for "an unfantastic reason" for his conduct, Dickens is not writing
an "unfantastic" novel. Moreover, if things occurred as I have
suggested, I do not see what evidence Drood had against Jasper.
Edwin's clothes were covered with lime, but, when he told his
story, Jasper would reply that Drood never returned to his house on
Christmas Eve, but stayed out, "doing what was correct by the
season, in the way of giving it the welcome it had the right to
expect," like Durdles on another occasion. Drood's evidence, if it
was what I have suggested, would sound like the dream of an
intoxicated man, and what other evidence could be adduced? Thus I
had worked out Drood's condition, if he really was not killed, in
this way: I had supposed him to escape, in a very mixed frame of
mind, when he would be encountered by Grewgious, who, of course,
could make little out of him in his befogged state. Drood could
not even prove that it was not Landless who attacked him. The
result would be that Drood would lie low, and later, would have
reason enough for disguising himself as Datchery, and playing the
spy in Cloisterham.

At this point I was reinforced by an opinion which Mr. William
Archer had expressed, unknown to me, in a newspaper article. I had
described Edwin's confused knowledge of his own experience, if he
were thoroughly drugged, and then half strangled. Mr. Archer also
took that point, and added that Edwin being a good-hearted fellow,
and fond of his uncle Jasper, he would not bring, or let Grewgious
bring, a terrible charge against Jasper, till he knew more
certainly the whole state of the case. For that reason, he would
come disguised to Cloisterham and make inquiries. By letting
Jasper know about the ring, he would compel him to enter the vault,
and then, Mr. Archer thinks, would induce him to "repent and begin