Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov- the main character of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment.
Encyclopedic YouTube
1 / 2
✪ #BusinessRiddle 04. ANSWER. The winners are Denis Kudinov and Rodion Raskolnikov.
✪ Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky 1\2, Crime and Punishment, summary audio book listen
Subtitles
Raskolnikov in the novel
Raskolnikov is a former student from St. Petersburg, who was forced to leave his studies at the university due to lack of funds. He lives extremely poorly.
“He decided to kill one old woman, a titular councilor who gave money for interest.
The old woman is stupid, deaf, sick, greedy, takes Jewish interest, is evil and eats up someone else's life, torturing her younger sister as her worker. “She’s good for nothing,” “What does she live for?”, “Is she useful to anyone?”, etc.” .
“He gives four times less than the item costs, but takes five and even seven percent a month, etc.” ( ).
However, he does not decide to commit a crime until he receives a letter from his mother, which talks about the impending marriage of his sister with a certain Mr. Luzhin. Realizing that the sister does not love her future husband, but sacrifices herself for the well-being of the family and, in to a greater extent, for the sake of Raskolnikov himself, he deceives himself into the old woman’s apartment, kills and robs her, simultaneously killing a random witness in the same apartment.
Having his own theory that people are divided into ordinary people who go with the flow, and people like Napoleon, who are allowed everything, Raskolnikov, before murder, considers himself to be in the second category; however, after the murder he discovers that he fully relates to the first.
Appearance
By the way, he was remarkably good-looking, with beautiful dark eyes, dark brown hair, above average height, thin and slender... He was so poorly dressed that another, even an ordinary person, would be ashamed to go out into the street in such rags during the day.
Prototypes
1. Gerasim Chistov.
A clerk, a dissenter, 27 years old, who killed two old women (a cook and a laundress) with an ax in January 1865 in Moscow in order to rob their owner, the bourgeois Dubrovina. Money, silver and gold items were stolen from the iron chest. The dead were found in different rooms in pools of blood (Golos newspaper, 1865, September 7-13).
2. A. T. Neofitov.
Moscow professor general history, a maternal relative of Dostoevsky’s aunt, merchant A.F. Kumanina, and, along with Dostoevsky, one of her heirs. Neophytov was involved in the case of counterfeiters of 5% domestic loan tickets (compare the motive for instant enrichment in Raskolnikov’s mind).
A French criminal for whom killing a person was the same as “drinking a glass of wine”; justifying his crimes, Lacenaire wrote poems and memoirs, proving in them that he was a “victim of society,” an avenger, a fighter against social injustice in the name of a revolutionary idea, allegedly suggested to him by utopian socialists (an account of Lacenaire’s trial in the 1830s on the pages of Dostoevsky’s journal "Time", 1861, No. 2).
Literary scholars about the character
Historical prototypes of Raskolnikov
Mikhail Bakhtin, pointing to historical roots image of Raskolnikov, noted that a significant correction needs to be made: we are talking more about “prototypes of images of ideas” of these individuals, rather than about them themselves, and these ideas are transformed in public and individual consciousness according to characteristic features era of Dostoevsky.
The book was published in March 1865 French Emperor Napoleon III “The Life of Julius Caesar”, where the right of a “strong personality” is defended to violate any moral norms obligatory for ordinary people, “without stopping even before blood.” The book caused fierce controversy in Russian society and served as the ideological source of Raskolnikov's theory. The “Napoleonic” features of Raskolnikov’s image undoubtedly bear traces of the influence of the image of Napoleon in the interpretation of A. S. Pushkin (a contradictory mixture of tragic greatness, genuine generosity and immense egoism, leading to fatal consequences and collapse - the poems “Napoleon”, “Hero”), as , however, also an imprint of epigone “Napoleonism” in Russia (“We all look at Napoleons” - “Eugene Onegin”). Compare the words of Raskolnikov, who secretly brought himself closer to Napoleon: “Suffering and pain are always required for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great people, it seems to me, should feel great sadness in the world.” Compare also Porfiry Petrovich’s provokingly ironic answer: “Who in Rus' doesn’t consider himself Napoleon now?” Zametov’s remark also parodies the craze for “Napoleonism,” which has become a vulgar “commonplace”: “Wasn’t it some future Napoleon who killed our Alena Ivanovna with an ax last week?”
In the same vein as Dostoevsky, the “Napoleonic” theme was solved by L.N. Tolstoy (“Napoleonic” ambitions of Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov and their complete disappointment in “Napoleonism”). Dostoevsky, of course, took into account, in addition, the comic aspect of the image of Napoleon, captured by N.V. Gogol (Chichikov in profile is almost Napoleon). The idea of a “superman” was finally developed in M. Stirner’s book “The One and His Property,” which was available in the library of Petrashevsky (V. Semevsky) and served as another source of Raskolnikov’s theory, for his article, analyzed by Porfiry Petrovich, was written “about one book": this could be a book by Stirner (V. Kirpotin), Napoleon III (F. Evnin) or a treatise by T. de Quincey "Murder as one of fine arts"(A. Alekseev). Just as Mohammed experienced the birth pangs of a new faith in the cave of Hira, Raskolnikov nurtures an “idea-passion” (in the words of Lieutenant Porokh, Raskolnikov is “an ascetic, monk, hermit”), considers himself a prophet and herald of a “new word.” The law of Mohammed, according to Raskolnikov, is the law of force: Raskolnikov represents Mohammed with a saber, he fires from a battery (“blows on the right and the wrong”). Mohammed’s expression about man as a “trembling creature” becomes the leitmotif of the novel and a peculiar term of Raskolnikov’s theory, dividing people into “ordinary” and “extraordinary”: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?< …>Allah commands, and obey, “trembling” creature!” (Compare: “And I came with a banner from your Lord. Fear Allah and obey me” - Cor. 2:44,50). Compare also A. S. Pushkin: “Love the orphans, and preach my Koran // To a trembling creature” (V. Borisova). For Dostoevsky, Christ and Mohammed are antipodes, and Raskolnikov fell away from God, as Sonya Marmeladova says: “You left God, and God struck you down and betrayed you to the devil!”
