Roland and Raimond plot to kill Rosalie for dissection

Rodin and Raimond plot to kill Rosalie for dissection after deciding that her body could serve their anatomical research. The plan is not presented as a momentary impulse: the two men discuss the proposed killing over dinner, build a defense out of scientific and philosophical claims, and prepare to act that same evening. Thérèse’s discovery turns their abstract argument into an immediate threat, and her attempt to rescue Rosalie ends in their capture of both women.

The Plan and Its Stated Purpose

Thérèse learns of the plot by hiding near the room where Rodin and Raimond are dining. Rodin argues that anatomical study cannot reach its ultimate perfection without examining a young girl who has died a violent death. Raimond adds a specific research objective: studying the hymen, which he claims cannot be examined reliably after puberty. He says Rosalie, at fifteen, has not yet matured, and asserts that the men’s prior abuse of her has not damaged the tissue they wish to investigate.

The conversation makes the proposed murder appear deliberate and prepared rather than speculative. Raimond says he is pleased Rodin has finally made up his mind, while Rodin complains that considerations he calls futile obstruct scientific progress. He invokes the example of Michelangelo depicting a young man in his death agonies and compares their intended act to the sacrifice of an individual for the supposed benefit of many. In this reasoning, a young person’s life becomes an expendable instrument of research.

Rodin’s Arguments for Violence

Rodin treats his relationship to Rosalie not as a restraint but as a claim of authority. When Raimond acknowledges that she is Rodin’s daughter, Rodin dismisses the importance of that bond and says that a father has the right to dispose of his children. He supports this claim by citing historical examples and practices, including laws and customs he attributes to the Persians, Medes, Armenians, Greeks, Romans, and other societies. He also invokes Peter the Great to bolster his assertion that a father may sentence a child to death.

The broader argument rests on Rodin’s account of Nature as indifferent to individual life. He claims that killing does not destroy matter but only changes its form, and that Nature is neither offended nor diminished by human violence. From that premise he concludes that murder can be treated as morally insignificant—or, when it serves research, as beneficial. He ultimately reverses ordinary moral language: the crime, in his view, would be refusing himself the pleasure of committing the act. The speech reveals how an abstract claim about Nature is made to license a specific act of violence against someone under his control.

Desire and the Use of a Scientific Pretext

Rodin also discloses that his connection to Rosalie is governed by his own appetites rather than affection. He says she has served his pleasures for five years and that his loss of interest has brought the time for her death. The claim of scientific necessity therefore sits beside an openly personal motive: he wants to dispose of Rosalie when she no longer satisfies him. The planned dissection gives that decision a language of public utility, but Rodin’s account links it to his private gratification and convenience.

Raimond acts as an accomplice who makes the proposed research sound methodical and feasible. He identifies the anatomical object of study, describes why he considers Rosalie suitable, and encourages Rodin’s resolve. The two men reinforce one another’s arguments: scientific ambition, parental power, and claims about historical custom converge to silence the possibility that Rosalie’s own life or wishes should matter.

Thérèse’s Attempt to Intervene

Having heard enough to understand that Rosalie is in imminent danger, Thérèse recognizes that there is no time to lose. She runs to the cellar where Rosalie is confined and tells her that Rodin and Raimond intend to act that night. Thérèse makes a violent effort to break down the door; when something gives way, she finds the key, opens the door, embraces Rosalie, and urges her to flee. Rosalie sets off, with Thérèse promising to follow.

The escape fails at the threshold. Rodin appears with Raimond and the governess, catches Rosalie just as she crosses the doorway, and accuses Thérèse of encouraging her flight. Thérèse answers that she had to act because Rodin was plotting against his daughter’s life. Rodin recasts the rescue as wrongdoing by calling it the abduction of a daughter from her father, then orders both women back inside. Rosalie is tied to a bedpost, while Rodin and Raimond turn against Thérèse; the men threaten to use her body for an experiment of their own. Their response demonstrates the practical consequence of the philosophy they have just advanced: those who claim the right to determine another person’s fate also punish anyone who tries to resist.

Narrative and Thematic Significance

The scene binds argument to action. Rodin’s extended defense of murder is followed not by an abstract debate but by Thérèse’s urgent attempt to open a locked door and get Rosalie out. The shift exposes the material stakes concealed by the men’s polished appeals to science and law: a captive girl’s life is at risk, and the speaker claiming intellectual authority is also the parent controlling her confinement.

The plot also recalls a recurring pattern in which characters use broad principles to defend self-interest. Elsewhere, Monsieur du Harpin presents theft as a force that equalizes property, and Clement argues that individual tastes should not be restrained by law or convention. Rodin’s defense is more extreme: he converts claims about Nature and historical precedent into permission to kill his own daughter. In each case, an argument framed as universal or philosophical serves the speaker’s immediate advantage. Thérèse’s attempted rescue supplies the opposing measure of the scene—not a counter-theory, but a concrete effort to protect Rosalie from the consequences of Rodin’s reasoning.