I am not prepared to criticise d.i.c.kens's plot as Mr. Lang has done. If Wilkie Collins made an admirable heroine of Magdalen Vanstone disguising herself variously, why should not d.i.c.kens succeed in making a character as wonderful and more attractive of Helena Landless? There is nothing to be condemned in the idea itself. It has been used by masters, and used successfully. There would have been nothing to condemn, I believe, in d.i.c.kens's way of working it out if he had lived to complete his book.

The comparison with Guy Boothby is singularly inept.

OBJECTIONS

The objections that have been made to the Datchery-Helena theory turn mainly on the supposed disgracefulness of d.i.c.kens deceiving his readers as he did, and working out a melodramatic idea. These objections might have been, and, I believe, would have been, scattered to the winds by the complete story.

The most serious objection to the identification of Datchery as Helena is the confusion in the chronology. This is admirably stated by Dr.

Jackson, who examines in a masterly way the arrangement of the chapters.

He comes to the conclusion that chapter xviii. has been introduced prematurely. It ought to have followed chapter xxii. If d.i.c.kens had lived to issue the fifth and sixth monthly instalments, he would have placed our chapter xviii. without the alteration of a single word after chapter xxii., next before chapter xxiii. We know that d.i.c.kens told his sister-in-law that he was afraid the Datchery a.s.sumption in the fifth number was premature. Dr. Jackson gives us a full and valuable examination of the ma.n.u.script so far as its arrangement is concerned. I have tested his statements in every point, and can only confirm them. To Dr. Jackson's chapter ix., 'The Ma.n.u.script,' I refer the reader.

There are other objections. In particular, some are troubled by Datchery's masculine ways. They ask how Helena, fresh from Ceylon, should have known the old tavern way of keeping scores. There is not much in this. In fact, these scores, which could have served no purpose, seem to me the natural expression of a buoyant girl rejoicing in her achievements. A cool-headed, middle-aged detective would never have expressed himself in such a way. Why should not Helena have known about tavern scoring? She was accustomed to walk with her brother Neville, and in the course of their walks they may very likely have visited a tavern now and then. We read of Neville finding his way to a tavern when he walked away that dark night. In _Phineas Finn_, at the end of chapter lxxi., Trollope, reporting the conversation of two high-born ladies, Lady Laura Kennedy and Miss Violet Effingham, has this:

'Was I not to forgive him-I who had turned myself away from him with a fixed purpose the moment that I found that he had made a mark upon my heart? I could not wipe off that mark, and yet I married. Was he not to try to wipe off his mark?'

'It seems that he wiped it off very quickly; and since that he has wiped off another mark. One doesn't know how many marks he has wiped off. They are like the innkeeper's score which he makes in chalk. A damp cloth brings them all away, and leaves nothing behind.'

This shows, at least, that chalk-marking is not a matter of esoteric knowledge in England, but is known to high and low. I may note that d.i.c.kens inserted the adjective 'uncouth'-'a few uncouth, chalked strokes'-over his original ma.n.u.script, to make it clear no doubt that the scorer was an amateur at the business.

Then there are objections to Datchery's masculine fare-fried sole, veal cutlet, and pint of sherry; bread and cheese, and salad and ale. It must be remembered that Helena was in disguise. This was not a mere disguise of dress, but it was a disguise of everything. She was a.s.suming a character and carrying it out. She had all the ability and all the will for accomplishing this. In doing masculine things she was simply carrying out her disguise. A woman pa.s.sing for a man must do what a man would do or she will fail, and be found out.

It has been suggested that if Datchery is Helena, and therefore knows the Gatehouse, why does she give it 'a second look of some interest'? Dr.

Jackson replies very well that the house for her has now a new importance, and is the object upon which her thoughts are to be concentrated for weeks, and perhaps for months. But d.i.c.kens did not mean this pa.s.sage to be printed, for good reasons of his own.

WHAT d.i.c.kENS DID NOT MEAN US TO READ

This leads us to note that certain pa.s.sages which have been much discussed were not meant for publication by d.i.c.kens. That is, he struck them out in proof. Dr. Jackson points out that in chapter xviii., when Datchery consults the waiter at the Crozier about 'a fair lodging for a single buffer,' he is obviously asking to be recommended to Tope's. The waiter is puzzled at first. When Mr. Datchery asks for 'something venerable, architectural, and inconvenient,' the waiter shakes his head.

'Anything cathedraly, now?' Mr. Datchery suggested. Then comes the mention of Tope. Datchery boggles about the cathedral tower seeking for lodgings, but d.i.c.kens did not mean us to read the words: 'With a general impression on his mind that Mrs. Tope's was somewhere very near it, and that, like the children in the game of hot boiled beans and very good b.u.t.ter, he was warm in his search when he saw the tower, and cold when he didn't see it.'

When the Deputy pointed out Jasper's, first d.i.c.kens wrote '"Indeed?" said Mr. Datchery, with an appearance of interest.' Then he wrote: '"Indeed?" said Mr. Datchery, with a second look of some interest.' Then he struck out the sentence entirely.

d.i.c.kens also struck out the sentence which describes Datchery after the Deputy left him: 'Mr. Datchery, taking off his hat to give that shock of white hair of his another shake, seemed quite resigned, and betook himself whither he had been directed.' He also struck out the pa.s.sage in which Mrs. Tope and Datchery talk of what occurred last winter:

Perhaps Mr. Datchery had heard something of what had occurred there last winter?

Mr. Datchery had as confused a knowledge of the event in question, on trying to recall it, as he well could have. He begged Mrs. Tope's pardon when she found it inc.u.mbent on her to correct him in every detail of his summary of the facts, but pleaded that he was merely a single buffer getting through life upon his means as idly as he could, and that so many people were so constantly making away with so many other people as to render it difficult for a buffer of an easy temper to preserve the circ.u.mstances of the several cases unmixed in his mind.

Nearly all the conversation between the Mayor and Datchery is deleted.

See page 9.

Also d.i.c.kens erases the little talk between the Deputy and Datchery beginning: 'Master Deputy, what do you owe me?' See page 11.

It may not be possible to deduce any a.s.sured inference from these omissions, but they are worth pondering, and may be referred to again.

CHAPTER VII-OTHER THEORIES

THE DROOD-DATCHERY THEORY

One opposing theory is that Datchery was Drood. With all respect for the scholars who have propounded it, this appears to me a purely comic notion. It is the most fantastical of all fancies as to who was Datchery. As Dr. Blake Odgers points out, every one at Cloisterham knew the murdered man: a mere white wig would be no disguise at all. I may add that if Jasper had discovered him he would almost be justified in finishing the murder this time. For what would be Drood's object? The theory is that, in spite of his being drugged, throttled, perhaps thrown from a tower, at all events buried in quicklime, and in all probability locked up in the tomb, Drood got away when his uncle was triumphantly flinging his watch and scarf-pin into the river. Supposing it were so, what was Drood doing while he watched his uncle? Is it said that he was so bemused by the opium that he did not know who had handled him in such a murderous fashion? This is very hard to believe. Mr. Andrew Lang himself says: 'Fancy can suggest no reason why Edwin Drood, if he escaped from his wicked uncle, should go spying about instead of coming openly forward.' Mr. Archer says the flaw is that the theory provides no motive whatever for Drood's disguising himself as Datchery. Why should Drood devote himself to an elaborate scheme of revenge upon his near kinsman and friend? He would want to hush the matter up, and save Jasper from himself. Why did Drood let Neville lie under the suspicion of murder, and why was not Rosa let into the secret? It is hardly worth while to point out that there is nothing in Drood's character as given us which could have enabled him to show the ability, the composure, and the self-control of Datchery. Who could have supplied him with money to live idly at Cloisterham? His money was all locked up till he came of age, and Jasper was his guardian and trustee. If Grewgious supplied the money, why did not Grewgious make an end of Neville's misery?

THE BAZZARD-DATCHERY THEORY

A far more plausible theory is that Datchery was Bazzard. d.i.c.kens almost invites readers to connect Bazzard with Datchery when he makes Grewgious say to Rosa when she came up to London that Bazzard 'was off duty here altogether just at present, and a firm downstairs with whom I have business relations lend me a subst.i.tute.' (The words 'here altogether'

were added by d.i.c.kens.)

