Crime and Punishment: Chapter Six

In this chapter, the reader is reminded about how Raskolnikov first developed the idea to murder Alyona Ivanovna -- and, in fact, this is the first "explicit" identification of the awful act that is about to be committed, one that he is contemplating. The reader knows, at this point, that Raskolnikov had developed a deep-seated hatred for the pawn-broker, ever since the first time he saw her. Soon, afterwards, while in a bar, he overhears a conversation between a student and an officer whereas the old woman is actually "denounced" as a "parasite" and that humanity would be better off if she were killed and her wealth then re-distributed to the poor.

The narrative then slips back to the present, and Raskolnikov falls into a deep sleep, one which he does not come out of until the following evening. Realizing that it's already 6PM, he hurries to get ready to commit the crime, that is, kill the pawn-broker.

Why is the pawn-broker so offensive to Raskolnikov?

Why not kill, say, the more objectionable Svidrigaïlov, or that man trying to molest the young girl in the park? Is the pawn-broker simply an easier target?

She was the one who made trouble to him while he was still normal, and when idea formed in his head; it was formed on her. She had to be the victim. They didn't have anything with his idea so they were safe :D

That is an excellent point, one that is often missed when reading this chapter. It is not readily "available" to the reader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

She was the one who made trouble to him while he was still normal

---

What a petty reason!

His targeting of the pawn-broker, Alyona Ivanovna, is the source of my discomfort with this novel. I don’t much like the pawn-broker or Raskolnikov, despite his charitable works.

Do you see any other?

Nothing known to this world actually "makes" Raskolnikov "hate" the pawn-broker. Recall the flashback that he had before the crime was committed? Don't we think that this had something to do with the fact that he hated the pawn-broker?

I guess she was his main ''enemy'' when idea was forming in his head. He surely hated her.

I think he hated her "more" AFTER he killed her -- as then, there is a motive for the crime. For, beforehand, there is not one reason to kill her, other than that he "disliked her."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mea505

I think he hated her "more" AFTER he killed her -- as then, there is a motive for the crime. For, beforehand, there is not one reason to kill her, other than that he "disliked her."

---

I think Raskalnikov tried to hate at first because he is less than likeable himself, as Dostoevsky intended. But did he like Raskolnikov ?

Sure, the author liked Raskolnikov. He had to: he was the author's main character, the one who wore the burden of the crime and the punishment. He used the character to display how one would deal with the "guilt" of committing such a crime, and then dealing with the police as they got closer and closer to the truth, that is, with the aid of Raskolnikov's own personality and guilt portrayal.

There was a bit of mysticism, superstition & chance fate involved. After Raskolnikov's first visit to the pawnbroker (6 weeks prior to the murder), whom "he had felt an insurmountable repulsion for her at the first glance, though he knew nothing special about her," he visited a decrepit little tavern, where he overheard a conversation about the very same woman. "Here someone seemed to be speaking expressly for him," as the student proclaims "You can always get money from her. She is as rich as a Jew, she can give you five thousand roubles at a time and she is not above taking a pledge for a rouble. Lots of our fellows have had dealings with her. But she is an awful old harpy. . . ."

The student goes on to describe how the pawnbroker beats Lizaveta & keeps her in bondage. Then the conceptual design of his article is revealed by the student & officer, claiming that such good could come from killing the worthless old hag, who is inevitably going to die shortly anyway, as re-distributing her money to the world w/ benevolence would validate such an act. The conjecture circled about 'justice' and 'defying nature,' all funneling back to Raskolnikov's ideology of a Napoleon.

Now what interests me is whether or not this 'chance' episode at the tavern ever took place in actuality, or was simply a figment of Raskolnikov's dreamy, fabricated design. Because he is young, aloof, hurried & pummeled by his environment, he haphazardly carries out his experiment & uncovers the 'truth' that he is not a 'super-human.' It makes perfect sense that the design (ie: who he decides to kill) wouldn't be the most practical or elaborate. His make-up isn't the most exacting or calculating, it is a bit more on the neurotic & ruptured end of the spectrum.

Brad is right, I think, to focus on Raskolnikov's "Napoleonic aspirations." R doesn't kill Svidrigaylov or the rapist-to-be because neither act could further his career. The pawn broker has money. But career and money are only secondary (or tertiary?). He wants to know if he is the kind of exceptional human being who can step over the corpse of a worthless louse in order to achieve what he needs to in the world—which, presumably, would benefit others as well. But as I wrote in another thread, even Dostoyevsky seems not to have had a clear understanding of R's motivation. (See Philip Rhav's essay, "Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment," in Norton Critical Edition 1964) Among the motivations:
1) Hatred of pawn broker
2) Seeks money to (a) Keep Dunya from having to endure scumbags like Svidrigaylov and Luzhin to help support his education (b) relieve his mother's penury on his behalf.
3) Seeks his own destruction to: plug in (a) and (b) here again.
4) Proving he is Napoleon.
5) Seeks relief from tedium and inertia.

Of course, Lizaveta showing up and her getting the axe too confuses R's experiment, since he never planned on killing an innocent. Would he have felt the same guilt and ultimately have confessed if he had only killed Madam Lippewechsel?

While Brad's analysis of R's character seems spot on (neurotic and ruptured rather than calculating). I think the overheard conversations really happened. And of course R had already written and published his ideas on guilt and the superman criminal (which Porphiry had read). It's not like the idea of killing the woman for the good of mankind, etc., was foreign to him before he heard it in a bar.