Oliver Twist: Chapters 9 - 17

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Bill Sikes

Bill Sikes is getting more vicious by the minute. When we first met him we could see by his scarf that he thought of himself as a fighter, and that Fagin was nervous of him. Do you remember that we were told Bill Sikes had a “dirty belcher handkerchief round his neck, with long frayed ends”? This style of scarf was very much in vogue at the time, having been made popular by the prizefighter Jim Belcher (1781- 1811) So this was one of his role models. We also know that fights at this time were not regulated, and bare knuckle boxing was very vicious ...

You might remember that in our group read of Dombey and Son we learnt about the Game Chicken, otherwise known as the Larkey Boy, who was another English bare-knuckle prizefighter. Here’s my post on him, with an illustration, LINK HERE (no spoilers), and here is wiki on Jim Belcher, his competitor, who was superseded by the Chicken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B...

And what about Bill Sikes’s name, and that of his dog? I’ve been pondering on this, as I did with “Jackdaw-kin(s)” and can think of a few things. “Sike” is a dialect word for a small stream which tends to dry up in summer: a ditch or a gutter.

At the beginning of the chapter Sikes “growls” just like his dog. We’ve been told a few times now, that he and his dog, Bull’s-eye, reflect one another’s characters; they are a pair. Could they together represent a target. Sikes is the ditch, the outer rim, and bull’s-eye is the centre of the target. Sikes is always trying to strike the “Bull’s-eye,” (e.g. chasing the dog with a knife or poker), but misses the mark. He is the gutter. There may be a little foreshadowing in his name.

I think the best I can come up with though is “Bill the psych-o”. It may be an overly modern interpretation, but he seems to be psychotic to me!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Nancy

Did you notice a slight change of perspective for Nancy in this chapter? Beforehand, when she was persuaded by Fagin and Sikes to kidnap Oliver, once she had agreed she seemed to revel in acting the part of a distraught sister, and it almost became a game to her. But now she seems to regret her part in it, and actually puts herself at risk by defying the others.

Here we learn Nancy’s age. When enraged, she says to Fagin:

“I thieved for you when I was a child not half as old as this!” pointing to Oliver. “I have been in the same trade, and in the same service, for twelve years since.”

We know that Oliver was 9 when he was taken back to the workhouse after Mrs. Mann’s baby farm. A few months later he may now be 10, so “not half his age” is no more 5. Add twelve years and you get 17. Nancy is 17! And what is so special about that number? …

It is the age Mary Hogarth was, when she died in Charles Dickens’s arms, just a few short months before this. Charles Dickens was to portray beautiful innocent young girls of 17 in several of his works, and we have seen this in our group reads, but I think Nancy must be the first one. It’s interesting that she is a prostitute, but Charles Dickens seems to have a soft spot for Nancy.

We can see that Nancy is one of the characters in Oliver Twist who is not going to be just a cameo—or a caricature. She is layered, and learning here about Nancy’s past, and her motivations makes us wonder if she will prove to have an important role as the novel progresses.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And a little more …

Bartholomew Fair

What do you make of this:

“I wonder whether they can hear it,” said Nancy.
“Of course they can,” replied Sikes. “It was Bartlemy time when I was shopped; and there warn’t a penny trumpet in the fair, as I couldn’t hear the squeaking on.”

“Bartlemy time” is short for St. Barthomew’s day, 24th August. “Bartholomew Fair” was held in Smithfield market on that day. It is an ancient festival, dating at least as far back as Henry I’s charter of 1133, after the founding of the priory in 1123, when he said that the fair at that time “was wont to be celebrated in that place [Smithfield] at the feast of St. Bartholomew”.

Bartholomew Fair in monastic times was the great annual market for the woollen and cloth trade of the country. In 1364, Edward III wished to stop frauds in the drapery trade, and instituted new regulations. There had been a riot and tumult in the fair the previous year, and several merchants and others who used to frequent the fair, fearing violence, had said that they would stay away the next year. (The prior and his fair were exempted.)

By 1641, the fair had achieved international importance. It had outgrown the former location along Cloth Fair, and around the Priory graveyard to now cover four parishes: Christ Church, Great and Little St Bartholomew’s and St Sepulchre’s. The fair featured sideshows, prize-fighters, musicians, wire-walkers, acrobats, puppets, freaks and wild animals. But over the centuries there had always been a lot of notoriety and disturbances at the fair.

Eventually in 1855, 18 years after Oliver Twist, Bartholmew Fair was suppressed by the City authorities for encouraging debauchery and public disorder. “The Newgate Calendar” had denounced the fair as being a “school of vice which has initiated more youth into the habits of villainy than Newgate [prison] itself.”

So Smithfield, a site of slaughterhouses and public executions, seems to have been a fitting place for a fair that was part commerce and part spectacle. At one time a trading event for cloth and other goods, and a pleasure fair originally over four days before the curbs, it drew crowds from all classes of English society. I can well imagine this would be an attraction to young thieves, and an important day in Fagin’s gang’s calendar! Here is wiki on Bartholomew fair in Smithfield:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthol...

plus a more scholarly historical article about Bartholomew Fair, and its “excesses”:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/st-...

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And yet more ...

Additional

You may also know the name Bartholomew Fair Play by Ben Jonson Annotated from the Jacobean comedy in five acts by Ben Jonson, which was first staged on 31th October 1614 ...

The annual fair for St Bartholomew's Day is a bawdy celebration peopled by tricksters, thieves, prostitutes, pedlars and entertainers. There is an amateur dramatist called "Littlewit" whom I'm sure Charles Dickens would have appreciated! He would doubtless be familiar with this play (and this is what led me to search out these connections!)

Also, interestingly, there was a massacre of French Huguenots the day before in Paris in 1572, and traditionally it was commemorated by eating water melons. (I have no idea why!) However, it would be an important date to remember for Protestants, and on the Anglican Christian calendar. Also, I said in an earlier post, many French Huguenots had settled in this area of East London, as well as many Jewish people, so the day would be well known.

But I’m sure that for villains the annual fair would be a great place for pickpockets and the like to ply their trade. Bill Sikes said that on that day was a noisy celebration in the market, with all the penny trumpets being blown. But he had been “shopped” (i.e he had been informed on to the police), so it must have been a source of irritation and great frustration to him that he was locked up for the night, with:

“the row and din outside made the thundering old jail so silent, that I could almost have beat my brains out against the iron plates of the door.”

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I found this longish chapter to be a riveting and emotionally exciting read. There’s lots we could discuss, so over to you!

[Michael]

There is a Smithfield, Virginia, USA that became famous for its cured hams then as the foundation site of one of the largest pork producers in the world, Smithfield Packing Company later Smithfield Foods. I thought there might have been a connection to the Smithfield market but alas the common name was just a coincidence.

Nancy has risen to be my favorite character. She seemed as morally numb as the rest of Fagin's gang then Dickens drops a literary hammer shattering that perception. I thought of a later novel and another female character that Dickens would use to put into topsy turvy the reader's perception.

Prior to her outburst, as Ms. Bionic wrote about, Nancy notes the clock striking 8 pm while in the Smithfield reminiscing about "chaps" from her past, then Sikes shuts her down by stating "they're as good as dead". Nancy is referring to "chaps" awaiting execution at the nearby Newgate Prison. Executions would occur at 8 am so the clock striking 8 pm means the condemned only has 12 hours to live. She mentions she would loiter in the area until the clock struck 8 am if it was Sikes being sent to the gallows. The scene is a setup of Nancy still has the ability to feel empathy and sympathy thus her outburst to protect Oliver.

While my sympathy for Nancy has risen exponentially, it has fallen for Charley Bates who relishes in humiliating Oliver. Interesting the one person of the party who stays in the background is Dodger.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Michael wrote: "The scene is a setup of Nancy still has the ability to feel empathy and sympathy ..."

Yes, good observation Michael. And I wouldn't be at surprised if the US ham producer was capitalising on the world-famous Smithfield market!

[Michael]

Is there reminders in the area of the Smithfield market? There is the Meatpacking District in Lower Manhattan. The buildings associated with the meat slaughtering and packing industry have been reutilized for residences, retail, restaurant and entertainment.

[Claudia]

Poor Oliver, caught again by this terrible gang! Yes Jean, St Bartholomew is an infamous notion in French history. Interestingly this apostle who brought the Christian faith to Armenia with St Thaddeus and perished there as a martyr, is essential as a symbol at one point in Quatrevingt-Treize by Victor Hugo (part 3, book 3, Le Massacre de St Barthélémy).

Nancy's outburst reminded me of Les Misérables, part 4, book 8, chapter 4.

Eponine, one of Thénardier's daughters, is facing six thugs including her father, prepared to break into the house at rue Plumet where Jean Valjean and Cosette live. Eponine experiences a real redemption as she is in love with Marius. She has a wonderful phrase that sounded to me powerful and almost biblical in its vocabulary and connotations. (See John 16:33)

"There are six of you; I represent the whole world." (Originally: Vous êtes six; moi je suis tout le monde.)
Thenardier made a movement towards her.
"Don't approach!" she cried.'

Indeed the six of them vanished into the night. Was Hugo at least partly inspired by Nancy's boldness when she was facing Bill Sikes, Fagin, Dodger, Bates and Bull's eye ( himself a victim, trained to be unpleasant)? Both women have the same profession and are victims of dishonesty and poverty. Yes Michael my sympathy for Nancy is rising, just as it rose for Eponine when I read Les Misérables.

When Oliver's best clothes are once again exchanged by those very same rags he didn't want to see again - a coincidence as to whom he had sold them - I thought once again of the opposite mirror scene already mentioned by Jean in Dombey and Son. Florence is taken her clothes, dressed up with rags. She doesn't recover her clothes but is dressed neatly again after being found by Walter.

I hope that Oliver will wear his Sunday clothes again in a new and better life.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Michael wrote: "Is there reminders in the area of the Smithfield market? ..."

Michael - Please see my post on "Locations", currently no. 249. As I said there, "Smithfield, where there is a famous meat market as Charles Dickens mentions. It still dominates the area, although now there are no live cattle on site."

I think you must have missed it ... (I then continue about the sale of animals, with dates.) The Smithfield meat market is still famous worldwide, and thriving (in fact my neighbour used to work there).

