But in the first place, its 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 programme, 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 its impossible to state accurately what he has stolen; thats an axiom. But did he murder him
without robbery, did he murder him at all? Is that proved? Isnt that, too, a romance?