- Forum: C. and P.īs Epilogue -
It is my belief so far that the epilogue is the weak spot in the novel, but I am interested to know what you have to say, as you probably know more about C & R than I do. I would appreciate your opinion, and also any resources or criticisms you might know of that deal with the epilogue.
Dan
Hi,Dan!
Well, I have read some people say this epilogue is rather weak, too... But
I personally donīt think so. Itīs sometimes dificult for us to understand
why Raskolnikov, all of a sudden, changes his mind, and from a nietzschean
atheist, who defends the moral of the super-man, becomes a believer.
If you read my section "Views on Crime and Punishment", youīll find an explanation of why Raskolnikov decides to surrender to Porfiry:
"Insoluble problems arise before the murderer; unsuspected and unforeseen
feelings torment his mind, Divine truth and human law take their toll, and
he ends up being driven to give himself up. He is driven to this because,
even though doomed to perish in penal servitude, it will make him one with
the people again, and the feeling of being cut off and isolated from
humanity that he had experienced from the moment he had commited the crime
had been torturing him. The law if truth and human nature won out
[illegible words]. The criminal himself decides to accept suffering and
expiate his deed. However, it is rather difficult for me to make my idea
completely clear".
Dostoevsky himself recognizes the explanation heīs giving is not
sufficient. Itīs not just the feeling of being cut off from Humanity, since
R. was already cut off before. Raskolnikov had no friends, talked to noone,
only Razumikin stands him.
So, there still remains the problem - how can a super-man, who is never
felt remorses, all at once become a believer... and masochistically accept,
need, suffering?
The matter must be closely examined. Therer are so many reason for his
giving in, that I cannot be sure to be giving them all.
First of all, R.īs being a super-man is only half the truth - only half
of him is it. One cannot forget there are actually two Raskolnikovs: one of
them kills the old woman, but the other one helps Sonya and her family,
talks to Marmeladov, gives money to Katernia Marmeladova. Raskolnikov is
capable of charity, of pity - see how he despises Lujin, how he hates
Svidrigailov - because they have a lot in common with his corrupt side.
Do you remember the dream Raskolnikov has in the begining, in which as a
child, watches a mule being beaten to death by some peasants in his home village. This dream reveals us, through symbols, Raskolnikovīs double personality
and guilt. The mule being beaten to death is the old lady, murdered. The
men beating the mule are Raskolnikovīs evil side, responsible for the
murder. His good side, which tried to prevent him from killing the old
woman, in the dream is represented by the child, who revoltedly watches the
brutal act.
In fact, the end of the book is exactly this inversion - Sonya manages to
help the child, (R.īs good side) who was powerless in the dream and in
reality, to take over. She just helps him switch the balance of things in
his personality. So thereīs no radical change in his ways - he only makes a
choice, bad side agianst good side.
There is something else too: even though the author likes to make sure
Raskolnikov never felt remorses, this is only partially true. Raskolnikov
doesnīt feel any conscious remorses, but they appear in his unconscious
(through his dream, which shows us his guilt complex), and through his
actions. See: why doesnīt he use any of the things he has stolen? Why does
he move like a sleep-walker, why does he faint, why does he fall in
delirium several times?
And most of all: why does he aproach Porfiry so many times, with the urge
to confess? Why does he feel the need to confess? This is a proof of
Raskolnikovīs remorses, he is waiting for that thing which can give him
absolution, for understanding. And both the people he confesses to, Porfiry
and Sonya, (I canīt remember if he really did confess to Porfiry - sorry)
tell him that full absolution can only come through his suffering, through
punishment.
But one cannot only look for answers inside Raskolnikov himself. I do
think Svidrigailov has great influence over Raskolnikovīs decision to give
himself in. See, Svidrigaliov is R.īs evil side, he is the one R. despises
most - but in the end of the boook, both are in a similar situation. Both
opressed by a guilt complex, see they have only one choice: either
commiting suicide, (Raskolnikov thinks about it several times when he
crosses the Neva), or giving in. Fleeing is no longer an alternative, for
they have fled for long, without finding the peace, the light consiousness
they wanted.
Svidrigailov tries to find a way to redeem his faults, his sensuality, his
presumable child abuse, which is alluded to us in his dream - that would be
Dunya. The scene in which Dunya tries to murder him, and in which he has
the change to rape her, proves that he loved her. He wanted her to save
him, freely, the same way Sonya saves R. - through love, incondicionate
comprehension.
Since he doesnīt get what he needs, he dies. Even though he says he would go to America, he finds it impossible with a heavy conscience - his crime
demands punishment.
Raskonikov sees that it was impossible for Svidrigailov to flee, for he
had this opressive guilt, asking for a punishment. Itīs the urge of being
punished for his crime, itīs mascochism: and it has to be satisfied. R.
sees in himself the same situation - he cannot flee, he has to be punished,
either through suicide, or through prison.
Since he, unlike Svidrigailov, has Sonya, he finds the courage to to go to
prison.
One must also consider the role Marmeladov plays in the story - he
explains very well, that every man needs a "place to go to", "somewhere to
turn". This somewhere to turn is Sonya (Sonya -> Love -> God ).
Svidrigailov has nowhere to turn, since he doesnīt have Dunya, and as
consequence nevers will meet God.
Do not forget Sonyaīs role also - sheīs not only a representant of
Christian Saintity, but she summarizes in her being the anguishes of a
suffering Humanity. She symbolizes the people, the simple people, in their
sufferings, and in their uneding ability to forgive and to love.
From the moment Raskolnikov starts loving Sonya, he starts loving a whole
humanity, his neighbours, in a Christian way. Itīs Sonya who shows him,
through love how low, his pride really was - for she has none of it, and is
infinitely superior than him.
And the story of the Ressurrection of Lazarus - thatīs also a metaphor for
what Sonya did to him. He was a dead man, like Lazarus, ressurrected
through love. (Christ = Love = Sonya)
Luís Greco
In your last email, you refered to the epilogue as consistent, which I
whole heartedly agree with. But just because it is
consistent does not necessarily mean that the book could do without it.
I agree with what I find the strongest of your points: Rask does need
excessive punishment, and this excessive punishment might not be recognized
to its fullest extent in the chapters preceding the epilogue. I also agree
that this book should not be read for entertainment value only. It is too
difficult for that.
However, I will maintain that the epilogue is more or less predictable,
myself having read it with minimal prior knowledge of the events or
characters. Although it is not thrown in the reader's faces, it certainly
does not hold the same continuity as the rest of the book. The epilogue is
clearly distinct from the rest of the book, because the rest of the book
takes place in 2 weeks, and the epilogue covers a period of months, and
alludes to years. For this reason, it seems the epilogue is tacked on. It
appears Dost. felt the need to tie down any loose ends, i.e. exemplify
Rask's need for punishment, Sonya's role as his helper and guide to God,
and Rask's transformation (or actually the destruction of his ration
superman half), but I think the novel is so excellently written that the
epilogue is basically reiterating in more solid terms what Dost. considered
the most important elements of his book.
Dost. had such excellently developed and consistent characters that if he
did not have an epilogue, he really wouldn't be leaving anything to chance.
Dan
PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION!
BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE
This page was designed by Luís Greco - grecoleo@centroin.com.br
Send in any comments, suggestions, questions!
If you know of any other Dostoevsky pages, contact me!