Resurrection · Chapter
Chapter XXIII explained
The jury deliberates on the case of Máslova, Kartínkin, and Bótchkova.
What happens
The jury deliberates on the case of Máslova, Kartínkin, and Bótchkova. After heated disputes and confusion, they return a verdict that finds Máslova guilty of poisoning without intent to rob, but due to an omission of the proviso 'without intent to take life,' she is effectively condemned to penal servitude in Siberia. Nekhlúdoff, realizing the injustice, is torn between his desire to intervene and his fear of exposing his past relations with her.
Themes in this chapter
Injustice of the Legal System
The jury's careless omission and the judges' failure to correct the verdict highlight the systemic flaws that lead to an innocent woman being condemned to Siberia.
Social Class and Inequality
Máslova's low social status as a former servant and prisoner makes her vulnerable to a hasty and unjust verdict, while the jury's weariness and biases override her innocence.
Characters to notice
- Prince Dmitri Ivanovich Nekhludoff
Nekhlúdoff is present during the jury's deliberations, too excited and conflicted to notice the omission in the verdict that condemns Máslova to Siberia.
- Katerina Maslova
Máslova is the defendant; she is convicted and sentenced to penal servitude, though she is innocent of the intent to kill.
- Peter Gerasimovitch
Peter Gerásimovitch argues passionately for Máslova's innocence during the jury's debate and later points out the fatal omission in the verdict.
- The Judges
The judges, including the president and two members, discuss the possibility of setting aside the jury's unjust verdict but ultimately let it stand.
- Simeon Kartinkin
Kartínkin is one of the prisoners; the jury finds him guilty of poisoning and robbery, with only the old artélshik dissenting.
- Euphemia Botchkova
Bótchkova is acquitted of poisoning but found guilty on another count and recommended for mercy.
Key passages
“Rabelais says that a lawyer who was trying a case quoted all sorts of laws, read twenty pages of judicial senseless Latin, and then proposed to the judges to throw dice, and if the numbers proved odd the defendant would be right, if not, the plaintiff. It was much the same in this case.”
The jury's decision was as arbitrary as a game of chance, akin to a lawyer in Rabelais who suggested deciding a case by dice roll.
This analogy underscores the randomness and absurdity of the verdict.
“The wounded bird would stop struggling in the game-bag, and no longer remind him of its existence.”
Nekhlúdoff felt that Máslova's conviction to Siberia would end his moral torment, as if a trapped bird ceased to struggle.
This metaphor reveals Nekhlúdoff's conflicted relief at the prospect of avoiding a difficult relationship with Máslova.