Academiejaar 2008-2009
A Victorian Kodak Moment: The Dynamic between Charles Dickens and Marcus Stone
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Marysa Demoor Masterproef voorgelegd aan de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte voor het verkrijgen van de graad van Master in de taal- en letterkunde: Engels door
Jasper Schelstraete
Academiejaar 2008-2009
A Victorian Kodak Moment: The Dynamic between Charles Dickens and Marcus Stone
Promotor: Prof. Dr. Marysa Demoor Masterproef voorgelegd aan de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte voor het verkrijgen van de graad van Master in de taal- en letterkunde: Engels door
Jasper Schelstraete
Preface
At the end of my final Bachelor year, I completed a paper entitled "The Loss of a
Child in Douglas Coupland and Chuck Palahniuk: Theme or Catalyst?". It was concerned with the complete works of the two authors mentioned in the title, both of them contemporary
North-American writers. While I was pleased with the final result, one issue concerned me.
As a result of the contemporary nature of the novels I was discussing, there were very few sources available to me. Whereas this forced me to be creative with the novels themselves — never a bad thing — it also denied me an integral part of the process of writing a research paper, that of finding and incorporating sources into my work. Not only do they add to the academic weight of a paper, sources also give rise to creativity, as they make it possible for one to offset one's own ideas against those of published scholars. Because of this, I decided that I would write my dissertation on a subject that would have no lack of sources.
However, my choice of Dickens was by no means motivated solely by this resolution to find a well-sourced subject. My interest in this great novelist had been sparked a few years earlier, when I read Great Expectations for the first time, as part of the curriculum of an
English course. The style and atmosphere appealed to me greatly, and I began reading a few of Dickens's novels as a pastime. As a result, I was drawn to Victorian Literature, and I enrolled in a class taught by Professor Demoor on Victorian Poetry. It was during the exam of this class that Professor Demoor suggested I read Our Mutual Friend, which I promptly did.
The book appealed to me, and I was struck by the illustrations especially. They seemed to me neat and polished, different from illustrations I had encountered in for example Oliver Twist. I set out to discover who the illustrator was, and found out that he, Marcus Stone, had very little been dealt with academically, overshadowed as he was by such great illustrators of Dickens as Cruikshank and Browne. Intrigued, I set out to find out more about this largely forgotten illustrator, especially about his link to Dickens. I had found my subject.
There are many people I would like to thank for helping me with this project. First, I would like to thank Professor Demoor, not only for introducing me to Our Mutual Friend, but especially for the expert guidance she gave me throughout my writing this dissertation. After every trip to her office, I was filled with new ideas and inspiration. I felt safe in the knowledge that she was so involved in the entire process, and it truly was a wonderful experience. Second, I owe gratitude to my parents, for the way in which they've supported me throughout the endeavour. Whenever I felt an oncoming surge of writer's block, I could turn to them to help me see things in a new perspective. Also the way in which my father especially patiently re-read all my work deserves a big thank-you. Finally, I'd like to thank
Charlotte for putting up with my incessant spewing of Dickens related trivia, as well as my occasional outburst of productivity resulting in late night writing sessions, long before there was any hint of deadline stress. Thank you all, it gave me great peace of mind knowing that you were all behind me.
Table of contents
PREFACE...... 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 4 1. INTRODUCTION...... 5 2. BIOGRAPHY ...... 9 2.1. THE EARLY YEARS...... 9 2.2. 'BOZ' ...... 15 2.3. MASTER HUMPHREY'S CLOCK ...... 21 2.4. AMERICA...... 24 2.5. THE BEST OF TIMES...... 26 2.6. THE WORST OF TIMES...... 28 2.7. MANY PARTINGS ...... 36 3. DICKENS AND HIS ILLUSTRATORS ...... 38 3.1. GEORGE CRUIKSHANK...... 38 3.2. ROBERT SEYMOUR...... 43 3.3. ROBERT W. BUSS ...... 49 3.4. HABLOT K. BROWNE ...... 50 4. DICKENS AND STONE ...... 56 4.1. MARCUS STONE...... 56 4.2. CASTING THE FIRST STONE ...... 60 4.3. TWO BIRDS, ONE STONE ...... 61 5. OUR MUTUAL FRIEND...... 63 5.1. THE PORTRAYAL OF FEMALE CHARACTERS...... 68 5.2. THE REPRESENTATION OF ‘THE JEW’...... 83 5.3. THE CASE OF PODSNAPPERY...... 95 5.4. THE GROTESQUE AND THE MACABRE...... 98 6. CONCLUSION ...... 108 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 113 Schelstraete 5
1. Introduction
Charles Dickens’s name evokes a plethora of associations, which might be of a general nature, with regard to a ‘Dickensian England’ or, more specifically, a ‘Dickensian London’, whose grimy underbelly shaped the novelist so extensively. The influence London had on the novelist is not very surprising, considering the extensive changes the city underwent during
Dickens’s lifetime, such as the influence of the Industrial Revolution on the city, as well as the subsequent increase in population (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 7)1. Perhaps Dickens’s name evokes rather more specific elements of his work to some readers, such as the memorable characters that he seemed to conjure up so effortlessly. Scrooge, synonymous with a mean, penny-pinching and uncaring person, as well as his catchphrase ‘Bah, humbug!’ have taken root in the English language 2, much like poor orphan Oliver Twist’s famous line ‘Please sir, can I have some more?’ and Oliver’s street-wise friend and teacher ‘The Artful Dodger’ have all taken their places in the Anglo-Saxon consciousness, and outside (Klimaszewski &
Gregory, 7). Further witness to the impact Dickens had, and continues to have, are the numerous plays and television mini-series that are based on his novels3, as well as the many references made to the novelist’s works and characters in contemporary media 4. In short, very few authors have reached the level of fame and influence that Dickens has.
1 Melisa Klimaszewski & Melissa Gregory. Brief Lives: Charles Dickens. London. Hesperus Press Limited,.
2008, henceforth referred to as Klimaszewski & Gregory.
2 For example in David Lodge, The British Museum is Falling Down. London. Penguin Books, 1981.
3 Such as the BBC’s miniseries Oliver Twist (2007), Bleak House (2007), Little Dorrit (2008).
4 References to Dickens’s novels are made with amazing frequency, ranging from a culinary show named
‘Oliver’s Twist’ to references in animated series such as Family Guy and comic books. Schelstraete 6
The name Marcus Stone, however, is now much less well known. During his life, he had made a name for himself. Not only did he illustrate some of Dickens’s works, as well as
Trollope’s He Knew He Was Right, he also attained full honours at the Royal Academy in recognition of his prowess as a painter, by no means a small feat. Despite these accomplishments, Stone has largely been forgotten, his paintings deemed out of date and his illustrating work for Dickens eclipsed by the more illustrious names that make up the list of artists who devoted their pens to the embellishment of Dickens’s books. My aim is to shed light on the way in which Stone and Dickens interacted, personally as well as professionally.
Most important in their professional relationship is the novel Our Mutual Friend, which Stone illustrated in its entirety. 5 This novel will logically be the main focus in the study of the interaction between these two men. It is worth noting though, that it was not one of Dickens's best received novels. Henry James for example thought that it was "poor with the poverty not of momentary embarrassment, but of permanent exhaustion" (Waller, 195)6. Through examining the relationship between the novelist and the artist, I will not only allow Stone to claim his place alongside Dickens’s illustrators such as Cruikshank and Phiz. I will also explain some of the views Dickens displayed on subjects such as the representation of women and Jewish people in his works, through the way in which his opinions are embodied in
Stone’s illustrations. By showing that many biases and ideas that are implicitly present in
Dickens's work are clarified by the way in which Stone represents them, I will be able to
5 ‘Great Expectations’ and ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, for example, were also illustrated by Stone. However,
‘Great Expectations’ had originally been published without any illustrations; and the first publication of ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ was illustrated by Phiz. As such, ‘Our Mutual Friend’ is the only novel Dickens and Stone collaborated on during its conception, making it the perfect example for the study of the interaction between the two men.
6 Philip J. Waller. Writers, Readers, and Reputations. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2006. Schelstraete 7 prove incontrovertibly the profound interplay that exists between Dickens's text and Stone's illustrations, and make explicit those biases.
In order to do this, a few key elements must be in place. First, a biography of Dickens is vital, to allow for contextualization of all elements pertaining to the novelist that might be relevant to the interaction between Dickens and Stone, as well as to the views displayed by the two men concerning for example gender and race. Considering that Dickens was nearing the end of his life during his collaboration with Marcus Stone, it is worth remembering that the course of his life was a great influence on his work, and might reveal the reasons behind certain elements in his novels. Additionally, everything Dickens did was highly interconnected, which would leave any attempt at an overly selective biography lacking in consistency.
Second, in order to be able to discuss the way in which Dickens and Stone’s interaction functioned, an overview of the main illustrators employed by Dickens is essential.
This survey makes it possible to compare Stone to the artists previously responsible for the embellishment of Dickens’s work. It also allows an insight into the cooperation between
Dickens and those artists; which in turn lets us compare these professional relationships to the one between Stone and the novelist.
Finally, a brief look at Stone’s life, with special regard to his connection with Charles
Dickens, completes the list of necessary elements for this study. By tracing the earliest links between Dickens and Stone, we can form a clear picture of the interplay between the two. In order to discover these links, several sources were employed, such as the letters Dickens wrote to Marcus Stone as well as to Frank Stone. Which made it possible for me to gain an insight into the relationship between the novelist and Marcus Stone, as well as its origins.
With these elements in place, I will be able to form a clear picture of the interaction between novelist and illustrator. As a result, I will not only have pulled the long-neglected Schelstraete 8
Stone back into the limelight of Dickens’s illustrators. I will also be able to demonstrate
Dickens’s views, through an analysis of the interaction with Stone, and of Dickens’s words and Stone’s illustrations. But for now, the question remains: what was the interaction between
Dickens and Stone like; and how was it reflected in ‘Our Mutual Friend’? Schelstraete 9
2. Biography
One might think that a biography of Charles Dickens would be superfluous here. After all, there are quite a few biographies on the market, most notably the one written by John
Forster, ‘The Life of Charles Dickens’7. Forster was Dickens’s life-long friend and biographer as well as the executor of the great novelist’s will. It is no wonder then that as Dickens gave a first-hand account of his life to Forster, any other biography, be it a full-fledged project to create a comprehensive overview of the great Victorian novelist’s life, or a brief recap in the context of an endeavour such as mine, seems to be rendered pointless, on account of everything having been covered by Dickens himself. However, exactly because Dickens gave his version of events to Forster, it is important to put these accounts into perspective. While it does lend credibility on the one hand, the accounts are inevitably skewed. It is important to bear in mind that Dickens was an extremely proficient story-teller, and in order to recount some of his more painful memories, he did not shy away from creating powerful images, geared entirely towards convincing the reader of the anguish that the situation forced upon the
‘very small and not-over-particularly-taken-care-of boy’ (Forster, Vol I, 6).
2.1. The Early Years
Charles John Huffham Dickens was born at Landport in Portsea, on 7 February 1812 to John Dickens and Elizabeth Barrow (Forster, Vol I, 1).He was the second of eight children, and the oldest son. His older sister Fanny, whom he favoured (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 15), is the only sibling that I can give a place in this biography, as she is the only one who plays a notable role early on in Dickens’s life. Interestingly, Dickens claimed to have distinct
7 John Forster. The Life of Charles Dickens, 3 Vols, London: Chapman and Hall, 1872, henceforth referred to as Forster. Schelstraete 10 memories, as far back as infancy, which he told and retold with the same convincing, yet subtle, knack for detail, found in the powerful fiction that flowed out of the novelist’s pen.
The earliest of these memories is recorded by John Forster in ‘The Life of Charles Dickens’, alongside with Forster’s own memory of Dickens’s testimony of his recollections:
He has often told me that he remembered the small front garden to the house at
Portsea, from which he was taken away when he was two years old, and where,
watched by a nurse through a low kitchen-window almost level with the gravel-
walk, he trotted about with something to eat, and his little elder sister with him.
He was carried from the garden one day to see the soldiers exercise; and I
perfectly recollect, that, on our being at Portsmouth together while he was
writing Nickleby, he recognized the exact shape of the military parade seen by
him as a very infant, on the same spot, a quarter of a century before. (Forster,
Vol I, 2-3)
Not only does Forster record Dickens’s life, he also seems to lend it more credibility by personally verifying it through his own memories.
Dickens’s early life was marked by his father, John Dickens, in two distinct ways.
First, due to John’s occupation as a clerk in the Navy pay office, the family was forced to move according to where John’s duties lay. In a short time, they changed house multiple times, from Portsmouth to London, where they stayed in Norfolk-street, Middlesex-hospital and later Chatham. There, Charles Dickens and his sister Fanny were enrolled in the Clover
Lane Academy. Dickens savoured the education deeply, and all the references he makes to this period are happy and positive memories (Ackroyd, 44-45)8. At Chatham, we find another instance of the striking recollections of the author, centred around a house called Gad’s Hill
8 Peter Ackroyd. Dickens. London: Minerva, 1993. Henceforth referred to as Ackroyd. Schelstraete 11
Place, on the main road between Rochester and Gravesend. Dickens himself wrote in one of his essays:
Presently, the very queer small boy says, “This is Gads-hill we are coming to,
where Falstaff went out to rob those travellers, and ran away.” (…) “But do let
us stop at the top of the hill, and look at the house there, if you please!” “You
admire that house?” said I. “Bless you, sir,” said the very queer small boy, “
when I was not more than half as old as nine, it used to be a treat for me to be
brought to look at it. And now I am nine, I come by myself to look at it. And
ever since I can recollect, my father, seeing me so fond of it, has often said to
me, If you were to be very persevering and were to work hard, you might some
day come to live in it. Though that’s impossible!” said the very queer small boy,
drawing a low breath, and now staring at the house out of window with all his
might. I was rather amazed to be told this by the very queer small boy; for that
house happens to be my house, and I have reason to believe that what he said
was true. (Dickens in Forster, Vol I, 4-5)
Of course, the ‘very queer small boy’ was Dickens himself, and it was his own father who had told him that through hard work and perseverance, he might come to live in the house he so admired. John Dickens, while good at giving counsel, was less than proficient at managing the family’s finances. This was the second influence Dickens’s father had on his early life. In fact, because of John’s habit of buying on credit, which he never repaid, the
Dickens family was slowly wholly overtaken by debt. John had been transferred from
Chatham to London in 1822, thus bringing an end to Dickens’s education in Chatham.
Dickens later confided in a friend how deeply he felt about “losing Chatham" and his intense yearning "to have been sent back to any school, to have been taught something somewhere"
(Forster, Vol I, 16). In London, the financial situation of the Dickens family deteriorated Schelstraete 12 further. In fact, the situation became so dire that in February 1824, John Dickens was incarcerated at the Marshallsea prison for Debtors (Forster, Vol I, 23). Later, the entire family, except for Fanny and Charles, were forced to join John (Klimaszewski & Gregory,
15). It was during this period that Dickens underwent one of the most traumatic experiences of his life, the implications of which would continue to resonate throughout his work. In an attempt to improve the family’s financial situation Dickens was employed in a warehouse, where he was tasked with labelling jars of boot blacking. Dickens himself wrote to Forster, giving an account of this episode, which Forster preserved in the first volume of ‘The Life of
Charles Dickens’:
No words can express the secret agony of my soul as I sunk into this
companionship; compared these every day associates with those of my happier
childhood; and felt my early hopes of growing up to be a learned and
distinguished man, crushed in my breast. The deep remembrance of the sense I
had of being utterly neglected and hopeless; of the shame I felt in my position;
of the misery it was to my young heart to believe that, day by day, what I
learned, and thought, and delighted in, and raised my fancy and my emulation
up by, was passing away from me, never to be brought back any more; cannot
be written. My whole nature was so penetrated with grief and humiliation of
such considerations, that even now, famous and caressed and happy, I often
forget in my dreams that I have a dear wife and children; even that I am a man;
and wander desolately back to that time of my life. (Forster, 33)
These were desperate times for the young novelist, separated as he was from his family and education. As such, he did not mention this episode of his life much; in fact, he never mentioned it to anyone before 1847, when he told John Forster of the blacking warehouse. However, Dickens had other reasons for keeping quiet about this part of his Schelstraete 13 youth. While his fiction dealt largely with the working classes, he himself always saw himself as being middle-class through and through. In order to avoid any social damage, it was important for him to express how deeply this experience affected him negatively. Dickens, being the proficient story-teller that he was, gives a highly crafted account of this experience, ironically stating that ‘no words can express the secret agony of his soul’, while subsequently delivering a coherent, complete narrative, saturated with the anguish he felt. In any case, of all the images Dickens calls to the mind’s eye concerning his own life, this is by far the most pervasive; both in his own work, as well as in the public memory (Klimaszewski & Gregory,
15).
In May 1824, John Dickens and his family were released from prison. This meant that things were looking up for the young Charles Dickens, and indeed, in June, his employment at the boot blacking factory comes to an end, after a quarrel between John Dickens and the factory’s manager. John Dickens disapproved of his son sitting in the front window of his place of employment, working for all the world to see (A Charles Dickens Journal)9. It is interesting to note that, even though he had just been released from a debtor’s prison, John
Dickens was very reluctant to let his son be seen working in a boot blacking factory, indicating a certain amount of pride. This pride was perhaps misplaced, considering the continuing problematic financial situation that the family was in. Dickens’s mother, Elizabeth, took a more rational approach, and convinced the manager of the factory to consider letting her eldest son come back to work for him. After all, the family desperately needed the money
(Klimaszewski & Gregory, 20). John, however refused to have his son resume his job, much to the young Dickens’s relief. The novelist never quite forgave his mother for trying to restore his job at that unhappy place, and later he would write: ‘I do not write resentfully or angrily, for I know how all these things have worked together to make me what I am: but I never
9 A Charles Dickens Journal. < http://dickenslive.com/182029.shtml> henceforth referred to as CDJ. Schelstraete 14 afterwards forgot, I never shall forget, I never can forget, that my mother was warm for my being sent back’(CDJ). This conflict with his mother would turn out to be a big influence on
Dickens’s life, especially with regard to his view on women. In Dickens’s eyes, his mother had betrayed him, and it marked him deeply.
Instead of going back to the factory, Dickens was enrolled in the Wellington House
Academy. There he was taught English, Latin, Mathematics, French and writing, perhaps rekindling his old hopes of becoming ‘a learned and distinguished gentleman’ (CDJ). Charles
Dickens enjoyed his education thoroughly, and already he was entertaining his classmates by writing plays and stories for them. This happy educational time for Dickens was not to last either, as after two years, due to more financial problems, he was forced to give up his place at the Wellington House Academy. In all, Charles Dickens had received no more than 5 years formal education, scattered over his childhood and early adolescence. Although it was common and indeed normal for an education to be rather jumbled in Victorian times, Dickens yearned for more (CDJ). He possessed an enormous thirst for knowledge, which drove him to fill in the gaps left by his formal education. Even at a young age, Dickens revelled in reading, something we find recorded in Forster's biography in another instance of the novelist’s extraordinary memory:
My father had left a small collection of books in a little room upstairs to which I
had access (for it adjoined my own), and which nobody else in our house
troubled. From that blessed little room, Roderick Random, Peregrine Pickle,
Humphrey Clinker, Tom Jones, the Vicar of Wakefield, Don Quixote, Gil Blas
and Robinson Crusoe came out, a glorious host, to keep me company. They kept
alive my fancy, and my hope of something beyond that place and time […]
When I think of it, the picture always rises in my mind, of a summer evening, Schelstraete 15
the boys at play in the churchyard, and I sitting on my bed, reading as if for life.
(Forster, Vol I, 9-10)
This tendency towards self-education became particularly important after Dickens was forced to leave Wellington House Academy. Through his mother, Dickens was employed by a solicitor, for whom he worked as a law clerk. Dickens himself wanted to become a parliamentary reporter for a newspaper, a position for which he would have to be able to use Gurney’s system of shorthand (CDJ). In the course of 18 months, Dickens taught himself the necessary skills needed to become a reporter, while working as a law clerk in various law firms. In 1828, Dickens left his position of clerk, to take up his pen in earnest, as a freelance reporter (CDJ).
2.2. 'Boz'
The years in which Dickens worked as a parliamentary reporter were marked by his incredible energy and insatiable appetite for work. He worked for several newspapers, travelling to cover elections up and down the country, and often attending midnight parliamentary debates. Still, Dickens was not satisfied. He began writing sketches and brief stories, beside his reporting work. It proved to be a more fulfilling endeavour and over the course of 7 years, Dickens moved from reporting to writing; short stories and plays at first, later moving on to full-scale novels (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 23). He remained active in journalism, however, moving gradually from reporter to editor. His time as a reporter had a considerable impact on him in several ways. Firstly, attending parliamentary debates influenced his political consciousness, making him keenly aware of the situation of the poor.
