Chapter 5

The best edition of the fragments is by M. Fuhr (1841), a work of great learning; see also a dissertation by F. G. Osann,Beiträge zur röm. und griech. Litteratur, ii. pp. 1-117 (1839); Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie der klass. Altertumswiss. v. pt. 1 (1905).

DICE(plural of die, O. Fr.de, derived from Lat.dare, to give), small cubes of ivory, bone, wood or metal, used in gaming. The six sides of a die are each marked with a different number of incised dots in such a manner that the sum of the dots on any two opposite sides shall be 7. Dice seem always to have been employed, as is the case to-day, for gambling purposes, and they are also used in such games as backgammon. There are many methods of playing, from one to five dice being used, although two or three are the ordinary numbers employed in Great Britain and America. The dice are thrown upon a table or other smooth surface either from the hand or from a receptacle called a dice-box, the latter method having been in common use in Greece, Rome and the Orient in ancient times. Dice-boxes have been made in many shapes and of various materials, such as wood, leather, agate, crystal, metal or paper. Many contain bars within to ensure a proper agitation of the dice, and thus defeat trickery. Some, formerly used in England, were employed with unmarked dice, and allowed the cubes to fall through a kind of funnel upon a board marked off into six equal parts numbered from 1 to 6. It is a remarkable fact, that, wherever dice have been found, whether in the tombs of ancient Egypt, of classic Greece, or of the far East, they differ in no material respect from those in use to-day, the elongated ones with rounded ends found in Roman graves having been, not dice buttali, or knucklebones. Eight-sided dice have comparatively lately been introduced in France as aids to children in learning the multiplication table. The teetotum, or spinning die, used in many modern games, was known in ancient times in China and Japan. The increased popularity of the more elaborate forms of gaming has resulted in the decline of dicing. The usual method is to throw three times with three dice. If one or more sixes or fives are thrown the first time they may be reserved, the other throws being made with the dice that are left. The object is to throw three sixes = 18 or as near that number as possible, the highest throw winning, or, when drinks are to be paid for, the lowest throw losing. (For other methods of throwing consult theEncyclopaedia of Indoor Games, by R. F. Foster, 1903.) The most popular form of pure gambling with dice at the present day, particularly with the lower classes in America, isCraps, orCrap-Shooting, a simple form ofHazard, of French origin. Two dice are used. Each player puts up a stakeand the first caster may cover any or all of the bets. He thenshoots,i.e.throws the dice from his open hand upon the table. If the sum of the dice is 7 or 11 the throw is anick, ornatural, and the caster wins all stakes. If the throw is either 2, 3 or 12 it is acrap, and the caster loses all. If any other number is thrown it is apoint, and the caster continues until he throws the same number again, in which case he wins, or a 7, in which case he loses. The now practically obsolete game of Hazard was much more complicated thanCraps. (ConsultThe Game of Hazard Investigated, by George Lowbut.)Poker diceare marked with ace, king, queen, jack and ten-spot. Five are used and the object is, in three throws, to make pairs, triplets, full hands or fours and fives of a kind, five aces being the highest hand. Straights do not count. In throwing to decide the payment of drinks the usual method is calledhorse and horse, in which the highest throws retire, leaving the two lowest to decide the loser by the best two in three throws. Should each player win one throw both are said to behorse and horse, and the next throw determines the loser. The two last casters may also agree tosudden death,i.e.a single throw.Loaded dice,i.e.dice weighted slightly on the side of the lowest number, have been used by swindlers from the very earliest times to the present day, a fact proved by countless literary allusions. Modern dice are often rounded at the corners, which are otherwise apt to wear off irregularly.

History.—Dice were probably evolved from knucklebones. The antiquary Thomas Hyde, in hisSyntagma, records his opinion that the game of “odd or even,” played with pebbles, is nearly coeval with the creation of man. It is almost impossible to trace clearly the development of dice as distinguished from knucklebones, on account of the confusing of the two games by the ancient writers. It is certain, however, that both were played in times antecedent to those of which we possess any written records. Sophocles, in a fragment, ascribed their invention to Palamedes, a Greek, who taught them to his countrymen during the siege of Troy, and who, according to Pausanias (on Corinth, xx.), made an offering of them on the altar of the temple of Fortune. Herodotus (Clio) relates that the Lydians, during a period of famine in the days of King Atys, invented dice, knucklebones and indeed all other games except chess. The fact that dice have been used throughout the Orient from time immemorial, as has been proved by excavations from ancient tombs, seems to point clearly to an Asiatic origin. Dicing is mentioned as an Indian game in theRig-veda. In its primitive form knucklebones was essentially a game of skill, played by women and children, while dice were used for gambling, and it was doubtless the gambling spirit of the age which was responsible for the derivative form of knucklebones, in which four sides of the bones received different values, which were then counted, like dice. Gambling with three, sometimes two, dice (κύβοι) was a very popular form of amusement in Greece, especially with the upper classes, and was an almost invariable accompaniment to the symposium, or drinking banquet. The dice were cast from conical beakers, and the highest throw was three sixes, calledAphrodite, while the lowest, three aces, was called thedog. Both in Greece and Rome different modes of counting were in vogue. Roman dice were calledtesseraefrom the Greek word for four, indicative of the four sides. The Romans were passionate gamblers, especially in the luxurious days of the Empire, and dicing was a favourite form, though it was forbidden except during the Saturnalia. The emperor Augustus wrote in a letter to Suetonius concerning a game that he had played with his friends: “Whoever threw adogor a six paid adenariusto the bank for every die, and whoever threw aVenus(the highest) won everything.” In the houses of the rich the dice-beakers were of carved ivory and the dice of crystal inlaid with gold. Mark Antony wasted his time at Alexandria with dicing, while, according to Suetonius, the emperors Augustus, Nero and Claudius were passionately fond of it, the last named having written a book on the game. Caligula notoriously cheated at the game; Domitian played it, and Commodus set apart special rooms in his palace for it. The emperor Verus, adopted son of Antonine, is known to have thrown dice whole nights together. Fashionable society followed the lead of its emperors, and, in spite of the severity of the laws, fortunes were squandered at the dicing table. Horace derided the youth of the period, who wasted his time amid the dangers of dicing instead of taming his charger and giving himself up to the hardships of the chase. Throwing dice for money was the cause of many special laws in Rome, according to one of which no suit could be brought by a person who allowed gambling in his house, even if he had been cheated or assaulted. Professional gamblers were common, and some of their loaded dice are preserved in museums. The common public-houses were the resorts of gamblers, and a fresco is extant showing two quarrelling dicers being ejected by the indignant host. Virgil, in theCopagenerally ascribed to him, characterizes the spirit of that age in verse, which has been Englished as follows:—

“What ho! Bring dice and good wine!Who cares for the morrow?Live—so calls grinning Death—Live, for I come to you soon!”

“What ho! Bring dice and good wine!

Who cares for the morrow?

Live—so calls grinning Death—

Live, for I come to you soon!”

That the barbarians were also given to gaming, whether or not they learned it from their Roman conquerors, is proved by Tacitus, who states that the Germans were passionately fond of dicing, so much so, indeed, that, having lost everything, they would even stake their personal liberty. Centuries later, during the middle ages, dicing became the favourite pastime of the knights, and both dicing schools (scholae deciorum) and gilds of dicers existed. After the downfall of feudalism the famous German mercenaries calledlandsknechtsestablished a reputation as the most notorious dicing gamblers of their time. Many of the dice of the period were curiously carved in the images of men and beasts. In France both knights and ladies were given to dicing, which repeated legislation, including interdictions on the part of St Louis in 1254 and 1256, did not abolish. In Japan, China, Korea, India and other Asiatic countries dice have always been popular and are so still.

See Foster’sEncyclopaedia of Indoor Games(1903); Raymond’sIllustriertes Knobelbrevier(Oranienburg, 1888);Les Jeux des Anciens, by L. Becq de Fouquières (Paris, 1869);Das Knöchelspiel der Alten, by Bolle (Wismar, 1886);Die Spiele der Griechen und Römer, by W. Richter (Leipzig, 1887); Raymond’sAlte und neue Würfelspiele;Chinese Games with Dice, by Stewart Culin (Philadelphia, 1889);Korean Games, by Stewart Culin (Philadelphia, 1895).

DICETO, RALPH DE(d. c. 1202), dean of St Paul’s, London, and chronicler, is first mentioned in 1152, when he received the archdeaconry of Middlesex. He was probably born between 1120 and 1130; of his parentage and nationality we know nothing. The common statement that he derived his surname from Diss in Norfolk is a mere conjecture; Dicetum may equally well be a Latinized form of Dissai, or Dicy, or Dizy, place names which are found in Maine, Picardy, Burgundy and Champagne. In 1152 Diceto was already a master of arts; presumably he had studied at Paris. His reputation for learning and integrity stood high; he was regarded with respect and favour by Arnulf of Lisieux and Gilbert Foliot of Hereford (afterwards of London), two of the most eminent bishops of their time. Quite naturally, the archdeacon took in the Becket question the same side as his friends. Although his narrative is colourless, and although he was one of those who showed some sympathy for Becket at the council of Northampton (1164), the correspondence of Diceto shows that he regarded the archbishop’s conduct as ill-considered, and that he gave advice to those whom Becket regarded as his chief enemies. Diceto was selected, in 1166, as the envoy of the English bishops when they protested against the excommunications launched by Becket. But, apart from this episode, which he characteristically omits to record, he remained in the background. The natural impartiality of his intellect was accentuated by a certain timidity, which is apparent in his writings no less than in his life. About 1180 he became dean of St Paul’s. In this office he distinguished himself by careful management of the estates, by restoring the discipline of the chapter, and by building at his own expense a deanery-house. A scholar and a man of considerable erudition, he showed a strong preference for historical studies; and about the time when he was preferred to the deanery he began to collect materials for the history of hisown times. His friendships with Richard Fitz Nigel, who succeeded Foliot in the see of London, with William Longchamp, the chancellor of Richard I., and with Walter of Coutances, the archbishop of Rouen, gave him excellent opportunities of collecting information. His two chief works, theAbbreviationes Chronicorumand theYmagines Historiarum, cover the history of the world from the birth of Christ to the year 1202. The former, which ends in 1147, is a work of learning and industry, but almost entirely based upon extant sources. The latter, beginning as a compilation from Robert de Monte and the letters of Foliot, becomes an original authority about 1172, and a contemporary record about 1181. In precision and fulness of detail theYmaginesare inferior to the chronicles of the so-called Benedict and of Hoveden. Though an annalist, Diceto is careless in his chronology; and the documents which he incorporates, while often important, are selected on no principle. He has little sense of style; but displays considerable insight when he ventures to discuss a political situation. For this reason, and on account of the details with which they supplement the more important chronicles of the period, theYmaginesare a valuable though a secondary source.

See W. Stubbs’ edition of theHistorical Worksof Diceto (Rolls ed. 1876, 2 vols.), and especially the introduction. The second volume contains minor works which are the barest compendia of facts taken from well-known sources. Diceto’s fragmentary Domesday of the capitular estates has been edited by Archdeacon Hale inThe Domesday of St Paul’s, pp. 109 ff. (Camden Society, 1858).

DICEY, EDWARD(1832- ), English writer, son of T. E. Dicey of Claybrook Hall, Leicestershire, was born in 1832. Educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took mathematical and classical honours, he became an active journalist, contributing largely to the principal reviews. He was called to the bar in 1875, became a bencher of Gray’s Inn in 1896, and was treasurer in 1903-1904. He was connected with theDaily Telegraphas leader writer and then as special correspondent, and after a short spell in 1870 as editor of theDaily Newshe became editor of theObserver, a position which he held until 1889. Of his many books on foreign affairs perhaps the most important are hisEngland and Egypt(1884),Bulgaria, the Peasant State(1895),The Story of the Khedivate(1902), andThe Egypt of the Future(1907). He was created C.B. in 1886.

His brotherAlbert Venn Dicey(b. 1835), English jurist, was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he took a first class in the classical schools in 1858. He was called to the bar at the Inner Temple in 1863. He held fellowships successively at Balliol, Trinity and All Souls’, and from 1882 to 1909 was Vinerian professor of law. He became Q.C. in 1890. His chief works are theIntroduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution(1885, 6th ed. 1902), which ranks as a standard work on the subject;England’s Case against Home Rule(1886);A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws(1896), andLectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the 19th century(1905).

DICHOTOMY(Gr.δίχα, apart,τέμνειν, to cut), literally a cutting asunder, the technical term for a form of logical division, consisting in the separation of a genus into two species, one of which has and the other has not, a certain quality or attribute. Thus men may be thus divided into white men, and men who are not white; each of these may be subdivided similarly. On the principle of contradiction this division is both exhaustive and exclusive; there can be no overlapping, and no members of the original genus or the lower groups are omitted. This method of classification, though formally accurate, has slight value in the exact sciences, partly because at every step one of the two groups is merely negatively characterized and therefore incapable of real subdivision; it is useful, however, in setting forth clearly the gradual descent from the most inclusive genus (summum genus) through species to the lowest class (infima species), which is divisible only into individual persons or things. (See furtherDivision.) In astronomy the term is used for the aspect of the moon or of a planet when apparently half illuminated, so that its disk has the form of a semicircle.

DICK, ROBERT(1811-1866), Scottish geologist and botanist, was born at Tullibody, in Clackmannanshire, in January 1811. His father was an officer of excise. At the age of thirteen, after receiving a good elementary education at the parish school, Robert Dick was apprenticed to a baker, and served for three years. In these early days he became interested in wild flowers—he made a collection of plants and gradually acquired some knowledge of their names from an old encyclopaedia. When his time was out he left Tullibody and gained employment as a journeyman baker at Leith, Glasgow and Greenock. Meanwhile his father, who in 1826 had been removed to Thurso, as supervisor of excise, advised his son to set up a baker’s shop in that town. Thither Robert Dick went in 1830, he started in business as a baker and worked laboriously until he died on the 24th of December 1866. Throughout this period he zealously devoted himself to studying and collecting the plants, mollusca and insects of a wide area of Caithness, and his attention was directed soon after he settled in Thurso to the rocks and fossils. In 1835 he first found remains of fossil fishes; but it was not till some years later that his interest became greatly stirred. Then he obtained a copy of Hugh Miller’sOld Red Sandstone(published in 1841), and he began systematically to collect with hammer and chisel the fossils from the Caithness flags. In 1845 he found remains ofHoloptychiusand forwarded specimens to Hugh Miller, and he continued to send the best of his fossil fishes to that geologist, and to others after the death of Miller. In this way he largely contributed to the progress of geological knowledge, although he himself published nothing and was ever averse from publicity. His herbarium, which consisted of about 200 folios of mosses, ferns and flowering plants “almost unique in its completeness,” is now stored, with many of his fossils, in the museum at Thurso. Dick had a hard struggle for existence, especially through competition during his late years, when he was reduced almost to beggary: but of this few, if any, of his friends were aware until it was too late. A monument erected in the new cemetery at Thurso testifies to the respect which his life-work created, when the merits of this enthusiastic naturalist came to be appreciated.

SeeRobert Dick, Baker of Thurso, Geologist and Botanist, by Samuel Smiles (1878).

DICK, THOMAS(1774-1857), Scottish writer on astronomy, was born at Dundee on the 24th of November 1774. The appearance of a brilliant meteor inspired him, when in his ninth year, with a passion for astronomy; and at the age of sixteen he forsook the loom, and supported himself by teaching. In 1794 he entered the university of Edinburgh, and set up a school on the termination of his course; then, in 1801, took out a licence to preach, and officiated for some years as probationer in the United Presbyterian church. From about 1807 to 1817 he taught in the secession school at Methven in Perthshire, and during the ensuing decade in that of Perth, where he composed his first substantive book,The Christian Philosopher(1823, 8th ed. 1842). Its success determined his vocation as an author; he built himself, in 1827, a cottage at Broughty Ferry, near Dundee, and devoted himself wholly to literary and scientific pursuits. They proved, however, owing to his unpractical turn of mind, but slightly remunerative, and he was in 1847 relieved from actual poverty by a crown pension of £50 a year, eked out by a local subscription. He died on the 29th of July 1857. His best-known works are:Celestial Scenery(1837),The Sidereal Heavens(1840), andThe Practical Astronomer(1845), in which is contained (p. 204) a remarkable forecast of the powers and uses of celestial photography. Written with competent knowledge, and in an agreeable style, they obtained deserved and widespread popularity.

See R. Chambers’sEminent Scotsmen(ed. 1868);Monthly Notices Roy. Astr. Society, xviii. 98;Athenaeum(1857), p. 1008.

(A. M. C.)

DICKENS, CHARLES JOHN HUFFAM(1812-1870), English novelist, was born on the 7th of February 1812 at a house in the Mile End Terrace, Commercial Road, Landport (Portsea)—a house which was opened as a Dickens Museum on 22nd July 1904. His father John Dickens (d. 1851), a clerk in the navy-pay officeon a salary of £80 a year, and stationed for the time being at Portsmouth, had married in 1809 Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Barrow, and she bore him a family of eight children, Charles being the second. In the winter of 1814 the family moved from Portsea in the snow, as he remembered, to London, and lodged for a time near the Middlesex hospital. The country of the novelist’s childhood, however, was the kingdom of Kent, where the family was established in proximity to the dockyard at Chatham from 1816 to 1821. He looked upon himself in later years as a man of Kent, and his capital abode as that in Ordnance Terrace, or 18 St Mary’s Place, Chatham, amid surroundings classified in Mr Pickwick’s notes as “appearing” to be soldiers, sailors, Jews, chalk, shrimps, officers and dockyard men. He fell into a family the general tendency of which was to go down in the world, during one of its easier periods (John Dickens was now fifth clerk on £250 a year), and he always regarded himself as belonging by right to a comfortable, genteel, lower middle-class stratum of society. His mother taught him to read; to his father he appeared very early in the light of a young prodigy, and by him Charles was made to sit on a tall chair and warble popular ballads, or even to tell stories and anecdotes for the benefit of fellow-clerks in the office. John Dickens, however, had a small collection of books which were kept in a little room upstairs that led out of Charles’s own, and in this attic the boy found his true literary instructors inRoderick Random,Peregrine Pickle,Humphry Clinker,Tom Jones,The Vicar of Wakefield,Don Quixote,Gil BlasandRobinson Crusoe. The story of how he played at the characters in these books and sustained his idea of Roderick Random for a month at a stretch is picturesquely told inDavid Copperfield. Here as well as in his first and last books and in what many regard as his best,Great Expectations, Dickens returns with unabated fondness and mastery to the surroundings of his childhood. From seven to nine years he was at a school kept in Clover Lane, Chatham, by a Baptist minister named William Giles, who gave him Goldsmith’sBeeas a keepsake when the call to Somerset House necessitated the removal of the family from Rochester to a shabby house in Bayham Street, Camden Town. At the very moment when a consciousness of capacity was beginning to plump his youthful ambitions, the whole flattering dream vanished and left not a rack behind. Happiness and Chatham had been left behind together, and Charles was about to enter a school far sterner and also far more instructive than that in Clover Lane. The family income had been first decreased and then mortgaged; the creditors of the “prodigal father” would not give him time; John Dickens was consigned to the Marshalsea; Mrs Dickens started an “Educational Establishment” as a forlorn hope in Upper Gower Street; and Charles, who had helped his mother with the children, blacked the boots, carried things to the pawnshop and done other menial work, was now sent out to earn his own living as a young hand in a blacking warehouse, at Old Hungerford Stairs, on a salary of six shillings a week. He tied, trimmed and labelled blacking pots for over a year, dining off a saveloy and a slice of pudding, consorting with two very rough boys, Bob Fagin and Pol Green, and sleeping in an attic in Little College Street, Camden Town, in the house of Mrs Roylance (Pipchin), while on Sunday he spent the day with his parents in their comfortable prison, where they had the services of a “marchioness” imported from the Chatham workhouse.

Already consumed by ambition, proud, sensitive and on his dignity to an extent not uncommon among boys of talent, he felt his position keenly, and in later years worked himself up into a passion of self-pity in connexion with the “degradation” and “humiliation” of this episode. The two years of childish hardship which ate like iron into his soul were obviously of supreme importance in the growth of the novelist. Recollections of the streets and the prison and its purlieus supplied him with a store of literary material upon which he drew through all the years of his best activity. And the bitterness of such an experience was not prolonged sufficiently to become sour. From 1824 to 1826, having been rescued by a family quarrel and by a windfall in the shape of a legacy to his father, from the warehouse, he spent two years at an academy known as Wellington House, at the corner of Granby Street and the Hampstead Road (the lighter traits of which are reproduced in Salem House), and was there known as a merry and rather mischievous boy. Fortunately he learned nothing there to compromise the results of previous instruction. His father had now emerged from the Marshalsea and was seeking employment as a parliamentary reporter. A Gray’s Inn solicitor with whom he had had dealings was attracted by the bright, clever look of Charles, and took him into his office as a boy at a salary of thirteen and sixpence (rising to fifteen shillings) a week. He remained in Mr Blackmore’s office from May 1827 to November 1828, but he had lost none of his eager thirst for distinction, and spent all his spare time mastering Gurney’s shorthand and reading early and late at the British Museum. A more industrious apprentice in the lower grades of the literary profession has never been known, and the consciousness of opportunities used to the most splendid advantage can hardly have been absent from the man who was shortly to take his place at the head of it as if to the manner born. Lowten and Guppy, and Swiveller had been observed from this office lad’s stool; he was now greatly to widen his area of study as a reporter in Doctors’ Commons and various police courts, including Bow Street, working all day at law and much of the night at shorthand. Some one asked John Dickens, during the first eager period of curiosity as to the man behind “Pickwick,” where his son Charles was educated. “Well really,” said the prodigal father, “he may be said—haw—haw—to have educated himself.” He was one of the most rapid and accurate reporters in London when, at nineteen years of age, in 1831, he realized his immediate ambition and “entered the gallery” as parliamentary reporter to theTrue Sun. Later he was reporter to theMirror of Parliamentand then to theMorning Chronicle. Several of his earliest letters are concerned with his exploits as a reporter, and allude to the experiences he had, travelling fifteen miles an hour and being upset in almost every description of known vehicle in various parts of Britain between 1831 and 1836. The family was now living in Bentwick Street, Manchester Square, but John Dickens was still no infrequent inmate of the sponging-houses. With all the accessories of these places of entertainment his son had grown to be excessively familiar. Writing about 1832 to his school friend Tom Mitton, Dickens tells him that his father has been arrested at the suit of a wine firm, and begs him go over to Cursitor Street and see what can be done. On another occasion of a paternal disappearance he observes: “I own that his absence does not give me any great uneasiness, knowing how apt he is to get out of the way when anything goes wrong.” In yet another letter he asks for a loan of four shillings.

In the meanwhile, however, he had commenced author in a more creative sense by penning some sketches of contemporary London life, such as he had attempted in his school days in imitation of the sketches published in theLondonand other magazines of that day. The first of these appeared in the December number of theOld Monthly Magazinefor 1833. By the following August, when the signature “Boz” was first given, five of these sketches had appeared. By the end of 1834 we find him settled in rooms in Furnival’s Inn, and a little later his salary on theMorning Chroniclewas raised, owing to the intervention of one of its chiefs, George Hogarth, the father of (in addition to six sons) eight charming daughters, to one of whom, Catherine, Charles was engaged to be married before the year was out. Clearly as his career now seemed designated, he was at this time or a little before it coquetting very seriously with the stage: but circumstances were rapidly to determine another stage in his career. A year before Queen Victoria’s accession appeared in two volumesSketches by Boz,Illustrative of Everyday Life and Everyday People. The book came from a prentice hand, but like the little tract on the Puritan abuse of the Sabbath entitled “Sunday under three Heads” which appeared a few months later, it contains in germ all, or almost all, the future Dickens. Glance at the headings of the pages. Here we have the Beadle and all connected with him, London streets, theatres, shows, the pawnshop, Doctors’ Commons, Christmas, Newgate, coaching, theriver. Here comes a satirical picture of parliament, fun made of cheap snobbery, a rap on the knuckles of sectarianism. And what could be more prophetic than the title of the opening chapter—Our Parish? With the Parish—a large one indeed—Dickens to the end concerned himself; he began with a rapid survey of his whole field, hinting at all he might accomplish, indicating the limits he was not to pass. This year was to be still more momentous to Dickens, for, on the 2nd of April 1836, he was married to George Hogarth’s eldest daughter Catherine. He seems to have fallen in love with the daughters collectively, and, judging by subsequent events, it has been suggested that perhaps he married the wrong one. His wife’s sister Mary was the romance of his early married life, and another sister, Georgina, was the dearest friend of his last ten years.

A few days before the marriage, just two months after the appearance of theSketches, the first part ofThe Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Clubwas announced. One of the chief vogues of the day was the issue of humorous, sporting or anecdotal novels in parts, with plates, and some of the best talent of the day, represented by Ainsworth, Bulwer, Marryat, Maxwell, Egan, Hook and Surtees, had been pressed into this kind of enterprise. The publishers of the day had not been slow to perceive Dickens’s aptitude for this species of “letterpress.” A member of the firm of Chapman & Hall called upon him at Furnival’s Inn in December 1835 with a proposal that he should write about a Nimrod Club of amateur sportsmen, foredoomed to perpetual ignominies, while the comic illustrations were to be etched by Seymour, a well-known rival of Cruikshank (the illustrator ofBoz). The offer was too tempting for Dickens to refuse, but he changed the idea from a club of Cockney sportsmen to that of a club of eccentric peripatetics, on the sensible grounds, first that sporting sketches were stale, and, secondly, that he knew nothing worth speaking of about sport. The first seven pictures appeared with the signature of Seymour and the letterpress of Dickens. Before the eighth picture appeared Seymour had blown his brains out. After a brief interval of Buss, Dickens obtained the services of Hablot K. Browne, known to all as “Phiz.” Author and illustrator were as well suited to one another and to the common creation of a unique thing as Gilbert and Sullivan. Having early got rid of the sporting element, Dickens found himself at once. The subject exactly suited his knowledge, his skill in arranging incidents—nay, his very limitations too. No modern book is so incalculable. We commence laughing heartily at Pickwick and his troupe. The laugh becomes kindlier. We are led on through a tangle of adventure, never dreaming what is before us. The landscape changes: Pickwick becomes the symbol of kindheartedness, simplicity and innocent levity. Suddenly in the Fleet Prison a deeper note is struck. The medley of human relationships, the loneliness, the mystery and sadness of human destinies are fathomed. The tragedy of human life is revealed to us amid its most farcical elements. The droll and laughable figure of the hero is transfigured by the kindliness of human sympathy into a beneficent and bespectacled angel in shorts and gaiters. By defying accepted rules, Dickens had transcended the limited sphere hitherto allotted to his art: he had produced a book to be enshrined henceforth in the inmost hearts of all sorts and conditions of his countrymen, and had definitely enlarged the boundaries of English humour and English fiction. As for Mr Pickwick, he is a fairy like Puck or Santa Claus, while his creator is “the last of the mythologists and perhaps the greatest.”

WhenThe Pickwick Papersappeared in book form at the close of 1837 Dickens’s popular reputation was made. From the appearance of Sam Weller in part v. the universal hunger for the monthly parts had risen to a furore. The book was promptly translated into French and German. The author had received little assistance from press or critics, he had no influential connexions, his class of subjects was such as to “expose him at the outset to the fatal objections of vulgarity,” yet in less than six months from the appearance of the first number, as theQuarterly Reviewalmost ruefully admits, the whole reading world was talking about the Pickwickians. The names of Winkle, Wardle, Weller, Jingle, Snodgrass, Dodson & Fogg, were as familiar as household words. Pickwick chintzes figured in the linendrapers’ windows, and Pickwick cigars in every tobacconist’s; Weller corduroys became the stock-in-trade of every breeches-maker; Boz cabs might be seen rattling through the streets, and the portrait of the author ofPelhamandCrichtonwas scraped down to make way for that of the new popular favourite on the omnibuses. A new and original genius had suddenly sprung up, there was no denying it, even though, as theQuarterlyconcluded, “it required no gift of prophecy to foretell his fate—he has risen like a rocket and he will come down like the stick.” It would have needed a very emphatic gift of prophecy indeed to foretell that Dickens’s reputation would have gone on rising until at the present day (after one sharp fall, which reached an extreme about 1887) it stands higher than it has ever stood before.

Dickens’s assumption of the literary purple was as amazing as anything else about him. Accepting the homage of the luminaries of the literary, artistic and polite worlds as if it had been his natural due, he arranges for the settlement of his family, decrees, like another Edmund Kean, that his son is to go to Eton, carries on the most complicated negotiations with his publishers and editors, presides and orates with incomparable force at innumerable banquets, public and private, arranges elaborate villegiatures in the country, at the seaside, in France or in Italy, arbitrates in public on every topic, political, ethical, artistic, social or literary, entertains and legislates for an increasingly large domestic circle, both juvenile and adult, rules himself and his time-table with a rod of iron. In his letter-writing alone, Dickens did a life’s literary work. Nowadays no one thinks of writing such letters; that is to say, letters of such length and detail, for the quality is Dickens’s own. He evidently enjoyed this use of the pen. Page after page of Forster’sLife(750 pages in theLettersedited by his daughter and sister-in-law) is occupied with transcription from private correspondence, and never a line of this but is thoroughly worthy of print and preservation. If he makes a tour in any part of the British Isles, he writes a full description of all he sees, of everything that happens, and writes it with such gusto, such mirth, such strokes of fine picturing, as appear in no other private letters ever given to the public. Naturally buoyant in all circumstances, a holiday gave him the exhilaration of a schoolboy. See how he writes from Cornwall, when on a trip with two or three friends, in 1843. “Heavens! if you could have seen the necks of bottles, distracting in their immense variety of shape, peering out of the carriage pockets! If you could have witnessed the deep devotion of the post-boys, the maniac glee of the waiters! If you could have followed us into the earthy old churches we visited, and into the strange caverns on the gloomy seashore, and down into the depths of mines, and up to the tops of giddy heights, where the unspeakably green water was roaring, I don’t know how many hundred feet below.... I never laughed in my life as I did on this journey. It would have done you good to hear me. I was choking and gasping and bursting the buckles off the back of my stock, all the way. And Stanfield”—the painter—“got into such apoplectic entanglements that we were obliged to beat him on the back with portmanteaus before we could recover him.”

The animation of Dickens’s look would attract the attention of any one, anywhere. His figure was not that of an Adonis, but his brightness made him the centre and pivot of every society he was in. The keenness and vivacity of his eye combined with his inordinate appetite for life to give the unique quality to all that he wrote. His instrument is that of the direct, sinewy English of Smollett, combined with much of the humorous grace of Goldsmith (his two favourite authors), but modernized to a certain extent under the influence of Washington Irving, Sydney Smith, Jeffrey, Lamb, and other writers of theLondon Magazine. He taught himself to speak French and Italian, but he could have read little in any language. His ideas were those of the inchoate and insular liberalism of the ’thirties. His unique force in literature he was to owe to no supreme artistic or intellectual quality, but almost entirely to his inordinate gift of observation, his sympathy with the humble, his power over the emotions and his incomparable endowment of unalloyed human fun. Tocontemporaries he was not so much a man as an institution, at the very mention of whose name faces were puckered with grins or wreathed in smiles. To many his work was a revelation, the revelation of a new world and one far better than their own. And his influence went further than this in the direction of revolution or revival. It gave what were then universally referred to as “the lower orders” a new sense of self-respect, a new feeling of citizenship. Like the defiance of another Luther, or the Declaration of a new Independence, it emitted a fresh ray of hope across the firmament. He did for the whole English-speaking race what Burns had done for Scotland—he gave it a new conceit of itself. He knew what a people wanted and he told what he knew. He could do this better than anybody else because his mind was theirs. He shared many of their “great useless virtues,” among which generosity ranks before justice, and sympathy before truth, even though, true to his middle-class vein, he exalts piety, chastity and honesty in a manner somewhat alien to the mind of the low-bred man. This is what makes Dickens such a demigod and his public success such a marvel, and this also is why any exclusively literary criticism of his work is bound to be so inadequate. It should also help us to make the necessary allowances for the man. Dickens, even the Dickens of legend that we know, is far from perfect. The Dickens of reality to which Time may furnish a nearer approximation is far less perfect. But when we consider the corroding influence of adulation, and the intoxication of unbridled success, we cannot but wonder at the relatively high level of moderation and self-control that Dickens almost invariably observed. Mr G. K. Chesterton remarks suggestively that Dickens had all his life the faults of the little boy who is kept up too late at night. He is overwrought by happiness to the verge of exasperation, and yet as a matter of fact he does keep on the right side of the breaking point. The specific and curative in his case was the work in which he took such anxious pride, and such unmitigated delight. He revelled in punctual and regular work; at his desk he was often in the highest spirits. Behold how he pictured himself, one day at Broadstairs, where he was writingChuzzlewit. “In a bay-window in a one-pair sits, from nine o’clock to one, a gentleman with rather long hair and no neckcloth, who writes and grins, as if he thought he was very funny indeed. At one he disappears, presently emerges from a bathing-machine, and may be seen, a kind of salmon-colour porpoise, splashing about in the ocean. After that, he may be viewed in another bay-window on the ground-floor eating a strong lunch; and after that, walking a dozen miles or so, or lying on his back on the sand reading a book. Nobody bothers him, unless they know he is disposed to be talked to, and I am told he is very comfortable indeed. He’s as brown as a berry, and they do say he is as good as a small fortune to the innkeeper, who sells beer and cold punch.” Here is the secret of such work as that of Dickens; it is done with delight—done (in a sense) easily, done with the mechanism of mind and body in splendid order. Even so did Scott write; though more rapidly and with less conscious care: his chapter finished before the world had got up to breakfast. Later, Dickens produced novels less excellent with much more of mental strain. The effects of age could not have shown themselves so soon, but for the unfortunate loss of energy involved in his non-literary labours.

While the public were still rejoicing in the first sprightly runnings of the “new humour,” the humorist set to work desperately on the grim scenes ofOliver Twist, the story of a parish orphan, the nucleus of which had already seen the light in hisSketches. The early scenes are of a harrowing reality, despite the germ of forced pathos which the observant reader may detect in the pitiful parting between Oliver and little Dick; but what will strike every reader at once in this book is the directness and power of the English style, so nervous and unadorned: from its unmistakable clearness and vigour Dickens was to travel far as time went on. But the full effect of the old simplicity is felt in such masterpieces of description as the drive of Oliver and Sikes to Chertsey, the condemned-cell ecstasy of Fagin, or the unforgettable first encounter between Oliver and the Artful Dodger. Before November 1837 had ended, Charles Dickens entered on an engagement to write a successor toPickwickon similar lines of publication.Oliver Twistwas then in mid-career; aLife of GrimaldiandBarnaby Rudgewere already covenanted for. Dickens forged ahead with the new tale ofNicholas Nicklebyand was justified by the results, for its sale far surpassed even that ofPickwick. As a conception it is one of his weakest. An unmistakably 18th-century character pervades it. Some of the vignettes are among the most piquant and besetting ever written. Large parts of it are totally unobserved conventional melodrama; but the Portsmouth Theatre and Dotheboys Hall and Mrs Nickleby (based to some extent, it is thought, upon Miss Bates inEmma, but also upon the author’s Mamma) live for ever as Dickens conceived them in the pages ofNicholas Nickleby.

Having got rid ofNicholas Nicklebyand resigned his editorship ofBentley’s Miscellany, in whichOliver Twistoriginally appeared, Dickens conceived the idea of a weekly periodical to be issued asMaster Humphrey’s Clock, to comprise short stories, essays and miscellaneous papers, after the model of Addison’sSpectator. To make the weekly numbers “go,” he introduced Mr Pickwick, Sam Weller and his father in friendly intercourse. But the public requisitioned “a story,” and in No. 4 he had to brace himself up to give them one. Thus was commencedThe Old Curiosity Shop, which was continued with slight interruptions, and followed byBarnaby Rudge. For the first time we find Dickens obsessed by a highly complicated plot. The tonality achieved inThe Old Curiosity Shopsurpassed anything he had attempted in this difficult vein, while the rich humour of Dick Swiveller and the Marchioness, and the vivid portraiture of the wandering Bohemians, attain the very highest level of Dickensian drollery; but in the lamentable tale of Little Nell (though Landor and Jeffrey thought the character-drawing of this infant comparable with that of Cordelia), it is generally admitted that he committed an indecent assault upon the emotions by exhibiting a veritable monster of piety and long-suffering in a child of tender years. InBarnaby Rudgehe was manifestly affected by the influence of Scott, whose achievements he always regarded with a touching veneration. The plot, again, is of the utmost complexity, and Edgar Allan Poe (who predicted the conclusion) must be one of the few persons who ever really mastered it. But few of Dickens’s books are written in a more admirable style.

Master Humphrey’s Clockconcluded, Dickens started in 1842 on his first visit to America—an episode hitherto without parallel in English literary history, for he was received everywhere with popular acclamation as the representative of a grand triumph of the English language and imagination, without regard to distinctions of nationality. He offended the American public grievously by a few words of frank description and a few quotations of the advertisement columns of American papers illustrating the essential barbarity of the old slave system (American Notes). Dickens was soon pining for home—no English writer is more essentially and insularly English in inspiration and aspiration than he is. He still brooded over the perverseness of America on the copyright question, and in his next book he took the opportunity of uttering a few of his impressions about the objectionable sides of American democracy, the result being that “all Yankee-doodle-dom blazed up like one universal soda bottle,” as Carlyle said.Martin Chuzzlewit(1843-1844) is important as closing his great character period. Hissève originale, as the French would say, was by this time to a considerable extent exhausted, and he had to depend more upon artistic elaboration, upon satires, upontours de forceof description, upon romantic and ingenious contrivances. But all these resources combined proved unequal to his powers as an original observer of popular types, until he reinforced himself by autobiographic reminiscence, as inDavid CopperfieldandGreat Expectations, the two great books remaining to his later career.

After these two masterpieces and the three wonderful books with which he made his début, we are inclined to rankChuzzlewit. Nothing in Dickens is more admirably seen and presented than Todgers’s, a bit of London particular cut out with a knife. MrPecksniff and Mrs Gamp, Betsy Prig and “Mrs Harris” have passed into the national language and life. The coach journey, the windy autumn night, the stealthy trail of Jonas, the undertone of tragedy in the Charity and Mercy and Chuffey episodes suggest a blending of imaginative vision and physical penetration hardly seen elsewhere. Two things are specially notable about this novel—the exceptional care taken over it (as shown by the interlineations in the MS.) and the caprice or nonchalance of the purchasing public, its sales being far lower than those of any of its monthly predecessors.

At the close of 1843, to pay outstanding debts of his now lavish housekeeping, he wrote that pioneer of Christmas numbers, that national benefit as Thackeray called it,A Christmas Carol. It failed to realize his pecuniary anticipations, and Dickens resolved upon a drastic policy of retrenchment and reform. He would save expense by living abroad and would punish his publishers by withdrawing his custom from them, at least for a time. Like everything else upon which he ever determined, this resolution was carried out with the greatest possible precision and despatch. In June 1844 he set out for Marseilles with his now rapidly increasing family (the journey cost him £200). In a villa on the outskirts of Genoa he wroteThe Chimes, which, during a brief excursion to London before Christmas, he read to a select circle of friends (the germ of his subsequent lecture-audiences), including Forster, Carlyle, Stanfield, Dyce, Maclise and Jerrold. He was again in London in 1845, enjoying his favourite diversion of private theatricals; and in January 1846 he experimented briefly as the editor of a London morning paper—theDaily News. By early spring he was back at Lausanne, writing his customary vivid letters to his friends, craving as usual for London streets, commencingDombey and Son, and walking his fourteen miles daily. The success ofDombey and Soncompletely rehabilitated the master’s finances, enabled him to return to England, send his son to Eton and to begin to save money. Artistically it is less satisfactory; it contains some of Dickens’s prime curios, such as Cuttle, Bunsby, Toots, Blimber, Pipchin, Mrs MacStinger and young Biler; it contains also that masterpiece of sentimentality which trembles upon the borderland of the sublime and the ridiculous, the death of Paul Dombey (“that sweet Paul,” as Jeffrey, the “critic laureate,” called him), and some grievous and unquestionable blemishes. As a narrative, moreover, it tails off into a highly complicated and exacting plot. It was followed by a long rest at Broadstairs before Dickens returned to the native home of his genius, and early in 1849 “began to prepare forDavid Copperfield.”

“Of all my books,” Dickens wrote, “I like this the best; like many fond parents I have my favourite child, and his name is David Copperfield.” In some respects it stands to Dickens in something of the same relation in which the contemporaryPendennisstands to Thackeray. As in that book, too, the earlier portions are the best. They gained in intensity by the autobiographical form into which they are thrown; as Thackeray observed, there was no writing against such power. The tragedy of Emily and the character of Rosa Dartle are stagey and unreal; Uriah Heep is bad art; Agnes, again, is far less convincing as a consolation than Dickens would have us believe; but these are more than compensated by the wonderful realization of early boyhood in the book, by the picture of Mr Creakle’s school, the Peggottys, the inimitable Mr Micawber, Betsy Trotwood and that monument of selfish misery, Mrs Gummidge.

At the end of March 1850 commenced the new twopenny weekly calledHousehold Words, which Dickens planned to form a direct means of communication between himself and his readers, and as a means of collecting around him and encouraging the talents of the younger generation. No one was better qualified than he for this work, whether we consider his complete freedom from literary jealousy or his magical gift of inspiring young authors. Following the somewhat dreary and incoherentBleak Houseof 1852,Hard Times(1854)—an anti-Manchester School tract, which Ruskin regarded as Dickens’s best work—was the first long story written forHousehold Words. About this time Dickens made his final home at Gad’s Hill, near Rochester, and put the finishing touch to another long novel published upon the old plan,Little Dorrit(1855-1857). In spite of the exquisite comedy of the master of the Marshalsea and the final tragedy of the central figure,Little Dorritis sadly deficient in the old vitality, the humour is often a mock reality, and the repetition of comic catch-words and overstrung similes and metaphors is such as to affect the reader with nervous irritation. The plot and characters ruin each other in this amorphous production. TheTale of Two Cities, commenced inAll the Year Round(the successor ofHousehold Words) in 1859, is much better: the main characters are powerful, the story genuinely tragic, and the atmosphere lurid; but enormous labour was everywhere expended upon the construction of stylistic ornament.

TheTale of Two Citieswas followed by two finer efforts at atmospheric delineation, the best things he ever did of this kind:Great Expectations(1861), over which there broods the mournful impression of the foggy marshes of the Lower Thames; andOur Mutual Friend(1864-1865), in which the ooze and mud and slime of Rotherhithe, its boatmen and loafers, are made to pervade the whole book with cumulative effect. The general effect produced by the stories is, however, very different. In the first case, the foreground was supplied by autobiographical material of the most vivid interest, and the lucidity of the creative impulse impelled him to write upon this occasion with the old simplicity, though with an added power. Nothing therefore, in the whole range of Dickens surpassed the early chapters ofGreat Expectationsin perfection of technique or in mastery of all the resources of the novelist’s art. To have created Abel Magwitch alone is to be a god indeed, says Mr Swinburne, among the creators of deathless men. Pumblechook is actually better and droller and truer to imaginative life than Pecksniff; Joe Gargery is worthy to have been praised and loved at once by Fielding and by Sterne: Mr Jaggers and his clients, Mr Wemmick and his parent and his bride, are such figures as Shakespeare, when dropping out of poetry, might have created, if his lot had been cast in a later century. “Can as much be said,” Mr Swinburne boldly asks, “for the creatures of any other man or god?”

In November 1867 Dickens made a second expedition to America, leaving all the writing that he was ever to complete behind him. He was to make a round sum of money, enough to free him from all embarrassments, by a long series of exhausting readings, commencing at the Tremont Temple, Boston, on the 2nd of December. The strain of Dickens’s ordinary life was so tense and so continuous that it is, perhaps, rash to assume that he broke down eventually under this particular stress; for other reasons, however, his persistence in these readings, subsequent to his return, was strongly deprecated by his literary friends, led by the arbitrary and relentless Forster. It is a long testimony to Dickens’s self-restraint, even in his most capricious and despotic moments, that he never broke the cord of obligation which bound him to his literary mentor, though sparring matches between them were latterly of frequent occurrence. His farewell reading was given on the 15th of March 1870, at St James’s Hall. He then vanished from “those garish lights,” as he called them, “for evermore.” Of the three brief months that remained to him, his last book,The Mystery of Edwin Drood, was the chief occupation. It hardly promised to become a masterpiece (Longfellow’s opinion) as did Thackeray’sDenis Duval, but contained much fine descriptive technique, grouped round a scene of which Dickens had an unrivalled sympathetic knowledge.

In March and April 1870 Dickens, as was his wont, was mixing in the best society; he dined with the prince at Lord Houghton’s and was twice at court, once at a long deferred private interview with the queen, who had given him a presentation copy of herLeaves from a Journal of our Life in the Highlandswith the inscription “From one of the humblest of authors to one of the greatest”; and who now begged him on his persistent refusal of any other title to accept the nominal distinction of a privy councillor. He took for four months the Milner Gibsons’ house at 5 Hyde Park Place, opposite the Marble Arch, where he gave a brilliant reception on the 7th of April. His last public appearance was made at the Royal Academy banquet early in May.He returned to his regular methodical routine of work at Gad’s Hill on the 30th of May, and one of the last instalments he wrote ofEdwin Droodcontained an ominous speculation as to the next two people to die at Cloisterham: “Curious to make a guess at the two, or say at one of the two.” Two letters bearing the well-known superscription “Gad’s Hill Place, Higham by Rochester, Kent” are dated the 8th of June, and, on the same Thursday, after a long spell of writing in the Châlet where he habitually wrote, he collapsed suddenly at dinner. Startled by the sudden change in the colour and expression of his face, his sister-in-law (Miss Hogarth) asked him if he was ill; he said “Yes, very ill,” but added that he would finish dinner and go on afterwards to London. “Come and lie down,” she entreated; “Yes, on the ground,” he said, very distinctly; these were the last words he spoke, and he slid from her arms and fell upon the floor. He died at 6-10 P.M. on Friday, the 9th of June, and was buried privately in Poets’ Corner, Westminster Abbey, in the early morning of the 14th of June. One of the most appealing memorials was the drawing by his “new illustrator” Luke Fildes in theGraphicof “The Empty Chair; Gad’s Hill: ninth of June, 1870.” “Statesmen, men of science, philanthropists, the acknowledged benefactors of their race, might pass away, and yet not leave the void which will be caused by the death of Charles Dickens” (The Times). In his will he enjoined his friends to erect no monument in his honour, and directed his name and dates only to be inscribed on his tomb, adding this proud provision, “I rest my claim to the remembrance of my country on my published works.”

Dickens had no artistic ideals worth speaking about. The sympathy of his readers was the one thing he cared about and, like Cobbett, he went straight for it through the avenue of the emotions. In personality, intensity and range of creative genius he can hardly be said to have any modern rival. His creations live, move and have their being about us constantly, like those of Homer, Virgil, Chaucer, Rabelais, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Molière and Sir Walter Scott. As to the books themselves, the backgrounds on which these mighty figures are projected, they are manifestly too vast, too chaotic and too unequal ever to become classics. Like most of the novels constructed upon the unreformed model of Smollett and Fielding, those of Dickens are enormous stock-pots into which the author casts every kind of autobiographical experience, emotion, pleasantry, anecdote, adage or apophthegm. The fusion is necessarily very incomplete and the hotch-potch is bound to fall to pieces with time. Dickens’s plots, it must be admitted, are strangely unintelligible, the repetitions and stylistic decorations of his work exceed all bounds, the form is unmanageable and insignificant. The diffuseness of the English novel, in short, and its extravagant didacticism cannot fail to be most prejudicial to its perpetuation. In these circumstances there is very little fiction that will stand concentration and condensation so well as that of Dickens.

For these reasons among others our interest in Dickens’s novels as integers has diminished and is diminishing. But, on the other hand, our interest and pride in him as a man and as a representative author of his age and nation has been steadily augmented and is still mounting. Much of the old criticism of his work, that it was not up to a sufficiently high level of art, scholarship or gentility, that as an author he is given to caricature, redundancy and a shameless subservience to popular caprice, must now be discarded as irrelevant.

As regards formal excellence it is plain that Dickens labours under the double disadvantage of writing in the least disciplined of all literary genres in the most lawless literary milieu of the modern world, that of Victorian England. In spite of these defects, which are those of masters such as Rabelais, Hugo and Tolstoy, the work of Dickens is more and more instinctively felt to be true, original and ennobling. It is already beginning to undergo a process of automatic sifting, segregation and crystallization, at the conclusion of which it will probably occupy a larger segment in the literary consciousness of the English-spoken race than ever before.

Portraits of Dickens, from the gay and alert “Boz” of Samuel Lawrence, and the self-conscious, rather foppish portrait by Maclise which served as frontispiece toNicholas Nickleby, to the sketch of him as Bobadil by C. R. Leslie, the Drummond and Ary Scheffer portraits of middle age and the haggard and drawn representations of him from photographs after his shattering experiences as a public entertainer from 1856 (the year of his separation from his wife) onwards, are reproduced in Kitton, in Forster and Gissing and in the other biographies. Sketches are also given in most of the books of his successive dwelling places at Ordnance Terrace and 18 St Mary’s Place, Chatham; Bayham Street, Camden Town; 15 Furnival’s Inn; 48 Doughty Street; 1 Devonshire Terrace, Regent’s Park; Tavistock House, Tavistock Square; and Gad’s Hill Place. The manuscripts of all the novels, with the exception of theTale of Two CitiesandEdwin Drood, were given to Forster, and are now preserved in the Dyce and Forster Museum at South Kensington. The work of Dickens was a prize for which publishers naturally contended both before and after his death. The first collective edition of his works was begun in April 1847, and their number is now very great. The most complete is still that of Messrs Chapman & Hall, the original publishers ofPickwick; others of special interest are the Harrap edition, originally edited by F. G. Kitton; Macmillan’s edition with original illustrations and introduction by Charles Dickens the younger; and the edition in the World’s Classics with introductions by G.K. Chesterton. Of the translations the best known is that done into French by Lorain, Pichot and others, with B.H. Gausseron’s excellentPages Choisies(1903).

Back to Index Next