Страница 34 из 45
Коли мавпа наблизилась до вікна із своєю калічною ношею, моряк, переляканий до нестями, одхилився до громозводу і, радше сприснувши, аніж злізши униз, погнав додому — злякавшися наслідків різанини і враз позбувшися в переляці всіх турбот за долю орангутанга. Слова, чуті людьми на сходах, були французові поклики жаху й боясти, змішані із зловорожим мурмотінням звірини.
Небагато я маю до цього додати. Орангутанг мусів десь утекти з кімнати громозводом, як раз перед тим, що виламано двері. Він мусив замкнути вікно, пролізши крізь нього. Згодом його упіймав сам власник, діставши за нього великі гроші від Jardin des Plantes.70 Лебона негайно звільнено, після нашої розповіди про справу (з деякими коментаріями Дюпена) у бюрі префекта поліції. Цей урядовець, хоча й прихильний до мого друга, не міг цілком затаїти своє прикре чуття при такім повороті справи і мусив був раз чи двоє пуститися на сарказми з приводу того, що, мовляв, кожній людині слід думати про свої власні справи.
— Хай говорить, ― сказав Дюпен, не вважаючи за потрібне йому відповідати. — Хай балакає; це йому полегшить сумління. Я задоволений тим, що завдав йому поразки в його власній фортеці. Одначе те, що він похибив у виявленні цієї тайни, в жодній мірі не є якесь диво, як він це думає, — бо ж, справді, наш друг префект є дещо занадто спритний, щоб бути глибоким. Його мудрість не має під собою підвалини. Це сама голова і ні кусника тіла, як на образах богині Лаверни,71 або, в кращому разі, сама голова та плечі, як риба тріска. Але це, поза всім, таки ловке створіння. Він найбільше мені подобається за хитроумний майстерний хід, що ним він здобув собі славу вимисливости. Я розумію його спосіб «de nier ce qui est, et d’expliquer ce qui n’est pas».72
ОРИГІНАЛ
Edgar Allan Poe
What song the Syrens sang, or what name Achilles assumed when he hid himself among women, although puzzling questions are not beyond all conjecture.
— SIR THOMAS BROWNE, Urn-Burial.
The mental features discoursed of as the analytical, are, in themselves, but little susceptible of analysis. We appreciate them only in their effects. We know of them, among other things, that they are always to their possessor, when inordinately possessed, a source of the liveliest enjoyment. As the strong man exults in his physical ability, delighting in such exercises as call his muscles into action, so glories the analyst in that moral activity which disentangles. He derives pleasure from even the most trivial occupations bringing his talents into play. He is fond of enigmas, of conundrums, of hieroglyphics; exhibiting in his solutions of each a degree of acumen which appears to the ordinary apprehension preternatural. His results, brought about by the very soul and essence of method, have, in truth, the whole air of intuition. The faculty of re-solution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it which, unjustly, and merely on account of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess-player, for example, does the one without effort at the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore, take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are more decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by all the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter, where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here called powerfully into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed, resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is the more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the moves are unique and have but little variation, the probabilities of inadvertence are diminished, and the mere attention being left comparatively what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by superior acumen. To be less abstract — Let us suppose a game of draughts where the pieces are reduced to four kings, and where, of course, no oversight is to be expected. It is obvious that here the victory can be decided (the players being at all equal) only by some recherche movement, the result of some strong exertion of the intellect. Deprived of ordinary resources, the analyst throws himself into the spirit of his opponent, identifies himself therewith, and not unfrequently sees thus, at a glance, the sole methods (sometimes indeed absurdly simple ones) by which he may seduce into error or hurry into miscalculation.
Whist has long been noted for its influence upon what is termed the calculating power; and men of the highest order of intellect have been known to take an apparently unaccountable delight in it, while eschewing chess as frivolous. Beyond doubt there is nothing of a similar nature so greatly tasking the faculty of analysis. The best chess-player in Christendom may be little more than the best player of chess; but proficiency in whist implies capacity for success in all these more important undertakings where mind struggles with mind. When I say proficiency, I mean that perfection in the game which includes a comprehension of all the sources whence legitimate advantage may be derived. These are not only manifold but multiform, and lie frequently among recesses of thought altogether inaccessible to the ordinary understanding. To observe attentively is to remember distinctly; and, so far, the concentrative chess-player will do very well at whist; while the rules of Hoyle (themselves based upon the mere mechanism of the game) are sufficiently and generally comprehensible. Thus to have a retentive memory, and to proceed by “the book,” are points commonly regarded as the sum total of good playing. But it is in matters beyond the limits of mere rule that the skill of the analyst is evinced. He makes, in silence, a host of observations and inferences. So, perhaps, do his companions; and the difference in the extent of the information obtained, lies not so much in the validity of the inference as in the quality of the observation. The necessary knowledge is that of what to observe. Our player confines himself not at all; nor, because the game is the object, does he reject deductions from things external to the game. He examines the countenance of his partner, comparing it carefully with that of each of his opponents. He considers the mode of assorting the cards in each hand; often counting trump by trump, and honor by honor, through the glances bestowed by their holders upon each. He notes every variation of face as the play progresses, gathering a fund of thought from the differences in the expression of certainty, of surprise, of triumph, or chagrin. From the ma