A MALEFACTOR

In “A Malefactor,” the reader encounters Denis Grigoryev, a markedly thin and disheveled peasant, undergoing an interrogation by an investigating magistrate. The scene is set in a courtroom where Denis is accused of unscrewing a nut from a railway line — an act deemed perilous, potentially leading to catastrophic train derailments. Despite the gravity of the accusation, Denis maintains a stance of simplicity and necessity, claiming the nut was intended to serve as a fishing weight, a common practice among his fellow villagers.

Denis, with his unkempt appearance and seemingly naive responses, offers explanations that oscillate between innocence and ignorance. He suggests that the unscrewing of nuts for fishing weights is a routine matter, unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the possible implications of his actions on railway safety. His defense is grounded in the practical needs of village life, where making do with found objects for everyday tasks is typical. This simplicity extends to his understanding of the situation; despite the magistrate’s attempts to elucidate the potential danger of removing nuts from railway tracks, Denis remains focused on the immediate utility of the nut as a weight for fishing.

Throughout the interrogation, the magistrate expresses a mixture of frustration, disbelief, and amusement at Denis’s reasoning. The dialogue reveals Denis’s worldview, one deeply connected to rural life’s immediate and tangible concerns, such as fishing, rather than the abstract consequences considered by the law. His repetitive questioning and literal interpretations underscore a gap between legal reasoning and rustic logic.

As the chapter unfolds, the magistrate details the potential legal repercussions Denis faces, citing specific penal codes and the serious consequence of penal servitude. Yet, this legal jargon seems lost on Denis, who is more concerned with personal matters like attending the fair or settling financial dealings than the looming threat of imprisonment. His attempts to justify his actions and plead his case reflect a disconnect not only with legal standards but also with the magistrate’s authority.

Denis’s plight is punctuated by his inability to grasp the seriousness of his situation, a theme underscored by the magistrate’s increasing exasperation and the eventual decision to imprison Denis. The narrative highlights the clash between rural innocence (or feigned ignorance) and the rigid framework of legalistic society, ultimately painting a portrait of Denis as a tragicomic figure caught in a web of misunderstanding and bureaucratic justice.