CRUIKSHANK’S WATER COLOURS
By George Cruikshank
With Introduction By Joseph Grego
A. & C. Black London
1903
OLIVER TWIST
THE ADVENTURES OF A PARISH ORPHAN BY CHARLES DICKENS
ILLUSTRATED WITH 27 WATER COLOUR DRAWINGS BY GEORGE CRUIKSHANK
The illustrations in this volume have been engraved and printed by the
Carl Hentschel Colourtype Process.
INTRODUCTION
It is fair to characterise the three _suites_ of original water-colour
drawings, as executed by our artist, as _unique_ examples of the great
George Cruikshank’s special individual proficiency as an exponent of
this branch of technical dexterity. Moreover, it may be regarded as
a fortunate circumstance that the three works, here reproduced with
amazing fidelity in _facsimile_, represent happily the very _chefs
d’oeuvre_ of his wonderful productions; in their respective categories,
preserving the best examples of his remarkable genius as an imaginative
creator of vivid pictures, alike stirring and animated, and representing
at one glance his vast dramatic powers, his mastery of the humorous
side of life, and the intensity he was consistently able to infuse into
terrible and tragic scenes.
It is noteworthy that the inimitable artist George Cruikshank but rarely
produced finished water-colour drawings; the bulk of his prolific and
familiarly recognised designs for book illustrations were mostly dainty
pencil sketches, occasionally finished in pen and ink. It is a problem
difficult to solve satisfactorily whether, beyond the three memorable
instances of the works here reproduced in _facsimile_, there are in
existence any other _complete suites_ of original illustrations by
George Cruikshank--that is to say, fully executed by his master hand as
_finished water-colour drawings_. Tinted sketches may be found in the
prized possessions of Cruikshank collectors, and spirited studies for
many of his favourite and most successful subjects have been cleverly
touched in with watercolours; for instance, such as certain of his
original drawings as designed for the illustrations of Harrison
Ainsworth’s _Tower of London_, and the clever historical and picturesque
series of _Windsor Castle_ designs; these are, however, to be regarded
as exceptional cases, for the bulk of these most successful and popular
designs were carefully executed in pencil, or occasionally outlined with
the pen, and highly finished with washes of warm sepia. It is worthy
of recollection that Cruikshank was a most dexterous artist in this
monochrome branch, his earlier artistic experiences having been almost
exclusively in the walk of aqua-tinted etchings; all his early book
illustrations, his caricatures, and satirical plates--social or
political--were uniformly etched by his hand in the most spirited
fashion, after his ready sketches and rough studies, and when the
outline etching was bitten in, Cruikshank elaborately worked out
his colour suggestions, for light and shade, with a brush over the
first-etched outline, in tones of sepia or Indian ink, for the guidance
of the professional ‘aquatinters’--the school of artists to whose
trained skill was entrusted the task of completing these plates to
produce the effect of highly finished washed drawings in monochrome. By
this, his youthful practice, George Cruikshank had acquired remarkable
dexterity, his original pen-and-ink designs, and the outline etchings,
after his earlier book illustrations, being worked up in monochrome to
the dainty finish of delicate miniatures, in which art both his father
Isaac and his brother Isaac Robert were first-class proficients, as
he himself has recorded with pride in describing the special gifts and
qualifications which distinguished the Cruikshank family.
The present series includes the inimitable _suite_ of designs,
pictorially unfolding the progress and subsequent dramatic experiences
of a parish boy, as graphically related by the great literary genius
of CHARLES DICKENS in the realistic romance, universally appreciated
as--‘THE ADVENTURES OF OLIVER TWIST,’ with the truly interesting series
of characteristic pictures, so vividly delineating ‘Life in London’
in the Hogarthian time, at the date of the abortive Jacobite rising in
1745. A realistic panoramic _suite_, introducing marvellously faithful
pictures of antique localities of the old City of Westminster, with
life-like studies, reproducing the contemporary aspects of the past,
both topographically and socially, of the time-renowned pleasure resorts
of the era, when these amusements were at the height of their vogue, and
the entertainments which then attracted the crowd. The Mall, St. James’s
Park, with the world of fashion which formed its attraction; ‘The
Folly,’ a floating place of entertainment, opposite Somerset House;
Marylebone Gardens and Vauxhall Gardens at their palmiest date; the
gayest souvenirs of Ranelagh Gardens, with crowds of fashionable
frequenters, and rounds of enjoyable amusements. Spirited materials,
crowded with literary suggestions, which the artist, from his vast
experiences of the past, rejoiced to thus graphically and realistically
furnish to the author to further the creation of the sympathetic and
brilliant romance, subsequently written, embodying the diversified
phases of life in antique London, as suggested by George Cruikshank’s
_suite_ of graphic and life-like pictures of a brilliant past, which
lent their special attractions and interest to the most successful and
popular novel by HARRISON AINSWORTH, ‘THE MISER’S DAUGHTER,’ illustrated
with Twenty of George Cruikshank’s happiest pictures.
To the two foregoing and most noteworthy productions are added the third
_suite_ of original water-colour drawings, the most tragically terrible
of all George Cruikshank’s graphic productions, illustrating in the
unmistakably realistic manner characteristic of the artist’s genius for
delineating terrifying episodes, exhibiting with all tragic intensity
and the vigorous force of his imagination the lurid horrors of
revolution, as disclosed in the horrifying revelations of the sanguinary
atrocities which ensanguined with floods of gore the chronicles of ‘THE
IRISH REBELLION OF 1798,’ as disclosed in the actually terrific and
terrifying narrative--MAXWELL’S ‘HISTORY.’
George Cruikshank was too candidly honest an artist to conceal his
appreciative sense of the popular success which these xiii generally
familiar works had happily secured. The artist himself scorned to
disguise his pride in ‘these creatures of his brain,’ as he esteemed
them, with paternal admiration! On the strength of these famous dramatic
_suites_, with the designs so well known as constituting the pictorial
skeleton or framework of _Oliver Twist_, the designer extended his
claim for fuller recognition, to the point of feeling it a deep personal
grievance that the respective ‘gifted authors’ had wilfully adopted all
his best ideas, without the formality of acknowledging their literary
obligations and indebtedness to the artist himself. To do him full
justice, it must be acknowledged that from the date of their first
appearance in monthly parts, Cruikshank made these claims persistently
amongst friends and in the presence of mutual acquaintances.
The story of the injury, fanciful or real, was lengthy and vexatious,
and for the most part rather filled the minds of the artist’s
best-wishers with dismay; but as there had never been offered during
Dickens’s lifetime any sort of disproof that the ‘Parish Boy’s
Progress,’ as a pictorial _suite_, was one of George Cruikshank’s
numerous fruitful original suggestions, and _The Miser’s Daughter_
scheme was obviously completely his own as regards the main idea of
representing fashionable ‘Life in London’ in the days of Hogarth, just
as ‘Life in London’ of his jaunty youth had been by his hand portrayed
in the ‘Corinthian epoch’ of the sportive ‘Tom and Jerry’ doings under
the Regency era, the question in some degree resolved itself into the
distinctions between inspiration and clever hack-work, the art of making
the best possible use of suggested materials, wherein the faculty of
imagination makes the workman. The artist demonstrated that his genius
invented both series graphically, that the drawings, in the first
instance designed to simply tell the story on his own lines, later
suggested the development of their ideas to his literary collaborateurs,
at least as concerns the projection of _Oliver Twist_ and _The Miser’s
Daughter_ alike, both series strongly characteristic of Cruikshank’s
own peculiar genius; and confessedly the evidences of the drawings
completely justify his not unreasonable contention.
These original designs, executed as water-colour drawings, are all in
existence, and are here reproduced in _facsimile_.
Dickens never denied that the artist had in the first instance designed
the _suite_ of illustrations portraying a parish boy’s progress,
in advance of Boz’s undertaking to write _Oliver Twist_. Nor could
Ainsworth for an instant assume to claim the first idea of the scheme
of eighteenth century fashionable ‘Life in London,’ as it might have
unfolded itself panoramically to the observation of William Hogarth
himself--the effective _scenario_ of _The Miser’s Daughter_, in a word.
Moreover, subsequent _suites_--of correspondingly graphic and
melodramatic character--also similarly dramatised on their publication,
confirm the _bona fides_ of the artist’s somewhat startling theory,
which proved so disconcerting to the minds of George Cruikshank’s
actual literary collaborateurs.
In his monograph--‘A Critico-Biographical Essay upon George
Cruikshank’--Professor William Bates, B.A., has elucidated the
controversial aspects of these trying questions from his personal
impressions: ‘In viewing the representation of _The Bottle_, as produced
on the stage, an adaptation from Cruikshank’s famous series, one was
much more struck with the artist’s talent for seizing upon the most
dramatic situations of the story for the exercise of the pencil.’
Moncrieff, so the tale goes (_Every Night Booky or Life after Dark_,
1827), when he dramatised for the Adelphi ‘Tom and Jerry’ (_Life in
London_), ‘wrote his piece from Cruikshank’s plates,’ and ‘boiled his
kettle with Pierce Egan’s letterpress.’
Half a century later, Andrew Halliday, adapting _The Miser’s Daughter_
for the same theatre, made up his most effective scenes from the designs
of the artist.
It was on witnessing the performance of this latter, and finding his
part in its production was totally ignored--always a sensitive subject
with the combative veteran--that George Cruikshank was incited to make
that public vindication of his claim to a share in the authorship of
this and other works--notably _Oliver Twist_--illustrated by his hand,
and involving the candour and sense of justice of Ainsworth, Dickens,
and himself.
The aggrieved humorist, who had a fairly founded opinion of his own
gifts and reputation, and whose imaginative faculties were always
abnormally fervid, was still full of fight. Dickens had been at rest for
two years, but his biographer, John Forster, was in the flesh; as was W.
Harrison Ainsworth, Cruikshank’s colleague and partner of the ‘thirties’
and ‘forties,’ so that it is not surprising to find the artist in
1872--then an octogenarian veteran--entering fiercely upon a seemingly
Quixotic campaign against the before-time literary colleagues of his
prime era of artistic production, the period when his picturesquely
dramatic fancy evolved _The Parish Boys Progress, The Miser’s Daughter_,
and similarly popularly endorsed emanations of his hand and brain.
It was ever the ‘great George’s’ grievance that in his later years the
public assumed him to be his own descendant of the first or even second
generation. It was avowedly as a protest against this fairly natural
assumption that G. Cruikshank had carried out his famous and successful
‘_Exeter Hall Exhibition_’ in 1863. Under the circumstances related,
finding his well-recognised name and strongly-marked personality
steadily ignored or obscured, and smarting under intolerable injustices
and accumulated grievances--alike real and imaginary--the vigorous
genius of the opening of the eighteenth century, fighting hero as he was
constitutionally, re-entered the lists to vindicate his name and fame;
and, as he might well have foreseen, had not the burning sense of
unmerited wrongs obscured his perceptions, quickly had ‘a pretty
quarrel’ on his hands, his powers of onslaught hampered from the
circumstance that his present weapon was the pen, whereas his accustomed
arm for offence and defence was the etching-point, the weapon he had
been accustomed to wield with fine incisive spirit in earlier conflicts.
In the present tourney G. C. was confessedly under the manifest
disqualification of being ‘out of his element.’
Open as daylight, ‘a knight _sans peur et sans reproche_’--he gallantly
sought to unhorse his wily antagonist. The quarrel has left its record
in print, in pamphlet form, now reckoned _rarissime_:--
THE ARTIST AND THE AUTHOR
A statement of facts by the Artist, George Cruikshank, proving that the
Distinguished Author, Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth, is _labouring under a
singular delusion_ with respect to the origin of The Miser’s Daughter,
_The Tower of London_, etc.
In the following letter, which appeared in The Times of the 8th of April
1872, it will be seen that I therein claimed to be the Originator of a
tale or romance entitled ‘The Miser’s Daughter,’ which was _written_ by
Mr. Ainsworth and illustrated by me. G. C.
_To the Editor of ‘The Times’_
Sir--Under the heading of ‘Easter Amusements’ in _The Times_ of the
2nd inst. it is stated that Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth’s novel of
_The Miser’s Daughter_ had been dramatized by Mr. Andrew Halliday, and
produced at the Adelphi Theatre, and as my name is not mentioned in any
way in connection with the novel--not even as the illustrator--I shall
feel greatly obliged if you will allow me to inform the public through
the medium of your columns of the fact (which all my private friends are
aware of) that this tale of _The Miser’s Daughter_ originated from me,
and not from Mr. Ainsworth.
My idea suggested to that gentleman was to write a story in which the
principal character should be a miser, who had a daughter, and that the
struggles of feelings between the love for his child and his love
of money should produce certain effects and results; and as all my
ancestors were mixed up in the Rebellion of ‘45, I suggested that the
story should be of that date, in order that I might introduce some
scenes and circumstances connected with that great party struggle; and
also wishing to let the public of the present day have a peep at the
places of amusement of that period, I took considerable pains to give
correct views and descriptions of those places, which are now copied and
produced upon the stage; and I take this opportunity of complimenting my
friend Halliday for the very excellent and effective manner in which he
has dramatized the story.
I do not mean to say that Mr. Ainsworth when writing this novel did
not introduce some of his own ideas; but as the first idea and all the
principal points and characters emanated from me, I think it will be
allowed that the title of _originator_ of _The Miser’s Daughter_ should
be conferred upon, Sir, your obedient servant,
George Cruikshank.
263 Hampstead Road,
6th April 1872.
This letter brought forth the following reply from the _writer_ of this
romance:--
_To the Editor of ‘The Times’_
Sir--In a letter from Mr. George Cruikshank which appeared in _The
Times_ of to-day, that distinguished artist claims to be the originator
of _The Miser’s Daughter_. I content myself with giving the statement a
positive contradiction.
Mr. Cruikshank appears to labour under a singular delusion in regard
to novels he has illustrated; it is not long since he claimed to be the
originator of Mr. Dickens’s _Oliver Twist_.--Your faithful servant,
W. Harrison Ainsworth.
8th April 1872.
Upon seeing this ‘positive contradiction,’ I wrote a second letter to
_The Times_, which the Editor kindly inserted:--
‘THE MISER’S DAUGHTER’
To the Editor of ‘The Times’
Sir--I am fully aware that you will not allow any controversy to be
carried on in _The Times_ upon such a trifling matter as this; but as
Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth gives a positive contradiction to my statement
which appeared in _The Times_ on the 8th inst., I have to beg that you
will permit me to express my very great surprise at this denial, and
also to express my regret that his memory should be in such a defective
state, that he should have forgotten the circumstances and facts as to
the origin of _Oliver Twist_ and of _The Miser’s Daughter_; and I
regret also that this contradiction of his will compel me, in justice to
myself, to give, in a work I am preparing for the press, a full, true,
and particular account of all the professional transactions between
Mr. Ainsworth and myself, in which I shall prove, beyond all fear
of contradiction, that I am the sole originator of what is called
Ainsworth’s _Tower of London_, as well as another work bearing his name,
but the ideas and suggestions of which were given to him by, Sir, your
obedient servant, George Cruikshank.
10th April 1872.
P.S.--Allow me to add that it ought to be understood that it is one
thing for an artist to illustrate an author’s own ideas, and quite a
different matter when a literary man adopts and writes out the ideas of
another person.
This second letter brought forth another _contradiction_ (a _flat_ one)
from Mr. W. H. A.:--
To the Editor of ‘The Times’
Sir--I disdain to reply to Mr. Cruikshank’s preposterous assertions,
except to give them, as before, a flat contradiction.--Your faithful
servant, W. Harrison Ainsworth.
11th April 1872.
To this the Editor added:--‘We can publish no more letters on this
subject.’
It will be seen in my second letter that I intended to give an
explanation of this affair in a work I am preparing for the press, but,
as ‘delays are dangerous,’ it occurred to me that I had better bring
forward my statement without _delay_.
As Mr. Ainsworth’s _positive and flat contradictions_ and his
contemptible insinuation as to my _labouring under a singular delusion_
have led some persons to form erroneous ideas and to draw false
conclusions upon this question, I feel placed in a very serious position
as regards my _character for truthfulness_ and the _condition of my
intellect_; and I am therefore _compelled in self-defence_ to
place certain facts before the public to prove beyond the fear of
_contradiction_ that what I have asserted is the truth, and that it is
Mr. Ainsworth who is _labouring under a delusion_, or has unfortunately
lost his memory.
And in order that this question may be clearly understood, I now
proceed to give a full and particular account of all the professional
transactions between myself and Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth when we were
both on the most friendly terms and both working together to amuse
the public; and also to show how it was that this friendship and joint
labour ceased, now some twenty-eight years ago; and although I feel it
a positive duty to myself to make these statements, it is, nevertheless,
to me rather a painful task, well knowing that it will place Mr.
Ainsworth in a very awkward position as regards his conduct towards me,
the explanation of which he will feel bitterly, but which he has brought
upon himself, for had he, in common justice, acknowledged that _I
was the originator of certain ideas and characters up to which he had
written_, the facts which I am now about to state would never have been
placed before the public.
A question has been asked _publicly_, and which I grant is rather an
important one in this case, and that is, Why _have I not until lately
claimed to be the originator of ‘Oliver Twist’?_ To this I reply that
ever since these works were published, and even when they were in
progress, I have in private society, when conversing upon such matters,
always explained that the _original ideas and characters of these works
emanated from me_, and the reason why I _publicly_ claimed to be the
originator of _Oliver Twist_ was to defend Dr. K. Shelton Mackenzie, who
was charged by Mr. John Forster, in his _Life of Mr. Charles Dickens_,
with publishing a _falsehood_ (or a word of _three letters_ as he
describes it; Mr. Forster in a marginal note puts it thus: ‘Falsehood
ascribed to a distinguished artist’), whereas the Doctor was only
repeating what I had told him at the time _Oliver Twist_ was in
progress. Mr. Forster designates Dr. Mackenzie’s statement as ‘a
wonderful story,’ or ‘a marvellous fable,’ and in a letter from the
Doctor to the _Philadelphia Press_, December 19, 1871, he says: ‘My
_wonderful story was printed in an American periodical years before Mr.
Dickens died_.’ And then asks, ‘Why did not Mr. Forster inquire into
this matter, for surely he must have known it?’ And I presume Mr.
Dickens must also have heard of this ‘wonderful story,’ the truth of
which he _did not deny, for this reason--because he could not!_ And with
respect to Mr. Ainsworth’s insinuation as to _my_ ‘labouring under a
delusion’ upon this point, all my literary friends at that time knew
that I was the originator of _Oliver Twist_, and as Mr. A. and I were
at that time upon such intimate terms, and both working together on
_Bentley’s Miscellany_, is it at all likely that I should have concealed
such a fact from him? No! no! he knew this as well as I did, and,
therefore, in this matter at any rate, it is _he_ who is ‘labouring
under a delusion.’
And I will here refer to a part of my letter, which was published in
_The Times_, December 30, 1871, upon the origin of _Oliver Twist_,
wherein I state that Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Dickens came together one day
to my house, upon which occasion it so happened that I then and there
_described and performed_ the character of ‘Fagin’ for Mr. Dickens to
introduce into the work as a ‘receiver of stolen goods,’ and that some
time after this, upon seeing Mr. Ainsworth again, he said to me, ‘I was
so much struck with your description of that Jew to Mr. Dickens that I
think you and I could do something together.’ Now I do not know whether
Mr. Ainsworth has ever made any allusion to this; perhaps he _disdains_
to do so; but perhaps he may give this also a ‘positive contradiction’;
and, if he does, then all I have to say is that his memory is gone!
I will now explain the reason why I have _publicly_ asserted my right as
the originator of _The Miser’s Daughter_.
On the 1st of December 1871 there appeared in No. 28 of _The Illustrated
Review_ a short Biographical Sketch of Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth, with
a portrait of that gentleman; and in the list of the many and various
works written by him the following are placed in chronological order:
_No. 1, Rookwood; 2, Jack Shepherd; 3, Guy Fawkes; 4, The Tower of
London; 5, Old St. Pau’s; 6, The Miser s Daughter; 7, Windsor Castle; 8,
St. James’s; or, The Court of Queen Anne._
Now, six of these works were illustrated entirely by me, and
one--Windsor Castle--partly so, numbering altogether One Hundred and
Forty-Four of the very best designs and etchings which I have ever
produced; and yet in this Biographical Sketch _my name_ is not mentioned
in any way as connected with these works, which omission, I thought,
was not only very ungenerous but also very unjust. For, if Mr. W. H.
Ainsworth did not himself sketch out this ‘Biographical Sketch’ of
himself, he must have known full well what the writer was stating; and
he might as well have said to that gentleman, ‘Just mention that Mr.
George Cruikshank illustrated _several_ of the novels written by me,’
and have given the titles, and also have acknowledged that I _had_ given
him the original ideas of _three_ of the tales, and assisted him with
suggestions when these works were being produced; and, had he done this,
I should have been satisfied. But to be thus ignored altogether not only
created a feeling of surprise but also of dissatisfaction. And when
it was announced that Mr. Andrew Halliday had dramatised Ainsworth’s
_Miser’s Daughter_, I went to see the performance; and when I saw
represented on the stage _scenes and characters which had emanated from
me_ and my name not mentioned, I then publicly claimed to to be the
_originator_ of that romance, and to have suggested the original idea
and the characters to Mr. Ainsworth.
No. 2, _Jack Shepherd_, illustrated by me, and published in monthly
parts in _Bentley’s Miscellany_. This story _originated from Mr.
Ainsworth_, and, when preparing it for publication, he showed me about
two or three pages of manuscript on ‘post paper’; and _I beg that it
may be observed that this was the only bit of manuscript written by this
author that I ever saw in the whole course of my life!_
No. 4, _The Tower of London_, the Original Idea of which was suggested
by me to Mr. Ainsworth, and also _illustrated_ by me and published
in monthly numbers. In this work Mr. Ainsworth and I were _partners_
holding equal shares.
And now comes the question of how it should so happen, as Mr. W. H.
Ainsworth and I were such friends and fellow-workers and partners in the
work of _The Tower of London_, that he should have got another artist to
illustrate _Old St. Paul’s_ [‘one of my pet subjects, which I had nursed
in my brains for years, and which I had long intended to have placed
before the public with my own hands,’ as G. C. relates in another
charge)? And, after that was finished, to have employed a French artist
to illustrate _Windsor Castle_. Ay, _that is the question!_ And now
comes the answer and the reason for this most extraordinary proceeding.
I must here first state that as large sums of money had been realised
from my ideas and suggestions for the work of _Oliver Twist_, it
occurred to me one day that I would try and get a little of the same
material from the same source; and as Mr. Ainsworth and I were at that
time upon the most friendly--I may say brotherly--terms, I suggested to
him that we should jointly produce a work on our own account and publish
it in monthly numbers, and get Mr. Bentley to join us as the publisher.
Mr. Ainsworth was delighted with the idea of such a partnership, and
at once acceded to the proposition; and when I told him that I had a
capital subject for the first work he inquired what it was, and upon
my telling him it was _The Tower of London_, with some incidents in the
life of Lady Jane Grey, he was still more delighted; and I then told him
that I had long since seen the room in ‘the Tower’ where that beautiful
and accomplished dear lady was imprisoned, and other parts of that
fortress to which the public were not admitted, and if he would go with
me to the Tower I would show these places to him. He at once accepted
my offer, and off we went to ‘Hungerford Stairs,’ now the site of the
Charing Cross Railway Station, and whilst waiting on the beach for a
boat to go to London Bridge, we there met my dear friend the late W.
Jordan, the well-known editor and part-proprietor of _The Literary
Gazette_, who inquired where we were going to. My reply was that I was
taking Mr. Ainsworth a prisoner to the Tower! With this joke we parted.
I then took Mr. Ainsworth to the royal prison, and when we arrived there
I introduced him to my friend Mr. Stacey, the storekeeper, in whose
department were these ‘Chambers of Horrors’; and then and there did Mr.
Ainsworth, for the first time, see the apartment in which the dear Lady
Jane was placed until the day she was beheaded, or, in other words, the
day on which she was murdered, and which place I had long before made
sketches of for the purpose of introducing them in a _Life of Lady
Jane Grey_, and which for many years I had intended to place before the
public.
I have now most distinctly to state that Mr. Ainsworth _wrote up to
most of my suggestions and designs_, although some of the subjects we
_jointly_ arranged to introduce into the work; and I used every month
to send him the _tracings or outlines of the sketches or drawings_ from
which I was making the etchings to illustrate the work, _in order
that he might write up to them_, and that they should be _accurately
described_. And I beg the reader to understand that all these _etchings
or plates were printed and ready for publication before the letterpress
was printed_, and sometimes even before the Author _had written his
manuscript_; and I assert that I never saw a page of this work _until
after it was published_, and then hardly ever read a line of it. It is
a curious coincidence, but clearly proves what I have just stated with
respect to these _outlines or tracings_--that Mr. Ainsworth in January
last was applied to for _these and other tracings or outlines_, and his
reply was, that ‘_he would be very happy to send the tracings mentioned,
but he had no idea what had become of them, as he had not seen them
since ‘The Tower of London’ was published_. This letter I have in my
possession.
This _Tower of London_ became so very popular, that before it was
finished, a bookseller came to me and said if we brought out another
work similar in style and interest, that he would take 20,000 a month to
begin with, and pay ready money for them; and another bookseller offered
to take 25,000 or 30,000 a month upon the same terms.
When this work was completed, I told Mr. Ainsworth that I had another
capital subject for our next work. ‘Ah! what is it?’ said he; to which I
replied, ‘The Plague and the Fire of London.’
‘Oh!’ he exclaimed, ‘that _is_ first-rate!’
[The aggrieved Artist proceeded to state at length his sense of injury
at the hands of the Author, who, on the facts set forth, had not
considered Cruikshank’s rights in several instances, notably _Old Saint
Paul’s_ and _Windsor Castle_. This first break between the partners was
bridged over, owing to the peace-making overtures of a mutual friend,
and Cruikshank’s publication of The _Omnibus_ was suspended and finally
abandoned in favour of that artist consenting to collaborate (as
in _Bentley’s Miscellany_) in a new venture, namely _Ainsworth’s
Magazine_.]
The Artist’s statement is thus continued:--
Before _Ainsworth’s Magazine_ was published, advertisements were put
forth that I, George Cruikshank, was to be the illustrator thereof; and
_the Artist and the Author_ then held a consultation as to what tale or
romance we were to commence with, and which I was to _illustrate_; and,
well knowing the importance of having _an attractive subject for the
first number of a work, I then suggested to Mr. Ainsworth my idea of
‘The Miser’s Daughter’_ (the plot of which will be seen in my first
letter to _The Times_ upon this subject, and which I had originally
intended to have had written by some literary friend, and published it
in my ‘Omnibus’). This romance (as I expected), _with my illustrations,
did attract_ the public attention, and did to some extent make this
magazine a success.
There was published in _Ainsworth’s Magazine_, No. 2, March 1842, a
woodcut of a drawing made by me, _at Mr. Ainsworth’s suggestion, of the
Author and the Artist_, seated ‘in council,’ or conversing together in
his library. And surely this looks as if he then considered me something
more than a _mere illustrator_ of his magazine.
[Then follows a statement of the final break up of the friendly
collaboration of these old colleagues, explaining the Artist’s
grievances in connection with _Windsor Castle_--also contributed to
_Ainsworth’s Magazine_--and the fatal ending of these long associations,
when the Author, unaccountably disregarding Cruikshank’s joint
interests, elected to sell his magazine to the publishers; this seems to
have fairly disgusted the Artist.] Here is his indignant protest:--
So it really appears as if all this gentleman’s promises, like
pie-crust, were made to be broken; and as, in this instance, also, there
was not any _written agreement_, the _arrangements_ which he had made,
and the _engagements_ he had entered into with me, when I agreed to
work with him in his magazine, all broke down, and I, as it were, again
‘thrown overboard’ or ‘left in the lurch.’ And thus ended the second
edition of this Author’s extraordinary conduct towards the _Artist_.
I will not go into the details of how I assisted this _Author_ with head
and hand work in these novels, but I did my best to design and suggest.
The foregoing statements will, I think, clearly explain why I have
never, since that time (written 1872)--now some twenty-eight years
back--given any more _original ideas, suggestions, and characters_ for
any other tales or romances for Mr. Ainsworth _to write up to_; and
also why I have never, from that time, illustrated any of this Author’s
writings.
I now feel it necessary to inform the public that the usual or ordinary
way of producing illustrated novels or romances is, for an
Author either to write out, _from his own ideas_, the whole of the tale,
or in parts; the _manuscript or letterpress_ of which is then handed to
an Artist to _read and select subjects from_ for his illustrations,
or sometimes _for the Author to suggest to the Artist_ such subjects,
scenes, or parts as he might wish to be illustrated. And I, being known
generally only as an Artist, or illustrator, it would therefore very
naturally be supposed that, _in all cases_, I have merely worked out
_other men’s ideas_. But, if I have the opportunity, I shall be able to
show that _other men have sometimes worked out my ideas_--but this will
be for another occasion. And I will now explain that _Oliver Twist,
The Tower of London, The Miser’s Daughter_, etc., were produced in
an entirely different manner from what would be considered the usual
course; for _I, the Artist, suggested to the Authors of these works the
original idea or subject_--for them to write out--furnishing, at the
same time, _the principal characters and the scenes_; and then, as the
tale had to be produced in monthly parts, _the Writer or Author, and the
Artist_ had every month to arrange and settle what scenes or subjects
and characters were to be introduced; and the _Author_ had to _weave in_
such scenes as I wished to represent, and sometimes I had to work out
his suggestions.
And as to Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth’s ‘singular delusion’ of an artist
claiming to be the originator of works which he had merely illustrated,
no more absurd or contemptible and rubbishing nonsense could ever be
conceived; for no artist could possibly be in his right mind who would
make such a claim, and it becomes a serious question as to whether any
one who brings forth such nonsense can be in _his_ right mind, and
if this _Author_ has really lost his memory, and, as an invalid,
is suffering under ‘_singular delusions_,’ he has my pity and
commiseration.
I lay no claim to anything that has _originated_ from the mind of Mr.
Ainsworth, or any other man, but where _the original idea has emanated
from my own mind_, that I feel I have a right to claim, and by that
right I will stand firm, and I trust that at no distant date I may be
able to publish what I have already stated, to show the world how these
ideas originated in my mind, and why I wished to place them before the
public.
Amongst the many friends who were acquainted with the facts of this
case, I may mention the names of T. J. Pettigrew (the eminent surgeon),
the Rev. Canon Barham (author of the _Ingoldsby Legends_), Laman
Blanchard, Douglas Jerrold, Albert Smith, Mark Lemon, Gilbert A’Becket,
John Leech, Messrs. Bradbury and Evans, Richard Bentley, the publisher
of the _Miscellany_, and many other dear friends, now, to my sorrow,
passed away; but there are a few still living who are ready to
substantiate my statements one a clergyman of the City of London, an old
member of the Society of Antiquaries; another who is a literary man, a
member of the Conservative Club; and also a dear and valued friend, who
is a member of the Athenæum Club and Deputy Lord Lieutenant of one
of our counties. This friend sent a letter to several of the
newspapers--one of which was forwarded to me--a copy of which I here
insert:--
Origin of the Work entitled ‘The Tower of London’
_To the Editor of the ‘Liverpool Post’_
Sir--I hope you will allow me to say that it is half a century since
George Cruikshank has been my intimate and valued friend.
I have a vivid recollection of his drawings of the Tower, and of having
been frequently in company with the artist while these sketches were
in progress; the strong impression on my mind _was_, and _is_, that the
interesting tale called _The Tower of London_ was mainly written up
to George Cruikshank’s drawings, and that they, in a great measure,
suggested the story to Mr. Ainsworth.
I think it therefore only right that justice should be done in this
matter to the veteran artist who for so many years has amused the world,
and striven to raise its moral tone. I enclose my card, and have the
honour to be, yours, etc., A. B.
Athenæum Club, London,
22nd April 1872. I
I must add a postscript to say that respecting _The Miser’s Daughter_
I know nothing, as I was living on the Continent at the time it was
written; but this I do know, that George Cruikshank is a man of honour,
and would not assert anything he did not believe to be true.
OLIVER TWIST,
Or, The Parish Boy’s Progress
By Charles Dickens
CONTENTS
I TREATS OF THE PLACE WHERE OLIVER TWIST WAS BORN AND OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING HIS BIRTH
II TREATS OF OLIVER TWIST’S GROWTH, EDUCATION, AND BOARD
III RELATES HOW OLIVER TWIST WAS VERY NEAR GETTING A PLACE WHICH
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SINECURE
IV OLIVER, BEING OFFERED ANOTHER PLACE, MAKES HIS FIRST ENTRY INTO
PUBLIC LIFE
V OLIVER MINGLES WITH NEW ASSOCIATES. GOING TO A FUNERAL FOR THE
FIRST TIME, HE FORMS AN UNFAVOURABLE NOTION OF HIS MASTER’S
BUSINESS
VI OLIVER, BEING GOADED BY THE TAUNTS OF NOAH, ROUSES INTO ACTION,
AND RATHER ASTONISHES HIM
VII OLIVER CONTINUES REFRACTORY
VIII OLIVER WALKS TO LONDON. HE ENCOUNTERS ON THE ROAD A STRANGE
SORT OF YOUNG GENTLEMAN
IX CONTAINING FURTHER PARTICULARS CONCERNING THE PLEASANT OLD
GENTLEMAN, AND HIS HOPEFUL PUPILS
X OLIVER BECOMES BETTER ACQUAINTED WITH THE CHARACTERS OF HIS NEW
ASSOCIATES; AND PURCHASES EXPERIENCE AT A HIGH PRICE. BEING A
SHORT, BUT VERY IMPORTANT CHAPTER, IN THIS HISTORY
XI TREATS OF MR. FANG THE POLICE MAGISTRATE; AND FURNISHES A
SLIGHT SPECIMEN OF HIS MODE OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE
XII IN WHICH OLIVER IS TAKEN BETTER CARE OF THAN HE EVER WAS
BEFORE. AND IN WHICH THE NARRATIVE REVERTS TO THE MERRY OLD
GENTLEMAN AND HIS YOUTHFUL FRIENDS.
XIII SOME NEW ACQUAINTANCES ARE INTRODUCED TO THE INTELLIGENT READER,
CONNECTED WITH WHOM VARIOUS PLEASANT MATTERS ARE RELATED,
APPERTAINING TO THIS HISTORY
XIV COMPRISING FURTHER PARTICULARS OF OLIVER’S STAY AT MR.
BROWNLOW’S, WITH THE REMARKABLE PREDICTION WHICH ONE MR. GRIMWIG
UTTERED CONCERNING HIM, WHEN HE WENT OUT ON AN ERRAND
XV SHOWING HOW VERY FOND OF OLIVER TWIST, THE MERRY OLD JEW AND
MISS NANCY WERE
XVI RELATES WHAT BECAME OF OLIVER TWIST, AFTER HE HAD BEEN CLAIMED
BY NANCY
XVII OLIVER’S DESTINY CONTINUING UNPROPITIOUS, BRINGS A GREAT MAN TO
LONDON TO INJURE HIS REPUTATION
XVIII HOW OLIVER PASSED HIS TIME IN THE IMPROVING SOCIETY OF HIS
REPUTABLE FRIENDS
XIX IN WHICH A NOTABLE PLAN IS DISCUSSED AND DETERMINED ON
XX WHEREIN OLIVER IS DELIVERED OVER TO MR. WILLIAM SIKES
XXI THE EXPEDITION
XXII THE BURGLARY
XXIII WHICH CONTAINS THE SUBSTANCE OF A PLEASANT CONVERSATION BETWEEN
MR. BUMBLE AND A LADY; AND SHOWS THAT EVEN A BEADLE MAY BE
SUSCEPTIBLE ON SOME POINTS
XXIV TREATS ON A VERY POOR SUBJECT. BUT IS A SHORT ONE, AND MAY BE
FOUND OF IMPORTANCE IN THIS HISTORY
XXV WHEREIN THIS HISTORY REVERTS TO MR. FAGIN AND COMPANY
XXVI IN WHICH A MYSTERIOUS CHARACTER APPEARS UPON THE SCENE; AND MANY
THINGS, INSEPARABLE FROM THIS HISTORY, ARE DONE AND PERFORMED
XXVII ATONES FOR THE UNPOLITENESS OF A FORMER CHAPTER; WHICH DESERTED
A LADY, MOST UNCEREMONIOUSLY
XXVIII LOOKS AFTER OLIVER, AND PROCEEDS WITH HIS ADVENTURES
XXIX HAS AN INTRODUCTORY ACCOUNT OF THE INMATES OF THE HOUSE, TO
WHICH OLIVER RESORTED
XXX RELATES WHAT OLIVER’S NEW VISITORS THOUGHT OF HIM
XXXI INVOLVES A CRITICAL POSITION
XXXII OF THE HAPPY LIFE OLIVER BEGAN TO LEAD WITH HIS KIND FRIENDS
XXXIII WHEREIN THE HAPPINESS OF OLIVER AND HIS FRIENDS, EXPERIENCES A
SUDDEN CHECK
XXXIV CONTAINS SOME INTRODUCTORY PARTICULARS RELATIVE TO A YOUNG
GENTLEMAN WHO NOW ARRIVES UPON THE SCENE; AND A NEW ADVENTURE
WHICH HAPPENED TO OLIVER
XXXV CONTAINING THE UNSATISFACTORY RESULT OF OLIVER’S ADVENTURE; AND
A CONVERSATION OF SOME IMPORTANCE BETWEEN HARRY MAYLIE AND ROSE
XXXVI IS A VERY SHORT ONE, AND MAY APPEAR OF NO GREAT IMPORTANCE IN
ITS PLACE, BUT IT SHOULD BE READ NOTWITHSTANDING, AS A SEQUEL
TO THE LAST, AND A KEY TO ONE THAT WILL FOLLOW WHEN ITS TIME
ARRIVES
XXXVII IN WHICH THE READER MAY PERCEIVE A CONTRAST, NOT UNCOMMON IN
MATRIMONIAL CASES
XXXVIII CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT PASSED BETWEEN MR. AND MRS.
BUMBLE, AND MR. MONKS, AT THEIR NOCTURNAL INTERVIEW
XXXIX INTRODUCES SOME RESPECTABLE CHARACTERS WITH WHOM THE READER IS
ALREADY ACQUAINTED, AND SHOWS HOW MONKS AND THE JEW LAID THEIR
WORTHY HEADS TOGETHER
XL A STRANGE INTERVIEW, WHICH IS A SEQUEL TO THE LAST CHAMBER
XLI CONTAINING FRESH DISCOVERIES, AND SHOWING THAT SUPRISES, LIKE
MISFORTUNES, SELDOM COME ALONE
XLII AN OLD ACQUAINTANCE OF OLIVER’S, EXHIBITING DECIDED MARKS OF
GENIUS, BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARACTER IN THE METROPOLIS
XLIII WHEREIN IS SHOWN HOW THE ARTFUL DODGER GOT INTO TROUBLE
XLIV THE TIME ARRIVES FOR NANCY TO REDEEM HER PLEDGE TO ROSE MAYLIE.
SHE FAILS.
XLV NOAH CLAYPOLE IS EMPLOYED BY FAGIN ON A SECRET MISSION
XLVI THE APPOINTMENT KEPT
XLVII FATAL CONSEQUENCES
XLVIII THE FLIGHT OF SIKES
XLIX MONKS AND MR. BROWNLOW AT LENGTH MEET. THEIR CONVERSATION,
AND THE INTELLIGENCE THAT INTERRUPTS IT
L THE PURSUIT AND ESCAPE
LI AFFORDING AN EXPLANATION OF MORE MYSTERIES THAN ONE, AND
COMPREHENDING A PROPOSAL OF MARRIAGE WITH NO WORD OF SETTLEMENT
OR PIN-MONEY
LII FAGIN’S LAST NIGHT ALIVE
LIII AND LAST
CHAPTER I -- TREATS OF THE PLACE WHERE OLIVER TWIST WAS BORN AND OF
THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING HIS BIRTH
Among other public buildings in a certain town, which for many
reasons it will be prudent to refrain from mentioning, and to which
I will assign no fictitious name, there is one anciently common
to most towns, great or small: to wit, a workhouse; and in this
workhouse was born; on a day and date which I need not trouble
myself to repeat, inasmuch as it can be of no possible consequence
to the reader, in this stage of the business at all events; the item
of mortality whose name is prefixed to the head of this chapter.
For a long time after it was ushered into this world of sorrow and
trouble, by the parish surgeon, it remained a matter of considerable
doubt whether the child would survive to bear any name at all; in
which case it is somewhat more than probable that these memoirs
would never have appeared; or, if they had, that being comprised
within a couple of pages, they would have possessed the inestimable
merit of being the most concise and faithful specimen of biography,
extant in the literature of any age or country.
Although I am not disposed to maintain that the being born in a
workhouse, is in itself the most fortunate and enviable circumstance
that can possibly befall a human being, I do mean to say that in
this particular instance, it was the best thing for Oliver Twist
that could by possibility have occurred. The fact is, that there was
considerable difficulty in inducing Oliver to take upon himself the
office of respiration,--a troublesome practice, but one which custom
has rendered necessary to our easy existence; and for some time
he lay gasping on a little flock mattress, rather unequally poised
between this world and the next: the balance being decidedly in
favour of the latter. Now, if, during this brief period, Oliver had
been surrounded by careful grandmothers, anxious aunts, experienced
nurses, and doctors of profound wisdom, he would most inevitably
and indubitably have been killed in no time. There being nobody by,
however, but a pauper old woman, who was rendered rather misty by
an unwonted allowance of beer; and a parish surgeon who did such
matters by contract; Oliver and Nature fought out the point between
them. The result was, that, after a few struggles, Oliver breathed,
sneezed, and proceeded to advertise to the inmates of the workhouse
the fact of a new burden having been imposed upon the parish, by
setting up as loud a cry as could reasonably have been expected
from a male infant who had not been possessed of that very useful
appendage, a voice, for a much longer space of time than three
minutes and a quarter.
As Oliver gave this first proof of the free and proper action of his
lungs, the patchwork coverlet which was carelessly flung over the
iron bedstead, rustled; the pale face of a young woman was raised
feebly from the pillow; and a faint voice imperfectly articulated
the words, ‘Let me see the child, and die.’
The surgeon had been sitting with his face turned towards the fire:
giving the palms of his hands a warm and a rub alternately. As the
young woman spoke, he rose, and advancing to the bed’s head, said,
with more kindness than might have been expected of him:
‘Oh, you must not talk about dying yet.’
‘Lor bless her dear heart, no!’ interposed the nurse, hastily
depositing in her pocket a green glass bottle, the contents of which
she had been tasting in a corner with evident satisfaction.
‘Lor bless her dear heart, when she has lived as long as I have,
sir, and had thirteen children of her own, and all on ‘em dead
except two, and them in the wurkus with me, she’ll know better than
to take on in that way, bless her dear heart! Think what it is to be
a mother, there’s a dear young lamb do.’
Apparently this consolatory perspective of a mother’s prospects
failed in producing its due effect. The patient shook her head, and
stretched out her hand towards the child.
The surgeon deposited it in her arms. She imprinted her cold white
lips passionately on its forehead; passed her hands over her face;
gazed wildly round; shuddered; fell back--and died. They chafed her
breast, hands, and temples; but the blood had stopped forever. They
talked of hope and comfort. They had been strangers too long.
‘It’s all over, Mrs. Thingummy!’ said the surgeon at last.
‘Ah, poor dear, so it is!’ said the nurse, picking up the cork of
the green bottle, which had fallen out on the pillow, as she stooped
to take up the child. ‘Poor dear!’
‘You needn’t mind sending up to me, if the child cries, nurse,’ said
the surgeon, putting on his gloves with great deliberation. ‘It’s
very likely it _will_ be troublesome. Give it a little gruel if it
is.’ He put on his hat, and, pausing by the bed-side on his way to
the door, added, ‘She was a good-looking girl, too; where did she
come from?’
‘She was brought here last night,’ replied the old woman, ‘by the
overseer’s order. She was found lying in the street. She had walked
some distance, for her shoes were worn to pieces; but where she came
from, or where she was going to, nobody knows.’
The surgeon leaned over the body, and raised the left hand. ‘The
old story,’ he said, shaking his head: ‘no wedding-ring, I see. Ah!
Good-night!’
The medical gentleman walked away to dinner; and the nurse, having
once more applied herself to the green bottle, sat down on a low
chair before the fire, and proceeded to dress the infant.
What an excellent example of the power of dress, young Oliver Twist
was! Wrapped in the blanket which had hitherto formed his only
covering, he might have been the child of a nobleman or a beggar;
it would have been hard for the haughtiest stranger to have assigned
him his proper station in society. But now that he was enveloped in
the old calico robes which had grown yellow in the same service, he
was badged and ticketed, and fell into his place at once--a
parish child--the orphan of a workhouse--the humble, half-starved
drudge--to be cuffed and buffeted through the world--despised by
all, and pitied by none.
Oliver cried lustily. If he could have known that he was an orphan,
left to the tender mercies of church-wardens and overseers, perhaps
he would have cried the louder.