Who is Raskolnikov's psychological double? Luzhin and Svidrigailov as Raskolnikov's doubles in Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment

The system of doubles in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” (using the example of Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov, Luzhin)

Double heroes are a kind of author's device, the essence of which is that the author offers the reader a way to understand the main character through other characters who are similar to him. This technique is aimed at allowing the reader to obtain a more complete psychological description of the hero, as well as to comprehensively recognize the character of the main character of the work.

In this case, Dostoevsky can be called a continuer of Lermontov’s traditions: it was M. Yu. Lermontov who was the first in his novel “A Hero of Our Time” (1840) to resort to such an author’s technique as the use of double heroes in order to reveal the image of the main character - Pechorin - as fully as possible and comprehensively.

Speaking about the system of double heroes in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment, it makes sense to first of all keep in mind the chain of Raskolnikov - Svidrigailov - Luzhin. Each of them is a separate side of Raskolnikov’s theory, but they are both incredibly disgusting to the hero. Luzhin rejects Christian morality and believes that progress and religion absolutely cannot coexist together. He believes that selfish benefit is in favor of the public good. This is evidenced by his “caftan theory”. Discussing what it means to “love” from the point of view of religion, he says: “I tore the caftan in half, shared it with my neighbor, and we were both left half naked, according to the Russian proverb: “You will follow several hares at once and you will not achieve a single one.” " Speaking about “love” from the point of view of science, he emphasizes: “Science says: love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest. If you love yourself alone, then you will manage your affairs properly, and your caftan will remain intact. Economic truth adds that the more private affairs and, so to speak, entire caftans are organized in a society, the more solid foundations there are for it and the more common affairs are organized in it.” Raskolnikov absolutely disagrees with Luzhin’s theory. He believes that if it is developed, then “it will turn out that people can be cut.” The author also polemicizes with Luzhin: he contrasts theory with life not according to science, but according to the soul. At the end of the novel, when the author describes the hero’s state after the verdict was announced, he notes that “instead of dialectics, life came, and something completely different should have developed in the consciousness.”

Thus, Dostoevsky, on the pages of his novel, polemicized with the theory of “reasonable egoism” of N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov, which was formed largely under the influence of the teachings of D. Mill and G. Spencer. Dostoevsky believed that this theory, “due to its rationalistic character, denies the role of direct moral impulse” (literary critic G. M. Friedlander).

Svidrigailov becomes for Raskolnikov a real personification of human abomination, but at the same time Raskolnikov feels an incomprehensible closeness with Svidrigailov. Svidrigailov says about himself that he is “a depraved and idle man,” and briefly describes his biography as follows: “a nobleman, served for two years in the cavalry, then hung around here in St. Petersburg, then got married.” His whole life is aimless, it comes down only to the search for pleasure, and his main theory is the theory of permissiveness. But when Raskolnikov’s sister Dunya appears in Svidrigailov’s life, the reader sees the hero’s transformation, the struggle of opposing principles. This is especially clear in the scene from the fifth chapter of the sixth part: Svidrigailov invites Dunya to visit, and then tries to force her love. But seeing that Dunya does not love him, and realizing that she will never love him, he, having experienced “a moment of terrible, silent struggle in his soul,” lets her go. Thus, Dostoevsky shows readers how Svidrigailov’s theory of permissiveness collapses.

In the novel, Dostoevsky argues with Raskolnikov’s theory with the help of double heroes, showing the inconsistency of the hero’s belief system against the background of the theories of his doubles. The author does not dare to say his last authorial word, he does not reveal his knowledge until the very end, he gives the opportunity to each ideologist to bring the idea to the end, but it is clear that Dostoevsky’s disagreement with Raskolnikov’s theory and polemics with it runs through the entire novel.

Searched here:

• The theme of duality in the novel Crime and Punishment
• the theme of duality in the novel crime and punishment essay
• system of doubles in the novel crime and punishment

Back forward

Attention! Slide previews are for informational purposes only and may not represent all the features of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.

Used CMD: General education program. Literature for grades 5-11, edited by V.Ya. Korovina, Moscow, “Enlightenment”, 2005.

Textbook “Russian Literature of the 19th Century” (Moscow “Enlightenment”)

Equipment: computer, screen, projector, computer presentation, graphic images, handouts, supporting notes.

Goals: consolidate basic knowledge, skills, and analysis skills of a work of art;

• find out who Rodion Raskolnikov’s “doubles” and “antipodes” are and how they help reveal the character of the main character;
• lead to an understanding of the main conflict of the novel - the conflict between Raskolnikov and the world he denies;
• expand students’ understanding of the characters in the novel;
• to achieve an understanding that the world in which Dostoevsky’s heroes live is a world of “the lost and perishing”;
• to cultivate such spiritual and moral qualities as a sense of compassion for the “humiliated and offended”, mercy;
• develop students' critical thinking and interest in research work.

Tasks:

1. Analyze the theories presented in the novel.
2. To form on literary material the philosophical meaning of the theory of a superman, a strong personality.
3. To develop students’ ability for conceptual logical thinking, the development of such thinking qualities as evidence-based reasoning.

What am I guilty of before them?..
They themselves harass millions of people,
and they are also respected for virtue.
Rodion Raskolnikov.

During the classes

1. Teacher's introduction(Slides 1–4):

– So, we know the main character well, we know the moral and philosophical principles on which Raskolnikov relied when creating his theory. Many researchers, in particular M. Bakhtin, noted that at the center of any of Dostoevsky’s novels, constituting its compositional basis, is the life of an idea and the character - the bearer of this idea. Thus, at the center of the novel “Crime and Punishment” is Raskolnikov and his “Napoleonic” theory about the division of people into two categories and the right of a strong personality to neglect laws, legal and ethical, in order to achieve his goal. The writer shows us the origin of this idea in the mind of the character, its implementation, gradual elimination and final collapse. Therefore, the entire system of images of the novel is constructed in such a way as to comprehensively outline Raskolnikov’s thought, to show it not only in an abstract form, but also, so to speak, in practical refraction, and at the same time convince the reader of its inconsistency. As a result, the central characters of the novel are interesting to us not only in themselves, but also in their unconditional correlation with Raskolnikov - precisely as with the embodied existence of an idea. Raskolnikov is in this sense, as it were, the common denominator for all the characters. A natural compositional technique with such a plan is the creation of spiritual doubles and antipodes of the main character, designed to show the disastrousness of the theory - to show both the reader and the hero himself. The uniqueness of Dostoevsky’s construction of an artistic image, according to the thesis of M. M. Bakhtin, lies in the fact that the hero is not an object of the author’s consciousness, but a subject with an independent outlook, and, therefore, the system of characters is a system of consciousnesses revealed in contact.

The author surrounds Raskolnikov with people who vary in their minds certain thoughts of the protagonist, while the negative elements of his “theory” are reflected by the so-called “doubles”, and the positive ones – by antipodes.

– Who can be included in the first group?
– Raskolnikov’s spiritual doubles are Luzhin, Lebezyatnikov, Svidrigailov.
- Prove it.

2. Study of “doubles”:

-Who is Luzhin? What do we know about him? (Slide 5)
– Raskolnikov claims that Luzhin’s views are close to his theory (“and bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can be killed...”. Do you agree with him? (1. 2, ch. 5)
– What reasoning from his mother’s letter about Luzhin attracted Raskolnikov’s special attention? What thoughts and feelings do they give rise to in Raskolnikov, and why?
– What impression do you get about Luzhin after reading your mother’s letter?

(“Smart and, it seems, kind”, “decided to take an honest girl, but without a dowry and certainly one who had already experienced a difficult situation,” and “a husband should not owe anything to his wife, and it is much better if the wife considers her husband your benefactor."

Raskolnikov’s reasoning about Luzhin’s “kindness”, which allows that “the bride and mother of a peasant are contracting, in a cart covered with matting! Nothing! Only ninety versts...”, strengthen the impression that is formed about Luzhin as a callous, dry, indifferent, calculating person, and awaken a feeling of hostility towards this hero.)

– The impression of Luzhin is deepened when analyzing the scene. “explanations” between him and Dunya. Compare the behavior of Luzhin and Dunya in the scene of their explanation. What thoughts does this comparison give rise to in you?

(Luzhin’s behavior in this scene reveals his petty, selfish, low soul, lack of sincerity, true love and respect for his bride, readiness to insult and humiliate Dunya. Prove it in the text. In Dunya’s behavior there is sincerity, a great sense of tact, nobility, “a desire to judge impartially: “... if the brother is guilty, then he must and will ask you for forgiveness,” respect for the person who has been given a “great promise,” pride and self-esteem).

– What did Luzhin value above all else in life? And why was he annoyed by the break with Dunya?

(“More than anything in the world, he loved and valued his money, obtained by labor and by all means: it equated him with everything that was higher than him.” Luzhin was irritated by the break with Dunya because it destroyed his dream of a being who “would be slavishly grateful to him all his life... and he will have unlimited... dominion"...)

- Luzhin cannot come to terms with this and makes a decision that, in his opinion, could bring Dunya back. How did Luzhin carry out his decision? (Scene with Sonya at the Marmeladovs’ wake.)

(Luzhin, in order to achieve his egoistic goal, “for himself alone,” is ready to “transcend all obstacles,” lives according to the principle “everything is allowed.” In this, his theory is close to Raskolnikov’s theory. The only god for Luzhin is money.

Remorse and compassion are unfamiliar to him. We see in him a lack of deep human feelings, vanity, callousness, bordering on meanness. And we hear Dostoevsky’s thought about the inhumanity of egoistic self-affirmation at the expense of others.)

– In what ways are Raskolnikov and Luzhin similar and different?

– Luzhin absorbs the theory of “reasonable egoism”, which underlies Raskolnikov’s “arithmetic” constructions. Being an adherent of “economic truth,” this bourgeois businessman very rationally rejects sacrifice for the common good, asserts the uselessness of “individual generosity” and believes that concern for one’s own well-being is also concern for “general prosperity.” In Luzhin’s calculations, the intonations of Raskolnikov’s voice are quite perceptible, who, like his double, is not satisfied with “single” help that does not solve anything in general (in this case, to his family). Both of them “reasonably” find a victim to achieve their goals and at the same time theoretically justify their choice: a worthless old woman. As Raskolnikov believes, he will die anyway, and the fallen Sonya, according to Luzhin, will still steal sooner or later. True, Luzhin’s idea freezes at the point of reasoning and does not lead him to the axe, while Raskolnikov, who has gone through such a path in reality, easily completes the building to the foundation of the concept of his double: “And bring to the consequences what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can cut".

Having borrowed the rationalistic foundations of Raskolnikov's theory, Luzhin turns them into an ideological justification for his predatory aspirations. Just like the main character of the novel, he reserves the right to decide the fate of another person, for example, Sonya, but clears Raskolnikov’s “arithmetic” of active compassion and ultimately altruistic orientation.

– How do Raskolnikov and Luzhin coincide?
- Luzhin is an average entrepreneur, he is a “little man” who has become rich, who really wants to become a “big man”, to turn from a slave into the master of life. These are the roots of his “Napoleonism,” but how similar they are to the social roots of Raskolnikov’s idea, its pathos of social protest of an oppressed individual in a world of the humiliated and insulted! After all, Raskolnikov is a poor student who also wants to rise above his social status. But it is much more important for him to see himself as a person superior to society in moral and intellectual terms, despite his social position. This is how the theory of two categories appears; both of them can only check their belonging to the highest category. Thus, Raskolnikov and Luzhin coincide precisely in their desire to rise above the position assigned to them by the laws of social life, and thereby rise above people. Raskolnikov arrogates to himself the right to kill the moneylender, and Luzhin to destroy Sonya, since they both proceed from the incorrect premise that they are better than other people, in particular those who become their victims. Only Luzhin’s understanding of the problem itself and methods are much more vulgar than Raskolnikov’s. But that's the only difference between them. Luzhin vulgarizes and thereby discredits the theory of “reasonable egoism.” In his opinion, it is better to wish the good for oneself than for others, one must strive for this good by any means, and everyone should do the same - then, having each achieved their own good, people will form a happy society. And it turns out that Luzhin “helps” Dunechka with the best intentions, considering his behavior impeccable. But Luzhin’s behavior and his entire figure are so vulgar that he becomes not only a double, but also the antipode of Raskolnikov.
– Lebezyatnikov…..What can you say about him? (Slide 6)

The next double, the “progressive” Lebezyatnikov, in his life attitude varies Raskolnikov’s nihilistic attitude towards the existing world order, moral and social foundations. Enthusiastically speaking out against such “prejudices” as “chastity and female modesty,” calling for the creation of communes, advocating the destruction of marriage bonds, Lebezyatnikov emasculates and disfigures the ideas of the revolutionary democratic movement, the meaning of which he reduces to “warming with protest.” Russian life: “We have gone further in our beliefs. We are in denial no more!” Rebelling against the unjust structure of the world, Raskolnikov’s rebellious element turns into Lebezyatnikov’s thin stream of meaningless and vulgar denials. This double is attached as a caricatured shadow to the main character, who wants to “simply grab everything by the tail and shake it to hell.” The cult of protest, which in Lebezyatnikov takes the form of militant stupidity, compromises the rebellious path chosen by Raskolnikov for reorganizing the world, in which he sees the possibility of self-affirmation.

Self-aggrandizement and the need to test oneself by killing - these secret aspirations of the protagonist’s personality are debunked in contact from the outside with the life attitudes of the pitiful “heirs” of his thought and in his painful statement. own insolvency (“louse”, “trembling creature”).

– The results of the experiment conducted on himself, which destroyed Raskolnikov’s illusions regarding himself as an “extraordinary” person, nevertheless did not shake the powerful walls of the theory that pushed him to commit a crime. Disappointed in himself, he does not renounce her. But in the reader’s mind, the towers of ideas firmly built by Raskolnikov turn into ruins, thanks to the dark shadow of the third double.

– It is no coincidence that Svidrigailov appears on the arena of the great interpenetration of worlds after his two predecessors, who, having taken away individual parts of a self-sufficient idea, were able, due to their insignificance, to split its core. For this, an extraordinary personality was needed, “breaking out” from the ranks of “ordinary” people, establishing for himself the right of permissiveness (“Svidrigailov is a mystery,” Raskolnikov thinks of him).

– Who is Svidrigailov? How do you characterize his first information in the novel? (Slides 7, 8)

(The first information in the novel about Svidrigailov characterizes him... as a villain, a libertine. They say that he was involved in the case of “murder,” that he was guilty of the suicide of the serf lackey Philip, that he cruelly insulted the girl, poisoned his wife Marfa Petrovna, that he was a sharper, that he was not such a vice that would not nest in his soul.At the same time, throughout the entire novel he performs a number of good deeds: he saved Dunya from shame, restored her good name, wants to help Dunya get rid of Luzhin, took upon himself the fate of the orphaned Marmeladov family. )

– He has a conscience by nature, but he does good and evil out of boredom. This is a person without convictions and without activity. A real person cannot live without beliefs and without activity. Svidrigailov realized this and executed himself, having lost his “last goal - to achieve Dunya’s favor). This hero goes further than anyone else: by stepping over other people’s lives, he also steps over his own conscience, i.e., he fully corresponds to Raskolnikov’s idea of ​​strong personalities. But instead the expected, from his point of view, triumph of the idea in the dislocated world of Svidrigailov, it suffers a complete collapse. The “arithmetic”, according to which you can kill one “harmful” old woman, and then, having done a hundred good deeds, atone for this sin, is refuted by Svidrigailov’s “experiments”: he has more good deeds to his name than all the other heroes of the novel, but, firstly, the good he has done cannot in any way justify the crimes of the past, and, secondly, it is not capable of reviving his sick soul. Driven into the subconscious conscience is eventually released and bursts into the sphere of consciousness, giving rise to suffocating nightmares in which reality and unreality fantastically continue into each other and merge into a single continuous hallucination. Svidrigailov is the chosen one who “overstepped”, and “overstepped” more than once, and without moral torment (here is Raskolnikov’s ideal!), but at the same time did not become Napoleon. The life outcome of Svidrigailov is not only his suicide, but also the death of Raskolnikov’s idea, revealing the monstrous self-deception of the protagonist.

– Is Svidrigailov right when he asserts that he and Raskolnikov are “of the same breed”, that there is a “common point” between them?

(We see Svidrigailov as a person devoid of all moral principles, who does not recognize any moral prohibitions; he lives according to the principle “everything is permitted.” Raskolnikov, allowing himself “blood according to his conscience,” also denies the moral responsibility of a strong person for his actions; moral standards, according to him opinion, exist only for the lowest category of people - “trembling creatures.” The truth, which Raskolnikov came to as a result of long reflection, is used by Luzhin and Svidrigailov as a guide to action.)

– What is the meaning of comparing Raskolnikov with Luzhin and Svidrigailov? Your versions.

– When you compare these images, it becomes clear that Luzhin and Svidrigailov lived, in general, according to Raskolnikov’s theory. He, communicating with the “powers of this world,” cannot accept their life, although he tries to classify himself among the “powers of this world”; He doesn’t like people who live according to his “theory.” This juxtaposition subverts the theorist in the hero and elevates the man in him.

- For everyone - Raskolnikov, Luzhin, Svidrigailov - the inhumanity of individualism, selfish self-affirmation at the expense of others. By pitting these heroes against each other, the author refutes Raskolnikov’s theory and reveals its inhumane, inhumane essence. At the same time, Raskolnikov’s attitude towards Luzhin and Svidrigailov convinces that he is disgusted with the “powers of this world, he cannot accept the world of people who do not live according to his theory. This is Raskolnikov’s strength and what elevates him above the “powers of this world.”

– Who is the antipode of Raskolnikov? (Slide 10)

– His sister also becomes the antipode and to some extent Raskolnikov’s double. She does not consider herself a being of a higher rank than her brother, and Raskolnikov, making a sacrifice, precisely in this sense feels superior to those for whom he sacrifices himself. Dunechka, on the contrary, not only does not consider herself superior to her brother, she recognizes him as a being of a higher kind. Raskolnikov understands this well, which is why he so decisively rejects his sister’s sacrifice. In their attitude towards people, Dunya and her brother are antipodes. Even Svidrigailova Dunya does not consider herself inferior; she overcomes this temptation, being unable to shoot at a person, because in Svidrigailov she sees a person. Raskolnikov is ready to see a person only in himself.

– This is how Raskolnikov’s satellites appear in the cosmos of the novel: revolving around him, they reflect and refract the cataclysms of his world, their interaction creates a negative atmosphere around the central character. However, the phenomenon of Raskolnikov’s personality is much more redundant than the system of his doubles and is by no means exhausted by it alone. Raskolnikov's voice resonates in a space filled not only with the consciousnesses of his doubles, but also with the consciousnesses of their ideological antagonists, played by Razumikhin, Porfiry Petrovich and Sonya Marmeladova. (Slide 11–16)

These heroes are usually called Raskolnikov’s antipodes, but this definition requires clarification. They not only deny the self-will and individualism that lead Raskolnikov to crime, but also continue within themselves the “messianic” principles of his ideas. Consequently, these characters are contrasted not so much with Raskolnikov, with whom they have common ground, but with his doubles. Let me give you some evidence.

Raskolnikov, risking his life, saves children from the fire; being a poor student, he supports the sick father of a deceased friend; twice he leaves his last money to the Marmeladovs. Aren’t all these actions on a par with the actions of the altruist Razumikhin?... Raskolnikov denies the “Napoleons” the right to grumble against the existing world order - Porfiry Petrovich also opposes rebellion. Having committed a crime, the hero cannot step over his conscience, and in this he becomes close to Sonya, who is forced to sell her body, but not her soul. And if Svidrigailov claims to be “kinship” with Raskolnikov (“We are of the same breed”), then with Sonya Raskolnikov is going to go “on the same road” (“We are cursed together, together we will go”). This is how a gallery of lightened reflections of the main character is built. It is interesting that the number of doubles and their “reversals” (antipodes) coincides. This suggests the existence of connections between them.

Having isolated the components of Raskolnikov’s idea, reflected in the consciousnesses of doubles and antipodes, we can imagine a system of images of heroes in the form of three pairs. Moreover, in each of them the central place will be occupied by that part of Raskolnikov’s idea that combines certain opposing principles. (Slide 11)

– What is the significance of the image system? (Slide 17–19)

– As a result, the system of images is divided into three series with negative (Luzhin, Lebezyatnikov, Svidrigailov) and positive (Razumikhin, Porfiry Petrovich, Sonya) subsystems. The antagonistic heroes enter into a dialogue through Raskolnikov’s consciousness, while “it can go beyond the world of the protagonist and be realized in direct contact between the double and the antipode. For example, ideas about “percentage”, supposedly inevitable victims for society (Luzhin’s principle) struggle in Raskolnikov with the desire to stop the fall of the just deceived girl, to do a specific, albeit “single”, and not “all-human”, good deed (Razumikhin’s principle). At the same time, the confrontation between “reasonable egoism” and “single goodness”, taking place in the soul of the central hero , Dostoevsky also projects outwardly - onto a system of images, pitting the bearers of these principles in direct communication: Luzhin’s calculations about “whole caftans” are emotionally (in a dispute) and practically (in life) opposed by Razumikhin.

Through Raskolnikov's consciousness, as through a transparent door, the heroes can look into each other.

Conclusion:

– Raskolnikov, a conscientious and noble man, cannot evoke only hostility in the reader, the attitude towards him is complex (you rarely see an unambiguous assessment in Dostoevsky), but the writer’s verdict is merciless: no one has the right to commit a crime! Rodion Raskolnikov comes to this conclusion long and hard, and Dostoevsky leads him, confronting him with various people and ideas. The entire harmonious and logical system of images in the novel is subordinated precisely to this goal. Showing the inhumanity of bourgeois society and its structure, Dostoevsky still did not see it as the reason for the “disintegration of the connection of times.” The writer looks for answers to “damned” questions not around a person, but inside him. And this is the distinctive feature of Dostoevsky the psychologist.

Homework.

1. Retelling: Part 3, Chapter 5 (Raskolnikov’s first meeting with Porfiry Petrovich),
part 4, ch. 5 (second meeting with the investigator),
Part 3, Ch. 6 (reflections after a meeting with a tradesman),
part 4, ch. 7 (conversation with Dunya about the crime), epilogue.

3. Answer the questions:
– Does Raskolnikov repent of his crime? What does he reproach himself for?
- Why is Porfiry Petrovich sure that Raskolnikov will “turn himself in”?

4. Brief retelling of the episodes: Raskolnikov’s first day after the murder.

(Part 2, Chapter I-2);
wandering around St. Petersburg on the first day after illness (part 2, chapter 6);
conversation with mother and Dunya (part 3, chapter 3).

5. Answer the question: why did the hero “turn himself in”?

Presentation.

Appendix 2. Cards for independent work.

On the pages of F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment” a wide panorama of St. Petersburg of the middle of the last century is revealed to us: pictures of city life, people, meetings flash, screams, swearing, and arguments are heard. Among the characters in a great book there are many people who attract our attention only for a few minutes, and there are people with sharply defined characters, with their own views and beliefs, who influence the main character in different ways and without whom the novel simply would not have taken place. This is the Marmeladov family, Dunya, Porfiry Petrovich, Lebezyatnikov and some others.

A special place in the novel belongs to the “powers of this world” - Luzhin and Svidrigailov, who can be considered Raskolnikov’s “doubles”.

By confronting the “ideological” killer with these people, the writer deeply refutes, exposes his theory of the ruler and the crowd, and exposes the inhumane, inhumane essence of this theory. The pictures of social evil, brilliantly drawn by Dostoevsky, convincingly prove that “the main secret in the novel lies not in the crime, but in the motives of the crime” (V. Shklovsky). All the life around him strengthens Raskolnikov’s conviction that the murder he has planned does not contradict human laws. He is strengthened in his intention not as a criminal, but as a supporter of moral permissiveness, individualistic rebellion against society (by the way, the meaning of his last name is also indicative: a split in himself, a split in consciousness, morality, behavior). This is evidenced by his judgments about the “categories” of people, about the right of an “extraordinary” person to commit a crime, about how to distinguish an “extraordinary person from a “trembling creature.” But, having committed a crime, Raskolnikov, tormented by pangs of conscience, understands that he is not from the “class” of “those who have the right”; he despises himself for these torments, for the fact that he turned out to be a “trembling creature,” but the “theory” in his mind has not been debunked. In these terrible days for Raskolnikov, the writer confronts him with Luzhin and Svidrigailov - people who, without remorse, constantly violate the laws of morality in their everyday life and consider themselves to have the right to control the destinies of others.

Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin lives by the principle “love yourself first.” This principle allows him, without hesitation, to humiliate, destroy a person, and trample on someone else’s life. Seeking power over Dunya (he calls it love), Luzhin wants to discredit her brother by convincing everyone that Sonya Marmeladova, whom Rodion helps, is not only a prostitute, but also a thief. The heartbreaking scene during the wake at the Marmeladovs’ is unforgettable, when only an accident saves Sonya. Luzhin completely lacks a moral sense; he does not know what conscience or decency is. His callousness leads to outright meanness.

Svidrigailov is a much more complex nature. This is not a complete egoist, like Luzhin, not just a villain and a criminal. He is potentially a man of great conscience and great strength. But his behavior is unpredictable, and brutal instincts often manifest themselves in him. Dostoevsky shows that the reason for the moral and then physical death of this person is social. He comes to the conclusion that justice is impossible in this world. Hence his despair, contempt and distrust of people. Good beginnings perish in him. He does good and causes evil (remember his role in the fate of Dunya) with the same indifference - “out of boredom.” But it is impossible to live without faith in truth and goodness - and he dies, executing himself. Faced with these people, Raskolnikov cannot agree with their “morality” and at the same time cannot help but admit that they live according to his “theory”, justifying their contempt for the “crowd”, for the “inferior”. He has nothing with which to refute Svidrigailov’s assertion that they (he and Raskolnikov) are “birds of a feather” and that between them “there is a common point.”

Moreover, Raskolnikov himself tells Luzhin: “If you bring to consequences what you preached just now, it will turn out that people can be slaughtered,” thereby denouncing the theory according to which he wanted to, but could not (“nature” won!) live. The hero’s attitude towards the “powers of this world” shows that he, seeing in them his “doubles” (although he would never admit this even to himself), feels the deepest disgust for them and cannot join them, cannot accept the world people living according to his “theory”. This is the strength of Raskolnikov’s “nature”, his superiority over the “powers of this world”, over all the Luzhins and Svidrigailovs. This is the hope for his moral revival and return to people.

The narrative structure of Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment is quite complex. At the center of the work is the image of the main character, Rodion Raskolnikov, with his idea of ​​“allowing blood according to conscience.” All other characters are somehow connected with Raskolnikov. The main character is surrounded in the novel by “doubles”, in whose minds his idea is refracted differently.

One of Raskolnikov's doubles in the novel is Pyotr Petrovich Luzhin. Dostoevsky characterizes this hero sharply negatively. This is a rich man, a brilliant businessman who came to St. Petersburg in the hope of building his career. “Having made his way out of insignificance,” he became accustomed to “painfully admiring himself” and highly valued his intelligence and abilities. Luzhin's main dream was to get married. Most of all, he wanted to “elevate to himself”, to bless some poor girl, certainly beautiful and educated, for he knew that with women you can “win very, very much in St. Petersburg.”

These dreams, painful narcissism - all this testifies to the hero’s mental instability and his cynicism. Having “made his way out of insignificance” with the help of money, in his soul and in character he remained a nonentity.

Luzhin is a business man who values ​​money obtained “by labor and by all means” more than anything else in the world. He respects himself, considers himself an intelligent, progressive person working for the benefit of the whole society. Luzhin even has his own theory, which he gladly develops in front of Raskolnikov. This “theory of rational egoism” says: “love yourself first, first of all, for everything in the world is based on personal interest.” Luzhin believes: if everyone acts guided only by their own interests, then there will be more successful citizens in society, “organized private affairs.” Consequently, “acquiring solely and exclusively for himself,” a person works for the benefit of “general prosperity,” for the benefit of economic progress.

In life, Pyotr Petrovich is consistently guided by his theory. Marriage to Avdotya Romanovna pleases his painful pride, and besides, it can contribute to his career. Raskolnikov opposes this marriage, and Luzhin quickly finds a way to rectify the situation. In order to denigrate Rodion in the eyes of his relatives and regain Dunya’s favor, he accuses Sonya of theft by planting a banknote on her.

Analyzing Luzhin's theory, we notice its striking similarity with Raskolnikov's theory, in which a person's personal interest also dominates. “Everything is allowed to Napoleons,” Raskolnikov categorically asserts. In the murder of the old pawnbroker, of course, there is also the hero’s personal interest. One of the motives for this murder is Raskolnikov’s desire to test his theory, to find out what type of people he himself belongs to: “...am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?”

Raskolnikov’s theory, in his opinion, is also designed to save humanity from world evil and is aimed at developing progress. Mohammeds, Napoleons, Lycurgus - people of the future who “move the world and lead it to the goal.” They "destroy the present for the sake of the future."

It is characteristic that Raskolnikov did not like Luzhin’s theory at all. Perhaps intuitively he felt in it a similarity with his own ideas. It is not for nothing that he notices to Pyotr Petrovich that according to his, Luzhin’s theory, it turns out that “people can be cut.” As Yu. Karyakin notes, this similarity probably explains Raskolnikov’s unaccountable hatred of Luzhin.

Thus, Luzhin trivializes the protagonist’s theory, offering an “economic” version of this theory. Luzhin is Raskolnikov’s “double” in everyday life.

We find the extreme expression of Raskolnikov’s idea, its philosophical context, in the image of Svidrigailov. This image in the novel is very complex. Svidrigailov “is nowhere one-line, not so monotonously black.” It is Svidrigailov who restores the good name of Dunya Raskolnikova, revealing to Marfa Petrovna the true state of affairs. He helps the orphaned Marmeladov family by organizing the funeral of Katerina Ivanovna and placing young children in “orphan institutions.” Arkady Ivanovich also helps Sonya, providing her with funds for her trip to Siberia.

This is, of course, an intelligent person, insightful, and subtle in his own way. He has a great understanding of people. So, he immediately realized what kind of person Luzhin was, and decided to prevent Avdotya Romanovna from marrying him. As V. Ya. Kirpotin notes, “potentially Svidrigailov is a man of great conscience and great strength,” but all his inclinations were ruined by his way of life, Russian social conditions, and the lack of any ideals or clear moral guidelines for this hero. In addition, by nature Svidrigailov is endowed with a vice, which he cannot and does not want to fight. We are talking about the hero's penchant for debauchery. He lives, obeying only the call of his own passions.

When meeting with Raskolnikov, Svidrigailov notes that there is “some common point” between them, that they are “birds of a feather.” In addition, the writer himself, to a certain extent, brings the characters closer together, developing the same motive in their depiction. This is the motive of the child, the motive of innocence and purity. It is said about Raskolnikov that he has a “childish smile”; in his first dream he sees himself as a seven-year-old boy. Sonya, with whom he is becoming increasingly close, reminds him of a child. There was a childish expression on Lizaveta’s face at the moment of Raskolnikov’s attack on her. Children appear to Svidrigailov in nightmares, reminding him of the atrocities he committed.

And already in the development of this motive, the difference between the heroes is revealed: if Raskolnikov carries this childishness and purity within himself (this is the best thing about the hero), then for Svidrigailov it is desecrated purity and innocence. It is not for nothing that Raskolnikov feels disgust when talking with Arkady Ivanovich: after all, Svidrigailov is encroaching on what is present in the depths of Rodion’s soul.

In the future, the difference between them becomes more and more noticeable. Raskolnikov's crime symbolized a protest against the injustice and cruelty of the world around him and unbearable living conditions. Of course, his secondary motives were the plight of the hero and his family, and the desire to test his theory. But, having committed murder, Raskolnikov can no longer live as before: he “as if he had cut himself off from everyone with scissors,” he has nothing to talk about with those around him. A feeling of painful alienation from people suddenly overcomes him.

However, as V. Ya. Kirpotin notes, both before and after the crime, the concepts of good and evil are significant for Raskolnikov; ideals were preserved in his soul. So, after committing a murder, the hero helps the Marmeladovs. Raskolnikov gives the last twenty rubles for the funeral of Semyon Zakharovich.

We find nothing like this in the nature of Svidrigailov, who is completely devastated and spiritually dead. Great life experience, self-sufficiency, and a subtle mind coexist in his soul with cynicism and unbelief. Even love for Dunya cannot “revive” him, only for a moment awakening in his soul impulses of nobility and truly human feelings. Svidrigailov is bored in life, nothing occupies his mind and heart, he does not believe in anything. Despite all this, Arkady Ivanovich indulges all his desires, both good and bad. Having killed a very young girl, he does not feel any remorse. Only once, on the night before his death, he is visited by a nightmare vision in the form of a ruined girl. Moreover, this vile story is apparently not the only crime of Svidrigailov. There is a lot of gossip and rumors about him, to which, however, he is indifferent. And Arkady Ivanovich himself hardly considers all these stories to be something out of the ordinary. There seem to be no moral boundaries for this man.

It is characteristic that at first it seems to Raskolnikov that Svidrigailov “lurks some kind of power over him,” he attracts Rodion. But soon Rodion becomes “hard” and “stifling” with this man, Raskolnikov begins to consider him “the most empty and insignificant villain in the world.”

Thus, Svidrigailov goes much further along the path of evil than Raskolnikov. And in this regard, even the name of this character is symbolic. The name "Arkady" comes from the Greek word "arkados", which means "resident of Arcadia", literally - "shepherd". It is characteristic that in Orthodox culture this word was often used in the meaning of “shepherd” - that is, a leader in spiritual life, a teacher, a mentor. And in a sense, Svidrigailov is really Raskolnikov’s teacher on the path of evil, since in his cynicism and unbelief he is in many ways “superior” to Rodion. Svidrigailov constantly demonstrates a “higher,” “masterful” mastery of Raskolnikov’s theory in the form of its practical embodiments.

Raskolnikov’s third “double” in the novel is Sonya Marmeladova. Its “duplicity” is only external. By turning into a prostitute, she was also able to “cross the line,” a certain moral boundary. However, the motive for Sonya’s actions was not selfishness, not an individualistic theory, not a protest against world evil. She sacrifices herself to save Katerina Ivanovna’s young children from starvation.

If Raskolnikov’s theory initially involves harm to society, then Sonya only brings harm to herself. If Rodion is free in his choice between good and evil, then Sonya is deprived of this freedom. Pisarev noted that “Sofya Semyonovna would also be able to throw herself into the Neva, but, rushing into the Neva, she could not lay out thirty rubles on the table in front of Katerina Ivanovna, which contains the whole meaning and the whole justification for her immoral act.”

Sonya is an active, active nature, she is trying to save her family from imminent death. On her life's path, she is supported by meekness, kindness, and faith in God. Raskolnikov is attracted to Sonya because he begins to identify her with himself, considering their situations in life to be similar. However, he soon notices that he does not understand her, she seems strange to him, a “holy fool.” And this misunderstanding reveals the differences between them. Sonya’s “crime” is different from Raskolnikov’s crime, therefore her soul is alive, filled with faith, love, mercy, Sonya feels her unity with people.

Thus, Raskolnikov has spiritual doubles in the novel. Their purpose is different. Luzhin and Svidrigailov discredit Raskolnikov's theory with their inner appearance. For all that, Luzhin is a primitive embodiment of the hero theory, its embodiment at the everyday level. Svidrigailov embodies Raskolnikov’s idea on a deep, philosophical level. The image of Svidrigailov seems to reveal the bottom of the abyss to which the individualistic theory of the hero leads. Sonya is only the external “double” of the hero; her “doubleness” is superficial.