monastery：　he　stuck　to　it　for　two　months。　Not　long　ago　he　took　it　into
  his　head　to　declare　he　was　going　to　get　married；　that　he　had
  everything　ready　for　the　wedding。　He　ordered　new　clothes　indeed。　We
  all　began　to　congratulate　him。　There　was　no　bride；　nothing；　all　pure
  fantasy！〃
  〃Ah；　you　are　wrong！　I　got　the　clothes　before。　It　was　the　new　clothes
  in　fact　that　made　me　think　of　taking　you　in。〃
  〃Are　you　such　a　good　dissembler？〃　Raskolnikov　asked　carelessly。
  〃You　wouldn't　have　supposed　it；　eh？　Wait　a　bit；　I　shall　take　you　in；
  too。　Ha…ha…ha！　No；　I'll　tell　you　the　truth。　All　these　questions
  about　crime；　environment；　children；　recall　to　my　mind　an　article　of
  yours　which　interested　me　at　the　time。　'On　Crime'。。。　or　something　of
  the　sort；　I　forget　the　title；　I　read　it　with　pleasure　two　months　ago
  in　the　Periodical　Review。〃
  〃My　article？　In　the　Periodical　Review？〃　Raskolnikov　asked　in
  astonishment。　〃I　certainly　did　write　an　article　upon　a　book　six　months
  ago　when　I　left　the　university；　but　I　sent　it　to　the　Weekly　Review。〃
  〃But　it　came　out　in　the　Periodical。〃
  〃And　the　Weekly　Review　ceased　to　exist；　so　that's　why　it　wasn't
  printed　at　the　time。〃
  〃That's　true；　but　when　it　ceased　to　exist；　the　Weekly　Review　was
  amalgamated　with　the　Periodical；　and　so　your　article　appeared　two
  months　ago　in　the　latter。　Didn't　you　know？〃
  Raskolnikov　had　not　known。
  〃Why；　you　might　get　some　money　out　of　them　for　the　article！　What　a
  strange　person　you　are！　You　lead　such　a　solitary　life　that　you　know
  nothing　of　matters　that　concern　you　directly。　It's　a　fact；　I　assure
  you。〃
  〃Bravo；　Rodya！　I　knew　nothing　about　it　either！〃　cried　Razumihin。
  〃I'll　run　to…day　to　the　reading…room　and　ask　for　the　number。　Two
  months　ago？　What　was　the　date？　It　doesn't　matter　though；　I　will　find
  it。　Think　of　not　telling　us！〃
  〃How　did　you　find　out　that　the　article　was　mine？　It's　only　signed
  with　an　initial。〃
  〃I　only　learnt　it　by　chance；　the　other　day。　Through　the　editor；　I
  know　him。。。。　I　was　very　much　interested。〃
  〃It　analysed；　if　I　remember；　the　psychology　of　a　criminal　before　and
  after　the　crime。〃
  〃Yes；　and　you　maintained　that　the　perpetration　of　a　crime　is
  always　accompanied　by　illness。　Very；　very　original；　but。。。　it　was
  not　that　part　of　your　article　that　interested　me　so　much；　but　an
  idea　at　the　end　of　the　article　which　I　regret　to　say　you　merely
  suggested　without　working　it　out　clearly。　There　is；　if　you
  recollect；　a　suggestion　that　there　are　certain　persons　who　can。。。　that
  is；　not　precisely　are　able　to；　but　have　a　perfect　right　to　commit
  breaches　of　morality　and　crimes；　and　that　the　law　is　not　for　them。〃
  Raskolnikov　smiled　at　the　exaggerated　and　intentional　distortion
  of　his　idea。
  〃What？　What　do　you　mean？　A　right　to　crime？　But　not　because　of　the
  influence　of　environment？〃　Razumihin　inquired　with　some　alarm　even。
  〃No；　not　exactly　because　of　it；〃　answered　Porfiry。　〃In　his　article
  all　men　are　divided　into　'ordinary'　and　'extraordinary。'　Ordinary
  men　have　to　live　in　submission；　have　no　right　to　transgress　the　law；
  because；　don't　you　see；　they　are　ordinary。　But　extraordinary　men
  have　a　right　to　commit　any　crime　and　to　transgress　the　law　in　any　way；
  just　because　they　are　extraordinary。　That　was　your　idea；　if　I　am　not
  mistaken？〃
  〃What　do　you　mean？　That　can't　be　right？〃　Razumihin　muttered　in
  bewilderment。
  Raskolnikov　smiled　again。　He　saw　the　point　at　once；　and　knew　where
  they　wanted　to　drive　him。　He　decided　to　take　up　the　challenge。
  〃That　wasn't　quite　my　contention；〃　he　began　simply　and　modestly。
  〃Yet　I　admit　that　you　have　stated　it　almost　correctly；　perhaps；　if　you
  like；　perfectly　so。〃　（It　almost　gave　him　pleasure　to　admit　this。）　〃The
  only　difference　is　that　I　don't　contend　that　extraordinary　people
