The Psychology of "The Murders in the Rue Morgue"

Abstract

Dupin subjects a statement in the newspaper account to analysis. "The drawers of the bureau, it is said, had been rifled, although many articles of apparel still remained within them" (p. 556). The narrator and the reader must therefore suppose that some "articles of apparel" had been taken. Evidently the police found it surprising that not all the "articles of apparel" had been taken. Dupin denies the implied conclusion. "The conclusion here is absurd"-but is it? In ostensibly proving his point, Dupin relentlessly dwells on the "articles of apparel." "How are we to know that the articles found in the drawers were not all these drawers had originally contained ?" By the repetition of the word drawers, Poe forces the reader to feel that what the police and Dupin are really talking about are panties or drawers, not a variety of "articles of apparel." Dupin continues his supposed refutation by characterizing the condition of the "apparel" stolen. "Madame L'Espanaye and her daughter lived an exceedingly retired life-saw no company-seldom went out-had little use for numerous changes of habiliment. Those found were of at least good quality as any likely to be possessed by these ladies. If a thief had taken any, why did he not take the best-why did he not take all?". . . The reader knows. Dupin has told him that the only "articles of apparel" that remained in the drawers were those in good condition. The reader knows the murderer was not interested in such panties. That crazy wanted the worn ones. Dupin is blind to the facts of life-but, then, he inhabits only the fourth floor of his "Time-eaten and grotesque mansion" (p. 532). Dupin believes that breaking-and-entering, theft, gruesome mutilations and murders might well be committed for a few pieces of new linen worth a few francs-but not for psychotic sexual drives. Dupin is an incredible egghead, an intellectual, blind to the facts of life. His refutation concludes with the following triumphant statement of foolish logic: "In a word, why did he abandon four thousand francs in gold to encumber himself with a bundle of linen?" (p. 556). When he reads this statement, every reader is driven to conclude that he knows why. The murderer is a psychotic