what you did; but observation has become with me, of late, a species of
necessity.
“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 nebula 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 tirade upon Chantilly, which appeared
in yesterday’s ‘Musée,’ 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
Perdidit antiquum litera sonum.
“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 Théâtre des
Variétés.”
Not long after this, we were looking over an evening edition of the
“Gazette des Tribunaux,” when the following paragraphs arrested our
attention.
“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 gendarmes. 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.
“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 métal d’Alger, and two bags, containing nearly four
thousand francs in gold. The drawers of a bureau, 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 bed (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.
“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.
“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.
“To this horrible mystery there is not as yet, we believe, the slightest
clew.”
The next day’s paper had these additional particulars.
“The Tragedy in the Rue Morgue. 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.
“Pauline Dubourg, 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.
“Pierre Moreau, 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.
“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.
“Isidore Muset, gendarme, 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
‘sacré’ and ‘diable.’ 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.
“Henri Duval, 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 Muset 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.
“--Odenheimer, restaurateur. 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
‘sacré,’ ‘diable,’ and once ‘mon Dieu.’
“Jules Mignaud, 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.
“Adolphe Le Bon, 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.
“William Bird, 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 ‘sacré’ and ‘mon Dieu.’
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.
“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 (mansardes.) 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.
“Alfonzo Garcio, 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.
“Alberto Montani, 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.
“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.
“Paul Dumas, 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 tibia 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.
“Alexandre Etienne, surgeon, was called with M. Dumas to view the
bodies. Corroborated the testimony, and the opinions of M. Dumas.
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
“We must not judge of the means,” said Dupin, “by this shell of an
examination. The Parisian police, so much extolled for acumen, 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
robe-de-chambre--pour mieux entendre la musique. 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 retina (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 fully 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 firmanent by a
scrutiny too sustained, too concentrated, or too direct.
“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.”
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 loge de concierge. 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.
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
gendarme 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.
I have said that the whims of my friend were manifold, and that Je les
ménageais:--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 peculiar at the scene of the atrocity.
There was something in his manner of emphasizing the word “peculiar,”
which caused me to shudder, without knowing why.
“No, nothing peculiar,” I said; “nothing more, at least, than we both
saw stated in the paper.”
“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 outré 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
acumen, 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.”
I stared at the speaker in mute astonishment.
“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.”
I took the pistols, scarcely knowing what I did, or believing what
I heard, while Dupin went on, very much as if in a soliloquy. I have
already spoken of his abstract manner at such times. His discourse was
addressed to myself; but his voice, although by no means loud, had that
intonation which is commonly employed in speaking to some one at a great
distance. His eyes, vacant in expression, regarded only the wall.
“That the voices heard in contention,” he said, “by the party upon the
stairs, were not the voices of the women themselves, was fully proved
by the evidence. This relieves us of all doubt upon the question whether
the old lady could have first destroyed the daughter and afterward have
committed suicide. I speak of this point chiefly for the sake of method;
for the strength of Madame L’Espanaye would have been utterly unequal
to the task of thrusting her daughter’s corpse up the chimney as it
was found; and the nature of the wounds upon her own person entirely
preclude the idea of self-destruction. Murder, then, has been committed
by some third party; and the voices of this third party were those heard
in contention. Let me now advert--not to the whole testimony respecting
these voices--but to what was peculiar in that testimony. Did you
observe any thing peculiar about it?”
I remarked that, while all the witnesses agreed in supposing the gruff
voice to be that of a Frenchman, there was much disagreement in regard
to the shrill, or, as one individual termed it, the harsh voice.
“That was the evidence itself,” said Dupin, “but it was not the
peculiarity of the evidence. You have observed nothing distinctive.
Yet there was something to be observed. The witnesses, as you remark,
agreed about the gruff voice; they were here unanimous. But in regard to
the shrill voice, the peculiarity is--not that they disagreed--but
that, while an Italian, an Englishman, a Spaniard, a Hollander, and a
Frenchman attempted to describe it, each one spoke of it as that of
a foreigner. Each is sure that it was not the voice of one of his own
countrymen. Each likens it--not to the voice of an individual of any
nation with whose language he is conversant--but the converse.
The Frenchman supposes it the voice of a Spaniard, and ‘might have
distinguished some words had he been acquainted with the Spanish.’ The
Dutchman maintains it to have been that of a Frenchman; but we find it
stated that ‘not understanding French this witness was examined through
an interpreter.’ The Englishman thinks it the voice of a German, and
‘does not understand German.’ The Spaniard ‘is sure’ that it was that
of an Englishman, but ‘judges by the intonation’ altogether, ‘as he has
no knowledge of the English.’ The Italian believes it the voice of a
Russian, but ‘has never conversed with a native of Russia.’ A second
Frenchman differs, moreover, with the first, and is positive that the
voice was that of an Italian; but, not being cognizant of that tongue,
is, like the Spaniard, ‘convinced by the intonation.’ Now, how strangely
unusual must that voice have really been, about which such testimony as
this could have been elicited!--in whose tones, even, denizens of
the five great divisions of Europe could recognise nothing familiar! You
will say that it might have been the voice of an Asiatic--of an African.
Neither Asiatics nor Africans abound in Paris; but, without denying the
inference, I will now merely call your attention to three points.
The voice is termed by one witness ‘harsh rather than shrill.’ It
is represented by two others to have been ‘quick and unequal.’ No
words--no sounds resembling words--were by any witness mentioned as
distinguishable.
“I know not,” continued Dupin, “what impression I may have made, so
far, upon your own understanding; but I do not hesitate to say that
legitimate deductions even from this portion of the testimony--the
portion respecting the gruff and shrill voices--are in themselves
sufficient to engender a suspicion which should give direction to all
farther progress in the investigation of the mystery. I said ‘legitimate
deductions;’ but my meaning is not thus fully expressed. I designed
to imply that the deductions are the sole proper ones, and that the
suspicion arises inevitably from them as the single result. What the
suspicion is, however, I will not say just yet. I merely wish you to
bear in mind that, with myself, it was sufficiently forcible to give a
definite form--a certain tendency--to my inquiries in the chamber.
“Let us now transport ourselves, in fancy, to this chamber. What shall
we first seek here? The means of egress employed by the murderers. It is
not too much to say that neither of us believe in præternatural events.
Madame and Mademoiselle L’Espanaye were not destroyed by spirits. The
doers of the deed were material, and escaped materially. Then how?
Fortunately, there is but one mode of reasoning upon the point, and that
mode must lead us to a definite decision.--Let us examine, each by
each, the possible means of egress. It is clear that the assassins were
in the room where Mademoiselle L’Espanaye was found, or at least in the
room adjoining, when the party ascended the stairs. It is then only from
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