Showing posts with label dostoevsky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dostoevsky. Show all posts

Saturday, May 14, 2022

Illegal Dreams

 


In Dostoevsky’s novella, The Village of Stepanchikovo, the petty tyrant Foma Fomich informs a servant that he is not allowed to dream of a white bear. Every morning he questions him: “All right, what did you see in your dreams?” And every morning the poor wretch owns up, sobbing: “Forgive me, Foma Fomich, but last night I dreamed again of a white bear.”

 We old-timer Southerners in The Age of the Covid, whom do we see in our dreams? The illegal Robert E. Lee. When we were children, sweating our way through the segregated schools of the Old South, in the age before air conditioning, we were taught one firm irrefutable truth: Robert E. Lee is the greatest man who ever lived.

 

--You’re not allowed to dream of Robert E. Lee anymore. He’s officially illegal; we’re tearing all his statues down.

                --Fine. If you say so.

                (Two days pass)

                --Okay, dammit, tell me who you dreamed of last night.

                --Urghh. Sorry. Robert E. Lee.

 

Our Stone-Age Ancestors Were Smart

“There are Neolithic skulls dating from 6500 B.C. with holes that testify to trepanation, a treatment that involved drilling through the cranium, presumably to let out malign spirits.”

New Yorker, April 20, 2020

 Drill a hole in my head, let the bad vibes out. And release the illegals who still take up space in my brain: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Christopher Columbus.

 (sings) Oh I wish I was in the Land of Cotton, old times there are not forgotten, look away . . . urghh, sorry, I forgot that song is illegal.

[excerpted from the book by U.R. Bowie, HERE WE BE. WHERE BE WE?]



Saturday, February 20, 2021

Dostoevsky Reads WAR AND PEACE

 


Dostoevsky Reads War and Peace

Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment was serialized in Katkov’s journal The Russian Messenger, beginning in the January and February issues of 1866. At times early chapters of War and Peace were running in that same journal concurrently with C and P. By the time first chapters of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot ran there as well (January, 1868), Dostoevsky had read half of War and Peace and was eager to read the rest. As he wrote to his friend, Apollon Maikov, “I should so much like to read the whole thing . . . It seems to me quite a major work, although unfortunately it has too many psychological details. I wish there were fewer of them. On the other hand, though, perhaps just because of these details it has so many good things.”

Aware that he was in competition with a genuine writer, Dostoevsky often tempered his admiration for Tolstoy with criticism. He could not conceal a certain envy. He was offended by remarks made by the critic Nikolai Strakhov, a long-time friend who was in ecstasy over Tolstoy’s War and Peace. In a critical article Strakhov once wrote that “Count Tolstoy did not attempt to entice the reader with any complicated and mysterious adventures, or the description of any scabrous and horrifying scenes, or the depiction of terrible spiritual agony, or, finally, any sort of daring, new tendencies that stimulate in an unhealthy way the imagination of the reader.” Dostoevsky saw such remarks as aimed at himself, and he was probably right.

Although for a long time Strakhov dined regularly with the Dostoevsky family in St. Petersburg, he and Dostoevsky never much liked each other. Strakhov paid the writer back tenfold for any personal slights, when, in 1883—after Dostoevsky’s death—he wrote a letter to Tolstoy, repeating vicious gossip that painted Dostoevsky as a pedophile. This canard, which came to light only after Strakhov himself was dead, has taken on a life of its own, as people, unfortunately, delight in believing the worst about great men.

Back to War and Peace. Shortly before the birth of Dostoevsky’s second child, Lyubov—she was born in Dresden on September 26, 1869—Strakhov had sent him the book publication of War and Peace. Dostoevsky, however, pretended that one of the volumes had been misplaced. Since in 1868 they had lost their first baby born abroad, Sofya, and since his wife Anna Grigorievna was fearful about giving birth again, he wanted to shield from her the passage describing the death in childbirth of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky’s wife in the novel. [Information above is from Joseph Frank, Dostoevsky: The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871, p. 278-79, 350-51, 368.]

d

Dostoevsky’s great dream was to write a novel substantial enough to vie with the novels of his two great rivals, Turgenev and Tolstoy. He felt a sense of inferiority to both of them, and part of that had its origins in his low social status. Turgenev and Tolstoy were both of the high nobility. They never had to live hand to mouth, as did Dostoevsky almost the whole of his life, and one can understand his bitter complaints that he—had he not been oppressed perpetually by financial constraints, had he not had to rush his works into print because he needed money—would have had the time and leisure to perfect his style.

Comparing him to Turgenev today seems ludicrous, as his fictional works—their psychological and philosophical content—is so much more profound than that of Turgenev. Late in his career he hoped to complete his Life of a Great Sinner, a work that would rival War and Peace in scope and profundity. He completed only the first volume, The Brothers Karamazov, but if you take into account the aggregate of his novelistic production: five big novels, beginning with the prelude novella, Notes from the Underground, and ending with The Brothers Karamazov, he did manage a literary oeuvre inferior perhaps only to Tolstoy in Russian literature.



Wednesday, July 15, 2020

MAX ERNST and The Transgressive Nature of Looking, LOOKING GOOD, novel by U.R.BOWIE


My latest novel, Looking Good, has just been published. The above is what I had envisaged as the cover of the work, but, alas, I could not get permission to use the Max Ernst painting.


U.R. Bowie


The Transgressive Nature of Looking

Max Ernst, “The Blessed Virgin Chastising the Child Jesus Before Three Witnesses: A.B. [André Breton], P.E. [Paul Eluard], and the Artist,” 1926.

I was introduced to this painting by the art critic Leo Steinberg, who, in an article titled “This Is a Test,” commented on the Max Ernst exhibition (1993) at the Museum of Modern Art, New York. Ernst, writes Steinberg, emphasizes the transgressive, even blasphemous act of looking at this painting. He first establishes that the three witnesses described in the title—although pictured in a square window at the back—are not looking at this disturbing scene at all. We see the profiles of Breton and Eluard, and, standing behind them, Max Ernst, who is staring with a very intense gaze not at Mother and Child, but at the spectator in the gallery, i.e., at you and me who look. Why are two of the “witnesses” not looking out the window at all? We can only surmise. Perhaps they have already looked, and, disgusted with what they saw, have turned away.

Leo Steinberg’s main point is that anyone viewing this painting in a gallery is conniving with forces of evil in an act of blasphemy. “The painting is engineered to embarrass; so long as I look, I am exposed to the artist’s accusing gaze as he watches the churl in me trapped in the act of ogling a sacrilege” (New York Review of Books, May 13, 1993, p. 24).

Later, also in the NYRB (May 26, 2005, p.6), John Updike comments on the painting, then on exhibition again at the Met. He makes reference to the Steinberg article, quoting the passage about blasphemous looking. He also has this to say: “The original exhibition, including Ernst’s assaultive painting . . . was closed by church pressure because of it; at the Met, alone on a large wall and protected by glass against possible Christian vandals, it exerts a sensuous spell . . . 

While this scene cannot be enrolled in Christian iconography—it has no Gospel authority, for one thing—Ernst has created something iconic, which all who take seriously the doctrine of the Incarnation, and all it entails, cannot lightly dismiss.”

But now it appears that Ernst did not himself invent this scene of Mother whipping Child. Still later, in a letter written to NYRB (September 22, 2005, p. 85) Steinberg amplifies his original assertions. In response to his earlier piece, a reader had written him, suggesting that Ernst may have been privy to an Appalachian folk ballad, originating, apparently in Scotland, as early as the fourteenth century. In this song the boy Jesus gets even with three other boys who have refused to play with him:

We are sons of lords and ladies all,
And born in bower and hall,
While you are only a Jew-maid’s child,
Born in an ox’s stall.

He builded a bridge from the beams of the sun
And over the water danced he,
There followed him those rich young men
And drownded they were all three.

Then Mary mild fetched home her child
And laid him across her knee,
She took a switch from the withy tree,
And gave him slashes three.

I have not looked into any other research on the painting, but I suspect that European specialists in art have unearthed other examples of folk legends that may have inspired Ernst. There are more descriptions of the boy Jesus in the non-canonical Gnostic Gospels. The theme of looking as blasphemous is featured in various works of world literature. For example, in Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov, the rather twisted girl, Liza Khokhlakova takes a voluptuous pleasure in looking at the crucified Christ: “Sometimes I imagine that it was I who crucified him. He hangs there moaning, and I sit down facing him, eating pineapple compote. I like pineapple compote very much. Do you?” 

Much influenced by Dostoevsky, the twentieth-century writer Fyodor Sologub has a similar scene in his novel, The Petty Demon. The voluptuary Ludmila says, “I dream of Him sometimes, you know. He is on the cross and there are little droplets of blood on His body.”

d

What does any of this have to do with my novel, Looking Good? To answer briefly, a major theme of the novel is the transgressive nature of looking, how looking can sometimes be associated with violence. The major event of the novel is a gang rape, committed by football players in a hotel room. Throughout the novel the act of looking is treated in a variety of ways; at its most violent and aggressive, it verges on rape.

Poem by Carol Ann Duffy

The Virgin Punishing the Infant

He spoke early. Not the goo goo goo of infancy,
but I am God. Joseph kept away, carving himself
a silent Pinocchio out in the workshed. He said
he was a simple man and hadn't dreamed of this.

She grew anxious in that second year, would stare
at stars saying Gabriel, Gabriel. Your guess.
The village gossiped in the sun. The child was solitary,
his wide and solemn eyes could fill your head.

After he walked, our normal children crawled. Our wives
were first resentful, then superior. Mary's child
would bring her sorrow ... better far to have a son
who gurgled nonsense at your breast. Googoo. Googoo.

But I am God. We heard him through the window,
heard the smacks which made us peep. What we saw
was commonplace enough. But afterwards, we wondered
why the infant did not cry, why the Mother did.




Thursday, July 9, 2020

The Russian Game of Yell




The Russian Game of Yell
(“Russian Mindsets Series”)

Russians love haranguing one another in public. Shop girls, people standing in lines—any place that strangers come together, interact, there will be strife. Of course, there may also be strife in courtrooms, political forums, at family gatherings, etc., but that is not the topic of this piece. This is about how strangers relate to one another on the streets, at the windows of kiosks, or at any other glass-covered windows, where the petitioner has to bend down to the small slot at the bottom, so as to make himself heard by the scowling woman behind that thick glass, who is “serving” him.

The first thing that strikes any American tourist visiting Russia is the spirit of brusqueness and petulance that envelops the country like a dark cloud. Ask a simple question of a person in the “service industry,” and you may get a snarl in reply. Don’t expect service with a smile at the front desk of your hotel (unless it’s a hotel for foreigners); sometimes you will not even be treated with what Americans consider the bare minimum of politeness.

In fact, Russians are completely acculturated to brusque interactions—between shoppers and salespersons, between strangers on the streets, between petitioners and those who wait on them in the halls of the complex bureaucracy, etc. In such situations what Americans see as rudeness is, for Russians, just the norm.

Recently much has been made of the Russian tendency to stroll about the streets with dour faces.[i] On the basis of this one fact sunny-faced American tourists often return from Moscow or St. Petersburg in astonishment: how come everybody over there is so unhappy? They’re uncouth, they treat people gruffly, they never smile, etc. Russians, with some justification, have replied that just because you are not smiling all the time, that does not mean you are unhappy. Russians smile when they have a reason for smiling. True, but they also (1) often look upon smiling foreigners as idiots or fools, and (2) deprecate their own compatriots if they smile overmuch.  

It seems that somebody in the government has picked up on this, because there are propaganda posters in the Moscow metro system of late (2009), inveigling people to smile more. Is this the beginning of a new official policy? Is it aimed, primarily, at encouraging more polite treatment of foreign tourists who visit Russia? If whoever came up with the idea for this “piar” (P.R.) campaign really thinks that these posters will do any good, however, that unknown person has another think coming. Why? Because changing long-standing cultural stances anywhere is a near impossible task.

Can you equate smiling with happiness? By no means. Smiles are used for all kinds of reasons, and a smiling face does not automatically make for a happy person. In the recent Hollywood film “Ghost Town” there is an American woman who sits in a dental chair, blathering on incessantly about her son, smiling broadly—except when the irascible dentist, an Englishman, plugs up her teeth and mouth with dental paraphernalia. Only at the end of the film do we learn that this is her way of expressing (or concealing) her pain, since she has recently lost her husband. The American smile, as well as the American reply, “Just fine,” to the automatic “How you doing?” question, are often used (1) for stifling inner pain (2) for keeping private sorrows private, or (3) for self-encouragement. “Pretend you’re happy when you’re blue” is the American way. Yes, we Americans do like to whine, but we also understand that the default cultural stance, ultimately, is optimism. “You’ll find that life is still worthwhile, if you just smile.”

If you keep on smiling and pretend long enough, you might even pretend your way out of the blues, or (let’s hope) the global economic recession and the pandemic. I once saw a psychological study claiming that not only smiling, but also the very movement of the lips into the position of the smile, help elevate a person’s spirits. Can’t prove this, but it just might make sense.

Is happiness measurable? Hardly. No one can even define the word “happiness,” and different individuals have different measures of personal happiness. Americans over-medicate their unhappiness, their depression and anxiety, and Russians are right to criticize us for this. It is, however, difficult to ignore altogether the annual “Happy Person Index.” The most recent one I saw ranked Russia at #174 out of the 176 countries listed. It is also impossible to ignore the suicide rates for the Russian Federation. Perhaps one reason the government is promoting smiles is that it hopes to promote more happiness and less disgruntlement in these difficult economic times.

Getting Russians to overcome a thousand years of cultural mores, of course, is, perhaps, the biggest problem that the country has. One of these cultural mores is the imperative not to smile too much. Another is the sheer joy that Russians take in disgruntlement.

Is it possible to find gratification in grumpy behavior, or even in pain? Absolutely. While pain is practically against the law in the U.S.A., it is certainly not so thoroughly disparaged in Russia. Severe asceticism and mortification of the flesh are big in the tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church. A passage from the Orthodox prayer book goes as follows: “I thank Thee, O Lord, for the sorrow Thou hast sent me; as something meet and proper I accept it in accord with my deeds. Pray for me in Thy Heavenly Kingdom.”[ii]

In his novel about the tribulations of an émigré Russian professor in the America of the fifties, PNIN, Vladimir Nabokov eviscerates American meliorism and rants against the Freudian love of “psychobabble,” which is still extremely popular in the U.S. fifty years later. At one point Professor Pnin states his opinion that “The history of man is the history of pain!” At another point he propagates the following “un-American” message: “Why not leave their private sorrows to people? Is sorrow not, one asks, the only thing in the world people really possess?”[iii]

Back to the antagonism on the streets, in the queues, in the stores, etc. Russians often play a kind of subconscious game called “You yell at me and then I yell at you.” If you are in Russia, you’ll see this sort of thing going on all the time: people fighting over taxis, arguing with those who butt into lines, etc. Long standoffs often ensue. I once watched (in Moscow) a verbal duel between an old woman and a hippified teenage girl. I was not there to see the beginning of this episode, but when I walked by I noticed the girl (with a group of other young people) and the woman, railing at each other. The old woman’s dog had grabbed ahold of the girl’s coat sleeve with its teeth and held her arm tight. The interchange went (on and on) as follows: the girl cursed and cursed and told the old lady to get the dog off her. Occasionally her friends chimed in, adding some strong opinions in support of the girl with the dog on her arm. The old lady, for her part, repeated, over and over, the words, “Ne rugajtes’ matom!” (“Stop using bad language!”).

Years ago I also once saw a bus conductor try to throw off some “zajtsy”—people who had not bought tickets and were trying to ride for free. Maybe they refused to exit the bus because it was not the conductor’s job to evict them—that was up to a special ticket inspector who would get on the bus periodically and check all riders for tickets. The conductor took it upon himself to stop the bus and demand that the illegal riders get off, and the illegal riders sat tight. The antagonists mouthed back and forth at one another, but both sides remained adamant. The other passengers began grumbling over the stalemate because the bus was not moving. Like the friends of the young lady whose arm was in the dog’s mouth, they (the passengers) created a kind of background chorus for the two main polemical melodies. Yielding, breaking off your song (and maybe this is the most important point) means, of course, that you lose face—and shame yourself in front of the chorus of onlookers.

These arguments are certainly genuine, yet somehow they strike me as simultaneously ritualized play arguments. The game of yell livens up what, for many Russians, is a dreary and lackluster life. If you get in a fight (even if you lose), you’ll feel more alive afterwards—hyped up psychologically. On the other hand, if you prefer not to play the game of yell, your best tack—I use this all the time when I’m in Russia—is to reply to the yeller in a very calm voice. Say, placidly, “Why are you yelling at me? Do you think that’s a civilized way to behave in public? Am I yelling at you?” This usually gets them befuddled and stops the game. They walk away, muttering to themselves, “Stupid foreigner; doesn’t even know how to play the game of yell.”

When putting my website together a couple of years ago, I had a young Russian woman read through my commentary on Russian mentalities. She did so, then sent me an e-mail, in which she commented that she was impressed, while simultaneously entertained, by my opinions. “You seem to know,” she said, “more about us than we know about ourselves.”

This hardly seems possible; it’s most certainly not true. But it is feasible that the viewpoint of a foreigner may have validity, especially one like me, who speaks Russian and has studied the culture of the country for forty years. After all, even if you are a proficient acrobat, you can’t leap outside yourself, then look back and evaluate the soul and psyche you just were a part of. Similarly, Russians are hard put to step out of the national mythology they live by, in order to stand aside and take a fresh look at it, and themselves.

The great émigré scholar George Fedotov once implied, furthermore, that foreigners, being at one remove from Russians in the flesh, may be able to see something of the forest through the birch trees.[iv] Russian views on American idiosyncrasies (from informed observers) should also be much appreciated. They (usually) are not. The reason is simple: nobody wants an outsider rummaging around in his cherished cultural mores.

When I taught one course on Russian literature as a Fulbright Scholar at Novgorod State University a few years ago, were there any professors in the Department of Russian Literature who thought that I, an American and non-native speaker, had any valid points to make about Russian literature? There was a grand total of one—the brilliant young scholar who had been assigned to chaperone me around while I was there, who sat in on my classes—so that none of the others would have to bother with me. At the end of my sojourn in Novgorod I gave two open lectures on Vladimir Nabokov, in Russian, well attended and much appreciated by the students who were there. None of the professors from the department showed up for those lectures either.

Such widespread cultural chauvinism, however, was not characteristic of a certain renowned professor at a famous Russian university (we will name no names, places, or dates). This professor published an article on a nineteenth century Russian writer who is canonical. The bulk of the article was plagiarized from a book written, in English, by an American woman scholar.

My respondent, the young woman who checked my website, disagreed with a few things I said, including, most prominently, my remarks about Russian yelling. She insisted that this is not a game at all: that Russians are genuinely antagonized, and that’s why they’re always going chin to chin. I agree. Am I ambivalent? Well, as the old joke goes, yes and no. By this I mean that when strangers rail at one another in all sorts of public situations they (1) are dead serious and (2) are playing a kind of game and deriving psychological satisfaction from the play. Can a human being be dead serious and playing a game simultaneously? Absolutely. We do this on a daily basis. Of all nationalities, furthermore, Russians may be the most masterful at performing in this psychological theater of the absurd.  