This awareness resounded throughout many of his novels. Secondly, his training as a reporter sharpened his memory and attention to detail, thus shaping his fussy, complex style of writing. Thirdly, he would sometimes parody the journalistic style of the time, poking fun at Schelstraete 16 their grandiloquence. Finally, it was during his years as a reporter that he made himself known under his alias, 'Boz' (Ackroyd, 161), a nickname that stuck. As Boz, Dickens wrote a number of sketches, which were published in newspapers. Sketches such as the ones that
Dickens was writing, were part of a tradition of urban sketches, going back to the seventeenth century. As such, they may not have been an innovative genre for the young novelist to turn to, but he gave them a new feel. His sketches were vivid, true to life and, perhaps most of all, funny. Much of the early attention that was bestowed onto Dickens's work was because of 'the
“vivid” and “graphic” way in which he described the speech of London' (Ackroyd, 176) as well as the details that Dickens incorporated into his work:
Astonishing, too, was the detail as well as the directness. For the readers of the
sketches it was as if they were seeing in front of their eyes, for the first time,
almost as if they were daguerreotypes, all the things that no one had ever
noticed before – down to the way in which London Cab drivers will greet one
another by “the solemn lifting of the little finger of the right hand”. (Ackroyd,
177)
Here, again, we find evidence of the inimitable way in which Dickens could create an image in his writing, an image that enthralled his readers, imbuing them with the feel of Dickens's universe through his knack for detail. While Dickens was writing the sketches that gave him his first taste of fame, he began courting Catherine Hogarth, daughter of George Hogarth, the editor of The Morning Chronicle, a newspaper that Dickens wrote for. In May 1835,
Catherine and Dickens were engaged. In that same year, Dickens was approached by a publisher, with the suggestion to combine all of Boz's sketches into one volume. Dickens agreed, and worked hard to adapt his sketches to make them suitable to be printed as a book, reworking endings and taking out subjects that might have been too topical. These 'Sketches by Boz' would have more than one attraction for the general public. Not only did the volume Schelstraete 17 contain the popular sketches by the hand of Dickens, the illustrations were done by George
Cruikshank, an illustrator who was at that time far more famous than Dickens. In the next chapter Cruikshank will be discussed in more detail. In 1836, Sketches by Boz appeared, and sold quite successfully. A few months later, Dickens and Catherine married. For the first time in his adult life, Dickens was in a comfortable position, both on a personal as well as on a professional level. He did not become complacent, however, ever driven by his creative energy.
Sketches by Boz had only just come into print, when Dickens was already working on his next project, one that would prove to be one of his most successful. William Hall, of the publishers Chapman and Hall contacted Dickens, requesting he write a serial concerning the exploits of a group of Cockney sportsmen. Hall's concept centred around showcasing the illustrations of Robert Seymour, who was already a popular artist at the time. Dickens's writing would have been secondary to Seymour's illustrations. Even at this young age,
Dickens was bold enough to convince Hall to leave the storyline up to him (Klimaszewski &
Gregory, 35). The result was The Pickwick Papers. Originally, the project was conceived as a series of sketches, much like Sketches by Boz. In the beginning, the sales of The Pickwick
Papers were doing badly. This led to a disagreement between Dickens and Seymour. It was
Seymour's opinion that Dickens's style did not fit with his own, comical, style of illustrating.
Dickens hoped to resolve the conflict by discussing it, but Seymour committed suicide before reconciliation could take place. As a result, a replacement had to be found for the illustrations of Robert Seymour. Originally, Chapman and Hall had a hard time finding a new illustrator, and it seemed the project was further jeopardised. Eventually, the publisher happened upon another artist, Hablot Knight Browne. His humorous style of drawing fit the storyline of The
Pickwick Papers perfectly, and Browne's contribution helped make the publication a success.
After a while, Browne started signing his illustrations with the nickname 'Phiz', for Schelstraete 18
'physiognomy' (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 36), to go along with Dickens's 'Boz'. The separate instalments of the 'The Pickwick Papers' can be read as independent stories, but at the end,
Dickens attempted to pull the plot threads together. The publication took off, along with
Pickwick themed merchandise, and continued to sell well throughout the century.
Even after the success of The Pickwick Papers, Dickens continued to write ceaselessly. He wrote various plays, but none of them did well enough to lure him into becoming a full time playwright. In 1836, he gave up his post as a reporter, and became the chief editor of Bentley's Miscellany. Not only did he edit this magazine, he also contributed 16 pages of original work to every issue. On top of all this, Dickens had also started work on
Oliver Twist, clearly showing the appetite the young novelist had for writing. In Dickens's personal life, too, these were exciting times. In 1837, Catherine gave birth to the couple's first child, Charles 'Charley' Culliford Boz Dickens (Marsha Perry, Gad's Hill Place)10. The birth of her first child had a severe impact on Catherine's mental and physical health. She was unable to nurse her son, and had to employ a wet nurse. As a result, she feared that her son would not love her and this caused her much emotional distress. Dickens took care of her to the best of his abilities, but Catherine would display symptoms of these postpartum depressions after each of her pregnancies, ten in total. The joy of Charley's birth was not only overshadowed by his mother's mental anguish. Mary Hogarth, Catherine's sister, who had moved in with Catherine and Dickens to help the newly-weds, as was the custom at the time
(Klimaszewski & Gregory, 38), died suddenly, only a few months after Charley's birth.
Dickens grieved intensely, and it was the only time during his career that he missed publication dates (Forster, Vol I, 99). He had valued Mary's opinions immensely, assuming that her responses to his work were the same as the general public's. Dickens's grief over the
10 Charles Dickens - Gad's Hill Place, Marsha Perry.
Georgina Hogarth & Mary Dickens, 385-386)12. While some have claimed that his disproportionate love for his wife's sister shows that he was in love with the girl, others believe that Mary symbolised lost childhood innocence (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 39), a theme that is very prominent in his publication of the time, Oliver Twist. In any case, Mary’s death had an impact on Dickens’s work, as he started to incorporate young and pure women into his fiction. The loss of his beloved sister-in-law influenced him deeply, and marked the way in which he portrayed young, virginal women. Where the conflict with his mother in his earlier life had given rise to women terrorizing men in Dickens’s fiction, Mary’s death
11 Michael Slater. "Hogarth, Mary Scott." The Oxford Reader's Companion to Dickens, ed. Paul Schlicke.
Oxford: Oxford University Press., 1999.
12 The Letters of Charles Dickens. Ed. Georgina Hogarth & Mary Dickens. London. Chapman and Hall. 1880, henceforth referred to as LHD. Schelstraete 20 sparked off a preoccupation with idealised and pure young women (Sutherland, 17-18) 13.
Much later in his life, his professional relationship with Marcus Stone would prove to be especially fruitful concerning this latter category of women in his fiction, considering Stone specialised in depicting beautiful young women.
The next project Dickens set to work on was Oliver Twist, a completely different from
The Pickwick Papers. Dickens conceived the book as a complete plot-line, rather than a series of sketches. Thematically too, Oliver Twist deviates from Dickens's previous work. For the first time, Dickens's political awareness shows in his work. Condemning the way in which the state dealt with the problems of the poor, Oliver Twist was the first real example of Dickens's social criticism. The sentimental journey of the pure young boy, resisting the temptations of
London's underworld, made for a very popular story, and the book was a resounding success, so much so that it sparked political debate (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 40).
Before 'Oliver Twist' reached its conclusion in 1839, Dickens had begun work on
Nicholas Nickleby. Much like the book preceding it, Nicholas Nickleby focussed on the dire situation of the lower classes, more specifically, the dreadful circumstances in schools for poor children. Dickens and Browne even visited an academy for poor boys in Yorkshire, which again indicates the social awareness of the novelist. Nicholas Nickleby sold well, as
Dickens mixed his social critique with humour, which became emblematic of his style.
Dickens's professional life at this time was extremely busy, but even writing two novels as well as editing Bentley's Miscellany, did not stop him from having a growing family. The first six years of the marriage produced six pregnancies (Klimaszewski &
Gregory, 41), two of which ended in miscarriages. Mary 'Mamie' Dickens, born in 1838, named after Mary Hogarth, formed an exception to Dickens and Catherine's habit of naming
13 Sutherland, Kathryn. “Dickens and Women" Critical Quarterly. 25.3 (1982): p. 17-18, henceforth referred to as Sutherland. Schelstraete 21 their children after literary or cultural figures. Kate 'Katey' Elizabeth Macready Dickens, for example, named after the actor William Charles Macready (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 42), a friend of Dickens. Dickens always felt very close to his daughters, Katey especially. She was like him in character, which may well have been the cause for the clash between father and daughter later in life. At the beginning of 1839, Dickens gave up his position as the editor of
'Bentley's Miscellany', after a period of tension between him and Bentley. From now on,
Dickens was free to work on his own projects. In 1841, Catherine gave birth to the couple's second son, Walter Landor Dickens, named after Walter Savage Landor, an English writer and poet. These early years, especially just after his departure from 'Bentley's Miscellany', were characterised by an astonishing productivity, as he wrote three novels as well as 'A
Christmas Carol' and launched his own magazine, in the tradition of The Spectator, Tatler and
Goldsmith's Bee (Forster, Vol I, 170).
2.3. Master Humphrey's Clock
This magazine, which he decided to launch in cooperation with Chapman and Hall, was at the outset meant to be a miscellany, consisting of sketches, letters and short stories, which he brought together under the pretext of having found all this inside an old grandfather clock. Even Dickens, with his extraordinary creative energy, struggled to find enough diversity in the contributions, and as the sales began to drop, Dickens returned to publishing novels in instalments. Starting from a story published in the fourth issue of Master
Humphrey's Clock and expanding it, Dickens began publishing 'The Old Curiosity Shop' and soon it took up the entire magazine. Little Nell, the story's heroine, became emblematic of
Dickens's fascination for the innocence of youth, more in particular of beautiful, young virgins. The deaths of these angelic girls, quite reminiscent of Mary Hogarth, are still highly characteristic of Dickens's novels. While the death of such children had become a stock trope, Schelstraete 22
Dickens imbued his writing with an unprecedented intensity, causing the public to react extremely emotionally and resulting in some extraordinary events. Klimaszewski and Gregory make note of 'crowds gathered on the docks of New York to await the latest instalment, begging to know if Little Nell had survived' (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 45).
Seven days after the immensely popular novel the 'Old Curiosity Shop' came to its close in 1841, Dickens began publishing Barnaby Rudge in Master Humphrey's Clock. The theme of this novel was completely different from his previous works, and it was an outlet for
Dickens's preoccupation with the New Gate prison, as well as a means to voice his opinions on the capital punishment, which he strongly opposed. In a historical setting, inspired by the work of Sir Walter Scott, Dickens set out to depict a good-natured but slow-witted man, the title's Barnaby Rudge, who is slowly lured into mob violence. Along with the eponymous character, Grip, not only a character, but also one of Dickens's actual pets, a raven, was one of the more memorable characters of the novel. Interestingly, it was Grip that inspired Edgar
Allan Poe to write 'The Raven', giving the bird a rather unexpected legacy (Klimaszewski &
Gregory, 47). Despite Grip's popularity, Barnaby Rudge sold poorly, and remains, to this day, the least liked of all novels by Dickens. The historical setting, while based on a popular example, is generally considered to be a nuisance rather than an asset, and the plot is deemed rather dull.
Now, as he had finished Barnaby Rudge, for the first time since the start of his professional career, Dickens was not working on multiple projects at the same time, and he took some time off, 'to write no more, not one word, for a whole year – and then to come out with a complete story in three volumes... and put the town in a blaze again' (Ackroyd, 35).
Several factors contributed to this decision. Dickens had become afraid that he would lose his creative energy if he did not rest, a fate that, in his opinion, had befallen Sir Walter Scott, the very man he had used as an inspiration for the novel that failed to achieve Dickens's usual Schelstraete 23 standards, and that had drained his creativity (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 47). Physically,
Dickens became plagued with a rather embarrassing health problem, a fistula, or abnormal passageway in his anus. This caused him great discomfort, and in order to deal with his condition, he was forced to undergo surgery without anaesthesia. The recovery of this surgery left him physically very tired. Emotionally, too, the novelist was plagued by unhappy events.
Catherine's brother, George, died unexpectedly, and was buried in Mary's grave, a place
Dickens had hoped to save for himself, again illustrating his uncanny attachment to
Catherine's deceased sister. In order to try and recharge himself and achieve his full potential once more, he set his mind to travelling, and as a destination, he chose America. It is quite interesting to note, however, that while his journey to America is often perceived as a sort of retreat in order to restore his creativity, and it was pitched as such to Chapman and Hall
(Ackroyd, 350), who were financing it, Dickens was toying with the idea to use his time in
The New World to write sketches of American life, an idea he had originally outlined in a letter to John Forster concerning his magazine 'Master Humphrey's Clock':
In order to give fresh novelty and interest to this undertaking [Master
Humphrey's Clock, js], I should be ready to contract to go at any specified time
(say in the midsummer or autumn of the year, when a sufficient quantity of
matter in advance should have been prepared, or earlier if it were thought fit)
either to Ireland or to America, and to write from thence a series of papers
descriptive of the places and people I see, introducing local tales, traditions, and
legends, something after the plan of Washington Irving's Alhambra. (Forster,
172)
And write these papers he did, later bundling them into the book 'American Notes' (Ackroyd,
357). Schelstraete 24
2.4. America
Dickens was confident that the American Democracy would offer a viable alternative to the starchy English class system that he himself was so entrenched in, and he felt considerable sympathy for the young nation. The fact that he was immensely popular in
America probably influenced his decision to go as well, and in 1842, Dickens and his wife embarked on a journey that would take them through large parts of America and Canada.
Dickens was particularly well received in the Northern parts of America, honoured as he was with public dinners and 'Boz Balls'. Dickens could not resist making use of his celebrity status, and argued vehemently for better protection of authors through international copyright, as his work had often been pirated and published without his knowledge; he had missed out on considerable profits. At once, the journey lost all pretences of being a trip for leisure, and the pace at which Dickens was exploring America was immense. Instead of finding relaxation, the trip further drained him, plagued as he was by illness as well as by homesickness. After a month, Dickens had to relinquish his high profile life, in order to complete his journey as an ordinary tourist.
His visit to the South stood in stark contrast to the pleasure he had felt at being received by the blooming intellectual society of the North. Dickens was appalled by the slavery he encountered there, and he began to strive for the abolition of that dreadful practice.
He incorporated his critique of slavery into his American notes, as well as into his next novel,
Martin Chuzzlewit. This novel portrays American society as a place for remorseless opportunists, condemning especially those people who were involved in the vile institution of slavery. The tone of this novel, as well as that of his 'American Notes', was unexpectedly harsh to the American public, who responded with hostility:
The New York Herald described Dickens's mind as the “most coarse, vulgar,
impudent and superficial” and as a direct result of these two slim volumes Schelstraete 25
[American Notes, js] Dickens's reputation in the United States plummeted
except among those intimate friends who continued to support him. (Ackroyd,
397)
Dickens and his wife came home from America in 1842, but Dickens's taste for travel had been aroused, and he began to take to journeying more frequently, especially to France and
Italy, spending time there whenever he felt depressed or wanted to escape the public eye.
Meanwhile, Dickens's family, which had continued to grow, was becoming too great a burden for Catherine to bear on her own. Her 15 year old sister Georgina was taken into the
Dickens household in 1843, to relieve the strain on Catherine, much like her sister Mary had done before her. Dickens felt he was in a pinch. His family's expenses had risen, but the sale of Martin Chuzzlewit was below expectations, and to make matters worse, there was a trade depression at the time (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 52). In a bid to solve his financial difficulties, he came up with an idea for a Christmas story, published in a luxurious volume, illustrated by John Leech. He wrote the entire novel in six weeks’ time, without his usual method of publishing in instalments. As a result, the story-line is more streamlined without losing momentum. Dickens had always attached a great deal of importance to Christmas, and with this tale of Tiny Tim and Ebeneezer Scrooge he created a story which stressed the importance of generosity, entertainment and domestic happiness. The book was a smashing success, selling out in no time at all, and going into multiple reprints. Unfortunately, the book was instantly pirated, and it did not relieve the strain on Dickens's finances. A lawsuit against illegal printers ended up costing him £700, and he only saw a few hundred pounds from the initial printing. Despite this, Dickens continued publishing Christmas books, such as 'The
Chimes' in 1844 and 'The Cricket on the Hearth' in 1845. His love for the festive season remained intact, and as his family grew, with Francis Jeffrey Dickens in 1844 and Alfred
D'Orsay Tennyson Dickens in 1845, the celebrations only became merrier. His 'Christmas Schelstraete 26
Books' would ensure that his name was forever associated with Christmas, but these works also caused a rather more unwanted association in the mind of Dickens's more intellectual critics, who deemed the tone of these works to be overly sentimental.
2.5. The Best of Times
In the following years, Dickens enjoyed a happy and secure existence. His relationship with Catherine Hogarth remained strong, and the couple continued to have children, Sydney
Smith Haldimand Dickens in 1847, Henry Fielding Dickens in 1849, Dora Annie Dickens in
1850 and Edward Bulwer Lytton Dickens in 1852 (GHP). Dora, named after a character from
David Copperfield, was not a strong baby, and would not live to see her first birthday. Her death was a sad loss during these generally happy years in Dickens's life, marked by a great yearning to be a family man. Edward, nicknamed Plorn, the Benjamin of the family, particularly enjoyed special attention from his father. In his professional life, things were going extremely well for Dickens, and in this period in the late 40's and early 50's of the nineteenth century, the novelist wrote some of his most memorable and influential work. As a result, he enjoyed a real celebrity status. Between 1846 and 1848, Dickens's novel Dombey and Son was serialised, in direct competition with William Thackeray's Vanity Fair
(Klimaszewski & Gregory, 58). Dombey and Son is the first of Dickens's novels of which the plans survive, which may lead to the conclusion that Dickens had a firmer plan for this novel than the preceding one (Ackroyd, 527). Indeed, the set of letters to Forster, designs for the cover and Dickens's notes to himself give the reader a great insight into the planning process of this novel, but it may well be that similar plans for other novels were made, but simply did not survive (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 58 and Ackroyd, 527). In 'Dombey and Son', Dickens portrays the devastating effect of materialistic and commercial exploits on the values of family. Mr Dombey, a proud, capitalist man, appreciates his son only as an heir to his Schelstraete 27 business, not as his son. The boy dies, and leaves Mr Dombey with his daughter, Florence, whom he does not value at all. Florence's tale is perhaps more pathetic than that of some of the true orphans that sprouted from Dickens's pen, because she is neglected and effectively orphaned by a living father. The novel was a tremendous success, each instalment selling over
6 times as much as those of Thackeray's work. 'Dombey and Son' is also noted for the shift in
Dickens's tone, towards the more sombre.
This shift is indeed noticeable in his following novels, the first one being 'The personal
History of David Copperfield', one of his best-known novels, published in 1849, about which
Forster writes: “In this came the childish experiences which had left so deep an impression upon him, and over which he had some difficulty in throwing the needful disguises”(Forster,
Vol II, 392), but of which Dickens himself writes to Forster: “I really think I have done it ingeniously, and with a complicated interweaving of truth and fiction.” (Dickens in Forster,
Vol II, 393). The novel was indeed highly autobiographical. Dickens interweaved parts of his own life into the fictional life of David, something he did with much more ease than writing a real autobiography, something he had attempted, but found too difficult. For instance, in this novel we find the image referred to earlier in this biography of the boot-blacking factory, but this time we find David Copperfield, not Charles Dickens, in the window of that dreaded establishment. During this time, Dickens was also embarking on what would turn out to be one of his biggest commercial successes, the publication of Household Words, a weekly journal, founded in 1850, surviving Dickens himself, as All the Year Round.
In 1852, Dickens started writing Bleak House, considered by many to be his masterpiece. It is astonishing to think that on top of his editorial duties for 'Household Words' and his contributions to it, Dickens found time to work on this massive novel. The quintessential Victorian novel, Bleak House is marked by several intertwining story-lines, a large cast of characters and a remarkable portrayal of Victorian London. However, Dickens Schelstraete 28 plays with forms of narration as well as with the notion of genre. The novel forms a critique on English social institutions, primarily the unwieldy and inefficient Victorian legal system.
The novel did well, and remains popular even today.
By 1854, the initial buzz around Household Words was fading, and as a result, sales were dropping. In order to give his weekly publication a new boost, Dickens decided to return to his tried and true method of weekly instalments of a novel. In April 1854, Dickens began publishing Hard Times in twenty instalments. The sales of Household Words soared, but the incessant deadlines were quickly taking their toll on Dickens. The novel is Dickens's shortest novel. It is his the only novel that is set entirely outside of London, instead taking place in
Coketown, a northern industrial town, the story centring around the problems people encounter living in such an environment.
Dickens's next novel, Little Dorrit, published between 1855 and 1857, focused on the life of a girl born within the Marshallsea prison, the very same prison that had once held
Dickens's own father, and that had left such a lasting impression in his mind. The novel focuses mainly on the psychological aspects of incarceration, not only within a prison, but within institutions such as marriages and within habits. This novel was the last one written in a time of security for Dickens, as his life took a series of unexpected turns, mainly as a direct result of his own choices.
2.6. The Worst of Times
Between 1857 and 1858, Dickens changed totally. His temperament changed completely, along with his habit of carefully tending his relationships, something that had earned him many life-long friendships. In this period he broke off several of these friendships, and began behaving in a way that can only be described as erratic. He chose to sleep in his office for a while, a clear indication of the emotional problems he was facing at the time. The Schelstraete 29 reason for his behaviour was a young actress, Ellen Ternan. He met her while he was looking for actresses to perform in his play 'The Frozen Deep'. Ellen Ternan was 18 years old, beautiful, as well as intelligent. Dickens was instantly smitten, and in a letter to a friend he writes: “I have never known a moment’s peace or content, since the last night of The Frozen
Deep. I do suppose that there never was a man so seized and rended by one spirit” (Ackroyd,
837). Dickens’s behaviour, which was nothing short of appalling towards his faithful wife
Catherine, was geared entirely towards spending as much time with Ternan as he possibly could. He decided to separate himself from Catherine, by having a partition installed in the couple's shared bedroom. His decisions were unilateral, and no explanation was forthcoming.
Catherine, obviously hurt, did not give up on Dickens easily, and put up with much more hurtful behaviour. For example, Dickens insisted that she visit the Ternans, in order to prove to the public that there was nothing untoward in the relationship between Dickens and Ellen
Ternan. Catherine allegedly acquiesced to his request, and paid what must have been a terribly awkward social call to the Ternans (Ackroyd, 855). The Hogarths did not take kindly to the way Dickens was treating Catherine, and urged her to leave the novelist. The split was particularly ugly, due to the way Dickens chose to handle it. Once both parties had come to an agreement, Catherine and Dickens never spoke face to face again; and Dickens effectively discouraged the children who remained with him from seeing their mother. It is at this difficult and awkward time in Dickens’s life that we can once again see the novelist’s knack for creating an image, this time not for artistic purposes, but rather for personal, selfish ones.
Over a period of time, Dickens had begun representing himself as the victim in his marriage to Catherine Hogarth, representing her as a dull-witted woman, who did not only hold him back creatively, but even drained him of his creative energy. It was clear to most of the couple’s friends, however, that Dickens was merely constructing a story in which he did not feature as the villain, abandoning his faithful wife for a young actress, a profession which in Schelstraete 30 those days held negative connotations. In fact, Dickens began writing blatant lies about
Catherine in letters to his friends, one of the most hurtful perhaps the one he wrote to Miss
Burdett-Couts: “If the children loved her, or ever had loved her, this severance would be far easier than it is. But she has never attached one of them to herself, never played with them in their infancy, never attracted their confidence as they have grown older, never presented herself before them in the aspect of a mother” (Ackroyd, 856). Evidence from the children themselves proves that Dickens was lying, and his allegations must have hurt Catherine badly, as they seem to be directed at the post-partum depressions she suffered.
As badly as Dickens treated Catherine, he still wished for the entire business to be dealt with in a discreet manner, in order to retain his moral standing in the public eye. Of course, this turned out to be impossible, and the rumours came thick and fast. Most of them were very inaccurate14, but they hit close enough to the mark to make Dickens uneasy and even outraged at their circulation (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 75). Especially the rumours concerning Georgina Hogarth were damaging to Dickens’s reputation, as a relationship with his sister-in-law would have been seen as incest. It is true that Georgina displayed a remarkable attachment to the novelist, even when her sister had left Dickens, and the rest of the Hogarth family had turned against him. Georgina chose Dickens over her own family, and she was willing to let her reputation suffer. She even submitted to a doctor’s examination, who declared her ‘virgo intacta’, in order to clear Dickens’s name. The rumours infuriated
Dickens and convinced him that his entire reading public, if not everyone in the Anglo-Saxon world, was discussing his private matters. On the 7th of June 1858, this conviction led to his
14 The rumours were that Dickens was having an affair with an actress, and while Ellen’s name came up, her sister and her mother, as well as Georgina Hogarth, who most definitely was not an actress, were also named as possibilities. Schelstraete 31 publishing a bizarre statement entitled ‘Personal’ in The Times of London, later reprinted in
Household Words and The New York Times:
By some means arising out of wickedness, or out of folly, or of inconceivable
wild chance, this trouble has been made the occasion of misrepresentations,
most grossly false, most monstrous, and most cruel – involving, not only me,
but innocent persons dear to my heart…and so widely spread, that I doubt if one
reader in a thousand will peruse these lines, by whom some touch of the breath
of these slanders will not have passed, like an unwholesome air. (Ackroyd, 864)
Ironically, Dickens had overestimated how widespread these rumours really were, and instead of clearing up the rumours, which were mostly confined to London’s literary world,
Dickens’s statement only fuelled the fire, spreading the rumour much wider than it had been before. To make matters worse, Dickens did not learn his lesson after the publication of
‘Personal’. Two weeks before, he had presented a friend, Arthur Smith, with a letter, the contents of which were exceedingly hostile towards Catherine. Dickens requested of Smith that he show the letter to “anyone who wishes to do me right, or to anyone who may have been misled into doing me wrong” (Klimaszewski, & Gregory, 76). The tone of the letter was extremely bitter, and truly inappropriate to be published. From the following fragment we can clearly see that Dickens was still attempting to convince everyone that his marriage to
Catherine had never been happy, trying desperately to tap into the creative power that allowed him to construct striking images in his novels:
Mrs Dickens and I lived unhappily together for many years. Hardly anyone who
has known us intimately can fail to have known that we are in all respects of
character and temperament wonderfully unsuited to each other. I suppose that
no two people, not vicious in themselves, ever were joined together who had a Schelstraete 32
greater difficulty in understanding one another, or who had less in common.
(The Letters of Charles Dickens, ed. Graham Storey, 740)15
Try as he might, it was impossible for Dickens to craft a convincing story. He was perfectly capable of creating an image in which he did not look like the villain, but his claims were blatant lies and he was provably in the wrong. Smith had the letter published in mid-August of
1858, months after Dickens had first presented it to him, catching the novelist off-guard. He claimed he never intended to have the letter published, but it was already too late. The bitterly aggressive tone offended many readers, and the publication ended up causing Dickens’s reputation considerable harm. Dickens claimed that he had never intended for the letter to be circulated, and began referring to it as “The Violated Letter”. He never did point the finger at
Smith for having published it, however, which may indicate that he remembered the instructions left with the letter.
Because of the bad taste the vicious letter had left in the mouth of the public, Dickens embarked on a gruelling reading tour, giving it his all, in a bid to win the hearts of his readers once more. It was of course ironic that Dickens complained about his personal life being too public, while at the same time striving to get the maximum amount of public exposure.
Dickens reaffirmed his popularity, and tried to continue his personal affairs as discreetly as he could. While there is evidence to suggest that Dickens was the anonymous benefactor of the
Ternan family, there is no paper trail that leads back to the novelist. In fact, once the ugliness of his split with Catherine was behind him, he did remarkably well in keeping Ellen Ternan out of the public eye. His friend and biographer, John Forster, makes no mention of Ternan, even though there are reports of two of Dickens’s children claiming even that Dickens and
Ternan had a child, that died soon after birth (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 85). Ellen herself
15 The Letters of Charles Dickens, ed. Graham Storey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. Henceforth referred to as LCD. Schelstraete 33 was very discreet as well, and allegedly, her children did not know that she and Dickens had been together, until they found out after her death (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 81). Dickens himself took measures to ensure that his relationship remained secret, and made a bonfire to burn all evidence that would suggest he and Ellen were involved. It appeared that Dickens had learnt from his earlier attempts at publicly defending his position; attempts that damaged his reputation more severely than the allegations themselves.
Around this time, Dickens started work on ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, which began to be published in 1859 in All the Year Round, his new magazine, which replaced Household
Words16. Once more, Dickens had returned to his old format of weekly instalments, bringing with it a feverish race against deadlines. The novel is a tale full of travel and the main characters rush to and fro, perhaps reflecting the way in which Dickens had chosen to handle its publication. Like Barnaby Rudge, the tale takes place in a historical setting, more specifically that of the French Revolution. This time, the historical backdrop was well received by the public, but more importantly, the romantic plot did particularly well, making it a far more popular read than ‘Barnaby Rudge’.
The period just after ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ came to a close was a particularly gloomy time for Dickens. He was restless and ill at ease. On a visit to Paris, he spent time at the morgue, staring at the bodies on display there (Ackroyd, 974). It is fair to say that his mind was preoccupied with darker thoughts than was his wont. During this period Dickens wrote
Great Expectations, a book marked especially by a very profound characterisation of its hero,
Pip. This was far beyond any characterisation in A Tale of Two Cities. Pip is marked by his fallibility, especially towards his well-meaning family, whom he all but forsakes as soon as his chance to become a gentleman arises. The book is filled with parting and goodbyes,
16 Dickens came into conflict with the publishers of ‘Household Words’, which led to the end of that magazine in 1859. In that same year, ‘All the Year Round’ came into circulation, in which Dickens had a greater say. Schelstraete 34 emblematic perhaps of Dickens's state of mind at that particular time. Even though Pip is a completely different hero from any of Dickens's other protagonists, the tale of a blacksmith's apprentice aspiring to be a gentleman was popular, and the book sold fairly well. It was published between the end of 1860 and August of 1861.
Once “Great Expectations” had run its course, Dickens began retreating from public life, a welcome change from the chaotic and hurtful period the novelist had created for himself by the way he handled his break from Catherine. It was during this time that Dickens and Ellen 'Nelly' Ternan allegedly had the child that died soon after birth (Ackroyd, 968), mentioned above. Dickens and Ellen were still madly in love, and spent as much time as possible together, while at the same time keeping their relationship as discreet as possible. An unexpected event almost brought the relationship back into the public eye. On the way back from one of several trips from France, Dickens, Ellen and her mother were involved in a serious railway accident at Staplehurst (Ackroyd, 1013). Due to works on the tracks of a viaduct near Staplehurst, a section of the tracks had been removed. Through bad communication, the workmen did not expect the train so early, and as a result, the driver was signalled to stop too late. The train derailed, causing severe injuries, and 10 people died.
Dickens gave his own account of the moments after the train crash, without mentioning the names of the people that were accompanying him:
I was in the only carriage that did not go over into the stream. It was caught,
upon the turn, by some of the ruin of the bridge and hung suspended and
balanced in an apparently impossible manner. Two ladies were my fellow
passengers, an old one and a young one. This is exactlj (sic) what passed. You
may judge from it the precise length of the suspense : Suddenly we were off the
rail, and beating the ground as the car of a half-emptied balloon might. The old
lady cried out, "My God!" and the young one screamed. I caught hold of them Schelstraete 35
both (the old lady sat opposite and the young one on my left), and said : "We
can't help ourselves, but we can be quiet and composed. Pray don't cry out." The
old lady immediately answered : "Thank you. Eely (sic) upon me. Upon my
soul I will be quiet" We were then all tilted down together in a corner of the
carriage, and stopped. I said to them there upon: "You may be sure nothing
worse can happen. Our danger must be over. Will you remain here without
stirring, while I get out of the window?" They both answered quite collectedly,
"Yes," and I got out without the least notion what had happened. Fortunately I
got out with great caution and stood upon the step. Looking down I saw the
bridge gone, and nothing below me but the line of rail. Some people in the two
other compartments were madly trying to plunge out at window, and had no
idea that there was an open swampy field fifteen feet down below them, and
nothing else! The two guards (one with his face cut) were running up and down
on the down side of the bridge (which was not torn up) quite wildly, I called out
to them: "Look at me. Do stop an instant and look at me, and tell me whether
you don't know me." One of them answered: "We know you very well, Mr.
Dickens." "Then," I said, "my good fellow, for God's sake give me your key,
and send one of those labourers here, and I'll empty this carriage." (LHD, 385-
386 )
Dickens portrays himself as quite heroic, calm in the face of grave danger. Coupled with the boastful way in which he makes himself known to the guards, it is not too far-fetched to assume that Dickens may have altered reality here to some degree. Adding to the myth of his behaviour at the scene of the wreck, is Dickens’s alleged return into the destroyed carriage to retrieve the manuscript of the novel he was working on at the time, Our Mutual Friend. His calm manner stayed with him until he was back in London. There, he felt “quite shattered and Schelstraete 36 broken up” (Ackroyd, 1014). Dickens managed to keep word that he had been travelling with the Ternans from spreading, even though he was bold enough to inquire after some jewellery that Ellen had lost during the ordeal.
Dickens’s last completed novel, “Our Mutual Friend”, ran from May 1864 to the end of 1865. The novel shows just how much some aspects of Dickens’s story-telling changed over the course of the years. While in his earlier novels, there was a black and white clarity to any moral questions, while in this novel, things are much more complicated. The story is also something of a murder mystery,, with the occasional appearance of a quirky inspector, making it almost a detective novel, a genre Dickens had pioneered with Bleak House.
2.7. Many Partings
In the years that followed, despite his failing health, Dickens refused to give up his high-energy lifestyle. He still travelled up and down the country to give readings to his faithful audience, and he divided his time between Gad’s Hill Place and the various places of residence he provided for Ellen. He was determined to make another trip to America, and wanted very badly to take Ellen along, but she feared that this would once again place them in the public eye, and so, Dickens went alone. His tour of America was a resounding success, the tensions between Dickens and his American public of his first American trip some 20 years earlier quite forgotten. Mark Twain saw the great novelist give a reading in New York, and described him quite accurately, if somewhat disrespectfully, by claiming that Dickens’s habit of combing his hair and goatee forward gave him a ‘comical Scotch Terrier look about the face’ (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 87), in a San Francisco newspaper.
Upon his return to England, Dickens continued to give readings, but the gruelling pace he had kept up for so many years was catching up with the aging man. Despite advice from doctors and friends, Dickens did not give up his readings until 1869, when he suffered a mild Schelstraete 37 stroke. Finally, Dickens began realising his mortality, and it was during this period that he wrote his will. This did not stop him from beginning work on ‘The Mystery of Edwin Drood’, and it indeed became a mystery, because Dickens never finished the tale of John Jasper, prime suspect in the murder case the title refers to. On the 8th of June, 1970, Dickens collapsed after spending a day writing on the novel. On the 9th, the novelist was no more. He left a country in mourning, and even Queen Victoria sent her condolences. Dickens had wanted an inexpensive funeral(Klimaszewski & Gregory, 93). ( Instead, the faithful audience that he left behind saw fit to give the man that had moved and enthralled them a ceremony more befitting to a man such as he, and Charles Dickens was buried in Westminster Abbey, alongside his literary peers.
Schelstraete 38
3. Dickens and his Illustrators
Now that the gist of the enormous amount of facts and data of Dickens’s life has been given, we can inspect a particular aspect of the great novelist’s book writing process more closely. Illustrated novels and books were no exception in the Victorian era, nor were they the rule. Many examples of books without illustrations can be given, which were popular, even though they were not illustrated, such as the work of the Brönte sisters, George Eliot and
George Meredith (The Victorian Web, Steig. 'Dickens and Phiz'). Dickens, for the most part, wrote his books in weekly or monthly instalments, in order to maximize the income generated. Usually, each instalment featured one or more illustrations, included to appeal to the non-intellectual, middle-class reading public. These illustrations became something of a hallmark of Dickens’s work, and Dickens was careful in making sure that the illustrations matched what he felt was suitable for his novels. Even early on in his writing career, the novelist did not shy away from letting his illustrator know when he was simply not pleased with an illustration, and demand that the artist submit a new, more suitable piece.
Nonetheless, he strove to maintain a friendly relationship with his illustrators. Because of the enormous amount of writing that Dickens did, it is no surprise that he did not stick exclusively to one illustrator, although he did enjoy a few long-standing and fruitful professional relationships. Quite a lot of artists worked for him briefly but in what follows, I will concentrate on the most important illustrators that worked with Dickens.
3.1. George Cruikshank
The son of a talented etcher and engraver, George Cruikshank seemed destined from the outset to become a great artist. He was discovered by a publisher who happened upon one of his sketches, and quickly became active in book illustration. Cruikshank tried his hand at political caricaturing, quite a profitable venture, and the endeavour earned him a firm Schelstraete 39 reputation as a satirist (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 34). His talent was beyond doubt, but when
Cruikshank tested his mettle in the Royal Academy, he quickly realised that such training was not for him (Kitton, 2).17 He decided that his talent, combined with sharp wit and a clever sense of humour would do, and threw himself into the working world. He quickly made a name for himself as a book illustrator, praised as he was for the seeming effortless way in which he worked. By the time Dickens and Cruikshank met, the illustrator had built up a far greater reputation than the budding novelist. Cruikshank had been engaged to illustrate
Dickens’s “Sketches by Boz”, in a bid to draw more public attention onto Dickens’s work.
The scheme paid off, as “Sketches by Boz” sold reasonably well, for the unknown author that
Dickens was at that time. It is interesting to note that Cruikshank endeavoured to make
Dickens more well-known in a very different way, by portraying the young novelist among his illustrations. In fact, in “Sketches by Boz”, Boz himself appears no fewer than five times
(Kitton, 5). There appears to have been, for some time at least, a very amicable relationship between Dickens and Cruikshank. Both men were part of a literary club called ‘The Hook and
Eye Club”, and during these meetings they appear to have been quite jovial to one another, and Cruikshank made a few impromptu sketches of the budding novelist, now a part of the
Berg Collection of English and American Literature in the New York Public Library (Kitton,
6; New York Public Library, "Charles Dickens: Life of the Author"). It is no great surprise then, that Cruikshank also collaborated on one of Dickens’s next novels, “Oliver Twist”. It is fair to say that the illustrator contributed quite a bit to the legend of this work. The novel concerns the dark, grimy underbelly of London, and Cruikshank, who knew London through and through, delivered excellent work, creating spot-on images of the characters. Especially his representation of Bill Sikes and the Jew Fagin proved memorable, as Titmarsh points out:
17 Frederic G. Kitton. Dickens and his illustrators, Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2004, henceforth referred to as Kitton. Schelstraete 40
Syke’s [sic, js] farewell to his dog, and the Jew — the dreadful Jew — that
Cruikshank drew! What a fine touching picture of melancholy desolation is that
of Sykes and the dog! The poor cur is not too well drawn, the landscape stiff
and formal; but in this case the faults, if faults they be, of execution add to
rather than diminish the effect of the picture; it has a strange, wild, dreary,
broken-hearted look; we fancy we see the landscape as it must have appeared to
Sykes, when ghastly and with bloodshot eyes he looked at it. As for the Jew in
the dungeon, let us say nothing of it — what can we say to describe it?
(Titmarsh in Kitton, 13)
Titmarsh clearly indicates that Cruikshank managed to touch upon the essence of what
Dickens had in mind for his characters. That is not to say that there were no hitches in the collaboration between these two highly creative men. As a letter from Dickens to his illustrator reveals, Dickens was not always pleased with the work Cruikshank delivered, and while Cruikshank was more famous and twenty years Dickens’s senior, the novelist did not shy away from voicing his opinions. In the letter referred to above, Dickens voices his criticism of the last illustration for Oliver Twist as follows:
With reference to the last one—Rose Maylie and Oliver—without entering into
the question of great haste, or any other cause, which may have led to its being
what it is, I am quite sure that there can be little difference of opinion between
us with respect to the result. May I ask you whether you will object to designing
this plate afresh, and doing so at once, in order that as few impressions as
possible of the present one may go forth? (Forster, Vol I, 132)
The message is very clear, and Dickens’s insistence by means of the words ‘at once’ shows his tremendous self-confidence in dealing with a man much more famous than he was at the time.
Dickens, however, was an avid letter writer, and he knew better than to not qualify his Schelstraete 41 position. He ensures a good understanding between himself and Cruikshank, avoiding insulting his illustrator’s pride, by adding: “I feel confident that you know me too well to feel hurt by this enquiry, and, with equal confidence in you, I have lost no time in preferring it”
(Forster, Vol I, 132).
In 1847, however, almost ten years after “Oliver Twist” had first been published,
Cruikshank made a bold claim. According to Cruikshank, Dickens had visited his house and happened upon a series of drawings, depicting thieves and criminals from London. According to Cruikshank, it had long been his intention to make a set of drawings that portrayed the life of a London thief, that would tell its story without a single line of print. Allegedly, when
Dickens came across these images, he decided to completely change the plot of “Oliver
Twist”, and bring him to London, against his initial intention of having the young hero experience adventures in the country. A bold statement indeed, considering that in the end,
Dickens only wrote one novel in which the main storyline did not take at least partly place in
London, “Hard Times”, which he set in an industrial Northern town in order to better point out the evils of industry. In his biography of Dickens, Forster denies Cruikshank’s claims, describing it as a ‘wonderful story' (Forster, 132) and a ‘marvellous fable' (Forster, 133).
Forster gives a letter from Dickens on the subject in evidence, but refuses to name
Cruikshank, instead claiming that Mr. Mackenzie, who visited Cruikshank’s house and published the story, was responsible for its origin. Forster does so, but still takes a stab at ‘the distinguished artist whom it calumniates by fathering its invention upon himself, either not conscious of it or not caring to defend himself, has been left undefended from the slander’
(Forster, 134), or, in short, Cruikshank.
Cruikshank replied to Forster in a letter to The Times, where he defends Mackenzie, and repeats his claim of being ‘the originator of the story of ‘Oliver Twist’, as I have told very many others who may have spoken to me on the subject’ (Cruikshank in Kitton, 19). Schelstraete 42
Cruikshank even goes so far as to claim that Dickens gave Oliver the last name of ‘Twist’ as a reference to the drastic changes he allegedly made in the boy’s story as a result of
Cruikshank’s influence on the novelist (Kitton, 22). As the years went by, Cruikshank’s story became bolder and bolder. In 1874, he is recorded to have said:
You forget ‘Oliver Twist’. That came out of my own brain. I wanted Dickens to
write me a work, but he did not do it in the way I wished. I assure you I went
and made a sketch of the condemned cell many years before that work was
published. I wanted a scene a few hours before strangulation, and Dickens said
he did not like it, and I said he must have a Jew or a Christian in the cell.
Dickens said ‘Do as you like,’ and I put Fagin, the Jew, into the cell. Dickens
behaved in an extraordinary way to me, and I believe it had a little effect on his
mind. He was a most powerful opponent to Teetotalism, and he described us as
‘old hogs’. (Kitton, 23)
His reference to the condemned cell is a clear sign that he knew very well that this was the most striking image in the book, as Titmarsh would later point out (Titmarsh in Kitton, 13).
His claim that Dickens did not like the image is probably a bid to undermine Dickens’s authority on his own creation, in order to be able to plant a seed of doubt in the mind of the readers. Cruikshank’s depiction of Dickens is not very flattering, possibly for the same reason.
The most important thing working against Cruikshank’s claims, in the public eye, was the fact that he allowed 30 years to go by before he had his story published, undermining his credibility by this inexplicable silence. More importantly, Forster publication of Dickens’s letter clearly shows that the novelist was pre-occupied with supplying Cruikshank with subjects for his plates, rather than taking his inspiration from already existing plates. Finally,
Cruikshank’s knack for exaggeration, as well as the fact that his claims became bolder and Schelstraete 43 bolder as the years went by – especially after Dickens’s death —, are a clear indication of the doubtfulness of Cruikshank’s story. While it is entirely possible that a man as familiar with life in London as Cruikshank was, might have given the novelist some ideas to incorporate into his work, there can be no doubt that the author of ‘Sketches by Boz’ would not have lacked the capability of creating ‘Oliver Twist’ – and create it he did, as the arguments above show.
Despite the outrageous claims Cruikshank made later in his life, Dickens and his illustrator appear to have maintained a friendly relationship for quite a long time. From
Dickens’s letters, it becomes clear that Cruikshank occasionally appeared in the plays that
Dickens wrote to be performed among friends18. Aside from Sketches By Boz and Oliver
Twist Cruikshank illustrated a few more minor pieces written by Dickens, published in
Bentley’s Miscellany, but after 1841, the professional relationship between the two men came to a stop. It is possible that Cruikshank did not wish to continue working for an employer quite as demanding as Dickens, but they remained friends for a good number of years afterwards (Kitton, 26).
Cruikshank was a great asset to Charles Dickens during this early period in his writing. Due to his fame, the books by the relatively unknown ‘Boz’ gained an additional attraction for the reading public. Especially his portrayal of Fagin in the condemned cell has ensured that his name is forever connected to Dickens’s, and with illustrations as spot-on as that one, it is clear that Cruikshank would be tough to replace.
3.2. Robert Seymour
Not much is known about the life of this very talented young man. He was born in
1798, and showed remarkable talent for drawing very early on in life. It is uncertain who his
18 For example, in the letter Dickens wrote to Mrs Watson, on September 24th, 1850 published in LHD Schelstraete 44 father was; some claim that his father was Henry Seymour, a gentleman from Somerset, who, recognizing his talent as a draughtsman, apprenticed Robert to a skilful artist named Vaughan.
Others say that Vaughan was Robert’s father, claiming that the child bore his mother’s name
(Kitton, 29). In any case, Robert Seymour worked for Vaughan for some time, until he abandoned the work, which he found dreadfully dull, and pursued the ‘High Art’. He devoted himself to study, and it was not long before one of his works found a place in a gallery.
However, Seymour quickly realised that financial success was not guaranteed in High Art. He was forced to give up his pursuit of fine art, and turned to the more lucrative business of designing on wood, and his work was quickly published in periodicals such as Figaro (Kitton,
30). After 1827, Seymour began trying his hand at etching on copper or steel plates, inspired by Cruikshank, whose influence he acknowledged by signing some of his early caricatures with ‘Shortshanks’. His most important independent work was ‘Sketches by Seymour’, in which he bundled his illustrations that depicted the adventures and misfortunes of fishermen and other sportsmen.
In 1836, Seymour pitched an idea to Chapman, of Chapman & Hall. His plan was to publish a serial concerning a group of Cockney sportsmen, as a vehicle for showcasing his work. Chapman liked the idea, and in the search for writers to supply the necessary text
Seymour suggested that ‘Boz’ – whose sketches Seymour had been reading — be asked to undertake it. Of course, Dickens was not one to play second fiddle to another man, and in his preface to 'Pickwick' he writes his own version as to how the collaboration between the two men eventually took place:
The idea propounded to me was that monthly something should be a vehicle for
certain plates to be executed by Mr. Seymour, and there was a notion on the part
of that admirable humorous artist or of my visitor (I forget which), that a
‘Nimrod Club’, the members of which were to go out shooting, fishing, and so Schelstraete 45
forth, and getting themselves into difficulties through their want of dexterity,
would be the best means of introducing these. I objected, on consideration, that
although born and partly bred in the country, I was no great sportsman, except
in regard of all kinds of locomotion; that the idea was not novel, and had been
already much used; that it would be infinitely better for the plates to arise
naturally out of the text; and that I should like to take my own way, with freer
range of English scenes and people, and was afraid I should ultimately do so in
any case, whatever course I might prescribe to myself at starting. My views
being deferred to, I thought of Mr. Pickwick, and wrote the first number, from
the proof-sheets of which Mr. Seymour made his drawing of the Club, and that
happy portrait of its founder, by which he is always recognised, and which may
be said to have made him a reality. I connected Mr. Pickwick with a club
because of the original suggestion, and I put in Mr. Winkle expressly for the use
of Mr. Seymour. (Kitton, 34)
The way in which Dickens makes sure that his work — and not Seymour’s — is indisputably the centre of the publication is highly reminiscent of a different occasion, where, as a compromise to George Cruikshank, he had proposed ‘Sketches by Boz and Cuts by
Cruikshank’ as a title, putting his own name before the more famous one (Klimaszewski &
Gregory, 34).
‘The Pickwick Papers’, was much more Dickens’s labour than had originally been intended. The first part appeared in 1836, and was adorned by four illustrations from the hand of Robert Seymour. He had been forced to take a back-seat in the project, but it is unlikely that he would have minded, indeed, he appears to have been extremely busy at the time, receiving commissions from several publishers. The Pickwick plates, however, did cause additional difficulties for the artist, as the proofs from which he had to select his subjects, Schelstraete 46 were often seriously delayed. Despite claims that Seymour had no financial, emotional, or domestic trouble, he took his own life, before he could finish the second set of plates for ‘The
Pickwick Papers’, bringing an abrupt and unexpected end to the cooperation between Dickens and himself.
In the end, Seymour produced seven plates to be used as illustrations for ‘The
Pickwick Papers’. Out of these seven, “The Dying Clown” is the most interesting, as it was
Dickens's wish to adjust this plate to his taste that caused the first and only time that Dickens and Seymour met. In a letter on the subject, Dickens wrote to Seymour:
My Dear Sir, — I had intended to write to you to say how much gratified I feel
by the pains you have bestowed upon our mutual friend Mr. Pickwick, and how
much the result of your labours has surpassed my expectations. I am happy to
be able to congratulate you, the publishers, and myself, on the success of the
undertaking, which appears to have been most complete.
I have now another reason for troubling you. It is this. I am extremely anxious
about ‘The Stroller’s Tale’ [the story to be illustrated by the plate entitled ‘The
Dying Clown’, js], (…) I have seen your design for an etching to accompany it.
I think it extremely good, but still it is not quite my idea; and as I feel so very
solicitous to have it as complete as possible, I shall feel personally obliged if
you will make another drawing. It will give me great pleasure to see you, as
well as the drawing, when it is completed. With this view I have asked
Chapman and Hall to take a glass of grog with me on Sunday evening (the only
night I am disengaged), when I hope you will be able to look in. (Kitton, 39)
This letter is quite an interesting one, for several reasons. Firstly, there is Dickens’s self- confidence, bursting out of the first paragraph. His neglecting to have congratulated his illustrator on a job well done, until he had found fault — and with that fault, a reason to make Schelstraete 47 first contact —, is symptomatic of just how confident the young Dickens was; especially when we bear in mind that this was the project originally intended to be a vehicle for
Seymour’s work. Secondly, the letter sheds some light on the matter of Dickens’s relationship with Seymour. The men had never met, and it appears that this letter was the first real contact, beyond the necessary proofs and notes involved in the illustrating process, that Dickens and
Seymour had ever had. In any case, it is the only written communication that passed between them that has survived. From the second paragraph of the letter, in which he requests a new design for ‘The Stroller’s Tale’, it quickly becomes clear that Dickens has well and truly adopted the project as his own, but his request is extremely polite, and admirably worded, perhaps in order to leave the artist’s pride intact. Finally, the letter is eminently interesting, because of the meeting it sparked off between the two men and their publishers. Dickens,
Seymour, Chapman and Hall got together for the aforementioned glass of grog, with Seymour bringing with him a new etch to show to the young Dickens. How exactly the meeting went is unknown, but it is reported that Seymour came home in a foul mood (Kitton, 40), and destroyed the design he had made. Whether this meeting had any further impact on Seymour is impossible to discern, but 48 hours later, Seymour robbed himself of his life.
As would later prove to be the case for ‘Oliver Twist’, the origin of ‘The Pickwick
Papers’ was drawn into question. An unfortunate side-effect of two men collaborating on something as successful as Dickens’s novels is perhaps the enticing call to claim ownership of the entire endeavour. In Seymour’s case, it was Mrs. Seymour who was at the base of the rumours. She published “An account of the Origin of the Pickwick Papers” in 1849 (Kitton,
42), in which she published a much-altered version of the preface to ‘The Pickwick Papers’ that Dickens wrote for the first cheap edition, precisely to combat the tenacious rumours surrounding the work’s origin; as well as her answer to that preface. In her publication, Mrs
Seymour claims that her husband was the sole and true writer of the work, while Dickens was Schelstraete 48 acting as an editor. In her version of the facts, Seymour was rendered unable to finish the work completely – embellishments and all — and thus claim full authorship of it, by a cold which he ‘caught on Lord Mayor’s Day, on taking his children to view the procession from the Star Chamber’ (Kitton, 42). Dickens had to refute these claims, and asked Chapman to corroborate his version of the facts. In 1849, Chapman, in a letter to Dickens, explains how, because at first no author could be found for the project Seymour had proposed ‘the scheme was dropped for some months, till Seymour said he wished us to decided, as another job had offered which would fully occupy his time. And it was on this we decided to ask you to do it.
… I am quite sure that from the beginning to the end nobody but yourself had anything to do with it.’ (Kitton, 43).
In 1866 Seymour’s son repeated the claims his mother had published and further fanned the fire of these particularly tenacious rumours. Dickens, in an answer to these claims, was able to produce not only Chapman’s letter, but also testimonials from Mrs. Dickens and
Frederick Dickens proving he had never met Seymour except for the meeting 48 hours before the man’s death; evidence which overwhelmingly proves that he, and he alone is the author of
‘The Pickwick Papers’.
It is undeniable however, that Seymour was at the base of the novel. It was after all his idea, but he gave the project up, giving it into the hands of Chapman and Hall, who found
Dickens willing and able to turn it into something worth disputing authorship of. Seymour was a gifted man, and his comic style could really come into its own in the character of Mr
Winkle. However, the artist felt that Dickens’s sentimental style worked against his own light and humorous style (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 36). His suicide caught Dickens unaware, leaving a sad taint on the work in its entirety. Now, Dickens was forced to begin his search for a new illustrator for 'The Pickwick Papers'. Schelstraete 49
3.3. Robert W. Buss
This search proved to be quite a problem, as there were not that many artists who could live up to the rigorous standards that Dickens required of his illustrators. Chapman and
Hall set out to find an artist willing to take Seymour's place, and were directed towards Robert
W. Buss. This young man had started to make a name for himself in painting, as he was, as
Seymour had been, an avid student of 'High Art'. When Buss was approached by Dickens's publishers, he was taken by surprise, as he had 'never in the whole course of [his, js] life had an etching-needle in [his, js] hand' (Kitton, 49). It took quite a bit of persuasion, but Buss eventually agreed to take Seymour's place, even though it meant teaching himself an entirely new skill. After three weeks, Buss felt confident enough to attempt his first etch. Chapman and Hall approved of it, and Buss was given the go-ahead to start work on the plates for 'The
Pickwick Papers'. However, the etching process was a disaster, and Buss was forced to call upon the services of an expert engraver. The result was still a fiasco, as Buss's unpractised hand had applied far too much etching acid, which caused the etching surface to dissolve irregularly. Despite the help of the expert engraver, Buss's plates were sub-standard by any means. There was no time to make another attempt, so the inferior plates were printed nonetheless. As a result, Buss was dismissed from the project by Chapman and Hall, whom he had been dealing with exclusively. This dismissal was not surprising, but perhaps rather inconsiderate, when one takes into account that the young artist had been forced to train himself in an art he was not acquainted with at all. It is undeniable that Buss's efforts are not of the same quality as Seymour's plates, and as a result, Buss's illustrations were replaced in later publications. Of all of Dickens's illustrators, Buss was employed the shortest amount of time. It is unknown whether Buss and Dickens ever met during this brief collaboration.
Meanwhile, Dickens and his publishers, for the second time in a few weeks, were down an illustrator. Schelstraete 50
3.4. Hablot K. Browne
Finding an illustrator for 'The Pickwick Papers' was proving much more difficult than originally anticipated. The difficulty attracted quite a bit of attention from artists who wanted to prove their worth by showing that they were up to the task. Even illustrious names such as
Thackeray and John Leech were after the position, clearly demonstrating the attraction illustrating a work by Dickens held, even then, in his early years. But the man who was to follow in Buss's shoes was not a well-known name; at least, not at the time. His cooperation with Dickens changed that completely.
Browne was, at the time he was appointed as illustrator of The Pickwick Papers, barely 18, and he had not made a name for himself as an artist at all, making him rather the opposite of Cruikshank. Browne was discovered by Chapman, and originally engaged by the publisher to design a pamphlet. Browne then ventured to reproduce Buss's illustrations. His plates were sent to Chapman and Hall, where it was decided that Browne should fill the void that Seymour and Buss had left. The cooperation would prove to be an very fruitful one, and would last for 23 years.
An interesting remark with regards to Browne is that he, unlike Buss, was experienced in the art of etching. However, Buss is noted to have said that Browne was not at all expert at engraving, as he was 'compelled to obtain help from an experienced engraver named Sands'
(Kitton, 63) — quite similar to what Buss was forced to do. However, these statements are exaggerated, as it is clear from earlier work that Browne possessed the necessary skill to complete an etching on his own. It is true, however, that he relied on others for the actual technical process, not for want of ability, but for lack of time. Browne was a fast and deft worker, and soon it became clear that the gamble Chapman and Hall had taken, in employing a relatively inexperienced and unknown artist was paying off. Schelstraete 51
Browne's illustrations were complementary to Dickens's work, which set him off from
Seymour, whose comic style clashed with Dickens's. Dickens and Browne got on extremely well, and after four instalments of 'The Pickwick Papers', Browne began signing his illustrations with 'Phiz', to accompany Dickens's 'Boz' (Klimaszewski & Gregory, 36).
Browne's illustrations transformed the floundering publication Pickwick had been during the days of Seymour and Buss into one of the most popular novels of its day. The Pickwick
Papers sparked off an entire merchandise of Pickwick items, as well as a number of spin-off publications.
The skill Browne displayed in illustrating Dickens’s work is even more impressive than he was at first given credit for. While previous illustrators of Dickens’s work were able to call upon proofs, from which they could deduce the subjects they wished, along with the necessary details, Browne often had to do with far less. Dickens was wont to explain his wishes to Browne, who made notes of the author’s requests, and from this limited information, Browne was to create a fitting illustration (Kitton, 67). It is no wonder then, that occasionally, we find an illustration by Browne that is not entirely accurate; but perhaps the fact that ‘Phiz’ very frequently managed to capture ‘Boz’s’ creations in wonderful illustrations, based merely on the limited verbal descriptions provided is something to marvel at.
The fact that Dickens gave Browne verbal instructions shows that the two men had a much closer relationship than the author had with any of the previous Pickwick illustrators.
They got on very well, and their professional relationship quickly grew into a lifelong friendship. The next novel by Dickens Browne worked on was ‘Nicholas Nickleby’, after their collaboration had briefly been interrupted by ‘Oliver Twist’, illustrated by Cruikshank.
In preparation for ‘Nicholas Nickleby’, Dickens and Browne travelled to an academy for poor boys, in order to establish a general impression of the place and especially of the boys Schelstraete 52 residing there. Browne’s work in ‘Nickleby’ is generally praised for the accuracy that is displayed in rendering striking expressions; especially the mean headmaster 'Squeers' is masterfully displayed, with a great sense of detail, giving a life-like quirkiness to the character.
Browne collaborated on Dickens’s next project, ‘Master Humphrey’s Clock’, which encapsulated ‘The Old Curiosity Shop’ as well as ‘Barnaby Rudge’. An important change in the illustrating process of Dickens's novels should be noted here, as the illustrations in 'Master
Humphrey's Clock' were not etched in copper or steel, as all the previous illustrations had been, but engraved on wood and dropped into the text. Of the 194 illustrations present in
'Master Humphrey's Clock', Browne produced 153, the other plates were provided by George
Cattermole, a distinguished artist at the time. Architectural drawings were Cattermole's strong suit, and the excellent picture of the church in which Little Nell was eventually buried came from his skilful hand. Dickens was much pleased by this illustration, and in a letter to
Cattermole he expressed his gratitude:
I have so deeply felt your hearty and most invaluable co-operation in the
beautiful illustrations you have made for the last story, that I look at them with a
pleasure I cannot describe to you in words, and that it is impossible for me to
say how sensible I am of your earnest and friendly aid. Believe me that this is
the very first time that any designs for what I have written have touched and
moved me, and caused me to feel that they expressed the idea I had in my mind.
I am most sincerely and affectionately grateful to you, and am full of pleasure
and delight. (Kitton, 133)
Despite Dickens's words of high praise 'Kittenmoles'— as Dickens would playfully call him
in their correspondence, indicating the friendship between these men — did not illustrate any
other works by Dickens. Schelstraete 53
Perhaps the beauty of Cattermole's designs caught Dickens's eye because of the contrast with Browne's plates. The latter's tendency to lean towards caricature in style was largely unsuitable for the subjects he was required to depict for this project, turning something that was intended to be beautiful and good into something grotesque, especially in The Old
Curiosity Shop. The plates Browne provided for Barnaby Rudge were less afflicted by his knack for exaggeration, and especially the drawing of Barnaby and the Raven received favourable criticism (Kitton, 82).
The professional relationship between Dickens and Browne did not end here. In fact,
Browne provided 10 out of 14 of Dickens's major novels with illustrations, a clear indication of just how well their collaboration went. The next novel illustrated by Browne was 'Martin
Chuzzlewit'. Here, Browne quite redeemed himself for the charges of grotesqueness laid against him for his work in The Old Curiosity Shop. Kitton describes the plates for 'Martin
Chuzzlewit' to have a ' vigour and precision in touch indicating the artist's riper experience'.
This favourable evolution in Browne's work continued in the plates he prepared for 'Dombey and Son', arguably the novel where Browne is at his best. The amount of practice in etching he had while illustrating Dickens's work meant that he was among the best etchers of the time.
A problem that remained from the Pickwick days was Dickens's habit of giving Browne nothing more than a verbal explanation of what he wanted. This aside, Dickens was a difficult man to please. One of the illustrations for 'Dombey and Son', on the subject of Mrs. Pipchin and Paul displeased Dickens and he wrote to Forster:
It is so frightfully and wildly wide of the mark. Good Heaven! in the most
commonest and most literal construction of the text it is all wrong. She is
described as an old lady, and Paul's 'miniature arm-chair' is mentioned more
than once. He ought to be sitting in a little arm-chair down in the corner of the
fireplace, staring up at her. I can't say what pain and vexation it is to be so Schelstraete 54
utterly misrepresented. I would cheerfully have given a hundred pounds to have
kept this illustration out of the book. He never could have got that idea of Mrs.
Pipchin if he had attended to the text. Indeed, I think he does better without the
text; for then the notion is made easy to him in short description, and he can't
help taking it in. (Kitton 94)
Dickens's displeasure is very clear from this letter, but his anger is not entirely justified.
Browne's depiction appears to be quite close to the text, regardless of Dickens's claims. The idea that Browne is better off without the text is an unorthodox one at best, especially considering that Browne had already complained that he found it difficult to produce the images the novelist required based on an explanation alone.
The next novel to be illustrated by Browne was 'David Copperfield', probably
Dickens's best known work. Unfortunately, 'Phiz' was not quite at his best, as a result of the dwindling surveillance Dickens kept over his work. Browne grew careless, and as a result, many of the illustrations are marked by a certain forced quality, void of the fluent and masterful touch he had displayed in the illustrations for the two previous novels. A few plates form happy exceptions to the rule of mediocrity, and these are a plate showing Mr. Micawber and most of the plates in which David himself is featured.
Then followed Bleak House, Little Dorrit and A Tale of Two Cities, the last three novels illustrated by Browne. Not marked by anything extraordinary in the way of illustrations, it is noticeable that over the course of these works, Browne starts phasing out his signature. In fact, in Little Dorrit his pseudonym 'Phiz' is not present in a single one of his designs. In Bleak House, Browne manages to capture the humour as well as the dignity of the justice system in an extraordinary way; in Little Dorrit we find some splendid illustrations, such as the plate entitled "Mr. Flintwinch has a Mild Attack of Irritability"; and yet, once A
Tale of Two Cities came to a close, illustrated with a number of excellent designs by Browne, Schelstraete 55
Dickens decided to end the professional relationship, rather one-sidedly, as was his wont. The men remained on friendly terms, however, but it is obvious from this letter written in 1860
(The Victorian Web, Allingham. ‘Hablot K. Browne’) by Browne that he was — understandably— hurt by Dickens's choice:
Marcus [Stone] is no doubt to do Dickens. I (sic) have been a 'good boy', I
believe. The plates in hand are all in good time, so that I do not know what's 'up'
any more than you. Dickens probably thinks a new hand would give his old
puppets a fresh look, or perhaps he does not like my illustrating Trollope neck-
and-neck with him — though, by Jingo, he need fear no rivalry there! Confound
all authors and publishers, say I. There is no pleasing one or t' other. I wish I
had never had anything to do with the lot. (Kitton, 113)
This was the end to the long-standing relationship between Dickens and Browne, 'Boz' and 'Phiz'. Browne earned his stripes illustrating Dickens's novels, and his name will forever be connected to those works. In the 23-year period in which the men co-operated, Dickens worked with several other illustrators on other projects, such as his Christmas Books. These books were illustrated by well-known artists, such as John Leech and Richard Doyle, both also active in Punch. Despite his ties with new and skilled illustrators, Dickens relied on
Browne to illustrate his 'main' novels, because of the synergy that existed between Dickens's pen and Browne's etching needle. The honour of illustrating Dickens's last complete novel befell an inexperienced young man, named Marcus Stone. Schelstraete 56
4. Dickens and Stone
And so we come to the main focus of this dissertation. Marcus Stone takes up an interesting position amongst the illustrators of Charles Dickens. Firstly, he was chosen to embellish Dickens’s last finished novel, replacing ‘Phiz’, who had worked with Dickens since
The Pickwick Papers. Secondly, Stone’s illustrations form a break in the usual style of the illustrations in novels by Dickens. His style was very modern, something that contrasted greatly with the work of, for example, Browne. Ironically, because of this modern style, Stone would never achieve the same status as illustrator of Dickens that Browne did. Thirdly, Stone has received far less attention than many other artists who illustrated Dickens’s work.
Countless books, essays and articles have been devoted to illustrators who worked with
Dickens, such as Cruikshank and Browne, while Stone is generally forgotten. And finally,
Marcus Stone is interesting because he became something of Dickens’s protégé after the death of Dickens’s friend Frank Stone, indicating close ties between his family and Dickens.
In what follows, I will include a brief overview of Marcus Stone's life, as well as taking a closer look at the relationship between Dickens and Stone and at the illustrations Marcus provided for Our Mutual Friend.
4.1. Marcus Stone
Dickens was already well acquainted with the Stone family, as the novelist and Frank
Stone were close friends. On occasion, Frank would participate in one of the amateur plays
Dickens managed, for example, his appearance in 'Every Man in his Humour' in 1845 (LHD,
77). In 1848 Frank Stone collaborated on Dickens's "The Haunted Man". The relationship between the two men was particularly close, and when Dickens's family outgrew their house, he purchased Stone's house. While both families had work done to their new, neighbouring Schelstraete 57 houses, the Stone family was to take up temporary residence in the Dickenses’ old house, a proposition Dickens elaborates on in a letter written to Frank Stone in 1851:
Supposing you should find, on looking onward, a possibility of your being
houseless at Michaelmas, what do you say to using Devonshire Terrace as a
temporary encampment? It will not be in its usual order, but we would take
care that there should be as much useful furniture of all sorts there, as to render
it unnecessary for you to move a stick. If you should think this a convenience,
then I should propose to you to pile your furniture in the middle of the rooms at
Tavistock House, and go out to Devonshire Terrace two or three weeks before
Michaelmas, to enable my workmen to commence their operations. This might
be to our mutual convenience, and therefore I suggest it. Certainly the sooner I
can begin on Tavistock House the better. And possibly your going into
Devonshire Terrace might relieve you from a difficulty that would otherwise be
perplexing.
I make this suggestion (I need not say to you). solely on the chance of its being
useful to both of us. If it were merely convenient to me, you know I shouldn't
dream of it. Such an arrangement, while it would cost you nothing, would
perhaps enable you to get your new house into order comfortably, and do
exactly the same thing for me. (LHD, 148)
Dickens noticed the talent his friend's son possessed on one of his visits to the Stone household. In 1852, during the publication of Bleak House, the twelve year old Marcus was trying his hand at sketching a passage from that book, when Dickens entered the room and instantly recognised the subject. Dickens was highly impressed by what he saw, and he asked to be given the sketch. In thanks, he wrote a letter to Marcus: Schelstraete 58
My Dear Marcus, — You made an excellent sketch from a book of mine which
I have received (and preserved) with great pleasure. Will you accept from me
this little book [Dickens's 'A Child's History of England', js]? I believe it to be
true, though it may be sometimes not as genteel as history has a habit of
being.— Faithfully Yours, Charles Dickens. (Kitton, 193)
In a letter to Frank in 1855, Dickens called Marcus a 'bright creature' (LHD,
225), indicating that he had not forgotten the young artistic talent. It was clear that even at a very tender age, Marcus was a talented draughtsman. However, there was no money to send him to an Academy, where he could pursue his interest in painting, so instead, Marcus was to learn everything he knew from spending time in his father's studio. When Frank Stone died, Dickens grieved the loss of his dear old friend intensely, and he did his best to help all of Frank's children. In a letter to Arthur Stone,
Marcus's brother, he invites both of them to come and visit their 'father's old friend'
(LCD, 300). To help out the young man, Dickens set out to teach Arthur shorthand, the very tool that had launched his own career decades earlier (Ackroyd, 921).
Meanwhile, the budding career of Marcus, the other son of Frank Stone, hung in the balance, but Dickens took him under his wing. He introduced the young man to
Thomas Longman, the publisher, in a letter in which he describes Marcus quite adequately:
I am very anxious to present to you, with the earnest hope that you will hold
him in your remembrance, young Mr. Marcus Stone, son of poor Frank Stone,
who died suddenly but a little week ago. You know, I daresay, what a start this
young man made in the last exhibition, and what a favourable notice his picture
attracted. He wishes to make an additional opening for himself in the illustration
of books. He is an admirable draughtsman, has a most dexterous hand, a Schelstraete 59
charming sense of grace and beauty, and a capital power of observation. These
qualities in him I know well of my own knowledge. He is in all things modest,
punctual, and right; and I would answer for him, if it were needful, with my
head.
If you will put anything in his way, you will do it a second time, I am certain.
Faithfully yours always. (LHD, 318)
However, Marcus Stone never did any illustrating for the publisher Longman.
After having failed to introduce Marcus into the world of book illustrating in this way,
Dickens decided to allow the young artist to illustrate Our Mutual Friend. Unlike 'Phiz' at the time, Marcus had no experience whatsoever with etching, or with any other form of illustrating. His skill with a pencil was fortunately easily transferable to the illustration technique of drawing on wood, which he used to illustrate Dickens's final completed novel.
There was a considerable amount of prestige attached to illustrating for an author as well known as Dickens, and there can be no doubt that this opportunity helped Marcus develop his artistic career. Apart from Our Mutual Friend, Marcus also illustrated editions of Little
Dorrit, Great Expectations, American Notes, A Tale of Two Cities and a few other minor works (Kitton, 202). Dickens's last project, 'The Mystery of Edwin Drood', however, was not illustrated by Stone. In a letter to Kitton, Stone writes: "I had entirely given up black-and- white work when 'Edwin Drood' was written, and was making an ample income by my pictures. I was not in the field at all." (Kitton, 202). Interestingly, Marcus Stone is apparently the only illustrator ever to have consciously severed the professional ties between himself and
Dickens. That his time working for Dickens was beneficial to his career is beyond doubt, and
Stone went on to be an accomplished painter, and became a full member of the Royal
Academy, an honour his father never attained. Schelstraete 60
4.2. Casting the first Stone
At the time he was appointed to illustrate Dickens's Our Mutual Friend Marcus Stone was quite young, only 21 years of age. It was not the first time that a young illustrator was chosen to work on one of Dickens's books. Indeed, 'Phiz', whose name is so inextricably connected to Dickens, was even younger when he was first engaged to illustrate The Pickwick
Papers. But unlike Stone, 'Phiz' had some experience in etching, thus overcoming any problems posed by his young age. On the other hand, lacking experience was not always a deal-breaker. In the desperate search to replace Seymour during the publication of 'The
Pickwick Papers', Buss was engaged by Chapman and Hall to fill the position, even though he had never held an etching needle in his life. In that respect, Buss is similar to Stone, but, again, there is a major difference. Buss was a fairly accomplished painter at the time, and he was introduced to the reading public as "a gentleman already well known to the public as a very humorous and talented artist" (Kitton, 48). This clearly shows that Buss had made a name for himself, and this undoubtedly played a part in the decision made by Chapman and
Hall. At the time Stone was engaged to illustrate for Dickens, he had only just began to take his first steps towards becoming a well-known artist. Stone had his sights set on becoming an accomplished painter, but when his father died, he was forced to support himself, while still working towards his goal of becoming an artist. Only then did Stone set his sights on becoming an illustrator, as there was more regular work to be had in illustrations than in painting; the same financial consideration that caused Seymour to try his hand at illustrating.
Unlike the unfortunate Seymour, Stone did go on to realise his ambitions. As such, illustrating was merely a stepping-stone in Stone's career. This sets him apart from Dickens illustrators such as Cruikshank and Leech. They were full-blood illustrators, and their names brought considerable prestige with them. Especially Cruikshank, who was very well known at the time, contributed to the popularity of the work he illustrated. Particularly Sketches by Boz Schelstraete 61 benefited from the connection to the well-know illustrator. Stone, on the other hand, had no such prestige. Bearing in mind, however, that Our Mutual Friend was written at a time when
Charles Dickens was a household name, it is not surprising that Dickens no longer felt the need to engage well-known artists, as his work possessed plenty of prestige as it was. It is very likely that Dickens set out to do for Stone, what Cruikshank had done for him at the beginning of his career. By shedding some of Dickens's popularity and fame onto Stone's work, Our Mutual Friend undoubtedly contributed to Stone's later success.
Stone's position as an illustrator for Dickens is unique, in the sense that he was not only young and inexperienced, but also in that he had no fame of note in any other artistic field, nor did he even at the outset intend to become involved in the illustrating of books. It is interesting to see that he incorporated virtually every negative trait found in other Dickens illustrators, without any objective compensating factor. Despite his youth, inexperience, ambitions outside illustrating and lack of fame, Stone was still chosen by Dickens to illustrate for him. Remarkable in any case, but all the more so because of the meticulousness with which Dickens approached all his works.
4.3. Two birds, one Stone
From the painstaking effort Dickens made to accommodate Frank Stone's children it is clear that he was extremely determined to help them in the most constructive way possible. In a way, he became a surrogate father to them, especially to Marcus. Working in his father's studio, Marcus's career had been largely tended by Frank. Now, Marcus needed a new guiding hand to help him stay focussed on his artistic ambitions. Because painting was a much more fickle occupation than book illustrating, as well as the fact that the latter was much more
Dickens's terrain, Marcus's pencil was set to embellishing books. At first, Dickens relied on him to provide illustrations for editions of 'Great Expectations' and 'Pictures from Italy' Schelstraete 62
(Ackroyd, 994). Soon, he commissioned Stone to illustrate his latest book, Our Mutual
Friend. This decision was very convenient to Dickens. After all, he wanted Stone to be able to develop his talents and by allowing the young artist to cooperate on one of his novels, he would help make Stone's name.
But there was more behind Dickens's decision than pure goodwill towards Marcus
Stone. Dickens was looking to 'give his old puppets a fresh look', as Browne put it. The relationship between the novelist and his long-time illustrator had slowly turned sour. Dickens wanted a fresh look for his new novel, and Stone was just the man to provide it. Because of his young age, the difference between Stone's style and that of Browne was enormous. Where
'Phiz' had been grotesque, Stone was naturalistic. Marcus depicted men and women in fashionable clothes, underlining his modern touch. This was the most important contribution
Stone made to Dickens's work. Through his illustrations, he gave Dickens's novels a modern feel, something which had been completely absent from Browne's style. The 'fresh look' that
Stone's illustrations carried with them came from Stone's realistic streak. Ironically, it was this realistic streak that prevented him from depicting the grotesque convincingly. Later, I will show that it is this failure to touch upon the macabre that prevented Stone from rising to the ranks of well-known Dickens illustrators such as Cruikshank and Browne. I will first discuss those elements that Stone's illustrations brought to Dickens's work in Our Mutual Friend. Schelstraete 63
Fig. 1. The original design for the Fig. 2. The pictorial wrapper for pictorial wrapper by Stone. Our Mutual Friend as it was (The Illustrators of Our Mutual published. Friend and The Mystery of Edwin (The Monthly Wrapper of Our Mutal Drood) Friend and the Wheel of Fortune)
5. Our Mutual Friend
Stone designed the pictorial wrapper for Our Mutual Friend (see fig. 1) after having seen just the first two issues. This wrapper consists of a series of illustrations depicting characters and events that take place in the book, surrounding the title. After Stone had submitted his first design for the wrapper, Dickens gave him his opinions in a letter:
I think the design for the cover excellent, and do not doubt its coming out to
perfection. The slight alteration I am going to suggest originates in a "business
consideration not to be overlooked. ["] Schelstraete 64
The word "Our" in the title must be out in the open like "Mutual Friend,"
making the title three distinct large lines "Our" as big as "Mutual Friend." This
would give you too much design at the bottom. I would therefore take out the
dustman, and put the Wegg and Boffin composition (which is capital) in its
place. I don't want Mr. Inspector or the murder reward bill, because these points
are sufficiently indicated in the river at the top. Therefore you can have an
indication of the dustman in Mr. Inspector's place. Note, that the dustman's face
should be droll, and not horrible. Twemlow's elbow will still go out of the frame
as it does now, and the same with Lizzie's skirts on the opposite side. With these
changes, work away !
Mrs. Boffin, as I judge of her from the sketch, "very good, indeed." I want
Boffin's oddity, without being at all blinked, to be an oddity of a very honest
kind, that people will like. The dolls’ dressmaker is immensely better than she
was.
I think she should now come extremely well. A weird sharpness not without
beauty is the thing I want. (LHD, 375-376)
From the overall tone of this letter, it is clear that Dickens was quite pleased with
Stone's creation. He is full of praise, but still gives Stone a few very specific remarks towards what he thinks can be improved. Dickens was obviously quite meticulous in inspecting this design, as his comments are very precise. In the finished version (see fig. 2), we can see that
Stone stuck to Dickens's guidelines very precisely. The three distinct lines that the novelist prescribed are very imposing, with 'Our' taking up almost as much space as the subsequent words. The Wegg and Boffin composition that Dickens mentions is also present in the finished work, showing one of the villains of the story alongside one of the trusting, good- hearted main characters. Wegg, the 'mercenary old ballad-monger' (Kitton, 196), gives rise to Schelstraete 65 an interesting anecdote concerning Dickens's treatment of the illustrations in Our Mutual
Friend. When Stone set out to draw Wegg, the proud owner of a wooden leg, he asked
Dickens which leg was wooden. For once, Dickens was not his precise, controlling self. Stone quotes Dickens as saying 'I do not think I had identified the leg' (Ackroyd, 995) and left the choice up to Stone by saying 'It's all right — please yourself" (Kitton, 196). Perhaps it was a detail Dickens overlooked while writing the story; considering how jam-packed it is with characters, this is not unthinkable. It is something of a break in character for Dickens, however. His usual manner was controlling; precise and meticulous to the extreme. As we can see on the finished design of the pictorial wrapper, Stone chose to give Wegg a wooden leg on his left side, settling the matter.
The fact that Dickens had no opinion on where Wegg's wooden leg should be may have been indicative of a trend. While at first, Dickens gave Stone intricate and to the point instructions, he soon began giving Stone a much freer reign. Instead of giving Stone well- outlined subjects to be turned into plates, Dickens had proofs of his novel delivered to Stone, who was at liberty to choose any subject at all from the text, as long as a preliminary sketch was provided for Dickens to cast his eye over. Stone was not the first illustrator to be given this much freedom with Dickens's work, Seymour for example had the same privilege. 'Phiz' on the other hand, often had to make do with oral explanations of what Dickens wanted. A letter Dickens wrote to Stone illustrates just how much freedom Stone enjoyed in choosing subjects for his plates:
The sooner I can know about the subjects you take for illustration the better, as I
can then fill the list of illustrations to the second volume for the printer, and
enable him to make up his last sheet. Necessarily that list is now left blank, as I
cannot give him the titles of the subjects, not knowing them myself. (LHD, 389) Schelstraete 66
It is impossible to discern why Dickens left Stone such a free reign. Perhaps he had an enormous amount of confidence in the young man that he had engaged for the job. Maybe it was an indication that Stone was very good at selecting those subjects from the text that were most suited for illustrating. Possibly, it shows that the collaboration between the two men went extremely well, to such a degree that Dickens barely had to intervene, as Kitton suggests
(Kitton, 197). Or perhaps Ackroyd is correct in saying that Dickens was 'less interested in the illustrations to his work, perhaps because he realised that they were no longer as necessary to his design as once they had been' (Ackroyd, 995).
It is interesting to note that one source contradicts that Dickens gave Stone a free reign. In the second to last paragraph of his article 'The Composition, Publication, and
Reception of Our Mutual Friend' (Patten, 'Our Mutual Friend' The Scholarly Pages), Robert
L. Patten of the Rice University of Texas claims that Stone 'took Dickens's painstaking suggestions about every dot and line of his trial drawings without complaint'. However,
Kitton, Ackroyd and Allingham all agree that Dickens did no such thing as burdening Stone with endless suggestions. Kitton states that Dickens 'usually afforded the artist free scope’
(Kitton, 197) in selecting suitable subjects for plates; conceding that Dickens was occasionally demanding where illustrations were concerned, but qualifying that statement by writing that 'the author...was usually in an appreciative mood whenever a sketch was submitted for approval' (Kitton, 197). To Ackroyd, Dickens seemed completely uninterested in the illustration process at the end of the novel's serialisation, as the novelist 'allowed Stone to choose and illustrate whatever subjects he liked best, scarcely bothering to raise any objections' (Ackroyd, 995). Finally, Allingham writes that Dickens 'generally permitted Stone complete freedom in the subjects he chose to illustrate' (The Victorian Web, Allingham.
'Marcus Stone, R.A'). It would appear that Patten is alone in his claim of Dickens's excessive meddling in the illustrating process. Schelstraete 67
A further look at Patten's article reveals more interesting assertions:
"The dolls’ dressmaker is immensely better than she was," Dickens told the
young artist after he revamped an unsatisfactory sketch. Such praise was less
forthcoming than corrections, but Stone never complained about his
collaboration with Dickens. He also never worked again in book illustration. As
an aged and distinguished member of the Royal Academy, Stone denigrated his
Dickens plates as immature work. (Patten)
The remark about the dolls’ dressmaker refers to the design for the pictorial wrapper and was
taken from the letter included above. The assertion that praise was uncommon is strange,
considering the tone of the letter in question. Dickens hardly blasted the design for the
pictorial wrapper, when one considers that he only requested the 'Our' be enlarged to fit with
the rest of the title, and subsequently asked Stone to avoid cluttering the design by removing
a single scene in favour of the tableau concerning Wegg and Boffin, which is all very clear
from the text. From the letter Dickens sent Stone concerning that design, which he thought
'excellent', it would seem that praise was not at all less forthcoming than corrections. A letter
dated 27 February 1864 drives this point home: "All perfectly right. Alterations quite
satisfactory. Everything very pretty. I am afraid that Dalziells [the wood engravers, js] will
make rough work of some of those fine lines, mais nous verrons"(LCD). It is practically
impossible to mistake the letter concerning the pictorial wrapper as being about an
unsatisfactory plate, especially not when compared to the letter to Cruikshank or the letter to
Forster about one of Phiz's plates, both included above.
In fact, the only thing in Patten's article that stands up to careful scrutiny is the claim that Stone himself would later call the illustrations he provided for the novel 'immature'
(Kitton, 198). Whereas Patten claims that Stone never again worked in book illustrating,
Marcus Stone's work later adorned the pages of Trollope's book He Knew He Was Right, Schelstraete 68 which was published as a book in May 1869, four years after Our Mutual Friend came to a close.19 Not only did Stone continue to work in book illustrating, he claims to have introduced the habit of photographing the original drawings made on wood, in order to allow for comparison between the original drawings and the final result after having been engraved
(Kitton, 201). Stone adopted this precaution for Trollope's book. It is possible that Stone's dissatisfaction with the results of the engraving of his designs for Our Mutual Friend gave rise to his habit of carefully preserving the original drawings (Kitton, 201).
It is strange that Patten was so wide off the mark in many of the assertions he made in his article. Several sources indicate Dickens gave Stone almost complete freedom in his work, especially towards the end of the publication of Our Mutual Friend; Ackroyd even suspects a loss of interest in the illustrations on the novelist’s part. Patten's misleading use of a quote concerning 'an unsatisfactory sketch', which was in fact about a cover design that Dickens found excellent, contributes to the overall inaccuracy of this article. Patten's final point, concerning Stone's withdrawal from the world of book illustration, which is very easily disproved, further shows that Patten in this instance is inexact. It is safe to say that, despite what Patten writes, Stone did not have to put up with an overly controlling Dickens.
Now that we have had a closer look at the initial relationship between the author and his illustrator, the time has come to consider the fruits of their collaboration.
5.1. The portrayal of female characters
Much can, and has been said about the women in Dickens’s novels. On the one hand we find women such as Mrs. Joe Gargery, young Pip’s menacing sister. They are mean, unpleasant women, whose rotten personalities are generally reflected in their appearance. On the other hand, there are the pure virgins of Dickens’s imagination, such as little Nell. Fragile
19 Anthony Trollope, He Knew He Was Right, London: Strahan and Company, 1869. Schelstraete 69 and beautiful, they form the other extreme of Dickens’s dualistic view of women. Two events from Dickens’s life can help to explain this strange, unqualified portrayal of women by the novelist. Firstly, there is what Dickens felt was a betrayal by his mother, in the form of her attempt to restore Dickens’s place at the boot-blacking factory. Dickens felt that this was denying him the education he was due, as well as forcing him to go back to the place he dreaded. He never forgot this ‘betrayal’, and it shaped the way in which he dealt with women throughout his life. In Kathryn Sutherland ‘s article “Dickens and Women” we find this apt description of Dickens’s manner towards women:
Ever mindful of his mother’s betrayal, he needed to punish and attract women, to
take vengeance on them and to be assured of their totally uncritical love in
return, to heap them with sins and to divest them of all guilt. (Sutherland, 17)
Secondly, there was the death of Mary Hogarth, the sister-in-law he adored. Dickens’s grief was out of all proportions and it is very likely that Mary’s death started his preoccupation with beautiful virgins in earnest. The way in which Dickens continued to hold on to the theme of young and pure women throughout his work is certainly indicative of the affection Dickens felt towards the subject.
Both kinds of women outlined in Dickens’s fiction suggest an inherently unfair image of women. The inequality stems from the fact that Dickens does not give the women in his fiction a rounded character, or perhaps more accurately, the women are not characterised beyond their relation to men. In ‘Our Mutual Friend’, for example, the haughty Mrs. Wilfer is only portrayed in her relation to her extraordinarily kind and tolerant husband. The pure
Lizzie Hexam, a lower class diamond in the rough, is defined not only by the treatment she receives from her father and brother, but also by the ways in which she is pursued by Bradley
Headstone and Eugene Wrayburn. The men distinguish their separate personalities by the way Schelstraete 70 in which they interact with the world at large, the manner in which they resolve situations.
Women are denied this privilege, and are condemned to a vicarious characterisation.
Dickens’s dualistic vision of women is also present in the illustrations that accompany his works, a logical result of the way in which the embellishments interact with the text.
However, until Marcus Stone took the position of illustrator for Dickens, very few of the artists previously employed had been skilled in drawing a beautiful woman. Illustrators such as Browne and Cruikshank were renowned for their caricatural style of drawing, eminently suited for rendering that class of threatening and evil women discussed above. Browne's women were very rarely anything but grotesque or a caricature, and Cruikshank for example was said to be unable to draw an attractive woman (Kitton, 11). Stone’s knack for drawing charming young women meant that he was the perfect artist to shape Dickens’s young and pure heroines. Stone would later use his talent in the paintings he created, making the women he painted a hallmark of his work.
Let us now fully examine a few plates featured in ‘Our Mutual Friend’ that depict the two pure heroines of the story. Schelstraete 71
5.1.1. The Bird of Prey
Fig. 3. 'The Bird of Prey' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
The first frontispiece included in ‘Our Mutual Friend’ is a plate entitled 'The Bird of
Prey' (fig. 3). It represents Lizzie Hexam and her father, Gaffer Hexam, occupying a small rowing boat. Lizzie is manning the oars, while her father peers attentively into the water, apparently keeping an eye on his charge, which is secured to the boat by means of a taut rope.
The background consists of a bustling river Thames, occupied by numerous other vessels, ranging from a small boat such as theirs, to three-master sailing ships. Kitton calls the bank, as it is represented here, 'a characteristic portion of the river-bank below London Bridge
(probably Rotherhithe 20)'. This is an interesting remark, considering it shows just how realistic Stone treated his work. It is a far cry from Phiz's work, with his grotesque, almost caricature-like style.
20 A district in South-East London. Schelstraete 72
'The Bird of Prey' is a very good first plate, as it suggests not only much of the initial action, it refers to the matter at the very core of the story. The charge on Gaffer Hexam's line is supposedly John Harmon's corpse. The incorrect assumption that John Harmon is dead, is the catalyst for the entire book, and the connection to drownings not only ties in to Harmon's death, but might also refer to subsequent drownings, including that of Gaffer Hexam. The plate must have pleased Dickens, as he had given Stone specific instructions to 'give a vague idea. ... the more vague the better' (Kitton, 196). The illustration is indeed sufficiently vague by any standards, but once the plot has been uncovered, the illustration reveals itself as being much more telling than it seems at first glance.
The treatment of the background was not the only aspect of Stone’s work in which he was much more realistic than his predecessors. The way in which the characters are represented was more life-like than, for example, in Cruikshank's drawings. Stone presents
Lizzie as a young woman, meek, innocent and attractive, despite an unfortunate line on her forehead that gives her a very pronounced brow. From this picture, it is clear that she is to be the pure heroine of the story, despite, or perhaps because of, her wretched surroundings. The presence of her father, ominously called ‘the Bird of Prey’, shapes Lizzie, not only in the story, but also in the illustration. Gaffer Hexam has a dark complexion, as well as darker clothes. This contrasts with Lizzie’s pale face and arms, as well as her white dress.
Additionally, Lizzie is facing the left side of the plate, while Gaffer is peering the other way.
Even the way in which they sit contrasts; Lizzie is bent back to pull the oars, while Gaffer is bent forward in order to keep an eye on his line. As is usually the case in a Dickens story,
Lizzie is only given significance by the presence of a man, in this case, her father. Gaffer, presented in the text as a rough, uneducated and stern man, contrasts with Lizzie in almost every way. As a result, an impression of Lizzie as being delicate and good is formed.
Interestingly, Gaffer is not the only man influencing Lizzie in this plate. A second man, Schelstraete 73 implicitly present, on the other side of Gaffer’s rope, helps to complete the picture. Lizzie is rowing, which might seem to be an indication of a strong and wilful woman – in Dickens’s fiction not always appreciated – but in fact, she has taken the oars because she can not bear sitting close to the corpse of the man her father has found. This dreadful charge may also help to explain why her face has a decided look of distress. Despite her discomfort, Stone has managed to represent Lizzie as beautiful. Phiz's women were rarely as attractive, even if they went on to be a pillar of virtue. In Phiz's plate 'The Marchioness' playing Cards' for The Old
Curiosity Shop for example, we find such a woman. The Marchioness will go on to develop into a good-looking woman according to the text, but from the way she is portrayed in this plate, that is exceedingly difficult to swallow. Her entire outlook is positively diabolical, her face little more than a grinning skull. J.R. Cohen notes that the difference between Stone and
Phiz arose from Stone's habit of relying on models for his illustrations, while Phiz drew from memory21.
21 J.R. Cohen. 'Dickens and his Original Illustrators'. Ohio: Ohio State Press, 1980, p. 204 Schelstraete 74
5.1.2. Waiting for Father
Fig. 4. 'Waiting for Father' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
This plate (fig. 4) is also worth mentioning with regard to Lizzie, and the way in which she is defined by the male characters that surround her. It represents Lizzie at her most dutiful and self-effacing; which in Dickens’s fiction meant her most virtuous. Lizzie is shown sitting by the fire, neatly dressed, her hands folded in her lap, giving her an air of seemliness. Stone allowed himself to use the full scope of his ability to depict pretty young women, giving
Lizzie a fresh and attractive face. However, her expression is beyond pensive, it is blank. This again shows how Dickens and Stone fail to give her a personality outside of her connection to Schelstraete 75 men. Lizzie is patiently waiting for her father to return home, unaware that Gaffer has drowned. Her position, which is slightly off-centre, suggests a void, perhaps symbolizing the act of waiting, but in any case indicating the incompleteness of Lizzie without a man to qualify her.
The plate shows Lizzie waiting for her father, but the execution hints at more. Despite the fact that Lizzie is the only character present in the plate, she is not truly the subject.
Because she is never allowed to become an entity in and of herself, she is denied a complete existence. Lizzie needs a man to make her a whole character, something that is present even in the title of the plate. Entitled ‘Waiting for Father’, it is clear that the illustration will be concerned with Lizzie. The title does not mention Lizzie herself, however, but states the reason for why Lizzie is shown in the picture. The way in which Dickens reduced the women present in his work to complementing elements for his male characters is neatly represented by Stone, in composition and expression. Schelstraete 76
5.1.3. The Boofer Lady
Fig. 5. 'The Boofer Lady' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
That same reduction of women is displayed in the plate entitled 'The Boofer Lady"
(fig. 5). The plate's strange title refers to Bella Wilfer, one of the heroines of the story. She is called 'the boofer lady', meaning ‘the beautiful lady’, by the orphan Johnny who is destined to be adopted by rich parents, but unfortunately dies in one of the most pathetic scenes of the book. In naming her, Johnny defines Bella, imposing an identity upon her. As is the case with
Lizzie Hexam, and so many other female characters in the works of Dickens, Bella is largely undefined without the influence of a male character. Throughout the story, Bella is characterised exclusively through her relationship to men. Her nurturing side is brought out by little Johnny. Her sense of justice is shown through her indignation at Mr. Boffin’s abuse of Mr. Rokesmith, Mr. Boffin’s secretary, who she will fall in love with, thus presenting her loving nature. Her honesty, finally, is underlined by the way in which she is open to her father. Every aspect of Bella’s personality is introduced to the reader by means of her Schelstraete 77 interaction with a male character. This imposed dependency upon a male is present, not only in this illustration, but in every illustration throughout the book. Only once does a woman appear alone in an illustration, specifically in the plate ‘Waiting for Father’, discussed above.
While no man is visible, his influence is tangible in both the illustration itself as well as in the title of the plate.
The scene Stone depicted in ‘The Boofer Lady’ is based on the passage in Our Mutual
Friend where Betty Higden, caretaker of the deceased orphan Johnny, takes her leave of her benefactors:
The solitary old woman [Betty Higden, js] showed what it was, and put it up
quietly in her dress. Then, she gratefully took leave of Mrs. Boffin, and of Mr.
Boffin, and of Rokesmith, and then put her old withered arms round Bella's
young and blooming neck, and said, repeating Johnny's words; "A kiss for the
boofer lady." The Secretary [Rokesmith, js] looked on from a doorway at the
boofer lady thus encircled, and still looked on at the boofer lady standing alone
there, when the determined old figure with its steady bright eyes was trudging
through the streets, away from paralysis and pauperism. (Dickens, Our Mutual
Friend, 437)22
The image's title indicates that the focus is on Bella, even though Rokesmith, the story's main character, is present too, again a sign that the women in Dickens’s novels are unable to stand alone. Bella is shown as a very beautiful young woman, caring and emotional, a fact that is underlined by her left hand, with which she supports herself on a chair, to steady herself after the moving encounter with 'old Betty Higden' (OMF, 435). As is the case with
Lizzie Hexam in the plate ‘Waiting for Father’, Bella is slightly off-centre. She is positioned a
22 Charles Dickens. Our Mutual Friend. London, Edinburgh, New York. Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd, henceforth referred to as OMF Schelstraete 78 little to the right of the image’s centre, with John Rokesmith at the extreme right of the illustration, behind Bella, where he is almost waiting in the wings to assume his place in the centre. The left side of the image is made up by a representation of a room, seemingly without any underlying significance. The space on the left only helps to draw attention to the forlorn figure of Bella, watched as she is by Rokesmith from the far right. The space on the left side, coupled with the man waiting on the right side, is suggestive of the artificial imbalance of the situation, as if Rokesmith’s place is, by necessity, next to Bella, to complete her.
"The Boofer Lady" is a prime example of the women Stone drew. Bella's facial features are fine, and because she is represented with her head at a downwards angle, she has a very subdued, virtuous manner. Her right hand, which she rests in her lap, helps in bringing this mood across. Bella's dress suggests that she is wealthy, but it is not opulent in any way. In this respect, too, Bella is presented as modest, though very beautiful. Interestingly, the fact that she is presented as being wealthy is the direct result of her being betrothed to John
Harmon, the presumed dead heir to a fortune, who, in reality, lives on as John Rokesmith.
Once again, it becomes apparent that every aspect of her life and personality are granted to her only by the grace of men, confirming Dickens’s reduction of women in his novels.
An interesting side note concerns the clothes in which Stone clad his subjects. The dress in which Stone clothed Bella in this plate, is in the fashion of the 1860's, as was his wont. In fact, he was so used to presenting his subjects in a fashionable attire, that controversy arose concerning his illustrations for 'Great Expectations'. One of the plates displays Pip as wearing a hat that was fashionable during the 1860's, but not yet in the period in which 'Great
Expectations' takes place, between 1812 and 1840 (The Victorian Web. Allingham. 'A Brief
Review of the 2004 reprint of Kitton's Dickens and his Illustrators')23. Stone's habit of
23 The Victorian Web, P. V. Allingham. 'A brief review of the 2004 reprint of Kitton's Dickens and His
Illustrators', 2007
Stone's plates a more modern look (Ackroyd, 994).
In "The Boofer Lady" we see Bella Wilfer supporting herself on a chair, while
Rokesmith is standing in the doorway with his arms crossed and his eyes downcast.
Interestingly, he is not observing Bella, even though the text explicitly states that he does. By neglecting to show Rokesmith as watching Bella, Stone achieves two things. First, he gives
Rokesmith a pensive quality, showing the secretary as being lost in thought because of Bella, not enthralled by her, even though the story has already shown that he loves her. Second, by designing the plate this way, Stone made sure he followed Dickens's instructions of keeping things altogether vague. Rokesmith's behaviour in the plate suggests that there is more to the relationship between these two characters than meets the eye. Had Stone drawn the Secretary staring at Bella, it would have given the plate a completely different feel, suggestive of a strong desire on Rokesmith's part, perhaps more uncanny than loving. The illustration as it is manages its task brilliantly; it suggests a deeper meaning, but gives no clues. Later, it will become clear to the reader, as the plot line develops, why Rokesmith is so contemplative of
Bella; because he is John Harmon, the supposedly drowned heir to the fortune now belonging to Mr. Boffin, whose secretary he has become. Bella was intended to marry John Harmon, but since she had never seen him, she does not recognise him when he introduces himself as Mr.
Rokesmith. With this knowledge in mind, the plate takes on a completely different meaning.
Rokesmith is not lusting after Bella; he is sizing her up as a suitable wife, considering her nature and her empathy. This fact in itself is possibly the best example of the way in which
Dickens used men to characterise the women he portrayed. Rokesmith, or Harmon, is responsible for everything that Bella has undergone in the course of the novel. His presumed death led to her becoming wealthy, her defence of him as Mr. Rokesmith against the Mr. Schelstraete 80
Boffin caused her to lose her newly achieved fortune and finally, in marrying Rokesmith – who is of course, in reality, the rich Harmon – she regains her position. Rokesmith is an influence on the outcome of the plot, while Bella is engulfed by it. Bella’s entire situation turns out to be little more than a test of character imposed on her by her husband-to-be. A cruel test, though she does not begrudge him for it, which is summed up completely by the contemplative way in which Stone depicts Rokesmith, standing in the doorway, observing the woman he is, in essence, toying with.
A quick look at Stone’s later paintings reveals a similar treatment of women in his art.
While women do feature prominently in his art, and are often at the centre of it, they are never much more than an object around which a masculine tale is spun. For example, in the work entitled ‘Love at First Sight’ (fig. 6), the girl, though very prominently featured, is passive, undergoing the gaze of the man in the background, on the far left of the painting. It is he who watches and it is he who falls in love. Without the man, there can be no such thing as love at first sight, because Stone does not allow the girl to look. At first glance, she appears to be the main subject of this painting. The talent for drawinging women in fashionable attires that
Stone displayed while illustrating ‘Our Mutual Friend’ is apparent here. The girl’s dress almost radiates light, instantly drawing the viewer’s attention. However, the dark background leads attention away from her, towards the patch of light with the two men, presumably the girl’s father accompanied by her prospective lover. It is striking how much this painting resembles the plate ‘The Boofer Lady’. In both pictures, a woman is shown as the focal point of the scene, but the women are in neither case truly the centre of the proceedings. This girl, like Bella, is being observed by a man who desires her. As a consequence, both the girl in the painting and Stella are reduced to objects in a masculine image. Schelstraete 81
Fig. 6. 'Love at First Sight' (Hand coloured etchings – Romantic scenes) Another example can be found in ‘Love or Country’ (fig. 7). The woman is once again more prominent in the picture, because of her position and the brightness of her figure.
However, the picture makes no sense without the man standing behind her, dressed in uniform, his face pensive and his hand raised to his chin in thought. The woman is placed in a central position that turns out to be hollow, as Stone diverts all meaning to the figure of the man. In ‘Love or Country’, it is the man who makes the decision. The painting does not allow the woman to have her say; she is condemned to a passive role, merely a factor to be taken into account by the man making his decision. Schelstraete 82
Fig. 7. 'Love or Country' (Hand coloured etchings – Romantic scenes) It is interesting to see that Stone and Dickens represented women in a similar way through different mediums. There can be no doubt that Dickens’s work may have been an influence on Stone; after all, Stone had practised his hand by sketching scenes from Bleak
House (Kitton, 193). In any case, Stone's way of portraying women in his illustrations for Our
Mutual Friend makes what is implicitly present in Dickens's words, the dependence of female characters on male characters, explicit. The manner in which both Dickens and Stone represent women as incomplete without a man to define them, is ironic. The author as well as Schelstraete 83 the artist pretend to place women at the centre of their works, while in reality, woman are little more than slaves to a male dominated plot.
5.2. The representation of ‘the Jew’24
Fig. 8. 'Fagin in the condemned Cell' (Oliver Twist Illustrations) Women were not the only group to be duped by Dickens’s writing. The representation of Jewish people in Dickens’s earlier work left a lot to be desired; and even though he adjusted the image he created of them, Dickens's Jews were invariably depicted as outsiders.
The most memorable of Dickens’s Jewish characters is of course Fagin, the ringleader of a criminal gang, training children to become pickpockets. Right away, Fagin is portrayed as
24 The term 'the Jew' is used to refer to the literary stereotype of Jewish people. Schelstraete 84 despicable, not only in his actions, but also in the images in which he appeared. Cruikshank is responsible for the dreadful figure of Fagin, whose horror shows its terrifying face in the plate where Fagin sits in the condemned cell (fig. 8). The look of utter despair, coupled with his rag-tag appearance does little to inspire any feelings of compassion for the evil man, especially not considering his incessant attempts at bargaining his way out of trouble. It is worth noticing that in the illustration, the light falling in on Fagin is the light of a beautiful day, which holds no threat to him. It is Fagin who carries Evil inside himself.25 This depiction is not entirely fair, however, as Fagin is also carrying the guilt for the criminal behaviour of
Monks, Oliver’s half-brother. Murray Baumgarten26 rightly notes that the Jew has become a scapegoat. Dickens portrays Fagin as an outsider on multiple levels. Fagin is a thief, a figure living outside of the norms of society; who is doubly despicable for tempting others into his way of life. On top of that, his Jewishness incontrovertibly places him outside of the conventional society in Dickens’s fiction. This marginalisation is visible in Cruikshank’s illustrations as well, eminently so in the scene in the condemned cell, where Fagin is literally isolated. J. Hillis Mills rightly states: “The relationship between text and illustration is clearly reciprocal. Each refers to the other. Each illustrates the other, in a continual back and forth movement which is incarnated in the experience of the reader as his eyes move from words to
25 Anthony Burton, “Cruikshank as an Illustrator of Fiction,” in George Cruikshank: A Reevaluation, ed.
Robert Patten, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974 p.127
26 Murray Baumgarten, “Seeing Double: Jews in the Fiction of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, Anthony
Trollope, and George Eliot,” in Between ‘Race’ and Culture: Representations of ‘the Jew’ in English and
American Literature, ed. Bryan Cheyette, Stanford, C.A.:Stanford University Press, 1996, henceforth referred to as Baumgarten. Schelstraete 85 picture and back again, juxtaposing the two in a mutual establishment of meaning.”27 The extremely disgusting way in which Fagin is presented in the story led to controversy almost as soon as the novel was published. Dickens even received a letter from a concerned Jewish woman asking for an explanation as to why Fagin was presented in such a dreadful way.
