<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0009" id="link2H_4_0009"></SPAN></p>
<h2> THE MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE </h2>
<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>
<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>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />