the works of edgar allan poe-1-第45节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


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　Rog阾；　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　
duration　of　the　corpse　on　the　shore　could　operate　to　multiply　traces　
of　the　assassins。　Nor　can　I。　

〃　'And　furthermore　it　is　exceedingly　improbable；'　continues　our　
journal；　'that　any　villains　who　had　committed　such　a　murder　as　is　
here　supposed；　would　have　thrown　the　body　in　without　weight　to　sink　
it；　when　such　a　precaution　could　have　so　easily　been　taken。'　Observe；　
here；　the　laughable　confusion　of　thought！　No　one　…　not　even　L'Etoile　
…　disputes　the　murder　committed　_on　the　body　found_。　The　marks　of　
violence　are　too　obvious。　It　is　our　reasoner's　object　merely　to　show　
that　this　body　is　not　Marie's。　He　wishes　to　prove　that　Marie　is　not　
assassinated　…　not　that　the　corpse　was　not。　Yet　his　observation　
proves　only　the　latter　point。　Here　is　a　corpse　without　weight　
attached。　Murderers；　casting　it　in；　would　not　have　failed　to　attach　a　
weight。　Therefore　it　was　not　thrown　in　by　murderers。　This　is　all　
which　is　proved；　if　any　thing　is。　The　question　of　identity　is　not　
even　approached；　and　L'Etoile　has　been　at　great　pains　merely　to　
gainsay　now　what　it　has　admitted　only　a　moment　before。　'We　are　
perfectly　convinced；'　it　says；　'that　the　body　found　was　that　of　a　
murdered　female。'　

〃Nor　is　this　the　sole　instance；　even　in　this　division　of　his　subject；　
where　our　reasoner　unwittingly　reasons　against　himself。　His　evident　
object；　I　have　already　said；　is　to　reduce；　us　much　as　possible；　the　
interval　between　Marie's　disappearance　and　the　finding　of　the　corpse。　
Yet　we　find　him　urging　the　point　that　no　person　saw　the　girl　from　the　
moment　of　her　leaving　her　mother's　house。　'We　have　no　evidence；'　he　
says；　'that　Marie　Rog阾　was　in　the　land　of　the　living　after　nine　
o'clock　on　Sunday；　June　the　twenty…second。'　As　his　argument　is　
obviously　an　ex　parte　one；　he　should；　at　least；　have　left　this　matter　
out　of　sight；　for　had　any　one　been　known　to　see　Marie；　say　on　Monday；　
or　on　Tuesday；　the　interval　in　question　would　have　been　much　reduced；　
and；　by　his　own　ratiocination；　the　probability　much　diminished　of　the　
corpse　being　that　of　the　grisette。　It　is；　nevertheless；　amusing　to　
observe　that　L'Etoile　insists　upon　its　point　in　the　full　belief　of　
its　furthering　its　general　argument。　

〃Reperuse　now　that　portion　of　this　argument　which　has　reference　to　
the　identification　of　the　corpse　by　Beauvais。　In　regard　to　the　hair　
upon　the　arm；　L'Etoile　has　been　obviously　disingenuous。　M。　Beauvais；　
not　being　an　idiot；　could　never　have　urged；　in　identification　of　the　
corpse；　simply　hair　upon　its　arm。　No　arm　is　without　hair。　The　
generality　of　the　expression　of　L'Etoile　is　a　mere　perversion　of　the　
witness'　phraseology。　He　must　have　spoken　of　some　peculiarity　in　this　
hair。　It　must　have　been　a　peculiarity　of　color；　of　quantity；　of　
length；　or　of　situation。　

