George Gibian looks to Dostoevsky’s use of symbolism as a structural attack on rationalism throughout the novel in his essay “Traditional Symbolism.” Gibian argues that Dostoevsky conveys the dialectic between “reason, selfishness, and pride” and “suffering, closeness to life-sustaining Earth, and love” (527) in such a way as to draw the reader to a complex structure, instead of offering an “outright affirmation or abstract statement” (528). Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky uses the traditional symbolism of “water, vegetation, sun and air, the resurrection of Lazarus and Christ, and the earth” (529) to illustrate the dialectic as being positive when such symbols are possessed, and negative when the character lacks such symbols like air for example. Thus, the symbolism that references Rashkolnikov condition oscillates from both sides, and for this reason, Gibian finds the epilogue effective as it illuminates Rashkolnikovs symbolic transformation or “regeneration.” Gibian believes that in order grasp and enhance Dostoevsky’s anti-rational approach to his writing, one must be extremely attentive to the “symbolic pattern of the novel” (543).
According to George Gibian, Dostoevsky attacks rationalism through powerful symbols including “water, vegetation, sun and air, the resurrection of Lazarus and Christ, and the earth” (529). Gibian posits that water and vegetation represent regeneration, and that Raskolnikov’s reaction to these images indicates his inner state at the time; that is, whether he is enlightened or under the influence of rationalism. Similarly, images of light and air represent mental clarity (that is, freedom from rationalist thought) whereas the absence of these qualities is “suggestive of inner heaviness” (536). Christian symbolism within the novel serves to liken Raskolnikov’s story to the deaths and rebirths of Christ and Lazarus, while the earth represents “fertility and the sanction for all family and community ties” (538). Gibian concludes that Dostoevsky’s use of these symbols of life and rebirth forcibly and artfully convey that rationalism, “may be not only sterile, but even actively destructive” (542).
George Gibian looks to Dostoevsky’s use of symbolism as a structural attack on rationalism throughout the novel in his essay “Traditional Symbolism.” Gibian argues that Dostoevsky conveys the dialectic between “reason, selfishness, and pride” and “suffering, closeness to life-sustaining Earth, and love” (527) in such a way as to draw the reader to a complex structure, instead of offering an “outright affirmation or abstract statement” (528). Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky uses the traditional symbolism of “water, vegetation, sun and air, the resurrection of Lazarus and Christ, and the earth” (529) to illustrate the dialectic as being positive when such symbols are possessed, and negative when the character lacks such symbols like air for example. Thus, the symbolism that references Rashkolnikov condition oscillates from both sides, and for this reason, Gibian finds the epilogue effective as it illuminates Rashkolnikovs symbolic transformation or “regeneration.” Gibian believes that in order grasp and enhance Dostoevsky’s anti-rational approach to his writing, one must be extremely attentive to the “symbolic pattern of the novel” (543).
ReplyDeleteAccording to George Gibian, Dostoevsky attacks rationalism through powerful symbols including “water, vegetation, sun and air, the resurrection of Lazarus and Christ, and the earth” (529). Gibian posits that water and vegetation represent regeneration, and that Raskolnikov’s reaction to these images indicates his inner state at the time; that is, whether he is enlightened or under the influence of rationalism. Similarly, images of light and air represent mental clarity (that is, freedom from rationalist thought) whereas the absence of these qualities is “suggestive of inner heaviness” (536). Christian symbolism within the novel serves to liken Raskolnikov’s story to the deaths and rebirths of Christ and Lazarus, while the earth represents “fertility and the sanction for all family and community ties” (538). Gibian concludes that Dostoevsky’s use of these symbols of life and rebirth forcibly and artfully convey that rationalism, “may be not only sterile, but even actively destructive” (542).
ReplyDelete