BY: Gilbert Keith Chesterton
Pickwick was a work partly designed by others, but ultimately filled up by Dickens. Edwin Drood, the last book, was a book designed by Dickens, but ultimately filled up by others. The Pickwick Papers showed how much Dickens could make out of other people's suggestions; The Mystery of Edwin Drood shows how very little other people can make out of Dickens's suggestions.
Dickens was meant by Heaven to be the great melodramatist; so that even his literary end was melodramatic. Something more seems hinted at in the cutting short of Edwin Drood by Dickens than the mere cutting short of a good novel by a great man. It seems rather like the last taunt of some elf, leaving the world, that it should be this story which is not ended, this story which is only a story. The only one of Dickens's novels which he did not finish was the only one that really needed finishing. He never had but one thoroughly good plot to tell; and that he has only told in heaven. This is what separates the case in question from any parallel cases of novelists cut off in the act of creation. That great novelist, for instance, with whom Dickens is constantly compared, died also in the middle of Denis Duval. But any one can see in Denis Duval the qualities of the later work of Thackeray; the increasing discursiveness, the increasing retrospective poetry, which had been in part the charm and in part the failure of Philip and The Virginians. But to Dickens it was permitted to die at a dramatic moment and to leave a dramatic mystery. Any Thackerayan could have completed the plot of Denis Duval; except indeed that a really sympathetic Thackerayan might have had some doubt as to whether there was any plot to complete. But Dickens, having had far too little plot in his stories previously, had far too much plot in the story he never told. Dickens dies in the act of telling, not his tenth novel, but his first news of murder. He drops down dead as he is in the act of denouncing the assassin. It is permitted to Dickens, in short, to come to a literary end as strange as his literary beginning. He began by completing the old romance of travel. He ended by inventing the new detective story.
It is as a detective story first and last that we have to consider The Mystery of Edwin Drood. This does not mean, of course, that the details are not often admirable in their swift and penetrating humour; to say that of the book would be to say that Dickens did not write it. Nothing could be truer, for instance, than the manner in which the dazed and drunken dignity of Durdles illustrates a certain bitterness at the bottom of the bewilderment of the poor. Nothing could be better than the way in which the haughty and allusive conversation between Miss Twinkleton and the landlady illustrates the maddening preference of some females for skating upon thin social ice. There is an even better example than these of the original humorous insight of Dickens; and one not very often remarked, because of its brevity and its unimportance in the narrative. But Dickens never did anything better than the short account of Mr. Grewgious's dinner being brought from the tavern by two waiters: "a stationary waiter," and "a flying waiter." The "flying waiter" brought the food and the "stationary waiter" quarrelled with him; the "flying waiter" brought glasses and the "stationary waiter" looked through them. Finally, it will be remembered the "stationary waiter" left the room, casting a glance which indicated "let it be understood that all emoluments are mine, and that Nil is the reward of this slave." Still, Dickens wrote the book as a detective story; he wrote it as The Mystery of Edwin Drood. And alone, perhaps, among detective-story writers, he never lived to destroy his mystery. Here alone then among the Dickens novels it is necessary to speak of the plot and of the plot alone. And when we speak of the plot it becomes immediately necessary to speak of the two or three standing explanations which celebrated critics have given of the plot.
The story, so far as it was written by Dickens, can be read here. It describes, as will be seen, the disappearance of the young architect Edwin Drood after a night of festivity which was supposed to celebrate his reconciliation with a temporary enemy, Neville Landless, and was held at the house of his uncle John Jasper. Dickens continued the tale long enough to explain or explode the first and most obvious of his riddles. Long before the existing part terminates it has become evident that Drood has been put away, not by his obvious opponent, Landless, but by his uncle who professes for him an almost painful affection. The fact that we all know this, however, ought not in fairness to blind us to the fact that, considered as the first fraud in a detective story, it has been, with great skill, at once suggested and concealed. Nothing, for instance, could be cleverer as a piece of artistic mystery than the fact that Jasper, the uncle, always kept his eyes fixed on Drood's face with a dark and watchful tenderness; the thing is so told that at first we really take it as only indicating something morbid in the affection; it is only afterwards that the frightful fancy breaks upon us that it is not morbid affection but morbid antagonism. This first mystery (which is no longer a mystery) of Jasper's guilt, is only worth remarking because it shows that Dickens meant and felt himself able to mask all his batteries with real artistic strategy and artistic caution. The manner of the unmasking of Jasper marks the manner and tone in which the whole tale was to be told. Here we have not got to do with Dickens simply giving himself away, as he gave himself away in Pickwick or The Christmas Carol. Not that one complains of his giving himself away; there was no better gift.
