The greatest obstacle in literary criticism is the inability of the reader to know with certainty the mind of the author. From what we know, the author’s intentions could have been completely opposite to the general analysis. For that reason, contradictory opinions abound and controversy rages on topics that the author probably never intended as such. In his Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoevsky added an epilogue to conclude the novel. In the previous chapter, Raskolnikov, the protagonist, confesses and the police arrest him for murder. Many critics believe that this is a fitting ending and that the epilogue is completely unnecessary, while others argue that the epilogue is highly necessary, as it hints at Raskolnikov’s redemption and resurrection. Crime and Punishment is a Christian novel, with religious overtones and undertones throughout, like Sonya’s reading of the Lazarus story, which parallels Raskolnikov’s own story. However, the novel also loosely follows the structure and content of Greek tragedy, and this coexistence of the themes of Christian redemption and resurrection and the tragic themes of Oedipus Rex creates a complex work that cannot be considered from a single perspective. The epilogue is extremely necessary for the conclusion of Crime and Punishment, as it allows further development of Raskolnikov’s character and gives him another dimension. He’s not just the insane, crazed killer whose guilt and depravity eat him up until he confesses. So it seems at the end of the final chapter. But with the addition of the epilogue, Rodion Raskolnikov begins down the path of resurrection, to which he did not seem inclined earlier in the novel. Without the epilogue, Raskolnikov would remain a less complex character, unable to repent.
Many critics reject the epilogue because they cannot accept the moral regeneration it promises. According to Lev Shestov, Raskolnikov’s only crime was believing that he was incapable of breaking the law, and that his tragedy was not his fault and folly, but the “impossibility of starting a new and different life” (71-72). The entire novel moves toward a conversion or resurrection, most notably and obviously by the appearance of the biblical story of Lazarus, read by the prostitute Sonya, which is based on Mary Magdalene. Dostoevsky did not choose Lazarus at random. He chose Lazarus because the story is a subtle reminder of Raskolnikov’s possibility of redemption, of being reborn after repenting of his sins. This resurrection theme is prominent throughout the novel, and to ignore this theme is to ignore a huge part of Dostoevsky’s meaning. Yes, this is a novel about the inner psyche of a sociopath and an exploration of guilt, but it is also about realizing sins and repentance for them.
Edward Wasiolek makes a more valid argument that he believes Dostoevsky has not provided his readers with any evidence that Raskolnikov has sufficient spiritual awareness to contradict his theories set forth in his essay “On Crime” or to follow the spiritual direction of Sonya This is a valid point, and it would be correct, were it not for the abundance of examples of Raskolnikov initiating the conversion. He is not reborn spontaneously, as Wasiolek would have you believe, but after a large number of experiences that have influenced him in this regard. For example, every time Raskolnikov helps the Marmelodovs, he does so out of brief but real compassion. It is true that he regrets his charity almost instantly, but that thoughtless compassion suggests that he does not feel the self-proclaimed superiority in his heart. That resides only in your mind. As such, his subsequent interactions with Sonya foster this tendency to recognize himself as a man on the same plane of existence as those he once considered minor. Raskolnikov progresses slowly, allowing compassion to creep into his mind at times, beginning his conversion, his resurrection. As he realizes his own humanity, he becomes more aware of his guilt. This indicates that he is not completely gone, that he can recover from the madness that possessed him. Robert Louis Jackson points out that Raskolnikov’s behavior goes through two distinct phases: first he shows great sympathy and compassion for those in need and immediately, without thinking, takes steps to alleviate their suffering, and then feels disgusted for having betrayed his intellectual principles , which they don’t. Allow sympathy towards such inferior and unworthy beings. Yet that first natural inclination to help those in need betrays Raskolnikov’s humanity. His sense of compassion “endows his actions with a magnanimity that goes against the malevolence of his plan and the cruelty of his crime” (Matual, 28).
Furthermore, Raskolnikov was never a cold-blooded murderer. His mind was convinced of his superiority, but as he contemplated the murder, he felt disgusted, repelled. He looked for any excuse to quit the task, but when what he perceived as a signal from the universe indicated that he should kill Alyona Ivanovna, he was filled with disgust at the prospect of taking someone’s life. He never lost his doubts, nor his disgust for the act, and continued to eat him up until he confessed at the end of the novel. Raskolnikov’s compassion for the poor and downtrodden, his revulsion at murder, and his memories of childhood innocence and piety provide a basis for his resurrection in the epilogue. Acts of compassion “represent only the potential for rebirth” and “it takes something more powerful to emerge from his spiritual lethargy and lead him toward the events of the epilogue” (Matual, 30). To finish the novel after the confession is to leave Raskolnikov without finishing his story. His transformation was just beginning, and only through his experiences in the Siberian prison will he be able to continue the conversion. Only after a long period of defiance in prison does Raskolnikov give in to his human side and respond to Sonya’s love. He takes the Bible out from under his pillow and reads about Lazarus, the one who is reborn, like him. Here, Raskolnikov finally accepts his time in prison as his catharsis, redeems himself, and proceeds to a new life. Raskolnikov is not just an evil and heartless person. His disgust for his crime, his compassion for others, and his confession hinted at possible redemption. With confession, you are just beginning the path of conversion, and the epilogue is absolutely necessary to see if you will accept the consequences of your actions and be reborn or if you will reject them and retreat into madness and depravity once more.
Furthermore, the novel’s many facets and interlocking stories point directly to the epilogue. The numerical motifs prevail, and are left unfinished at the end of the novel, but with the inclusion of the epilogue, they are masterfully concluded. For example, the number nine is repeated throughout the novel with respect to time. Crime and Punishment covers three nine-month periods: “1) from the genesis of the crime to its perpetration, 2) from the confession to the trial and the trip to Siberia, and 3) from the beginning of Raskolnikov’s exile until the moment when hugs Sonia and starts a new life for him [… ] It takes nine months for the crime to ‘hatch’, nine months for the punishment to begin, and another nine months for Raskolnikov to be reborn in the epilogue “(Matual 32). Clearly, Dostoevsky was thinking about the period of birth, like each segment Nine-month-old results in something being born. First, Raskolnikov’s terrible plot is played out, brought to fruition, and born, if you will. Second, Raskolnikov confesses and begins his transformation, resulting in his release to Siberia, where his final cycle begins. After nine months, he is reborn, allowing Sonya to enter his life and repenting of her sins, feeling true regret for the atrocities she committed. Raskolnikov’s mind is born first, resulting in the murders. His body is born second, upon his liberation to Siberia. His heart and soul are born last, reuniting his body, mind and soul, and concluding his resurrection. If Crime and Punishment had finished with Raskolnikov’s confession, there would be a complete and utter lack of closure. the certainty about his conversion and the consequences of his actions would remain. Sometimes leaving the reader in doubt at the end of a novel is a helpful and pleasant conclusion, but not in doubt as to the novel’s driving questions. Dostoevsky masterfully concluded Crime and Punishment in such a way as to answer all those questions, yet leaves the reader wondering what form Raskolnikov’s new life with Sonya would take.
Another point to consider is the Crime and Punishment structure. It is parallel to the Greek tragedy, and it is also parallel to the story of Lazarus. The concept of destiny, which has a pagan connotation, and the concept of God’s will, strangely, are not at odds with each other. They coexist, letting the reader interpret the events however they want, perhaps considering divine intervention, perhaps considering coincidences. Depending on the opinion of the reader, the interpretations may vary. For example, considering Christianity and the Lazarus story, the novel is pretty unfinished without the inclusion of the epilogue. Raskolnikov’s true transformation would be in doubt, and the parallels between Lazarus and Raskolnikov would end abruptly. Dostoevsky included Lazarus for a reason, so he would never leave the conclusion of Raskolnikov’s story incomplete. He planned the epilogue to conclude this story and merged the fates of Lazarus and Raskolnikov. Pagan destiny is similar to belief in predestination, since God already knows what will happen. Even from a pagan perspective, the epilogue is necessary to provide insight into Raskolnikov’s transformation and new life and, ultimately, his destiny.
Although the epilogue to Crime and Punishment seems clumsy and unnecessary to many critics, it is an important component and essential conclusion of the novel. The objections raised do not have a solid basis, since Raskolnikov did not spontaneously achieve repentance and redemption, but had the potential to do so throughout his life. In reality, the presence of good and compassion within him gives his character depth and another level of complexity, making each decision that much more difficult. Because his mind and heart are at odds, each emerges at different points in the novel, expressing disgust, revulsion, or contempt for the other. This drives him crazy and eventually his compassion overcomes his superiority and leads him to confess. The epilogue gives Raskolnikov another dimension, his capacity for good, as he repents of his sins and becomes a new man. The epilogue is inescapable, the accumulation of all the preceding events culminating in Raskolnikov’s transformation.
Cited works
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. New York: Bantam Dell, a division of Random House, Inc., 1866.
Jackson, Robert Louis. “Philosophical pros and cons in the first part of crime and punishment”, interpretations of crime and punishment of the 20th century. Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974. p. 27.
Matual, David. “In defense of the epilogue of crime and punishment”. EBSCO Publishing, 2002. 26-34.
Shestov, Lev. Dostoevsky I Nitshe. Berlin: Skify, 1923. 71-72.
Wasiolek, Edward. “On the structure of crime and punishment”. PMLA 74, 1959: 135.