Literary predecessors of Raskolnikov
- Biblical Job (V. Etov). Just like Job, Raskolnikov, in a state of crisis, resolves the “last” issues and rebels against the unjust world order. In the epilogue of the novel, Dostoevsky implied that Raskolnikov, like Job, would find God.
- Corsair, Lara, Manfred - rebel heroes of Lord Byron.
- Jean Sbogar is the hero of the novel of the same name by Ch. Nodier, a noble robber and individualist.
- Uskok from the novel Georges Sand, a pirate who acquired wealth and fame at the cost of crime.
- Rastignac O. Balzac.
- Julien Sorel from Stendhal's novel “The Red and the Black”.
- Medard is the hero of Hoffmann's novel “Elixirs of Satan”.
- Faust is the hero of Goethe's tragedy.
- Hamlet - main character Shakespeare's tragedies.
- Franz and Karl von Moor are characters from one of F. M. Dostoevsky’s favorite works, F. Schiller’s drama “The Robbers”.
The ethical issues of the novel are especially closely connected with the image of the latter: Karl Moor and Raskolnikov equally drive themselves into a moral impasse. “Karl Moor,” wrote
RASKOLNIKOV
RASKOLNIKOV is the hero of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” (1865-1866). The image of R. in the general cultural consciousness appears as a purely ideological, nominal and emblematic, finding itself among the so-called world artistic images, such as Don Quixote, Don Juan, Hamlet, Faust. This gives rise to the problem of prototypes, since R.’s image is equally concretely social (attached to a known historical era) and at the same time timeless, universal meaning, ultimately striving for archetypicality, supra-individuality, universal ethical significance. Consequently, the prototypes of R.’s image can be divided into real ones, drawn by Dostoevsky mainly from criminal newspaper chronicles, historical and literary. In the last two, the priority principle of artistic selection for Dostoevsky is not external features historical figure or character, but a way of thinking, a dominant idea.
The real prototype of the image of R. is the clerk Gerasim Chistov, a 27-year-old dissenter, who killed two old women (a cook and a laundress) with an ax in January 1865 in Moscow in order to rob their mistress, the bourgeois Dubrovina. Money, silver and gold items were stolen from the iron chest. The dead were found in different rooms in pools of blood (Golos newspaper, 1865, September 7-13). Another prototype is A.T. Neofitov, a Moscow professor of world history, a maternal relative of Dostoevsky’s aunt, merchant A.F. Kumanina, and, along with Dostoevsky, one of her heirs. Neophytov was involved in the case of counterfeiters of 5% domestic loan tickets (cf. the motive of instant enrichment in R.’s mind). The third prototype is the French criminal Pierre Francois Lacenaire, for whom killing a person was the same as “drinking a glass of wine”; justifying his crimes, Lacenaire wrote poems and memoirs, proving in them that he was a “victim of society,” an avenger, a fighter against social injustice in the name of a revolutionary idea, allegedly suggested to him by utopian socialists (an account of Lacenaire’s trial in the 1830s on the pages of Dostoevsky’s journal "Time", 1861, No. 2).
Historical prototypes: Napoleon Bonaparte, Mohammed. Pointing to the historical roots of the image of R., it is necessary to make a significant adjustment: we are talking more about “prototypes of images of ideas” (M.M. Bakhtin) of these individuals, rather than about them themselves, and these ideas are transformed in public and individual consciousness according to the characteristic features of the era Dostoevsky. In March 1865, the book of the French Emperor Napoleon III, “The Life of Julius Caesar,” was published, which defended the right of a “strong personality” to violate any moral norms obligatory for ordinary people, “without stopping even before blood.” The book caused fierce controversy in Russian society and served as the ideological source of R.'s theory (F. Evnin). The “Napoleonic” features of R.’s image undoubtedly bear traces of the influence of the image of Napoleon in the interpretation of A.S. Pushkin (a contradictory mixture of tragic greatness, genuine generosity and immense egoism, leading to fatal consequences and collapse - the poems “Napoleon”, “Hero”), as , however, also an imprint of epigone “Napoleonism” in Russia (“We all look at Napoleons” - “Eugene Onegin”). Wed. words of R., who secretly brought himself closer to Napoleon: “Suffering and pain are always required for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great people, it seems to me, should feel great sadness in the world.” Wed. also the provokingly ironic answer of Porfiry Petrovich: “Who in Rus' doesn’t consider himself Napoleon now?” Zametov’s remark also parodies the craze for “Napoleonism,” which has become a vulgar “commonplace”: “Wasn’t it some future Napoleon who killed our Alena Ivanovna with an ax last week?” In the same vein as Dostoevsky, the “Napoleonic” theme was solved by L.N. Tolstoy (“Napoleonic” ambitions of Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov and their complete disappointment in “Napoleonism”). Dostoevsky, of course, took into account, in addition, the comic aspect of the image of Napoleon, captured by N.V. Gogol (Chichikov in profile is almost Napoleon). The idea of the “superman” was finally developed in M. Stirner’s book “The One and His Property,” which was available in the library of Petrashevsky (V. Semevsky) and served as another source of R.’s theory, for his article, analyzed by Porfiry Petrovich, was written “about one book”: it could be a book by Stirner (V. Kirpotin), Napoleon III (F. Evnin) or T. de Quincey’s treatise “Murder as one of the fine arts” (A. Alekseev).
Just as Mohammed experienced the birth pangs of a new faith in the cave of Hira, R. nurtures an “idea-passion” (in the words of Lieutenant Porokh, R. - “ascetic, monk, hermit”), considers himself a prophet and herald of a “new word.” The law of Mohammed, according to R., is the law of force: R. represents Mohammed with a saber, he fires from a battery (“blows on the right and the wrong”). Mohammed’s expression about man as a “trembling creature” becomes the leitmotif of the novel and a unique term of R.’s theory, dividing people into “ordinary” and “extraordinary”: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?<...>Allah commands, and obey, “trembling” creature!” (Cf.: “And I came with a banner from your Lord. Fear Allah and obey me,” Cor., 2:44,50). Wed. also “Imitations of the Koran” by A.S. Pushkin: “Love orphans, and my Koran
//Preach to a trembling creature” (V. Borisova). For Dostoevsky, Christ and Mohammed are antipodes, and R. fell away from God, as Sonya Marmeladova says: “You left God, and God struck you down, betrayed you to the devil!”
Literary prototypes: biblical Job (V. Etov). Just like Job, R., in a state of crisis, resolves the “last” issues, rebels against the unjust world order, as in the case of Job, God comes to R. in the finale; Byron's rebel heroes (Corsair, Lara, Manfred)", Jean Sbogar, hero novel of the same name C. Nodier, noble robber and individualist; Uskok (J. Sand), a pirate who acquired wealth and fame at the cost of crime; Rastignac O. Balzac; Julien Sorepe by Stendhal; Medard Hoffmann (“Elixirs of Satan”); Faust; Hamlet; Franz and Karl Moor (F. Schiller. “The Robbers”). The ethical issues of the novel are especially closely connected with the image of the latter: Karl Moor and R. equally drive themselves into a moral impasse. “Karl Moor,” writes G. Hegel, “suffered from the existing system,<...>goes beyond the circle of legality. Having broken the shackles that constrained him, he creates a completely new historical state and proclaims himself the restorer of truth, a self-appointed judge punishing untruths,<...>but this private revenge turns out to be petty, accidental - given the insignificance of the means at his disposal - and only leads to new crimes.”
With Pushkin's Hermann (“ Queen of Spades") R. is related by the plot situation: the duel between the poor man Hermann, who is eager to get rich, and the Countess, R. and the old money-lender. Hermann kills Lizaveta Ivanovna morally, R. kills Lizaveta Ivanovna in reality (A. Bem). R. is brought closer to Boris Godunov and Salieri by dark doubts and moral torment after the crime; R.'s rebellion is reminiscent of Eugene's rebellion from " Bronze Horseman", who dared to enter into confrontation with the state monolith - cold and hostile to people St. Petersburg. The motive of extreme individualism connects R. with Lermontov’s Vadim, Demon, Pechorin (with the latter also the motive of moral experimentation), as well as with Gogol’s Chartkov (“Portrait”). In the context of the work of Dostoevsky himself, R. continues the series of theoretic heroes (following the “underground hero” of Notes from Underground), anticipating the images of Stavrogin, Versilov, Ivan Karamazov. At the same time, R. has nice features of “dreamers” early creativity Dostoevsky, the essence of which is sensitivity, compassion for one’s neighbor and readiness to help (Ordynov from the story “The Mistress”, the dreamer from “White Nights”).
R.'s name takes on a symbolic meaning: schism means splitting, understood in in a broad sense. Here is the ethical duality of R. (murder - love for neighbors, crime - pangs of conscience, theory - life), and the duality of direct experience and introspection - reflection (S. Askoldov). Wed. “test” of R. before the murder: R. goes to the old woman-pawnbroker, but at the same time thinks: “Oh God, how disgusting all this is<...>. And could such horror really come into my head...” Finally, rebellion against the world order, fight against God - and the search for faith, R.’s final coming to humility. R.’s name and patronymic are also symbolic: R., according to S. Belov’s observation, “splits” the mother earth that gave birth to him (name Rodion), “splits” the homeland of the Romanovs (patronymic: Romanovich). In addition, R.’s schismaticism is ideological, going back, firstly, to church schism and, secondly, to the disastrous reforms of Peter, which led, according to Dostoevsky, to a split between the intelligentsia and the people, which inevitably led to the paralysis of the Russian church. Moreover, schismaticism is an obsession with one idea, fanaticism. It is paradoxical that the schismatic Mikolka (M. Altman) takes the blame for the crime of the nihilist R.. R.'s betrayal of his homeland, roots, and his moral being is constantly emphasized by Dostoevsky: R. pawns his father's silver watch ("test") to the old pawnbroker, thereby seeming to renounce his family; Having committed a crime, it is as if he “cuts off” himself from people, especially from his mother and sister. Murder is essentially “matricide” (Yu. Karyakin).
The meaning of R.’s image is also “double,” split both in the eyes of the characters around him and in the assessments of readers and researchers. Dostoevsky uses the technique of a “double” portrait: “By the way, he was remarkably good-looking, with beautiful dark eyes, dark brown hair, above average height, thin and slender.” Murder and painful doubts about own theory had a detrimental effect on his appearance: “R.<...>he was very pale, absent-minded and gloomy. From the outside, he looked like a wounded person or someone enduring some severe physical pain: his eyebrows were knitted, his lips were compressed, his eyes were inflamed.”
The image of R. is drawn by Dostoevsky using symbolic leitmotifs. R.'s idea originates in a closet that looks like a “closet” and a “coffin.” R. closes his “coffin” with a “hook”, fencing himself off from the world. At the moment of the crime, R., remembering that he forgot to close the door, hastily throws on the hook. Koch pulls the door: “R. looked in horror at the locking hook jumping in the hinge and waited with dull fear that the lock would pop out.” R. was ready to commit another murder with an ax blow. As soon as the tradesman throws an accusation at R. (“Murderer!”), R.’s “heart seemed to freeze for a moment; then it suddenly caught me, as if it had been let off a hook.” The witness confirming Mikolka’s guilt is the “court councilor Kryukov” (A. Gozenpud). Porfiry Petrovich sees R.’s salvation in turning himself in - this is the only way R. will come out of the “coffin” and take a breath of fresh “air” (“... all people need air, air, air, sir”).
The spatial topography associated with the image of R. testifies to the crisis, fall and revival of R.: “threshold” (make a decision on the threshold), staircase (R. symbolically either descends to hell - 13 steps down from the closet, - then ascends to the people and God), “an arshin of space” (“But I already agreed to live on an arshin of space!”), panorama from St. Isaac’s Cathedral of “the most deliberate city in the world,” the most “created,” the most fantastic, where “a mute and deaf spirit” hovers ", contributing to the emergence of theories similar to R.
R.'s image is “anthropocentric” (N. Berdyaev): all the heroes of the novel are attracted to R. and make biased assessments of him. (Cf. the words of Svidri-Gailov: “Rodion Romanovich has two roads: either a bullet in the forehead, or in Vladimirka.”) In R. there are, as it were, two people: “a humanist and an individualist” (V. Etov). The individualist kills Alena Ivanovna with the butt of an ax (as if fate itself were pushing R.’s lifeless hand); smeared in blood, R. uses an ax to cut the cord on the old woman’s chest with two crosses, an icon and a wallet, and wipes his bloody hands on the red set. Ruthless logic forces R., who claims aestheticism in his theory, to hack Lizaveta to death with the edge of an ax - R. definitely gets the taste for bloody carnage. R. hides the loot under a stone. He laments that he did not “step over the blood”, did not turn out to be a “superman”, but appeared as an “aesthetic louse” (“Did I kill the old woman? I killed myself ...”), he suffers because he suffers, because Napoleon would not have suffered, for "forgets the army in Egypt<...>t r a t i t (Dostoevsky’s discharge - A.G.) half a million people on the Moscow campaign.” R. does not realize the dead end of his theory, which rejects the immutable moral law, the essence of which is that “every human personality there is a supreme shrine, completely regardless of what the moral merits of this person are, no one can be a means in the hands of another, and everyone is an end in himself...” R. violated the moral law and fell because he had a moral consciousness, “conscience, and it takes revenge on him for violating the moral law” (M. Tugan-Baranovsky). On the other hand, R. is generous, noble, sympathetic, and uses his last means to help his sick comrade; Risking himself, he saves children from a fire, gives his mother’s money to the Marmeladov family, protects Sonya from Luzhin’s slander; he has the makings of a thinker and scientist (F. Evnin). Porfiry Petrovich tells R. that he has a “great heart”, compares R. with the “sun” (“Become the sun, everyone will see you”), with Christian martyrs who go to execution for their idea.
In R.'s theory, as if in focus, all the contradictory moral and spiritual properties of R. are concentrated. First of all, according to R.'s plan, his theory is superpersonal, it states that every person is a “scoundrel”, and social injustice is in the order of things: Mar’s story Meladov about Sonechka’s sacrifice (in order to feed Marmeladov’s children, Sonya goes to the panel) is associated in R.’s mind with the self-sacrifice of Dunya Raskolnikova, who marries Luzhin for his sake, R.: “... eternal Sonechka, while the world stands!”; “Oh yes Sonya! What a well, however, they managed to dig! and enjoy<...>We cried and got used to it. A scoundrel of a man gets used to everything!” R. rejects compassion, humility and sacrifice, choosing rebellion. At the same time, the motives for his crime include the deepest self-deception (Yu. Karyakin): to free humanity from the harmful old woman, give the stolen money to his sister and mother, thereby saving Dunya from the voluptuous Luzhins and Svidrigailovs. R. convinces himself of simple “arithmetic”, as if with the help of the death of one “ugly old woman” humanity can be made happy. Contrary to self-deception, the main motive of the crime is egoistic: R.’s “Napoleonic” complex. Life itself comes into conflict with R.’s casuistry. R.'s illness after the murder shows the equality of people before conscience; it is a consequence of conscience, so to speak, a physiological manifestation of the spiritual nature of man. Through the mouth of the maid Nastasya (“It’s the blood in you that’s screaming”), the people judge R.’s crime. R.’s “doubles” - Luzhin and Svidrigailov, - distorting and mimicking his seemingly aesthetic theory, force R. to reconsider his view of the world and man. The theories of R.’s “doubles” judge R. himself. The theory of “reasonable egoism” of Luzhin (Dostoevsky’s parody of the ideas of I. Bentham, N. Chernyshevsky and the utopian socialists), in R.’s opinion, is fraught with the following: “And bring to the consequences that you They preached just now, and it turns out that people can be cut up...” Svidrigailov, having learned about R.’s crime, considers him as if his brother in sin, distorts R.’s tragic confessions “with an air of some kind of winking, cheerful trickery.” Finally, Porfiry’s dispute with R. (cf. Porfiry’s mockery of how to distinguish “extraordinary” from “ordinary”: “is it not possible here, for example, to have special clothes, to wear something, there are brands there, what, what? ..") and Sonya’s words, which immediately cross out R.’s cunning dialectic, force him to take the path of repentance: “I just killed a louse, Sonya, a useless, disgusting, harmful one.” - “This man is a louse!” Sonya reads R. the Gospel parable about the resurrection of Lazarus (like Lazarus, R. is in the “grave” for four days), gives R. her cross, leaving on herself the cypress cross of Lizaveta, whom he killed, with whom they exchanged crosses. Thus, Sonya makes it clear to R. that he killed his sister, for all people are brothers and sisters in Christ. R. puts into practice Sonya’s call - to go out to the square, fall to his knees and repent before all the people: “Accept suffering and atone for yourself with it...”
