Dickensians! discussion
This topic is about
Oliver Twist
Oliver Twist - Group Read 5
>
Oliver Twist: Chapters 35 - 43
Oliver has been in a pleasant situation for a while now that I’ve gotten into the groove of this life for him with the Maylies. I had almost forgotten Sikes who left him in the ditch it seems so long ago. The Bumbles are definitely a hoot! Since it’s not been mentioned before, I assume this is his first marriage.
I really enjoyed reading all of the info on mesmerism. Whether you believe or not, it makes an interesting slant to the dream scenes. IF Monks had been at Oliver’s window at the Maylies how far has he gone to the Bumble’s and the workhouse? Just wondering if it is possible.
There have been some really great discussions since I’ve been catching up.
Bionic Jean wrote: "Katheen and Sue - I'm so pleased you enjoyed all the research I did on mesmerism and about how it relates to Charles Dickens! Yes, thank you so much, Jean for your research on phrenology and mesmerism. Even if they are distasteful, knowing the beliefs floating around in a writer's world explains so much in literature.
It is to me bit unsettling that Dickens believed in phrenology, evaluating one's mental abilities by examining the shape of one's head. It is a ghastly idea, and how this method could have been used to discriminate against various people really offends my modern sensibilities. I recall how carefully Dickens describes his characters' heads, as if he were revealing important information. And of course, Dickens seems to have equated physical beauty with moral purity. I wonder, do we not draw the same conclusions today?
Obviously educated people of the 19th century were really struggling with how to explain or even measure what believers would call "the soul". In literature, mesmerism adds an otherworldly color to a story. It blends perfectly with the concept of visions or spirits or even ghosts.
Bionic Jean wrote: ". . . the final sentence confirms what we all suspected: i.e. that the stranger is Monks, because in later novels Charles Dickens would [have] confidently expected that his descriptions had sufficed, and the character would have kept his apparent air of mystery, remaining “the stranger” or “the man in the cloak”.And MONKS is all caps and bold, in my 1838 Penguin edition! A great comment Jean! I can see this definitely shows how in later years Dickens expects the readers to be sharp and not spoon-fed clues! His sophistication as a writer grows by leaps and bounds in future novels!!
May I thank Jean once again for all the illustrations? They are fantastic, and viewing them on my laptop is so rich. The illustrations in my books at home are very small: I have to use a magnifying glass to see the details! The illustrations Jean has included make it quite interesting to go back and review earlier installments. I'm going to see if there is a separate thread to discuss illustrations, as I am wondering when the use of an illustrator for a novel went out of fashion. I suppose I am a child at heart, but I do so love illustrations!
message 56:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 03:53AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Thanks Lori 😊 I'm really happy to see you back!
Yes, the point about knowing early scientific theories is not whether we believe them but the realisation that Charles Dickens most definitely did, and taking this into account. His very specific details about the lack of footprints etc. etc. and that nobody in this country area had seen the two men, rules out the fact of Monks being present in bodily form at the window.
We know that the Maylie's main house is in Chertsey, but they are not there, but at an unknown country retreat. Charles Dickens does not specify where the workhouse is (where Mr. Bumble resides) but we surmise that it is in London - although the baby farm in the country is only 3 miles from it (i.e. it's impossible). Also the "70 miles" walked by Oliver from there via Barnet (where he met the Artful Dodger) which is in Hertfordshire to the slums round Bethnal Green East London do not make sense either. (See my earlier posts.) I'm afraid you cannot really look at it this way, frustrating though it is! Charles Dickens is making sure we look at the scene as he wants us to, by deliberating obscuring helpful solid facts such as where everything is!
message 57:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 03:56AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
YAY! I was just wondering where you were too, Lee! Sometimes people get lost between threads ...
I feel the same way, and am disturbed by Charles Dickens's abiding belief in phrenology. At least mesmerism was adapted into hynotism, but as you say, phrenology seems to link into the Victorians' beliefs in "equat[ing] physical beauty with moral purity" and the belief that any physical disability such as blindness was a punishment for their parents' or grandparents' sins 😥
"educated people of the 19th century were really struggling with how to explain or even measure what believers would call "the soul"" Yes, and Charles Dickens beliefs on this were extraordinary, perhaps unique; we know how much he loved his ghosts and sprites, while maintaining both Christian and alternative beliefs.
