In 1866 was published the novel Crime and Punishment [1] . When the entire novel, the story still had not materialized in his mind, thinking of a Dostoevsky short story to be written within a month, he called it "the psychological report of a crime." Writing to
Katkòf, editor of the Russian Messenger "to invite him to publish the story on its journal, Dostoevsky explains that the action takes place in the present age.
Raskolnikov, a student of St. Petersburg, is seeking a way out of poverty, even to help his mother and his sister, Dunya, who live in poverty in the province and keep it, sending what Dunja gained as a governess in the family Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov is dominated by the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom to which man has the right top. In fact, he will not hesitate to kill, after meticulously designed and in the most minute detail the murder of an old moneylender and her sister Elisavjeta mild, to rob them:
For about five days before that day I went around like a crazy. I will not say never to have been really crazy and then I will not justify myself with this lie. I will not! I have all my faculties. I wandered around the city then, vagabonds and even got to the point of falling into a frenzy. But this was perhaps partly due to starvation, because for a month does not really know what to eat. The hostess, seeing that I had left university, I spent most meals. But I say! It is not at all here the main cause! Hunger was a third-rate factor ..... Everything, everything was absorbed by my project. There is more then I thought, in recent times, when tramp, because before everything had been thought, and I was all decided. [2]
circumstances svierà A course of the investigation, but the day of the murder Raskolnikov becomes the implacable judge of itself, will be torn between the memories of the killing and the obsessive fear of being discovered.
Polcherjia Aleksandrona is the mother of Raskolnikov. And it is in fact the key to the whole novel, in fact it is you who will set in motion the mechanism to drag the child to the knowledge of the action that he has made, making it move from its inaction. The paradigm of hatred or at least not love for his mother and sister accompany Raskolnikov throughout the novel, culminating in the episode the irritated gesture that concludes the last meeting with Dunya.
Raskolnikov, in the effort to get news on investigations, but also to prove his superiority, cunning play of the police, challenging, and the court will eventually Porfiry suspects his guilt, but let him go free, calculating that ends well to surrender himself into his hands.
only in Siberia, next to Sonja, who followed him, Raskolnikov is freed from the sense of defeat that weighed on him: Marmeladov Sonja is the daughter of a drunken employee, it is forced into prostitution to take home the money needed his family to live.
Around Raskolnikov, and in the novel there is a world of outcasts and sinners: his sister, Dunya, who is willing to help the family to marry the wealthy and vile Luzhin. Svidrigailov pursuing Dunya and after learning that Raskolnikov's confession, it will try to blackmail: rejected, it will kill. Among these sinners, the only truly sordid and mean and Luzhin, who will try to falsely accuse of theft for Sonja in a bad light in front of her and Raskolnikov's mother and Dunja.
The figure of Raskolnikov is very complex and contradictory. In him we are like two souls. On the one hand there is the blood flow that feels good, do not bear the injustices of the world. Loves her dearly his mother and sister and is sensitive to all the poor and suffering, against which experiences feelings of participation, as can be seen with the figure of Marmeladov, which is a secondary figure in the novel, but which is of considerable importance because allows the writer to describe the sad situation of human wrecks, made so by the despair and degradation. Marmeladov will give you the game and the wine and eventually completely degraded and abandoned by society. Raskolnikov will take care of him and his family, whose generosity truly commendable, as suggested by this episode:
Everyone talked, cried, cried, and the driver seemed dazed and every so often repeated:
"what a misfortune! O Lord, what a misfortune! "
Raskolnikov went out as much as he could, and finally saw the object of all this bustle and curiosity. On the ground lay a man just been crushed by the horse unconscious, it seemed very shabby, but with an elegantly dressed, and bleeding everywhere. On the face, blood flowed from the body and the face was all pesto, skinned, disfigured. It was evident that they had crushed seriously .[.....] The driver of the rest was quite miserable or scared. You could see that the car belonged to a rich and substantial owner, that somewhere there waiting for the arrival [.....] Meanwhile Raskolnikov had pushed forward and bent even more closely. Suddenly the fanaletto clearly illuminated the face of the unlucky: he recognized him.
I know him, I know him - he began shouting thrusting ahead of everything - is an employee at rest a titular councilor, Marmeladov! She lives next door, home Kosiòl ..... a doctor as soon as possible! The promissory note, here! - Had pulled out of his pocket money and he showed it to the policeman. [3]
Returning, then, the discourse on this episode with Rasumichin, add:
- Listen, Rasumichin-Raskolnikov took say, - you want to tell you frankly, a little while ago I was in the a house died, he died an employee ..... I gave my all the money ..... kissed me and also be a little while ago that even if I had killed someone, would well ..... In short, I have seen another creature ..... with a pen of fire-colored ..... But then, I digress, they are weak, sorreggimi ..... Now the scale is immediately ...... [4]
It is therefore a person of noble sentiments, religious and even delicate, capable of hate as to love at the same time, he's simply a man who lives on this earth, and tries to improve himself, but his search for a male best will lead to its self-destruction, then from the ashes This destroyed his personality now regenerate a completely new person, who experiences feelings unknown compared to what he once was, but his journey in search of feeling lost, it will not be immediate, nor easy. Raskolnikov was still nestled in the seeds of goodness, he was never completely a bad man, he lived in the same two sides of same coin, as it writes Pareyson, on Raskolnikov, he is capable of noble sentiments:
believe in God, in Christ and the resurrection of the other, agrees to represent justice, binds with a greater love and a noble woman who unfortunately is rejected the margins of society, such as Sonja. [5]
But Raskolnikov rebels against human injustice, gives way, even the ideas that are sucked from the West, and the great figures of history, who would like to emulate. Along this path of revolt will to commit the crime in the name of a morality that is outside of that community. Napoleon wants to imitate because according to him, or rather according to the belief that mature in a labor psychological and spiritual well described in the novel is Napoleon himself above the common ground, all straining to carry out its project of domination, and the building of the justice of which it feels spokesman:
For example, if he were in my place, and Napoleon did not have to start your career or Toulon nor Egypt nor the passage of Mont Blanc, but instead had all these beautiful, monumental undertakings, purely and just some ridiculous old woman who had to kill to steal money from the trunk (for his career, you know) Well, he would resolve this if there had been no other way out around this question ?[.....] .[.....] tortured me for a long time and finally I realized (in a way, all of a sudden) that not only he would feel hurt, but even he would have thought that this gesture was not monumental [.... .] and if he had not always another way, it would have choked so as not to give you even have time to breathe, without indulging in any daydreams !..... Well, I ..... I went from fantasies ..... and has the choke ..... example of that authority. [6]
According to this reasoning, our protagonist tries to convince himself that humans are divided into two categories and that on the one hand there are the so-called "Napoleon", which arise out of the ordinary , becoming the benefactors of mankind have in mind because of the revolutionary projects, they are the people who rule the masses, and only they are given the opportunity to live in the consciousness of what they're doing, the rest of humanity remains only the task of surviving the events following the dictates emanating from the ruler, through murder Raskolnikov wants to understand which of the two categories of people belongs, must at all costs include if it belongs to the mass of subordinates or to the small elite of Napoleon, and do not hesitate to kill in order to understand this mystery, and if he will not be haunted by remorse of conscience arising from the murder will be a napoleon, otherwise you will realize that they belong to the simple mass of subordinates. At first he is motivated by altruistic incentives, outraged by a desire to help the "weak and offended, "as the example of titular councilor Marmeladov well above makes sense, trying to save them at all costs, even at the cost of a crime, but then this will seem altruistic humanitarian side and turn into a sort of devilish pride, a desire for power, in a surge of affirmation and despotism, which he combines with a thirst for power seems to emerge a boundless pride mixed with arrogance and contempt for society, which then lead to a spiritual rebirth, forgetting the ravings in the past had made him lose his head in search of his place in society bipolar, in which he hoped to belong to the ranks of people who can transgress the laws of God and human:
commit crimes, they pour human blood, transgress the divine and human laws. It follows that, while the mass has a duty to observe the moral law and to obey the rulers, but these exceptional beings are not subject to any law, and can do whatever they want, what justified by their own superiority. [7]
The conclusion of all this ranting in Raskolnikov's mind leads him to believe that his crime is a price to pay for justice and protest. And then ask: what is at the bottom of the death of an old usurer, though this will the realization of its revolutionary dreams, as illustrated, in a monologue during a conversation between Raskolnikov and his former university colleague:
No, that's what I'll tell you. I that damn old to kill and rob, and, I assure you without any qualms of conscience, - the student said with heat. The officer returned to
strong rider, and Raskolnikov shuddered. How strange it was!
- allow me, I want to ask you a serious question .- heats their student.
- before, of course, I joked, but be careful: on the one hand vecchiuccia a stupid, foolish, of no account, poor, sick, do not need anyone, and, conversely, harmful to all, who does not know what she lives for, and that tomorrow, so will die by itself. Do you understand? Do you understand?
