In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

27 Chapter One “If You Don’t Sin, You Can’t Repent; If You Don’t Repent, You Can’t Achieve Salvation” CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE EPILOGUE TO CRIME AND PUNISHMENT The Russian philosopher Sergei Askoldov observed that the works of Dostoevsky can be seen as artistic illustrations of two biblical episodes: the parable of the prodigal son and that of the adulterous woman.1 Crime and Punishment , its plot based on the progression from sin to spiritual renewal, definitely conforms to this metaphoric definition. Having committed murder, Raskolnikov experiences disgust. Weakened physically and psychologically, he is besieged by doubts, realizing that his plan to become a new Napoleon has failed. His torments and exhaustion lead him to a series of confessions, the first of which is addressed to the prostitute Sonya Marmeladova. Assuming the role of Raskolnikov’s spiritual instructor, Sonya—whose full name in Greek, Sophia, means spiritual wisdom—gives him the following advice: “Stand in the crossroads, bow down, and first kiss the earth you’ve defiled, then bow to the whole world, on all four sides, and say aloud to everyone: ‘I have killed!’” (420). Raskolnikov follows her advice. Finding himself in Haymarket Square among poor and drunken people, he kneels down and kisses the earth thrice. Although he does not confess aloud publicly, his kneeling and kissing of the earth convey the symbolic value of a penitential gesture. Soon after, Raskolnikov goes to the police and informs the officials that he killed the old pawnbroker and her sister, Lizaveta. These three confessional acts lead the reader to expect that Dostoevsky is guiding his hero to a spiritual metamorphosis. The ending of Crime and Punishment, however, has become the subject of incessant scholarly controversy. Some claim that the epilogue is an artificial appendix to the novel, and thus a reflection of the writer’s failure . They argue that the religious conversion of the arrogant Raskolnikov is unexpected, unpersuasive, and implausible. Konstantin Mochulsky’s re- Chapter One 28 action is especially harsh: the renewal “is promised, but is not shown. We know Raskolnikov too well to believe this ‘pious lie.’”2 Like Mochulsky, Lev Shestov does not believe in Raskolnikov’s moral resurrection.3 In the opinion of Ernest Simmons, the moralistic ending of the novel and the protagonist ’s metamorphosis are not sufficiently motivated; they are “neither artistically palatable nor psychologically sound.”4 Michael Holquist points to a disjunction between the temporal structure of the novel and its epilogue.5 Joseph Frank formulates his observations in the following way: “It would be a daunting task to find an adequate artistic image of a possible new Raskolnikov . This task could hardly be undertaken in his brief concluding pages; and so the epilogue, if by no means a failure as a whole, invariably leaves readers with a quite justified sense of dissatisfaction.”6 Other scholars defend the epilogue. Thus, Gary Rosenshield undertakes an analysis of its narrative structure to show the continuity between the text of the novel and its final section.7 He demonstrates that Raskolnikov has the potential for a spiritual transfiguration and argues that this potential motivates his transition to a “new life.” In Rosenshield’s view, the role of any novelistic epilogue is to create a sense of closure. As he writes, “For everything in it is designed to give a note of finality and a sense of resolution to that which has proceeded.” The epilogue of Crime and Punishment, in his view, supports this general rule.8 In a more recent article titled “In Defense of the Epilogue of Crime and Punishment,” David Matual proceeds analogously , considering all those episodes that serve as links between the text of the novel and its ending. He points out that Raskolnikov’s compassion for the humiliated and the injured, his disgust toward the crime he committed, and his childhood reminiscences create the psychological motivation for his future resurrection.9 It can be argued, however, that the question of Raskolnikov’s moral renewal at the end of Crime and Punishment remains open.10 The issue of the protagonist’s resurrection is complicated by the fact that he does not repent. In the epilogue Dostoevsky writes that Raskolnikov tried to convince everybody that he had sincerely repented (raskaialsia): “And to the question of what precisely had prompted him to come and confess his guilt, he answered directly that it was sincere repentance [chistoserdechnoe raskaianie]” (536). We know that the jurors took Raskolnikov’s argument on faith: “That he had...

Share