Comparing Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment
One of the greatest tests of mankind is the test of extraordinaire, to see whether one is extraordinary or simply the average man. Published in 1866, Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, set in St. Petersburg, Russia, describes the story of the young Russian student Raskolnikov, who through the murder of the Ivanovna sisters, attempts to identify himself as either the common man or the so-called “extraordinary” man. The extraordinary man is characterized by his ability to transgress moral laws to support his idea and to be self-serving and detached from the rest of society. They are higher than the average man in thought and in ideas: all men strive to be extraordinary. Though not truly an extraordinary man, Raskolnikov embodies a “superior” man, one who is able to think higher than the common man but whose reasoning behind motives deem him not worthy of the title “extraordinary,” as demonstrated by his different rationalizations and theories for his crime.
Raskolnikov is not the average man. In fact, he has the potential to be the complete opposite, the esteemed “extraordinary” man, defined as one “who, above good and evil, may transgress any law that stands in …show more content…
the way of his uttering a ‘new word’” (Beebe 154). Among three possible motives that which during the course of the novel rise to his awareness and become reasons for his crime, the first motive is Raskolnikov’s wish to rob and murder Alyona Ivanovna to make him “a benefactor of mankind” (Beebe 152). Raskolnikov, who is driven by a subconscious, innate desire to see whether or not he is an extraordinary man, realizes in the beginning that “for one life, thousands would be saved from corruption and decay,” referring to murdering the old pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, in order to benefit the rest of society (Dostoevsky 68). Although Raskolnikov initially believes this to be his motive, he realizes that there is a deeper motive, buried in his conscious when he speaks to Luzhin about utilitarianism and how “the more whole coats, so to say—the firmer are its foundations and the better is the common welfare” (Dostoevsky 148). Basically, being left with two half coats is worse than having one whole coat, and thus the idea of benefiting mankind is a useless and wasteful idea, according to the utilitarian theory. If Raskolnikov is truly an extraordinary man, he should not have to transgress moral law to care for the needs of mankind and society, but needs only to transgress moral law for himself. Raskolnikov sees that this first theory is inefficient and useless, as well as far below the expected standards of an extraordinary man. And if he had truly murdered Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna for the sake of the good of mankind, following his utilitarian theory which already is not up to par with the level that an extraordinary man should be thinking at, Raskolnikov should have checked the purse for money and made sure that the crime had gone as planned, if the crime is to steal from the rich and give to the needy. Yet, since Raskolnikov, driven by his supposed motive that he wants to become a “benefactor of mankind” (Beebe 152), commits the murders of the Ivanovna sisters with imperfections in his plan, the flaws in his execution of the crime indicate that this is not his primary motive. He eventually comes to the realization that he “murders for [his own sake]” (Squires 484) and not to benefit mankind, demonstrating that his first motive of wanting to become a benefactor to others is no longer valid in supporting whether or not he is extraordinary. In murdering for his own sake, Raskolnikov is one step closer to reaching the status of the extraordinary man.
