<p>The next day's paper had these additional particulars.</p>
<p>"<i>The Tragedy in the Rue Morgue.</i> Many individuals have been examined
in relation to this most extraordinary and frightful affair. [The word
'affaire' has not yet, in France, that levity of import which it conveys
with us,] "but nothing whatever has transpired to throw light upon it. We
give below all the material testimony elicited.</p>
<p>"<i>Pauline Dubourg</i>, laundress, deposes that she has known both the
deceased for three years, having washed for them during that period. The
old lady and her daughter seemed on good terms—very affectionate
towards each other. They were excellent pay. Could not speak in regard to
their mode or means of living. Believed that Madame L. told fortunes for a
living. Was reputed to have money put by. Never met any persons in the
house when she called for the clothes or took them home. Was sure that
they had no servant in employ. There appeared to be no furniture in any
part of the building except in the fourth story.</p>
<p>"<i>Pierre Moreau</i>, tobacconist, deposes that he has been in the habit
of selling small quantities of tobacco and snuff to Madame L'Espanaye for
nearly four years. Was born in the neighborhood, and has always resided
there. The deceased and her daughter had occupied the house in which the
corpses were found, for more than six years. It was formerly occupied by a
jeweller, who under-let the upper rooms to various persons. The house was
the property of Madame L. She became dissatisfied with the abuse of the
premises by her tenant, and moved into them herself, refusing to let any
portion. The old lady was childish. Witness had seen the daughter some
five or six times during the six years. The two lived an exceedingly
retired life—were reputed to have money. Had heard it said among the
neighbors that Madame L. told fortunes—did not believe it. Had never
seen any person enter the door except the old lady and her daughter, a
porter once or twice, and a physician some eight or ten times.</p>
<p>"Many other persons, neighbors, gave evidence to the same effect. No one
was spoken of as frequenting the house. It was not known whether there
were any living connexions of Madame L. and her daughter. The shutters of
the front windows were seldom opened. Those in the rear were always
closed, with the exception of the large back room, fourth story. The house
was a good house—not very old.</p>
<p>"<i>Isidore Muset</i>, <i>gendarme</i>, deposes that he was called to the
house about three o'clock in the morning, and found some twenty or thirty
persons at the gateway, endeavoring to gain admittance. Forced it open, at
length, with a bayonet—not with a crowbar. Had but little difficulty
in getting it open, on account of its being a double or folding gate, and
bolted neither at bottom not top. The shrieks were continued until the
gate was forced—and then suddenly ceased. They seemed to be screams
of some person (or persons) in great agony—were loud and drawn out,
not short and quick. Witness led the way up stairs. Upon reaching the
first landing, heard two voices in loud and angry contention—the one
a gruff voice, the other much shriller—a very strange voice. Could
distinguish some words of the former, which was that of a Frenchman. Was
positive that it was not a woman's voice. Could distinguish the words '<i>sacr�</i>'
and '<i>diable.</i>' The shrill voice was that of a foreigner. Could not
be sure whether it was the voice of a man or of a woman. Could not make
out what was said, but believed the language to be Spanish. The state of
the room and of the bodies was described by this witness as we described
them yesterday.</p>
<p>"<i>Henri Duval</i>, a neighbor, and by trade a silver-smith, deposes that
he was one of the party who first entered the house. Corroborates the
testimony of Mus�t in general. As soon as they forced an entrance,
they reclosed the door, to keep out the crowd, which collected very fast,
notwithstanding the lateness of the hour. The shrill voice, this witness
thinks, was that of an Italian. Was certain it was not French. Could not
be sure that it was a man's voice. It might have been a woman's. Was not
acquainted with the Italian language. Could not distinguish the words, but
was convinced by the intonation that the speaker was an Italian. Knew
Madame L. and her daughter. Had conversed with both frequently. Was sure
that the shrill voice was not that of either of the deceased.</p>
<p>"—<i>Odenheimer, restaurateur.</i> This witness volunteered his
testimony. Not speaking French, was examined through an interpreter. Is a
native of Amsterdam. Was passing the house at the time of the shrieks.
They lasted for several minutes—probably ten. They were long and
loud—very awful and distressing. Was one of those who entered the
building. Corroborated the previous evidence in every respect but one. Was
sure that the shrill voice was that of a man—of a Frenchman. Could
not distinguish the words uttered. They were loud and quick—unequal—spoken
apparently in fear as well as in anger. The voice was harsh—not so
much shrill as harsh. Could not call it a shrill voice. The gruff voice
said repeatedly '<i>sacr�</i>,' '<i>diable</i>,' and once '<i>mon
Dieu.</i>'</p>
<p>"<i>Jules Mignaud</i>, banker, of the firm of Mignaud et Fils, Rue
Deloraine. Is the elder Mignaud. Madame L'Espanaye had some property. Had
opened an account with his banking house in the spring of the year—(eight
years previously). Made frequent deposits in small sums. Had checked for
nothing until the third day before her death, when she took out in person
the sum of 4000 francs. This sum was paid in gold, and a clerk went home
with the money.</p>
<p>"<i>Adolphe Le Bon</i>, clerk to Mignaud et Fils, deposes that on the day
in question, about noon, he accompanied Madame L'Espanaye to her residence
with the 4000 francs, put up in two bags. Upon the door being opened,
Mademoiselle L. appeared and took from his hands one of the bags, while
the old lady relieved him of the other. He then bowed and departed. Did
not see any person in the street at the time. It is a bye-street—very
lonely.</p>
<p>"<i>William Bird</i>, tailor deposes that he was one of the party who
entered the house. Is an Englishman. Has lived in Paris two years. Was one
of the first to ascend the stairs. Heard the voices in contention. The
gruff voice was that of a Frenchman. Could make out several words, but
cannot now remember all. Heard distinctly '<i>sacr�</i>' and '<i>mon
Dieu.</i>' There was a sound at the moment as if of several persons
struggling—a scraping and scuffling sound. The shrill voice was very
loud—louder than the gruff one. Is sure that it was not the voice of
an Englishman. Appeared to be that of a German. Might have been a woman's
voice. Does not understand German.</p>
<p>"Four of the above-named witnesses, being recalled, deposed that the door
of the chamber in which was found the body of Mademoiselle L. was locked
on the inside when the party reached it. Every thing was perfectly silent—no
groans or noises of any kind. Upon forcing the door no person was seen.
The windows, both of the back and front room, were down and firmly
fastened from within. A door between the two rooms was closed, but not
locked. The door leading from the front room into the passage was locked,
with the key on the inside. A small room in the front of the house, on the
fourth story, at the head of the passage was open, the door being ajar.
This room was crowded with old beds, boxes, and so forth. These were
carefully removed and searched. There was not an inch of any portion of
the house which was not carefully searched. Sweeps were sent up and down
the chimneys. The house was a four story one, with garrets (<i>mansardes.</i>)
A trap-door on the roof was nailed down very securely—did not appear
to have been opened for years. The time elapsing between the hearing of
the voices in contention and the breaking open of the room door, was
variously stated by the witnesses. Some made it as short as three minutes—some
as long as five. The door was opened with difficulty.</p>
<p>"<i>Alfonzo Garcio</i>, undertaker, deposes that he resides in the Rue
Morgue. Is a native of Spain. Was one of the party who entered the house.
Did not proceed up stairs. Is nervous, and was apprehensive of the
consequences of agitation. Heard the voices in contention. The gruff voice
was that of a Frenchman. Could not distinguish what was said. The shrill
voice was that of an Englishman—is sure of this. Does not understand
the English language, but judges by the intonation.</p>
<p>"<i>Alberto Montani</i>, confectioner, deposes that he was among the first
to ascend the stairs. Heard the voices in question. The gruff voice was
that of a Frenchman. Distinguished several words. The speaker appeared to
be expostulating. Could not make out the words of the shrill voice. Spoke
quick and unevenly. Thinks it the voice of a Russian. Corroborates the
general testimony. Is an Italian. Never conversed with a native of Russia.</p>
<p>"Several witnesses, recalled, here testified that the chimneys of all the
rooms on the fourth story were too narrow to admit the passage of a human
being. By 'sweeps' were meant cylindrical sweeping brushes, such as are
employed by those who clean chimneys. These brushes were passed up and
down every flue in the house. There is no back passage by which any one
could have descended while the party proceeded up stairs. The body of
Mademoiselle L'Espanaye was so firmly wedged in the chimney that it could
not be got down until four or five of the party united their strength.</p>
<p>"<i>Paul Dumas</i>, physician, deposes that he was called to view the
bodies about day-break. They were both then lying on the sacking of the
bedstead in the chamber where Mademoiselle L. was found. The corpse of the
young lady was much bruised and excoriated. The fact that it had been
thrust up the chimney would sufficiently account for these appearances.
The throat was greatly chafed. There were several deep scratches just
below the chin, together with a series of livid spots which were evidently
the impression of fingers. The face was fearfully discolored, and the
eye-balls protruded. The tongue had been partially bitten through. A large
bruise was discovered upon the pit of the stomach, produced, apparently,
by the pressure of a knee. In the opinion of M. Dumas, Mademoiselle
L'Espanaye had been throttled to death by some person or persons unknown.
The corpse of the mother was horribly mutilated. All the bones of the
right leg and arm were more or less shattered. The left <i>tibia</i> much
splintered, as well as all the ribs of the left side. Whole body
dreadfully bruised and discolored. It was not possible to say how the
injuries had been inflicted. A heavy club of wood, or a broad bar of iron—a
chair—any large, heavy, and obtuse weapon would have produced such
results, if wielded by the hands of a very powerful man. No woman could
have inflicted the blows with any weapon. The head of the deceased, when
seen by witness, was entirely separated from the body, and was also
greatly shattered. The throat had evidently been cut with some very sharp
instrument—probably with a razor.</p>
<p>"<i>Alexandre Etienne</i>, surgeon, was called with M. Dumas to view the
bodies. Corroborated the testimony, and the opinions of M. Dumas.</p>
<p>"Nothing farther of importance was elicited, although several other
persons were examined. A murder so mysterious, and so perplexing in all
its particulars, was never before committed in Paris—if indeed a
murder has been committed at all. The police are entirely at fault—an
unusual occurrence in affairs of this nature. There is not, however, the
shadow of a clew apparent."</p>
<p>The evening edition of the paper stated that the greatest excitement still
continued in the Quartier St. Roch—that the premises in question had
been carefully re-searched, and fresh examinations of witnesses
instituted, but all to no purpose. A postscript, however, mentioned that
Adolphe Le Bon had been arrested and imprisoned—although nothing
appeared to criminate him, beyond the facts already detailed.</p>
<p>Dupin seemed singularly interested in the progress of this affair—at
least so I judged from his manner, for he made no comments. It was only
after the announcement that Le Bon had been imprisoned, that he asked me
my opinion respecting the murders.</p>
<p>I could merely agree with all Paris in considering them an insoluble
mystery. I saw no means by which it would be possible to trace the
murderer.</p>
<p>"We must not judge of the means," said Dupin, "by this shell of an
examination. The Parisian police, so much extolled for <i>acumen</i>, are
cunning, but no more. There is no method in their proceedings, beyond the
method of the moment. They make a vast parade of measures; but, not
unfrequently, these are so ill adapted to the objects proposed, as to put
us in mind of Monsieur Jourdain's calling for his <i>robe-de-chambre—pour
mieux entendre la musique.</i> The results attained by them are not
unfrequently surprising, but, for the most part, are brought about by
simple diligence and activity. When these qualities are unavailing, their
schemes fail. Vidocq, for example, was a good guesser and a persevering
man. But, without educated thought, he erred continually by the very
intensity of his investigations. He impaired his vision by holding the
object too close. He might see, perhaps, one or two points with unusual
clearness, but in so doing he, necessarily, lost sight of the matter as a
whole. Thus there is such a thing as being too profound. Truth is not
always in a well. In fact, as regards the more important knowledge, I do
believe that she is invariably superficial. The depth lies in the valleys
where we seek her, and not upon the mountain-tops where she is found. The
modes and sources of this kind of error are well typified in the
contemplation of the heavenly bodies. To look at a star by glances—to
view it in a side-long way, by turning toward it the exterior portions of
the <i>retina</i> (more susceptible of feeble impressions of light than
the interior), is to behold the star distinctly—is to have the best
appreciation of its lustre—a lustre which grows dim just in
proportion as we turn our vision <i>fully</i> upon it. A greater number of
rays actually fall upon the eye in the latter case, but, in the former,
there is the more refined capacity for comprehension. By undue profundity
we perplex and enfeeble thought; and it is possible to make even Venus
herself vanish from the firmament by a scrutiny too sustained, too
concentrated, or too direct.</p>
<p>"As for these murders, let us enter into some examinations for ourselves,
before we make up an opinion respecting them. An inquiry will afford us
amusement," [I thought this an odd term, so applied, but said nothing]
"and, besides, Le Bon once rendered me a service for which I am not
ungrateful. We will go and see the premises with our own eyes. I know G——,
the Prefect of Police, and shall have no difficulty in obtaining the
necessary permission."</p>
<p>The permission was obtained, and we proceeded at once to the Rue Morgue.