I know I post a lot of information and comment 🙄 but it's worth checking. I do try to tailor, streamline and title them, to save people time. You might also like both the one today and the earlier one on Nancy. 😊

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Claudia - "St Bartholomew is an infamous notion in French history ... Was Hugo at least partly inspired by Nancy's boldness when she was facing Bill Sikes, Fagin, Dodger, Bates and Bull's eye"

Wow this is fascinating! We do know that Victor Hugo liked and admired Charles Dickens, and it was reciprocated. Charles Dickens was to meet Victor Hugo nine years later, in 1846, when he was wandering around Paris with his friend John Forster having just written the chapter of Dombey and Son (view spoiler)[that ended poor Paul Dombey's life (hide spoiler)].

John Forster said of this meeting that Victor Hugo made a profound impression on both of them with his eloquence, and observed that he addressed "very charming flattery, in the best taste" to Charles Dickens, while Charles Dickens thought he "looked like the Genius he was".

The clothes are becoming quite a motif, aren't they? As always for Charles Dickens, they are a symbol of a new life ... but as you say, we all hope Oliver manages to shed this new one!

[Bridget]

Bionic Jean wrote: " Now by this account he had been in jail for just one night. What could be the reason for letting him out. Did Bill Sikes peach (tell) on the others in the gang, in order to get let off?.."

This is an interesting question Jean poses and now has my head spinning with thoughts!

It's making me recall something Fagin said in Chapter 9. He was looking inside his hidden treasure chest (when he thought Oliver was sleeping) and he said "Clever dogs! . . . Staunch to the last! Never told the old parson where they [the jewels] were; never peached upon old Fagin . . .wouldn't have loosened the knot" and then a little later he says "What a fine thing capital punishment is! Five of them strung up in a row"

Then, when we first meet Sikes he makes a hanging gesture towards Fagin, in a way that made me think the two men share some kind of secret they don't want the others (Dodger, Nancy, Charley) to know about.

That makes me think Fagin and Sikes conspired together to have some acquaintances hanged so they could share the treasure in that chest together. Remember a couple chapters back Fagin gave Sikes his "share" of whatever Fagin had just fenced. So, yes, I think Jean is right its odd that Sikes got out of jail so quickly, and maybe he did "peach".

Which may be all the more reason why Fagin and Sikes are worried about Oliver turning them in. They have just recently escaped capture themselves. It could also explain why Nancy is so emotionally overcome as she passes by Smithfield. Maybe she knew the thieves that were hanged too?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Bridget wrote: "Maybe she knew the thieves that were hanged too?..."

I felt that about Nancy too ... it seemed so personal, as if she knew Bill Sikes knew what she was talking about, and she wanted him to feel regret about it too.

I'm glad you quoted that part in chapter 9 Bridget, as it's one of the places where Charles Dickens was deliberating trying to get the public on his side, arguing against capital punishment.

This was a hot topic at the time! Revision of the criminal law was nearly constant between 1833 and 1837, including capital punishment. For the first part of this, right up until August 1836, Charles Dickens was a keen observer and reporting on all the developments in the "Morning Chronicle". He must still have been very aware of it all!

Chapter 9 was published in July 1837, and back in March there was a Bill about it discussed in the House of Commons. It was given Royal assent in July, and was then stuck in the House of Lords for a few months. What better time to show a villain like Fagin, a fence who viciously exploited other men's theft, greedily looking over his treasures and muttering about how fine capital punishment was!

Great post 😊

[Beth]

Bridget wrote: "That makes me think Fagin and Sikes conspired together to have some acquaintances hanged so they could share the treasure in that chest together."

They may have conspired together, and may still work together, but I don't see Fagin and Sikes' relationship as a particularly harmonious one. In my opinion, Fagin has tucked away the box to keep it out of Sikes' sight so Sikes doesn't simply claim it as his own with the argument that he "earned" it, like he does with the five pounds in Oliver's pocket in this chapter.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if one betrayed the other at some point during this story.

[Anna]

Beth wrote: "Bridget wrote: "That makes me think Fagin and Sikes conspired together to have some acquaintances hanged so they could share the treasure in that chest together."

They may have conspired together,..."

No honor among thieves...or so they say.

I was surprised when I looked up this saying to find that "honor among thieves" was the original, meaning that even thieves won't steal from each other. But I did get a chuckle when I was pursuing this idea to find this quote from G.K. Chesterton "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become theirs, so that they may more perfectly respect it." Sounds like Fagin to me!

[Anna]

One other thing I wondered if someone could tell us more about: Oliver's new clothes, being described by Charley, are made of superfine cloth and a heavy-swell cut. The superfine cloth I can imagine, but would the heavy-swell cut mean they were loose-fitting or used plenty of fabric or something else?

[Petra]

This chapter begins to bring out the complexity of Nancy. She's more than just a follower of Fagin's group.

Jean, I did notice that she seems to regret bringing Oliver back into the fold. I hope he finds a friend in her.

I was surprised to figure out how young she was. Until Jean pointed out her age, I was sure I'd figured it out wrong and she was older than 17. She's been through a lot for such a tender age, poor girl.

Anna, I may be mistaken, but I took "heavy swell cut" to mean ultra-modern and sophisticated (upper/middle class); not the mean clothes that the poor wear.

