Oliver Twist: Chapters 18 - 25

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

OLIVER TWIST: THREAD 3

Original title Oliver Twist; or, The Parish Boy's Progress



BBC 2007 miniseries adaptation with Timothy Spall and Tom Hardy dramatised by Sarah Phelps

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

IX – December 1837 - chapters 18–19
X – January 1838 - chapters 20–22
XI – February 1838 - chapters 23–25

LINKS TO CHAPTERS: (ongoing)

Chapter 18

Chapter 19

Chapter 20

Chapter 21

Chapter 22

Chapter 23

Chapter 24

Chapter 25

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Installment 9

Chapter 18:

Fagin gave Oliver a long talking to which made his blood run cold. When he saw that the boy understood and feared him “smiling hideously, [Fagin] patted Oliver on the head, and said, that if he kept himself quiet, and applied himself to business, he saw they would be very good friends yet.”

After spending a week locked in the kitchen, Oliver was left alone with the run of the house. The shutters were nailed closed, and the place was dark and dirty:

“there was neither sight nor sound of any living thing …
In all the rooms, the mouldering shutters were fast closed: the bars which held them were screwed tight into the wood; the only light which was admitted, stealing its way through round holes at the top: which made the rooms more gloomy, and filled them with strange shadows.“

Oliver imagined that people once lived happily in the old house.

One day Jack Dawkins and Charley Bates come home, and while Oliver polishes Jack’s boots, the two boys try to convince him that he can make a good living as a thief. They tease him and laugh at his innocence:



"Master Bates explains a professional technicality" - George Cruikshank 1837



"The Dodger's Toilet" - Harry Furniss 1910

Soon Fagin arrives, along with Bet and another older boy of about 18 called Tom Chitling.



Tom Chitling - Joseph Clayton Clarke ("Kyd")

Tom Chitling defers to the quicker brains of the Dodger, and says that Oliver will soon learn under Fagin. Tom has just come out of the house of correction, where he was imprisoned for 6 weeks.

They all pass the evening talking about the benefits of a life of crime. After that Oliver’s days are spent with Fagin, Jack, and Charley playing the old pickpocketing game and listening to Fagin tell tales of some of his early robberies. His stories are so funny and droll, that even Oliver has to laugh.

“In short, the wily old Jew had the boy in his toils. Having prepared his mind, by solitude and gloom, to prefer any society to the companionship of his own sad thoughts in such a dreary place, he was now slowly instilling into his soul the poison which he hoped would blacken it, and change its hue for ever.”

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I’m wondering if this chapter was easier to understand, re. the East End vernacular. It was noticeable that almost every time a slang word was used, Charles Dickens found some way of explaining, often giving the reason that “green” Oliver would not understand it. Once, the narrator makes a joke of the colourful phrase:

““japanning his trotter-cases.” The phrase, rendered into plain English, signifieth, cleaning his boots.”

Dodger explains the meaning of “prig” (thief) to him, and Charles Dickens use this opportunity to show Dodger’s pride in his thieving lifestyle. All the references are very cleverly done, so that we don’t feel it is at all artificial.

“A flat” is a simpleton, “green” is an innocent, “scragged” means hanged, and so on.

This makes me think that some of Charles Dickens’s middle class readers, and those in other parts of the country might have complained that they couldn’t understand this vernacular of the underworld, so he adapted it for them. It is very skilful, and easy to read.

Other terms might need explaining to modern readers though. We no longer have the material which Toby Crackit’s trousers are made of: “fustain”. This was a coarse cloth make of cotton and flax (and very different from the fine clothes Oliver was given by Mr. Brownlow). “Regimentals” are obviously nothing to do with army uniform, as they sound, but an ironic name for the prison uniform.

And Fagin betting a “crown” goes back to the imperial money system I explained yesterday. A silver crown was large coin worth five shillings (now 25p). There were also half crowns, worth 2/6d. Four crowns equalled £1. They are still legal tender, but only issued now as commemorative coins, and not in general circulation.

"Chitling" is an odd name: it is a type of offal we don't usually eat nowadays (chiltin', or chitterlings), but was still eaten in some areas of the UK in the 20th century. Poor Tom Chitling!

(I posted the only picture I could find of Tom Chitling, especially  Chris admired "Kyd''s work yesterday 😊 But even though I edited it, it's still too small so I'll have another go when I have time.)

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Fagin’s Business Philosophy

Here is Dodger, explaining that the gang’s way of life is fair and reasonable:

“If you don’t take pocket-handkechers and watches, … some other cove will; so that the coves that lose ’em will be all the worse, and you’ll be all the worse, too, and nobody half a ha’p’orth (halfpenny) the better, except the chaps wot gets them—and you’ve just as good a right to them as they have.”

It struck me that this underpins all sort of business practices, advertising, insurance etc. The spirit of competition is all round us, and part of human nature.

The whole chapter is devoted to brainwashing Oliver. Fagin shows himself to be an adept psychological manipulator. He uses solitary confinement to make Oliver susceptible to a sort of brainwashing. (see post below on Prison Methods)

We even see Oliver gazing out of the “back-garret window with rusty bars outside, which had no shutter” - a very clear parallel with the bars of a prison. He tries to see something, but the window was obscured with “the rain and smoke of years … he had as much chance of [making things out] as if he had lived inside the ball of St. Paul’s Cathedral.”

I like the way Charles Dickens sarcastically refers to Oliver’s room as an “observatory” because the dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral (the roof is an empty golden half sphere inside) looks just like an observatory. Obviously at the time there were no skyscrapers, but it is still a landmark in London even now, and very visible from the East End. Here it is:

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

It adds a perfect contrast to Oliver’s position, of not being able to see anything!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I also like this bit of pure Cockney humour about Fagin’s methods:

“And make your fortun’ out of hand?” added the Dodger, with a grin.”

The Dodger is trying to persuade Oliver that he will make his fortune, which is probably tongue-in-cheek, as he is feeling genial. We learn that Dodger is tipsy from beer:

“he was evidently tinctured, for the nonce (for the moment), with a spice of romance and enthusiasm, foreign to his general nature.”

But Charley Bates continues:

“And so be able to retire on your property, and do the gen-teel: as I mean to, in the very next leap-year but four that ever comes, and the forty-second Tuesday in Trinity-week,”

This takes some untangling, but is typical Cockney sarcasm. Charles Bates adds the joke to make it plainer to Oliver. Leap years are once every four years. The “next leap year but four” would be in 20 year’s time (by which time Charley Bates might be as old as Bill Sikes, if he lives that long!) “Trinity week” though, is the week beginning with the first Sunday after Pentecost, i.e. 50 days or 8 weeks after Easter. Obviously there is only one Tuesday in Trinity week though, so the embroidering of the date is just to maker it sound good.

Since what Charley Bates says is nonsense, he means that Oliver will never be rich - that day will never come - but he will always have a few coins for ready money.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Even when he is allowed to speak to other people, the Dodger and Charley Bates have been primed what to say, and tell Oliver the criminal code, which all comes down to not “peaching” on the others.

Oliver tries to reason that they didn’t behave very well to him as a friend and fellow gang member, leaving him to get the blame for their pickpocketing at the bookseller’s. But Dodger has the perfect utilitarian argument: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. His argument is that he and Charley Bates did not want to get Fagin into trouble, which they would have done, because the police know that they all work together. Thus they would all get the blame. He says that they were lucky that only one of them was caught.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And a little more …

Prison Methods

Fagin’s brainwashing of Oliver, is Charles Dickens corrupting, or parodying, an experimental method being used on prison inmates at the time. Prisoners were left in isolation with Bibles to read and occasional visits from the prison chaplain. It was hoped that through reflection they could be rehabilitated.

And what do we see here? Oliver is isolated, and left with nothing but a book on bloodthirsty crimes to read, and threatened by Fagin that he is part of their gang now and must never tell on them, or dire things will happen to him. Thus in Charles Dickens's parody, Fagin represent the prison chaplain! The “Old Bailey” Oliver is threatened with, is the central criminal court for the City of London. (If you watch British crime dramas, you’ve probably heard of it.)

Tom Chitling has just been released from the house of correction in Clerkenwell, called “Coldbath Fields”. This was where minor offenders could be sent for up to 3 years. Dickens preferred the system there, which was not to put prisoners in solitary confinement. “Coldbath Fields” used the “silent system”, whereby prisoners had one another’s company, but were not allowed to speak.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

And yet more …

Quite a few ethical problems are raised in this chapter. They seem timeless, but their application is topical, as we see with the “correction house”.

In the late 17th century, the philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) argued that the mind is more or less a tabula rasa, or blank slate. General principles of morality, logic, and so on are learned (through sensory experience and reflection) rather than being innate (something people are born with). However, the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) believed the opposite: that such principles are innate, rather than coming from sources outside the individual, such as experience. This opposition forms the basis of the ongoing debate on nature versus nurture.

We can see that Charles Dickens places Oliver squarely in the midst of this debate. Clearly Oliver was born with a kind, sweet nature that somewhat insulates him from the wiles and meanness of Fagin, Sikes, and the others. But for how long? Will his innocent nature be quashed, and absorbed over time by an unremitting evil and criminal environment?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

What are your thoughts on this chapter?

[Michael]

Reading this line where do you think it would come from only knowing it was Dickens:

"Spiders had built their webs in the angles of the walls and ceilings; and sometimes...walked slowly into a room, the mice would scamper across the floor..."

My first guess would be "Great Expectations" and Satis House. Dickens would continuously use in his future novels a ramshackle house as a physical manifestation of the personal degradation of the owner. Although in this case, I might be taking the analysis too far as the townhouse probably had long past its better days by the time Fagin took possession.

Dickens throws a literary boxing combination at Evangelical/Low Church Christians. First Charley describes the dog Bull's-eye, for example, "Don't he look fierce at any strange cove that laughs". After a few more unpleasant characteristics, Charley says the dog is a Christian. Dickens as narrator throws another punch at the same target in an exposition of Bates' statement. Rather interesting the narrator states "if Master Bates had only known it", as if the reader might have trouble believing Bates had the wherewithal of making such a biting comparison between the dog and Evangelicals. Dickens would go on targeting Evangelicals in his future novels, for example, "Bleak House".

Speaking of a crown, below is a photo of a 1892 crown, part of my Victorian coin collection, with a US quarter and 1 Euro coin as comparisons. Yes quite a big chunk of silver.

[Claudia]

Poor Oliver is experiencing imprisonment again. Not being able to see much of the outer world, or nothing at all, is a torture technique.
Imprisonment, and a sense of claustrophobia are a recurring motif in Dickens's works - at least those I have read so far. The Marshalsea prison vs "airing on the Iron Bridge" in Little Dorrit, and this squalid room with nailed shutters at Fagin's, vs the dome of St Paul's cathedral.

It seems that the most important things happen in closed spaces, while Elizabeth Gaskell's novels I have read show the opposite: Ruth, but also Sylvia's lovers show important things happening outdoors in vast open spaces (seaside, Welsh mountains).

Slang: don't worry Jean! I am already familiar with a few Yorkshire phrases in Sylvia's lovers and North and South. Cockney accent and words are generally understandable in the context. Plus I discovered a glossary in my Wordsworth edition!

We see a similar situation with Gavroche from Les Misérables,and his friends when he teaches Parisian argot to children when they are sheltering in an elephant. Some words have survived over two centuries but some others have not.

Thank you Jean for your interesting explanations, also philosophical, and this process of manipulation Oliver is experiencing with those happy few...

[Greg]

It's corrosive the isolation Oliver is inflicted to here; the loneliness makes him so crave human contact that he yearns for it, no matter how unpleasant the people may be. He is "too happy to have some faces, however bad, to look upon . . . .".

It's interesting what you say Jean about how this parodies some experimental prison techniques of the time. No matter the intentions, this situation seems psychologically toxic.

The whole thing makes me thing of a quote from Mary Renault's The Charioteer:

"A starving man won't notice a dirty plate."

[Karin]

Claudia wrote: "Poor Oliver is experiencing imprisonment again. Not being able to see much of the outer world, or nothing at all, is a torture technique.
Imprisonment, and a sense of claustrophobia are a recurring..."

Yes, sensory deprivation is a huge key in getting people to do what you want with them, and children are particularly susceptible to this; I thought it rather "modern" to use this sort of technique, but of course it's actually an extremely old one.

It seems that the most important things happen in closed spaces, while Elizabeth Gaskell's novels I have read show the opposite: I've only read one novel by Gaskell so can't compare, but this is an interesting observation. I also noticed that while I might have expected this close confinement we see Oliver thinking about things such as how betrayed his benefactors must feel and not just looking inward to how horrible things are for himself.

[Ida]

Michael wrote: "Reading this line where do you think it would come from only knowing it was Dickens:

"Spiders had built their webs in the angles of the walls and ceilings; and sometimes...walked slowly into a roo..."

Re Fagin’s hide out - I think I read somewhere that it and other decaying houses in Dickens were based on the Blacking Factory he worked in for a time. In the autobiographical fragment he wrote for his first biographer, Forster, he described it as 'A crazy, tumbledown house with rotten floors and staircase, dirty and decaying, with rats swarming down in the cellar. ' Tellingly one of his co-workers was named Bob Fagin’s

[Ida]

Greg wrote: "It's so corrosive the isolation Oliver is inflicted to here; the loneliness makes him so crave human contact that he yearns for it, no matter how unpleasant the people may be. He is "too happy to h..."

I totally agree - if Oliver was to stay there, sooner or later he would be bound to go pickpocketing with the gang, simply out of the need for companionship and approval, and then he would be completely under Fagins thumb.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Michael - You are a mind-reader and have hit on 2 of the topics I deliberately left, in the hope that others would pick up on them 😊

Indeed he was critical of Evangelical Christians here ... although to be fair, it is only the ranting Evangelicals Charles Dickens really despised. He created several ranting preachers who fit the bill, and we have come across at least two in our group reads: Mr. Chadband of Bleak House and the wonderfully named Reverend Melchisedech Howler in Dombey and Son. There are many more to come!

But a passage such as this one:

"there are a good many ladies and gentlemen, claiming to be out-and-out Christians, between whom, and Mr. Sikes’ dog, there exist strong and singular points of resemblance."

could refer to any pious, judgemental and hypocritical Christians, from any denomination. It's worth noting that he is equally critical of some Catholics, as we saw in our read of Pictures from Italy. In each case, it is not the religion or sect itself (as he makes clear in his preface there) or its sincere, faithful believers, but the way it is applied and preached, by a small minority of greedy hypocrites.

The second point is about the decrepitude of the house reflecting its residents. As you say, it is a "physical manifestation of [their] personal degradation.

The late novel featuring Satis House is a good example (and I also was taken by the mice and spiders, which exactly mirror the ones running amok in the wedding cake he was write about so many decades later! 😣)

But the best example of this comes from a book we have read, and arguably gives its name to Bleak House, "Tom All Alone's". This house, although hardly ever named, is a running theme through the entire novel. Another building in the novel (view spoiler)[Mr. Krook's rag and bottle shop in a back street behind the court of Chancery, almost burned down with its owner. (hide spoiler)] And another group read, Little Dorrit, provided a house which (view spoiler)[literally crumbled away as the entire structure had rotted away - a marvelous metaphor for the rottenness of the Clennam family business (hide spoiler)].

I think your metaphor is perfectly sound Michael, and it is so interesting to see one of the very first depictions by Charles Dickens of a house matching its occupant!

We will learn a little more about this area soon.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ida wrote: "Tellingly one of his co-workers was named Bob Fagin’s..."

Good to see you here, Ida! 😊 And what a great quotation: "A crazy, tumbledown house with rotten floors and staircase, dirty and decaying, with rats swarming down in the cellar." via John Forster. When we did our close analysis of David Copperfield, it was startling to see certain passages reprised almost word for word from the autobiographical fragment.

Do please look back at the earlier posts about Oliver Twist when you can. We do have days where you can catch up, at the end of each installment.

We have discussed the genuinely kind older friend Charles Dickens made, Bob Fagan in both the early 2 threads, as well as the real life inspiration for Fagin, and even two possible ones for Oliver himself. I'm sure you will find this interesting, and it may clarify some things too.

[Ida]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Ida wrote: "Tellingly one of his co-workers was named Bob Fagin’s..."

Good to see you here, Ida! 😊 And what a great quotation: "A crazy, tumbledown house with rotten floors and staircase, dirty an..."

Thanks Jean - I will certainly look back at the earlier chapter discussions - judging by this one they will certainly be worth a read :-)

[Sue]

As a novice to this story, I just have to say I’m very interested to see where this is going. I really have no idea of its route as I haven’t even seen any production or film (except to have hints of Oliver’s ongoing goodness.)

Jean, thanks for the continuing education on terms and everyone’s comments are great.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Ida wrote: "I will certainly look back at the earlier chapter discussions - judging by this one they will certainly be worth a read :-)..."

Thanks Ida, and I'm sure you have some great contributions to make too!

[Werner]

Jean wrote: "Tom Chitling has just been released from the house of correction in Clerkenwell, called 'Coldbath Fields'."

I'd actually encountered a reference to Coldbath Fields Prison before, in the second novel of Madeleine E. Robins' Sarah Tolerance mystery series (which is set during the Regency era, albeit in a slightly alternate England). But I don't recall a specific reference there to it being located in Clerkenwell (though that might be just due to my faulty memory!), so I learned something here. :-)

[Anna]

One of the things Jean touched on, that I have wondered about, is Oliver's seemingly innate goodness. Born in a workhouse, raised by ill-mannered and vicious persons, starved, beaten, put out to work for an undertaker - Oliver has rarely known goodness or kindness in his life. And now, just when he has escaped from Fagin's clutches and known the first trust and care in his life, he is cast back down into the depths of loneliness and depravity, probably seeing no way out. It would be surprising for him to continue to have the same views and feelings as before. Surely he will be ready to give up and feel that there is no hope for him.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

It's fascinating to hear of modern references to the experimental prison techniques in Mary Renault, (Greg) the Parisian argot in Victor Hugo being roughly parallel to Victorian criminal street slang in its variance from standard English/French (Claudia) and even a mention of "Coldbath Fields" prison in Madeleine E. Robins's novels (Werner). "Coldbath Fields" even sounds like an invented name by Charles Dickens, doesn't it? But I assure you it isn't, and here's wiki to prove it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coldbat...

Sue - It delights me that you do not know the story and are enjoying it so much! Sharing the experience with someone to whom is it so fresh, adds an extra buzz.

Michael - I've just spotted that you collect Victorian coins; thank you for photographing one for us 😊 I used to collect "bun pennies" ... I wonder if you know what they are! (view spoiler)[copper pennies where the face was a profile of the young Victoria, wearing her hair in a bun. (hide spoiler)]Whenever I came across one in the circulation, I would keep it.)

Anna - Indeed the nature/nurture debate runs right through this novel. The literary scholar John Bayley points out that the reason the social aspect is so shocking for us, is that we know that Oliver's view is right. The system is monstrous because he finds to be so. Oliver is not confused in the way that David Copperfield is, for instance, when he (view spoiler)[ meets Mr. Murdstone, (hide spoiler)], as there is no assumption that he really knows what he is like.

"Oliver's vision is the lens to focus Dickens saeva indignatio (savage indignation)".

But this is anticipating the action a little, so we should move on 😊 Thanks all!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Chapter 19:

Fagin visits Bill Sikes to discuss plans for a burglary at Chertsey:

"It seemed just the night when it befitted such a being as the Jew to be abroad. As he glided stealthily along, creeping beneath the shelter of the walls and doorways, the hideous old man seemed like some loathsome reptile, engendered in the slime and darkness through which he moved: crawling forth, by night, in search of some rich offal for a meal."

Bill Sikes tells him that although Toby Crackit has tried to get in with the servants, none of them can be bribed to let them in. However, he offers to break in for a larger cut of the take - an extra 50 “shiners” (guineas). All he will need is a “centre-bit” (a drill bit) and a small boy.

At this point Fagin nods towards Nancy, as if she should not hear what they are discussing, but Bill Sikes swears she will not “blab” (tell on them). With a show of bravado, Nancy suggests Oliver as the boy for the job, and Fagin agrees.

“Ha! you’re a clever one, my dear: the sharpest girl I ever saw!” said the Jew, patting her on the neck. “It was about Oliver I was going to speak, sure enough. Ha! ha! ha!”

It’s time, he says, for Oliver “to work for his bread”, and he assures Bill Sikes that Oliver will do will do everything he wants, “if you frighten him enough.” Bill Sikes threatens that Oliver will never be seen alive again, if he doesn’t.



Bill Sikes - Harry Furniss 1910

Fagin assures him that once Oliver has helped them to rob the house, he will view himself as one of the gang. He is invaluable because he is small, and has an innocent face.

They decide the robbery will take place two nights later. Bill drinks until he passes out, and Fagin leaves, congratulating himself that Nancy has forgotten her concerns for Oliver.

This ends installment 9

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Locations and a little more …

Spitalfields and Bethnal Green are at the heart of the East End. Fagin is walking in a North East direction from his hideout near Smithfield market.

I know the area round Spitalfields and Bethnal Green very well, and worked there for many years. Now it is a lively and diverse area, although it is still classed as socially deprived. During the 19th (and part of the 20th) century this was the worst slum area in London, as Charles Dickens describes:

“a maze of the mean and dirty streets which abound in that close and densely-populated quarter”.

We read about the rooms with multiple occupants, lack of sanitation or a sewage system, disease and overflowing burial grounds in our group side read of The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens' London by Judith Flanders. Historically, I’ve described the various groups who have settled there in an earlier post.

When Bill Sikes says “there are fifty boys snoozing about Common Garden” he means Covent Garden, which is a world-famous huge flower (and produce) market, both then and now. It is an open space where street children would easily find shelter overnight in the stalls. Now the craft stalls there are prolific too.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

I referred to Bill Sikes’s observation of Fagin's demonic disposition “Don’t you know the devil when he’s got a great-coat on?” in my earlier post on Fagin.

Bill Sikes the tough bully would probably bluster, and say he has no fear of anyone, but he is certainly wary of this wily fellow! The bludgeons and "life-preserver” seem to be the only articles Bill Sikes owns. A Victorian life-preserver was:

“a stout piece of cane about a foot long, with a ball of five or six ounces of lead attached firmly to one end by catgut netting, whilst the other end is furnished with a strong leather or catgut loop to go round the wrist and prevent the weapon flying from or being snatched from the hand.”

There’s a good article (with historic photographs) here about Victorian gentlemen’s weapons, used not only by housebreakers such as Bill Sikes, but by both genders in self-defence. https://outofthiscentury.wordpress.co...

I think Harry Furniss has captured this very well in his lithograph!

The “crib at Chertsey” is the house they are planning to rob, with all its “plate” (Fagin’s eyes light up at the thought of all the silver, although it is unlikely to be silver-plated base metal, since it will be valuable, heavy, solid silver. It’s just a colloquial name.) Chertsey is in leafy Surrey, a prosperous county outside London, but still on the river Thames. Property there is highly sought after; millionaires might choose Surrey’s large mansions to live in, and well-to-do business people commute now to London from Surrey. Chertsey itself is a town about 20 miles South West of London.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

For all the anticipated terror of this chapter, I had to laugh at the idea of the dandy, “flash Toby Crackit” with his fake whiskers and canary yellow waistcoat, trying to persuade the women into letting him into the house! Of course we all know women are a pushover for a canary waistcoat … but seriously, look at Fagin’s calculation, and his misogynistic dismissal here. It’s quite revealing about Fagin’s attitude to women, especially coming on top of Nancy’s outburst. We know he is a fence, and involved in prostitution.

Did you enjoy this chapter? We can really tell now that Charles Dickens has got the bit between his teeth I think, and is going to give us a rollicking story! Forget the sarcastic diatribe against the utilitarian “philosophers”, this is promising to be the exciting stuff of Victorian melodrama!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

This ends installment 9. We now have a day to catch up, before we begin installment 10, with chapter 20, on Wednesday. (Please note too, that the next installment has 3 chapters.)

[Michael]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Michael - I've just spotted that you collect Victorian coins; thank you for photographing one for us 😊 I used to collect "bun pennies" .."

I do have "bun pennies" but I did not know they were called that. I know the portrait used prior to the "bun" is called the "young head" and the one after the "veiled or old head". Were those Victorian pennies in general circulation when you were collecting them?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Yes Michael 😊 I went on to collect one copper penny from every year until 1970, as I came across them. I've given you the everyday name we all used, not the name numismatists use.

[Michael]

Besides the East End neighborhoods Ms. Bionic elaborates, Dickens mentions Whitechapel. For people like me with only a limited knowledge of the neighborhoods of London, Whitechapel tends to stand out due to its later connection with Jack the Ripper.

Dickens would paint quite a similar picture of London on a rainy miserable day in the opening chapter of Bleak House. As if the mud and black mist is not foreboding enough, Dickens adds the suffocating, and claustrophobic maze-like narrow streets and alleys of East London. Within the nooks and crannies, we have Fagan describe as a lizard scurrying about trying to stay hidden while hunting for a meal.

Dickens through Sikes, does some fund raising for the philanthropic societies that abounded during the era. In this case the effectiveness of the "Juvenile Delinquent Society" in taking boys from the streets and giving them the education and tools to live normal and productive lives. In the Nature v. Nuture debate Ms. Bionic brought up earlier, Dickens is decisively on the side of the Nurture school. But is it so obvious because of this from Sikes:"And so they go on" said Mr. Sikes, his wrath rising with the recollection of his wrongs, "and so they go on,,,", Was Sikes offered an opportunity to take a different path in his youth and squandered it because of his "nature"?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Whitechapel is indeed in the same area, also on Fagin's path northwards. So the same social conditions I indicated were true then, and it should have been included in my post.

I suppose it became notorious worldwide for Jack the Ripper, and nowadays you might know it from the "Whitechapel" TV series. To me, in the 21st century I just think of a cutting edge art gallery right next to the tube station, and the Buddhist centre down the road!

"Dickens is decisively on the side of the Nurture school" - Yes, well spotted Michael. We will have to see if he remains consistently of this view, through the novel. I like your musings on Bill Sikes's past very much.

[Erich C]

I loved the description that begins this chapter: of Fagin, "like some loathsome reptile, engendered in the slime and darkness through which he moved: crawling forth, by night, in search of some rich offal for a meal."

"Dickens is decisively on the side of the Nurture school"

I would say that the criminals are definitely on the nurture side of the debate, but I'm not so sure about Charles Dickens. How is it that characters like Oliver and Dick can remain good in the face of the evil and neglect around them? Interestingly, the goodness of those and other characters in his fiction is one of the common criticisms leveled at Dickens; it is too unrealistic for people to be so incorruptible.

Dickens also seems to be arguing that goodness has powerful effects on people, even those who reject it. At the end of this chapter, we see Fagin decide not to wake up Oliver but to wait until the next day. Somehow, Oliver's goodness makes him hesitate, just as Satan hesitates when he sees Adam and Eve's beauty in Paradise Lost.

[Claudia]

Still irritated, as we all are, by Fagin being named "the Jew", I would like to mention a few facts.

Bethnal Green has been one of the first Jewish neighbourhood in the 18th century, with a population of merchants. Much later (1860-80) many Jewish immigrants arrived in England after fleeing persecution in the Russian Empire and Germany. Many were poor, and could only afford the cheapest accommodation such as Whitechapel. There are surely interesting reports about this.

About the crime rate in Jewish communities: it was lower than in the general population till the Emancipation. Max I. Dimont, in "Jews, God and History", mentioned in the updated edition in 1992 that there were about 10% Jewish convicted in the US jails. In 2000, a French rabbi ministering as a chaplain at Les Baumettes, a famous prison in Marseilles said that about 5% of the inmates there were Jewish. In the same years, even if it was not easy to quote exact figures, it was said to be mostly a white-collar criminality.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...

In spite of this unhappy way of naming and describing Fagin, we should also mention and remember with gratitude that Britain helped many children who were shipped by train and ferry from Germany and Austria after the Crystal Night in November 1938, till 1940. The Nazis first allowed them to go to England without their parents in so-called Kindertransporte. The Chief Rabbinate of England, some funds, philanthropic organisations welcomed those children who were accommodated by British families, went to school and became British citizens or emigrated to Israel in 1948, or the US. Most of them, unfortunately, never saw their parents again. Some Kinder who are still alive today are mostly ninety plus years old.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Erich C wrote: "Interestingly, the goodness of those and other characters in his fiction is one of the common criticisms leveled at Dickens;"

It is indeed Erich ... good to see you commenting by the way!

This idea of Oliver's natural and unwavering goodness, is why I began to reference John Bayley's theory (I think Claudia also mentioned this earlier) in the essay "Things as They Really Are" included in various places. If you have the Norton Critical edition, it is included there.

"(the criticism being) it is too unrealistic for people to be so incorruptible."

What we have to remember is that this is an allegory. So although it is set in a real world, there is a fantasy element. I cannot say too much without spoilers, but we have already had an instance of something which is "otherworldly".

Oliver is partly intended as a realistic child, who appeals to our protectiveness, but he is also an ideal of innocence, and a composite. John Bayley goes further, and maintains that Charles Dickens views our daydreams as part of our essential nature. The goodness of Mr Brownlow's world and the evil of Fagin's "coexist in consciousness, they are two sides of the same coin of fantasy, not two real places that exist separately in life. And there is no true activity in these two worlds, only the guilty or desperately innocent daydreams of our double nature"

Since Charles Dickens always insisted that his literary devices and conventions (such as coincidences, happy endings for the good characters, the evil ones getting their just deserts etc.) were similar to what happens in real life, we know that his use of the dream atmosphere is in the same spirit.

Just think about the "realism" of Fagin's den. It is described in a literary way, so that we get an idea of the filth, and the coarse language, and shudder in our imagination. But if we were truly faced with the reality of it, we would not read on. John Bayley expresses this as

"Dickens villains have the unexpungable nature of our own nightmares and our own consciousness".

Ditto his good, innocent characters. They appeal to our fantasies; our ideals of how they should be. "We are continually oppressed by the disingenuousness of our own impulses and fantasies". So we want Oliver to be confronted by terrible situations - we want him to fight and overcome them. "We shrink from the fate, and desire it".

I have written too much, and not even skimmed the surface! If you have it, please try to read the essay. Oliver Twist, he says, is a modern novel in that it is unsettling, and doesn't present us with a comfortable world we can soak up and enjoy, as he does in The Pickwick Papers. In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens shows us "Things as They Really Are".

We are manipulated, and are swept along; we believe in all these characters as we read. By using the literary form to do this means that he can approach us in a personal way; it may touch a raw nerve, and upset us. And the other side of this coin is that his good characters remain untouched by their bad experiences, because we need them to be.

[Bridget]

Jean, Thank you for the details of John Bayley's essay. It helps explain the emotional ups and downs I've felt while reading. I'm intrigued by your description, and I'll try to find a copy to read.

I really liked Erich's thoughts on Fagin. When I read the quote about Fagin being reptilian, I got shivers thinking about a villian Dickens would write about later, Uriah Heep. I also liked your connection to Paradise Lost which I thought was spot on.

The way Dickens describes a sleeping Oliver looking like death not as a shroud but "when a young and gentle spirit has just fled to heaven, and the gross air of the world has not had time to breathe upon the changing dust it hallowed"
made me think of Mary Hogarth's passing and made me wonder if Dickens was thinking of her in that moment.

One final thought, Jean alluded to the Fagin's misogyny which is front and center here. I cringed when Fagin pats Nancy on the neck, there are so many allusions to hangings I'm extra aware of necks now. I keep thinking about poor Nancy. She's trapped between a violent and abusive Bill Sikes, and a creepy misogynist in Fagin. No wonder she tries to make herself nearly invisible, as the two men are talking.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Claudia wrote: "About the crime rate in Jewish communities: it was lower than in the general population ..."

That is interesting, thanks Claudia! Also for your facts about more recent Jewish history in wider Europe and the US.

Coming back to East London, all these locations are very close together. The first job I had was next door to the Whitechapel Mission 😊 yet my school was classed as being in Bethnal Green. My short walk there from the tube station took me through Shoreditch churchyard, and we would walk to Stepney Green for various activities. Perhaps this sort of thing best illustrates the interwinding streets and communities we see in Oliver Twist.

I did give a brief overview of the historical immigration to what is now called Tower Hamlets: Stepney, Poplar, and Bethnal Green and all the areas mentioned. LINK HERE (after the first paragraph about Nancy. I have often wondered what her ethnicity might have been.)

It was (and is) the most ethnically diverse area of London, with pockets of various communities, including Jewish areas. This is why Fagin was able to buy Oliver's clothes back from a Jewish man, (and return then to him very meanly, as Chris observed), and how the meeting between him and Bill Sikes was attended by another. These two characters are also in the text, but may pass the reader by as they are not highlighted by Charles Dickens, whereas his early editions continually refer to Fagin as "The Jew".

[Werner]

The nature vs. nurture debate is alive and well today, and it was when Dickens was writing this novel, too. He expresses ideas about the influence of both. But based on what I've read of his work (and that's nowhere near as much as some people in this group have, but it does include eight of his novels and a few short stories), I don't think he regarded humans as blind bondslaves of either of them.

Again and again in Dickens' writing, we encounter people who have made moral choices in their lives, and/or are called on to make choices. These are real decisions, which are not pre-programed by nature and not guaranteed by nurture. Even when inheritance or environment limits the choices available (and he shows us those situations too), the choices make a difference; and for good or ill, they help or have helped to shape the personalities of the people who have made them.

Erich C. wrote: "How is it that characters like Oliver and Dick can remain good in the face of the evil and neglect around them? Interestingly, the goodness of those and other characters in his fiction is one of the common criticisms leveled at Dickens; it is too unrealistic for people to be so incorruptible."

We can surmise that at a very young age, Oliver and Dick had to choose whether to react to other children around them with fear and preemptive hostility, or with sympathy and kindness. At some point, they opted for the latter, and found that the resulting friendship had emotional rewards, even in the hellhole that Mrs. Mann was running (or, perhaps, especially in that kind of setting!). That precedent would make it easier to continue to choose positive attitudes and behavior towards others; and kinds of choices that grow to be a habit shape a person's character.

To be sure, a lot of people (both in the 1830s and the 2020s) have been habitually making negative choices from childhood on, and nobody makes consistently positive ones. That breeds a cynicism about the process in many quarters. But some people, even as kids, do make mostly positive ones, and come across as kind and gentle spirits even in very adverse circumstances. Growing up, I knew some of those kids (I didn't grow up in a ritzy milieu!), even if I was more of a self-centered brat myself in those days. I can testify both to the reality of conscious choices, good and bad, and to the possibility of good choices that shape positive characters. So I'm inclined to see Dickens as realistic in his depiction of the full range of human moral possibilities, at both ends of the scale.

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Werner wrote: "The nature vs. nurture debate is alive and well today ..."

Absolutely Werner! Balancing the two aspects forms the basis of much psychology, and is the bedrock of educational theory. As you say, Charles Dickens was aware of this, and knew the basic stances of the philosophers I mentioned.