Related to the yelling thing is the importance of pecking orders in Russia. Westerners have no concept of how important it is in Russian society to establish your proper place. Countless times I have walked into a social situation, smiling, affable, joking--in other words, using the American style of social concourse: “I’m okay, you’re okay.” What response do I get from (many, but not all) Russians? I discover that they’re up in my face, pushy, condescending to me, disrespecting me. Whereupon I put on my mean side and get them out of my face. They immediately understand the mistake they have made: “Ah, so you’re higher than me on the pecking order.” Then they proceed to wheedle and kowtow to me. But they feel better anyway. At least they know where they stand.

On the other hand, this issue frequently does not even arise if you are a foreigner from the West (the U.S. or Western Europe). On the unwritten prestige list America is still No. 1, although the longstanding (centuries long) idea of the U.S. as a kind of Cinderella promised land has taken a big hit since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the past thirty years, for the first time in their history, Russians have had the opportunity to visit—or even live in—the U.S., and close contact with the American Dream has made them much more cynical about the American Dream—and about the acumen and even intelligence of the American people.

England is also near the top of that prestige list (despite all the strife between England and Russia in recent times—over BP, over closing down British NGOs, and over political murder). If you are British or American you still get an almost automatic respect in Russia. But try asking Africans, Asians, foreigners from the Third World how they are received in Russia. On the international pecking order list they are way, way down. At the very bottom are “guest workers” from former countries of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan.

It is among themselves, of course, that Russians battle most strenuously to prove that they are SOMEBODY. That is why a woman who elbows her way to the front of the taxi line, who successfully outshouts others in the line, feels so good about herself as she rides off in that taxi. “I may not have a job, I may not even have the money to afford to take this taxi home, but I showed those lowdown worms, didn’t I?”

Here is a Russian scene summing up, from a slightly different angle, much of what I have been discussing: interpersonal behavior in public places, pecking orders, smiles—and  laughter: which could be the subject of a different, broad article about Russian culture. It is from Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls, a novel composed in the 1830s, and, simultaneously, a novel telling you many important things you need to know about how Russia operates today. Using one of his expanded metaphors, Gogol describes the arrival of a high-level bureaucrat to inspect a government office (Part I, Chapter 8).

At first all the workers put on faces of joy, mingled with apprehension. They want to show the big cheese how happy they are to see him, but they are scared stiff. Then, “after the initial fear has abated,” after it becomes apparent that the cheese has “found a lot of things to be pleased with,” they relax, especially when the important personage treats them to a little joking remark. Gogol describes how that joke ripples out in laughter over the assembled government officials, how they all guffaw obsequiously and uproariously, until, finally, the ripple reaches a gendarme manning the far door, a man “who has never laughed in his whole life, who just a minute earlier had been showing his fist to the rabble outside,” and even he, the dour and strong-armed enforcer, gives vent to something like a smile—although it resembles more exactly “the kind of way somebody somehow screws up his face to sneeze, after snuffling in a strong pinch of snuff.”

I’ve never been present when the redoubtable Vladimir Putin has dropped in some Russian office for a visit, but the odds are good that—on the days Putin’s in a joking mood—he too may make a jocular remark, and if he does, we get the precise scene that Gogol has already described. Furthermore, we realize that this scene is a part of the grand human repertoire, that it has been acted out all over the world from time out of mind. This should remind us that in speaking of Russian mindsets we are often speaking, as well, about HUMAN BEHAVIOR worldwide.

That’s one thing I love about Russians: they are such human beings. They represent the grand extremes of human activity, good and bad. They, the Russians, often show aspects of ourselves to us, all blown up, magnified a hundred times. If we were to assemble people from all over the world, put them on the floor of a gymnasium and tell them to scream, who would be screaming the loudest? The Russians.

To take another example of literary prescience, Fyodor Dostoevsky described with precision the fallacies of socialism and communism—in NOTES FROM THE UNDERGROUND, in THE DEVILS, and in other works of fiction—years before Lenin seized power and the U.S.S.R. came into being, determined to put socialism into practice. The lesson here is: Read the genius of Gogol, of Dostoevsky; read classical Russian literature, the greatest literature in the world.

Returning, finally, to the issue of the obstreperous “in your face,” attitudes, I do not pretend that I have exhausted the topic in this short piece. The yelling business ties in not only with things I have mentioned, but also with any number of other intricate aspects of the Russian national character: vulnerability, distrust of everyone except close friends and relatives, the inferiority-superiority complex, and so on. These are all subjects for separate articles.




[i] See, e.g., Marina Krakovsky, “Global Psyche, National Poker Face,” Psychology Today, No. 1 (January/February, 2009).
[ii] This prayer, incidentally, did not originate in Russia. It is an ancient prayer of St. John of the Ladder, a revered figure in the early Orthodox Church (sixth century A.D.). Fasting, self-abnegation, acceptance of pain are out of favor in modern-day America, but these practices and attitudes were important in the tradition of early Christianity, to which the highly conservative Russian Orthodox Church adheres to this day.
[iii] Vladimir Nabokov, PNIN (NY: Doubleday), originally published in book form in 1957. This novel is overflowing with creative insights into the American character, presented from the viewpoint of highly intelligent Russians living in the U.S. My citations are from the 1984 paperback edition, p.168 and p.52.
[iv] “Some western writers. . . such as Leroy-Beaulieu in France, had been able to see features of Russian mind and life which had escaped Russian observers who were dulled by nearness and habit.” George P. Fedotov, THE RUSSIAN RELIGIOUS MIND (I): Kievan Christianity—the 10th to the Thirteenth Centuries (Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Publishing Co., 1975), p. xiii.

P.S.: This article was written about ten years ago, but the basic situation is little changed. In my last visit to the Russian Federation, November, 2016, I came upon the usual screaming woman behind the thick glass partition at the train station in Sergiev Posad. It was cold, dark, snowing, I was trying to buy a ticket on the electrichka back to Moscow, and I made the mistake of asking too many questions: where the platform was, how to get to it, etc. Things I needed to know, but which she assumed I should already know.



Monday, July 23, 2018

Notes to CRIME AND PUNISHMENT The Icon and the Axe






The Icon and the Axe

Among American scholarly works on Russian history and culture perhaps none ranks higher than James H. Billington’s monumental, The Icon and the Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (Alfred A. Knopf, 1966). Billington chose this title because for him “Nothing better illustrates the combination of material struggle and spiritual exultation in Old Russia than the two objects that were traditionally hung together in a place of honor on the wall of every peasant hut: the axe and the icon.”