What was the mystery of Edwin Drood from Dickens's point of view we shall never know, except perhaps from Dickens in heaven, and then he will very likely have forgotten. But the mystery of Edwin Drood from our point of view, from that of his critics, and those who have with some courage (after his death) attempted to be his collaborators, is simply this. There is no doubt that Jasper either murdered Drood or supposed that he had murdered him. This certainty we have from the fact that it is the whole point of a scene between Jasper and Drood's lawyer Grewgious in which Jasper is struck down with remorse when he realises that Drood has been killed (from his point of view) needlessly and without profit. The only question is whether Jasper's remorse was as needless as his murder. In other words the only question is whether, while he certainly thought he had murdered Drood, he had really done it. It need hardly be said that such a doubt would not have been raised for nothing; gentlemen like Jasper do not as a rule waste good remorse except upon successful crime. The origin of the doubt about the real death of Drood is this. Towards the latter end of the existing chapters there appears very abruptly, and with a quite ostentatious air of mystery, a character called Datchery. He appears for the purpose of spying upon Jasper and getting up some case against him; at any rate, if he has not this purpose in the story he has no other earthly purpose in it. He is an old gentleman of juvenile energy, with a habit of carrying his hat in his hand even in the open air; which some have interpreted as meaning that he feels the unaccustomed weight of a wig. Now there are one or two people in the story who this person might possibly be. Notably there is one person in the story who seems as if he were meant to be something, but who hitherto has certainly been nothing; I mean Bazzard, Mr. Grewgious's clerk, a sulky fellow interested in theatricals, of whom an unnecessary fuss is made. There is also Mr. Grewgious himself, and there is also another suggestion, so much more startling that I shall have to deal with it later.
For the moment, however, the point is this: That ingenious writer, Mr. Proctor, started the highly plausible theory that this Datchery was Drood himself, who had not really been killed. He adduced a most complex and complete scheme covering nearly all the details; but the strongest argument he had was rather one of general artistic effect. This argument has been quite perfectly summed up by Mr. Andrew Lang in one sentence: "If Edwin Drood is dead, there is not much mystery about him." This is quite true; Dickens, when writing in so deliberate, nay, dark and conspiratorial a manner, would surely have kept the death of Drood and the guilt of Jasper hidden a little longer if the only real mystery had been the guilt of Jasper and the death of Drood. It certainly seems artistically more likely that there was a further mystery of Edwin Drood; not the mystery that he was murdered, but the mystery that he was not murdered. It is true indeed that Mr. Cumming Walters has a theory of Datchery (to which I have already darkly alluded) a theory which is wild enough to be the centre not only of any novel but of any harlequinade. But the point is that even Mr. Cumming Walters's theory, though it makes the mystery more extraordinary, does not make it any more of a mystery of Edwin Drood. It should not have been called The Mystery of Drood, but The Mystery of Datchery. This is the strongest case for Proctor; if the story tells of Drood coming back as Datchery, the story does at any rate fulfil the title upon its title-page.
The principal objection to Proctor's theory is that there seems no adequate reason why Jasper should not have murdered his nephew if he wanted to. And there seems even less reason why Drood, if unsuccessfully murdered, should not have raised the alarm. Happy young architects, when nearly strangled by elderly organists, do not generally stroll away and come back some time afterwards in a wig and with a false name. Superficially it would seem almost as odd to find the murderer investigating the origin of the murder, as to find the corpse investigating it. To this problem two of the ablest literary critics of our time, Mr. Andrew Lang and Mr. William Archer (both of them persuaded generally of the Proctor theory) have especially addressed themselves. Both have come to the same substantial conclusion; and I suspect that they are right. They hold that Jasper (whose mania for opium is much insisted on in the tale) had some sort of fit, or trance, or other physical seizure as he was committing the crime so that he left it unfinished; and they also hold that he had drugged Drood, so that Drood, when he recovered from the attack, was doubtful about who had been his assailant. This might really explain, if a little fancifully, his coming back to the town in the character of a detective. He might think it due to his uncle (whom he last remembered in a kind of murderous vision) to make an independent investigation as to whether he was really guilty or not. He might say, as Hamlet said of a vision equally terrifying, "I'll have grounds more relative than this." In fairness it must be said that there is something vaguely shaky about this theory; chiefly, I think, in this respect; that there is a sort of farcical cheerfulness about Datchery which does not seem altogether appropriate to a lad who ought to be in an agony of doubt as to whether his best friend was or was not his assassin. Still there are many such incongruities in Dickens; and the explanation of Mr. Archer and Mr. Lang is an explanation. I do not believe that any explanation as good can be given to account for the tale being called The Mystery of Edwin Drood, if the tale practically starts with his corpse.
If Drood is really dead one cannot help feeling the story ought to end where it does end, not by accident but by design. The murder is explained. Jasper is ready to be hanged, and every one else in a decent novel ought to be ready to be married. If there was to be much more of anything, it must have been of anticlimax. Nevertheless there are degrees of anticlimax. Some of the more obvious explanations of Datchery are quite reasonable, but they are distinctly tame. For instance, Datchery may be Bazzard; but it is not very exciting if he is; for we know nothing about Bazzard and care less. Again, he might be Grewgious; but there is something pointless about one grotesque character dressing up as another grotesque character actually less amusing than himself. Now, Mr. Cumming Walters has at least had the distinction of inventing a theory which makes the story at least an interesting story, even if it is not exactly the story that is promised on the cover of the book. The obvious enemy of Drood, on whom suspicion first falls, the swarthy and sulky Landless, has a sister even swarthier and, except for her queenly dignity, even sulkier than he. This barbaric princess is evidently meant to be (in a sombre way) in love with Crisparkle, the clergyman and muscular Christian who represents the breezy element in the emotions of the tale. Mr. Cumming Walters seriously maintains that it is this barbaric princess who puts on a wig and dresses up as Mr. Datchery. He urges his case with much ingenuity of detail. Helena Landless certainly had a motive; to save her brother, who was accused falsely, by accusing Jasper justly. She certainly had some of the faculties; it is elaborately stated in the earlier part of her story that she was accustomed as a child to dress up in male costume and run into the wildest adventures. There may be something in Mr. Cumming Walters's argument that the very flippancy of Datchery is the self-conscious flippancy of a strong woman in such an odd situation; certainly there is the same flippancy in Portia and in Rosalind. Nevertheless, I think, there is one final objection to the theory; and that is simply this, that it is comic. It is generally wrong to represent a great master of the grotesque as being grotesque exactly where he does not intend to be. And I am persuaded that if Dickens had really meant Helena to turn into Datchery, he would have made her from the first in some way more light, eccentric, and laughable; he would have made her at least as light and laughable as Rosa. As it is, there is something strangely stiff and incredible about the idea of a lady so dark and dignified dressing up as a swaggering old gentleman in a blue coat and grey trousers. We might almost as easily imagine Edith Dombey dressing up as Major Bagstock. We might almost as easily imagine Rebecca in Ivanhoe dressing up as Isaac of York.
Of course such a question can never really be settled precisely, because it is the question not merely of a mystery but of a puzzle. For here the detective novel differs from every other kind of novel. The ordinary novelist desires to keep his readers to the point; the detective novelist actually desires to keep his readers off the point. In the first case, every touch must help to tell the reader what he means; in the second case, most of the touches must conceal or even contradict what he means. You are supposed to see and appreciate the smallest gestures of a good actor; but you do not see all the gestures of a conjuror, if he is a good conjuror. Hence, into the critical estimate of such works as this, there is introduced a problem, an extra perplexity, which does not exist in other cases. I mean the problem of the things commonly called blinds. Some of the points which we pick out as suggestive may have been put in as deceptive. Thus the whole conflict between a critic with one theory, like Mr. Lang, and a critic with another theory, like Mr. Cumming Walters, becomes eternal and a trifle farcical. Mr. Walters says that all Mr. Lang's clues were blinds; Mr. Lang says that all Mr. Walters's clues were blinds. Mr. Walters can say that some passages seemed to show that Helena was Datchery; Mr. Lang can reply that those passages were only meant to deceive simple people like Mr. Walters into supposing that she was Datchery. Similarly Mr. Lang can say that the return of Drood is foreshadowed; and Mr. Walters can reply that it was foreshadowed because it was never meant to come off. There seems no end to this insane process; anything that Dickens wrote may or may not mean the opposite of what it says. Upon this principle I should be very ready for one to declare that all the suggested Datcherys were really blinds; merely because they can naturally be suggested. I would undertake to maintain that Mr. Datchery is really Miss Twinkleton, who has a mercenary interest in keeping Rosa Budd at her school. This suggestion does not seem to me to be really much more humorous than Mr. Cumming Walters's theory. Yet either may certainly be true. Dickens is dead, and a number of splendid scenes and startling adventures have died with him. Even if we get the right solution we shall not know that it is right. The tale might have been, and yet it has not been.
