"I shall be told that he could not explain where he got the fifteen hundred that he had.and everyone 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 what 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 easygoing 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 gaiety, 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 honour? Yes, he has a sense of honour, granted that it's misplaced, granted it's often mistaken, yet it exists and amounts to a passion, and he has proved that.
