Nathan Leopold and Richard LoebTogether (4)
He knew Dick lied to him. But it just wasn't important. There was the time with the booze, when Dickie said it cost twice as much so Nathan would have to pay it all. There were his grades at school. "All A's my foot!"
But if Dickie gave a solumn word, he stuck to it. He truly believed in a promise. He was very mature about it.
Maybe that's why the New Year's thing was such a big deal.
They'd made an agreement about New Years. They were going to be together. They had no plans, but whatever they did, they would be together. Maybe go over to the Drake. They didn't know.
They made the plan last summer. Then Dick Rubel, "the bastard Jew" had to get involved.
And it all fell apart.
Dickie and Dick Rubel made plans behind Nathan's back- to go out New Year's on a double date with some stupid girls. A double date. Without Nathan.
And then Dickie lied, in that way he had. He tried to squirm out of it. And it all blew up.
Dick picked Nathan up at school and they drove and fought and fought and drove, and Dickie wouldn't let him out of the car.
Back at Nathan's, Nathan locked Dickie in his room.
The whole thing blew up at a really bad time. Almost like it was planned- just to ruin his trip to Boston.
The Goddamn Bastard. The trip was important. He was to give a talk at the American Ornithological Union about the Kirtland's Warbler. He was nervous. Excited. Proud. And Dick fucked it all up.
Dick accused Nathan of betraying a confidence, because Nathan said something to Dick Rubel. Dickie said Nathan had told Rubel confidences. Nathan denied it. They called Rubel. They dragged him right into it.
"Dick, when we were together yesterday, did I tell you that Dick Loeb had told me the things which I then told you, or that it was merely my opinion that I believed them to be so?"
"No," Rubel said, "you did not tell me that Dick told you these things, but said that they were in your opinion true."
After Dick left, alone in his room, Nathan wrote him a letter.
October 9th, 1923
Dear Dick:
In view of our former relations, I take it for granted that it is unnecessary to make any excuse for writing to you at this time, and still am going to state my reasons for doing so, as this may turn out to be a long letter, and I don't want to cause you the inconvenience of reading it all to find out what it contains if you are not interested in the subjects dealt with.
First, I am enclosing the document which I mentioned to you today, and which I will explain later. Second, I am going to tell you of a new fact which has come up since our discussion. And third, I am going to put in writing what my attitude is toward our present relations, with a view of avoiding future misunderstandings, and in the hope (which I think is rather vain) that possibly we may have misunderstood each other, and can yet clear this matter up.
Now, as to the first, I wanted you this afternoon, and still want you, to feel that we are on equal footing legally, and, therefore, I purposely commited the same tort of which you were guilty, the only difference being that in your case the facts would be harder to prove than in mine, should I deny them. The enclosed document should secure you against changing my mind in admitting the facts, if the matter should come up, as it would prove to any court that they were true.
As to the second. On your suggestion I immediately phoned Dick Rubel, and speaking from a paper prepared beforehand (to be sure of exact wording) said: "Dick, when we were together yesterday, did I tell you that Dick (Loeb) had told me the things which I then told you, or that it was merely my opinion that I believed them to be so?" I asked this twice to be sure he understood and on the same answer both times (which I took down as he spoke) felt that he did understand. He replied: "No, you did not tell me that Dick told you these things, but said that they were in your opinion true."
He further denied telling you subsequently that I had said that they were gleaned from conversation with you, and I then told him that he was quite right, that you never had told me. I further told him that this was merely your suggestion of how to settle a question of fact, that he was in no way implicated, and that neither of us would be angry with him at his reply. (I imply your ascent to this.) This of course proves that you were mistaken this afternoon in the question of my having actually and technically broken confidence, and voids my apology, which I made contingent on proof of this matter.
Now, as to the third, last, and most important question. When you came to my home this afternoon I expected either to break friendship with you or attempt to kill you unless you told me why you acted as you did yesterday. You did, however, tell me, and hence the question shifted to the fact that I would act as before if you persisted in thinking me treacherous, either in act (which you waived if Dick's opinion went with mine) or in intention.
Now, I apprehend, though here I am not quite sure, that you said that you did not think me treacherous in intent, nor ever have, but that you considered me in the wrong and expected such a statement from me. This statement I unconditionally refused to make until such time as I may have become convinced of its truth.
However, the question of our relation I think must be in your hands (unless the above conceptions are mistaken) inasmuch as you have satisfied first one and then the other requirement, upon which I agreed to refrain from attempting to kill you or refusing to continue our friendship. Hence I have no reason not to continue to be on friendly terms with you, and would under ordinary conditions continue as before.
The only question, then, is with you. You demand me to perform an act, namely, state that I acted wrongly. This I refuse. Now it is up to you to inflict the penalty for this refusal- at your discretion, to break friendship, inflict physical punishment, or anything else you like, or on the other hand, continue as before. The decision therefore, must rest with you. This is all of my opinion on the right and wrong of the matter.
Now comes a practical question. I think that I would ordinarily be expected to, and in fact do expect to continue my attitude toward you, as before, until I learn either by direct words or by conduct on your part which way your decision has been formed. This I shall do.
Now a word of advice. I do not wish to influence your decision either way, but I do want to warn you that in case you deem it advisable to discontinue our friendship, that in both out interests extreme care must be had. The motif of "A falling out of a pair of cocksuckers" would be sure to be popular, which is patently undesirable and forms an irksome but unavoidable bond between us. Therefore, it is, in my humble opinion, expedient, though our breech need be no less real in fact, yet to observe the conventionalities, such as salutation on the street and a general appearance of at least not unfriendly relations on all occasions when we may be thrown together in public.
Now, Dick,. I am going to make a request to which I have perhaps no right, and yet which I dare to make also for "Auld Lang Syne." Will you, if not too inconvenient, let me know your answer (before I leave tomorrow) on the last count? This, to which I have no right, would greatly help my peace of mind in the next few days when it is most neccessary to me. You can if you will merely call up my home before 12 noon and leave a message saying "Dick says yes," if you wish our relations to continue as before, and "Dick says no," if not.
It is unnecessary to add that your decision will of course have no effect on my keeping to myself our confidences of the past, and that I regret the whole affair more than I can say.
Hoping not to have caused you too much trouble in reading this, I am (for the present) as ever,
Babe
I, Nathan F Leopold Jr., being under no duress or compulsion, do hereby affirm and declare that on this, the 9th day of October 1923, I for reasons of my own locked the door of the room in which I was with one Richard A. Loeb, with the intent of blocking his only feasable mode of egress, and that I further indicated my intention of applying physical force upon the person of said Richard A Loeb if necessary to carry out my design, to-wit, to block his only feasible mode of egress.
Dick says Yes
| The Forgiveness Letter.
Toledo, Ohio, October 10, 1923, addressed to Mr. Richard A. Loeb, 5107 Ellis Avenue, Chicago, a special delivery letter. A "October 10, 20th Century Limited, 1:45 P.M. |
Dear Dick:
I want to thank you first of all for your kindness in granting my request of yesterday. I was highly gratified to hear from you for two reasons, the first sentimental and the second practical. The first of these is that your prompt reply conclusively proved my previous idea that the whole matter really did mean something to you, and that you respected my wishes, even though we were not very friendly. This is a great satisfaction, but the second is even greater, in that I imply from the general tenor of your letter that there is a good chance of a reconciliation between us, which I ardently desire, and this belief will give me a peace of mind on which I based my request.
But I fear, Dick, that your letter has failed to settle the controversy itself, as two points are still left open. These I will now attack. As I wrote you yesterday, the decision of our relations was in your hands, because it depended entirely on how you wished to treat my refusal to admit that I acted wrongly. This request you did not answer. You imply merely that because of my statement that, `I regret the whole matter' I am in part at least admitting what you desire. I thought twice before putting that phrase in my letter, for fear you might misconstrue it, as in fact you have done. First, you will note that I said that `I regret the whole matter' (not any single part of it). By this I meant that I regretted the crime you originally committed (your mistake in judgment) from which the whole consequences flow. But I did not mean and do not wish to understood as meaning that once this act had been done, I regret anything subsequent. I do not in fact regret it, because I feel sure, as I felt from the beginning, that should we again become friends, it will be on a basis of better mutual understanding as a result of these unpleasant consequences which I deliberately planned and precipitated. Furtherm even if I did not regret those consequences, it would not follow at all that I consider myself to have acted wrongly. I may regret that it is necessary to go downtown to the dentist, and still not feel that I am acting wrongly in so doing. Quite the contrary. So if you insist on my stating that I acted wrongly, as a prerequisite to our renewal of friendship, I feel it duty bound to point out to you that this is not the meaning of what I wrote. In this do not think that I am trying to avoid a renewal of these relations. You know how much I desire a renewal but I still feel that I must point this out to you, as I could not consider re-entering these relations when you were under the misapprehensions that I had conceded to what you demanded. On the basis of this construction of my words, then, Dick, should you base your decision. Next comes the other point of issue, namely, whether I wish to be a party to a reconciliation, supposing that you wish on the basis of the previous statements to do so. Here the decisions rests, not with you, but with me. Now, as I wrote you yesterday, you obviated my first reason for a refusal by telling me what I wanted to know, but another arose, the question of treachery, and that is not quite settled in my mind. For the purpose of this discussion, I shall not use the short term "treachery" as you suggested in your letter, to cover whatever you want to call it. I have no desire to quibble over terms, and am sure we both mean the same thing as treachery. Very well.
The whole question must be divided into two, namely, treachery in act and treachery in intention. On your suggestion, the first was to be settled by phoning Dick, as I did, I apologizing verbally on condition that you were right, and implying the same apology from you in case you were wrong.
You were proved wrong, and I am sure you are a good enough sport to stick by your statement, unless you question whether I did all you suggested in good faith. Hence, you remove any previous charge of treachery in act. If there was such. But the second is not so simple. I stated, and still hold, that if you still held me to have acted treacherously in intent, our friendship must cease. You circumvent that by saying you never could have held this opinion because you believe me to have acted hastily, etc. I did my best in stating I was wholly responsible for all I said and did, since I had planned it all, and if there were malice at all it would be malice afterthought. You refuse to believe me. Now, that is not my fault. I have done my best to tell you the true facts, (since they were in my disadvantage) and hence have discharged my obligation. I still insist that I have planned all I did. You can believe this or not as you like or come to your own decision, or whether you still think I acted treacherously. If you say you do not, then I shall infer either that you never thought so (although you accuse me of it) or that you have changed your mind (and imply these as an apology for ever thinking so) and continue to be your friend. All I want from you then is a statement; that you do not now think me to have acted treacherously in intent, which I will construe as above. Then it is up to you whether you will forego my statement of wrong action or will on your part break up our friendship. Please wire me at my expense to the Biltmore Hotel, New York, immediately on receipt, stating, one, whether you wish to "break our friendship or to forego my statement, or, two, whether or not you still think me to have acted treacherously. If you want further discussion on either point merely wire me that you must see me to discuss it before you decide. Now, that is all that is in point to our controversy but I am going to ask a little more in an effort to explain my system of a Neitzschien philosophy with regard to you. It may have occurred to you why a mere mistake in judgment on your part should be treated as a crime, when on the part of another it should not be so considered. Here are the reasons. In formulating a superman, he is, on account of certain superior qualities inherent in him exempted from the ordinary laws which govern ordinary men. He is not liable for anything he may do. Whereas others would be, except for the crime that it is possible for him to commit--to make a mistake. Now, obviously any code which conferred upon an individual or upon a group extraordinary privileges without also putting on him extraordinary responsibility would be unfair and bad. Therefore, an ubermensch is held to have committed a crime every time he errs in judgment, a mistake excusable in others. But you may say that you have previously made mistakes which I do not treat as crimes. This is true. To cite an example, the other night you expressed the opinion and insisted that Marcus Aurelius Antonius was, "practically the founder of stoicism", and in so doing you committed a crime. But it was a slight crime and I choose to forgive it. Similarly I have and had before this matter reached--I don't know what the next word is--forgiven the crime which you committed in committing the error in judgment which caused the whole train of events. I did not and do not wish to charge you with a crime, but I feel justified in using any of the consequences of your crime for which you were held responsible to my advantage. This and only this I did, so you see how careful you must be.
Now, Dick, just one more word to sum up. Supposing you fulfill both conditions necessary for reconciliation. One, waive claim to my statement, and, two, state yourself that you no longer think me to have acted treacherously. We are going to be as good or better friends as before.
I want that to come about very much, but not at the expense of your thinking that I have backed down in any way from my stand, as I am sure of that in my mind and want you to be.
Well, Dick, the best of luck if I do not see you again and thanks in advance for the wire, I am sure you will be good enough to send. Hoping you will be able to decide in the way I obviously want,
I am
Babe.
P.S. Excuse scrawl. Train is moving. Your spelling, young man, is abominable, and I for one should advocate that Tomeie-boy be taken away from your instruction in the subject.
Materials used in leopoldandloeb.com include original works of authorship, works for which copyright has expired, or works that we believe to fall within fair use protection of copyright law. All original work is copyright © Marianne Rackliffe 2000-2009. This is an educational, non-commercial site. Original work may not be reprinted without permission, except as falls under "fair use". email