Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Crime and Punishment
Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
>
Part Two, Chap 1-4
R. is the protagonist, yet up to this point is a very difficult person to like. He is brooding, sullen, a loner whose only companion is his own gloomy and ill-tempered thoughts. Razumikhin is his polar opposite. He could be mayor of St. Petersburg or an ambassador of good will. With his infectious personality and an overabundance of energy he makes friends with everyone. And, boy, can he talk ... and talk ... and talk ...
I'm glad we're on part two. I am way ahead on the audio, which just proves I spend more time driving than reading, but I want to go over the sections on Kindle, because I do miss details.I agree Razumikhin is a 'foil' for R., and very welcome to the reader as a 'healthy-minded' type.
Is it in this section he describes his hack work translating German scientific articles? Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
I think R is coming across as being increasingly unbalanced. He seems to be hallucinating when he first wakes up—imagining blood where there isn’t; berating himself for not cleaning up the evidence; then berating himself for not doing a better job of hiding the evidence; he laughs for no reason; he is feverish; and he seems anxious to get it over with: If I’m lost, I’m lost. I don’t care.... Only to get it over.
And he is constantly on the verge of confessing but then steps back:
I’ll go in, fall on my knees, and confess everything…he thought, as he reached the fourth floor.
And, as Thomas pointed out, he seems disinterested in money. But that leaves us baffled as to his motivation for committing the murder in the first place.
I have another issue I'm wondering about. And . . . yes, it has to do with women. I don't have any answers, but I just think there is something going on even though I haven't been able to put my finger on it.The two murder victims are women. R initially wants to help the young girl tottering about in a drunken stupor but then decides not to bother with it. The person who grovels and curtsies at the police station is a woman. Razumihin is working on translating a German text entitled “Is Woman a Human Being?” And R hallucinates/ dreams Ilya Petrovich is yelling at and beating his landlady while she cowers to protect herself.
I don't know what--if anything--to make of this. Why, for example, choose that title for the German text? He could have chosen anything--do dogs make better pets than cats, for example. Why a text that debates whether or not women are humans?
Is D making a statement about R's attitude toward women? I think something is going on, but I just don't know what.
Any ideas?
Tamara wrote: "I have another issue I'm wondering about. And . . . yes, it has to do with women. I don't have any answers, but I just think there is something going on even though I haven't been able to put my fi..."Well, specifically in the case of the article, which the publisher wants to bring out as his 'contribution to the woman question,' I think it's a bit of a satire on German philosophy, and the Russian craze for it. A bit like Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide- not that Maureen Dowd is all about Wilhelm von Humboldt, or whoever...Wilhelm von Humboldt
Tamara wrote: "I have another issue I'm wondering about. And . . . yes, it has to do with women. I don't have any answers, but I just think there is something going on even though I haven't been able to put my fi..."It occurs to me as well that women in the book bear a disproportionate amount of sacrifice. Sonia Marmeladov turns to prostitution, Katerina Ivanovna endures her husband's alcoholism, Pulcheria sacrifices her pension, and Dounia is about to marry for financial gain, in part at least to benefit her brother. And the pawnbroker, of course, whose life is sacrificed unwillingly. But there is an additional common denominator in all of these: poverty and economic inequality.
Thomas wrote: "It occurs to me as well that women in the book bear a disproportionate amount of sacrifice.... But there is an additional common denominator in all of these: poverty and economic inequality. "Agreed. Also, the women resort to all sorts of desperate measures to try to pull themselves out of poverty but men throw away the opportunities to do the same even though their employment opportunities are legitimate.
Marmeladov deliberately loses his job and R refuses to accept Razumihin's generous offer to earn money by assisting with the translation.
More yellow:When the conversation turns to Lizaveta
"Raskolnikov turned to the wall, with its dirty yellow paper and its pattern of little white flowers. He chose an ungainly white flower with little brown marks and started studying it . . . He could feel his arms and legs going numb, as if paralysed, but he didn’t even try to move them and stared stubbornly at the flower."
"He (R.) was turning yellow with bile."
Razumikhin talks a lot, and buried in all these words is what may be his approach to life.
"I mean, if you start looking every which way how many good people will we be left with?"
Respect other people and you respect yourself."
R. says of himself "I'm just so sick of it all."
Does R. respect himself?
Continuing, there is also this:"A gloomy sensation of excruciating, endless solitude and estrangement suddenly communicated itself consciously to his soul."
"Excruciating," and he's so sick of it all. Is R. suicidal? Did the death of his landlady's daughter affect him more than he lets on? Did he care for her more than he lets on? He does seem to lie to himself.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: ""Excruciating," and he's so sick of it all. Is R. suicidal?..."He does sound suicidal. But I'm not sure it is the death of his landlady's daughter that affected him more than anything else. He looks at the world with a jaundiced lens. He's the opposite of Razumihin who sees the same poverty and misery but with a much healthier lens.
Razumihin is chatty, helpful, sincere, nurturing, and honest. He treats Nastasya with respect and suggests she join them for tea. R snarls at her the whole time. He has cultivated a friendly relationship with R's landlady. He ensures R signs the papers to receive the money from his mother and then uses some of that to purchase decent clothes for him. And he is earning an income and offers R an opportunity to do the same.
In other words, Razumihin is getting on with life while treating others with decency and respect. R, on the other hand, is this brooding, sullen, suicidal, and self-absorbed murderer who teeters on the brink of insanity.
The comparison between Razumihin and Raskolnikov reminds me of the exposition of the first-born and the twice-born from William Jame's The Varieties of Religious Experience. Those first-born posessing a natural healthy-mindedness and congenial spirit like Razumihin and those second-born sick-souled persons like Raskolnikov who are destined to struggle and suffer with themselves for some balanced and acceptable state of mind.
Tamara's words (w edit): "He (R) looks at the world with a jaundiced lens." Again, perhaps part of the "yellow" motif, unstated. ha. R is so careless, as in his piping up as to where the earrings were found (bringing undue attention as to his interest in the matter)...tis the earrings that are a stray piece of evidence of which to worry, it appears.
R's wanting to get rid of the evidence (that he has) by tossing such into the canal or the Neva, would indeed seemingly undo his "justification" for the murders in the first place. Appears he wants to uncross that "bridge", during those moments.
The bridge, indeed, seems to hold meaning..or bridges in general..the crossing over. After R's visit to Raz, he was "brought fully back to his senses" on the Nikolaevsky Bridge...after the unpleasant incident of the whip/carriage driver and receiving the twenty kopecks. He had walked about "ten steps, and turned his face to the Neva, in the direction of the palace" and saw that this place was especially familiar to him from when he was attending the university when he would gaze at the "splendid panorama" ; such made him recall his "former questions and perplexities", and brought him back in time...seeing his former past, and former thoughts, tasks and themes but then it seemed as if he was flying upwards and everyone was vanishing from his sight; that is when he threw the twenty kopeck in the the water and "it seemed to him that at that moment, he had cut himself off, as with scissors , from everyone and everything." Upon the bridge, it appears he saw his past and his old self but the crossing was already made.
Tamara wrote: "Marmeladov deliberately loses his job and R refuses to accept Razumihin's generous offer to earn money by assisting with the translation. "Maybe this is why Raskolnikov finds Marmeladov interesting -- he can see himself in Marmeladov. Both men are humiliated by their economic incapacity and shamed by the fact that they need help from the women around them. They're even more ashamed when those women must make substantial sacrifices to support them, when they, the men, are the ones who should be supporting their families.
Shame is a contributing factor to the downward spiral that alcoholics commonly experience. Marmeladov's story is typical of this -- it might almost fit in at a modern AA meeting, with some historical tweaking, of course. But Raskolnikov is not a drinker. I wonder what his "drug of choice" might be? How does he handle his shame?
Sue wrote: "The bridge, indeed, seems to hold meaning..or bridges in general..the crossing over. After R's visit to Raz, he was "brought fully back to his senses" on the Nikolaevsky Bridge...after the unpleasa..."I like the connection you make here. It reinforces the significance of bridges.
I haven't explored any yet, but this Google search has given me some tantalizing titles: "women in Dostoevsky novels". (Yes, I know I'm perhaps being a bit subversive to suggest this -- our mantra here is more to explore these great works from the resources of our own minds and backgrounds. And I basically agree with that approach. But especially when "stumped," I've never been above looking elsewhere for crowbars to pry open the chest to examine its treasure.)
The women in the story seem to the innocent sufferers at the hands of men. They also, if M's wife's actions when he temporarily regained his job is any indication, still love them and forgive them when forgiveness is due. M described it. . .as though I stepped into the kingdom of Heaven.The recipient of suffering by the hand of man and yet full of love and ready to dispense a heaven-like forgiveness when it is earned. Hmm. . .this sounds familiar. . .
The old pawnbroker may be an anomaly but by her end of life donations seems to be buying forgiveness, for herself. Maybe that is part of the message too? Money doesn't buy love or forgiveness.
David wrote: The recipient of suffering by the hand of man and yet full of love and ready to dispense a heaven-like forgiveness when it is earned.""Also some well-earned hair-pulling when called for....
Thomas wrote: "Also some well-earned hair-pulling when called ..."It seems customary to excuse a little violence in return for bad behavior.
David wrote: "The recipient of suffering by the hand of man and yet full of love and ready to dispense a heaven-like forgiveness when it is earned. Hmm. . .this sounds familiar. . ..."I don't mean to sound cynical but I'm not sure love enters into any of this.
Marmeladov's wife may appear loving and forgiving when he gets his job back, but I think she acts that way out of desperation. She will do whatever it takes to encourage him to keep working. Her young children are emaciated and crying because they're so hungry. She is reliant on him to put food on the table for them so she'll do all she can to encourage him to continue working.
Notice how abusive she is toward Sonya in the beginning and then how loving and gentle she is toward her after the latter brings in the money she's earned from prostitution.
I think M's wife is a mother desperate to do whatever it takes to put food on the table for her young ones. And if that means playing the role of a loving and forgiving wife, so be it! It wouldn't be the first time a mother has resorted to such measures to provide for her children.
Tamara wrote: "David wrote: "The recipient of suffering by the hand of man and yet full of love and ready to dispense a heaven-like forgiveness when it is earned. Hmm. . .this sounds familiar. . ..."I don't mea..."
All well and good, except she beats her children too.
Tamara wrote: "I don't mean to sound cynical but I'm not sure love enters into any of this. "I think all of that is true of Katerina Ivanovna and she loves him. She is certainly driven to desperation, but she seems too proud not to love him on some level.
As for her former attitude towards Sonya, I think Katrina realized it, felt a great deal of guilt over it, and begged forgiveness for it.
I saw Katerina Ivanovna, in the same silence go up to Sonia’s little bed; she was on her knees all the evening kissing Sonia’s feet, and would not get up, and then they both fell asleep in each other’s arms . . . together, together
My "American" mind goes to how to avoid suffering. Something different seems to be going on in D's mind for his beloved Russia?I find it intriguing/frustrating to consider the role of suffering in lives -- in D's Russia, R's life, .... contrasting with how/whether we deal with suffering (esp. of others) in so many arenas of our worlds. What is the relationship of suffering to compassion, or vice versa?
Marmeladov enjoys his punishment, and he looks forward to forgiveness. When he asks (rhetorically) why anyone should have pity on him, he says he should be "crucified," and then repeats variations on the crucifixion theme five or six times, making it difficult to overlook the religious implications of his thinking. Then he imagines the Lord calling him forth. "Come forth, you drunkards..." and being received because "not one among them considered himself worthy of this." Humility seems to be the way to redemption for Marmeladov.
Marmeladov's way of coping with his problems is very passive, and it makes him easy to condemn and ridicule. Raskolnikov's way is just the opposite -- he feels he must act. So I'm still a little puzzled by R's interest in M. Why does this weak and humble man fascinate him?
I get stuck on this one question:wether R. murdered the pawnlady because he was in a delirium (and sick) or he gets sick because of the act of murdering.
Further I too am quite puzzled by the character of Razumihin. He seems to be quite amiable and maybe he is. But I have the feeling that there's more to it. Whatever it is, he's quite the manipulator the way he won over the landlady.
I thought maybe in the scene with the German landlady D. wrote about himself (there was a writer who promised/threatened to write about the landlady if she did/didn't let him do as he pleased). Does anyone know more about this?
Further of course the German was the 'new' against which Russia needed to resist but couldn't, but maybe that's a bit far of a stretch.
Cphe wrote: "My understanding of the text is that R is somewhat new to behaving this way. ."I think that's right. Somewhere he talks about his actions as "a new step." Maybe his expressions of compassion and generosity are only vestigial. He's trying to escape these feelings, but they're still there in some form.
Marieke wrote: "I get stuck on this one question:wether R. murdered the pawnlady because he was in a delirium (and sick) or he gets sick because of the act of murdering.
"
This is hard to answer because he has already formed the plan to kill her when the book starts. But I'm reminded of Smerdyakov in the Brothers Karamazov, who was similarly sick. I wonder if Dostoevsky attributed evil to illness, or at least associated evil actions with physical illness.
Further of course the German was the 'new' against which Russia needed to resist but couldn't, but maybe that's a bit far of a stretch.
I have been wondering why there seems to be such a prejudice against Germans in this book. Given some of the other things that have been said about the "younger generation," this makes sense.
Little things that struck me about this week's reading:1. Like a Greek play, they all take place in single locale: R's apartment (the tininess of which is emphasized over and over again). What a claustrophobic set up! Love Chapter IV, where R. is basically background while the two characters in the foreground work out his murder scene by scene ("like a stageplay"). Not a word on what R. is up to while the two talk: the state of his mind is left to the reader's imagination. This is just a masterful stroke.
2. R.'s obsession about his blood-stained socks do appear to be inspired by Lady Macbeth. I'm half expecting him to just sit up and scream, "Out, damned spot!" And of course Zamyotov hands over the socks with "his own perfumed...little hands"--I wonder if those "little hands" are sweetened by the perfumes of Arabia? That or it's all P&V's improvisation--I would love for a yay or nay from people reading the other translations or the original.
All in all I find this week's readings to be a nice relief from the heavy, oppressive stuff of last week.
We learn of another thing Raskolnikov failed to anticipate in planning his Perfect Crime: What if some innocent bystander gets accused of it?
Interesting point, Roger. This could well be the case. It's frustrating to think of the numbers of people who may have been wrongly accused of such dire crimes simply for lack of scientific knowledge. Who knows how many were sent to Siberia or equivalent, or to their deaths, because of an absence of fingerprinting techniques or DNA analysis?! I doubt though whether Raskolnikov would have lost much sleep over an innocent taking his place involuntarily (or voluntarily for that matter). R's state of mind around the time of the murders seemed to emanate from an amoral source.
Cphe wrote: ""I think that's right. Somewhere he talks about his actions as "a new step.""I felt at the time that R's "illness" stemmed from committing the murder, not the other way round.
Carrying out the m..."
I don't think these questions are answered right away, but I think that R. was ill when he conceived the murder, and the actual deed precipitated a 'crisis.'
Funny how R. felt so isolated and abstracted from the rest of humanity, then all sorts of things start happening, and all sorts of characters show up.
Thomas wrote: "Raskolnikov semi-consciously goes to his friend Razumikhin’s flat. Why? He leaves quickly, and while walking down the middle of a bridge he is whipped by a carriage driver for nearly falling under the horses’ hooves. (This being a bridge, R. has a moment of clarity here.) A merchant’s wife has pity on him and hands him a 20 kopeck piece. He ends up throwing it into the river. What does money mean to Raskolnikov at this point?"I do think R. displays a rather wicked attitude towards money. He clearly is in need of it, as he hasn't payed his hospita to the point that she even doesn't bring him food anymore. He also jsutifies the murder in way that the death of the pawnbroker means he can do justice (give relieve to) many poor people.