Oliver Twist is singular (perhaps more of a Victorian word, but it seems to fit better than "unique", which isn't quite what I mean) in this, and it is also slightly different from what follows, just as Oliver Twist is itself different from The Pickwick Papers.

"I'm inclined to see Dickens as realistic in his depiction of the full range of human moral possibilities, at both ends of the scale"

I think he'd be delighted to hear it Werner! 😊 But so was The Pickwick Papers, although he only rarely touched on the "other end". Charles Dickens well knew the underside of London life, but he also knew that most of his middle-class reading public had never read anything near to what he would write about in Oliver Twist. We've talked a lot about how this novel was focused on revealing the iniquities of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, so it needed to be realistic; to have the ring of truth.

The point I was trying to catch and transfer from John Bayley (with a tweak of my own) is that that is not all he was trying to do.

Charles Dickens famously disliked what he called "dissective" Art. This is why he could write passages of rhetoric, used coincidences, and also why he created characters whom people try to analyse but find they can't. We have to look at Charles Dickens in a different way from other authors. All authors manipulate us, but Charles Dickens used psychology on us perhaps more than we are used to.

All his strong characters here are exaggerated aspects of ourselves, but we also have characters like Mr. Bumble, or Noah Claypole who have no inner selves. They simply are, with no attempt to have a moral framework. They do not conceal what they are, because they do not know it; they have no depth.

Another way of putting this is that the world of Oliver Twist is peopled by animals, and only when something we believe to be monstrously wrong happens, do we see them as human. (The subtext demonstrates this all the time, with animal comparisons).

Overlaid this is the waking nightmare world, or what John Bayley calls the imaginative principle, as it dispels any true distinction between the world of darkness which Oliver is in, and the world of light which he longs for.

Are you reading the book with us, Werner? If you are you will see that Oliver does not talk as an East End "product of the workhouse" would have done. Some readers criticise Charles Dickens for this, but it misses the point. Of course he could have reproduced this speech if he had wanted to! We see ample evidence that Charles Dickens had a good ear for dialect, and knew the world of beggars, down-and-outs and criminals very well.

But Oliver stands alone and untouched. He has not (at least so far) been corrupted by his environment, but his behaviour does show that he is not psychologically immune. This is what we identify with, and what we see in ourselves. Other characters in the novel may be warped and made evil by institutions, and we can see a few in the novel who are not "types" but evidently have a moral dimension and have been corrupted. We take them very seriously indeed, and they take themselves seriously too.

But Oliver himself is neither a type, nor one of these. He is created to hit our hearts, and appeal to our own memories, dreams and our imagination. You talked of Dick, and this is a good parallel. Dick is needed to be the pure innocent, as he appears at a time when Oliver is not a personification of innocence himself, but doing something to move the story on. So Dick replaces Oliver in our imaginations. If you look at his speech carefully, just as with Oliver, this is not that of a small boy; Dick is the archetype of innocence and purity at that point. He appeals to our hearts, and our sense of natural justice, rather than needing us to believe in him as an individual. It's more the Victorian way of responding to melodrama, rather than the modern need to analyse.

The whole of Oliver Twist is intensely personal in that way. Tracing Charles Dickens's life back, indicates where much of this comes from. And by not giving Oliver a persona, or evidently making him a cockney waif, we are looking at Charles Dickens's - and our own - deep inner selves.

This is not true of other boy heroes he was to write, such as David, in David Copperfield, who constantly questions "Why me?" or Pip, in Great Expectations who is a very tiresome hero for half the book, displaying all the characteristics of a petulant boy going through puberty, and then the selfishness of a young man, before he goes through his changing life journey. Oliver is, in a way, more raw and truthful than either of them, even though at a first reading he might appear oddly undefined,

I'll write more about the dream "waking nightmare" world at the the end of the next installment, when it is even more pertinent. These are huge topics, and I've already tried to cram in far more ideas than possible in a short post, thereby running the risk of not explaining properly. But I did try to cover some of the importance of dreams and imagination, in my post about John Bayley. It's as well to bear these words of his in mind:

"[In Oliver Twist] Dickens has achieved combining the genre of Gothic nightmare with that of social denunciation, so that each enhances the other."

Yes, we can expect realism, authenticity and psychological truth; but we should also expect more.

[Werner]

Bionic Jean wrote: "Yes, expect realism, authenticity and psychological truth; but also expect more."

Excellent advice, Jean; and a very substantial post with lots of great points and food for thought; thanks! Your deep engagement with Dickens' work and your insight into his craft always shows in your analysis of it, and I think I speak for us all when I say that we appreciate it deeply and get a lot out of it.

No, sadly, I'm not actually rereading the book with you all. :-( But through your chapter summaries and the comments on them, I'm enthusiastically recalling my own long-ago read and the reactions it produced in me.

[Sam]

So many things on which I want to comment and little time or not enough space.

I think in this novel Oliver's innocence and goodness presents a particular problem for Dickens. If he portrays Oliver more realistically in actions, he invites the reader's condemnation of fhe character as a criminal even if Oliver's behavior is in self preservation. In other words, if Oliver cooperates with the criminals in order to save himself, in Victorian times he's fit to hang or suffer another punishment. Personally, I think Dickens wants us to be aware of this and wants us uncomfortable with the idea. I think how Hugo devotes the Valjean/Javert storyline to the exploration of the theme of justice in Les Miserables; might we not be getting seeds for that here?

The writing in Chapter nineteen is brilliant. One reason I am hesitant to agree with the argument of Dickens' immaturity as a writer at this time is scenes like this. I can't help read this scene and think that two completely different writers, Robert Louis Stevenson and Harold Pinter were strongly influenced by a scene like this from Dickens. The scene has only three characters, four if we include the dog, plus characters mentioned by one of those three. (Crackit for example) After the little intro where Fagin's similarity to the devil are reinforced, we have this scene of interaction between Fagin, Sykes, and Nancy and note how skillfully Dickens handles the blocking and dialogue in the scene. Note the changes in the dynamic of power from character to character, the expreesed and implied threats, the subterfuge, the histrionics. I know we have a tendency to frown on melodrama but there is good and bad melodrama and just because it is not in fashion at present, i still think we must appreciate it when well done. I think this is some of the best.

If Fagin is seen as the Tempter, Bill Sykes is the definitive sociopath. He was one of the earliest remembered literary characters that frightened me. I absolutely love Dickens' portrayal of him here. I previously mentioned the blocking and we must attend the exaggerated antics of Bill Sykes, but note how perfectly attuned they are to his character and how engrossing they are to the reader.

My favorite little touch to this scene is how Dickens depicts Fagin's reaction to finding Nancy at Bill's. We have probably seen this stock reaction to a supise scene numerous times in film or theater but rarely as apt and full of layered meaning as here. Already too longbso I will stop but much more could be said.

[Claudia]

Interesting discussion between Jean and Werner about Oliver and Dick. In my opinion, Oliver is the hero, and my main concern is bluntly said, how will he get out of this mess (to say the least)? Each of his attitudes is worth mentioning. He is unselfish, and courageous in spite of all and generous.

Dick is as you said Jean a symbol of pure innocence, very fragile and sickly but somehow instilling strength, courage, and faith in Oliver. It is almost surprising that he was still alive when the beadle turned up at Mrs Mann's. I compared him to Helen Burns in Jane Eyre, who did not survive the epidemics of respiratory sickness in that terrible boarding school but conveyed a strength - and faith - unheard of to Jane. Dick, just like Helen, and little Paul Dombey too, seem to be responding to Jeremiah 1:5 (King James Bible) "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; before you camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee..." Such otherworldly, both ethereal and ephemeral characters are a sort of transient angels - as if they were the personified soul of the heroes (Jane, Florence Dombey, Oliver) who, after their passing away, lives on in the heroes themselves. (I don't know what will be happening to Dick - while reading, I discovered that I had not read Oliver Twist yet!)

[Claudia]

Sam wrote: "So many things on which I want to comment and little time or not enough space.

I think in this novel Oliver's innocence and goodness presents a particular problem for Dickens. If he portrays Oli..."

Very good points Sam! Les Misérables is a huge topic but there are some eternal questions in Oliver Twist as well as in Les Misérables. As Victor Hugo wrote in his Préface to his most famous novel, while he was staying at Hauteville House in St Peter Port, Guernsey CI :

"So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age—the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night—are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless."

This article from wiki contains many interesting facts explaining why and how he wrote Les Misérables.

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

[Kathleen]

Reading everyone's thoughts here is such an education!

I love your point, Jean, that Charles Dickens used psychology on us perhaps more than we are used to. It's such an interesting juxtaposition, showing us characters who are ideals and composites in a world of “things as they really are.” I think it's easy for us to keep thinking we're in just one of those worlds--a world or realism or a symbolic world, and forget we are in a world made up of both.

All of this makes it an unusual journey, yet I think what Claudia says is the thread that runs through it all and holds it together for the reader: we want to know how will the hero triumph?

And I think the nature versus nurture controversy can be seen the same way: elements of both are used in a magical alchemy, in these characters' lives and our own.

[Shirley (stampartiste)]

I have finally caught up with the group in reading the chapters and everyone’s so very helpful comments.

I have tried to find pictures online of London’s East End in the 1800s as described by Dickens. I haven’t found any as depressing and claustrophobic and atmospheric as Dickens describes Fagin’s walk to Sikes’ place. A child living in these slums must have indeed literally had no hope or expectation of ever getting out. The poverty and ignorance were just too overwhelming.

It wasn’t until I read this passage in Chapter 19 that I truly understood the passage in A Christmas Carol where the Spirit of Christmas Present shows Scrooge two children: A boy, representing Ignorance, and a girl, representing Want. The Spirit tells Scrooge, Beware them both,… but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased.” Fagin’s walk to Whitechapel made me realize just how bound a child was to poverty and ignorance, unless “angels” were willing to come in and give them an education and hope. Will Oliver be dragged down, or will he be rescued?

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

"Your deep engagement with Dickens' work and your insight into his craft always shows in your analysis of it, and I think I speak for us all when I say that we appreciate it deeply and get a lot out of it."

Thank you so much Werner 😊

I asked about you joining in now, as I know some people say they won't be reading it, but then find they can't resist it after all! 😁 😂 Thank you for your restraint in not flogging the nature/nurture point to death, as it could easily take over!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Sam - "So many things on which I want to comment and little time or not enough space"

Oh my goodness yes! It is very hard to "conduct" this huge read, and make sure that there are not too many points of deviation, not too many comments from the same voices - and keep it all focused. You make excellent points as always, thank you.

You are absolutely spot on with your definition of the literary conundrum Charles Dickens faced, and his decision not to portray Oliver with too harsh realism.

"The writing in Chapter nineteen is brilliant. One reason I am hesitant to agree with the argument of Dickens' immaturity as a writer at this time is scenes like this."

Again, I agree completely. In fact I don't think anyone here has expressed the thought that he is an immature writer, have they? There may be details we think he improved on, such as not including long passionate rants, but in general his aptitude for writing, and holding us rapt is already there, and quite remarkable. In fact this time through (6th or 7th) I am seeing so much subtext, that my estimation of it has vastly improved, and it is up there with the others (so will alter my 4* rating).

Excellent and original thoughts, thank you!

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

The similarity of Les Miserables in some aspects has been mentioned several times now, Sam and Claudia, so I really do think it's time to move on from that one please, everyone.

So many writers have been influenced by, and owe much to Charles Dickens. (And before the ghost of the Inimitable gets too big-headed, we will once again be looking at an author who influenced him in the Autumn .😉 Please see the shelves if you are interested).

[Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"]

Kathleen - "I think it's easy for us to keep thinking we're in just one of those worlds--a world or realism or a symbolic world, and forget we are in a world made up of both."

Yes! I am so pleased you are looking at the work in this way. Yes, we want to get on with the story, but there is so much more, isn't there.