Dickens responded in 1863, explaining his point of view:
Fagin, in "Oliver Twist," is a Jew, because it unfortunately was true of the time
to which that story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.
But surely no sensible man or woman of your persuasion can fail to observe
firstly, that all the rest of the wicked dramatis personce (sic) are Christians ; and
secondly, that he is called the "Jew," not because of his religion, but because of
his race. ...I have no feeling towards the Jewish people but a friendly one. I
always speak well of them, whether in public or in private, and bear my
testimony (as I ought to do) to their perfect good faith in such transactions as I
have ever had with them. (LHD, 371)
It is worth remembering that the Jewish people at this time had to deal with an exceedingly
large amount of prejudice (Baumgarten, 48). This explains why Dickens seems to feel that it
is morally acceptable to present Fagin as a thief because, according to him, all thieves were
Jewish at “the time to which that story refers”. To modern tastes, this argument, as well as the
argument concerning his race hardly seem valid. The lady who had written the letter
responded, thanking Dickens for his answer, but pointing out that the wicked Christians were
contrasted by the good Christians, while Fagin, the wicked Jew, was the only representative
of his people. Dickens apparently took her advice to heart, and incorporated the good, kind-
hearted Mr. Riah into Our Mutual Friend. It is surely no coincidence that the name Riah
27 J. Hillis Miller, “The Fiction of Realism: Sketches by Boz, Oliver Twist and Cruikshank’s Illustrations,”
Victorian Subjects. New York: Harverster Wheatsheaf, 1990, p.153 Schelstraete 86
means ‘friend’ in Hebrew (Baumgarten, 'Our Mutual Friend' The Scholarly Pages). Also
Stone’s representation of Mr. Riah had to be a worthy reply to Cruikshank’s terrible Fagin.
This places Stone in a critical position, as his illustrations were to be fundamental in
Dickens’s effort to show he had no prejudice against Jewish people. Stone must have realised
just how much of an asset his plates could be to Dickens, as he does everything he can to
depict Riah as a figure of pure goodness. This was not an unwarranted effort, after all, Stone
would have to undo what Cruikshank had achieved with what was perhaps the latter's most
striking and well-known illustration for Dickens of all, Fagin in the condemned cell.
As mentioned above, Dickens responded to the claims of prejudice by his creation of
Mr. Riah, an elderly Jewish gentleman. Riah is the moral opposite of Fagin. Although he is a moneylender, a stereotypical profession for a Jewish man, Riah does not man run the operation, he is a mere employee, chosen to work for the Christian moneylender because he is a Jew. Riah is an honourable man, and appears to have no faults at all. Lizzie Hexam sees him as a protector, and Jenny Wren calls him 'Fairy Godmother', thus stressing his caring personality. The personality Dickens gave to Riah is so uniquely good, that some modern critics argue that he is not a believable character, claiming a lack of knowledge on Dickens's part concerning Jewish people (Jewish Encyclopedia). Schelstraete 87
Fig. 9. 'A Friend in Need' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) 'A Friend in Need' (fig. 9) is a very suitable plate to illustrate how Stone contributed to
Dickens's plan to refute any claims of discrimination — real or imagined— against Jewish people. The title of the plate suggests the trustworthiness of Riah, and his good intentions towards Lizzie Hexam. In the text, Mr. Riah happens upon Lizzie, who is out late at night, abandoned by her brother Charley and his headmaster, disappointed as they were because
Lizzie refused the latter's proposal. Riah stays with her and does the gentlemanly thing, by offering to escort her to some place of comfort and safety. On the way there they are confronted by Eugene Wrayburn, another one of Lizzie's suitors. He tries to convince Riah to leave, so he can escort the girl home, but Lizzie does not wish to be accompanied by
Wrayburn, as his motives seem less honourable than Riah's.
The good Mr. Riah is contrasted with two things. On the one hand, there is the selfishness of the brother, combined with the inappropriate passion of his headmaster. Charley wants Lizzie to marry his headmaster to better his own chances of moving up in the world, without regard to Lizzie's wishes. When she refuses he is extremely angry because she spoils his opportunities. The Headmaster — ominously called Headstone, his death later in the book Schelstraete 88 already prophesied — strikes a wall and grabs hold of Lizzie, furious because Lizzie refuses him. This untoward and thoughtless behaviour stands in stark contrast with Mr. Riah's. His conduct suggests nothing but the most honourable intentions, and he selflessly puts Lizzie's safety over his own. The second contrast is formed by Eugene Wrayburn, who loves Lizzie, and whom Lizzie secretly loves as well. His behaviour towards Riah is appalling as he tries to get the kind old gentleman to leave:
"If Mr. Aaron," said Eugene, who soon found this fatiguing, "will be good
enough to relinquish his charge to me, he will be quite free for any engagement
he may have at the Synagogue. Mr. Aaron, will you have the kindness?" (OMF,
453)
Nothing in Riah's behaviour towards Wrayburn warrants this kind of behaviour, and the insults such as calling Riah 'Mr. Aaron' even though they have just been introduced as well as his presuming to know Riah has 'engagements at the synagogue' are uncalled for. Wrayburn, who will later completely change his ways after he has been beaten within an inch of his life by Headstone, and end up marrying Lizzie, is symbolic of the Christian society's unfounded prejudice against the Jewish people. Despite Riah's exceptional goodness, he is, like Fagin, condemned to the margins of society, an outsider, because of his Jewishness. Even though
Riah was Dickens's attempt to clear himself from any charges of prejudice against Jewish people, he does not depict Riah as being a part of society. In fact, Riah's benevolent nature is especially clear because of the prejudice he is faced with. Through his unflinching acceptance of the abuse hurtled at him, his patience, meekness and pure-heartedness are emphasized. As a result, Riah is irreversibly condemned to being an outsider.
An interesting note regarding the representation of Riah is the effeminate way in which Stone and Dickens portray him, reinforcing the image of him being an outsider
(Baumgarten, 52-53). Riah's protective behaviour of Lizzie and Jenny places him in stark Schelstraete 89 contrast with men such as Headstone and Wrayburn, both of whom are chasing Lizzie. In sheltering her, Riah places himself in a feminine light. He is no threat at all to Jenny and
Lizzie's integrity, presented as he is as a non-sexual being. His role is that of the protective mother hen, a barrier between the two innocent girls and the male predators seeking them out.
The effeminate way in which Riah is presented by Dickens is reinforced by the nickname given to him by Jenny Wren, 'Fairy Godmother', as well as by the way in which Riah interacts with the other characters. His plight is similar to that of the women in Dickens's novels, but not identical. It is true that, as pointed out above, Riah needs the contrast between his meek nature and the abusive, prejudiced nature of the — Christian — males to allow his own personality to shine. This is reminiscent of the way in which women are presented by Dickens as incomplete without a man to define them. But Riah escapes that plight, because of his
Jewishness, which is as defining as the opposition between himself and the other men in the story. Schelstraete 90
Fig. 10. 'The Garden on the Roof' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) There can be no doubt, however, that Riah belongs to the feminine group of Dickens's characters, which is symbolised by his joining Lizzie and Jenny in the garden on the roof (see fig. 10), where the women are free to do as they please. It is Dickens's view on a female utopia, to which Riah is admitted. The garden on the roof is a poor substitute for real freedom, however, as they are confined to a tiny space, devoid of opportunities, except for the liberty in thought and speech. Jenny is aware of the inadequacy of their utopia, as she refers to the time spent in it as 'playing dead'. Stone's depiction of Riah helps to support the view of the kind Schelstraete 91
Jew as feminine. Riah's traditional Jewish coat with long skirt, mentioned in the text and shown in every plate Stone showed Riah in, adds to his feminization. Stone's plates add to this in another way as well. He shows Riah as the caring protector of Lizzie and Jenny through the way in which the plates are constructed, in for example 'A Friend in Need' and 'Trying on for the Dolls’ Dressmaker'. In the first plate, he is the beacon of light that offers Lizzie protection in the dead of night, his manner calm and reassuring. In the second plate, 'Trying on for the
Dolls’ Dressmaker' (fig. 11), he forms a guide for little Jenny, protecting her from harm in the crush of people that could easily have swept her away.
Fig. 11. 'Trying on for the Dolls’ Dressmaker' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) A single notable exception of the way in which Riah is depicted as protective of these two women is in the plate 'The Garden on the Roof'. In this garden, he is teaching Jenny and
Lizzie, but under pressure from his Christian master, Fledgeby, he has to break the sacred Schelstraete 92 spell of the garden and admit a man, who instantly dispels any sense of utopia. The breach means that the garden is no longer a safe haven where the women can be free, as it is now occupied by a dominant Christian male. The plate represents Lizzie and Jenny in the foreground, with behind them to the right, Riah admitting the villainous Fledgeby into the sanctum. In this plate, Riah is not shown as a protector. In fact, his posture suggests a sense of defeat, and his pointing is reminiscent of betrayal.
Stone's representation of Riah throughout the illustrations is otherwise consistent with the image Dickens conjures up for the Jewish gentleman. In the plate 'A Friend in Need', Riah is presented as facing away from us, towards Lizzie, who is facing us. Lizzie, clad in a black cloak is obviously distressed, as is apparent from her expression, as well as the way in which she clutches her chest with her arms. Mr. Riah is presented as soothing, holding his hand up in a reassuring way. Riah is shown wearing a black coat and hat, and sporting a cane. The two figures stand in a spot of light, surrounded by fairly threatening surroundings. The fog, full moon and bare trees help create this atmosphere. Stone did a good job in presenting Riah as being a soothing influence on Lizzie, and even though his attire is black, there appears to be a glare on his back, making him a beacon of light in the surrounding darkness. This brightness is emphasized by the fact that Lizzie's attire is for the most part completely black, except for a part of her front. The plate, while a good indication of Riah's goodness towards Lizzie, as well as being interesting because of the moment it depicts from the text, does not show Riah's face very clearly. In order to see the Jewish gentleman's face, the plate 'Miss Wren Fixes her Idea' is more helpful. Here, Riah is shown sitting across the table from Jenny Wren while she uncovers the truth behind the money lending business, run by Fledgeby, Mr. Riah's villainous
Christian master. In doing so, Jenny helps to consolidate the notion that Riah is a good man through and through, by shifting the blame of the effects of the money lending business onto
Fledgeby. Riah, depicted in 'Miss Wren fixes her Idea' (fig. 12), is instantly likeable, with his Schelstraete 93 long white beard and hair as well as good-natured face, even though he looks rather disinterested in what Jenny has to say. Additionally, in this plate, Riah is dressed completely in white, which underlines his purity and good-heartedness.
Fig. 12. 'Miss Wren Fixes her Idea' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
The way Riah is depicted here by Stone is a far cry from Cruikshank's image of Fagin.
Especially in the condemned cell Fagin is a revolting figure; the dirty clothes, little more than rags, the way in which he bites his fingernails with rodent-like teeth, his eyes stark and haunted, all combine to make a very striking image. Fagin is dirty, dark and bewildered in
Cruikshank's representation of him; Riah on the other hand, is clean and a beacon of calm in
Stone's illustrations for Our Mutual Friend, making him the absolute opposite of Fagin.
Stone became an important part of Dickens's effort to ward off any claims of prejudice against the Jewish community. By portraying Mr. Riah the way that Stone did, he created a powerful counter-image for Cruikshank's Fagin, dreadful as he was. Stone's illustrations of
Riah are very suited to Dickens's words; and they appear regularly. After all, Mr. Riah is a very minor character in the plot line. Yet, he still warrants four appearances in illustrations Schelstraete 94 throughout the book, in the plates entitled 'The Garden on the Roof', 'A Friend in Need',
'Trying on for the Dolls’ Dressmaker' and in 'Miss Wren Fixes her Idea'. Other minor characters are represented much less. For instance Gaffer Hexam is only depicted twice and
Charley Hexam is shown only in one plate throughout the book. This certainly indicates that
Stone was aware of Dickens's intention to use the character of Riah to placate anyone who may have been offended by the representation of Fagin in Oliver Twist, and that he committed his pencil to the novelist's in his effort, which formed a considerable support to Dickens. Schelstraete 95
5.3. The case of Podsnappery
Fig. 13. 'Podsnappery' as it appears in the Fig. 14. John Forster (Charles Dickens- Clarendon edition of Our Mutual Friend. Gesellschaft Deutschland e.V) (Charles Dickens's Our Mutual Friend Clarendon Edition)
This particular plate is of interest because it is a good indication of just how amicable the relationship between Stone and Dickens was. When a comparison is made between the plate entitled 'Podsnappery' (fig. 13) in the Clarendon Edition of Our Mutual Friend (Charles
Dickens's Our Mutual Friend Clarendon Edition) and a portrait of John Forster (fig. 14),
Dickens's long time friend and biographer, there can be no doubt where Stone got his inspiration from for the illustration of Mr. Podsnap. Allingham expresses the opinion that
Dickens was oblivious of the caricature because of the free reign the author gave Stone
(AVK), but this seems unlikely. Ackroyd offers a more believable possibility, which ties in neatly with Dickens's state of mind at the time: Schelstraete 96
That Forster was the original of Podsnap admits of very little doubt, and the
accumulated irritations and anger of a lifetime's friendship can be seen to emerge
in what is a crude if effective portrait; his peremptoriness, his self-righteousness,
his dismissal of inconvenient truths, even his correction of his guests'
pronunciation were all aspects of Forster in his more domineering moods. In the
novel, too, Podsnap represents the disdain of "Society" for the relationship
between the respectable Eugene Wrayburn and the low-born Lizzie Hexam,
which may in its turn suggest that Dickens was disturbed and irritated by
Forster's attitude towards his friendship with Ellen Ternan. (Ackroyd, 996-997)
Podsnap and Forster were one and the same, not only in appearance, for which Stone was responsible, but also in manner and attitude, described in Dickens's words. In his biography of
Dickens, Forster makes no note of the obvious caricature of his person, although he must have known of it. It is interesting to see that there are two versions of the plate. The
Clarendon version shows Mr. Podsnap in all his glory, facing the reader, clearly showing the resemblance to Forster. The hairline, stern eyebrows and round face are almost identical to the features in the portrait of Forster shown above. In the other version, shown below, however, Mr. Podsnap (fig. 15) is represented with his back to the reader, rendering him largely unrecognisable as being modelled on Forster. The University of California’s scholarly pages on Our Mutual Friend (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) indicate that the latter type of illustrations, where Podsnap is facing away from the reader, were the plates that were used in the first edition of Our Mutual Friend, published by Chapman and Hall in 1865. It is curious that these illustrations vary, but over half the plates in the Clarendon edition differ from the original ones. However, the changes in those plates are usually fairly minor, switching the positions of characters; or else the plates are a different illustration altogether, still depicting roughly the same scene. The plates entitled 'Podsnappery' are interesting, Schelstraete 97 because Podsnap/ Forster is shown in both versions; seen on the back in the first version and en face in the Clarendon edition. In this way, Podsnap, who was previously unrecognisable as
Forster, is revealed as bearing a striking resemblance to that lifelong friend of Dickens's.
Fig. 15. 'Podsnappery' as it appears in the original edition of Our Mutual Friend. (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) The obvious caricature of Dickens's lifelong friend may be explained by the close relationship that existed between Stone and Dickens. Podsnap as he is described in the text, would go unnoticed as being Forster except to those who knew him quite well. However, the
Podsnap Stone depicted makes the link between the character and Forster quite clear.
Evidently, Stone was aware of the way in which Forster sometimes annoyed Dickens, and portrayed Forster at his most haughty as Podsnap. It is hardly surprising that Stone knew these things, considering the close ties between himself and the author, as well as the shared circle of friends to which Forster also belonged. While Allingham supposes that Dickens was oblivious to the caricature, and Ackroyd suggests Dickens allowed it without acknowledging it; it is my opinion that 'Podsnappery' pleased Dickens immensely. The tone of letters concerning Forster was at the time angry and even contemptuous, such as in this letter to Schelstraete 98
Georgina Hogarth, where Dickens writes: 'Forster fluttered about in the Athenaeum, as I conversed in the hall with all sorts and conditions of men - and pretended not to see me - but I saw in every hair of his whisker (left hand one) that he saw Nothing Else' (Ackroyd, 997).
There was a childish quality surrounding the quarrel between the two, which makes a scenario in which Dickens takes glee in a striking caricature of Forster very likely. When we take into consideration just how protective Dickens was of his relationship to Ellen Ternan, which
Forster disapproved of, the possibility continues to become more likely. This plate, then, is a result of Stone and Dickens's boyish sense of petty revenge, indicating just how close the two men were.
5.4. The grotesque and the macabre
Dickens proved over the course of his career that he was very talented at creating grotesque characters. Scrooge, Fagin, Squeers and Miss Havisham are all prime examples of the memorable bizarre villains that sprouted from his pen. In this respect, many of the artists that embellished his books proved invaluable, as they themselves were grandmasters at depicting such macabre characters. For example, Cruikshank and Leech, both established caricaturists, as well as Browne, had a knack for the grotesque. It is telling that the bizarre and grotesque are the best remembered of all of Dickens’s characters. This underlines that the grotesque was an integral part of Dickens's work. As such, it was not undesirable to have an illustrator able to render the bizarre qualities of such characters. In Our Mutual Friend, characters such as Wegg and Mr. Venus provided Stone with excellent vehicles for displaying his talents at depicting the grotesque. However, as Stone was chosen to illustrate that book exactly because of the difference in style between him and the caricatural Browne, it can safely be assumed that Stone was not any good at the grotesque. One plate entitled 'Mr. Venus Schelstraete 99 surrounded by the Trophies of his Art' (fig. 16) lends itself particularly well to the examination of this subject.
Fig. 16. 'Mr. Venus surrounded by the Trophies of his Art' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
The plate in question is not only interesting because it is from the hand of Marcus
Stone and concerns a rather macabre scene, but also because Marcus Stone gave Dickens the necessary inspiration for including Mr. Venus in the first place. Mr. Venus, a strange, but honourable man, is a taxidermist by profession, and his shop is filled with the strangest items, relating to his art. He is based on a real taxidermist by the name of Willis, who was employed by Stone. As mentioned before, Stone used models for his designs, and he required a model of a dog. To this end, he contacted Willis to provide him with a suitable specimen. When Stone visited the taxidermist's shop, he knew that he had found something to show Dickens, who had been looking to bring a new character into his story. In Frederic G. Kitton's book Dickens Schelstraete 100 and his Illustrators we find how this new 'very striking and unusual' (Kitton, 199) feature was introduced to Dickens:
The artist immediately recalled Willis as he appeared when "surrounded by the
trophies of his art," and informed Dickens that he could introduce him to the
very thing. Delighted with the suggestion, the novelist appointed "two o'clock
sharp" on the following day for a visit to Willis. It happened that the man was
absent when they called but Dickens, with his unusually keen power of
observation, was enabled during a very brief space to take mental notes of every
detail that presented itself, and his readers were soon enjoying his vivid portrayal
of that picturesque representative of a curious profession, Mr. Venus. (Kitton,
199-200)
Stone did a remarkable job in representing the taxidermist's shop, filling his plate with small details, such as 'two preserved frogs fighting a small-sword duel' (OMF, 86) in the window, a jar containing a foetus, a stuffed bird on the mantelpiece, a stuffed monkey and the skeleton of a man, referred to in the book as 'the French gentleman'. In the novel, Venus gives
Wegg a general overview of his shop, and a comparison between the illustration and the text reveals that Stone included many of the things mentioned by Venus:
My working bench. My young man's bench. A Wice. Tools. Bones, warious.
Skulls, warious. Preserved Indian Baby. African ditto. Bottled preparations,
warious. Everything within reach of your hand, in good preservation. The
mouldy ones a-top. What's in those hampers of them again, I don't quite
remember. Say, human warious. Cats. Articulated English baby. Dogs. Ducks.
Glass eyes, warious. Mummied bird. Dried cuticle, warious. Oh dear me! That's
the general panoramic view (OMF, 90) Schelstraete 101
Once again, Stone did not work from memory, or made the image up as he went along; instead, he visited Willis's establishment several times, in order to complete the sketches. He did not, however, model Venus to the likeness of Willis, whom Dickens had never seen, so the character had nothing in common with Willis but his occupation. The shop, as it appears in the plate has a slightly run-down feel to it; its floor littered with gruesome knick-knacks, its windows stained and cracked. It is possible that the bleakness of the store was meant to support the ambivalent position Venus holds in the story at this point in the plot. He is acquainted with Wegg — who is from the outset portrayed as an unsympathetic rascal at best, and also depicted in this plate — and is extremely gloomy, which only helps to support the mysterious character of his profession. Later on in the story, it appears that Venus is every bit as fiendish as Wegg, when they both decide to blackmail Mr. Boffin, but Venus's greed turns out only to have been fuelled by his desire to woo the woman of his dreams, who did not approve of his 'art'. Later, Venus repents for his criminal behaviour, and decides to come to
Mr. Boffin's aid. So, while in the end, Venus proves invaluable to Mr. Boffin by helping him in his struggle against Wegg, the shaggy, miserable man Stone depicts in 'Mr. Venus surrounded by the Trophies of his Art', could just as easily have been a true villain. This, again, follows Dickens's instructions of keeping the illustrations vague, in order to preserve the secret at the base of the book's plot.
It must be said that while Stone did an admirable job in including so many of the details described by Dickens, without cluttering the image too much, and succeeded in keeping his plate sufficiently ambivalent with regard to Venus's moral orientation; he did not quite pin down the grotesqueness of the store described by the text. Gravil28 rightly points out:
28 Richard Gravil, ed., 'Master Narratives: Tellers and Telling in the English Novel.' London and Vermont:
Ashgate, 2001 henceforth re ferred to as Gravil. Schelstraete 102
Where Stone's interiors do identify the element of the grotesque they do so in a
way that is much more subdued: in the illustration of Mr. Venus's shop, for
example, we note the skeleton and the stuffed monkey in the bottom corner of
the drawing, but this is domesticated grotesque, oddity as ornament, falling far
short of Dickens's text. (Gravil, 177)
Stone's picture does not emanate the same sense of the macabre that Dickens's evokes in his description of the store. This is hardly surprising, considering that the core part of the illustration is the diagonal formed by Mr. Venus and Mr. Wegg. Everything else, even the boy that Venus is serving, is secondary. While Stone includes many of the described elements of the grotesque, he emphasizes the men, instantly undermining the possibility of a truly macabre illustration.
An interesting little side note that can be made regarding this particular plate, is that
Stone appears to have placed Mr. Wegg's wooden leg on his right side, rather than his left.
Since his illustrations were not etched, this can not have been the result of the reversal of the image inherent to this process. Perhaps the leg was indeed intended to be fixed on the left leg, but careful scrutiny of the image does not settle the matter, indicating an unfortunate lapse in the artist's use of perspective.
All in all, Stone's illustration keeps close to the text. It was almost inevitable that an image of the taxidermist's shop would be included, considering the idea was introduced into the novel by Stone, as well as the fact that such an establishment makes for an interesting illustration. A few minor points can be made concerning the accuracy of the illustration aside from the aforementioned ambiguity concerning the placement of Wegg's wooden leg. For example, there is no mention of a stuffed monkey in Mr. Venus's run-down of his stock, yet
Stone still depicts it. Additionally, there is no sign of Venus's teacup, even though the text clearly indicates there should be one present on the scene. It is nowhere to be seen, but Wegg Schelstraete 103 is holding his very clearly, indicating that Stone was aware of the fact that the two men are taking tea when the boy enters. The plate does not achieve its full potential. As Gravil stated: the macabre Dickens evokes is largely lost in this illustration, and it appears that Stone's knack for realism is no help in realizing an illustration of this kind. The feel of the details, macabre in themselves, is lost because of the life-like characters Stone draws. Compared to the positively diabolical face Cruikshank gave Fagin in the condemned cell, the expression visible on Mr. Venus's face is infinitely tame. The plate has the feel of a failed attempt at the grotesque. Stone tried his hardest to evoke a sense of the macabre by including numerous details, not all of which are even mentioned in the text, but instantly undid the work of all his efforts by stick to his usual realistic style of depicting the characters present in the scene.
Granted, Mr. Venus looks a bit strange, but he is a far cry from the grotesque. Dickens must have noticed this too, considering he was used to working with Phiz, who excelled at drawing the grotesque. The plate fulfilled its purpose, but realised nothing more. From this illustration it is clear that Stone was not the man to draw the Scrooges, the Squeerses or the Fagins found in Dickens.
Another example of Stone's failure to portray the grotesque and the macabre is found in the plate 'The Dutch Bottle' (fig. 17). Schelstraete 104
Fig. 17. 'The Dutch Bottle' (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) It is the frontispiece for the second volume of Our Mutual Friend. In a letter to Stone written in 1865, Dickens describes what he would like the plate to look like:
... the dustyard with the three mounds, and Mr. Boffin digging up the Dutch
bottle, and Venus restraining Wegg's ardour to get at him. Or Mr. Boffin might
be coming down with the bottle, and Venus might be dragging Wegg out of the
way as described. (LHD, 389)
Stone depicts Mr. Boffin digging up the Dutch bottle, which Wegg is certain contains something valuable. Venus restrains Wegg, to keep him from forcibly taking the bottle away Schelstraete 105 from Boffin. A little later, Wegg and Venus will decide to blackmail Boffin with a will that
Wegg found, in which all of the fortune of Boffin's previous employee is assigned to the state, and not his faithful servants. It is unclear why Wegg is so keen to take the Dutch bottle away from Boffin, considering he already has a more recent will than Boffin, which he can use to extract any amount of riches from his victim.
The second frontispiece is a less fortunate effort than some of the previous plates that
Stone submitted to the novel, regardless of whether or not it qualifies as macabre. The scene is lit from the front by Mr. Boffin's lantern. It reveals Boffin, after having dug up the bottle, that was buried on top of one of the Mounds. A little distance behind — surely too little a distance to go unnoticed — are Wegg and Venus. The latter has his arm on Wegg's right arm, to restrain him from attacking Boffin. The scene in the book is fairly important, and lends itself well to illustration, but Stone fails to impress, for a few reasons. First of all, Boffin as he appears in this plate (see fig. 17 and 19) looks nothing like the Boffin that Stone has depicted so far. In fact, the figure shown looks more like Rogue Riderhood as he appears in the plate entitled 'Rogue Riderhood's Recovery' (see the detail in fig. 18) than like Boffin in
'Bibliomania of the Golden Dustman' (fig. 20). Schelstraete 106
Fig. 18. Rogue Riderhood Fig. 19. Mr. Boffin as he Fig. 20. Mr. Boffin as he as he appears in 'Rogue appears in 'The Dutch appears in 'Bibliomania of Riderhood's Recovery'. Bottle'. (Illustrations to the Golden Dustman'. (Illustrations to Our Mutual Our Mutual Friend) (Illustrations to Our Friend) Mutual Friend)
Secondly, the same poor effort is present in the drawing of Venus. In the plate discussed above, 'Mr. Venus surrounded by the Trophies of his Art', Mr. Venus appears as a slightly shaggy, dreamy man, with prominent sideburns and curly, unkempt hair (see fig. 22). In the plate 'The Dutch Bottle', Mr. Venus has the appearance of a forlorn vampire, his hair standing up in every direction, with no sign of the dark curls, nor of the sideburns. His hand, as it appears on Wegg's right arm, looks like a claw. See figures 21 and 22 for a comparison of the details referred to here. Schelstraete 107
Fig. 21. Mr. Venus and Mr. Wegg as they Fig. 22. Mr. Venus as he appears in 'Mr. Venus appear in 'The Dutch Bottle'. surrounded by the Trophies of his Art'. (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend) (Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend)
Finally, the plate fails to deliver on atmosphere. After all, it shows two men following a third, in the dark, through a dust yard. This, coupled with the tendency to violence Wegg displays in the text, offers itself well to a macabre scene. The plate should be exciting, ominous and threatening; but instead it is bland and void of any emotion. Mr. Boffin's blank face as he stares at the Dutch bottle in his hand sums it up nicely; there is no feeling whatsoever in this illustration, making this frontispiece contrast enormously with the first.
It is clear that Stone does not excel at depicting the grotesque and the macabre. His strength, his knack for realism, works against a fitting symbiosis with Dickens's grotesque text. The discrepancy between Stone's style and Phiz's almost caricatural subjects is especially noticeable considering Stone succeeded Phiz as Dickens's illustrator. It is worth keeping in mind however, that Dickens himself chose Stone as illustrator. Phiz's remark that Dickens was looking for a fresh look for his old puppets may indicate that the novelist was well aware of the fact that because of Stone's modern style, Stone's illustrations would be less suited to portray macabre or grotesque subjects. Perhaps the contemporary feel that Stone's plates brought with them outweighed the loss of the grotesque in the illustrations.
Schelstraete 108
6. Conclusion
While Marcus Stone was not the most talented of the illustrators employed by Dickens
— Stone himself later deprecated the work he delivered for the embellishment of Our Mutual
Friend — there can be no doubt that the relationship between these two men was a special one. In regard to this relationship, three separate points can be made. First, from the letters
Dickens wrote to Frank Stone, Marcus's father, it is clear that Dickens took a liking to his friend's son, whom he called a 'bright creature' (LHD, 225). Undoubtedly, Marcus Stone's sketch of a scene from Bleak House warmed Dickens's heart to the young budding artist when visiting the Stone household. After Frank Stone's death, Dickens took Marcus under his wing, stimulating his career in any way he could. This sense of responsibility, combined with the obvious liking Dickens displayed for Marcus Stone, are a clear indication of the connection between Dickens and Stone, even at this early stage in their cooperation. While it was not uncharacteristic for Dickens to show a great deal of compassion, the efforts he undertook to ensure that Marcus Stone could continue to pursue his ambitions were extraordinarily generous. Dickens's choice to let Stone illustrate some of his works after a previous failed attempt at launching the young artist in the world of book illustrating is an obvious sign of the close relationship between the two. In short, there can be no doubt that right from the outset there were close ties between Dickens and Stone, even before the latter started illustrating the novels of the former.
The second point concerning the interaction between Dickens and Stone that can be made stems from the letters between novelist and illustrator. From those letters, it is clear that
Dickens relinquished his habit of keeping a strict eye on the work of his illustrator. This is remarkable, and a sign of something more profound. The explanation for the fact that Dickens did not meddle with Stone's illustrations overmuch may well lie in Dickens's knowledge that he had become a household name. As such, he did not have to worry about making his text Schelstraete 109 more attractive through illustrations. Because of the independence his fame allowed his works, Dickens could afford to let a young artist have his way with the illustrations, and in doing so give a budding talent a chance. Clearly, allowing Marcus Stone to do the illustrations for Our Mutual Friend was Dickens's way of helping Stone's career. The freedom Stone was given may be misconstrued as a lack of interest in the illustrations on Dickens's part, but it may well have been a conscious decision to allow his young protégé to really come into his own. By the time he semi-adopted Stone as an illustrator, he had become so well-known that he could afford to take this gamble, Stone at that moment not having built any reputation for himself yet. It is a strong testimony of Dickens's self confidence, which was great even at the outset of his career, but verged on the reckless when he hired Stone. It is clear after all that
Stone was chosen at least in part because he was the son of a deceased friend of the renowned author.
The final point with reference to the relationship between Stone and Dickens comes from the illustrations themselves. Several elements in Stone's plates indicate a very profound communication between the two men. For example, in the plates showing Mr. Riah, Stone took great effort in portraying him in the most positive way imaginable. Riah is in some cases
(for instance in the plate 'A Friend in Need') literally a beacon of light, radiant against a dark backdrop. Obviously, Stone wanted to support Dickens's attempt to refute any claims of prejudice against Jewish people, and realised that his illustrations could be an important part of this effort. As a result, Stone's illustrations of Riah contrasted immensely with Cruikshank's representation of Fagin. This meant that Stone's plates were not only eminently suitable to
Dickens's purpose, they also indicated the close ties between novelist and illustrator. Another such indication can be found in the plate 'Podsnappery', albeit in a much more roguish way.
Forster, who had irritated Dickens intensely by his reaction to the relationship between himself and Ellen Ternan, is mercilessly caricatured in this plate. The likeness between Schelstraete 110
Podsnap and Forster in the Clarendon plate is undeniable. Dickens had given Podsnap some characteristics of Forster in the text, so it is possible that Stone picked up on these hints and drew Podsnap with Forster in mind. It is unlikely that Dickens would have failed to notice the resemblance, striking as it is. It is much more plausible that Dickens and Stone had discussed the matter, raking up the petty grievances and irritations that had sprung from this long-lasting friendship. Forster had incurred Dickens's school-boyish wrath, and together with Stone, the novelist set out to get childish revenge. While this does not shed a particularly positive light on Dickens and Stone, it does indicate just how close the two men were. It is telling that despite the fact that Dickens gave his illustrator a free reign, Stone managed to be spot-on in the depiction of matters such as these. This shows that Stone knew Dickens's opinions, purposes and views, perhaps better than any illustrator before him had ever done.
Despite all this, Stone did not become one of the most well-known of Dickens's illustrators. Artists such as Cruikshank, Seymour and Browne are much more often associated with the great novelist's name, while Stone is often forgotten, or at least condemned to a brief mention. This is surprising, considering the close relationship between Stone and Dickens.
Additionally, because of the way in which Stone portrayed women in his plates in a manner which is quite similar to the way in which Dickens characterised the women in his novels, it would appear that Stone ought to replace Browne as the quintessential Dickens illustrator.
After all, young virtuous maidens waiting for their loved one to make them complete were a key element in most of Dickens's books, and Stone excelled at depicting them. Later in his career, he became famous for painting beautiful girls in romantic scenes, placing them at the centre of the image, but making them totally dependent from the male elements. This is exactly what Dickens does in his novels, and it is not unthinkable that Stone picked up the habit from him. In any case, Dickens's tendency of characterising the women in his novels in this way is very clear from the dependent manner in which Stone depicts them. However, Schelstraete 111
Stone's strength is cancelled out almost entirely by his inability to depict the grotesque which is always so prominent in Dickens's novels. While Cruikshank and Browne excelled at the grotesque, indeed gravitated towards it in everything they drew; Stone lacked their knack for the bizarre and macabre. This inability has deprived Stone of a place alongside the famous
Dickens illustrators. The uncanny, the bizarre and the grotesque always played an important part in Dickens's work, and these were the elements that are forever remembered and associated with Dickens. Fagin, Squeers and Scrooge are the characters evoked by Dickens's name, not Boffin, Riah or Veneering. Stone revelled in the portrayal of women, but his realistic style, far removed from the macabre, denied him the possibility to join the ranks of
Dickens's most well-known illustrators.
On the whole, Stone did little to contribute to the legend of Dickens. Despite how close he was to the novelist, his name is not as keenly associated with Dickens as some of the other illustrators of Dickens's novels. In part, this may be explained by the fact that Our
Mutual Friend was not particularly well received. However, the most important reason is straightforward. Stone's failure to excel at depicting the grotesque, made him eminently unsuited to become the quintessential Dickens illustrator. Stone's best illustrations are those of
Lizzie Hexam, Bella Wilfer and Mr. Riah, but those characters are nowhere near as embedded in the collective consciousness as for example Fagin. The simple truth is that macabre and grotesque characters are essential elements of any Dickens novel. Those characters are the best remembered of all of Dickens's creations. The logical consequence is that the illustrators who had a knack for drawing those bizarre and grotesque characters are forever associated with Dickens's name, more than Stone will likely ever be. In the end, the illustration has to complement the literature, and while Stone's illustrations did so up to a point, his style did not match the grotesque, that all-important part of all of Dickens's novels. Schelstraete 112
It is beyond doubt that the relationship that existed between Stone and Dickens was very close, influencing the way in which they cooperated. Dickens allowed Stone much freedom in the illustrating process, and some of the plates that came forth from their collaboration match Dickens's intentions exactly. However, Stone's modern style, and his lack of a feel for the grotesque condemned him, who enjoyed such close ties with the novelist, to a legacy as a minor Dickens illustrator. Nevertheless, I hope to have shown just how extraordinary the interaction between Dickens and Stone was, in that some of Dickens's unspoken biases are portrayed openly in Stone's illustrations. Schelstraete 113
7. Bibliography
Books:
- Ackroyd, Peter. Dickens. London: Minerva, 1993.
- Baumgarten, Murray. “Seeing Double: Jews in the Fiction of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles
Dickens, Anthony Trollope, and George Eliot.,” in Between ‘Race’ and Culture:
Representations of ‘the Jew’ in English and American Literature. Ed. Bryan Cheyette.
Stanford, C.A.: Stanford University Press, 1996.
- Burton, Anthony. “Cruikshank as an Illustrator of Fiction.” George Cruikshank: A
Reevaluation. Ed. Robert Patten. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974.
-Cohen, Jane R. Dickens and his Original Illustrators. Ohio: Ohio State Press, 1980.
- Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. London, Edinburgh, New York: Thomas Nelson and
Sons, Ltd. Undated edition.
- Dickens, Charles. Our Mutual Friend. London, Edinburgh, New York: Thomas Nelson and
Sons, Ltd. Undated edition.
- Dickens, Charles. Tale of Two Cities. London: CRW Publishing Limited, 2003.
- Forster, John. The Life of Charles Dickens, 3 vols., London: Chapman and Hall, 1872.
- Gravil, Richard, ed. Master Narratives: Tellers and Telling in the English Novel. London
and Vermont: Ashgate, 2001.
- Hogarth, Georgina, and Mary Dickens. The Letters of Charles Dickens. London: Chapman
and Hall, 1880.
- House, Madeline, and Graham Storey, ed. The Pilgrim Edition: The letters of Charles
Dickens. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1965.
- Kitton, Frederic George. Dickens and his Illustrators. Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press of
the Pacific, 2004, reprinted from the 1899 edition. Schelstraete 114
- Klimaszewski, Melisa, and Melissa Gregory. Brief Lives: Charles Dickens. London:
Herperus Press Limited, 2008.
- Lodge, David. The British Museum is Falling Down. London Penguin Books, 1981.
- Miller, J. Hillis. "The Fiction of Realism: Sketches by Boz, Oliver Twist, and Cruikshank's
Illustrations." Dickens Centennial Essays. Ed. Ada Nisbet and Blake Nevius. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1971.
- Page, Norman and others. Charles Dickens: Family History. Routledge, 1999.
- Slater, Michael. "Hogarth, Mary Scott." The Oxford Reader's Companion to Dickens. Ed.
Paul Schlicke. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
- Storey, Graham, ed. The Letters of Charles Dickens, Volumes 8-10. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 2002.
- Trollope, Anthony. He Knew He Was Right, London: Strahan and Company, 1869.
- Waller, Philip J. Writers, Readers, and Reputations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Electronic Sources:
- A Charles Dickens Journal. 2009. Retrieved 10 April 2009 from
- Charles Dickens and His Original Illustrators. Jane R. Cohen. ‘The Illustrators of Our
Mutual Friend and The Mystery of Edwin Drood.’ Retrieved 20 May 2009.
- Charles Dickens - Gad's Hill Place. 2009. Marsha Perry. ‘The Children of Charles Dickens.’
Retrieved 21 October 2009 from
- Charles Dickens-Gesellschaft Deutschland e.V, 2009. Charles Dickens-Gesellschaft
Deutschland e.V. Retrieved 18 May 2009 from
- Charles Dickens's Our Mutual Friend. Clarendon Edition. 2006. Queen’s University Belfast.
Retrieved 21 April 2009 from
- Hand coloured etchings – Romantic scenes. Intaglio-fine-art.com. Retrieved 09 May 2009
from
- Illustrations to Our Mutual Friend. The Dickens Project, University of California. Retrieved
7 March 2009 from
- Jewish Encyclopedia. 2002. Joseph Jacobs & Edgar Mels. ‘Dickens, Charles.’ retrieved 23
April 2009 from
- Oliver Twist Illustrations. 2009. David A. Perdue. Retrieved 09 May 2009 from
- 'Our Mutual Friend', The Scholarly Pages. 1996. Murray Baumgarten. ‘Seeing Double:
Jewish Isolation in Oliver Twist and Our Mutual Friend.’ Retrieved 23 April 2009 from
- 'Our Mutual Friend', The Scholarly Pages. 1998. Robert Patten. ‘The Composition,
Publication, and Reception of Our Mutual Friend.’ Retrieved 12 February 2009 from
- The Dickens Page. 2009. Mitsu Matsuoka. ‘Henry James's Review on Our Mutual Friend.’
Retrieved 01-02-2009 from
- The Literature Network. 2006. C.D. Merriman. ‘Charles Dickens.’ Retrieved 16 October
2008 from
- The New York Public Library. Kenneth Benson. ‘Charles Dickens: Life of the Author.’
Retrieved 12 March 2009 from
- The Victorian Web. 2004. Philip V. Allingham. ‘Marcus Stone, R. A. (1840-1921): Painter
and Illustrator.’ Retrieved 7 March 2009 from
- The Victorian Web. 2007. Philip V. Allingham. 'A brief review of the 2004 reprint of
Kitton's Dickens and His Illustrators.’ Retrieved 14 March 2009 from
- The Victorian Web. 2005. Philip V. Allingham. ‘Hablot Knight Browne (pseudonym
"Phiz"), 1815-82.’ Retrieved 21 February 2009 from
- The Victorian Web. 2002. Michael Steig. ‘Dickens and Phiz.’ Retrieved 02 March 2009
from
Periodicals:
- Sutherland, Kathryn. “Dickens and Women." Critical Quarterly, 25.3 (1982): 17-19.