As for the clothes, I find it a mean twist that Oliver's old clothing is what lead Fagin to close in on his new home area. I wonder whether he chose that particular one of his homes to move to in order to put him in the neighborhood of Oliver's new residence.
Poor Oliver, he tried to do something good in some way by giving his old clothing away and this act brough Fagin back into his life.

It was mean, too, of Fagin to get the old clothing back, then save them for Oliver for when they recapture him. That's a mean stroke for the poor boy.

[Connie]

Anna, I thought that clothes that were "swell cut" were those that a higher class, stylish person would wear, perhaps looking like a dandy. It would identify them as fashionable and from a good social class.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Beth wrote: "I don't see Fagin and Sikes' relationship as a particularly harmonious one. ..."

No, you're right it isn't! But the indications are very subtle. All we know at this point is that they circle round each other warily, like two dogs, but there are also sidelong glances, so that we suspect each is complicit in something.

We know Fagin is a fence (and more), and that Bill Sikes is a housebreaker. We know that Bill Sikes is a thug, and that Fagin can run rings round him in craftiness, and soft words, e.g. "my dear".

Everything else we might be thinking is speculation.

What a great quotation from G.K. Chesterton! You are absolutely right about its appropriateness 😊 Fagin has qualities of enterprise, and business acumen, as I said in my earlier post about him. This is quite deliberate on Charles Dickens' part.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Anna - Yes, Petra and Connie are correct.

"Swell" in the 19th century meant "fashionably dressed or equipped". It was first used this way in 1810, from the noun "swell" in the sense of a "stylish person". By 1897 it meant "good, excellent," and it is recorded from 1930 in American English, as a stand-alone expression of satisfaction, although we now longer really use it in English.

Charles Dickens himself, as a dandy, was a bit of a "swell".

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chapter 17:

We are back in the town where Oliver was born:

“Mr. Bumble emerged at early morning from the workhouse-gate, and walked with portly carriage and commanding steps, up the High Street … Mr. Bumble always carried his head high; but this morning it was higher than usual. There was an abstraction in his eye, an elevation in his air, which might have warned an observant stranger that thoughts were passing in the beadle’s mind, too great for utterance.”



Mr. Bumble - Joseph Clayton Clarke ("Kyd")

Mr. Bumble visits Mrs. Mann, who is annoyed to be disturbed but of course respectfully pretends she is pleased to see him. While Mr. Bumble gives Mrs. Mann her stipend, he informs her that he is off to London on parish business. He wishes to move on two paupers:

“They are both in a very low state, and we find it would come two pound cheaper to move ’em than to bury ’em—that is, if we can throw ’em upon another parish, which I think we shall be able to do, if they don’t die upon the road to spite us. Ha! ha! ha!”

Mr. Bumble is annoyed to find that the “ill-conditioned, wicious, bad-disposed porochial child” Dick is no better, and sends for him.

“The child was pale and thin; his cheeks were sunken; and his eyes large and bright. The scanty parish dress, the livery of his misery, hung loosely on his feeble body; and his young limbs had wasted away, like those of an old man.”

Dick asks to leave a dying message for “poor Oliver Twist”. To punish him for having fallen under Oliver’s sway, Dick is locked in the coal cellar.

Mr. Bumble goes to London There he reads a newspaper announcement that Mr. Brownlow is offering a five-guinea reward for information about Oliver Twist.

When Mr. Grimwig sees Mr. Bumble, he bursts out with:

“A beadle. A parish beadle, or I’ll eat my head.”



"A Beadle! A parish beadle, or I'll eat my head" — James Mahoney 1871

but Mr. Brownlow anxiously asks his friend not to interrupt. Mr. Bumble tells them both that Oliver’s parents were “low” and “vicious” and that Oliver had always behaved with “treachery, ingratitude, and malice”, at the workhouse and producing papers to corroborate his own identity. Mr. Brownlow receives the information sorrowfully, saying that he would happily have given far more money to have better news:

“It is not improbable that if Mr. Bumble had been possessed of this information at an earlier period of the interview, he might have imparted a very different colouring to his little history.”

Nevertheless, his story is believed by the two gentlemen. Mrs. Bedwin however, refuses to believe that her “dear, grateful, gentle child” Oliver was “an imposter”. Mr. Brownlow forbids anyone to mention Oliver’s name again.

The narrator comments:

“Oliver’s heart sank within him, when he thought of his good friends; it was well for him that he could not know what they had heard, or it might have broken outright.”

This ends installment 8

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Poor Oliver! Even his friends in Pentonville have disowned him now, because of that greedy, interfering Mr. Bumble.

This is also another chapter which is not just in one location, as all the earlier ones were. Dickens is developing his style a little.

So did this chapter follow on seamlessly, or could we tell that there had been all this aggravation about whether Oliver’s adventures would continue or not?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Writing Style

The first part of this chapter stands out like a sore thumb to me, shouting “inexperienced writer”. I wonder if it feel like that to you too? It takes up almost two pages in my book, and seems like an apologia for the “sudden shiftings of the scene, and rapid changes of time and place” which Dickens refers to. Of course it is entertaining, as all Charles Dickens’s writing is, and I enjoyed reading it, but it is totally out of place in a novel.

It doesn’t move the story on, set the scene, or add to the characterisation … this bit of literary criticism is completely separate from it! Charles Dickens defends the scene changes as being like life, as “layers of streaky bacon”, but we know the real reason why. There had been a break of two whole months when he sincerely believed Oliver Twist was behind him, and he would write other things, such as the ongoing projects I mentioned before, and develop the ideas which he already had for what would eventually be Barnaby Rudge.

I have to wonder though, why Charles Dickens inserted this exposition into his serial, knowing now that it would eventually be a book. After all Charles Dickens was contributing several items to Bentley’s Miscellany, of which his latest installment of Oliver Twist was only one part. Why didn’t he just issue a statement about it, to be read alongside? It seems extraordinary to come out of the novel in this way, almost like metafiction.

Perhaps Charles Dickens did it this way to ensure the greatest readership. He had intrigued so many people with his story, that “hiding” his defence of future episodes in the novel itself might have seemed the best way to makes sure his readers saw it, and get them on his side. Perhaps he also wondered if Charles Bentley would object to a separate literary essay on style, but would be unlikely to object if it was part of Charles Dickenss story.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I find this point of style intriguing. I also find it interesting that the action returns to Oliver’s birthplace at this point. It’s as if Charles Dickens has to do this, as a sort of “rebirth” in his writing. We even have echoes of the same events: the poster advertising something about Oliver, plus the fact that it is seen by someone who is to have a seriously adverse effect on his future.

Also Charles Dickens is bringing some characters back who we thought we might never see again, such as the beadle, Mrs. Mann, and poor Dick. It is very much as if he is starting the whole novel afresh, at least in his own mind. Perhaps now Charles Dickens knows this is to be a whole novel, he will create some new characters and scenarios as well. We know from his later novels, that this was to become a confirmed writing habit; to keep introducing new characters—even as late as past the halfway point.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Mr. Bumble

We noticed before that Mr. Bumble often gets words slightly wrong, such as “porochial” instead of “parochial”, thereby demonstrating his ignorance. Now we see that Dickens is developing this (delightfully!) into full blown malapropism, such as:

“They’re all in one story, Mrs. Mann. That out-dacious [audacious] Oliver had demogalized [demonised] them all!”
  
Charles Dickens had picked this up from the name of the character “Mrs. Malaprop” in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s 1775 play, The Rivals A Comedy. He would be very familiar with this comic character, and by the mid 19th century, the word “malapropism” was used in English vocabulary to describe the habit of speech.

Charles Dickens himself was fond of using this for effect. Perhaps his best known character to exemplify this is in Martin Chuzzlewit (view spoiler)[Mrs. Sairey Gamp (hide spoiler)], written between 1843 and 1844. Arguably now we associate malapropism more with these characters in Charles Dickens than we do with the original!

We see the full extent of Mr. Bumble’s greed in this chapter. The narrator’s comment that the beadle might well have altered what he said, if he had got more money out of it, shows that Mr. Bumble is aware that what he says is not objective. He will distort the truth or even lie, to suit his own purposes.

The callousness and hypocrisy of his statement here is shocking:

“We put the sick paupers into open carts in the rainy weather, to prevent their taking cold.”

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Dick

Did you notice that when Oliver was happily on the way to the bookseller’s, just before he was kidnapped by Nancy and Bill Sikes, he thought of Dick. Now we have Dick back in the story, even though he was dying when Oliver was on his way to London.

Both times, I feel this is so that we have an example of pure innocence. For me, Dick represents one side of Oliver. At the beginning of the story, we were shown an innocent baby, who would be subject to the trials of the world. But as Oliver himself had to develop a bit of backbone, and fight against his starvation in the workhouse, his beatings and his captors, there is now a place for the archetype of innocence. This is so that we always have that in our mind, as an idea, while Charles Dickens continues with his didactic tirade against the evils of the Poor Law.

This is evident by the way Dick (note the name!) talks:

““I should like,” faltered the child, “if somebody that can write, would put a few words down for me on a piece of paper, and fold it up and seal it, and keep it for me, after I am laid in the ground.”

“ …And I should like to tell him,” said the child pressing his small hands together, and speaking with great fervour, “that I was glad to die when I was very young; for, perhaps, if I had lived to be a man, and had grown old, my little sister who is in Heaven, might forget me, or be unlike me; and it would be so much happier if we were both children there together.”

We have discussed Charles Dickens’s wise, other-worldly children. Dick goes one step further in the way he expresses himself. These are not the words of a tiny young child, but of an ideal. Compare them with the realistic way the other characters talk—such as Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Mann—or Mr. Grimwig and Mr. Brownlow—or the criminal slang used by Fagin’s gang.

Charles Dickens takes great care to get the intonation, accents, dialect and vocabulary correct in every case, but not for Dick.

And what happens to the personification of innocence? It is locked in the cellar, hidden away (a continuing theme, as we've noticed before), unseen by an uncaring the world. That is highly symbolic.

I will be interested to see if and when Dick next occurs.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

This is the end of installment 8. Installment 9 will begin on Sunday with chapter 18, in a new thread. Please use this time to read through the information for installment 8, and any earlier information and commentary you might have missed, and to add your own thoughts. Thanks.

[Michael]

For the 2nd time in the novel, Mr. Bumble is completely flummoxed by one of his young charges showing deep emotions. He does not appreciate having to face the humanity of these boys.

