The Problem of 'Edwin Drood': A Study in the Methods of DickensNicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir
General
The Problem of 'Edwin Drood': A Study in the Methods of Dickens
Nicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir
Cathedrals in literature; Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Mystery of Edwin Drood; Murder in literature
As we have seen, Dickens’s method is to make every hint significant, and,
as a rule, not too significant. The reader at the time may fail to
perceive why a particular point is mentioned, but it is not mentioned
carelessly or without design. The backward glance from the end is to
interpret all. Besides this there are hints in the novels to which he
calls special attention, and which he thereby binds himself to redeem.
Conspicuous among these in _Edwin Drood_ is the sentence about the
jewelled ring and betrothal over which Edwin Drood’s right hand closed as
it rested in its little case. He would not let Rosa’s heart be grieved
by those sorrowful jewels. He would restore them to the cabinet from
which he had unwillingly taken them, and keep silence. He would let them
be. He would let them lie unspoken of in his breast. But Dickens says:
‘Among the mighty store of wonderful chains that are for ever forging,
day and night, in the vast ironworks of time and circumstance, there was
one chain forged in the moment of that small conclusion, riveted to the
foundations of heaven and earth, and gifted with invincible force to hold
and drag.’ No answer to our question, no solution of the problem can be
satisfactory which fails to assign its due weight to this sentence. In
Proctor’s first attempt at the solution of _The Mystery of Edwin Drood_
contained in _Leisure Readings_, we find the following amazingly inept
words: ‘From the stress laid on this point, and the clear words in which
its association with the mystery is spoken of, we may safely infer, I
think, that it is intended partly to mislead the reader.’
Later on, Proctor, seeing the insufficiency of this, propounded another
theory. This was that the attempt on Drood and his rescue were known
almost immediately to Mr. Grewgious, who took possession of the ring;
that when the fact that such a ring had been in Drood’s pocket came to
Jasper’s knowledge he at once in a state of panic rushed to the vault to
recover it from among the quicklime; that Drood, divining this intention,
concealed himself in the vault and confronted Jasper the moment he opened
the door. This theory is partly approved of by Mr. William Archer. {119}
But Dickens’s point is plainly that the ring was the only jewellery
possessed by Drood about which Jasper knew nothing. It is the finding of
the ring in the tomb that is to bring the guilt of the murder home.
As for the numerous assumptions made by Proctor, it can only be said that
they have no foundation in the facts. There is no reason to believe that
the attempt on Drood and his rescue were known almost immediately to Mr.
Grewgious. There is no evidence that Grewgious took possession of the
ring. There is no evidence that Jasper came to know that such had been
in Drood’s pocket. All these theories are not only without foundation,
but, I think, also in plain contradiction to the whole tenor of the
story.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account