And I think there is no thought so much calculated to make one doubt death itself, to feel that sublime doubt which has created all religion -- the doubt that found death incredible. Edwin Drood may or may not have really died; but surely Dickens did not really die. Surely our real detective liveth and shall appear in the latter days of the earth. For a finished tale may give a man immortality in the light and literary sense; but an unfinished tale suggests another immortality, more essential and more strange.
A new BBC adaptation airs on Tuesday 10 and Wednesday 11 January on BBC 2. I read the novel especially for the occasion. I wonder what they are going to do about Mr Datchery. Is he someone in disguise?
Gentle fellow loggers (threaders?) I subscribe to the general view, that the hints Dickens gave Forster broadly explain who killed ED, however, I would like to add a line of support to this theory via the scenes with the Old Puffer (purveyor of fine opium). You all remember the novel opens with Jasper awakening in the Old Puffer's opium den. But do you remember his curious action on awakening? He prowls around to listen to his fellow addicts rambling in their trances and pronounces them "unintelligible". A clue in the very first few pages, says I! Bear with me now to Chapter 14, where Edwin meets the Old Puffer and charitably gives her enough for a pipe of opium. During the exchange, she mutters, "You be thankful that your name ain't, Ned... a threatened name." This curious comment leads Edwin to recall that his Uncle Jasper "alone calls him Ned". Ominous music offstage. Now indulge me all the way to Chpater 23, where Jasper takes the pipe again in the company of the Old Puffer. He tells her, "Suppose you had something in your mind; something you were going to do... Should you do it in your fancy, when you were lying here doing this?... I did it over and over again. I have done it hundreds of thousands of times in this room." Then Jasper goes into an opium trance and, it is hinted, relives the murder of Edwin. The Old Puffer listens and after Jasper has left remarks, " 'Unintelligible' I heard you say, of two more than me. But don't ye be too sure always; don't ye be too sure, beauty!". Thereafter she follows Jasper to Clositerham and spies on him. I interpret these hints as suggesting that the Old Puffer has heard Jasper in his opium daze murdering someone called "Ned" and that Jasper's attempt to satisfy himself that opium ravings were incomprehensible has given him a false sense of security. Presumably, the old woman has worked out his secret from what she heard and the chance meeting with Edwin and pursued Jasper either to blackmail or denounce him. Going way beyond the text and into delusions of creativity, perhaps Dickens intended Jasper to murder the Old Puffer to keep his secret safe, and that this second murder would provide the means for his villainy to be unmasked? Maybe one more corpse was destined for the quicklime in the Sapsea Vault...
It amazes me that few critics and commentators on "Edwin Drood" bother to consult Forster's book to see what Forster (and Dickens) had to say. According to Forster: "The story I learnt was to be that of the murder of a nephew by his uncle... The last chapters were to be written in the condemned cell to which his wickedness had brought him. Discovery by the murderer of the utter needlessness of his crime was to follow hard upon commission of the deed; but all discovery of the murderer was to be baffled until towards the close, when, by means of a gold ring which had resisted the corrosive effects of the lime into which the body had been thrown, not only the person murdered was to be identified but the locality pf the crime and the man who committed it. So much was told to me . It will be recollected that the ring, taken by Drood to be given to his betrothed only if their engagement went on, was brought away with him from their last interview. Rosa was to marry Tartar, and Crisparkle the sister of Landless. Crisparkle himself, I think, was to have perished in assisting Tartar finally to unmask and seize the murderer."