Mr. Bumble does replace his bicorn hat for a "round one", shown as a top hat in the illustration Ms. Bionic posted. Even Mr. Bumble realizes he would look ridiculous walking around 1837 London in a bicorn hat. Despite Mr. Bumble's trying to look more up to date fashion wise, as Ms. Bionic pointed out, Mr. Grimwig immediately calls him out in a mocking way as a beadle. I am not sure what tip offed Mr. Grimwig. I was laughing at Mr. Grimwig knocking down Mr. Bumble a few pegs; Bumble now finding himself in a much bigger pond.

One of the quirks of the age Dickens wrote in was how guineas would still be used as a unit of account, mainly for professional fees and luxury items, when the coin was no longer legal tender, being replaced by the sovereign. Guinea was shorthand for 1 pound, and 1 shilling or 21 shillings. Seems like it was intended to have the opposite psychological effect of prices ending in 99 cents.

I believe the reference to Clerkenwell as Mr. Bumble's reason for going to London is the court and administrative proceedings at the Middlesex Sessions House built on Clerkenwell Green.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middles...

Based on another website concerning Sessions House, Charles Dickens as a court reporter covered cases there.

[Beth]

Bionic Jean wrote: "So did this chapter follow on seamlessly, or could we tell that there had been all this aggravation about whether Oliver’s adventures would continue or not?"

We've already had some pretty wild coincidences, so Bumble's happening to see the notice about Oliver on his trip to the Clerkinwell sessions did decently well to bring some earlier disparate elements of the story together.

I'm not sure if I would have noticed a demarcation in the story without the (in my opinion) rather cludgey and unfitting meta-text at the beginning of this chapter. I wonder if Dickens, having explicitly noted this streaky-bacon effect in his own story as its narrator, will deliberately change its flow going forward. :)

The Norton Critical Edition interprets "demogalized" as "demoralized" rather than "demonized," but I could easily imagine malapropisms having more than one interpretation.

I can also easily imagine Brownlow (and Grimwig?) making appearances later in the story, despite their seemingly having written Oliver off at the end of this chapter. Especially since Mrs. Bedwin is still on his side!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Michael - Nice post, thank you.

About the guinea and the sovereign ... what you say about the coins is technically correct but could be misleading.

I well remember things priced in guineas, for instance, (but am not as old as Charles Dickens!). The practice only stopped in 1971 with decimalisation, even though we no longer had the coin itself.

If you saw something advertised in guineas, then it had the air of luxury. So cars were priced in guineas, and high end grocers, appliances, men's suits and women's readymade clothes (women mostly made their own, unless they had a dressmaker) would be in guineas, but the cheaper commodities would be priced in pounds shillings and pence.

The sovereign was not in circulation after 1914, although it is still legal tender even today! Some are minted for commemorative purposes for collectors, but nobody would part with these as ordinary coins, as they are made of gold.

You remarked on American cents, well pre-decimalisation there was an equivalent to our "99p" now, for those to whom value for money was the most important factor, not snob value. Again this was to price something at just less than a complete pound. So £29/19/6 was a popular price denoting 29 pounds, 19 shillings, and 6d, or only sixpence (equivalent to 2 and a half p.) less than £30.

30g. on the other hand meant 30 guineas, which was 30 pounds plus 30 shillings, i.e. £31.10s (as there were 20 shillings in one pound)

We were used to quickly converting guineas to pounds in our minds, just as we mentally "round up" these 99p prices. The tricky bit was orally, as if someone said "half a guinea" you had to think of half one pound and one shilling i.e. 10/6, and a quarter of a guinea was 5/3.

This was the currency until 1971, but we did not have sovereigns, nor farthings in my lifetime, but we had ha'pennies. Groats and silver thru'penny bits had gone too, but only just.

I've written posts on currency before for "Dickensians!" as I know how complicated it seems even for English people who don't remember the imperial system. Charles Dickens was so concerned about money all his life, that it comes into his books quite often. Here is a comprehensive feature about the guinea, with examples from Charles Dickens's works. http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/c...

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Good responses, thanks Beth - and I hadn't thought to check the Norton edition (even though I recommended it 😁) but you're right. That's their "translation" of that one!

[Chris]

Loved the colored illustration of Mr. Bumble, it captures this man who is so full of himself perfectly!

I agreed with the comments about the beginning of the chapter. Dickens discussion of writing style seemed an odd commentary inserted into the story and added nothing to it or my own pleasure in reading.

Poor little Dick, who asks for so little, is dismissed callously & thrown in the cellar. I shed an inner tear for this neglected innocent child.

I was so mad at Mr. Bumble for bringing his negative views & biases involving Oliver to Mr. Brownlow. What motivated him? Did he think he could still get the money offered for information in Oliver's whereabouts even though he had no knowledge in that department? Bless Mrs. Bedwin for refusing to believe that Oliver was a bad seed and that her mothering intuition of his innate goodness was a true reflection of Oliver.

[Susan]

Finally I have caught up with you all. Thanks for all the illustrations and background information Jean, and everyone’s comments. They add enormously to my enjoyment of the book.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Ecclesiastes

This quote was a favourite of my high school English teacher and I often think of it when I read because human nature doesn’t really change much. Although Dickens does accentuate people’s foibles, can’t we all recognise many of the characters’ traits in people we know?

With regards to the clunky and in my mind, weird and unnecessary, start to the chapter, was he committed to having a particular number of words per chapter? Perhaps it is simply padding.

I love the thought of someone eating their head. Sounds difficult! Given the mixup between banana and orange peel, I wonder if it is a similar mixup between head and hat. In Australia there is a saying that if something (which you least expect) happens then you’ll eat your hat.

Finally a comment on the cocked hat. The Princess Royal wore one to the Coronation and personally I thought it very stylish.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chris wrote: "What motivated [Mr Bumble]? Did he think he could still get the money offered for information in Oliver's whereabouts ..."

I really enjoyed your comment Chris, and yes that's exactly right. Remember the advert he read:

“FIVE GUINEAS REWARD

“Whereas a young boy, named Oliver Twist, absconded, or was enticed, on Thursday evening last, from his home, at Pentonville; and has not since been heard of. The above reward will be paid to any person who will give such information as will lead to the discovery of the said Oliver Twist, or tend to throw any light upon his previous history, in which the advertiser is, for many reasons, warmly interested.”

So all Mr Bumble had to do was to supply official information that Oliver had been at the workhouse, to get the money. He probably thought his additions added an air of authenticity, and would steer them in the right direction to look for the scallywag 😠

[Jenny]

I forgot how unpleasant Bumble was in this chapter... I kept waiting for Mr Grimwig to say he'd eat Bumble's head honestly! Although I wouldn't want Mr Grimwig to get an upset stomach.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Susan wrote: "Although Dickens does accentuate people’s foibles, can’t we all recognise many of the characters’ traits in people we know?..."

Susan! 😀 I'm so glad you're all caught up, and what a great post. Yes, how true this is. Thanks for the Biblical quotation.

"was he committed to having a particular number of words per chapter?"

No, not at this point, although actually there is more about that after a few a more installments 😊

In the extra info I've told how this story was never intended to be a novel, but only an extension of Mudfog. Charles Dickens contributed several items to each issue, (details earlier) of which the Oliver Twist serial was a regular one, but it varied in word length - and the chapter ends vary too. There are several posts about this, but the precis up to now is LINK HERE

So this part is not "padding". It's the author trying to get himself back on track, after all the arguments, and refocus his mind. To share this with his readers is extraordinary though! I did enjoy it, but I think you have to a) know the history of how the serial came about, b) remember that he was only 25, c) remember that he had never constructed a novel before, and d) frankly be on his side to start with, to appreciate it now, really!

When it was first published, the public would understand more than we present day readers, why something had to be said. The change of tone, change of direction and so on would be uppermost in his mind, and as a young writer he hedged his bets, wanting to please them and make them feel involved, and not criticise him for trying to leave them in the lurch.

But even so, I think it was bad judgement. Now he was back, they probably wanted him to get on with the story!

Oh yes, in Britain we say "I'll eat my hat" too! I assume it was just altered by Charles Dickens for eccentricity and humour 😂

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Jenny wrote: "I wouldn't want Mr Grimwig to get an upset stomach."

😂🤣

[Jim]

I’m sure we can all have a bit of fun with the term “parochial” that Mr. Bumble applies to his affairs. The word, in its strictest sense of course means “of a parish”. But the OED also states its other meaning, the one in which we are most likely to use it today, that of “being narrow or restricted in scope”, i.e. petty, narrow-minded, overly concerned with one’s own affairs. And this surely defines Bumble! He’s an archetype of the local bureaucrat; he can scarcely see past the brim of his own cocked hat but his ability to spot an opportunity to make a quick profit at someone else’s expense is faultless. His conduct is at its most despicable in this segment.
Dickens then tosses his readers a very small bone of satisfaction by pointing out that Bumble, by his overweening (and, by the way, entirely false) defilement of Oliver’s character, missed out on what would likely have been a much bigger reward.

[Karin]

Jim wrote: "I’m sure we can all have a bit of fun with the term “parochial” that Mr. Bumble applies to his affairs. The word, in its strictest sense of course means “of a parish”. But the OED also states its o..."

I hadn't known the second definition, but it is very fitting; I wonder if Dickens was thinking of both of them when he wrote that. It's wonderful word play.

I also loved that bit about how he could have had more money if he'd said good things (which of course would have been far closer to the truth.)

[Sam]

Just checking where to post message. My posting availability keeps clashing with your saved posts Jean. I was not sure if this thread was closed so I did a test post. My question is, if I am posting on chapter 17, whether I should post this thread or wait till you have completed your posts for the day? I have been waiting but this is the first time I have reached an end of thread moment. If I am to use this thread, I can just edit this post with my comment on the book.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sorry Sam - I've only just seen this. I posted a message in Mrs. Dickens parlour, but please place your comments on chapter 17 here.

I enjoyed your observations, Jim 😊

The next thread, for chapter 18 onwards is open and ready for your comments: LINK HERE

[Greg]

Getting to this late, as I had to catch up. It's not crucial as I get the general idea from context, but can anyone enlighten me as to what "opposition coach" means in chapter 17:

"The opposition coach contracts for these two, and takes them cheap."

I get the general idea that this is a cheap way to transport the two orphans, and they seem to end up sitting on the outside of the coach because they're chilled to the bone . . . but I was a little curious as to what opposition signified? The dictionary and googling didn't give me any answers.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

It's a horse-drawn coach, and often overloaded. Here is one (sorry the image is 20th century!)



