Pulcheria is that she admits that Rodya would never have allowed Dunya to be humiliated in the Svidrigailov house (which is why she did not tell Rodya the whole truth about what was going on there) but then she expects him to be okay with the Luzhin match. She all but says Dunya is marrying Luzhin, sacrificing herself, for Rodya's sake alone. And she expects Rodya to be happy with this? Either Pulcheria does not recognize the marriage as humiliation (Rodya clearly does), or she passively wants Rodya to put an end to the marriage himself.
Shelley wrote: "I'm also struggling with the "destitution" vs "beggary" translation problem. It seems to me that the two are pretty different: destitution seems to be a more extreme version of poverty (not just "w..."This Russian word, let’s call it N, that we’ve seen translated as either destitution or beggary, in its narrow sense, has the meaning BEGGARY; but, it is also commonly used to mean extreme poverty in general. But, again. I can witness only for the current Russian. I suspect that in D’s time, N. was used mostly in its narrow sense. And I think Marmeladov himself stresses that narrow meaning. Right in that passage, in Ch. 2, He goes, “For beggary a man is not chased out of human society with a stick, he is swept out with a broom, so as to make it as humiliating as possible.” Indeed, one wouldn’t go at a defenceless person with a stick, but with a broom - it’s like saying, “Shoo, move along folks, you won’t get anything here, not a beggar’s day.”
It is only my guess that there used to be this ‘habit’ of repelling beggars by coming out with a broom at them (guess strongly suggested by Marmeladov). Yet there is an idiom and a saying still in Russian, involving words ‘chasing’ and ‘broom’ ( but not N). The genesis of the saying is perfectly explained by this hypothesis. I never thought about it before this uncertainty with the translation came about.
Thank you, Bigollo for helping us discern the Russian language! Most helpful! As to names, you wrote above: "The three are: Given Name, Patronymic, Last (Family) Name."So is the patronymic name that of generally the father or sometimes the grandfather? Such as say, if such is "Ivanovich"....does vich indicate "son" or ? (does one distinguish somehow whether it is the father or grandfather by some variation?) As R's patronymic's name is Romanovich but Daria's is Romanovna (and is it that Daria's name is a nick name, or version of her given first name that being Avdotya!) Ay karumba! ha! No need to answer this rather clueless post but it is a puzzlement indeed, these Russian names! ha!
Bigollo wrote: Please remember this: Russian Names are three-part, and every time we are talking about a Russian name, we have to keep in mind which of the three we are talking about; otherwise, big confusion is inevitable.I..." Thanks for the explanation!
Sue wrote: "So is the patronymic name that of generally the father or sometimes the grandfather? Such as say, if such is "Ivanovich"....does vich indicate "son" or ? (does one distinguish somehow whether it is the father or grandfather by some variation?) As R's patronymic's name is Romanovich but Daria's is Romanovna (and is it that Daria's name is a nick name, or version of her given first name that being Avdotya!) Ay karumba! ha! No need to answer this rather clueless post but it is a puzzlement indeed, these Russian names! ha!."Regardless of the puzzlement, you seem to be getting a kick out of it, Sue:)
Language is a very convoluted fabric, and names is probably its most tangled and illogical part.
Patronymic in a three-part Russian Name is simplest in structure and easiest of the three to explain - of course, only if one kills the urge to elaborate on the subtleties of usage, pronunciation, etc. This blog is not the right place to write an article on the linguistics of names, so I drop here and there only very basic facts on Russian names so that it would make it a bit easier to plough through the books like the current one.
Yes, Patronymic is One’s Father’s Given Name + OVICH (EVICH) for males and,
OVNA (EVNA) for females.
NOT Grandfather’s !
For instance, the guy, his first name say is Ivan, has a daughter and a son, with first names Nina and Sergey, respectively. Then Ivan’s children are:
Nina Ivanovna and Sergey Ivanovich.
And that’s how they will be addressed in life when adults officially.
(I on purpose never mentioned the Family's Last Name)
P.S. Often Russian Names look mouthful on paper. In speech, the sounds, or even whole syllables, get reduced to the degree, depending on the level of familiarity.
For instance, names like Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, Pavel Pavlovich, Darya Dmitrievna one could hear as
Sahn Sahnich, Pahl Pahlich, Dardmitrinna.
