Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Bleak House
>
Bleak House Week 1 - Chapters 1-7
For me, reading Dickens has always been a challenge. Perhaps I perceived him as too "wordy" or wasn't able to relate or sympathize with many of the characters in some of the other works (David Copperfield, Great Expectations, Tale of Two Cities....all begun, only 1 finished). However, I've found that participating in a book discussion with others has made even the most challenging works incredibly enjoyable (I loved last year's War and Peace discussion), so I look forward to continuing with Bleak House.
What's particularly intriguing to me about the dual narratives is that it leaves me with a sense of anticipation as to just how Dickens might relate these seemingly two independent stories in the upcoming sections of the novel. Having never read BH, I don't know what is in store, but if can't imagine that these two story lines would remain perpetually interdependent (or else, I suppose, he would have written two distinct books). I think that in contrast to previous Dickensian works I've attempted, this dual narrative structure is actually drawing me in with more curiosity than otherwise has been the case. And while I may not fully understand all the characters, or even the plot line so much at this point, I must say that I'm very intrigued.
Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: so she would have been 12 or 13 when she went to the school. So we need to treat the burying of the doll really as the act of child, barely adolescent, not an adult. .."I do think that age is a point where she might be just upon the cusp. ..."
I agree that she might have viewed playing with dolls as a sign of childhood and had an urge to leave the trappings of her childhood, in this case, a doll, behind. But perhaps some of that motivation also came from a desire to leave the bad things behind. Children are often very emotionally aware of themselves.
Everyman wrote: She spent six years there (which she totally glosses over to the point that they are almost forgotten by us as soon as she leaves there)...
I also found it interesting that Dickens glossed over this time so much. In fact this reminded me greatly of Jane Eyre and I wonder if Dickens deliberately skipped over this in order to avoid comparisons to that book since it had come out only a few years earlier.
Charles wrote: "It seems to me that the early chapters are more connected than has been said. ..."
Thanks for that insight. I didn't notice those connections when I read the first chapters.
Audrey wrote: "The third-person chapters of Bleak House are reminding me of why I love Dickens' writing. The first chapter is, in my opinion, a masterpiece, probably my favorite first chapter in literature. His..."Nice passages. Yes, the treatment of the Dedlocks is wonderful, and probably does reflect fairly accurately the self-opinions of some of the haughtier of the noble families of England and their housekeepers. (The housekeeper was a very important person in the great houses of the time; the highest ranking female servant with great responsibilities and respect.)
Kyle wrote: " I can't imagine that these two story lines would remain perpetually interdependent "I assume you mean independent. And I suspect that you're quite right -- that they will intersect further down the line.
Tiffany wrote: "I also found it interesting that Dickens glossed over this time so much. In fact this reminded me greatly of Jane Eyre and I wonder if Dickens deliberately skipped over this in order to avoid comparisons to that book since it had come out only a few years earlier."Interesting point. In addition, Vanity Fair, with its early school scenes, had also come out a few years earlier. And he had dealt very significantly with a boys school in Nicholas Nicholby, and might not have wanted to do another school section.
A further reason might have been that her time at school really had very little relevance to the story (other than to show a bit of her character as being beloved of all the girls), and he wanted to get on with things quickly in these early chapters (early readers might well have gotten bogged down in a description of what it seems likely would have been a fairly benign and uninteresting school experience.)
Audrey wrote: "..For me, the juxtaposition of all that personal tragedy with a relentlessly positive narrative voice creates a very interesting narrative dynamic...."Thanks for that comment, Audrey. Captures my impression so accurately, yet I would never have pulled it together than way.
Very Victorian? Very Dickensian?
Everyman wrote: A further reason might have been that her time at school really had very little relevance to the story (other than to show a bit of her character as being beloved of all the girls), and he wanted to get on with things quickly."I am inclined to agree with that. I think that the reason why we are not given much detail of her early school experiences is because they are not really that significant, and don't really matter very much to the story. To go into more depth upon that period of her life would have just felt like unnecessary filler and probably not been particularly interesting. I think we are to infer that nothing of really importance of interest happened during this time hence why we are not really told anything about it.
Everyman wrote: "But she goes from her Windsor home not to be the professional companion, but to Miss Donnys' boarding school in Reading. Would it be so strange for a boarding student entering a new school for the first time to bring a little doll with her? She spent six years there (which she totally glosses over to the point that they are almost forgotten by us as soon as she leaves there), at which time as best I can tell she was 18 or maybe 19, so she would have been 12 or 13 when she went to the school. So we need to treat the burying of the doll really as the act of child, barely adolescent, not an adult...."Eman -- please say more if you would about why this particular incident draws your attention. Because you know from your daughters and grandchildren dolls can mean so much to a young woman/girl? To draw our attention to something Dickens is doing in the story? Because it may draw a contrast between attitudes then and attitudes now towards and about children? Some other reason? Because it indicates Esther may not always choose what is necessary, at least from the readers' perceptive, but does develop her conception of what is and acts on it. Because Dickens doesn't provide a stated cause? Or just because....
A girl of thirteen is, in her own mind, no longer a child. Since Esther is narrating this section, it is very natural that she would put away childish things. The burial of the doll symbolizes the death of sad associations. My thoughts, anyway.
What are we to think of all the birds in this section? There are Miss Flyte's caged birds, of course, but before that, Esther's bird in a cage, the only companion she took with her to school, and later, the birds of Mr Skimpole's fancies, a bird cage in the hallway, and the device Mrs Rouncewell's second son invented to help the birds get their water.
Laurele wrote: "A girl of thirteen is, in her own mind, no longer a child. Since Esther is narrating this section, it is very natural that she would put away childish things. The burial of the doll symbolizes the ..."I agree. I remember having pretty deep thoughts at that age. And Esther, who went through so much, was undoubtedly older than her years.
Laurele wrote: "What are we to think of all the birds in this section? There are Miss Flyte's caged birds, of course, but before that, Esther's bird in a cage, the only companion she took with her to school, and l..."To me, Miss Flyte's caged birds are a metaphor for all the individuals ensnared (in Limbo?) in J vs. J. This is reinforced (to me) by her plan to release them on the day of Judgment.
Miss Flyte is a fascinating character to me. I have lots of thoughts about her, but they will come at the appropriate time...later in the story. But her name is interesting, don't you think?
Paula wrote: "Miss Flyte is a fascinating character to me. I have lots of thoughts about her, but they will come at the appropriate time...later in the story. But her name is interesting, don't you think?"A most appropriate name for the flighty little bird lady, Paula.
Lily wrote: Eman -- please say more if you would about why this particular incident [burying the doll] draws your attention. "First, because Dickens mentions it. I find that, as with Plato, almost everything Dickens says has meaning. So I take there to be meaning here.
It's not as though she simply discarded the doll, which I think most girls of 13 or so who felt they were done with a doll would have done. (Do you know any girls who are finished with dolls actually burying them rather than just leaving them in the toy box or even giving them to some other child?) She went to the trouble of digging a grave and burying it. Why? I don't understand it, and I think there is probably something here to understand, or else Dickens would just have had her do something less dramatic with it.
The nearest thing I can think is that since she just buried her godmother, she had in her mind that this was the way to end a life. But she didn't like the godmother, and so burying in a grave is something she saw done with a person she didn't really care for -- so why do it with the most precious object in her life, make that parallel with her godmother?
I don't like not understanding things I think I should, so I ask for help, for how others understood it.
Enough explanation? [g]
Laurele wrote: "What are we to think of all the birds in this section? There are Miss Flyte's caged birds, of course, but before that, Esther's bird in a cage, the only companion she took with her to school, and l..."I was just thinking about that, too, about Esther taking the bird with her to school (though so far we haven't heard of it again -- did it die or did she give it away?) and Miss Flyte's birds. But Esther doesn't seem to pay any more attention to the birds than any of the others, which is perhaps strange as she once had one.
Paula wrote: "To me, Miss Flyte's caged birds are a metaphor for all the individuals ensnared (in Limbo?) in J vs. J. This is reinforced (to me) by her plan to release them on the day of Judgment. "I agree. Plus there is the contrast between a bird, which (when uncaged) is free to wander all through the skies, and the humans, who trudge through dense fog and noisome mire.
Everyman wrote: "Paula wrote: "To me, Miss Flyte's caged birds are a metaphor for all the individuals ensnared (in Limbo?) in J vs. J. This is reinforced (to me) by her plan to release them on the day of Judgment. ..."On the other hand, a bird that is kept by a human is cared for. The stresses of avoiding predators and food competition are not there. While I'm not arguing for or against keeping animals in a zoo or as a pet, kept animals tend to live longer. Perhaps Dickens didn't know this but it does pose an interesting question: if as a ward of J v J, you knew you would always have a meal and a house, would you prefer that to the uncertainty and stress of going out and earning your own way? (Of course, I'm assuming that housing and food is provided for those who are considered wards of the case but I don't know that much about the legalities of the Court of Chancery.)
Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: Eman -- please say more if you would about why this particular incident [burying the doll] draws your attention. "But she didn't like the godmother, and so burying in a grave is something she saw done with a person she didn't really care for ..."
I'm not so sure that Esther would have necessarily had such a negative view of burials. Either from her own life experiences; I find it hard to believe that she made it to the age of 13 without any knowledge of burials. Also, while she didn't like her godmother she may still have felt some strong emotional connection. For example, I don't like my grandmother but I do love her. Or perhaps, it's a case of Stockholm syndrome.
Tiffany wrote: "On the other hand, a bird that is kept by a human is cared for. The stresses of avoiding predators and food competition are not there. While I'm not arguing for or against keeping animals in a zoo or as a pet, kept animals tend to live longer."I think this does pose an interesting question because I can see the good and the bad of both sides. On the one hand there is something to be said for the stability and care which might come with being a ward. It is a secure position in which you are provided for with food and shelter and other such necessities which would be otherwise uncertain when one is left to their own derives.
On the other hand can you truly feel like your own person if you are kept as a ward indefinitely? And depending upon the individual a person might not like the feeling of living off another. There would only be a sense of having no real closure if you never receive a judgement. There is something to be said for being independent even with the risks and hardships which might go along with it.
I think it depends a great deal on who keeps the animals in question. Poor Miss Flyte, as Esther emphasizes) is in a precarious position when it comes to her own food. These birds are not the pampered pets of some loving and comfortably-off individual. Their daily meals are probably almost as uncertain as Miss Flyte's. Like Miss Flyte, they live in a small, musty room. This room, moreover, is doubly deprived of fresh air: Lady Jane stalks the windows, and, even if a window could be opened, it would only let in the foggy, dirty London air Dickens describes in Chapter 1.At the same time, you make a good point. One does have to wonder what would happen if the birds ever were let free. My guess is that it wouldn't be anything good. Their life in captivity is bound to have damaged their ability to thrive in the wild. What does this say about the unfortunate victims of Chancery court, if they ever manage to be liberated? If we are to judge by the fate of Miss Flyte, their futures aren't terribly promising.
On the subject of Esther's doll, I think Paula puts it beautifully in post 28. I'm thoroughly persuaded.
Tiffany wrote: I'm not so sure that Esther would have necessarily had such a negative view of burials. Either from her own life experiences..."I agree though she may not have had positive feelings regarding her godmother I would not presume that this means all of her experiences with burial is by default a negative one. I think in many ways it is symbolic of the death of her past/childhood.
Her burying the doll (as she does connect burial with death) may be reflective of her putting to rest the pain of her past and the death of her final connection to her godmother, and that former life of hers. She is trying to put all of that away behind her before she does move forward into her new life.
Tiffany wrote: "On the other hand, a bird that is kept by a human is cared for. The stresses of avoiding predators and food competition are not there. While I'm not arguing for or against keeping animals in a zoo or as a pet, kept animals tend to live longer. "If we use this idea, then Flyte's plan to let them go when the case of JvJ is over represents an act of cruelty, danger, and likely death.
Everyman wrote: Flyte's plan to let them go when the case of JvJ is over represents an act of cruelty, danger, and likely death...And if we bring this back to Paula's analogy (#63) then couldn't the end of the J v J case also be seen as a sign of cruelty to those involved? Although, other than those who get paid to work the case, I don't really see the potential cruelty that the end of the case could represent to wards of the case.
Is there any significance to the rags and bottles in Mr. Krook's shop? I am not sure of the meaning of the shop other than it seems a repository for trash and is a way to equate legal books and legal documents to trash since those are also in the store's inventory. If so, does that mean the weird old woman who lives there is empty (like an empty bottle), or a wasted life (like a rag) from JvJ?I am also searching for some deeper meaning from Mr. Krook's inability to read, yet he deals in all of these legal books and documents. Although he does manage to link Bleak House to the JvJ case one letter at a time. Also, if Mr. Krook cannot read, which Esther discovers in very short order, why would anyone send documents for someone else in his care? It appears these documents were never read and thus still sit there undelivered. Nemo? Verne's captain of the Nautilus? Is that why the shop also deals in marine stores?
David wrote: "Is there any significance to the rags and bottles in Mr. Krook's shop? I am not sure of the meaning of the shop other than it seems a repository for trash and is a way to equate legal books and le..."As someone said earlier: "Read on McDuff" :). Bleak House is a big book, but I have never found it to contain anything extraneous. For me, everything has its place and is there for a purpose.
Your two points (I love how you picked up on them right away), the puzzlement they create so early in the novel, and how they intersect later on, to me are just so, well, cool.
David wrote: "Is there any significance to the rags and bottles in Mr. Krook's shop? I am not sure of the meaning of the shop other than it seems a repository for trash..."We'll have to see whether there is significance to the shop down the road. But it wasn't an unusual shop to find in London. Just this afternoon I started reading The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic--and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World, and the opening sentences are: "It is August 1854 [two years after Bleak House started appearing in serial form] and London is a city of scavengers. Just the names alone read now like some kind of exotic zoological catalogue: bone-pickers, rag-gatherers, pure-finders [pure is dog leavings], dredgermen, mud-larks, sewer-hunters, dustmen, night-soil men, bunters, toshers, shoremen. These were the London underclasses, at least a hundred thousand strong....the scavengers of Victorian London weren't just getting rid of that refuse -- they were recycling it."
So Krook's shop is really a recycling center. Presumably there is some market for these goods, even for the rags (the few clean white rags would being 2d to 3d per pound; coloured ones fetched about 5 pounds for 2d.) And in another Dickens novel, Our Mutual Friend, the dust heaps (garbage piles) are a central aspect of the story, and they are quite valuable.
So Krook's could be quite a respectable business for the underclasses of the city.
The interesting thing about Krook's shop in particular, though, is that he seems more hoarder than shop keeper. As Esther puts it, everything seems to be bought and nothing sold (or something to that effect). He's a gatherer of the grimmer artifacts of chancery, and he keeps even things he has no real use for. Since he can't read, he can get no conceivable value out of the Jarndyce and Jarndyce papers. Yet, he keeps them and tries to decipher them, a letter at a time.
Everyman wrote: " These were the London underclasses, at least a hundred thousand strong....the scavengers of Victorian London weren't just getting rid of that refuse -- they were recycling it.""That helps clarify that the shop is more of a "normal" phenomenon than I was thinking and also takes away some of the mystery of Mr. Krook's inability to read. Although as Audrey points out in message 80 that Esther specifically noted, "Everything seemed to be bought and nothing to be sold there."
I found this article about modern day rag-and-bone men you might be interested in.
The end of the road for the rag-and-bone man
One quote confirms the recycling aspect of the trade:
"'The stuff these yuppies throw away could make them a fortune at a car boot sale, but they can't be bothered. They love the idea of recycling though, and when they think of it, handing things on to the local rag-and-bone man really appeals."
Apparently, according to a barman interviewed for the story, they are still a little M
I reckon they fancy themselves as freemasons or something, guarding some amazing secret, but the secret is there isn't no secret. They're just crazy old totters who don't know when to call it a day.'
The story also gives the impression these professions are now being regulated out of existence. Maybe they should switch to having yardsales and just stick to 10 cents per can or bottle?
David wrote: "Everyman wrote: " These were the London underclasses, at least a hundred thousand strong....the scavengers of Victorian London weren't just getting rid of that refuse -- they were recycling it.""..."
There is a strong barter culture one can read about in the sociology literature. My aged mother is a part of it, and when she lived in a bigger house it was like a faint image of Krook's. This, however, is distinct from the hoarder. Bartering people really do recycle. Krook is a hoarder.
Tiffany wrote: "Everyman wrote: Flyte's plan to let them go when the case of JvJ is over represents an act of cruelty, danger, and likely death...And if we bring this back to Paula's analogy (#63) then couldn't ..."
There are good, satisfying answers to this, but they are spoilers, so I don't know what to say except to refer to Paula's #78. In important ways the interconnectivity of this book makes it hard to talk about except as a whole. As we see here, good readers jump right away on central issues which may not be fully developed for 500 pages.
Can someone explain the reference to cast iron boxes in the attorney's office (chapter 2)? A quick google search came up short.
Charles wrote: "David wrote: "Everyman wrote: " These were the London underclasses, at least a hundred thousand strong....the scavengers of Victorian London weren't just getting rid of that refuse -- they were rec..."There's a rag-and-bone shop in "Dombey and Son."
David wrote: "Also, if Mr. Krook cannot read, which Esther discovers in very short order, why would anyone send documents for someone else in his care?..."Maybe his inability to read is precisely what makes him an ideal trustee for sensitive docs.
I am perplexed by the reactions of Jarndyce, Richard, Esther and Ada to the character of Skimpole. I felt anger at Dickens for imbuing them with such ignorance (I wanted to say stupidity, but had a moment of generosity). I find it hard to even talk about Skimpole without making comments that might be offensive or at best polemic, yet our character friends find him charming. I suppose I'll have to read on to find out how wrong I will have been to judge him.
Ooo Skimpole. Very difficult to put up with. Commentary on the gullibilities we all have. Scary. These people are chumps to accept him. But they are chumps generally. How they deal with that is part of the story. I tend to skip the part with Skimpole in them, is how I deal with it.
David wrote: "barman interviewed for the story, they are still a little M"..."
I wanted to ask about that M. Is it 'mad?' Why didn't he spell it out? Is it like when we were little and they'd talk about the letter D for divorce and C for cancer?
Charles wrote: "Ooo Skimpole. Very difficult to put up with. Commentary on the gullibilities we all have. Scary. These people are chumps to accept him. But they are chumps generally. How they deal with that is par..."Laughing out loud. Since this is my first reading of BH, I don't have the luxury of skipping anything. Maybe I'll just Skim.
Zippy wrote: "I wanted to ask about that M. Is it 'mad?' Why didn't he spell it out?"I am going with "mad" unless one of the learned veterans of this story says otherwise.
What I am curious about is if the old lady said "M" or was it just Esther trying to be discreet and polite in her narrative?
Zippy wrote: "I am perplexed by the reactions of Jarndyce, Richard, Esther and Ada to the character of Skimpole. I felt anger at Dickens for imbuing them with such ignorance (I wanted to say stupidity, but had a..."I can understand and relate to the way in which the characters, especially the younger ones such as Esther, Ada, and Richard react to Skimpole. I have known someone like Skimpole in my life, and such people are very good at being incredibly charismatic, and charming, and they do draw you in but eventually one does come to see their true colors, and the fact that they are just being leached off of.
Jarndyce is more baffling, being older and having known Skimpole longer, it is curious that he has put up with him, and been taken in with him for as long as has.
Icydove wrote: "Can someone explain the reference to cast iron boxes in the attorney's office (chapter 2)? A quick google search came up short."Attorneys in those days didn't have filing cabinets to store their documents. Instead, they had deed boxes, one (or more) for each client. Everything from or about the client would go into their deed box. That's how documents were organized in those days.
Edit: so the more successful a lawyer was, the more iron boxes he had in his office (in those days, always he, of course).
Silver wrote: "Jarndyce is more baffling, being older and having known Skimpole longer, it is curious that he has put up with him, and been taken in with him for as long as has. "As he relates to Skimpole, Jarndyce reminds me of a Hemingway quote.
"Then, too, he was sentimental, and, like most sentimental people, he was both cruel and abused."
Jarndyce's charitable nature is clearly taken advantage of but his behavior can also be seen as enabling and cruel. Especially when the victim must eventually one day be abandoned without coping skills to live in the real and less charitable world.
David wrote: "Jarndyce's charitable nature is clearly taken advantage of but his behavior can also be seen as enabling and cruel."I also wonder if maybe Jarndyce isn't so foolish or blind, but that perhaps a part of him does realize that he is being taken advantage of him yet in spite of that he cannot help his affection for Skimpole and maybe feels some sense of obligation towards him.
He does warn the children about lending Skimpole money and tells them that he will take from anyone.
Zippy wrote: "I am perplexed by the reactions of Jarndyce, Richard, Esther and Ada to the character of Skimpole. I felt anger at Dickens for imbuing them with such ignorance (I wanted to say stupidity, but had a..."Ah, Skimpole.
It is pretty certain that Skimpole was closely based on the character of Leigh Hunt, who was an English essayist, poet, and editor. Dickens wrote in a letter "I suppose he is the most exact portrait that was ever painted in words! ... It is an absolute reproduction of a real man." G.K. Chesterton commented that 'I recognized Skimpole instantaneously; ... and so did every person whom I talked with about it who had ever had Leigh Hunt's acquaintance.'
Skimpole doesn't have Hunt's literary qualifications, of course, but in terms of personality and his approach to money, he is apparently quite accurately drawn. The Dictionary of National Biography notes that he "experienced many cares and sorrows; but his cheerful courage, imperturbable sweetness of temper, and unfailing love and power of forgiveness never deserted him." Also according to the NB, "he was in perpetual [financial] difficulties. On more than one occasion he was literally without bread. He wrote to his friends to get some of his books sold, so that he may have something to eat. There were gaps of total destitution, in which every available source had been totally exhausted."
He was often supported by money from his friends.
Doesn't that sound like Skimpole?
Yet he was apparently a very agreeable companion, and numbered among his friends many literary figures of the time -- Keats, Shelley, Charles Lamb, Hazlitt (he published a book of essays jointly with Hazlitt), Macaulay, and many other literary figures of the day.
Intelligent, very pleasant, but an absolute failure in money matters. No wonder Chesterton recognized him instantly.
Charles wrote: "Ooo Skimpole. I tend to skip the part with Skimpole in them, is how I deal with it. ."I understand why, but I do find Skimpole fascinating. And he must have something going for him to keep John Jarndyce's friendship (and support) for so long.
Now, John Jarndyce, there's a person I don't understand. But I'll have to leave that for now; I just got called to bed.
Paula wrote: "Just touching on a fraction of your wonderful post, E'man. There’s a point to my post, I promise, even though it may not at first seem apparent.
I was just shy of 17 when my professional opera c..."
So just to echo the first two posts IRT the evocative writing that places one quickly into the place and mood. I also felt the fog not only makes one think of London but could symbolize the curtain that is to rise on the story, the denseness of the story, the opening lack of clarity that is presented by the unknown details of the J v.J case, the parentage of Esther, or the connectedness of the various & diverse characters to each other etc. Hopefully, just as fog burns away; with the unfolding of the story all will be revealed to us as well!!
I love Dickens, the richness of the characters, the wonderful descriptions & language, and his satire of the people and institutions of the day.
Aha! I had not read through all the posts before my last missive. I see The Everyman @18 & Silver @ 29 also felt the fog is there not only to evoke London & it's murkiness but also to bring the reader into it to navigate through the fog to ferret out the answers.As for all the apparently unconnected characters, I feel there will be a "Crash" like moment when the intersection of their stories will be the proverbial light bulb over the head.
We haven't talked yet about Mrs. Jellyby and her house and family. There is lots to talk about her.First, of course, is Mrs. Jellyby's preoccupation with children in Africa at the expense of paying attention to her own. Once again, Dickens creates (as with Skimpole) a figure which looks almost absurdly unlikely, but he purportedly created her as a criticism of a number of woman activists, particularly Caroline Chisholm, whose interest was mostly in Australia, not Africa.
Is Mrs. Jellyby so absurd a character that the criticism of activists raising money for foreign charities is ineffective, or is she an extreme but believable example of people who are so fixated on helping others far away that they overlook the need for charity at home?
What is your primary response to her? Do you simply laugh at her? Are you angry at her for the way she treats her family?
Isn't there an underlying sexism in the portrait, in the assumption that it is her responsibility, not her husband's, to see that the children are looked after, washed, fed, etc? If it were Mr. Jellyby who were so dedicated to helping the natives of Borrioboola-Gha by sending English settlers out to grow coffee that he had no time to worry about domestic arrangements, wouldn't we react quite differently?
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Bleak House (other topics)The Goldfinch (other topics)
Dickens and Phiz (other topics)
The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic—and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World (other topics)
Jane Eyre (other topics)
More...
One other quote to share--from a long paragraph in Chapter 1 starting with "This is the Court of Chancery," with great alliteration and internal rhyme: ". . . which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right."