Poe, Edgar Allen - The Complete Works of Edgar Allen Poe

by Volume 01-05 (lit)

met the eye in the case of the perfumery-girl, and yet told of

  nothing but easy triumph to the functionaries of the Prefecture.

  "In the case of Madame L'Espanaye and her daughter there was, even at

  the beginning of our investigation, no doubt that murder had been

  committed. The idea of suicide was excluded at once. Here, too, we

  are freed, at the commencement, from all supposition of self- murder.

  The body found at the BarriΦre du Roule, was found under such

  circumstances as to leave us no room for embarrassment upon this

  important point. But it has been suggested that the corpse

  discovered, is not that of the Marie RogΩt for the conviction of

  whose assassin, or assassins, the reward is offered, and respecting

  whom, solely, our agreement has been arranged with the Prefect. We

  both know this gentleman well. It will not do to trust him too far.

  If, dating our inquiries from the body found, and thence tracing a

  murderer, we yet discover this body to be that of some other

  individual than Marie; or, if starting from the living Marie, we find

  her, yet find her unassassinated -- in either case we lose our labor;

  since it is Monsieur G---- with whom we have to deal. For our own

  purpose, therefore, if not for the purpose of justice, it is

  indispensable that our first step should be the determination of the

  identity of the corpse with the Marie RogΩt who is missing.

  "With the public the arguments of L'Etoile have had weight; and that

  the journal itself is convinced of their importance would appear from

  the manner in which it commences one of its essays upon the subject -

  'Several of the morning papers of the day,' it says, 'speak of the

  _conclusive_ article in Monday's Etoile.' To me, this article appears

  conclusive of little beyond the zeal of its inditer. We should bear

  in mind that, in general, it is the object of our newspapers rather

  to create a sensation -- to make a point - than to further the cause

  of truth. The latter end is only pursued when it seems coincident

  with the former. The print which merely falls in with ordinary

  opinion (however well founded this opinion may be) earns for itself

  no credit with the mob. The mass of the people regard as profound

  only him who suggests _pungent contradictions_ of the general idea.

  In ratiocination, not less than in literature, it is the epigram

  which is the most immediately and the most universally appreciated.

  In both, it is of the lowest order of merit.

  "What I mean to say is, that it is the mingled epigram and melodrame

  of the idea, that Marie RogΩt still lives, rather than any true

  plausibility in this idea, which have suggested it to L'Etoile, and

  secured it a favorable reception with the public. Let us examine the

  heads of this journal's argument; endeavoring to avoid the

  incoherence with which it is originally set forth.

  "The first aim of the writer is to show, from the brevity of the

  interval between Marie's disappearance and the finding of the

  floating corpse, that this corpse cannot be that of Marie. The

  reduction of this interval to its smallest possible dimension,

  becomes thus, at once, an object with the reasoner. In the rash

  pursuit of this object, he rushes into mere assumption at the outset.

  'It is folly to suppose,' he says, 'that the murder, if murder was

  committed on her body, could have been consummated soon enough to

  have enabled her murderers to throw the body into the river before

  midnight.' We demand at once, and very naturally, why? Why is it

  folly to suppose that the murder was committed _within five minutes_

  after the girl's quitting her mother's house? Why is it folly to

  suppose that the murder was committed at any given period of the day?

  There have been assassinations at all hours. But, had the murder

  taken place at any moment between nine o'clock in the morning of

  Sunday, and a quarter before midnight, there would still have been

  time enough ''to throw the body into the river before midnight.' This

  assumption, then, amounts precisely to this - that the murder was not

  committed on Sunday at all - and, if we allow L'Etoile to assume

  this, we may permit it any liberties whatever. The paragraph

  beginning 'It is folly to suppose that the murder, etc.,' however it

  appears as printed in L'Etoile, may be imagined to have existed

  actually thus in the brain of its inditer - 'It is folly to suppose

  that the murder, if murder was committed on the body, could have been

  committed soon enough to have enabled her murderers to throw the body

  into the river before midnight; it is folly, we say, to suppose all

  this, and to suppose at the same time, (as we are resolved to

  suppose,) that the body was not thrown in until after midnight' -- a

  sentence sufficiently inconsequential in itself, but not so utterly

  preposterous as the one printed.

  "Were it my purpose," continued Dupin, "merely to _make out a case_

  against this passage of L'Etoile's argument, I might safely leave it

  where it is. It is not, however, with L'Etoile that we have to do,

  but with the truth. The sentence in question has but one meaning, as

  it stands; and this meaning I have fairly stated: but it is material

  that we go behind the mere words, for an idea which these words have

  obviously intended, and failed to convey. It was the design of the

  journalist to say that, at whatever period of the day or night of

  Sunday this murder was committed, it was improbable that the

  assassins would have ventured to bear the corpse to the river before

  midnight. And herein lies, really, the assumption of which I

  complain. It is assumed that the murder was committed at such a

  position, and under such circumstances, that the bearing it to the

  river became necessary. Now, the assassination might have taken place

  upon the river's brink, or on the river itself; and, thus, the

  throwing the corpse in the water might have been resorted to, at any

  period of the day or night, as the most obvious and most immediate

  mode of disposal. You will understand that I suggest nothing here as

  probable, or as c÷incident with my own opinion. My design, so far,

  has no reference to the facts of the case. I wish merely to caution

  you against the whole tone of L'Etoile's suggestion, by calling your

  attention to its ex parte character at the outset.

  "Having prescribed thus a limit to suit its own preconceived notions;

  having assumed that, if this were the body of Marie, it could have

  been in the water but a very brief time; the journal goes on to say:

  'All experience has shown that drowned bodies, or bodies thrown into

  the water immediately after death by violence, require from six to

  ten days for sufficient decomposition to take place to bring them to

  the top of the water. Even when a cannon is fired over a corpse, and

  it rises before at least five or six days' immersion, it sinks again

  if let alone.'

  "These assertions have been tacitly received by every paper in Paris,

  with the exception of Le Moniteur. {*15} This latter print endeavors

  to combat that portion of the paragraph
which has reference to

  'drowned bodies' only, by citing some five or six instances in which

  the bodies of individuals known to be drowned were found floating

  after the lapse of less time than is insisted upon by L'Etoile. But

  there is something excessively unphilosophical in the attempt on the

  part of Le Moniteur, to rebut the general assertion of L'Etoile, by a

  citation of particular instances militating against that assertion.

  Had it been possible to adduce fifty instead of five examples of

  bodies found floating at the end of two or three days, these fifty

  examples could still have been properly regarded only as exceptions

  to L'Etoile's rule, until such time as the rule itself should be

  confuted. Admitting the rule, (and this Le Moniteur does not deny,

  insisting merely upon its exceptions,) the argument of L'Etoile is

  suffered to remain in full force; for this argument does not pretend

  to involve more than a question of the probability of the body having

  risen to the surface in less than three days; and this probability

  will be in favor of L'Etoile's position until the instances so

  childishly adduced shall be sufficient in number to establish an

  antagonistical rule.

  "You will see at once that all argument upon this head should be

  urged, if at all, against the rule itself; and for this end we must

  examine the rationale of the rule. Now the human body, in general, is

  neither much lighter nor much heavier than the water of the Seine;

  that is to say, the specific gravity of the human body, in its

  natural condition, is about equal to the bulk of fresh water which it

  displaces. The bodies of fat and fleshy persons, with small bones,

  and of women generally, are lighter than those of the lean and

  large-boned, and of men; and the specific gravity of the water of a

  river is somewhat influenced by the presence of the tide from sea.

  But, leaving this tide out of question, it may be said that very few

  human bodies will sink at all, even in fresh water, of their own

  accord. Almost any one, falling into a river, will be enabled to

  float, if he suffer the specific gravity of the water fairly to be

  adduced in comparison with his own - that is to say, if he suffer his

  whole person to be immersed, with as little exception as possible.

  The proper position for one who cannot swim, is the upright position

  of the walker on land, with the head thrown fully back, and immersed;

  the mouth and nostrils alone remaining above the surface. Thus

  circumstanced, we shall find that we float without difficulty and

  without exertion. It is evident, however, that the gravities of the

  body, and of the bulk of water displaced, are very nicely balanced,

  and that a trifle will cause either to preponderate. An arm, for

  instance, uplifted from the water, and thus deprived of its support,

  is an additional weight sufficient to immerse the whole head, while

  the accidental aid of the smallest piece of timber will enable us to

  elevate the head so as to look about. Now, in the struggles of one

  unused to swimming, the arms are invariably thrown upwards, while an

  attempt is made to keep the head in its usual perpendicular position.

  The result is the immersion of the mouth and nostrils, and the

  inception, during efforts to breathe while beneath the surface, of

  water into the lungs. Much is also received into the stomach, and the

  whole body becomes heavier by the difference between the weight of

  the air originally distending these cavities, and that of the fluid

  which now fills them. This difference is sufficient to cause the body

  to sink, as a general rule; but is insufficient in the cases of

  individuals with small bones and an abnormal quantity of flaccid or

  fatty matter. Such individuals float even after drowning.

  "The corpse, being. supposed at the bottom of the river, will there

  remain until, by some means, its specific gravity again becomes less

  than that of the bulk of water which it displaces. This effect is

  brought about by decomposition, or otherwise. The result of

  decomposition is the generation of gas, distending the cellular

  tissues and all the cavities, and giving the puffedappearance which

  is to horrible. When this distension has so far progressed that the

  bulk of the corpse is materially increased with. out a corresponding

  increase of mass or weight, its specific gravity becomes less than

  that of the water displaced, and it forthwith makes its appearance at

  the surface. But decomposition is modified by innumerable

  circumstances - is hastened or retarded by innumerable agencies; for

  example, by the heat or cold of the season, by the mineral

  impregnation or purity of the water, by its depth or shallowness, by

  its currency or stagnation, by the temperament of the body, by its

  infection or freedom from disease before death. Thus it is evident

  that we can assign no period, with any thing like accuracy, at which

  the corpse shall rise through decomposition. Under certain conditions

  this result would be brought about within an hour; under others, it

  might not take place at all. There are chemical infusions by which

  the animal frame can be preserved foreverfrom corruption; the

  Bi-chloride of Mercury is one. But, apart from decomposition, there

  may be, and very usually is, a generation of gas within the stomach,

  from the acetous fermentation of vegetable matter (or within other

  cavities from other causes) sufficient to induce a distension which

  will bring the body to the surface. The effect produced by the firing

  of a cannon is that of simple vibration. This may either loosen the

  corpse from the soft mud or ooze in which it is imbedded, thus

  permitting it to rise when other agencies have already prepared it

  for so doing; or it may overcome the tenacity of some putrescent

  portions of the cellular tissue; allowing the cavities to distend

  under the influence of the gas.

  "Having thus before us the whole philosophy of this subject, we can

  easily test by it the assertions of L'Etoile. 'All experience shows,'

  says this paper, 'that drowned bodies, or bodies thrown into the

  water immediately after death by violence, require from six to ten

  days for sufficient decomposition to take place to bring them to the

  top of the water. Even when a cannon is fired over a corpse, and it

  rises before at least five or six days' immersion, it sinks again if

  let alone.'

  "The whole of this paragraph must now appear a tissue of

  inconsequence and incoherence. All experience does not show that

  'drowned bodies' require from six to ten days for sufficient

  decomposition to take place to bring them to the surface. Both

  science and experience show that the period of their rising is, and

  necessarily must be, indeterminate. If, moreover, a body has risen to

  the surface through firing of cannon, it will not 'sink again if let

  alone,' until decomposition has so far progressed as to permit the

  escape of the generated gas. But I wish to call your attention to the

  distinction which is made between 'drowned bodies,' and 'bodies

&
nbsp; thrown into the water immediately after death by violence.' Although

  the writer admits the distinction, he yet includes them all in the

  same category. I have shown how it is that the body of a drowning man

  becomes specifically heavier than its bulk of water, and that he

  would not sink at all, except for the struggles by which he elevates

  his arms above the surface, and his gasps for breath while beneath

  the surface - gasps which supply by water the place of the original

  air in the lungs. But these struggles and these gasps would not occur

  in the body 'thrown into the water immediately after death by

  violence.' Thus, in the latter instance, the body, as a general rule,

  would not sink at all - a fact of which L'Etoile is evidently

  ignorant. When decomposition had proceeded to a very great extent -

  when the flesh had in a great measure left the bones - then, indeed,

  but not till then, should we lose sight of the corpse.

  "And now what are we to make of the argument, that the body found

  could not be that of Marie RogΩt, because, three days only having

  elapsed, this body was found floating? If drowned, being a woman, she

  might never have sunk; or having sunk, might have reappeared in

  twenty-four hours, or less. But no one supposes her to have been

  drowned; and, dying before being thrown into the river, she might

  have been found floating at any period afterwards whatever.

  " 'But,' says L'Etoile, 'if the body had been kept in its mangled

  state on shore until Tuesday night, some trace would be found on

  shore of the murderers.' Here it is at first difficult to perceive

  the intention of the reasoner. He means to anticipate what he

  imagines would be an objection to his theory - viz: that the body was

  kept on shore two days, suffering rapid decomposition - morerapid

  than if immersed in water. He supposes that, had this been the case,

  it might have appeared at the surface on the Wednesday, and thinks

  that only under such circumstances it could so have appeared. He is

  accordingly in haste to show that it was not kept on shore; for, if

  so, 'some trace would be found on shore of the murderers.' I presume

  you smile at the sequitur. You cannot be made to see how the mere