Question regarding the historical context - Napoleon and the Russian people at the time of "Crime and Punishment".

[Paul Martin]

Napoleon is mentioned several times throughout the novel, but what strikes me as strange is that he is consistently thought of in a positive way, and several times he is even considered a "hero".

But Napoleon invaded Russia. Not a very successful invasion, but an attack nonetheless. Furthermore, the Russian use of the scorched earth policy must have led to great misery and wretchedness for many Russians. Why would an enemy of Russia (and in particular one that caused them much pain) have such a good reputation among Russians and, in particular Dostoyevsky, who was very fond of his homeland?

What historical context am I missing here?

[Jdcomments]

I may be wrong, but Napoleon was considered (at least for a time) the personification of the French Revolution and its principles. Beethoven actually wrote a symphony in honor of Napoleon before he became disenchanted with him. Especially for the everyday man the French Revolution was the hope of equality and liberty (and of course fraternity!) and Napoleon was believed to be its propagator.

[Paul Martin]

That sounds plausible, thanks!

So what you're saying is that many Russian commoners sympathized with Napoleon despite his invasion of their homeland? That many(?) Russians would indeed have wanted Napoleon to succeed? Or was it perhaps only notion that was normal within a certain social class, such as students and intellectuals?

[Befero]

I personally believe that Napoleon is not considered to be a hero in C&P. I'm convinced that Dostoevsky didn't admire him, but he used his figure to show the mentality of the nihilists of his time (such as Raskolnikov). So, in conclusion, Napoleon is only a hero to the protagonist, and only because he was an important man who had the courage of trying to achieve what he wanted no matter what. But let's not forget that this is not Dostoevsky's point of view, on the contrary.

[Paul Martin]

Good points.

I thought right after writing the OP that I was way too hasty in assuming that this is Dostoyevsky's point of view. It obviously isn't.

But one thing: No one ever disagrees with Raskolnikov when he talks about Napoleon as a hero, and he also talks about him in general being considered a hero. Even if this isn't Dostoyevesky's personal opinion, surely it must be meant to portray a notion that was very much real (but maybe limited to certain groups) at the time?

[Feliks]

Paul Martin wrote: "Napoleon is mentioned several times throughout the novel, but what strikes me as strange is that he is consistently thought of in a positive way, and several times he is even considered a "hero"...."

Why certainly Napoleon was a hero; probably the #1 heroic figure of his century. He inflamed the imagination of all Europe with his daring, with his ability, with his audacity. A man of the humblest, meanest, coarsest origins..rising to the position of Emperor and ruling most of the known world? He was a David vs Goliath (Goliath being, the European powers). He was celebrated in literature, poetry, Beethoven composed a symphony about him...philosophers debated about over what his life represented.

Hated in Russia: yes but remember that when Buonaparte arrived in Russia there was mostly nothing for him, nothing for him to do. The city was empty when he finally got there; the path before him had been cleared.

Remember also that Russia in those days (St Petersburg especially) was very cosmopolitan and 'in-tune' with the rest of European thinking at the time; very tied to France and French culture; French was commonly spoken in that city. Napoleon was the most towering figure of his age. They would have reciprocated much of the French enthusiasm for him. Buonaparte was a phenomenon, a cult-figure, even a way of life which men would cling to long after he was a just a memory.

Men like Dostoyevsky and characters like Raskolnikov had their thinking set afire by consideration of his rise to power. Napoleon was an example of the 'boundless limits' of what any man is capable of; such notions were vivifying to entire generations of men who otherwise felt helpless and feeble in their societal roles.

[Jdcomments]

Paul Martin wrote: "That sounds plausible, thanks!

So what you're saying is that many Russian commoners sympathized with Napoleon despite his invasion of their homeland? That many(?) Russians would indeed have wanted..."

A complicated question.

Foreign intellectuls like Goethe admired him, and serfs or their analogous class in other countries probably welcomed "liberty". As I said, for many, especially early on, he epitomized the hopes of the French Revolution.

Obviously for the ruling classes and wealthy he was a threat to their status and power.

So a quick and overly facile bifurcation would probably be between the liberal intelligentsia and the "common" man and the Conservatives. Again this is overly simplified and far from exact, and it changed with time as Napoleon's wars tarnished his reputation.

[Paul Martin]

Thanks for the insight, Feliks. I am not questioning Napoleons extraordinary exploits. I would not have asked this if the novel had been set in France, or a neutral state (although I guess there weren't any, at least in Europe and the Americas) for that matter. I was only baffled by the fact that it is set in a country like Russia, whereas in English literature (and I know I'm going out on a limb here) he is more often mocked and made fun of. But I suppose England's more direct part in the war and long-standing rivalry with France can explain that.

What you say about St Petersburg makes sense. I guess I'm asking you to take a guess, but do you think people in the more rural part of Russia shared people like Raskolnikovs thoughts on Napoleon?

[Paul Martin]

So a quick and overly facile bifurcation would probably be between the liberal intelligentsia and the "common" man and the Conservatives. Again this is overly simplified and far from exact, and it changed with time as Napoleon's wars tarnished his reputation.

Alright, I'm in.

[Feliks]

Paul Martin wrote: "I guess I'm asking you to take a guess, but do you think people in the more rural part of Russia shared people like Raskolnikovs thoughts on Napoleon? ..."

Ha. I'd rather punt this question back to Leo Tolstoy if I could.

Seriosly..h'mmm. Let me think about this one for a while. My instinct is to say that for a particular Russian peasant--its not where they resided in Russia at the time of the invasion, which would determine their attitude. Its how well-informed they were. How politically knowledgeable.

Obviously, if they were involved in the fighting or lost their farms, horses, or crops--to either army--they wouldn't be happy. They might rue the whole thing as a catastrophe.

What I think matters is whether a typical peasant in question was possessed of a smattering of education. See, a serf might not grasp why Napoleon matters at all. Whereas, a poor slob dwelling in Russian cities in the 1800s might be dazzled by the fiery story of Napoleon because--like Dostoyevsky--they craved revolution and change. But this stems from their education about such matters. Remember, 'Notes from the Underground'--that character was certainly someone with schooling; though he was some kind of feeble civil servant otherwise. So no matter what, he knew that he desired some kind of change in society. Even though that novel was from 1864; such men as that protagonist would have looked with envy on the revolts of 1840s and the 1870s.

Another point: under the Tsar, Russian peasants were not all that --shall we say--'patriotic' and (in my opinion) might not necessarily be so predispossed to hate Napoleon on sight. Their lives were hard. The Cossaks of the Tsar were sometimes their worst enemy, their worst terror. The Tsar's land policies were so severe that (although loving their country, of course) the average peasant might be somewhat welcoming of anything --even an invading force--to make for any kind of change.

p.s. What someone said above:
Jdcomments wrote: "Obviously for the ruling classes and wealthy he was a threat to their status and power...." is also very true; but in my remarks I have omitted that aspect in favor of the question of peasant attitudes.

[Paul Martin]

Haha yes, I can imagine that Count Leo would've had much to say about that.

Anyway, thanks for the information, all three of you. Very helpful!

I think I'll edit the name of the thread to something that better describes its actual content.

[Duane]

So when DID Russians become pathologically xenophobic like they are today? (Not that's that's necessarily a *bad* thing, mind you - especially if the alternative is "open borders", and "multiculturalism"...)

[Paul Martin]

From what I've understood, the right wing extremism we see today blossomed after the collapse of the Soviet Union (whether it was always there right under the surface or not, I don't know). It filled the identity and cultural vacuum, if you like.