Dostoevsky, in his speech about Pushkin, makes a similar appeal to the nihilistic revolutionaries who organized the assassination attempt on Tsar Alexander II (Karakozov’s shot), as well as to the authorities who responded with nationwide terror: “Humble yourself, proud man, and you will see new life! (I. Volgin) R.’s repentance on the square is tragically symbolic, reminiscent of the fate of the ancient prophets, as it is subjected to popular ridicule. Finding R. faith, desired in the dreams of the New Jerusalem - long haul. The people do not want to believe in the sincerity of R.’s repentance: “Look, you got whipped!<...>It is he who goes to Jerusalem, brothers, says goodbye to his homeland, bows to the whole world, kisses the capital city of St. Petersburg and its soil” (cf. Porfiry’s question: “So you still believe in the New Jerusalem?”; cf. also Gogol’s opposition: St. Petersburg - Jerusalem). R.'s final coming to faith and renunciation of the “theory” occurs in hard labor, after R.’s apocalyptic dream about the “trichinae” that have infected humanity with the desire to kill. As soon as R. is imbued with the sacrificial love of Sonya, who followed him to hard labor, the world around him is immediately illuminated with a different light, the convicts soften towards R., his hand reaches out to the Gospel given to him by Sonya, and the resurrection of the “fallen man” occurs.
Dostoevsky's names.
It was interesting to find out what Dostoevsky worked on most when he wrote the novel Crime and Punishment. I think he put a lot of work into choosing the names of his characters.
Behind the names are the characters themselves, their characters. Sometimes connections are discovered that cannot be guessed without deciphering them.
Petr Petrovich Luzhin. His appearance in the novel is unexpected and ominous. Its existence was known in the first part, one might say, from the very beginning. But it comes to the fore even suddenly. And here is his description. You feel some disappointment. It would seem that such a name - Pyotr Petrovich - obliges us to a lot; it is known that Luzhin, simply put, is a scoundrel, and it seems that he should see a man, apparently of outstanding appearance, who does mean things in cold blood, calmly. Having read the portrait of Luzhin, you are surprised: you think that he is vile, but not to the same degree! The first association that comes to mind is jellyfish. The same disgusting creature appeared before us. The author's attitude towards him is quite understandable. One can even feel mockery of him. For example, comparing a sideburn with cutlets or the words, “even the hair... seemed... nothing funny.” Why “even”?! Dostoevsky himself assessed him very laconically: a beautiful and respectable physiognomy. The dislike for this character intensifies when you read his ugly ultimatum to Dunechka and Pulcheria Alexandrovna. The contrast between the first and last names of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin is puzzling. "Stone" and... Luzhin! Without knowing his name, it would be possible to explain his last name: after all, he is one of the “dirtiest” characters in the novel. Then the interpretation of his name comes to mind, however, here we need to deviate a little from the meaning that is usually given to it: not “stone”, but “stone”, “petrified”; Another synonym (but this is specifically for Luzhin) is callous.
Dmitry Prokofievich Razumikhin. This is one of Raskolnikov's doubles, his closest friend. Of course, the character is positive. Raskolnikov killed. He killed and was left alone. One? Is it a coincidence that at moments when Raskolnikov is having an incredibly difficult time—whether it’s an illness or a moment of unbearable loneliness—Razumikhin appears nearby? And who helped Dunechka and Pulcheria Alexandrovna the most when they first arrived in St. Petersburg, and a mass of devastating facts immediately fell upon them: Rodya’s illness, the news of his conversation with Luzhin. And it is unknown how that day would have ended for them if the same Razumikhin had not been nearby. It somehow involuntarily relieves the tension that has arisen and calms the heated passions. Demetrius in Greek is “belonging to Demeter, the goddess of agriculture,” or the earth. Earth, foundation, support for Raskolnikov.
It is very difficult to understand the name of the main character of the novel - Rodion Raskolnikov. Rodion means “pink” in Greek. Pink is a shade of red. Throughout the centuries, red has been an alarming color. Red blood. Red glow during a fire. The red sunset is the beginning of the night, bringing the unknown, terrible, mysterious. It will always remain a symbol of anxiety, even if we move away from its political meaning. It seems strange that Dostoevsky would choose a personal name for the main character. Why is everything “pink”? The answer was hidden in the names of the other heroes. As you know, “Crime and Punishment” is built on the principle of duality, that is, the main character huge amount doubles, each of which reflects one of its sides. And among them there is a character who occupies an important place in the work. This is Porfiry Petrovich. He once came to the same conclusions as Raskolnikov, but did not cross a certain line, but stopped in front of it, left everything in his soul, but burned it along with his soul, killed everything living in himself and was half petrified. Obviously, that's why his middle name is Petrovich. However, what is the connection between the names of Porfiry Petrovich and Raskolnikov? Porphyry means “purple” in Greek. Purple is a shade of the same red, and at the same time it can be described as dark, rather even as a deep pink, burnt red color.
And a few words about the name of Raskolnikov’s sister, Avdotya Romanovna. Dunechka has one of the best translations of the name in the entire novel - “glorious”. This name speaks for itself.
All the names in the novel form a coherent system. This system is the subtext of the novel; understanding Dostoevsky's names brings us closer to understanding the entire complex system of relationships between his heroes.
P.S. Work independently. We can agree that the names of the characters really play the role of micro-characteristics and help to understand the characters and relationships of the characters in the novel.
Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky was born in a hospital for the poor on Novaya Bozhedomka. He was born in such an unsightly place not at all because he was poor - on the contrary, his father, a Russified nobleman of Polish-Lithuanian blood, was a quite wealthy landowner (for which he suffered at one time - he was killed by peasants), but because this father lived in the outbuilding of this institution, for he served as a doctor there. Now New Bozhedomka bears the name of the writer; the Institute of Tuberculosis (now the Institute of Pulmonology) is comfortably located in the former hospital for the poor - by the way, interesting point– the number and brightness of images of consumptive characters in the books of a native of this institution significantly exceeds the average percentage in the population – and the morgue of the institute is popularly called “Dostoevsky’s Morgue.”
The life of a young nobleman in a hospital for the poor was peculiar. For the rest of his life, young Fedya retained the memory of the smell of poverty combined with the smell of medicine, blood, pus, human urine and shit. And, perhaps, it seemed to him that this hospital was a symbol of poor, suffering, sick Russia.
The novel “Crime and Punishment” begins with a description of the painful experiences of poor Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov. Let's pay attention to the name of the main character: Rodion. This name has two meanings - “heroic” and “pink”. It is unlikely that Dostoevsky knew modern meaning term “pink”, so let’s focus on the first one – “heroic”. But we must remember that the name Rodion in Greek transcription was borne by an apostle from the 70, whose real name was Herodion. Those. This name also indirectly reminds us of the infant killer Herod. And at the same time, this name has a somewhat burlesque character. Everyone knows the nursery rhyme “White hare, where did you run?” It ends with the phrase: “who stole? - Rodion! - get out!” That is, Rodion is, firstly, a thief; secondly, he must get out.
The patronymic “Romanovich” refers us to two meanings: “strong” and “Roman”. And, indeed, the “Roman” opposition between himself and society is “Roman” because it resembles the primacy of the Pope over the Catholic Church, and Raskolnikov considers himself “above-man” - and is characteristic of this character. Well, the surname “Raskolnikov” directly refers us to the schismatic Old Believers who left the Church into the wilds of Protestantism (bespopovtsy) and money-grubbing.
I'm not even talking about the phonetic component of this combination “R-R-R!” Here you can hear the very roar that the beast makes
So, Rodion Romanovich goes to kill the old pawnbroker. The reason (not the reason, of course) is money. In general, various finances are often mentioned in the novel (even to the point of obsessiveness). Bills of exchange, mortgages, banknotes, two-kopeck notes—the novel is simply replete with them. Modern Herod no longer goes to kill babies (although he will later kill a baby, the pure-hearted Lizaveta), but a “louse.” And, by the way, the true Herod considered these same babies clearly no more noble than lice.
Who is he going to kill? The pawnbroker is a unique character; she is not a moneylender in the literal sense. We would say that she runs a pawn shop, i.e. is a representative of the period of primary formation of financial capital. But let us remember what is happening at this time in Russia? The peasant reform freed large number free money, and the formation of a banking system was taking place in the country by leaps and bounds, i.e. the same financial capital. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Alena Ivanovna is a symbol (a caricature, but a symbol) of the new Russia. Indirectly, this is indicated by her name and patronymic. On the one hand, these are typically Russian names Alena and Ivan. On the other hand, the name Alena – i.e. Elena, in history they wore such wonderful women like St. Queen Helen and St. Equal to the Apostles Olga, in Orthodoxy symbolizing the new social life. One may ask why the Orthodox Dostoevsky gave this name to such an unsympathetic character? But the whole point is that Dostoevsky’s Orthodoxy is very unique, as we will see later.
Lizaveta Ivanovna, if you adhere to this scheme, symbolizes the Leaving Rus'. Being younger than her sister, she is spiritually older than her, for she lives according to the laws of the Gospel. It is no coincidence that Dostoevsky emphasizes that the sisters have different mothers - pure Holy Rus' and modern Russia were clearly not born from the same womb, although from the same father. Indirectly, our guess is confirmed by the name of the heroine - Lizaveta. This was the name of the gospel character - RIGHTEOUS ELIZABETH, mother of John the Baptist. And the phrase that Lizaveta was always pregnant sounds like bitter irony (or maybe deliberate mockery).
So the person with a telling surname Raskolnikov hacks to death with an ax the figures symbolizing Rus' - Russia. A sacramental question arises: “What do the Jews have to do with it?”
Jews are generously scattered throughout the space of the novel, although most often they are disguised. Formally, there is only one Jew - Achilles in a helmet, in front of whose eyes Svidrigailov shoots himself. But if you look closely, it is the Jews that the main character meets at all turns of the novel.
The first such turn is the meeting with Marmeladov. Who is the Jew here? – you ask. Ah, dear reader, how often have you met people with such a surname? Who could Marmeladov be - the son of marmalade, or what? But the distorted “Melamud” or something similar is clearly read here. Don't believe me? Then remember his name. Let me remind you that his name is Semyon Zakharovich, which is not very typical for a purebred hare. And his daughter is Sonya. Dad - Sema, daughter - Sonya - for a Jewish family this is a very common combination. By the way, the children from Sema Marmeladov’s “Russian” marriage are named Lida, Polya and Lenya. The name Lydia, although it is in the calendar, is quite rare; the name Leonid is often given to Jewish boys growing up in a Russian-speaking environment, but the name Polina is not in the calendar. Polina was baptized, most likely, as Pelageya, but the name Pelageya for the daughter of an official and a noble daughter is uncharacteristic. And the name Polina is quite acceptable for a mixed Russian-Jewish family.
The environment in which Marmeladov lives is also interesting. The tailor of Capernaum is only visible part iceberg The rest of the inhabitants wear German surnames(Klopstock and others), but they may well be Yiddish-Jewish. It seems that Raskolnikov ends up in some kind of ghetto during his travels.
The meeting with Marmeladov finally convinces Raskolnikov of the correctness of the chosen path - “there are no obstacles, and this is how it should be!”
The second Jew on Raskolnikov's path is Luzhin. I can already imagine the shouts: “Luzhin is not a Jew!” But pay attention to how Luzhin corresponds to the iconography of a typical Jew - a “Jew”: a grumpy face, financial activities, counting money and reproaches of Dunechka and Pulcheria Alexandrovna with their “expenses”. And there’s no getting around the phrase “I was quite expecting something” (I’m quoting from memory). That is, in Dostoevsky’s novel space, Luzhin is a Jewish symbol. By the way, the surname Luzhin is not Russian. In any case, it is not in the dictionaries of Russian surnames floating on the Internet. It resembles a Russified Jewish surname. And the combination “Peter Petrovich” is more likely to remind you of some Pinchas Pinkhasovich.
Luzhin is an undeniably negative character, and he appears in the novel solely to demonstrate how disgusting his economic theories In essence, they are no different from Raskolnikov’s views.
The third Jew - or rather Jewish woman - is Sonechka Marmeladova. Her role in Raskolnikov’s life has been described many times; I don’t want to repeat it. Let's return to it a little later.
Of the main characters of the novel, we have not yet figured out Svidrigailov, Porfiry Petrovich, Razumikhin and Dunya. The most interesting and, in a way, even mysterious character of them is, undoubtedly, Svidrigailov.
Why is he in the novel? In fact, all Svidrigailov really does is give everyone money. Here he plays the role of a sort of “god ex machina.” But in work of art there is already a “god ex machina” - this is the author. I undertake to assert that the author himself, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, is hiding behind the mask of Svidrigailov. There are a number of direct indications of this:
1. The surname “Svidrigailov” has Lithuanian roots, because goes back to Prince Svidrigailo.
2. Svidrigailov’s incomprehensible relationships with women directly refer us to Fyodor Mikhailovich himself and his problems.
3. Svidrigailov is a player, like Dostoevsky himself.
4. Sviidrigailov, like Dostoevsky, is mentally ill.
5. Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov’s conscience. He denounces him, he parodies his actions, he knows what only Raskolnikov himself knows. He is Raskolnikov’s black man, therefore, when Raskolnikov decides to confess, Svidrigailov becomes unnecessary and annihilates (don’t catch me on the chronology - Raskolnikov made the decision long before he formalized it verbally). Svidrigailov is the one whom Raskolnikov fears.
Porfiry Petrovich is a unique character. The peculiar talk, moralizing and the name Porfiry, which refers us to the concept of porphyry, in combination with the patronymic “Petrovich”, reminding us of the name of the creator of Russian absolutism, Peter I, directly direct us to the formula “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality." Porfiry - that car Russian statehood, playing with a person like a cat with a mouse, but in the end, suppressing him. Humorously played out, this character becomes even scarier.
Dostoevsky's humor, in general, is unique, which is manifested in the names of Dunya and Razumikhin. Razumikhin, of course, is a beautiful-hearted man of the Enlightenment, relying on the power of reason and, because of this, a bit stupid, although kind and decent. In the name of Dunya, Fyodor Mikhailovich mocked the gullible reader with all his might. The name Dunya symbolizes none other than the well-known Dunka Kulakova. She makes Svidrigailov suffer, denies him last moment Luzhin, and even with Razumikhin, her relationship is quite unique.
But let's return to the ending of the novel. There was so much tenderness in the fact that the harlot and the murderer bent over the Gospel. But I will offer a different interpretation - Jewish and Old Believer. It’s not for nothing that Raskolnikov is disliked by convicts. He is accused of not believing in God, although he goes to church. That is, he preserved the ritual, which makes him similar to real Old Believers. Communication with Sonya leads him to the possibility of perceiving the Gospel as such.
Why should the Jewish Sonya lead to the Gospel? Dostoevsky’s anti-Semitism has already become a commonplace and no one wants to remember those lines from “The Diary of a Writer” in which he disavows this accusation. We know from Rozanov that anti-Semitism and Judeophilia are two sides of the same coin. Dostoevsky loved the Jews in his own way, but in full accordance with the apostolic teaching, he expected them to come to Christ. Moreover, it was with them, as with the chosen people, as follows from the novel “Crime and Punishment,” that he pinned his hope for the Christianization of the fallen world. By the way, this is why Sonechka is a harlot. Not only do we never see her at her craft, but for the heroes of the novel it seems to remain outside the brackets. This is precisely what suggests that the harlot is a symbol, and a symbol not so much of the gospel harlot, but rather a symbol of the wanderings of the Jewish people in darkness without a Savior.
What is the encrypted idea of the novel?
Ritualism (adherence to old rituals, or, more broadly, adherence to the 2nd Temple - the Temple of Solomon - HEROD) is killing Russia, both Holy Rus' and new Russia. Jews are indirectly involved in this, but not as a driving spring, but as a catalyst (we will now omit Dostoevsky’s arguments about the God-bearing nature of the Russian people and, consequently, the assumption of a Jewish role in the New Testament world). The Empire can punish for this, but it does not bring you back to life, because this is hard labor. Salvation is from the Jews, for they will lead to Christ. The only problem is that Dostoevsky does not see the Church. Raskolnikov and Sonechka are together, but outside the Body of Christ.
I deliberately did not touch on a number of other problems of this novel, such as, for example, the analysis of Raskolnikov’s dream about a horse (this in an interesting way will respond to Freud in his “Analysis of a Phobia of a Five-Year-Old Boy”) or a comparison of the images of Marfa Petrovna and Pulcheria Aleskandrovna. In my research, I wanted, firstly, to remove accusations of anti-Semitism from Dostoevsky; and secondly, to show that, although he is a great one, he is still not a completely Orthodox writer. How it succeeded is for the reader to judge.
In Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, the main characters are complex and contradictory characters. Their fate is closely connected with living conditions, the environment in which life takes place, individual characteristics. It is possible to characterize the characters of Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment” only based on their actions, since we do not hear the author’s voice in the work.
Rodion Raskolnikov - the main character of the novel
Rodion Raskolnikov – central character works. The young man has an attractive appearance. “By the way, he was remarkably good-looking, with beautiful dark eyes, dark-haired, above average height, thin and slender.” An extraordinary mind, a proud character, sick pride and a miserable existence are the reasons for the hero’s criminal behavior. Rodion highly values his abilities, considers himself an exceptional person, dreams of a great future, but his financial situation has a depressing effect on him. He has nothing to pay for studying at the university, and does not have enough money to pay off his landlady. Cloth young man attracts the attention of passers-by with its shabby and old appearance. Trying to cope with the circumstances, Rodion Raskolnikov goes to kill the old pawnbroker. Thus, he is trying to prove to himself that he belongs to the highest class of people and can step over blood. “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right,” he thinks. But one crime leads to another. An innocent, wretched woman is dying. The hero's theory about the right of a strong personality leads to a dead end. Only Sonya's love awakens his faith in God and revives him to life. Raskolnikov's personality consists of opposite qualities. An indifferent, cruel killer gives his last pennies for the funeral of a stranger, interferes in the fate of a young girl, trying to save her from dishonor.
Minor characters
Images of heroes playing main role in the narrative, become fuller and brighter as a result of the description of their relationships with other people. Family members, friends, acquaintances, episodic persons appearing in the plot help to better understand the idea of the work and understand the motives of actions.
To make the appearance of the characters in the novel clearer to the reader, the writer uses various techniques. We get to know detailed description heroes, we delve into the details of the dreary interior of the apartments, we look at the dull gray streets of St. Petersburg.
Sofia Marmeladova
Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova- a young unfortunate creature. "Sonya was short, about eighteen, thin, but quite pretty blonde, with wonderful blue eyes.” She is young, naive and very kind. A drunken father, a sick stepmother, hungry stepsisters and brother - this is the environment in which the heroine lives. She is a shy and timid person, unable to stand up for herself. But this fragile creature is ready to sacrifice itself for the sake of loved ones. She sells her body, engaging in prostitution, to help her family, and goes after the convicted Raskolnikov. Sonya is a kind, selfless and deeply religious person. This gives her the strength to cope with all trials and find the happiness she deserves.
Semyon Marmeladov
Marmeladov Semyon Zakharovich- an equally significant character in the work. He is a former official, the father of a family with many children. A weak and weak-willed person solves all his problems with the help of alcohol. A man dismissed from service condemns his wife and children to starvation. They live in a walk-through room with almost no furnishings. Children do not go to school and do not have a change of clothes. Marmeladov is capable of drinking away his last money, taking it from his eldest daughter pennies earned in order to get drunk and get away from problems. Despite this, the image of the hero evokes pity and compassion, since circumstances turned out to be stronger than him. He himself suffers from his vice, but cannot cope with it.
Avdotya Raskolnikova
Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova- sister of the main character. A girl from a poor but honest and worthy family. Dunya is smart, well-educated, well-mannered. She is “remarkably pretty,” which, unfortunately, attracts the attention of men. In character traits, “she was like her brother.” Avdotya Raskolnikova, a proud and independent nature, determined and purposeful, was ready to marry an unloved person for the sake of her brother’s well-being. Self-esteem and hard work will help her arrange her destiny and avoid irreparable mistakes.
Dmitry Vrazumikhin
Dmitry Prokofievich Vrazumikhin- Rodion Raskolnikov’s only friend. The poor student, unlike his friend, does not give up his studies. He makes a living by all available means and never stops hoping for luck. Poverty does not stop him from making plans. Razumikhin is a noble man. He selflessly tries to help his friend and takes care of his family. Love for Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova inspires the young man, makes him stronger and more decisive.
Pyotr Luzhin
Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin- a venerable, respected middle-aged man of pleasant appearance. He is a successful entrepreneur, the happy fiancé of Dunya Raskolnikova, a rich and self-confident gentleman. In fact, under the mask of integrity hides a low and vile nature. Taking advantage of the girl's plight, he proposes to her. In his actions, Pyotr Petrovich is guided not by selfless motives, but by his own benefit. He dreams of a wife who would be slavishly submissive and grateful until the end of her days. For the sake of his own interests, he pretends to be in love, tries to slander Raskolnikov, and accuse Sonya Marmeladova of theft.
Arkady Svidrigailov
Svidrigailov Arkady Ivanovich- one of the most mysterious persons in the novel. The owner of the house where Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova worked. He is cunning and dangerous to others. Svidrigailov is a vicious person. Being married, he tries to seduce Dunya. He is accused of murdering his wife and seducing young children. Svidrigailov’s terrible nature is capable, oddly enough, of noble deeds. He helps Sonya Marmeladova justify herself and arranges the fate of orphaned children. Rodion Raskolnikov, having committed a crime, becomes like this hero, since he transgresses the moral law. It is no coincidence that in a conversation with Rodion he says: “We are birds of a feather.”
Pulcheria Raskolnikova
Raskolnikova Pulcheria Alexandrovna- mother of Rodion and Dunya. The woman is poor, but honest. A kind and sympathetic person. A loving mother, ready for any sacrifices and hardships for the sake of her children.
F. M. Dostoevsky pays very little attention to some of his heroes. But they are necessary in the course of the story. Thus, it is impossible to imagine the investigation process without the smart, cunning, but noble investigator Porfiry Petrovich. Treats and understands psychological state Rodion during his illness, the young doctor Zosimov. An important witness to the weakness of the protagonist in the police station is the assistant to the quarterly warden Ilya Petrovich. Luzhin's friend Lebezyatnikov Andrei Semyonovich returns Sonya's good name and exposes her deceitful groom. Events, seemingly insignificant at first glance, associated with the names of these characters play an important role in the development of the plot.
The meaning of episodic persons in the work
On the pages of the great work of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky we meet others actors. The list of heroes of the novel is supplemented episodic characters. Katerina Ivanovna, Marmeladov’s wife, unfortunate orphans, a girl on the boulevard, a greedy old money-lender Alena Ivanovna, sick Lizoveta. Their appearance is no coincidence. Each, even the most insignificant image, carries its own meaning and serves to embody the author’s intention. All the heroes of the novel “Crime and Punishment” are important and necessary, the list of which goes on and on.
Work test