The mystery in the Drood family

Front matter

FROM THE INCOME OF THE

FISKE ENDOWMENT FUND

THE BEQUEST OF

Preface

IT needs a considerable amount of assurance to add yet another book to the comparatively long list of those which have been written upon the subject of Dickens's unfinished story, and it is no sufl&cient justification to assert that the writer is sincerely convinced that his contribution to the discussion will afford some assistance in the solution of the problem, seeing that practically everyone who has ventilated his ideas upon the subject has expressed a similar conviction. Proctor, for instance, who was the first to examine Edwin Drood in a quasi-scientific way, was absolutely satisfied that in identifying Datchery with Edwin, he had discovered the " mystery " which Dickens had taken such pains to hide, and so strongly did he feel that his solution was correct, that he exhibited considerable impatience with those who failed to swallow it whole. Mr J. Cuming Walters, again, the originator of the highly ingenious viii Preface

Helena-Datchery theory, is equally convinced that he has imearthed Dickens's secret, and, like Proctor, he has supported his views by means of numerous arguments drawn from the text, which, if they do not carry conviction to every mind, are nevertheless sufl&ciently weighty to call for very careful examination, more particularly as they have succeeded in securing as adherents of the theory two such acute critics and eminent scholars as Dr Henry Jackson and Sir W. R. Nicoll. In these circumstances the present writer considers that it would be presumption on his part to express any definite opinion as to the accuracy of his own conclusions, and he feels that some apology is needed for the dogmatism which, upon a re-reading of this Uttle essay, seems to him at times to be only too apparent. His excuse must be, that when an idea takes possession of the mind so completely as to become almost an obsession, it is liable to warp the judgment to such an extent that even the possibility of any other \iew being reasonably entertained seems too remote to require serious consideration, and as this book was written red-hot under the influence of

Preface ix

such an idea, it is inevitable that it must be tainted with the fault of over-assurance. The same cause has also led him to criticise the work of other enquirers more freely than he otherwise would have done, and certainly more confidently than his literary inexperience warrants, and accordingly he hastens to assure those who may think it worth while to examine and dissect his own arguments, that he will not resent any strictures, however severe, that they may feel called upon to pass on the views which he has enunciated or developed. It is hardly necessary for him to state that he is painfully aware of his literary short-comings, and that he asserts no pretensions to style, being satisfied if he has succeeded in expressing his views clearly, and in bringing out the full force of the arguments which he believes can be adduced in their support ; he trusts, therefore, that such criticisms as may be expressed with reference to his work, will be addressed rather to the matter than the form of it, and he will sincerely welcome criticism of this nature, as tending to test and evaluate the strength of his arguments and the validity of his various

X Preface

theories. However confidently he may appear to have expressed the views which he has advanced, he hopes that he has a sufficiently open mind fuUy to appreciate the force of the objections which may be urged against them, and he is not so strongly wedded to any particular theory as to be desirous of supporting it against the weight of evidence. His sole desire is to discover, or to assist in discovering, the true solution of Dickens's puzzle, and if his own ideas are shown to be imtenable, he will have no hesitation in abandoning them.

If, however, it should be considered that he has been fortunate enough to have hit upon the true solution of any of the numerous problems which Edwin Drood presents, he would point out that he has enjoyed the immense advantage of being in a position to profit by the work of prior investigators, by whom the ground has been so thoroughly surveyed and minutely examined as in several cases almost to compel him, by the mere process of exhaustion, to adopt the conclusions at which he has arrived. As one instance of this may be cited the identification

Preface xi

of Datchery, and as another, his interpretation of the enigmatic picture forming the lower part of the original wrapper of the monthly Parts, which has given rise to almost as many readings as there have been commentators. The suggestion now advanced with regard to this picture is not, and, in the circumstances, could not be, original, but in the opinion of the writer it gains greater probability both from the fact that it is the logical outcome of the main plot which he has outlined, and from the circumstance that it explains and justifies the much-debated title of Chapter xiv. In the same way, many of the arguments which he has employed to support his own theories, or to combat those of earlier enquirers, have no doubt been presented before, and probably with far superior clarity and greater cogency, and he accordingly hesitates to advance a claim to originality in respect of any one of them, but as his first-hand acquaintance with the literature upon the subject does not extend beyond the magazine articles of Proctor, and the works of Sir W. R. NicoU and Dr Henry Jackson, he may perhaps be acquitted of having consciously plagiarised xii Preface

the ideas of other A^rriters. He desires, however, to acknowledge his very great indebtedness to Sir W. R. McoU, without the aid of whose scholarly and exhaustive book this little essay could hardly have been written, and although the conclusions at which he has arrived are in most instances totally at variance with those adopted by Sir William, yet his obligations to that work are in no wise diminished on that account.

It is only due to the " Dickens Fellowship " to state that this essay owes its origin to the fact that the writer's attention was drawn to the fascinating problem of the discovery of Dickens's secret by the press notices of the mock trial of John Jasper for the murder of Edwin Drood, which that society organised in January last. While obviously it would not be fair to try and shift on to other shoulders the responsibility which naturally devolves upon a writer who is venturesome enough to advance a new theory concerning Dickens's plot, it is impossible to dispute the fact that the society must be held accountable for the interest in the problem which the trial aroused, and to that extent, therefore, it must

Preface xiii

be prepared to accept responsibility for the natural consequences of its act.

Lastly, the author wishes to express his gratitude to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for having kindly undertaken the publication of this book.

Chapter I

Dickens's unfinished story presents us not with one, but with many mysteries, none of which, I believe, has yet been satisfactorily solved. Efforts have, up to the present, been principally directed to the solution of the problems connected with the identity of Datchery, the death or escape of Edwin, and the identity of the opium woman, and the main idea of the book has been either completely overlooked, or treated as of secondary importance only ; logically, I think the process should have been reversed, and that the theme around which Dickens wove his romance shotild have received primary attention, inasmuch as discovery of the leading motive might possibly throw light upon the minor mysteries, and accordingly I shall endeavour in the first place to ascertain whether there is any material from which the nature of the

2 The Mystery in the Brood Family

main theme can fairly be inferred, regarding this, in fact, as the main mystery.

So far as regards external evidence, we find Dickens writing to Forster : "I have a very curious and new idea for my new story ; not a communicable idea (or the interest of the book would be gone) but a very strong one, though difficult to work." I lay some stress upon the word " new," first, because Mr R. A, Proctor, who identifies Datchery with Edwin, considers the main theme of the story to be the tracking of Jasper, the supposed murderer, by Edwin, his supposed victim, an idea which Dickens had admittedly already used on several previous occasions, and secondly, because, as Sir W. Robertson Nicoll points out, the idea of a young girl assuming a disguise had been used in No Name. I think, therefore, that if Dickens had meant either of those ideas to form his main plot, he would hardly have qualified it as new, and for that reason I suggest that neither Proctor's nor Mr Cuming Walters' s theory, even if correct, which I doubt, would satisfactorily explain Dickens's statement quoted above. The supporters of the Helena-Datchery view certainly partly avoid this particular objection, as the assumption by a young girl of the character of such a man as Datchery was, I think, new, so far as Dickens was concerned ; but I hardly think that Dickens would have said of an idea of this nature that it was " very curious " or that it was " not a communicable idea " or " a very strong one, though difficult to work." In the first place, I cannot see that the " interest of the book would be gone," even although we knew Helena to be Datchery ; in the second place, a craftsman like Dickens would hardly have considered such an idea as " difficult to work," and lastly, I am convinced that he would not have qualified it as " very strong." The difficult-to-work objection seems the gravest, as there would seem to have been no great difficulty either in effectually disguising Helena, had Dickens set out with the intention of doing so, or in locating her in Cloisterham, instead of taking her up to London, as he does, but both the " very curious " and " very strong " expressions appear to me also to be quite inapplicable to the Helena-Datchery hypothesis. Neither of the theories of attempted-

1—2 murder-and-escape, and murder-and-disco veryby-the-ring, seems to me in itself to merit Dickens's description of " very curious and new, incommunicable, very strong, difficult to work," and I am consequently of opinion that we must look elsewhere for " the plan," as Sir W. R. Nicoll puts it, which " Dickens had in his mind, and half revealed and half concealed." The first likely suggestion that we find in the story itself is in Chapter iii, where animal magnetism and two states of consciousness are referred to, and this suggestion is somewhat strengthened by the scene at the piano described in Chapter vn, by Crisparkle's memorable night-walk, which we find in Chapter xvi, and finally by the whole of the conversation between Jasper and Rosa, set out in detail in Chapter xix. It is not at all improbable that animal magnetism was in some way intended to be used by Dickens ; it would certainly be " incommunicable, or the interest of the book would be gone," but I cannot say whether the idea would have been new at the time Edwin Drood was being written, nor whether at that time it would have been thought " very curious." At the same time it hardly appears to me to merit the epithet " a very strong one " employed by Dickens himself, and personally, I should be inclined to regard it as easy, rather than difficult, to work ; that, however, is purely a matter of opinion, and I cannot pretend to the slightest authority on this point. On the whole, however, while admitting that animal magnetism may quite possibly have something to do with the plot, and while, like Mr Grewgious, keeping an eye on every direction that may present itself, I incline to the opinion that the suggestion that I am now about to put forward embodies Dickens's leading idea.

In the notes which Dickens made for the chapters which he wrote, we find, under Chapter xn, the following entry : " Jasper's diary ? Yes," and again under Chapter xvr, a similar note : " Jasper's diary." The notes for Chapter xn are, comparatively speaking, long, and deal with so many points that, in my opinion, it would not have been possible to dispose of them all in one chapter ; we find, as a fact, that in Chapter x, although there is nothing in the notes to this effect, Jasper produces his diary to Crisparkle, wherein he has set out his fears for Edwin at the hands of Neville, and this, I take it, disposes of the note under Chapter xn. The production of the diary to Crisparkle at this point, is, in my view, evidently intended to prepare the reader for the later production at the end of Chapter xvi, so that it may then appear natural, and not excite any particular attention ; if this supposition be correct, Dickens certainly succeeded in achieving his object. Under the notes for Chapter xvi, immediately after the words " Jasper's diary," we find, " I devote myself to his destruction," and if we turn to the end of that chapter, where the quotation from the diary appears in fuU, we see how this last phrase has been expanded : "I now swear, and record the oath on this page, that I never more will discuss this mystery with any human creature luitil I hold the clue to it in my hand. That I will never relax in my secrecy or in my search. That I will fasten the crime of the murder of my dear dead boy upon the murderer. That I will devote myseK to his destruction."

Now, if Jasper were a murderer (or intended to be a murderer) and desired to put

Crisparkle off the scent, the earUer production of his diary to the latter, before Edwin's disappearance, would have sufficed to attain this object ; from this point of view, the communication at the end of Chapter xvi, made, as Dickens states, " without one spoken word," reaUy took the matter no further. This consideration, in conjunction with Dickens's notes, leads me to the belief that the entry in Jasper's diary last referred to, was quoted in order to convey something to the reader, if he could only perceive it. Can we discover what that something was ? Suppose, now, that Dickens meant every line and every word of this entry to be read literally, as conveying the simple truth ; that he meant it to be fulfilled word for word, and letter for letter ; and suppose also that Jasper was, or thought himself to be (for it does not very much matter for this purpose which view we adopt) the murderer. We are forced, upon these lines, to " a very curious and very strong idea, difficiilt to work, and not communicable without endangering the iaterest of the story"; namely, the idea of a murderer attempting and intending to fasten his crime on to another, but in reality tracking himself, and involuntarily putting the noose round his own neck ! So far as I am aware, such an idea was entirely new, and in Dickens's hands it would have been highly dramatic ; he would have seen and rejoiced in its possibilities, although we can quite understand that he would also have foreseen the difficulties of its treatment.

That Jasper was and had good reason for being at work endeavouring to fix the crime upon Neville, is plainly to be gathered from subsequent passages. First, there is the interview with Honeythunder, where the latter tells Crisparkle that he would be better employed in devoting himself to the discovery and pim^ishment of the murderer than in leaving that duty to be undertaken by a layman, showing clearly that Jasper had been in communication with Honeythunder on this subject. (Dickens deleted this passage, for some unknown reason ; possibly desiring, as Honeythunder was a character he intended to utilise further, not to disclose the presumably close relations between him and Jasper. I think, by the way, that Honeythunder was present at Mrs Crisparkle's dinner-party, in order that Jasper might make his acquaintance naturally.) Next, there is the conversation between Sapsea and Datchery (which Dickens also deleted) in which Sapsea, Jasper's tool, stated that there were more than suspicions, all but certainties, of some one. Thirdly, there is Jasper's own declaration to Rosa: "Mr Crisparkle knows under my hand that I have devoted myself to the murderer's discovery and destruction, he he whom he might, and that I determined to discuss the mystery with no one until I should hold the clue in which to entangle the murderer as in a net. I have since worked patiently to wind and wind it round him ; and it is slowly winding as I speak." And lastly, there is the fact of Jasper watching Neville, as Grewgious had discovered. Jasper the murderer, whether in deed or intention, Honeythunder the bully, Sapsea the jackass, possibly also Bazzard the fool, are all labouring to convict Neville of the crime, a task in which we have every reason for believing that they did not succeed ; would it not be an excellent denouement if Jasper and his allies in this nefarious plot

10 The Mystery in the Brood Family

merely succeeded in achieving the result which Justice demands, namely, that of convicting Jasper himself of the deed ?

While there is not, and cannot be, any direct evidence that this was the plot which Dickens had in his mind, nevertheless I think that I am justified in saying that it fits in better with all the known facts than any of the other theories yet advanced. In particular, it satisfactorily explains Dickens's note to Forster, in every detail, while it also supplies a valid reason for the second production to Crisparkle of Jasper's diary, a communication which otherwise seems to me to be quite objectless. I think it likely that Rosa's mother's ring would have been used by Dickens as the means for bringing about the desired end, — as I shall show later on ; Jasper was to get to hear of it, designedly or by accident, and, meaning to place it in Neville's possession secretly, was to attempt to gain possession of it ; in the act of doing so he would be surprised (at Mrs Sapsea's tomb, possibly) by the person knowing him to have the ioformation, whereby Jasper's guilty knowledge would be disclosed by his own act. We have to give due weight to the emphatic words in Chapter xm, "a chain. ..gifted with inviacible force to hold and drag," and although of course these words fit in, more or less weU, with any theory involving Jasper's discovery of the existence and search for the ring, I hope to be able to give them their true value. I only wish to point out here that there is no other theory, so far as I am aware, than the one I am advancing, which necessitates the removal of the ring by Jasper from its hiding-place for any specific purpose.

He might, of course, desire to abstract it so as to prevent identification of the remains, if and when discovered, but it appears to me that his interest is reaUy all the other way ; if he desires to convict NeviUe otherwise than by tracing the ring to his possession, it would surely answer his purpose to allow the ring to remain on the body, so that the identification may be certain when the corpse is discovered. Proctor suggested that Jasper was driven to remove the ring from the tomb, because it was a fatal witness to his crime, and that Grewgious and Edwin meant to punish him by forcing him to go through the terrible ordeal of groping in the dust of his victim to recover the ring. Against this I think I may fairly tirge that Jasper would have been satisj&ed that the chances of the corpse being discovered or disturbed were so small, that he would have taken the risk of the simultaneous discovery of the ring, rather than face such an ordeal ; at the same time, we must also not forget, as has indeed been frequently pointed out, that Edwin must have had about him other metal articles, such as keys, buttons, and so on, which would have led to the identification of the corpse just as surely as the ring, so that on this ground also Proctor's theory is weak. I think, therefore, that my suggestion that Jasper was to attempt to recover the ring in order to place it in Neville's possession, is the more likely one, and as it entirely fits in with my explanation of Dickens's plot as a whole, it may be accepted as a working hypothesis, in which case it strongly corroborates my main position.

The page headings, if they are authentic, also confirm my view ; they are respectively, " Mr Jasper's Diary," and " Mr Jasper registers a vow." In the former, stress is laid upon the diary, in the latter upon Jasper's oath, and I think that it is a fair inference to draw, that it is to the oath itself that Dickens wished eventually to be able to point as embodying the " mystery " of his plot. The heading of Chapter xvi, " Devoted," also leads in the same direction, more particularly when it is remembered that a secondary meaning of the word, which we must assume was known to Dickens, is " given up to doom." Again, we find, according to Sir W. R. McoU, that upon the back of the number-plan for part four, Dickens had made this entry :

Edwin Disappears.

The Mystery. Done already.

This could not, of course, refer to the Datchery mystery, as that character does not appear until the next number, neither could it refer to the opium woman, about whom there is nothing reaUy mysterious before Chapter xxni. It might possibly relate to the manner of the murder, but I regard this as highly improbable on account of the first note quoted above, " Edwin Disappears." There is apparently, therefore, nothing left to

14 TTie Mystery in the Drood Family

wMch the words can reasonably be held to have been intended to apply, with the exception of the " mystery " contained in the last extract from Jasper's diary, and accordingly I regard this note as exceedingly strong corroborative evidence ia support of my thesis.

But even this is not aU. Sir W. R. NicoU has set out, at page 57 of his most valuable book. The, Problem of Edvnn Drood — ^to which, once for aU, I desire to acknowledge myextreme indebtedness for numerous details — ^the various titles for his new story which Dickens noted down but subsequently discarded. They may, perhaps, not unfairly be regarded as indicating the working of his mind at the different periods when they were jotted down, for I do not suppose that they were noted otherwise than at intervals. I transcribe the whole page here, with due acknowledgments.

Friday, Twentieth August 1869

Edwyn Selwyn

Edgar

Mr Honeythiinder Mr Honeyblast James's Disappearance The Dean

Mrs Dean Miss Dean FLIGHT AND PURSUIT SWORN TO AVENGE IT ONE OBJECT IN LIFE A KINSMAN'S DEVOTION

THE TWO KINSMEN The Loss of Edwyn Brood The Loss of Edwyn Brude The Mystery in the Drood Family The Loss of Edwyn Drood

The Flight of Edwyn Drood. Edwin Drood in Hiding The Loss of Edwin Drude.

The Disappearance of Edwin Drood The Mystery of Edwin Drood.

Dead ? Or Alive ?

I take it that we here see Dickens vacillating between two opposing ideas, uncertain whether his title shall relate to his main mystery, or shall be so framed as to draw attention to the secondary one, with the object, no doubt, of putting the reader off the scent ; the titles vary according as the one view or the other for the moment obtains predominance. The first title contains no reference to Dickens's main theme, neither does the second. (I assume that the word " Edwin " was never meant to be a title at all.) In the third (the first printed in capitals), we get an indirect allusion to the principal mystery, which is more marked in the fourth and fifth, and less definitely prominent in the sixth, while in the seventh it has almost vanished. In the eighth, attention is diverted entirely from the main mystery, and Dickens reverts to his original intention, and seeks to bring the disappearance of Drood into prominence, and the same remark appHes to the following title. The tenth is again on somewhat diflEerent lines, inasmuch as it leaves the nature of the mystery a much more open question. The eleventh is identical with the eighth, except for a slight change of name, and calls -for no comment. In the twelfth and thirteenth we meet with yet another idea.

namely, a definite suggestion that Edwin might not have been killed after all, but I take it that Dickens considered that he was not justified in actually misleading his readers in this way, and he therefore reverted in the fourteenth and fifteenth to the original indefiniteness of the first and second. The next is the title actually adopted, and the last, while obviously inappropriate as a title, nevertheless shows that Dickens had finally adopted the view that the main mystery was not the one to which attention must be drawn. It is intensely interesting to observe how in these titles the one theme disappears as the other comes into prominence, and I cannot conceive of any other explanation than that Dickens gradually came to the decision to keep his " new idea " as much as possible in the background, and so came to lay more and more stress in his title upon what, after all, he intended to be merely a secondary mystery. I am of course aware that, according to Forster, the originality of the story was " to consist in the review of the murderer's career by himself at the close, when its temptations were to be dwelt upon as if not he, the culprit.

but some other man, were the tempted." While admitting the weight of Forster's testimony, and not denying that Dickens probably did intend to review Jasper's career in this way, I cannot convince myself that this was really his central idea, the one which he qualified as " very curious, not communicable, but very strong, and difficult to work." I cannot help thinking that he must have had in his mind when writing to Forster, not a mere episode, which is in effect what such a review would have been, but a theme or plot which was to colour and direct the whole story, and I confess to feeling considerable surprise that hitherto this view has apparently not obtruded itself upon some one of the numerous and able critics who have so minutely examined the book. While not desiring to appear dogmatic, I feel very strongly that the view I have advanced is so inherently probable and so entirely appropriate to Dickens's statement to Forster, as well as to his general manner, that even if there were no intrinsic evidence in support of it, I should hold that I had made out my case. But when we find, as I have endeavoured to show, that my contention is also borne out by independent intrinsic testimony, we arrive, I venture to assert, at almost mathematical certainty. Absolute proof, of course, we can never expect to get, but if a " backward light " such as Dickens referred to, has been disclosed, I consider that I have every reason for maintaining that I have succeeded in showing, in his own words, " what everjiihing has been working to," or, to use the expression of Sir W. R. Nicoll, in discovering the plan which Dickens had " in his mind, that he half revealed and half concealed."

That my solution is correct, the sequel wiU, I think, show, inasmuch as several points which have hitherto remained doubtful appear to me, in the light of it, to aUow of obvious explanation, but even if my ideas upon other questions do not meet with acceptance, I do not think that my main position will be invalidated.

Let us see how, in the light of my solution, Dickens's main plot works out. As early as Chapter n we find that Jasper has a hidden skeleton in his house ; what that skeleton is we do not learn, either then or later, but we

2—2 do learn that he hates his vocation, that he is troubled with some stray sort of " ambition, aspiration, restlessness, dissatisfaction " which Edwin is asked to take as a warning, but refuses. At the end of Chapter m, when Edwin remarks, " I fancy I can distinguish Jack's voice," Rosa unaccountably urges " Take me back at once." At the end of Chapter v we read (whether appropriately or not) " John Jasper stands looking down upon him (Edwin) his unlighted pipe in his hand, for some time, with a fixed and deep attention." In Chapter vn we have the scene of Jasper at the piano, and Rosa overcome by his magnetic influence ; while in Chapter vxn Edwin and NeviUe, after being surprised by Jasper (who has furtively followed them from the nuns' house) in a state of incipient animosity, are brought by him into active quarrel, wherein Neville's conduct is characterised by Jasper to Crisparkle as " mvirderous."