finished_summaries/shmoop/The Brothers Karamazov/section_89_part_0.txt
The Brothers Karamazov.book 12.chapter 11
book 12, chapter 11
{"name": "Book 12, Chapter 11", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20201023112808/https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/literature/brothers-karamazov/summary/book-12-chapter-11", "summary": "Fetyukovich next tackles the question of the money. To put it bluntly, where is it? No one, Fetyukovich points out, can confirm actually having seen Fyodor Karamazov put the money in the so-called envelope. If the money never existed, then Dmitri couldn't have stolen it. Fetyukovich dismisses Kirillovich's conjecture that Dmitri hid it in some secret crevice in the inn as pure fantasy. Fetyukovich then explains Katerina's conflicting testimony as the impulsive utterances of a vengeful woman. This is kind of clever, because if someone as well-respected as Katerina can be both lofty and petty at the same time, Dmitri, too, can have contradictory impulses toward both honor and utter disgracefulness. On the question of Katerina's letter, Fetyukovich points out how closely Dmitri's words about the envelope echo the way that Smerdyakov talks about the letter, suggesting that Dmitri, like everyone else, only knew about the money secondhand, from Smerdyakov.", "analysis": ""}
Chapter XI. There Was No Money. There Was No Robbery


There was one point that struck every one in Fetyukovitch's speech. He
flatly denied the existence of the fatal three thousand roubles, and
consequently, the possibility of their having been stolen.

"Gentlemen of the jury," he began. "Every new and unprejudiced observer
must be struck by a characteristic peculiarity in the present case,
namely, the charge of robbery, and the complete impossibility of proving
that there was anything to be stolen. We are told that money was
stolen--three thousand roubles--but whether those roubles ever existed,
nobody knows. Consider, how have we heard of that sum, and who has seen
the notes? The only person who saw them, and stated that they had been put
in the envelope, was the servant, Smerdyakov. He had spoken of it to the
prisoner and his brother, Ivan Fyodorovitch, before the catastrophe.
Madame Svyetlov, too, had been told of it. But not one of these three
persons had actually seen the notes, no one but Smerdyakov had seen them.

"Here the question arises, if it's true that they did exist, and that
Smerdyakov had seen them, when did he see them for the last time? What if
his master had taken the notes from under his bed and put them back in his
cash-box without telling him? Note, that according to Smerdyakov's story
the notes were kept under the mattress; the prisoner must have pulled them
out, and yet the bed was absolutely unrumpled; that is carefully recorded
in the protocol. How could the prisoner have found the notes without
disturbing the bed? How could he have helped soiling with his blood-
stained hands the fine and spotless linen with which the bed had been
purposely made?

"But I shall be asked: What about the envelope on the floor? Yes, it's
worth saying a word or two about that envelope. I was somewhat surprised
just now to hear the highly talented prosecutor declare of himself--of
himself, observe--that but for that envelope, but for its being left on the
floor, no one in the world would have known of the existence of that
envelope and the notes in it, and therefore of the prisoner's having
stolen it. And so that torn scrap of paper is, by the prosecutor's own
admission, the sole proof on which the charge of robbery rests, 'otherwise
no one would have known of the robbery, nor perhaps even of the money.'
But is the mere fact that that scrap of paper was lying on the floor a
proof that there was money in it, and that that money had been stolen?
Yet, it will be objected, Smerdyakov had seen the money in the envelope.
But when, when had he seen it for the last time, I ask you that? I talked
to Smerdyakov, and he told me that he had seen the notes two days before
the catastrophe. Then why not imagine that old Fyodor Pavlovitch, locked
up alone in impatient and hysterical expectation of the object of his
adoration, may have whiled away the time by breaking open the envelope and
taking out the notes. 'What's the use of the envelope?' he may have asked
himself. 'She won't believe the notes are there, but when I show her the
thirty rainbow-colored notes in one roll, it will make more impression,
you may be sure, it will make her mouth water.' And so he tears open the
envelope, takes out the money, and flings the envelope on the floor,
conscious of being the owner and untroubled by any fears of leaving
evidence.

"Listen, gentlemen, could anything be more likely than this theory and
such an action? Why is it out of the question? But if anything of the sort
could have taken place, the charge of robbery falls to the ground; if
there was no money, there was no theft of it. If the envelope on the floor
may be taken as evidence that there had been money in it, why may I not
maintain the opposite, that the envelope was on the floor because the
money had been taken from it by its owner?

"But I shall be asked what became of the money if Fyodor Pavlovitch took
it out of the envelope since it was not found when the police searched the
house? In the first place, part of the money was found in the cash-box,
and secondly, he might have taken it out that morning or the evening
before to make some other use of it, to give or send it away; he may have
changed his idea, his plan of action completely, without thinking it
necessary to announce the fact to Smerdyakov beforehand. And if there is
the barest possibility of such an explanation, how can the prisoner be so
positively accused of having committed murder for the sake of robbery, and
of having actually carried out that robbery? This is encroaching on the
domain of romance. If it is maintained that something has been stolen, the
thing must be produced, or at least its existence must be proved beyond
doubt. Yet no one had ever seen these notes.

"Not long ago in Petersburg a young man of eighteen, hardly more than a
boy, who carried on a small business as a costermonger, went in broad
daylight into a moneychanger's shop with an ax, and with extraordinary,
typical audacity killed the master of the shop and carried off fifteen
hundred roubles. Five hours later he was arrested, and, except fifteen
roubles he had already managed to spend, the whole sum was found on him.
Moreover, the shopman, on his return to the shop after the murder,
informed the police not only of the exact sum stolen, but even of the
notes and gold coins of which that sum was made up, and those very notes
and coins were found on the criminal. This was followed by a full and
genuine confession on the part of the murderer. That's what I call
evidence, gentlemen of the jury! In that case I know, I see, I touch the
money, and cannot deny its existence. Is it the same in the present case?
And yet it is a question of life and death.

"Yes, I shall be told, but he was carousing that night, squandering money;
he was shown to have had fifteen hundred roubles--where did he get the
money? But the very fact that only fifteen hundred could be found, and the
other half of the sum could nowhere be discovered, shows that that money
was not the same, and had never been in any envelope. By strict
calculation of time it was proved at the preliminary inquiry that the
prisoner ran straight from those women servants to Perhotin's without
going home, and that he had been nowhere. So he had been all the time in
company and therefore could not have divided the three thousand in half
and hidden half in the town. It's just this consideration that has led the
prosecutor to assume that the money is hidden in some crevice at Mokroe.
Why not in the dungeons of the castle of Udolpho, gentlemen? Isn't this
supposition really too fantastic and too romantic? And observe, if that
supposition breaks down, the whole charge of robbery is scattered to the
winds, for in that case what could have become of the other fifteen
hundred roubles? By what miracle could they have disappeared, since it's
proved the prisoner went nowhere else? And we are ready to ruin a man's
life with such tales!

"I shall be told that he could not explain where he got the fifteen
hundred that he had, and every one knew that he was without money before
that night. Who knew it, pray? The prisoner has made a clear and
unflinching statement of the source of that money, and if you will have it
so, gentlemen of the jury, nothing can be more probable than that
statement, and more consistent with the temper and spirit of the prisoner.
The prosecutor is charmed with his own romance. A man of weak will, who
had brought himself to take the three thousand so insultingly offered by
his betrothed, could not, we are told, have set aside half and sewn it up,
but would, even if he had done so, have unpicked it every two days and
taken out a hundred, and so would have spent it all in a month. All this,
you will remember, was put forward in a tone that brooked no
contradiction. But what if the thing happened quite differently? What if
you've been weaving a romance, and about quite a different kind of man?
That's just it, you have invented quite a different man!

"I shall be told, perhaps, there are witnesses that he spent on one day
all that three thousand given him by his betrothed a month before the
catastrophe, so he could not have divided the sum in half. But who are
these witnesses? The value of their evidence has been shown in court
already. Besides, in another man's hand a crust always seems larger, and
no one of these witnesses counted that money; they all judged simply at
sight. And the witness Maximov has testified that the prisoner had twenty
thousand in his hand. You see, gentlemen of the jury, psychology is a two-
edged weapon. Let me turn the other edge now and see what comes of it.

"A month before the catastrophe the prisoner was entrusted by Katerina
Ivanovna with three thousand roubles to send off by post. But the question
is: is it true that they were entrusted to him in such an insulting and
degrading way as was proclaimed just now? The first statement made by the
young lady on the subject was different, perfectly different. In the
second statement we heard only cries of resentment and revenge, cries of
long-concealed hatred. And the very fact that the witness gave her first
evidence incorrectly, gives us a right to conclude that her second piece
of evidence may have been incorrect also. The prosecutor will not, dare
not (his own words) touch on that story. So be it. I will not touch on it
either, but will only venture to observe that if a lofty and high-
principled person, such as that highly respected young lady unquestionably
is, if such a person, I say, allows herself suddenly in court to
contradict her first statement, with the obvious motive of ruining the
prisoner, it is clear that this evidence has been given not impartially,
not coolly. Have not we the right to assume that a revengeful woman might
have exaggerated much? Yes, she may well have exaggerated, in particular,
the insult and humiliation of her offering him the money. No, it was
offered in such a way that it was possible to take it, especially for a
man so easy-going as the prisoner, above all, as he expected to receive
shortly from his father the three thousand roubles that he reckoned was
owing to him. It was unreflecting of him, but it was just his
irresponsible want of reflection that made him so confident that his
father would give him the money, that he would get it, and so could always
dispatch the money entrusted to him and repay the debt.

"But the prosecutor refuses to allow that he could the same day have set
aside half the money and sewn it up in a little bag. That's not his
character, he tells us, he couldn't have had such feelings. But yet he
talked himself of the broad Karamazov nature; he cried out about the two
extremes which a Karamazov can contemplate at once. Karamazov is just such
a two-sided nature, fluctuating between two extremes, that even when moved
by the most violent craving for riotous gayety, he can pull himself up, if
something strikes him on the other side. And on the other side is
love--that new love which had flamed up in his heart, and for that love he
needed money; oh, far more than for carousing with his mistress. If she
were to say to him, 'I am yours, I won't have Fyodor Pavlovitch,' then he
must have money to take her away. That was more important than carousing.
Could a Karamazov fail to understand it? That anxiety was just what he was
suffering from--what is there improbable in his laying aside that money and
concealing it in case of emergency?

"But time passed, and Fyodor Pavlovitch did not give the prisoner the
expected three thousand; on the contrary, the latter heard that he meant
to use this sum to seduce the woman he, the prisoner, loved. 'If Fyodor
Pavlovitch doesn't give the money,' he thought, 'I shall be put in the
position of a thief before Katerina Ivanovna.' And then the idea presented
itself to him that he would go to Katerina Ivanovna, lay before her the
fifteen hundred roubles he still carried round his neck, and say, 'I am a
scoundrel, but not a thief.' So here we have already a twofold reason why
he should guard that sum of money as the apple of his eye, why he
shouldn't unpick the little bag, and spend it a hundred at a time. Why
should you deny the prisoner a sense of honor? Yes, he has a sense of
honor, granted that it's misplaced, granted it's often mistaken, yet it
exists and amounts to a passion, and he has proved that.

"But now the affair becomes even more complex; his jealous torments reach
a climax, and those same two questions torture his fevered brain more and
more: 'If I repay Katerina Ivanovna, where can I find the means to go off
with Grushenka?' If he behaved wildly, drank, and made disturbances in the
taverns in the course of that month, it was perhaps because he was
wretched and strained beyond his powers of endurance. These two questions
became so acute that they drove him at last to despair. He sent his
younger brother to beg for the last time for the three thousand roubles,
but without waiting for a reply, burst in himself and ended by beating the
old man in the presence of witnesses. After that he had no prospect of
getting it from any one; his father would not give it him after that
beating.

"The same evening he struck himself on the breast, just on the upper part
of the breast where the little bag was, and swore to his brother that he
had the means of not being a scoundrel, but that still he would remain a
scoundrel, for he foresaw that he would not use that means, that he
wouldn't have the character, that he wouldn't have the will-power to do
it. Why, why does the prosecutor refuse to believe the evidence of Alexey
Karamazov, given so genuinely and sincerely, so spontaneously and
convincingly? And why, on the contrary, does he force me to believe in
money hidden in a crevice, in the dungeons of the castle of Udolpho?

"The same evening, after his talk with his brother, the prisoner wrote
that fatal letter, and that letter is the chief, the most stupendous proof
of the prisoner having committed robbery! 'I shall beg from every one, and
if I don't get it I shall murder my father and shall take the envelope
with the pink ribbon on it from under his mattress as soon as Ivan has
gone.' A full program of the murder, we are told, so it must have been he.
'It has all been done as he wrote,' cries the prosecutor.

"But in the first place, it's the letter of a drunken man and written in
great irritation; secondly, he writes of the envelope from what he has
heard from Smerdyakov again, for he has not seen the envelope himself; and
thirdly, he wrote it indeed, but how can you prove that he did it? Did the
prisoner take the envelope from under the pillow, did he find the money,
did that money exist indeed? And was it to get money that the prisoner ran
off, if you remember? He ran off post-haste not to steal, but to find out
where she was, the woman who had crushed him. He was not running to carry
out a program, to carry out what he had written, that is, not for an act
of premeditated robbery, but he ran suddenly, spontaneously, in a jealous
fury. Yes! I shall be told, but when he got there and murdered him he
seized the money, too. But did he murder him after all? The charge of
robbery I repudiate with indignation. A man cannot be accused of robbery,
if it's impossible to state accurately what he has stolen; that's an
axiom. But did he murder him without robbery, did he murder him at all? Is
that proved? Isn't that, too, a romance?"





Book 12, Chapter 11
Fetyukovich next tackles the question of the money. To put it bluntly, where is it? No one, Fetyukovich points out, can confirm actually having seen Fyodor Karamazov put the money in the so-called envelope. If the money never existed, then Dmitri couldn't have stolen it. Fetyukovich dismisses Kirillovich's conjecture that Dmitri hid it in some secret crevice in the inn as pure fantasy. Fetyukovich then explains Katerina's conflicting testimony as the impulsive utterances of a vengeful woman. This is kind of clever, because if someone as well-respected as Katerina can be both lofty and petty at the same time, Dmitri, too, can have contradictory impulses toward both honor and utter disgracefulness. On the question of Katerina's letter, Fetyukovich points out how closely Dmitri's words about the envelope echo the way that Smerdyakov talks about the letter, suggesting that Dmitri, like everyone else, only knew about the money secondhand, from Smerdyakov.