"May I thank Jean once again for all the illustrations? They are fantastic," - Indeed, we do have a thread for illustrations, but it has slipped out of sight down the discussion list, as nobody has commented there recently (and I usually run out of time). Please do add to it if you can! LINK HERE
I'm so pleased you are enjoying them Lee ... so am I 😊 Victorian serial fiction always seemed to be illustrated, and William Makepeace Thackeray even did his own! There have been fewer for the "happy" chapters of Oliver Twist, but today Monks is back with a vengeance ... so let's read that now
message 58:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 05:42AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter 38:
“It was a dull, close, overcast summer evening. The clouds, which had been threatening all day, spread out in a dense and sluggish mass of vapour, already yielded large drops of rain, and seemed to presage a violent thunder-storm”
Mr. and Mrs. Bumble are dressed in old and shabby clothes, and Mr. Bumble carries a lantern, although no light shines from it. They make their way through a rundown neighbourhood near the river, which is:
“far from being a place of doubtful character; for it had long been known as the residence of none but low ruffians …
a scattered little colony of ruinous houses [are]… erected on a low unwholesome swamp, bordering upon the river (Thames)“.
This is Jacob’s island, and it is here that they are to meet with Monks. They stop doubtfully at one large building, where:
“The rat, the worm, and the action of the damp, had weakened and rotted the piles on which it stood; and a considerable portion of the building had already sunk down into the water”.
Sure enough, they are in the right place, as a voice calls down to them. Mrs. Bumble warns her husband:
“Then, mind what I told you … and be careful to say as little as you can, or you’ll betray us at once.”
Monks tells them to come up, and his brusque disdain intimidates even Mrs. Bumble at first; he “bent his gaze upon her, till even she, who was not easily cowed, was fain to withdraw her eyes, and turn them towards the ground”.
There is a bright flash of lightning which streams down the rickety steps they are about to climb, followed by a peal of thunder, which shakes the whole structure.
"Monks" - Sol Eytinge Jr. 1867
Monks reacts violently, and to the couple’s amazement is greatly agitated. First he covers his face, and then uncovers it, whereby they see that his face is distorted and discoloured. Monks recovers himself, and apologises for his “fits”.
Monks takes them up a ladder to a room at the top of the house, where he seats all three of them round a table. He wants to know what had happened the night the “hag” (Old Sally) died, and what she might have said about the boy’s mother, and:
“Something that was taken from her,” said Monks. “Something that she wore. Something that—”
Mrs. Bumble has now recovered her composure, and bargains with Monks. He offers her £20, but she says that she won’t part with any information about Oliver, until she has been paid £25 pounds in gold. Mr. Bumble makes a fool of himself, blustering that she is not unprotected, and from this Monks easily works out that Mrs. Bumble is Mr. Bumble’s wife. This pleases him, as he says they will be of one mind. There is a clap of thunder almost directly overhead, and then the three lean close together for Mrs. Bumble to whisper her story:
“The sickly rays of the suspended lantern falling directly upon them, aggravated the paleness and anxiety of their countenances: which, encircled by the deepest gloom and darkness, looked ghastly in the extreme.”
On her deathbed, Old Sally had confessed to Mrs. Bumble (then Mrs. Corney) that she had robbed the boy’s mother’s corpse of an item which Oliver’s mother had prayed to be kept safe, for her infant’s sake. But then, Mrs. Bumble says, she fell back and died. Monks becomes incensed with rage, but Mrs. Bumble calmly continues that Old Sally had grasped her gown, but after she died she forced her hand open, and found a scrap of dirty paper clasped tightly. It was a pawnbroker’s pledge, which had been kept up to date. As it was nearly due, Mrs. Bumble then took the ticket to redeem the pledge.
Monks demands to know where it is, and Mrs. Bumble throws a small kidskin pouch on the table. Inside is a “little gold locket in which were two locks of hair and a plain gold wedding ring”. Mrs. Bumble explains that the locket had the word “Agnes” engraved on the inside, but interestingly, “there was a blank left for the surname; and then follows the date; which is within a year before the child was born”.
To the couple’s astonishment Monks then whirls the table aside, to reveal a trapdoor.
"The evidence destroyed" - George Cruikshank August 1838
"The Evidence Destroyed" - Harry Furniss 1908
He assures them that they are in no danger now; that he could have opened this at any point and set them to their deaths. As they look down:
“The turbid water, swollen by the heavy rain, was rushing rapidly on below; and all other sounds were lost in the noise of its plashing and eddying against the green and slimy piles.”
There had once been a water-mill beneath the rickety building.
“If you flung a man’s body down there, where would it be to-morrow morning?” said Monks, swinging the lantern to and fro in the dark well.
“Twelve miles down the river, and cut to pieces besides,” replied Bumble, recoiling at the thought”
whereupon Monks ties the little pouch to a lead weight, and drops it through the hatch. It plummets to the depths of the swirling water below, and is gone. All three seem relieved by this, agree to keep the secret, and go their separate ways, with Monks returning to the dark chamber upstairs.
message 59:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 05:48AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
But oh no! As soon as we learn a little more, the evidence is destroyed! Are we destined never to know the mystery of Oliver’s birth?
message 60:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 04:08AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
And how much was £25 worth then? It would have paid a typical lower middle–class rent for a year.
message 61:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 05:57AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
This is the point at which it becomes relevant. The first 38 chapters had already been typeset and could not be changed. However, we should notice from now on that Charles Dickens removes almost all mention of “the Jew” from the remaining chapters. And in later editions he was to gradually remove the early mentions too.
message 62:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 06:16AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
There has been a lot about eyes in the previous two chapters, stemming from Charles Dickens’s fascinatation with mesmeric powers.
