The Humanization of Raskolnikov from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punisment

"Dostoevsky was certainly a man of his age, but just as certainly he transcended it," one critic wrote of the author of Crime and Punishment (Cox 1). Fyodor Dostoevsky's own life mirrored the one portrayed by the main character of his psychological novel. Dostoevsky had seen much death and suffering throughout his years: his father murdered, his mother died suddenly of illness, two of his own children died, and he arrested for radicalism. He spent some time in prison, faced a mock execution, and was sent to Siberia as a low ranking soldier. Yet he still transcended his own age through his great works. Like Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky faced poverty as a student. This may explain the realism in the characters of Crime and Punishment. One question must be asked: what is the ethics behind the humanization of Rodian Raskolnikov, the novel's main character? Does his ends justify his means? These questions must be pondered and answered.

It seems that Dostoevsky put much thought into the names of the characters of this great novel. The principle character, Raskolnikov, has one of the most fitting names. The Russian word raskól means "schism" or "split" (Cox 135). This meaning portrays the fight between the intellectual being and the human being; the difference of the Nietzshean Superman and the "ordinary" man. This "schism" in Raskolnikov's character provides one of the motives for his crime. Other key characters were also bestowed with meaningful names by Dostoevsky. Razumikhin, Raskolnikov's friend, comes from the Russian word razum, meaning "sense" or "intelligence." Raskolnikov's seeming doppelganger, Arkády Svidrigaïlov, suggests "Arcadia." One other significant character that has profound effects on Raskolnikov is Sonya Marmeladov, a prostitute. Her first name, Sofía, translates into "wisdom" or "spiritual knowledge" (136). These names and their meanings become important in character exegeois and also in determining the repercussions on the choices of Raskolnikov. These last three characters will be discussed later on and how they are like signs on Raskolnikov's moral crossroads.

There are many theories to Raskolnikov's motives for murder and whether or not he was ethically sound. Dostoevsky, in a letter to M. N. Katkov, describes Crime and Punishment as thus:

He [Raskolnikov] decides to kill her

Dostoevsky did not wholly contend that his novel would not only consist of this simple plot, but step over the boundaries of human self-analysis and self-inflicted suffering. Raskolnikov did not submit himself to the crime for the simple reason of money, it was a selfish reason that consumed him. He wanted to prove that he was not a "louse." This idea manifested itself in an article that he wrote on crime and its ties to "ordinary" and "extraordinary" people. Raskolnikov explains his idea of "ordinary" and "extraordinary" people to an investigating officer as " an extraordinary man has the right...that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep...certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity)" (226). This theory of Raskolnikov's appears to be derived from the Superman Theory of Nietzche. Frank Beardow in an article on the Nietzshean Superman explains the theory:

Walter Kaufmann usefully defines the Nietzschean superman as a man who refuses to accept that 'there is a norm to which all men must conform'. It is feasible to suggest in addition that the superman is a person who considers himself to be not just different from but actually superior to other men; he may have a special gift, talent or theory; he may express his superiority through a will to power or a will to self-assertion; his aims may be varied, but he feels compelled to try to demonstrate that superiority, his belief in which he does not doubt. (126)

Raskolnikov believes that he made an ethically sound decision. The murder was justified because he was extraordinary and it benefited humanity by sparing the world another "louse." Although in the real world murder is inexplicable and never condoned, in Raskolnikov's world it can be simplified, inhumanized, and justified.

Along Raskolnikov's fantastic moral journey of humanization, he was altered by several character personalities in his decisions. Razumihin, Raskolnikov's good friend, as discussed earlier, is derived from the word razum, meaning "sense" or "intelligence" (Cox 136). Razumihin's sense and intelligence rub off on Raskolnikov in a distorted context. In a way, Razumihin is the sensible side of Raskolnikov; one part of the humanity that he is missing. Not only is Razumihin a key figurative character, a part of the whole being that Raskolnikov is trying to become, but he is also important in Raskolnikov's physical world. When Raskolnikov falls ill, Razumihin takes care of him. He also defends Raskolnikov when he is being questioned by investigators. Yet his intelligence shines through his friendship and he begins to notice certain deficiencies in Raskolnikov's personality. David Matual points this out about Raskolnikov's friend. "Razumikhin...speaks of 'two opposite personalities' in his friend. On the one hand he is 'generous and kind'; on the other, 'cold and unfeeling'" (28). Razumihin realizes this schism in his friend. He also seems to christen Raskolnikov's moral debate with his assertion that the painter arrested for the murders of Alyona Ivanovna and Lizaveta Ivanovna could not have actually committed it (124-126). Raskolnikov, sparked by the discussions of his friend, becomes obsessed with the murders. This did not go unnoticed by Razumihin, but he attributed it to Raskolnikov's illness. Razumihin's own logic mirrors that of Raskolnikov.

Svidrigaïlov, Raskolnikov's doppelganger, represents a kind of twisted guardian angel. Although his life was riddled with evil, mishappenings, and insanity, Svidrigaïlov produced a wisdom that provided Raskolnikov with insight into his own human feelings. The guardian angel idea plays itself out when, in a fit of laughter, Svidrigaïlov proclaims to Raskolnikov, "I told you we should become friends, I foretold it. Well, here we have. And you will see what an accommodating person I am. You'll see that you can get on with me!" (376). Svidrigaïlov is a rather "accommodating" person. He furnishes several truths for Raskolnikov: "Through Svidrigaïlov Raskolnikov learns that no one can step over the bounds of morality with impunity; if he pursues his theory, only isolation will follow" (Beardow 134). Isolation did follow the crime committed by Raskolnikov; he separated himself by his theory of "ordinary" and "extraordinary people." He further isolated himself by breaking his ties with family and friends, and ultimately from Sonia by confessing to the murders. His isolation peaks in Siberia where he remains silent and is treated silently. Svidrigaïlov predicts all of this and conclusively pushes Raskolnikov over the edge. Through Svidrigaïlov's suicide, Raskolnikov confesses to the murders-this final straw broke the camel's back. Even in death Svidrigaïlov had an influence over Raskolnikov's life and decisions; he led Raskolnikov to face his punishment and finish the humanization process.

"Sonya is the embodiment of good, Christian meekness and faith, she is a fool in Christ" (Follinus 351). This statement supports Dostoevsky's original intent with Sonia's namesake. Despite being a prostitute, Sonia had over stepped the boundaries of social mores and transcended "ordinary" law. She becomes a heroine/role-model for Raskolnikov. Yet, she has a profound effect on his journey. With her influence and faith, Sonia converts Raskolnikov into a human. Sonia develops a love and pity for Raskolnikov and tries to lead him back to the path of "ordinary" men. After his confession, Raskolnikov finally grasps, in part, his humanity: "A feeling long unfamiliar to him flooded his heart and softened it at once. He did not struggle against it. Two tears started into his eyes and hung on his eyelashes" (354). Sonia, through her good naturedness, Christian ideals, and her love for Raskolnikov, led him to his goal: to be human. Raskolnikov admitted that the murders made him the "louse." His attempt to transcend moral boundaries failed and he needed Sonia for redemption.

The biblical story of the raising of Lazarus which Raskolnikov presses Sonia to read to him parallels closely with his own troubles. "The tempo of that internalization process...hastens with the story of Lazarus...The story holds more meaning than the surface Christian content. It structurally parallels and repeats Raskol'nikov's own transition from one plane of existence to another" (Anderson 535). Raskolnikov and Lazarus have much in common; they have redeeming friends in faith-Lazarus has Jesus, Raskolnikov has Sonia. Lazarus is bound and placed in a tomb, much like how Raskolnikov is bound, metaphysically, by "ordinary" men and placed in a tomb (his decrepit surroundings). Raskolnikov, intellectually, dies and rises, with Sonia's aid, to a new life. Dostoevsky's emphasis on this story leads to several observations of the characters of Sonia and Raskolnikov. It seems that Raskolnikov is the embodiment of mankind, while Sonia, the redemptress, is the female Christ. Sonia's purpose is not to open the gates of heaven but to open the gates to humanity for Raskolnikov, which she consequently does in the end.

As Cox writes, "The ethical question of the novel is whether man has the right to commit vile acts for good ends, whether the end, however beneficial to man, can justify inhuman means" (3). Raskolnikov believes that if the ends are beneficial to mankind in general, any means, vile or not, would be justified. Although in Cox's statement, Raskolnikov's means are inhuman, yet in Raskolnikov's mind, the means are the path to humanity. Raskolnikov seeks suffering as a means to bring himself to human emotion, but what he does not realize is that he had been suffering for some time before the murders. His self-induced torment does, on the contrary, lead him to cross paths with Sonia, who has actually achieved "extraordinary" status. But, the true question is whether the humanization process of Raskolnikov is ethical. He exclaims in a moment of a slight epiphany that "The woman was a mistake perhaps, but she is not what matters! The old woman was only an illness...I was in a hurry to overstep...I didn't kill a human being, but a principle! I killed the principle, but I didn't overstep, I stopped on this side...I was only capable of killing" (238-39). He experiences a moment of self-doubt, common to human beings. Raskolnikov could not follow through with his theory, but his realization brings him one step closer to becoming human. Yet, was it ethical for Raskolnikov to kill one human, and accidentally kill another, to realize that he was also human? In Raskolnikov's mind, it was ethical; the greatest good for the greatest number. But to the society in which Raskolnikov lived, it was not.

At the conclusion of the novel, Raskolnikov ends his long journey from the intellectual machine to a human being. His humanity is shown in a passage where he admits his guilt and faces social embarrassment:

He [Raskolnikov] suddenly recalled Sonia's words, "Go to the cross-roads, bow down to the people, kiss the earth, for you have sinned against it too, and say aloud to the whole world, 'I am a murderer.'" He trembled, remembering that. And the hopeless misery and anxiety of all that time, especially of the last hours, had weighed so heavily upon him that he positively clutched at the chance of this new unmixed, complete sensation. It came over him like a fit; it was like a single spark kindled in his soul and spreading fire through him. Everything in him softened at once and the tears started into his eyes. He fell to the earth on the spot... (452)

In this last fit of tears, Raskolnikov realizes his humanity. In his quest, Raskolnikov found that humanity is difficult thing to obtain. But his overstepping of boundaries did aid him in finding it, but not alone. So to Raskolnikov, the ends did justify the means, the stepping over of obstacles is ethical if necessary and that he was not "extraordinary," but an "ordinary" human being.

Works Cited

Anderson, Roger B. "Crime and Punishment: Psycho-Myth and the Making of a Hero."

Canadian-American Slavic Studies 11 (1997): 523-38.

Beardow, Frank. "The Nietzschean Superman in Hamsun's Mysteries and Dostoevsky's

Crime and Punishment." New Comparison: A Journal of Comparative and

General Literary Studies 7 (Summer 1989): 125-42.

Cox, Gary. Crime and Punishment: A Mind to Murder. Boston: Twayne, 1990.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Bantam, 1981.

Follius, Gabor. "Thus Speaks the Devil: 'Crime and Punishment.'" Studia Slavica

Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1991-1992): 343-51.

Jackson, Robert Louis, ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Crime and Punishment.

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Matual, David. "In Defense of the Epilogue of Crime and Punishment." Studies in the

Novel 24 (Spring 1992): 26-34.