Apart from the, earlier justly asked, question wether killing the pawnbroker is the best way to aquire her wealth,in that way it is odd that he throws away the money given to him and is frantic to get rid of the 'booty' from the murder.
This seems to indicate a sort of double morale about money: on the one hand it is clear he needs it. On the other hands he loaths needing it, i.e. he doesn't want to need it. Especially money given to him in pity (albeit from a stranger or his relatives) seems to trouble him. On the other hand he gives away his own much needed money to others.
This makes me ask questions about R.'s background. Does anyone know who could become a student or have a government carreer in Russia in this era? Does this indicate that R. originally is from a more middle class background? If so, this could be a reason why poverty discomforts him so much.
The twenty kopecks placed in his hand was like beggary, wasn't it? He may not have asked for them, but he was given them because he looked like he needed them, and in his mind keeping them would be an admission of how far he had fallen. His tossing of the kopecks might have been an act of resistance even defiance. He will not be like Marmeladov.
Tamara wrote: And, as Thomas pointed out, he seems disinterested in money. But that leaves us baffled as to his motivation for committing the murder in the first place. Extremely baffled! I thought he needed money also, and yet he there he was trying to get rid of stolen items. At some point I read ? that he was trying to commit the perfect crime & that's why he got rid of those items-evidence. But what made him want to try to commit the perfect crime, & why did that crime need to be murder? Of course I'm sticking to my earliest feeling that he is mentally ill, so rational thought isn't always in the mix.
Merieke wrote: I get stuck on this one question:wether R. murdered the pawnlady because he was in a delirium (and sick) or he gets sick because of the act of murdering.
Again I think he is mentally ill, but I think his heightened anxiety & delirium after the murders could have been manifested as the physical illness he develops.
Merieke wrote: Further of course the German was the 'new' against which Russia needed to resist but couldn't, but maybe that's a bit far of a stretch.Thomas wrote: I have been wondering why there seems to be such a prejudice against Germans in this book. Given some of the other things that have been said about the "younger generation," this makes sense.
If I recall correctly, R was maligned over his wearing a German style hat in the first chapters. That would also fit with this feeling of prejudice against Germans.
Chris wrote: "Tamara wrote: And, as Thomas pointed out, he seems disinterested in money. But that leaves us baffled as to his motivation for committing the murder in the first place. Extremely baffled! I thoug..."
Wasn't he consumed by the idea he overheard of the justice of murdering the pawnbroker in order to do good to other people? And it doesn't hurt that she's despicable. I think Dostoevsky is saying that this is what happens when you let a rational-sounding idea overrule common sense and human morality.
Roger wrote: "...I think Dostoevsky is saying that this is what happens when you let a rational-sounding idea overrule common sense and human morality...."Thank you for those words, Roger. They cut through a lot for me relative to this book, which still confounds me insofar as its "greatness."
One view I have encountered is that, yes, it is a detective story, with many of the stylistic elements of a mystery, but that the mystery is psychological -- why did R do it?
Marieke wrote: "This seems to indicate a sort of double morale about money: on the one hand it is clear he needs it. On the other hands he loaths needing it, i.e. he doesn't want to need it. "Raskolnikov is of two minds about many things -- he needs money, but when he gets it he throws it away. He goes to Razumikhin, presumably for his company, but he leaves him almost as soon as he arrives. He even wavers on the murder after the dream about the horse. He imagines the ax and the blood and doesn't think he can do it. But then, of course, he does.
So far, Raskolnikov does not seem to have convictions of any sort; the utilitarian idea that he will be doing good for many others by killing the pawnbroker is just a convenient suggestion provided by someone else. What his real motivation is may become clearer later on.... I think the author intends for the reader to puzzle over this for a while.
Thomas wrote: "Raskolnikov is of two minds about many things..."Indeed.. and then Tamara is right, the name Raskolnikov may imply among other things 'someone who is internally split'.
