The Thinking Man's Guide to Crime and Punishment

A Reader's Guide from the Thinking Man Book Club

This page will begin with a preliminary reader’s guide, which will provide you with the resources you need to begin reading Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky. These will include a history of Russia in the nineteenth century, a history of Dostoevsky himself, and a character list (because keeping track of all the Russian names can be daunting).

This page will be updated weekly with guiding questions, some historical context, and a selection of quotes. Feel free to follow along at your own pace, and refer to each week’s resources as you read the book.

In context, the moral and philosophical themes that are grappled with in the novel start to make a lot more sense.

The Thinking Man Book Club will be reading the novel in eight weeks, splitting Part One and Part Two in half, and then reading one ‘part’ per week afterwards. Our itinerary is as follows:

Week One: 
Part One, Chapters I-III (p. 3-38)
Week Two: 
Part One, Chapters IV-VII (p. 38-81)
Week Three: 
Part Two, Chapters I-IV (p. 85-133)
Week Four: 
Part Two, Chapters V-VII (p. 133-180)
Week Five: 
Part Three (p. 183-259)
Week Six:
Part Four (p. 263-335)
Week Seven:
Part Five (p. 339-409)
Week Eight: 
Part Six - 413-499 (86 pages)
Epilogue - 503-518 (15 pages)

We strongly recommend the Oliver Ready translation of Crime and Punishment, found in the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition of the novel. The page numbers above follow this edition.

For your copy of the book, visit Transom Bookshop. Crime and Punishment and other books recommended, referenced, and discussed by Thinking Man will be on display.

If you’re not in the area, we urge you to purchase your books through Bookshop.org: a not-for-profit online bookstore who donates a generous percentage of sales to local indie bookshops.

Character List

Raskolnikov, Rodion (Rodka, Rodya) Romanovich: Your hero of the story: a twenty-three-year-old university dropout living alone in a run down apartment in St. Petersburg. 
“Raskolnik” is defined in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary as “a dissenter from the Russion Orthodox Church.”   
Razumikhin, Dmitry Prokofyevich: Raskolnikov’s friend from university.   
Avdotya (Dunechka, Dunya) Romanovna Raskolnikova: Raskolnikov’s sister.   
Pulkheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikova: Raskolnikov’s mother.  
Marmeladov, Semyon Zakharovich: Drunkard and civil servant; met Raskolnikov at a bar in Part I.
Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladova: Marmeladov’s wife.
Sonya (Sonechka) Semyonovna: Marmeladov’s daughter from a previous marriage.
Porfiry Petrovich: Chief Investigator of the police bureau; Razumikhin’s distant relative.  
Luzhin, Pyotr Petrovich: Middle-aged lawyer from the provinces.  
Zametov, Alexander Grigoryevich: Razumikhin’s friend; the police bureau’s head clerk.  
Zosimov: Doctor; Razumikhin’s friend.
Ilya Petrovich (‘Powder Keg’) (‘Gunpowder’ in other translations): Lieutenant at the police bureau.  
Nastasya (Nastyenka, Nastayushka): Cook and maid in the house where Raskolnikov lives.   
Svidrigailov, Arkady Ivanovich: A rich man from the country; ex-employer of Dunya.  
Marfa Petrovna Svidrigailova: Svidrigailov’s wife.
Lebezyatnikov, Andrei Semyonovich: Neighbor of the Marmeladovs; friend of Luzhin  
Mikolai (Mikolka) Dementyev: A peasant worker in St. Petersburg. 
Alyona Ivanovna: An old widow and pawnbroker.   
Lizaveta Ivanovna: Alyona Ivanovna’s younger half-sister. 

A History of Russia

Crime and Punishment was published in 1866, during a time of immense social and political turmoil in Russia. Tsar Alexander II rose to power ten years earlier, and had since made many seemingly radical reforms. He reorganized the judicial system, instated systems of local self-government in rural areas, and imposed universal mandatory military service, (whereas beforehand mandatory conscription was reserved for the peasantry). In addition, and perhaps most notably, he emancipated the serfs.

Despite the tsar’s liberal policies, many Russians felt like his reforms did not go far enough. To understand this, let’s take a look at nineteenth-century Russian history: a time marked by hostility, revolution, and Socialist idealism.

Russia was at war with most of Europe at the turn of the century, until Tsar Alexander I, who rose to power in 1801. Alexander I initiated a state of temporary peace, interrupted by wars with Napoleon from 1805 to 1807, and again in 1812.

Under Alexander I, Russia defeated Napoleon, and became a great land power in Europe. Because of this, the Russian populace maintained a strong conservative tradition that was a stark contrast to the rest of Europe and its progressive ideals.

Despite its victory, Russia’s government was run by an ineffective bureaucracy, and its economy lagged behind much of Europe’s as a result. Thus, a sect of educated Russians influenced by European ideals became obsessed with the idea of revolution, and in 1825, after Alexander I’s sudden death, a sect of revolutionaries who became known as the “Decembrists” tried and failed to take over the Russian government.

Ideas such as the abolition of serfdom were popular during his reign, but since he came to power following the Decembrist revolution, Nicolas I was worried about taking any action that might be politically unpopular. Russia fought many wars against Turkey from the 1820s to the 1850s, culminating in the Crimean War against the British, French, and Ottoman Turks, which Russia lost badly.

This loss highlighted Russia’s inefficiency and lack of modernity, and when Alexander II took over in 1855, his policies were designed to ‘modernize’ Russia. He upgraded the railway system, overhauled the judicial system. The intelligentsia were criticizing class stratification, so, fearing an insurrection from below, the tsar gave in to their demands, freeing the serfs and giving them the right to own property.

Of course, much like the emancipation of slavery in the United States, the emancipation of serfs in Russia did not end their struggle. They were just as poor as ever, arguably even more so, and the landowning class still maintained their power over them. In fact, the main effect of the reforms was that the government had managed to increase its own power. The government had expanded, creating a new branch of clerks that held the power that once belonged to the serf-owning landowners.

Meanwhile, the Communist Manifesto had recently been written, and the intelligentsia were enamored by the ideas that it presented. Of course, there was a strange paradox at play—they were fighting tight governmental control with more governmental control. They did not see it that way, though. The new government they proposed was to be run by the people. A “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” won by blood that would be shed for a worthy cause.

Closely tied with this new utopian socialist idealism were atheism and nihilism, philosophies which Dostoevsky writes about extensively in Crime and Punishment. Essentially, the novel was a plea for a return to the conservative idealism that had characterized early nineteenth-century Russia, before a series of military defeats had turned the country on a course that would eventually lead to the communist revolution of the twentieth century.

A History of Dostoevsky

Fyodor Dostoevsky was not always the staunch conservative who wrote Crime and Punishment, fighting for ideals that were becoming less and less fashionable by the day.

In his youth, Dostoevsky was a political radical, involved with a revolutionary group run by a radical utopian socialist whose goal was to organize an insurrection in Russia. He was eventually imprisoned and sentenced to death in 1949.

What happened next was as dramatic as one of Dostoevsky’s novels. The author was brought before a firing squad, and only moments before he was about to die, his execution was called off by Tsar Nicolas I, who sentenced him to years of hard labor in Siberia.

This experience changed Dostoevsky’s thought processes dramatically. After meeting ‘real’ working-class people in prison, most of which disdained privileged ‘revolutionaries’ like young Dostoevsky, he returned to the free world a Christian and conservative. Most of his writing afterwards was in staunch opposition to the philosophies that he had once subscribed to. He wrote the semi-autographical novel The House of the Dead about his experiences.

Nevertheless, his troubles were far from over. In the years preceding the publication of Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky lost his wife and brother, and was struggling severely with an addiction to gambling. In addition to this, he had signed a contract with his publisher saying that if he did not complete a novel by 1866, he would lose the rights to everything he had ever written.

Crime and Punishment was originally published in the magazine The Russian Messenger in ten installments over the course of a twelve-month period. In between these installments, Dostoevsky had to pause writing the book in order to produce a novel to fulfill the predatory contract. This novel would become The Gambler, and it was written with the help of a stenographer who eventually became his wife.

This, of course, implies that Crime and Punishment was intended as a more ‘serious’ novel, which we have every reason to believe it was. He proposed in a letter to the Russian journalist Mikhail Katkov that he intended to create a novel that was a ‘psychological record of crime.’ He described his idea as follows:

“A contemporary setting, this current year [1865]. A young man, excluded from student status at university, of trading class, living in extreme poverty, succumbs, through frivolity and ricketiness of thought, to certain strange, ‘half-baked’ ideas in the air, and makes up his mind to get out of his foul situation in a single bound.” ¹

Crime and Punishment is a satire of these ‘half-baked ideas.’ Its characters embody the philosophies that Dostoevsky was surrounded with, some of which he admired and some of which he detested. Its central question—is a human being ever justified in taking a life?—makes sense coming from a once-revolutionary that, after a brush with death, came to his senses and realized the gravity of his words.

In his introduction, Oliver Ready states that the novel is “often described as a version of the murder mystery or as a novel of religious conversion.”² The latter is an appropriate description, for there are many religious themes and Bible references present in the book. But it does not ask you to take them on faith. The novel is a philosophical argument, an appeal to reason, a call to action.

As Dostoevsky asks in the first pages of Crime and Punishment: “what do people fear most? A new step, a new word of their own—that’s what they fear most.”³ Barely five paragraphs into the book, and he is already calling out peoples’ infuriating tendency to ignore what it is right in front of them.

Do not fall into the trap. Think freely, and think hard. And, most of all, enjoy.

Happy reading.

Thinking Man Book Club

Week One: Part One, Chapters I-III (p. 3-38)

Guiding Questions:

Raskolnikov’s conversation with Marmeladov is littered with Bible references, i.e. “behold the man,” “the wagging of heads,” etc.

Marmeladov’s daughter Sonya, a prostitute, is likened to an angel.

Marmeladov even expresses faith that in his final judgment, even he will be saved.

Why is the beaten-down Marmeladov speaking like a prophet?

What kind of ‘God’ is Dostoevsky illustrating here?

Why do you think Raskolnikov gave his change to the Marmeladovs?

The story’s narrator classifies Raskolnikov as a “monomaniac who focus[es] too much on one thing” (p. 26).

How is Raskolnikov’s state of mind portrayed throughout these introductory chapters?

In your opinion, is his ‘monomania’ chemical or self-imposed?

In Historical Context:

A few times in these introductory pages Dostoevsky references the changing state of the world. The pawnbroker Alyona Ivanova ostensibly represents a new type of professional that could not have existed without the new Russian reforms: the predatory moneylender. In 1864, all restrictions limiting interest rates on loans were lifted, giving rise to this new type of enterprise. (see note 11, p. 523)

Similarly, the character of Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin represents a different type of new world professional: the private attorney. This profession was also introduced after the legal reforms of 1864.

This character was also described as sharing “the convictions of our newest generations”—namely nihilism: the rejection of God, the concept of the soul, and all traditional values. (p. 33)

Sonya notably received little education besides reading Lewes’s Physiology: a popular book among female nihilists. (see p. 14)

Raskolnikov himself is a representation of this ‘new intellectual.’ His mother is from the Ryazan province, “a province teeming with raskolniki (religious dissenters) (note 31, p. 526). He is a university dropout with an aversion to work and to other people. Dostoevsky describes him as a “monomaniac”: a diagnosis taken from the French school of psychiatry describing a ‘fluctuating disorder’ marked by hallucinatory voices and an unstable temperament. (p. 25).

Quotes to Note:

“Here’s a question: what do people fear most? A new step, a new word of their own—that’s what they fear most” (p. 3-4)

“[I]n our age even science has prohibited compassion, and that is how they already do things in England, where political economy is all the rage” (p. 13)

“Do you still pray, Rodya, and do you believe in the goodness of our creator and redeemer? In my heart I fear: might you, too, have been visited by the faithlessness that is now so fashionable?” (p. 37)

Week Two: Part One, Chapters IV-VII (p. 38-81)

Guiding Questions:

On page 43, after Razumikhin expresses his anger over his sister’s betrothal:

“He gave a sudden start: one of yesterday’s thoughts had shot through his mind once again… The difference was this: a month ago, and even just yesterday, it was no more than a dream, while now… now it suddenly presented himself not as a dream, but in a new, threatening and quite unfamiliar form.”

Why is this still-unarticulated thought suddenly strengthening in Raskolnikov’s mind? Is it his frustration? Desperation? 

On pages 45-46, Raskolnikov gives away more of his money, this time in order to to help a drunk girl on the street. Why does he do this?

Consider Raskolnikov’s dream, and the quote on page 51: “Such dreams, morbid dreams, always live long in the memory and have a powerful effect on disturbed and already excited organisms.”

What is the significance of the little boy in the dream? 

On page 59, Dostoevsky articulates the ‘thought’ that’s been nagging his mind for the first time. How did this dream change Raskolnikov’s attitude towards his plan?

On page 66, Raskolnikov claims that most criminals get caught because, at the moment of their crimes, they experience an “eclipse of reason and weakening of the will.” 

Is this true? If so, why?

Why does Raskolnikov feel he is exempt from this ‘rule’?

Raskolnikov then poses the question “As to whether it is sickness that gives rise to crime or crime itself which somehow, by its special nature, is always accompanied by something akin to sickness” (p. 67).

Can we relate this somehow to Raskolnikov’s own physical state? 

Consider the conversation Raskolnikov overheard in the tavern: 

“I could murder and rob this hag, and without the faintest pang of conscience”; “Hundreds, possibly thousands of lives could be set on the right path; dozens of families saved from beggary, disintegration, ruin, depravity, the venereal hospital—and all this on her money.”; “Won’t thousands of good deeds iron out one tiny little crime?”(p. 61)

What do you think of this idea? Is the man right? Consider that he says this, yet claims that he himself would not do it.

Does this idea bear any relation to the utopian socialist ideals that the book is ostensibly arguing against?

Assume that the man in the tavern’s justification for Raskolnikov’s crime were true. 

How does Raskolnikov’s ‘second crime’ change this?

If Raskolnikov were to remain morally just, what should he have done instead? 

In Historical Context:

“[Razumikhin] was an unusually cheerful and sociable lad, kind to the point of simplicity. This simplicity concealed both depth and virtue” (p. 48).

Dostoevsky published The Idiot in monthly installments between 1868 and 1869, two-three years after the completion of Crime and Punishment. The novel follows the protagonist Prince Myshkin. In creating the character, Dostoevsky set out to depict his vision of a ‘good’ man. Due to the man’s simplicity, many people assumed he was stupid (hence the title, The Idiot). Clearly, this link between goodness and alleged stupidity was something that was on Dostoevsky’s mind for some time.

Quotes to Note:

“Do you know, Dunechka, that Sonechka’s fate is no more sordid than the fate of being with Mr. Luzhin?” (p. 41)

“A certain percentage, they say, must go that way every year… Which way? … To the devil, I suppose, so as to freshen up the rest and not get in their way. Percentage! What lovely words they use; so soothing, so scholarly. You hear a word like that and wonder what on earth you were worrying about. Now if it were a different word, you might feel a little less comfortable…”(p. 48)

“Raskolnikov had become superstitious. Traces of superstition would remain in him for a long time yet, almost indelibly. In fact, he would always be prone to find something rather strange about this whole business, something mysterious, the presence, as it were, of some special influences and coincidences.” (p. 59)

“The more definitive [Raskolnikov’s plans] were, the more hideous and absurd they immediately became in his own eyes.” (p. 65)

"[Raskolnikov] suddenly wondered why it is that in every large city, man… lives and makes his home in precisely those parts of town where there are neither gardens nor fountains, where there is filth and stench and every unpleasantness” (p. 68). 

Week Three: Part Two, Chapters I-IV (p. 85-133)

Part Two of this book is kind of tough to get through.

Don’t worry, though. The book picks up again in Part Three.

