Introduction
Dostoevsky often focused on similar ideas across his books, and this is especially true for Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment. These famous books closely resemble each other in tone, characters, and ideas despite being totally different stories. In this essay, I will be exploring the idea that repentance is sickening to a prideful intellectual, which Dostoevsky introduces in Notes from Underground, and show how he not only develops but resolves this idea in Crime and Punishment. Paradoxically, Dostoevsky’s method of resolution utilizes prostitutes as images of Christ, which I will delve into as well. In order to examine the evolution of his idea, I will be focusing on the main character from each novel, the Underground Man (UM) and Raskolnikov, and differentiating between their paths as prideful sinners. This concept ultimately plays a minor role in Notes from Underground, as Dostoevsky cares more about addressing rational and psychological egoism within society in that book, but it is still one of the underlying themes of the story that is then focused on in Crime and Punishment.
It is necessary to first examine how Dostoevsky established these characters as “prideful intellectuals,” in order to appreciate their reasoning behind denying the idea of repentance. They both exhibit overt arrogance in the capacity of their own intellect, and the ideas they have faith in. The UM spoke of his own genius quite openly as he literally said, “I’m to blame, first, because I’m more intelligent than everyone around me” in the first 10 pages of the book and referenced his superiority throughout the rest of the story. Raskolnikov was portrayed in a very similar way. His friends at university described him as looking on others “as children, from above, as though he were ahead of them all in development, in knowledge, and in convictions, and that he regarded their convictions and interests as something inferior.” These are obviously descriptions of two characters that are proud of their own worldview and look down on other characters because of it.
The Pride Before The Fall
But why exactly did this prideful intellect lead to them denying the need for repentance? Repentance, in the Eastern Orthodox faith, is acknowledging your wrongdoing, being sorrowful for it, and turning your behavior away from your sin and towards a new way of life. The UM and Raskolnikov had unwavering faith in ideas that actually made it inconceivable for this doctrine to logically exist. The UM, for instance, doesn’t believe that man is capable of change, so obviously turning from his sinful ways would be impossible. Also, he believes that everyone should act in their immediate self-interest, which means that their actions in pursuit of profit can’t be defined as “wrong.” So, there isn’t even a need for guilt in his worldview. Raskolnikov on the other hand, renders repentance and redemption pointless through his belief that a certain portion of society has been set apart as “extraordinary.” His ideas are very similar to Nietzsche’s proposal of the “Übermensch”. To this extraordinary group, traditional moral obligations do not apply, so there is no need to feel shame when those lines are crossed. Ultimately with their worldviews, repentance is a silly and unnecessary evil.
Need For Redemption
Despite their beliefs, Dostoevsky makes it very clear that both characters need redemption. He achieves this necessity for redemption in two ways: the two men violate common moral standards that reveal them to be “bad” people, and they experience mental, social, and physiological repercussions for their actions. First, Dostoevsky let them act on their prideful ideas and they commit real, tragic sins. This way nearly all of society and the audience would understand the characters as “sinners.” Although, the main idea of Notes from Underground isn’t to label the UM as a sinner, but more so to illustrate the problems with rational egoism. Regardless of the emphasis, the UM’s sins are still many: spite, jealousy, desire to drag others down with him, his attempt at having power over Liza (a prostitute), and his complete lack of love, just to name a few. And Dostoevsky doesn’t hold back in establishing Raskolnikov as a sinner, as he literally kills a woman in the first part of the book! One of the main purposes of Crime and Punishment was to map out the path to repentance for a sinner, so it was necessary for him to have Raskolnikov commit something concrete. The need for repentance and redemption is obvious in both characters but it had to be carried to the extreme in Raskolnikov to show the necessity for a solution, which is eventually provided.
Even though most members of society would recognize their actions as repulsive, the characters themselves had worldviews that were impervious to this idea of “bad” that we already addressed. But their need for redemption is portrayed to them through the suffering they experience within themselves, and their relationships, despite their heinous beliefs. The UM speaks of his “overly consciousness” throughout the novella as a sickness. One way of interpreting this is that he is overly aware of his wickedness, and he believes he is incapable of surpassing it. But even when he devotes himself to ideas that seem to undermine a need for shame, this over-consciousness never leaves him and he hates himself for it. The UM is also very physically sick, and refuses to get help, both because of his pride and his love for suffering that he knows is required of him. In the very name of the other novel, Crime and Punishment, you can see that a large portion of the story is devoted to punishment. But the punishment that Raskolnikov experiences isn’t from authority figures for the most part. It is within his own head, body, and relationships that he sees the most destruction after the murder. It is made clear through these worldly sufferings that the main characters deviated from the holy and needed redemption. Dostoevsky wrote about the signs and symptoms of sin as repercussions for their actions, to push them towards a savior.
Objective Good and Evil
It also seems they inherently understood the concept of an objective good and evil and its presence in the world, but they couldn’t apply it to their own life and admit their own sinfulness. You see this idea when the UM acknowledges the wrongness of sex without the presence of love, and when he is breaking down everything that is amiss in Liza’s life after they sleep together. This knowledge is present in Raskolnikov as well, when he attempts to thwart the plans of a man preying on a drunk girl, and when he is spitefully revealing Sonya’s hopeless situation to her. Raskolnikov even realizes that he acknowledges good and evil and tries to go against it over and over. They attempt to deny their shame and convictions by arguing with themselves, and even trying to convince others of their ideas. But there was no amount of reason that could drive either one of them to repentance. The pride in their intellect perpetually kept the both of them from turning to anything besides their own ideas. This is ultimately why Dostoevsky introduces the lost characters to Christ figures. These representations of Christ are the two prostitutes: Liza and Sonya. The UM and Raskolnikov are both presented with the opportunity to walk with their “savior” down the path of salvation, which ultimately encounters repentance. But they choose to recognize and interact with their own archetypal Christ in different ways, which leads to different outcomes.
Unlikely Christ Figures
Before analyzing their decisions, it is important to note why Dostoevsky used such pronounced sinners as figures of Christ. It seems counterintuitive and even heretical at first glance, but it is actually essential for the characters who introduce the UM and Raskolnikov to salvation, to be sinners. It mirrors the biblical idea that God became man in order to save man from his own sins, “God made Him who Had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” He was put on the same level as humanity, so He could save them from the death in sin that had a hold of them. Dostoevsky utilizes this idea by putting the Christ figures on the same level as sinners, despite the known moral superiority of Liza and Sonya. A deeper relationship is forged between the saviors and the fallen because of this equal standing. The UM was unworthy of a relationship with any woman not in a lower or equal position than Liza, and Raskolnikov could go to Sonya because she knew what it was like to have sinned and been publicly shamed for it. He also knew she loved everyone around her with little regard for whether they deserved it or not. Prostitutes represent Christ in both stories, and they’re the only ones capable of leading the sinners to the path of redemption. They obviously aren’t in perfect relation with a biblical Christ because He never sinned, but it accomplishes the intended idea.
Because of the presence of Sonya and the relationship that results from her, Crime and Punishment closes with Raskolnikov actually starting down the path of salvation. The important aspect of this sudden turn is that it wasn’t propelled by a sudden argument of reason or revelation of clarity, which Raskolnikov and the UM built their lives upon. This is because Dostoevsky shows faith not as a knowledge problem, but as a spiritual problem, and that gap is bridged through the presence of love. Sonya ultimately delivers salvation and the Gospel to Raskolnikov with the vessel of love, not a logical argument. This allows him to trust her. Her representation of sacrificial and unending love was the only thing that could overpower the pride that Raskolnikov had in his own ideas and push him towards repentance. The UM had a similar opportunity for this through Liza at the end of Notes from Underground, although the Gospel isn’t as explicitly offered there. He stated, “and I myself never guessed that she had come to me not at all to hear pathetic words, but to love me, because for a woman it is in love that all resurrection, all salvation from ruin of whatever sort, and all regeneration consists, nor can it reveal itself in anything else but this.” The gift was offered to him by Liza, but he chose not to accept it. Instead, his pride took over and fueled the desire for power over Liza. His pride kept him from repentance, and as a result, salvation. Remember Judas who, after having his feet washed by Jesus and being fed bread dipped in wine, still betrayed Christ. There was an offering of salvation and a relationship for the UM, but he chose not to accept it, and that led to his own despair. Whereas Raskolnikov was offered this relationship and chose to accept it, leading to salvation.
Conclusion
Dostoevsky ultimately makes the point in Notes from Underground and Crime and Punishment that a reasoning that occurs outside of love is impossible and only leads to personal misfortune and societal tragedy. He shows that belief in these dangerous ideas leads to a worldview where repentance is so sickening it’s obsolete, and as a result, so is salvation. One must remember that he developed this notion not because it is rare, but because this prideful intellectualism is a common roadblock to repentance for many, especially today. But he delivers a redemptive close to this idea in Crime and Punishment, showing that love can prevail, and real love can point even the most lost and prideful humans to the cross, where real redemption and salvation is found.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Page 130. Pevear, Richard; Volokhonsky, Larissa
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Page 54. Pevear, Richard; Volokhonsky, Larissa.
3 Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Page 6. Pevear, Richard; Volokhonsky, Larissa.
4 2 Cor. 5:21, NIV
5 Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Notes from Underground. Page 130. Pevear, Richard; Volokhonsky, Larissa.
