A Philosophical Investigation: A Novel (34 page)

‘Well sir, I think you’ve had a very fortunate escape,’ said Jake. ‘You were perfectly right. That man is the man we’re looking for. The one who’s killed all the other men. And he would almost certainly have murdered you too, had you not acted when you did. But I must ask you not to tell anyone else about this. You see, our only chance of catching him is by making sure we don’t alarm him. If he suspects that any of his potential victims will be expecting him, then he’ll go to ground and we might never get him. Do you see?’

Parmenides nodded. ‘Sure thing. I understand. No problem, miss.’

‘I’d like to ask you another favour, sir. I want you to go with Detective Sergeant Jones here and look at some computer-generated pictures we have of this man. See if you can’t improve them. After all, you’ve had the best look at him of anyone so far.’

‘Like on the telly. I know. Yes, OK.’

Jake nodded at Jones. ‘And when Mr Parmenides has finished, Jones, have a car take him home. Then I want a guard watching him for twenty-four hours a day.’ She smiled at the Greek.

‘It’s just a precaution,’ she explained. ‘I think you probably scared him off for good, but we can’t afford to be too careful.’

The Greek got up. ‘Thank you,’ he said. ‘Thank you very much.’

‘No; thank you, Mr Parmenides.’

‘All right, sir,’ said Jones, ushering him through Jake’s doorway. ‘This way, please.’

‘And, Sergeant ...’

‘Ma’am?’

‘Do you know where Inspector Stanley is?’

‘Not exactly, no, ma’am.’

‘Find him, will you? Tell him to get himself in here.’

‘Certainly. By the way, you’ll find a list of all the addresses that have been underlined on your desk, ma’am. Do you want me to pass the A-Z on to the lab, for fingerprints?’

‘It’s all right. I’ll do it. And, Jones? Well done.’

‘Thank you, ma’am.’

When Jones and the Greek had gone, Jake read through the list of addresses he had typed out for her. A few of them she recognised as the homes of some of Wittgenstein’s previous victims.

Ten minutes later a grumpy-looking Stanley presented himself in her office.

‘Where have you been?’

Stanley looked aggrieved. ‘In the canteen,’ he said. ‘I had hoped to be able to eat something today.’

‘You can forget about dinner,’ Jake said. ‘You and I have got work to do.’ She explained about Parmenides finding Wittgenstein’s
A-Z.
‘Apart from the ones he’s already hit, I want every one of these addresses put under round-the-clock surveillance. Don’t inform the occupants. No sense in alarming them unnecessarily. But if Wittgenstein tries to kill inside London again, we’ll have him.’

Jake allowed herself a small smile of satisfaction.

‘Let’s just pray he’s not tired of working in London,’ said Stanley.

Jake smiled. ‘You know what they say about the man who’s tired of London ... ?’

A
LECTURE IN memory of John Williams, before the Society of Connoisseurs in Murder, is traditionally an occasion to celebrate the fine art of murder, and I am honoured to have been asked to deliver it.

John Williams, one of the earliest British members of the modern aesthetic movement in murder, was a distinguished representative of those cultural values which are closest to my own heart. Like paintings or sculpture it is certain that murders too have their own peculiar differences and shades of merit, and when one examines the facts surrounding the two murders which John committed in December 1811, it should be clear to us all that he was indeed a great artist.

He was not trained as such; nor was he particularly aware of his gift. But I think he would have been the first to recognise that Art is never standing still: that what might be dismissed as foul murder today might be Art tomorrow. This principle is also mine. That one murder is better or worse than another in point of aesthetics is something I have based my whole philosophy of life upon.

As Thomas De Quincey, the previous occupant of this illustrious chair, said, in the first of his two Williams lectures: ‘Murder ... may be laid hold of by its moral handle (as it generally is in the pulpit and at the Old Bailey); and that, I confess, is its weak side; or it may also be treated aesthetically, as the Germans call it - that is, in relation to good taste.’

The moral issue is neatly disposed of by De Quincey. He argues that when a murder has not yet been done, when there exists merely an intent to commit murder, then it behoves us to treat it morally. But once a murder is over and done with, then, he says, what’s the use of any more virtue? What indeed? But enough has been said about morality. Now comes the turn of taste and the fine arts.

I do not propose to spend too long referring back to De Quincey. But it would be wrong if I did not acknowledge my own personal debt to the thoughts which he expressed to this society as long ago as 1827, on the need to murder philosophers.

Would that Descartes had been killed, says Thomas. Hobbes was a fine subject for murder. Certainly one might have counted on Leibniz being murdered. Kant narrowly escaped being murdered. And, despite what is commonly held, De Quincey reveals not only that Spinoza met a violent and well-deserved end, but also that Bishop Berkeley murdered Père Malebranche by means of an argument which deranged his liver.

Today it is even more obvious just how much good can result from the murder of one dusty, arid, old philosopher. Both Marx and Freud were murdered by Jaspers. Bertrand Russell and G. E. Moore should have been murdered by Wittgenstein, as Ramsey certainly was. Heidegger died very properly at the hands of A. J. Ayer. It can be argued that Quine may indeed have murdered Strawson, however if he did, it could only have been with the assistance of Skinner. And Chomsky, well Chomsky may turn out to have killed nearly everyone he came into contact with.

That is another matter, however, and I shall say no more of it on this occasion. But before I come to the main subject of my lecture, which is ‘The Perfect Murder’, it is worth reminding my audience that such views as are expressed here are not likely to find favour with certain sections of the community. The gap which exists between the aesthetic ideals of this society and the dead letter of the law is dramatised, as I hope I may be excused for pointing out, by my absence. I must apologise for this. I did ask myself if I should take a risk and deliver my lecture in person. The answer was, more or less, ‘What would be the chances of my being arrested and prevented from finishing my lecture?’ With regret and out of respect to the memory of John Williams, I took the point.

It is for this reason that I am obliged to deliver this lecture via the Injupitersatellite now orbiting the earth. Perhaps then this event could be thought of as a form of extra-terrestrial communication: you, the inhabitants of the earth, receiving a message by mysterious processes from the stars. What could be more metaphysical?

Two hundred years ago, De Quincey described the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as the Augustan Age of Murder — an age in which the fine art of murder flourished. A golden age of murder, so to speak. But what of our own age? Certainly the last hundred odd years have seen a greater quantity of murder than ever before. Has there also been an appreciable increase in the quality? Can we argue indeed that our times might have witnessed a renaissance in the art of murder?

Possibly. Let me begin by pointing out the huge influence that murder has had on all the other fine arts.

Cinema, now acknowledged as the dominant twentieth-century art form, has become a showcase for ingenious and wellchoreographed murder, albeit fictional. Few of us bat an eyelid when we see a murder on the screen, no matter how realistic.

The crime novel and murder mystery have never been more popular than they are today. Art and photographic exhibitions routinely include depictions of murders and their victims. In the performing arts also, shows like
West Side Story, Sweeney Todd, The Phantom of the Opera, Jack!, Ian and Myra,
and
The Yorkshire Ripper
have all made music out of murderous subjects.

But it is not just Art that finds its single most important inspirational motif in Murder. The imitation or simulation of murder has become modern society’s driving recreational force. An increasingly large number of Reality Approximation video games actually provide the player with the impression that he is killing people, sometimes in their hundreds.

Elsewhere, television news-gathering services are regularly deployed to report on murders as they are detected and solved, following which their perpetrators become the stars of their own televised trials and punishment. Frequently it happens that their stories are turned into books which are then made into films. And thus real life fuels Art and the whole thing comes full circle again.

In this way we may see how fundamental murder actually is in our society. It is quite unthinkable that there should not be murder as that there should not be lying. And here lies its artistic importance. If murder has been an important source of artistic inspiration to the twentieth century, we can surely find instances where murder itself may be judged artistically.

That murder can exist within the concept of an artistic ideal is more generally accepted than might at first be realised. People discuss a concept of the perfect murder with much greater frequency than they ever do the perfect painting, or the perfect poem, or the perfect symphony. It might even be argued on this evidence alone that it is only the fine art of murder in which artistic perfection can be achieved at all.

Yet what is the substance of that perfection? Not merely that the murderer should get away with it, although that is undoubtedly important. Simply pushing a man off a cliff on a dark stormy night might well be hard to prove, but it hardly seems to fulfil the ideal that exists within the concept of the perfect murder. The perfect murder has, at its heart, a degree of difficulty in the problem of how to kill someone and get away with it; and also an ingenuity as to how this problem is solved and carried out.

Of course, it is these rare perfect murders which are the paradigm of artistry in homicide and it is ironic that while they continue to remain in a state of perfection — that is, they are unsolved — the artistry must go unsung. It is only when they fall some way short of perfection that they may be celebrated at all.

Here is another argument for why murder must be considered as belonging to the finer arts. For almost every case of premeditated murder aims for that ideal of perfection. Murder allows for no compromise.

As I said earlier, the twentieth century has witnessed acts of murder on an unprecedented scale. Two world wars have served to devalue human life in general. Therefore it might seem unlikely that this last century should host a renaissance in the art of murder. Equally, there has been such a glut of assassinations in recent years that one might mistake quantity for quality. But there is little to be admired in the great majority of these murders, and most readers of the
News of the World
are satisfied with anything, provided it is bloody enough. Good taste, however, requires something more.

In searching for examples of murders which might distinguish this century from previous times, one must look around for some kind of yardstick as to how they may be judged. Here I think that one can do no better than to adopt De Quincey’s own rough rule of thumb. Nerve is crucial, he tells us; and the degree of the murderer’s audacity may be judged from the time and place of the murder. Thus, there is an art in killing a man on a busy street during broad daylight and remaining undetected. But most important of all, he argues, is the victim himself: he ought to be a good man, since only thus can the final artistic purpose of murder be demonstrated. This purpose is the same as that of tragedy which exists, in Aristotle’s phrase, ‘to cleanse the heart by means of pity and terror’. As De Quincey explains, how can there be any pity for one tiger who is destroyed by another tiger?

De Quincey shrinks from providing examples himself, as might be expected of a man whose familiarity with killing extended only as far as an attempt on the life of a tom cat.

On the other hand, I have no such scruples. It is true that I cannot claim to have killed any good men, whose deaths would arouse pity. The men I have killed would undoubtedly have killed many others. But still, you find your own murderous vocation where you can and my own personal tally of murders surpasses an attempt on a mere cat. I will, of course, be murdering in this fashion once again, at the conclusion of my lecture.

I think I may with some justification then, claim myself equal to the task of judging the artistic merit of other murders; But before I turn to an examination of various victims and their murderers, I must say just a few words about the means whereby murder is done.

The finest work of the nineteenth century, occurring so late in the century that it is tempting to regard them as belonging properly to the twentieth century are, without doubt the White-chapel murders of 1888.

Nevertheless I am of the opinion that the nineteenth century’s greatest artist was not equal to the best in that which followed. Jack the Ripper may have achieved the status of a legend, however I cannot consent to place him on the same level as Ramon Mercader - even his name sounds like murder - the man who assassinated Trotsky in 1940.

Trotsky, you will remember, had been expelled from the Soviet Communist Party following his defeat at the hands of Stalin for the Party leadership. Trotsky fled Russia and settled in Mexico City where he continued to oppose Stalin. None of these facts, however, would serve to make Trotsky’s murder the work of art we judge it now. Our appreciation of this particular killing rests on one thing and one thing alone: Mercader’s unique choice of murder weapon. For what Paganini was to the violin, so Mercader was to the ice-pick. An inspired selection and one with which Mercader carried our art to a point of colossal sublimity. Consider for a moment the sharp symbolism of his choice: a crude, proletarian tool so very much like the hammer and sickle that graphically represents the Bolshevik Revolution. Ice so common in Russia, and yet the privilege only of the wealthy in Mexico. It was almost as if Mercader was trying to remind Trotsky, living comfortably in Mexico City, of his own socialist origins. Then, reflect upon the physical area that was the subject of Mercader’s assault, Trotsky’s brain, the last repository of powerful opposition to Stalin. Acting through the person of Mercader, Stalin seems almost literally to be making the point to Trotsky that he will destroy all such counter-revolutionary thinking. The hard and unyielding tyrant’s beak breaking upon the shell that contains the egg of opposition. Brilliant. Stalin rightly honoured this homicidal masterpiece by making Mercader a Hero of the Soviet Union. Can we do less than name Mercader as this century’s greatest exponent of the fine art of murder?