For，inrespecttothelatterbranchofthesupposition，itshouldbeconsideredthatthemosttriflingvariationinthefactsofthetwocasesmightgiverisetothemostimportantmiscalculations，bydivertingthoroughlythetwocoursesofevents；verymuchas，inarithmetic，anerrorwhich，initsownindividuality，maybeinappreciable，produces，atlength，bydintofmultiplicationatallpointsoftheprocess，aresultenormouslyatvariancewithtruth。
And，inregardtotheformerbranch，wemustnotfailtoholdinviewthattheveryCalculusofProbabilitiestowhichIhavereferred，forbidsallideaoftheextensionoftheparallel：-forbidsitwithapositivenessstronganddecidedjustinproportionasthisparallelhasalreadybeenlong-drawnandexact。Thisisoneofthoseanomalouspropositionswhich，seeminglyappealingtothoughtaltogetherapartfromthemathematical，isyetonewhichonlythemathematiciancanfullyentertain。Nothing，forexample，ismoredifficultthantoconvincethemerelygeneralreaderthatthefactofsixeshavingbeenthrowntwiceinsuccessionbyaplayeratdice，issufficientcauseforbettingthelargestoddsthatsixeswillnotbethrowninthethirdattempt。Asuggestiontothiseffectisusuallyrejectedbytheintellectatonce。Itdoesnotappearthatthetwothrowswhichhavebeencompleted，andwhichlienowabsolutelyinthePast，canhaveinfluenceuponthethrowwhichexistsonlyintheFuture。Thechanceforthrowingsixesseemstobepreciselyasitwasatanyordinarytime-thatistosay，subjectonlytotheinfluenceofthevariousotherthrowswhichmaybemadebythedice。Andthisisareflectionwhichappearssoexceedinglyobviousthatattemptstocontrovertitarereceivedmorefrequentlywithaderisivesmilethanwithanythinglikerespectfulattention。Theerrorhereinvolved-agrosserrorredolentofmischief-Icannotpretendtoexposewithinthelimitsassignedmeatpresent；andwiththephilosophicalitneedsnoexposure。ItmaybesufficientheretosaythatitformsoneofaninfiniteseriesofmistakeswhichariseinthepathorReasonthroughherpropensityforseekingtruthindetail。
{*1}Upontheoriginalpublicationof“MarieRoget。”thefoot-notesnowappendedwereconsideredunnecessary；butthelapseofseveralyearssincethetragedyuponwhichthetaleisbased，rendersitexpedienttogivethem，andalsotosayafewwordsinexplanationofthegeneraldesign。Ayounggirl，MaryCeciliaRogers，wasmurderedinthevicinityofNewYork；and，althoughherdeathoccasionedanintenseandlong-enduringexcitement，themysteryattendingithadremainedunsolvedattheperiodwhenthepresentpaperwaswrittenandpublishedNovember，1842。Herein，underpretenceofrelatingthefateofaParisiangrisette，theauthorhasfollowedinminutedetail，theessential，whilemerelyparallelingtheinessentialfactsoftherealmurderofMaryRogers。Thusallargumentfoundeduponthefictionisapplicabletothetruth：andtheinvestigationofthetruthwastheobject。The“MysteryofMarieRoget“wascomposedatadistancefromthesceneoftheatrocity，andwithnoothermeansofinvestigationthanthenewspapersafforded。Thusmuchescapedthewriterofwhichhecouldhaveavailedhimselfhadhebeenuponthespot，andvisitedthelocalities。Itmaynotbeimpropertorecord，nevertheless，thattheconfessionsoftwopersons，oneofthemtheMadameDelucofthenarrativemade，atdifferentperiods，longsubsequenttothepublication，confirmed，infull，notonlythegeneralconclusion，butabsolutelyallthechiefhypotheticaldetailsbywhichthatconclusionwasattained。
TheNewYork“Mercury。”
TheNewYork“BrotherJonathan。”editedbyH。HastingsWeld，Esq。