Chapter 90
There Was No Money. There Was No Robbery
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…
Public-domain chapter text, formatted for reading.
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Key Quotes & Analysis
"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."
Context: Opening the assault on the robbery charge
He moves the jury from who stole to whether anything existed to steal, shifting the burden back to the prosecution.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch tells the jury that robbery is charged yet nothing proves anything was there to steal. He moves the fight to the foundation, not the suspect. When an accusation assumes a loss, ask who actually saw the missing thing before you debate who took it or why.
"The only person who saw them, and stated that they had been put in the envelope, was the servant, Smerdyakov."
Context: Showing the money trail rests on one witness
The entire theft theory hangs on a dead servant everyone else only heard about secondhand.
In Today's Words:
The defense says only Smerdyakov claimed to see the notes in the envelope; everyone else heard the story from him. A whole case can rest on one voice. Before you convict on a chain of hearsay, ask who saw the thing itself and when they saw it last.
"Why not in the dungeons of the castle of Udolpho, gentlemen?"
Context: Mocking the prosecution theory that half the money was hidden at Mokroe
Gothic ridicule exposes how fantasy fills gaps when hard proof of the sum is missing.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch asks why the missing money is not in the dungeons of Udolpho, mocking the idea it must be hidden at Mokroe. When proof runs out, romance fills the gap. Notice when a speaker replaces a missing fact with a dramatic place or motive you cannot verify.
"A man cannot be accused of robbery, if it’s impossible to state accurately what he has stolen; that’s an axiom."
Context: Repudiating robbery before questioning murder itself
He collapses the theft charge legally, then asks whether murder is proved or also romance.
In Today's Words:
Fetyukovitch says you cannot accuse a man of robbery if you cannot state accurately what was stolen; that is an axiom. He repudiates theft before touching murder. When the core object of a crime is undefined, refuse to argue motive until someone names what was actually taken.
Thematic Threads
Truth vs. Narrative
In This Chapter
Fetyukovitch shows how the same facts can support completely different stories about what happened
Development
Building from earlier courtroom scenes where different witnesses told conflicting versions of events
In Your Life:
You might see this when family members remember the same childhood event completely differently, or when workplace conflicts have multiple valid perspectives
Class Prejudice
In This Chapter
The defense challenges assumptions about how a 'wild' nobleman like Dmitri would behave with money
Development
Continues the book's exploration of how social class shapes expectations and judgments
In Your Life:
You might experience this when people make assumptions about your capabilities or character based on your job, education, or background
Evidence vs. Assumption
In This Chapter
The lawyer distinguishes between what was actually proven versus what people assumed must be true
Development
Intensifies the book's examination of how people construct truth from incomplete information
In Your Life:
You might see this when making medical decisions based on Dr. Google rather than actual tests, or judging coworkers based on rumors rather than direct experience
Honor and Contradiction
In This Chapter
Dmitri is portrayed as someone capable of both wild spending and careful saving when honor is at stake
Development
Develops the ongoing theme of how people contain contradictory impulses and motivations
In Your Life:
You might recognize this in yourself when you're financially irresponsible in some areas but extremely careful with money that represents something important to you
Skilled Advocacy
In This Chapter
Fetyukovitch demonstrates how professional expertise can reframe entire situations
Development
Introduced here as a counterpoint to the prosecution's confident but flawed case
In Your Life:
You might need this skill when advocating for yourself in healthcare, workplace disputes, or family conflicts where the initial narrative works against you
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
This is not a test. Five prompts guide you through the chapter, from how it opens to how it closes, so you notice context and rhythm rather than facts to memorize. Sit with each question in your own words. When you see "One way to read it," treat it as a starting point, not the only answer.
- 1
Why does Fetyukovitch argue that the three thousand roubles may never have existed?
analysis • surfaceOne way to read it
Fetyukovitch denies the three thousand roubles ever existed and therefore that they could have been stolen. Only Smerdyakov claimed to see notes in the envelope.
- 2
How does he use the unrumpled bed and the envelope on the floor against the robbery theory?
analysis • mediumOne way to read it
The bed under the mattress was absolutely unrumpled, and bloody hands would have soiled the linen. The torn envelope on the floor proves nothing: Fyodor may have opened it himself to flash notes at Grushenka.
- 3
What point does he make with the Petersburg costermonger case and the dungeons of Udolpho?
application • mediumOne way to read it
He contrasts a Petersburg ax murder where stolen coins were found on the thief with this case where no one touched the notes. The missing half of the sum is in the dungeons of Udolpho, he mocks.
- 4
How does he explain Mitya's fifteen hundred roubles and the little bag around his neck?
application • deepOne way to read it
Mitya's fifteen hundred came from Katya's entrusted sum, saved in the little bag around his neck for honor and Grushenka, not from the envelope.
- 5
What does he mean by the axiom that you cannot accuse robbery without stating what was stolen, and how does he turn to murder?
reflection • deepOne way to read it
He repudiates robbery with indignation: you cannot accuse a man of stealing what cannot be stated accurately. Then he turns to murder: did Mitya kill at all, or is that too a romance?
Critical Thinking Exercise
Become the Assumption Detective
Think of a recent conclusion someone presented to you as fact—at work, in your family, or about your health. Write down that conclusion, then list every assumption it's built on. For each assumption, ask: What evidence actually supports this? What other explanations could fit the same facts? Practice dismantling the case like Fetyukovitch.
Consider:
- •Look for assumptions presented as facts without supporting evidence
- •Consider whether the person making the case benefits from you accepting their conclusion
- •Ask yourself what questions you avoided asking because the explanation seemed logical
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you accepted someone's explanation too quickly and later discovered it was built on shaky assumptions. What would you do differently now?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 91: And There Was No Murder Either
Having dismantled the robbery charge, Fetyukovitch now turns to the ultimate question: did Dmitri actually commit murder at all? The defense prepares to challenge the prosecution's most basic assumption.
