Short Fiction · Chapter
The Assassin explained
A young defense attorney argues that Jean-Nicolas Lougère, who murdered his employer M.
What happens
A young defense attorney argues that Jean-Nicolas Lougère, who murdered his employer M. Langlais, is not a common criminal but a man driven by a deep, almost religious reverence for honor and integrity. Lougère, a model employee and devoted husband, was shattered by his first wife's death. Lonely, he married a café cashier who deceived him shamelessly, even seducing his employer's son. When Langlais confronted Lougère about his wife's infidelity, Lougère, in a blind rage, killed him with a pair of scissors. The attorney pleads that Lougère's reverence, not malice, led to the crime, and the jury acquits him.
Themes in this chapter
Illusion vs. Reality
Lougère lives in a state of blind reverence, unable to see his wife's infidelity until it is forced upon him, leading to a violent confrontation with reality.
Marriage and Domesticity
The story contrasts Lougère's first, ideal marriage with his second, exploitative one, showing how domestic life can be both a sanctuary and a trap.
Obsession and Delusion
Lougère's obsessive reverence for honor and his delusion about his wife's fidelity drive him to murder.
Characters to notice
- Jean-Nicolas Lougère
The defendant, a cashier who murdered his employer. Portrayed as a reverent, simple-minded man driven to violence by his wife's betrayal.
- Monsieur Langlais
The victim, Lougère's employer. He confronted Lougère about his wife's affair with his son, leading to his death.
- Madame Langlais
Witness to Lougère's character; her testimony supports his reputation as a model employee.
Key passages
“The reverent man has his eyes shut. He believes. We others, whose eyes are wide open to the world, who live here, in this palace of justice which is the sewer of society, into which every infamy is emptied... we cannot retain a reverent mind.”
A reverent person is blind to reality, while those in the legal profession, exposed to all of society's corruption, lose that innocence.
The defense attorney contrasts Lougère's naive faith with the cynical knowledge of the court.
“He blundered in appealing immediately to Lougère and speaking to him in the heat of his paternal indignation.”
M. Langlais made a mistake by confronting Lougère angrily about his son's affair.
The attorney criticizes Langlais's approach, implying it triggered the fatal rage.