So, today we are discussing the second chapter of "Crime and Punishment." We are just beginning to get acquainted with Raskolnikov; Dostoevsky is already introducing us to family — the Marmeladovs
When Marmeladov says, “For every man must have somewhere to go.” It reminded me of Hemingway’s short story A Clean Will Lighted Place, in which the old waiter says, “Each night I am reluctant to close up because there may be some one who needs the cafe.” Indeed, every man or woman must have somewhere to go.
That's a fascinating connection! 💕Both Marmeladov and Hemingway's old waiter highlight the deep human need for a place of refuge, underscoring how essential it is for everyone to have a sanctuary, no matter how small or humble.
I didn't get the significance of the number 30. Excellent detail! And of course, 30 roubles did seem like a lot for her first 'job', but I still didn't twig.
Marmeladov's speech has at least three biblical references, which shows his background as a man who knows his bible well enough to quote or allude to passages. He brings up Pilate at one point in his phrase, 'Behold the man!' So, he was possibly devout at some stage, or at least educated. His slide into alcoholism is tragic and really got me thinking about how different my life could have been if I hadn't found my way into recovery in 2005. Gratitude is what blossoms for me. There but for the grace of God go I.
Ooof. Between the death of the prince and learning how Sonya supports her family, it’s been a rough day.
There was something about Sonya’s resigned silence and how her stepmother held her when it was over (after being to one to send her out) that really got to me.
I’ve been in awe of how quickly Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky can make me care so deeply about their characters.
Yeah... The scene of Katerina kissing Sonya's feet is mystical to me. How money drastically changed her behavior, when she was on the brink of survival. Katerina Ivanovna treated her husband better when he brought home his salary.
It is interesting to read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in parallel. They are very different and yet similar. There are entire debates and dilemmas about who is closer to a person, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, and how this affects their personality and worldview.
It took me a good bit through the chapter to realize that this was not just the annoying ramblings of a drunk, but actually the introduction of potentially important characters. I kept waiting for Raskolnikov to get a word in edgewise. I recently finished revisiting The Odyssey, and the unfolding of Marmeladov's never-ending tale of woe seemed almost Homeric, albeit with a bit more grit and a few less gods.
The endless chatter of a drunkard—what could be more entertaining? 😁
Unusual associations with Homer. I like it! I think Raskolnikov would be cheered up by Zeus appearing with his lightning and storms. Maybe it would wash the nonsense out of his head. But there are indeed fewer gods here, if any at all...
Thank you for your very enlightening details, especially about the names and the symbolism of the number 30. I certainly missed that in my reading.
I can hardly say I enjoyed this chapter, more like I waded through the long diatribe that read to me as half self-loathing and half self-pity. The chapter really affected me, though, as a portrait of the almost unbelievable degrading and debilitating poverty in which people lived, and how open to exploitation were their daily lives. "The civil counsellor....has not to this day paid her for the half-dozen shirts she made him." There is no protection, and no authority Sonya can turn to. To have to turn to prostitution in order to feed hungry children is beyond shocking.
But I think the important thing is the affect this meeting has on Raskalnikov. My translation says: "Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel." I take this to mean that R is saying man is a willing participant in these evils. But then he questions if that is the case? "What if man in general is not a scoundrel?" I read this is R absolving people from responsibility for life's evils, that people are swept along by circumstances beyond their will or control. There are, "simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be." If this is so, then R is clearing a space in his mind and conscience for the crime he is contemplating.
The way you connect Raskolnikov's internal conflict with broader social issues adds depth to understanding his character and the narrative. It’s interesting how Dostoevsky uses these moments to explore human nature and morality — and he does this throughout the entire novel. What will be Raskolnikov's punishment? Perhaps, it's precisely these deep thoughts that overturn the foundation of human life. I think your reflections will also evolve. I keep going in circles every time...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts 🤍; they truly enrich the discussion.
The map and the pictures from that time really helps to visualize the whole thing, thank you! Also the piglet is cute, despite the depressing narrative :)
In my translation the "beggary" part is translate as "destitution".
“poverty is no vice; that’s a known truth. I know even more so that drunkenness is not a virtue. But destitution, dear sir, destitution—that is a vice. In poverty you can still preserve the nobility of your innate feelings, while in destitution you never do and no one does."
I guess with "beggary" mentioned it becomes a tad more clear waht he means, but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. That's a bleak worldview either way. The extreme poverty as a vice, so something created out of the rotten soul of a person. Such a pleasant character.
After thinking, it seems to me that your translation is closer, as it is a quote from Marmeladov. What kind of translation is this?
An interesting observation: in the Russian language, there is no distinction in the word “нищета” as there is between beggary and destitution. It is expressed with one word. Probably, if Dostoevsky had a choice, he would choose the strongest one, indicating no opportunities to get money or food.
Marmeladov indeed tells Raskolnikov if he knows what it's like to ask for a loan, knowing in advance that they will not give it and you won't be able to return it. And Raskolnikov still does not understand; he is poor, but he finds money.
For me, Raskolnikov is still in the "beggary" stage; he does not understand Marmeladov's "destitution." As I understand it, destitution describes a state of extreme poverty where a person lacks the basic necessities of life.
Of the eight translations I'm looking at, it's exactly half and half for beggary vs destitution. This paragraph is included on my comparison spreadsheet.
Thank you for sharing. It is very interesting that it ends in a draw. There is no consensus among translators. I wonder what Dostoevsky would have chosen…
In my Hungarian translation the word is "koldus", which is beggar/mumper/panhandler/mendicant. (google dictionary)
The word "koldusszegény" is someone who is very-very poor. The word "koldus" itself describes a person who actively asks for money. It also can be a kind of job, somehow similar to the job of Sonja with a "boss", who takes the majority of the money what the koldus earned on the street.
The contrast between Marmeladov's flamboyant tirade and the sordid reality of his life is striking! As always w/ Dostoevsky, things are never straightforward; this monologue shows a man torn between self-loathing and a desperate need for compassion, the need to be seen, even if that's to elicit contempt in his partner's eyes (and thus making himself a sort of Christ-like figure). At the same time, this speech has a social/political aspect: Dosto explores the devastating effects of poverty, addiction, and moral decay on people. Also, Marmeladov's story parallels Raskolnikov's internal struggles as he grapples with his own actions and beliefs. And beyond a mere character exposition, we also get a glimpse of the moral/religious debate often present in Dosto's novels, in this case, how even (or especially) the most wretched individuals cling to the hope of redemption, having really not much else to cling to (except vodka, perhaps)... (Late to the party also, sorry about that...)
It's never too late to join a Dostoevsky party. Having heartfelt conversations over vodka is a tradition. 🎉
So true! Marmeladov's desperate need for compassion and understanding, despite his self-destructive behavior, is indeed Christ-like, reflecting Dostoevsky's recurring themes of suffering and redemption. His story parallels Raskolnikov's struggles, offering a mirror to Raskolnikov's own moral and existential dilemmas.
Thanks! Meant to ask: you said the name Marmeladov hints at something sweet and pleasant, like candy. But I wonder if Dosto doesn't also mean to convey someting almost "sickly sweet" (in French, I would use the word "doucereux" or "mielleux"), which in that case would kind of indicate that the character is in fact an oily, slimy fellow (I think that fits him better, no?).
This is something like that, yes. He's simply called marmalade, and in Russian it's мармелад / marmelad, exactly like his surname Marmelad-ov. Sometimes marmalade looks like jelly candies (such as Haribo bears), and sometimes it's closer to jam. I'm not very good at cooking, but there's definitely a lot of sugar in there.
(Once again, I'm really sorry for still being here on chapter two while you all discuss chapter seven.)
What can I say, I'm devastated. Powerful, powerful symbolism around Ecce Homo, those thirty silver pieces (thank you so much Dana for noticing that!) and the nature of sin. Marmeladov's speech has made me cry twice already. The poor man, all he wants is empathy, and since he cannot find it in his fellow man, hoping in the divine is all he has left. God must understand why he is the way he is, and maybe one day he can make his wife see it too. Like I said, devastating. Because how can you keep a job and feed your family when you're battling addition, when life has already punched you down so many times? When society has abandoned you? When you look in the mirror and see a beast? No, only God can love him now. And the other drunks laughing at him like they were mocking Jesus on the cross. Ecce Homo. Behold humanity. (I'm not religious but I was raised Christian, I'm HERE for the symbolism.)
I'm trying to pick up themes as I go, so far other than the yellow of material and moral decay I also got red in relation to Marmeladov and his family (his red eyes and hands, his wife with blood on her cheeks, coughing up blood, indeed red is associated with the Passion of Christ.)
Also the contrast between the unbearable brightness of summer daylight and the oppressing darkness of poor houses, sometimes with light trying and failing to break through in the old woman's apartment or during white nights. And also, dirt and stench VS cleanliness, but a kind of desperate cleanliness that can't make the old woman less of a miser, or Marmeladov's wife less desperate, or Sonya less tainted.
God, those three children. What sort of people can they possibly grow up to be?
Love-love your observations about the use of color and light in the novel, they are incredibly insightful.
Can I ask, are you an artist? Such observations are felt by people who work with color and light. It adds depth and feelings to the novel. To be honest, I am focused only on yellow.
And it is not easy to sympathize with Marmeladov; he is portrayed as a positive and religious character, but he has caused so much grief to his family, making them more miserable than they could have been. That is precisely why he is in the novel: to understand how to genuinely help such people, rather than just mock them.
I did write a comment, Dana, but I returned it to you in an email. I can't figure out how to copy it to re-post here. Anyway, next time I'll know where to post in the correct place.
Oh, I didn't find your letter, unfortunately. Perhaps it went to the platform itself instead of me. It would be interesting to read your thoughts, of course. Maybe you could send a screenshot of the letter if it can't be copied. But in any case, I hope the chapter was interesting for you.
When Marmeladov says, “For every man must have somewhere to go.” It reminded me of Hemingway’s short story A Clean Will Lighted Place, in which the old waiter says, “Each night I am reluctant to close up because there may be some one who needs the cafe.” Indeed, every man or woman must have somewhere to go.
That's a fascinating connection! 💕Both Marmeladov and Hemingway's old waiter highlight the deep human need for a place of refuge, underscoring how essential it is for everyone to have a sanctuary, no matter how small or humble.
I didn't get the significance of the number 30. Excellent detail! And of course, 30 roubles did seem like a lot for her first 'job', but I still didn't twig.
Marmeladov's speech has at least three biblical references, which shows his background as a man who knows his bible well enough to quote or allude to passages. He brings up Pilate at one point in his phrase, 'Behold the man!' So, he was possibly devout at some stage, or at least educated. His slide into alcoholism is tragic and really got me thinking about how different my life could have been if I hadn't found my way into recovery in 2005. Gratitude is what blossoms for me. There but for the grace of God go I.
Ooof. Between the death of the prince and learning how Sonya supports her family, it’s been a rough day.
There was something about Sonya’s resigned silence and how her stepmother held her when it was over (after being to one to send her out) that really got to me.
I’ve been in awe of how quickly Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky can make me care so deeply about their characters.
What a chapter.
Yeah... The scene of Katerina kissing Sonya's feet is mystical to me. How money drastically changed her behavior, when she was on the brink of survival. Katerina Ivanovna treated her husband better when he brought home his salary.
It is interesting to read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in parallel. They are very different and yet similar. There are entire debates and dilemmas about who is closer to a person, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, and how this affects their personality and worldview.
It took me a good bit through the chapter to realize that this was not just the annoying ramblings of a drunk, but actually the introduction of potentially important characters. I kept waiting for Raskolnikov to get a word in edgewise. I recently finished revisiting The Odyssey, and the unfolding of Marmeladov's never-ending tale of woe seemed almost Homeric, albeit with a bit more grit and a few less gods.
The endless chatter of a drunkard—what could be more entertaining? 😁
Unusual associations with Homer. I like it! I think Raskolnikov would be cheered up by Zeus appearing with his lightning and storms. Maybe it would wash the nonsense out of his head. But there are indeed fewer gods here, if any at all...
If one tries hard enough, everything goes back to Homer 🤣
True!
When Sonya gave the last of her prostitution money to her dad so he could go drink - my heart broke. So very very sad 😢
Yes, it was a very devastating moment. I just hated Marmeladov here.
Thank you for your very enlightening details, especially about the names and the symbolism of the number 30. I certainly missed that in my reading.
I can hardly say I enjoyed this chapter, more like I waded through the long diatribe that read to me as half self-loathing and half self-pity. The chapter really affected me, though, as a portrait of the almost unbelievable degrading and debilitating poverty in which people lived, and how open to exploitation were their daily lives. "The civil counsellor....has not to this day paid her for the half-dozen shirts she made him." There is no protection, and no authority Sonya can turn to. To have to turn to prostitution in order to feed hungry children is beyond shocking.
But I think the important thing is the affect this meeting has on Raskalnikov. My translation says: "Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel." I take this to mean that R is saying man is a willing participant in these evils. But then he questions if that is the case? "What if man in general is not a scoundrel?" I read this is R absolving people from responsibility for life's evils, that people are swept along by circumstances beyond their will or control. There are, "simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be." If this is so, then R is clearing a space in his mind and conscience for the crime he is contemplating.
Hide quoted text
The way you connect Raskolnikov's internal conflict with broader social issues adds depth to understanding his character and the narrative. It’s interesting how Dostoevsky uses these moments to explore human nature and morality — and he does this throughout the entire novel. What will be Raskolnikov's punishment? Perhaps, it's precisely these deep thoughts that overturn the foundation of human life. I think your reflections will also evolve. I keep going in circles every time...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts 🤍; they truly enrich the discussion.
The map and the pictures from that time really helps to visualize the whole thing, thank you! Also the piglet is cute, despite the depressing narrative :)
In my translation the "beggary" part is translate as "destitution".
“poverty is no vice; that’s a known truth. I know even more so that drunkenness is not a virtue. But destitution, dear sir, destitution—that is a vice. In poverty you can still preserve the nobility of your innate feelings, while in destitution you never do and no one does."
I guess with "beggary" mentioned it becomes a tad more clear waht he means, but I'm not sure which one is more appropriate. That's a bleak worldview either way. The extreme poverty as a vice, so something created out of the rotten soul of a person. Such a pleasant character.
After thinking, it seems to me that your translation is closer, as it is a quote from Marmeladov. What kind of translation is this?
An interesting observation: in the Russian language, there is no distinction in the word “нищета” as there is between beggary and destitution. It is expressed with one word. Probably, if Dostoevsky had a choice, he would choose the strongest one, indicating no opportunities to get money or food.
Marmeladov indeed tells Raskolnikov if he knows what it's like to ask for a loan, knowing in advance that they will not give it and you won't be able to return it. And Raskolnikov still does not understand; he is poor, but he finds money.
For me, Raskolnikov is still in the "beggary" stage; he does not understand Marmeladov's "destitution." As I understand it, destitution describes a state of extreme poverty where a person lacks the basic necessities of life.
It's Michael R. Katz. But I also have a version by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, they also put "destitution" here.
Duffy uses “destitution” as well.
Of the eight translations I'm looking at, it's exactly half and half for beggary vs destitution. This paragraph is included on my comparison spreadsheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dIlWuKf6cXCEEyukkSOifgfh760LXvr8NPD3QSGFbYo/
Thank you for sharing. It is very interesting that it ends in a draw. There is no consensus among translators. I wonder what Dostoevsky would have chosen…
In my Hungarian translation the word is "koldus", which is beggar/mumper/panhandler/mendicant. (google dictionary)
The word "koldusszegény" is someone who is very-very poor. The word "koldus" itself describes a person who actively asks for money. It also can be a kind of job, somehow similar to the job of Sonja with a "boss", who takes the majority of the money what the koldus earned on the street.
The contrast between Marmeladov's flamboyant tirade and the sordid reality of his life is striking! As always w/ Dostoevsky, things are never straightforward; this monologue shows a man torn between self-loathing and a desperate need for compassion, the need to be seen, even if that's to elicit contempt in his partner's eyes (and thus making himself a sort of Christ-like figure). At the same time, this speech has a social/political aspect: Dosto explores the devastating effects of poverty, addiction, and moral decay on people. Also, Marmeladov's story parallels Raskolnikov's internal struggles as he grapples with his own actions and beliefs. And beyond a mere character exposition, we also get a glimpse of the moral/religious debate often present in Dosto's novels, in this case, how even (or especially) the most wretched individuals cling to the hope of redemption, having really not much else to cling to (except vodka, perhaps)... (Late to the party also, sorry about that...)
It's never too late to join a Dostoevsky party. Having heartfelt conversations over vodka is a tradition. 🎉
So true! Marmeladov's desperate need for compassion and understanding, despite his self-destructive behavior, is indeed Christ-like, reflecting Dostoevsky's recurring themes of suffering and redemption. His story parallels Raskolnikov's struggles, offering a mirror to Raskolnikov's own moral and existential dilemmas.
Thanks! Meant to ask: you said the name Marmeladov hints at something sweet and pleasant, like candy. But I wonder if Dosto doesn't also mean to convey someting almost "sickly sweet" (in French, I would use the word "doucereux" or "mielleux"), which in that case would kind of indicate that the character is in fact an oily, slimy fellow (I think that fits him better, no?).
This is something like that, yes. He's simply called marmalade, and in Russian it's мармелад / marmelad, exactly like his surname Marmelad-ov. Sometimes marmalade looks like jelly candies (such as Haribo bears), and sometimes it's closer to jam. I'm not very good at cooking, but there's definitely a lot of sugar in there.
(Once again, I'm really sorry for still being here on chapter two while you all discuss chapter seven.)
What can I say, I'm devastated. Powerful, powerful symbolism around Ecce Homo, those thirty silver pieces (thank you so much Dana for noticing that!) and the nature of sin. Marmeladov's speech has made me cry twice already. The poor man, all he wants is empathy, and since he cannot find it in his fellow man, hoping in the divine is all he has left. God must understand why he is the way he is, and maybe one day he can make his wife see it too. Like I said, devastating. Because how can you keep a job and feed your family when you're battling addition, when life has already punched you down so many times? When society has abandoned you? When you look in the mirror and see a beast? No, only God can love him now. And the other drunks laughing at him like they were mocking Jesus on the cross. Ecce Homo. Behold humanity. (I'm not religious but I was raised Christian, I'm HERE for the symbolism.)
I'm trying to pick up themes as I go, so far other than the yellow of material and moral decay I also got red in relation to Marmeladov and his family (his red eyes and hands, his wife with blood on her cheeks, coughing up blood, indeed red is associated with the Passion of Christ.)
Also the contrast between the unbearable brightness of summer daylight and the oppressing darkness of poor houses, sometimes with light trying and failing to break through in the old woman's apartment or during white nights. And also, dirt and stench VS cleanliness, but a kind of desperate cleanliness that can't make the old woman less of a miser, or Marmeladov's wife less desperate, or Sonya less tainted.
God, those three children. What sort of people can they possibly grow up to be?
Love-love your observations about the use of color and light in the novel, they are incredibly insightful.
Can I ask, are you an artist? Such observations are felt by people who work with color and light. It adds depth and feelings to the novel. To be honest, I am focused only on yellow.
And it is not easy to sympathize with Marmeladov; he is portrayed as a positive and religious character, but he has caused so much grief to his family, making them more miserable than they could have been. That is precisely why he is in the novel: to understand how to genuinely help such people, rather than just mock them.
We will meet the children again later.
I'm an amateur photographer, I do tend to notice light and colors!
I did write a comment, Dana, but I returned it to you in an email. I can't figure out how to copy it to re-post here. Anyway, next time I'll know where to post in the correct place.
Oh, I didn't find your letter, unfortunately. Perhaps it went to the platform itself instead of me. It would be interesting to read your thoughts, of course. Maybe you could send a screenshot of the letter if it can't be copied. But in any case, I hope the chapter was interesting for you.
I just figured out how to copy and paste it, a new skill for me.