Crime and Punishment - Week 8 (Part 6, Chapters 1-4)

[Gem , Moderator]

Week 8 - Part 6, Chapters 1 - 4

1) Why does Porfiry Petrovich talk at such length about the proof that psychology offers of the painter's guilt? Why does he urge Raskolnikov to confess? Why doesn't he arrest Raskolnikov? Does Porfiry actually have enough evidence to arrest Raskolnikov? Or is his evidence circumstantial/just a theory?

2) What do you think about the quote: "for suffering, Rodion Romanovitch, is a great thing?"

3) What sort of man does Svidrigailov reveal himself to be during his conversation with Raskolnikov? Because of this conversation, Raskolnikov finds him to be horrible. Realistically, how can Raskolnikov pass judgment on Svidrigailov given what he (Raskolnikov) is guilty of? What do you think of Svidrigailov? Do you feel the same way Raskolnikov does about him?

[Hedi]

1) I was wondering about these questions after I had read this section. I assume that Porfiry does not really have proper evidence against Raskolnikov. It seems to me all circumstantial so that the easiest way for him would be a confession by Raskolnikov. This gets even worsened by the confession of Nikolai. However, Porfiry was indicating to Raskolnikov that he expects a withdrawal of that confession which then makes the case clearer. The only thing that Porfiry might have is some witness who saw more of Raskolnikov at the time of the murder.

I think, though, that he mostly goes by the psychological reaction of Raskolnikov and his audacity which he has shown among others by his statement towards Zametov and by his published article. These are puzzle bits for Porfiry, but I do not think that it would be enough for a conviction in court.

2) Is this the link to Lazarus/ Christ? That was my thought. Jesus Christ suffered for the sins of all on the cross, but was resurrected. Would suffering clear Rodion Romanovitch from his sin and resurrect him in his mind and spirit? Is this about faith and coming back to God?
I am a little confused about what the punishment for his murders might be. I guess in England at that time he would have hanged at Old Bailey's gallows, but it seems from the conversations with Sonia that he might be deported to a Gulag in Siberia (which is not easy, I am sure, and could also entail death in the end).

3)I do not know what to say about Svidrigailov. He is very creepy considering him marrying a 16-year old, and also considering his story. He almost blames Dounia for trying to be his saviour and for being strong in her principles, so strong that he regards her more like a saint or martyr.
That makes him quite despicable to me.
He is one of these misogynist guys who think they can almost get away with anything. But I thought it was "honorable" in a way that he did not hide that from his wife and was pretty open about it from the beginning. I do not quite understand why Marfna Petrovna agreed to this kind of deal, though. She was the one with the money. Did she really need a man at all?

[Nancy]

The story gets deeper and more intriguing with each section. I hope that we have answers to many of the questions by the end.

1). I think Porfiry Petrovich speaks at length to Raskolnikov about psychological matters for two reasons. The first reason is to appeal to Raskolnikov’s ego, to draw him into boasting about his crime. The second reason is to wear him down, confuse him so that he makes a mistake. I must admit that if I were Raskolnikov I might confess just to get the man to hush. I find his meandering very irritating. I don’t believe Porfiry Petrovich has enough proof to arrest Raskolnikov, so he gives him a deadline with an implied threat in order to increase the pressure on him.

2). I believe suffering in this case means penance, the suggestion being that penance is the only path to redemption for Raskolnikov.

3). I don’t agree that Svidrigailov is creepy for being engaged to a 16-year old girl. While that is repugnant to us in the 21st century, in the 19th century it was not unheard of, particularly when money or social status was involved. I think Raskolnikov, despite the horror of his crime, sees within Svidrigailov the evil of a totally corrupt man, a snake who will strike at any perceived enemy, and who will blackmail Raskolnikov to benefit his own objectives.

[Gem , Moderator]

Hedi wrote: "That makes him quite despicable to me.

He is one of these misogynist guys who think they can almost get away with anything. But I thought it was "honorable" in a way that he did not hide that from his wife and was pretty open about it from the beginning. I do not quite understand why Marfna Petrovna agreed to this kind of deal, though. She was the one with the money. Did she really need a man at all?"

I too have found him despicable, he just doesn't seem to care that his actions wreak havoc on those around him. He's disgusting.

I think Marfna Petrovna agreed to the arrangement because she felt it was better to be with someone than to be alone. Unfortunately at the time women were still not considered equal and it might have been easier to have a husband than not to.

[Hedi]

Nancy wrote: "-- I don’t agree that Svidrigailov is creepy for being engaged to a 16-year old girl. ..."

I know that this was not uncommon, but I still think that it has something weird/ creepy to it. Charles Dickens had some of those cases where older men were trying to attach themselves to young girls (e.g. in The Old Curiosity Shop and in Nicholas Nickleby). It just seems to me in all those cases that they are only abusing the system and possible desperate situations of the girls to nurture their personal needs and satisfaction.
I react more like Raskolnikov reacted in the streets when there was this guy who followed that young girl there. I always feel protective of the girls somehow.

[Nancy]

You make an excellent point, Hedi. I concede that it adds to his general creepiness.

[Hedi]

Nancy wrote: "You make an excellent point, Hedi. I concede that it adds to his general creepiness."

:-)

[Gem , Moderator]

To me Svidrigailov is predatory (not using this in a sexual context... well, not exclusively) for taking advantage of and manipulating so many people during the course of his life.