HALF-WAY IN d.i.c.kENS

d.i.c.kens has left us one-half of his last story. It was to be completed in twelve parts, and six parts were published. We can only infer and guess at the way in which the author would have completed it. 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 give a positive reply is impossible, and yet we may learn something of d.i.c.kens's methods by studying his complete books. Supposing we had only one-half of each book in our possession, might we expect that the complete story would introduce us to many fresh characters? I give the results of some investigations from the later novels.

THE LENGTH OF d.i.c.kENS'S NOVELS

_Edwin Drood_, as we have it, runs in round numbers to about 100,000 words. When completed it would have been 200,000 words. This would have made it slightly longer than _Great Expectations_, which may be estimated at 160,000 words. _A Tale of Two Cities_ runs to 143,000 words. _Edwin Drood_, while slightly longer than this, would have been very much shorter than the larger works of d.i.c.kens. _David Copperfield_ has about 306,000 words; _Bleak House_, 308,000, and _Our Mutual Friend_, 297,000.

All these are practically the same length. _Barnaby Rudge_ has about 264,000 words.

'BLEAK HOUSE'

I begin with _Bleak House_, which is one of the latest and most elaborate of d.i.c.kens's stories. In the first half the characters arrive in crowds.

I make out in the first chapter ten or eleven. The second chapter brings My Lady Dedlock, Sir Leicester Dedlock, Mr. Tulkinghorn, and others. The third brings Esther Summerson and John Jarndyce, besides half a dozen more. The fourth brings us the Jellybys, with Mr. Guppy, and others.

Krook and Nemo are the fresh arrivals in chapter v.; Mr. Harold Skim-pole arrives in chapter vi., with the Coavinses. In chapter vii. I make out six arrivals at least. Chapter viii. gives us the Pardiggles, Mr.

Gusher, the brickmaker, and family, and Jenny, his wife. In chapter ix.

Mr. Lawrence Boythorn arrives alone; chapter x. gives us the Snagsbys, their predecessor, Peffer, the two prentices, and Guster, the servant.

Miss Flite comes with chapter xi., and along with her appear the young surgeon, the beadle, Mrs. Perkins, Mrs. Anastasia Piper, and a few more.

Chapter xii. brings Mlle. Hortense, maid to Lady Dedlock, Lord Boodle and his retinue, the Right Hon. William Buffy, M.P., and his retinue. In Chapter xiii. we have Mr. Bayham Badger, Mrs. Badger, and the former husbands of Mrs. Badger are recalled. Chapter xiv. brings Mr. Turveydrop and his son, also Allan Woodcourt, the young surgeon, and we have mentioned the 'old lady with a censorious countenance,' and the late Mrs.

Turveydrop. In chapter xv. we have Mrs. Blinder and the Neckett family; chapter xvii., Mrs. Woodcourt, mother of Allan; chapter xix., Mr. and Mrs. Chadband; chapter xx., Young Smallweed and Jobling, _alias_ Weevle; in chapter xxi., the Grandfather and Grandmother Smallweed, Judith Smallweed, Mr. George, trooper (Uncle George, chapter vii.), and Phil Squod of the Shooting Gallery. The great Mr. Bucket appears in chapter xxii. Captain Hawdon is in chapter xxvi. In chapter xxvii. we have the Bagnet family of five. In chapter xxviii. there comes Volumnia Dedlock; Miss Wisk in chapter x.x.x., and Liz in chapter x.x.xI.

We have now reached the end of the first half, and the arrivals after that are few and unimportant. In chapter x.x.xii. no new character is brought on the stage, though there is talk about the noted siren, who a.s.sists at the Harmonic Meetings, and is announced as Miss M.

Melvilleson, though she has been married a year and a half. In chapter x.x.xiii. it is mentioned that the 'Sols Arms,' a well-conducted tavern, is licensed to a highly respectable landlord, Mr. J. G. Bogsby. After that we have no new character till chapter x.x.xvii., where we are introduced to Mr. W. Grubble, the landlord of that very clean little tavern, 'The Dedlock Arms.' Vholes is introduced by Skimpole as the man who gives him something and called it commission. Mr. Vholes has the privilege of supporting an aged father in the Vale of Taunton, and has a red eruption here and there upon his face. He has three daughters-Emma, Jane, and Caroline-and cannot afford to be selfish. In chapter x.x.xviii. we meet Mrs. Guppy, 'an old lady in a large cap, with rather a red nose, and rather an unsteady eye, but smiling all over.' Then in chapter xl. there are the cousins of Sir Leicester Dedlock. In chapter xliii. Mrs.

Skimpole and the Skimpole family are introduced, and in chapter liii.

Mrs. Bucket. It will be observed that some of these can scarcely be called new characters, and that not one is of any real importance, that is, so far as _Bleak House_ is concerned. d.i.c.kens in the middle of his story had practically put every actor upon the stage. The story was to be developed by the characters to whom the reader had been introduced. I have calculated that in the first half there are about one hundred and six characters of greater or less importance. In the second half there are, on the most generous computation, only sixteen, and not one of them plays a vital part in the development of the tale.

'OUR MUTUAL FRIEND'

I take next _Our Mutual Friend_, and with this I must deal more briefly.

_Our Mutual Friend_ is remarkable for the profusion of characters in the first half. In the second chapter there are sixteen at least, including Mr. and Mrs. Veneering, Mr. and Mrs. Podsnap, Mortimer Lightfoot, Eugene Wrayburn, and John Harmon. The Wilfers come in chapter iv.; in chapter v. Silas Wegg and the Boffins, and almost every chapter adds to the company till we get to the middle. After that there is an abrupt cessation. There are not more than half a dozen new characters named in the second part, and all of them are wholly insignificant, the Deputy Lock, Gruff and Glum, the Greenwich pensioner, the Archbishop of Greenwich, a waiter, Mrs. Sprodgkin, the exacting member of the fold, and the contractor of 500,000 power. In _Our Mutual Friend_ every character of any significance has been introduced when the first half ends. The few stragglers who come later have practically no effect on the story.

'LITTLE DORRIT'

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 new characters at all. Mr. Tinkler, the valet to Mr.

Dorrit, and Mr. Eustace, the cla.s.sical tourist, can hardly be counted.

In chapter xxi., 'The History of a Self-Tormentor,' we have Charlotte Dawes, the false friend, who vanishes instantly, and counts for nothing.

Thus, I think, we may say, taking the three long books of d.i.c.kens's later period, that in each it was his manner to introduce no new characters of the least import in the second half of his books. But it may be worth while to glance at his practice in the shorter tales, _A Tale of Two Cities_ and _Great Expectations_.

'A TALE OF TWO CITIES'

In the second half of this fine book there are practically no new characters that I can trace. The epithet can hardly be applied to the President of the trial at the Conciergerie.

'GREAT EXPECTATIONS'

It is now agreed that one of d.i.c.kens's most perfect books is _Great Expectations_. It is known also that d.i.c.kens complied with a suggestion of Lord Lytton's, which modified the plot-not seriously nor disagreeably.

Here again in the second part we have very few fresh characters. We have the Colonel in Newgate introduced to Mr. Wemmick, but he is 'sure to be a.s.sa.s.sinated on Monday.' Let us not forget Miss Skiffins, a good sort of fellow, with a high regard both for Wemmick and the Aged. There is the retrospective Provis, but the characters introduced belong to the past.

Finally, in chapter xlvi., we have a pleasant glimpse of the Barley family and of Mrs. Whymple, the best of housewives, and the motherly friend of Clara and Herbert. It is she who fosters and regulates with equal kindness and discretion their mutual love. 'It was understood that nothing of a tender nature could possibly be confided to Old Barley, by reason of his being totally unequal to the consideration of any subject more psychological than Gout, Rum, and Purser's Stores.'

These are all the books of which I have made a close personal examination. I believe that the general result will be the same in all save two or three exceptional works, such as _Barnaby Rudge_. Whether he 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.

