ii & vi. NOV. 16, 1912.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
399
JJofcs on IBoohs.
The Problem of Edicin Drood. By W. Robertson
Nicoll. (Hodder & Stoughton.)
THE problem of Edwin Drood will, as Sir Robert- son Nicoll states, be discussed " as long as Dickens is read," and we will add that no discussion worthy the name can henceforth take place without a previous study of this " study in the methods of Dickens." The author in his modest Preface says that he " should not have been justified in publishing this volume if I had been able to add no new material. But I venture to think that it will be found that while I have freely used the arguments and the discoveries of previous investigators, I have made a considerable addition to the stores." The claim thus made is fully justified, as the reader will find in the course of perusing the work.
First of all, it must be remembered that " the book we have is not precisely what it was when Dickens left it. Three parts had been issued by Dickens himself. After his death the re- maining three parts were issued by John Forster. Dickens had corrected his proofs up to and in- cluding chapter xxi. The succeeding chapters xxii. and xxiii. are untouched." Sir Robertson Nicoll, to his great surprise, discovered that Forster (who, according to our own knowledge, was very obstinate in adhering to a decision once made) " had in every case ignored Dickens's erasures, and had replaced all the omitted passages in the text. Thus it happens that we do not read the book as Dickens intended us to read it." The sentences and parts of sentences erased by Dickens are indicated by Sir Robertson Nicoll, who also gives notes based on a careful examina- tion of the manuscript, and the notes which Dickens made for his novel. The latter were partly quoted by Prof. Jackson in his book ' About Edwin Drood,' but are now for the first time printed complete.
Discussing the methods of Dickens, and looking at the fact that we have left us only one half of his last story, Sir Robertson Nicoll asks the question : " Would he have brought many new characters on the stage, or are we to believe that the main characters are already there, and that it is through the revealing of their secrets that the end is to be reached ? " To begin with ' Bleak House ' : in the first half " the characters arrive in crowds " ; after that the arrivals " are few and unimportant." ' Our Mutual Friend ' is remarkable for the profusion of characters in the first part, and there are not more than half a dozen new characters named in the second part, and " all of them are wholly insignificant." In ' Little Dorrit ' " we have the old profuseness of characters ; in the first half nearly one hundred, and in the second half there are practically no fresh characters at all." In the second part of ' A Tale of Two Cities ' " there are practically no new characters " that Sir Robertson -can trace ; and again in ' Great Expectations ' in the second part " we have very few fresh characters." These are all the books of which Sir Robertson has made " a close personal examination " ; but he believes that " the general result will be the same " in all save two or three exceptional works, such as ' Barnaby
Rudge.' Whether Dickens " consciously acted
on the principle that no new characters should
be introduced after half the story was told, it is
impossible to say. It seems certain, however,
that he acted upon it." Therefore the inference
is that in the parts published of ' Edwin Drood '
all the important characters are before us.
The fifth chapter of Sir Robertson's book raises the question, " Was Edwin Drood murdered ? " His answer is in the affirmative, and he considers the external evidence to be conclusive. First there is the testimony of Forster. To him Dickens plainly declared that a nephew was to be murdered by his uncle : " it was by means of a gold ring, which had resisted the corro- sive effects of the lime into which the body had been cast, that the murderer and the person murdered were to be identified." Madame Perugini corroborates Forster's testimony ; and Charles Dickens the younger " positively declared that he heard from his father's lips that Edwin Drood was dead." In addition to this, the proof, to Sir Robertson's mind, is mainly to be found within the story itself, and he devotes thirty pages of close analysis to show the reason of his decision.
Not the least able portion of the book is that in which the author answers, in a way conclusive to himself, the question " Who was Datchery ? " The result he arrives at, after a most careful investigation, is that Helena Landless is Datchery. Our own opinion, until we had read this book, was that Bazzard, acting under the instructions of that acute observer Grewgious, had gone to Cloisterham in disguise ; but we think readers will agree that it was the handsome girl to whom disguise was no novelty, bent on freeing her brother from the stigma that had been cast upon him by Jasper, who went down to the cathedral city and posed as Datchery.
We have so long clung to the idea that Edwin Drood yet lived that we come with reluctance to the opinion that his uncle's murderous inten- tions were successful. We still feel the difficulty about the centre illustration at the foot of the cover. The figure in the vault there is doubtless that of Edwin Drood ; but is it so certain that the figure with the lantern is that of Jasper ? We remember how anxious Dickens was about the illustrations on the cover, the first design being altered to accord with his views.
The following are the conclusions arrived at by some of the writers who have endeavoured to solve the " Problem " : Dr. Jackson Edwin Drood mur- dered bv Jasper. Datchery was Helena Landless. Dr. M. R, James Drood not murdered, Datchery not Bazzard ; but if Drood was dead, Datchery was Helena Landless. Andrew Lang Dickens did not know himself how the story would end. B. W. Mats - Edwin Drood murdered. Richard A. Proctor, writing under the pen - name of Thomas Foster Jasper's scheme failed, and Drood reappeared as Datchery Clertient Shorter, who previously held that Drood survived and that Datchery was Bazzard. now reluctantly believes that Sir Robert- son Nicoll has proved Drood to be dead, and Datchery to be Helena Landless. J. Cum ing Walters Drood was murdered by Jasper, and Dateherv was Helena Landless. From this it will be seen how the most careful investigators differ, and we agree with Sir Robertson Nicoll that "no one is entitled to dogmatize on the subject." The
