A Reading by Kieran Hutchings

For Hyungji Park the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 is a crucial, monumental moment in Egyptian history, it is also in her eyes a significant contextual factor affecting Dickens’ composition of Edwin Drood. At the centre of Park’s argument is the notion that Dickens’ structure and intended resolution for the novel is predicated implicitly upon a relationship to Empire, specifically Britain’s ever increasing influence over Egypt.

Park argues that there is theatricality within Edwin Drood which is not as prevalent within other Dickensian works and that this theatricality leads to a ‘greater than usual Dickensian stereotyping’ with regards to his characters. Whilst this may in fact be an overstatement it is nonetheless interesting that Park links this theatricality to an ever increasing Victorian fascination with Egypt and its significance within nineteenth century popular culture. Park sees a link between Dickens’ ‘pantomime conventions’ and the Victorian commodification of Egypt in that they are both significant parts of Victorian popular culture, their fascination with Egypt permeating all facets of life. It is this popular culture which Park believes in turn has permeated Edwin Drood and implicitly links the plot of the novel to Empire and to Egypt.

For Park however, notions of Empire and Egypt are exhibited in relationship to the domestic sphere, more specifically in relationship to the institution of marriage. Park views the resolution of Rosa’s marriage as central to the outcome of the plot and it is the ‘candidates’ suitability or likelihood for marriage which Park states is inexorably linked with their association to Empire. She identifies Jasper, Neville, Tartar and Edwin as the four most likely candidates for Rosa’s hand in marriage. However she is quick to dismiss the first two due to the negative connotations their associations with empire harbour; Jasper for his opium addiction and Neville for his ‘Mixture of Oriental blood.’ Tartar is also dismissed as a candidate for marriage, despite his role in the navy, due to his belonging to ‘that leisured wealthy class which Dickens criticises for its idleness’. This process of elimination leaves only Edwin is the remaining candidate for marriage. Park then embarks upon a close reading of the role-playing scene between Rosa and Edwin which she utilises as evidence for her theory as to the ending of the novel.

Park highlights in this particular scene each characters contradictory attitude towards Empire and to the East, they ‘subscribe to a separation of spheres in Victorian expectations about Empire: engineering for him, sweets for her.’ It is Edwin’s desire to go become an engineer in Egypt which Park takes as a possible explanation for his disappearance suggesting that he is to return at the end of the novel having undergone some form of bildungsroman or maturation process in the mode of earlier Dickensian figures such as Allan Woodcourt or Walter Gay. It is Edwin’s desire for self-actualisation in the colonies and Dickens’ affinity for such a work ethic which Park takes as further evidence for her ending of the novel stating that ‘It is the middle-class Edwin Drood who faces a working career in the colonies, who deserves the greatest attention as Rosa’s possible husband.’

Central to this argument is Park’s belief that Dickens partly based Edwin’s character upon two significant figures of the day, made famous by their associations with Egypt, Giovanni Battista Belzoni a feted archaeologist working for the British museum and the chief architect of the Suez Canal Ferdinand de Lesseps. Each one displaying the ability for self-actualisation Dickens himself exhibited and revered so much and which Park believes Dickens intended for Edwin’s bildungsroman they ‘serve as examples for Edwin’s going “engineering into the East”’ . What these two figures represent is the link between Victorian popular culture, Empire and Edwin Drood which Park believes is crucial to the composition of the novel and her thesis as to its possible ending. Rosa’s allusion to Belzoni providing us with a tangible contextual factor with which we may read into the novel.

However, whilst Park raises many interesting points her argument is far from flawless, for instance many of Park’s statements such as ‘Many of Edwin Drood’s characters are ready stock caricatures who resemble players in a puppet show or pantomime’ are rather presumptive given that the novel, however short it is intended to be, is incomplete. Furthermore this initial link between pantomime and Empire, however interesting the discussion it leads into, is a tenuous one and seems to be largely based upon an interpretation of a twentieth century theatrical production. Also, there does appear to be some slight antagonism between Park’s reading of Edwin Drood as being filled with one dimensional characters, and her theory as to Dickens’ intention for Edwin’s story arc to be one of bildungsroman, such seemingly divergent readings do not sit well together within the same essay. Nonetheless I find Park’s argument for Edwin Drood’s possible ending highly compelling, entirely plausible and certainly in keeping with what Dickens has written before. I especially enjoyed her close reading of the role-playing scene between Edwin and Rosa and thought that her pinpointing of Belzoni and Lesseps as contextual influences upon Dickens illuminating and insightful. Overall I would thoroughly recommend this essay as despite its flaws, it is a genuinely thought provoking piece.

Original at EN3515 DICKENS blog