I have no doubt that d.i.c.kens in some way meant to explain Bazzard's business. But that Bazzard should have been Datchery will appear a sheer impossibility to careful students of d.i.c.kens. Proctor, whose side remarks are often excellent, puts the point briefly as follows: 'No one at all familiar with d.i.c.kens's method would for a moment imagine that Datchery is Bazzard, Mr. Grewgious's clerk. Bazzard was as certainly intended to come to grief, and be exposed in the sequel as was Silas Wegg in _Our Mutual Friend_.'

Mr. c.u.ming Walters says: 'Literary art rebels against the idea. Bazzard was one of d.i.c.kens's favourite low comedy characters.'

Dr. James dismisses the Bazzard theory 'because Buzzard in his first and princ.i.p.al appearance has too much both of the fool and of the knave about him to develop into the Datchery whom we are intended to admire.'

Dr. Jackson says: 'Capacity can ape incapacity, but incapacity cannot ape capacity. This being so, I am sure that Bazzard, who is not only "particularly angular, but also somnolent, dull, incompetent, egotistical, is wholly incapable of playing the part of the supple, quick-witted, resolute, dignified Datchery."' In these judgments I agree. Bazzard has no ethical quality. He has not the smallest personal interest in the discovery. How could it be said of Bazzard that his 'wistful gaze is directed to this beacon, and beyond?'

As the theory is obvious and popular, it may be worth while to say something more, and Dr. Hugo Eick's words, as previously quoted, may help us. Helena Landless had the elemental qualities needed for the Datchery role. Note that among Shakespeare's heroines who masquerade as men, Rosalind, in _As you Like It_, and Julia, in _Two Gentlemen of Verona_, have not these elemental qualities and are suspected. Portia has them, and even her own husband does not know her in her doctor's robes. She is recognised by all as a young doctor, but not one person in court thinks 'There is a woman!' Bazzard might have imitated depressive and negative conditions, but he could not have imitated the qualities of positive life. 'Fulness of life and the sap which quickens it cannot be replaced by any dissimulation.'

It should also be noted that if Bazzard was Datchery, he had no occasion to disguise himself in a huge white wig, for he was not known in Cloisterham.

THE GREWGIOUS-DATCHERY THEORY

The theory that Datchery was Grewgious may be dismissed in a sentence.

Grewgious with his 'awkward and hesitating manner,' his 'shambling walk,'

his 'scanty flat crop of hair,' his 'smooth head,' his 'short sight,' his general angularity fits in no way the watchful, courtly, adroit, fluent, and versatile Datchery.

THE DATCHERY-NEVILLE THEORY

Mr. Lang has a wild conjecture somewhere that Neville was Datchery, and that Helena was disguised as Neville. It is difficult to treat this seriously. Neville would inevitably have been found out. His cause was undertaken by his friends, and his business was to study and wait. Why on earth should Helena disguise herself as Neville?

THE TARTAR-DATCHERY THEORY

There is something more attractive about this theory, and it has been very well argued by Mr. G. F. Gadd in the _d.i.c.kensian_, vol. ii. p. 13.

Mr. Gadd uses the argument 'with a second look of some interest,' as showing Datchery's ignorance of Cloisterham. He quotes Tartar's phrase 'being an idle man,' as corresponding with the 'idle buffer living on his means.' He suggests that d.i.c.kens at this point of his story avails himself of the licence not unfrequent in fiction of temporarily abandoning the strictly chronological order. He suggests that Tartar as a seafaring man might know something of opium smoking, and compares the wistful gaze directed to this beacon and beyond, to what is said about Tartar as he and Rosa entered his chambers at Staple Inn. 'Rosa thought . . . that his far-seeing eyes looked as if they had been used to watch danger afar off, and to watch it without flinching, drawing nearer and nearer.'

But, as Dr. Jackson points out, Tartar has his duties a.s.signed to him.

He has to watch over Neville and see him almost daily. Again, Tartar does not know about Cloisterham and the Drood mystery what Datchery knows and needs to know. 'Thirdly, I doubt whether the cheery, straightforward, simple-minded Tartar is capable of Datchery's versatility, subtlety, and address.' To this I add that Tartar's heart is not engaged in the business as Helena's is. Also what need is there for his disguise? He has never been in Cloisterham, and n.o.body there knows him.