Stroke of fate? Mere chance? Divine will?

Towards the end of the 5th chapter, Raskolnikov wakes from his dream concerning the brutalized sorrel nag.

“He was pale, his eyes glowed, he was exhausted in every limb, but he seemed suddenly to breathe more easily. He felt he had cast off that fearful burden that had so long been weighing upon him, and all at once there was a sense of relief and peace in his soul. ‘Lord,’ he prayed, ‘show me my path – I renounce that accursed . . . dream of mine.’”

“Later on, when he recalled that time and all that happened to him during those days, minute by minute, point by point, he was superstitiously impressed by one circumstance, which, though in itself not very exceptional, always seemed to him afterwards the predestined turning-point of his fate. He could never understand and explain to himself why, when he was tired and worn out, when it would have been more convenient for him to go home by the shortest and most direct way, he had returned by the Hay Market where he had no need to go. It was obviously and quite unnecessarily out of his way, though not much so. It is true that it happened to him dozens of times to return home without noticing what streets he passed through. But why, he was always asking himself, why had such an important, such a decisive and at the same time such an absolutely chance meeting happened in the Hay Market (where he had moreover no reason to go) at the very hour, the very minute of his life when he was just in the very mood and in the very circumstances in which that meeting was able to exert the gravest and most decisive influence on his whole destiny? As though it had been lying in wait for him on purpose!”




Any thoughts?


.

Dostoyevsky is a devastating writer - this book and Brothers Karamazov are incredible. It is late, and I need to sign off, but I will be back to post on this topic. Great question!

Dosteovsky's characters always seems to be slaves to fate or chance. I'm reading his The Adolescent right now and it strikes me how so few of his characters take responsibility for anything they do, it's always fate or chance, if this person hadn't said this, then everything would've been fine, if this person hadn't shown up at that time, then everything would've been different. I'm not a big believer in fate myself so sometimes it seems to be the easy way out. I also think Dostoevsky's characters tend to overthink things a bit :lol: , not everything has to have significance, sometimes it's just dumb luck. ;)

Yes, I kind of assumed that Raskolnikov was looking for a reason. When it says:

"Later on, when he recalled that time and all that happened to him during those days, minute by minute, point by point, he was superstitiously impressed by one circumstance, which, though in itself not very exceptional, always seemed to him afterwards the predestined turning-point of his fate."

it doesn't mention how much "later on," but it seems quite obvious that it is a post-murder Raskolnikov who is doing the "recalling." So he's a little biased. ;) What got me was the "Lord, show me my path - " followed immediately by a chance occurence which he feels nearly forces him into the murder.

I think if you were in a Siberian labor camp for 8 years, you'd be looking back and trying to decide how you got there, perhaps rationalizing and looking for things of this nature. :p

Do you think that Dostoevsky was a believer in fate? Or is he ridiculing fate by having so many of his characters fall back on it?

Oh my...I restrained myself from reading your post Shouty: I'm still in the middle of it! Chapter II still!!!

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/traurig/d020.gif http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/traurig/d035.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoutGrace

I think if you were in a Siberian labor camp for 8 years, you'd be looking back and trying to decide how you got there, perhaps rationalizing and looking for things of this nature. :p

---

I suppose you would. :p And I don't mean the 'overthinking' comment to be a criticism really, just an observation. His characters do an awful lot of rationalization and I think I'm so senstive to it because I do the same thing. ;)

Quote:

---

Do you think that Dostoevsky was a believer in fate? Or is he ridiculing fate by having so many of his characters fall back on it?

---

I don't know, that's a very good question. My first impression would be to say "yes" he does believe in it because it's something he uses so often and he presents it with such a matter of fact manner, never really drawing attention to it or commenting on it as if that's just the way people go around in life but when you think of the desperate situations that that belief in fate and chance get his characters into, maybe he is making the opposite comment. I don't know enough about Dostoevsky, the Man, to have a clue really but it's an interesting thought.

I'm almost sure that Dostoevsky believed in fate. Even if you do not consider his novels, it's difficult not to after being almost hanged, sent to Siberia and finding some copy of Bible that radically changed your life. Dostoevsky clearly thinks that fate saved him for a reason- Prince Myshkin in "Idiot" tells us a story about a guy who also was almost hanged and says how people are wasting their lives and realize that only in their last seconds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boris239

I'm almost sure that Dostoevsky believed in fate. Even if you do not consider his novels, it's difficult not to after being almost hanged, sent to Siberia and finding some copy of Bible that radically changed your life. Dostoevsky clearly thinks that fate saved him for a reason- Prince Myshkin in "Idiot" tells us a story about a guy who also was almost hanged and says how people are wasting their lives and realize that only in their last seconds.

---

I might lightly disagree with this. I don't believe Raskolnikov is Dostoyevsky's "mouthpiece" (that distinction probably belongs to Porfiry). Raskolnikov's whole crime theory is based on justification. He wanted to believe that he had the "right" to transcend moral law for a "higher" purpose - but, like Macbeth, he did not count on the mechanics of the human heart (his fatal error). I agree with the idea that Raskolnikov was looking for justification because his uncertainty (hinted at in the very first sentence of the novel) revealed that he wasn't completely convinced of the validity of his reasoning. Once we make a choice, we look for things that seem to validate that choice. Raskolnikov needed to believe it was "fate" because he needed something "equal" to God to pin his actions on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Raskolnikov's whole crime theory is based on justification. He wanted to believe that he had the "right" to transcend moral law for a "higher" purpose - but, like Macbeth, he did not count on the mechanics of the human heart (his fatal error). I agree with the idea that Raskolnikov was looking for justification because his uncertainty (hinted at in the very first sentence of the novel) revealed that he wasn't completely convinced of the validity of his reasoning. Once we make a choice, we look for things that seem to validate that choice. Raskolnikov needed to believe it was "fate" because he needed something "equal" to God to pin his actions on.

---

That was very well put, Redzeppelin, can't argue with that at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idril

That was very well put, Redzeppelin, can't argue with that at all.

---

Phew! Thanks. Sometimes I put stuff out here and wonder if it makes sense to anybody but me. :)

I don't think Dostoevsky believed that everything was controlled by fate. I think more or Raskolnikov's belief in fate can be attributed to the fact that the human brain looks for reasons that verify one's actions or intentions. When you are thinking about something, don't coincidences suddenly seem huge. I think Raskolnikov's journey through the Haymarket is not fate, but a coincidence that he takes as fate because it verifies the thoughts he has previously concieved.

To those who would be wiser: persons who find "Crime and Punishment" difficult to read, thereby criticising and dismissing it:

It's a predicament to dislike such a universally acclaimed writer and work. The first thing to do is to ask "Where's the problem? Is it (almost) everyone else or is it me?" Denial of the book's stature is a dilemma. It just doesn't work. (What?? YOUR taste is OK, the book's just badly written.???) Or, the book's "boring". Again this doesn't work: If it were "boring" then why would it continue to be widely-read?

If you dislike the book, just say that you don't understand its greatness and, even better, ask why the book continues to be widely acclaimed. Gut-level put-down just isn't tenable. If you use your intelligence (your unique gift to the universe) to ask "why", not just once but repeatedly, you'll come to terms with your problem: you'll be wiser and richer.

About "Crime and Punishment", you may just be reading a poor translation. The original, by Constance Garnett, is more than admirable and justly acclaimed but not idiomatic enough for today's readers. By far the best translation for us is the "PV" (Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky). It brings to life the book's genius, force and lyricism. You haven't seen anything like it. Luckily for us, more PV translations are available. It's worth a try.

Yes there are a lot of places in book about mysterious coincidence, fate and all that but I think that Dostoevsky didn't believe that fate was the reason for all that what has happen.

I think that Dostoevsky interpreted those "coincidences" which "led" Raskolnikov to the murder as act of God, and reason for that was Repentance, Redemption, "The Gradual Renewal of a Man" and Salvation.

That murder had a great impact on other characters in the book, If we all look at that murder from Christian point of view maybe that murder was salvation (in Cristian meaning) for a lot of characters in novel. According to
Christianity, God often leads man in suffer to give him a chance to win in that battle and God knows our strenght and how much we can out stand. Maybe it is interesting to think what would happen with all characters if
Raskolnikov didn't kill old lady?

But let's have a look at all that from Christian point of view as this short
life is just a chance where we can earn a salvation and become honourable to live in Kingdom of Good. That murder was bitter medicine to characters on whom murder had great impact.

Why the murder was positive for old lady's salvation?
Old lady was a great sinner and according to Christian teachings Good keeps a sinner in a life as long as sinner might repent. When his/her heart is too hard and there isn't chance to repent but Good wants sinner's salvation,
sinner dies in hard way with suffer and that is redemption. If old lady wasn't murdered she would die in quiet way which is worse for sinner.

Why the murder had positive impact on Lizaveta's salvation?

She was religious and forbearing person. Martyr death for righteous persons is holiest way to end up mortal life and earn eternal life.

Why the murder is valuable for Sonia and Raskolnikov's salvation?

Well, she got the opportunity for experience of active love
through supporting Raskolnikov, and suffer for divine cause. Which was best way for her to spent mortal life and for her salvation.

And Raskolnikov? Murder was a trigger for his gradual regeneration, renewal of new man.

Presume he didn't commit a murder, at what direction his life would take, and how would all that have impact on his salvation?
He was atheist, with ideas which confronts against Christians virtue. He would probably become rational cynical intellectual whose heart would becoming harder and harder and at the end he would lost ability for repentance, which is most important virtue for salvation. Like Ivan Karamazov who had a noble ideas but who was rational atheist without ability for repentance. Mitja was a sinner but had ability to repent.

We can imagine in what direction Raskolnikov's life was developing later in Siberia and after, according to that what Dostoevsky wrote at the end of the book:

"Seven years, (only) seven years! At the beginning of their happiness at some moments they were both ready to look on those seven years as though they were seven days. He did not know that the new life would not be given him for nothing, that he would have to pay dearly for it, that it would cost him great striving, great suffering.
But that is the beginning of a new story--the story of the gradual renewal of a man, the story of his gradual regeneration, of his passing from one world into another, of his initiation into a new unknown life."

Dostoevsky was a atheist, decabrist, revolutionist before he went to Siberia, and there he experienced his gradual regeneration and later he become deeply religious man.

And what about Raskolnikov's mother? Well, here we can say God acts in mysterious ways.

It is interesting to have a look what impact that murder had on Dounia and Razumihin? Maybe that murder in some way joined them together...? Does anyone have any idea about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miner

I think that Dostoevsky interpreted those "coincidences" which "led" Raskolnikov to the murder as act of God

---

Perhaps the mysterious coincidences are what Dostoevsky sees as temptation rather than fate. I agree that the ending hints at ‘Repentance, Redemption, "The Gradual Renewal of a Man" and Salvation’.

As you say, many of the characters prove resilient in dealing with Raskolnikov, but I read nothing to suggest that the moneylender’s brutal murder provides an avenue to her redemption, and Lizaveta's death is hardly martyrdom.

Sonia had more than enough ‘experience of active love’ through supporting her family as a whore, without needing Raskolnikov the murderer. That Raskolnikov finds salvation through god-mediated murder is too convoluted, and where is the evidence? Your comparison with Ivan Karamazov is interesting. Raskolnikov does find salvation through the whore, who sits at his feet like ‘the woman who was a sinner’ sat at Jesus’.

What about Raskolnikov's mother? Knowing more than she shows, Pulcheria Alexandrovna prophesies: ‘As for his future career, she had no doubt that it would be brilliant when certain sinister influences could be removed.’

And what about the Dounia and Razumihin? It a marriage between Raskolnikov's clone and reason personified.

For me, many pieces of the jigsaw are still missing.

"I read nothing to suggest that the moneylender’s brutal murder provides an avenue to her redemption, and Lizaveta's death is hardly martyrdom. Sonia had more than enough experience of active love through supporting her family as a whore, without needing Raskolnikov the murderer. That Raskolnikov finds salvation through god-mediated murder is too convoluted, and where is the evidence?"

Yeah Gladis, you asked a good questions. I will try to answer it. But I think that everyone understand that novel in his
own way. And probably everyone is right. Atheist will understand and interpret in his way, and believer in his
way. And even catholic, protestant, and ortodox Christians would interpret different because their view on
definition of fate, redemption, and martyrdom differs.
I understand that all that what happen in book was consequences of state of heart of characters, and their
potential to repent and improve.


Yes you are right that "Sonia had more than enough ‘experience of active love’ through
supporting her family as a whore", but it was just a phase, and she WAS NOT happy doing that, and she had a
potential for more, her heart was burning for the love of God. she got the opportunity to help the sinner, to
forgive him, to support him, to suffer and to be happy about that, because she do that for the love of God and
mankind, and that is bless.

I don't have evidence that Raskolnikov finds his salvation through the murder, and that that have positive influencene on other characers salvation but I will try to make comparision.
to "The Brothers Karamazov".

Novel starts with epigraph, quote from New Testimony, St John:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it
dies, it bears much fruit."

Through all novel you can see that when someone dies it has positive impact on repentance and renewal of certain
characters: Alosha's mothers death in some way determined Alosha's religious way of life, death of Zosima's
brother had great impact on Zosima's later deeply religious determination, The Mysterious Visitor. in
recollections of father Zossima's youth, had murdered the widow of a landowner and that had positive impact on his
gradual renewal, Zossima's death had positive impact on Grusenka's repentance and renewal , Ilusha's death
positively influenced Kolya and those 11 boys. And Fyodor's death had a positive influence on Dmitry's repentance and regeneration..
and renewal and many others... Ivan, Smerdiakov ended that way because of state of their heart and lack of ability
for repentance,..............and so on and on......

So again, lets presume how would characters in the book continue their life if murder didn't happen, and how
would that kind of life had impact on their, renewal and salvation....?

Yeah I like how you described Pulcheria Alexandrovna: "Knowing more than she shows".


You asked a good question about her, but I dont have the answer, but I am sure it is somewhere in novel.

I didn't understand your hints about Dounia and Razumihin...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miner

"But I think that everyone understand that novel in his own way. And probably everyone is right.

---

Such a postmodern viewpoint makes no sense to me. Since Dostoevsky intended to tell one, unified story, perceptive readers (whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Buddhist) will eventually see through his eyes. The rest is fantasy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miner

according to Orthodox Christianity teachings

---

I found your Orthodox perspective fascinating and convincing, particularly as Dostoevsky and most Russians were Orthodox. I am less convinced that Dostoevsky is actively espousing Orthodoxy in the novel.

For instance, 'Lizaveta's kind of death IS a martyr’s death' while true within Orthodoxy, may not have relevance to the novel. Or does 'martyrdom' explain the strange lack of guilt Raskolnikov seems to feel for Lizaveta's murder? Similarly, where's the textual evidence for 'When person is too much deep in sin...God ends a person's life to stop its degradation'. Where is the evidence that God's 'acting was in directing all that in the best way for their salvation'? Scripture only says, ‘all things work together for good to them that love God’. Nevertheless, your Orthodox flavour alters little the story's interpretation, is quite intriguing, and provides insight into how many Russians may have understood the novel.

Sonia, like the three Marys at the foot of the cross, gives and gives and gives some more. You are right in saying that death has major consequences for the characters in both 'The Brother Karamazov' and here. While Raskolnikov's murders had a major impact on the lives of others, I am unconvinced the murders led to 'renewal and salvation'. They all have many years still to live, whether to salvation or damnation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

And what about the Dounia and Razumihin? It a marriage between Raskolnikov's clone and reason personified.

---

As Razumihin says, Douna and Raskolnikov coalesce in the way they think – like twins. Razumihin's name implies a pragmatic common-sense, which the more passionate 'twins' may lack. He is a moderating influence, the voice of reason.

""For instance, 'Lizaveta's kind of death IS a martyr’s death' while true within Orthodoxy, may not have relevance to the novel. Or does 'martyrdom' explain the strange lack of guilt Raskolnikov seems to feel for Lizaveta's murder?""

Yeah, that's good remark about Raskolnikov lack of guilt. But I think it's a matter of psychology. That time was very turbulent for him and he was overwhelmed with too much informations, mixed feelings, it was chaos in his head and heart, and maybe that fact, how much it is terrible what he did, didn't reached to his heart yet. But I am sure that later that fact hitted him like a hammer and that he felt truly repentance.

Well put!

My only reservation hinges on the extent to which Raskolnikov 'felt truly repentance'.

""My only reservation hinges on the extent to which Raskolnikov 'felt truly repentance'."""

Yes you are right, it is not for sure that later he felt truly repentance. Maybe he didn't. But that lack of guilt is precise indicator in what state was his heart. You can see in many parts of book that he is person with great empathy and compassion. It is like he was trying to deny that virtues in himself. Like that situation with young girl when he defended her so passionate, and then he changed his mood:

""At that moment something seemed to sting Raskolnikov; in an instant a complete revulsion of feeling came over him.

"Hey, here!" he shouted after the policeman.

The latter turned round.

"Let them be! What is it to do with you? Let her go! Let him amuse himself." He pointed at the dandy, "What is it to do with you?"

The policeman was bewildered, and stared at him open-eyed. Raskolnikov laughed.""

But he again started to feel sorry for her.

I think he was confused with those his stupid shallow theories about Napoleon kind of people and all that. Like it was some kind of fight in his heart between supermen/Napoleon view on the life against Christian compassion and mercy. And like, that fight continued and after he surrended himself to the police. Maybe that is the reason for lack of repentance at that time. Maybe he was intentionaly stopping that repentence to reach his heart, specially because he knew that he would realise that that murder it was not just terrible but it was very TERRIBLY STUPID too. And that stupidness of all that hurted him very much. But I think that later his virtues won in his heart and that he swollowed his pride, admitted to himself what he did, and let repentance to reach to his heart. After all, there wasn't evidence against him but he surrended himself to the police and admitted murder.

But even if he never got the courage to let repentance reach his heart, I think that he knew that that lack of it is very very wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miner

Like it was some kind of fight in his heart between supermen/Napoleon view on the life against Christian compassion and mercy.

---

The passage, in which Raskolnikov defends the drunk girl from the fat dandy, begins with, "Hey! You Svidrigaïlov! What do you want here?" and ends with the reflection:

A certain percentage, they tell us, must every year go . . . that way . . . to the devil, I suppose, so that the rest may remain chaste, and not be interfered with. A percentage! .......... But what if Dounia were one of the percentage!

His 'supermen/Napoleon view' of life is compromised by 'great empathy and compassion' - traits lacking in the genuine 'superman' Svidrigaïlov.