ENLS319

In Part III, Chaper 5 of Crime and Punishment, Roskolnikov engages with the suspicious Porfiry and discusses his belief in the New Jerusalem. Our protagonist introduces two types of people: one, the lower type, which preserves the world and a second, the higher type, which “moves the world and leads it toward a goal.” He says “Both the one and the other have perfectly equal right to exist. In short, for me all men’s right are equivalent — and vive la guerre éternell — until the New Jerusalem, of course!” Porfiry then questions Roskolnikov’s belief in the New Jerusalem, even asking if he believes in the literal miracles of Jesus.

The concept of the New Jerusalem is a repeating Christian novel theme in Crime and Punishment. In Chapter II of S. L. Frank’s “The Meaning of Life,” a New Jerusalem is introduced as a concept deeply embedded in Russian history. Russians, Frank says, suffer from the meaningless state of life. They believe that it not enough for one to “simply live,” but rather, one must live for something. This idea is central to the question, “What is to be done?” which begs for any work or activity one must complete in order to access a meaning-filled life. It operates under the following premises:

1. The world is meaningless in its immediate being.
2. Human beings are “called” to save this meaningless world by transfiguring it into an organized state that makes clear what its supreme goal is.
3. Therefore, human beings ponder “What is to be done?,” as if to say,
   “what action can be taken in order to expose the world’s absolute truth and absolute meaning?”

From this logical progression, Russian intelligentsia believed that such an action was a revolutionary destruction of the old order, and its replacement with a new democratic system. However, as this goal was obtained, the establishment of socialistic order failed to bring meaning to life, and, through blood and hatred, actually stripped it of any meaning it had.

Therefore, Frank suggests that “What is to be done?” should not be a call to action, but rather a movement to seek truth. It should be interpreted as “How can I live in such a way that I will illuminate my life with meaning and thus give it an unshakeable foundation?” and that is all one can do. He urges that establishing a successful state of tranquility cannot be accomplished by the human. This idea takes form in the concept of the New Jerusalem, which can only be established by God.

The ideas expressed in Roskolnikov’s article have strong ties to nihilism, which makes his belief in the New Jerusalem confusing to Porfiry. As discussed above, belief in the New Jerusalem contradicts with the idea of the nihilistic uberman, as the establishment of such a state can only be accomplished by God.

REASSIGNMENT OF CULPABILITY TO THE ENVIRONMENT

In Crime and Punishment, Book I, Raskolnikov commits a brutal murder of Alyona and Lizaveta. Much of his Raskolnikov’s internal conflict in the novel consists of avoiding responsibility for his crime, and looking at excuses that allow him to justify his act and blame the environment. In Chapter 3 of A Writer’s Diary, Dostoevsky discusses the role of environment in the motivations of Russian jurors. He says that jurors in Russia regularly acquit peasants who are charged with horrible crimes. While some theories maintain that this is due to the jurors’ desire to spite authorities or his inclination to align with Christian beliefs and give mercy whenever possible, Dostoevsky argues that the real motivation stems from the juror’s assignment of blame to the environment. The poor juror is inclined to blame the environment rather than the accused, because he fears that he is not so much better than the accused. The rich juror believes that the accused is an “unfortunate” victim of the environment because the juror believes that his own position and status was obtained by chance. In other words, the poor juror believes that he could have just as well — or worse — committed a crime like the accused, and the rich juror believes he could have if it weren’t for chance. In either case, the environment is more to blame than is the accused.

Dostoevsky argues that acquitting those guilty of a crime out of mercy is unChristian-like and dangerous to society. Rather than avoid the pain resulting from contributing to a guilty verdict, the juror must invite this pain as something that will “purge [him] and make [him] better,” and motivate him to improve the environment. On the contrary, to acquit out of fear of pain will result in the belief that there are no crimes and the environment is to blame. This is both anti-Christian and against civic duty. For the accused, his purification is easier through his suffering than it is by wholesale acquittal.

In Book I, Raskolnikov becomes his own juror. He wants so desperately to avoid responsibility, he renders himself a pawn of fate and, as a result, gives up his own autonomy. In his avoidance of assuming responsibility for his actions, and the identity of a perpetrator, he is swallowed by his victimhood of his environment and fate. Interestingly, he has trouble blaming fate for his murder of Lizaveta. Therefore, by introducing the murder of Lizaveta, Dostoevsky embeds his argument in A Writer’s Diary within Crime and Punishment that one should not find responsibility in the environment. In Book II, Dostoevsky makes it increasingly difficult for Raskolnikov to blame the environment as we see the punishment for Raskolnikov’s crime in his suffering and deteriorating sanity. His suffering also develops the theme present in Christian novels of relational identity, as Raskolnikov becomes more and more isolated from society, he is increasingly tortured.