Raskolnikov’s second motive that impels him to commit the murder of the Ivanovna sisters is his desire to see whether or not he is an extraordinary man. His desire to test himself and see whether or not he is extraordinary makes him higher than the average man, making him a superior man. A superior man, similar to the extraordinary man, has ideas of transgressing moral law but is unable to due to opposition from within. Raskolnikov wants to see “whether [he] can step over barriers or not, whether [he] dare stoop to pick up or not” and in such curiosity, has a mindset of a “superior” man (Dostoevsky 406). When Raskolnikov is at the police station, he has a sudden realization that in murdering the Ivanovna sisters, “he could never more appeal to these people” and it was “the most agonizing of all the sensations he had known in his life” (Dostoevsky 106). In committing such an atrocious crime, Raskolnikov has already stepped over the boundaries of the common man since he has “transgressed” moral law, crossed over the lines that had held him back as a common man; however, simply stepping over the lines is not enough as Raskolnikov needs to be able to handle the consequences of such magnitude of a crime. In knowing “before the murder that he would be shaken and horrified by it, that he would be unable to withstand the test” (Beebe 154), Raskolnikov already fails the test “to carry out his intention with sufficient Napoleonic ruthlessness” (Marchant 5). Those who are extraordinary, like Lycurgus, Solon, and Napoleon, are “benefactors and leaders of humanity,” despite being criminals and “guilty of terrible carnage” (Squires 483-484), and are unaffected by their heinous actions. The extraordinary man must be able to surpass mankind and be above them and have no concerns for mankind and be self-serving. As Raskolnikov writes in his article, extraordinary men are movers: they “move the world and lead it to its goal” and move civilization to new heights and developments (Dostoevsky 261). In fact, Raskolnikov even admits himself that the real extraordinary men do not have to prove to themselves that they are extraordinary, so thus he is once again unable to reach the expectations that one of extraordinaire should reach. Surprisingly, Raskolnikov looks up to antagonist Svidrigailov as the ideal alter ego, an extraordinary man. Svidrigailov, “self-willed” and “capable of doing good as proficient in doing evil,” commits acts for the sole purpose of pleasing himself with no care for the rest of society, whether it is rape or murder. Svidrigailov “is what Raskolnikov longs to be, but can never hope to attain” and in so Raskolnikov apprehends that he is unable to transgress moral law like Svidrgailov and thus, is not extraordinary (Squires 494). Once again, his motive becomes a means to test whether or not Raskolnikov is an extraordinary man and like before, it fails and Raskolnikov, despite his potential to be extraordinary, can only be superior to the average man.
The last of the three motives, which he uses to test his extraordinaire, that Raskolnikov uses to rationalize the murders is his will-to-suffering and masochism. This motive determines Raskolnikov’s actions after all the other reasons are rejected. Through submitting to his own self-infliction of pain and suffering, “[Raskolnikov] is the principal victim of his crime” (Beebe 156). His desire to inflict pain and suffering upon himself is unnatural and a characteristic of Raskolnikov that lends itself to the possibility of him being extraordinary. Despite attempting to justify his crime by “[clinging] desperately to the theories or reasons,” Raskolnikov has an urge to “confess and take his punishment” of which a “private form . . . he has already begun” (Beebe 156). His semi-confessions become a source of suffering and torture as his mind is constantly pulled in polar directions as he struggles to decide whether or not to confess. “The desire to accept suffering has been the underlying motive,” one that somewhat follows the guidelines of extraordinaire, yet falls just short of it. Even in his masochism, Raskolnikov is unable to transgress moral law and commit suicide because “he cannot destroy . . . those he loves” including himself because as a superior man, he inherently loves himself and is self-serving (Marchant 12). Raskolnikov can only be a superior man and is unable to surpass this level because even through his self-infliction of pain and the suffering he undergoes, Raskolnikov does not come to terms with his crime even at the end of the novel. Though “Raskolnikov is a criminal in search of . . . a complex of motives” including “self-hatred and his need to punish himself,” to not only provide convincing evidence as to whether or not he is extraordinary, but to also prove to himself that he is in fact not extraordinary and only superior to mankind (Marchant 12), he is eventually freed from this crime because of his confession and because “he recognized his criminality” (Dostoevsky 536). While bringing him closer to becoming extraordinary, his love for self as well as his self-suffering deem him unworthy of the title extraordinary. Since Raskolnikov does not succeed in trying to transgress moral law and control the consequences of his actions, he ultimately fails himself in trying to be the extraordinary man. Raskolnikov is essentially a failure in that he is unable to surpass the average, surpass even the superior, and reach the extraordinary and transgress moral law.
In analyzing his motives and various rationalizations of different theories, Raskolnikov uses his motives and rationalizations to become a means through which he can test whether or not he is an extraordinary man. In the end, he comes to terms with the fact that he is not an extraordinary man and cannot be because he “can only love the helpless and hopeless” (Marchant 12), which if he were an extraordinary man, he would only care about himself and his own needs. Like others, Raskolnikov wishes that he could have been that one genius, the one out of a million extraordinaire, yet that is not his fate. His fate is only to be superior to
mankind.
Works Cited
Beebe, Maurice. "The Three Motives of Raskolnikov: A Reinterpretation of Crime and Punishment." College English 17.3 (1955): 151-58. Print.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Bantam Dell, 1987. Print.