- Well, I understand, - said the officer, staring carefully mate who hotly .[.....] If you kill him and take his money, and then, with their help, devoting oneself to service of all humanity and the common cause: what do you think would not be a single, tiny delittuccio deleted thousands of good deeds? For a life, thousands of lives saved from rot and from the wreckage. A death and a hundred lives in exchange, but, you know, arithmetic! And that means the balance of the general life vecchiuccia consumptive, stupid and bad? No longer the life of a louse, of a cockroach, but not worth even that, because the vecchiuccia is harmful. Wears the lives of others [.....] Raskolnikov was extraordinary agitation. Of course, those were the most common and frequent speeches and thoughts of young people, he had already heard more than once, only in other forms and other issues. Why now, he had had to listen to speak for the fact of such a conversation, and these thoughts, when in his own head had just sprouted ..... exactly the same thoughts? And why now, he had just brought that thought from his shoot of the old house, he happened to just hear the conversation about old ?..... This always seemed strange coincidence. That insignificant conversation restaurant had on him an extraordinary influence in the further course of the matter: as if, really, there was there a kind of predetermination, the indication ...... [8]
Raskolnikov, he killed the usurer to get rid of common morality in the name of a morality of the superman, but the most difficult task that awaits him after this episode, is the liberation from guilt.
According to him, the great figures such as Napoleon never had in their steps, in front of killings of men (who were needed to realize their projects) guilt. Even our hero wants to justify his act in the name of a principle, to be able to say I did not kill a person but a principle.
Raskolnikov is where he will meet his failure, he will not be able to free themselves from guilt, despite all his efforts to attain the complete psychological belief that his act was necessary to be successful and achieve his dream of a rough justice within which he wanted to justify all its actions.
Pareyson writes:
Raskolnikov realizes that he knew only kill, but do not transgress that failed to climb: he killed the old usurer, but did not pass the law, the perpetrators murder, but was not placed beyond the norm of morality. [9]
So, Raskolnikov has failed in the quest for absolute freedom, unlimited, arbitrary. He realizes that it is not Napoleon, but was a "louse," a louse like everybody else, even a "aesthetic louse," which is worse, because it is a sign of a soul unclean and disgusting.
In this respect there is a quotation from Dostoevsky very clarifying the same, which explains what a moral action, identifying as the pure moral choice out of all the rules, but freedom of choice, taking into account an authority Top: A
Kavelin. You say that morality is only acting according to his conviction. But where will you put forward? I do not believe you at all and I say quite the contrary, that it is immoral to act on their beliefs. And you of course I can not refute anything more.
Pour the blood do not feel moral, but shed blood on the basis of its belief that these so you feel moral. But, let me then, because it would be immoral to shed blood?
If we do not have authority in faith and in Christ, then we stray.
There are moral ideas. And they come from the religious sense, but they can never be justified with only logic.
life becomes impossible. [10]
Dostoevsky in such a statement criticizing the moral views as a submission to the need to kill a necessity driven by their instincts and their instincts, freedom of Raskolnikov is immoral because it moves up a wrong track. This freedom is similar to a rebellion of slaves, and even morality itself disappears, first reduced to pure form and then more explicitly denied by the negation of what constitutes it as a moral experience: the relationship between his being a person, a 'living life' and not the 'formulas and categories "that enable all forms of violence such as murder committed by Raskolnikov.
As we have stated before Raskolnikov tried to figure out if he is bound by any moral law, through the killing of a person made in his image and likeness, realizing that he is bound by this law as a moral fact, says Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky [11] :
He has proven to be an ordinary human being subject to moral law. He wanted to have the "freedom and dominion, and above all the
domain! Over all beings and fearful over the anthill. " This domain would have to get rid of the moral law. But the moral law has shown stronger than him and he fell ..... [12]
But in this state of bankruptcy by a psychological point of view begins the redemption of Raskolnikov, who gradually becomes convinced that freedom is an absolute demon, demon destroyer of companies and persons; and becomes convinced that he was sucked into this idea demonic, which led him to self-destruction, and foreignness by the company. In this process of redemption, were crucial elements of goodness that lay within him, and gradually responded and took him to the belief that all his behavior was wrong. But above some simple shapes and marginalized by society, like Sonja, have played an important role, because, Sonja will be to collect his first confession, then she will accompany him to Siberia, where it will be condemned after his public confession, eight years of forced labor, and here you will realize the ultimate redemption, with its total and sincere confession to Sonya, and the reading of the passage of the resurrection of Lazarus from the Gospel of St. John.
Dostoevsky was able to describe the redemption of Raskolnikov with exemplary clarity and rich poetry of this concluding part of the novel is told that his spiritual rebirth it is a proof:
A tract was found beside him Sonia. Had approached him just making you feel and she started to sit on the side. It was still very early, the cool morning had not yet eased. She was wearing her poor, old green cloak and shawl.
His face still bore the signs of the disease, was emaciated, pale, had sharp. She smiled kindly and joyous, as usual, held out her hand timidly.
always held out her hand timidly, and sometimes not at all gave it to him, as if afraid that he rejects. He always took her hand with a kind of aversion, accepts it as angry, sometimes stubbornly silent the whole time of his visit. It happened and she was not and went intimorisse away deeply troubled. But now their hands will separate themselves, he escaped threw a quick look, said nothing and lowered his eyes to the ground. They were alone, no one saw them. The soldier of Commons at that time had turned away.