In chapter 37, Mr. Bumble’s confidence is badly shattered when his gaze does not have the desired effect:
“Have the goodness to look at me,” said Mr. Bumble, fixing his eyes upon her.
“If she stands such a eye as that,” said Mr. Bumble to himself, “she can stand anything. It is a eye I never knew to fail with paupers. If it fails with her, my power is gone.”
This is a comic scene, but the eye, or the “special visual ray” as Charles Dickens used to call it, still represents the mesmeric power. It fails here, because it never existed at all with the shrewd Mrs. Bumble nee Corney!
The mesmeriser keeps their “visual ray” steady, just as the way the eyes in the portrait on the wall at Mr. Brownlow’s “seem fixed” on Oliver in chapter 10. Eyes, portraits and mirrors are frequent motifs in all Charles Dickens’s works, and it’s good to have one’s radar up for them.
Today’s chapter 38 has many mentions of eyes, expressing one person’s control over another. Monks has a “fierce gaze” which can work its will on others. We see with Mrs. Bumble that Monks:
"bent his gaze upon her, till even she, who was not easily cowed, was fain to withdraw her eyes, and turn them towards the ground”.
It is just as before, with Oliver in chapter 34; in his trance he saw Fagin and Monks at the window and explains:
“We had our eyes fixed full upon each other” i.e. it was not a dream, but a mesmeric trance.
We can see evidence that this early obsession with mesmerism, where the operator exerts their will and control over the subject was to be present in every novel Charles Dickens wrote. I’ve chosen just three examples I think you’ll remember, from our group reads.
1. In Dombey and Son, characters are “detained by some magnetic attraction”, and enter into unions as if “by magnetic agreement”. The operator in this case is usually (view spoiler) Meeting his eyes, she saw rather than heard him”..
2. We witness a similar force of will in Bleak House, used by (view spoiler)She was held by his eyes, as if the mesmeric force of his will had captured her.
3. There are many more instances, such as in David Copperfield, when the innocent David evades the eyes of (view spoiler)
“So surely as I looked toward her, did I see that eager visage, with its gaunt black eyes and searching brow, intent on mine; or passing suddenly from mine to (view spoiler) or comprehending both of us at once. In this lynx-like scrutiny she was so far from faltering when she saw I observed it, that at such a time she only fixed her piercing look upon me with a more intent expression still. Blameless as I was, and knew that I was … I shrunk before her strange eyes, quite unable to endure their hungry lustre” .
These are powerful descriptions indeed of what Charles Dickens believed to be the mesmeric force, and such instances are present in all his novels and short stories. (The spoiler tags are for any who did not join in our group reads at that time or do not know each of these stories.)
message 63:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 06:28AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Jacob’s Island
Jacob’s Island was a notorious slum (or “rookery”) in 18th and 19th century London, in Bermondsey, on the south bank of the River Thames. It was not really an island, but a small piece of land formed into an “island” thanks to its location in a loop of the Neckinger River and, on the south side of the loop, a man-made ditch which was used as a mill run for Bermondsey Abbey. The River Neckinger is one of London’s lost rivers. Its name means ”devil’s neckerchief“ or ”devil’s necklace” – a reference to the hangman’s noose – and it is believed to refer to the gibbet from which pirates were hanged close to St Saviour’s Dock (where the river entered the Thames) and where their bodies were left to deter others from taking a similar path.
The area was solely inhabited by criminals and the dregs of society, as Charles Dickens describes (although he does not name it). It was originally inhabited by different immigrants to Britain but as they became more prosperous, they moved out to other parts of London, and the thieves, thugs and pickpockets moved in. It was entirely composed of dozens of rickety structures, mostly sinking into the river Thames.
Folly Ditch and Jacob's Island - watercolour 1860
(You can see one of the ships in this rather glamorous image.) The remains were torn down years ago; all the remains of the rickety buildings were demolished and the area was cleared between the 1860s and 1880s. Much of it was razed in a fire of 1861, yet some people, including one City alderman, still doubted that such an area could exist. In his preface to the 1867 edition of Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens wrote:
“Jacob’s Island continues to exist (like an ill-bred place as it is) in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, though improved and much changed”.
Folly Ditch and Jacob's Island - engraving 1873
In subsequent decades, the ditches surrounding it were filled in and the area redeveloped into warehouses. Then the site of the former Jacob’s Island was heavily damaged in the Blitz during World War II, when it was extensively bombed by the Luftwaffe due to the industrial presence in the area. Virtually nothing of what is described remains now; it is part of the London Borough of Southwark, with only one of the Victorian warehouses surviving. In 1981, the area was one of the first in the London Docklands to be converted to expensive loft apartments, which have since been joined by new blocks of luxury flats. And it has been further gentrified since then.
