F. M. - the greatest Russian
sky writer, consummate artist-
realist, anatomist of the human soul, passionate
a strong advocate of the ideas of humanism and fair
news. Talking about undeniable genius
Dostoevsky, M. Gorky compared him by
the power of visualization and talent with Shex-
a feast. His novels are notable for their intent
interest in intellectual and psychological
the heroes' life, revealing the complex
and the contradictory consciousness of man.
F. M. Dostoevsky's novel "Crime
and punishment "is a work dedicated to
the history of how long and hard it went
through suffering and mistakes, restless human
mental soul to comprehend the truth. For Do-
Stoevsky, a deeply religious man,
the meaning of human life is to
the pursuit of Christian ideals of love for
to the neighbor. Considering from this point of view
Raskolnikov's crime, he singles out in
him, first of all, the fact of violation of moral
natural laws, not legal ones. Rodion
Raskolnikov is a man, according to Christian
deeply sinful concepts. I mean
not the sin of murder, but pride, dislike for anyone
dyam, the thought that everything - "the creature trembled -
shchy ”, and he, perhaps,“ has the right ”. "Right
has »use others as material
to achieve your goals. Here it is quite
it is logical to recall the lines of A.S. a, co-
sonorous theories of a former student Rodion
Raskolnikov:
We all look at Napoleons:
Millions of two-legged creatures
For us, the tool is one,
The sin of murder, according to Dostoevsky, is secondary.
Raskolnikov's crime is ignoring
keeping the Christian commandments, and a person who
who in his pride managed to transcend them,
according to religious concepts, capable of
everything. So, according to Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov co-
commits the first - the main crime -
before God, the second - murder - before
people, and as a consequence of the first.
On the pages of the novel, the author is
follows the theory of Raskolnikov, which
led him to life's ruin. This theory is
ra like the world. The relationship between the goal and
means that can be used
to achieve this goal,
long. The Jesuits came up with a slogan for themselves:
"End justifies the means". Actually,
nagging, this statement is also
the quintessence of Raskolnikov's theory. Not ob-
having the necessary material
but he decides to kill the old woman Alena Iva-
again, rob her and get funds for
achieving their goals. At the same time, however, he
constantly tormented by one question: does
is he entitled to transcend legal laws?
According to his theory, he has the right to step over
push through any obstacle if
putting into practice his ideas (“salutary, might
maybe for humanity ") this is required.
So, "ordinary" or "unusual
military man Raskolnikov? This question
he cares more about the old woman's money. Worthy
Evsky, of course, does not agree with the philosophical
her Raskolnikov, and in the end
He wants to give up her and his hero. Pisa-
tel follows the same logic with
which Raskolnikov came to murder.
We can say that the plot has a mirrored
character: first the crime of Christians-
sky commandments, then murder; first
confession of murder, then comprehension of the ide-
ala of love for neighbor, true repentance,
cleansing, resurrection to a new life.
How did Raskolnikov manage to comprehend the
the accuracy of your own theory and be reborn
to a new life? Just like myself
found his truth: through suffering. Needed
availability, inevitability of suffering on the way
comprehending the meaning of life, gaining happiness
tya is the cornerstone of the philosophy of Do-
Stoevsky. He admires the suffering, rushes about
with him, as Razumikhin put it, like a chicken
tsa with an egg. believing in a redeemer-
the cleansing power of suffering, once in a while
som in each work, along with their
my heroes go through it, reaching those
the most amazing reliability in the
covering the nature of the human soul.
The guide of Dostoevsky's philosophy in
novel "Crime and Punishment" is
Sonya Marmeladova, whose whole life is a
donation. By the power of your love, the way
to endure any torment she is
shades Raskolnikov to his moral
level, helps him to overcome himself
and be reborn.
Philosophical questions, over resolution
whom Rodion Raskolnikov suffered, under-
the minds of many thinkers, for example, Na-
Poleon, Schopenhauer. Nietzsche created a theory
"Blond beast", "superman" who
everything is allowed. She later formed the basis
fascist ideology, which, having become masters
the prevailing ideology of the Third Reich,
brought innumerable calamities to all human
honor. Therefore, the humanistic position
Dostoevsky, although constrained by the framework of re-
religious views of the author, had and has
of great public importance.
showed inner, spiritual
hero conflict: a rationalistic attitude
to life ("the theory of the superman")
falls in conflict with moral sense,
with the spiritual self. And a man among people
you can stay if the spiritual "I" wins.
The novel Crime and Punishment was written in 1866, when Russia entered the phase of capitalism. Capitalism is shown in the novel as a destructive element, Dostoevsky called it "wild capitalism." It brings people poverty, hunger, death, humiliation and leads to the dehumanization of society. Dostoevsky nurtured the idea of \u200b\u200bthe novel for many years. The theme was already developed in the novels "The Humiliated and the Insulted" and "Notes from the Underground".
"Crime and Punishment" is one of the most difficult books in the history of world literature. This is a philosophical and psychological novel, it analyzes not only the external world, but also the subjective driving motives of the hero's behavior.
Raskolnikov's theory is a socio-psychological experiment. The ideas set forth in theory were born not in the sick head of Rodion Raskolnikov, but in the advanced minds of the world elite. In 1865, an article by Napoleon III was published, where he divided people into extraordinary and ordinary. A year later, the novel "Crime and Punishment" was published. These ideas were in the air.
Following Napoleon III, Raskolnikov also divides people into ordinary and extraordinary. For extraordinary people, he secures the right to a crime: "An extraordinary person has the right to allow his conscience to step over ... other obstacles, if the implementation of his idea requires it." Raskolnikov refers to the fact that great personalities, "creators of history", Lycurgus, Mohammed, Napoleon, do not stop at sacrifice, violence, blood for the sake of the implementation of their ideas. He is sure that Newton has the right to step over a dozen, hundred, thousand people so that his discoveries and laws become known to mankind. Raskolnikov considers ordinary people "material that serves solely for the birth of their own kind", and if this "material" does not notice and despises extraordinary people, then you can remove it, anyway a new one will be born.
Raskolnikov also considers in his theory the case when ordinary people imagine themselves to be advanced. To this he remarks: "They never go far." And then Rodion begins to torment himself with the question whether he is ordinary or extraordinary: "Am I a trembling creature or do I have the right?" He arrogantly regards himself as extraordinary, imagines himself to be a god and gives himself the right to decide who will live and who will die.
Raskolnikov wants to test his theory and find out whether he can step over himself, whether he really is extraordinary. He did not decide on the crime right away, but suffered for a whole month, but his sister Dunya, ready for a marriage not for love with Luzhin, so that Rodion could graduate from the university, his hungry mother, poor Sonya push him to murder. Life, as if on purpose, not only does not take the hero away from a rash decision, but, on the contrary, pushes him at every step. “I don’t want to wait for general happiness. I myself want to live, otherwise it’s better not to live,” he says. But, even having committed a crime, he does not repent of his deed, because he is sure that he did it for the people, that he would make amends with a hundred souls saved by the money of the old women. But in fact, Raskolnikov did this not for people, but for himself. He, like a true egoist, hurt people in order to test his theory. Having committed a crime, Raskolnikov bitterly realizes that he could not step over himself, that he is an ordinary person: "I did not kill a person, I killed the principle! I killed the principle, but I did not step over, I remained on this side .. He only managed to kill ... "And now, in case of failure, this act seems to him stupid. Although, if Rodion had been given the opportunity to correct his monstrous crime, it seems to me that he would have committed it again, because he sacredly believes in his theory, but has lost faith in God.
The theory pushed Raskolnikov to a crime, but it also supported in difficult moments of despair and fear, when he wanted to commit suicide - to drown himself: “I thought, already standing above the water, that if I considered myself strong until now, then let me I will not be afraid of shame now. "
When Raskolnikov went to confess what he had done to the office, he did it not for himself, but for Sonya, for his mother, for Dunya, but not of his own free will. He does not feel a sense of remorse, he still believes that this is not a crime, and only the murder of Lizaveta oppresses him: "The fact that I killed a nasty, malicious louse, an old woman pawnbroker who is useless to anyone, who is asked to kill forty sins, which sucked the poor juice, and this is a crime? I don't think about it and I don't think about washing it off. These words prove once again that Raskolnikov renounced God, and therefore he cannot understand that he has no right to decide who dies and who stays alive. Everyone has an equal right to life.