From this, it seems quite plain to me that Tartar is Datchery. It must be remembered that we have little more than half of the novel. It seems to me that Dickens would have spent quite a bit of time elaborating and filling out Tartar in both his guises until the final surprise revelation.
We do know that Dickens intended to make much more of Sapsea. Forster publishes a long scene with Sapsea that Dickens actually wrote beforehand and intended to include in a later chapter. Oddly, this extract is never published with the book and seems to be unknown to most commentators. It is undoubtedly the work of Dickens. Forster affirms it is Dickens's handwriting and that he found it with the author's "other manuscripts".
Interesting, but "Dickens in Heaven" and "his greatest plot is told in Heaven" and more Dickens in Heaven?
Good Lord! I bet Dickens himself would guffaw at that. Get a grip Mr. C.
I recently came across an antique edition of this book. It is in a collection called "Dickens Works Globe Edition." Published by Hurt and Houghton. If anybody knows anything about the value of this collection please e-mail me. Thanks
I have read the MED five times so far and am quite certain that the one and only person whose innocence is guaranteed is John Jasper. Actually, I believe I discovered the true killer on my third read through, the fourth read serving to show all the red flags Dickens had waved in front of our eyes.
Any solution must also solve several lesser mysteries, among them:
- What was the ghost Durdles heard in the crypt the previous year?
- Why would Jasper search Durdles' drugged body for a key he had already accessed while holding Durdles' lunch parcel? And why did Durdles feel someone touch him AFTER Jasper had walked away?
- Who is the Princess Puffer?
- Who is Deputy?
- Why, if Jasper is in a prison cell, are the heroes desperately chasing up the Cathedral tower at the end of the novel (according to the cover illustration).
If my answer is correct - and those of my friends who could force themselves through both Dickens and my preliminary reconstruction are unanimous in thinking it is - then I can answer all these and a number of other questions, as well.
One suggestion, since it does not impend on the rest: Dickens intended Luke Honeythunder to return to Cloisterham to set up a branch of his Haven of Philanthropy. While there, Jasper introduces him to Joshua Sapsea and the two, seeing in each other the finest sort of Englishman, immediately hit it off. Jasper induces Honeythunder to begin legal persecution of Neville Landless while Sapsea stops "dressing at the Dean" and begins dressing at Honeythunder. At some point while Honeythunder is haranguing passersby in Cloisterham, the boy known as Deputy calls out that Honeythunder is his runaway father who abandoned his mother years before. Honeythunder is laughed out of town, the case against Neville collapses, and Sapsea returns to dressing at the Dean.
I am currently trying to gather the energy to rewrite my solution but feel discouraged by the unlikelihood of getting it published. Opinions would be most welcome.
Dickens alludes to things being 'unfinished' several times in The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Firstly, the title asserts that it is a mystery and therefore unsolved, the portrait of Rosa is unfinished and so is Durdles house described as unfinished. I wonder if Dickens began this project with an awareness that he would not be able to finish it and therefore was paving the way for his final dramatic exit. If this is the case then attempts made to write an ending are an insult because it may have been his intention that readers make up their own minds as they read it. I say this because the late Victorian period is seen as a period of anxiety and change. Perhaps the unfinished element of Dickens last work is a statement in itself about the need for neat endings and security of knowledge in a period unable to offer these answers.
I have just read Drood for the third time. There are afew points which really stand out -
Jasper clearly tries to drug Drood and Neville with wine - both fee unusually confused. I feel the point is that he is intending to drug Neville and make him kill Drood without remembering it. This is a variation on the plot of the Moonstone - an action performed under the influence of opium.
There can be no doubt that Jasper intends to destroy Drood's body with lime - he goes through tyhe whole thing of also drugging Durdles (who sleeps for hours) possibly to copy his keys or such a thing- so the drugging idea is very definite.
I feel Datcherycan only be Bazzard - the reference to dark eyebrows but white hair seems to suggest the black haired Bazzard.
I suspect Rosa marries Tartar andCrisparkle marries Helena.
Please submit a quiz here.
Here is where you find links to related content on this site or other sites, possibly including full books or essays about Charles Dickens written by other authors featured on this site.