〃　'Her　foot；'　says　the　journal；　'was　small　…　so　are　thousands　of　
feet。　Her　garter　is　no　proof　whatever　…　nor　is　her　shoe　…　for　shoes　
and　garters　are　sold　in　packages。　The　same　may　be　said　of　the　flowers　
in　her　hat。　One　thing　upon　which　M。　Beauvais　strongly　insists　is；　
that　the　clasp　on　the　garter　found；　had　been　set　back　to　take　it　in。　
This　amounts　to　nothing；　for　most　women　find　it　proper　to　take　a　pair　
of　garters　home　and　fit　them　to　the　size　of　the　limbs　they　are　to　
encircle；　rather　than　to　try　them　in　the　store　where　they　purchase。'　
Here　it　is　difficult　to　suppose　the　reasoner　in　earnest。　Had　M。　
Beauvais；　in　his　search　for　the　body　of　Marie；　discovered　a　corpse　
corresponding　in　general　size　and　appearance　to　the　missing　girl；　he　
would　have　been　warranted　（without　reference　to　the　question　of　
habiliment　at　all）　in　forming　an　opinion　that　his　search　had　been　
successful。　If；　in　addition　to　the　point　of　general　size　and　contour；　
he　had　found　upon　the　arm　a　peculiar　hairy　appearance　which　he　had　
observed　upon　the　living　Marie；　his　opinion　might　have　been　justly　
strengthened；　and　the　increase　of　positiveness　might　well　have　been　
in　the　ratio　of　the　peculiarity；　or　unusualness；　of　the　hairy　mark。　
If；　the　feet　of　Marie　being　small；　those　of　the　corpse　were　also　
small；　the　increase　of　probability　that　the　body　was　that　of　Marie　
would　not　be　an　increase　in　a　ratio　merely　arithmetical；　but　in　one　
highly　geometrical；　or　accumulative。　Add　to　all　this　shoes　such　as　
she　had　been　known　to　wear　upon　the　day　of　her　disappearance；　and；　
although　these　shoes　may　be　'sold　in　packages；'　you　so　far　augment　
the　probability　as　to　verge　upon　the　certain。　What；　of　itself；　would　
be　no　evidence　of　identity；　becomes　through　its　corroborative　
position；　proof　most　sure。　Give　us；　then；　flowers　in　the　hat　
corresponding　to　those　worn　by　the　missing　girl；　and　we　seek　for　
nothing　farther。　If　only　one　flower；　we　seek　for　nothing　farther　…　
what　then　if　two　or　three；　or　more？　Each　successive　one　is　multiple　
evidence　…　proof　not　_added_　to　proof；　but　multiplied　by　hundreds　or　
thousands。　Let　us　now　discover；　upon　the　deceased；　garters　such　as　
the　living　used；　and　it　is　almost　folly　to　proceed。　But　these　garters　
are　found　to　be　tightened；　by　the　setting　back　of　a　clasp；　in　just　
such　a　manner　as　her　own　had　been　tightened　by　Marie；　shortly　
previous　to　her　leaving　home。　It　is　now　madness　or　hypocrisy　to　
doubt。　What　L'Etoile　says　in　respect　to　this　abbreviation　of　the　
garter's　being　an　usual　occurrence；　shows　nothing　beyond　its　own　
pertinacity　in　error。　The　elastic　nature　of　the　clasp…garter　is　
self…demonstration　of　the　unusualness　of　the　abbreviation。　What　is　
made　to　adjust　itself；　must　of　necessity　require　foreign　adjustment　
but　rarely。　It　must　have　been　by　an　accident；　in　its　strictest　sense；　
that　these　garters　of　Marie　needed　the　tightening　described。　They　
alone　would　have　amply　established　her　identity。　But　it　is　not　that　
the　corpse　was　found　to　have　the　garters　of　the　missing　girl；　or　
found　to　have　her　shoes；　or　her　bonnet；　or　the　flowers　of　her　bonnet；　
or　her　feet；　or　a　peculiar　mark　upon　the　arm；　or　her　general　size　and　
appearance　…　it　is　that　the　corpse　had　each；　and　_all　collectively_。　
Could　it　be　proved　that　the　editor　of　L'Etoile　_really_　entertained　a　
doubt；　under　the　circumstances；　there　would　be　no　need；　in　his　case；　
of　a　commission　de　lunatico　inquirendo。　He　has　thought　it　sagacious　
to　echo　the　small　talk　of　the　lawyers；　who；　for　the　most　part；　
content　themselves　with　echoing　the　rectangular　precepts　of　the　
courts。　I　would　here　observe　that　very　much　of　what　is　rejected　as　
evidence　by　a　court；　is　the　best　of　evidence　to　the　intellect。　For　
the　court；　guiding　itself　by　the　general　principles　of　evidence　…　the　
recognized　and　_booked_　principles　…　is　averse　from　swerving　at　
particular　instances。　And　this　steadfast　adherence　to　principle；　with　
rigorous　disregard　of　the　conflicting　exception；　is　a　sure　mode　of　
attaining　the　maximum　of　attainable　truth；　in　any　long　sequence　of　
time。　The　practice；　in　mass；　is　therefore　philosophical；　but　it　is　
not　the　less　certain　that　it　engenders　vast　individual　error。　｛*16｝　

〃In　respect　to　the　insinuations　levelled　at　Beauvais；　you　will　be　
willing　to　dismiss　them　in　a　breath。　You　have　already　fathomed　the　
true　character　of　this　good　gentleman。　He　is　a　busy…body；　with　much　
of　romance　and　little　of　wit。　Any　one　so　constituted　will　readily　so　
conduct　himself；　upon　occasion　of　real　excitement；　as　to　render　
himself　liable　to　suspicion　on　the　part　of　the　over　acute；　or　the　
ill…　disposed。　M。　Beauvais　（as　it　appears　from　your　notes）　had　some　
personal　interviews　with　the　editor　of　L'Etoile；　and　offended　him　by　
venturing　an　opinion　that　the　corpse；　notwithstanding　the　theory　of　
the　editor；　was；　in　sober　fact；　that　of　Marie。　'He　persists；'　says　
the　paper；　'in　asserting　the　corpse　to　be　that　of　Marie；　but　cannot　
give　a　circumstance；　in　addition　to　those　which　we　have　commented　
upon；　to　make　others　b