Cathedrals in literature; Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870. Mystery of Edwin Drood; Murder in literature
Mr. Proctor next supposes, we saw, that Drood got into touch with
Grewgious, and I have added the circumstances which might take Grewgious
to the churchyard. Next, when Edwin recovered health, he came down,
perhaps, as Datchery, to spy on Jasper. I have elsewhere said, as Mr.
Cuming Walters quotes me, that “fancy can suggest no reason 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.” Later, I shall explain why Edwin, if he is Datchery, might
go spying alone.
It is also urged that Edwin left Rosa in sorrow, and left blame on
Neville Landless. Why do this? Mr. Proctor replies that Grewgious’s
intense and watchful interest in Neville, otherwise unexplained, is due
to his knowledge that Drood is alive, and that Neville must be cared for,
while Grewgious has told Rosa that Edwin lives. He also told her of
Edwin’s real love of her, hence Miss Bud says, “Poor, poor Eddy,” quite
_à propos de bottes_, when she finds herself many fathoms deep in love
with Lieutenant Tartar, R.N. “‘Poor, poor Eddy!’ thought Rosa, as they
walked along,” Tartar and she. This is a plausible suggestion of Mr.
Proctor. Edwin, though known to Rosa to be alive, has no chance! But,
as to my own remark, “why should not Edwin come forward at once, instead
of spying about?” Well, if he did, there would be no story. As for “an
unfantastic reason” for his conduct, Dickens is not writing an
“unfantastic” novel. Moreover, if things occurred as I have suggested, I
do not see what evidence Drood had against Jasper. Edwin’s clothes were
covered with lime, but, when he told his story, Jasper would reply that
Drood never returned to his house on Christmas Eve, but stayed out,
“doing what was correct by the season, in the way of giving it the
welcome it had the right to expect,” like Durdles on another occasion.
Drood’s evidence, if it was what I have suggested, would sound like the
dream of an intoxicated man, and what other evidence could be adduced?
Thus I had worked out Drood’s condition, if he really was not killed, in
this way: I had supposed him to escape, in a very mixed frame of mind,
when he would be encountered by Grewgious, who, of course, could make
little out of him in his befogged state. Drood could not even prove that
it was not Landless who attacked him. The result would be that Drood
would lie low, and later, would have reason enough for disguising himself
as Datchery, and playing the spy in Cloisterham.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account