Some heavy reading.

One of the most renowned and revolutionary authors of our time is also one of the first people in the world to consider the modern psychology of man. Fyodor Dostoyevsky has influenced the thinking of our modern era. His concepts and notions, which are explored through his books, may be eclectic and chaotic, but a certain universality to his ideas rings true throughout the quagmire of his complex dialogues and character rants. His works are often thought of as confusing and misconstrued; however, they are undeniably deep and profound in their ambiguous but fervent portrayals of the human psyche. One of the main premises behind Dostoyevsky’s work is the idea of all being permissible without a clear distinction between right and wrong. What constitutes this allowance? Under what conditions does it exist? Does it exist at all? In two of his most famous books, The Brothers Karamazov, an epic novel about a mysterious parricide, and Crime and Punishment, a dark thriller concerning a young, intellectual anti-hero, Dostoyevsky struggles through his own conflicts with this idea of permissiveness, hauling the reader through bouts of theology, philosophy, and psychology and in-depth assertions of his contemporary “isms” with nothing less than mild ambivalence. Dostoyevsky, a man of his time, was acutely aware of his era to even a grotesque degree. Nonetheless, it is his neurotic brilliance and his understanding of the diverse nature of humans that create masterpieces of biblical proportions.

Many of Dostoyevsky’s writings can be traced back to his own experiences in life. He was born Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoyevsky on November 11th, 1821, one of eight children. His father, Mikhail Andreevich Dostoyevsky, was a military surgeon and a cruel and irritable alcoholic. His mother, Maria Fyodorovna Nechaeva, was good-natured though dominated. Young Fyodor was raised with a patriarchal and religious upbringing. He was educated by his mother, his father, private tutors, and then a boarding school. After two years of boarding school, Fyodor entered the Military Engineers’ School of St. Petersburg after the demise of his mother. Then when he was at the tender age of eighteen, peasant of his father’s own village, Darovoe, murdered his father. In 1843, Fyodor resigned from his position as draftsmen to become a fulltime writer (European Authors 233).

Though Dostoyevsky inherited a substantial amount of money from his father, he was known to be a bad administrator of finances; thus, he lived scantily as he gambled, lost in publishing schemes, and took on financial responsibilities of family members. In 1845, he was diagnosed with epilepsy which haunted him for the rest of his life. His favorite and influential authors were: Pushkin, Gogol, Goethe, Schiller, Homer, Shakespeare, and Byron (European Authors 233).

His first novel, Poor Folk, was acclaimed for its realistic portrayal and sympathy for the oppressed and poverty-stricken. This led to his acceptance into a prestigious intellectual circle which he soon quitted after one unsuccessful novel and two equally unsuccessful short stories. He began attending meetings of utopian socialists and was imprisoned as a subversive in 1849. Reprieved from execution, he was sent to Siberia for four years for hard labor. The only book he had at this time was the Bible. He served as private for four more years in Siberia before marrying in 1857 and moving to St. Petersburg in 1859 (European Authors 234).

From then on, Dostoyevsky’s life continued to be one of bad financial decisions, torrid love affairs, and egregious misfortunes (European Authors 234-236). However, it was Dostoyevsky’s time in Siberia that led to a real change in his character. Entering as a dabbler in utopian socialism, he left as a Slavophilist and a devout Russian Orthodox Christian (European Authors 234). This can be seen as a pivotal moment in his life that had the most effect on his writings.

In Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky creates his most famous anti-hero in literature, Raskolnikov, a neurotic and fanatical intellectual who believes his superior status in relation to all other men makes him exempt from earthly morals:

Raskolnikov had convinced himself that his desperate sister, Dunya, and mother really deserved the stolen money more than the "louse" of a pawnbroker. Prior to the murder he had also written an article dividing the world into ordinary people and gifted heroes (like Napoleon) who are above the ordinary laws. Raskolnikov executed his crime under the guise of his victim’s classification in this unworthy group of people. (Townsend)

To some, the process of rationalization for his murder is a mark of Raskolnikov’s character which they read as Dostoyevsky’s attack on intellectuals and scholars. “These critics commonly affirmed that in Raskolnikov, [Dostoyevsky] had affronted all students, and that the character was a madman whom [Dostoyevsky] attempted to portray as typical of the younger generation” (Lesson 9). This is a very narrow view on his attempts as an author. A close friend of Dostoyevsky’s wrote in his defense. “He pointed out that Raskolnikov, far from being a grotesque and unfair parody of the youthful materialists and utilitarians of the time, was actually endowed by [Dostoyevsky] with many admirable and flattering characteristics: brilliance of mind, handsomeness of figure and feature… and strength of will. Strakhov also pointed out that [Dostoyevsky’s] attitude toward his hero was unmistakably sympathetic” (Lesson 9). Dostoyevsky himself praised Strakhov for his understanding of his characters. It would be an egregious wrong to think of Raskolnikov as only a villainous, mocking sort of persona for his time; he is clearly a very conscientious and thoughtful man, though undoubtedly delirious.

Dostoyevsky never clearly mentions what drove Raskolnikov to the brink of madness. To some extent, it is assumed that poverty had left him with no choice but to kill, but it can easily be argued that his pathological pride led to his poverty which led to his madness that caused this pathological pride. One of Dostoyevsky’s themes was the conditions of abject poverty which can lead to absolute moral abandonment. Poverty, he seems to claim, pushes people into corners where they have no choice but to behave in the most depraved and decadent ways. The one which most manifested and directly stated this belief was the over-verbose Marmeladov who Raskolnikov meets in a bar. “[Pisarev] said that the character of Marmeladov was a portrayal of the ultimate degradation to which the person who will not struggle against poverty would inevitably be led… that both Raskolnikov and Marmeladov may be said to have chosen their lives of poverty and wretchedness; that, in fact, Marmeladov positively enjoys his humiliation” (Lesson 9).

It was not uncommon for this novel to be compared with a Greek tragedy. In that context, Raskolnikov’s condition could easily been seen as hubris, an ultimate pride that led to his downfall (Lesson 9). With that same Greek irony, one must wonder about the juxtaposition of the traits of a brilliant student and of a brutal murderer. It can clearly be seen how someone could slip between the cracks from high, philosophical reasoning into preposterous scheming. To some extent and with a certain degree of rationality, Raskolnikov is right. His theory is that committing one crime against a single person, a greedy and vicious person, is justified by the improvement of the lives of many others. In theory, this is a much more efficient way to improve the world; the betterment of lives of many others is worth the life of one.

This old woman’s money, which is going to be sequestered in a monastery, could beget a hundred, a thousand good deeds and fresh starts! Hundreds perhaps thousands of lives could be put on the right path, dozens of families rescued from poverty, from ruin, from collapse, from decay, from the venereal wards of the hospitals- all this with her money! Kill her, take her money, dedicate it to serving mankind, to the general welfare. (Dostoyevsky, Crime 63)

In theory, it is reasonable; in theory, all is justifiable. A theory is exactly what it is. “Dostoyevsky originally conceived Raskolnikov’s crime as a means of exposing the absurdity of the moral utilitarianism characteristic of many leading intellectuals in the 1860’s….” (Leatherbarrow 87). The principle of moral utilitarianism is that the value of a person is based on how useful he is. The pawnbroker is worth nothing in the eyes of Raskolnikov since she contributes nothing to society as a whole. Thus, it is excusable to eliminate her.

There is one aspect of the crime that has gone horribly awry. In the process of killing the pawnbroker, Aliona Ivanovna, Raskolnikov axes her innocent younger sister, Lizaveta, to death. “And this unfortunate Lizaveta was so simple and squashed and absolutely afraid, she did not even raise her arms to protect her face, although at the moment that would have been the most natural and inevitable gesture, since the ax was raised directly over her face” (Dostoyevsky, Crime 77). Though Aliona Ivanovna may have been wicked, Lizaveta was the most kindhearted, honest, and ingenuous. If Raskolnikov rationalized his murder of the pawnbroker, he could not in the same way rationalize the death of Lizaveta. She was simply an innocent bystander who was circumstantially caught in a compromising moment. As the novel progresses, it is shown that Raskolnikov has few qualms about Lizaveta’s death:

It is worth remembering that he is rarely troubled by the murder of Lizaveta, the innocent victim of an unanticipated turn of events. This second killing does not engage his concern, for it was an unpremeditated, simple, even ‘innocent’ slaying with a clear motive: Raskolnikov killed Lizaveta in order to escape. (Leatherbarrow 87)

Ironically, it is the justified murder which puzzles him. “Raskolnikov becomes a ‘criminal in search of his own motive’; he does not in the end know why he committed his crime, and neither does the reader…. It is this above all else that gives the novel its permanently nightmarish quality” (Leatherbarrow 87). In contrast, Lizaveta’s death is easily explained since it was purely for his own survival. Aliona Ivanovna’s is a mystery to him as a man of reason for he could see no reason. He begins to fear that he had no real motive and that his reasoning contains no reason. When the sordid Svidrigailov makes an appearance, Raskolnikov sinks deeper into dread:

On the other side stands the corrupt Svidrigailov. He indulges in the extreme forms of debauchery simply to relieve his boredom. Svidrigailov tells Raskolnikov that he considers the young man to be something of a kindred spirit. Although Raskolnikov does not wish to admit it, he senses that there may be validity to Svidrigailov’s assertions. (Connolly 86)

It is not until much later on, a long time after his confession and deportation to Siberia that Raskolnikov finally comes into terms with his actions and attempts redemption.

Much comparison between Ivan Fyodorovich Karamazov from The Brothers Karamazov and Raskolnikov has been made. Both are the children of a progressive and intellectual era. Both allow their excessive contemplations to overtake their actions and sanity. The difference between Raskolnikov and Ivan, however, is that one is a direct murderer with contempt for the human race while the other is an indirect murder with absolute love for humanity.

The most striking feature of Ivan besides his brilliant intellect is his ongoing conflict with his belief in God. Though he is a self-proclaimed atheist, his dialogues with his brother Alyosha shows that his seemingly stable stance is really one of struggling ambivalence.

More memorable, however, is [Alyosha’s] brother Ivan’s exposition of the reasons for rejecting God’s world: the examples he adduces of gross cruelty to innocent children make his ‘returning of the ticket’ to God very persuasive. His principal thought is expressed in the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” a profound and disturbing meditation on Christianity, free will, and happiness, at the end of which [Alyosha] kisses his brother just as Christ had responded to the Inquisitor with a silent kiss. (McMillin 39)

Ivan, inherently, has a great love for mankind. Because of this insatiable love, Ivan finds it hard to come into terms with the suffering bestowed upon man by God. “What happiness is remains controversial, but given an account of happiness, there will be a rational scheme according to which it is optimally distributed. A well-known objection to utilitarianism is that the production of overall happiness may require immense unhappiness on the part of some unfortunate few… Thus Ivan could not accept the world as the work of God. Ivan's brother, the saintly Alyosha, had no reply to this argument. Some actions cannot be permitted even if they serve to promote the greatest overall happiness” (Dostoyevsky on Freedom). To Ivan, it is not worth the immense suffering as one martyr such as a child to insure the happiness of the masses. His belief is the opposite of Raskolnikov’s utilitarian rationalizations

His main conflict is explained very simply in what Alyosha responded to as being a sort of “mutiny.”

And in any case, harmony had been overestimated in value, we really don’t have the money to pay so much to get in. And so I hasten to return my ticket. And if I am at all an honest man, I am obliged to return it as soon as possible. That is what I am doing. It isn’t God I don’t accept, Alyosha, it’s just his ticket that I most respectfully return to him. (Dostoyevsky, Brothers 320)

In reality, it is not God that he questions the existence of; he in actuality cannot accept the existence of God for he cannot accept God’s system of martyring and suffering to receive a “ticket” into Heaven. Thus, it leaves him no choice but to deny God.

In the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan portrays his vision on the correction of Christ’s actions. The Inquisitor admonishes Christ for leaving freedom to the people, allowing them to suffer and bleed. He claims that if Jesus had only taken a more earthly path, there would be greater universal happiness. Finally he says to Christ, “You may as well know that I too was in the wilderness, that I too nourished myself on roots and locusts, and that I too blessed the freedom with which you have blessed human beings, I too prepared myself to join the number of your chosen ones, the number of the strong and mighty, with a yearning to ‘fulfill the number’. But I came to my senses again and was unwilling to serve madness. I returned and adhered to the crowd of those who have corrected your great deed. I left the proud and returned to the humble for the sake of their happiness” (Dostoyevsky, Brothers 339). In this we see that Ivan shamelessly criticizes Christ for leaving the people with freedom to their own devices without his power to give them bread and happiness. Like a true humanitarian, he believes that the humble masses, the ones put through suffering are unfairly subjected to pain by God. He believes that there is no justification for this suffering. Then in these circumstances where Ivan cannot accept the world of God, he must create a world left completely up to the devices of man. “[If] God does not exist, the guilt, innocence, and sin are meaningless… [If] God’s existence cannot be accepted, then people must accept the world as it is…. ‘[Everything] except man is sinless’… ‘[Everything] is permissible’” (Esdale 36).

Ivan’s greatest mistake was to share these reflections with the lackey Smerdyakov who takes these principles and kills Fyodor Pavlovich, Ivan’s father, believing with egotistical faith in his understand of philosophy that all is permissible. As his brother Dmitry goes on trial, Ivan “at least initially, believes himself to have been innocent because it is not possible to be guilty of killing someone who is already dead: Fyodor had effectively killed himself years before when he rejected the responsibilities of fatherhood-- like God” (Esdale 37). Later, Ivan realizes how much he had willed the death of his father which is to his sensitive soul an incredible sin. It may seem peculiar that he would be bothered by it since he theoretically believed all was permissible, but on closer speculation, his love for humanity which led to this permissiveness completely contradicts his love for humanity which demands that he subscribe to the moral boundaries to not be like his amoral and decadent father who he despised. In that sense, his desire for the death of his father did not remove the guilt from his even though he did not physically kill him. In fact, he indirectly killed him by planting the seed of that idea in Smerdyakov’s head.

Eventually, Ivan’s intellectual ramblings led to his breakdown and slip into insanity. His inability to merge his ideal world and the real world drove him to hallucinations and feverish illness.

Though initially Dostoyevsky introduces these ideas of everything being permissible with some credibility, by the end of the book, his true message is crystal clear. Like his change after his suffering in Siberia, his intellectual atheists suddenly find redemption and God.

For Raskolnikov, he literally took the route to Siberia and hard labor after much prompting from the spiritually chaste prostitute, Sonia who is symbolic of Mary Magdalene. She convinces him that he will only find peace in confessing and repenting his sin. Dostoyevsky uses many images of the rising of Lazarus from the dead. In other words, he is preparing the reader for the moment of Raskolnikov’s spiritual rebirth. Even as he was in prison, Raskolnikov could not bring himself to feel the full guilt of the crime. Only when he discovered his love for Sonia did he finally become open to redemption.

In a similar case with Ivan, his beloved Katerina Ivanovna brings him home in his feverish state to recover. Although Dostoyevsky never directly stated what became of Ivan, one could see that he was left with two choices of either accepting and coming to terms with morality and God or staying in his perpetual state of stupor. It is implied by the tone of the book that Ivan will also find redemption, especially in the end when Alyosha interacts with the children, using his spiritual influence to guide them towards a positive path. The children can be seen as a symbol for all of the characters and the hope that lies in their futures.

Although Dostoyevsky attempts to leave his endings ambiguous with only implications of great spiritual changes in his characters, his evident bias throughout his books for the unconditional rectitude of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is understandable after he went through a revelation of what foolishness his contemporary fads were creating with new Western ideas and utilitarian philosophies that diverted so far from the core of humanity. His books are reactionary in attitude, preaching that the Church is way to enlightenment, but along the way he introduces many dangerously interesting paths that if one is not cautious about, one could slip into.

Works Cited

Connolly, Julian. Novels for Students Vol 7. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

“Dostoevsky.” European Authors 1000-1900. Ed. Stanley J. Kunitz. New York: The H.W.

Wilson Company, 1967

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. New York: Penguin Books, 2003.

Dostoyevski on Freedom. 30 Nov. 1995. University of California, Davis. 11 April 2004.

<>

Esdale, Logan. Novels for Students Vol 2. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

Leatherbarrow, William J. Novels for Students Vol 7. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale

Group, 2000

Lesson 9 Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment. 11 April 2004. University of Minnesota.

11 April 2004. <>

McMillin, Arnold. Novels for Students Vol 2. Ed. Diane Telgen. New York: Gale Group,

2000

Townsend, James. “Dostoyevsky and His Theology”. Journal of the Grace Evangelical

Society 10.19 (1997): 68 pars. 11 April 2004

Works Consulted

“Feodor Dostoevsky.” European Writers: Selected Authors Vol 1. Ed. George Stade.

NewYork: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1992.

Oates, Joyce Carol. “Tragic and Comic Visions in The Brothers Karamazov.” Celestial

Timepiece. 7 Aug. 1999. 9 April. 2004.

Wasioleck, Edward. “Dostoyevsky.” Encyclopedia of World Biography Vol 3. McGraw-

Hill, Inc., 1973.