The Brothers Karamazov · Chapter
VI: The Prosecutor’s Speech. Sketches of Character explained
Ippolit Kirillovitch delivers his closing speech, portraying the Karamazov family as a microcosm of the moral decay and cynicism afflicting Russian society.
What happens
Ippolit Kirillovitch delivers his closing speech, portraying the Karamazov family as a microcosm of the moral decay and cynicism afflicting Russian society. He argues that the crime is not an isolated horror but a symptom of widespread indifference, vice, and loss of spiritual values. He analyzes Fyodor Pavlovitch's character as a selfish, sensual moneylender who neglected his duties, and Dmitri's contradictory nature as a weak but not entirely thievish man, while calling for society to confront its own degradation.
Themes in this chapter
Sensuality and Moral Degradation
The prosecutor highlights Fyodor Pavlovitch's life of sensual pleasure and vice, and the widespread moral decay in society, as central to the case.
Justice and Injustice
Ippolit Kirillovitch calls for justice for society, arguing that the crime reflects a systemic failure of moral principles and civic duty.
Innocence and Corruption
The speech contrasts the supposed innocence of youth with the corruption of the older generation, and society's indifference to evil.
Characters to notice
- Ippolit Kirillovitch
The prosecutor delivers his passionate, sincere speech, viewing it as his chef-d'œuvre and swan-song, genuinely believing in Dmitri's guilt and appealing for societal reform.
- Fyodor Pavlovitch Karamazov
Described as a vicious, unbridled old man, a petty knave and moneylender who lived only for sensual pleasure, neglected his children, and embodied malignant individualism.
- Dmitri Karamazov
The prisoner is analyzed as a frantic, weak man who squandered money but claims not to be a thief; the prosecutor argues his behavior contradicts the legend of the little bag.
Key passages
“A great writer of the last epoch, comparing Russia to a swift troika galloping to an unknown goal, exclaims, ‘Oh, troika, birdlike troika, who invented thee!’ and adds, in proud ecstasy, that all the peoples of the world stand aside respectfully to make way for the recklessly galloping troika to pass.”
The prosecutor references Gogol's troika metaphor to argue that Russia's heroes are corrupt, making its progress meaningless.
Ippolit Kirillovitch uses literary allusion to critique Russian society's self-image.
“The old man’s maxim was Après moi le déluge. He was an example of everything that is opposed to civic duty, of the most complete and malignant individualism.”
Fyodor Pavlovitch lived by the motto 'After me, the flood,' embodying selfishness and disregard for social responsibility.
The prosecutor condemns Fyodor's individualism as a root cause of the family's tragedy.
“I am a scoundrel, not a thief, for I can always go to my insulted betrothed, and, laying down half the sum I have fraudulently appropriated, I can always say to her, ‘You see, I’ve squandered half your money, and shown I am a weak and immoral man, and, if you like, a scoundrel’ (I use the prisoner’s own expressions), ‘but though I am a scoundrel, I am not a thief, for if I had been a thief, I shouldn’t have brought you back this half of the money, but should have taken it as I did the other half!’”
The prosecutor mocks Dmitri's logic that returning half the stolen money proves he is not a thief, calling it a 'marvelous explanation.'
Ippolit Kirillovitch deconstructs Dmitri's self-justification as inconsistent with his character.