So you're right Greg 😊

[Greg]

Thanks Jean! 🙂

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

Comments partially moved from Chapter 19:

I love all of the illustrations, but two in particular, and the contrast they represent: Frederic W Pailthorpe’s illustration of Mr. Brownlow with Oliver (Chapter 14, message 174) and Fred Barnard’s illustration of Bill Sikes with his dog Bullseye (Chapter 15, message 216). I *love* the tender look of Mr. Brownlow as he wraps his arm around Oliver - there is so much gentleness in his face and action. It held so much promise for Oliver! And then we have the poor, cowering Bullseye trying to please a master he never will. That illustration was so sad to me, as I know he will continue to take the abuse because, like most dogs, his world revolves around his master. I hope Dickens rescues him from this sadist!

I believe that, if Oliver eventually escapes his tragic circumstances, it will be through the actions of the loving Mrs. Bedwin (Mr. Brownlow’s housekeeper) and Nancy, the prostitute with a heart. To me, these two women hold the keys to his freedom.

Even though Mr. Grimwig seems to be cruel to Mr. Brownlow concerning Oliver, I think Grimwig is a true friend to Brownlow, has seen him trust people and get hurt too many times before, and is only trying to prevent his friend from getting hurt again. That’s the impression he gave me.

Mr. Grimwig is such an interesting character. Dickens seems to enjoy these blustering, larger-than-life minor characters. Grimwig reminds me of Major Joseph (Joey B) Bagstock in Dombey and Son, Mr. Micawber in David Copperfield and Lawrence Boythorn in Bleak House. They all bring comic relief to the stories, and they are so much fun to watch. I love how Grimwig brought Mr. Bumble down a notch (intimating that, being a "beadle", he was just a country bumpkin), although Bumble is too clueless to have caught the gibe.

[Kathleen]

I faltered with the beginning of chapter 17, as it is a most ungainly way for Dickens to restart his story. I wonder if it ever bothered him and if he considered deleting or changing it when he made other revisions.

I wonder why Dickens chose to remove some (or all?) references of Fagin as the Jew in later editions. Does this mark a period of transition in using this designation? Was it considered a negative term or just a description at this time?

Mr Bumble’s attitude towards the children is appalling. He obviously does not see them as humans! Dickens definitely enrages the reader with this character.

I very much appreciate your introductions to each chapter, Jean, and everyone’s comments. They, and the illustrations, are definitely enriching this book for me.

Sorry to be behind - I’m trying to catch up.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Kathleen wrote: "Sorry to be behind - I’m trying to catch up..."

Please don't worry Kathleen - just read at the pace that suits you best, (though you might like to add your preference to the question in the lounge). I'm so pleased you are enjoying it, and please add your comments when you can.

"Was it considered a negative term or just a description at this time?" That's the million dollar question!

Charles Dickens changed most of the references to "The Jew" largely in response to objections from the Jewish community. He always defended it though, and said he never meant to give offence. I wrote quite a long post about this ... perhaps it's in the next thread!

[Lee]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Writing Style

The first part of this chapter stands out like a sore thumb to me, shouting “inexperienced writer”. I wonder if it feel like that to you too? It takes up almost two pages in my book,..."

From message 273, beginning of Chapter the Seventeeth.

Metafiction

Personally, I love the way Charles Dickens inserted this offbeat explanatory text into the narrative about his hero Oliver. He himself admits this "brief introduction...may perhaps be deemed unnecessary". But we are being addressed, as readers, DIRECTLY by Charles Dickens himself! He points out in this long, perhaps unnecessary introduction to Ch 17 "that I have good and substantial reasons for making the journey, or I would not ask him [the reader] to accompany me on any account."

What trust! What an enormous compliment to the readers of his day that he is aware they will be somewhat jolted in their absorption of Oliver's journey by suddenly leaving the abused, kidnapped child in grave danger while he, the author, smoothly picks up the tale in another time and place with the bumbling Mr. Bumble!

This was my first introduction to the term metafiction, and I find it enormously informative. Metafiction is a literary technique of self-reflection which breaks the barrier between writer and reader. It was a literary device not unknown to Dickens as we find it in much earlier works such as The Canterbury Tales in which Geoffrey Chaucer interrupts his story to directly address the reader and apologize as the author for any inconsistencies in his proceeding narrative. Therefore, I take issue with the idea that Dickens was showing his "inexperience as a writer". Rather, Dickens here demonstrates his awareness of literary techniques that far pre-date him.

I now recall that this technique, rather uncommon in the early 19th century, to be used frequently in subsequent literature, countless times, and so often utilized that the modern reader will barely pause at its usage. Thank you, Jean for making me pause and examine this passage more closely!

[Claudia]

Thanks Lee for the explanation about metafiction.
Curiously, I came across a similar technique in Adam Bede, George Eliot's first novel. Chapter 17 (too) of it seems actually awkward (patronising and almost intrusive) The narrative voice adresses us much more than ever since, even if I noticed one passage of Middlemarch, where she seemed to pause and reflect on Dorothea and Mr Casaubon, but it was very skillfully done.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I like both your additional thoughts here, Lee and Claudia. Thank you!