Julia Schwartz

June 1, 2004

Crime and Punishment

1.         As a treatise on the nature of a crime, Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment is quite complete in its discussion of the word and its implications. When Raskolnikov commits his crime, we, as readers, see every aspect of premeditated murder, albeit in a slightly odd sense as Raskolnikov’s crime was a bit out of the ordinary. With the murder and the accompanying narration, we see the plan, we see the crime, we see the cover-up, and we see the punishment.

            Being guest to every aspect of the crime and its associated actions might ordinarily bring one an entirely accurate view of a murder, because she would have every detail of the crime. However, because we are privy to the crime from a certain point of view as presented to us by Dostoyevsky – i.e. Raskolnikov’s – we don’t really get an impartial view of the crime. Therefore, we see Raskolnikov as different from other murderers, because we don’t just see him as an anonymous man who cleaved two women’s heads open with an axe. Instead, we see him for his entire personage – his fears, his dreams, his relationships… and his true feelings about the crime.

            When looked at this way, one might assume that the only deeper look into a criminal’s being afforded to readers by Dostoyevsky is sympathy for the criminal and a cheapening of the crime. And inasmuch as this is true, it is impossible to forget the gravity of Raskolnikov’s crime. Yes, it is oft forgotten in pursuit of the ramifications of it, and from the beginning we see (through Raskolnikov’s own substantiations) the irrelevance of Alyona Ivanova and her sister Lizaveta.

            It’s interesting that we see this one crime through Raskolnikov’s own eyes, because it is his own. When we see crimes of other people through his eyes, the Superman theory comes to mind: other people’s crimes are far more depraved, dastardly, and despicable than Raskolnikov’s own, because he really does think he is better than everyone else around him. Raskolnikov does not really even condone murder in general as a basic philosophy, unless it is of a lesser being, as he considered the pawnbroker and her sister by circumstance. As a matter of fact, Lizaveta was a “good” person, and her death is mourned by others more than her sister’s. It also disturbs Raskolnikov far more – because he did not plan it; he did not select her as a weakling ahead of time. If the pawnbroker had committed a murder, he would have thought less of her for it, because she was less than him; she was subhuman. Raskolnikov bases his judgments of murders on the murderer.

            In the way that we see everything from Dostoyevsky through Raskolnikov’s eyes, we then see other murders through those eyes of Raskolnikov, as previously discussed. The only hints as to Dostoyevsky’s own opinions – or general morality that, for the most part, the author seems to subscribe too – is only evident through contradictions of Raskolnikov’s character or through assertions made by other characters, especially those of Porfiry Petrovich and Sonya.

In the end, our “complete” view of crime is really not so complete after all, but it is complete enough for the astute reader to draw solid opinions of crimes when she takes all of the character’s beliefs into consideration.

2.         Sonya is probably the most important female figure in Crime and Punishment, as she is the only one who really means something to Raskolnikov. However, she is a tragic figure, as she must prostitute herself in hopes of helping her family survive. She is selfless in doing this, especially as the little children and mother she turns her pay over to are not even her blood relatives, but her father’s second family. Sonya is constantly taken advantage of, as women typically were, in that she was forced into her ‘profession’ and denied her own childhood, and the money really doesn’t even go to a good cause, as her father wastes most of it on alcohol.

            With Sonya, Dostoyevsky makes a powerful statement about women in 19^th century Russia . She is taken advantage of, but she allows it: she allows people to walk all over her. She does not show a dominant or at least assertive personality, which is typical of women during her time. However, where most women were expected to submit to the wills of men, Sonya mainly submits to the will of her stepmother. Since her father is largely incapacitated, though, and Raskolnikov does not enter the picture until later on, she then logically submits to the controlling woman – who essentially controls the man.

            Additionally, Sonya is controlled by men through the men she takes money from. They are paying her, so she is forced to do what they wish of her. Though this is the standard definition of a prostitute, it is a fitting profession to exemplify a woman’s status.

            Sonya’s role changes a little bit when she befriends Raskolnikov. At first, it is important because he is the first one to actually respect her. Most of his remorse from his crime is realized when he sees her close friendship with Lizaveta, and his main cry is that he will have disappointed her pure self. Sonya is very loyal to Raskolnikov, as most women were. When they eventually form a lasting relationship, as documented by the epilogue, she exhibits her loyalty plainly with her frequent visits to his location in their new home of Siberia . There, she serves Raskolnikov and the other men. With Sonya, Dostoyevsky shows that the main function of women in 19^th century Russia was to serve and submit to the men in their lives

            However, Raskolnikov’s sister, Dounia, provides a powerful antidote to this perception. Her eventual refusal to marry Luzhin because of his insulting nature overcomes her initial treatment of him, which fit in with the Sonya description of women – submissive to whatever he asked for, even if it was something she did not want. Her refusal shows she is powerful enough to say no to something. It also puts her in the position of power in the circle that is her, her brother, her mother, and her intended. The other three people, two of them men, would abide by whatever decision she made. Granted, their responses were not equivalent in all scenarios, but in any case, they pledged to abide by her choice.

            Dounia’s power in this case is the first and basically only assertion of any form by women in Crime and Punishment that is successful. Sonya’s mother-in-law’s attempts to assert herself and her power are ridiculed and she goes insane; Amalia Ludwigovna’s attempts to assert her character in any manner are refuted – because she is German, they say, but either way they remain unsuccessful. Raskolnikov’s mother is weak and whiny and unaware of the true nature of Luzhin’s intentions – and if she is, she does nothing to prevent her daughter’s folly. And, of course, Sonya is pretty much a doormat. Dounia is not aggressive, but she is the only woman in the story who seems to have any clout whatsoever.

            It comes, then, as no surprise that Dounia is one of the most respected characters in the novel, by both the author and the other characters within the story. She is the only one who finds untainted happiness – with Razumihin, which is notable in her poverty and womanly status. Dounia, in her contrast to Sonya and the other women in the novel, provides Dostoyevsky’s example for the ideal woman of 19^th century Russia , but a woman who is very rare indeed.