Welcome to the world of literary rebellion! If you are a closed-minded slob, log off now, we don't want your rotten conformist posterior stinking up our counter-culture.

Anarchists have visited this site!.

LINKS TO THE UNDERGROUND

DOSTOEVSKY’S WORKS: (novels, novellas, and short stories in no particular order whatsoever)

POOR PEOPLE

THE DOUBLE

MR. PROKHARCHIN

THE LANDLADY

WHITE NIGHTS

THE HONEST THIEF

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

CHRISTMAS AND THE WEDDING

NETOCHKA NEZUANOVA

A GENTLE CREATURE

THE DREAM OF A RIDICULOUS MAN

MY UNCLE’S DREAM

THE VILLAGE OF STEPANCHIKOVO

THE IDIOT

ADOLESCENT (also known as RAW YOUTH)

THE DEVILS (also known as THE POSSESSED)

THE INSULTED AND THE INJURED

HOUSE OF THE DEAD

THE BROTHERS OF KARMENOV

UNPLEASANT INCIDENT

WINTER NOTES ON SUMMER IMPRESSIONS

NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND

THE GAMBLER

SO WHAT THE HELL IS NIHILISM ANY WAYS?

Nihilism is philosophy developed in Russia during the 1860's. Nihilism is derived from the Latin word “nihil” meaning nothing. What the theory basically states is that nothing can really be positively known and there is no definite truth in anything previously established as fact. Nihilists reject all forms of authority, religious, political, and relative. The concept of Nihilism as a philosophy is mainly attributed to the Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev and his influential novel Fathers and Sons (also known as Fathers and Children). In this book Turgenev’s character rejects the knowledge and authority of his elders. Further the character accepts nothing on faith and has little trust for others. Turgenev also coined the terms “thinking realist” and “new men” which were used by contemporaries to refer to members of the nihilistic underground.

Other authors to join the nihilistic sub-culture include Nikolai G. Chernyshevsky, author of What is to be Done?, and Fyodor Dostoevsky, author of Crime and Punishment. While Nikolai’s novel is often considered a stale rehash of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons, Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment is revered for its address of religion as a valid basis for governing self conduct. Yet if a leader must be labeled within the nihilist movement it must be Dmitri Pisarev, though not a revered author he was by far the most outspoken proponent of nihilism in history.

Throughout history since its conception nihilism has faced many self imposed problems. How is it possible to accept the teachings of a philosophy that rejects all previously accepted knowledge? Nihilism is hypocritical in that it rejects knowledge while trying to promote a new concept of knowledge itself. How is one to accept its teachings then? Such problems and disagreements have produced a diversity of nihilists and spin off philosophies. Dostoevsky, although considered a nihilist, is known to have placed great value in religion while other nihilists such as Friedreich Niechze reject all forms of religion as fraud. Scholars of the modern day most commonly accept the nihilist philosophy as promoting an individual process of thinking and rationalizing the outside world. This concept of individual reflection upon reality allows for the belief in anything at all, however. Tolerance for massive unrestrained individuality and diversity of behavior is the only fiber that has united the nihilist and anarchist sub-cultural societies for over one-hundred years.

LIST OF CHARACTERS FROM CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Rodion Romanovitch Raskolnikov (Rodya, Rodenka, Rodka)

Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikov

Pulcheria Alexandrovna Raskolnikov

Semyon Zakharovitch Marmeladov

Katerina Ivanovna

Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladov (Sonia)

Polenka, Lyoya, Kolya

Arkady Ivanovitch Svidrigailov

Marfa Petrovna

Pyotr Petrovitch Luzhin

Dmitri Prokofitch Razumihin

Andrey Semyonovitch Lebeziatnikov

Porfiry Petrovitch

Alyona Ivanovna

Lizaveta Ivanovna

Praskovya Pavlovna

Nastasya

Amalia Fyodorovna

Kapernaumov

Zossimov

Nikodim Fomitch

Zametov

Ilya Petrovitch

Nikolay and Dimitri

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MARMELADOV'S RECOLLECTION SCENE.

Katerina Ivanovna must deal with a man who drinks his life away while his family starves. Marmeladov recounts their suffering by first describing his loss of a job. He claims that, ". . .through no fault of mine but through changes in the office [I lost my place], and then I did touch it [alcohol]!" He attempted to educate his daughter, but what little knowledge she has amounts to nothing when she cannot even collect money from Ivan Ivanitch Klopstock, a man she sewed six shirts for. Katerina, fed up with her entire situation, screams at Marmeladov and eventually is driven to introduce her daughter to prostitution. Through the prodding of Darya Frantsovna, Sonia enters her first night of prostitution only to come home and collapse on her bed. Marmeladov recounts his drunken state as he watched Katerina kneel at her daughters bed and kiss her feet. Not only does Sonia's activity force her to sacrifice her own morals, but she also forced out of her family's apartment by Mr. Lebeziatnikov. Sonia must then continue her life of prostitution while living at the apartment of the Kapernaumovs'. The Kapernaumovs' are described as "very poor people, all with cleft palates." Marmeladov continually dwells on the fact that they all have cleft palates as he describes his daughters. This motif is used by Dostoevsky in order to bring out the theme of Sonia's own defamation of character due to her own inception in prostitution. The family's struggles do not end as Sonia tries to visit the family late at night, and Marmeladov fails at his last opportunity to keep his job. Marmeladov pathetically admits that he took all the families earnings to waste on alcohol, and even stooped so low as to stop at Sonia's to ask for a "pick-me-up."

THE INCONSISTENCY OF RASKOLNIKOV'S NARRATION OF THE CRIME VERSES HIS PREPARATION.

Roskolnikov's actual narration of the crime is definitely inconsistent with his preparation for the crime. From the pre-ceding pages of the novel, we continually see Roskolnikov's careful premeditation and disgust at criminals who lose their senses and commit a crime that can easily be traced to themselves. Roskolnikov dwells on the fact that the extraordinary criminals pay attention to the details that can eventually lead to their downfall. He often comments: "For this business one should be as little conspicuous as possible. . . . Trifles, trifles are what matter! Why, it's just such trifles that always ruin everything. . . ." He spends days counting the number of steps it takes to reach his victims apartment (exactly 730), and meticulously wraps a fake, wooden pledge in cloth, constructs a noose to conceal the ax in his coat, and spends time memorizing where Alyona keeps her keys- all for the sake of performing a perfect crime. Yet, when he does eventually place his plan into action: "He was in a terrible haste, and he kept making mistakes." Roskolnikov runs into many complications when trying to complete his crime including: Nastasya's presence in the kitchen when he needs to steal the ax, his inability to use the right key to open Alyona's drawer, his carelessness in smearing blood all over Alyona's chest box, and Lizaveta's coincidental appearance when he is committing the murder. The "trifles" that pervade his crime are by Dostoevsky to prove that Roskolnikov's "extraordinary man theory" is false, and shows that Roskolnikov is as weak, if not weaker, than the average criminal.

RASKOLNIKOV'S MENTAL STATE AS DETERMINED BY THE MASTERS OF NIHILISM.

The defense team of our moch trial in class would use this line to justify Roskolnikov's mental illness. I, on the other hand, see it as Roskolnikov's own comment of moral conscience of the crime. Although he begins by saying, "It is because I am very ill," he ends his quote with the phrase, "Good God, how sick I am of it all." I see his latter phrase as a direct proof that his "illness" is purely a normal reaction to the gruesome murder he has just committed. His statement attests to the fact that he has a moral conscience, and cannot deal with the pressure of living with blood on his hands. Roskolnikov's mental state is one of self-dejection and hopelessness- an obvious result of the vile nature of the murder he has just committed.

THE IRONY OF LUZHIN'S CONVERSATION WITH RAZUMIHIN IN TERMS OF FUTURE EVENTS IN THE NOVEL.

The conversation between Luzhin and Razumihin constitutes clear irony of anticipation. Throughout their discourse, we see that Luzhin has the perspective of a capitalistic, self-centered, progressive. He believes that by amassing wealth exclusively for oneself, one is able to further not only ones own well being, but societies- and in effect, everyone in society. Razumihin rebukes Luzhin's sentiments by claiming that Luzhin speaks "commonplaces" that have never amounted to any truth in function. Further in the novel, the involvement of these two men with Dounia sheds light on this exact conversation. According to Luzhin's theory, his self-centeredness will allow him to "obtain" Dounia, and give him the power to demand the utmost respect and praise from her. Instead, the events that occur in the novel give Dounia the opposite reaction, she is repulsed by Luzhin's pathetic nature, and eventually, with the help of her brother, shuns the man from the presence of her family forever. Ironically, Razumihin is the individual who is eventually able to capture Dounia's hand, and he is able to do so with a compassionate and loving heart.

MARMELADOV'S SEARCH FOR SALVATION (O', HOW FUTILE!).

Marmeladov, with a dying breath, cries, "Sonia! Daughter! Forgive!" Marmeladov is obviously begging for forgiveness for his previous ignorance and complacency when faced with the fact that his daughter must sacrifice her soul for the family. Since these are his last words, we can assume he is finally genuine in his request for forgiveness. Marmeladov has failed the entire family, wasting all of their money on alcohol, and remaining in a drunken depression while his wife must force her daughter to turn to prostitution. On his death bed, Marmeladov only asks Sonia for forgiveness, and I believe he does so because she represents the suffering he has caused for the entire family. Sonia has made the biggest sacrifice for the family, and is the innocent pawn in the dysfunctional family. I do not believe Marmeladov's request for forgiveness to be justified, merely because of the trials that Sonia has had to deal with. Although I believe Marmeladov's request to be genuine, I cannot deny a feeling of disgust that I harbor for any man who could conceive of allowing his daughter to enter prostitution. Throughout the novel he attempts to ignore his daughter's situation because of the hopelessness and dejection he feels for himself. I do not give any credit to a coward who only comes to his senses on his death bed.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RASKOLNIKOV'S "LIVED JUST NOW" CONCLUSION.

Roskolnikov's statement follows his conversation with Polenka in which he asks her to pray "and Thy servant Rodion,' in addition to the rest of her prayers each night. After experiencing the hope (prayer) of Polenka and her family in the face of such hopelessness (Marmeladov's death), Roskolnikov is struck by his own "hope" and asks the question, "haven't I lived just now?" His rhetorical question is of immeasurable importance in contest of the entire novel and is extremely interesting. Roskolnikov is searching for salvation for his evil actions, and he sees what the Marmeladov family clings to- their faith. Their situation allows him to experience a rebirth, and he realizes that he too has hope in the future. His fatal flaw lies in the fact that he sees his salvation as devising a way to get away with his crime. He abandons the Marmeladov's method of religion and makes the statement, "But did I ask her to remember 'Thy servant Rodion' in her prayers. . .Well , that was. . .in case of emergency." Ironically, in the end of the novel, we see that Roskolnikov's devotion to Sonia and turn to Christianity is what finally grants him salvation. Dostoevsky not only brings the novel full circle in this way, but he also reflects elements of his own life: an early rejection of religion, but an eventual realization that religion contains the truth for salvation.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SVIDRIGAILOV'S CONVERSATIONS WITH RASKOLNIKOV.

I believe Svidrigailov's purpose is two-fold in telling Roskolnikov of the ghost he sees. First of all, he wishes to taunt Roskolnikov. He knows that he has committed the double murder, and probably wishes to drop hints of the murder simply to entertain himself. Therefore, he chooses to tell stories about a ghost that he has seen in order to ask Roskolnikov if he has seen a ghost in light of the murder he has committed. I also believe he tells Roskolnikov of the ghost in order to attempt to form a bond with him. Both men share the same situation- they have both committed crimes of murder in the past, and Svidrigailov wants to use this fact to become closer to Roskolnikov. By forming a closer relationship with Roskolnikov, it will be easier for Svidrigailov to reach Dounia- his ultimate goal. The ghost story seems to scare Roskolnikov, and he attempts to deem it as pure nonsense. I believe he does so because of the implications that a ghost would hold in his mind. Throughout the novel, Roskolnikov has attempted to place the murder out his mind, and has tried to ignore the plight of his victims in the afterlife. In addition to proving to himself that he is ill, a ghost would give Roskolnikov a bigger guilty conscience. In the future, Roskolnikov might believe certain visions (such as the stalking stranger) as a ghost simply because of this conversation with Svidrigailov. His paranoia is simply raised because of this conversation.

RASKOLNIKOV'S "UNDERSTANDING."

Since Razumihin understands Roskolnikov's connection to the murder, it naturally follows that Razumihin honors Roskolnikov's request to, "Leave me, but don't leave them." Roskolnikov understands that Razumihin has agreed to take his place in Romanovich family. At the end of this chapter it is said that, "In fact from that evening Razumihin took his place with them as a son and a brother." Roskolnikov's crime makes him unable to function as he used to in giving his mother and sister peace of mind, so he must now rely of Razumihin for this stability. When the two men reach understanding at the end of this chapter, it consists of Razumihin's acceptance of Roskolnikov's role in protecting the Romanovich family while Roskolnikov sorts out his own life.

WHAT THE HELL DOES THE CROSS MEAN?

Roskolnikov says, "It's the symbol of my taking up the cross." In this final leg of his journey, Roskolnikov is finally realizing that he must confess his crime in order to live with himself. In attempting to face the truth, he also wishes to search for salvation. He finds this salvation in Sonia, and the two crosses, in addition to being symbolic of his taking up of the cross, represents the bond that both Roskolnikov and Sonia share. They both have committed sins (Roskolnikov-murder, Sonia-prostitution) and they have found each other in their search for salvation. Although Sonia is already convinced that her faith in the Lord is the answer to her problems, Roskolnikov is still doubtful. He is sincere in his attempt to touch faith in his search for salvation, but he is still simply searching for something to hold on to as he faces his punishment. He does not seem convicted to the least degree until he enters the actual prison and uses the Bible under his pillow. This action is symbolic of his final decision to turn to religion in order to achieve salvation and happiness.

HAPPY ENDING--SKEPTICISM OR PLAUSIBLE REALITY?

Seven years is obviously a very long period of time, but I believe we must still trust in the fact that Roskolnikov and Sonia will remain devoted to each other. They have both experienced severely traumatic lives, and have gone through experiences that must of us could not fathom. They have both eventually found salvation together, and it is this bond that now holds them together. I believe this bond to be much stronger that youthful love, or transient attraction. This is the type of bond that endures and will hopefully survive till the end. Perhaps I am clinging to idealism, but I must maintain that after enduring the trials that these two characters already have, they will be able to endure the wait that follows in order to finally be free together.

Fyodor Dostoevsky, perhaps the most revolutionary Russian author in history, was born in Moscow 1821. Fyodor was the second son born to his household; his older brothers name: Mikhail. A former military physician and current doctor to the poor and elderly Fyodor’s father is suspected to have provided the moral and religious aspect of Fyodor’s character. Educated in his youth at a private boarding school Fyodor received an above average education which many of his contemporary youths were deprived.

At the age of sixteen Fyodor left his family to further his education in St. Petersburg (1837). In the year 1843 Fyodor began to study at the Military Engineering College, but resigned only one year later to pursue his career in literature. Two years later (1846) Fyodor joined a group of Russian radicals known as the “Utopian Socialists” led by the notorious Mikhail Butashevich-Petrashevsky (not to be confused with Fyodor’s brother Mikhail). Shortly after Fyodor’s association with the group these “Utopian Socialists” were arrested for anti-governmental speech and tried on the charge of treason.

Convicted of all counts charged Fyodor was imprisoned and sentenced to death on November sixteenth 1846. Although the sentence was shortly thereafter reduced to four years in a hard labor camp, Dostoevsky and his accomplices were never informed. Before being shipped off to Siberia to serve their sentence Mikhail Butashevich-Petrashevsky’s followers were made to endure the proceedings of their execution to amuse Russian politicians. Upon being exiled to Siberia Fyodor spent his time between work camps and prison. From these torturous experiences came the inspiration for a number of characters and works later created by the author.

After being released from work and prison camps Fyodor elected to serve his mandatory two years of military service. During this time Dostoevsky married his first wife, Maria (1857). After completing his service in 1859 Fyodor and his wife returned to European Russia which was the Dostoevsky home. During this period of his life Fyodor and his elder brother Mikhail published two unsuccessful political/literary journals entitled Time and Epoch. Both publications were reprimanded by the government for articles promoting social rebellion, in particular glorified accounts of the Polish revolution then currently in progress.

In a period of two years Fyodor was to experience the death of two family members. In 1864 Maria fell victim of tuberculosis, an incident which sent Dostoevsky into depression. Adding to this emotional crisis was the death of Fyodor’s brother Mikhail in July 1865. Not long after the death of Mikhail Fyodor wed his second wife, Anna Smitkin, a twenty-two year old stenographer.

This union did not serve to correct many of Fyodor’s problems. Mikhail’s death had left a large number of debts on the hands of Fyodor who had no means to repay them. In search of funds Fyodor found refuge in a literary organization for which he had previously worked as an editor. With a loaned sum of three-thousand Roubles Fyodor payed off his obligations and quickly gambled the rest away. In search of a way to repay the loan Fyodor set out to publish an unwritten novel which he intended to call the Drunkards.

After being rejected by numerous publishers Fyodor cut a deal with the unpopular F.T. Stellovsky. The terms of the deal were that Dostoevsky provide one novel and another work of at least novella size in addition to publishing rights to a three book volume of his previous works. Should Dostoevsky have faulted on this agreement F.T. Stellovsky would have had right to publish all of Dostoevsky’s subsequent works for a period of nine years without payment of any royalties to the author (ouch). Fyodor used the money advanced to him in this deal to pay off more accumulated debts and again gambled the rest away.

In the later years of his life Fyodor continued his work as an editor of periodicals, working on such historical weekly supplements as the Citizen. In 1876 Fyodor began publication of his most successful periodical, the Writer’s Diary. After a lifetime of battles with epilepsy, Fyodor fell ill during the late fall of 1881. An epileptic attack on the ninth of February 1881 enticed a blood vessel in his lung to burst and end his tragic, wonderful life.

I felt that Dostoevsky does a marvelous job by starting the novel in medias res of Raskolnikov's mind. We are immediately drawn into the thoughts and actions of Raskolnikov, and Dostoevsky begins by allowing us to discover the missing pieces of the story thusfar. It seemed strange that the descriptions of Raskolnikov and Alyona were completely opposite. Raskolnikov is described as a tall, dark, and handsome man; while Alyone is characterized by rags and oily hair. Dosteovsky's characterization of Marmeladov and Katerina immediately had an effect on me, since I could relate to aspects of both of their personalities through my own personal experiences. I have often encountered people who I am immediately attracted to for conversation (just like Marmeladov), and I have also been in instances where a person experiences so much stress that their only outlet is to take out their stress physically on other people (just like Katerina). Throughout this entire passage I was struck by the alternation of moods in Raskolnikov's mind. Their are several instances when we see his caring and compassionate nature (i.e. his concern for his sister's plight, his reaction to the drunk girl who has been raped, his reaction to the beaten horse in his dream, etc.) and his cruel and cold nature (i.e. his gruesome double murder). His alternation between these two moods, evidenced by both his actions and his thoughts, attests to his confusion over what it is he believes in. He initially seems to have genuine intentions in committing the murder, but he never realizes the significance of the act until he commits ti. In fact, he seems to disregard all feelings and signs that he perceives that tell him that the murder is wrong. The theme of giving money away seems to pervade this entire section. It seems rather ironic that after deposing a theory in order to obtain money to help people, Raskolnikov has not used that money for any purpose. We do see him give his own money away to the Marmeladovs, and we see him throw away the money he is given when he is perceived as a beggar. Doestovsky paints an ambiguous picture (of course intentionally) of a man who seems to be a humanitarian, but who does not complete his philosiphy in his actions. He also seems to consider everyone else the victims who need his help, and refuses to be labelled one himself. Despite his conflicting attitudes, we can be sure that he does maintain a strong humanitarian characteristic through his dream and his treatment of Marmeladov.

Not at all easy to keep a secret, is it? At times the task may seem torturous, impossible even. Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment keeps a terrible secret, and cannot avoid the aforementioned implications of his unique position. Dostoevsky illustrates through Raskolnikov's character his belief that suffering is experienced internally through the acceptance of guilt and inevitably leads to redemption through confession.

