<p>"That, in spirit, they are far more worthy of attention than any which
have been promulgated upon the subject. The deductions from the premises
are philosophical and acute; but the premises, in two instances, at least,
are founded in imperfect observation. Le Commerciel wishes to intimate
that Marie was seized by some gang of low ruffians not far from her
mother's door. 'It is impossible,' it urges, 'that a person so well known
to thousands as this young woman was, should have passed three blocks
without some one having seen her.' This is the idea of a man long resident
in Paris—a public man—and one whose walks to and fro in the
city, have been mostly limited to the vicinity of the public offices. He
is aware that he seldom passes so far as a dozen blocks from his own
bureau, without being recognized and accosted. And, knowing the extent of
his personal acquaintance with others, and of others with him, he compares
his notoriety with that of the perfumery-girl, finds no great difference
between them, and reaches at once the conclusion that she, in her walks,
would be equally liable to recognition with himself in his. This could
only be the case were her walks of the same unvarying, methodical
character, and within the same species of limited region as are his own.
He passes to and fro, at regular intervals, within a confined periphery,
abounding in individuals who are led to observation of his person through
interest in the kindred nature of his occupation with their own. But the
walks of Marie may, in general, be supposed discursive. In this particular
instance, it will be understood as most probable, that she proceeded upon
a route of more than average diversity from her accustomed ones. The
parallel which we imagine to have existed in the mind of Le Commerciel
would only be sustained in the event of the two individuals' traversing
the whole city. In this case, granting the personal acquaintances to be
equal, the chances would be also equal that an equal number of personal
rencounters would be made. For my own part, I should hold it not only as
possible, but as very far more than probable, that Marie might have
proceeded, at any given period, by any one of the many routes between her
own residence and that of her aunt, without meeting a single individual
whom she knew, or by whom she was known. In viewing this question in its
full and proper light, we must hold steadily in mind the great
disproportion between the personal acquaintances of even the most noted
individual in Paris, and the entire population of Paris itself.</p>
<p>"But whatever force there may still appear to be in the suggestion of Le
Commerciel, will be much diminished when we take into consideration the
hour at which the girl went abroad. 'It was when the streets were full of
people,' says Le Commerciel, 'that she went out.' But not so. It was at
nine o'clock in the morning. Now at nine o'clock of every morning in the
week, <i>with the exception of Sunday</i>, the streets of the city are, it
is true, thronged with people. At nine on Sunday, the populace are chiefly
within doors <i>preparing for church</i>. No observing person can have
failed to notice the peculiarly deserted air of the town, from about eight
until ten on the morning of every Sabbath. Between ten and eleven the
streets are thronged, but not at so early a period as that designated.</p>
<p>"There is another point at which there seems a deficiency of observation
on the part of Le Commerciel. 'A piece,' it says, 'of one of the
unfortunate girl's petticoats, two feet long, and one foot wide, was torn
out and tied under her chin, and around the back of her head, probably to
prevent screams. This was done, by fellows who had no
pocket-handkerchiefs.' Whether this idea is, or is not well founded, we
will endeavor to see hereafter; but by 'fellows who have no
pocket-handkerchiefs' the editor intends the lowest class of ruffians.
These, however, are the very description of people who will always be
found to have handkerchiefs even when destitute of shirts. You must have
had occasion to observe how absolutely indispensable, of late years, to
the thorough blackguard, has become the pocket-handkerchief."</p>
<p>"And what are we to think," I asked, "of the article in Le Soleil?"</p>
<p>"That it is a vast pity its inditer was not born a parrot—in which
case he would have been the most illustrious parrot of his race. He has
merely repeated the individual items of the already published opinion;
collecting them, with a laudable industry, from this paper and from that.
'The things had all evidently been there,' he says,'at least, three or
four weeks, and there can be <i>no doubt</i> that the spot of this
appalling outrage has been discovered.' The facts here re-stated by Le
Soleil, are very far indeed from removing my own doubts upon this subject,
and we will examine them more particularly hereafter in connexion with
another division of the theme.</p>
<p>"At present we must occupy ourselves with other investigations. You cannot
fail to have remarked the extreme laxity of the examination of the corpse.
To be sure, the question of identity was readily determined, or should
have been; but there were other points to be ascertained. Had the body
been in any respect despoiled? Had the deceased any articles of jewelry
about her person upon leaving home? if so, had she any when found? These
are important questions utterly untouched by the evidence; and there are
others of equal moment, which have met with no attention. We must endeavor
to satisfy ourselves by personal inquiry. The case of St. Eustache must be
re-examined. I have no suspicion of this person; but let us proceed
methodically. We will ascertain beyond a doubt the validity of the
affidavits in regard to his whereabouts on the Sunday. Affidavits of this
character are readily made matter of mystification. Should there be
nothing wrong here, however, we will dismiss St. Eustache from our
investigations. His suicide, however corroborative of suspicion, were
there found to be deceit in the affidavits, is, without such deceit, in no
respect an unaccountable circumstance, or one which need cause us to
deflect from the line of ordinary analysis.</p>
<p>"In that which I now propose, we will discard the interior points of this
tragedy, and concentrate our attention upon its outskirts. Not the least
usual error, in investigations such as this, is the limiting of inquiry to
the immediate, with total disregard of the collateral or circumstantial
events. It is the mal-practice of the courts to confine evidence and
discussion to the bounds of apparent relevancy. Yet experience has shown,
and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger
portion of truth, arises from the seemingly irrelevant. It is through the
spirit of this principle, if not precisely through its letter, that modern
science has resolved to calculate upon the unforeseen. But perhaps you do
not comprehend me. The history of human knowledge has so uninterruptedly
shown that to collateral, or incidental, or accidental events we are
indebted for the most numerous and most valuable discoveries, that it has
at length become necessary, in any prospective view of improvement, to
make not only large, but the largest allowances for inventions that shall
arise by chance, and quite out of the range of ordinary expectation. It is
no longer philosophical to base, upon what has been, a vision of what is
to be. Accident is admitted as a portion of the substructure. We make
chance a matter of absolute calculation. We subject the unlooked for and
unimagined, to the mathematical <i>formulae</i> of the schools.</p>
<p>"I repeat that it is no more than fact, that the larger portion of all
truth has sprung from the collateral; and it is but in accordance with the
spirit of the principle involved in this fact, that I would divert
inquiry, in the present case, from the trodden and hitherto unfruitful
ground of the event itself, to the contemporary circumstances which
surround it. While you ascertain the validity of the affidavits, I will
examine the newspapers more generally than you have as yet done. So far,
we have only reconnoitred the field of investigation; but it will be
strange indeed if a comprehensive survey, such as I propose, of the public
prints, will not afford us some minute points which shall establish a
direction for inquiry."</p>
<p>In pursuance of Dupin's suggestion, I made scrupulous examination of the
affair of the affidavits. The result was a firm conviction of their
validity, and of the consequent innocence of St. Eustache. In the mean
time my friend occupied himself, with what seemed to me a minuteness
altogether objectless, in a scrutiny of the various newspaper files. At
the end of a week he placed before me the following extracts:</p>
<p>"About three years and a half ago, a disturbance very similar to the
present, was caused by the disappearance of this same Marie Rog�t,
from the parfumerie of Monsieur Le Blanc, in the Palais Royal. At the end
of a week, however, she re-appeared at her customary comptoir, as well as
ever, with the exception of a slight paleness not altogether usual. It was
given out by Monsieur Le Blanc and her mother, that she had merely been on
a visit to some friend in the country; and the affair was speedily hushed
up. We presume that the present absence is a freak of the same nature, and
that, at the expiration of a week, or perhaps of a month, we shall have
her among us again."—Evening Paper—Monday June 23. (*17)</p>
<p>"An evening journal of yesterday, refers to a former mysterious
disappearance of Mademoiselle Rog�t. It is well known that, during
the week of her absence from Le Blanc's parfumerie, she was in the company
of a young naval officer, much noted for his debaucheries. A quarrel, it
is supposed, providentially led to her return home. We have the name of
the Lothario in question, who is, at present, stationed in Paris, but, for
obvious reasons, forbear to make it public."—Le Mercurie—Tuesday
Morning, June 24. (*18)</p>
<p>"An outrage of the most atrocious character was perpetrated near this city
the day before yesterday. A gentleman, with his wife and daughter,
engaged, about dusk, the services of six young men, who were idly rowing a
boat to and fro near the banks of the Seine, to convey him across the
river. Upon reaching the opposite shore, the three passengers stepped out,
and had proceeded so far as to be beyond the view of the boat, when the
daughter discovered that she had left in it her parasol. She returned for
it, was seized by the gang, carried out into the stream, gagged, brutally
treated, and finally taken to the shore at a point not far from that at
which she had originally entered the boat with her parents. The villains
have escaped for the time, but the police are upon their trail, and some
of them will soon be taken."—Morning Paper—June 25. (*19)</p>
<p>"We have received one or two communications, the object of which is to
fasten the crime of the late atrocity upon Mennais; (*20) but as this
gentleman has been fully exonerated by a loyal inquiry, and as the
arguments of our several correspondents appear to be more zealous than
profound, we do not think it advisable to make them public."—Morning
Paper—June 28. (*21)</p>
<p>"We have received several forcibly written communications, apparently from
various sources, and which go far to render it a matter of certainty that
the unfortunate Marie Rog�t has become a victim of one of the
numerous bands of blackguards which infest the vicinity of the city upon
Sunday. Our own opinion is decidedly in favor of this supposition. We
shall endeavor to make room for some of these arguments hereafter."—Evening
Paper—Tuesday, June 31. (*22)</p>
<p>"On Monday, one of the bargemen connected with the revenue service, saw a
empty boat floating down the Seine. Sails were lying in the bottom of the
boat. The bargeman towed it under the barge office. The next morning it
was taken from thence, without the knowledge of any of the officers. The
rudder is now at the barge office."—Le Diligence—Thursday,
June 26.</p>
<p>Upon reading these various extracts, they not only seemed to me
irrelevant, but I could perceive no mode in which any one of them could be
brought to bear upon the matter in hand. I waited for some explanation
from Dupin.</p>
<p>"It is not my present design," he said, "to dwell upon the first and
second of those extracts. I have copied them chiefly to show you the
extreme remissness of the police, who, as far as I can understand from the
Prefect, have not troubled themselves, in any respect, with an examination
of the naval officer alluded to. Yet it is mere folly to say that between
the first and second disappearance of Marie, there is no <i>supposable</i>
connection. Let us admit the first elopement to have resulted in a quarrel
between the lovers, and the return home of the betrayed. We are now
prepared to view a second elopement (if we know that an elopement has
again taken place) as indicating a renewal of the betrayer's advances,
rather than as the result of new proposals by a second individual—we
are prepared to regard it as a 'making up' of the old amour, rather than
as the commencement of a new one. The chances are ten to one, that he who
had once eloped with Marie, would again propose an elopement, rather than
that she to whom proposals of elopement had been made by one individual,
should have them made to her by another. And here let me call your
attention to the fact, that the time elapsing between the first
ascertained, and the second supposed elopement, is a few months more than
the general period of the cruises of our men-of-war. Had the lover been
interrupted in his first villany by the necessity of departure to sea, and
had he seized the first moment of his return to renew the base designs not
yet altogether accomplished—or not yet altogether accomplished by <i>him?</i>
Of all these things we know nothing.</p>
<p>"You will say, however, that, in the second instance, there was no
elopement as imagined. Certainly not—but are we prepared to say that
there was not the frustrated design? Beyond St. Eustache, and perhaps
Beauvais, we find no recognized, no open, no honorable suitors of Marie.
Of none other is there any thing said. Who, then, is the secret lover, of
whom the relatives (at least most of them) know nothing, but whom Marie
meets upon the morning of Sunday, and who is so deeply in her confidence,
that she hesitates not to remain with him until the shades of the evening
descend, amid the solitary groves of the Barri�re du Roule? Who is
that secret lover, I ask, of whom, at least, most of the relatives know
nothing? And what means the singular prophecy of Madame Rog�t on
the morning of Marie's departure?—'I fear that I shall never see
Marie again.'</p>
<p>"But if we cannot imagine Madame Rog�t privy to the design of
elopement, may we not at least suppose this design entertained by the
girl? Upon quitting home, she gave it to be understood that she was about
to visit her aunt in the Rue des Dr�mes and St. Eustache was
requested to call for her at dark. Now, at first glance, this fact
strongly militates against my suggestion;—but let us reflect. That
she did meet some companion, and proceed with him across the river,
reaching the Barri�re du Roule at so late an hour as three o'clock
in the afternoon, is known. But in consenting so to accompany this
individual, (<i>for whatever purpose—to her mother known or unknown,</i>)
she must have thought of her expressed intention when leaving home, and of
the surprise and suspicion aroused in the bosom of her affianced suitor,
St. Eustache, when, calling for her, at the hour appointed, in the Rue des
Dr�mes, he should find that she had not been there, and when,
moreover, upon returning to the pension with this alarming intelligence,
he should become aware of her continued absence from home. She must have
thought of these things, I say. She must have foreseen the chagrin of St.
Eustache, the suspicion of all. She could not have thought of returning to
brave this suspicion; but the suspicion becomes a point of trivial
importance to her, if we suppose her not intending to return.</p>
<p>"We may imagine her thinking thus—'I am to meet a certain person for
the purpose of elopement, or for certain other purposes known only to
myself. It is necessary that there be no chance of interruption—there
must be sufficient time given us to elude pursuit—I will give it to
be understood that I shall visit and spend the day with my aunt at the Rue
des Dr�mes—I well tell St. Eustache not to call for me until
dark—in this way, my absence from home for the longest possible
period, without causing suspicion or anxiety, will be accounted for, and I
shall gain more time than in any other manner. If I bid St. Eustache call
for me at dark, he will be sure not to call before; but, if I wholly
neglect to bid him call, my time for escape will be diminished, since it
will be expected that I return the earlier, and my absence will the sooner
excite anxiety. Now, if it were my design to return at all—if I had
in contemplation merely a stroll with the individual in question—it
would not be my policy to bid St. Eustache call; for, calling, he will be
sure to ascertain that I have played him false—a fact of which I
might keep him for ever in ignorance, by leaving home without notifying
him of my intention, by returning before dark, and by then stating that I
had been to visit my aunt in the Rue des Dr�mes. But, as it is my
design never to return—or not for some weeks—or not until
certain concealments are effected—the gaining of time is the only
point about which I need give myself any concern.'</p>
<p>"You have observed, in your notes, that the most general opinion in
relation to this sad affair is, and was from the first, that the girl had
been the victim of a gang of blackguards. Now, the popular opinion, under
certain conditions, is not to be disregarded. When arising of itself—when
manifesting itself in a strictly spontaneous manner—we should look
upon it as analogous with that <i>intuition</i> which is the idiosyncrasy
of the individual man of genius. In ninety-nine cases from the hundred I
would abide by its decision. But it is important that we find no palpable
traces of <i>suggestion</i>. The opinion must be rigorously <i>the
public's own</i>; and the distinction is often exceedingly difficult to
perceive and to maintain. In the present instance, it appears to me that
this 'public opinion' in respect to a gang, has been superinduced by the
collateral event which is detailed in the third of my extracts. All Paris
is excited by the discovered corpse of Marie, a girl young, beautiful and
notorious. This corpse is found, bearing marks of violence, and floating
in the river. But it is now made known that, at the very period, or about
the very period, in which it is supposed that the girl was assassinated,
an outrage similar in nature to that endured by the deceased, although
less in extent, was perpetuated, by a gang of young ruffians, upon the
person of a second young female. Is it wonderful that the one known
atrocity should influence the popular judgment in regard to the other
unknown? This judgment awaited direction, and the known outrage seemed so
opportunely to afford it! Marie, too, was found in the river; and upon
this very river was this known outrage committed. The connexion of the two
events had about it so much of the palpable, that the true wonder would
have been a failure of the populace to appreciate and to seize it. But, in
fact, the one atrocity, known to be so committed, is, if any thing,
evidence that the other, committed at a time nearly coincident, was not so
committed. It would have been a miracle indeed, if, while a gang of
ruffians were perpetrating, at a given locality, a most unheard-of wrong,
there should have been another similar gang, in a similar locality, in the
same city, under the same circumstances, with the same means and
appliances, engaged in a wrong of precisely the same aspect, at precisely
the same period of time! Yet in what, if not in this marvellous train of
coincidence, does the accidentally suggested opinion of the populace call
upon us to believe?</p>
<p>"Before proceeding farther, let us consider the supposed scene of the
assassination, in the thicket at the Barri�re du Roule. This
thicket, although dense, was in the close vicinity of a public road.
Within were three or four large stones, forming a kind of seat with a back
and footstool. On the upper stone was discovered a white petticoat; on the
second, a silk scarf. A parasol, gloves, and a pocket-handkerchief, were
also here found. The handkerchief bore the name, 'Marie Rog�t.'
Fragments of dress were seen on the branches around. The earth was
trampled, the bushes were broken, and there was every evidence of a
violent struggle.</p>
<p>"Notwithstanding the acclamation with which the discovery of this thicket
was received by the press, and the unanimity with which it was supposed to
indicate the precise scene of the outrage, it must be admitted that there
was some very good reason for doubt. That it was the scene, I may or I may
not believe—but there was excellent reason for doubt. Had the true
scene been, as Le Commerciel suggested, in the neighborhood of the Rue Pav�e
St. Andr�e, the perpetrators of the crime, supposing them still
resident in Paris, would naturally have been stricken with terror at the
public attention thus acutely directed into the proper channel; and, in
certain classes of minds, there would have arisen, at once, a sense of the
necessity of some exertion to redivert this attention. And thus, the
thicket of the Barri�re du Roule having been already suspected, the
idea of placing the articles where they were found, might have been
naturally entertained. There is no real evidence, although Le Soleil so
supposes, that the articles discovered had been more than a very few days
in the thicket; while there is much circumstantial proof that they could
not have remained there, without attracting attention, during the twenty
days elapsing between the fatal Sunday and the afternoon upon which they
were found by the boys. 'They were all <i>mildewed</i> down hard,' says Le
Soleil, adopting the opinions of its predecessors, 'with the action of the
rain, and stuck together from <i>mildew</i>. The grass had grown around
and over some of them. The silk of the parasol was strong, but the threads
of it were run together within. The upper part, where it had been doubled
and folded, was all <i>mildewed</i> and rotten, and tore on being opened.'
In respect to the grass having 'grown around and over some of them,' it is
obvious that the fact could only have been ascertained from the words, and
thus from the recollections, of two small boys; for these boys removed the
articles and took them home before they had been seen by a third party.
But grass will grow, especially in warm and damp weather, (such as was
that of the period of the murder,) as much as two or three inches in a
single day. A parasol lying upon a newly turfed ground, might, in a single
week, be entirely concealed from sight by the upspringing grass. And
touching that mildew upon which the editor of Le Soleil so pertinaciously
insists, that he employs the word no less than three times in the brief
paragraph just quoted, is he really unaware of the nature of this mildew?
Is he to be told that it is one of the many classes of fungus, of which
the most ordinary feature is its upspringing and decadence within
twenty-four hours?</p>
<p>"Thus we see, at a glance, that what has been most triumphantly adduced in
support of the idea that the articles had been 'for at least three or four
weeks' in the thicket, is most absurdly null as regards any evidence of
that fact. On the other hand, it is exceedingly difficult to believe that
these articles could have remained in the thicket specified, for a longer
period than a single week—for a longer period than from one Sunday
to the next. Those who know any thing of the vicinity of Paris, know the
extreme difficulty of finding seclusion unless at a great distance from
its suburbs. Such a thing as an unexplored, or even an unfrequently
visited recess, amid its woods or groves, is not for a moment to be
imagined. Let any one who, being at heart a lover of nature, is yet
chained by duty to the dust and heat of this great metropolis—let
any such one attempt, even during the weekdays, to slake his thirst for
solitude amid the scenes of natural loveliness which immediately surround
us. At every second step, he will find the growing charm dispelled by the
voice and personal intrusion of some ruffian or party of carousing
blackguards. He will seek privacy amid the densest foliage, all in vain.
Here are the very nooks where the unwashed most abound—here are the
temples most desecrate. With sickness of the heart the wanderer will flee
back to the polluted Paris as to a less odious because less incongruous
sink of pollution. But if the vicinity of the city is so beset during the
working days of the week, how much more so on the Sabbath! It is now
especially that, released from the claims of labor, or deprived of the
customary opportunities of crime, the town blackguard seeks the precincts
of the town, not through love of the rural, which in his heart he
despises, but by way of escape from the restraints and conventionalities
of society. He desires less the fresh air and the green trees, than the
utter license of the country. Here, at the road-side inn, or beneath the
foliage of the woods, he indulges, unchecked by any eye except those of
his boon companions, in all the mad excess of a counterfeit hilarity—the
joint offspring of liberty and of rum. I say nothing more than what must
be obvious to every dispassionate observer, when I repeat that the
circumstance of the articles in question having remained undiscovered, for
a longer period—than from one Sunday to another, in any thicket in
the immediate neighborhood of Paris, is to be looked upon as little less
than miraculous.</p>
<p>"But there are not wanting other grounds for the suspicion that the
articles were placed in the thicket with the view of diverting attention
from the real scene of the outrage. And, first, let me direct your notice
to the date of the discovery of the articles. Collate this with the date
of the fifth extract made by myself from the newspapers. You will find
that the discovery followed, almost immediately, the urgent communications
sent to the evening paper. These communications, although various and
apparently from various sources, tended all to the same point—viz.,
the directing of attention to a gang as the perpetrators of the outrage,
and to the neighborhood of the Barri�re du Roule as its scene. Now
here, of course, the suspicion is not that, in consequence of these
communications, or of the public attention by them directed, the articles
were found by the boys; but the suspicion might and may well have been,
that the articles were not before found by the boys, for the reason that
the articles had not before been in the thicket; having been deposited
there only at so late a period as at the date, or shortly prior to the
date of the communications by the guilty authors of these communications
themselves.</p>
<p>"This thicket was a singular—an exceedingly singular one. It was
unusually dense. Within its naturally walled enclosure were three
extraordinary stones, forming a seat with a back and footstool. And this
thicket, so full of a natural art, was in the immediate vicinity, within a
few rods, of the dwelling of Madame Deluc, whose boys were in the habit of
closely examining the shrubberies about them in search of the bark of the
sassafras. Would it be a rash wager—a wager of one thousand to one—that
a day never passed over the heads of these boys without finding at least
one of them ensconced in the umbrageous hall, and enthroned upon its
natural throne? Those who would hesitate at such a wager, have either
never been boys themselves, or have forgotten the boyish nature. I repeat—it
is exceedingly hard to comprehend how the articles could have remained in
this thicket undiscovered, for a longer period than one or two days; and
that thus there is good ground for suspicion, in spite of the dogmatic
ignorance of Le Soleil, that they were, at a comparatively late date,
deposited where found.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />