Gutenberg Articles

Appearance

Excerpt ​

Excerpt from The Puzzle of Dickens's Last Plot, by Andrew Lang

If Edwin is dead, there is not much “Mystery” about him. We have as good
as seen Jasper strangle him and take his pin, chain, and watch. Yet by
adroitly managing the conduct of Mr. Grewgious, Dickens persuaded Mr.
Proctor that certainly, Grewgious knew Edwin to be alive. As Grewgious
knew, from Helena, all that was necessary to provoke his experiment on
Jasper’s nerves, Mr. Proctor argued on false premises, but that was due
to the craft of Dickens. Mr. Proctor rejected Forster’s report, from
memory, of what he understood to be the “incommunicable secret” of
Dickens’s plot, and I think that he was justified in the rejection.
Forster does not seem to have cared about the thing—he refers lightly to
“the reader curious in such matters”—when once he had received his
explanation from Dickens. His memory, in the space of five years, may
have been inaccurate: he probably neither knew nor cared who Datchery
was; and he may readily have misunderstood what Dickens told him, orally,
about the ring, as the instrument of detection. Moreover, Forster quite
overlooked one source of evidence, as I shall show later.

MR. PROCTOR’S THEORY

Mr. Proctor’s theory of the story is that Jasper, after Edwin’s return at
midnight on Christmas Eve, recommended a warm drink—mulled wine,
drugged—and then proposed another stroll of inspection of the effects of
the storm. He then strangled him, somewhere, and placed him in the
quicklime in the Sapsea vault, locked him in, and went to bed. Next,
according to Mr. Proctor, Durdles, then, “lying drunk in the precincts,”
for some reason taps with his hammer on the wall of the Sapsea vault,
detects the presence of a foreign body, opens the tomb, and finds Drood
in the quicklime, “his face fortunately protected by the strong silk
shawl with which Jasper has intended to throttle him.”

Explanation ​

Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Puzzle of Dickens’s Last Plot by Andrew Lang ​

This passage is from Andrew Lang’s 1905 essay "The Puzzle of Dickens’s Last Plot," which analyzes the unresolved mystery in Charles Dickens’s final, unfinished novel, The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870). Dickens died before completing the book, leaving the fate of the titular character—Edwin Drood—and the identity of the detective figure Datchery ambiguous. Lang’s essay examines competing theories about the intended ending, particularly focusing on John Proctor’s theory (a Dickens scholar) and John Forster’s account (Dickens’s biographer and confidant).

The excerpt critiques Proctor’s interpretation of the plot while questioning Forster’s reliability in transmitting Dickens’s original intentions. Below is a breakdown of the passage, its context, themes, literary devices, and significance—with primary focus on the text itself.

1. Summary & Key Arguments in the Excerpt ​

A. The Central Mystery: Is Edwin Drood Dead? ​

  • The passage opens with a provocative claim: "If Edwin is dead, there is not much 'Mystery' about him."

    • This suggests that the real mystery lies not in whether Edwin was murdered (since Jasper’s guilt seems evident) but in how the truth is revealed and who survives.
    • Lang implies that Dickens’s narrative misdirection (via Mr. Grewgious’s behavior) led Proctor to believe Edwin was alive, when in fact, the text heavily suggests Jasper killed him.

  • Evidence of Jasper’s Guilt in the Excerpt:

    • "We have as good as seen Jasper strangle him and take his pin, chain, and watch."
      • This refers to Chapter 11 ("A Picture and a Ring"), where Jasper’s obsessive, predatory behavior toward Edwin is evident.
      • The theft of personal items (pin, chain, watch) is a classic Dickensian detail—Jasper keeps trophies, much like a serial killer.
      • The ring (mentioned later) is crucial—it may be the physical evidence that exposes Jasper.

B. Dickens’s Narrative Trickery: Misleading Mr. Proctor ​

  • Lang argues that Dickens deliberately misled Proctor by making Mr. Grewgious (a lawyer and guardian figure) act as if Edwin were alive.

    • "Dickens persuaded Mr. Proctor that certainly, Grewgious knew Edwin to be alive."
      • Grewgious’s knowledge of Helena’s suspicions (Helena is Edwin’s fiancée’s sister, who distrusts Jasper) leads him to test Jasper’s reactions.
      • Proctor misinterpreted this as proof Edwin was alive, but Lang suggests it was a red herring.

  • Forster’s Unreliable Account:

    • Lang dismisses Forster’s version of Dickens’s planned ending, calling it unreliable because:
      1. Forster didn’t care much about the mystery ("he refers lightly to 'the reader curious in such matters'").
      2. His memory may have failed (Dickens told him orally, five years before Forster wrote it down).
      3. He overlooked key evidence (which Lang promises to reveal later).

C. Proctor’s Theory: A Step-by-Step Murder Plot ​

  • Proctor’s reconstruction of the murder is detailed and cinematic:

    1. The Drugging: Jasper gives Edwin mulled wine (drugged) upon his return on Christmas Eve.
    2. The Second Stroll: He lures Edwin out again under the pretense of inspecting storm damage.
    3. The Murder: Jasper strangles Edwin (likely with a silk shawl) and hides the body in quicklime inside the Sapsea vault (a tomb in the cathedral crypt).
    4. The Discovery: Durdles (a stonemason who works in the crypt) later taps the vault wall, hears something odd, opens it, and finds Edwin’s preserved face (protected by the shawl).

  • Problems with Proctor’s Theory (Implied by Lang):

    • Durdles’s Drunken Discovery seems too convenient—why would he randomly tap the vault?
    • The shawl preserving the face is melodramatic but fits Dickens’s Gothic style.
    • Lang doesn’t outright reject it but suggests Forster’s version is worse.

2. Themes in the Excerpt (and in Edwin Drood) ​

A. Deception & Unreliable Narration ​

  • The passage itself enacts the mystery it describes:
    • Lang accuses Forster of deception (or at least incompetence).
    • Proctor is deceived by Dickens’s narrative tricks.
    • The reader is left questioning who to trust—a meta-commentary on Edwin Drood’s unresolved nature.

B. The Limits of Evidence & Memory ​

  • "False premises" and "inaccurate memory" are key:
    • Forster’s oral account is unreliable.
    • Proctor’s logical deductions are based on misinterpretations.
    • This mirrors Edwin Drood’s legal and detective themes—how do we prove guilt when evidence is ambiguous?

C. The Nature of Mystery in Fiction ​

  • Lang suggests that Dickens’s genius lies in misdirection:
    • The real mystery isn’t who killed Edwin (it’s obviously Jasper) but how the truth is revealed.
    • This reflects Victorian detective fiction (e.g., Wilkie Collins’s The Moonstone), where process matters more than solution.

3. Literary Devices in the Excerpt ​

A. Irony & Sarcasm ​

  • "There is not much 'Mystery' about him" – Dramatic irony, since the entire novel is titled The Mystery of Edwin Drood.
  • "Forster does not seem to have cared about the thing" – Sarcastic understatement, implying Forster was negligent.

B. Foreshadowing & Suspense ​

  • "I shall show later" – Lang teases his own evidence, mimicking Dickens’s serialized cliffhangers.
  • The ring as "instrument of detection" is Chekhov’s gun—a detail that must pay off.

C. Metafiction (Writing About Writing) ​

  • The essay analyzes how stories are constructed:
    • Dickens manipulates readers (and Proctor).
    • Forster fails as a transmitter of the author’s intent.
    • This is self-reflexive criticism—Lang is dissecting the act of interpretation itself.

4. Significance of the Passage ​

A. The Unfinished Novel’s Legacy ​

  • Since Dickens died before finishing Edwin Drood, scholars and fans have debated the ending for over a century.
  • Lang’s essay is part of a long tradition of "solving" the mystery, showing how readers become detectives.

B. The Role of the Author’s Intent ​

  • The passage questions whether Forster’s account is valid:
    • If an author’s oral explanation is unreliable, can we ever know the "true" ending?
    • This anticipates 20th-century literary theory (e.g., Death of the Author—Roland Barthes).

C. Jasper as a Villain & the Gothic Tradition ​

  • Jasper is a prototypical Victorian villain:
    • Hypocritical (a choir master who murders).
    • Obsessive (his love for Rosa Bud, Edwin’s fiancée, may drive the crime).
    • Gothic (quicklime, crypts, storms—classic sensation novel elements).
  • Proctor’s theory fits Dickens’s darker works (Oliver Twist, Bleak House), where secrets are buried but eventually uncovered.

5. Conclusion: What Does the Excerpt Tell Us? ​

  • Dickens was a master of misdirection, and Edwin Drood is his ultimate puzzle.
  • Proctor’s theory is plausible but not definitive—Lang hints there’s more evidence (likely the ring).
  • Forster’s account is unreliable, making the true ending unknowable.
  • The passage embodies the fun of literary detective work—readers are invited to piece together clues, just as they would in the novel itself.

Final Thought: ​

Lang’s excerpt is not just analysis—it’s part of the mystery. By questioning Forster and Proctor, he keeps the debate alive, proving that Dickens’s last, unfinished work remains hauntingly open to interpretation.

Would you like a deeper dive into Proctor’s full theory or Forster’s disputed account? Or perhaps an exploration of how later adaptations (plays, films) have "solved" the mystery?