The Speech for the Defence.An Argument that Cuts Both WaysALL was hushed as the first words of the famous orator rang out.
The eyes of the audience were fastened upon him.He began very simply and directly, with an air of conviction, but not the slightest trace of conceit.He made no attempt at eloquence, at pathos, or emotional phrases.He was like a man speaking in a circle of intimate and sympathetic friends.His voice was a fine one, sonorous and sympathetic, and there was something genuine and simple in the very sound of it.But everyone realised at once that the speaker might suddenly rise to genuine pathos and "pierce the heart with untold power." His language was perhaps more irregular than Ippolit Kirillovitch's, but he spoke without long phrases, and indeed, with more precision.One thing did not please the ladies: he kept bending forward, especially at the beginning of his speech, not exactly bowing, but as though he were about to dart at his listeners, bending his long spine in half, as though there were a spring in the middle that enabled him to bend almost at right angles.
At the beginning of his speech he spoke rather disconnectedly, without system, one may say, dealing with facts separately, though, at the end, these facts formed a whole.His speech might be divided into two parts, the first consisting of criticism in refutation of the charge, sometimes malicious and sarcastic.But in the second half he suddenly changed his tone, and even his manner, and at once rose to pathos.The audience seemed on the lookout for it, and quivered with enthusiasm.
He went straight to the point, and began by saying that although he practised in Petersburg, he had more than once visited provincial towns to defend prisoners, of whose innocence he had a conviction or at least a preconceived idea."That is what has happened to me in the present case," he explained."From the very first accounts in the newspapers I was struck by something which strongly prepossessed me in the prisoner's favour.What interested me most was a fact which often occurs in legal practice, but rarely, I think, in such an extreme and peculiar form as in the present case.I ought to formulate that peculiarity only at the end of my speech, but I will do so at the very beginning, for it is my weakness to go to work directly, not keeping my effects in reserve and economising my material.That may be imprudent on my part, but at least it's sincere.
What I have in my mind is this: there is an overwhelming chain of evidence against the prisoner, and at the same time not one fact that will stand criticism, if it is examined separately.As I followed the case more closely in the papers my idea was more and more confirmed, and I suddenly received from the prisoner's relatives a request to undertake his defence.I at once hurried here, and here Ibecame completely convinced.It was to break down this terrible chain of facts, and to show that each piece of evidence taken separately was unproved and fantastic, that I undertook the case."So Fetyukovitch began.
"Gentlemen of the jury," he suddenly protested, "I am new to this district.I have no preconceived ideas.The prisoner, a man of turbulent and unbridled temper, has not insulted me.But he has insulted perhaps hundreds of persons in this town, and so prejudiced many people against him beforehand.Of course I recognise that the moral sentiment of local society is justly excited against him.The prisoner is of turbulent and violent temper.Yet he was received in society here; he was even welcome in the family of my talented friend, the prosecutor."(N.B.At these words there were two or three laughs in the audience, quickly suppressed, but noticed by all.All of us knew that the prosecutor received Mitya against his will, solely because he had somehow interested his wife- a lady of the highest virtue and moral worth, but fanciful, capricious, and fond of opposing her husband, especially in trifles.Mitya's visits, however, had not been frequent.)"Nevertheless I venture to suggest," Fetyukovitch continued, "that in spite of his independent mind and just character, my opponent may have formed a mistaken prejudice against my unfortunate client.Oh, that is so natural; the unfortunate man has only too well deserved such prejudice.Outraged morality, and still more outraged taste, is often relentless.We have, in the talented prosecutor's speech, heard a stern analysis of the prisoner's character and conduct, and his severe critical attitude to the case was evident.And, what's more, he went into psychological subtleties into which he could not have entered, if he had the least conscious and malicious prejudice against the prisoner.But there are things which are even worse, even more fatal in such cases, than the most malicious and consciously unfair attitude.It is worse if we are carried away by the artistic instinct, by the desire to create, so to speak, a romance, especially if God has endowed us with psychological insight.Before I started on my way here, I was warned in Petersburg, and was myself aware, that I should find here a talented opponent whose psychological insight and subtlety had gained him peculiar renown in legal circles of recent years.But profound as psychology is, it's a knife that cuts both ways." (Laughter among the public.) "You will, of course, forgive me my comparison; I can't boast of eloquence.But I will take as an example any point in the prosecutor's speech.
