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
Another doctor in _The Moonstone_ tells us that the ignorant distrust of
opium in England spreads through all classes, so much so, that every
doctor in large practice finds himself every now and then obliged to
deceive his patients by giving them opium under a disguise. He himself
claims that opium saved his life. He suffered from an incurable internal
complaint, but he was determined to live in order to provide for a person
very dear to him. ‘To that all-potent and all-merciful drug I am
indebted for a respite of many years from my sentence of death.’
Like Collins, Dickens was keenly interested in the possibilities of
opium. Collins himself was a lavish consumer of the drug, but I do not
think it has been suggested that Dickens himself ever touched it. Nor is
it likely, for Dickens with all his tenseness of nerve was an eminently
self-controlled and temperate man. But in _Edwin Drood_ he has inserted
a sentence in praise of opium. The opium woman says to Datchery: ‘It’s
opium, deary. Neither more nor less. And it’s like a human creetur so
far, that you always hear what can be said against it, but seldom what
can be said in its praise.’ The last sentence was an afterthought on the
part of Dickens. It has been written in.
As to whether Jasper was made ultimately to repeat his crime in any
fashion under the influence of opium, it is impossible to say. He was
unquestionably more or less under the influence of the drug when he
committed it.
The literary men of Dickens’s period were much interested in the action
of drugs, in mesmerism, and the like. Elliotson, to whom _Pendennis_ is
dedicated, was on intimate terms with Dickens. Dickens plainly implies
that Crisparkle went to the weir because Jasper willed him to do so.
Collins and Dickens were both addicted to calling witnesses to their
accuracy. At the close of _Armadale_, Collins says: ‘Wherever the story
touches on questions connected with law, medicine, or chemistry, it has
been submitted before publication to the experience of professional men.
The kindness of a friend supplied me with a plan of the doctor’s
apparatus—I saw the chemical ingredients at work before I ventured on
describing the action of them in the closing scenes of this book.’ Every
one remembers the ‘spontaneous combustion’ preface to Bleak House. I do
not know whether any medical man can be found to confirm the science of
_Armadale_, or of _Bleak House_, or of _The Moonstone_. But that is not
the question before us. We have only to do with what the novelist
himself believed to be a scientific possibility. In _Kenilworth_ {200}
Wayland compounds ‘the true Orvietan, that noble medicine which is so
seldom found genuine and effective within these realms of Europe.’ Scott
adds a note: ‘Orvietan, or Venice treacle, as it is sometimes called, was
understood to be a sovereign remedy against poison; and the reader must
be contented, for the time he peruses these pages, to hold the same
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