Crime and Punishment: Chapter Seven

In the opening of this chapter, the pawn-broker lets Raskolnikov (who has a "fake pledge") into the apartment: it's a fake cigarette, wrapped in a difficult knot in order to distract her. This is the point, when, the pawn-broker turns around to open the knot that Raskolnikov reaches for the axe that is hidden beneath his coat. After receiving several blows, Aloyna is seen lying on the floor, dead. At that point, Raskolnikov takes her keys along with the purse, and proceeds to the back room, where he is unable to find much more than a few little trinkets. Recall that the purse is never investigated; he never looks into the purse to see how much money, if any, is in the purse.

Later, the pawn-broker's sister, Lizaveta, enters the apartment and is seemingly paralyzed by the site of her sister, lying on the floor, dead. Raskolnikov then kills her too, but with a single blow to the head. It is at this point when he discovers that the front door to the apartment was left open the entire time (at least when he is killing the sister). He becomes extremely terrified that someone, perhaps, saw him commit the murders; he washes the blood from his hands and the axe.

There are some strange men who are knocking at the front door; apparently, they, also, had business with the pawn-broker that day. It is only when these men leave for a few minutes that Raskolnikov is able to escape from the apartment, seemingly undetected, via hiding in a vacant apartment in which two painters have been working. He stays in the vacant apartment until such time as he deems it safe to escape the premises. He later returns home, in a "feverish state," returns the axe from where he took it, and then returns to his own small room.

Question Is there anything that actually forces Raskolnikov to commit the murders? What, if any, is the actual "motive" for the crime(s)?

No, nothing except his normal/special humans idea.

This is especially true, given that he would not accept any money from anyone, so it couldn't be the money he wanted.

A motive? He has come upon hard times and his womenfolk support him.

As far as a motive is concerned, much like there is no real reason to develop a motive to convict a person of a crime, the character had no motive whatsoever. Whatever monies that were offered to the character were generally shunned, as he didn't want to be helped. He was four months behind on his rent; however, he never checked to see what was in the purse when he took it from the pawn-broker's neck. Motive? There was no motive, other than the crime itself, and the "thrill" that he experienced in committing the crime. (Read "Notes from Underground," by the same author, and one gets the general idea of how the author analyzes the person committing crimes and how the perpetrator deals with such a guilt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mea505

Motive? There was no motive, other than the crime itself, and the "thrill" that he experienced in committing the crime.[/B]

---

But would Raskolnikov have committed the crime had he been financially independent and well housed?

Possibly, but my point is that the stolen goods and the murder have nothing to do with his financial status. He apparently had nothing to gain, because he never thought about looking in the purse, even. And, then he hid the goods and never went back for them; he wouldn't have even if suspicion was not an issue.
This, I know, is an opinion.

If he had been in better material situation, he would probably live in nicer apartment, had a nicer job, would finish university and probably would never got this idea in his head. He would be happy, I guess; so answer would be NO.

Taken that way, I would have to agree with you!