Merieke wrote: "If I recall correctly, R was maligned over his wearing a German style hat in the first chapters. That would also fit with this feeling of prejudice against Germans."Maybe this is a lack of historical context, but Raskolnikov's characterization as an early wannabe-Übermensch seems very German. I'm wondering if the setup for a disavowal of this idea correlates with any cultural war of ideas.
I think the thing about 'ethnic Germans' in 19th C. Russia was the perennial problem with 'middlemen' everywhere.The Germans came to Russia with Catherine, a German Duchess or Baroness or Princess who married Peter III.
They probably did set up as entrepreneurs in urban settings- hat shops, tailors, "dry goods." Plus they kept the Lutheran faith.
Many eminent Russian statesmen were also ethnic Germans, for instance this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_...
Although the article says he was of Dutch descent.
RE prejudice against GermansYes, D. seems to be prejudiced against Germans in his texts here and there, but only to a degree lesser than may appear to somebody who reads his books in the 21th century, especially in translation.
Here is why.
First off, please accept that it’s impossible to disclose all the subtleties involved in a short post here.
Yes, it’s true - it has much to do with ‘cultural war of ideas’ and differences in religion. We could trace the whole issue back to the opposition between Rome and Byzantium. (I won’t).
There was a strong antagonism between two worldviews in 19th century Russia; one was coming from the Western Europe, and in D. time being especially associated with Utilitarianism (which wasn’t even of German root), the other was... let’s call it the Russian genuine tradition, to which D., apparently, was fervently aspiring.
Now, I don’t think I’d be much mistaken if I said that more than 95% foreigners from the West in the 19th century Russia were Germans. This fact is due to a number of historical and geographical reasons; for instance, Germany being the closest Russian neighbor in the West. Say, a young Russian decides to go abroad to study Western (progressive) culture. What country will he hit first? Germany. So Germans in the 19th century Russia became almost a synonym to the phrase ‘foreigners from the west’.
I think that D. was prejudiced first of all against the bearers of the (new) western culture, and not the German ethnicity per se.
P. S. A bit of etymology here. Please don’t mix it up with what I said above. A connection with which there well may be, but on a very so much subtle level.
The Russian word for ‘a German’ is NEMETS (if a male) and NEMKA (if a female). In the Old Russian the word nemets simply meant ‘someone who can’t speak’. (Compare it with the word for ‘dumb’ in modern Russian – NEMOI. The suffix ETS is also active in the language but not in this word (the words moved apart by suffixation to mean different things)).
In other words, my ancestors called NEMETS any foreigner who couldn’t speak Russian. In D. time the term downsized to just mean ‘those from the west’:)
Bigollo wrote: "The Russian word for ‘a German’ is NEMETS (if a male) and NEMKA (if a female). In the Old Russian the word nemets simply meant ‘someone who can’t speak’."Fascinating! Kind of like how the Greeks called people who didn't speak barbarians--"They just make bar bar bar sounds!"
https://www.altalang.com/beyond-words...
Bigollo wrote: "The Russian word for ‘a German’ is NEMETS (if a male) and NEMKA (if a female). In the Old Russian the word nemets simply meant ‘someone who can’t speak’. (Compare it with the word for ‘dumb’ in modern Russian – NEMOI. The suffix ETS is also active in the language but not in this word (the words moved apart by suffixation to mean different things)).."
interesting. Does this correspond with the Polish 'Niemcy' for Germany?
Further it is indeed clear that modern ideas are marked as 'german' here, even though they might not be it. But apart from the reasons above, in the 19th century Germany was a leading scientific country. We also see a lot of German philosophers in this period (although I might be mistaken with my timeframe as I'm not sure in which period in the 19th century this was).
Russians thus would have an excellent reason to choose a study in Germany if they wanted to go abroad.
Marieke wrote: "Does this correspond with the Polish 'Niemcy' for Germany?"Absolutely.
The Polish ‘Niemcy’ sounds exactly as a Russian word that has a related but different meaning; this Russian word means 'Germans', plural of ‘Nemets’.
