<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0011" id="link2H_4_0011"></SPAN></p>
<h2> THE IMP OF THE PERVERSE </h2>
<p>IN THE consideration of the faculties and impulses—of the prima
mobilia of the human soul, the phrenologists have failed to make room for
a propensity which, although obviously existing as a radical, primitive,
irreducible sentiment, has been equally overlooked by all the moralists
who have preceded them. In the pure arrogance of the reason, we have all
overlooked it. We have suffered its existence to escape our senses, solely
through want of belief—of faith;—whether it be faith in
Revelation, or faith in the Kabbala. The idea of it has never occurred to
us, simply because of its supererogation. We saw no need of the impulse—for
the propensity. We could not perceive its necessity. We could not
understand, that is to say, we could not have understood, had the notion
of this primum mobile ever obtruded itself;—we could not have
understood in what manner it might be made to further the objects of
humanity, either temporal or eternal. It cannot be denied that phrenology
and, in great measure, all metaphysicianism have been concocted a priori.
The intellectual or logical man, rather than the understanding or
observant man, set himself to imagine designs—to dictate purposes to
God. Having thus fathomed, to his satisfaction, the intentions of Jehovah,
out of these intentions he built his innumerable systems of mind. In the
matter of phrenology, for example, we first determined, naturally enough,
that it was the design of the Deity that man should eat. We then assigned
to man an organ of alimentiveness, and this organ is the scourge with
which the Deity compels man, will-I nill-I, into eating. Secondly, having
settled it to be God's will that man should continue his species, we
discovered an organ of amativeness, forthwith. And so with combativeness,
with ideality, with causality, with constructiveness,—so, in short,
with every organ, whether representing a propensity, a moral sentiment, or
a faculty of the pure intellect. And in these arrangements of the
Principia of human action, the Spurzheimites, whether right or wrong, in
part, or upon the whole, have but followed, in principle, the footsteps of
their predecessors: deducing and establishing every thing from the
preconceived destiny of man, and upon the ground of the objects of his
Creator.</p>
<p>It would have been wiser, it would have been safer, to classify (if
classify we must) upon the basis of what man usually or occasionally did,
and was always occasionally doing, rather than upon the basis of what we
took it for granted the Deity intended him to do. If we cannot comprehend
God in his visible works, how then in his inconceivable thoughts, that
call the works into being? If we cannot understand him in his objective
creatures, how then in his substantive moods and phases of creation?</p>
<p>Induction, a posteriori, would have brought phrenology to admit, as an
innate and primitive principle of human action, a paradoxical something,
which we may call perverseness, for want of a more characteristic term. In
the sense I intend, it is, in fact, a mobile without motive, a motive not
motivirt. Through its promptings we act without comprehensible object; or,
if this shall be understood as a contradiction in terms, we may so far
modify the proposition as to say, that through its promptings we act, for
the reason that we should not. In theory, no reason can be more
unreasonable, but, in fact, there is none more strong. With certain minds,
under certain conditions, it becomes absolutely irresistible. I am not
more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error
of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and
alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to
do wrong for the wrong's sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into
ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse-elementary. It
will be said, I am aware, that when we persist in acts because we feel we
should not persist in them, our conduct is but a modification of that
which ordinarily springs from the combativeness of phrenology. But a
glance will show the fallacy of this idea. The phrenological combativeness
has for its essence, the necessity of self-defence. It is our safeguard
against injury. Its principle regards our well-being; and thus the desire
to be well is excited simultaneously with its development. It follows,
that the desire to be well must be excited simultaneously with any
principle which shall be merely a modification of combativeness, but in
the case of that something which I term perverseness, the desire to be
well is not only not aroused, but a strongly antagonistical sentiment
exists.</p>
<p>An appeal to one's own heart is, after all, the best reply to the
sophistry just noticed. No one who trustingly consults and thoroughly
questions his own soul, will be disposed to deny the entire radicalness of
the propensity in question. It is not more incomprehensible than
distinctive. There lives no man who at some period has not been tormented,
for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by
circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every
intention to please, he is usually curt, precise, and clear, the most
laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue,
it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow;
he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the
thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses this
anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse
increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable
longing, and the longing (to the deep regret and mortification of the
speaker, and in defiance of all consequences) is indulged.</p>
<p>We have a task before us which must be speedily performed. We know that it
will be ruinous to make delay. The most important crisis of our life
calls, trumpet-tongued, for immediate energy and action. We glow, we are
consumed with eagerness to commence the work, with the anticipation of
whose glorious result our whole souls are on fire. It must, it shall be
undertaken to-day, and yet we put it off until to-morrow, and why? There
is no answer, except that we feel perverse, using the word with no
comprehension of the principle. To-morrow arrives, and with it a more
impatient anxiety to do our duty, but with this very increase of anxiety
arrives, also, a nameless, a positively fearful, because unfathomable,
craving for delay. This craving gathers strength as the moments fly. The
last hour for action is at hand. We tremble with the violence of the
conflict within us,—of the definite with the indefinite—of the
substance with the shadow. But, if the contest have proceeded thus far, it
is the shadow which prevails,—we struggle in vain. The clock
strikes, and is the knell of our welfare. At the same time, it is the
chanticleer—note to the ghost that has so long overawed us. It flies—it
disappears—we are free. The old energy returns. We will labor now.
Alas, it is too late!</p>
<p>We stand upon the brink of a precipice. We peer into the abyss—we
grow sick and dizzy. Our first impulse is to shrink from the danger.
Unaccountably we remain. By slow degrees our sickness and dizziness and
horror become merged in a cloud of unnamable feeling. By gradations, still
more imperceptible, this cloud assumes shape, as did the vapor from the
bottle out of which arose the genius in the Arabian Nights. But out of
this our cloud upon the precipice's edge, there grows into palpability, a
shape, far more terrible than any genius or any demon of a tale, and yet
it is but a thought, although a fearful one, and one which chills the very
marrow of our bones with the fierceness of the delight of its horror. It
is merely the idea of what would be our sensations during the sweeping
precipitancy of a fall from such a height. And this fall—this
rushing annihilation—for the very reason that it involves that one
most ghastly and loathsome of all the most ghastly and loathsome images of
death and suffering which have ever presented themselves to our
imagination—for this very cause do we now the most vividly desire
it. And because our reason violently deters us from the brink, therefore
do we the most impetuously approach it. There is no passion in nature so
demoniacally impatient, as that of him who, shuddering upon the edge of a
precipice, thus meditates a Plunge. To indulge, for a moment, in any
attempt at thought, is to be inevitably lost; for reflection but urges us
to forbear, and therefore it is, I say, that we cannot. If there be no
friendly arm to check us, or if we fail in a sudden effort to prostrate
ourselves backward from the abyss, we plunge, and are destroyed.</p>
<p>Examine these similar actions as we will, we shall find them resulting
solely from the spirit of the Perverse. We perpetrate them because we feel
that we should not. Beyond or behind this there is no intelligible
principle; and we might, indeed, deem this perverseness a direct
instigation of the Arch-Fiend, were it not occasionally known to operate
in furtherance of good.</p>
<p>I have said thus much, that in some measure I may answer your question,
that I may explain to you why I am here, that I may assign to you
something that shall have at least the faint aspect of a cause for my
wearing these fetters, and for my tenanting this cell of the condemned.
Had I not been thus prolix, you might either have misunderstood me
altogether, or, with the rabble, have fancied me mad. As it is, you will
easily perceive that I am one of the many uncounted victims of the Imp of
the Perverse.</p>
<p>It is impossible that any deed could have been wrought with a more
thorough deliberation. For weeks, for months, I pondered upon the means of
the murder. I rejected a thousand schemes, because their accomplishment
involved a chance of detection. At length, in reading some French Memoirs,
I found an account of a nearly fatal illness that occurred to Madame
Pilau, through the agency of a candle accidentally poisoned. The idea
struck my fancy at once. I knew my victim's habit of reading in bed. I
knew, too, that his apartment was narrow and ill-ventilated. But I need
not vex you with impertinent details. I need not describe the easy
artifices by which I substituted, in his bed-room candle-stand, a
wax-light of my own making for the one which I there found. The next
morning he was discovered dead in his bed, and the Coroner's verdict was—"Death
by the visitation of God."</p>
<p>Having inherited his estate, all went well with me for years. The idea of
detection never once entered my brain. Of the remains of the fatal taper I
had myself carefully disposed. I had left no shadow of a clew by which it
would be possible to convict, or even to suspect me of the crime. It is
inconceivable how rich a sentiment of satisfaction arose in my bosom as I
reflected upon my absolute security. For a very long period of time I was
accustomed to revel in this sentiment. It afforded me more real delight
than all the mere worldly advantages accruing from my sin. But there
arrived at length an epoch, from which the pleasurable feeling grew, by
scarcely perceptible gradations, into a haunting and harassing thought. It
harassed because it haunted. I could scarcely get rid of it for an
instant. It is quite a common thing to be thus annoyed with the ringing in
our ears, or rather in our memories, of the burthen of some ordinary song,
or some unimpressive snatches from an opera. Nor will we be the less
tormented if the song in itself be good, or the opera air meritorious. In
this manner, at last, I would perpetually catch myself pondering upon my
security, and repeating, in a low undertone, the phrase, "I am safe."</p>
<p>One day, whilst sauntering along the streets, I arrested myself in the act
of murmuring, half aloud, these customary syllables. In a fit of
petulance, I remodelled them thus; "I am safe—I am safe—yes—if
I be not fool enough to make open confession!"</p>
<p>No sooner had I spoken these words, than I felt an icy chill creep to my
heart. I had had some experience in these fits of perversity, (whose
nature I have been at some trouble to explain), and I remembered well that
in no instance I had successfully resisted their attacks. And now my own
casual self-suggestion that I might possibly be fool enough to confess the
murder of which I had been guilty, confronted me, as if the very ghost of
him whom I had murdered—and beckoned me on to death.</p>
<p>At first, I made an effort to shake off this nightmare of the soul. I
walked vigorously—faster—still faster—at length I ran. I
felt a maddening desire to shriek aloud. Every succeeding wave of thought
overwhelmed me with new terror, for, alas! I well, too well understood
that to think, in my situation, was to be lost. I still quickened my pace.
I bounded like a madman through the crowded thoroughfares. At length, the
populace took the alarm, and pursued me. I felt then the consummation of
my fate. Could I have torn out my tongue, I would have done it, but a
rough voice resounded in my ears—a rougher grasp seized me by the
shoulder. I turned—I gasped for breath. For a moment I experienced
all the pangs of suffocation; I became blind, and deaf, and giddy; and
then some invisible fiend, I thought, struck me with his broad palm upon
the back. The long imprisoned secret burst forth from my soul.</p>
<p>They say that I spoke with a distinct enunciation, but with marked
emphasis and passionate hurry, as if in dread of interruption before
concluding the brief, but pregnant sentences that consigned me to the
hangman and to hell.</p>
<p>Having related all that was necessary for the fullest judicial conviction,
I fell prostrate in a swoon.</p>
<p>But why shall I say more? To-day I wear these chains, and am here!
To-morrow I shall be fetterless!—but where?</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />