In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, one of the
primary themes of the story as a whole becomes the question of what
motivated Raskolnikov to kill Aliona Ivanovna. This question arises many
times in the novel, not only by the other characters but by Raskolnikov
as well. Many potential reasons for the "crime" (which Raskolnikov
considers to be a misnomer) are introduced throughout, which complicates
the already tentative reasoning behind his actions and causes his
motives to become even more unclear.
The supposition that primarily arises is that he murdered the
pawnbroker as a means to increase the wealth of his poverty-stricken
family; however, Raskolnikov himself has an internal debate as to
whether this was in fact the reason, but comes to the eventual
conclusion that it was not.
A more probable explanation for the murder is ironically
introduced not by Raskolnikov but by Peter Petrovich Luzhin during his
first meeting with Raskolnikov, when he explains his revolutionary
concept of "loving himself above all else," that "in acquiring weatlth
solely and exclusively for myself [Luzhin], I am acquiring, so to speak,
for everyone, and helping to get my neighbor a little more than a torn
coat..." (p. 145). This theory is intriguing because it expands upon an
idea that Raskolnikov had previously overheard from a conversation
between two gentlemen in a tavern playing pool, when one of them
hypothetically stated, "'Kill her [Aliona Ivanovna], take her money and
with the help of it devote yourself service of humanity and the common
good'" (p. 66). It can be safely assumed that Raskolnikov abided by a
similar philosophy, for during his meeting with Peter Petrovich he
ignores Razumikhin's protests and points out that "if you carry out
logically the theory you [Luzhin] were advocating just now, it follows
that people may be killed..." (p. 147), which startles Petrovich. All
this makes it likely that Raskolnikov did in fact kill the woman for the
good of society, but the entire idea is rendered futile when he fails
to utilize her items and none of her wealth ends up being used for the
common good in spite of his efforts.
Raskolnikov's philosophy of ordinary v. extraordinary
individuals in society seems to most closely reflect his motives for
killing the pawnbroker; he believes that those who transcend the law are
extraordinary and are essential to the recreation of the human race,
whereas those who abide by the law (or falsely assume they are
extraordinary) are merely ordinary. However, he does not know which
class he belongs to in this scenario, and actually is troubled by this
uncertainty throughout the remainder of the novel. It is notable that
during his second interview with Porfiry Petrovich, Porfiry describes
the determining characteristics of a a guilty man who suffers from agony
and guilt; in doing so he describes perfectly the condition that
Raskolnikov is currently in, and it is likely that Porfiry himself is
very much aware of it: "'Why, they are all sick, nervous, irritable! . .
. And then how angry they all are!'" (p. 324), followed by a
paranoia-inspired outburst on Raskolnikov's part. From this it can be
theorized that Raskolnikov belongs merely to the "ordinary" class since
his state of mind was so predictable at this point and because it was so
easy for Porfiry to "play cat and mouse" with him.
Additionally, Raskolnikov had no trouble in thoroughly
explaining his article's message to Porfiry, but had great difficulty in
reasoning his murder to Sofia Semionovna. He gave a number of
explanations, but his best defense was that "'whoever is strong in mind
and spirit will have power over them. Anyone who is very daring is right
in their eyes. He who despises most things will be a lawgiver among
them and he who dares most of all will be most in the right'" (p. 396).
Raskolnikov says this, and yet he was not daring; yes, he murdered the
pawnbroker, but was extremely hesitant and tentative in doing so.
In actuality, he had no revolutionary cause to kill the woman.
"'I . . . I wanted to have the daring . . . and I killed her. I only
wanted to have the daring, Sonia! That was the whole cause of it!'" (p.
397). Raskolnikov's true intention in murdering Aliona Ivanovna was
presumably, therefore, to determine whether he belonged to the ordinary
or extraordinary class established by his article, the result being that
he was ordinary because he only did it "to have the daring" that
characterized the extraordinary group and thereby attempt to become
extraordinary. In the end, even when he is in prison, Raskolnikov
refuses to see the murder as a crime because he proclaims it was needed
for the common good, yet no actual benefit came of it; thus, his motives
for it become almost irrelevant.