WILKIE COLLINS 'AHEAD OF ALL THE FIELD'

d.i.c.kens was no great reader, and it is plain by what he did not say, as well as by what he did say, that he did not on the whole admire ardently the work of his contemporaries. But he made a special exception in the case of Wilkie Collins, with whom he collaborated on more than one occasion, as in the story _No Thoroughfare_. He published in his own magazine some of Collins's best detective stories, including _The Woman in White_, _No Name_, and _The Moonstone_. Of these stories d.i.c.kens put first _No Name_. _The Moonstone_ he criticised in one of his letters to Wills. At first he thought it in many respects 'much better than anything he has done,' but afterwards he wrote, 26th July 1868: 'I quite agree with you about _The Moonstone_. The construction is wearisome beyond endurance, and there is a vein of obstinate conceit in it that makes enemies of readers.' {90}

In September 1862 he wrote in enthusiastic terms of admiration about _No Name_. This I take to be a very weighty and significant letter, as will appear in the sequel:

I have gone through the second volume [_No Name_] at a sitting, and I find it _wonderfully fine_. It goes on with an ever-rising power and force in it that fills me with admiration. It is as far before and beyond _The Woman in White_ as that was beyond the wretched common level of fiction-writing. There are some touches in the Captain which no one but a born (and cultivated) writer could get near-could draw within hail of. And the originality of Mrs. Wragge, without compromise of her probability, involves a really great achievement.

But they are all admirable; Mr. Noel Vanstone and the housekeeper, both in their way as meritorious as the rest; Magdalen wrought out with truth, energy, sentiment, and pa.s.sion, of the very first water.

I cannot tell you with what a strange dash of pride as well as pleasure I read the great results of your hard work. Because, as you know, I was certain from the Basil days that you were the Writer who would come ahead of all the Field-being the only one who combined invention and power, both humorous and pathetic, with that invincible determination to work, and that profound conviction that nothing of worth is to be done without work, of which triflers and feigners have no conception. {91}

Mr. Swinburne in his study of Wilkie Collins writes:

It is apparently the general opinion-an opinion which seems to me incontestable-that no third book of their author's can be ranked as equal with _The __Woman in White_ and _The Moonstone_: two works of not more indisputable than incomparable ability. _No Name_ is an only less excellent example of as curious and original a talent.

{92a}

This was not the opinion of d.i.c.kens.

'A BACKWARD LIGHT'

On 6th October 1859 d.i.c.kens replied to a suggestion by Collins on the working out of _A Tale of Two Cities_. The italics are mine:

I do not positively say that the point you put might not have been done in your manner; but I have a very strong conviction that it would have been overdone in that manner-too elaborately trapped, baited, and prepared-in the main antic.i.p.ated, and its interest wasted. This is quite apart from the peculiarity of the Doctor's [Dr. Manette-_A Tale of Two Cities_] character, as affected by his imprisonment; which of itself would, to my thinking, render it quite out of the question to put the reader inside of him before the proper time, in respect of matters that were dim to himself through being, in a diseased way, morbidly shunned by him. _I think the business of art is to lay all that ground carefully_, _not with the care that conceals itself-to show_, _by a backward light_, _what everything has been working to_,-_but only to suggest_, _until the fulfilment comes_. _These are the ways of Providence_, _of which ways all art is but a little imitation_. {92b}

EDGAR ALLAN POE AND d.i.c.kENS: A MYSTIFICATION

Could d.i.c.kens keep his secrets well? In other words, could he prevent his readers from fathoming a mystery till the proper moment of the _denouement_? An important help to the answering of this question will be found in the essay on Charles d.i.c.kens by Edgar Allan Poe, who was a critic of extraordinary penetration. If any one could detect a secret it was he. But he was also much given to mystification, and it is not wise to accept anything he says without verifying it. The essay on d.i.c.kens turns largely on _Barnaby Rudge_, and, to the best of my belief, it has not been strictly examined.

POE'S CLAIM