Mon 8 Nov 2010
by Victor A. Berch
It has often been surmised by the critics and historians of detective fiction that had the word “detective†been in use in 1841 when Poe’s “The Murders In the Rue Morgue†appeared in the April issue of Graham’s Magazine, Poe might have used that word to describe his character, G. Auguste Dupin.
In fact, John Ball in his essay “Murder At Large†in The Mystery Story (Del Mar, CA., 1976) states the following:
This concept had probably been fostered by the fact that the earliest recorded use of the word cited by the Oxford English Dictionary places it in Chamber’s Edinburgh Journal, vol. XII, p.54 of the March 4, 1843 issue
However, the use of the word “detective†can be documented to have appeared in print before the example given by the Oxford English Dictionary. I first encountered an earlier use in The Examiner #1787 (April 30, 1842), pp. 283-284, which is hereby produced in part:
“It has long been manifest to persons acquainted with the principles upon which the government of the metropolitan force is directed, that the officers, although most useful as a preventive force, are most inefficient as a detective police….â€
The article goes on to expound the inefficiencies of the metropolitan police in the handling of this case, and towards the end states that “we think quite enough has been given to prove that the existing system of police is not a detective one, and that unless some most important alterations are made by the appointment of a detective police, or an improvement in the system, the perpetrators of crimes, however horrid and revolting in their nature, will in nine cases out of ten, escape the hands of justice.â€
Although this use of the word detective only pushed the date back by not quite a year, it was not enough to warrant a claim that Poe could have used the word.
My next encounter with the word would prove that it could have been used by Poe. It is in the form of a letter to the editor of The Times (London), May 30, 1840, p. 6; and the entire letter is hereby reproduced because of its importance not only to show that the word was in existence at this early time, but it lays the groundwork for the formation of a “detective police†force:
“Sir, — I observed with much pleasure, in the leading article of your excellent journal a few days back some most able, judicious and temperate remarks on the efficiency of the metropolitan police as a preventive force, and upon its total and unequivocal failure as a “detective policeâ€; the last proposition having been so clearly, but unfortunately too truly demonstrated by the recent dreadful murders and extensive robberies which still remain undiscovered.
“It will hardly be necessary for me to say how fully I accord with every sentence contained in that important article as the public, I believe, have with one voice agreed to its truth and justice, and in the necessity of some immediate remedy. And, further, I am induced to think that the authorities at the Home-office are fully aware that some alteration must take place.
“No one, I think, can for a moment doubt but they must see, however reluctant they might be to admit the fact, that they have most unadvisedly and hastily destroyed a system of detective police, which I may almost say, I am old enough to have witnessed the program from the crude and imperfect system originated by Sir John Fielding, down to the time of that active and able chief magistrate, Sir Frederick Roe, and which system was so much indebted to the great talents and judicious arrangements of the late much-lamented and highly respected, John Stafford, that I may say it had, with the limited force then under his control, reached almost perfection in the meaning of detecting the most artful, extensive and desperate offenders.
“I now, Sir, at once proceed to offer, for the consideration of the Secretary of State, the only means to retrace the unfortunate steps which have induced all classes of society to feel that no means now remain of detecting great offenders, and that their lives and property are no longer safe, with similar with similar and that sooner or later the plan I now suggest, or something like it, must be adopted. The public will demand it.
“I would suggest that 25 or 30 of the officers of the metropolitan police be selected with the greatest care and attention to their activity, talent and integrity, to form a detective force only, and that it would be advisable that to this body some few of the most active, able and respectable of the unemployed police-officers should be added, who might by their great skill and local knowledge render most important information and assistance.
“This detective force should, of course, be under the direction of the Secretary of State and the Commissioner of Police. They should not wear a uniform unless it was thought necessary for them to do upon state occasions or Royal processions. They should report their proceedings to the Secretary of State or the Commissioners of Police only, and that they should have power to call in the assistance of any other part of the force, when necessary, upon their own responsibility.
“The pay of these men should be the same, as the inspectors now have, with similar emoluments when employed to what the officers of Bow-street formerly received under the sanction of the Secretary of State. The first ten of them, as the most efficient, should be first employed on all important occasions either in town or country; the remainder would be employed as circumstances might require, and as vacancies might occur by death or removal.
“This part of the force would always be looked up to as a desirable promotion and reward for men of talent and integrity; these men should not be required to do any of the ordinary patrol duty of the other part of the force, but be allowed to employ their time in the investigation and detection of offences according to their discretion. Making their daily report of what business they are engaged in when in London, in a book to be kept by the chief clerk, for the information of the Commissioners or Secretary of State only.
“I fear these remarks have run into some length, or I should have gone into detail upon many other points, was I not aware that the moment such a plan is adopted .it will speak for itself. Trusting that the importance of this subject will be a sufficient apology for my requesting its insertion in your columns.”
Thus, it is evident that the word detective did exist in print prior to 1841 and may well have been used in everyday parlance prior to the example given above.
(*) This is in reference to the David Good case (1842), details of which can be found in Martin Fido’s Murder Guide to London (Chicago, 1990), as well as in Colin Wilson’s Encyclopedia of Murder (New York, 1962).
November 9th, 2010 at 3:16 am
I think it very likely the word was not only in use, but common enough Poe could have used it, but I wonder if he would have considered Dupin to be a detective? At the time it was very much a reference to an official member of the police force (and they were not held in high esteem, seen for the most part as only one thin step above those they pursued and arrested), and even though Vidoq, Poe’s inspiration, had already become the first private detective I suspect Poe would have shunned the word as too common for his master of raciocination.
The narrator of “Man of the Crowd” or “Thou Art the Man” come somewhat closer, and in the former case there is even a reference to the narrator wearing ‘gumshoes.’
It’s an interesting point, but I can’t help but think Poe may have not used the word because he didn’t think it fit more than because he didn’t know it.
November 9th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I think we’ve accomplished something here.
Conventional wisdom has been, as Victor points out, that Poe’s story was written before the word “detective” was coined.
Then Victor shows that this was not so.
Now David hypothesizes, with good logic, that Poe very well may have known the word, but chose not to use it.
This I like!
Of course there is another possibility, one that Victor suggested to me when he sent me his article:
“Have given thought to the fact that someone could write a fictional piece that Poe did hear about the word, but his superiors at Graham’s Magazine pooh-poohed the idea and he had to drop it. Hey! It’s only a fictional piece.”
— Steve
November 9th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
As Steve points out there are three good choices here, and any one of them may be the truth — or some variation of all three.
I do think it unlikely Poe would have wanted to associate Dupin as a mere agent of the police since in the story he holds himself well above them. Socially a police agent was not only unsavory, in many cases they were looked on as corrupt and beneath even the criminals they pursued. set a thief to catch a thief — as was done in the case of Vidoq.
Even as late as Balzac, his Vautrin is a master manipulator closer to Moriarity than Holmes.
There is an interesting sociological study to be done on how reform, the press, urbanization, and fiction blended to raise the image of the policeman from its once low estate to where it is today.
But I’m not sure Poe would have wanted the word detective used to describe Dupin. In his mind it might well have been an insult.