How that happened, he did not know, but suddenly it was as if something had grabbed and tossed at her feet. He wept and embraced his knees. In the first moment she is terribly frightened, and all of his face became deadly pale. Had jumped up and Messas to shake, looking at him. But now, in the same moment, he knew everything. In her eyes shone endless happiness, she had understood, and she was gone doubt that he loved her, loved her infinitely, and who had reached the end, that moment .....
volevan They speak, but could not. There were tears in their eyes. They were both pale and thin, but in their faces pale and sick already shone the dawn of a renewed future, a full resurrection to new life. He had resurrected the love, the heart of one contained infinite sources of life for the hearts of others. [13]
With this action stops the story. Dostoevsky does not tell us how to evolve the life of Raskolnikov redeemed, but it offers a particularly interesting and illuminating flesh, when he says that from that moment Raskolnikov totally changes the way it is: no longer angry, no longer unhappy, but happy, happy, even suffering, to emphasize that his worldview, and life was totally changed. This one's path of redemption, will be unexpectedly Raskolnikov. How much anguish and suffering he has endured, remorse for the killing of two innocent, the suffering of many people who loved him, all this evil can justify its final redemption?
Surely not, he has spent too much in exchange for what perhaps could be reached in other ways, with this you do not want to condemn the figure of Raskolnikov, but surely you can not elevate to hero a murderess, he will suffer much during his time in forced labor, and perhaps this will be the spring that will trigger the redemption, as though only with the deprivation and the wounds may finally receive the light:
was already sick for a long time, but not the horrors of the life force, not jobs, not food, not having his head shaved, not to be dressed in rags had broken down: oh! What did he care to all those suffering and torture! On the contrary, was even pleased with the work moving physically on the job, he at least he procured a few hours of peaceful sleep. And what it meant to him the board: the thin soup of cabbage with cockroaches? As a student, during the life of the first, often did not even have to [.....] He was ashamed that he just he, Raskolnikov, lost so blindly, without hope, so dark and simple, like a sentence of blind fate, and that he should resign and submit to the insistence of that sentence do not know if he wanted to calm down a tad.
anxiety without purpose and without purpose in the present and future in a never-ending sacrifice, with whom nothing would have got here is what stood before the world. [14]
Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian religious philosopher, born in Kiev in 1874, he starred in "Crime and Punishment as a work suitable for the discovery of the most recondite of the human spirit, but this research, unlike other works of Dostoyevsky, is a research done in solitary. In this novel does not discern the relationships that generate spiritual changes such as in The Brothers Karamazov, or nell'Idiota, all the introspective path for much of the novel, Raskolnikov is left in the hands of that is consumed with his thoughts, which in some moments appear to be close to your neighbor and be sensible, and at other times seems to deviate from it to be genuine and its delusions of omnipotence
In Crime and Punishment, there is nothing else besides the discovery of the inner life of man, experiments on the nature of his own and human in general, there is nothing else besides the search for all possibilities and could not enclosed in man. But the anthropological research in Crime and Punishment is conducted differently than the other novels: here lacks the passionate intensity of human relationships, the discovery of the only human face through the multitude of men. More than all the other works of Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, suggests a new science experiment on humans. [15]
Raskolnikov's mistake is that he wants a morality based entirely on reason, logic and inland reaches its complete denial, he tries to demonstrate logic of the moral law, not realizing that the moral law does not require proof. The fact is that our moral conscience gives top priority to the sanctity of the human person; Raskolnikov attempts to distort this record, this record branded in our soul that admits no violations, he remains deaf to the primacy of the sanctity of the human person, looking to reverse this natural principle, but groped to destroy the order in question, he falls. So whoever is destined to fall, having a moral conscience, violate the moral law.
course the individual does not feel that their conscience will have no problems at all to kill a person, he may pay safely without causing any blood tragedy in his soul. Ivan Karamazov's Devil has understood the problem circulating around the moral issues that people ask the same Ivan saying:
are now increasingly popular and harm 'guilty conscience' and all this nonsense. It also depended on you, "from the relaxation of your morals." Well, and who has won? We have only won those without conscience, for him what makes them the pangs of conscience if they have no conscience at all? In return for decent people have suffered, which were still conscience and honor ..... [16]
Who does not have the consciousness has no reason to fear it, this is what the devil says Karamàziano, it would seem, following the logic of this unlikely moralist, comparing it with Raskolnikov's theory about the fact that the world should be divided between napoleon and ordinary people, that Napoleon did not have a soul, because they can do any action, even the most brutal, not feeling the slightest remorse, the important thing for Napoleon is the achievement of the goal regardless of the mezzo.Una What is certain and secure, the remorse of conscience Raskolnikov tried making them come to the conclusion that an ordinary man, and did not belong to the race of napoleons.
Katkòf, editor of the Russian Messenger "to invite him to publish the story on its journal, Dostoevsky explains that the action takes place in the present age.
Raskolnikov, a student of St. Petersburg, is seeking a way out of poverty, even to help his mother and his sister, Dunya, who live in poverty in the province and keep it, sending what Dunja gained as a governess in the family Svidrigailov. Raskolnikov is dominated by the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom to which man has the right top. In fact, he will not hesitate to kill, after meticulously designed and in the most minute detail the murder of an old moneylender and her sister Elisavjeta mild, to rob them:
For about five days before that day I went around like a crazy. I will not say never to have been really crazy and then I will not justify myself with this lie. I will not! I have all my faculties. I wandered around the city then, vagabonds and even got to the point of falling into a frenzy. But this was perhaps partly due to starvation, because for a month does not really know what to eat. The hostess, seeing that I had left university, I spent most meals. But I say! It is not at all here the main cause! Hunger was a third-rate factor ..... Everything, everything was absorbed by my project. There is more then I thought, in recent times, when tramp, because before everything had been thought, and I was all decided. [2]
circumstances svierà A course of the investigation, but the day of the murder Raskolnikov becomes the implacable judge of itself, will be torn between the memories of the killing and the obsessive fear of being discovered.
Polcherjia Aleksandrona is the mother of Raskolnikov. And it is in fact the key to the whole novel, in fact it is you who will set in motion the mechanism to drag the child to the knowledge of the action that he has made, making it move from its inaction. The paradigm of hatred or at least not love for his mother and sister accompany Raskolnikov throughout the novel, culminating in the episode the irritated gesture that concludes the last meeting with Dunya.
Raskolnikov, in the effort to get news on investigations, but also to prove his superiority, cunning play of the police, challenging, and the court will eventually Porfiry suspects his guilt, but let him go free, calculating that ends well to surrender himself into his hands.
only in Siberia, next to Sonja, who followed him, Raskolnikov is freed from the sense of defeat that weighed on him: Marmeladov Sonja is the daughter of a drunken employee, it is forced into prostitution to take home the money needed his family to live.
Around Raskolnikov, and in the novel there is a world of outcasts and sinners: his sister, Dunya, who is willing to help the family to marry the wealthy and vile Luzhin. Svidrigailov pursuing Dunya and after learning that Raskolnikov's confession, it will try to blackmail: rejected, it will kill. Among these sinners, the only truly sordid and mean and Luzhin, who will try to falsely accuse of theft for Sonja in a bad light in front of her and Raskolnikov's mother and Dunja.
The figure of Raskolnikov is very complex and contradictory. In him we are like two souls. On the one hand there is the blood flow that feels good, do not bear the injustices of the world. Loves her dearly his mother and sister and is sensitive to all the poor and suffering, against which experiences feelings of participation, as can be seen with the figure of Marmeladov, which is a secondary figure in the novel, but which is of considerable importance because allows the writer to describe the sad situation of human wrecks, made so by the despair and degradation. Marmeladov will give you the game and the wine and eventually completely degraded and abandoned by society. Raskolnikov will take care of him and his family, whose generosity truly commendable, as suggested by this episode:
Everyone talked, cried, cried, and the driver seemed dazed and every so often repeated:
"what a misfortune! O Lord, what a misfortune! "
Raskolnikov went out as much as he could, and finally saw the object of all this bustle and curiosity. On the ground lay a man just been crushed by the horse unconscious, it seemed very shabby, but with an elegantly dressed, and bleeding everywhere. On the face, blood flowed from the body and the face was all pesto, skinned, disfigured. It was evident that they had crushed seriously .[.....] The driver of the rest was quite miserable or scared. You could see that the car belonged to a rich and substantial owner, that somewhere there waiting for the arrival [.....] Meanwhile Raskolnikov had pushed forward and bent even more closely. Suddenly the fanaletto clearly illuminated the face of the unlucky: he recognized him.
