Mitya’s preliminary interrogation

Mitya’s preliminary interrogation is the first extended official examination of his account of the night his father was murdered. He denies the killing, but not all bloodshed: he insists that he is guilty of another old man’s blood. As investigators press him about inheritance, money, and the sequence of his movements, his attempt to give a complete account becomes part of the evidence against him. The scene thus establishes the central tension of the inquiry: Mitya can be truthful about what he did and still be suspected of a crime he says he did not commit.

The Question of Guilt

The interrogation begins with the investigating lawyer asking Mitya directly whether he declares himself innocent of his father’s death. Mitya answers that he is not guilty of that death, while distinguishing it from the blood of another old man for which he accepts guilt. His reply sets the terms of his defense: he does not claim an unblemished past, but separates the violence he admits from the parricide under investigation.

That distinction matters because the examination is not simply a search for a denial. The officials must assess a man whose own statements acknowledge conduct that may make him seem dangerous, while determining whether those admissions establish the particular crime charged. Mitya’s protest that the investigator should decide his fate, delivered with a fixed, wide-eyed stare, gives the exchange an urgent personal force; the legal question bears on his life, not just on the accuracy of a record.

Money and the Account of the Night

The questioning turns to the dispute over money and the inheritance Mitya claimed. When the investigating lawyer asks about three thousand roubles, Mitya corrects the figure heatedly: he says the dispute concerned more than six thousand. The discrepancy puts the family’s financial conflict into the official record and shows how a simple question about a sum can open onto a larger quarrel about what Mitya believed he was owed.

As he describes his journey to see Lyagavy, the night he spent in a stifling hut, and his return to town, Mitya grows surly. Even so, he recounts events without being particularly urged to continue, supplying details that the investigators note in connection with how little money he had in his pocket at the time. His account has a double character: it is his explanation of his conduct, yet its precision also gives the examination material against which other testimony can be tested.

The most concentrated part of this reconstruction concerns the garden. Mitya describes leaping over the fence into his father’s garden, approaching the window, and relating what passed there. He reports not only what he did and saw but the feelings that troubled him during those moments. The interrogation therefore moves between verifiable actions and Mitya’s account of his inward state, asking the officials—and the reader—to consider whether detail clarifies his innocence or makes his proximity to the crime more incriminating.

Evidence, Search, and the Changing Stakes

The investigators introduce Grigory’s evidence about the open door, calling it a matter of great importance both to the inquiry and to Mitya. The new information shifts the encounter: Mitya is no longer only presenting his own account but hearing how another witness’s testimony may bear on it. The detail of the open door becomes a point at which personal recollection and independent evidence meet, without by itself resolving the question of who killed Mitya’s father.

The inquiry also becomes physical and procedural. Nikolay Parfenovitch tells Mitya that the money will be properly cared for and remain at his disposal after the proceedings if his right to it is established. He then insists on conducting a thorough search of Mitya’s clothes. The clothing and other things are shown to witnesses, a report of the search is drawn up, and the items are carried away. Once the officials leave, Mitya is alone, temporarily separated from the belongings that have just been examined and from the people who have defined the terms of the inquiry.

From Interrogation to Public Examination

The interrogation’s successive ordeals make Mitya’s effort to speak fully a structural feature of the investigation. He tries not to miss a detail, but the official process continually changes the status of what he says: his recollections can be checked against testimony, his account of money becomes part of the case, and his clothes become objects of formal inspection. The work of explaining himself does not give him control over how his statements will be interpreted.

The transition to the witnesses’ examination marks the next stage. The narrative announces that the examination of witnesses has begun and moves away from recounting every procedural detail, while Mitya, already visibly struggling to hold himself upright, feels that the objects around him are heaving and dancing. The shift from his own long account to other witnesses’ evidence leaves his claim of innocence exposed to public scrutiny. The preliminary interrogation ends not with a resolution but with the case widening beyond Mitya’s voice, as his own testimony and the testimony of others begin to compete for authority.