<p>What song the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid<br/>
himself among women, although puzzling questions, are not beyond<br/>
<i>all</i> conjecture.<br/>
<br/>
—<i>Sir Thomas Browne.</i><br/></p>
<p>The mental features discoursed of as the analytical, are, in themselves,
but little susceptible of analysis. We appreciate them only in their
effects. We know of them, among other things, that they are always to
their possessor, when inordinately possessed, a source of the liveliest
enjoyment. As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in
such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in
that moral activity which <i>disentangles.</i> He derives pleasure from
even the most trivial occupations bringing his talent into play. He is
fond of enigmas, of conundrums, of hieroglyphics; exhibiting in his
solutions of each a degree of <i>acumen</i> which appears to the ordinary
apprehension pr�ternatural. His results, brought about by the very
soul and essence of method, have, in truth, the whole air of intuition.</p>
<p>The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical
study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and
merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if <i>par
excellence</i>, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyse. A
chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It
follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is
greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply
prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at
random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers
of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by
the unostentatious game of draughts than by a the elaborate frivolity of
chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and <i>bizarre</i>
motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is
mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The <i>attention</i>
is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an
oversight is committed resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves
being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are
multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative
rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the
contrary, where the moves are <i>unique</i> and have but little variation,
the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention
being left comparatively unemployed, what advantages are obtained by
either party are obtained by superior <i>acumen</i>. To be less abstract—Let
us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings,
and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that
here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by
some <i>recherch�</i> movement, the result of some strong exertion
of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws
himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and
not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometime indeed
absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into
miscalculation.</p>
<p>Whist has long been noted for its influence upon what is termed the
calculating power; and men of the highest order of intellect have been
known to take an apparently unaccountable delight in it, while eschewing
chess as frivolous. Beyond doubt there is nothing of a similar nature so
greatly tasking the faculty of analysis. The best chess-player in
Christendom <i>may</i> be little more than the best player of chess; but
proficiency in whist implies capacity for success in all those more
important undertakings where mind struggles with mind. When I say
proficiency, I mean that perfection in the game which includes a
comprehension of <i>all</i> the sources whence legitimate advantage may be
derived. These are not only manifold but multiform, and lie frequently
among recesses of thought altogether inaccessible to the ordinary
understanding. To observe attentively is to remember distinctly; and, so
far, the concentrative chess-player will do very well at whist; while the
rules of Hoyle (themselves based upon the mere mechanism of the game) are
sufficiently and generally comprehensible. Thus to have a retentive
memory, and to proceed by "the book," are points commonly regarded as the
sum total of good playing. But it is in matters beyond the limits of mere
rule that the skill of the analyst is evinced. He makes, in silence, a
host of observations and inferences. So, perhaps, do his companions; and
the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much
in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The
necessary knowledge is that of <i>what</i> to observe. Our player confines
himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject
deductions from things external to the game. He examines the countenance
of his partner, comparing it carefully with that of each of his opponents.
He considers the mode of assorting the cards in each hand; often counting
trump by trump, and honor by honor, through the glances bestowed by their
holders upon each. He notes every variation of face as the play
progresses, gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the
expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or of chagrin. From the
manner of gathering up a trick he judges whether the person taking it can
make another in the suit. He recognises what is played through feint, by
the air with which it is thrown upon the table. A casual or inadvertent
word; the accidental dropping or turning of a card, with the accompanying
anxiety or carelessness in regard to its concealment; the counting of the
tricks, with the order of their arrangement; embarrassment, hesitation,
eagerness or trepidation—all afford, to his apparently intuitive
perception, indications of the true state of affairs. The first two or
three rounds having been played, he is in full possession of the contents
of each hand, and thenceforward puts down his cards with as absolute a
precision of purpose as if the rest of the party had turned outward the
faces of their own.</p>
<p>The analytical power should not be confounded with ample ingenuity; for
while the analyst is necessarily ingenious, the ingenious man is often
remarkably incapable of analysis. The constructive or combining power, by
which ingenuity is usually manifested, and to which the phrenologists (I
believe erroneously) have assigned a separate organ, supposing it a
primitive faculty, has been so frequently seen in those whose intellect
bordered otherwise upon idiocy, as to have attracted general observation
among writers on morals. Between ingenuity and the analytic ability there
exists a difference far greater, indeed, than that between the fancy and
the imagination, but of a character very strictly analogous. It will be
found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the <i>truly</i>
imaginative never otherwise than analytic.</p>
<p>The narrative which follows will appear to the reader somewhat in the
light of a commentary upon the propositions just advanced.</p>
<p>Residing in Paris during the spring and part of the summer of 18—, I
there became acquainted with a Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin. This young
gentleman was of an excellent—indeed of an illustrious family, but,
by a variety of untoward events, had been reduced to such poverty that the
energy of his character succumbed beneath it, and he ceased to bestir
himself in the world, or to care for the retrieval of his fortunes. By
courtesy of his creditors, there still remained in his possession a small
remnant of his patrimony; and, upon the income arising from this, he
managed, by means of a rigorous economy, to procure the necessaries of
life, without troubling himself about its superfluities. Books, indeed,
were his sole luxuries, and in Paris these are easily obtained.</p>
<p>Our first meeting was at an obscure library in the Rue Montmartre, where
the accident of our both being in search of the same very rare and very
remarkable volume, brought us into closer communion. We saw each other
again and again. I was deeply interested in the little family history
which he detailed to me with all that candor which a Frenchman indulges
whenever mere self is his theme. I was astonished, too, at the vast extent
of his reading; and, above all, I felt my soul enkindled within me by the
wild fervor, and the vivid freshness of his imagination. Seeking in Paris
the objects I then sought, I felt that the society of such a man would be
to me a treasure beyond price; and this feeling I frankly confided to him.
It was at length arranged that we should live together during my stay in
the city; and as my worldly circumstances were somewhat less embarrassed
than his own, I was permitted to be at the expense of renting, and
furnishing in a style which suited the rather fantastic gloom of our
common temper, a time-eaten and grotesque mansion, long deserted through
superstitions into which we did not inquire, and tottering to its fall in
a retired and desolate portion of the Faubourg St. Germain.</p>
<p>Had the routine of our life at this place been known to the world, we
should have been regarded as madmen—although, perhaps, as madmen of
a harmless nature. Our seclusion was perfect. We admitted no visitors.
Indeed the locality of our retirement had been carefully kept a secret
from my own former associates; and it had been many years since Dupin had
ceased to know or be known in Paris. We existed within ourselves alone.</p>
<p>It was a freak of fancy in my friend (for what else shall I call it?) to
be enamored of the Night for her own sake; and into this <i>bizarrerie</i>,
as into all his others, I quietly fell; giving myself up to his wild whims
with a perfect <i>abandon</i>. The sable divinity would not herself dwell
with us always; but we could counterfeit her presence. At the first dawn
of the morning we closed all the messy shutters of our old building;
lighting a couple of tapers which, strongly perfumed, threw out only the
ghastliest and feeblest of rays. By the aid of these we then busied our
souls in dreams—reading, writing, or conversing, until warned by the
clock of the advent of the true Darkness. Then we sallied forth into the
streets arm in arm, continuing the topics of the day, or roaming far and
wide until a late hour, seeking, amid the wild lights and shadows of the
populous city, that infinity of mental excitement which quiet observation
can afford.</p>
<p>At such times I could not help remarking and admiring (although from his
rich ideality I had been prepared to expect it) a peculiar analytic
ability in Dupin. He seemed, too, to take an eager delight in its exercise—if
not exactly in its display—and did not hesitate to confess the
pleasure thus derived. He boasted to me, with a low chuckling laugh, that
most men, in respect to himself, wore windows in their bosoms, and was
wont to follow up such assertions by direct and very startling proofs of
his intimate knowledge of my own. His manner at these moments was frigid
and abstract; his eyes were vacant in expression; while his voice, usually
a rich tenor, rose into a treble which would have sounded petulantly but
for the deliberateness and entire distinctness of the enunciation.
Observing him in these moods, I often dwelt meditatively upon the old
philosophy of the Bi-Part Soul, and amused myself with the fancy of a
double Dupin—the creative and the resolvent.</p>
<p>Let it not be supposed, from what I have just said, that I am detailing
any mystery, or penning any romance. What I have described in the
Frenchman, was merely the result of an excited, or perhaps of a diseased
intelligence. But of the character of his remarks at the periods in
question an example will best convey the idea.</p>
<p>We were strolling one night down a long dirty street in the vicinity of
the Palais Royal. Being both, apparently, occupied with thought, neither
of us had spoken a syllable for fifteen minutes at least. All at once
Dupin broke forth with these words:</p>
<p>"He is a very little fellow, that's true, and would do better for the <i>Th��tre
des Vari�t�s</i>."</p>
<p>"There can be no doubt of that," I replied unwittingly, and not at first
observing (so much had I been absorbed in reflection) the extraordinary
manner in which the speaker had chimed in with my meditations. In an
instant afterward I recollected myself, and my astonishment was profound.</p>
<p>"Dupin," said I, gravely, "this is beyond my comprehension. I do not
hesitate to say that I am amazed, and can scarcely credit my senses. How
was it possible you should know I was thinking of ——-?" Here I
paused, to ascertain beyond a doubt whether he really knew of whom I
thought.</p>
<p>—"of Chantilly," said he, "why do you pause? You were remarking to
yourself that his diminutive figure unfitted him for tragedy."</p>
<p>This was precisely what had formed the subject of my reflections.
Chantilly was a <i>quondam</i> cobbler of the Rue St. Denis, who, becoming
stage-mad, had attempted the <i>r�le</i> of Xerxes, in Cr�billon's
tragedy so called, and been notoriously Pasquinaded for his pains.</p>
<p>"Tell me, for Heaven's sake," I exclaimed, "the method—if method
there is—by which you have been enabled to fathom my soul in this
matter." In fact I was even more startled than I would have been willing
to express.</p>
<p>"It was the fruiterer," replied my friend, "who brought you to the
conclusion that the mender of soles was not of sufficient height for
Xerxes <i>et id genus omne</i>."</p>
<p>"The fruiterer!—you astonish me—I know no fruiterer
whomsoever."</p>
<p>"The man who ran up against you as we entered the street—it may have
been fifteen minutes ago."</p>
<p>I now remembered that, in fact, a fruiterer, carrying upon his head a
large basket of apples, had nearly thrown me down, by accident, as we
passed from the Rue C —— into the thoroughfare where we stood;
but what this had to do with Chantilly I could not possibly understand.</p>
<p>There was not a particle of <i>charl�tanerie</i> about Dupin. "I
will explain," he said, "and that you may comprehend all clearly, we will
first retrace the course of your meditations, from the moment in which I
spoke to you until that of the <i>rencontre</i> with the fruiterer in
question. The larger links of the chain run thus—Chantilly, Orion,
Dr. Nichols, Epicurus, Stereotomy, the street stones, the fruiterer."</p>
<p>There are few persons who have not, at some period of their lives, amused
themselves in retracing the steps by which particular conclusions of their
own minds have been attained. The occupation is often full of interest and
he who attempts it for the first time is astonished by the apparently
illimitable distance and incoherence between the starting-point and the
goal. What, then, must have been my amazement when I heard the Frenchman
speak what he had just spoken, and when I could not help acknowledging
that he had spoken the truth. He continued:</p>
<p>"We had been talking of horses, if I remember aright, just before leaving
the Rue C ——. This was the last subject we discussed. As we
crossed into this street, a fruiterer, with a large basket upon his head,
brushing quickly past us, thrust you upon a pile of paving stones
collected at a spot where the causeway is undergoing repair. You stepped
upon one of the loose fragments, slipped, slightly strained your ankle,
appeared vexed or sulky, muttered a few words, turned to look at the pile,
and then proceeded in silence. I was not particularly attentive to what
you did; but observation has become with me, of late, a species of
necessity.</p>
<p>"You kept your eyes upon the ground—glancing, with a petulant
expression, at the holes and ruts in the pavement, (so that I saw you were
still thinking of the stones,) until we reached the little alley called
Lamartine, which has been paved, by way of experiment, with the
overlapping and riveted blocks. Here your countenance brightened up, and,
perceiving your lips move, I could not doubt that you murmured the word
'stereotomy,' a term very affectedly applied to this species of pavement.