I know him, I know him - he began shouting thrusting ahead of everything - is an employee at rest a titular councilor, Marmeladov! She lives next door, home Kosiòl ..... a doctor as soon as possible! The promissory note, here! - Had pulled out of his pocket money and he showed it to the policeman. [3]
Returning, then, the discourse on this episode with Rasumichin, add:
- Listen, Rasumichin-Raskolnikov took say, - you want to tell you frankly, a little while ago I was in the a house died, he died an employee ..... I gave my all the money ..... kissed me and also be a little while ago that even if I had killed someone, would well ..... In short, I have seen another creature ..... with a pen of fire-colored ..... But then, I digress, they are weak, sorreggimi ..... Now the scale is immediately ...... [4]
It is therefore a person of noble sentiments, religious and even delicate, capable of hate as to love at the same time, he's simply a man who lives on this earth, and tries to improve himself, but his search for a male best will lead to its self-destruction, then from the ashes This destroyed his personality now regenerate a completely new person, who experiences feelings unknown compared to what he once was, but his journey in search of feeling lost, it will not be immediate, nor easy. Raskolnikov was still nestled in the seeds of goodness, he was never completely a bad man, he lived in the same two sides of same coin, as it writes Pareyson, on Raskolnikov, he is capable of noble sentiments:
believe in God, in Christ and the resurrection of the other, agrees to represent justice, binds with a greater love and a noble woman who unfortunately is rejected the margins of society, such as Sonja. [5]
But Raskolnikov rebels against human injustice, gives way, even the ideas that are sucked from the West, and the great figures of history, who would like to emulate. Along this path of revolt will to commit the crime in the name of a morality that is outside of that community. Napoleon wants to imitate because according to him, or rather according to the belief that mature in a labor psychological and spiritual well described in the novel is Napoleon himself above the common ground, all straining to carry out its project of domination, and the building of the justice of which it feels spokesman:
For example, if he were in my place, and Napoleon did not have to start your career or Toulon nor Egypt nor the passage of Mont Blanc, but instead had all these beautiful, monumental undertakings, purely and just some ridiculous old woman who had to kill to steal money from the trunk (for his career, you know) Well, he would resolve this if there had been no other way out around this question ?[.....] .[.....] tortured me for a long time and finally I realized (in a way, all of a sudden) that not only he would feel hurt, but even he would have thought that this gesture was not monumental [.... .] and if he had not always another way, it would have choked so as not to give you even have time to breathe, without indulging in any daydreams !..... Well, I ..... I went from fantasies ..... and has the choke ..... example of that authority. [6]
According to this reasoning, our protagonist tries to convince himself that humans are divided into two categories and that on the one hand there are the so-called "Napoleon", which arise out of the ordinary , becoming the benefactors of mankind have in mind because of the revolutionary projects, they are the people who rule the masses, and only they are given the opportunity to live in the consciousness of what they're doing, the rest of humanity remains only the task of surviving the events following the dictates emanating from the ruler, through murder Raskolnikov wants to understand which of the two categories of people belongs, must at all costs include if it belongs to the mass of subordinates or to the small elite of Napoleon, and do not hesitate to kill in order to understand this mystery, and if he will not be haunted by remorse of conscience arising from the murder will be a napoleon, otherwise you will realize that they belong to the simple mass of subordinates. At first he is motivated by altruistic incentives, outraged by a desire to help the "weak and offended, "as the example of titular councilor Marmeladov well above makes sense, trying to save them at all costs, even at the cost of a crime, but then this will seem altruistic humanitarian side and turn into a sort of devilish pride, a desire for power, in a surge of affirmation and despotism, which he combines with a thirst for power seems to emerge a boundless pride mixed with arrogance and contempt for society, which then lead to a spiritual rebirth, forgetting the ravings in the past had made him lose his head in search of his place in society bipolar, in which he hoped to belong to the ranks of people who can transgress the laws of God and human:
commit crimes, they pour human blood, transgress the divine and human laws. It follows that, while the mass has a duty to observe the moral law and to obey the rulers, but these exceptional beings are not subject to any law, and can do whatever they want, what justified by their own superiority. [7]
The conclusion of all this ranting in Raskolnikov's mind leads him to believe that his crime is a price to pay for justice and protest. And then ask: what is at the bottom of the death of an old usurer, though this will the realization of its revolutionary dreams, as illustrated, in a monologue during a conversation between Raskolnikov and his former university colleague:
No, that's what I'll tell you. I that damn old to kill and rob, and, I assure you without any qualms of conscience, - the student said with heat. The officer returned to
strong rider, and Raskolnikov shuddered. How strange it was!
- allow me, I want to ask you a serious question .- heats their student.
- before, of course, I joked, but be careful: on the one hand vecchiuccia a stupid, foolish, of no account, poor, sick, do not need anyone, and, conversely, harmful to all, who does not know what she lives for, and that tomorrow, so will die by itself. Do you understand? Do you understand?
- Well, I understand, - said the officer, staring carefully mate who hotly .[.....] If you kill him and take his money, and then, with their help, devoting oneself to service of all humanity and the common cause: what do you think would not be a single, tiny delittuccio deleted thousands of good deeds? For a life, thousands of lives saved from rot and from the wreckage. A death and a hundred lives in exchange, but, you know, arithmetic! And that means the balance of the general life vecchiuccia consumptive, stupid and bad? No longer the life of a louse, of a cockroach, but not worth even that, because the vecchiuccia is harmful. Wears the lives of others [.....] Raskolnikov was extraordinary agitation. Of course, those were the most common and frequent speeches and thoughts of young people, he had already heard more than once, only in other forms and other issues. Why now, he had had to listen to speak for the fact of such a conversation, and these thoughts, when in his own head had just sprouted ..... exactly the same thoughts? And why now, he had just brought that thought from his shoot of the old house, he happened to just hear the conversation about old ?..... This always seemed strange coincidence. That insignificant conversation restaurant had on him an extraordinary influence in the further course of the matter: as if, really, there was there a kind of predetermination, the indication ...... [8]
Raskolnikov, he killed the usurer to get rid of common morality in the name of a morality of the superman, but the most difficult task that awaits him after this episode, is the liberation from guilt.
According to him, the great figures such as Napoleon never had in their steps, in front of killings of men (who were needed to realize their projects) guilt. Even our hero wants to justify his act in the name of a principle, to be able to say I did not kill a person but a principle.
Raskolnikov is where he will meet his failure, he will not be able to free themselves from guilt, despite all his efforts to attain the complete psychological belief that his act was necessary to be successful and achieve his dream of a rough justice within which he wanted to justify all its actions.
Pareyson writes:
Raskolnikov realizes that he knew only kill, but do not transgress that failed to climb: he killed the old usurer, but did not pass the law, the perpetrators murder, but was not placed beyond the norm of morality. [9]
So, Raskolnikov has failed in the quest for absolute freedom, unlimited, arbitrary. He realizes that it is not Napoleon, but was a "louse," a louse like everybody else, even a "aesthetic louse," which is worse, because it is a sign of a soul unclean and disgusting.
In this respect there is a quotation from Dostoevsky very clarifying the same, which explains what a moral action, identifying as the pure moral choice out of all the rules, but freedom of choice, taking into account an authority Top: A
Kavelin. You say that morality is only acting according to his conviction. But where will you put forward? I do not believe you at all and I say quite the contrary, that it is immoral to act on their beliefs. And you of course I can not refute anything more.
Pour the blood do not feel moral, but shed blood on the basis of its belief that these so you feel moral. But, let me then, because it would be immoral to shed blood?
If we do not have authority in faith and in Christ, then we stray.
There are moral ideas. And they come from the religious sense, but they can never be justified with only logic.
life becomes impossible. [10]
Dostoevsky in such a statement criticizing the moral views as a submission to the need to kill a necessity driven by their instincts and their instincts, freedom of Raskolnikov is immoral because it moves up a wrong track. This freedom is similar to a rebellion of slaves, and even morality itself disappears, first reduced to pure form and then more explicitly denied by the negation of what constitutes it as a moral experience: the relationship between his being a person, a 'living life' and not the 'formulas and categories "that enable all forms of violence such as murder committed by Raskolnikov.
As we have stated before Raskolnikov tried to figure out if he is bound by any moral law, through the killing of a person made in his image and likeness, realizing that he is bound by this law as a moral fact, says Mikhail Tugan-Baranovsky [11] :
He has proven to be an ordinary human being subject to moral law. He wanted to have the "freedom and dominion, and above all the
domain! Over all beings and fearful over the anthill. " This domain would have to get rid of the moral law. But the moral law has shown stronger than him and he fell ..... [12]
But in this state of bankruptcy by a psychological point of view begins the redemption of Raskolnikov, who gradually becomes convinced that freedom is an absolute demon, demon destroyer of companies and persons; and becomes convinced that he was sucked into this idea demonic, which led him to self-destruction, and foreignness by the company. In this process of redemption, were crucial elements of goodness that lay within him, and gradually responded and took him to the belief that all his behavior was wrong. But above some simple shapes and marginalized by society, like Sonja, have played an important role, because, Sonja will be to collect his first confession, then she will accompany him to Siberia, where it will be condemned after his public confession, eight years of forced labor, and here you will realize the ultimate redemption, with its total and sincere confession to Sonya, and the reading of the passage of the resurrection of Lazarus from the Gospel of St. John.
Dostoevsky was able to describe the redemption of Raskolnikov with exemplary clarity and rich poetry of this concluding part of the novel is told that his spiritual rebirth it is a proof:
A tract was found beside him Sonia. Had approached him just making you feel and she started to sit on the side. It was still very early, the cool morning had not yet eased. She was wearing her poor, old green cloak and shawl.
His face still bore the signs of the disease, was emaciated, pale, had sharp. She smiled kindly and joyous, as usual, held out her hand timidly.
always held out her hand timidly, and sometimes not at all gave it to him, as if afraid that he rejects. He always took her hand with a kind of aversion, accepts it as angry, sometimes stubbornly silent the whole time of his visit. It happened and she was not and went intimorisse away deeply troubled. But now their hands will separate themselves, he escaped threw a quick look, said nothing and lowered his eyes to the ground. They were alone, no one saw them. The soldier of Commons at that time had turned away.
