The idea of ​​the novel "Crime and Punishment" was born in an era of great change, when a social change occurred in society and new worldviews arose. Many people were faced with a choice: the new situation required significant changes in spiritual guidelines, since the hero of the time was a business man, and not a spiritually rich one.

The protagonist of the novel, a former student Rodion Raskolnikov, is in search of an answer to the philosophical and moral question about the freedom of the individual, about his "sovereignty" and, at the same time, about the internal boundaries of this freedom. The driving force behind the search is the idea that he cultivated of a strong personality who has the right to make history at his own discretion.

Raskolnikov's idea grows out of the depth of historical disappointment experienced by the younger generation after the collapse of the revolutionary situation of the 60s, on the basis of the crisis of utopian theories. His violent rebellion both inherits the strength of the social negation of the sixties and falls away from their movement in its concentrated individualism.

All the threads of the story converge on Raskolnikov. He absorbs everything around him (grief, misfortune and injustice): this is the meaning of the first part of Crime and Punishment. We see how human tragedies, crashes - both very distant (the girl on the boulevard), and those that seriously enter his life (the Marmeladov family), and those closest to him (Dunya's story) - charge the hero with protest, overwhelm with determination. This is happening to him not only now: the ability to absorb the pain of another being into his soul, to feel it as his own living grief, Dostoevsky discovers in the hero from childhood (Raskolnikov's famous dream about a slaughtered horse, stunning every reader). Throughout the first part of the novel, the writer makes it clear: for Raskolnikov, the problem is not in correcting his own "extreme" circumstances.

Of course, Raskolnikov is not one of the many who are able to "pull their way somehow where they should." But this is not enough: he does not humble himself not only for himself alone, but also for others - for those who are already humble and broken. For Raskolnikov to obediently accept fate as it is, means to give up any right to act, live and love.

The protagonist lacks that egocentric focus that completely forms Luzhin's personality in the novel. Raskolnikov is one of those who, first of all, do not take from others, but give them. In order to feel like a strong person, he must feel that someone needs him, is waiting for his protection, that he has someone to give himself to (remember the surge of happiness that he experienced after Polechka's gratitude). Raskolnikov has this ability to carry fire to others. However, he is ready to do it without asking - dictatorially, against the will of another person. The energy of goodness is ready to turn into self-will, “violence of goodness”.

In the novel, more than once, it is said that crime is a protest against the abnormality of the social structure - and that's all, and nothing more. This idea also slightly affected Raskolnikov: it is not for nothing that he “absently” answers Razumikhin that the question of crime is “an ordinary social question”, and even earlier, on the same basis, reassures himself that “what he conceived is not a crime ...”. And the conversation in the tavern, overheard by him (the opinion of the student), develops the same idea: to eliminate a louse like Alena Ivanovna is not a crime, but, as it were, an amendment to the wrong modern course of things.

But this possibility of shifting responsibility to an external "law of circumstances" comes into conflict with the demand for proud individual independence. Raskolnikova, in general, does not hide into this loophole, does not accept the justification of her act by the general social abnormality that has put him in a hopeless imposition. He understands that he himself must answer for everything he has done - he must “take upon himself” the blood shed by him.

Raskolnikov's crime has not one motive, but a complex tangle of motives. This, of course, is partly a social rebellion and a kind of social revenge, an attempt to get out of the predetermined circle of life, robbed and narrowed by the inexorable force of social injustice. But not only. The deepest cause of Raskolnikov's crime, of course, is the "disordered", "dislocated" age.

In a brief and rigid scheme, the given conditions for the experiment of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov are the position that in the world of absolute evil that reigns around, there is a crowd, a herd of unreasonable “trembling creatures (both perpetrators and victims of this evil), which dutifully drags the yoke of any laws. And there are (units in millions) rulers of life, geniuses who establish laws: from time to time they overthrow the former ones and dictate others to humanity. They are the heroes of their time. (Raskolnikov himself lays claim to the role of such a hero, of course, with a secret, painful hope.) The genius breaks through the circle of routine life with the pressure of personal self-affirmation, which is based on freeing oneself not from the worthless norms of social community, but from the severity of the norms collectively accepted by people , in general: “if he needs, for his idea, to step even over a corpse, through blood, then he, in his conscience, can give himself permission to step over blood.” The experimental material for Raskolnikov is his own life and personality.

In essence, to the laborious process of separating good from evil - a process that a person not only cognizes, but also experiences all his life and his whole life, and not just his mind - the hero prefers an energetic "one-act" decision: to stand on the other side of good and evil. In doing this, he (following his theory) intends to find out whether he personally belongs to the highest human rank.

How does Raskolnikov's experiment stand up to his nature, his personality? His first reaction to the murder already committed is the reaction of nature, the heart, the reaction is morally true. And that painful feeling of separation from people that flares up in him immediately after the murder is also the voice of inner truth. Very important in this sense is the large, ambiguous episode on the bridge, where Raskolnikov receives first a blow with a whip, then alms and finds himself (for the only time in the novel) face to face with the "magnificent panorama" of the capital. The murder placed him not only against the official law, the penal code, which has paragraphs and clauses, but also against another, deeper, unwritten law of human society.

Raskolnikov leaves alone for his crime; he can return to life only together with others, thanks to them. Raskolnikov's "Resurrection" in the epilogue is the result of human interaction of almost all the heroes of the novel. Sonya Marmeladova plays a special role here. She achieves from Raskolnikov a very simple and terribly difficult thing: stepping over pride, turning to people for forgiveness and accepting this forgiveness. But the author shows the inability of the people to understand the inner impulse of the hero, since people who accidentally find themselves on the square perceive his actions as a strange trick of a drunk person.

Still, there is strength for the resurrection in Rodion. The fact that at the heart of the whole program was still the desire for the good of the people, allowed him, in the end, to be able to accept their help. The hidden, distorted, but humanistic principle present in him and Sonya's perseverance, which builds a bridge to him from living people, inconspicuously go towards each other in order, having united, to give the hero a sudden insight already in the epilogue.

The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment" was created in 1866. It was the hour of reforms, to replace the old "masters of life" new ones began to come - bourgeois businessmen-entrepreneurs. And Dostoevsky, as a writer who subtly felt all the changes in society, in his novel raises those topical problems for Russian society that worried the majority: who is to blame for the misfortune and troubles of ordinary people, what to do to people who do not want to accept this life.

The main character of the novel "Crime and Punishment" is Rodion Raskolnikov. "He was remarkably handsome, with beautiful dark eyes, dark blond, taller than average, thin and slender." Rodion was poorly dressed: "He was so poorly dressed that another, moreover, a familiar person, would be ashamed to get out into the street in such rags during the day." Raskolnikov was forced to quit his studies due to the fact that he did not have enough finances, due to nervous and physical exhaustion. He lived in a small closet with old yellow wallpaper, the furniture consisted of three old chairs, a table and a sofa, which occupied almost the entire room. Raskolnikov was "crushed by poverty", therefore he could not pay the owner more than that for such a poor dwelling. For this reason, he tried not to show himself in front of her.

Raskolnikov understands that the world is not fair, and he rejects it. Raskolnikov's protest against an unjust world results in a personal rebellion. He creates his theory, according to which people are divided into two categories: "powerful and ordinary people." There are very few "masters" in the world, these are those who carry out the progress of society, such as Napoleon. Their task is to manage other people. The task of "ordinary people", according to the hero, is contained in reproduction and submission to "masters". For the sake of some great goal, "rulers" can sacrifice any means, including human life. Raskolnikov was a supporter of this theory, considered himself a "master", but he wanted to use his abilities and his political elite in order to help poor people.

In order to check which category of people he belongs to, Rodion decides to kill an old pawnbroker. Testing his theory, which he put forward, was the main reason for the crime, and helping the "humiliated and insulted" was the main cause of the crime, and helping the "humiliated and insulted" was only a moral justification for him. The second reason is material. Raskolnikov knew that the old woman was rich, but all her money wasted in vain. He understands that dozens of lives can be saved on them. And the third reason for murder is social. Having robbed the old woman, he could continue his studies at the university, exist in abundance.

In the world in which Raskolnikov lives, violation of moral standards has become commonplace and, in his opinion, killing a person does not contradict the laws of this society. But in his logical crimes, he did not take into account one thing: if a kind person who cannot be indifferent to other people's pain and suffering embarks on the path of violence, then inevitably he brings misfortune not only to others, but also to himself. In his theory, Raskolnikov forgot about human qualities: conscience, shame, fear.

After committing a crime, Raskolnikov feels cut off from the outside world, from people close to him. He was seized with fear at the thought that someone knew about his act, he was afraid of everything (he shuddered from a rustle in the room, from a shout in the street). The mind spoke in him, he realized that he was not a "master", but a "trembling creature." And the knowledge that Raskolnikov so strove for turned out to be a terrible disappointment for him. The hero enters into a fierce struggle, but not with an external enemy, but with his own conscience. In his mind, there is a hope that the theory put forward by him will still be justified, and horror and fear already reign in his subconscious.

But not only the inner world of Raskolnikov pushes him to think about the incorrectness of the idea, but also those around him. The most significant role in the disappointment of these calculations Rodion played Sonya Marmeladova.

Sonya endured, and at the same time she is the embodiment of compassion, she does not judge anyone, only herself, she pities everyone, loves and helps in any way she can. It is in conversations with Sonya that Raskolnikov begins to doubt his theory. He wants to get an answer to the question: is it possible to exist without paying sensitivity to the suffering and torment of others. Sonya, with her whole fate, opposes his cruel and strange idea. And when Raskolnikov breaks down and opens up to her, this theory horrifies Sonya, although she warmly sympathized with him. Raskolnikov, suffering himself and making her suffer, still hopes that she will offer him another way, and not a confession.

The murder drew an insurmountable line between people and Raskolnikov: “a gloomy feeling of painful, endless solitude and alienation suddenly deliberately affected his soul.” He also suffers because his mother and sister, the murderer, love. Only Sonya helps him find the meaning of life, helps him cleanse himself spiritually and morally and begin the difficult and gradual path of returning to people.

Raskolnikov was exiled to Siberia for hard labor, but Raskolnikov's moral agony was a more severe punishment for him than exile. Thanks to Sonya, he returned to real life and God. Only at the very end did he realize that "life has come."

The novel "Crime and Punishment" is a work dedicated to the history of how long and difficult the human essence rushes through suffering and mistakes to comprehend the truth. The author's task was to show what kind of political elite a thought can have over a person, and how terrible the thought itself can be. Dostoevsky explores in detail the theory of his hero, which led him to a topical dead end. The author, of course, does not agree with Raskolnikov's opinion and forces him to disbelieve in it, and this can only be achieved through suffering. Dostoevsky conducts the most subtle psychological investigation: what does the criminal feel after the deed. He shows how the hero is forced to convey on himself, because this sinister secret puts pressure on him and interferes with life.

Raskolnikov's individualistic rebellion (Option: The image of Raskolnikov in the novel "Crime and Punishment")

It's not hard to despise people

to despise one's own judgment is impossible...

A. S. Pushkin

The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment” is one of those works whose relevance does not decrease over time. At the center of this novel is the question of the possible ways of development of the human personality in harsh living conditions. The main content of "Crime and Punishment" is the history of the crime and its moral consequences for the main geoy. The psychological analysis of the state of the criminal cannot be considered separately from the philosophical theory of Raskolnikov, which is largely a product of the environment from which he emerged.

Raskolnikov is a student forced to leave teaching due to lack of funds. His mother, the widow of a provincial official, lives after the death of her husband on a modest pension, most of which she sends to her son so that he can somehow exist. Raskolnikov's sister Dunya is forced to go to work as a governess in a family of wealthy landowners. She is subjected to resentment and humiliation there, but continues to work, as she considers it her duty to help her mother and brother.

Raskolnikov is very poor. He lives in a cramped closet, like a coffin, on the fifth floor of an apartment building in St. Petersburg, not far from Sennaya Square. Being himself in terrible poverty, he also daily sees the life of the poorest strata of St. Petersburg. This is the drunken official Marmeladov, and his wife Katerina Ivanovna, who is dying of consumption, and many other poor people of this gloomy city. The life of the destitute people of St. Petersburg is no different from the life of the same "humiliated and insulted" poor people in the provinces. Such is the fate of Raskolnikov's sister and mother, who, as a result of social injustice, live in poverty. The realization by the protagonist of the novel of his position as an outcast in society and the closeness of his fate to the fate of other disenfranchised people leads Raskolnikov to the social motives of his crime.

The novel depicts the main shopping district of contemporary St. Petersburg - Sennaya Square and the gloomy streets and lanes surrounding it. Through the eyes of the protagonist, we see the life of boulevards, eateries, taverns. The heavy atmosphere of the city-murderer, the city-accomplice of the murder, puts pressure on the psyche, injures the soul of the person living in it, contributes to the development in his head of various fantastic ideas and illusions, no less nightmarish than life itself.

Raskolnikov is aware that not only he himself, but also thousands of other people are inevitably doomed to poverty, lack of rights and early death. But he is a smart person and therefore cannot simply come to terms with the existing state of affairs. And this gives rise to a constant work of thought in him, striving to find a way out of the current unfair situation.

The meeting with Marmeladov makes a very big impression on Raskolnikov. The confession of a drunken official, his story about the fate of his wife and children, especially Sonya, who was forced to go “on a yellow ticket” in order to feed her family, pushed Raskolnikov to a crime that had long been ripening in his head, assured him of the need to fight against the “masters of life ”, such as Alena Ivanovna, the old money-lender, Luzhin and Svidrigailov.

But Raskolnikov's own suffering and the grief of other poor people are not the main reasons for his crime. “If I had only slaughtered from what I was hungry, then I would be happy now,” he says with bitterness and pain. The roots of Raskolnikov's crime are not in the desire to improve his financial situation. It's all about the theory he created - the "idea" that he considers it his duty to test. Reflecting on the causes of inequality and injustice, Raskolnikov comes to the conclusion that the difference between people has always existed. Moreover, all people, in his opinion, are divided into two categories - these are ordinary people and outstanding ones. While the majority of people always tacitly submit to the existing order, "extraordinary" people appear from time to time in the history of mankind: Mohammed, Lycurgus, Napoleon. They do not stop at violence and crime in order to impose their will on humanity. Cursed by contemporaries, such outstanding personalities, in the opinion of the protagonist, will then be justified by poomkas, recognizing them as heroes.

From this theory, which Raskolnikov outlined in a newspaper article a year before the murder, the philosophical motives for his crime are formed. “Am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? .. Am I a trembling creature or do I have a right?” - this is the main question that tormented the hero of Dostoevsky for many years.

Raskolnikov does not want to obey and endure. He must prove to himself and to those around him that, like other "extraordinary" people, he is not a "trembling creature", but has the right to transgress both criminal and moral law. This conclusion leads Raskolnikov to commit a crime.

Raskolnikov decided that the old pawnbroker would be suitable "material" for testing his theory. She poisons the life of all poor people and even her own sister. She is vile and disgusting. If she dies, then, according to the hero, it will only become easier for everyone.

Raskolnikov manages to commit a planned murder. But the tragic "experiment" led him to a different result than he expected. From his own experience and from the example of other people, Raskolnikov is gradually convinced that the morality of "extraordinary" people is not up to him. And the point here is not the weakness of the hero, as it seemed to him at first. He understands that the actions of these very "extraordinary" people, in essence, are no different from the norms of behavior of the "masters of life" with which Raskolnikov seeks to fight.

Before committing the murder, it seemed to the hero that he had thought over and calculated all the circumstances of the crime. But it turns out that life is always more complicated than any theoretical constructions. Instead of one old woman, Raskolnikov is forced to kill her younger sister, who returned at the wrong time, the meek and downtrodden Lizaveta, who did no harm to anyone, and suffered no less than all the poor people around the hero.

But the hero was even more mistaken in himself, thinking that the crime would in no way affect his attitude to the outside world. Raskolnikov believed that public opinion was indifferent to him, that he was responsible for his actions only to himself. But he is surprised to discover in himself a feeling of disunity with people, since by his act he put himself outside the generally accepted rules and laws. He thought to kill the useless and disgusting old woman, but "killed himself." That is why, after a long struggle with himself, he understands the impracticability of his theory and, on the advice of Sonya, puts himself in the hands of justice.

Dostoevsky's hero rebels against the existing order of life. He tries to destroy it and dreams of the role of the liberator of mankind, but his rebellion is individualistic in its very essence. First of all, he wants to establish himself, to defend his right to be associated with "extraordinary" people.

Dostoevsky offers Raskolnikov a way out of the spiritual crisis. The author sees the salvation of mankind not in individualistic self-affirmation, but in the striving for moral purity and peace of mind. Sonya Marmeladova is the ideal of these aspirations. She listens with horror to the reasoning of Raskolnikov, who is trying to justify the murder of the usurer. Sonya urges him to abandon the terrible idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "superman" and repent before people, thereby atoning for his guilt. Raskolnikov is drawn to this open and bright soul, and only Sonya's love and support help him embark on the path of moral purification, F. M. Dostoevsky exposes the untenable, inhumane theory of Raskolnikov. According to the author, there are no good crimes, all crimes are inhuman. The humanist writer condemned the theory of a strong personality, since it leads to human suffering. Dostoevsky saw the moral revival of the individual in finding unity with people. After all, human brotherhood is the most important norm of life, because it contains spiritual communication, sensitivity, compassion, love.

“We all look at Napoleons;

There are millions of bipedal creatures.

For us, there is only one tool...”

(A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”)

“Rebellion cannot end in success: Otherwise, it is called differently”

(English wisdom)

Goals and objectives

The novel “Crime and Punishment” was conceived by F. M. Dostoevsky at hard labor, “in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction”, in prison, where he was thrown in 1850 as a state and political criminal. It was there that he had the idea of ​​an “ideological” criminal who allowed himself “blood according to his conscience”, a “moral experiment”. Dostoevsky was also tormented by the thought of the "Napoleons" who appropriated to themselves the right to doom, "spend" millions of people. In 1963, he told A.P. Suslova the words that struck her; later she wrote them down in her diary: “When we were having dinner, he, looking at the girl who was taking lessons, said: “Well, imagine such a girl with an old man, and suddenly some Napoleon says:“ Destroy the whole city. It has always been that way.” The idea matured for a long time and painfully in the difficult era of the late fifties - early sixties of the last century. The liberation of the peasants in 1860 seemed to open a new era of bright prospects for Russian society. But very soon it became clear that the reform did not bring the desired change, did not become the prologue of the new time. On the contrary, new social predators appeared on the scene - the bourgeois businessmen with their idol of the “golden calf”. The time has come for grave disappointments, painful mental processes. Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote about this time: “Yes, at such moments something is really abolished, but this “something” is precisely the character of humanity that gives life all its value and meaning. And in place of the abolished one, quite simply, dark predation appears on the scene...”. The years when the novel “Crime and Punishment” was being created were also for Dostoevsky himself years of severe loneliness, painful thoughts and difficult decisions. Shortly before this, in 1864, the people closest to him passed away - his wife Maria Dmitrievna, his brother Mikhail Mikhailovich - like-minded and collaborator Apollon Grigoriev. “And suddenly I was left alone, and I was just scared,” he writes to a friend. - The whole life was broken in two at once. Everything around me became cold and deserted. And soon after the death of the closest collaborators in the publication of magazines - M. M. Dostoevsky and A. A. Grigoriev - the Epoch magazine also collapsed. “Besides, I have up to ten thousand bills of exchange and five thousand for parole ... O my friend, I would gladly go back to hard labor for the same number of years, just to pay my debts and feel free again.” When Dostoevsky wrote Crime and Punishment, he lived in that part of St. Petersburg where petty officials, artisans, merchants, and students settled. Here, in the cold autumn fog and hot summer dust of the “connected St. Petersburg streets and lanes” lying around Sennaya Square and the Catherine Canal, the image of the poor student Rodion Raskolnikov appeared before him, and Dostoevsky settled him here, in Stolyarny Lane, where in a large tenement house I rented an apartment myself.

In the closets and on the streets of this Petersburg, Dostoevsky discovered such an inexhaustible content, such a fantastic abyss of life - situations, characters, dramas - such tragic poetry, such as world literature has not yet known. “Trace a different fact of real life, even not so bright at first glance,” Dostoevsky wrote in “A Writer’s Diary,” and if only you are able and have an eye, you will find in it a depth that Shakespeare does not have.” This is what Dostoevsky did, extracting from the facts, which before him found a place only on the pages of newspaper chronicles, the depth and meaning of world significance.

Here it is necessary to say a few words about the unique talent of F. M. Dostoevsky, who made him a classic not only of Russian and world literature, but also the founder of a new literary genre - the psychological detective story. No wonder all the major writers of the European detective genre, such as A. Christie, J. Simenon, Boileau-Nessergerac and others, called Dostoevsky their teacher. It was Dostoevsky who, from short newspaper notes of police chronicles about the murder of an old pawnbroker or the murder of a father by a son out of jealousy, was able to create such works as Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov.

Dostoevsky is interested not only in the established, developed forms of spiritual life, but also in the moments of the struggle between good and evil, reassessment of values, tragic collisions. Since the highest and all-encompassing value is God and the life of the individual in God, then for Dostoevsky the highest theme of creativity is the struggle of the devil with God in the human heart. The most intense moments of this struggle can easily lead a person to mental illness, breakdowns and crimes. But you have to pay for everything, and the psychology of paying for human suffering, “for a child’s tear” is another aspect of F. M. Dostoevsky’s work. In this sense, the title of the novel "Crime and Punishment" is the refrain of Dostoevsky's entire subsequent literary legacy.

Interestingly, half a year before the commission of his own crime, a student who graduated from the university, Lawyer Rodion Raskolnikov, wrote an article “On Crime”. In this article, Raskolnikov “considered the psychological state of the criminal throughout the entire course of the crime” and argued that it, this state, is very similar to a disease - obscuration of the mind, decay of the will, randomness and illogicality of actions. In addition, in his article Raskolnikov hinted at the question of such a crime, which is “permitted according to conscience”, and therefore, in fact, cannot be called a crime (the very act of committing it is not accompanied, obviously, by illness). The fact is, later Raskolnikov explains the idea of ​​his article, “that people, according to the law of nature, are generally divided into two categories: the lower (ordinary), that is, so to speak, into the material that serves only for the birth of their own kind, and actually into people that is, those who have the gift or talent to say a new word in their midst. The first tend to obedience, humility, reverence for the law. The second - in the name of a new, better one, they can break the law, and for “their idea” (“depending, however, on the idea and its size,” Raskolnikov makes a reservation), if necessary, “give yourself permission to step over the blood.” Such a “crime”, violation of the law is not a crime (of course, in the eyes of an extraordinary person).

Not abstract-theoretical, not abstract-cold - Raskolnikov's thought. No, it is active, living and burning, rushing about. It is born as a response to the anxieties and blows of reality. It receives all its content, strength, sharpness, tension on the verge of catastrophe from collisions with life. Raskolnikov's idea is not only an idea, it is an action, a deed. “This is a man of the idea,” Dostoevsky later wrote about his heroes of the Raskolnikov type - the bearer of the idea, “the idea embraces him and owns him, but having the property that dominates him not so much in his head as embodied in him, passing into nature, always with suffering and anxiety, and, having already once settled in nature, demanding immediate application to the case. Already at the very beginning of the novel, on its first pages, we learn that Raskolnikov "encroached" on some business, which is "a new step, a new own word", that a month ago a "dream" was born in him, for the implementation of which he is close now.

And a month ago, almost dying of hunger, he was forced to have an old woman, a “interest-bearer”, a usurer, a ringlet - a gift from his sister. He felt an indefinite hatred and disgust, “crushed by poverty”, for a harmful and insignificant old woman, sucking blood from the poor, profiting from someone else’s grief, from poverty, from vice. “A strange thought pecked in his head like a chick from an egg.”

And so far, in the last three days before the murder - the first part of the novel is devoted to them - three times Raskolnikov's thought, to the limit, extremely excited by the tragedy of life, experiences precisely those moments of the highest tension that reveal, but still do not fully reveal the deepest causes of his crime.

For the first time - a buffoonish and tragic story of a drunken Marmeladov about his seventeen-year-old daughter, Sonechka, her feat, sacrifice, about the family saved at the cost of abuse. And the conclusion - "A scoundrel gets used to everything!". But in response, a furious outburst of rebellious Raskolnikov thought.

“Well, if I lied,” he suddenly exclaimed involuntarily, “if really not a scoundrel man, the whole in general, the whole race, that is, the human, it means that the rest are all prejudices, only fears posed, and there are no barriers, and so it should be!...” A scoundrel is one who gets used to everything, accepts everything, puts up with everything. But no, no, a man is not a scoundrel - “the whole in general, the whole human race”, he who rebels, destroys, crosses over is not a scoundrel - there are no barriers for an unusual, “obedient” person. Go beyond these barriers, cross them, do not reconcile!

The second time is a letter from the mother about Dunechka, the sister, “ascending Golgotha”, giving up her freedom for the sake of him, “priceless” Rodi. And again, the image of Sonechka looms - a symbol of eternal sacrifice: “Sonechka, Sonechka Marmeladova, eternal Sonechka, while the world stands!” “Or give up life altogether! he suddenly cried out in a frenzy, “obediently accept fate as it is, once and for all, and strangle everything in yourself, refusing any right to act, live and love!” To obediently lay down one’s head before a fate that requires terrible sacrifices, denies a person the right to freedom, accept the iron necessity of humiliation, suffering, poverty and vice, accept a blind and ruthless “fatum”, with which, it would seem, it would be ridiculous to argue - this is for Raskolnikov - “ give up life entirely. But Raskolnikov wants to “act, live and love!” The third time was a meeting with a drunken dishonored girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, and again: “This, they say, is how it should be. Such a percentage, they say, should go every year ... somewhere ... to hell, it must be to refresh the rest and not interfere with them. Percent! Glorious, really, they have these words: they are so soothing, scientific. It has been said: percentage, therefore, there is nothing to worry about!” But after all, Sonechka, Sonechka has already fallen into this “percentage”, so is it easier for her because there is a law, necessity, fate? “But what if Dunechka somehow gets into the percentage! Not in that one, then in another?...” Again - a frenzied “cry”, again - the utmost intensity of the rebellious thought, a rebellion against the alleged “laws” of being. Let economists and statisticians calmly calculate this eternal percentage of those doomed to poverty, prostitution, and crime. Raskolnikov does not believe them; he cannot accept a “percentage”.

So, three women, three victims, like three Moiras of ancient Greek rock, fate, push Raskolnikov further and further along the path of his rebellion. And here the impersonal, non-possessive nature of it becomes clear.

Here it is worth talking about Rodion Raskolnikov himself, his personal qualities, human qualities. Of interest is even the name and surname that the author gave to his hero. Rodion Raskolnikov is a man born split and giving rise to a split, the heir to the harsh, implacable fighters against the “antichrist” in Russian history - schismatics - an Old Believer.

The history of the Russian church schism began with the Council of 1666-1667 and the overthrow of Patriarch Nikon, which forbade the transition of the Russian Orthodox Church into the bosom of the “state”, when the eight-pointed cross, two-fingered and other symbols and orders of the old Byzantine Orthodox Church were anathema. From this date, the persecution of the Old Believers begins, the persecution that gave rise to Archpriest Avvakum, the self-immolation of entire Old Believer villages that did not want to recognize the authority of the “sovereign” church, the departure of schismatic runners in search of “Holy Belogorye” to the distant unknown lands of Siberia, Altai, Kamchatka, Alaska. It was a path of asceticism, struggle, renunciation of "the blessings of this world" in the name of "the light of Christ's love."

No wonder Porfiry Petrovich, in his last conversation with Raskolnikov, admits: “After all, who do I read you for? I consider you one of those who even cut out the guts, and he will stand and look at the tormentors with a smile - if only he finds faith or God. This is the recognition of his antipode, the man of law and power.

As for those around and close to Raskolnikov, many of them love and respect Rodion.

Great is the charm of Raskolnikov's personality, his "broad consciousness and deep heart." Raskolnikov struck Sonya when he planted her, disgraced, trampled, exiled, next to her sister and mother, and then he bowed to her - the sufferer, the victim - he bowed to all human suffering. A whole new world unknown and vaguely descended then into her soul - a whole world, at first incomprehensible to Sonya, but - Sonya immediately understood this - “new”, alien, hostile to the world of hopeless “habitual” torment, generally accepted morality.

They love Raskolnikov, because “he has these movements”, the direct movements of a pure and deep heart, and he, Raskolnikov, loves his mother, sister, Sonya, Polechka. And therefore, he feels the deepest disgust and contempt for the tragic farce of life that is played out around him hourly and every minute, crippling those he loves. And this disgust is the stronger, the more vulnerable Raskolnikov's soul, the more restless and honest his thought, the stricter his conscience, and it is this - spiritual vulnerability, restless and honest thought, incorruptible conscience - that attracts hearts to him.

Not his own poverty, not the need and suffering of his sister and mother torment Raskolnikov, but, so to speak, universal need, universal grief - and the grief of the sister and mother, and the grief of the ruined girl, and the martyrdom of Sonechka, and the tragedy of the Marmeladov family, hopeless, hopeless, eternal nonsense, absurdity of being, horror and evil reigning in the world, poverty, disgrace, vice, weakness and imperfection of man - all this wild “stupidity of creation”.

