The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (easy to read books for adults list .txt) 📕

The Peasants Stand Firm

THIS was how Fetyukovitch concluded his speech, and the enthusiasm

of the audience burst like an irresistible storm. It was out of the

question to stop it: the women wept, many of the men wept too, even

two important personages shed tears. The President submitted, and even

postponed ringing his bell. The suppression of such an enthusiasm

would be the suppression of something sacred, as the ladies cried

afterwards. The orator himself was genuinely touched.

And it was at this moment that Ippolit Kirillovitch got up to make

certain objections. People looked at him with hatred. “What? What’s

the meaning of it? He positively dares to make objections,” the ladies

babbled. But if the whole world of ladies, including his wife, had

protested he could not have been stopped at that moment. He was

pale, he was shaking with emotion, his first phrases were even

unintelligible, he gasped for breath, could hardly speak clearly, lost

the thread. But he soon recovered himself. Of this new speech of his I

will quote only a few sentences.

“… I am reproached with having woven a romance. But what is this

defence if not one romance on the top of another? All that was lacking

was poetry. Fyodor Pavlovitch, while waiting for his mistress, tears

open the envelope and throws it on the floor. We are even told what he

said while engaged in this strange act. Is not this a flight of fancy?

And what proof have we that he had taken out the money? Who heard what

he said? The weak-minded idiot, Smerdyakov, transformed into a Byronic

hero, avenging society for his illegitimate birth-isn’t this a

romance in the Byronic style? And the son who breaks into his father’s

house and murders him without murdering him is not even a romance-this is a sphinx setting us a riddle which he cannot solve himself. If

he murdered him, he murdered him, and what’s the meaning of his

murdering him without having murdered him-who can make head or tail

of this?

“Then we are admonished that our tribune is a tribune of true

and sound ideas and from this tribune of ‘sound ideas’ is heard a

solemn declaration that to call the murder of a father ‘parricide’

is nothing but a prejudice! But if parricide is a prejudice, and if

every child is to ask his father why he is to love him, what will

become of us? What will become of the foundations of society? What

will become of the family? Parricide, it appears, is only a bogy of

Moscow merchants’ wives. The most precious, the most sacred guarantees

for the destiny and future of Russian justice are presented to us in a

perverted and frivolous form, simply to attain an object-to obtain

the justification of something which cannot be justified. ‘Oh, crush

him by mercy,’ cries the counsel for the defence; but that’s all the

criminal wants, and to-morrow it will be seen how much he is

crushed. And is not the counsel for the defence too modest in asking

only for the acquittal of the prisoner? Why not found a charity in the

honour of the parricide to commemorate his exploit among future

generations? Religion and the Gospel are corrected-that’s all

mysticism, we are told, and ours is the only true Christianity which

has been subjected to the analysis of reason and common sense. And

so they set up before us a false semblance of Christ! ‘What measure ye

mete so it shall be meted unto you again,’ cried the counsel for the

defence, and instantly deduces that Christ teaches us to measure as it

is measured to us and this from the tribune of truth and sound

sense! We peep into the Gospel only on the eve of making speeches,

in order to dazzle the audience by our acquaintance with what is,

anyway, a rather original composition, which may be of use to

produce a certain effect-all to serve the purpose! But what Christ

commands us is something very different: He bids us beware of doing

this, because the wicked world does this, but we ought to forgive

and to turn the other cheek, and not to measure to our persecutors

as they measure to us. This is what our God has taught us and not that

to forbid children to murder their fathers is a prejudice. And we will

not from the tribune of truth and good sense correct the Gospel of our

Lord, Whom the counsel for the defence deigns to call only ‘the

crucified lover of humanity,’ in opposition to all orthodox Russia,

which calls to Him, ‘For Thou art our God!’”

At this the President intervened and checked the over-zealous

speaker, begging him not to exaggerate, not to overstep the bounds,

and so on, as presidents always do in such cases. The audience, too,

was uneasy. The public was restless: there were even exclamations of

indignation. Fetyukovitch did not so much as reply; he only mounted

the tribune to lay his hand on his heart and, with an offended

voice, utter a few words full of dignity. He only touched again,

lightly and ironically, on “romancing” and “psychology,” and in an

appropriate place quoted, “Jupiter, you are angry, therefore you are

wrong,” which provoked a burst of approving laughter in the

audience, for Ippolit Kirillovitch was by no means like Jupiter. Then,

a propos of the accusation that he was teaching the young generation

to murder their fathers, Fetyukovitch observed, with great dignity,

that he would not even answer. As for the prosecutor’s charge of

uttering unorthodox opinions, Fetyukovitch hinted that it was a

personal insinuation and that he had expected in this court to be

secure from accusations “damaging to my reputation as a citizen and

a loyal subject.” But at these words the President pulled him up, too,

and Fetyukovitch concluded his speech with a bow, amid a hum of

approbation in the court. And Ippolit Kirillovitch was, in the opinion

of our ladies, “crushed for good.”

Then the prisoner was allowed to speak. Mitya stood up, but said

very little. He was fearfully exhausted, physically and mentally.

The look of strength and independence with which he had entered in the

morning had almost disappeared. He seemed as though he had passed

through an experience that day, which had taught him for the rest of

his life something very important he had not understood till then. His

voice was weak, he did not shout as before. In his words there was a

new note of humility, defeat and submission.

“What am I to say, gentlemen of the jury? The hour of judgment has

come for me, I feel the hand of God upon me! The end has come to an

erring man! But, before God, I repeat to you, I am innocent of my

father’s blood! For the last time I repeat, it wasn’t I killed him!

I was erring, but I loved what is good. Every instant I strove to

reform, but I lived like a wild beast. I thank the prosecutor, he told

me many things about myself that I did not know; but it’s not true

that I killed my father, the prosecutor is mistaken. I thank my

counsel, too. I cried listening to him; but it’s not true that I

killed my father, and he needn’t have supposed it. And don’t believe

the doctors. I am perfectly sane, only my heart is heavy. If you spare

me, if you let me go, I will pray for you. I will be a better man. I

give you my word before God I will! And if you will condemn me, I’ll

break my sword over my head myself and kiss the pieces. But spare

me, do not rob me of my God! I know myself, I shall rebel! My heart is

heavy, gentlemen… spare me!”

He almost fell back in his place: his voice broke: he could hardly

articulate the last phrase. Then the judges proceeded to put the

questions and began to