Dostoevsky provided his protagonist Raskolnikov with a number of doubles and foils: Marmeladov is a sort of double, a “criminal” with the best of intentions; Razumikhin a foil, strong, generous and well-balanced where Rodya is self-absorbed erratic—but equally passionate and warm-hearted. Even the hypocritical, self-important Luzhin provides an ironic contrast to Raskolnikov when Luzhin mouths the radical theories that have attracted Rodya and shows how empty they are.
Svidrigailov is another sort of “double,” who like Rodya is haunted by his conscience through dreams and ghosts. “He’s mad,” is what Rodya correctly thinks of his mirror image—and of course Rodya is mad, too.
Look for the ways Svidrigailov provides a counterpoint to Raskolnikov in his actions, his rationalizations, his self-absorption, his egotism, his crimes, and his agony. To help you make the connection, I’m quoting Joseph Frank’s introduction of this serpent-like character below, in which he in his turn quotes the English Romantic poet Lord Byron:
One of Dostoevsky’s most strangely appealing characters, a sort of monster à la Quasimodo longing for redemption to normalcy, Svidrigailov is much less a melodramatic villain…His Byronic world-weariness signifies a certain spiritual depth, and the contradictions of his personality, which swing between the blackest evil and the most benevolent good, perhaps can best be understood in Byronic terms. Is he not similar to such a figure as Byron’s Lara, in the poem of the same name, “who at last confounded good and ill,” and whose supreme indifference to their distinction made him equally capable of both? One can well say of Svidrigailov:
Too high for common selfishness, he could
At times resign his own for other’s good,
But not in pity, not because he ought,
But in some strange perversity of thought,
That sway’d him onward with a secret pride
To do what few or more would do beside;
And thus some impulse would, in tempting time,
Mislead his spirit equally to crime.Svidrigailov thus embodies the same mixture of moral-psychic opposites as Raskolnikov, but arranged in a different order of dominance. What rules within him is the conscious acceptance of an unrestrained egoism acting solely in the pursuit of personal and sensual pleasure; but his enjoyments are tarnished by self-disgust. What dominates in Raskolnikov are the pangs and power of conscience even in the midst of a fiercely egoistic struggle to maintain his freedom. Svidrigailov also resembles Raskolnikov in the sophistication and sharpness of his intellect; he is a brilliant and witty talker who does a great deal to enliven the final sections of the book.
(from pages 129-130 of Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871 by Joseph Frank. Princeton University Press, 1996.)
11 comments:
We see Svidrigailov as a villian with a conscience because while he commits these murders (or causes death) he is haunted by the ghosts. He sees his wife Marfa Petrovna, and also an elderly male servant of his. He seems almost like Claudius but he lacks the clear motive that Claudius was driven by. Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are connected by their murders. They both have killed an innocent, and though Raskolnikov can justify the "louse's" murder, he cannot justify Lizaveta's.
Svidrigailov also thinks that because he knows Dunya he will be able to understand Rodya. He tries to apply his knowledge of how Dunya thins and behaves to Raskolnikov. This fails to work because while Dunya is incapable of shooting him, Raskolnikov has killed two people and is hardened to some extent. He acts as a foil to Rodya because he has the same strange mixture of morals and ideals. However, they are expressed differently. He is also Raskolnikov's intellectual equal on a level that is complete seperate from even Razumikhin, our beloved "reason".
This is a blog post for: Katie Stanley, Lindsay Slater, Callie Goldfield and, of course, Emelia Ficken.
Svidrigailov
He is a complex character whose thoughts are difficult to read and understand, as they are not portrayed like Raskolnikov's are. He, like Raskolnikov, is also a superman--but in a different sense. He does not care for the world and rather views his own pleasure as his priority, even pushing moral boundaries. He is able to rape a young girl who then commits suicide, and yet remains apathetic of the situation as long as his own pleasure is satisfied. Svidrigailov is egocentric and is an obvious hedonist. He and Raskolnikov both exhibit the 'ubermensch' complex and both have delirious dreams, perhaps due to their subconscious guilt of their crimes (although Raskolnikov's guilt is much more apparent). However, where Raskolnikov constantly has an internal struggle, Svidrigailov is almost completely controlled by his pleasure-seeking self. Also, Raskolnikov is generous as a side-result of his guilt and personality (as he feels a small sense of redemption from it), Svidrigailov is generous because he enjoys the pleasure of contributing to someone in need, as to make himself feel good. Svidrigailov later realizes that his whole sense of self was flawed and takes matters into his own hands, finally disgusted by himself when realizing the consequences. Whereas Raskolnikov pursues the path of struggle and redemption, Svidrigailov exemplifies the path of suicide. He is obviously an intelligent character with a conscience. His way of living tries to isolate and destroy his conscience, yet his actions slowly accumulate a sense of guilt and disgust at himself. Although his pleasure continues to overpower his inner disgust/guilt overwhelmingly, his confrontation with Dunya allows him to understand his suppressed conscience and it overflows. Although Svidrigailov is addicted to pleasure, his conscience is always in the background. By realizing the extent of his crimes and his way of pleasure, his actions finally crumble and he commits suicide.
This is a blog post for: Brendan Hsu, Mohammed Workicho, and me (Joshua Shing).
Tess Cauvel, Alyssa Caloza, Austin Luvaas
Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are both criminals, but they both have had generous streaks. Svidrigailov, however, is more violent and duplicitous than Rodya. While Svidrigailov’s depravity is despicable to Rodya—he angrily calls him a “depraved, mean sensual man” (pg 482)—Raskolnikov is somehow connected to him, and the differences in their methods of immorality and repentance is illuminating.
One connection between Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov that my group examined is their connection to the women in their lives. On page 474 when they are conversing in the tavern, Svidrigailov says that Dunya “in the end felt pity for me, pity for the lost man. And when a girl’s heart is moved to pity, that is, of course, most dangerous for her. She’s sure to want to ‘save’ him then, to bring him to reason, to resurrect him.” This situation is very similar to the relationship between Raskolnikov and Sonya: she too wants to save Raskolnikov, and is a source of resurrection for him. After reading the story of Lazarus to Raskolnikov, she thinks “and he, he who is also blinded and unbelieving, he, too, will now hear, he, too, will believe” (pg 327). Both Dunya and Sonya feel called to rehabilitate their sinful acquaintance.
There is also a similarity between Raskolnikov’s relationship with his mother Pulcheria and Svidrigailov’s relationship with his deceased wife Marfa Petrovna. Both of the women deeply loved them, and with idealistic naivety they only saw the good in them.
Another interesting association between Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov has to do with their aversion to death, or more specifically, suicide. Svidrigailov states that “I’m afraid of death and I don’t like hearing it talked about” (471), and Raskolnikov makes it clear on several occasions that he would be unable to take his own life. After witnessing a woman try to drown herself, he considers the idea “disgusting,” and decides that “it’s vile… the water… better not” (170), and on the eve of his confession he walked around by the river all night but “couldn’t make up my mind” (517). However, it is Svidrigailov who does ultimately commit suicide, while Raskolnikov takes the opposite way out and turns himself in. After Dunya firmly rejects him, Svidrigailov gives up entirely, while Raskolnikov holds on to his idealism until the very end. When speaking with his sister before he goes to confess, he still shows no remorse for the murders, saying that “I killed a vile, pernicious louse … to kill whom is worth forty sins forgiven” (518). Unlike Svidrigailov, Raskolnikov is unable to fully accept the failure of his beliefs—that is until the epilogue when he is resurrected by his love for Sonya.
Svidrigailov is essentially the opposite of Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov is innately a good person, who is driven by ideals that are not considered "good", and when he acts upon these ideals (kills Alyona, which leads to the murder of Lizabeta? he genuinely feels guilty about his actions. No matter how much Raskolnikov wants to feel like he is the type of person that can kill and escape without any moral or physical punishment, that is just not him. Svidrigailov, on the other hand, is innately amoral (feels nothing about what he does) although he does recognize that what he does is disgusting which leads to him trying to force himself to feel guilty for these actions. That is what drives Svidrigailov to display random acts of kindness which are, in essence, insincere, not matter how much he wants them to be.
With Zach and Alexis
I think I handed in our group's blog post to you! -Kirsten
This is from Ariel, Bryn, Kristen and Kathy:
Although Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov both committed horrid crimes, the nature of the crime is very different. However because they both have past actions that continually haunt them, Svidrigailov understands Raskonikov on a level that no other character can. Before Svidrigailov commits suicide, he performs an act of great kindness and generosity to the person who can redeem Raskolnikov - Sonya. By finding a place for Katerina's orphans and giving money to Sonya, Svidrigailov makes it possible for Sonya to follow Rasknolnikov to Siberia. Raskolnikov's options are either suicide or Siberia, and Svidrigailov recognizes that Raskolnikov cannot bring himself to end his own life. And Sonya is the only person who can guide Raskolnikov through the other path, so she must be freed from her burdens in order to fulfill her mission to redeem Raskolnikov. Svidrigailov makes Raskolnikov's path to redemption possible, while he himself takes the other path of suicide. Svidrigailov is not an idealist like Raskolnikov, and he sees his crimes as simply acts of evil.
Both Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov are tormented by their own crimes, but for Svidrig it’s not the sudden recognition of the horrid nature of the crime that torments him. Rodya is not depraved by nature—but Svidrig is. Rodya tries to rationalize his crime and is tormented when he finds out that he could not. The only reason he committed the crime was because he thought it was not crime. On the other hand, Svidrig knows that what he is doing is “vile”, but he continues his vile acts nevertheless, not because he deliberately wants to, but because, as Frank puts it, he is indifferent to the distinction between good and evil. During his conversation with Rodya at the tavern, for example, Svidrig shows his “conscious acceptance of an unrestrained egoism acting solely in the pursuit of personal and sensual pleasure”; he speaks of womanizing as “an occupation” and seems indifferent to its moral consequence: “I admit it’s a disease, like everything that goes beyond measure… but, first of all, that means one thing for one man and another for another, and, second, one must of course maintain a certain measure and calculation in everything, even if it’s vile; but what can one do? Without that, really, one might perhaps have to shoot oneself.” (471) To Svidrig morality is relative—nothing is entirely good or entirely evil—but to Rodya there is a clear distinction, which is why he cannot sympathize with Svidrig. Also, Svidrig would rather kill himself than live without pleasure, which is the greatest motivating force for Svidrig, even though it comes at the expense of moral righteousness.
Although Svidrig is haunted by a series of dreams that reminds him of the depravity of his crimes, he does not struggle against them like Rodya does. Rodya has moral principles that he wants to live up to, so he struggles to reconcile what his conscience tells him and his ideas—he keeps wanting to convince himself that there is a chance for atonement, and despairs when he doubts the possibility of redemption. But Svidrig is passive in his guilt. With Rodya it’s that he failed to suppress his guilt, but with Svidrig it’s as if he had always been far away from any danger of regret but finally, just before his suicide, guilt had raided his conscience and overwhelmed him. Svidrig kills himself not because he realizes that morally he is a louse and doesn’t deserve to live, but because there is no longer any pleasure for him once depravity becomes unbearable.
I just gad one of those moments when you are laying in bed and realize you totally forgot to do something. Namely this blog post. So please don’t penalize my group members this is all my fault if it is considered late! We had it done in class though.
Our notes on Svidrigailov:
-He is a foil for Rodya
-Wants to break up Rodya and his sister/mother. Puts them against one another.
-We also thought it was interesting that even though they are foils of each other they are alike too. Svidrigailov compares himself to Rodya. Part 4, Chapter 7 “Didn’t I say there was something in common between us?... Wasn’t I right in saying that we were birds of a feather?”
-Svidrigailov condemns himself constantly
-Svidrigailov comes closest to the “superman” figure. Rodya tries to imitate his excellence.
-He does not hold himself to the laws of society. Rodya wants this too. Might be jealous of Svidrigailov.
- They both have opposite motivation. Extroversion vs. introversion. Rodya has a heart to do good but doesn’t want the glory of it. He will give money in secret or help someone out with out thinking of what others may think of him. Unlike Svidrigailov who uses his money and power to promote himself. Only being charitable to get the attention of others.
-Rodya is described by his friend as alternating between two characters; those characters could be Razumihin (good) and Svidrigailov (evil).
*sorry this is not in well written paragraphs but this is how I took the notes!
The other members in my group were Trevor, Sarah Doty and Evan
Blog for Keli Zhou and Jennifer Nguyen
Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov are eerily similar in many respects. Both give money to help others after a bad experience or feelings of guilt. Raskolnikov does this by giving money to the Marmelodovs and by helping the young drunken girl in the street from an unfavorable encounter with an older gentleman by giving money to a policeman to get her home. Svidrigailov gives a large sum of money to Dunya after seeing that she truly does not love him but is rather scared of him. He does this to make up for the bad relationship between them. Svidrigailov also gives money to Katerina Ivanovna after she is evicted from her home.
Both men have strange dreams that affect their lives. Raskolnikov's dreams foreshadow the violence that he will commit and they also act as a warning from his subconscious and even make him late to the scene of the murder. In this way, his dreams play into the main plot of the story by ultimately causing him to murder Lizaveta as well as Alyona and they also haunt him after the murder as well. Svidrigailov's most significant dream occurs after his encounter with Dunya in which he feels depressed, drinks himself into a stupor, then dreams of a woman who commits suicide by drowning and a 5 year old whore. He awakes and is so disgusted with himself and the dream and having already had a miserable encounter with his love Dunya, he commits suicide. Both Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov have nightmares that factor into their lives directly, a trait that only the two of them have.
Also, both try to help other people with good intentions even if things don't quite turn out how they expected. Raskolnikov helps Marmeladov, a complete stranger, get home after hearing his pitiful story, he also continues to help the Marmeladov family whenever he sees them by giving money, and he helps a young girl in the street. His actions are not dictated by any thing other than his (sometime stray) moral compass. Svidrigailov helps others sometimes beyond his means as well for no other reason than his own want to do so. This shows that both men have consciences but how they react in turn to their subconscious is unique for both.
However, we thought Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov are like the same person on parallel paths. Though they are both alike in many ways, the way they feel guilt and interact with others is very different. Raskolnikov is a loner who lives inside his head and does not understand and does not want to fit in with the rest of society or be "normal". He also tries to suppress his guilt and his conscience in order to follow his ideals, which dictate his more radical side, the same side that commits the murder. Svidrigailov, on the other hand, is more of a normal functioning member of society who does not mind conforming or standing out in the same way Raskolnikov wants to. Svidrigailov craves company and even pursues Dunya relentlessly to obtain it. He is also haunted by feelings of guilt from his past and does not try to suppress it, but rather do things like helping others to relieve these feelings.
Svidrigailov stated in the book (we couldn't find the page exactly), that at the end of one's life, you can either choose Siberia or a bullet in the head, and this describes the paths that he and Raskolnikov are on perfectly. Svidrigailov chooses the more passive end of a bullet in the head, while Raskolnikov continues to fight throughout his life and do the time for his actions.
Svidrigailov may appear on the surface to be somewhat of a "superman." Svidrigailov is a man who basically does whatever he wants. This could be viewed as being superman-- by doing what he wants he could be said to be living an ideal life. But the truth is, Svidrigailov is a man without ideals. He has a lot of ability, but nothing to ideal, no goal to channel it towards. Because of this, he lives his life on a whim, doing whatever suits his mood. One minute he could be raping an innocent young girl, the next he could be giving money to impoverished people. He is like a drifter, accepting that he has no control over life, and just going with the flow-- the complete opposite of a superman. However, the terrible things he does haunt him, beyond even the point of being able to balance them with good deeds. What is often viewed as his "superman" complex is really him attempting to justify his actions by extreme pride.
By Andrei and Udit
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
You can also follow any responses to all entry through the RSS Comments feed.