Russian is written in Cyrillic alphabet, so when I write a Russian word in Latin, I try to approximate the pronunciation as close as reasonable.
[C] in the Polish ‘Niemcy’ sounds more like [Z] in German words Zeit or Zwei. So for English speaking people I approximate this sound by the [ts] combination. I hope it’s ok.
I don’t speak Polish but I know it is very closely related with Russian, both coming from the same ancient Slavic root. Maybe even closer relation to both would be that of Ukrainian and Belorussian, the latter two standing somewhere in between Russian and Polish.
Shelley wrote: "Bigollo wrote: "The Russian word for ‘a German’ is NEMETS (if a male) and NEMKA (if a female). In the Old Russian the word nemets simply meant ‘someone who can’t speak’."Fascinating! Kind of like how the Greeks called people who didn't speak barbarians--"They just make bar bar bar sounds!"
https://www.altalang.com/beyond-words..."
I was wondering who would notice that first :)
Roger wrote: Wasn't he consumed by the idea he overheard of the justice of murdering the pawnbroker in order to do good to other people? And it doesn't hurt that she's despicable. I think Dostoevsky is saying that this is what happens when you let a rational-sounding idea overrule common sense and human morality. Hmmm... I thought R already was planning something as we open the story, I want to attempt a thing like that...Am I capable of THAT? Is THAT seriously possible? but he ( or we surmise) that he focused in on the pawnbroker after he heard this conversation in the bar.
Thanks, Bigollo for all the "German" explanations! From what you are saying, this really means "foreigner" or "coming from the West." There is a is a recurring theme here with Dostoevsky. He did the same in The Brothers Karamazov, not just the term "German" but also mentioning the Jesuits. I get the sense that Dostoevsky is aligning these terms with moral decay. Whenever these get mentioned the context suggests relativism, which he, as a stout Russian cultural traditionalist categorically rejects.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Varieties of Religious Experience (other topics)Are Men Necessary?: When Sexes Collide (other topics)
The scene in the police station is odd. While Raskolnikov is wavering between fear of being caught and simply confessing, there is an elderly German lady who receives the brunt of Ilya “Lieutenant Gunpowder” Petrovich’s ire. What is the point of this scene? Is it comic relief of a sort?
Raskolnikov is worried about how to dispose of the evidence and thinks about throwing it all in the canal. Instead, he buries it in a hole beneath a stone. After doing this he is elated. “It’s finished! No evidence!” He walks past the bench where he met the drunken girl and feels a sense of loathing.
All his thoughts were now circling around some one main point, and he himself felt that it was indeed the main point, and that now, precisely now, he was left face-to-face with this main point -- even for the first time after those two months.
“ Ah, devil take it all!" he thought suddenly, in a fit of inexhaustible spite. "So, if it’s begun, it’s begun -- to hell with her, and with the new life! Lord, how stupid it is! "
What is “the main point”? What is the “new life”?
Raskolnikov semi-consciously goes to his friend Razumikhin’s flat. Why? He leaves quickly, and while walking down the middle of a bridge he is whipped by a carriage driver for nearly falling under the horses’ hooves. (This being a bridge, R. has a moment of clarity here.) A merchant’s wife has pity on him and hands him a 20 kopeck piece. He ends up throwing it into the river. What does money mean to Raskolnikov at this point?
Raskolnikov wanders around for six hours and finally makes it to his room, and he spends the next two chapters in bed while others -- Nastasya, Razumikhin, Zossimov -- care for him. A business agent arrives to deliver him some money from his mother, which pains him. He says he doesn’t need money. What was the point of the murder then? He pretends he is still delerious and listens to the others.
Razumikhin is a rather cheerful character, perhaps meant as a foil to Raskolnikov. When Zossimov appears in chapter 4, Razumikhin tells him about a party he is planning. Guests include friends in the police, including his distant relative, the detective Porfiry Petrovich. Razumikhin and Zossimov trade news and theories about how the murder was committed. Razumikhin hits it on the nose, without knowing who exactly did it. Why does Dostoevsky give the correct logical deduction to a character as carefree as Razumikhin?