Marchant, Peter. "The Mystery of Lizaveta." Modern Language Studies 4.2 (1974): 5-13. Print.
Squires, Paul Chatham. "Dostoevksy 's 'Raskolnikov ': The Criminalistic Protest." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 28.4 (1937): 478-94. Print.
Raskolnikov is not the average man. In fact, he has the potential to be the complete opposite, the esteemed “extraordinary” man, defined as one “who, above good and evil, may transgress any law that stands in …show more content…
the way of his uttering a ‘new word’” (Beebe 154). Among three possible motives that which during the course of the novel rise to his awareness and become reasons for his crime, the first motive is Raskolnikov’s wish to rob and murder Alyona Ivanovna to make him “a benefactor of mankind” (Beebe 152). Raskolnikov, who is driven by a subconscious, innate desire to see whether or not he is an extraordinary man, realizes in the beginning that “for one life, thousands would be saved from corruption and decay,” referring to murdering the old pawnbroker, Alyona Ivanovna, in order to benefit the rest of society (Dostoevsky 68). Although Raskolnikov initially believes this to be his motive, he realizes that there is a deeper motive, buried in his conscious when he speaks to Luzhin about utilitarianism and how “the more whole coats, so to say—the firmer are its foundations and the better is the common welfare” (Dostoevsky 148). Basically, being left with two half coats is worse than having one whole coat, and thus the idea of benefiting mankind is a useless and wasteful idea, according to the utilitarian theory. If Raskolnikov is truly an extraordinary man, he should not have to transgress moral law to care for the needs of mankind and society, but needs only to transgress moral law for himself. Raskolnikov sees that this first theory is inefficient and useless, as well as far below the expected standards of an extraordinary man. And if he had truly murdered Alyona and Lizaveta Ivanovna for the sake of the good of mankind, following his utilitarian theory which already is not up to par with the level that an extraordinary man should be thinking at, Raskolnikov should have checked the purse for money and made sure that the crime had gone as planned, if the crime is to steal from the rich and give to the needy. Yet, since Raskolnikov, driven by his supposed motive that he wants to become a “benefactor of mankind” (Beebe 152), commits the murders of the Ivanovna sisters with imperfections in his plan, the flaws in his execution of the crime indicate that this is not his primary motive. He eventually comes to the realization that he “murders for [his own sake]” (Squires 484) and not to benefit mankind, demonstrating that his first motive of wanting to become a benefactor to others is no longer valid in supporting whether or not he is extraordinary. In murdering for his own sake, Raskolnikov is one step closer to reaching the status of the extraordinary man.
Raskolnikov’s second motive that impels him to commit the murder of the Ivanovna sisters is his desire to see whether or not he is an extraordinary man. His desire to test himself and see whether or not he is extraordinary makes him higher than the average man, making him a superior man. A superior man, similar to the extraordinary man, has ideas of transgressing moral law but is unable to due to opposition from within. Raskolnikov wants to see “whether [he] can step over barriers or not, whether [he] dare stoop to pick up or not” and in such curiosity, has a mindset of a “superior” man (Dostoevsky 406). When Raskolnikov is at the police station, he has a sudden realization that in murdering the Ivanovna sisters, “he could never more appeal to these people” and it was “the most agonizing of all the sensations he had known in his life” (Dostoevsky 106). In committing such an atrocious crime, Raskolnikov has already stepped over the boundaries of the common man since he has “transgressed” moral law, crossed over the lines that had held him back as a common man; however, simply stepping over the lines is not enough as Raskolnikov needs to be able to handle the consequences of such magnitude of a crime. In knowing “before the murder that he would be shaken and horrified by it, that he would be unable to withstand the test” (Beebe 154), Raskolnikov already fails the test “to carry out his intention with sufficient Napoleonic ruthlessness” (Marchant 5). Those who are extraordinary, like Lycurgus, Solon, and Napoleon, are “benefactors and leaders of humanity,” despite being criminals and “guilty of terrible carnage” (Squires 483-484), and are unaffected by their heinous actions. The extraordinary man must be able to surpass mankind and be above them and have no concerns for mankind and be self-serving. As Raskolnikov writes in his article, extraordinary men are movers: they “move the world and lead it to its goal” and move civilization to new heights and developments (Dostoevsky 261). In fact, Raskolnikov even admits himself that the real extraordinary men do not have to prove to themselves that they are extraordinary, so thus he is once again unable to reach the expectations that one of extraordinaire should reach. Surprisingly, Raskolnikov looks up to antagonist Svidrigailov as the ideal alter ego, an extraordinary man. Svidrigailov, “self-willed” and “capable of doing good as proficient in doing evil,” commits acts for the sole purpose of pleasing himself with no care for the rest of society, whether it is rape or murder. Svidrigailov “is what Raskolnikov longs to be, but can never hope to attain” and in so Raskolnikov apprehends that he is unable to transgress moral law like Svidrgailov and thus, is not extraordinary (Squires 494). Once again, his motive becomes a means to test whether or not Raskolnikov is an extraordinary man and like before, it fails and Raskolnikov, despite his potential to be extraordinary, can only be superior to the average man.
The last of the three motives, which he uses to test his extraordinaire, that Raskolnikov uses to rationalize the murders is his will-to-suffering and masochism. This motive determines Raskolnikov’s actions after all the other reasons are rejected. Through submitting to his own self-infliction of pain and suffering, “[Raskolnikov] is the principal victim of his crime” (Beebe 156). His desire to inflict pain and suffering upon himself is unnatural and a characteristic of Raskolnikov that lends itself to the possibility of him being extraordinary. Despite attempting to justify his crime by “[clinging] desperately to the theories or reasons,” Raskolnikov has an urge to “confess and take his punishment” of which a “private form . . . he has already begun” (Beebe 156). His semi-confessions become a source of suffering and torture as his mind is constantly pulled in polar directions as he struggles to decide whether or not to confess. “The desire to accept suffering has been the underlying motive,” one that somewhat follows the guidelines of extraordinaire, yet falls just short of it. Even in his masochism, Raskolnikov is unable to transgress moral law and commit suicide because “he cannot destroy . . . those he loves” including himself because as a superior man, he inherently loves himself and is self-serving (Marchant 12). Raskolnikov can only be a superior man and is unable to surpass this level because even through his self-infliction of pain and the suffering he undergoes, Raskolnikov does not come to terms with his crime even at the end of the novel. Though “Raskolnikov is a criminal in search of . . . a complex of motives” including “self-hatred and his need to punish himself,” to not only provide convincing evidence as to whether or not he is extraordinary, but to also prove to himself that he is in fact not extraordinary and only superior to mankind (Marchant 12), he is eventually freed from this crime because of his confession and because “he recognized his criminality” (Dostoevsky 536). While bringing him closer to becoming extraordinary, his love for self as well as his self-suffering deem him unworthy of the title extraordinary. Since Raskolnikov does not succeed in trying to transgress moral law and control the consequences of his actions, he ultimately fails himself in trying to be the extraordinary man. Raskolnikov is essentially a failure in that he is unable to surpass the average, surpass even the superior, and reach the extraordinary and transgress moral law.
In analyzing his motives and various rationalizations of different theories, Raskolnikov uses his motives and rationalizations to become a means through which he can test whether or not he is an extraordinary man. In the end, he comes to terms with the fact that he is not an extraordinary man and cannot be because he “can only love the helpless and hopeless” (Marchant 12), which if he were an extraordinary man, he would only care about himself and his own needs. Like others, Raskolnikov wishes that he could have been that one genius, the one out of a million extraordinaire, yet that is not his fate. His fate is only to be superior to
mankind.
Works Cited
Beebe, Maurice. "The Three Motives of Raskolnikov: A Reinterpretation of Crime and Punishment." College English 17.3 (1955): 151-58. Print.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Bantam Dell, 1987. Print.
Marchant, Peter. "The Mystery of Lizaveta." Modern Language Studies 4.2 (1974): 5-13. Print.
Squires, Paul Chatham. "Dostoevksy 's 'Raskolnikov ': The Criminalistic Protest." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 28.4 (1937): 478-94. Print.