How that happened, he did not know, but suddenly it was as if something had grabbed and tossed at her feet. He wept and embraced his knees. In the first moment she is terribly frightened, and all of his face became deadly pale. Had jumped up and Messas to shake, looking at him. But now, in the same moment, he knew everything. In her eyes shone endless happiness, she had understood, and she was gone doubt that he loved her, loved her infinitely, and who had reached the end, that moment .....
volevan They speak, but could not. There were tears in their eyes. They were both pale and thin, but in their faces pale and sick already shone the dawn of a renewed future, a full resurrection to new life. He had resurrected the love, the heart of one contained infinite sources of life for the hearts of others. [13]
With this action stops the story. Dostoevsky does not tell us how to evolve the life of Raskolnikov redeemed, but it offers a particularly interesting and illuminating flesh, when he says that from that moment Raskolnikov totally changes the way it is: no longer angry, no longer unhappy, but happy, happy, even suffering, to emphasize that his worldview, and life was totally changed. This one's path of redemption, will be unexpectedly Raskolnikov. How much anguish and suffering he has endured, remorse for the killing of two innocent, the suffering of many people who loved him, all this evil can justify its final redemption?
Surely not, he has spent too much in exchange for what perhaps could be reached in other ways, with this you do not want to condemn the figure of Raskolnikov, but surely you can not elevate to hero a murderess, he will suffer much during his time in forced labor, and perhaps this will be the spring that will trigger the redemption, as though only with the deprivation and the wounds may finally receive the light:
was already sick for a long time, but not the horrors of the life force, not jobs, not food, not having his head shaved, not to be dressed in rags had broken down: oh! What did he care to all those suffering and torture! On the contrary, was even pleased with the work moving physically on the job, he at least he procured a few hours of peaceful sleep. And what it meant to him the board: the thin soup of cabbage with cockroaches? As a student, during the life of the first, often did not even have to [.....] He was ashamed that he just he, Raskolnikov, lost so blindly, without hope, so dark and simple, like a sentence of blind fate, and that he should resign and submit to the insistence of that sentence do not know if he wanted to calm down a tad.
anxiety without purpose and without purpose in the present and future in a never-ending sacrifice, with whom nothing would have got here is what stood before the world. [14]
Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian religious philosopher, born in Kiev in 1874, he starred in "Crime and Punishment as a work suitable for the discovery of the most recondite of the human spirit, but this research, unlike other works of Dostoyevsky, is a research done in solitary. In this novel does not discern the relationships that generate spiritual changes such as in The Brothers Karamazov, or nell'Idiota, all the introspective path for much of the novel, Raskolnikov is left in the hands of that is consumed with his thoughts, which in some moments appear to be close to your neighbor and be sensible, and at other times seems to deviate from it to be genuine and its delusions of omnipotence
In Crime and Punishment, there is nothing else besides the discovery of the inner life of man, experiments on the nature of his own and human in general, there is nothing else besides the search for all possibilities and could not enclosed in man. But the anthropological research in Crime and Punishment is conducted differently than the other novels: here lacks the passionate intensity of human relationships, the discovery of the only human face through the multitude of men. More than all the other works of Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, suggests a new science experiment on humans. [15]
Raskolnikov's mistake is that he wants a morality based entirely on reason, logic and inland reaches its complete denial, he tries to demonstrate logic of the moral law, not realizing that the moral law does not require proof. The fact is that our moral conscience gives top priority to the sanctity of the human person; Raskolnikov attempts to distort this record, this record branded in our soul that admits no violations, he remains deaf to the primacy of the sanctity of the human person, looking to reverse this natural principle, but groped to destroy the order in question, he falls. So whoever is destined to fall, having a moral conscience, violate the moral law.
course the individual does not feel that their conscience will have no problems at all to kill a person, he may pay safely without causing any blood tragedy in his soul. Ivan Karamazov's Devil has understood the problem circulating around the moral issues that people ask the same Ivan saying:
are now increasingly popular and harm 'guilty conscience' and all this nonsense. It also depended on you, "from the relaxation of your morals." Well, and who has won? We have only won those without conscience, for him what makes them the pangs of conscience if they have no conscience at all? In return for decent people have suffered, which were still conscience and honor ..... [16]
Who does not have the consciousness has no reason to fear it, this is what the devil says Karamàziano, it would seem, following the logic of this unlikely moralist, comparing it with Raskolnikov's theory about the fact that the world should be divided between napoleon and ordinary people, that Napoleon did not have a soul, because they can do any action, even the most brutal, not feeling the slightest remorse, the important thing for Napoleon is the achievement of the goal regardless of the mezzo.Una What is certain and secure, the remorse of conscience Raskolnikov tried making them come to the conclusion that an ordinary man, and did not belong to the race of napoleons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment