There is a shrewd remark of the late Bishop Norwich, Dean Stanley’s father, that to catch and describe the tone and feeling of a place gives a better idea of it than any minute or accurate description. “Some books,” he says, “give one ideas of places without descriptions; there is something which suggests more vivid and agreeable images than distinct words. WouldGil Blasfor instance? It opens with a scene of history, chivalry, Spain, orange trees, fountains, guitars, muleteers; there is the picturesque and the sense of the picturesque, as distinct as the actual object.” Now this exactly applies to “Pickwick,” which brings up before us Rochester, Ipswich, Muggleton, Birmingham, and a dozen other places to the tourist. The night of the arrival at Birmingham for instance, and the going out after dinner to call on Mr. Winkle, sen., is strangely vivid.
Map of the Pickwick Tours
So real is our Pickwickian Odyssey that it can be followed in all its stages as in a diary. To put it all in “ship shape” as it were and enhance this practical feeling I have drawn out the route in a little map. It is wonderful how much the party saw and how much ground they covered, and it is not a far-fetched idea that were a similar party in our day, good humoured, venturesome and accessible, to visit old-fashioned, out of the way towns, and look out for fun, acquaintances and characters, they might have a good deal of the amusement and adventure that the Pickwickians enjoyed.
The Pickwickians first went to Rochester, Chatham, Dingley Dell, and perhaps to Gravesend. Mr. Pickwick with Wardle then pursued Jingle to town, returning thence to the Dell, which he at once left for Cobham, where he found his friend Tupman. The party then returned to town. Next we have thefirstvisit to Ipswich—called Eatanswill—from which town Mr. Pickwick and Samposted to Bury St. Edmunds; thence to London. Next came their third expedition to Dingley Dell for the Christmas festivities. Then the second visit to Ipswich. Then the journey to Bath, and that from Bath to Bristol. Later a second journey to Bristol—another from Bristol to Birmingham, and from Birmingham to London, Mr. Pickwick’s final junketing before retiring to Dulwich.
Yet another interesting side of the Pickwick story is its almost biographical character. Boz seems to take us with him from his very boyhood. During the old days when his father was at Chatham he had seen all the Rochester incidents, sat by the old Castle and Bridge, noted with admiring awe the dockyard people, the Balls at “The Bull,” the Reviews on the Lines. The officers—like Dr. Slammer, all the figures—fat boy included—were drawn from this stage of his life. The Golden Cross, which figures also inCopperfield, he had constantly stopped at. He knew, too, the inns in the Boro’. The large legal elementand its odd incidents and characters he had learned and studied during his brief apprenticeship to the Law. The interior economy of the Fleet Prison he had learned from his family’s disastrous experiences; the turnkeys, and blighted inhabitants he had certainly taken from life. But he shifted the scene from the Marshalsea to the King’s Bench Prison—the former place would have been too painful a reminiscence for his father. To his reporting expeditions we owe the Election scenes at Ipswich, and to another visit for the same object, his Bath experiences. Much of the vividness and reality of his touchings, particularly in the case of Rochester and its doings, is the magnifying, searching power resulting from a life of sorrow in childhood, family troubles working on a keen, sensitive nature; these made him appreciate and meditate on all that was going on about him, as a sort of relief and relaxation. All the London scenes the meetings at taverns—were personal experiences. Among his friends were medicalstudents and many odd beings. We can trace his extraordinary appreciation of Christmas—and its genial, softening festivities—which clung to him till it altogether faded out, to the same sense of relief; it furnished an opportunity of forgetting for a time (at least), the dismal, gloomy home.
Boz, if he drew his characters from life, did not draw wholesale; he would take only a portion of a character that pleased him and work it up in combination with another distinct character. It was thus he dealt with Leigh Hunt, borrowing his amusing, airy frivolity, and combining it with the meanness and heartlessness of Skimpole. I have always fancied that Dowler in “Pickwick” was founded—after this composite principle—on his true-hearted but imperious friend, Forster. Forster was indeed also a perfect reproduction of Dr. Johnson and had the despotic intolerance—in conversation certainly—of that great man. Like him “if his pistol missed fire, he knocked you down with thebutt end of it.” He could be as amiable and tender-hearted as “old Sam” himself. Listening to Dowler at the coach office in Piccadilly we—who knew Forster well—seemed to hear his very voice. “It was a stern-eyed man of about five-and-forty, who had large black whiskers. He was buttoned up to the chin in a brown coat and had a large seal-skin cap and a cloak beside him. He looked up from his breakfast as Mr. Pickwick entered with a fierce and peremptory air,which was very dignified, and which seemed to say that he rather expectedsomebody wanted to take advantage of him,but it wouldn’t do” . . . “Are you going to Bath?” said the strange man. “I am, sir,” replied Mr. Pickwick. “And these other gentleman?” “They are going also,” said Mr. Pickwick. “Not inside—I’ll be damned if you’re going inside,” said the strange man. “Not all of us,” said Mr. Pickwick. “No—not all of you,” said the strange man, emphatically. “We take two places. If they try and squeeze six peopleinto an infernal box that only holds four I’ll take a post-chaise and bring an action. It won’t do,” etc. This recalls the pleasant story about Forster and the cabman who summoned him. The latter was adjudged to be in the wrong and said he knew it, but “that he was determined to show him up, he weresuch a harbitrary cove.” None enjoyed this story more than Forster himself, and I have heard him say to a lady humorously, “Now you must. You know I am ‘such a harbitrary cove.’” Dear good old Forster!
I must confess all Pickwickians would like to know biographical details, as one might call them, about the personages engaged in the trial. I need not repeat that Judge Stareleigh was drawn from Mr. Justice Gazalee, or that Buzfuz was founded on Mr. Serjeant Bompas, or Bumpus. Charles Carpenter Bompas was his full designation. He was made a Serjeant in 1827, the very year of the memorable trial. He obtained a Patent of Precedence in 1834. “Buzfuz’s son”—Mr.W. Bompas, Q.C., who will pardon the freedom of the designation—was born in the year of the celebrated trial. He was the youngest son and had a very distinguished career both at College and at the Bar, being a “leader” on his circuit, revising barrister, bencher, recorder, and was last year appointed a County Court judge.
Who were Serjeant Snubbin, Skimpin, and Phunkey? No traditions have come to us as to these gentlemen. Skimpin may have been Wilkins, and Snubbin a Serjeant Arabin, a contemporary of Buzfuz. But we are altogether in the dark.
We should have liked also to have some “prehistoric peeps” at the previous biography of Mr. Pickwick before the story began. We have but a couple of indications of his calling: the allusion by Perker at the close of the story—“The agent at Liverpool said he had been obliged to you many times when you were in business.” He was therefore a merchant or in trade. Snubbin at the trialstated that “Mr. Pickwick had retired from business and was a gentleman of considerable independent property.”
In the original announcement of the “Pickwick Papers” there are some scraps of information about Mr. Pickwick and the Club itself. This curious little screed shows that the programme was much larger than the one carried out:—
“On the 31st of March, 1836, will be published,to be continued Monthly, price OneShilling, the First Number of
THE POSTHUMOUS PAPERSofTHE PICKWICK CLUB;containing a faithful record of thePerambulations,Perils,Travels,Adventures,and Sporting Transactionsof the Corresponding Members.
EDITED BY “BOZ.”
And each Monthly Part embellished withfour illustrations by Seymour.
“The Pickwick Club, so renowned in the annals of Huggin Lane, and so closely entwined with the thousand interesting associations connected with Lothbury and Cateaton Street, was founded in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, by Samuel Pickwick—the great traveller—whose fondness for the useful arts prompted his celebrated journey to Birmingham in the depth of winter; and whose taste for the beauties of nature even led him to penetrate to the very borders of Wales in the height of summer.“This remarkable man would appear to have infused a considerable portion of his restless and inquiring spirit into the breasts of other members of the Club, and to have awakened in their minds the same insatiable thirst for travel which so eminently characterized his own. The whole surface of Middlesex, a part of Surrey, a portion of Essex, and several square miles of Kent were in their turns examined and reported on. In a rapid steamer they smoothly navigated the placid Thames; and in an open boat they fearlessly crossed the turbid Medway. High-roadsand by-roads, towns and villages, public conveyances and their passengers, first-rate inns and road-side public houses, races, fairs, regattas elections, meetings, market days—all the scenes that can possibly occur to enliven a country place, and at which different traits of character may be observed and recognized, were alike visited and beheld by the ardent Pickwick and his enthusiastic followers.“The Pickwick Travels, the Pickwick Diary, the Pickwick Correspondence—in short, the whole of the Pickwick Papers’—were carefully preserved, and duly registered by the secretary, from time to time, in the voluminous Transactions of the Pickwick Club. These Transactions have been purchased from the patriotic secretary, at an immense expense, and placed in the hands of ‘Boz,’ the author of “Sketches Illustrative of Every Day Life and Every Day People”—a gentleman whom the publishers consider highly qualified for the task of arranging these important documents, and placing them before the public in an attractive form. He is at present deeplyimmersed in his arduous labours, the first fruits of which will appear on the 31st March.“Seymour has devoted himself, heart and graver, to the task of illustrating the beauties of Pickwick. It was reserved to Gibbon to paint, in colours that will never fade, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire—to Hume to chronicle the strife and turmoil of the two proud houses that divided England against herself—to Napier to pen, in burning words, the History of the War in the Peninsula—the deeds and actions of the gifted Pickwick yet remain for ‘Boz’ and Seymour to hand down to posterity.“From the present appearance of these important documents and the probable extent of the selections from them, it is presumed that the series will be completed in about twenty numbers.”
“The Pickwick Club, so renowned in the annals of Huggin Lane, and so closely entwined with the thousand interesting associations connected with Lothbury and Cateaton Street, was founded in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, by Samuel Pickwick—the great traveller—whose fondness for the useful arts prompted his celebrated journey to Birmingham in the depth of winter; and whose taste for the beauties of nature even led him to penetrate to the very borders of Wales in the height of summer.
“This remarkable man would appear to have infused a considerable portion of his restless and inquiring spirit into the breasts of other members of the Club, and to have awakened in their minds the same insatiable thirst for travel which so eminently characterized his own. The whole surface of Middlesex, a part of Surrey, a portion of Essex, and several square miles of Kent were in their turns examined and reported on. In a rapid steamer they smoothly navigated the placid Thames; and in an open boat they fearlessly crossed the turbid Medway. High-roadsand by-roads, towns and villages, public conveyances and their passengers, first-rate inns and road-side public houses, races, fairs, regattas elections, meetings, market days—all the scenes that can possibly occur to enliven a country place, and at which different traits of character may be observed and recognized, were alike visited and beheld by the ardent Pickwick and his enthusiastic followers.
“The Pickwick Travels, the Pickwick Diary, the Pickwick Correspondence—in short, the whole of the Pickwick Papers’—were carefully preserved, and duly registered by the secretary, from time to time, in the voluminous Transactions of the Pickwick Club. These Transactions have been purchased from the patriotic secretary, at an immense expense, and placed in the hands of ‘Boz,’ the author of “Sketches Illustrative of Every Day Life and Every Day People”—a gentleman whom the publishers consider highly qualified for the task of arranging these important documents, and placing them before the public in an attractive form. He is at present deeplyimmersed in his arduous labours, the first fruits of which will appear on the 31st March.
“Seymour has devoted himself, heart and graver, to the task of illustrating the beauties of Pickwick. It was reserved to Gibbon to paint, in colours that will never fade, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire—to Hume to chronicle the strife and turmoil of the two proud houses that divided England against herself—to Napier to pen, in burning words, the History of the War in the Peninsula—the deeds and actions of the gifted Pickwick yet remain for ‘Boz’ and Seymour to hand down to posterity.
“From the present appearance of these important documents and the probable extent of the selections from them, it is presumed that the series will be completed in about twenty numbers.”
From this it will be seen that it was intended to exhibit all the humours of the social amusements with which the public regaled itself. Mr. Pickwick and friends were to be shown on board a steamer; at races, fairs, regattas, market days, meetings—“at all the scenes that can possibly occur to enliven acountry place, and at which different traits of character may be observed and recognized.” This was a very scientific and well drawn scheme; and it was, on the whole, most faithfully and even brilliantly carried out. But with infinite art Boz emancipated himself from the formal hide-bound trammels of Syntax tours and the like, when it was reckoned that the hero and his friends would be exhibited like “Bob Logic” and “Tom and Jerry” in a regular series of public places. “Mr. Pickwick has an Adventure at Vauxhall,” “Mr. Pickwick Goes to Margate,” etc.: we had a narrow escape, it would seem, of this conventional sort of thing, and no doubt it was this the publishers looked for. But “Boz” asserted his supremacy, and made the narrative the chief element.
It was interesting thus to know that Mr. Pickwick had visited the borders of Wales—I suppose, Chester—but what was his celebrated journey to Birmingham, prompted by his “fondness for the useful arts”? Thiscould hardly refer to his visit to Mr. Winkle, sen. The Club, it will be seen, was founded in 1822, and its place of meeting would appear to have been this Huggin Lane, City, “so intimately associated with Lothbury and Cateaton Street.” The picture of the meeting of the Club shows us that it consisted of the ominous number ofthirteen. There is not room for more. They seem like a set of well-to-do retired tradesmen; the faces are such as we should see on the stage in a piece of low comedy: for the one on the left Mr. Edward Terry might have sat. The secretary sits at the bottom of the table, with his back to us, and the chairman, with capacious stomach, at the top. Blotton, whom Mr. Pickwick rather unhandsomely described as a “vain and disappointed haberdasher,” may have followed this business. He is an ill-looking fellow enough, with black, bushy whiskers. The Pickwickians are decidedly the most gentlemanly of the party. But why was it necessary for Mr. Pickwick to stand upon a chair?This, however, may have been a custom of the day at free and easy meetings.
“Posthumouspapers”—moreover, did not correctly describe the character of the Book, for the narrative did not profess to be founded on documents at all. He was, however, committed to this title by his early announcement, and indeed intended to carry out a device of using Snodgrass’s “Note Books,” whose duty it was during the course of the adventures to take down diligently all that he observed. But this cumbrous fiction was discarded after a couple of numbers. “Posthumous papers” had been used some ten years before, in another work.
Almost every page—save perhaps a dismal story or two—in the 609 pages of Pickwick is good; but there are two or three passages which are obscure, if not forced in humour. Witness Mr. Bantam’s recognition of Mr. Pickwick, as the gentleman residing on Clapham Green—not yet Common—“wholost the use of his limbs from imprudently taking cold after port wine, who could not be moved in consequence of acute suffering, and who had the water from the King’s Bath bottled at 103 degrees, andsent by waggon to his bedroom in Town; when he bathed, sneezed, and same day recovered.” This is grotesque enough and farcical, but without much meaning. On another occasion we are told that Tupman was casting certain “Anti-Pickwickian glances” at the servant maids, which is unmeaning. No doubt,Un-Pickwickian was intended.
Why is there no “Pickwick Club” in London? It might be worth trying, and would be more successful than even the Johnson Club. There is surely genuine “stuff” to work on. Our friends in America, who are Pickwickianquand même, have established the “All-Around Dickens Club.” The members seem to be ladies, though there are a number of honorary members of the other sex, which include membersof “Boz’s” own family, with Mr. Kitton, Mr. W. Hughes, Mr. Charles Kent, myself, and some more. The device of the club is “Boz’s” own book-plate, and the “flower” of the club is his favourite geranium. The President is Mrs. Adelaide Garland; and some very interesting papers, to judge from their titles, have been read, such as “Bath and its Associations with Landor,” “The City of Bristol with its Literary Associations,” “The Excursion to the Tea Gardens of Hampstead,” prefaced by a description of the historic old inn, “Poem by Charles Kent,” “Dickens at Gad’s Hill,” “A Description of Birmingham, its Institutions, and Dickens’ Interest therein”; with a “Reading of Mr. Pickwick’s Mission to Birmingham, Coventry and the adjacent Warwickshire Country,” etc. There is also a very clever series of examination questions by the President in imitation of Calverley’s.
“Had Mr. Pickwick loved?” Mr. Lang asks; “it is natural to believe that he had never proposed, never. His heart, howeverbruised, was neither broken nor embittered.” His temperament was certainly affectionate—if not absolutely amatory: he certainly never missed an opportunity where a kiss was practicable.
But stay! has anyone noted that on the wall of his room at Dulwich, there hangs the portrait of a lady—just over this might seem to mean something. But on looking close, we see it is the dear filial old fellow’s mother. A striking likeness, and she has spectacles like her celebrated son.
As all papers connected with the Pickwick era are scarce and meagre—for the reason that no one was then thinking of “Boz”; any that have come down to us are specially interesting. Here are a few “pieces,” which will be welcomed by all Pickwickians. The first is a letter of our author to his publishers.
“Furnival’s Inn,“Friday Morning.“Dear Sir,—I am very glad to find I shall have the pleasure of celebrating Mr. Pickwick’ssuccess with you on Sunday. When you have sufficiently recovered from the fatigues of publication, will you just let me know from your books how we stand. Drawing £10 one day, and £20 another, and so forth, I have become rather mystified, and jumbled up our accounts in my brain, in a very incomprehensible state.“Faithfully yours,“Charles Dickens.”
“Furnival’s Inn,“Friday Morning.
“Dear Sir,—I am very glad to find I shall have the pleasure of celebrating Mr. Pickwick’ssuccess with you on Sunday. When you have sufficiently recovered from the fatigues of publication, will you just let me know from your books how we stand. Drawing £10 one day, and £20 another, and so forth, I have become rather mystified, and jumbled up our accounts in my brain, in a very incomprehensible state.
“Faithfully yours,“Charles Dickens.”
This must have been written at the conclusion of the story in 1837, and is in a very modest tone considering how triumphant had been the success. Connected with this is a paper of yet more interest, a receipt for payment for one of the early numbers.
Manuscript of a letter by Dickens
For this Pickwickian Banquet, he had reluctantly to give up one at the home of his new friend Forster. In an unpublished letter, he writes to him as “Dear Sir”—the beginning of a four-and-thirty years’ friendship—“I have been so much engaged in the pleasing occupation of moving.” He was unable to go to his new friend to dinnerbecause he had been “long engaged to the Pickwick publishers to a dinner in honour of that hero, which comes off to-morrow.”
In an interesting letter of Dickens’—Pickwickian ones are rare—sold at Hodgson’s rooms, July, 1895, he writes: “Mr. Seymour shot himself before the second number of the Pickwick papers, not the third as you would have it, was published. While he lay dead, it was necessary the search should be made in his working room for the plates to the second number, the day for publication of which was drawing near. The plates were found unfinished, with their faces turned to the wall.” This scrap brought £12 10s. Apropos of prices, who that was present will forget the scene at Christie’s when the six “Pickwick Ladles” were sold? These were quaint things, like enlarged Apostle Spoons, and the figures well modelled. They had been made specially, and presented to “Boz” on the conclusion of his story, by his publishers. The PickwickLadle brought £69. Jingle, £30. Winkle, £23. Sam, £64. Old Weller, £51; and the Fat Boy, £35 14s., or over £280 in all. Nay, the leather case was put up, and brought three guineas. We recall Andrew Halliday displaying one to us, with a sort of triumph. Charles Dickens, the younger, got two, I think; Messrs. Agnew the others.
It is an interesting question what should be the relation of illustration to the story, and of the artist to the story-teller; and what are the limitations of their respective provinces. Both should work independently of each other; that is, the artist should tell the story from his own point of view—he is not merely to servilely translate the situations into “black and white.” He should be, in fact, what the actor is to a drama. When Eugene Delacroix’s illustrations to Goethe’s “Faust” were shown to the great author, he expressed admiration of their truth and spirit; and on his secretary saying that they would lead to a better understanding of his poem, said: “With that we have naught to do; on the contrary, the more complete imagination of such an artist compels us tobelieve that the situations as he represents them are preferable to them as described. It is therefore likely that the readers will find that he exerts a strong force upon their imagination.” This shows, allowing something for the compliment, what a distinct force the great writer attributed to the artist, that he did not consider him an assistant or merely subsidiary. The actor becomes, after his fashion, a distinct creator and originator, supplying details, etc., of his own, but taking care that these are consistent with the text and do not contradict it in any way.
This large treatment was exactly “Phiz’s.” He seems to “act” “Boz’s” drama, yet he did not introduce anything that was not warranted by the spirit of the text. He found himself present at the scene, and felt how itmusthave occurred. He had a wonderful power of selecting what was essential and what should be essential. Nor did he make a minute inventory of such details as were mentioned in the text. Hence the extraordinaryvitality and spirit of his work. There is action in all, and each picture tells its own story. To see the merit of this system, we have only to contrast with it such attempts as we find in modern productions, where the artist’s method is to present to us figures grouped together, apparently talking but notacting—such things as we have week by week inPunch. The late Sir John Millais and other artists of almost equal rank used to furnish illustrations to serial stories, and all their pictures were of this kind—two or three figures—well drawn, certainly—one standing, the others sitting down, it may be, engaged in conversation. This brought us “no forrarder” and supplied no dramatic interest.
It should be said, however, that it is only to “Pickwick” that this high praise can be extended. With every succeeding story the character of the work seemed to fall off, or rather the methods of the artist to change. It may have been, too, the inspiration from adramatic spirited story also failed, for “Boz” had abandoned the free, almost reckless style of his first tale. There was a living distinctness, too, in the Pickwickiancoterie, and every figure, familiar and recognizable, seemed to have infinite possibilities. The very look of them would inspire.
In this spirit of vitality and reality also, “Phiz” rather suggests a famous foreign illustrator, Chodowiecki, who a century ago was in enormous request for the illustration of books of all kinds, and whose groups and figures, drawn with much spirit and roundness, arrested the eye at once and told the situation. Later “Phiz” fell off in his work and indeed adopted quite new and more commercial methods, such as would enable him to get through the vast amount of work that came to him. There were no longer these telling situations to limn which spoke for themselves, and without straw, bricks are not to be made. In this later manner we seem to have bid adieu to the inspiration—tothe fine oldroundstyle of drawing—where the figures “stand out” completely. He adopted a sort of sketchy fashion; his figures became silhouettes and quite flat. There was also a singular carelessness in finish—a mere outline served for a face. The result was a monotony and similarity of treatment, with a certain unreality and grotesqueness which are like nothing in life. In this, however, he may have been inspired by the grotesque personages he was put to illustrate—the Smallweeds and the like.
It would be an interesting speculation to consider what would have become of “Pickwick” had this artist not been forthcoming. Would we have really known our Mr. Pickwick and his “followers” as we do now, or, indeed, would we have so keenly appreciated the humorous situations? I believe not. It was the graven figures of these personages, and the brilliant way in which the situations were concentrated, as it were, into a point, that produced such strikingeffect: without these adjuncts the Head of the Club and his friends would have been more or less abstractions, very much what the characters in Theodore Hook’s “Gilbert Gurney” are. Take Mr. Pickwick. The author supplied only a few hints as to his personal appearance—he was bald, mild, pale, wore spectacles and gaiters; but who would have imagined him as we have him now, with his high forehead, bland air, protuberant front. The same with the others. Mr. Thackeray tried in many ways to give some corporeal existence to his own characters to “Becky,” Pendennis, and others; but who sees them as we do Mr. Pickwick? So with his various “situations”—many most dramatic and effective, but no one would guess it from the etchings. The Pickwick scenes all tell a story of their own; and a person—say a foreigner—who had never even heard of the story would certainly smile over the situations, and be piqued into speculating what could be the ultimate meaning.
At the exhibition “illustrating a century and a half of English humorists,” given by the Fine Art Society—under the direction of Mr. Joseph Grego—in October, 1896, there was a collection of original Pickwick drawings no less than fifty-six in number. There were three by Seymour, two by Bass and thirty-four by Phiz, all used in the book; while of those unused—probably found unsuitable, there were five by Buss, including a proposed title-page, and two of the Fat Boy “awake on this occasion only.” There were also five by Phiz, which were not engraved, and one by Leech. The drawing of the dying clown, Seymour was engaged upon when he committed suicide. Of Buss’ there were two of Mr. Pickwick at the Review, two of the cricket match, two of the Fat Boy “awake,” “the influence of the salmon”—unused, “Mr. Winkle’s first shot”—unused, studies of character in Pickwick, and a study for the title-page. The poor, discarded Buss took a vast deal of pains therefore to accomplishhis task. Of Phiz’s unused designs there was “Mr. Winkle’s first shot” and two for the Gabriel Grub story, also one for “the Warden’s room.” Most interesting of all was his “original study” for the figure of Mr. Pickwick.
Mr. Grego, himself an excellent artist, placed at the door of the society a very telling figure of Mr. Pickwick displayed on a poster and effectively coloured. It was new to find our genial old friend smiling an invitation to us—in Bond Street. This—which I took for a lithographed “poster”—was Mr. Grego’s own work, portrayed in water colours.
There have been many would-be illustrators of the chronicle, some on original lines of their own; but these must be on the whole pronounced to be failures. On looking at them we somehow feel that the figures and situations are wholly strange to us; that we don’t know them or recognize them. The reason is possibly that the artists are not in perfect sympathy or intelligence with thestory; they do not know every turning, corner and cranny of it, as did “Phiz”—and indeed as did everyone else living at that time; they were not inspired, above all, by its author. But there was a more serious reason still for the failure. It will be seen that in Phiz’s wonderful plates the faces and figures are more or lessgeneralized. We cannot tell exactly, for instance, what were Mr. Winkle’s or even Sam Weller’s features. Neither their mouths, eyes, or noses, could be put in distinct shape. We have only the general air and tone and suggestion—as of persons seen afar off in a crowd. Yet they are always recognizable. This is art, and it gave the artist a greater freedom in his treatment. Now when an illustrator like the late Frederick Barnard came, he drew his Jingle, his Pickwick, Weller, and Winkle, withalltheir features, in quite a literal and particular fashion—the features were minutely and carefully brought out, with the result that they seem almost strange to us. Nor do they expressthe characters. Thereisan expression, but it seems not the one to which we are accustomed. Mr. Pickwick is generally shown as a rather “cranky” and testy old gentleman in his expressions, whereas the note of all “Phiz’s” faces is a good softness and unctuousness even. Now this somewhat philosophical analysis points to a principle in art illustration which accounts in a great measure for the unsatisfactory results where it is attempted to illustrate familiar works—such as those of Tennyson, Shakespeare, etc. The reader has a fixed idea before him, which he has formed for himself—an indistinct, shapeless one it might be, but still of sufficient outline to be disturbed. Among the innumerable presentments of Shakespeare’s heroines no one has ever seen any that satisfied or that even corresponded. They are usually not generalized enough. Again, the readers of “Pickwick” grew month by month, or number by number, more and more acquainted with the characters:for the figures and faces appeared over and over and yet over again.
The most diverting, however, of all these imitators and extra-illustrators is assuredly the artist of the German edition. The series is admirably drawn, every figure well finished, but figures, faces, and scenes are unrecognizable. It is the Frenchman’s idea of Hamlet. Mr. Pickwick and his friends are stout Germans, dressed in German garments, sitting in German restaurants with long tankards withlidsbefore them. The incidents are made as literal and historical as possible. The difficulty, of course, was that none of their adventures could have occurred in a country like Germany, or if they did, would have become an affair of police. No German could see humour in that. Notwithstanding all this, the true Pickwickian will welcome them as a pleasant contribution to the Pickwickian humour, and no one would have laughed so loudly at them as Boz himself.
The original illustrations form a serious and important department of Pickwickian lore, and entail an almostscientificknowledge. Little, indeed, did the young “Boz” dream, when he was settling with his publishers that the work was to contain forty-two plates—an immense number it might seem—that these were to fructify into such an enormous progeny. We, begin, of course, with the regular official plates that belong strictly to the work. Here we find three artists at work—each succeeding the other—the unfortunate Robert Seymour coming first with his seven spirited pictures; next the unlucky Buss, with his two condemned productions, later to be dismissed from the book altogether; and finally, “Phiz,” or Hablot K. Browne, who furnished the remaining plates to the end. As is well known, so great was the run upon the book that the plates were unequal to the duty, and “Phiz” had to re-engrave them several times—often duplicates on the one plate—naturally not copying themvery closely. Hence we have the rather interesting “variations.” He by-and-bye re-engraved Seymour’s seven, copying them with wonderful exactness, and finally substituted two of his own for those of the condemned Buss. The volume, therefore, was furnished with seven Seymours, and their seven replicas, the two Buss’s, their two replicas, and the thirty-three “Phiz” pictures, each with its “variation.”
These variations are very interesting, and even amusing. On an ordinary careless glance one would hardly detect much difference—the artist, who seemed to wish to have a certain freedom, made these changes either to amuse himself or as if resenting the monotony of copying. In any case they represent an amount of patient labour that is quite unique in such things.
The Pickwickian “student” may be glad to go with us through some of the plates and have an account of these differences. We must premise that the first state of the platesmay be considered “proofs before letters”—the descriptive titles being only found in the later editions.
1. “The Frontispiece.” (We shall call the second stateb, the firsta.) Inathe signature “Phiz,” “fct.” or “fecit” is on the left, inbit is divided half on each side. The harlequin painting has a full face ina, a side face inb. The face at the apex of the picture has a mouth closed inb, and open ina. There are variations in nearly all the grotesque faces; and inbthe faces of Mr. Pickwick and Sam are fuller and more animated. Inbthe general treatment of the whole is richer.
2. “The Title-page.” Inathe sign has Veller, inbWeller. Old Weller’s face inbis more resolved and animated; inawater is flowing from the pail.
3. “Mr. Pickwick Addressing the Club.” Mr. Pickwick inbis more cantankerous than ina—all the faces scarcely correspond in expression, though the outlines are the same. The work, shading, etc., is much bolder inb.
4. “Scene with the Cabman.” Very little difference between the plates, save in the spectacles lying on the ground. These are trivialities.
5. “The Sagacious Dog.”bis more heavily shaded, butais much superior in the dog and face of the sportsman. Trees inbmore elaborate.
6. “Dr. Slammer’s Defiance.” The figures on the top of the stairs are much darker and bolder inb. Jingle’s and Tupman’s faces are better inbthan ina, and Jingle’s legs are better drawn inb.
7. “The Dying Clown.” A most dramatic and tragic conception, which shows that Seymour would have been invaluable later on for Dickens’ more serious work. The chief differences are in the face of the man at his bedside and the candle.
8. “Mr. Pickwick in Search of his Hat.” The drawing of Mr. Pickwick’s legs is rather strange. The right leg could hardly be so much twisted back while Mr. Pickwick runsstraight forward; his left hand or arm is obscure in both. All the faces differ—the hat inbhas much more the look of being blown along than that ina.
9. “Mr. Winkle Soothes a Refractory Steed.” Seymour’s horse is infinitely more spirited and better drawn than Phiz’s. Its struggling attitude is admirable. Seymour’s landscape is touched more delicately; the faces differ in both.
10. “The Cricket Match.” First Buss plate. He introduced a farcical incident not in the text—the ball knocking off the fielder’s hat, who is quite close to the batsman. A very poor production. Observe the “antediluvian” shape of the bat—no paddings on the legs. The sketch is valuable as showing hownotto interpret Dickens’ humour, or rather how to interpret it in a strictlyliteralway—that is, without humour.
11. “Tupman in the Arbour.” Second Buss plate—rather ostentatiously signed “Drawn and etched by R. W. Buss.”Tupman appears to be tumbling over Miss Wardle.
12. The same subject by “Phiz.” A remarkable contrast in treatment; there is the suggestion of the pair being surprised. We see how the fat boy came on them. The old Manor Farm in the background, with its gables, etc., is a pleasing addition, and like all “Phiz’s” landscapes, delicately touched in. The scared alarm on the two faces is first-rate—even Miss Wardle’s foot as well as Tupman’s is expressive. There appears to be no “variation” of this plate.
13. “The Influence of the Salmon.” A truly dramatic group overflowing with humour. Note no fewer than ten faces in the background, servants, etc., all expressing interest according to their class and degree. The five chief characters express drunkenness in five different fashions: the hopeless, combative, despairing, affectionate, etc. Wardle’s stolid calm is good.
14. “The Breakdown.” This was “Phiz’s”coup d’essaiafter he was called in, and is a most spirited piece. But the variations make the second plate almost a new one. The drawing, grouping, etc., inbare an enormous improvement, and supply life and animation. The three figures, Pickwick, Wardle, and the postillion, are all altered for the better. InbMr. Pickwick’s nervousness, as he is extricated from the chaise, is well shown. The postillion becomes a round spirited figure, instead of a mere sketch; Wardle, as in the text, instead of stooping down and merely showing his back, is tramping about gesticulating. A very spirited white horse is introduced with a postillion as spirited; the single chaise in the distance, the horses drawn back, and Jingle stretching out, is admirable. It is somehow conveyed in a clever way inbthat Miss Wardle is peeping through the hind window at the scene. There is a wheel on the ground inb, and one hat; inathere are two hats—Mr. Pickwick’s, which is recognizable, and Wardle’s.
15. “First Appearance of Mr. S. Weller.” In the first issue a faint “Nemo” can be made out in the corner, and it is said the same signature is on the preceding plate, though I have never been able to trace it clearly. This plate, as is well known, represents the court of the Old White Hart Inn in the Borough, which was pulled down some years ago. On this background—the galleries, etc., being picturesquely indicated—stand out brilliantly the four figures. The plate was varied in important ways. In thebversion some fine effects of light and shade are brought out by the aid of the loaded cart and Wardle’s figure. Wardle’s hat is changed from a common round one to a low broad-leafed one, his figure made stouter, and he is clothed with dark instead of white breeches, his face broadened and made more good-humoured. Sam’s face inbis made much more like the ideal Sam; that inais grotesque. Perker’s face and attitude are altered inb, where he is made more interrogative. Mr. Pickwick inbismuch more placid and bland than ina, and he carries his hat more jauntily. Top-boots inbare introduced among those which Sam is cleaning. He, oddly, seems to be cleaning awhiteboot. A capital dog inbis sniffing at Mr. Pickwick’s leg; inathere is a rather unmeaning skulking animal. All the smaller figures are altered.
16. “Mrs. Bardell Faints.” The first plate is feeble and ill-drawn, though Mrs. Bardell’s and Tupman’s faces are good, the latter somewhat farcical; the boy “Tommy” is decidedly bad and too small. Mr. Pickwick’s face inais better than inb. In the second attempt all is bolder and more spirited. The three Pickwickians are made to express astonishment, even in their legs. There is a table-desk ina, not inb. A clock and two vases are introduced, and a picture over the mirror representing a sleeping beauty with a cupid.
17. “The Election at Eatanswill.” The first plate represents an election riot in frontof the hustings, which is wild and fairly spirited. But no doubt it appeared somewhat confused to the artist. In his second he made it quite another matter. Over the hustings he introduced a glimpse of the old Ipswich gables. He changed the figure and dress of Fizkin, the rival candidate. He had Perker sitting on the rail, but substituted a standing-up figure, talking—presumably Perker, but taller than that gentleman. Inb, Mr. Pickwick’s face expresses astonishment at the disorder; inahe is mildly placid. Inbthe figure behind Mr. Pickwick is turned into Sam by placing a cockade on his hat. Next to Fizkin is a new portly figure introduced. The figures in the crowd are changed in wholesale fashion, and yet the “root idea” in both is the same. An artist, we fancy, would learn much from these contrasts, seeing how strikingly “Phiz” could shift his characters. In the first draft there was not sufficient movement. To the left there was a stout sailor in a striped jacket who was thrusting a pole into the chest of a thinman in check trousers. This, as drawn, seemed too tranquil, and he substituted a stouter, more jovial figure with gymnastic action—the second was made more contrasted. Next him was a confused group—a man with a paper cap, in place of which he supplied a stout man on whom the other was driven back, and who was being pushed from behind. The animation of the background is immensely increased by hats, and arms, and sticks being waved. Everything is bolder and clearer. The second trombone player, however, is not so spirited as the first, and the drum-beater becomes rather a “Punch and Judy” showman. An artistic effect of light is produced by this drum. There are a great many more boards, too, introduced inb.
“Mrs. Leo Hunter’s Fancy dress Déjeuné.” Inbthe finish and treatment are infinitely improved. Mr. Pickwick’s face and figure is more refined and artistic. The way he holds his hat in his right hand and his left also are improved; both are more extended. Mr.Snodgrass’s left leg is brought behind Mr. Pickwick’s inb. Water—a pond perhaps—is in front. Tupman’s hat is altered inb, and feathers added; his face is more serious and less grotesque. Mrs. Pott is more piquant, as the author suggested to the artist. The birdcage, instead of being high in the tree, is lowered and hangs from it. The most curious change is that of Pott, who inais out of all scale, seeming to be about seven feet high. He was lowered inb, and given a beard and a more hairy cap. It was said, indeed, that the original face was too like Lord Brougham’s, but the reason for the change was probably what I have given.
“The Young Ladies’ Seminary.” All details are changed. The rather “cranky” face of Mr. Pickwick, utterly unlike him, was improved and restored to its natural benevolence; more detail put into the faces, notably the cook’s. The girls are made more distinct and attractive—the lady principal at the back made effective; all the foliage treateddifferently, a tree on the left removed. Inathere is a sort of hook on the inside of the door to hold a bell, which is absent; inbit is added. The bolts, etc., are different.
“Mr. Pickwick in the Pound.”bis more brilliant and vastly improved; the smaller donkey is removed, the three reduced to two; the sweep’s cap is madewhite; the faces are altered, and made more animated. Mr. Pickwick’s figure in the barrow is perhapsnotimproved, but his face is.
“Mr. Pickwick in the Attorney’s Office.” Sam’s face inawas quite unlike, and was improved; the position of his legs altered. The other points are much the same.
“Last Visit of Heyland to the Old Man.” This is a sort of anticipation of “Phiz’s” later treatment of tragic subjects, as supplied for “Bleak House” and such stories. Heyling’s cloak inbis draped over his left arm, the boards of the door are outlined differently. Inathe face of the old man a side one, with little expression; inbit was made three-quarters,and contorted with horror—the attitude powerfully expressive, indeed. The figures of both are worth comparing.
“The Double-bedded Room.” Inbthe lady’s face is refined, and made less of the “nut-cracker” type. The comb is removed, her feet are separated, and the figure becomes not ungraceful. A white night-gown inbis introduced; inait is her day-gown, and dark; the back of the chair inbis treated more ornamentally; inaa plain frilled nightcap is hung on the chair, changed inbto a more grotesque and “Gamp-like” headgear. Nothing can be better inathan the effect of light from the rushlight on the floor. This is helped by the lady’s figure, which is darkened ina, and thrown out by the white curtains behind. Mr. Pickwick’s face inais not good, and much improved inb. It will be noted that the artist often thus failed in his hero’s face—“missing his tip,” as it were. This picture admirably illustrates the artist’s power oflegitimatelyemphasizing details—such asthe night-cap—to add to the comic situation.
“Mr. Weller Attacks the Executive of Ipswich.” There is scarcely any alteration worth notice.
“Job Trotter Encounters Sam.” The two plates are nearly the same, except that Mary’s face is made prettier. Sam’s is improved, and Job Trotter’s figure and face more marked and spirited.
“Christmas Eve at Mr. Wardle’s.” The changes here are a cat and dog introduced in the foreground inb, instead of the dog which inais between Mr. Pickwick and the old lady.
“Gabriel Grubb.” A face is introduced into a branch or knot of the tree—an odd, rather far-fetched effect. The effectively outlined church in the background is St. Albans Abbey.
“Mr. Pickwick Slides.” InbMr. Winkle’s skates are introduced. In one version there arefivestakes instead of four, and MissAllen’s fur boots and feet are depicted differently in each.
“Conviviality at Bob Sawyer’s.” The two plates correspond almost exactly—save for a slight alteration in the arrangement of the books in the case.
“Mr. Pickwick Sits for his Portrait.” Slight alterations in the faces and in the bird-cage. The arrangement of the panes in the window is also different. Mr. Pickwick’s face is made more intelligent. A handle is supplied to a pewter pot on the floor.
“The Warden’s Room.” Almost exactly the same in both. But why has Mr. Pickwick his spectacles on when just roused from sleep? There is a collar to the shirt hanging from the cord.
“The Meeting with Jingle.” Very slight changes in the faces. The child’s face inbis admirable, and, like one of Cruikshank’s miniatures, it conveys alarm and grief. The face of the woman watering her plant is improved. Note the Hogarthian touch of theinitials carved on the window, sufficiently distinct and yet not intrusively so. This is a most skilfully grouped and dramatic picture, and properly conveys the author’s idea.
“The Ghostly Passenger.” This illustration of what is one of the best tales of mystery is equally picturesque and original. The five figures in front are truly remarkable. The elegant interesting figure of the woman, the fop with his hat in the air, the bully with the big sword, the man with the blunderbuss, and the bewildered rustic, to say nothing of the muffled figures on the coach, make up a perfectplay. There seems a flutter over all; it is like, as it was intended to be, a scene in a dream.
“Mr. Winkle Returns under Extraordinary Circumstances.” There is little difference between the plates, save as to the details of the objects in the cupboard. Inbsome bottles have been introduced on the top shelf. Mrs. Winkle’s is a pleasing, graceful figure in both, and improved and refined inb. Morespirit, too, is put into Mr. Pickwick’s figure as he rises in astonishment. It may be noted what a graceful type of womanhood then prevailed, the face being thrown out by “bands” of hair and ringlets, the large spreading bonnets and white veils. Mary wears an enormous bonnet or hat like her mistress.
“Mr. Sawyer’s Mode of Travelling.” The amazing spirit and movement of this picture cannot be too much praised. The chaise seems whirling along, so that the coach, meeting it, seems embarrassed and striving to get out of the way. The Irish family, struggling to keep up with the chaise, is inimitable. There are some changes inb. The man with the stick behind has a bundle or bag attached. The mother with her three children is a delightful group, and much improved in the second plate. The child holding up flowers is admirably drawn. The child who has fallen is given a differentattitude inb. The dog, too, is slightly altered.
“The Rival Editors.” There is little change made, save that more plates, jugs, etc., are introduced. The “row” is shown with extraordinary spirit. Note the grotesque effect of Pott’s face, shown through the cloth that Sam has put over his head. The onions have got detached from the hank hung to the ceiling, and are tumbling on the combatants, and—a capital touch this—the blackbird, whose cage has been covered over to secure its repose, is shown inbdashing against the bars. We might ask, however, what does the cook there, and why does she “trouble herself about the warming-pan”?
“Mary and the Fat Boy.” Both plates nearly the same, the languishing face of the Fat Boy admirable. Mary’s figure, as she draws the chair, charming, though somewhat stout at the back. The cook is present, and a plate laid for her, which is contrary to the text.
“Mr. Weller and his Friends Drinking to Mr. Pell.” Plates almost the same, save for a slight alteration in the faces, and a vinegar cruet introduced next to Mr. Pell’s oysters. Admirable and most original and distinct are the figures of the four coachmen, even the one of whom we have only a back view.
Perhaps no one of the plates displays Phiz’s vivid power so forcibly as the one of the trial “Bardell v. Pickwick.” Observe the dramatic animation, with the difficulty of treating a number of figures seated in regular rows. The types of the lawyers are truly admirable. In this latter piece there are no less than thirty-five faces, all characteristic, showing the peculiar smug and pedantic cast of the barristerial lineaments. Note specially the one at the end of the third bench who is engrossed in his brief, the pair in the centre who are discussing something, the two standing up. But what is specially excellent is the selection of faces for the four counsel concerned in the case. Nothing could be more appropriateor better suit the author’s description. What could excel, or “beat” Buzfuz with his puffed, coarse face and hulking form? His brother Serjeant has the dried, “peaked” look of the overworked barrister, and though he is in his wig we recognize him at once, having seen him before at his chambers. Mr. Phunkey, behind, is the well-meaning but incapable performer to be exhibited in his examination of Winkle; and Mr. Skimpin is the alert, unscrupulous, wide-awake practitioner who “made such a hare” of Mr. Winkle. The composition of this picture is indeed a work of high art.
In “Mr. Pickwick sliding,” how admirably caught is the tone of a genial, frosty day at a country-house, with the animation of the spectators—the charming landscape. In the scene of “Under the Mistletoe” at Manor Farm, the Fat Boy, by some mistake of size, cannot be more than five or six years old, and Tupman is shown on one knee “making up” to one of the young ladies.Beaux seemed to have been very scarce in the district where stout, elderly gentlemen were thus privileged.
The curious thing is that hardly a single face of Mr. Pickwick’s corresponds with its fellows, yet all are sufficiently like and recognizable. In the first picture of the club he is a cantankerous, sour, old fellow, but the artist presently mellowed him. The bald, benevolent forehead, the portly little figure, the gaiters, eye-glass and ribbon always put on expressively, seem his likeness. The “Mr. Pickwick sliding” and the “Mr. Pickwick sitting for his portrait in the Fleet” have different faces.
There has always been a sort of fascination in tracing out and identifying the Pickwickian localities. It is astonishing the number of persons that have been engrossed with this pursuit. Take Muggleton for instance, which seems to have hitherto defied all attempts at discovery. The younger Charles Dickens fancied that town, Malling, which lies to thesouth of Rochester. Mr. Frost, Mr. Hughes, and other “explorers” all have their favourite town. I, myself, had fixed on Maidstone as fulfilling the necessary conditions of having a Mayor and Corporation; as against this choice and that of all the towns that were south of Rochester there was always this fact, that Boz describes the party going up the street as they left Rochester, a route that led them north-east. But the late Miss Dickens—“Mamie” as she was affectionately called—in her pleasing and very natural little book, “My Father as I Recall Him,” has casually dropped a hint which puts us on the right track. When driving with her on the “beautiful back road to Cobham once, he pointed out a spot. There it was, he said, where Mr. Pickwick dropped his whip.” The distressed travellers had to walk some twelve or fourteen miles—about the distance of Muggleton—which was important enough to have a Mayor and Corporation, etc. We ourselves have walked this road, and it led us to—Gravesend.Gravesend we believe to be Muggleton—against all competitors. Further, when chasing Jingle, Wardle went straight from Muggleton to town, as you can do from Gravesend; from which place there is a long walk to Cobham.
For abundance of editions the immortal Pickwick can hold its own with any modern of its “weight, age, and size.” From the splendid yet unwieldyedition de luxe, all but Bible-like in its proportions, to the one penny edition sold on barrows in Cheapside, every form and pattern has been supplied.
The Gadshill Edition, with Introduction by Andrew Lang, has recently been issued by Messrs. Chapman and Hall, and is all that can be desired. Print, paper, and size are excellent, perfect, even captivating. The old illustrations, from the original plates, are bright and clear, unworn and unclogged with ink. The editor has been judiciously reserved in his introduction and annotations. While Mr. Lang’s lack of sympathy with Dickens is well-known,and, like Sam Weller after leaving the witness-box, he has said just as little respecting Mr. Pickwick as might be, “which was precisely the object he had in view all along.” But it almost seems as though one required to be “brought up” in Pickwick, so to speak, thoroughly to understand him. No true Pickwickian would ever have called Tuckle the Bath Footman, “Blazer,” or Jingle, “Jungle.” It were better, too, not to adopt a carping tone in dealing with so joyous and irresponsible a work. “Dickens,” we are told, “knew nothing of cricket.” Yet in his prime the present writer has seen him “marking” all day long, or acting as umpire, with extraordinary knowledge and enthusiasm. In Pickwickian days the game was not what it is now; it was always more or less irregular and disorderly. As proof of “Boz’s” ignorance, Mr. Lang says it is a mystery why Podder “missed the bad balls, blocked the doubtful ones, took the good ones, and sent them flying, etc.” Surely nothing could be plainer.He “missed”—that is, did not strike—the balls of which nothing could be made, blocked the dangerous ones, and hit the good ones all over the field. What more or what better could Dr. Grace do?
* * * * *
The original agreement for “Pickwick” I have not seen, though it is probably in existence, but there is now being shown at the Earl’s Court Victorian Era Exhibition a very interesting Pickwickian curio. When the last number had appeared, a deed was created between the two publishers, Edward Chapman and William Hall, giving them increased control over the book. It is dated November 18th, 1837, and sets out that the property consisted of three shares held by the two publishers and author. It was contracted that the former should purchase for a period of five years the author’s third share. And it was further stipulated that at the end of that term, they, and no one else, should have the benefit of any new arrangement. There wasalso an arrangement about purchasing the “stock,” etc., at the end of the term. No mention, however, is made of the terms or “consideration,” for which reference is made to another deed. The whole is commendably short and intelligible.
[24]As I write it is mentioned in some “society case” that the valet received £63 a year, and 30s. a month “beer money.”
[30]Not long since, we noticed the general merriment at the Victoria Station on the apparition of one of these curios carried by a rural looking man.
[34]Vide“History of Pickwick.”
[47]Note—We have even in London the regular Pickwickian publisher, whose work is stimulated by a generous ardour and prepared knowledge of “States,” Curios of all kinds associated with Boz in general, and Pickwick in particular. Among these is Mr. Spencer, of High Holborn—“who will get you up a Pickwick” with all the advertisements, wrappers, etc., within a reasonable period—and who will point out to you some mysterious error in the paging, which has escaped previous commentators. There is also Mr. Robson, of Coventry Street, and Mr. Harvey, of St. James’ Street.