In Crime and Punishment, what was Porfiry's "little trace"?

Discussing the investigator's most crucial piece of evidence.

This is a slightly edited version of what was originally posted on Reddit. Spoilers for Crime and Punishment.

In looking around for answers to this question, I was surprised to find this was asked a couple times before yet never actually answered. The most common response is that Porfiry is merely bluffing, but not only does this belie the compassionate justice which motivates his visit in the first place, it is in fact explicitly mentioned.

I’ll give page numbers for the P&V translation, which refers to it as “a little trace” instead of “a little fact”, so I may use them interchangeably.

To set the context, Porfiry visits Raskolnikov in his room and comes clean to him, ironically as investigator to murderer. Before they part, Raskolnikov says:

“Listen, Porfiry Petrovich, you said yourself it was just psychology, and meanwhile you’ve gone off into mathematics. But what if you’re actually mistaken now?”

“No, Rodion Romanych, I’m not mistaken. I’ve got that little trace. I did find that little trace then, sir—a godsend!”

“What little trace?”

“I won’t tell you, Rodion Romanych...” (p483)

Porfiry states this key evidence earlier in this chapter:

“And then, when I heard about those little bells, I even stopped dead, I even began shivering. ‘Now,’ I thought, ‘here’s that little trace! This is it!’” (p478)

This is in reference to when Raskolnikov wanders back to the scene of the crime in his feverish delirium and repeatedly rings the bell — the same bell that rang when he was trapped after the murder:

Instead of answering, Raskolnikov stood up, walked out to the landing, took hold of the bell-pull, and rang. The same bell, the same tinny sound! He rang a second, a third time; he listened and remembered. The former painfully horrible, hideous sensation began to come back to him more clearly, more vividly; he shuddered with each ring, and enjoyed the feeling more and more. (p182)

So, it’s pretty clear Porfiry’s “little trace/fact” is Raskolnikov ringing the bell. However, it brings up two questions:

1. Why does Porfiry consider this evidence, and

2. Why does he say he won’t tell Raskolnikov?

The answer to the first one can be found in rereading the massive wall of text where he mentions the bells, which I’ll paraphrase here. Up this point, Porfiry lists off the evidence he has so far that Raskolnikov is guilty, but openly admits it’s circumstantial, psychological evidence that’s not solid enough to arrest him, but it is enough to paint a mental profile of him. Because of this, he’s certain Raskolnikov will come, but like a monkey’s paw wish, Raskolnikov actually does voluntarily go to Zametov, but Porfiry is flummoxed by the fact that he pretty much outright confesses to the murder. He can’t make sense of it in a way that could serve as evidence: “...that’s the whole catch, that this cursed psychology is double-ended!” Learning about the bell ringing was the missing puzzle piece because he finally realizes Raskolnikov is indeed subject to the masochism of his own conscience, so he’s now completely confident in his psychological profiling:

“It wasn’t enough for him to endure the torment of standing behind the door while the door was being forced and the bell was ringing—no, later he goes back to the empty apartment, in half-delirium, to remind himself of that little bell, feeling a need to experience again that spinal chill…” (p481)

This is, of course, ironic in that it is still not hard evidence. That brings us to the second question: why did he say he won’t he tell Raskolnikov? Porfiry means the fact is enough for himself but not enough for Raskolnikov — though not a bluff, it’s not really evidence, either. In other words, the question Raskolnikov asks is, “You’ve transitioned from talking about psychology to talking about logic in trying to convince me to confess, but how are you sure you’re right?” Porfiry’s response is basically, “Oh, I’m right. I may not have concrete evidence, but I KNOW I’m right.” Throughout the chapter, Porfiry is completely honest, not out of arrogance or even spite, but simply because he understands Raskolnikov’s mind so well he knows exactly how this will play out, so by this point he just wants to help him.

The reason Porfiry outright admits he doesn’t have any hard evidence is because he doesn’t need it at all anymore. He’s so disturbingly perceptive that he knew Mikolka falsely confessed to the crime in a misguided attempt to worship the beauty of suffering. Porfiry knows Raskolnikov will “decide to embrace suffering” because, contrary to how he sees himself, Raskolnikov truly has the makings of “the extraordinary man”, but needs to finish his journey of spiritual redemption to accept himself:

Be of great heart, and fear less...You’re not going to miss your comforts, are you, with a heart like yours?...The point lies in you, not in time. Become a sun, and everyone will see you. The sun must be the sun first of all.” (p486)

The repeated mentions of heart link back to one of Dostoevsky’s most famous quotes, spoken by Raskolnikov himself:

“Suffering and pain are always obligatory for a broad consciousness and a deep heart. Truly great men, I think, must feel great sorrow in this world.” (p278)

TLDR: The “little fact” was Raskolnikov ringing the bell. This was Porfiry’s most important psychological evidence because this was the missing link to understanding why he would eventually confess by himself.

---