Thus, Raskolnikov contradicts himself. He pities the poor and disadvantaged, helps them. He is against a world where evil and injustice reign. But by what means does he want to achieve universal happiness? The same evil and injustice! Raskolnikov understands that the path he took is wrong, but he believes that the theory has nothing to do with it, it's just that "I am just as much a louse as everyone else." But it is precisely this contradiction that presses on him and gives rise to such feelings as aversion to people. It is because of this that all his warm feelings for family and friends and their feelings for him cause only fear and hatred in Rodion: “Oh, if I were alone and no one loved me, and I myself would never love anyone! It wouldn't be all this! " This is the subconscious feeling of guilt before humanity for his cruel theory, which Raskolnikov is unable to understand. Consequently, Rodion cannot understand his own soul and therefore unquestioningly obeys the theory, which even in case of failure seems to be true to him. But she is the source of all Raskolnikov's mental anguish!
(1821 - 1881).
This question is asked by the protagonist of the novel, Rodion Raskolnikov, who talks about himself after the murder of the old woman pawnbroker.
According to Raskolnikov, all people are divided into two categories: lower and higher people. Inferior people live in obedience and love to be obedient. Higher people realize great goals and ideas. If such a person needs to step over the corpse, through the blood, in order to realize his idea, then he is inside himself, can give himself permission to step over the blood.
Raskolnikov referred himself to the highest people. Therefore, asking myself the question "Am I trembling or have the right?" he was looking for self-confidence that he was the upper class of people (who have the right), and not the lower (trembling creature).
Svidrigailov told Avdotya Romanovna Raskolnikova, about the theory of her brother, Rodion Raskolnikov (part 6 chapter 5):
"There was also one theory of its own - a so-so theory - according to which people are divided, you see, into material and into special people, that is, into people for whom, due to their high position, the law is not written, but on the contrary, who themselves compose laws for the rest of the people, for matter, for something. He seemed to imagine that he was a man of genius - that is, he was sure of that for some time. He suffered a lot and now suffers from the thought that he knew how to write a theory, but to step over, without hesitation, and unable to, therefore, a man is not a genius. Well, and this is for a young man with pride and humiliating, in our age it is especially ...
The phrase "Am I a trembling creature or have I the right?" in the text of the novel
1) From a conversation between Rodion Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova
Rodion Raskolnikov, confessed to Sonya Marmeladova in the murder of the old woman pawnbroker and Elizabeth and explained why he did it (part 5, chapter 4):
The thing is: I once asked myself this question: what if, for example, Napoleon happened to be in my place and he didn't have to start a career, neither Toulon, nor Egypt, nor the crossing of Mont Blanc, but instead of all of these beautiful and monumental things, just some funny old woman, a legistress, who also needs to be killed in order to steal money from her chest (for a career, you know?), well, would he dare to do this, if there was no other way out? Wouldn't it have warped me that this is not too monumental and ... and sinful? Well, so I tell you that on this "question" I suffered an awful long time, so I felt terribly ashamed when I finally realized (suddenly somehow) that not only would he not be jarred, but even in his head it didn’t occur to him that it wasn’t monumental ... and he wouldn’t even understand at all: what is there to warp about? And if only there was no other way for him, he would have strangled him so that he would not have let out a peep, without any thoughtfulness! .. Well, I ... got out of my thoughts ... I strangled ... following the example of authority .. And it was exactly like that! Are you funny? Yes, Sonya, the funniest thing here is that maybe that's exactly what happened ...
Part Five, Chapter IV:
"- Shut up, Sonya, I'm not laughing at all, I myself know that the devil was dragging me. Shut up, Sonya, shut up!" He repeated gloomily and persistently. "I know everything. I have already changed my mind and whispered to myself when lay then in the darkness ... I argued all this with myself, to the last slightest line, and I know everything, everything! And so tired, so tired of all this chatter then! I wanted to forget everything and start again, Sonya, and stop And do you really think that I went like a fool, headlong? I went like a clever man, and that ruined me! And do you really think that I did not know, for example, even that if I had already started myself to ask and interrogate: do I have the right to have power? - then, therefore, I have no right to have power. Or what if I ask the question: is a louse a person? - then, therefore, a louse is not a person for me, but a louse is for that who doesn’t even think about it and who goes straight without question ... If I suffered for so many days: would Napoleon go or not? - I felt so clearly that I was not Napoleon ... I endured all the torment of all this chatter, Sonya, and wished to shake it all off my shoulders: I wanted, Sonya, to kill without casuistry, to kill for myself, for myself alone! I didn't even want to lie to myself! Not to help my mother, I killed - nonsense! I didn’t kill in order to become a benefactor of mankind, having received funds and power. Nonsense! I just killed; I killed for myself, for myself only: and there would I become someone's benefactor or all my life, like a spider, would catch everyone in a web and suck out living juices from everyone, I, at that moment, still had to be !. And not money, the main thing, I needed, Sonya, when I killed; not so much money was needed as something else ... I now know all this ... Understand me: maybe, going the same way, I would never repeat murder again. I needed to know something else, something else pushed me under the arms: I needed to learn then, and quickly find out whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a human? Whether I can overstep or can I not! Do I dare to bend over and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or am I entitled..."
2) From the conversation of Rodion Raskolnikov with the investigator
Raskolnikov's views on dividing people into lower and higher ones are set out in the discussion of the article Rodina Raskolnikov in (part 3, chapter 5) between Raskolnikov himself and the investigator in the case of the murder of the old woman, Porfiry Petrovich:
"- Yes, sir, and you insist that the act of performing a crime is always accompanied by illness. Very, very original, but ... I, in fact, did not get interested in this part of your article, but some thought that was missed at the end of the article, but which you, unfortunately, spend only a hint, it's unclear ... In a word, if you remember, there is some hint that there are supposedly some such persons in the world who can ... that is, not what they can, but have every right to do all sorts of outrages and crimes, and that for them, as if the law was not written.
Raskolnikov chuckled at the intensified and deliberate distortion of his idea.
How? What? The right to crime? But it’s not because "Wednesday stuck"? Razumikhin inquired with some kind of fright.
No, no, not exactly because, 'answered Porfiry. - The thing is that in their article all people are somehow divided into "ordinary" and "extraordinary". Ordinary people must live in obedience and have no right to transgress the law, because they, you see, are ordinary. And the extraordinary have the right to commit all sorts of crimes and violate the law in every possible way, in fact, because they are extraordinary. So you, it seems, if only I'm not mistaken?
But how is it? It cannot be so! Razumikhin muttered in bewilderment.
Raskolnikov chuckled again. He immediately understood what was the matter and what they wanted to push him into; he remembered his article. He dared to accept the challenge.
This is not entirely true for me, - he began simply and modestly. - However, I confess, you have presented it almost correctly, even if you like, and quite right ... (He was definitely pleased to agree, which is absolutely true). The only difference is that I do not at all insist that extraordinary people must and must always do all sorts of atrocities, as you say. It even seems to me that such an article would not have been allowed to go to press. I simply hinted that an "extraordinary" person has the right ... that is, not an official right, but he himself has the right to allow his conscience to step over ... over other obstacles, and only if the implementation of his idea (sometimes saving, perhaps for all mankind) will require it. You will be pleased to say that my article is unclear; I am ready to explain it to you, if possible. I may not be mistaken in assuming that you seem to want that; if you please. In my opinion, if Kepler's and Newton's discoveries, as a result of some combinations, could in no way become known to people except with the sacrifice of the life of one, ten, one hundred and so on people, who would interfere with this discovery or stand in the way as an obstacle, then Newton would have the right, and even would have to ... eliminatethese ten or one hundred people, to make their discoveries known to all mankind. From this, however, it does not at all follow that Newton had the right to kill whoever he pleases, oncoming and across, or to steal every day at the bazaar. Further, I remember, I develop in my article that everything ... well, for example, even though the legislators and institutes of mankind, starting with the ancient ones, continuing with the Lycurgus, Solon, Mohammed, Napoleon, and so on, every one of them were criminals, already that one that, giving a new law, thereby violating the ancient, sacredly revered by society and passed from the fathers, and, of course, did not stop at blood, if only blood (sometimes completely innocent and valiantly shed for the ancient law) could help them. It is even remarkable that most of these benefactors and institutes of mankind were especially terrible bloodsheds. In a word, I deduce that everyone, not only great people, but also a little out of tune with people, that is, even a little able to say something new, must, by their nature, be by all means criminals - more or less, of course. Otherwise, it is difficult for them to get out of a rut, and, of course, they cannot agree to remain in a rut, again by their nature, and in my opinion, they even have to disagree. In short, you see that there is nothing particularly new here so far. It has been printed and read a thousand times. As for my division of people into ordinary and extraordinary, I agree that it is somewhat arbitrary, but I don’t insist on exact numbers. I only believe in my main idea. It consists precisely in the fact that people, according to the law of nature, are divided generallyinto two categories: for the lower (ordinary), that is, so to speak, for the material serving solely for the birth of their own kind, and actually for people, that is, those who have the gift or talent to say in their midst new word.The subdivisions here, of course, are endless, but the distinctive features of both categories are rather sharp: the first category, that is, the material, generally speaking, people are conservative by nature, dignified, live in obedience and love to be obedient. In my opinion, they must be obedient, because this is their purpose, and there is absolutely nothing humiliating for them. The second category, everyone breaks the law, destroyers or are prone to, judging by their abilities. The crimes of these people are, of course, relative and varied; for the most part they demand, in very varied statements, the destruction of the present in the name of a better. But if, for his idea, he needs to step over the corpse, through the blood, then, in my conscience, he can, in my opinion, give himself permission to step over the blood - depending on the idea and according to its size - note this. It is only in this sense that I speak in my article about their right to crime. (You remember, we started with a legal issue). However, there is nothing to worry about: the masses almost never recognize this right for them, execute them and hang them (more or less) and thus, quite rightly, fulfill their conservative purpose, with the fact that in the next generations the same masses put executed on a pedestal and worshiped (more or less). The first category is always the master of the present, the second category is the master of the future. The former keep the peace and increase it numerically; the latter move the world and lead it to the goal. Both those and others have exactly the same right to exist. In a word, everyone has an equal right with me, and - vive la guerre éternelle - to New Jerusalem, of course! "
3) Other references in the novel
The phrase "Am I a trembling creature or have I the right?" is mentioned several times in the novel "" (1866):
Part 3, chapter VI
“The old woman is nonsense!” He thought hotly and impulsively, “the old woman, perhaps, and the mistake is not her point! The old woman was only a disease ... I wanted to step over as soon as possible ... I did not kill a man, I killed a principle! I killed, but I didn’t overstep, I stayed on this side ... I only managed to kill it. And even that, it turns out ... Principle? Why did the fool Razumikhin scolded the socialists just now? shopping; they are engaged in “general happiness” ... No, life is once given to me, and it will never be again: I do not want to wait for “general happiness.” I myself want to live, otherwise it’s better not to live. I just didn’t want to pass by the hungry mother, clutching my ruble in my pocket, waiting for “general happiness.” “I’m carrying, they say, a brick for everyone’s happiness and therefore I feel peace of mind.” Ha-ha! Why did you let me pass? I only live once, I want to too ... Oh, I'm an aesthetic louse, and nothing else, ”he added suddenly laughing like a madman. I really am a louse, - he continued, with malicious joy clinging to the thought, rummaging in it, playing and making fun of it, - and only because, first of all, now I am talking about the fact that I am a louse; because, secondly, that for a whole month I disturbed the all-good providence, calling to witnesses, that I am not undertaking for my own, they say, flesh and lust, but I mean a magnificent and pleasant goal - ha-ha! Because, thirdly, that possible justice he put to observe in performance, weight and measure, and arithmetic: of all the lice he chose the most useless and, after killing her, he put to take from her exactly as much as I need for the first step, and not more. less (and the rest, therefore, would have gone to the monastery, according to the spiritual will - ha-ha!) ... Therefore, therefore, I am finally a louse, - he added, grinding his teeth, - because I myself, maybe even nastier and nastier than a killed louse, and had a presentiment in advance that I would tell myself this after I had killed it! Yes, nothing can compare with such horror! Oh, vulgarity! Oh, meanness! .. Oh, as I understand the "prophet", with a saber, on a horse. Allah commands and obey "trembling" creature! The "prophet" is right, he is right when he puts a good-sized battery somewhere across the street and blows at the right and the guilty, not even deigning to explain himself! Obey, trembling creature, and - do not wish, therefore - this is none of your business! .. Oh, I will never forgive the old woman! "
Rodion Raskolnikov's theory: "trembling creatures" have the right M. Dostoevsky is the greatest Russian writer, an unsurpassed realist artist, anatomist of the human soul, a passionate champion of the ideas of humanism and justice. "The genius of Dostoevsky," wrote M. Gorky, "is undeniable, in terms of the power of depiction his talent is equal, perhaps, only to Shakespeare."
His novels are distinguished by a keen interest in the intellectual and psychological life of the heroes, the disclosure of a complex and contradictory human consciousness. FM Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment is a work dedicated to the history of how long and hard the restless human soul went through suffering and mistakes to comprehend the truth. For Dostoevsky, a deeply religious person, the meaning of human life is to comprehend Christian ideals of love for Considering the crime of Raskolnikov from this point of view, he singles out in it, first of all, the fact of the crime of moral laws, not legal ones.
Rodion Raskolnikov is a person who, according to Christian concepts, is deeply sinful. This does not mean the sin of murder, but pride, dislike for people, the idea that everyone is a "trembling creature", and he, perhaps, "has the right".
"It has the right to use others as material to achieve their goals. It is quite logical to recall the lines of Alexander Pushkin, reminiscent of the essence of the theory of the former student Rodion Raskolnikov: We all look at Napoleons: Two-legged creatures mshlony For us, one weapon.
The sin of murder, according to Dostoevsky, is secondary. Raskolnikov's crime is ignoring Christian commandments, and a person who in his pride has managed to transgress, according to religious concepts, is capable of anything. So, according to Dostoevsky, Raskolnikov commits the first, the main crime before God, the second - murder - in front of people, and as a consequence of the first. On the pages of the novel, the author explores in detail the theory of Raskolnikov, which led him to a dead end in life. This theory is as old as the world.
The relationship between a goal and the means that can be used to achieve this goal has been studied for a long time. The Jesuits came up with a slogan for themselves: "The end justifies the means." Strictly speaking, this statement is the quintessence of Raskolnikov's theory.
Lacking the necessary material resources, he decides to kill the old woman Alena Ivanovna, rob her and get the means to achieve his goals. At the same time, however, he is constantly tormented by one question: does he have the right to transgress legal laws? According to his theory, he has the right to step over other obstacles, if the implementation of his idea ("salutary, perhaps for humanity") requires it. So, "ordinary or" extraordinary man Raskolnikov?
This question worries him more than the old woman's money. Dostoevsky, of course, does not agree with Raskolnikov's philosophy, and forces him to abandon it himself. The writer follows the same logic with which he led Raskolnikov to murder.
We can say that the plot has a mirror-like character: first, the violation of Christian commandments, then murder; first, the confession of the murder, then the comprehension of the ideal of love for one's neighbor, true repentance, purification, resurrection to a new life. How was Raskolnikov able to comprehend the fallacy of his own theory and be reborn to a new life? Just as Dostoevsky himself found his truth: through suffering. Necessity, inevitability of suffering on the way to comprehending the meaning of life, finding happiness - the cornerstone of Dostoevsky's philosophy.
He does not admire him, does not rush about with him, in the words of Razumikhin, like a chicken with an egg. Dostoevsky, believing in the redemptive, purifying power of suffering, over and over again in each work, together with his heroes, experiences it, thereby achieving amazing reliability in revealing the nature of the human soul. The conductor of Dostoevsky's philosophy in the novel Crime and Punishment is Sonya Marmeladova, whose whole life is self-sacrifice. By the power of her love, the ability to endure any torment, she elevates Raskolnikov to herself, helps him to overcome himself and rise again.
Philosophical questions, over the solution of which Rodion Raskolnikov tormented, occupied the minds of many thinkers, for example, Napoleon, Schopenhauer. Nietzsche created the theory of a "blond beast", a "superman" who is allowed to do anything. Later, it formed the basis of the fascist ideology, which, having become the dominant ideology of the Third Reich, brought innumerable calamities to all mankind. Therefore, the humanistic position of Dostoevsky, although constrained by the framework of the author's religious views, had and still has tremendous social significance. Dostoevsky showed the hero's inner spiritual conflict: a rationalistic attitude to life ("the theory of the superman") comes into conflict with moral feeling, with the spiritual "I". And in order to remain a man among people, it is necessary that the spiritual "I man" won.
- ... Be quiet, Sonya, I'm not laughing at all, I myself know that the devil was dragging me. Shut up, Sonya, shut up! He repeated gloomily and urgently. - I know everything. I had already changed my mind and whispered to myself when I was lying then in the dark ... I argued all this with myself, to the last slightest line, and I know everything, everything! And so tired, so tired of all this chatter! I wanted to forget everything and start again, Sonya, and stop talking! And do you really think that I went like a fool headlong? I went like a smart guy, and that's what ruined me! And do you really think that I did not know, for example, even that if I had already begun to ask myself and question: do I have the right to have power? - then, therefore, I have no right to have power. Or what if I ask the question: Is a louse a human? - then, therefore, a louse is no longer a person for me, but a louse for someone who does not even think of this and who goes straight without question ... If I have suffered for so many days: would Napoleon go or not? - I really felt so clearly that I was not Napoleon ... I endured all, all the torment of all this chatter, Sonya, and wished to shake it all off my shoulders: I wanted, Sonya, to kill without casuistry, to kill for myself, for myself alone! I didn't even want to lie to myself! Not to help my mother, I killed - nonsense! I did not kill so that, having received funds and power, I became a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I just killed; I killed for myself, for myself only: and there would I become someone's benefactor or all my life, like a spider, would catch everyone in a web and suck out living juices from everyone, I, at that moment, still had to be !. And not money, the main thing, I needed, Sonya, when I killed; not so much money was needed as something else ... I now know all this ... Understand me: maybe, going the same way, I would never repeat murder again. I needed to know something else, something else pushed me under the arms: I needed to learn then, and quickly find out whether I was a louse, like everyone else, or a human? Will I be able to overstep or not! Do I dare to bend over and take it or not? Am I a trembling creature or have the right ...
- Kill? Do you have the right to kill? - Sonia clasped her hands.
- Eh-eh, Sonya! - he cried irritably, was about to contradict her, but contemptuously fell silent. - Don't interrupt me, Sonya! I wanted to prove to you only one thing: that the devil dragged me then, and after that he explained to me that I had no right to go there, because I am just the same louse, like everyone else! He laughed at me, so I came to you now! Receive a guest! If I hadn't been a louse, would I have come to you? Listen: when I went to see the old woman then, I just went to try ... Just know!
- And they killed! Killed!
- But how did you kill? Is that how they kill? Is it so they go to kill, as I went then! Someday I'll tell you how I walked ... Did I kill an old woman? I killed myself, not the old woman! And then he killed himself at once, forever! .. And the devil killed this old woman, not me ... Enough, enough, Sonya, enough! Leave me, - he cried out suddenly in convulsive anguish, - leave me!
