”When We Lived at Henley, Barnes’s Gander Was Stole by Tinkers.”
[There might be some spoilers in the following text!]
This is one of the few sentences that are uttered by Mr. F.’s Aunt, an intimidating old lady who has the habit of throwing enigmatic sentences into people’s conversations when they least expect it, and I must say that this is one of my favourite sentences in Dickens’s novel Little Dorrit, just as Mr. F.’s Aunt is one of my favourite characters. This sentence is wonderfully whimsical and, containing a world of unsolved questions – Who was Barnes? How did he bear the loss of his gander? Was it a valuable gander? Were the tinkers ever brought to justice? –, it is a brilliant example of the fertility of Dickens’s imagination. It has nothing to do with the major theme of the novel – at least, not as far as I can make it out – but it shows how Dickens’s vivid imagination can spark off his readers’ imagination.
Little Dorrit, like many of Dickens’s later novels, is a paradigm of literary wealth, abounding in sub-plots and a host of characters that are all, as will eventually become clear, linked with each other, and it shows how Dickens skilfully interweaves all these different odds and ends with each other. The story focuses on middle-aged Arthur Clennam, who has been staying in China with his father, and who, after the father’s demise, comes back to London, suspecting that his parents are hiding a dark secret in that they have wronged somebody. His Calvinist and Sabbatharian mother, however, indignantly disclaims this idea, which makes Arthur relinquish any connection with the family business as he cannot help thinking that there is some family guilt that even haunts his stern and self-righteous mother. Why else should she patronize Amy Dorrit, a timid seamstress, and actively refuse to make any inquiries about Little Dorrit’s family connections – as though she feared she would learn something she might not want to know. Does she not know that Little Dorrit was born in the Marshalsea, the infamous debtors’ prison, where her father William Dorrit has been locked up for years? Strangely intrigued with Little Dorrit’s self-forbearance, Arthur follows her into the prison and makes the acquaintance of William Dorrit, who enjoys dubious fame as the “Father of the Marshalsea”, due to the length of time he has been confined to the place and who lives on whatever the other prisoners leave him as “testimonials”. In fact, he is a self-important scrounger. Unable to take his fate into his own hands, Mr. Dorrit finds his circumstances change, though, when it comes to light that he is the rightful heir to a vast fortune. All of a sudden, Mr. Dorrit is keen on moving in “Society”, and his youngest daughter, who has been his only support in times of need, is now short of an embarrassment to him. But time will tell whether his newly-found wealth is as reliable as his daughter Amy.
In Little Dorrit, Dickens confronts his readers with a variety of prisons. The novel’s opening chapter is set in a French prison – the description of the depressing Marseilles summer not falling much behind the famous London fog scene in Bleak House –, where we make the acquaintance of Rigaud, a cold-blooded murderer, and the second chapter sees some fellow travellers in quarantine. Most prominent, however, is the Marshalsea Prison, in which Dickens’s own father had been put for debt, and whose corrupting influence is hauntingly described – Dickens coins the telling phrase “prison rot” – using the example of Mr. Dorrit’s slow moral deterioration over the years. There are also other forms of imprisonment, though: Mrs. Clennam’s self-deceiving moral arrogance is illustrated by the fact that she is wheelchair-bound and has not left her room for years, and then there is the Circumlocution Office – Dickens’s satirical jab at inefficient bureaucracy –, whose sole purpose seems to be to forestall things from being done, which makes the country a prison for innovation, creativity and improvement.
Even a release from prison does not necessarily lead to freedom, as is shown in the case of William Dorrit, whose ludicrously pompous behaviour hardly conceals his insecurity. Again and again, he suspects his servants of knowing about his ignominious past and to be making fun of him, and so he displays the constant nervousness and pretentiousness of the social upstart. He basks in the glory of being seen with the Capitalist Mr. Merdle, who will, however, prove a fraud of the meanest kind, and tries to justify his claim to respectability by offering marriage to his daughters’ governess Mrs. General, whose philosophy of Prism and Prunes simply consists in limiting your conversation to “pleasant”, i.e. insipid, subjects. Mrs. General is a master-veneeress, and therefore an example of the second major motif of the novel: Deception, and the will to keep up appearances. Little Dorrit is full of hypocrites and frauds. In fact, it presents High Society as a breeding ground for deception and make-belief. The fraudulent Capitalist Merdle is like a Golden Calf around which Society’s dignitaries perform their obsequious dance. His wife is described as a Bosom dedicated to the display of jewellery. The Barnacle clan, in whose hands the Circumlocution Office rests, are experts at proving the usefulness of their institution by pointing out all the paper it produces – as you might have noticed, Dickens addresses current problems with the Merdle and the Barnacle plots. Mrs. Clennam hides her spite and her revengefulness behind the mask of religion and duty as much as Mr. Casby, a real estate owner, hides his avariciousness behind a placid exterior. The arch-villain Rigaud constantly refers to himself as a true gentleman – and seems like a hammy actor when doing so –, and Mr. Flintwinch, the wife-beater, thinly disguises his atrocities with the phrase of giving his wife a dose of medicine. Flora Finching, Arthur’s puppy love, indulges in the luxury of pretending that there is some secret understanding between Arthur and herself. There are also more complex forms of self-deception, as in the case of Miss Wade, who misconstrues every act of kindness she received as a child as an attempt to snub her, or of Arthur himself, who is so diffident in his pursuit of Pet Meagles, with whom he is in love, that she will finally become the wife of the brutal artist Gowan.
In most cases, truth will out in Little Dorrit, but Dickens has undoubtedly become more pessimistic in the course of his life because we will not see everyone getting their just deserts by the end of the novel. He is also more realistic than the younger Dickens in that Arthur Clennam is anything but a splendid, youthful hero – as Nicholas Nickleby or Martin Chuzzlewit; instead, Clennam stands out with regard to his helplessness, his passivity and his perplexity. He will only be saved through the combined efforts of those to whom he proved a reliable friend, and through the moral strength of Little Dorrit.
Although Little Dorrit needs some time to get its plot moving, I really liked the novel as a whole because there are a lot of satirical humour, an infinity of memorable characters, and some extremely brilliantly written passages, like Mr. Dorrit’s coach-trip back to Rome, or Dickens’s technique of letting background information seep in by and by in people’s conversations. All in all, Little Dorrit is one of the books that show me why I love Dickens so much.