Crime and Punishment 2

6duC...5Zeg
24 Jan 2024
55

Razumíkhin (Dmitry Prokofyich) is Raskolnikov's loyal friend and also a former law student. The character is intended to represent something of a reconciliation between faith and reason (razum, "sense", "intelligence"). He jokes that his name is actually 'Vrazumíkhin' – a name suggesting "to bring someone to their senses".[26] He is upright, strong, resourceful and intelligent, but also somewhat naïve – qualities that are of great importance to Raskolnikov in his desperate situation. He admires Raskolnikov's intelligence and character, refuses to give any credence to others' suspicions, and supports him at all times. He looks after Raskolnikov's family when they come to Petersburg, falling in love with and later marrying Dunya.
Dunya (Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova) – Raskolnikov's beautiful and strong-willed sister who works as a governess. She initially plans to marry the wealthy but unsavory lawyer Luzhin, thinking it will enable her to ease her family's desperate financial situation and escape her former employer Svidrigailov. Her situation is a factor in Raskolnikov's decision to commit the murder. In St. Petersburg, she is eventually able to escape the clutches of both Luzhin and Svidrigailov, and later marries Razumikhin.
Luzhin (Pyotr Petrovich) – A well-off lawyer who is engaged to Dunya in the beginning of the novel. His motives for the marriage are dubious, as he more or less states that he has sought a woman who will be completely beholden to him. He slanders and falsely accuses Sonya of theft in an attempt to harm Raskolnikov's relations with his family. Luzhin represents immorality, in contrast to Svidrigaïlov's amorality, and Raskolnikov's misguided morality.
Svidrigaïlov (Arkady Ivanovich) – Sensual, depraved, and wealthy former employer and former pursuer of Dunya. He overhears Raskolnikov's confessions to Sonya and uses this knowledge to torment both Dunya and Raskolnikov, but does not inform the police. Despite his apparent malevolence, Svidrigaïlov seems to be capable of generosity and compassion. When Dunya tells him she could never love him (after attempting to shoot him) he lets her go. He tells Sonya that he has made financial arrangements for the Marmeladov children to enter an orphanage, and gives her three thousand rubles, enabling her to follow Raskolnikov to Siberia. Having left the rest of his money to his juvenile fiancée, he commits suicide.
Porfiry Petrovich – The head of the Investigation Department in charge of solving the murders of Lizaveta and Alyona Ivanovna, who, along with Sonya, moves Raskolnikov towards confession. Unlike Sonya, however, Porfiry does this through psychological means, seeking to confuse and provoke the volatile Raskolnikov into a voluntary or involuntary confession. He later drops these methods and sincerely urges Raskolnikov to confess for his own good.

Other characters[edit]

  • Pulkheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikova – Raskolnikov's naïve, hopeful and loving mother. Following Raskolnikov's sentence, she falls ill (mentally and physically) and eventually dies. She hints in her dying stages that she is slightly more aware of her son's fate, which was hidden from her by Dunya and Razumikhin.
  • Semyon Zakharovich Marmeladov – Hopeless drunk who Raskolnikov meets while still considering the murder scheme. Raskolnikov is deeply moved by his passionate, almost ecstatic confession of how his abject alcoholism led to the devastation of his life, the destitution of his wife and children, and ultimately to his daughter Sonya being forced into prostitution.
  • Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladova – Semyon Marmeladov's consumptive and ill-tempered second wife, stepmother to Sonya. She drives Sonya into prostitution in a fit of rage, but later regrets it. She beats her children, but works ferociously to improve their standard of living. She is obsessed with demonstrating that slum life is far below her station. Following Marmeladov's death, she uses the money Raskolnikov gives her to hold a funeral. She eventually succumbs to her illness.
  • Andrey Semyonovich Lebezyatnikov – Luzhin's utopian socialist roommate who witnesses his attempt to frame Sonya and subsequently exposes him. He is proven right by Raskolnikov, the only one knowing of Luzhin's motives.
  • Alyona Ivanovna – Suspicious old pawnbroker who hoards money and is merciless to her patrons. She is Raskolnikov's intended target, and he kills her in the beginning of the book.
  • Lizaveta Ivanovna – Alyona's handicapped, innocent and submissive sister. Raskolnikov murders her when she walks in immediately after Raskolnikov had killed Alyona. Lizaveta was a friend of Sonya.
  • Zosimov (Зосимов) – A friend of Razumikhin and a doctor with a particular interest in 'psychological' illnesses. He ministers to Raskolnikov during his delirium and its aftermath.
  • Nastasya Petrovna (Настасья Петровна) – Raskolnikov's landlady's cheerful and talkative servant who is very caring towards Raskolnikov and often brings him food and drink.
  • Nikodim Fomich (Никодим Фомич) – The amiable chief of police.
  • Ilya Petrovich (Илья Петрович) – A police official and Nikodim Fomich's assistant, nicknamed "Gunpowder" for his very bad temper. He is the first to have suspicions about Raskolnikov in relation to the murder, and Raskolnikov ultimately makes his official confession to Gunpowder.
  • Alexander Grigorievich Zamyotov (Александр Григорьевич Заметов) – Head clerk at the police station and friend to Razumikhin.
  • Praskovya Pavlovna Zarnitsyna – Raskolnikov's landlady (called Pashenka). Shy and retiring, Praskovya Pavlovna does not figure prominently in the course of events. Raskolnikov had been engaged to her daughter, a sickly girl who had died, and Praskovya Pavlovna had granted him extensive credit on the basis of this engagement and a promissory note for 115 roubles. She had then handed this note to a court councillor named Chebarov, who had claimed the note, causing Raskolnikov to be summoned to the police station the day after his crime.
  • Marfa Petrovna Svidrigaïlova – Svidrigaïlov's deceased wife, whom he is suspected of having murdered, and who he claims has visited him as a ghost. In Pulkheria Alexandrovna's letter to her son, Marfa Petrovna is said to have vigorously defended Dunya against Svidrigailov, and introduced her to Luzhin. She leaves Dunya 3000 rubles in her will.
  • Nikolai Dementiev (Николай Дементьев), also known as Mikolka – A house painter who happens to be nearby at the time of the murder and is initially suspected of the crime. Driven by memories of the teachings of his Old Believer sect, which holds it to be supremely virtuous to suffer for another person's crime, he falsely confesses to the murders.
  • Polina Mikhailovna Marmeladova (Полина Михайловна Мармеладова) – Ten-year-old adopted daughter of Semyon Zakharovich Marmeladov and younger stepsister to Sonya, sometimes known as Polechka and Polya.

NameWordMeaning in RussianRaskolnikovraskola schism, or split; "raskolnik" is "one who splits" or "dissenter"; the verb raskalyvat' means "to cleave", "to chop","to crack","to split" or "to break". The former translations clarify the literal meaning of the word. The figurative meaning of the word is "to bring to light", "to make to confess or acknowledge the truth", etc. The word Raskol is meant to evoke the ideas of the splitting of the Russian Orthodox Church under Patriarch Nikon.Luzhinluzhaa puddleRazumikhinrazumrationality, mind, intelligenceZamyotovzametitto notice, to realizeLebezyatnikovlebezitto fawn on somebody, to cringeMarmeladovmarmeladmarmalade/jamSvidrigaïlovSvidrigailoa Lithuanian duke of the fifteenth century (the name given to a character rather by sound, than by meaning)PorfiryPorphyry(perhaps) named after the Neoplatonic philosopher or after the Russian "порфира" ("porphyra") meaning "purple, purple mantle"SonyaSofyafrom the Greek meaning "wisdom"

Themes[edit]

Nihilism, rationalism and utilitarianism[edit]