Raskolnikov, early in the book, discovers this internal criminal conflict himself, Dostoevsky tells, "He had come gradually to many different and curious conclusion, and in his opinion the chief reason lay not so much in the material impossibility of concealing the crime as in the criminal himself." (Page 63, paragraph 3, line 4). Upon committing the murders Raskolnikov believes he is beyond the boundaries of moral law, but Dostoevsky sees in Raskolnikov's's conscience something different, he writes, "And if at that moment he had been capable of seeing and reasoning more correctly, if he had been able realize all the difficulties of his position, the hopelessness, the hideousness and the absurdity of crimes he had still to commit, to get out of that place and make his way home, it is very possible that he would have gone to give himself up, and not from fear, but from simple horror and loathing of what he had done." (Page 71, paragraph 3, line 3). Raskolnikov is yet to discover his inability to cope with the burden of his crime, yet he nearly admits to the murders immediately thereafter.

While not feeling the moral implications of the murders yet, Raskolnikov nearly confesses due to mental agitation. "..., the idea several times occurred to him to end it all at once and shout through the door." (Page 71, paragraph 3, line 3) writes Dostoevsky. It is evident Raskolnikov may indeed confess, but he fears the failure of his crime and not the moral dilemma it poses. In realization of his inevitable capture Raskolnikov decides to simply face the music, "filled with despair he went straight to meet them, feeling ‘come what must!' If they stopped him- all was lost; if they let him pass, all was lost too; they would remember him." (Page 76, paragraph 11, line 1). Avoiding confession and escaping the scene of the crime undetected relieve Raskolnikov of public prosecution, turning the focus again upon an unfolding internal battle.

Evidence of internal dilemma can also be found in Raskolnikov's initial visit to the police station. Upon receiving the summons to the office Raskolnikov thinks, "If they question me, perhaps I'll simply tell," (page 84, paragraph 9, line 1) and shortly after decides, "I'll go in, fall on my knees, and confess everything..." (Page 84, paragraph 10, line 1). Raskolnikov is perplexed at this decision, while he feels it is necessary to confess he does not yet know why. Dostoevsky narrates, "a strange idea suddenly occurred to him, to get up at once go up to Nikodum Fomitch, and tell him everything that had happened yesterday." (Page 93, paragraph 6, line 4) and further states, "The impulse was so strong that he got up from his seat to carry it out. ‘Hadn't I better think a minute?' flashed through his mind. ‘No better to cast off the burden without thinking.'" (Page 93, paragraph 6, line 9). Refraining from confessing at the police station is important because it illustrates that without an understanding of wrongdoing Raskolnikov does not realize what confession will gain him. Raskolnikov is forced to carry the burden and consider the implications of his actions because of this failure to confess.

Raskolnikov's meeting with Zametov nearly produces a full out confession, but it is not due to Zametov's inquiries. Rather this near admittance is brought on by Raskolnikov, and although he admits, "And what if it was I who murdered the old woman and Lizaveta?" (Page 145, paragraph 6, line 1) Zametov dismisses this possibility. Further Raskolnikov tempts Zametov saying, "red notes and blue, twenty-five roubles. Where did I get them? And where did my new clothes come from? You know I had not a copeck..." (Page 146, paragraph 3, line 3). Zametov may indeed be suspicious of Raskolnikov, but he does not truly believe it possible for Raskolnikov to be the murderer. Considering this, even if Raskolnikov has confessed it makes no difference if the person confessed to does not comprehend. Because Zametov does not understand, Raskolnikov is left to suffer the burden of his secret alone.

By allowing Raskolnikov to escape or overcome his earlier encountered obstacles Dostoevsky introduces his focus upon the realization of guilt. Speaking of Raskolnikov's visit to the flat a workman says, "...‘Why have you washed away the blood?' says he. "There has been a murder here,' says he, ‘I've come to take it.' ‘Come to the police station,' says he, ‘I'll tell you everything there...'" (Page 152, paragraph 22, line 1). Until this point Raskolnikov had not truly thought the pawnbroker to be gone, this explains his objection to the removal of the blood. Raskolnikov has come to take the murder, but where is it, no blood, no bodies? Raskolnikov is left only to realized the finality of his deeds.

Once this realization has been made, Raskolnikov decides it of the utmost importance to conceal his guilt. Raskolnikov is suspicious of Porfiry's toying gestures and phrases during their conversation, he admits, "and in my anger I shall betray myself,..." (Page 220, paragraph 12, line 3) and wonders, "Why are they torturing me?" (Page 220, paragraph 12, line 9). At this point Raskolnikov provides the first evidence of moral suffering. He is ashamed of his crime, and is angered by Porfiry's accusations thinking, "I shall get up and throw the whole truth in your ugly faces, and you'll see how I despise you." (Page 222, paragraph 1, line 3). Dostoevsky uses Raskolnikov's anger to depict Raskolnikov trapped in silent torture, torn between concealing his crime and relieving his himself.

In further discussion with Porfiry Raskolnikov tells us himself of his theory on suffering saying, "...It's not a matter of permission or prohibition. He will suffer if he is sorry for his victim. Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on Earth." (Page 230, paragraph 13, line 1). While Raskolnikov does not feel sorry for the death of the pawnbroker, he regrets, more and more progressively, the death of Lizaveta.

Lizaveta is the key to Raskolnikov's eventual surrender. An indirect bond is formed to Lizaveta by Raskolnikov through Sonia. This causes Raskolnikov to feel that he has betrayed Sonia in murdering Lizaveta, and is therefor is morally obligated to tell her his terrible secret. Raskolnikov says to Sonia, "I have chosen you out. I'm not coming to you not to ask forgiveness, but simply to tell you." (Page 287, paragraph 4, line 1). This indicates that Raskolnikov does feel sorry for killing Lizaveta and, considering his earlier statement, is therefor suffering as a result of his sorrow. Dostoevsky accentuates this point writing, "He was agitated too, especially at some moments, by the thought of his approaching interview with Sonia: he had to tell her who killed Lizaveta. He knew the terrible suffering it would be to him and, as it were, brushed away the thought of it." (Page 349, paragraph 1, line 6). Raskolnikov is finally morally compelled to confess his crimes, and yet his suffering is prolonged by postponing his promise to Sonia.

The moment of greatest suffering by Raskolnikov is experienced upon his confession to Sonia. "He...did not mean to kill that Lizaveta...he...killed her accidentally...He meant to kill the old woman when she was alone and went there...and then Lizaveta came in...he killed her too." (Page 353, paragraph 5, line 3) explains Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov's broken speech indicates great difficulty in admitting to his crimes. Although Sonia eventually deciphers that he is the murderer, Raskolnikov still never truly confesses to the crime. This is further proof that Raskolnikov is ashamed of his acts and is suffering internally because of them.

What is it that Raskolnikov receives upon his confession to Sonia, an outpouring of sympathy? Sonia tells Raskolnikov, "there is no one- no one in the whole world now so as unhappy as you." (Page 354, paragraph 7, line 1). Dostoevsky uses this unexpected reaction of Sonia's to show how suffering and confession can achieve moral cleansing. Sonia's sadness for him relieves, at least in part, Raskolnikov of his moral dilemma over killing Lizaveta.

Even after confessing to Sonia Raskolnikov denies Porfiry's accusations. Upon being outright accused of murder, "Raskolnikov leapt from the sofa, stood for a few seconds and sat down again without uttering a word. His face twitched convulsively." (Page 393, paragraph 5, line 1) and later insists, "It was not I murdered her," (page 393, paragraph 7, line 1). Why deny the murders? Raskolnikov denies these accusations because confessing to them would be a show of submission to Porfiry. Dostoevsky wants Raskolnikov to be viewed as a respectable man who must decide his own path, to be led to confession through his own suffering.

Raskolnikov approaches his confession alone. Upon Reaching the crossroads, "He knelt down in the middle of the square, bowed down to the earth and kissed that filthy earth with bliss and rapture. He got up and bowed a second time." (Page 453, paragraph 2, line 1). Raskolnikov upon bowing and kissing the dirt feels a wild influx of pleasure, symbolic of religious retributi