His clever essay, Murder as a Fine Art, we trust, was not founded on facts. This delightful bit of foolery, one of his many witty effusions, can be given only in part.
MURDER AS ONE OF THE FINE ARTS
The first murder is familiar to you all. As the inventor of murder, and the father of the art, Cain must have been a man of first-rate genius. All the Cains were men of genius. Tubal Cain invented tubes, I think, or some such thing. But, whatever might be the originality and genius of the artist, every art was then in its infancy, and the works must be criticised with the recollection of that fact. Even Tubal’s work would probably be little approved at this day in Sheffield; and therefore of Cain (Cain senior, I mean) it is no disparagement to say, that his performance was but so-so. Milton, however, is supposed to have thought differently. By his way of relating the case, it should seem to have been rather a pet murder with him, for he retouches it with an apparent anxiety for its picturesque effect:
“Whereat he inly raged; and, as they talk’d,
Smote him into the midriff with a stone
That beat out life. He fell; and, deadly pale,
Groan’d out his soul with gushing blood effused.”
Upon this, Richardson the painter, who had an eye for effect, remarks as follows, in his Notes on Paradise Lost, p. 497: “It has been thought,” says he, “that Cain beat—as the common saying is—the breath out of his brother’s body with a great stone; Milton gives in to this, with the addition, however, of a large wound.”
But it is time that I should say a few words about the principles of murder, not with a view to regulate your practice, but your judgment. As to old women, and the mob of newspaper readers, they are pleased with anything, provided it is bloody enough; but the mind of sensibility requires something more. First, then, let us speak of the kind of person who is adapted to the purpose of the murderer; secondly, of the place where; thirdly, of the time when, and other little circumstances.