Dostoevsky's letter to Katkov reveals his immediate inspiration, to which he remained faithful even after his original plan evolved into a much more ambitious creation: a desire to counteract what he regarded as nefarious consequences arising from the doctrines of Russian nihilism.[27] In the novel, Dostoevsky pinpointed the dangers of both utilitarianism and rationalism, the main ideas of which inspired the radicals, continuing a fierce criticism he had already started with his Notes from Underground.[28] Dostoevsky utilized the characters, dialogue and narrative in Crime and Punishment to articulate an argument against Westernizing ideas. He thus attacked a peculiar Russian blend of French utopian socialism and Benthamite utilitarianism, which had developed under revolutionary thinkers such as Nikolai Chernyshevsky and became known as rational egoism. The radicals refused to recognize themselves in the novel's pages, since Dostoevsky pursued nihilistic ideas to their most extreme consequences. Dimitri Pisarev ridiculed the notion that Raskolnikov's ideas could be identified with those of the radicals of the time. The radicals' aims were altruistic and humanitarian, but they were to be achieved by relying on reason and suppressing the spontaneous outflow of Christian compassion. Chernyshevsky's utilitarian ethic proposed that thought and will in Man were subject to the laws of physical science.[29] Dostoevsky believed that such ideas limited man to a product of physics, chemistry and biology, negating spontaneous emotional responses. In its latest variety, Russian nihilism encouraged the creation of an élite of superior individuals to whom the hopes of the future were to be entrusted.[30]
Raskolnikov exemplifies the potentially disastrous hazards contained in such an ideal. Contemporary scholar Joseph Frank writes that "the moral-psychological traits of his character incorporate this antinomy between instinctive kindness, sympathy, and pity on the one hand and, on the other, a proud and idealistic egoism that has become perverted into a contemptuous disdain for the submissive herd".[31] Raskolnikov's inner conflict in the opening section of the novel results in a utilitarian-altruistic justification for the proposed crime: why not kill a wretched and "useless" old moneylender to alleviate the human misery? Dostoevsky wants to show that this utilitarian style of reasoning had become widespread and commonplace; it was by no means the solitary invention of Raskolnikov's tormented and disordered mind.[32] Such radical and utilitarian ideas act to reinforce the innate egoism of Raskolnikov's character, and help justify his contempt for humanity's lower qualities and ideals. He even becomes fascinated with the majestic image of a Napoleonic personality who, in the interests of a higher social good, believes that he possesses a moral right to kill. Indeed, his "Napoleon-like" plan impels him toward a well-calculated murder, the ultimate conclusion of his self-deception with utilitarianism.[33]

The environment of Saint Petersburg[edit]

Dostoevsky was among the first to recognize the symbolic possibilities of city life and imagery drawn from the city. I. F. I. Evnin regards Crime and Punishment as the first great Russian novel "in which the climactic moments of the action are played out in dirty taverns, on the street, in the sordid back rooms of the poor".[34]
Dostoevsky's Petersburg is the city of unrelieved poverty; "magnificence has no place in it, because magnificence is external, formal abstract, cold". Dostoevsky connects the city's problems to Raskolnikov's thoughts and subsequent actions.[35] The crowded streets and squares, the shabby houses and taverns, the noise and stench, all are transformed by Dostoevsky into a rich store of metaphors for states of mind. Donald Fanger asserts that "the real city ... rendered with a striking concreteness, is also a city of the mind in the way that its atmosphere answers Raskolnikov's state and almost symbolizes it. It is crowded, stifling, and parched."[36]
In his depiction of Petersburg, Dostoevsky accentuates the squalor and human wretchedness that pass before Raskolnikov's eyes. He uses Raskolnikov's encounter with Marmeladov to contrast the heartlessness of Raskolnikov's convictions with a Christian approach to poverty and wretchedness.[32] Dostoevsky believes that the moral "freedom" propounded by Raskolnikov is a dreadful freedom "that is contained by no values, because it is before values". In seeking to affirm this "freedom" in himself, Raskolnikov is in perpetual revolt against society, himself, and God.[37] He thinks that he is self-sufficient and self-contained, but at the end "his boundless self-confidence must disappear in the face of what is greater than himself, and his self-fabricated justification must humble itself before the higher justice of God".[38] Dostoevsky calls for the regeneration and renewal of "sick" Russian society through the re-discovery of its national identity, its religion, and its roots.[39]

