It is from the first chapter of the novel where he meets his creditor in order to rehearse the murder:
“Here, sir: as we say ten copecks the rouble a month, so I must take fifteen copecks from a rouble and a half for the month in advance. But for the two roubles I lent you before, you owe me now twenty copecks on the same reckoning **in advance**. That makes thirty-five copecks altogether. So I must give you a rouble and fifteen copecks for the watch. Here it is.”
She demands interest on the watch for the month in advance: that is the first sentence. However, she also demands interest on the two roubles that she lent him one month earlier for the ring. The total is one rouble and fifteen copecks, fifteen deducted from the watch and twenty from the ring.
What confuses me is that she claims the interest on the ring is also “in advance,” which is odd because he hocked the ring one month earlier.
Is the interest on the ring for the first month (before the events of the novel), or is it for the second month?
by Formiddabledrip
3 Comments
the advance is for her to keep his items and not sell them. he pays her for the month in advance so he can come in next month and assuming purchase the items back.
ultimately such details do not matter to the overall narrative.
It really doesn’t matter.
All that’s really important is that she’s nickel and diming him and also he’s really poor so this is humiliating to him
Raskolnikov did nothing wrong