Short Fiction · Chapter
VI: Yevséyitch explained
Proskuróf and the narrator travel to a station where they meet the sótsky Yevséyitch, who is guarding a prisoner.
What happens
Proskuróf and the narrator travel to a station where they meet the sótsky Yevséyitch, who is guarding a prisoner. Yevséyitch expresses the peasants' fear of retribution and their desire for official protection before they dare testify against powerful criminals. Proskuróf is indignant at this conditional sense of duty, while the narrator defends the peasants' need for guarantees. The chapter ends with the sound of a bell indicating the surgeon's approach.
Themes in this chapter
Social Injustice and Class Division
The peasants, represented by Yevséyitch, are afraid to testify against powerful criminals without official protection, highlighting the systemic inequality and the failure of justice to protect the vulnerable.
The Search for Meaning
The debate between Proskuróf and the narrator over the nature of authority and duty reflects a deeper search for moral and social order in an unjust world.
Characters to notice
- Proskuróf
The beaming Proskuróf; an official investigating the robbery, impatient and morally outraged by the peasants' conditional cooperation.
- Yevséyitch
The sótsky (village constable) guarding the prisoner; a small peasant with roguish eyes, diplomatic and fearful of the powerful criminals, seeking guarantees from the authorities.
Key passages
“‘Nothing; only if we peasants felt that we had some power behind us, … perhaps, then, we might dare to testify against them. … Think of their evil doings! … and the mir is influential.’”
Yevséyitch explains that the peasants would be willing to testify if they had official backing, because the criminals are powerful and the commune's collective voice needs protection.
Yevséyitch's cautious plea reveals the peasants' vulnerability and their need for state guarantees before risking reprisal.
“‘If success is assured to them, then they will consent to uphold justice. … What do you say to that state of things! It is immoral—simply immoral! … It indicates that the sense of duty is deficient.’”
Proskuróf condemns the peasants for only supporting justice when they are certain of victory, seeing it as a lack of moral duty.
Proskuróf's indignation reflects a top-down view of justice that ignores the peasants' real fears.
“‘It seems to me that they have the right to demand from the authorities a guaranty of protection in all attempts to obtain justice. If this be denied, then what is the essence of authority?—what meaning does it convey?’”
The narrator argues that the peasants are justified in seeking protection, because authority itself is meaningless if it does not safeguard those who seek justice.
The narrator's counterpoint challenges Proskuróf's moral absolutism and highlights the social contract between state and citizen.