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
If Drood was half dead how did he get away? According to Mr. Proctor’s
ingenious theory he was rescued from the bed of quicklime by Durdles. He
was rescued with the skin burnt off his face, and his eyebrows gone, so
that he could afterwards disguise himself as Datchery. If this is so,
the quicklime must have behaved itself in a singularly obliging and
accommodating manner. But, as a matter of fact, there is no evidence
whatever for the theory, and the whole drift of the story makes against
it. The difficulties are admitted even by those who incline to support
Proctor’s view and to maintain that Edwin is not dead.
Mr. Lang admits that Proctor’s theory of the murder is thin, and that
‘all this set of conjectures is crude to the last degree.’ I am content
to leave it at that. Mr. Lang has conjectures of his own. He
conjectures that Mr. Grewgious visited the tomb of his lost love, Rosa’s
mother, and consecrated to her ‘a night of memories and sighs.’ He says:
‘Mrs. Bud, his lost love, we have been told, was buried hard by the
Sapsea monument.’ This is not told by Dickens. It is better to stick by
the narrative.
Supposing that Edwin was not dead, what was the meaning of the long
silence? Why did he allow Neville to rest under a cloud of suspicion,
and exposed to great peril? Why did he allow Jasper’s persecution of
Rosa? Why did he allow Helena Landless, whom he had begun more or less
to love, to suffer with the rest? Are we to suppose that he came back
disguised to fix the guilt on his uncle? Can we believe that he did not
know that his uncle had tried to murder him? If not, are we to believe
that he suspected his uncle and was not sure, and came down to try to
surprise his uncle’s secret and to punish him? He could only have
punished him at most for an attempt at murder. Even that might have been
hard to bring home, supposing he himself was not clear as to the facts.
‘Fancy can suggest no reason,’ writes Mr. Lang, ‘why Edwin Drood, if he
escaped from his wicked uncle, should go spying about instead of coming
openly forward. No plausible, unfantastic reason could be invented.’
Dr. M. R. James, one of the few who still think that Edwin might not have
been murdered, says in his last writing on the subject: ‘I freely confess
that the view that Edwin is dead solves many difficulties. A wholly
satisfactory theory of the manner of his escape has never been devised;
his failure to clear Neville from suspicion is hard to explain.’ Mr.
Lang, in what has unhappily proved his last article on the subject, in
_Blackwood_ for May 1911, explains that while he believed in 1905 that
Jasper failed in his attempt to murder, ‘now I have no theory as to how
the novel would have been built up.’
V.
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