That a terrible quarrel broke out among the Supreme Polemarch in the Achaean army...
-...Shut up, Sonya, I’m not laughing at all, I myself know that the devil was dragging me. Shut up, Sonya, shut up! – he repeated gloomily and insistently. - I know everything. I had already changed my mind about all this and whispered to myself when I was lying in the dark then... I argued all this with myself, to the last smallest detail, and I know everything, everything! And I was so tired, so tired of all this chatter! I wanted to forget everything and start again, Sonya, and stop chatting! And do you really think that I went headlong like a fool? I acted like a smart guy, and that’s what ruined me! And do you really think that I didn’t know, for example, that if I had already begun to ask and interrogate myself: do I have the right to have power? - then, therefore, I have no right to have power. Or what if I ask the question: is a person a louse? - then, therefore, a person is no longer a louse for me, but a louse for someone who doesn’t even think about it and who goes straight without asking questions... If I’ve been tormented for so many days: would Napoleon go or not? - so I clearly felt that I was not Napoleon... I endured all, all the torment of all this chatter, Sonya, and wanted to shake it all off my shoulders: I wanted, Sonya, to kill without casuistry, to kill for myself, for myself alone! I didn’t want to lie to myself about this! I didn’t kill to help my mother - nonsense! I did not kill so that, having received funds and power, I could become a benefactor of humanity. Nonsense! I just killed; I killed for myself, for myself alone: and then whether I would have become someone’s benefactor or spent my whole life, like a spider, catching everyone in a web and sucking the living juices out of everyone, at that moment I still had to have it! And it wasn’t money that was most important to me, Sonya, when I killed; It wasn’t so much the money that was needed, but something else... I know all this now... Understand me: maybe, walking the same road, I would never repeat the murder again. I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...
- Kill? Do you have the right to kill? – Sonya clasped her hands.
- Eh, Sonya! – he cried out irritably, he wanted to object to her something, but fell silent contemptuously. - Don't interrupt me, Sonya! I wanted to prove to you only one thing: that the devil dragged me then, and after that he explained to me that I had no right to go there, because I was just as much a louse as everyone else! He laughed at me, so I have come to you now! Welcome a guest! If I were not a louse, would I have come to you? Listen: when I went to the old woman then, I just went to try... So you know!
- And they killed! Killed!
- But how did you kill? Is this how they kill? Is it really possible to go kill like I did then? Someday I will tell you how I walked... Did I kill the old woman? I killed myself, not the old woman! And then, all at once, he killed himself forever!.. And it was the devil who killed that old woman, not me... Enough, enough, Sonya, enough! Leave me,” he suddenly cried out in convulsive anguish, “leave me!”
Fyodor Dostoevsky. Engraving by Vladimir Favorsky. 1929 State Tretyakov Gallery / DIOMEDIA
"Beauty will save the world"
“Is it true, Prince [Myshkin], that you once said that the world will be saved by the “beauty”? “Gentlemen,” he [Hippolytus] shouted loudly to everyone, “the prince claims that the world will be saved by beauty!” And I claim that the reason he has such playful thoughts is that he is now in love. Gentlemen, the prince is in love; Just now, as soon as he came in, I was convinced of this. Don’t blush, prince, I’ll feel sorry for you. What beauty will save the world? Kolya told me this again... Are you a zealous Christian? Kolya says, you call yourself a Christian.
The prince looked at him carefully and did not answer him.”"The Idiot" (1868)
The phrase about beauty that will save the world is uttered by a minor character - the consumptive youth Hippolyte. He asks if Prince Myshkin really said that, and, having received no answer, begins to develop this thesis. But main character the novel does not talk about beauty in such formulations and only once asks about Nastasya Filippovna whether she is kind: “Oh, if only she were kind! Everything would be saved!”
In the context of “The Idiot,” it is customary to talk primarily about the power of inner beauty - this is exactly how the writer himself suggested interpreting this phrase. While working on the novel, he wrote to the poet and censor Apollo Maykov that he set himself the goal of creating an ideal image of “a completely wonderful person,” meaning Prince Myshkin. At the same time, in the drafts of the novel there is the following entry: “The world will be saved by beauty. Two examples of beauty,” after which the author talks about the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna. For Dostoevsky, therefore, it is important to evaluate the saving power of both the inner, spiritual beauty of a person and his appearance. In the plot of “The Idiot,” however, we find a negative answer: the beauty of Nastasya Filippovna, like the purity of Prince Myshkin, does not make the lives of other characters better and does not prevent tragedy.
Later, in the novel The Brothers Karamazov, the characters again talk about the power of beauty. Brother Mitya no longer doubts its saving power: he knows and feels that beauty can make the world a better place. But in his understanding, it also has destructive power. And the hero will suffer because he does not understand where exactly the border between good and evil lies.
“Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right”
“And it wasn’t money, the main thing, that I needed, Sonya, when I killed; It wasn’t so much the money that was needed, but something else... I know all this now... Understand me: maybe, walking the same road, I would never repeat the murder again. I needed to know something else, something else was pushing me under my arms: I needed to find out then, and find out quickly, whether I was a louse like everyone else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross or not! Do I dare to bend down and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or right I have..."
"Crime and Punishment" (1866)
Raskolnikov first talks about the “trembling creature” after meeting with a tradesman who calls him a “murderer.” The hero gets scared and plunges into reasoning about how some “Napoleon” would react in his place - a representative of the highest human “class” who can calmly commit a crime for the sake of his goal or whim: “Right, right.” pro-rock,” when he places a good-sized battery somewhere across the street and blows on the right and the wrong, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and don’t desire, because it’s none of your business!..” Raskolnikov most likely borrowed this image from Pushkin’s poem “Imitations of the Koran,” where the 93rd sura is freely stated:
Take courage, despise deception,
Follow the path of righteousness cheerfully,
Love the orphans and my Koran
Preach to a trembling creature.
In the original text of the sura, the recipients of the sermon should not be “creatures,” but people who should be told about the benefits that Allah can bestow “Therefore, do not oppress the orphan! And don’t drive away the one who asks! And proclaim the mercy of your Lord" (Quran 93:9-11).. Raskolnikov consciously mixes the image from “Imitations of the Koran” and episodes from the biography of Napoleon. Of course, it was not the prophet Mohammed, but the French commander who placed “a good battery across the street.” This is how he suppressed the royalist uprising in 1795. For Raskolnikov, they are both great people, and each of them, in his opinion, had the right to achieve their goals by any means. Everything that Napoleon did could be implemented by Mohammed and any other representative of the highest “rank”.
The last mention of the “trembling creature” in “Crime and Punishment” is Raskolnikov’s same damned question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right...”. He utters this phrase at the end of a long explanation with Sonya Marmeladova, finally not justifying himself with noble impulses and difficult circumstances, but directly declaring that he killed for himself in order to understand what “category” he belongs to. Thus ends his last monologue; after hundreds and thousands of words, he finally got to the point. The significance of this phrase is given not only by the biting formulation, but also by what happens next to the hero. After this, Raskolnikov no longer makes long speeches: Dostoevsky leaves him only short remarks. Readers will learn about Raskolnikov’s internal experiences, which will ultimately lead him with a confession to Sennaya Square and to the police station, from the author’s explanations. The hero himself will not tell you anything more - after all, he has already asked the main question.
“Should the light fail, or should I not drink tea?”
“...In fact, I need, you know what: for you to fail, that’s what! I need peace of mind. Yes, I’m in favor of not being bothered, I’ll sell the whole world right now for a penny. Should the light fail, or should I not drink tea? I will say that the world is gone, but that I always drink tea. Did you know this or not? Well, I know that I’m a scoundrel, a scoundrel, a selfish person, a lazy person.”
"Notes from Underground" (1864)
This is part of the monologue of the nameless hero of Notes from Underground, which he pronounces in front of a prostitute who unexpectedly came to his home. The phrase about tea sounds like evidence of the insignificance and selfishness of the underground man. These words have an interesting historical context. Tea as a measure of wealth first appears in Dostoevsky’s “Poor People.” This is how the hero of the novel, Makar Devushkin, talks about his financial situation:
“And my apartment costs me seven rubles in banknotes, and a table of five rubles: that’s twenty-four and a half, and before I paid exactly thirty, but I denied myself a lot; I didn’t always drink tea, but now I’ve saved money on tea and sugar. You know, my dear, it’s somehow a shame not to drink tea; The people here are all well-to-do, it’s a shame.”
Dostoevsky himself experienced similar experiences in his youth. In 1839, he wrote from St. Petersburg to his father in the village:
“Well; Without drinking tea, you won't die of hunger! I'll live somehow!<…> Camp life Each student of military educational institutions requires at least 40 rubles. money.<…>In this amount I do not include such requirements as, for example: having tea, sugar, etc. This is already necessary, and it is necessary not out of decency alone, but out of necessity. When you get wet in damp weather in the rain in a canvas tent, or in such weather, coming home from training tired, chilled, without tea you can get sick; what happened to me last year on a hike. But still, respecting your need, I will not drink tea.”
Tea in Tsarist Russia was a truly expensive product. It was transported directly from China along the only land route, and this journey took about a year. Due to transportation costs, as well as huge duties, tea in Central Russia was several times more expensive than in Europe. According to the Gazette of the St. Petersburg City Police, in 1845, in the store of Chinese teas of the merchant Piskarev, prices per pound (0.45 kilograms) of the product ranged from 5 to 6.5 rubles in banknotes, and the cost of green tea reached 50 rubles. At the same time, you could buy a pound of first-class beef for 6-7 rubles. In 1850, Otechestvennye Zapiski wrote that the annual consumption of tea in Russia was 8 million pounds - however, it is impossible to calculate how much per person, since this product was popular mainly in cities and among upper class people.
“If there is no God, then everything is permitted”
“... He ended with the statement that for every private person, for example, like us now, who does not believe in either God or his own immortality, the moral law of nature must immediately change in complete contrast to the previous, religious one, and that selfishness is even evil ---actions should not only be allowed to a person, but even considered necessary, the most reasonable and almost the noblest outcome in his position.”
"The Brothers Karamazov" (1880)
The most important words in Dostoevsky are usually not spoken by the main characters. Thus, Porfiry Petrovich is the first to speak about the theory of the division of humanity into two categories in “Crime and Punishment”, and only then Raskol-nikov; The question of the saving power of beauty in “The Idiot” is asked by Hippolytus, and the Karamazovs’ relative Pyotr Aleksandrovich Miusov notes that God and the salvation he promised are the only guarantor of people’s observance of moral laws. At the same time, Miusov refers to his brother Ivan, and only then other characters discuss this provocative theory, discussing whether Karamazov could have invented it. Brother Mitya thinks she’s interesting, seminarian Rakitin thinks she’s vile, and meek Alyosha thinks she’s false. But no one utters the phrase “If there is no God, then everything is permitted” in the novel. This “quote” will later be constructed from various remarks by literary critics and readers.
Five years before the publication of The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky was already trying to fantasize about what humanity would do without God. The hero of the novel “The Teenager” (1875), Andrei Petrovich Versilov, argued that clear evidence of the absence of a higher power and the impossibility of immortality, on the contrary, will make people love and appreciate each other more, because there is no one else to love. This unnoticed remark in the next novel grows into a theory, and that, in turn, into a test in practice. Tormented by God-fighting ideas, brother Ivan compromises moral laws and allows the murder of his father. Unable to bear the consequences, he practically goes crazy. Having allowed himself everything, Ivan does not stop believing in God - his theory does not work, because he could not prove it even to himself.
“Masha is lying on the table. Will I see Masha?
I love to beat a person as yourself according to the commandment of Christ, it is impossible. The law of personality on earth binds. I hinders. Christ alone could, but Christ was an eternal ideal from time to time, to which man strives and, according to the law of nature, must strive.”
From a Notebook (1864)
Masha, or Maria Dmitrievna, whose maiden name was Konstant, and by her first husband Isaev, was Dostoevsky’s first wife. They married in 1857 in the Siberian city of Kuznetsk and then moved to central Russia. On April 15, 1864, Maria Dmitrievna died of consumption. IN recent years the spouses lived separately and communicated little. Maria Dmitrievna is in Vladimir, and Fyodor Mikhailovich is in St. Petersburg. He was absorbed in publishing magazines, where, among other things, he published texts by his mistress, the aspiring writer Apollinaria Suslova. The illness and death of his wife hit him hard. A few hours after her death, Dostoevsky recorded in a notebook his thoughts about love, marriage and the goals of human development. Briefly, their essence is as follows. The ideal to strive for is Christ, the only one who was able to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Man is selfish and incapable of loving his neighbor as himself. And yet, heaven on earth is possible: with proper spiritual work, each new generation will be better than the previous one. Having reached the highest stage of development, people will refuse marriages, because they contradict the ideal of Christ. A family union is the selfish isolation of a couple, and in a world where people are ready to give up their personal interests for the sake of others, this is unnecessary and impossible. And besides, since the ideal state of humanity will be achieved only at the last stage of development, it will be possible to stop reproducing.
“Masha is lying on the table...” is an intimate diary entry, not a thoughtful writer’s manifesto. But it is in this text that ideas are outlined that Dostoevsky will later develop in his novels. A person’s selfish attachment to his “I” will be reflected in Raskolnikov’s individualistic theory, and the unattainability of the ideal will be reflected in Prince Myshkin, who was called “Prince Christ” in the drafts, as an example of self-sacrifice and humility.
“Constantinople – sooner or later, it must be ours”
“Pre-Petrine Russia was active and strong, although it was slowly taking shape politically; it had developed unity for itself and was preparing to consolidate its outskirts; She understood within herself that she carried within herself a treasure that was not found anywhere else - Orthodoxy, that she was the keeper of Christ’s truth, but already the true truth, the real image of Christ, obscured in all other faiths and in all other people.<…>And this unity is not for capture, not for violence, not for the destruction of Slavic individuals in front of the Russian colossus, but in order to recreate them and put them in the proper relationship to Europe and to humanity, to finally give them the opportunity to calm down and rest -well after their countless centuries of suffering...<…>Of course, and for the same purpose, Constantinople - sooner or later, should be ours ... "
"A Writer's Diary" (June 1876)
In 1875-1876, the Russian and foreign press were flooded with ideas about the capture of Constantinople. At this time, on the territory of Porta Ottoman Porte, or Porta,- another name for the Ottoman Empire. One after another, uprisings of the Slavic peoples broke out, which the Turkish authorities brutally suppressed. Things were heading towards war. Everyone expected that Russia would come out in defense of the Balkan states: they predicted victory for her, and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. And, of course, everyone was worried about the question of who would get the ancient Byzantine capital in this case. Discussed different options: that Constantinople will become an international city, that it will be occupied by the Greeks, or that it will be part of Russian Empire. The latter option did not suit Europe at all, but it was very popular with Russian conservatives, who saw this primarily as a political benefit.
Dostoevsky was also concerned about these questions. Having entered into controversy, he immediately accused all participants in the dispute of being wrong. In the “Diary of a Writer” from the summer of 1876 to the spring of 1877, he continually returned to the Eastern Question. Unlike the conservatives, he believed that Russia sincerely wants to protect fellow believers, free them from Muslim oppression, and therefore, as an Orthodox power, has the exclusive right to Constantinople. “We, Russia, are truly necessary and inevitable for all of Eastern Christianity, and for the entire fate of the future Orthodoxy on earth, for its unity,” writes Dostoevsky in his “Diary” for March 1877. The writer was convinced of the special Christian mission of Russia. Even earlier, he developed this idea in “The Possessed.” One of the heroes of this novel, Shatov, was convinced that the Russian people are a God-bearing people. The famous one, published in the “Diary of a Writer” in 1880, will be devoted to the same idea.
I killed myself, not the old lady...
F. M. Dostoevsky
F. M. Dostoevsky is the greatest Russian writer, an unsurpassed realist artist, an anatomist of the human soul, a passionate champion of the ideas of humanism and justice. His novels are distinguished by their keen interest in the intellectual life of the characters, revealing the complex and contradictory consciousness of man.
Dostoevsky's main works appeared in print in the last third of the 19th century, when a crisis of old moral and ethical principles emerged, when the gap between rapidly changing life and traditional norms of life became obvious. It was in the last third of the 19th century that society started talking about a “revaluation of all values”, about changing the norms of traditional Christian morality and morality. And at the beginning of the twentieth century, this became practically the main issue among the creative intelligentsia. Dostoevsky was one of the first to see the danger of the coming revaluation and the accompanying “dehumanization of man.” He was the first to show the “devilishness” that was initially hidden in such attempts. This is what all of his main works are dedicated to and, of course, one of the central novels - “Crime and Punishment”.
Raskolnikov is the spiritual and compositional center of the novel. External action only reveals his internal struggle. He must go through a more painful split in order to understand himself and the moral law, inextricably linked with human essence. The hero solves the riddle of his own personality and at the same time the riddle of human nature.
Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel, was a student in the recent past who left the university for ideological reasons. Despite his attractive appearance, “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.” Raskolnikov lives in extreme poverty, renting a closet resembling a coffin in one of the St. Petersburg houses. However, he pays little attention to the circumstances of his life, as he is passionate about his own theory and the search for evidence of its validity.
Disillusioned with social ways of changing the life around him, he decides that influencing life is possible with the help of violence, and for this, a person who intends to do something for the common good should not be bound by any norms and prohibitions. Trying to help the disadvantaged, Rodion comes to the realization of his own powerlessness in the face of world evil. In desperation, he decides to “transgress” the moral law - to kill out of love for humanity, to commit evil for the sake of good.
Raskolnikov seeks power not out of vanity, but to help people dying in poverty and lack of rights. However, next to this idea there is another - “Napoleonic”, which is gradually coming to the fore, pushing aside the first. Raskolnikov divides humanity into “...two categories: the lowest (ordinary), that is, so to speak, the material that serves solely for the generation of their own kind, and actually people, that is, those who have the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst ". The second category, the minority, is born to rule and command, the first is to “live in obedience and be obedient.”
The main thing for him is freedom and power, which he can use as he pleases - for good or evil. He admits to Sonya that he killed because he wanted to know: “Do I have the right to have power?” He wants to understand: “Am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Will I be able to cross or not? Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” This is a self-examination of a strong personality testing his strength. Both ideas control the hero’s soul and reveal his consciousness.
Having become isolated from everyone and withdrawn into his own corner, Raskolnikov harbors the idea of murder. The world around him and people cease to be a true reality for him. However, the “ugly dream” that he has nurtured for a month disgusts him. Raskolnikov does not believe that he can commit murder, and despises himself for his abstraction and inability to take practical action. He goes to the old pawnbroker for a test - to inspect the place and try it on. He thinks about violence, and his soul writhes under the burden of world suffering, protesting against cruelty.
The inconsistency of Raskolnikov's theory begins to be revealed already during the commission of the crime. Life cannot fit into a logical scheme, and Raskolnikov's well-calculated script is disrupted: Lizaveta appears at the most inopportune moment, and he is forced to kill her (and also, probably, her unborn child).
After the murder of the old woman and her sister Lizaveta, Raskolnikov experiences the deepest mental shock. Crime puts him “beyond good and evil”, separates him from humanity, surrounds him icy desert. A gloomy “feeling of painful, endless solitude and alienation suddenly consciously manifested itself in his soul.” Raskolnikov has a fever, he is close to insanity and even wants to commit suicide. Rodion tries to pray, and laughs at himself. Laughter gives way to despair. Dostoevsky emphasizes the motive of the hero’s alienation from people: they seem disgusting to him and cause “... endless, almost physical disgust.” He cannot even talk to those closest to him, feeling an insurmountable border “lying” between them.
The path of crime for Raskolnikov (and according to Dostoevsky, for no one) is unacceptable (it is not for nothing that Dostoevsky compares Raskolnikov’s crime with death, and his further resurrection occurs in the name of Christ). That human thing that was in Raskolnikov (he supported a sick fellow student for almost a year at his own expense, saved two children from the fire, helped, giving the last money for the funeral, Marmeladov’s widow), contributes to the speedy resurrection of the hero (Porfiry Petrovich’s words that Raskolnikov "I fooled myself for a short time"). Sonya Marmeladova resurrects Rodion to a new life. Raskolnikov's theory is contrasted with the Christian idea of atonement for one's own and others' sins through suffering (images of Sonya, Dunya, Mikolka). It is when the world of Christian spiritual values opens up for Raskolnikov (through his love for Sonya) that he is finally resurrected to life.
Tired of “theory” and “dialectics,” Raskolnikov begins to realize the value ordinary life: “No matter how you live, just live! What a truth! Lord, what a truth! A scoundrel is a man! And a scoundrel is the one who calls him a scoundrel for this.” He, who wanted to live as an “extraordinary person” worthy of true life, is ready to come to terms with a simple and primitive existence. His pride is crushed: no, he is not Napoleon, with whom he constantly relates himself, he is just an “aesthetic louse.” Instead of Toulon and Egypt, he has a “skinny, nasty receptionist,” but that’s enough for him to fall into despair. Raskolnikov laments that he should have known in advance about himself, about his weakness, before going to “bleed.” He is unable to bear the gravity of the crime and confesses it to Sonechka. Then he goes to the police station and confesses.
With his crime, Raskolnikov removed himself from the category of people, became an outcast, an outcast. “I didn’t kill the old woman, I killed myself,” he admits to Sonya Marmeladova. This isolation from people prevents Raskolnikov from living.
The hero's idea of the right of the strong to commit crime turned out to be absurd. Life has defeated theory. No wonder Goethe said in Faust: “Theory, my friend, is brimstone. But the tree of life is ever green.”
According to Dostoevsky, no high goal can justify the worthless means leading to its achievement. An individualistic rebellion against the order of life around us is doomed to failure. Only compassion, Christian empathy and unity with other people can make life better and happier.
Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?
Can killing a person unworthy of life be considered a bad act? Or is his “unworthiness” still a sufficient justification for murder? Is it even possible to talk about the possibility of justifying murder? And are there people unworthy to live?
Is it God or fate that gives life to a person... if a person exists, then that’s how it should be. If he were superfluous, unnecessary for anything, he simply would not be born. Nothing in the world is accidental, and everything that happens deserves to happen.
There are no right or wrong actions, only what we have done and the consequences of it. It is never possible to predict what certain actions, even the most mundane ones, will lead to. Our smile now can save the life of someone on the other side of the world, or it can kill. Everything we do is not necessary or not, it simply is, and it creates history.
But this cannot justify all our actions: no matter what providence exists, there are laws and rules that regulate our lives and prevent us from being savages. If everyone starts killing each other, considering their victims "unworthy", humanity will die out. Raskolnikov implies that this will not happen, because not everyone is capable of this: there are “ordinary” people, and there are “extraordinary” ones.
He calls “ordinary” people people who are unable to go beyond existing rules, commit a crime and/or step over it. That is, either conscientious and principled, or cowardly. He believes that the history of mankind is driven by “extraordinary” people - people who have the right to drown up to their elbows in blood and not be embarrassed by it, if they act for the “common good.” And humanity forgives them everything, even canonizing some of them as saints.
Let's take Hitler as an example. He killed in battles, and these are wars, not “personal” murder for his own purposes. In war, the goal is to defeat the enemy and bring victory to the state. Without them, history would have gone the same way, just in a completely different way. Wars are an incentive to develop faster than other states in order to win. But not the people who lead these battles and cut out half the world. That is, war has reasons that accumulate, and the result is a clash between the warring parties, this forces development. Competition. Not people. Hitler did not promote new technologies. Without it, humanity would not have frozen at that stage of development and would not have died out. They only radically changed something, both for the worse and by accelerating some social processes.
The engines of humanity are Minds. Those who created the digging stick, understood how to light a fire, invented electricity, a cure for the plague, discovered the laws of physics, made chips, telephones, found acid-resistant metals, etc. Without them, humanity would have remained at the stage of primitive people . Not tyrants. Tyrants are people who left a mark on history, but did not move it. More precisely, just those who lengthened history, and did not raise it new level humanity.
Raskolnikov does not say that all “extraordinary” people must commit outrages. But they are obliged to allow their conscience to step over the committed crime if it is in the name of fulfilling his idea. That is, if Newton had to kill to publish his discoveries, he would have been obliged to do so.
But if he could not, due to his character, upbringing, principles, etc., commit murder, would he become “ordinary”? According to the main character of Dostoevsky’s novel, yes. But he is the one who moved humanity far forward. And his strength was in his mind, and not in unprincipledness and the thought that his discoveries were higher than human life.
Raskolnikov says that all “extraordinary” people are capable of crime. Franz Kafka was able to publish only a few during his lifetime short stories, constituted a very small proportion of his work, and his work attracted little attention until his novels were published posthumously. That is, he did not promote his ideas at the cost of the lives of other people or other atrocities, he was not capable of crimes and did not commit them. If we take Dostoevsky's contemporaries, then an example is Mendel, who discovered the basic principles of heredity as a result of experiments, published part of the work in a journal, but was not understood. The extreme importance of his discovery was realized only at the beginning of the twentieth century. And although Mendel could have committed crimes so that the world would know about his discoveries, he did not. Raskolnikov's theory is not supported by historical examples.
Killing a person cannot be considered a bad act. Man himself came up with the division of actions into “bad” and “good” in order to survive. If everyone does “bad” things, “survival” is unlikely to happen, which is why there is such encouragement for “good” actions. There are consequences that will happen if you kill a person, and you cannot do anything about it, because the existence of these consequences keeps society from falling apart and is backed by forces much higher than ours.
God complex... it is not for us to decide who are worthy people and who are not. “The unworthy” do not exist at all, since all people make their contribution to the history of mankind.
Absolutely everything can be justified. Man, in essence, is not to blame for anything. All his actions are determined by external factors for which he is not responsible and for which he cannot be blamed. Any human act is a consequence of a number of reasons: the upbringing that other people give him, the chemical processes in his body, the lack of any vitamins due to the environmental situation in the city. It is no longer a mystery or a hypothesis that all our feelings are hormones and chemical reactions. An abundance of endorphins makes us happy, thyroxine makes us irritable, and oxytocin makes us affectionate and friendly.
And hormones come to us with food, sleep phases, etc. A person can kill because he will be angry due to a lack of endorphins, because he did not sleep for four nights in a row, because he was called to work on the night shift, because another man broke his leg due to being in an accident because the driver of the car did not notice him as he was blinded by the sun. It turns out that the man killed because the sun is shining. This whole chain was presented in order to say: everything can be justified.
Again, you can’t be guided by this and do crazy things. Consequences again come first; we can control our hormones and impulses in most cases. There are situations of breakdowns when no arguments of reason and all points of consequences do not reach the brain, because at such moments emotions rule everything. But in cases based not on a surge of emotions, but on their stability, everyone must remember the consequences of their choice.
So. There are no bad deeds, no people unworthy to live, and no actions that cannot be justified. Just as there are no “ordinary” and “extraordinary” people, and if there are, then not in the sense that Raskolnikov put into these concepts. Murderers do not pull humanity to the top and must obey all the same laws that others obey.
Who is Raskolnikov?
Raskolnikov is a person who realized his insignificance in front of the existing web of laws, rules, traditions, patterns of action that establish our behavior in certain situations. A man who realized and did not want to come to terms with it, and therefore came up with a theory about “extraordinary” people and wanted to prove – first of all to himself – that he is not a “louse.” It’s hard to understand your complete powerlessness, and Rodion’s character couldn’t cope with it. “Extraordinary” people, in his opinion, are people who are above this system. And that's exactly what he wanted to be. Only by choosing the wrong path, he committed the murder of a man.
The system was invented by a man, and therefore the man himself has the right to change it. Even if it has already taken root over the years, with its roots going back to the times of the first Romanovs, having sent them (roots) deep into the consciousness of everyone living today, it can change, because we are its authors, and we are the people who support it and give it "water" for prosperity. And the system is not pure evil and the cause of all problems. This is the core of society, what prevents it from falling apart, people becoming savages and starting atrocities openly. There is Raskolnikov’s pride, which made him want his freedom and disobedience general rules. That's all. There are no worthy and unworthy, “ordinary” and “extraordinary”. Only humanity and its actions that will eventually lead somewhere. And where, no one knows. And therefore, readers who have finished reading this tedious and very subjective speech, I urge you to live and not beat yourself up over wrong actions. No one will say what would have happened if you had acted differently, no one will say what these actions would lead to: there is a legend that “everything that happens happens for the better.” Believe this and think about what you do... but not too much: thinking is harmful and tiring :)
The text is large so it is divided into pages.
The phrase “am I a trembling creature or do I have rights” is very well known, but not everyone knows about its true meaning and origin. In this article we will take a closer look at what is hidden behind this mysterious expression. Let's start with the fact that it refers us to a whole philosophy of life. And its author was a well-known Russian classic, whose works are familiar to us from school.
“Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right” - where does the phrase come from?
This expression belongs to Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment, the most famous novel by F. M. Dostoevsky.
Let's talk a little about this work, since to understand the phrase you need to know the theme of the original source. The novel is psychological and socio-philosophical in nature. Written from 1865 to 1866.
Dostoevsky nurtured the idea of “Crime and Punishment” for a long time. The main theme related to the division of the world into “extraordinary” and “ordinary” people arose back in 1863, when the writer traveled to Italy. The novel is based on drafts of the unfinished work “Drunk” and the confession novel of a convict. Later the plot was changed, and Raskolnikov’s line became the main one. For Dostoevsky, it was important to understand what can push a person to commit a crime. And so he took a student, distinguished by his liveliness of mind, and plunged him into beggarly conditions. What came of this?
The image of Raskolnikov
Who said the words “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right”? Dostoevsky puts them in the mouth of Rodion Romanovich and makes him the creator of an entire theory about the laws of the existence of society. Who is our philosopher?
The reader meets the young man at the very beginning of the novel. Its description is very important, since the writer wanted to show to what state a living being needs to be brought in order for an idea that is incredible in its soullessness to come into his head.
So, we see Raskolnikov nervously and physically exhausted, on the verge of illness and even madness. He is thoughtful, withdrawn and gloomy. He huddles in a cramped room in the attic: “a tiny cell, about six steps long.” The hero is poorly dressed, he doesn’t even have money to pay for the apartment and lunch. Due to his poor situation, he had to quit his studies.
Despite this condition, the young man is quite handsome, smart, independent, proud and educated. His financial situation made him gloomy and embittered. He is irritated towards people, and any outside help seems humiliating to him.
Raskolnikov’s theory: “Trembling creatures and having the right”
And so in the mind of this young man, oppressed by the troubles and hardships of life, an idea arose. It consisted in the fact that he divided the world into two categories of people. The first, having the right, can commit any atrocities for the sake of their goals. For example, Napoleon or Alexander the Great destroyed thousands of lives, but no one judges them or considers them villains. Talking to himself, he argues that if Napoleon needed money for a military campaign, he would get it by any means. He would have killed for this and would have been within his rights, because he was born with a destiny for higher deeds. There are no laws written for such people.
Others, “trembling creatures,” must observe the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” and live in fear and servility. And all because they are useless in this world and nothing depends on their actions. That's what the police are for. Raskolnikov asks the world: “Is man a trembling creature or does he have the right?”
All moral values and prohibitions seem illusory, external and feigned to the hero. They exist only to rule the weak, while the strong do not care about the law.
Newspaper article
Raskolnikov publishes his theory, entitled “Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights,” in the newspaper. This is where his fall from grace begins. In addition to all of the above, in his article Rodya writes that a superior person himself gives himself permission to commit any crime, without consulting anyone, and therefore his conscience never torments him.
Why do they catch criminals? Yes, because they themselves give all the clues to the investigation - that’s what the hero thinks. And they do this because they are cowardly, begin to doubt, and suffer. A strong person cannot be caught, because he commits a crime for the sake of a higher goal and never repents of it. The Supreme One can step over blood if his plan requires it.
Proof
And so Raskolnikov decided to ask himself to find out whether the theory was correct: “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” On the one hand, he considers himself to be among the highest, but on the other hand, he is not sure about this. He needs to prove he is right. But how can you understand that he is truly a superman and his purpose is to change the world?
The solution is very simple - commit murder. The hero begins to develop a detailed plan for committing a crime. The victim is also found - the old pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. There is no use in her, Raskolnikov thinks, she has saved so much money and it is not enough for her. How about using all her capital to help those in need?!
And now our hero fancies himself as Napoleon. He thought through and calculated everything. However, he does not have the calmness that, in his opinion, should be in “one who has the right.” It turns out that there is an incredible gap between the idea and the implementation. What seemed so easy in his theory becomes overwhelming, dark and ominous.
Raskolnikov thought through a lot, but could not foresee one thing - his inner state. The hero's nature opposed reason. He begins to feel disgust at the mere thought of what he has planned.
After the murder
So, “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” After the crime, Raskolnikov begins to understand that he is not like his idols, he cannot shed blood and live on in peace. At night after a terrible crime, he is overcome by horror, which intensifies his mental disorder. In a fever, he rushes around the room, tries to concentrate and think about the situation, but cannot control his emotions and fears. In a frenzy, he hides the stolen goods in a hole behind the wallpaper and does not even notice that the cache is clearly visible from the room. Then hallucinations appear, and the hero cannot understand where is reality and where is the fruit of a sick mind.
Gradually the first excitement passes, but the disease does not recede. Raskolnikov feels disconnected from his loved ones and the whole world. He hides behind a mask even in front of his mother and sister, hiding his true feelings and completely withdrawing into himself.
Logically, Rodya justifies the murder and accuses himself of weak will and cowardice, but it is the shed blood that prevents him from openly and carefreely communicating with others. Subconsciously he feels that he is wrong. As a result, he comes to the following conclusion - “I killed myself, not the old woman.” The hero's internal disorder only intensifies. And only Sonya’s repentance and participation help him remove the sin from his soul.
Who was Raskolnikov?
What is Raskolnikov like? “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” - this question became disastrous for him. The hero understands that it was in vain to classify himself as one of those higher people. He blames himself for cowardice and insignificance. I couldn’t show character by saving humanity from some kind of “lice” that only ruined people’s lives. Not only does this oppress Rodion, we should not forget that Lizaveta, Alena Ivanovna’s quiet sister, also died at his hands. And the hero can no longer justify this sacrifice.
But it is worth, however, to look at those whom Raskolnikov classifies as senior representatives humanity. There are two of them in the novel.
Doubles of Rodion Romanovich
“A trembling creature or I have the right” is a quote that absorbs the main meaning of a rather complex socio-philosophical novel. So, let's find out who those “those with the right” are. These are Svidrigailov and Luzhin, who are doubles of Rodion Romanovich.
Both of these people commit atrocities with extraordinary ease and do not repent of them at all. So, Svidrigailov calmly says that he beat his wife and almost ruined the honor of Rodion’s sister, and he did a lot of other things, but all this does not evoke any emotions in him. He does not suffer or suffer, but enjoys life. There is something devilish in his image. Svidrigailov is an insidious, dishonest and unprincipled man, whom everyone who has ever encountered him is afraid of. In order to achieve his goal, he is ready to commit any crime.
But there is something deep in Svidrigailov, for example, his reasoning, conversations with Raskolnikov, suicide, in the end, says a lot about this man. Luzhin is characterized sharply negatively. There is not even a shadow of a soul left in him. He is driven by painful pride and a desire to establish himself. He needs to rule and command. He is also willing to do anything to make his dreams come true. But all of Luzhin’s desires are insignificant and vile. The most remarkable scene is at Marmeladov's funeral, when he accuses Sonya of stealing his money. Just for the sake of revenge, he was ready to send the poor girl to hard labor. If for Svidrigailov the greatest value was passions, then Luzhin measures everything in money.
Here they are, the same heroes of Raskolnikov, who are never tormented by conscience and in whom there are no doubts. And not one of them looks like someone who could change the world for the better.
Author's intention
“Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights?” - many proud people placed in a humiliating position can come to this thought. And Dostoevsky, with his novel, wants to warn them against a fatal mistake. The author describes the horror and unnaturalness of the murder. Raskolnikov stumbles and immediately finds himself in real chaos, in which he can no longer control his actions. It becomes clear that the hero committed violence not so much against the old woman as against himself. His soul suffered. Madness becomes the price for taking someone else's life.
Dostoevsky does not lecture his reader, he only demonstrates the consequences of the act. Fyodor Mikhailovich rather asks questions in his novel than offers answers.
The role of Sonechka
The answer to the question “Am I a trembling creature or do I have rights” did not satisfy Raskolnikov and even upset him. However, he did not realize the gravity of his act. Sonya helped the hero understand what he had done. When Rodion tells her that he killed an unnecessary and harmful creature, the girl exclaims in horror: “Is this man a louse?” It is she who shows Raskolnikov the path to repentance and redemption. For Sonya, the commandment “thou shalt not kill” has a sacred meaning. It is thanks to her religiosity that the hero has a chance to be saved. The girl leads Rodion Romanovich out of the chaos into which he plunged himself; she became his guide, a beacon in the darkness.
Only in religion can one find truth and salvation for the soul, the writer believes.
Conclusion
So, what meaning did the author put into the words “Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?” For Dostoevsky, these were blasphemous speeches that completely destroyed humanism and Christian virtues. A person who asks such a question, firstly, is mentally ill, and secondly, has decided to become equal to God himself, who alone is given the power to decide when the time has come to die.
Dostoevsky, using the example of Raskolnikov, shows that such thoughts can only lead to self-destruction, illness and chaos. And it is impossible to get out of this vicious circle on your own. That is why Sonechka comes to the hero’s aid. She, the embodiment of sacrifice and humanity, saves the soul of Rodion Romanovich.
Thus, the novel “Crime and Punishment” is a kind of warning to all those who believe in the doctrine of the superman.