This is one of those miserable thoroughfares which intervene between the
Rue Richelieu and the Rue St. Roch. It was late in the afternoon when we
reached it; as this quarter is at a great distance from that in which we
resided. The house was readily found; for there were still many persons
gazing up at the closed shutters, with an objectless curiosity, from the
opposite side of the way. It was an ordinary Parisian house, with a
gateway, on one side of which was a glazed watch-box, with a sliding panel
in the window, indicating a <i>loge de concierge.</i> Before going in we
walked up the street, turned down an alley, and then, again turning,
passed in the rear of the building—Dupin, meanwhile examining the
whole neighborhood, as well as the house, with a minuteness of attention
for which I could see no possible object.</p>
<p>Retracing our steps, we came again to the front of the dwelling, rang,
and, having shown our credentials, were admitted by the agents in charge.
We went up stairs—into the chamber where the body of Mademoiselle
L'Espanaye had been found, and where both the deceased still lay. The
disorders of the room had, as usual, been suffered to exist. I saw nothing
beyond what had been stated in the "Gazette des Tribunaux." Dupin
scrutinized every thing—not excepting the bodies of the victims. We
then went into the other rooms, and into the yard; a <i>gendarme</i>
accompanying us throughout. The examination occupied us until dark, when
we took our departure. On our way home my companion stepped in for a
moment at the office of one of the daily papers.</p>
<p>I have said that the whims of my friend were manifold, and that <i>Je les
m�nagais</i>:—for this phrase there is no English equivalent.
It was his humor, now, to decline all conversation on the subject of the
murder, until about noon the next day. He then asked me, suddenly, if I
had observed any thing <i>peculiar</i> at the scene of the atrocity.</p>
<p>There was something in his manner of emphasizing the word "peculiar,"
which caused me to shudder, without knowing why.</p>
<p>"No, nothing <i>peculiar</i>," I said; "nothing more, at least, than we
both saw stated in the paper."</p>
<p>"The 'Gazette,'" he replied, "has not entered, I fear, into the unusual
horror of the thing. But dismiss the idle opinions of this print. It
appears to me that this mystery is considered insoluble, for the very
reason which should cause it to be regarded as easy of solution—I
mean for the <i>outr�</i> character of its features. The police are
confounded by the seeming absence of motive—not for the murder
itself—but for the atrocity of the murder. They are puzzled, too, by
the seeming impossibility of reconciling the voices heard in contention,
with the facts that no one was discovered up stairs but the assassinated
Mademoiselle L'Espanaye, and that there were no means of egress without
the notice of the party ascending. The wild disorder of the room; the
corpse thrust, with the head downward, up the chimney; the frightful
mutilation of the body of the old lady; these considerations, with those
just mentioned, and others which I need not mention, have sufficed to
paralyze the powers, by putting completely at fault the boasted <i>acumen</i>,
of the government agents. They have fallen into the gross but common error
of confounding the unusual with the abstruse. But it is by these
deviations from the plane of the ordinary, that reason feels its way, if
at all, in its search for the true. In investigations such as we are now
pursuing, it should not be so much asked 'what has occurred,' as 'what has
occurred that has never occurred before.' In fact, the facility with which
I shall arrive, or have arrived, at the solution of this mystery, is in
the direct ratio of its apparent insolubility in the eyes of the police."</p>
<p>I stared at the speaker in mute astonishment.</p>
<p>"I am now awaiting," continued he, looking toward the door of our
apartment—"I am now awaiting a person who, although perhaps not the
perpetrator of these butcheries, must have been in some measure implicated
in their perpetration. Of the worst portion of the crimes committed, it is
probable that he is innocent. I hope that I am right in this supposition;
for upon it I build my expectation of reading the entire riddle. I look
for the man here—in this room—every moment. It is true that he
may not arrive; but the probability is that he will. Should he come, it
will be necessary to detain him. Here are pistols; and we both know how to
use them when occasion demands their use."</p>
<p>I took the pistols, scarcely knowing what I did, or believing what I
heard, while Dupin went on, very much as if in a soliloquy. I have already
spoken of his abstract manner at such times. His discourse was addressed
to myself; but his voice, although by no means loud, had that intonation
which is commonly employed in speaking to some one at a great distance.
His eyes, vacant in expression, regarded only the wall.</p>
<p>"That the voices heard in contention," he said, "by the party upon the
stairs, were not the voices of the women themselves, was fully proved by
the evidence. This relieves us of all doubt upon the question whether the
old lady could have first destroyed the daughter and afterward have
committed suicide. I speak of this point chiefly for the sake of method;
for the strength of Madame L'Espanaye would have been utterly unequal to
the task of thrusting her daughter's corpse up the chimney as it was
found; and the nature of the wounds upon her own person entirely preclude
the idea of self-destruction. Murder, then, has been committed by some
third party; and the voices of this third party were those heard in
contention. Let me now advert—not to the whole testimony respecting
these voices—but to what was <i>peculiar</i> in that testimony. Did
you observe any thing peculiar about it?"</p>
<p>I remarked that, while all the witnesses agreed in supposing the gruff
voice to be that of a Frenchman, there was much disagreement in regard to
the shrill, or, as one individual termed it, the harsh voice.</p>
<p>"That was the evidence itself," said Dupin, "but it was not the
peculiarity of the evidence. You have observed nothing distinctive. Yet
there <i>was</i> something to be observed. The witnesses, as you remark,
agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous. But in regard to
the shrill voice, the peculiarity is—not that they disagreed—but
that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a
Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that <i>of a
foreigner</i>. Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own
countrymen. Each likens it—not to the voice of an individual of any
nation with whose language he is conversant—but the converse. The
Frenchman supposes it the voice of a Spaniard, and 'might have
distinguished some words <i>had he been acquainted with the Spanish.</i>'
The Dutchman maintains it to have been that of a Frenchman; but we find it
stated that '<i>not understanding French this witness was examined through
an interpreter.</i>' The Englishman thinks it the voice of a German, and '<i>does
not understand German.</i>' The Spaniard 'is sure' that it was that of an
Englishman, but 'judges by the intonation' altogether, '<i>as he has no
knowledge of the English.</i>' The Italian believes it the voice of a
Russian, but '<i>has never conversed with a native of Russia.</i>' A
second Frenchman differs, moreover, with the first, and is positive that
the voice was that of an Italian; but, <i>not being cognizant of that
tongue</i>, is, like the Spaniard, 'convinced by the intonation.' Now, how
strangely unusual must that voice have really been, about which such
testimony as this <i>could</i> have been elicited!—in whose <i>tones</i>,
even, denizens of the five great divisions of Europe could recognise
nothing familiar! You will say that it might have been the voice of an
Asiatic—of an African. Neither Asiatics nor Africans abound in
Paris; but, without denying the inference, I will now merely call your
attention to three points. The voice is termed by one witness 'harsh
rather than shrill.' It is represented by two others to have been 'quick
and <i>unequal.</i>' No words—no sounds resembling words—were
by any witness mentioned as distinguishable.</p>
<p>"I know not," continued Dupin, "what impression I may have made, so far,
upon your own understanding; but I do not hesitate to say that legitimate
deductions even from this portion of the testimony—the portion
respecting the gruff and shrill voices—are in themselves sufficient
to engender a suspicion which should give direction to all farther
progress in the investigation of the mystery. I said 'legitimate
deductions;' but my meaning is not thus fully expressed. I designed to
imply that the deductions are the <i>sole</i> proper ones, and that the
suspicion arises <i>inevitably</i> from them as the single result. What
the suspicion is, however, I will not say just yet. I merely wish you to
bear in mind that, with myself, it was sufficiently forcible to give a
definite form—a certain tendency—to my inquiries in the
chamber.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />