The Notebooks for Crime and Punishment

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Edward Wasiolek

• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9780486821412
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Russian Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

"In studying the notebooks one feels like an eavesdropper on Dostoyevsky's artistic self-communings. . . .  We may plainly observe Dostoyevsky's creative logic at work in selection and emphasis, his concern for technique and his struggle to make crystal-clear what is ambiguous in his characters. . . .  a veritable storehouse of source material on nearly every aspect of the conception, planning, and writing of Crime and Punishment." ― The New York Times
This key to understanding Dostoyevsky's masterpiece and the author's creative intentions offers a remarkable behind-the-scenes look at the composition of Crime and Punishment, from its first inception to its conclusion. Dostoyevsky's notebooks chronicle the trials, mistakes, and uncertainties that hindered his progress. They also reveal insights into the workings of his imagination and significant details about the novel's ultimate content.
Professor Edward Wasiolek has supplemented Dostoyevsky's text with an introduction and a commentary summarizing the material in each section. In addition to facsimile pages from the notebooks, this volume offers interpretations of Dostoyevsky's schematic plans for major portions of the novel as well as his alternate versions of scenes and characters, his unused material, and his reflections on philosophical and religious ideas.

Notebook Two

III

Fragments from Marmeladov’s tavern speech—Raskolnikov’s plea for pity and his fear of his mother—Raskolnikov’s relations with Sonia—Raskolnikov reflects on confession, suicide, and the redemption of his crime by good works—Razumikhin and Zosimov at Raskolnikov’s sickbed

The chief incidents, reflections, and scenes of this section are the following: a brief conversation between Razumikhin and Raskolnikov about God and prayer; several fragments from Marmeladov’s tavern speech, the entirety of which is found in Section I; a brief conversation in which Raskolnikov taunts Marmeladov about the non-existence of God; a desire plaintively voiced by Raskolnikov that someone take pity on him; fear that his mother will curse him if she finds out about the murder, and fears of being alone with the knowledge of his deed; a repetition of Marmeladov’s account (found in Section I) of how he went to beg money of a civil counselor when he knew he would not get it; scattered references to Sonia and Raskolnikov’s relations and love; Raskolnikov meets her on the street plying her trade, condemns her for stealing, at one point insults her and then falls on his knees before her; repeated references to Raskolnikov’s intentions to redeem his crime by good works; alternative decisions to confess or to kill himself; references to Lizaveta’s baby (not in final version) and Raskolnikov’s love for the baby. This section ends with a narrative fragment of several pages, a conversation between Razumikhin and Zosimov (called Bakavin here) at Raskolnikov’s sickbed about the murder and the suspects. This conversation is to be compared with Part II, Chapter 4, of the final version.

Much of the content of this section has to do with the alternatives Raskolnikov faces after the murder, and various reflections he makes about his motives. The humanitarian motive looms large: Several times Raskolnikov voices his intention to redeem his act by a lifetime of good deeds, silently accomplished for the benefaction of others. On each occasion he rejects the plan, and on one occasion he follows the intention by these words: “Nonsense. Complete nonsense.” His alternating desire to do good and his sharp dismissal of the desire are paralleled by a similar alternation of wistful sympathy and contempt for the silent masses: “Why don’t they groan?” and “How disgusting they are!” are repeated more than once. At times he considers seriously what one might call a variation of the humanitarian motive: that he did it for his mother and sister. At one point he says: “Poor mother, poor sister. I did it for you.” And, “Oh, mother, oh, sister; everything for you, beloved ones.” Yet, the relationship with the mother—as the material in Section II demonstrates—is complex. He is afraid, for example, that his mother will curse him if he confesses to her. He fears apparently that his mother will not accept him as he is—the good and the evil—but only as he meets her image of an ideal Raskolnikov. One may even hazard that his motive in part is to test those who love him.

Several fragments from Marmeladov’s tavern speech, which appear in this section in new contexts, seem to support this. At one point, for example, Raskolnikov asks for pity in words remarkably similar to those Marmeladov uses. The passage is important: “Oh God, if someone, someone were to take pity on me? But pity for what? For my foolishness, my bestial selfishness, for my wildness and shamelessness, for my failure, for the uselessness of my deeds; rather it’s something to spit on, it’s horrible and laughable. Who then will take pity? No one? No one? I am a base and vile murderer, laughable and greedy. Yes, precisely, is such a one to be pitied? Is there anyone like that in the whole world? Is there someone to take pity? No one, no one! No one! And yet that is impossible. And my mother? God, what will happen to her? Won’t she have to curse me? Me, her womb and her love?”

This passage comes immediately after the fragment of Marmeladov’s tavern speech in which he insists eloquently on the fact that his wife Katerina Marmeladova is a lady and he is a pig. The juxtaposition is not without significance, for the notes make clear what is implied in the novel: there is a parallel relationship between Marmeladov and his wife and Raskolnikov and his mother. Katerina, for example, accepts Marmeladov—and then not completely—only when he lives up to her nostalgic and unrealistic memories of her former husband. Marmeladov wants to be himself, and if Katerina will not accept him as he is, he will make her ‘‘feel” him by the destructive acts that he commits. The havoc he brings down on her is a distorted way of manifesting his dignity and his freedom; his destructive acts are in part a way of paying her back for her pitiless treatment of him; they are in part a way of establishing a “living,” if destructive, relationship with her; and most of all they are a grotesque but nevertheless real way of revolting against her abstract and thus conditional view of his being. The relationship between Raskolnikov and his mother is similar. She too has an abstract and conditional view of her son. Just as Marmeladov must bear the burden of living up to the ideal of Katerina’s former husband, so must Raskolnikov bear the burden of living up to his mother’s ideal image of him. Both Marmeladov and Raskolnikov attempt to liberate themselves by destruction, by attempting to kill, at least symbolically, what limits them, one by theft and drink and the other by murder. If a Dostoevskian character can hurt in no other way, he will do so by hurting himself. Dostoevsky’s characters—Marmeladov and Raskolnikov are examples—are always looking for what dignifies them: love, freedom, life. But such is the character of men and the nature of the world that they do not understand what is true love, freedom, and life, or when they understand are powerless to achieve them, accepting in return distorted imitations of these virtues.

Marmeladov and his family have another important structural function in the novel, which is emphasized in these notes. They represent the “meek ones” for whom Raskolnikov has presumably committed the crime. He is like them in situation, but unlike them because of his greater strength. The meek ones are exemplified by Sonia. This is clear in the novel, but in the notes this is made explicit—as well as his attitude toward them—by the juxtapositions we find in the following passage: “N.B. Afterward before giving himself up, about Marmeladov’s daughter; Why don’t they groan? What is her fate? Pale creature at night … She also sacrificed herself. He becomes enraged: Why don’t they groan? Why are they quiet, meek? Do they think that it’s right to be so treated? … He says this to her: ‘Well what will happen to the family? You [the daughter] will have enough for a year, for two, and then, then?’ He pushes her to hysteria and to love. Why don’t they groan?”

It may be that Raskolnikov comes to realize—and possibly Dostoevsky also—that the “humanitarian” motive for the crime is only an apparent motive, that the alternating contempt and love he feels for the people depends on whether they are laughing at him or groaning in weakness before him. In the notes we find: “How low and vile the people are … No: gather them up in one’s arms and then do good for them. But instead to perish before their eyes and to inspire only sneers.” Raskolnikov, it seems, comes to realize that he had not committed the crime for them, but in order to tower above them. Similarly, in the variation of the humanitarian motive by which he committed the crime for his mother and sister, one might say that he did not commit the crime for them. Something of this perception is caught in the following fragment, in which Dostoevsky seems to see that Raskolnikov’s essential character is not humanitarian, but proud and demonic: “At first there was danger, then fear and illness, and the whole character did not show itself, and then suddenly the [whole] character showed itself in its full demonic strength, and all the reasons and motives for the crime became clear.” If Raskolnikov has not lifted up the meek, they—in the person of Sonia—will lift him up to their strength. This is the paradox that the proud, self-willed Raskolnikov must come bitterly to face.

That was an evil spirit; How otherwise could I have overcome all those difficulties? etc.

Zametov said that Razumikhin’s birthday

He went (after the quarrel) because his conscience justified him completely and he convinced himself that his life was not ruined at all, not over, and that he was still part of humankind. But experience, that is, the visit of Razumikhin showed him the contrary.

The story ends here and the diary begins.

Very important question which he finally formulates for himself clearly and asks positively: why has my life ended? Grumble: But God does not exist and etc.

I should have done that. There is no free will, fatalism.

The door is open (the inspector thinks). That’s clever (Bakavin). Zametov confirms this completely and deduces from this that he is a weak and inexperienced man, that it was his first step and that he had had an extraordinary lucky break.

N.B. But Zametov was more interested in making my acquaintance than I was his, especially when he learned that I was on his side; he came himself, dug around in the books, and then when (we …) in the tavern. He got me to drink like a pig.

The point is that my watch. Is it written on many of them who they belong to?

In getting things cleared up with the landlady: About the fact that the apartment is upstairs and she is downstairs.

A speech made up for my “benefit” apparently, to stir me up, but which almost never succeeds in such cases.

Conversation with Razumikhin.

“I admit, brother, that I liked it very much, Vassia, when you said loudly that you believe in God. It has been rather shameful up to now, you know, to admit this in our group; and yet at night I pray and you know even with the same words that my dead mother taught me when I was three years old. You can find, you know, more learned words for prayer, but the early ones still are better. But Zametov said to me that you are mad.”

“I came to you (to Razumikhin) because I thought that I had a right to come.”

“For goodness sake you spoke in that way.”

“I thought I had the right to talk, but now I have felt.”

“Leave me.”

Precisely from that moment Razumikhin imagined that he was guilty of murdering the old woman, and beginning with that evening he broke off his acquaintanceship with Zametov.

“And suppose it was I who killed?” He laughed in Zametov’s face (spite).

“But admit it, you suspected me.”

“What are you talking about, for pity’s sake?”

Razumikhin. He pushed Razumikhin away angrily and walked away.

His wanderings begin. He tells about his whole life; all his impulses. Gets stronger, goes to Razumikhin. Conversation at night by a post.

When Razumikhin returned, that is, caught up with him at night: “Listen, Zametov has already told me that he considers you to be mad.” Frenzy. Why. The y...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Introduction
• Notebook One
• Notebook Two
• Notebook Three
• Index