Structure[edit]

The novel is divided into six parts, with an epilogue. The notion of "intrinsic duality" in Crime and Punishment has been commented upon, with the suggestion that there is a degree of symmetry to the book.[40] Edward Wasiolek, who has argued that Dostoevsky was a skilled craftsman, highly conscious of the formal pattern in his art, has likened the structure of Crime and Punishment to a "flattened X", saying:

Parts I–III [of Crime and Punishment] present the predominantly rational and proud Raskolnikov: Parts IV–VI, the emerging "irrational" and humble Raskolnikov. The first half of the novel shows the progressive death of the first ruling principle of his character; the last half, the progressive birth of the new ruling principle. The point of change comes in the very middle of the novel.[41]

This compositional balance is achieved by means of the symmetrical distribution of certain key episodes throughout the novel's six parts. The recurrence of these episodes in the two halves of the novel, as David Bethea has argued, is organized according to a mirror-like principle, whereby the "left" half of the novel reflects the "right" half.[40]
The seventh part of the novel, the Epilogue, has attracted much attention and controversy. Some of Dostoevsky's critics have criticized the novel's final pages as superfluous, anticlimactic, unworthy of the rest of the work,[42] while others have defended it, offering various schemes that they claim prove its inevitability and necessity. Steven Cassedy argues that Crime and Punishment "is formally two distinct but closely related, things, namely a particular type of tragedy in the classical Greek mold and a Christian resurrection tale".[43] Cassedy concludes that "the logical demands of the tragic model as such are satisfied without the Epilogue in Crime and Punishment ... At the same time, this tragedy contains a Christian component, and the logical demands of this element are met only by the resurrection promised in the Epilogue".[44]

Style[edit]

Crime and Punishment is written from a third-person omniscient perspective. It is told primarily from the point of view of Raskolnikov, but does at times switch to the perspective of other characters such as Svidrigaïlov, Razumikhin, Luzhin, Sonya or Dunya. This narrative technique, which fuses the narrator very closely with the consciousness and point of view of the central characters, was original for its period. Frank notes that Dostoevsky's use of time shifts of memory and manipulation of temporal sequence begins to approach the later experiments of Henry James, Joseph Conrad, Virginia Woolf, and James Joyce. A late nineteenth-century reader was, however, accustomed to more orderly and linear types of expository narration. This led to the persistence of the legend that Dostoevsky was an untidy and negligent craftsman, and to observations like the following by Melchior de Vogüé: "A word ... one does not even notice, a small fact that takes up only a line, have their reverberations fifty pages later ... [so that] the continuity becomes unintelligible if one skips a couple of pages".[45]
Dostoevsky uses different speech mannerisms and sentences of different length for different characters. Those who use artificial language—Luzhin, for example—are identified as unattractive people. Mrs. Marmeladov's disintegrating mind is reflected in her language. In the original Russian text, the names of the major characters have something of a double meaning, but in translation the subtlety of the Russian language is predominantly lost due to differences in language structure and culture. For example, the original Russian title ("Преступление и наказание") is not the direct equivalent to the English "Crime and Punishment". "Преступление" (Prestupléniye) is literally translated as 'a stepping across'. The physical image of crime as crossing over a barrier or a boundary is lost in translation, as is the religious implication of transgression.[46]

Reception[edit]

The first part of Crime and Punishment published in the January and February issues of The Russian Messenger met with public success. In his memoirs, the conservative belletrist Nikolay Strakhov recalled that in Russia Crime and Punishment was the literary sensation of 1866.[47] Tolstoy's novel War and Peace was being serialized in The Russian Messenger at the same time as Crime and Punishment.
The novel soon attracted the criticism of the liberal and radical critics. G.Z. Yeliseyev sprang to the defense of the Russian student corporations, and wondered, "Has there ever been a case of a student committing murder for the sake of robbery?" Pisarev, aware of the novel's artistic value, described Raskolnikov as a product of his environment, and argued that the main theme of the work was poverty and its results. He measured the novel's excellence by the accuracy with which Dostoevsky portrayed the contemporary social reality, and focused on what he regarded as inconsistencies in the novel's plot. Strakhov rejected Pisarev's contention that the theme of environmental determinism was essential to the novel, and pointed out that Dostoevsky's attitude towards his hero was sympathetic: "This is not mockery of the younger generation, neither a reproach nor an accusation—it is a lament over it."[48][49] Solovyov felt that the meaning of the novel, despite the common failure to understand it, is clear and simple: a man who considers himself entitled to 'step across' discovers that what he thought was an intellectually and even morally justifiable transgression of an arbitrary law turns out to be, for his conscience, "a sin, a violation of inner moral justice... that inward sin of self-idolatry can only be redeemed by an inner act of self-renunciation."[50]
The early Symbolist movement that dominated Russian letters in the 1880s was concerned more with aesthetics than the visceral realism and intellectuality of Crime and Punishment, but a tendency toward mysticism among the new generation of symbolists in the 1900s led to a reevaluation of the novel as an address to the dialectic of spirit and matter.[51] In the character of Sonya (Sofya Semyonovna) they saw an embodiment of both the Orthodox feminine principle of hagia sophia (holy wisdom) – "at once sexual and innocent, redemptive both in her suffering and her veneration of suffering", and the most important feminine deity of Russian folklore mat syra zemlya (moist mother earth).[52] Raskolnikov is a "son of Earth" whose egoistic aspirations lead him to ideas and actions that alienate him from the very source of his strength, and he must bow down to her before she can relieve him of the terrible burden of his guilt.[53][54] Philosopher and Orthodox theologian Nikolay Berdyaev shared Solovyov and the symbolists' sense of the novel's spiritual significance, seeing it as an illustration of the modern age's hubristic self-deification, or what he calls "the suicide of man by self-affirmation". Raskolnikov answers his question of whether he has the right to kill solely by reference to his own arbitrary will, but, according to Berdyaev, these are questions that can only be answered by God, and "he who does not bow before that higher will destroys his neighbor and destroys himself: that is the meaning of Crime and Punishment".[55][56]
Crime and Punishment was regarded as an important work in a number of 20th-century European cultural movements, notably the Bloomsbury Group, psychoanalysis, and existentialism. Of the writers associated with Bloomsbury, Virginia Woolf, John Middleton Murry and D. H. Lawrence are some of those who have discussed the work. Freud held Dostoevsky's work in high esteem, and many of his followers have attempted psychoanalytical interpretations of Raskolnikov.[57] Among the existentialists, Sartre and Camus in particular have acknowledged Dostoevsky's influence.[58]
The affinity of Crime and Punishment with both religious mysticism and psychoanalysis led to suppression of discussion in Soviet Russia: interpretations of Raskolnikov tended to align with Pisarev's idea of reaction to unjust socio-economic conditions.[59] An exception was the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, considered by many commentators to be the most original and insightful analyst of Dostoevsky's work. In Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, Bakhtin argues that attempts to understand Dostoevsky's characters from the vantage point of a pre-existing philosophy, or as individualized 'objects' to be psychologically analysed, will always fail to penetrate the unique "artistic architechtonics" of his works.[60] In such cases, both the critical approach and the assumed object of investigation are 'monological': everything is perceived as occurring within the framework of a single overarching perspective, whether that of the critic or that of the author. Dostoevsky's art, Bakhtin argues, is inherently 'dialogical': events proceed on the basis of interaction between self-validating subjective voices, often within the consciousness of an individual character, as is the case with Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov's consciousness is depicted as a battleground for all the conflicting ideas that find expression in the novel: everyone and everything he encounters becomes reflected and refracted in a "dialogized" interior monologue.[61] He has rejected external relationships and chosen his tormenting internal dialogue; only Sonya is capable of continuing to engage with him despite his cruelty. His openness to dialogue with Sonya is what enables him to cross back over the "threshold into real-life communication (confession and public trial)—not out of guilt, for he avoids acknowledging his guilt, but out of weariness and loneliness, for that reconciling step is the only relief possible from the cacophony of unfinalized inner dialogue."[62]