Thomas Mann noted that with his hero, Raskolnikov, Dostoevsky "liberated from burgher morality and strengthened the will to break psychologically with tradition, to transgress the boundaries of knowledge." Yes, for Raskolnikov there is no burgher, petty-bourgeois morality, it does not bind his mighty spirit (after all, he bowed before Sonya!), For him there are no traditions, he wants to transgress not only moral and social, but, in essence, earthly physical laws that fettered human nature. The earthly, “Euclidean” mind is not enough for him, he wants to make a leap, a “transcendence” on the other side, beyond the boundaries of knowledge accessible to man. This leap should put Raskolnikov in a special relationship with the world, because then he will be able to find in himself the Archimedean point of support in order to turn the world upside down.

And Raskolnikov feels himself capable of more, he wants to take on his shoulders the burden of an incredible, truly superhuman burden. To Sonya’s hysterical question: “What to do?”, After an agonizing conversation about the future, fatally predetermined for the children of Katerina Ivanovna (“Will Polechka die?”), Raskolnikov answers this way: “Break what needs to be, once and for all, and only: and take the suffering!” All this rebellion is not only against the world, but also against God, the denial of divine goodness, divine meaning, the pre-established necessity of the universe. Forever Dostoevsky remembered the theomachist argument of his Petrashevsky friends: “The unbeliever sees suffering, hatred, poverty, oppression, ignorance, uninterrupted struggle and misfortune among people, looks for means to help all these disasters and, not finding it, exclaims: “If such is the fate of mankind, then there is no providence, no higher principle! And in vain will the priests and philosophers tell him that the heavens proclaim the glory of God! No, he will say, the suffering of mankind proclaims the wickedness of God much louder!” “God, God will not allow such horror!” - says Sonya after talking about the death that inevitably awaits the children of Katerina Ivanovna. How will he not allow it? Allows! “Yes, maybe there is no God at all!” Raskolnikov answers.

The murder of the old woman is the only, decisive, first and last experiment, immediately explaining everything: “Walking along the same road, I would never repeat the murder again.”

Raskolnikov needs his experiment precisely to test his ability to commit a crime, and not to test an idea that, as he is deeply convinced for the time being, is immutable, irrefutable. “His casuistry was sharpened like a razor, and in himself he no longer found conscious objections” - this is before the murder. But even then, no matter how many times he returned to his thoughts, no matter how strictly he judged his idea, his casuistry only became sharper and sharper, became more and more sophisticated. And having already decided to betray himself, he says to his sister: “Never, never have I been stronger and more confident than now!” And finally, not in hard labor, at large, having subjected his “idea” to a merciless moral analysis, he is unable to refuse it: the idea is irrefutable, his conscience is calm. Raskolnikov does not find conscious, logical refutation of his idea to the end. For the completely objective features of the modern world are generalized by Raskolnikov, confident in the impossibility of changing anything, the infinity, the inevitability of human suffering and the division of the world into the oppressed and the oppressors, the rulers and the subject, the rapists and the raped, or, according to Raskolnikov, into “prophets” and “trembling creature ".

Here is the split, the split within the hero himself, between the mind and the heart, between the “casuistry” of ideas and the “inclinations” of the heart, between “Christ and the truth.” In 1854, after leaving hard labor, F. M. Dostoevsky wrote to N. D. Fonvizina that if he could be proved “that Christ is outside the truth, and it really would be that the truth is outside of Christ,” then he “would rather stay with Christ than with the truth."

Dostoevsky admits (albeit theoretically) that the truth (which is the expression of the highest justice) can turn out to be outside of Christ: for example, if “arithmetic” automatically proves that this is the case. But in this case, Christ Himself, as it were, turns out to be outside of God (or rather, outside of “arithmetic”, which in this case is identical to world meaning). And Dostoevsky prefers to remain "with Christ" if suddenly the truth itself does not coincide with the ideal of beauty. This is also a kind of rebellion: to remain with humanity and goodness, if the “truth” for some reason turns out to be anti-human and unkind.

He chooses the “tear of a child”.

And that is precisely why - this is the genius of the novel by F. M. Dostoevsky - as if in parallel with the “grinding of casuistry”, everything grows, intensifies and finally wins by the refutation of Raskolnikov’s idea - the refutation of the soul and spirit of Raskolnikov himself, the heart, “which is the abode of Christ”. This refutation is not logical, not theoretical, not intellectual - it is a refutation by life. The deepest wound by the horror and absurdity of the world gave birth to Raskolnikov's idea. The idea gave birth to an action - the murder of an old pawnbroker, a deliberate murder, and, an unintentional murder, her maid, Lizaveta. The fulfillment of the idea led to an even greater increase in the horror and absurdity of the world.

Thanks to the many coincidences that seem to have come together on purpose, Raskolnikov is amazingly successful, so to speak, in the technical side of the crime. There is no material evidence against him. But the more important is the moral side.

Raskolnikov endlessly analyzes the result of his cruel experiment, feverishly assesses his ability to cross.

With all immutability, the truth, terrible for him, is revealed to him - his crime was senseless, he ruined himself in vain, he did not achieve his goal: "He did not transgress, he remained on this side", turned out to be an ordinary man, "a trembling creature." Those people<настоящие то властелины>endured their steps, and therefore they are right, but I did not endure, and therefore, I had no right to allow myself this step, ”is the final result summed up in hard labor.

But why did he, Raskolnikov, not endure, and what is his difference from extraordinary people?

Raskolnikov himself explains this, calling himself “aesthetic louse” with contempt and almost self-hatred. Raskolnikov himself gives the most accurate and most merciless analysis of his "aesthetic" failure, performs a ruthless operation on his own heart. Aesthetics got in the way, built a whole system of reservations, demanded endless self-justifications - Raskolnikov, “aesthetic louse”, could not go to the end; louse “already for the one reason that, firstly, now I’m talking about the fact that I’m a louse; because, secondly, that for a whole month the all-good providence bothered, calling to witness that I am not undertaking, they say, for my own flesh and lust, but I mean a magnificent and pleasant goal - ha ha! Because, thirdly, that he set out to observe possible justice in execution, weight and measure, and arithmetic: of all the lice, he chose the most useless ..." then maybe I’m even worse and more disgusting than a killed louse, and I had a presentiment in advance that I would say this to myself after I had killed!” Well, if he had committed a crime, if he had not turned out to be an “aesthetic louse”, if he had “endured” the entire burden of a sick conscience, then who would Raskolnikov have turned out to be? No wonder Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov stands next to Raskolnikov.

Raskolnikov is drawn to him, as if he is looking for something from Svidrigailov, an explanation, some kind of revelation. This is understandable. Svidrigailov is a double of Raskolnikov, the other side of the same coin. “We are one field of berries,” Svidrigailov also declares. Raskolnikov goes to him, to Svidrigailov, on the eve of that fatal night of revelry and the struggle of the elements - in heaven, on earth, in the souls of Dostoevsky's heroes - the night Svidrigailov spent before suicide in a dirty hotel on Bolshoy Prospekt, and Raskolnikov - over those who attracted, who called him black canal waters.

Svidrigailov quite calmly and coolly accepts Raskolnikov's crime. He sees no tragedy here. Even Raskolnikov, restless, yearning, exhausted by his crime, he, so to speak, encourages, reassures, directs on the true path. And then the most profound difference between these two “special cases” and at the same time the true, hidden meaning of Raskolnikov’s idea is revealed. Svidrigailov is surprised by the tragic throwing and questions of Raskolnikov, completely superfluous and simply stupid in his position “Schilerism”: “I understand what questions you have in the course: morality, or what? questions of the citizen and the individual? And you are on their side: why do you need them now? Heh heh! Then what is still a citizen and a person? And if so, there was no need to meddle; there is nothing to take on your own business.” So Svidrigailov once again, in his own way, rudely and sharply pronounces what, in essence, has long been clear to Raskolnikov himself - “he did not transgress, he remained on this side”, and all because “citizen” and “man ".

Svidrigailov, on the other hand, committed a crime, strangled the man and citizen in himself, let everything human and civil go sideways. Hence - that indifferent cynicism, that naked frankness, and most importantly, that accuracy with which Svidrigailov formulates the very essence of Raskolnikov's idea. Svidrigailov recognizes this idea as his own: “Here ... a kind of theory, the same case in which I find, for example, that a single villainy is permissible if the main goal is good.” Simple and clear. And moral questions, questions of “a person and a citizen”, are superfluous here. A “good” goal justifies villainy committed in order to achieve it.

However, if we do not have “questions of a person and a citizen,” then how can we, with the help of what criteria, determine whether our goal is good? There remains one criterion - my personality, freed from "questions of a man and a citizen", recognizing no barriers.

But it turns out that there is something that this “personality without barriers” is not able to endure, there is something that frightens and humiliates evil - this is an obvious or secret mockery of oneself.

The heroes of Dostoevsky's hair stand on end from the laughter of their victims, who come to them in a dream and in reality.

“Rage overcame him: with all his might, he began to hit the old woman on the head, but with each blow of the ax, laughter and whispers from the bedroom were heard louder and louder, and the old woman was swaying all over with laughter. He rushed to run ... ”Raskolnikov rushed to run - there is nothing else left, because this is a sentence. The actions of Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov are not only terrible; somewhere in their ontological depth they are also ridiculous. “Those who crossed the line” are ready to endure a lot, but this (and only this!) is unbearable for them.

“And Satan, standing up, with joy on his face...” The villains laugh like a satan at the world, but someone - “in another room” - laughs at them too - with laughter invisible to the world.

Svidrigailov has a “nightmare all night”: he picks up a wet, hungry child, and this child falls asleep in his room. However, the dreamer can no longer do good deeds - even in a dream! And the dream demonstrates this impossibility to him with deadly force. The eyelashes of the girl sleeping in a blissful sleep “seem to rise, and from under them a sly, sharp, kind of unchildish winking eye looks out ... But now she has completely ceased to restrain herself; this is already laughter, obvious laughter ... “Ah, damn!” - Svidrigailov cried in horror ... ”This horror is almost mystical in nature: laughter emanating from the very depths of the unfunny - the unnatural, ugly, depraved laughter of a five-year-old child (as if an evil spirit mocks an evil spirit!) - this laughter is irrational and threatens "terrible vengeance"

Svidrigailov's vision is "more terrible" than Raskolnikov's dream, for his expiatory sacrifice is not accepted. “Ah, damn!” Svidrigailov exclaims in horror. Raskolnikov - no less horrified - runs away. They all understand that they are open - and the laughter that follows them is the most terrible (and shameful) punishment for them.

Such is the power of ridicule, which reduces the efforts of a “great” idea to stupidity and nonsense. And in the light of this laughter, those values ​​that cannot be ridiculed, that are not afraid of humiliation, belittling, or cynicism, become clearer and more clearly visible, for they are “eternal and joyful.” And one of them is love, which overcomes the loneliness and disunity of people, which equalizes all the “orphans and the strong”, “poor and tall”.

And Raskolnikov could not overcome this one obstacle. To break with people, finally, irrevocably, he wanted, he felt hatred even for his sister and mother. "Leave me, leave me alone!" - with frenzied cruelty he throws his mother. The murder marked an impenetrable line between him and the people: “A gloomy feeling of painful, endless solitude and alienation suddenly consciously affected his soul.” As if two alienated, with their own laws, worlds live side by side, impenetrable to each other - the world of Raskolnikov and the other - the outside world: "Everything - around is definitely not done here."

Alienation from people, separation - this is the necessary condition and the inevitable result of Raskolnikov's crime - the rebellion of an "extraordinary" personality. The grandiose nightmarish vision (in the epilogue of the novel) of a disconnected and therefore perishing world - a meaningless agglomeration of alienated human units - symbolizes the result that humanity can come to, inspired by Raskolnikov's ideas.

But Raskolnikov cannot stand loneliness, he goes to the Marmeladovs, goes to Sonya. It is hard for him, the murderer, that he made his mother and sister unhappy, and at the same time, their love is hard for him. “Oh, if I were alone and no one loved me, and I myself would never love anyone! There would be no all this!” (That is, then he would have transgressed!) But Raskolnikov loves and cannot give up his love. The alienation of the final and irrevocable, the break with everyone that he so wanted, Raskolnikov is unable to endure, and therefore is unable to endure the crime itself. Raskolnikov dragged a lot on himself, according to Svidrigailov, but he did not drag loneliness, solitude, a corner, decisive alienation. Raskolnikov seemed to have climbed to a height unheard of, inaccessible to ordinary, green people - and suddenly he felt that there was nothing to breathe there - there was no air, but “air, a person needs air!” (says Porfiry).

Before confessing to the murder, Raskolnikov again goes to Sonya. “It was necessary to catch on at least something, to hesitate, to look at a person! And I dared to hope so much for myself, so dream of myself, I am a beggar, I am an insignificant scoundrel, a scoundrel!” And only in the fact that he “did not endure”, Raskolnikov sees his crime (by the way, the “illness of the criminal” - paralysis of thought and will, - described by him in a special article, struck him too). But here is also his punishment: punishment in this horror of his unsuitability, inability to drag the idea, punishment in this “murder” of the principle in himself (“he didn’t kill the old woman, but the principle killed”), punishment in the impossibility of being true to his ideal, in grave endured torment. Even in the draft notes, it was not in vain that Dostoevsky remembered the Pushkin hero: “Aleko killed. The consciousness that he himself is unworthy of his ideal, which torments his soul. This is crime and punishment."

The split within Raskolnikov, the duality of his behavior and thoughts, Dostoevsky sees precisely in this - in the endless and timeless conflict in man of the idea and soul, mind and heart, God and the Devil, Christ and truth. The cold casuistry of rationalism, leading to the justification of the Napoleons and providing for the emergence of the Nietzsche "superman", enters into a struggle with the compassion and philanthropy that lives in the heart. Raskolnikov has them, but his other counterpart, the prudent bourgeois businessman, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, does not.

He openly preaches selfishness and individualism, supposedly on the basis of “science” and “economic truth”: “Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on egg interest.” Raskolnikov himself immediately throws a bridge from these arguments of Pyotr Petrovich to the murder of the old pawnbroker ("... bring to the consequences what you just preached, and it turns out that people can be cut"). Luzhin, of course, is outraged by this "application" of his theories. Of course, he would not have stabbed the old pawnbroker - this, perhaps, is not in his personal interests. And in general - he does not need to cross the existing formal law at all to satisfy his personal interest - he does not rob, does not cut, does not kill. He transcends the moral law, the law of humanity, and calmly endures what Raskolnikov (“a special case”!) Could not endure. “Beneficent” to Dunechka, he suppresses and humiliates her, without even realizing it (and in the “unconsciousness” of this Luzhin’s strength - after all, the “Napoleons” do not suffer, do not ponder whether it is possible or not to step over, but simply step over - through a person).

It is interesting that all the historical examples that Raskolnikov refers to when expressing his “gloomy catechism” are from the field of suppression, destruction, and not creation. This is how Dostoevsky implicitly explains the principle of his faith: “There can be no creation without love for those for whom you create. There can be no truth without a creator who forgives and loves. Without Christ...

And the man Raskolnikov wins, shocked by human suffering and tears, deeply compassionate and in the depths of his soul confident that he is not a louse, from the very beginning "foreseeing in himself and in his convictions a deep lie." His inhuman idea collapses.

Shortly before the confession, Raskolnikov begins to almost disintegrate consciousness, he seems to lose his mind. He is seized by painful anxiety, then panic fear, then complete apathy. He no longer owns his thought, will, feelings. He, a theoretician and rationalist, tries to escape from a clear and complete understanding of his position. All Raskolnikov’s “mathematics” turns into a terrible lie, and his theoretical crime, his rational, verified, razor-sharp casuistry, is complete nonsense. According to theory, according to “arithmetic”, he planned to kill a useless louse, and then he killed Lizaveta - quiet, meek, the same Sonya!

And although Raskolnikov, of course, is not a revolutionary or a socialist, and Dostoevsky knows this well, there is, however, something that united, according to Dostoevsky, the rebel Raskolnikov with those who in Russia of that time wanted a radical, decisive social socialist - transformations, namely, the rational, rationalistic, theoretical character of their ideas. Raskolnikov killed according to the theory, from the calculation, but his calculation was defeated, refuted by life. “Reality and nature ... is an important thing,” says Porfiry Petrovich, referring to Raskolnikov’s crime, “and oh, how sometimes the most far-sighted calculation is crossed!” But after all, Razumikhin wants to refute socialist utopias with similar references to nature, which is not amenable to regulation, social equation, “leveling”<социалистов>not humanity, having developed historically, in a living way to the end, will of itself turn finally into a normal society, but, on the contrary, the social system, emerging from some mathematical head, will immediately arrange all of humanity and in an instant make it righteous and sinless, before any living process, without any historical and living path!” The prophetic foresight of Dostoevsky, put into the mouth of Razumikhin, provides an explanation for everything that happened to Russia and the Russian people in the 20th century.

And not only with Russia. Did not the Bolsheviks, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other “supermen” of the 20th century justify their actions with ideas and ideology, “high social justice”.

Any abstract reasoning, even the highest and purest, striving to give peace, prosperity, freedom and peace to all mankind, colliding with the reality of life, a living historical process, leads to blood, suffering and death of those for whom all this is started. “Nature does not tolerate violence,” said F. Bacon. Any nature, living and dead, including human nature, really does not tolerate violence, and even if it seems that it is suppressed, broken, defeated, then sooner or later it will take revenge on its rapists.

The history of the 20th century teaches that any theory abstracted from a living person, from his soul and heart, fails, and the stronger it is, the longer and more forcefully these theories are implanted.

In 1944, the Russian philosopher N. O. Lossky in his work “Dostoevsky and his Christian worldview” wrote: “In our time, sociological interpretations and works of great writers, and the persons and life situations they depict are widespread. Especially in Marxist literature, this sociologism is carried to its extreme limits. Take, for example, the books of G. A. Pokrovsky “The Martyr of God-Seeking (F. Dostoevsky and Religion)”, 1929. In this book we read that the self-will of Raskolnikov or Kirillov (“Demons”) is an expression of a petty-bourgeois personality fighting for his individual existence against incomprehensible social forces. Hence the inevitable failures in this struggle, the inability to find a way out of the difficulty, the life of illusions, the need for God. Now, if Raskolnikov had been a spokesman not for petty-bourgeoisism, but for “powerful social forces” (i.e., the labor movement), he could have successfully transgressed the old law. So reasoned G. A. Pokrovsky; and indeed, we will answer him, the Raskolnikov-Bolsheviks have violated the old law “Thou shalt not kill”; they carried out mass terror with success in the sense that they did not pay for these murders with prison and hard labor, but the hell they created led them themselves to internal decay, to wear and tear, and, finally, now to mutual hatred and mutual destruction. It is these consequences of the crime of the "old", i.e. eternal, moral laws, inevitably advancing in any social order, Dostoevsky has in mind in his works.

In the epilogue of the novel, Raskolnikov, a child of a huge gloomy city, having ended up in Siberia, finds himself in a new, unusual world for him - he is torn out of the fantastic sick life of St. Petersburg, from that artificial soil that nurtured his terrible idea. This is a different world, hitherto alien to Raskolnikov, the world of people's life, eternally renewing nature.

In the spring, when life awakens so sharply and as if anew in a person, when so directly, childishly irresistibly, the eternal joy of being returns each time, - on a clear and warm spring day, in the land where “as if time itself had stopped, for sure the centuries of Abraham and his flocks have not yet passed, ”- a revival comes to Raskolnikov, again and completely embraces his “immense feeling of a full and mighty life.” Now his new path must begin - a new life. Raskolnikov parted with his idea of ​​​​rebellion and self-will, he goes onto that rocky and difficult path, which the quiet Sonya goes without hesitation - with torment and joy.

But will Raskolnikov - the thinking, acting, fighting Raskolnikov - renounce consciousness and judgment? Dostoevsky knows that Raskolnikov “needs to buy a new life dearly, to pay for it with a great, future feat.” And, of course, Raskolnikov could accomplish his great, future feat only as Raskolnikov, with all the power and sharpness of his consciousness, but also with a new higher justice of his court, on the paths of "insatiable compassion." This will be a feat of philanthropy, not hatred for people, a feat of unity, not isolation.

But this is another story, the history of rebirth and creativity, this is a long, painful path “from oneself to oneself”, a path that every person must go through in order to have the right to be called a person.

“Everything is in the chabi,” the Old Believers-schismatics argued, and Dostoevsky’s hero embarks on the difficult path of knowing himself, for “know yourself, and you will know the world.” But this is no longer a riot.

Conclusions and conclusion of the abstract 1. The novel "Crime and Punishment" is one of the studies of Russian literature on the issue of the hero-individualist, the man of "idea" and "ideology".

2. One of the main advantages of the novel is a subtle and surprisingly accurate psychological analysis of the “borderline” states of the human mind and soul, the states of the struggle between Good and Evil, mind and heart, God and the Devil in the heroes of the novel.

3. In "Crime and Punishment" F. M. Dostoevsky defined his author's position of Christian philanthropy and compassion, which was further developed in his works, such as "The Brothers Karamazov", "Demons", etc.

Conclusion: Having destroyed the “harmonious theory” and “simple arithmetic” of the idea of ​​Rodion Raskolnikov in the novel “Crime and Punishment”, Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky warned humanity against the danger of “simple decisions” with the help of revolutionary riots, proclaiming one law of human relations - the moral law.

Bibliography

1. I. V. Volgin “To be born in Russia. Dostoevsky and contemporaries. Life in documents. Magazine "October" No. 3-5, 1990, book 1.

2. From the preparatory materials for "Crime and Punishment" // Collected. op. in ten volumes. F. M. Dostoevsky. M, Goslitizdat, 1956, vol. VIII.

3. F. M. Dostoevsky “Diary of a Writer”. "Literary heritage". M. Academy of Sciences of the USSR 1965

4. N. O. Lossky “God and world evil”. M. "Republic" 1994

5. N. O. Lossky “Dostoevsky and his Christian worldview”. M. "Republic" 1994

6. N. O. Lossky “The condition of absolute goodness”. M. "Republic" 1994

7. K. Tyunkin “Riot of Rodion Raskolnikov”. Intro. article to "Crime and Punishment" by F. M. Dostoevsky. L. “Fiction”, 1974

8. G. M. Friedlender “Realism of Dostoevsky”. M. "Literature" 1964

A. P. Suslova. Years of closeness with Dostoevsky: Moscow, 1928

N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov) Complete. coll. op. T. 6. Moscow, 1941

F. M. Dostoevsky. Full coll. op. vol. XI. Moscow-Leningrad, 1929. Pp. 423.

Notebooks of F. M. Dostoevsky, Moscow-Leningrad, 1935

T. Mann. Sobr. op. in ten volumes. T. 10. Moscow, 1961

N. S. Kashkin. The Petrashevsky case. Moscow-Leningrad, 1965

Raskolnikov was in a position in which all the best forces of a person turn against him and involve him in a hopeless struggle with society. The holiest affections and the purest aspirations, which usually support, encourage and ennoble a person, when a person is deprived of the opportunity to give them their right satisfaction.

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was written by F. M. Dostoevsky in the 70s of the XIX century. At this time, the writer reflects on the moral consequences of widespread impoverishment, an increase in crime and popular drunkenness caused by the 1961 reform and the subsequent rampant capitalist predation. Dostoevsky perceives his era not simply as chaos, breakage, instability and transitivity. He sees this as an approaching catastrophe. And so the writer believes that it is no coincidence that this era gave rise to people like Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky in his novel depicts the collision of theory with the logic of life. The main idea of ​​the novel is revealed as a collision of a person obsessed with an extremely criminal theory, with a life process that rejects this theory. How did the protagonist of the novel approach this theory? Dostoevsky's hero asserts his right to shed blood "according to his conscience", that is, based on his personal conviction. The writer shows that this is even more terrible than "official permission to pour blood", because it opens a wide road for complete arbitrariness.

Raskolnikov wants to help people, but at the same time, to find out if he is capable of being a person who can control people's destinies. “I am a trembling creature, or do I have a right?” Along with love for people, a terrible pride lives in him - the desire to take upon himself the decision of the fate of all people. Raskolnikov was incapable of coming to terms with reality, with its untruths and its injustices. A positive attitude towards the world, such as it is, is meanness, Raskolnikov thinks. He set out to put himself against the world in order to eliminate the unjust order or die along with the blown up world, just not to sit idly by. Raskolnikov does not move with the world, but against the world. He not only comes into conflict with him, he resolutely does not accept him. The rejection of the world led Raskolnikov to a crime of its laws, to a crime as such.

Raskolnikov divides people into scoundrels and not scoundrels, and their practice into mean and not mean. He is concerned about the differences between poverty and wealth, happiness and unhappiness, share and deprivation. He stopped being afraid of any obstacles and embarrassing himself by any norms - just not to reconcile with the "vile", unrighteous reality, just not to go through the world as a "scoundrel".

Raskolnikov had been nurturing his terrible idea and his terrible plan in his head for a long time, but for the time being all this remained a gloomy fantasy, nothing more. He had already met with Marmeladov, the cries of the humiliated and insulted had already pierced his heart, but he had not yet decided anything. But then a letter came from my mother. He was left alone with him, he read a confession that was naive and cruel in truth, and she put him on a fatal line: either resign himself to the fate of his relatives and the law that reigns in the world, or try to do something to save his loved ones and those rebel against the laws that reign in the world. “I don’t want your sacrifice, Dunechka, I don’t want, mother! Not to be while I'm alive, not to be, not to be! The old longing, the old thoughts that tormented him, concentrated in one point. What a month ago and even yesterday was only a “dream”, a theoretical assumption, stood at the door and demanded, under the threat of the death of the closest people, immediate resolution, immediate action.

Raskolnikov would not have killed anyone just like that, even in the case of self-defense. But for the mother, for the honor of the sister, protecting the child, for the idea, he is ready to kill - and he did. On the eve of Raskolnikov’s crime, a phrase is heard that he overheard in a tavern: “Kill her and take her money, in order to later devote yourself to the service of all mankind and the common cause with their help.”

Raskolnikov decides to “immediately” commit a crime in order to test himself and at the same time to “begin” already. He planned to kill the old pawnbroker - an evil, shamelessly robbing people - and how to "avenge" her for the destitute. At the same time, he was going to help the poor and unfortunate with the help of the old woman's money, soften the life of his mother and sister, create an independent position for himself, in order to then use it for "the happiness of all mankind."

Raskolnikov has a terrible dream even before the "case", a dream in which a small, skinny peasant nag is tortured - a symbolic dream that has absorbed all his thoughts about evil and injustice in the world. Such dreams are not dreamed by people who have lost all conscience and reconciled with the age-old and universal untruth of the world order.
Raskolnikov decided to pave the way for the future, not together with progressive social thought, which was changing with difficulty and relatively slowly, but alone and on the side. Having decided on the murder, Raskolnikov had to abandon the democratic social-utopian dreams that flared up with particular force in his mind when he stood and thought on the banks of the Neva. Yes, and the very decision to kill could only arise when he recognized his former comrades as powerless in the face of world evil, when he came to the conclusion that the path of utopia is, in the end, the path of capitulation to the rejected reality.

"Theory" for Raskolnikov, as well as for Bazarov in the novel "Fathers and Sons" by I. S. Turgenev, becomes a source of tragedy. In the name of the people, Raskolnikov forces himself to transgress the laws of humanity - to kill. But he cannot bear the moral weight of his act. Terrible pangs of conscience - his punishment.

The novel "Crime and Punishment" was conceived by F.M. Dostoevsky in hard labor "in a difficult moment of sadness and self-destruction". It was there, in hard labor, that the writer encountered "strong personalities" who placed themselves above the moral laws of society. To the question: is it possible to destroy some people for the happiness of others, the author and his hero answer differently. Raskolnikov believes that it is possible, since this is "simple arithmetic." There can be no harmony in the world if at least one tear of a child is shed (after all, Rodion kills Lizaveta and her unborn child). But the hero is in the power of the author, and therefore in the novel the anti-human theory of Rodion Raskolnikov fails.

The hero's rebellion, underlying his theory, is generated by the social inequality of society. It is no coincidence that a conversation with Marmeladov was the last straw in Raskolnikov's cup of doubt: he finally decides to kill the old pawnbroker. Money is salvation for disadvantaged people, Raskolnikov believes. The fate of Marmeladov refutes these beliefs. Even the money of his daughter does not save the poor fellow, he is morally crushed and can no longer rise from the bottom of life.

Raskolnikov explains the establishment of social justice by force as "blood according to conscience." The writer further develops this theory, and characters appear on the pages of the novel - Raskolnikov's "twins". “We are one field of berries,” Svidrigailov says to Rodion, emphasizing their similarities. Svidrigailov and Luzhin exhausted the idea of ​​abandoning "principles" and "ideals" to the end. One has lost his bearings between good and evil, the other preaches personal gain - all this is the logical conclusion of Raskolnikov's thoughts. It is not for nothing that Rodion replies to Luzhin's selfish reasoning: "Bring to the consequences what you just preached, and it turns out that people can be cut."

Raskolnikov believes that only "real people" can break the law, since they act for the benefit of humanity. But Dostoevsky proclaims from the pages of the novel: any murder is unacceptable. These ideas are expressed by Razumikhin, citing simple and convincing arguments that human nature opposes crime.

What does Raskolnikov come to as a result, considering himself entitled to destroy "unnecessary" people for the benefit of the humiliated and offended? He himself rises above people, becoming an "extraordinary" person.