The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (best e book reader for android txt) 📖
- Author: Fyodor Dostoyevsky
- Performer: 0140449248
Book online «The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (best e book reader for android txt) 📖». Author Fyodor Dostoyevsky
He would have invented something, he would have told some lie if he
had been forced to give information, but he would have been silent
about that. For, on the other hand, if he had said nothing about the
money, but had committed the murder and stolen the money, no one in
the world could have charged him with murder for the sake of
robbery, since no one but he had seen the money, no one but he knew of
its existence in the house. Even if he had been accused of the murder,
it could only have been thought that he had committed it from some
other motive. But since no one had observed any such motive in him
beforehand, and everyone saw, on the contrary, that his master was
fond of him and honoured him with his confidence, he would, of course,
have been the last to be suspected. People would have suspected
first the man who had a motive, a man who had himself declared he
had such motives, who had made no secret of it; they would, in fact,
have suspected the son of the murdered man, Dmitri Fyodorovitch. Had
Smerdyakov killed and robbed him, and the son been accused of it, that
would, of course, have suited Smerdyakov. Yet are we to believe
that, though plotting the murder, he told that son, Dmitri, about
the money, the envelope, and the signals? Is that logical? Is that
clear?
“When the day of the murder planned by Smerdyakov came, we have
him falling downstairs in a feigned fit-with what object? In the
first place that Grigory, who had been intending to take his medicine,
might put it off and remain on guard, seeing there was no one to
look after the house, and, in the second place, I suppose, that his
master seeing that there was no one to guard him, and in terror of a
visit from his son, might redouble his vigilance and precaution.
And, most of all, I suppose that he, Smerdyakov, disabled by the
fit, might be carried from the kitchen, where he always slept, apart
from all the rest, and where he could go in and out as he liked, to
Grigory’s room at the other end of the lodge, where he was always put,
shut off by a screen three paces from their own bed. This was the
immemorial custom established by his master and the kindhearted
Marfa Ignatyevna, whenever he had a fit. There, lying behind the
screen, he would most likely, to keep up the sham, have begun
groaning, and so keeping them awake all night (as Grigory and his wife
testified). And all this, we are to believe, that he might more
conveniently get up and murder his master!
“But I shall be told that he shammed illness on purpose that he
might not be suspected and that he told the prisoner of the money
and the signals to tempt him to commit the murder, and when he had
murdered him and had gone away with the money, making a noise, most
likely, and waking people, Smerdyakov got up, am I to believe, and
went in-what for? To murder his master a second time and carry off
the money that had already been stolen? Gentlemen, are you laughing? I
am ashamed to put forward such suggestions, but, incredible as it
seems, that’s just what the prisoner alleges. When he had left the
house, had knocked Grigory down and raised an alarm, he tells us
Smerdyakov got up, went in and murdered his master and stole the
money! I won’t press the point that Smerdyakov could hardly have
reckoned on this beforehand, and have foreseen that the furious and
exasperated son would simply come to peep in respectfully, though he
knew the signals, and beat a retreat, leaving Smerdyakov his booty.
Gentlemen of the jury, I put this question to you in earnest: when was
the moment when Smerdyakov could have committed his crime? Name that
moment, or you can’t accuse him.
“But, perhaps, the fit was a real one, the sick man suddenly
recovered, heard a shout, and went out. Well-what then? He looked
about him and said, ‘Why not go and kill the master?’ And how did he
know what had happened, since he had been lying unconscious till
that moment? But there’s a limit to these flights of fancy.
“‘Quite so,’ some astute people will tell me, ‘but what if they
were in agreement? What if they murdered him together and shared the
money-what then?’ A weighty question, truly! And the facts to confirm
it are astounding. One commits the murder and takes all the trouble
while his accomplice lies on one side shamming a fit, apparently to
arouse suspicion in everyone, alarm in his master and alarm in
Grigory. It would be interesting to know what motives could have
induced the two accomplices to form such an insane plan.
“But perhaps it was not a case of active complicity on
Smerdyakov’s part, but only of passive acquiescence; perhaps
Smerdyakov was intimidated and agreed not to prevent the murder, and
foreseeing that he would be blamed for letting his master be murdered,
without screaming for help or resisting, he may have obtained
permission from Dmitri Karamazov to get out of the way by shamming a
fit- ‘you may murder him as you like; it’s nothing to me.’ But as this
attack of Smerdyakov’s was bound to throw the household into
confusion, Dmitri Karamazov could never have agreed to such a plan.
I will waive that point however. Supposing that he did agree, it would
still follow that Dmitri Karamazov is the murderer and the instigator,
and Smerdyakov is only a passive accomplice, and not even an
accomplice, but merely acquiesced against his will through terror.
“But what do we see? As soon as he is arrested the prisoner
instantly throws all the blame on Smerdyakov, not accusing him of
being his accomplice, but of being himself the murderer. ‘He did it
alone,’ he says. ‘He murdered and robbed him. It was the work of his
hands.’ Strange sort of accomplices who begin to accuse one another at
once! And think of the risk for Karamazov. After committing the murder
while his accomplice lay in bed, he throws the blame on the invalid,
who might well have resented it and in self-preservation might well
have confessed the truth. For he might well have seen that the court
would at once judge how far he was responsible, and so he might well
have reckoned that if he were punished, it would be far less
severely than the real murderer. But in that case he would have been
certain to make a confession, yet he has not done so. Smerdyakov never
hinted at their complicity, though the actual murderer persisted in
accusing him and declaring that he had committed the crime alone.
“What’s more, Smerdyakov at the inquiry volunteered the
statement that it was he who had told the prisoner of the envelope
of notes and of the signals, and that, but for him, he would have
known nothing about them. If he had really been a guilty accomplice,
would he so readily have made this statement at the inquiry? On the
contrary, he would have tried to conceal it, to distort the facts or
minimise them. But he was far from distorting or minimising them. No
one but an innocent man, who had no fear of being charged with
complicity, could have acted as he did. And in a fit of melancholy
arising from his disease and this catastrophe he hanged himself
yesterday. He left a note written in his peculiar language, ‘I destroy
myself of my own will and inclination so as to throw no blame on
anyone.’ What would it have cost him to add: ‘I am the murderer, not
Karamazov’? But that he did not add. Did his conscience lead him to
suicide and not to avowing his guilt?
“And what followed? Notes for three thousand roubles were
brought into the court just now, and we were told that they were the
same that lay in the envelope now on the table before us, and that the
witness had received them from Smerdyakov the day before. But I need
not recall the painful scene, though I will make one or two
comments, selecting such trivial ones as might not be obvious at first
sight to everyone, and so may be overlooked. In the first place,
Smerdyakov must have given back the money and hanged himself yesterday
from remorse. And only yesterday he confessed his guilt to Ivan
Karamazov, as the latter informs us. If it were not so, indeed, why
should Ivan Fyodorovitch have kept silence till now? And so, if he has
confessed, then why, I ask again, did he not avow the whole truth in
the last letter he left behind, knowing that the innocent prisoner had
to face this terrible ordeal the next day?
“The money alone is no proof. A week ago, quite by chance, the
fact came to the knowledge of myself and two other persons in this
court that Ivan Fyodorovitch had sent two five per cent coupons of
five thousand each-that is, ten thousand in all-to the chief town of
the province to be changed. I only mention this to point out that
anyone may have money, and that it can’t be proved that these notes
are the same as were in Fyodor Pavlovitch’s envelope.
“Ivan Karamazov, after receiving yesterday a communication of such
importance from the real murderer, did not stir. Why didn’t he
report it at once? Why did he put it all off till morning? I think I
have a right to conjecture why. His health had been giving way for a
week past: he had admitted to a doctor and to his most intimate
friends that he was suffering from hallucinations and seeing
phantoms of the dead: he was on the eve of the attack of brain fever
by which he has been stricken down to-day. In this condition he
suddenly heard of Smerdyakov’s death, and at once reflected. ‘The
man is dead, I can throw the blame on him and save my brother. I
have money. I will take a roll of notes and say that Smerdyakov gave
them me before his death.’ You will say that was dishonourable: it’s
dishonourable to slander even the dead, and even to save a brother.
True, but what if he slandered him unconsciously? What if, finally
unhinged by the sudden news of the valet’s death, he imagined it
really was so? You saw the recent scene: you have seen the witness’s
condition. He was standing up and was speaking, but where was his
mind?
“Then followed the document, the prisoner’s letter written two
days before the crime, and containing a complete programme of the
murder. Why, then, are we looking for any other programme? The crime
was committed precisely according to this programme, and by no other
than the writer of it. Yes, gentlemen of the jury, it went off without
a hitch! He did not run respectfully and timidly away from his
father’s window, though he was firmly convinced that the object of his
affections was with him. No, that is absurd and unlikely! He went in
and murdered him. Most likely he killed him in anger, burning with
resentment, as soon as he looked on his hated rival. But having killed
him, probably with one blow of the brass pestle, and having
convinced himself, after careful search, that she was not there, he
did not, however, forget to put his hand under the pillow and take out
the envelope, the torn cover of which lies now on the table before us.
“I mention this fact that you may note one, to my thinking, very
characteristic
Comments (0)