English translations[edit]

  1. Frederick Whishaw (1885)
  2. Constance Garnett (1914)
  3. David Magarshack (1951)
  4. Princess Alexandra Kropotkin (1953)
  5. Jessie Coulson (1953)
    1. Revised by George Gibian (Norton Critical Edition, 3 editions – 1964, 1975, and 1989)
  6. Michael Scammell (1963)
  7. Sidney Monas (1968)
  8. Julius Katzer (1985)
  9. David McDuff (1991)
  10. Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (1992)
  11. Oliver Ready (2014)
  12. Nicolas Pasternak Slater (2017)
  13. Michael R. Katz (2017)
  14. Roger Cockrell (2022)

The Garnett translation was the dominant translation for more than 80 years after its publication in 1914. Since the 1990s, McDuff and Pevear/Volokhonsky have become its major competitors.[63]

Adaptations[edit]

Main article: Film adaptations of Crime and Punishment
There have been over 25 film adaptations of Crime and Punishment. They include:

References[edit]

  1. ^ University of Minnesota – Study notes for Crime and Punishment – (retrieved on 1 May 2006)
  2. ^ Frank (1995), p. 96.
  3. ^ "The 50 Most Influential Books of All Time". Open Education Database. 26 January 2010.
  4. ^ "The Greatest Books". thegreatestbooks.org.
  5. ^ Writers, Telegraph (23 July 2021). "The 100 greatest novels of all time". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022.
  6. ^ "100 must-read classic books, as chosen by our readers". Penguin. 26 May 2022.
  7. ^ Frank (1994), p. 168.
  8. ^ Frank (1994), p. 170; Peace (2006), p. 8; Simmons (2007), p. 131.
  9. ^ Miller (2007), p. 58; Peace (2006), p. 8.
  10. ^ Frank (1994), p. 179.
  11. ^ Miller (2007), pp. 58–9.
  12. ^ Miller (2007), p. 58.
  13. ^ Essays in Poetics. University of Keele. 1981.
  14. ^ Rosenshield (1973), p. 399.
  15. ^ Carabine, Keith (2000). Introduction. Crime and Punishment. By Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Translated by Constance Garnett. Wordsworth Editions. p. x. ISBN 978-1-84022-430-6.
  16. ^ Frank (1994), pp. 170–2; Frank (1995), p. 80.
  17. ^ Frank (1994), p. 185.
  18. ^ Frank (1994), p. 174.
  19. ^ Frank (1994), p. 177.
  20. ^ Frank (1994), pp. 179–80, 182.
  21. ^ Frank (1994), pp. 170, 179–80, 184; Frank (1995), p. 93; Miller (2007), pp. 58–9.
  22. ^ Frank (1995), p. 39; Peace (2006), p. 8.
  23. ^ Simmons (2007), p. 131.
  24. ^ Frank (1995), p. 97.
  25. ^ Rosenshield (1978), p. 76. See also Fanger (2006), p. 21.
  26. ^ Cox (1990), p. 136.
  27. ^ Frank (1995), p. 100.
  28. ^ Donald Fanger states that "Crime and Punishment did nothing but continue the polemic, incarnating the tragedy of nihilism in Raskolnikov and caricaturing it in Lebezyatnikov and, partially, in Luzhin" (Fanger (2006), p. 21; see also Frank (1995), p. 60; Ozick (1997), p. 114; Sergeyev (1998), p. 26).
  29. ^ Frank (1995), pp. 100–1; Hudspith (2003), p. 95.
  30. ^ Pisarev had sketched the outlines of a new proto-Nietzschean hero (Frank (1995), pp. 100–1; Frank (2002), p. 11).
  31. ^ Frank (1995), p. 101.
  32. ^ Jump up to:
  33. a b Frank (1995), p. 104.
  34. ^ Frank (1995), p. 107; Sergeyev (1998), p. 26.
  35. ^ Fanger 2006, p. 24.
  36. ^ Lindenmeyr (2006), p. 37.
  37. ^ Fanger 2006, p. 28.
  38. ^ Wasiolek 2006, p. 55.
  39. ^ Vladimir Solovyov quoted in McDuff (2002), pp. xiii–xiv; Peace (2006), pp. 75–6.
  40. ^ McDuff (2002), p. xxx: "It is the persistent tracing of this theme of a 'Russian sickness' of spiritual origin and its cure throughout the book that justify the author's characterization of it as an 'Orthodox novel'." Wasiolek (2006), pp. 56–7.
  41. ^ Jump up to:
  42. a b Davydov (1982), pp. 162–3.
  43. ^ "On the Structure of Crime and Punishment", in: PMLA, March 1959, vol. LXXIV, No. 1, pp. 132–33.
  44. ^ Mikhail Bakhtin, for instance, regards the Epilogue as a blemish on the book (Wellek (1980), p. 33).
  45. ^ Cassedy (1982), p. 171.
  46. ^ Cassedy (1982), p. 187.
  47. ^ Frank (1994), p. 184; Frank (1995), pp. 92–3.
  48. ^ Morris (1984), p. 28; Peace (2006), p. 86; Hardy & Stanton (1999), p. 8.
  49. ^ McDuff (2002), pp. x–xi.
  50. ^ Jahn, Gary R. "Dostoevsky's Life and Career, 1865–1881". University of Minnesota. Retrieved 24 August 2008.
  51. ^ McDuff (2002), pp. xi–xii.
  52. ^ Solovyov commemorative speech (1881), quoted in McDuff (2002), pp. xii–xiii.
  53. ^ Cox (1990), pp. 14–5.
  54. ^ Cox (1990), p. 15.
  55. ^ Ivanov, Viacheslav (1957). Freedom and the Tragic Life. New York: Noonday Press. pp. 77–78.
  56. ^ Cox (1990), pp. 15–6.
  57. ^ Berdyaev, Nicholas (1957). Dostoevsky. New York: Meridian Books. pp. 99–101.
  58. ^ Cox (1990), p. 17.
  59. ^ In "Raskolnikov's transgression and the confusion between destructiveness and creativity" Richard Rosenthal discusses Raskolnikov's crime in terms of the projection of intrapsychic violence: "Raskolnikov believes that frustration and pain can be evaded by attacking that part of the mental apparatus able to perceive them. Thoughts are treated as unwanted things, fit only for expulsion. Such pathological projective identification results in violent fragmentation and the disintegration of the personality; the evacuated particles are experienced as having an independent life threatening him from outside." From Do I Dare Disturb the Universe (ed. James Grotstein) (1981). Caesura Press. p. 200.
  60. ^ Cox (1990), pp. 18–21.
  61. ^ Cox (1990), p. 22.
  62. ^ Bakhtin (1984), p. 9.
  63. ^ Bakhtin (1984), pp. 74–5.
  64. ^ Emerson, Caryl (1997). The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin (1st ed.). Princeton University Press. p. 152. ISBN 9780691069760.
  65. ^ "Raskolnikov Says the Darndest Things". The New York Times. 26 April 1992. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020.

Text

  • Dostoevsky, Fyodor (1866). Crime and Punishment. Translated in English by Constance Garnett.

Sources


  • Rosenshield, Gary (Winter 1973). "First- Versus Third-Person Narration in Crime and Punishment". The Slavic and East European Journal. 17 (4): 399–407. doi:10.2307/305635. JSTOR 305635.



Get fast shipping, movies & more with Amazon Prime

Start free trial
Enjoy this blog? Subscribe to jookeerr0

5 Comments