Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's Hegelian Agent

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment was written in 1866, but it continues to impress readers worldwide nearly 150 years later. It is the story about Rodion Raskolnikov, a man who murders a pawnbroker in St. Petersburg and the mental anguish that tortures him as he comes to terms with his crime. The sophisticated tale evokes the mystique of a murder mystery, even though the reader knows the identity of the killer from the beginning; Raskolnikov tries to discover his true motivation and Dostoevsky reveals key pieces of Raskolnikov's psyche and history as the plot unfolds. Like most of Dostoevsky's work, this novel evokes an underlying moral message and reveals facets of the author's own psyche and history. This paper intends to explore one of those facets: Georg Hegel's influence on Dostoevsky's novel, Crime and

Punishment, from a philosophical and historical context.

Dostoevsky first began exploring progressive philosophy, including Hegelianism, due to his acute interest in romanticism. After publishing his story Poor Folk in 1846 to critical acclaim, Dostoevsky was invited to numerous Left Hegelian meetings. Shortly thereafter, in

1849, the Russian government strictly enforced its stance on potentially terrorist groups and

Dostoevsky was incarcerated. Ultimately, as a result of association with these groups and his experience in a Siberian prison, Dostoevsky came to sympathize less with progressivism and to rely more on a Christian moral foundation. Crime and Punishment was both Dostoevsky's way of responding to Hegelian sentiments of the 1840s and warning the radicals of the 1860s about the possible negative influences of their ethics. As a result, Raskolnikov is largely an agent of

1 O'Kidhain Left Hegelianism, constructed especially from Hegel's section on “World Historical Individuals” from Philosophy of History, utilized by Dostoevsky to illustrate a philosophy that the author opposed. As there has been considerable debate regarding how much Dostoevsky actually connected with Hegelian philosophy, this argument will be revealed in several steps. First, it will illustrate the historical context of Dostoevsky's work in connection with Hegelian philosophy, so that the reason for Dostoevsky's critique may be more fully understood. It will then juxtapose

Hegel's philosophy with the key sections of Crime and Punishment that parallel Hegelianism, so that the reader may clearly see the correlations. Finally, it will end with an examination of those views opposing the idea that Crime and Punishment represents a reaction to Hegelianism, offering a case for why these views, while understandable, are inaccurate.

Dostoevsky's encounters with Hegelian social groups in the 1840s allowed him to explore his fascination with German Romanticism, but he found Christianity, not Progressivism, most engaging following his incarceration in Siberia from 1849 to 1854. Before inclusion into the social circle of Vissarion Belinsky, a well-known critic of Russian literature at that time,

“Dostoevsky exhibits a horrified fascination with the theme of man's sacrilegious aspiration to dethrone God and substitute himself in God's place” (Frank, 103, Seeds). But Dostoevsky quickly found the Left Hegelian ethics of Belinsky troubling because he felt that they encouraged anti-Christian sentiments, which Dostoevsky opposed. In fact, notable Dostoevsky scholar

Joseph Frank wrote that, “Dostoevsky had been deeply disturbed - indeed, on the point of tears - when, during a conversation in 1847, Belinsky had attacked and denigrated Christ with the new

Left Hegelian arguments” (Frank, 161, Years). It is worth noting that Belinsky explored many different philosophical ideas throughout his life, but Belinsky’s enthusiastic Left Hegelian stage

2 O'Kidhain most greatly affected Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky disliked Belinsky's philosophy; however, he disliked Mikhail Petrashevsky's form of Left Hegelian atheism even more.

Belinsky impressed Dostoevsky, who viewed the man's negative outbursts as genuine concern for Russian people, but Petrashevsky's cold sarcasm and scorn contributed to

Dostoevsky's move away from ideologies such as Hegelianism to an aggressively Christian moral code. Initially, Dostoevsky held several reasons to shift from Belinsky's social circle to

Petrashevsky's group. The stifling egoism from Belinsky's circle, Belinsky’s lack of endorsement for Dostoevsky’s works following Poor Folk, and Dostoevsky's desire for a group with more open communication of ideas inspired Dostoevsky's decision to distance himself from

Belinsky in 1847. During this time, Dostoevsky became more familiar with the arguments of

Left Hegelianism, but “there is no evidence . . . that he ever gave way to [the sentiments] entirely” (Frank, 117, Years). Moreover, Petrashevsky's strong emphasis on atheism and scorn for literature discomfited Dostoevsky even more than Belinsky's ocassional anti-Christian outbursts. But the move to the Petrashevsky circle ultimately facilitated Dostoevsky's decision to oppose Russian progressivism, especially Left Hegelianism, for another reason. Association with the Petrashevsky group resulted in incarceration in Siberia two years later, after the government executed a raid versus radical groups in 1849. It was during Dostoevsky's time in

Siberia that his Christian faith rejuvenated and empowered the author.

While Dostoevsky was imprisoned in Siberia, he strengthened his faith and began to systematically examine philosophical texts. Many of Dostoevsky's experiences in Siberia may be gleaned from House of the Dead, but one may also discover how Siberia influenced

Dostoevsky from his other books. Because of the environment and events in prison,

3 O'Kidhain Dostoevsky's relationship with Christianity evolved tremendously. Essentially he came to believe that a Christian conscience served as a necessary “inner barrier against a . . . deadening of the moral sensibility” (Frank, 150, Years). Joseph Frank argued that, before Siberia,

Dostoevsky had viewed Christ as the bearer of a general canon of social change, but that later

Christ became a deeply intertwined agent who soothed the author’s intellectual and ethical angst

(Frank, 150, Years). Dostoevsky became an enemy of the radicals of the 1860s because he feared that their ethics would destroy this idea of defense. Along with reinforcing his Christian foundation in Siberia, Dostoevsky also begged his brother to send him multiple books with which to begin a philosophical survey.

During the early 1850s, Dostoevsky embarked on an intellectual journey to examine some specific earlier philosophical movements, especially Hegelianism. While in prison,

Dostoevsky contacted his brother about acquiring some books. With regard to the types of texts,

Joseph Frank noted that Dostoevsky seemed “anxious to plunge back into the past in a very serious and systematic fashion . . . [Dostoevsky wrote,] 'slip Hegel in without fail, especially

Hegel's History of Philosophy. My entire future is tied up with that'” (Frank, 169, Years).

Dostoevsky seems to have requested Hegel's text in order to reexamine the philosophy during this time, assumedly without the immediate influence of Hegel's combative proponents, such as

Belinsky or Petrashevsky. Historical sources have failed to show whether or not Dostoevsky actually secured History of Philosophy, but it is likely that he desired to research the means through which to compose an argument against Left Hegelianism, considering how strongly

Christianity affected the author during this time. Although we do not know for certain if

Dostoevsky obtained the book, his negative heroes in later works indicate that he succeeded.

4 O'Kidhain Dostoevsky could not have constructed negative heroes like Radion Raskolnikov without an intimate knowledge of Hegelianism, which historical sources have illustrated that he did not achieve solely during association with earlier progressive circles.

Dostoevsky's experiences with Left Hegelianism in the 1840s alone could not have supported the substantial paralellism between the vision of his negative heroes and Hegelian views. On this subject, Frank even commented that, “if Dostoevsky had no effective answer to

Belinsky in 1845, he amply made up for it later by the creation of his negative heroes” (Frank,

198, Seeds). These subjects “engage in the impossible and self-destructive attempt to transcend the human condition, and to incarcerate the Left Hegelian dream of replacing the God-man by the Man-god” (Frank, 198, Seeds). Crime and Punishment illuminated the problems Dostoevsky perceived in Left Hegelianism. Raskolnikov attempts to transcend humanity based upon his theory of extraordinary individuals and by arguing that these gods or supermen among ordinary citizens were capable of righteously committing negative acts. Deluded by his perception of righteousness, Raskolnikov murders a pawn broker, leading him down a self-destructive path that lasts merely seven days before its conclusion. Shadowing Dostoevsky's experiences,

Raskolnikov later finds redemption in suffering and Christianity while incarcerated, according to

Dostoevsky's own ethos. Echoing the Hegelian sentiments of men like Belinsky, Raskolnikov is an effective negative hero, but not a Hero in the Hegelian sense.

Georg Hegel wrote in Philosophy of History that Heroes are great people who naturally further the teleological, or progressive, world by contributing an idea that is simultaneously uniquely their own and the best of their time. He called these figures both Heroes and “World

Historical Individuals,” and included men such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, and

5 O'Kidhain Alexander the Great in their ranks (Hegel, 42). By defining these people, Hegel classified and categorized two groups of historical agents with different roles. Essentially, there are notable cases of Heroes and there are unremarkable cases of mundane individuals, being everyone else accounted for within society.

Hegel wrote about several differences between Heroes and mundane people. A mundane group of people seeks to establish and secure a community in order to facilitate its own ends, which usually includes a focus on comfort. Furthermore, these people work toward building harmony, establishing permanency, and generally upholding the rules given to them by their predecessors. This is not the role of Heroes. According to Hegel, Heroes inspire and fulfill a radical shift in society during the period with which they are associated (Hegel, 42). Often largely unaware of their impact on society, they act according to their own benefit, like mundane people, but toward different ends. Heroes are passionate agents who derive their vocation from themselves and gather enough power to shape the world in the image of their own interests.

Ultimately, these individuals produce significant, changing conditions that reflect their personal concerns (Hegel, 43). According to Hegel, they are thoughtful people whose enterprises originate from an abstract source about a requirement of their age. Once they glean this characteristic, all further aims are intended toward nothing else (Hegel, 43). This is one of the central points of Hegel's argument because it contains both the reason why Heroes achieve greatness and the unique property through which they succeed.

Although Heroes are interested in private gain, they derive their larger success from an unconscious impulse that Hegel called geist, or Spirit. Unfortunately, this central characteristic of Hegel's argument is also fairly elusive. One may define geist as an Idea, or historical medium,

6 O'Kidhain