I knew that you could not say to yourself 'stereotomy' without being
brought to think of atomies, and thus of the theories of Epicurus; and
since, when we discussed this subject not very long ago, I mentioned to
you how singularly, yet with how little notice, the vague guesses of that
noble Greek had met with confirmation in the late nebular cosmogony, I
felt that you could not avoid casting your eyes upward to the great <i>nebula</i>
in Orion, and I certainly expected that you would do so. You did look up;
and I was now assured that I had correctly followed your steps. But in
that bitter <i>tirade</i> upon Chantilly, which appeared in yesterday's '<i>Mus�e</i>,'
the satirist, making some disgraceful allusions to the cobbler's change of
name upon assuming the buskin, quoted a Latin line about which we have
often conversed. I mean the line</p>
<p>Perdidit antiquum litera sonum.<br/></p>
<p>"I had told you that this was in reference to Orion, formerly written
Urion; and, from certain pungencies connected with this explanation, I was
aware that you could not have forgotten it. It was clear, therefore, that
you would not fail to combine the two ideas of Orion and Chantilly. That
you did combine them I saw by the character of the smile which passed over
your lips. You thought of the poor cobbler's immolation. So far, you had
been stooping in your gait; but now I saw you draw yourself up to your
full height. I was then sure that you reflected upon the diminutive figure
of Chantilly. At this point I interrupted your meditations to remark that
as, in fact, he was a very little fellow—that Chantilly—he
would do better at the <i>Th��tre des Vari�t�s</i>."</p>
<p>Not long after this, we were looking over an evening edition of the
"Gazette des Tribunaux," when the following paragraphs arrested our
attention.</p>
<p>"EXTRAORDINARY MURDERS.—This morning, about three o'clock, the
inhabitants of the Quartier St. Roch were aroused from sleep by a
succession of terrific shrieks, issuing, apparently, from the fourth story
of a house in the Rue Morgue, known to be in the sole occupancy of one
Madame L'Espanaye, and her daughter Mademoiselle Camille L'Espanaye. After
some delay, occasioned by a fruitless attempt to procure admission in the
usual manner, the gateway was broken in with a crowbar, and eight or ten
of the neighbors entered accompanied by two <i>gendarmes</i>. By this time
the cries had ceased; but, as the party rushed up the first flight of
stairs, two or more rough voices in angry contention were distinguished
and seemed to proceed from the upper part of the house. As the second
landing was reached, these sounds, also, had ceased and everything
remained perfectly quiet. The party spread themselves and hurried from
room to room. Upon arriving at a large back chamber in the fourth story,
(the door of which, being found locked, with the key inside, was forced
open,) a spectacle presented itself which struck every one present not
less with horror than with astonishment.</p>
<p>"The apartment was in the wildest disorder—the furniture broken and
thrown about in all directions. There was only one bedstead; and from this
the bed had been removed, and thrown into the middle of the floor. On a
chair lay a razor, besmeared with blood. On the hearth were two or three
long and thick tresses of grey human hair, also dabbled in blood, and
seeming to have been pulled out by the roots. Upon the floor were found
four Napoleons, an ear-ring of topaz, three large silver spoons, three
smaller of <i>m�tal d'Alger</i>, and two bags, containing nearly
four thousand francs in gold. The drawers of a <i>bureau</i>, which stood
in one corner were open, and had been, apparently, rifled, although many
articles still remained in them. A small iron safe was discovered under
the <i>bed</i> (not under the bedstead). It was open, with the key still
in the door. It had no contents beyond a few old letters, and other papers
of little consequence.</p>
<p>"Of Madame L'Espanaye no traces were here seen; but an unusual quantity of
soot being observed in the fire-place, a search was made in the chimney,
and (horrible to relate!) the corpse of the daughter, head downward, was
dragged therefrom; it having been thus forced up the narrow aperture for a
considerable distance. The body was quite warm. Upon examining it, many
excoriations were perceived, no doubt occasioned by the violence with
which it had been thrust up and disengaged. Upon the face were many severe
scratches, and, upon the throat, dark bruises, and deep indentations of
finger nails, as if the deceased had been throttled to death.</p>
<p>"After a thorough investigation of every portion of the house, without
farther discovery, the party made its way into a small paved yard in the
rear of the building, where lay the corpse of the old lady, with her
throat so entirely cut that, upon an attempt to raise her, the head fell
off. The body, as well as the head, was fearfully mutilated—the
former so much so as scarcely to retain any semblance of humanity.</p>
<p>"To this horrible mystery there is not as yet, we believe, the slightest
clew."</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />