Deconstructing Madness in Crime and Punishment and Don Quixote Vanessa Carr

Madness and peace of mind appear to exist on opposite poles of a binary; one is defined by the lack of the other. Nevertheless, this binary, though present in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Criminal offense and Punishment and Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, is problematic. The lead characters – who are indicated to represent the mad extreme – straddle the line that separates peace of mind from insanity, and they hence refuse to be so easily classified. While the authors show that such a binary can not describe a complex human character, they extend their argument one step even more: madness is not an agent that leads to unreasonable human habits, but a description of such behavior. One is not illogical since he seethes; one is considered mad by society due to the fact that he is behaving irrationally. To get an understanding of the factor for particular behavior, one need to think about each thread in the web of causes that shape identity and impact action.

Cervantes encourages the reader to conclude that Don Quixote is unquestionably mad. The reader is quickly persuaded since the third-party narrator is presented as objective and omniscient. The narrator explains Don Quixote as having “absolutely wrecked his factor” and fallen “into the strangest fancy that ever a madman had in the entire world” (Cervantes 33). If Quixote represents the mad extreme of the binary, the narrator represents the opposite pole. Hence, the reader himself, who is aligned with the storyteller, finds his position next to the storyteller on one extreme. Sancho Panza, who works as a voice for the reader, additional encourages the reader that Don Quixote is completely delusional. He voices the reader’s unbelief and outrage that Don Quixote enables his dreams to have such dreadful real world results. For instance, when Don Quixote asserts that he will avenge “the outrage which they have done to Rocinante,” Sancho responds skeptically, “How the devil can we take revenge when there are more than twenty of them, and we are just two ?” (Cervantes 112). Sancho humbly voices his shock once again and once again. In responding to a typical experience leading to accident, Sancho says, “It’s my viewpoint that the creatures who amused themselves at my expenditure were not phantoms or captivated, as your praise says, however flesh-and-blood men like ourselves” (Cervantes 133). The narrator likewise makes a clear difference in between what Don Quixote’s imagines and what is genuine. Even the most clear circumstances” [do] not prevent Don Quixote from picturing what [is] neither visible nor current” (Cervantes 135). The basic binary that classifies both Quixote and Sancho in the beginning, nevertheless, does not exist for long; Cervantes begins to explore how insanity and sanity can overlap.

It ends up being increasingly clear that Don Quixote’s madness is not seamless; the reader catches Don Quixote in moments of best clearness, during which he appears totally capable of rational thought. Quixote is able to go over politics with the priest in the barber “with such intelligence that the 2 examiners believed whatever that he was quite recovered and in total possession of his wits” (Cervantes 472). He ends up being progressively able to acknowledge the limitations of his imagination and increasingly ready to give up the fantasy once it starts to push these limitations. When Quixote mistakes a church for Dulcinea’s palace, for example, he understands “instantly that the building was no royal castle, but the parish church of the place” (Cervantes 521). Likewise, Sancho Panza – and other characters that represent factor – displays madness amidst his rationality. The reader doubts precisely how reasonable Sancho can actually be if he continues as Quixote’s squire in spite of the fact that he recognizes the folly of Quixote’s actions. He does so due to the fact that he thinks that “an experience may take place that would win him in the twinkling of an eye some isle, of which he would [be made] governor” (Cervantes 66). The canon later notes this contradiction as he marvels “at Sancho’s foolishness in so ardently preferring the courtship of his master had guaranteed him” (Cervantes 443). The strange concurrence of madness and sanity in these characters is incredibly similar. The priest and the barber, for instance, compare the insanity of these two characters, commenting that “the pair of them appear to be cast in one mould, and the master’s insanity would not be worth a farthing without the squire’s foolishness” (Cervantes 482). By demonstrating how madness and sanity can coexist, Cervantes starts to break down the binary he initially put in place.

The reader is given more factor to be suspicious of Don Quixote’s insanity. There appear to be a specific order and sense to his insanity, described by the narrator as “well-reasoned rubbish” (Cervantes 443). Firstly, his madness is limited to the subject of chivalry – he can comment reasonably on almost any other issue. For instance, when Quixote is being returned home for rehabilitation in, the canon notes that he displayed “exceptional sense in his discussion and in his answers” and “just [loses] his stirrups on the topic of chivalry” (Cervantes 435). As soon as inside the fictional chivalric world he has developed for himself, nevertheless, Quixote’s behavior and thinking is both constant and rational. He carefully follows the guidelines laid out by the canon of chivalric literature with which he is so familiar. For example, “Don Quixote [often does] sleep however [thinks] about his Woman Dulcinea, to conform to what he [has] checked out in his books about knights investing numerous sleep deprived knights in woodland and desert residence on the memory of their ladies” (Cervantes 70). All of his actions are completely constant with what is anticipated of a knight errant. Quixote has clearly not lost the ability to reason, as such inability would be widely present.

Pointing out “insanity” as the reason that Don Quixote has suddenly refashioned himself as a knight errant ends up being a less and less acceptable description for his behavior. If not it is not due to the fact that he seethes, the curious reader will question, why does Quixote act in a way that is totally delusional? Cervantes advises the reader to make a vital shift in his thinking; he urges the reader to regard madness not as a cause for unreasonable habits, however rather as a description of it.

It is important to consider the function that Quixote’s habits serves. What need does it satisfy? Quixote, before he became a knight errant, lead a comfortable yet boring life, with a “regular diet plan on [which] he spent three-quarters of his earnings” and basically “absolutely nothing to do [ but to give] himself as much as the reading of books on knight errantry” (Cervantes 31). It is no surprise that he took such pleasure in checking out chivalric books, which allowed him to vicariously experience honor, victory, and true love. If one delights in something vicariously, it is sensible to presume that he might enjoy experiencing it in reality. This would describe why Quixote “hastened to equate his desires into action impelled to this by the idea of the loss the world suffered by his hold-up, seeing the grievances there were to redress, the wrongs to right, the injuries to change ” (Cervantes 33-35). Ending up being a knight errant, for that reason, reacted to Quixote’s thirst for adventure, honor, renown, and a purpose. One sees that Sancho, too, allows himself to be misguided in order to fill a specific requirement: to provide for his household and elevate his social status.

If madness is not the cause of particular habits however a description of it, the reader needs to question by what requirements the behavior is evaluated and who identifies this requirements. Quixote’s behavior is thought about mad due to the fact that it reacts to a world that is irregular with what the majority of people view as reality. It is regrettable for Don Quixote that he can not be a real knight. Don Quixote does not Don Quixote authors both his identity and his function: he has adopted the identity of a knight errant, as specified by his chivalric books, and he changes everyday scenarios into experiences and conquests so that he something to do, a function.

In the last pages of Don Quixote, Cervantes furthers his argument that habits and thus identity changes as our internal requirements alter. When Quixote has basically been defeated as a knight errant – and is needed to remain in the village for a year – he chooses to a shepherd, to “provide play to [his imagination] and devise the scheme of the pastoral life [he is] meant to follow” that “might provide free rein to his amorous thoughts, whilst occupying himself because pastoral and virtuous calling” (Cervantes 930). Shepherding befits the more melancholy Don Quixote and would permit him to grieve his defeat lost love and amongst male good friends. Nevertheless, this requirement suddenly changes once again when Quixote “a fever [takes] him” and sends him to his death bed (Cervantes 935). A sudden conversion to Christianity follows, with a sober renunciation of his folly as a knight. While this might seem to the reader that he has actually lastly given up to truth and went back to his true self, Cervantes signals us that something more might be occurring. Simply as Quixote is renouncing “those detestable books of chivalry,” he bemoans the fact that his impending death “leaves [him] no time at all to apologize by reading other [religious] books which might inform [his] soul” (Cervantes 35). This aligns his conversion to Christianity with his conversion to knight-errantry; Christianity is simply another identity that one can put on like a cape. Cervantes, however, seems to recommend that there is no such thing as outright identity, and that even socially accepted, “sane” identities (such as Christianity) are built rather then intrinsic.

There are numerous parallels in the manner in which Cervantes and Dostoevsky deal with insanity. Like Cervantes, Dostoevsky aims to convince the reader in the beginning that his protagonist, Raskolnikov, seethes. Through complimentary and direct discourse, Dostoevsky opens a window onto Raskolnikov’s mental procedures. This entryway into the mind of the protagonist is a departure from Cervantes, whose narrative voice stays unique from that of the lead character. Dostoevsky transports the reader inside Raskolnikov’s head by mixing the narrative voice with Raskolnikov’s internal monologue. Among Raskolnikov’s thoughts, for example, slips into the narrative: “But to stop on the stairs to have to evade all the while, make reasons, lie – oh, no, better to steal catlike down the stairs in some way and escape hidden by anybody” (Dostoevsky 3). On the other hand, a strategy that Dostoevsky uses to record Raskolnikov’s disjointed thought process leakages into the narration as well. The ellipses – frequently used to illustrate how Raskolnikov’s ideas run into one another – are generally consisted of within the quotations of his inner thoughts. Sometimes, nevertheless, they seem to escape: “Now its peculiar ring appeared suddenly to advise [Raskolnikov] of something and bring it plainly before him He leapt, so weak had his nerves become this time” (Dostoevsky 6). Even Raskolnikov’s very first transcribed thoughts – which babble about babbling – echo with madness:” I learned to babble over this previous month, lying in a corner day in and day out, thinking about cuckooland'” (Dostoevsky 4). The narrative description of Raskolnikov furthers the notion that he is mad: “There was something unusual in him; his eyes seemed even to be lit with rapture there appeared also to be a flicker of insanity in them” (Dostoevsky 12). As the novel unfolds, there is more and more evidence that suggests that Raskolnikov seethes. This evidence consists of primarily actions and thoughts that appear inconsistent, contradictory, asocial, without a rational intention, or independent of causality. For instance, after Raskolnikov reads his mom’s letter, he shows what seem to be contradictory feelings: sadness and harmful delight. His “face was wet with tears but when he ended up, it was pale, twisted convulsively, and a heavy, bilious, spiteful smile roamed over his face” (Dostoevsky 39). Such examples that suggest that Raskolnikov seethes are innumerable.

While Dostoevsky plainly desires Raskolnikov to appear mad, the divide in between madness and peace of mind in Criminal activity and Penalty is even less clear than in Don Quixote. The first binary that becomes troublesome is that the world inside Raskolnikov’s mind seethes and the world outside is orderly and sane. This binary deteriorates as the reader captures glimpses of total lucidity and even calculation in Raskolnikov’s thinking and habits, up until it becomes clear that Raskolnikov, like Don Quixote, is simultaneously sane and mad, a seeming paradox that it is not altogether unexpected for somebody whose name is derived from raskol, the Russian word for split. In one scene, Raskolnikov cries out at this mom and sister “with exaggerated inflammation,” however “was partially pretending” (Dostoevsky 246). Yet another binary – which positions Razumikhin at the sane extreme and Raskolnikov as the mad extreme – parallels the binary that Cervantes sets up between Sancho Panza and Don Quixote. It functions in a comparable fashion. Razumikhin shows his own sort of madness: he is constantly drunk, which obscures his factor and makes him socially overbearing. Maybe the most striking binary that Dostoevsky destabilizes is that in between the reader and Raskolnikov, which categorizes the reader as sane and Raskolnikov as mad. Nevertheless, Dostoevsky, by granting the reader access to Raskolnikov’s inner world, assists in a connection in between reader and lead character. By the time that Raskolnikov has actually committed the murder, the reader finds himself as caught up in the feeling and excitement as Raskolnikov is, experiencing a vicarious sensation of stress and anxiety about the possibility of captured and release after the criminal offense is lastly devoted.

Dostoevsky, like Cervantes, recommends that insanity has no agency in itself, but is merely a behavioral category. The reasons Raskolnikov dedicates the murder are actively left ambiguous, and maybe stay unresolved – even by the end of the novel. Dostoevsky presents several possible descriptions as to why Raskolnikov devoted the criminal activity, consisting of financial gain, humanitarian factors, mental illness, and environmental impacts, to name a few. While each proposal has merit and seems possible, none are alone enough to describe Raskolnikov’s behavior. Environment, for example, is mentioned as one possible cause. Offered the horrible poverty of his scenario, it is no wonder that he is driven to desperation. Svidrigailov mentions that “one seldom finds a location where there are many gloomy, sharp, and weird influences on the soul of a man as in Petersburg (Dostoevsky 467). Razumikhin describes him as “a poor trainee, crippled by hardship and hypochondria, on the edge of a terrible disease and delirium” (Dostoevsky 268). Some individuals believe that “if society itself is usually set up, all criminal activities will at the same time vanish, because there will be no reason for opposing and everyone will instantly become righteous,” while others are staunchly versus this theory because “nature isn’t taken into account” (Dostoevsky 256). When none of this theories appear to be enough, it is concluded “that the criminal offense itself might not have happened otherwise than in some sort of temporary insanity, consisting of, so to speak, a morbid monomania of murder and burglary, without any more objective or estimation for earnings” (Dostoevsky 536). This conclusion, nevertheless, seems extremely insufficient, leaving the reader with a cold dissatisfaction. The political theory that Raskolnikov subscribes most emphatically to is that there are 2 classes of people: the common and the extraordinary. As much as Raskolnikov wishes to think that his criminal activity was a trial of sorts to see whether or he was a Napoleon or a louse, the truth appears to be that he currently understands that he is no Napoleon. He says to himself, “I had to have actually known in advance Eh! however I did know beforehand!” (Dostoevsky 274). Raskolnikov maybe comes closest to comprehending by concluding that he “simply wanted to dare that’s the whole factor!” (Dostoevsky 418). It is this unidentifiable, visceral, nearly compulsive desire that stems from deep within the subconscious.

While Dostoevsky can not assist the reader to completely debunk the human subconscious, he can cause pang – nevertheless small – of the same subconscious urge to eliminate that Raskolnikov himself experiences. This, maybe, is Dostoevsky real stroke of genius. This urge exists completely outside of the realm of madness, as specified by society. It is also essential to keep in mind that Dostoevsky was writing in a post-Freudian time, and Dostoevsky appears to motivate the reader to think about Raskolnikov’s subconscious activity. Raskolnikov’s dreams about the horse and the apocalyptic world beg for such analysis. In this dream, he is a little young boy walking with his daddy. They come across a drunken crowd of individuals trying to require an old mare to drag a load that is far too heavy for her. Raskolnikov, as the child, feels absolutely helpless due to the fact that he can not provoke an action from his impotent father and can not stop the whipping, even when he puts his own body in between the horse and the whip (Dostoevsky 56). This dream suggests another possible motive for the crime: Raskolnikov wishes to do something to oppose his feelings of impotence and powerlessness in life. When Porfiry says, “Humanity is a mirror, sir, the clearest mirror,” he is perhaps describing the reality that our behavior is a manifestation of the activity taking place on a subconscious level that we can not comprehend rationally (Dostoevsky 342). The subconscious resembles a black box that consolidates numerous causes and lead to a specific action or idea. However, how these causes communicate inside this dark box is a very complicated matter, one that Dostoevsky certainly does not fully solve. It is likely that the activity and workings of the subconscious are beyond even the retrospective theorizing of the mindful mind. Due to the fact that the subconscious mind is so hard to comprehend, the actions that it results could be mislabeled by society as induced by madness.

Dostoevsky and Cervantes both argue that madness is defined by society and is the description instead of an agent. In this, they acknowledge the universality of urges and desires to fill our subconscious needs. There is, however, something that sets Don Quixote and Raskolnikov apart from the average individual. The distinction appears to lie in the truth that Quixote and Raskolnikov respond to these prompts with little factor to consider of how their satisfaction will operate in the structure of society. Raskolnikov, for example, overhears 2 boys in a bar going over whether they would “eliminate the old woman for the sake of justice,” seeing as she is “a dumb, meaningless, worthless, wicked, sick old crone … damaging to everyone” (Dostoevsky 65). They are contemplating the precise same idea as Raskolnikov; the difference is that Raskolnikov in fact follows through. Raskolnikov suggests that all men have prompts and desires, yet choose not to react to them as a result of “cowardice;” guy fears “a new action, [his] own brand-new word” (Dostoevsky 4). Cervantes likewise reveals the universality of these advises. While Cervantes does not make the reader see deception as reality, he has actually efficiently caused the exact same visceral desire to refashion ourselves according to our needs that initially drove Quixote. And we are definitely not alone. Sancho, the priest, and the barber – all of who are figures aligned with the reader as voices of reason and sense – end up being terribly delighted with Quixote’s new proposition. While “astonished at Don Quixote’s fresh trend,” the priest and the barber “gave in to his brand-new project, praising his folly as wisdom and providing to join him in its pursuit” (Cervantes 933).

While both Cervantes and Dostoevsky acknowledge that identity is always relative to society, they do not knock this influence altogether or promote that a person simply create an imaginary world in action to his specific needs. Both authors provide a caution against permitting subconscious desires to victory over reason or to result in asocial behavior. This is detailed particularly well in Raskolnikov’s apocalyptic dream, in which the human race is infected by trichinae that make each person believe “the truth [is] included in himself alone,” and as an outcome, they can not” agree on what to consider as wicked, what as good” (Dostoevsky 547). This dream shows the massive ramifications of such behavior. Likewise, Cervantes definitely provides a bitter side to knight errantry, especially in the melancholy that follows it.

You Might Also Like