What is the simple arithmetic of Raskolnikov's theory. Novel "Crime and Punishment"

When you can help yourself
Why cry out in prayer to heaven?
We have been given a choice. Those are right who dare;
Whoever is weak in spirit will not reach the goal ...
W. Shakespeare

In the novel Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky tells the story of a murder committed to test the theory that has developed in the head of a poor student. Rodion Raskolnikov is offended by the unjust structure of the world around him, where millions of the weak and defenseless die (like the Marmeladov family), and thousands of shameless scoundrels succeed (like Svidrigailov and Luzhin). How to correct social injustice? Raskolnikov, sitting in the attic in his coffin-like room, hungry, embittered, ponders this "eternal" question. He will state his decision in the article "On the Crime". Education at the Faculty of Law of the University was not in vain for him. A number of historical figures line up in his head, who became famous for giving their peoples new laws, canceling (“crossing over”) the previous ones: Lycurgus (legislator of Sparta), Solon (legislator of Athens), Magomed (Islamic countries still live according to Sharia law ), Napoleon (according to the Napoleonic Code, France lives for almost two hundred years). These "criminals" did good to their peoples, left behind a grateful memory for centuries. Now it’s clear that Raskolnikov, according to his theory, divided all people into two groups: the majority are “trembling creatures” who can only obey and fulfill laws-orders, and units are “having the right”, these create laws and have the power to command " all the ants."

The poor student, himself humiliated by poverty, believes that a worthy task for the superman is nothing less than "the good of mankind." For "universal happiness", the superman must eliminate social evil, the symbol of which for Raskolnikov so far has become the nasty, evil, useless old woman pawnbroker Alena Ivanovna. Is it permissible to destroy the “unnecessary” minority for the sake of the happiness of the majority? Raskolnikov answers this question with his theory as follows: it is permissible and should, because this is “simple arithmetic” (1, VI). Dostoevsky, on the other hand, proves in the novel that arithmetic calculations in relation to people are unacceptable. The writer shows how the speculative theory of the protagonist is consistently refuted by life itself.

Firstly, Raskolnikov's theory cannot be put into practice, as it combines incompatible ends and means. As Svidrigailov sarcastically remarks, “there was a mistake in the theory” (5, V). The superman, according to the protagonist, must intervene in the fate of mankind in such a way that, albeit by cruel, bloody, immoral means, he will achieve the reign of morality and justice in the world. Behind the idea of ​​the "common good" in Raskolnikov's theory comes through the "idea of ​​Napoleon" - one chosen one, standing above humanity and prescribing his own laws to everyone. However, Raskolnikov fails to truly rise above people, because he has a wonderful quality in his soul - philanthropy. Raskolnikov, despite his contempt for the "anthill", cannot indifferently pass by the drunken girl on Konnogvardeisky Boulevard, although he later scolds himself: "Isn't it monstrous that just now I got involved in a story with a girl ..." (1, IV). The collapse of Raskolnikov's theory began when Sonya, in response to his confession to the murder, began to cry: her tears outweighed the entire "logic of the idea" in the hero's soul (5, IV).

Secondly, the humiliated and offended, for the sake of which the main character decided to become a superman and do good to the world, reject his good deed. Raskolnikov, in addition to the old pawnbroker, unexpectedly kills the meek and unresponsive Lizaveta, so that “simple arithmetic” does not work. When the killer explains to Sonya the motives for his crime (“I didn’t kill a man, but a louse!”), she does not understand them and exclaims: “This man is a louse!” (5, IV). Sonya does not accept Raskolnikov's rebellion, she does not want deliverance at any cost, and therefore she is a person. According to Dostoevsky, she embodies the folk principle in the novel: patience, humility, boundless love for man and God. Only the people (in the form of Sonya) can condemn Raskolnikov's "Napoleonic" rebellion, force him to submit to the moral court of conscience and go to hard labor - "accept suffering" (5, IV).

Thirdly, Dostoevsky confronts his hero with people who share his opinion about the superpersonality and the crowd. The first "theorist" is Dunya's alleged fiancé, Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin, who argues: "Science says: love yourself first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest" (2, V). From Luzhin's point of view, in order to have more happy people in the state, it is necessary to raise the level of prosperity. Since the basis of economic progress is personal gain, then everyone should take care of it and enrich themselves, without worrying too much about love for one's neighbor and other romantic nonsense. Luzhin's call for personal gain is a logical continuation of Raskolnikov's idea - "everything is allowed to the strong." The protagonist understands this and formulates to the neat and self-satisfied Pyotr Petrovich the essence of his “economic” theory: “Bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it turns out that people can be cut ...” (2, V).

The second hero who allows "blood in conscience" is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov. He, however, is no longer a theoretician, but a practitioner. This gentleman has already freed himself from "principles" and "ideals", for him life no longer makes sense: life is boring and uninteresting. Out of boredom, he does both good (he provides for the children of Katerina Ivanovna) and evil (kills his wife, who interferes with his romance with Dunya), - good and evil are already indistinguishable for him. Both - Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov - resolve the crime, therefore they are "of the same field," as Arkady Ivanovich rightly notes. But Svidrigailov got used to the murders, and the main character still clings to “justice”, to “high and beautiful”, to “Schiller” (6, III), although he already justifies the crime if it benefits (!) Humanity. So, Raskolnikov meets a man who does not think about, does not try on the idea of ​​\u200b\u200b"blood according to conscience", but lives by it. Both the life and the thoughts of this “stepped over” superman are terrible. Suffice it to recall his conversations with his murdered wife or his idea of ​​eternity (the afterlife) as a smoky bathhouse with spiders in the corners.

Fourthly, "human nature" rebels against Raskolnikov's theory. Why is the person of every person sacred? It is impossible to prove this truth logically—such is the moral law, the law of human conscience. Immediately after the murder, the protagonist does not feel remorse, but very quickly begins to feel as if "cut off" (2.11) from people. Cold alienation reigns in his soul even in relation to close relatives: with his beloved mother, he feels awkward, constrained. His own conscience, according to Dostoevsky, takes revenge on him for violating the moral law.

Razumikhin defends “human nature” (3, V) most consistently: he fundamentally rejects any theories of violence against people, since life is always much more complicated than it seems to theorists. “Reality and nature are an important thing, and oh, how sometimes the most far-sighted calculation is undercut!” (4,V) — Porfiry Petrovich echoes Razumikhin. The investigator turns out to be right: the former student, under the influence of Sonya, denounces himself, accepts punishment-suffering for a crime that, in his own opinion, he did not commit. After all, while no one has proved to him the fallacy of his theory, insight for him will come only in hard labor. So conscience (moral law) protests against the shedding of blood and wins in Raskolnikov the mind that justifies blood.

Summing up, it should be noted that Dostoevsky built his work in such a way as to prove the doom of Raskolnikov's rebellion against the world, even such an unsettled, unfair one as it is shown in the novel. According to Dostoevsky, the reorganization of the world according to "logic" and "reason" (in theory) is impossible, because in no society can evil be avoided until the person himself changes. Submission to an idea (theory), no matter how logical and humane it is from the beginning, leads to murder and loneliness, which happened to Raskolnikov.

For Dostoevsky it is obvious that the division of people into "trembling creatures" and "those who have the right" is erroneous. In the novel, the characters related, according to Raskolnikov's theory, to "creatures" (Sonya, Dunya, Pulcheria Alexandrovna, Marmeladov, Katerina Ivanovna, Razumikhin) are not primitive, but complex and deep personalities. And the heroes who, according to Raskolnikov's theory, have the "right to blood" are not at all "titans-benefactors of mankind", but petty scoundrels (Luzhin) or insane egoists (Svidrigailov).

From the point of view of the writer, the ideal person is not the legislator, who has "crossed" the old laws, but Sonya Marmeladova, capable of sacrificial love, able to understand and respond to someone else's pain. Unlike Raskolnikov with his inhuman theory, Sonya is convinced that all people have the same right to life; unlike Luzhin, she believes that personal happiness cannot be the only goal of existence, a person comprehends true happiness through suffering-love. These beliefs are confirmed by the author's remark in the epilogue: "Love resurrected them..."

Condemning rebellion in principle, since it leads to the murder of people, Dostoevsky, however, shows in the novel the inevitability of rebellion, which inevitably follows from the unjust structure of society. Nevertheless, the writer affirms the significance of any person, and, consequently, the equivalence of all people, despite their real social and material inequality. This shows the high humanism of Dostoevsky.

The attitude of F. M. Dostoevsky to the "hero of action" - a characteristic person of the sixties of the XIX century

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. Having embodied in Raskolnikov the features of such personalities, Dostoevsky in his work consistently debunks their Napoleonic ideas. 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." No, says Dostoevsky, 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 theme of rebellion and the theme of the individualist hero, which dominated Dostoevsky in recent years, were combined in Crime and Punishment.

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 similarity. Svidrigailov, like 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. Therefore, Raskolnikov divides people into "chosen ones" and "trembling creatures." And Dostoevsky, removing his hero from the Napoleonic pedestal, tells us that it is not the happiness of people that excites Raskolnikov, but he is concerned with the question: "... am I a louse, like everyone else, or a man? Am I a trembling creature or have the right ..." Rodion Raskolnikov dreams of dominating people, this is how the essence of an individualist hero is manifested.

Refuting the life goals of his hero, preaching Christian principles, Dostoevsky introduces the image of Sonya into the novel. The writer sees "the greatest happiness" in the destruction of his "I", in the undivided service to people - this "truth" Fyodor Mikhailovich embodied in Sonya. Contrasting these images, Dostoevsky confronts Raskolnikov's revolutionary atheistic rebelliousness with Christian humility, love for people and Sonechka's God. Sonya's all-forgiving love, her faith convinces Rodion to "accept suffering". He confesses to the crime, but only in hard labor, comprehending the gospel truths, comes to repentance. Sonya returns Raskolnikov to the people from whom he was removed by the crime committed. "They were resurrected by love..."

Destroying Raskolnikov's "harmonious" theory, his "simple arithmetic", Dostoevsky warned mankind against the danger of revolutionary uprisings, proclaimed the idea of ​​the value of any human personality. The writer believed that "there is one law - the moral law."

There is an extensive scientific literature about Raskolnikov’s idea, much of it is noticed correctly, but this, as a rule, is only a partial assimilation of the hero’s thoughts or the judgments of others about him. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend Raskolnikov's complex and contradictory idea as something whole, it is difficult to unravel the knot of contradictions into which his idea is tied to the crime - it is easy to break those logical and illogical connections that create the disharmonious whole of Raskolnikov's idea. There is no need to make a strict and logical system out of it, but there is such a need to figure out what the hero of the novel is confused about.

Raskolnikov's idea is often presented as a theory about "two categories" of people - "ordinary and extraordinary", about the right of a strong personality to "all sorts of atrocities and crimes", as if not "noticing" the fact that this is how his idea sounds from the lips of Porfiry Petrovich - himself the hero explains his article "On Crime" differently. Or often Raskolnikov’s idea is reduced to the “arithmetic” of expiation of one crime by “hundred”, “thousand good deeds”, but it was not Raskolnikov who ordained, but “another” student, whose conversation with the “young officer” was accidentally heard “a month and a half ago” by the hero of the novel . Also, in his own way, Svidrigailov explains Raskolnikov’s idea - in his opinion, this is “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. The only evil and a hundred good deeds! Of course, these "foreign" interpretations can be confirmed by the words of Raskolnikov himself, but this is not the main thing in his idea - this is its "vulgar" and "ordinary" appearance, while Raskolnikov's idea itself is complex, multi-component, contradictory, disharmonic.

The main thing in Raskolnikov's idea is his theory, his "new word". In contrast to the complex and disharmonious idea, Raskolnikov's "new word" is simple and logical in its own way. A detailed exposition of the theory is given in the first conversation of the hero of the novel with Porfiry Petrovich. It should be remembered, however, that not everything said about the theory in this scene is its presentation. It is necessary to take into account the psychological background of this scene. So, at one of the moments of the “interrogation”, Raskolnikov “grinned at the intensified and deliberate distortion of his idea” by Porfiry Petrovich, later he himself admits;

“I then sneered, but this is in order to challenge you further”

It turns out that Raskolnikov “does not at all insist that extraordinary people must and must always commit all sorts of atrocities, as you say,” he turns to Porfiry Petrovich. The meaning of his theory is different. As for the two "categories" of people, Raskolnikov "reassured" Porfiry Petrovich somewhat: Raskolnikov himself is not going to divide humanity into two "categories", this is not from him, but according to the "law of nature"

Here is how Raskolnikov presents his theory:

“I simply hinted that an “extraordinary” person has the right ... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to step over ... other obstacles, and only if the execution of his idea ( sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) will require it. True, Raskolnikov wanted to pretend that his theory was not new: “This has been printed and read a thousand times, but Razumikhin has already comprehended what Raskolnikov’s “new word” is: “You are, of course, right when you say that this is not new and looks like to everything that we have read and heard a thousand times; but what is really original in all this - and really belongs only to you, to my horror - is that you still allow blood in conscience, and, excuse me, even with such fanaticism ... ".

Raskolnikov's theory is the theory of crime "according to conscience", "blood according to conscience". This is, indeed, an attempt to say a "new word" in philosophy. Before the half-educated student Raskolnikov and F. Nietzsche, he is ordinary. The desire of the German philosopher to free the criminal from the "pangs of conscience", to justify the crime with a "strong" personality and the character of a "superman" does not look "original" in the light of Raskolnikov's theory - this was written and said "a thousand times".

Dostoevsky singled out the theory in Raskolnikov's idea - this, in particular, is the function of italics in the novel: the highlighted words explain to the reader the essence of Raskolnikov's theory, its meaning.

Dostoevsky does not dignify Raskolnikov's theory with logical criticism - he gives it a moral assessment. Theory ("new word") - Raskolnikov's law. This “his law” is opposed to “their law”, according to which “everything is allowed”, “everything is allowed”. “Their law” is a kind of “soil” on which Raskolnikov’s theory arose. Violence is recognized by him as a world-historical law, only everyone is ashamed to admit it, but he "wanted to dare." For him, what he "discovered" was, is, and always will be:

“... people will not change, and no one will remake them, and labor is not worth wasting! Yes it is! It's their law... The law, Sonya! It is so!.. And now I know, Sonya, that whoever is strong and strong in mind and spirit is the master over them! Whoever dares a lot is right with them, whoever can spit on more is their legislator, and whoever dares the most is right of all! This is how it has always been and always will be! Only the blind can't see!"

Even D. I. Pisarev drew attention to the fact that Raskolnikov expanded the meaning of the concept of “crime” so much that he made it vague. With Raskolnikov, everyone who is capable of a “new word” is a criminal. But it is noteworthy that in the end everything rests on the "terrible bloodshed" - "benefactors", "legislators and organizers of mankind." In its meaning, the historical concept of Raskolnikov turns in the novel into a caustic satire on the canonized, officially recognized heroes of human history. Raskolnikov was baffled by the "aesthetics" of state violence.

But for Raskolnikov, if this is not considered a crime, then his “case” is not a crime either. The defeated hero demands justice: take his head, but in this case, many "benefactors" of mankind "should have been executed at their very first steps. But those people endured their steps, and therefore they are right, but I did not endure and, therefore, I did not have the right to allow myself this step. Sometimes he is simply infuriated by the “aesthetics” of state violence:

“They themselves harass millions of people, and even revere them for virtue. They are rogues and scoundrels, Sonya! .. "

Or: “Oh, as I understand the “prophet”, with a saber, on a horse. Allah commands, and obey the "trembling" creature! The “prophet” is right, when he places a good battery somewhere across the street and blows on the right and guilty, without even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and - do not wish, therefore - this is none of your business! ..». According to the historical concept of Raskolnikov, which also includes the Napoleonic motif, “everything is allowed” to the “true ruler”, he is always “right”.

“Everything is permitted” or only “according to conscience”, to live according to “their law” or according to one’s own theory is the dilemma of his moral self-consciousness, not finally resolved in Raskolnikov’s idea.

Crime in the ideology of Raskolnikov becomes a solution to the moral problem, "a scoundrel or not a scoundrel man." This is one of the paradoxes of the "casuistry" of the hero who tried to combine crime and conscience. If a scoundrel, then "a scoundrel-man gets used to everything!". And it doesn't cost anything to change people's lives. The second condition for solving this problem is significant: “... if a person is really not a scoundrel, the whole in general, the whole race, that is, the human race, then it means that everything else is prejudices, only fears posed, and there are no barriers, and so it follows be! “The face of this world” does not suit Raskolnikov, he does not want to get used to meanness - out of moral motives he decides to rebel, which, however, has become a criminal offense.

Bibliography

Sections: Literature

Target: consolidation of the studied material on the novel, checking the degree of its assimilation.

Tasks:

• develop logical thinking, the ability to compare, generalize, contrast, prove and analyze.
• to convey the idea of ​​the highest value of the human personality, of the moral values ​​of the novel and its main characters.

Problematic question of the lesson: Is it possible to do good to people through crime?

Lesson type: lesson of generalization and systematization of knowledge.

During the classes

I. Reading and discussion of the epigraph

Epigraph on the board:

Teacher: Some idea has long been born in the head of the protagonist, which overshadowed all other deeds and thoughts. A half-sick student wanders around a stuffy city, avoiding people and persistently pondering some "point", some "undertaking". What thoughts disturb the poor student? What is he thinking so hard about? What was he up to? (Raskolnikov has an affair with an old pawnbroker, then a chance meeting with a drunken official, thoughts about his mother and sister, his own poverty and problems with the owner of the apartment.)

– What conclusion does the hero of Dostoevsky make? (The world is totally unfair. The conversation about the old money-lender, overheard in the tavern, pushes him to such a thought.)

The student states: "Arithmetic." “Of course, she is unworthy to live ... but then nature is here,” the officer retorts.

- Let's figure out what is "nature" in the novel, and what is "arithmetic"? How can the characters of the novel be divided?

- Where can we take Rodion Raskolnikov? (People of “nature” experience only pain and suffering; and people who live by simple calculation are the masters of life. Raskolnikov, wanting to correct a monstrous injustice, involuntarily chooses “arithmetic”.)

II.

- Remember Raskolnikov's theory.

1. Divides people into two categories;
2. “Extraordinary” people, if necessary, allow themselves to “step even over a corpse, through blood”;
3. These people are criminals because, carrying a new word, they deny the old laws).

– What could push the hero to such “arithmetic”? (a big soulless city; poverty; people's hatred of each other; Rodion's passion for new ideas; the collapse of moral principles both in society and in the soul of the hero; everyday hardships; fear of the future; "Napoleonic idea").

- And now is the time to remember who Napoleon is and why the “Napoleonic idea” is still alive?

(Napoleon is the hero of the time, the entire 19th century passed under the sign of this man. Pushkin and Lermontov wrote about him, in their work Napoleon is dual: a romantic hero, a villain, a tyrant, but on the other hand, a sovereign, lord of the world, a hero ... Later, Napoleon will give assessment and L.N. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace”.

So, Raskolnikov is tormented by the question: “Napoleon dared - he ascended from non-existence into immortality, but what is he?”

- Which of the literary heroes of the 19th century is tormented by similar questions? (German from "The Queen of Spades" by A.S. Pushkin).

– Are there points of contact between the heroes of Dostoevsky and Pushkin?

1. They want everything at once.
2. Become murderers, although Herman and indirectly.
3. They enter into a duel with fate.
4. Having forgotten the Christian commandments “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” they are ready to take sin upon their souls.
5. Forgive themselves for the crimes they have committed.

“But there are many differences in the characters. What are they?

Differences.

Conclusion: Raskolnikov's theory is not new; personalities similar to Rodion are no exception to the rule.

Pushkin, in the image of a maniac, a pitiful madman, strives to deprive the type of “exceptional person” of the romantic halo.

Dostoevsky conducts a psychological study of a person obsessed with the "Napoleonic idea", makes society shudder and curse this idea.

Raskolnikov commits a crime, and a struggle between two principles begins in his soul.

Who will win: Angel or Demon?

III.

- Let's try to describe the state of Raskolnikov after the murders.

- Fear, disgust, guilt, shame, horror and ... illness.

- Attacks of mercy, the desire to return to the scene of the crime, to pour out the soul.

Conclusion: all this makes the hero seek loneliness, but at the same time constantly be among people. "Arithmetic" turned "the chosen one into an outcast who dreams of punishment as a deliverance from suffering."

IV.

- But not for the sake of torment and his own suffering, Rodion took the lives of women. He rushes about, suffers, looking for a soul mate who is able to listen, to alleviate his suffering. And then Sonya appears.

Meetings and conversations with Sonya Marmeladova, assistance to the family of the deceased official, confession to the police station bring Rodion Raskolnikov closer to “nature”.

But only at hard labor does the hero’s resurrection come: “He did not open it (the book) even now, but one thought flashed through him: “Can her (Sonya’s) convictions not now be my convictions? Her feelings, her aspirations, at least…”.

The entire space of the novel provokes crime and tragedy.

– How does the landscape change at the end of Crime and Punishment? (Endless expanse, mighty Siberian river, pristine beauty... This is a sign of a change in the fate of the hero.)

Conclusion: in the epilogue of the novel, the author gives hope that "nature" has prevailed over "arithmetic" in Raskolnikov's life. But repentance and cleansing are needed. Repentance is suffering and self-denial followed by redemption. This is a long and painful path, but the hero must go through it in order to become a man.

v.

This issue can be considered on the example of the experiments of V. Lenin, I. Stalin, A. Hitler and others.

Why did the Soviet people win the Great Patriotic War? (We are human. (Compassion, mercy, respect, love, “nature.”))

Fascists are not people (“arithmetic”).

Lesson conclusions:

1. Having taken the path of "arithmetic", Raskolnikov turned into an ordinary murderer.
2. Theory, even the best, in practice can be monstrous.
3. The substitution of moral laws by the laws of arithmetic is brought up in man “by the whole structure of modern life, by the very atmosphere of the city of gray stone.”
4. Only by following the laws of morality can one remain a Man.

VI. Homework

Write a letter to Raskolnikov (try to convince the hero not to take the fatal step).

A few months before the crime, Raskolnikov left the university due to extreme need. At his forced leisure, he wrote an article in which he outlined the thought that had long occupied him about the nature of the crime, but the newspaper where he sent the article was closed, and, not knowing that the article was published in another publication, that you could get money for it, Raskolnikov, already without dinner for two weeks, he lives half-starving in his hut, like a coffin, with a low, “pressing the soul” ceiling.

He is tormented, according to Svidrigailov, by "irritation from hunger and a cramped apartment." Avoiding all acquaintances, "proudly and arrogantly" hiding his poverty from them, Raskolnikov in his solitude with painful constancy rethinks the thought that has settled in his head, and under the influence of external impressions it gradually takes on a concrete form, takes possession of his whole being. This idea is rooted in the soil of social inequality.

Having renounced the justification of serfdom, which has been put forward for centuries in defense of inequality, Raskolnikov thinks that “according to the law of nature” there are two categories of people: some “live in obedience and love to be obedient”, while others “everyone breaks the law, destroyers”, and if they need "for their idea", they can even "give themselves permission to step over the blood." Lycurgus, Solons, Mahomets, Napoleons used this right. And the Keplerians and Newtons would have the right to “eliminate” ten or a hundred people if these ten or a hundred prevented the rest of mankind from using their scientific discoveries.

The death of one, ten, a hundred people - and the well-being of the rest of humanity ... but here simple arithmetic confirms the right to “criminate”. This, in the words of the investigator Porfiry Petrovich, "bookish dreams, theoretically irritated heart." But other influences join this, the influence of the era, "when the human heart was clouded, when the phrase is quoted that" blood refreshes ".

In the gloomy recesses of hereditary feudal cruelty and “hardened idleness”, Raskolnikov swarms and teases him simply with the desire to “try” what category of people he himself belongs to, whether he “louse” or “has the right” to transgress. But both the theoretically cold reflections on the Newtonian right to "transgress" and the burning curiosity to experience one's own "rights" are obscured in Raskolnikov's mind by more real and deeply penetrating impressions into his soul.

Marmeladov is "drunk" on the money raised in such a terrible way; Sonya and her next sister with the prospect of a depraved life, disgusting illnesses and death on the street, and there, in the "remote and brutal" province, sister Dunya, ready to sell herself to Luzhin.

In the inflamed brain of Raskolnikov, a comparison of his sister and Sonya Marmeladova is some kind of obsession. Both will not leave the evil pit. Precisely because Raskolnikov himself lurked under the surface of pure theory and some other old evil spirits, he is afraid of any even external contact with vice. "A scoundrel gets used to everything." No, one must either renounce life, stifle everything in oneself, renounce every right to act, to live and love, or ... or "one must make up one's mind." Decide to break the barriers, become a "millionaire" and, having done one evil, then arrange a hundred human well-being.

Raskolnikov himself does not need money. Porfiry Petrovich hardly spoke of the love of comfort, having it in mind; Raskolnikov was able to give the last little thing to another without thinking about himself. But you still need money to help others.

So one day Raskolnikov's thought stops at the existence of an old usurer, and gradually the concrete embodiment of his entire theory is concentrated around this existence. The idea was unusually simple, and to Raskolnikov's surprise, it occurred to others as well. It was as if the suggestion of a hypnotist, like the voice of “predestination,” knocked in his mind the words from a conversation he heard by chance: “Kill her and take her money so that with their help you can later devote yourself to serving all mankind and the common cause ...”

And this conversation, and some other random coincidences of circumstances, push Raskolnikov to kill the old pawnbroker.