Guiding Questions:

On page 104, Raskolnikov asks himself: “If this whole thing really was done consciously and not stupidly, if you really did have a definite, fixed aim, then how is it you still haven’t taken one look inside the purse and don’t even know what you’ve got, the very reason you accepted all this agony and consciously set out on something so despicable, so vile, so low?”

How would you answer this question?

Earlier on that same page, Raskolnikov remarks:

How I tricked and lied today! How sickeningly I fawned and flirted with that appalling Ilya Petrovich.”

I don’t recall Raskolnikov saying anything in his conversation that was actually false. In what manner did Raskolnikov ‘trick and lie’?

After leaving Razumikhin’s house, Raskolnikov is given a generous gift of twenty copecks by an old lady who mistakes him for a beggar.

Relate this to Raskolnikov’s conversation with Marmeladov at the tavern, where Marmeladov remarks that there is no kind of person worse than a beggar.

Note that Raskolnikov then threw away the twenty copecks.

Why does Raskolnikov think Zametov suspects him? Are Raskolnikov’s worries justified?

In Historical Context:

On page 108, Raskolnikov spends some time enjoying a beautiful view in the city, but suddenly remarks that he feels himself suddenly accompanied by “some dumb, deaf spirit.”

This is a reference to a passage in the Gospel of Mark:

“When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of law arguing with them.

As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him.

‘What are you arguing with them about?’ he asked.

A man in the crowd answered, ‘Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech.

Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.’

‘You unbelieving generation,’ Jesus replied, ‘how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.’

So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

Jesus asked the boy’s father, ‘How long has he been like this?’ ‘From childhood,’ he answered.

‘It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.’

‘’If you can’?’ said Jesus. ‘Everything is possible for one who believes.’

Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, ‘I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!’

When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the impure spirit. ‘You deaf and mute spirit,’ he said, ‘I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.’

The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, ‘He’s dead.’

But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, ‘Why couldn’t we drive it out?’

He replied, ‘This kind can come out only by prayer.’”

Consider why Dostoevsky might have compared Raskolnikov’s own mental state to possession by this spirit.

Note the boy and his family’s faithlessness, and the self-destructiveness of the boy possessed by the spirit. Note the parable’s unhappy ending.

Bible references like this are common in Crime and Punishment. Throughout the novel there are also references to Lazarus: a New Testament figure who was resurrected from the dead. Pay attention to these references as they come up throughout the novel.

Quotes to Note:

The conviction that everything was deserting him—even his memory, even the ability to put two and two together—was becoming an unbearable torment: ‘What, is this it already, my punishment?” (p. 86)

On page 110, after hearing Raskolnikov mistake his disturbing dream for truth, Nastasya replies, “No one came. That’s your blood yelling inside of you. That’s when it can’t get out and clots up your insides and you start seeing things.”

Nastasya is referring to Raskolnikov’s illness, but, unknown to Natasya, her words have a jarring second meaning.

Week Four: Part Two, Chapters V-VII (p. 133-180)

Guiding Questions: 
Consider the exchange between Luzhin, Raskolnikov, Razumikhin, and Zosimov on pages 138 to 139. 
Do you think Luzhin is being sincere about his affinity towards the young and their “reforms” and “ideas”?
Razumikhin and Luzhin disagree about whether St. Petersburg is full of “doers.” Who argues the more compelling case? Is there any deeper significance to Razumikhin’s claim, “[W]e’ve gotten used to not doing anything for nigh on two hundred years”?
Why does Raskolnikov dismiss Luzhin’s argument that “we have to cut ourselves off irrevocably from the past” with the statement, “He knows his lines!”?

On the bottom of page 141, Luzhin talks about how “crime is on the rise,” particularly among the upper classes. He cites many examples, all of which corresponded with real crimes that happened in Russia at the time (see note 23). 
Razumikhin blames the uptick of this ‘civilized’ crime on St. Petersburg’s lack of ‘doers’—the fact that everyone wants something for nothing. Zosimov blames “all these economic changes.” 
Who was Dostoevsky speaking through, if either of them?
Return to this question throughout your reading of the novel. 

We witness in this chapter Raskolnikov giving just about all the money he had (procured painstakingly by his mother and sister) to strangers and near-strangers. 
Why does he do this? 
What moral code is he following that makes it right? 
Is his generosity an example of kindness (towards the ‘less fortunate’) or callousness (towards his family who gave the money to support him)? 

What was the cause of Raskolnikov’s ‘episode’ on page 179? What do you think was going on in his head? 

In Historical Context: 
On the bottom of page 139, Luzhin states, “It is precisely by profiting myself and no one else that I thereby profit everyone, as it were, and enable my neighbour to receive something more than a ripped coat, and not by way of private, isolated acts of charity, as in the past, but as a result of universal prosperity.” 
This statement appears ‘capitalist’ in nature, and it comes from a character whose livelihood (as an attorney) only came into existence because of Russia’s recent turn towards more capitalistic reforms. 
Russia was in a weird position in history. It was rushing past feudalism towards capitalism, yet it was also being influenced by the socialist idealism popular in many European capitalist nations. As we now know, this would eventually lead to the country’s hasty transition from feudalism straight into communism. 
This is because transitions lead to crises of sorts, in which people know that the boundaries that once governed them are being redefined they are unsure of where the new lines should be drawn. It’s a deeply emotional type of time; peoples’ very conception of reality is being challenged. Is this a reason not to redraw the line? Some people may think so, but I don’t think this is necessarily true—after all, the reason why the boundary was being pushed in the first place was because public opinion was changing. However, the shift causes people to gravitate towards extremist thinking, and in some cases can result in the changes being pushed too far. 

Quotes to Note:
“[Raskolnikov]: ‘Take what you were preaching just now to its conclusions, and bumping people off is perfectly acceptable…”
‘For heaven’s sake!’ cried Luzhin. 
‘No, that’s wrong!’ Zosimov put in. 
‘One must observe moderation in all things,’ continued Luzhin, superciliously. ‘The economic idea is hardly an invitation to murder…” (p. 142). 

“Previously, too, he had often taken this short little lane, which made a dog-leg from the square to Sadoyava Street. Recently he’d even felt the urge, whenever he felt sick, to wander around this part of town, ‘so as to feel even sicker’. Now he entered it without a thought in his head” (p. 146). 

“‘Where was it?’ thought Raskolnikov, walking on. ‘Where was it I read how a man sentenced to death, an hour before he was due to die, said or thought that if he were obligated to live somewhere very high up, on a cliff, on a ledge with room for a pair of feet and nothing more, while all around him were chasms, the ocean, eternal gloom, eternal solitude and eternal tempest, and he had to stay like that, standing on one square yard, for the rest of his life, for a thousand years, for eternity—then he’d rather live like that then die there and then? To live, to live, to live! No matter how—just live!” (p. 148)
Compare this with Dostoevsky’s own near-death experience (see the subsection “A History of Dostoevsky” from Thinking Man’s preliminary reader’s guide).

Week Five: Part Three (p. 183-259)

Guiding Questions:

Much of this part of the story deals with Raskolnikov’s complex relationship with his mother and sister. Why did he remark that he “seemed to love them so much from a distance” (p. 211), yet loathe their company now that they are with him?

On page 210, Zosimov states, “[A]ll of us are, often enough, pretty much crazy, with the one small distinction that “the sick” are that little bit crazier—one must draw a line. It’s true, though, that there’s almost no such thing as a well-balanced person.”

Is this statement true? Do you think Dostoevsky believes it? If so, how does this complicate the seemingly black-and-white picture of ‘good and evil’ that we’ve been accustomed to relying upon throughout the book?

On pages 236 and 237, Raskolnikov’s mind rambles as he lists many perceived indicators of Porfiry and Zametov’s suspicions of him.

Which ones of these are clearly false?

Which ones, if any, are true?

On pages 240 to 242, we learn Raskolnikov’s ‘theory’ of crime.

He posits that there are two types of people in the world:

1. ordinary people, whose purpose in life is to obey.

2. extraordinary people, Napoleon-like leaders (‘actual people,’ as he calls them), who are capable of having original thoughts and changing the world.

Raskolnikov asserts, quite controversially, that the latter group can be morally justified in committing a crime, as long as they are committing the crime for some kind of justified purpose (or ‘greater good’).

Following Raskolnikov’s theory, we can conclude that any crime can be categorized into a set of four circumstances:

1. An ordinary person commits a crime for a non-extraordinary reason.

(non-justified)

2. An extraordinary person commits a crime for a non-extraordinary reason.

(non-justified)

3. An ordinary person mistakes himself for an extraordinary person, and commits a crime for an extraordinary reason (i.e. to bring about an eventuality that he deems desirable).

(non-justified)

4. An extraordinary person commits a crime for an extraordinary reason (i.e. to bring about an eventuality that he deems desirable).

(justified)

Do you agree with this analysis? Does Dostoevksy?

Assuming that this framework is correct, where would you categorize Raskolnikov?

Where would Raskolnikov categorize himself? (consider his internal conflict on page 255)

In Historical Context:

In the book, there are two references to “Lazarus.” Each of these refer to a different incarnation of the character.

The first reference, on page 229, refers to a Russian folk song (and an idiom that was derived from it). This Lazarus is a beggar, and the idiom ‘to sing Lazarus’ or ‘play Lazarus’ means to exaggerate one’s poverty in order to garner sympathy.

Our next Lazarus comes from the Bible (John 11: 1-45, available here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2011%3A1-45&version=NIV)

The story details a man, sick man, beloved by Jesus, who is resurrected by Jesus after four days of death.

It contains a great quote:

“Anyone who walks in the daytime will not stumble, for they see by this world’s light. It’s when a person walks at night that they stumble, for they have no light” (John 11: 9-10)

The Biblical story of Lazarus becomes a common motif throughout the novel. Why would a story about a man who was resurrected by the dead have such a profound presence in Crime and Punishment?

Refer to this question throughout the book, especially when you encounter a reference to Lazarus.

Recall that, in the story of Lazarus, Jesus refers to the deceased Lazarus as ‘asleep,’ and his disciples, mistaking Jesus’s statement to mean literal sleep, reply “Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better.” (John 11: 11-12)

Quotes to Note:

“A complete lack of personality, that’s what they’re after, that’s what excites them! Anything so as not to be themselves, not to resemble themselves! For them, that’s the very height of progress.” (p. 188)

“Lie to me by all means, but make sure it’s your own… After all, lies of your own are almost better than someone else’s truth.” (p. 188)

“I’ll show you the kind of books they write: with them it’s always ‘the environment’ that’s to blame and nothing else!…Their conclusion? The proper organization of society would lead to crime disappearing at once, as there’d be no reason to protest and everyone would become righteous, just like that. Human nature is discounted, banished, surplus to requirements!” (p. 238)

“So all that’s left is to lay bricks for the phalanstery and arrange the corridors and rooms” Well, the phalanstery may be ready, but your nature is not: it wants life; it wants to complete its living process; it’s a bit too early for the cemetery! You can’t leap over nature by logic alone!” (238)

(phalanstery: a theoretical commune of sorts, a utopia contained within one, enormous building. It was an idea thought of by utopian socialist thinker Francois Marie Charles Fourier. To my knowledge, none were built.)

All of these quotes were (quite passionately) uttered by Razumikhin, expressing his distaste for ‘modern’ people (in the case of the latter two quotes, utopian socialists). Do you think that, in these scenes, Razumikhin is acting as the voice of Dostoevsky? Keep in mind that the name ‘Razumikhin’ comes from the word Razum, meaning reason. 

Week Six: Part Four (p. 263-335)

Guiding Questions:

In his conversation with Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov mentions that he is visited by a ghost. Is he crazy? Lying? Could it actually be true?

Note that a ‘ghost sighting’ of sorts is also reported by Sonya on page 296.

Consider the irony of Raskolnikov’s position. Dunya had just had a stroke of good fortune, and Razumikhin was proposing a business opportunity that would benefit Raskolnikov and his whole family. Remember that Raskolnikov seemed to love his family before they showed up (right after he’d committed his crime), and his plea to his friend to look after them them suggests that he still cares for them.

Would he have been excited, had he not done what he had done? Or would the mindset which preceded his crime have doomed him to misery no matter what?

What was Sonya so scared of while reading the story of Lazarus to Raskolnikov on page 305?

Do you think Porfiry Petrovich actually suspects Raskolnikov, or is it just Raskolnikov’s paranoia acting up again?

In Historical Context:

On page 301, Raskolnikov kisses Sonya’s feet. This can be presumed to be one of the novel’s numerous Biblical references (as in the Bible, sinners are often seen kissing Christ’s feet).

As we’ve mentioned before, Dostoevsky’s choice to use Sonya, a prostitute, as a symbol of purity and God is strange. Of course, the Bible does not condemn her profession (consider Mary Magdalene). However, comparing her to Christ himself seems like it would be a little unorthodox at the time.

On page 303, Dostoevsky references a Russian translation of the New Testament. This was the first time the New Testament was translated into Russian, and it was protested against by the Orthodox Church because such a translation would allow people to come up with their own translations of the Bible (see note 13).

This was not the only change that expanded freedoms. Earlier in Part IV, Svidrigailov mentions some new reforms instated by Alexander II, which expanded rights of free speech to Russian citizens. (The right to free speech has been historically limited in Russia.) Incidentally, this expansion seemed to cause some problems. Nevertheless, it was a time in Russian history where boundaries were being redefined, and people were pushing the limits of what they could think and say.

Could the author’s ‘Christlike’ portrayal of Sonya have been an act of rebellion?

Quotes to Note:

“I believe a certain principle exists in legal practice… whereby one begins from a long way off, with trifles or even with something serious, but completely irrelevant, in order, as it were, to reassure, or rather distract, the man being questioned, to lull his vigilance, before all of a sudden, in quite the most unexpected way, clubbing him smack on the crown with the most fateful and dangerous question.” (312)

“The reason he won’t run away from me isn’t just that he’s got nowhere to run away to; it’s that he won’t run away psychologically… The laws of nature won’t let him run away, even if he did have somewhere to go. Ever seen a moth near a candle? Well, that’s how he’ll be, forever circling around me, like a moth around a candle.” (318)

“Everything is double-edged now; yes, everything is double-edged.” (335)

Week Seven: Part Five (p. 339-409)

Guiding Questions:

Recall the conversation between Luzhin and Semyonovich in Chapter I.

Why does Semyonovich’s progressivism “fill” Luzhin “with some special, though utterly obscure, terror”?

What do you think Luzhin is trying to accomplish by ‘currying favor’ with the younger generations?

Note some of Semyonovich’s favored topics:

- Utopian socialism (p. 343)

- Social Darwinism (p. 343)

- “The Woman Question” (p. 345)

Note his ostensibly controversial opinions:

- He “want[s] no part in the vile preconception of funeral banquets.” (p. 345)

- He “respects” Sonya “deeply” for her prostitution. (p. 346)

- He rejects chivalry. (p. 348)

- He rejects the concept of marriage. (p. 354)

How similar is Semyonovich to a modern ‘progressive’?

Which of his opinions are popular among progressives today? Which ones are not?

Why does Raskolnikov confess his crime to Sonya?

Note that on page 383, he ‘tests’ his ideology out on her, and she doesn’t agree with it.

What finally killed Katerina Ivanovna?

What do you think Svidrigailov is going to do with the information he’s learned about Raskolnikov?

In Historical Context:

On page 340, in reference to his own ‘cheap’ behavior, Luzhin remarks, “Why did I have to make such a Jew of myself?”

Although most people today have probably heard this common stereotype, very few would openly express it in such a way in a formal piece of writing such as a novel. In fact, there are few other cultures who Dostoevsky references in such a flippantly derogatory manner (the other perhaps being Germans). Thus, we can assume that this type of ‘casual antisemitism’ was relatively common

In order to understand this, let’s take a look at the origins of the stereotype regarding Jews and money. It spans back as far back as the twelfth century, when many Jewish families rose to prominence as moneylenders. The moneylending ‘profession’ was Jewish-dominated for one simple reason: the Roman Catholic Church prohibited collecting interest on loans. This ban, however, did not apply to Jews.

This ‘unpopular’ means of making a living, coupled by the fact that Jews traditionally kept themselves separate from ‘gentile’ culture, made them an easy target of hatred. It is common to vilify a group of people who are different from you (particularly if that group has a reputation for being wealthy).

Consider Russia at the time Dostoevsky was writing. There were an increasing number of reforms which were ‘progressive’ in character. Russia was quickly breezing past capitalism into an eventual socialist revolution.

Historically, socialism and antisemitism have been directly proportional. Socialism and moneylending are not exactly sympathetic to one another, and many Jews opposed the changes simply because of the fact that socialism threatened their way of making a living. (As history would prove, they were right in their skepticism.) Regardless of the motives, is interesting that the seeds for the antisemitism of the early 1900s were planted well before the October Revolution. (And not just in Russia—consider the Dreyfus affair in France in the late 1800s).

Jews were not the ruling class. In fact, they were simply middlemen. But they were more visible than the real ruling class (the people that these moneylenders lent money to) and thus they became scapegoats in the eyes of people who wanted to overthrow the existing order.

If you’re interested in the history of antisemitism in Europe (and are willing to read a long, very dense book), I recommend The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt.

Quotes to Note:

Semyonovich, regarding communes: “What is stupid here will become clever there, and what, in the current circumstances, is unnatural here will be entirely natural there. Everything depends on a man’s circumstances and environment. Environment is everything, man is nothing.” (p. 347)

Katerina Ivanovna, regarding Luzhin’s false accusation towards Sonya: “[Y]ou haven’t a clue, not a clue, what sort of a heart this is, what sort of a girl this is! As if she’d take it! She’d sooner throw off her last dress, sell it, go barefoot and give away everything to you, if you needed it—that’s the kind of girl she is! She only took the yellow ticket because my children—mine—were going hungry. It was for us that she sold herself!” (p. 372)

Sonya, regarding Raskolnikov’s crime:

“Oh what have you done to yourself?” (p. 386)

“You walked away from God and God struck you and gave you away to the devil!” (p. 392)

Week Eight: Part Six - 413-499 (86 pages); Epilogue - 503-518 (15 pages)

Guiding Questions:

On page 415, Raskolnikov notes that Sonya feels “not the slightest revulsion towards him.” With regards to her tolerance, he asks himself, “What is this if not some infinity of self-abasement?”

What is the real reason Sonya is not repulsed by him?

What does it say about Raskolnikov that he interprets her kindness in this way?

Connect this to the recurrent assertion in Dostoevsky’s novels that ‘good’ people often come across as stupid (but are actually much smarter than they appear).

Recall what Porfiry Petrovich says to Raskolnikov on pages 431 and 432. He urges Raskolnikov that it would be “for the best” for him to turn himself in. His reasoning is that Raskolnikov needs to serve his time in order to get on with his life again.

There are a few things to make of this. For one, this type of ‘rehabilitative’ outlook on crime is completely foreign to a modern-day American (and, in fact, Raskolnikov’s sentence seems extremely lenient).

More importantly, though, it speaks to the exact relationship between crime and punishment that the book is named after. There were some nasty consequences to Raskolnikov’s actions (what happened to his mother being undoubtedly the worst). However, at the end of the book, it is implied that the punishment was what ultimately saved Raskolnikov and brought him back to God.

It is possible that this mirrored Dostoevsky’s own experience in jail. The author was sent to prison due to his association with a group of revolutionary socialists. It was in prison that he became a devout Christian.

Would it follow, then, that crime, albeit ugly, is sometimes necessary for the transformation of a human soul? Are the tangible consequences of one’s beliefs carried out into action the only path of redemption for a corrupt soul?

If so, why does this work for some people and not others?

Recall Svidrigailov’s fate.

His brand of ‘depravity’ is different from Raskolnikov’s (Svidrigailov’s being mere weakness to vice, as opposed to Raskolnikov’s delusions of grandeur).

Do we ever get the sense that Svidrigailov is repentent?

What ultimately ‘broke’ Svidrigailov? Was it his pride?

Sonya’s ‘godliness’ is a common observation throughout the novel, and it is especially so in this section.

She is the person Raskolnikov seeks out when he has the urge to repent.

She urges him to confess his sins to the world. (Repentance is a major issue in Christianity.)

She is the one who eventually convinces him to turn to the Bible at the end of the story.

Could their relationship be a play on the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene (only this time the prostitute is not the one seeking redemption, and is in fact the one offering it)?

In Historical Context:

On page 428, Mikolka is described as a “Raskolnik.” The word “Raskolnik” translates to “schismatic.” This refers to the Schism of the Russian Orthodox Church (also known as the “Raskol”).

The “Schism” (or “Raskol”) occurred into the mid-1600s, after a new head of the Russian Orthodox Church named Nikon came into power. There were many differences between Russian Orthodox doctrine and that of other Christian religions, particularly the Greek Orthodox Church. Nikon wanted to change this. He enacted a series of revisions to the Russian Orthodox Church to align it closer to the Greek Orthodox tradition.

Some people were not happy. The Church ended up being split into two sects: those who followed Nikon’s reforms, and the dissenters, who held on to the old Russian tradition. These dissenters became known as the “Old Believers,” and were also nicknamed “Raskolniki” or “schismatics.”

“Old Believers” started some of their own folklore. The more radical among them were convinced that Nikon’s actions were the work of the Antichrist, and that the end of the world was nigh. They also had a tradition of self-immolation, or self-sacrifice. This is described as Mikolka’s motivation for turning himself in for a crime he did not commit. He felt, because of his beliefs, that it was his duty to suffer, even for a crime that he did not commit.

But why is Raskolnikov named after these god-fearing people, when he himself was godless for the majority of the novel?

The suffix “-ov” in Russian typically means “son of.” If this was Dostoevsky’s intent, then the name “Raskolnikov” should translate to “Son of a Raskolnik.”

Perhaps Dostoevsky was making an observation that the children of these “Old Believers” typically rejected God. I don’t know enough to say whether or not this is true. If this did turn out to be the case, though, then why? Was the doctrine of the “Old Believers” radical enough to push them away (similar to many religious fundamentalists today)? Did the Schism itself result in younger generations’ loss of faith? Or was it purely incidental—the “Old Believers” the last of a dying breed of spiritual people stamped out by atheistic rationalists?

I honestly don’t know. Unlike Mikolka (the symbol of the “Old Believers), Raskolnikov’s character clearly represents a new, godless belief system that came afterwards.

Why do you think “Raskolnikov” is named “Raskolnikov”?

Quotes to Note:

“What we’ve got here, sir, is a fantastical, dark deed, a modern deed, a deed of our time, when the heart of man has clouded over; when there’s talk of “renewal” through bloodshed, when people preach about anything and everything from a position of comfort. What we have here are bookish dreams, sir, a heart stirred up by theories, a visible determination to take the first step, but determination of a particular kind—as if he were throwing himself off a cliff or a bell tower, and when he did get to the scene of the crime he hadn’t a clue how he’d got there.” (p. 429)

“‘So you don’t love me?’ he asked quietly.

Dunya shook her head.

‘And…you can’t? Ever?’ he whispered despairingly.

‘Never!’ whispered Dunya.

There followed a moment of dreadful, dumb struggle in Svidrigailov’s soul. The look he gave her was indescribable. Suddenly. he withdrew his hand, turned aside, quickly walked away to the window and stood before it.” (467)

The author doesn’t often use words like ‘indescribable.’ Crime and Punishment is full of vivid imagery. Dostoevsky usually chooses to describe. The decision to leave it up to the imagination, just this once, makes the line hit extra hard.

Parting Words:

Crime and Punishment is a novel about dangerous ideas. More specifically, it is a novel about a young student who has become enamored by a dangerous, trendy idea that ultimately led to his destruction and the destruction of two innocent victims.

It is a novel that values tradition. It advocates for Christianity and the longevity of the Church. It advocates against the ideas of expansion, collectivism, and utopianism that were so often exhibited in the people that rejected Christianity.

Interestingly, it often does so not on based on merit, but utility. The Christian tradition provides a ‘guidebook’ for life. Without such a guide, people have to make up their own morality. The problem with this is that in a society full of people all making up their own moral code, everyone will come up with a different version of what is right and wrong, and will act accordingly. How, then, can anyone define crime—or choose appropriate punishment—until a new uniform standard is developed?

What a society needs is consensus. There have, of course, been countless traditions in different places and different times that all had the same utility as the Christian myth. The reason why they all work so well everyone believes in them. Everyone agrees about what is acceptable and what is considered deviant. This is a fairly safe argument that will please theists and atheists alike. 

Dostoevsky goes a step further. He argues for a universal morality—for the existence of a soul. Killing is evil not because society decides it is, but because of something innate. It is an act which corrupts a person instantaneously, no matter their beliefs or the beliefs of the sick, perverse society that might permit murder.

According to Dostoevsky, God is necessary. Faith is necessary. Belief in God—faith in the tried-and-true Christian tradition—saves people from corruption and encourages them to be the best versions of themselves they can be. There is a universal morality out there which is the only way that human beings can happily live.

Dostoevsky’s hope for the consensus to come in the old Christian way sometimes comes across as futile. The whole thing feels like a plea for the continuation of an old way of life that was clearly dying. The myth was being abandoned because it wasn’t ‘doing it’ for people anymore. It seemed too antiquated, too naive to be true.

However, if Dostoevsky is right, then the confusion that results from change cannot last. God, or the laws of the Universe, or whatever word you’d like to use for the universal code of ethics that underlies Crime and Punishment will reawaken the human soul, and will eventually guide a society back towards what is right, even if it takes a few centuries.

It is up to you to decide whether this is true.

If you’d like to receive updates from the Thinking Man Book Club, subscribe to Thinking Man now, and follow us on Twitter @TweetingMan_

References

Most of the information from the character list and the Dostoevsky biography was found in Oliver Ready’s introduction to the Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition of the novel. Some information about the author was taken from the translator Ignat Avsey’s “Extra Material” about Dostoevsky, found at the back of the Alma Classics edition of The Idiot.

All quotations are taken from Oliver Ready’s translation of Crime and Punishment, and much of the historical information presented here is derived from his footnotes. We strongly recommend reading his Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition of the book—the translation is immensely readable, and the resources Ready provides add valuable context to the book.

Other sources are provided below.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/Russia-from-1801-to-1917
https://www.britannica.com/place/Russia/From-Alexander-II-to-Nicholas-II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_II_of_Russia
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-II-emperor-of-Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decembrist_revolt
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Raskolnik

1. Taken from Oliver Ready’s introduction, page xiv

2. page iv.

3. pages 3-4.