A warning (Among many. Can’t help but give one).
In some Slavic (Polish, and especially some Yugoslavian) nations the ending O(E)VICH is very common in Last Names. And due to migration and intermarriage such last names occur among Russians as well.
So if reading a Russian novel you come across a female character named, say, PROKOPOVICH, don’t read it as her Patronymic (her Patronymic would’v been PROKOP’EVNA), that must be her Last Name.
Thank you, Bigollo! Your information is most interesting and helpful! ha! I am getting rather a "kick" out of understanding the labyrinth that are Russian names! ha!
Sue wrote: "Thank you, Bigollo! Your information is most interesting and helpful! ha! I am getting rather a "kick" out of understanding the labyrinth that are Russian names! ha!"Glad to be of help :)
Chris wrote: "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. ..."
Sorry for the late reply, I've fallen behind a bit...
Chapter II; Page 15 or location 186 Crime and Punishment; Garnett translation
Just like Marieke (#79) reading in Dutch, I am reading a German translation. As it turns out, she had similar translations for the word "poverty" as I had, and I couldn't make sense of what the supposed difference was to be. So I turned to the English version, which made far more sense, and this is what I posted.
Bigollo wrote: "..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 :)..."As a fan of Tolstoy, I had to respond to that comment. :) (I just started listening to Garnett’s translation of C&P narrated by George Guidall, and catching up on the comments here.)
Tolstoy was once criticized for aristocratic arrogance , because he wrote only about the lives of aristocrats, the upper echelon of the Russian society. He responded to the criticism by saying that he wrote about the aristocracy because that is what he knew best, and one writes about things and people that one knows.
I think it is safe to say that Dostoevsky knows the disenfranchised people, the lower echelon of the Russian society best, and that’s why we meet these folks again and again in his novels.
Marmeladov rather reminds me of Dmitri Karamazov in many ways. When I listened to his monologue, I thought to myself, “I’ve heard this before. Is Dostoevsky suggesting that drunkards will be forgiven on Judgment Day, and continue their drunken ways for all eternity, in the same way that they are forgiven by the women in their lives and remain drunkards?”
Tamara wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "It literally means The One Who Splits, The Splitter...”Bigollo, could it also possibly mean someone who is internally split? Someone who is torn within himself"
I like Tamara’s suggestion. Raskolnikov does show internal conflicts/splits, which caused his body to break down with fever, the same thing that happened to Ivan Karamazov.
Nemo wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "It literally means The One Who Splits, The Splitter...”Bigollo, could it also possibly mean someone who is internally split? Someone who is torn within himself"
I ..."
Welcome back, Nemo. Glad you decided to join us.
Thank you for the welcome, Tamara. :) I voted for C&P, and felt obligated to participate in the discussions, but didn’t have time for it until now.
Nemo wrote: "Thank you for the welcome, Tamara. :) I voted for C&P, and felt obligated to participate in the discussions, but didn’t have time for it until now."Better late than never!
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Crime and Punishment (other topics)What Is to Be Done? (other topics)
The roles of the women also interested and angered me. They are all trying to do something about their poverty and desperate situation within the limited sphere of their own agency, while the two men drink and consider murder as an acceptable answer. They both seem resigned to the failure in their characters and situation. R seems to have that very modern idea of being owed something by the world, looking down on those around his as disgusting and ignorant.
Despite the fact that I think both men consider it their due, R is also angry and bitter about this female assistance. Here too, is where some of the fear comes in. They need the women but don't want to. Seeing them means having to acknowledge their own failures. There are two female landladies, one female moneylender, as well as both M's and R's family doing everything thy can to get money to assist the men, including M's daughter going into prostitution, R's mother and sister getting loans, R's sister marrying a man she doesn't love. In R's case, this leads to serious resentment and feeds into his justification for the action to come.
My reading of his mother's letter was that he was angry for two reasons:
1) because of the contrast between his character and his sister's. In hardship, she has been morally and personally strong, he has removed himself from society in a bit of a strop and has been thinking dark thoughts.
2) because the expectations in it- that he do something about the marriage or that he be thankful for the help, that he has another man involving himself in the family, that he has to meet them all soon and they see his desperate state, that his plans for the moneylender might be affected.