together from mildew. The grass had grown around and over some of them.
The silk on 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 mildewed and rotten, and tore on its being opened..... The
pieces of her frock torn out by the bushes were about three inches wide
and six inches long. One part was the hem of the frock, and it had been
mended; the other piece was part of the skirt, not the hem. They looked
like strips torn off, and were on the thorn bush, about a foot from
the ground..... There can be no doubt, therefore, that the spot of this
appalling outrage has been discovered.”
Consequent upon this discovery, new evidence appeared. Madame Deluc
testified that she keeps a roadside inn not far from the bank of the
river, opposite the Barrière du Roule. The neighborhood is
secluded--particularly so. It is the usual Sunday resort of blackguards
from the city, who cross the river in boats. About three o’clock, in the
afternoon of the Sunday in question, a young girl arrived at the inn,
accompanied by a young man of dark complexion. The two remained here for
some time. On their departure, they took the road to some thick woods in
the vicinity. Madame Deluc’s attention was called to the dress worn by
the girl, on account of its resemblance to one worn by a deceased
relative. A scarf was particularly noticed. Soon after the departure of
the couple, a gang of miscreants made their appearance, behaved
boisterously, ate and drank without making payment, followed in the
route of the young man and girl, returned to the inn about dusk, and
re-crossed the river as if in great haste.
It was soon after dark, upon this same evening, that Madame Deluc, as
well as her eldest son, heard the screams of a female in the vicinity
of the inn. The screams were violent but brief. Madame D. recognized not
only the scarf which was found in the thicket, but the dress which was
discovered upon the corpse. An omnibus driver, Valence, (*13) now also
testified that he saw Marie Rogêt cross a ferry on the Seine, on the
Sunday in question, in company with a young man of dark complexion.
He, Valence, knew Marie, and could not be mistaken in her identity. The
articles found in the thicket were fully identified by the relatives of
Marie.
The items of evidence and information thus collected by myself, from
the newspapers, at the suggestion of Dupin, embraced only one more
point--but this was a point of seemingly vast consequence. It appears
that, immediately after the discovery of the clothes as above described,
the lifeless, or nearly lifeless body of St. Eustache, Marie’s
betrothed, was found in the vicinity of what all now supposed the scene
of the outrage. A phial labelled “laudanum,” and emptied, was found near
him. His breath gave evidence of the poison. He died without speaking.
Upon his person was found a letter, briefly stating his love for Marie,
with his design of self-destruction.
“I need scarcely tell you,” said Dupin, as he finished the perusal of
my notes, “that this is a far more intricate case than that of the
Rue Morgue; from which it differs in one important respect. This is
an ordinary, although an atrocious instance of crime. There is nothing
peculiarly outré about it. You will observe that, for this reason, the
mystery has been considered easy, when, for this reason, it should have
been considered difficult, of solution. Thus; at first, it was thought
unnecessary to offer a reward. The myrmidons of G---- were able at once
to comprehend how and why such an atrocity might have been committed.
They could picture to their imaginations a mode--many modes--and a
motive--many motives; and because it was not impossible that either of
these numerous modes and motives could have been the actual one, they
have taken it for granted that one of them must. But the case with which
these variable fancies were entertained, and the very plausibility which
each assumed, should have been understood as indicative rather of the
difficulties than of the facilities which must attend elucidation. I
have before observed that it is by prominences above the plane of the
ordinary, that reason feels her way, if at all, in her search for the
true, and that the proper question in cases such as this, is not so
much ‘what has occurred?’ as ‘what has occurred that has never occurred
before?’ In the investigations at the house of Madame L’Espanaye,
(*14) the agents of G---- were discouraged and confounded by that
very unusualness which, to a properly regulated intellect, would have
afforded the surest omen of success; while this same intellect might
have been plunged in despair at the ordinary character of all that 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 Barrière 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 Rogêt 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 Rogêt 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 Rogêt 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 cöincident 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 puffed appearance which is so
horrible. When this distension has so far progressed that the bulk of
the corpse is materially increased without 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 forever from
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 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 Rogêt, 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--more rapid 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, as 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 Rogêt 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 believe.’ Now,
without re-adverting to the fact that stronger evidence ‘to make others
believe,’ could never have been adduced, it may be remarked that a man
may very well be understood to believe, in a case of this kind, without
the ability to advance a single reason for the belief of a second party.
Nothing is more vague than impressions of individual identity. Each man
recognizes his neighbor, yet there are few instances in which any one
is prepared to give a reason for his recognition. The editor of L’Etoile
had no right to be offended at M. Beauvais’ unreasoning belief.
“The suspicious circumstances which invest him, will be found to tally
much better with my hypothesis of romantic busy-bodyism, than with
the reasoner’s suggestion of guilt. Once adopting the more charitable
interpretation, we shall find no difficulty in comprehending the rose
in the key-hole; the ‘Marie’ upon the slate; the ‘elbowing the male
relatives out of the way;’ the ‘aversion to permitting them to see
the body;’ the caution given to Madame B----, that she must hold no
conversation with the gendarme until his return (Beauvais’); and,
lastly, his apparent determination ‘that nobody should have anything to
do with the proceedings except himself.’ It seems to me unquestionable
that Beauvais was a suitor of Marie’s; that she coquetted with him; and
that he was ambitious of being thought to enjoy her fullest intimacy
and confidence. I shall say nothing more upon this point; and, as the
evidence fully rebuts the assertion of L’Etoile, touching the matter
of apathy on the part of the mother and other relatives--an apathy
inconsistent with the supposition of their believing the corpse to be
that of the perfumery-girl--we shall now proceed as if the question of
identity were settled to our perfect satisfaction.”
“And what,” I here demanded, “do you think of the opinions of Le
Commerciel?”
“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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500