Billington goes on to outline briefly the symbolic importance of these two objects throughout Russian history. Much of what he says has direct application to the plot and themes of Crime and Punishment. Pre-Christian tribes in what was to become Russia used axes for money and buried them ritually with their owners. Even after the coming to Russia of Christianity in 988 AD the axe remained important as the primary weapon in close-range fighting and the implement used by frontiersmen to fell trees and build structures.

Russian proverbs make frequent reference to the axe: “The axe is the head of all business; “You can make it through all the world with only an axe.” Here are a few more in Russian: “Мудер, когда в руках топор, а без топора не стоит и комара (roughly: he’s a real wise guy with an axe in his hands; take away his axe and he’s a buzzing mosquito);” “Без топора по дрова не ходят (Don’t go out chopping and leave your axe at home;” “Мужика не шуба греет, а топор (It’s not a fur coat warms a peasant; it’s an axe).”

When you are astounded by something someone has done or said you say, “Меня как обухом по голове (literally: It’s as if someone hit me on the head with the blunt end of an axe).” Which is exactly what the old usurer lady in C and P must have had ringing through her mind, since she was literally hit on the head with that blunt end.

As the Russians consolidated their new civilization in the Upper Volga region after the coming of Christianity and began spreading out to the eastern frontier, they used the axe to hack out clearings, to fell trees and build fortifications. Only in relatively recent times historically were nails widely used in building, let alone saws and planes. 

The peasants used axes for terrorizing the landed nobility in uprisings throughout early Russian history, and the tsars used axes to put down the uprisings.

The axe was also “the standard instrument of summary execution . . . . Leaders of the revolts were publicly executed by a great axe in Red Square, Moscow, in the ritual of quartering. One stroke was used to sever each arm, one for the legs, and a final stroke for the head” (Billington).

The axe was always associated with political rebellion, and here is where the instrument as used by Raskolnikov in C and P is especially appropriate. Several critics have pointed out that Raskolnikov’s act of murder is symbolically an act of political revolution. He chooses to kill someone who has no political significance, but he is inspired to do so by political ideals and rhetoric of the radical left of the times. 

In the early 1860s, at the very time that Dostoevsky was formulating his plans for the novel, the radical thinker Dobrolyubov was summarizing the Utopian Socialist program of his colleague and friend Chernyshevsky’s book, What Is To Be Done? as “Calling Russia to Axes.”

Both Notes from the Underground, the work of fiction published directly before C and P, and C and P itself are vehement polemics with Chernyshevsky’s ideas and principles. No doubt Crime and Punishment is in some respects a political allegory, suggesting the danger of radical ideas when some misguided someone decides to act upon them.

By the late 1860s the notorious revolutionary Sergei Nechaev had set up a “secret society of the axe.” Dostoevsky died in January, 1881, and in March of that year the terrorist group known as “People’s Will” achieved their greatest triumph when they succeeded in assassinating the “Tsar Liberator” Aleksandr II. They used bombs, however, rather than axes. 

This was already the sixth or seventh attempt on the tsar’s life, the first being in 1866. It was as if that murder were in the Russian air, and Russian history could not go on until it was achieved. Despite all of Dostoevsky’s writings—both fiction and nonfiction—about the wrongheadedness of radical left dogma, the dangers of putting such dogma into practice, the ideas had a momentum of their own, moving almost inevitably along until the October Revolution of 1917.

If you read the testimony at the trial of one of the perpetrators of the assassination in March, 1881—a man named Andrei Zhelyabov—it sounds as if one of Dostoevsky’s characters were talking, spewing out revolutionary slogans but throwing in a love for Jesus Christ in the bargain. Later on, in the early years of the Russian Revolution, the great poet Aleksandr Blok put Christ at the head of a group of marauding revolutionary sailors, in his controversial poem, “The Twelve.” [On Zhelyabov, see Norton Critical Ed. of C and P, p. 559]

Written at the dawn of the twentieth century, Anton Chekhov’s play, The Cherry Orchard, emblematic of the end of the landed nobility in Russia, and even foreshadowing the end of Imperial Russia itself, concludes with the sounds of an axe, chopping down the trees in the orchard. The image of the axe carries over into Soviet times, since in 1940 the most brilliant of the men who made the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Leon Trotsky, was assassinated in Mexican exile. He was hit over the head with an ice axe, which remained implanted in his skull.

While researching demographics and health issues in the Soviet Union, the American scholar Murray Feshbach discovered that the most common murder weapon in the country was still the axe. There had always been strict gun-control laws, and Soviet society was still quite rural, so the axe tended to be the weapon most accessible to the average Russian. 

As for the modern Russian Federation, I have not seen statistics about murder weapons. One thing for sure: firearms in Russia are still tightly controlled. If the Russian Federation had the kind of gun laws that the U.S. has, the whole country probably would have been wiped out by now.

Billington’s other overriding symbol of Russia, the icon or religious image, is also directly relevant to Raskolnikov and major themes of C and P. Raskolnikov’s inner struggle, the dominant theme of the novel, is really a struggle between the icon and the axe. After he kills the old pawnbroker he throws down the icons or crosses on her body, symbolically rejecting the Russian Orthodox Christian tradition that was so important to him in his childhood. Of course, if we are to believe the rays of brightness that shine into the epilogue, the saintly Sonya will eventually win Raskolnikov over, turning him from the path of the axe back to that of the icon.





Sunday, July 22, 2018

Notes to CRIME AND PUNISHMENT Sophie's Choice




Sofie’s Choice

Throughout the action of C and P Dostoevsky’s religious message is that Raskolnikov must follow the path of Sonya towards salvation, rather than the path of Svidrigailov towards perdition. For a short time after Svidrigailov kills himself, Raskolnikov seems himself to be on the verge of suicide. Eventually, with the help of some serious nudging in the ribs by his creator Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov seems to choose—in the epilogue of the novel—Sonya’s path of self-sacrifice and renunciation of the ego.

One of the central religious and philosophical questions of the book is the question Raskolnikov puts to Sonya (Part 5, Ch. 5). “If you had to choose who was to die, Luzhin or Katerina Ivanovna, which one would you choose?” Sonya answers that this is God’s business: “Who made me a judge over my fellow human beings?” Of course, Raskolnikov has already judged and chosen whom to kill, has already played God when he committed murder. Sonya is telling him that human beings have no right to make such choices.

But in a way Dostoevsky is begging the question here, since Sonya is made to choose only hypothetically; she is not really forced to choose between a dead Luzhin and a dead Katerina Ivanovna. In reality the question is not so easily resolved as Dostoevsky suggests. In the film “Seven Beauties” by the German filmmaker Lina Wertmuller the German woman commandant in a prison camp forces the Italian prisoner Pasqualini to pick six of his fellow prisoners to be shot. If he refuses to pick six, then the whole barracks will be shot. What would Sonya do?

In refusing to make a choice you may be simultaneously making a choice. This is the central issue in William Styron’s twentieth century novel Sophie’s Choice. Note that the female characters in this novel and in C and P have the same name: Sofya. Sonya is a nickname in Russian for Sofya, and the character’s full name is Sofya Semyonovna Marmeladova. In choosing this name for his main heroine Styron certainly must have had Sonya Marmeladova and the question Raskolnikov put to her in mind.

Styron’s Sophie arrives with her two children, a boy and a girl, at a German concentration camp during WW II. One of the guards tells her that she must choose which of the children is to die. She can save one of them, but not both; if she refuses to choose, both children will die. Sophie chooses to send her little daughter to the crematorium, thereby saving her son. Then she spends the rest of her life in agony over the choice she made. This to some extent parallels the way Raskolnikov suffers over his choice to commit murder. Sophie is forced to answer the hypothetical question posed by Raskolnikov to Sonya, and she ends up taking Svidrigailov’s way out: suicide.



                                         




                             Dostoevsky Monument in Moscow, Sergei Merkurov, 1913


Notes to CRIME AND PUNISHMENT Dostoevsky's Insights into the Dark Side of Humanity


Ernst Neizvestny Painting 





Dostoevsky as Psychologist: Insights into the Dark Side of the Human Soul

Some of Dostoevsky’s insights into the darker side of our nature are hard for us to accept; he often sees things we would prefer not to look at. Here are some examples from Crime and Punishment.

      On the morbidity of the human psyche as a relative conception. Dr. Zosimov: “All of us are frequently more or less deranged, with the slight difference that the ‘sick’ are a little more deranged than we, and therefore we must inevitably draw the distinction. But a completely harmonious person, it is true, is hardly to be found; in tens, or perhaps hundreds of thousands you will meet with only one, and then not a very good specimen” (Part 3, Ch. 3).
(
     On Schadenfreude (злорадство), the taking of joy in the misfortunes of others. After the dying Marmeladov—run over by a carriage and trampled by horses—is carried back to his miserable lodgings, all of his fellow miserable lodgers gather around to watch the spectacle, which stars, as usual, the frenetic Katerina Ivanovna. “The lodgers, one after another, began to press back towards the door, with the strange inward glow of satisfaction that is always there, even among his nearest and dearest, when disaster suddenly strikes our neighbor, and from which not one of us is immune, however sincere our pity and sympathy” (Part 2, Ch. 7).
(
      On masochism. Svidrigailov is telling Raskolnikov how he hit his wife, Marfa Petrovna, with a riding switch, and how she reacted with righteous indignation, ordering the carriage to be made ready, so that she could spread her sad tale about the town. “The first thing she did was to order the carriage… Not to mention the fact that it sometimes happens that women are highly gratified at being insulted, in spite of their apparent indignation. It happens with everybody; mankind in general loves to be affronted, have you noticed? But especially women. You might almost say it’s their only amusement” (Part 4, Ch. 1).
( 
      On flattery. Svidrigailov explains how he went about attempting to seduce Dunya. “I put the blame for everything on my destiny, made out that I was avid and greedy for light, and finally brought into play the greatest and most reliable means of subjugating a woman’s heart, which never disappoints anybody and always produces a decisive effect on every single woman, without exception. I mean, of course, flattery. There is nothing in the world harder than straightforwardness, and nothing easier than flattery. In straightforward dealing if there is one hundredth part of a false note, the result is immediate dissonance, and, in consequence, trouble. But in flattery every single note can be false and the effect will be agreeable, and it will be listened to with some pleasure. The pleasure may indeed be somewhat crude, but it is still pleasure for all that. And however gross the flattery may be, at least half of it will certainly seem to be true. This holds for every stage of development and every social level. Even a vestal virgin can be seduced by flattery, not to mention ordinary people” (Part 6, Ch. 4).
(
          On human “broadness of mind.” Svidrigailov again is speaking. “The minds of the Russian people in general are broad, Avdotya Romanovna, like their country, and extraordinarily inclined to the fantastic and chaotic; but it is disastrous to have a broad mind without special genius” (Part 6, Ch. 5). The idea is that human beings can hold both noble and perverse impulses simultaneously in their souls. You may, for example, feel sympathy for the sufferings of your neighbor, while, simultaneously wallowing in Schadenfreude (see # 2 above). In a famous passage from The Brothers Karamazov, Mitya K. declares that “Man is too broad; I’d have him narrower.”































Friday, July 20, 2018

Notes on CRIME AND PUNISHMENT The Petersburg Spirit, the Exultation of Slime


Staircase in St. Petersburg





The Atmosphere of Crime and Punishment: the Decadence of the “Petersburg Spirit”

I find it interesting that C and P is set in mid-summer, a time of bounteous sunlight and warmth in St. Petersburg. When I’m reading this somber novel I always have the feeling that I’m trekking through the St. Petersburg of autumn, with its chill, its cold rain and darkly oppressive air.

“It is possible to speak if not of a school then surely of a Petersburgian genre in Russian literature, of which Dostoevsky is in fact the leading practitioner. Pushkin’s The Bronze Horseman is doubtless the outstanding poem in that genre, as Gogol’s “The Overcoat” is the outstanding story and C and P the outstanding novel.” In Russian literature the Petersburg Spirit embodies, largely, gloom, angst, the uncanny and macabre.

“Dostoevsky describes the metropolis in somber colors, taking us into its reeking taverns and coffin-like rooms, bringing to the fore its petty bourgeois and proletarian types, its small shopkeepers and clerks, students, prostitutes, beggars and derelicts. True as this is, there is also something else in Dostoevsky’s vision of Petersburg, a sense not so much of romance as of poetic strangeness, a poetic emotion attached to objects in themselves desolate, a kind of exaltation in the very lostness, loneliness and drabness which the big city imposes on its inhabitants.”
                         Philip Rahv, “Dostoevsky in Crime and Punishment

Dostoevsky was always fascinated by the Haymarket District, one of the slummiest parts of the city in the mid-nineteenth century, with its center on Haymarket Square (Сенная площадь). Here is where Raskolnikov went down on his knees and kissed the earth on his way to confess the murder. In the 1860s Dostoevsky lived in this area, on the corner of Carpenter’s Lane and Little Tradesmen Street. His daughter Lyubov—who was in her own right a character out of a Dostoevsky novel—later described him as roaming about Petersburg in the 1840s, “through the darkest and most deserted streets . . . . . He talked to himself as he walked, gesticulating and causing passersby to turn and look at him.” This makes a good story, but Lyubov probably relied mostly here on the idle rovings of characters out of her father’s works.

In Dostoevsky’s time the Haymarket area had the highest population density in the city. “A local landmark nicknamed the Vyazemsky Monastery was a great block of slums owned by Prince Vyazemsky, which served as the location of the Crystal Palace tavern in C and P” [Adele Lindenmeyr article in Dostoevsky: New Perspectives, p. 100]. There were eighteen taverns on Raskolnikov’s small street [Srednaya Meshchanskaya Street (Little Tradesmen St.)]. In 1865 an official government commission was established to investigate the overcrowding, disease, drunkenness and immorality of the Haymarket District.

After the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 peasants migrated to the city, looking for work. This influx strained he city’s already inadequate water supply and health services. Sanitation was bad. There were cholera epidemics. Into the Soviet period, and even after, the city had a reputation for bad drinking water. After one of Raskolnikov’s fainting spells (Part 2, Ch. 1) he comes around to find himself “sitting in a chair, supported by some person on his right, with somebody else on his left holding a dirty tumbler filled with yellowish water.” Yellow, incidentally, is one of Dostoevsky’s favorite colors in C and P, emblematic of the psychic malaise that pervades the novel.

You can still get a pretty good idea of the way things looked in the 1860s if you wander today around the so-called достоевские места (places associated with Dostoevsky, located mostly in close proximity to the Griboedov Canal). Certainly most of the taverns and dives are gone, as are the houses of prostitution, but there is still that same grimness of atmosphere, which has nothing in common with the architectural splendor of the area down by the Neva River, with its Russian baroque or neoclassical buildings. As late as the Soviet period you could still visit the prototype for Raskolnikov’s little coffin of a room, although I doubt if this is possible anymore. A photo taken out of that window provides the cover art on the Norton Critical Edition of C and P.

In Part 6, Ch. 3, Svidrigailov lectures to Raskolnikov on the Petersburg Spirit: “I am sure lots of people in St. Petersburg talk to themselves as they walk about. It’s a town of half-crazy people. If we had any science in this country, the doctors, lawyers and philosophers could conduct very valuable research in St. Petersburg . . . .  There are few places that exercise such strange, harsh and somber influences on the human spirit as St. Petersburg. What can be accomplished by climate alone!”

Sometimes you wonder how much of the malaise belongs to the spirit of the city, and how much of it is Dostoevsky’s own malaise, which he imposes on the city. Here is a description of Raskolnikov out on the streets, greedily breathing “the dusty, foul-smelling, contaminated air of the town,” listening to street singers (Part 2, Ch. 6):

“’Do you like street singing?’ asked Raskolnikov of a passerby, no longer young, and with the look of an idler, who had been standing by him near the organ-grinder. The man looked oddly at him, in great astonishment. ‘I do,’ went on Raskolnikov, with an expression as though he had been speaking of something much more important than street singing; ‘I like to hear singing to a barrel organ on a cold, dark, damp autumn evening—it must be damp—when the faces of all the passersby look greenish and sickly; or, even better, when wet snow is falling, straight down, without any wind, you know, and the gas-lamps shine through it.” 

Here we have an aesthetic exultation in slime, something about Raskolnikov’s sick soul that recalls what he once said about his strange fiancée: “I probably would have loved her even more, had she been lame or hump-backed.”


Among Russian writers Dostoevsky is probably best at describing how something in the human soul can derive artistic inspiration, not only from the beautiful, but also from the deformed and perverse. With the Decadent and Symbolist literary movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries came a lot of writers who portrayed this artistic exaltation of the squalid. Dostoevsky was their precursor, although he was officially still part of the school of Russian Realism.





Friday, July 6, 2018

Notes on CRIME AND PUNISHMENT The Issue of Sensuality:Pedophiles and Perverts

Dostoevsky's Morbid Characters, Representatives of "The Sick World" of FMD






The Issue of Sensuality: Pedophiles and Perverts

Dostoevsky, to put it mildly, writes fiction about the dark side of the human soul. Dostoevsky’s fiction is often sick, and reading too much of it at a time can have a deleterious effect on the reader. If you read Crime and Punishment, thoroughly digest it, take some time off before diving into another long and gut-wrenching Dostoevsky novel.

As one critic, Geir Kjetsaa, has pointed out, “in his [Dostoevsky’s] eyes sexuality was the fundamental condition for the relationship between man and woman.” Kjetsaa quotes from a letter that Dostoevsky wrote to his second wife Anna late in his life: “You think perhaps that this is only one aspect of the matter, the coarsest one even. But there is nothing coarse about it; everything else is dependent on it.”

Pedophilia and the sexual designs of older men on young women are prominently featured in Dostoevsky’s fiction from the very beginning. In his first novel, Poor People, the heroine Varvara breaks the heart of the narrator Devushkin when she makes a marriage of convenience with a man named Bykov. This is much the same situation as that of Dunya and Luzhin in C and P, although Luzhin’s designs on Dunya are foiled and the marriage does not take place. 

Bykov, like Luzhin, is attracted by the idea of exerting sexual control over a young female. The fatuous socialist Lebezyatnikov has similar proclivities. While professing to be selflessly interested in “educating” Sonya Marmeladova in socialist doctrines, while pretending to be interested in her as a representative of the oppressed masses, he also has prurient designs on her.

Probably the most negative character in C and P, Luzhin, a money grubber, incipient capitalist and social climber, is perversely attracted to the idea of possessing Dunya, a proud and attractive girl (she is eighteen). He will pull her, along with her family, out of poverty, so he thinks, and after their marriage she will be his love slave, totally submissive and grateful to him.

The genuine pedophiliac in the novel is Arkady Ivanovich Svidrigailov, who is sexually obsessed with Dunya, and, even worse, involved with very young girls from impoverished families. His first appearance in C and P is foreshadowed by a scene in Part 1, Ch. 4 (p. 39-43 in the Norton Critical Ed.), in which Raskolnikov sees a young drunken girl staggering down the street. She is followed by a plump fop with a lecherous gleam in his eye. Raskolnikov yells at him, “Hey, Svidrigailov, what do you want here?”

Svidrigailov’s actual appearance in the novel comes much later, at the very end of Part 3, when he almost seems to have been conjured up out of one of Raskolnikov’s violent nightmares. Raskolnikov dreams that he is striking the old woman—whom he has already murdered in the waking world—on the head with repetitive blows of the axe, but she just sits there laughing at him. He tries to run, wakes up, but “the dream seemed strangely to be continuing: his door was wide open and on the threshold stood a complete stranger, looking fixedly at him.”

This appearance of Svidrigailov as if out of the hero’s dream suggests that in some weird way he may be an extension of Raskolnikov’s personality, a part of his psyche. As has been emphasized by critics of Dostoevsky’s works, there are frequent doublings of characters. Svidrigailov and Sonya are both something of alter egos of Raskolnikov, she representing his good side, and he representing his evil side.

But in terms of sensuality Svidrigailov and Raskolnikov appear, at first glance, to have nothing in common. Svidrigailov is the supreme sensualist, who can find nothing to believe in except the flesh. He tells Raskolnikov at one point, “I have no confidence in anything but anatomy.” He has come to the conclusion that spirituality, morality, religion, and everything that most people cling to as a justification for living and behaving decently are mere abstractions. Debauchery is, in his ironic view, of positive value, as he tells Raskolnikov.

--Why should I give up women, if I have an inclination for them? It’s something to do, at any rate…
--So all you hope for is a spell of debauchery?
--Well, why not? Debauchery if you will! You seem to like the word! . . . . In ‘debauchery’ there is at least something constant, based on nature, indeed, and not subject to fantasy, something that exists in he blood as an eternal flame, always ready to set one on fire, and not to be readily extinguished, for a long time to come, perhaps for many years. You will agree that in its way it is an occupation (Part 6, Ch. 3).

As sometimes happens in a Hollywood film, a character actor steps into the narrative and begins stealing all the scenes. Svidrigailov steps into C and P very late in the action and almost steals all the attention from the main character Raskolnikov. Dostoevsky here has created probably the most in-depth and complex pedophile in the history of world literature.

Svidrigailov is aware that he is sick. “I agree that it [his pathological sensuality] is a disease.” In his past he is apparently responsible for the death of a deaf and dumb girl, whom Madam Resslich has procured for him, and whom he has abused (see p. 252, 429). He mentions to Raskolnikov his patronage of a thirteen-year-old girl and her mother, and, in the final part of the novel, he has become engaged to a fifteen-year-old. The description of how he visits his bride to be, then takes her up on his lap to fondle, are among the most perversely sensual of Dostoevsky’s writings, and they certainly provided Vladimir Nabokov with some of the material for his own treatment of pedophilia in Lolita. Even worse is Svidrigailov’s dream about a five-year-old girl whom he undresses, and who smiles lewdly at him.

Then again, Svidrigailov is not entirely a negative character. There is something even appealing about him at times. He finally has Dunya, after whom he lusts immeasurably, in his clutches, having lured her to his room with promises to tell her brother’s secret. But then, suppressing his own overwhelming feelings [“In the end I couldn’t bear even to hear the rustle of her dress. Really, I thought that I’d have a fit or something”], he lets her go. 

He provides money to help the Marmeladov orphans; he helps Sonya break free from prostitution. Then, as if realizing that there is no other way out for one whose amorality is an oppressive burden, he shoots himself.

But why do critics consider Svidrigailov a kind of double of Raskolnikov, who is extremely ascetic and appears almost non-sexed? You could approach this question by considering the character of Dunya, who is shown to be very similar to her brother. Svidrigailov tells Raskolnikov, “Avdotya Romanovna is terribly chaste, to a positively unheard-of degree . . . . . She is perhaps even morbidly chaste, and it will do her harm” (Part 6, Ch. 4). The implication is that morbid chastity, the obverse of morbid sensuality, represents another extreme condition. 

Complete renunciation of sexuality, Dostoevsky seems to suggest, is itself a kind of sexual impulse, and there is perhaps something perversely erotic in Dunya’s noble impulse to sacrifice herself by marrying the despicable Luzhin.

What about Raskolnikov, who is also “morbidly chaste”? In the first place, there are indications that Raskolnikov’s suppressed sexuality is not so dissimilar to Svidrigailov’s openly professed sexuality. This is especially apparent in brief mention of his one-time prospective bride, a sick and homely girl, daughter of his landlady. At one point Raskolnikov tells his mother that he “fell in love and wanted to be married.” But the impetus for this so-called “love” is sick and perverse, as only Dostoevsky’s characters seem capable of being.

“She was .  .  . very plain. I don’t really know what attracted me to her; I think it may have been that she was always ill… If she had been lame as well or hump-backed, I might very likely have loved her even more… (He smiled pensively). It was just because… Some kind of vernal delirium…”

So much for true love. There is something here fully as perverse in Raskolnikov’s morbid “love” as in Svidrigailov’s open profession of pathological sensuality and pedophilia. Lust is expressed in many ways, and the bottled-up libido will find an outlet. Some critics see the murder of the two women as a kind of rape, and act of subconscious sexual aggression on Raskolnikov’s part.

What about the love of Raskolnikov and Sonya? Not credible. In the first place, Sonya, the prostitute/nun in C and P is a character with little flesh on her bones. She is much less believable as a character than the lecherous Svidrigailov. And even much less interesting. What she is is Dostoevsky’s representative of the Christian message in the book. But Christian love is sexless, and there is never even a hint of sexuality between “the lovers” Raskolnikov and Sonya. They are, at some point we assume, to be married, but what kind of marriage will this turn out to be? Will Raskolnikov find an outlet for his own perverse sexuality by marrying, in effect, a nun?

Maybe so. We can only assume that in the years of the Russian Civil War Red soldiers—warriors for the cause of atheism—took great voluptuous pleasure in raping nuns. By that time Dostoevsky was no longer alive to write about such things, but had he still been alive he certainly would have been capable of expressing, in fictional art, the feelings of such men. Most important of all, he would have dared to write about such feelings, which more timid literary artists prefer not to touch.

In another novel, The Idiot, Dostoevsky attempted to portray the ideal man, a Christlike innocent devoid of sensuality. But at the end of that novel the hero fails utterly in his attempt to interact with his fellow man and woman; he degenerates into idiocy. There is no place for a sexless man in a world dominated by passion.

Want to see a good example of Dostoevsky’s influence on writers worldwide? Try reading Flannery O’Connor’s “Good Country People,” the story of a bible salesman in Georgia with perverse, Dostoevskian inclinations.



                   "Crime and Punishment" Beating a Horse to Death and Killing an Old Woman