However, it was “thriving”, i.e. at its peak of villainy at the time of Oliver Twist in 1837 and 1838. There is photographic evidence, and a quite a lot about it on the internet, but please beware, as most reveal details of the story! For example there is a great article on wiki - but please do not look at this yet as there is a HUGE spoiler about a part near the end of Oliver Twist.
message 64:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 06:28AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Bionic Jean wrote: "Monks pays Mrs. Bumble £25 in gold. We have to assume therefore that he paid her in one pound sovereigns, which as we know were made of gold. They were known as sovereigns because the coins were st..."One advantage of coins over bank notes is coins are non-traceable. As with modern bank notes, Bank of England notes had serial numbers.
Other comparisons to what £25 meant in Early Victorian Britain:
Jane Eyre's annual salary: £15
£25 represented around 33 weeks of Bob Cratchit's weekly salary of 15 shillings or 3/4 of a £
Average annual income of a household headed by a common soldier: £29
Average annual income of a household headed by a common farm laborer: £31
Annual pension of a Chelsea or similar pensioner: £10
Bionic Jean wrote: "And a little more …Jacob’s Island
Jacob’s Island was a notorious slum (or “rookery”) in 18th and 19th century London, in Bermondsey, on the south bank of the River Thames. It was not really an i..."
Was Jacob's Island the inspiration for the area the Bumbles meet Monks or was it the literal location?
Thank you Jean for all these interesting comments with much material (Jacob's Island).Yes the weather conditions are foreboding - a thunderstorm that has been threatening the whole day, then thunder, lightning's and heavy rain... A definitely bleak, squalid and dark place such as this, easy for us readers to imagine.
The theme of eyes and look, even in portraits in many novels by Charles Dickens (including Little Dorrit), is mesmerising. We saw in the previous chapter that Bumble could not help cast a furtive glance at Monks.
The way Monks is throwing the locket and ring bundled up in a little packet through the trap-hole, into the water, then into the sea (powerful descriptions!)...and the three of them seem to breathe more freely.
Monk is obviously alluding to Revelation 20:13 ("as books say it will") I quote extensively from the King James version:
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."
Chapter 20 and 21 of Revelation are talking about the New World (much quoted in Gaskell's North and South too).
Beyond this, from my experience in Brittany I know that the sea does not give back all the dead. Some missing seamen are found, while some are never retrieved, which is everlastingly depressing for families. This verse may be a comfort for those who experience this.
In Monk's case it enhances the fact that the evidence - the symbols of something past, yet mysterious, are lost forever, even at the end of times and in the New World depicted in the Book of Revelation.
Mod
It's exactly where they met Michael, so the fact that a welldressed and apparently wealthy man chooses to stay in such a place surrounded by vagabonds, must tell us something about him.
Bionic Jean wrote: "Michael wrote: "Was Jacob's Island the inspiration for the area the Bumbles meet Monks or was it the literal location?..."It's exactly where they met Michael, so the fact that a welldressed and a..."
Thank you for the clarification. I was confused, not knowing the geography of the area, and thought the Bumbles lived too far from London to meet Monks at Jacob's Island. Or is this as you, Ms. Bionic, has documented Dickens not being consistent in locations and distances.
I was surprised that Monk dropped the evidence into the sea. I expected him to keep it in his possession, which reinforced to me how dangerous he feels this information is to him. Also, I was struck by how frightened he was by the storm and the lightning, which might represent his fear of the voice and power of God, and thus of divine retribution. A reminder from Dickens, I think, that the forces of good are at battle always with the forces of evil.
When they lean forward and whisper for a moment I was afraid we would not have known the secret. Luckily Dickens was not so mean!Now we have a name, "Agnes".
I think this is the best chapter yet. I always love Dickens’ gothic writing and he is definitely shining in his descriptions here. The discusssion and information about the use of eyes is so very interesting to me. Yes, we have read those other examples from the later novels, and it is becomes apparent to me that Dickens is applying the mesmerism to the villains. Seemingly as a method of controlling or exuding one’s power over others. I enjoyed Mrs. Bumble here and her conniving and bargaining for her information. She is definitely a woman not to mess with. She seems to be under Monks spell at first, but she came out of it and didn’t low the glance to affect her, but that can’t be said about Mr. Bumble. His name is perfect for him, he’s so bumbling and foolish.
I'm getting a (view spoiler) Would that be too weird?(About another Dickens novel, so put in spoiler.)
