payment page
Poe’s Dupin stories had an easier time finding a critical audience than many of his more grotesque and gothic short stories. Around the time of its publication, critics admired the Dupin tales, and “The Purloined Letter” in particular for their depiction of logic and deduction. Months after it was published in the September 1844 gift book, The Gift: A Christmas, New Year, and Birthday Present, it was reprinted in Chambers’ Edinburgh Journal, whose editorial team loved it so much that they included a note explaining that they even rejected some of their usual contributors to make room for the story, calling Poe “an acute observer of mental phenomena.” Poe himself was satisfied with “The Purloined Letter,” calling it his “best tale of ratiocination.” For years “The Purloined Letter” was primarily enjoyed as an excellent detective story, admired by all who attempted the genre, including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
In the mid-20th century, however, “The Purloined Letter” became a lightning rod for some of the most influential philosophers and literary critics in academia, most notably Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida. Lacan’s famous psychoanalytic reading of the story notes that the actual content of the royal lady’s letter, which we never learn, matters less than what the letter signifies—that is, her treason. Lacan argues that the letter is a pure signifier, something that only means something outside of itself. He uses this signifier to psychoanalytically examine the dynamic between the King, Queen, and Minister D— as an Oedipal triad, with the King and Queen as symbolic parents. This talk spurred criticism from Jacques Derrida, a pioneer of post-structural theory. Derrida’s complicated deconstruction of Lacan’s argument stems from his belief that Lacan’s psychoanalytic focus ignores that the letter is only a small part of a larger story, which in turn is part of three stories. As more scholars joined the conversation, the debate became about what literary criticism is meant to reveal about a work. The debate grew into a large body of literary criticism that was cataloged in the1987 volume The Purloined Poe, edited by John P. Muller and William J. Richardson.
All these contradictory and complex readings were emblematic of the newest schools of literary criticism at the time. Alongside this specific debate, other scholars seized on the story’s interesting features, such as binary oppositions (math vs. poetry), political intrigue, and the mystery of the letter’s contents to explore a myriad of topics, including semiotics, gender, and political theory. Feminist critics such as Cynthia S. Jordan have examined the Queen’s role in the story and the contradiction between her powerlessness if called out by the King but ultimate power over Minister D— once she retrieves the letter. Other critics, such as Richard Hull, have focused on the police’s surveillance of Minister D—, bringing the story into contemporary concerns about state surveillance and the state’s power over life and death. The sheer breadth of scholarly interest in “The Purloined Letter” demonstrates the story’s power to constantly inspire new and interesting ways of looking at it.