  are　always　bound　to　commit　breaches　of　morals；　as　you　call　it。　In
  fact；　I　doubt　whether　such　an　argument　could　be　published。　I　simply
  hinted　that　an　'extraordinary'　man　has　the　right。。。　that　is　not　an
  official　right；　but　an　inner　right　to　decide　in　his　own　conscience
  to　overstep。。。　certain　obstacles；　and　only　in　case　it　is　essential　for
  the　practical　fulfilment　of　his　idea　（sometimes；　perhaps；　of　benefit
  to　the　whole　of　humanity）。　You　say　that　my　article　isn't　definite；　I
  am　ready　to　make　it　as　clear　as　I　can。　Perhaps　I　am　right　in
  thinking　you　want　me　to；　very　well。　I　maintain　that　if　the　discoveries
  of　Kepler　and　Newton　could　not　have　been　made　known　except　by
  sacrificing　the　lives　of　one；　a　dozen；　a　hundred；　or　more　men；
  Newton　would　have　had　the　right；　would　indeed　have　been　in　duty
  bound。。。　to　eliminate　the　dozen　or　the　hundred　men　for　the　sake　of
  making　his　discoveries　known　to　the　whole　of　humanity。　But　it　does　not
  follow　from　that　that　Newton　had　a　right　to　murder　people　right　and
  left　and　to　steal　every　day　in　the　market。　Then；　I　remember；　I
  maintain　in　my　article　that　all。。。　well；　legislators　and　leaders　of
  men；　such　as　Lycurgus；　Solon；　Mahomet；　Napoleon；　and　so　on；　were　all
  without　exception　criminals；　from　the　very　fact　that；　making　a　new
  law；　they　transgressed　the　ancient　one；　handed　down　from　their
  ancestors　and　held　sacred　by　the　people；　and　they　did　not　stop　short
  at　bloodshed　either；　if　that　bloodshed…　often　of　innocent　persons
  fighting　bravely　in　defence　of　ancient　law…　were　of　use　to　their
  cause。　It's　remarkable；　in　fact；　that　the　majority；　indeed；　of　these
  benefactors　and　leaders　of　humanity　were　guilty　of　terrible　carnage。
  In　short；　I　maintain　that　all　great　men　or　even　men　a　little　out　of
  the　common；　that　is　to　say　capable　of　giving　some　new　word；　must
  from　their　very　nature　be　criminals…　more　or　less；　of　course。
  Otherwise　it's　hard　for　them　to　get　out　of　the　common　rut；　and　to
  remain　in　the　common　rut　is　what　they　can't　submit　to；　from　their　very
  nature　again；　and　to　my　mind　they　ought　not；　indeed；　to　submit　to
  it。　You　see　that　there　is　nothing　particularly　new　in　all　that。　The
  same　thing　has　been　printed　and　read　a　thousand　times　before。　As　for
  my　division　of　people　into　ordinary　and　extraordinary；　I　acknowledge
  that　it's　somewhat　arbitrary；　but　I　don't　insist　upon　exact　numbers。　I
  only　believe　in　my　leading　idea　that　men　are　in　general　divided　by　a
  law　of　nature　into　two　categories；　inferior　（ordinary）；　that　is；　so　to
  say；　material　that　serves　only　to　reproduce　its　kind；　and　men　who　have
  the　gift　or　the　talent　to　utter　a　new　word。　There　are；　of　course；
  innumerable　sub…divisions；　but　the　distinguishing　features　of　both
  categories　are　fairly　well　marked。　The　first　category；　generally
  speaking；　are　men　conservative　in　temperament　and　law…abiding；　they
  live　under　control　and　love　to　be　controlled。　To　my　thinking　it　is
  their　duty　to　be　controlled；　because　that's　their　vocation；　and
  there　is　nothing　humiliating　in　it　for　them。　The　second　category　all
  transgress　the　law；　they　are　destroyers　or　disposed　to　destruction
  according　to　their　capacities。　The　crimes　of　these　men　are　of　course
  relative　and　varied；　for　the　most　part　they　seek　in　very　varied　ways
  the　destruction　of　the　present　for　the　sake　of　the　better。　But　if　such
  a　one　is　forced　for　the　sake　of　his　idea　to　step　over　a　corpse　or　wade
  through　blood；　he　can；　I　maintain；　find　within　himself；　in　his
  conscience；　a　sanction　for　wading　through　blood…　that　depends　on　the
  idea　and　its　dimensions；　note　that。　It's　only　in　that　sense　I　speak　of
  their　right　to　crime　in　my　article　（you　remember　it　began　with　the
  legal　question）。　There's　no　need　f