I'm reading an edition that adheres to the original Bentley's Miscellany publication from Feb 1837- April 1839, and my chapter ends with Monks being uncomfortable being alone (which I thought was odd), and calling "to a boy who had been hidden somewhere below, and bidding him go first, and bear the light, returned to the chamber he had just quitted.". Does anyone else's edition end that way?It made me wonder if the boy had been below the trapdoor and somehow caught the locket and wedding ring before it hit the water. But then I remember the excellent description of the little packet hitting the water with a "scarcely audible splash" and then it was gone, so I think maybe I shouldn't make too much out of the mysterious boy.
Bridget wrote: "I'm reading an edition that adheres to the original Bentley's Miscellany publication from Feb 1837- April 1839, and my chapter ends with Monks being uncomfortable being alone (which I thought was o..."I'm not so sure about discounting the little boy as there could be both a splash and a catch by him. What I am happy about is that I've forgotten some important details so even though I've read this and now how it ends, there are still rediscoveries along the way.
Mine did end that way, Bridget and I was wondering if the package being weighted, it might have fallen straight down into a place where the boy could retrieve it, but not speculating too much before the next chapter. I have also read it before, Karin, and delighted to find there are major elements that I had completely forgotten over time. But then, I always find this is so with Dickens, so the fun is always intact.
message 77:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jun 30, 2023 02:59PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
My 5 editions, in fact (as far I can tell) all the editions end with those words Bridget: the chapter for Bentley's Miscellany in installment 17 for August 1838, (more about that tomorrow!) several editions between 1838 and 1841, where it was the first chapter in Volume III, and the 1846 edition, which is the one most commonly used now.
So just as a reminder, Monks: "dropped it into the stream. It fell straight, and true as a die; clove the water with a scarcely audible splash; and was gone."
"The stream" here is the mill stream which leads to (the lost) Neckington river, which leads to the river Thames flowing through London, and eventually to the North Sea at Southend-on-Sea.
I'm loving all the speculations!
I definitely got the Gothic vibe in this chapter and such a sense of foreboding as the storm raged on. I am a little perplexed on a how a loud noise could trigger some involuntary physical reaction/change in facial features such as what was described with Monks. I have been racking my brain thinking of various diseases & syndromes of which Monks may be afflicted.We did get a name, but I did make a little gasp when this clue to Oliver's parentage was swallowed by the sea! Dickens is certainly keeping me on a dangling string!
Bionic Jean wrote: My 5 editions, in fact (as far I can tell) all the editions end with those words..."Thanks for the confirmations of the ending everyone. Jean I think it's wonderful that you have 5 editions of OT!
message 80:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 01, 2023 06:35AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
When Charles Dickens came to edit his installments and finalise the chapters, he made chapter 39 straddle the end of one installment and the beginning of another. So Installment 17 finishes part way through chapter 39! One obvious cliffhanger comes with the words “They parted without more conversation, merely interchanging a “good-night”
so that is where we will have our break.
message 81:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 01, 2023 07:02AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Bill Sikes is staying in a different place, although it is still in East London and near where he stayed when he attempted to burgle the house at Chertsey. He has gone down in the world even from that time, now staying in:
“a mean and badly-furnished apartment, of very limited size; lighted only by one small window in the shelving roof, and abutting on a close and dirty lane.”
Bill Sikes has been ill and is now:
“lying on the bed, wrapped in his white great-coat, by way of dressing-gown, and displaying a set of features in no degree improved by the cadaverous hue of illness, and the addition of a soiled nightcap, and a stiff, black beard of a week’s growth.”
His dog lies by him, and Nancy has nursed him through his illness, “as if he had been a child”, although she is herself weak and exhausted, and gets little thanks for it:
“as the girl raised him up and led him to a chair, he muttered various curses on her awkwardness, and struck her.”
We learn that Nancy is now “so pale and reduced … there would have been considerable difficulty in recognizing her as the same Nancy that has already figured in this tale”.
Nancy reminds Sikes how she has cared for him, but then says “Don’t you seem to mind me. It’ll soon be over.”
It is just past 7 o’clock in the evening, when Fagin, the Artful Dodger, and Charley Bates arrive. Nancy has just dropped her head over the back of the chair, and fainted, and Bill Sikes is not sure what to do because:
“Nancy’s hysterics were usually of that violent kind which the patient fights and struggles out of, without much assistance”.
He asks for help with her, and the Artful Dodger pours a little wine down Nancy’s throat, while the others do as he says:
“Give her a whiff of fresh air with the bellows, Charley,” said Mr. Dawkins; “and you slap her hands, Fagin, while Bill undoes the petticuts.”
"Mr. Fagin and his pupils recovering Nancy" - George Cruikshank Auguts 1838
"Nancy in hysterics" - Harry Furniss 1910
and Nancy recovers. Fagin and his two boys have brought Sikes a large parcel of food, but Sikes just growls and complains that they had left him alone for three weeks. He does acknowledge briefly among his complaints that “if it hadn’t been for the girl, I might have died”. And Fagin eagerly takes the credit: “Who but poor ould Fagin was the means of your having such a handy girl about you?”
Fagin and Sikes then begin to haggle over money. Sikes wants £5 from Fagin but Fagin beats the amount down to three pounds four and sixpence (£3 4s 6d). After the deal is made, Nancy goes off with Fagin to collect the money, while Sikes lies down again to go back to sleep.
At Fagin’s place Toby Crackit is finishing off a game of cribbage with Tom Chitling:
"Mr. Crackit's 'good natur'" - Frederic W. Pailthorpe 1886
He is a little abashed to be seen playing with the rather dimwitted Tom Chitling, and sweeps up his winnings ready to go. Fagin and the others have fun at Chitling’s expense, but Chitling admires Toby Crackit as a “heavy swell” (dressy show-off) and does not understand that he is the butt of their jokes and mockery, and a target of their cheating ways. It is now nearly 10 o’clock, and Fagin tells Dodger and Charley that it is time for them to be “on the lay” (on the job).
At that moment Fagin and Nancy hear the murmur of a man’s voice outside:
“The instant she caught the sound, she tore off her bonnet and shawl, with the rapidity of lightning, and thrust them under the table.”
It proves to be Monks, and Fagin reassures him that Nancy is just one of his “young people”. Nancy for her part glances at him casually, but when she is unobserved she directs a “keen and searching” look at Monks. Fagin takes Monks up to the second floor to talk to him privately, and Nancy creeps up the staircase in her bare feet, so she can hear the conversation between Fagin and Monks, returning downstairs begins and putting on her shawl just as the men return. After Monks leaves Fagin goes back upstairs to get the money for Nancy to take back to Bill Sikes.
Fagin now notices how pale Nancy looks, but she shrugs it off carelessly. Fagin counts out the money into her hand, and:
“They parted without more conversation, merely interchanging a “good-night.”
(This sentence is where we will end this installment, as it breaks in the middle of chapter 39.)
message 82:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 01, 2023 08:32AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
On the other hand, my heart was in my mouth when Nancy said it would soon be over. What could she mean? Is she more ill than anyone thinks? And why did she panic when Monks arrived; what could there be between them, for her to recognise his voice so easily, and try to disguise herself?
By the end of this section Nancy has learned something ... but we haven't!
Mostly this long chapter moves the story along in important and intriguing ways. We are left with so many questions! For the explanation of why Charles Dickens seems to be really revving the story up now, see my "And a little more ..." post today.
(By the way, I have added an extra (brooding!) illustration I've just found by James Mahoney depicting Monks and Mr Bumble, to the summary for chapter 37.)
message 83:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 01, 2023 08:35AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
“half a pound of seven and sixpenny green” is tea leaves
the “rightest sort” is beer
“two half quartern brans” are two loaves of coarse bread
“fresh” is butter
“Double Glo’ster” is a variety of hard cheese
“swipes” (which Toby Crackitt mentions, meaning that he is bored), is flat beer
message 84:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 01, 2023 08:44AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Publication Troubles
Well you probably thought we’d got to the end of the publication troubles, when Charles Dickens got his own way and signed a new contract to continue the serial of "The Parish Boy’s Progress" on 28th September 1837, after having resigned on 30th August. He had recommenced in October 1837, after having borrowed earlier copies to remind himself of his own story, and wrote the next chapter, 17, setting it back at the workhouse again as if it was a new beginning.
But for the last few months John Forster and George Cruikshank had been tiptoeing around, trying to keep the peace between Charles Dickens and Charles Bentley, so that the serial would not come to a halt. However, Charles Dickens's dislike had only intensified towards the “Burlington Street Brigand” as he called Charles Bentley. His contract beginning with the October 1837 installment was due to end in Midsummer 1838, and now it is … August 1838!
In July (i.e. the begining of this thread) the end date had been moved to September, which meant there would be just one more installment after this one. Do you feel Charles Dickens is drawing everything to a close? Clearly we are not at the end of the story; in fact on the contrary, we seem to be getting more and more involved in a mystery.
Charles Dickens was working full out at this point, with his installments of Nicholas Nickleby, all his editing work for Bentley’s Miscellany, and other writing projects alongside. But he was desperate to “burst the Bentleian bonds” as he put it, and decided to complete Oliver Twist and issue it in book form as three volumes, in November 1838. He had been very aggrieved back in May, to find that Charles Bentley had been docking his pay for shorter chapters in Oliver Twist (did you notice this?) and filling the remaining pages with other articles such as “The Pantomime of Life” or “Some Particulars Concerning a Lion”. Now he is making sure that each installment runs to its full length, and I’m sure you will have noticed that the plot is getting much more complicated.
With all this going on, Charles Dickens was unable to deliver the final chapters to the printer until 20th October, and even then there were last-minute changes to be made. John Forster oversaw the 3 volume book edition, and this was postponed from 8th November. Charles Dickens rushed back from Wales to make some final corrections, and it was published the following day.
So if you have ever wondered how the book was first published in 1838, when the original serial was published between 1837 and 1839, here is your answer! I personally feel that Charles Dickens was cocking a snook at Charles Bentley, and that it gave him great satisfaction to know that his book was then in the shops and available for everyone to read, before it had finished in the magazine! He now took little interest in the serial, and resigned from Bentley’s Miscellany on 31st January 1839.
From now on he took more charge of his writing, and asked John Forster to examine any contract in great detail. And from 1850 onwards he owned his own magazines (“Household Words” and then “All the Year Round”) to edit and publish both his own and other authors. So whenever you hear anyone say that Charles Dickens was “paid by the word”, you can tell them that that is not true; or only for the first part of his very first actual novel!
message 85:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 03, 2023 06:50AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
(Edited, as it has been pointed out to me that very few American members will be online on 4th July!)
Mod
I guess that's why the edition of Oliver Twist that I am reading on Project Gutenberg has three volumes. It's also available as one volume, but I chose to just download one volume at a time.
The Abusive Relationship. We know Nancy has stayed with Sikes, many years her senior, nursing him through a long illness. She was so pale and reduced with watching and privation, that there would have been considerable difficulty in recognizing her . . . What keeps her at his side, when he has always abused her? And when Sikes wakes and as she helps him to a chair he muttered various curses on her awkwardness, and struck her.
She even shows a tender side towards Bill even after he hits her, as she lays a gentle hand on his shoulder. She tells him she doesn't deserve such treatment.
'Such a number of nights,' said the girl, with a touch of woman's tenderness, which communicated something like sweetness of tone, even to her voice: 'such a number of nights as I've been patient with you, nursing and caring for you, as if you had been a child' . . .
Dickens is clearly describing the main characteristics of a violent and abusive domestic relationship. He was so ahead of his time in his understanding of this condition. Today we recognize that domestic violence causes distorted thoughts in the woman such as "I deserve to be hit". Women in this situation, as Dickens clearly recognized, have a severely damaged sense of self-worth. Abused women are often fearful of their partner while persisting in loving them, as Nancy clearly loves Bill. Additionally, Nancy is isolated from friends and family, and she demonstrates a misguided desire to help Bill Sikes despite the danger and violence. She could have let him die!
Dickens has created all these characteristics in poor Nancy! His understanding of human nature, even distorted human nature, is astounding!
I agree that Nancy and Bill have a complicated (and disturbing) relationship. But, this is the only life Nancy has ever known, Bill probably provides her with some sense of security (the way a pimp does for his girls), and she has so little else to focus her kind and more tender side upon. She has picked the wrong man to love, but love him she does. The fact that he continues to abuse her, even directly after she has nursed him through his sickness, serves to establish his character, or lack thereof.I cannot remember any instance in which Monk and Nancy have shown to cross paths, so it was surprising to me that she recognized his voice. I felt she was brave to venture up the stairs and listen in--being caught at it would result in very severe punishment.
Jean, thank you so much for the background on the publishing woes. I know we encountered these before when discussing the beginnings of his own magazines, but following the timing with the production of this novel is, dare I say, mesmerizing. It explains a lot about the structure and movement of the plot.
Oops, just one more comment--the depiction of Nancy in Cruikshank's illustration is all wrong for me--doesn't jive with the Nancy I have in my head. He is usually so perfect at replicating my imaginings. For me, Furniss got it right.
I agree with you Sara on the depiction of Nancy by Cruikshank. The "real" Nancy is to my opinion more skinny, because she doesn't eat every day and is obviously ill.She most probably heard Monks's voice already - perhaps we did not see it.
Bionic Jean wrote: "And a little more …Publication Troubles
Well you probably thought we’d got to the end of the publication troubles, when Charles Dickens got his own way and signed a new contract ..."
This is all so fascinating, Jean. I have been feeling Dickens coming into his novel-writing style, and to see what is going on behind the scenes, and in "real-time" for us, is such a treat and so informative. I did have to look up cocking a snook--what a great line!
Which reminds me, can't thank you enough for your definitions in Post #83. I wouldn't have guessed a one of them!
As to Nancy, I love the points Lee and Sara make, and completely agree with Sara about the Cruikshanks depiction. I was literally taken aback when I saw that--doesn't work at all.
Kathleen wrote: "Bionic Jean wrote: "And a little more …Publication Troubles
Well you probably thought we’d got to the end of the publication troubles, when Charles Dickens got his own way and si..."
I had to look up "cooking a snook" also. I don't believe it's used in the US. But I agree, it's a great expression.
I also agree about the image of Nancy in Cruikshank's illustration. It doesn't fit with how I picture her either. But aren't the Cruikshank illustrations the ones Dickens used?
message 94:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 02, 2023 11:20AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Yes, you can tell by the dates I add underneath that these are the ones with the original serial. So George Cruikshank was the only illustrator who did not know the entire story. If you remember, Charles Dickens specified the illustration of Fagin and Monks at the Maylies' window in great detail to George Cruikshank - before he had actually written it! (See my earlier post) and the later illustrators just copied it with variations.
I agree about Nancy, and don't think anyone has captured her very well. These blowsy females are not 17 year olds! There is a good one coming up though, by a different early illustrator (who only made about 4) in a few chapters' time.
Sorry, I didn't realise "cocking a snook" was specifically English. Think of it as "thumbing your nose"!
Bionic Jean wrote: "At that moment Fagin and Nancy hear the murmur of a man’s voice outside:“The instant she caught the sound, she tore off her bonnet and shawl, with the rapidity of lightning, and thrust them under the table.”..."
From Chapter XXVI:
“Yonder!” replied the man (Monks), glaring at the opposite wall. “The shadow! I saw the shadow of a woman, in a cloak and bonnet, pass along the wainscot like a breath!”
Bionic Jean wrote: "Katy wrote: "aren't the Cruikshank illustrations the ones Dickens used..."Yes, you can tell by the dates I add underneath that these are the ones with the original serial. So [author:George Cruik..."
That's okay Jean. I learned a new fun expression.
message 98:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 03, 2023 06:48AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Ah, that would be a good explanation if this was simply an adventure mystery, but we need to look at the whole context and analyse it more closely (my parts in bold are significant). Please remember that nothing is straightforward in this novel!
Nancy is in her room in Bethnal Green in chapter 26, and "more than a trifle in liquor". Fagin "who had had considerable experience of such matters in his time, saw, with great satisfaction, that she was very far gone indeed." i.e. she is in a drunken stupor and rambling in what she says
Fagin then made his way to his own place, helped by the wind "when few people were abroad, ... trembling, and shivering, as every fresh gust drove him rudely on his way." so the streets were deserted with nobody following him, and the weather was foul.
Once there, the wind blew the door shut and it was completely dark. At that point Monks said the part Michael quoted. Then "They listened intently: a profound silence reigned throughout the house...
They looked into all the rooms; they were cold, bare, and empty. They descended into the passage, and thence into the cellars below ... all was still as death." i.e. the whole house is empty and soundless, with nobody moving about
“What do you think now?” said the Jew ... “Besides ourselves, there’s not a creature in the house except Toby and the boys; and they’re safe enough. See here!”
As a proof of the fact, the Jew drew forth two keys from his pocket; and explained, that when he first went downstairs, he had locked them in, to prevent any intrusion on the conference." i.e. parts of the house are locked.
We then have Monks making "several very grim laughs, and confessed it could only have been his excited imagination" and mention of "This accumulated testimony" and a "search without making any discovery." Fagin never saw anything anyway, and Monks knows he has a vivid imaginatation and fits.
The way Charles Dickens expresses this, he makes sure he has covered all eventualities so that the reader knows it is impossible for this to be Nancy.
When Charles Dickens wrote chapter 26, he had not yet worked out the entire story (see my earlier post which quotes his own words saying so). The shadow was either meant to represent Monks's guilty feelings - the reason for which we now partially know - and why it is a female is about to be made clear. Or another interpretation is that it was intended to be something ghostly and unresolved.
However we now have a third possible interpretation, about to become more clear in the next chapter, (chapter 40 which we have not yet reached, after the continuation of this one). Perhaps you have noticed that the entire scene is very reminiscent of the appearance of Fagin and Monks at the window, when Oliver was in a state of sleep-waking ...
No spoilers, please, but what we do now know if we read carefully, is that it could not possibly have been Nancy!
Mod
Lots more to discuss before that, if you like!
Bionic Jean wrote: "Sara and MichaelAh, that would be a good explanation if this was simply an adventure mystery, but we need to look at the whole context and analyse it more closely (my parts in bold are significan..."
Sherlock Holmes would be proud. It does beg the question why Dickens seems to indicate that Nancy recognized Monk's voice and why did she hide her bonnet and shawl.
Dickensians!
Books mentioned in this topic
Oliver Twist (other topics)The Lost Boys of Mr Dickens: How the British Empire turned artful dodgers into child killers (other topics)
Dombey and Son (other topics)
Oliver Twist (other topics)
Sketches by Boz (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Charles Dickens (other topics)Charles Dickens (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Steve Harris (other topics)
More...
Oh yes! 😂 Such a rare moment of pleasure for them in their sorry lives. Even if it is at the expense of another person, we all know he deserved it! And as you say Mrs. Bumble is not without her own faults ... perhaps Charles Dickens will write a suitable come-uppance for her too 😊