Dickensians! discussion
This topic is about
Oliver Twist
Oliver Twist - Group Read 5
>
Oliver Twist: Chapters 35 - 43
I've been silent a while, but I have been steadily reading the novel and all the comments to fully understand what is going on. What I thought would be an easy read has turned out to be even more complicated to me than Bleak House (which, to date, is my favorite Dickens novel).I find it fascinating that Dickens became an adherent of two now-debunked scientific theories popular at the time: phrenology and mesmerism (but I'm sure 100 years from now, people will shake their heads at some of our current scientific beliefs).
Phrenology, I have studied and understand. I'm also currently reading Moby-Dick or, the Whale (1851) and found it quite astounding that Herman Melville appears to adhere to this theory as well. His character Ishmael observes that "the savage" [Queequeg]'s "head was phrenologically an excellent one, and later, Ishmael also discusses the phrenology of the Sperm Whale's head.
However, I am totally confused when it comes to mesmerism. From the comments, it appears that mesmerism is related to hypnotism and to the fact that one person can exert personal influence on one or more people. Is this a correct interpretation? However, from the comments, am I to understand that mesmerism is also the ability to project one's mind to another time and place (as Oliver did when he saw Fagin and Monks, or when Nancy eavesdropped on Fagin and Monks?). These two aspects of mesmerism seem to be two totally different abilities.
These thoughts led me to the many instances of what I termed clairvoyance in Bleak House. At the time, I thought these instances were odd, but was Dickens really referring to his belief in mesmerism there too?
As I said, I thought Oliver Twist was going to be a comparatively easy read compared to some of his other novels, but this one is way deeper than I ever imagined, and I would have never picked up on the complexities of the novel if I had read it on my own. So once again, I am truly indebted to you, Jean and my fellow Dickensians!, for a fascinating read!
message 153:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 08, 2023 11:42AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Absolutely correct, Shirley 😊
Just as the terminology altered a little between Franz Mesmer and John Elliotson, so it did within the next 70 years, as hypnotism emerged. James Braid invented the word to describe what the mesmeric operator did to his subject.
Yes Charles Dickens's novels are all peppered with his mesmeric beliefs, including "the many instances of what I termed clairvoyance" as you say in Bleak House. These are great examples, as well as the mesmeric powers of Tulkinghorn - and aspects of two female characters. The clairvoyance is part of many strange experiences which readers sometimes categorise (or even dismiss) as gothic, but have Charles Dickens's belief in mesmerism at their root. Clairvoyance and "the ability to project one's mind to another time and place" was definitely considered at this time to be another aspect of mesmerism. It's intrinsic to both those key paragraphs in Oliver Twist I've quoted a few times.
You have also put your finger on two key words in the terminology of mesmerism, "will" and "willpower". It was thought that operators fed into the mesmeric fluid in the universe, and their own strength of will was the conduit. In Charles Dickens's fiction, we often find his villains have an inordinately strong will, and a commanding or mesmeric gaze, (think of how Fagin gets his way!) but also his heroes and heroines use their mesmeric powers too. Think of Oliver, standing up to Noah Claypole; he discovered a surge of energy, and didn't know where it had come from.
Gradually the concept of a mesmeric "fluid" began to be set aside, as was the clairvoyance aspect, and the power called "animal magnetism" was seen to be within the person, thus paving the way for the definition "hypnotism". So science now accepts part, but not the whole idea of animal magnetism. Most of the aspects have been debunked by the establishment, as you say, but we are left with hypnotism, which is established as a genuine therapeutic tool, as John Elliotson maintained - but without the strange "fluid", and addition of magnets or mirrors to strengthen the bond (although possibly some hypnotists choose to use these).
I don't think the idea of memerising remotely is accepted now either, although Charles Dickens practised this, and once when he was travelling in a coach fully absorbed in mesmerising Mme. de la Rue (by prior arrangement) who was in a different country, he found that he had mesmerised Catherine, who was seated outside, on top of the coach, and dropped her muff. When he investigated, she was in a trance. (I cannot explain this, but then neither can I explain why if I stare at the back of someone's head they turn around and look at me!)
Charles Dickens's heroes often start neutrally, but succeed when they discover their will to be energetic, and use that energy for beneficial purposes. His villains on the other hand, use their will for self-interest. We could go through all our group reads and find many instances ... but Oliver Twist is really where it started except for a couple of mentions in Sketches by Boz.
It's great to see you back Shirley! 😊 And I'm most impressed to know that you have studied phrenology! Thanks for the other literary example. I used to have a little book on Phrenology ... but it went a long time ago. In this post LINK HERE I go into how the medical establishment began to turn their backs on "animal magnetism" when John Elliotson began to propound "phrenomesmerism" (which he later rejected, although Charles Dickens did not, and remained true to all his beliefs he formed in the early 1830s).
Thank you so much, Jean, for your detailed answer to my question on mesmerism. The link you posted above in (message 153), specifically the link to message 7 in Thread 4:“There is a kind of sleep that steals upon us sometimes, which, while it holds the body prisoner, does not free the mind from a sense of things about it, and enable it to ramble at its pleasure..., and the visionary scenes that pass before us, will be materially influenced by the mere silent presence of some external object; which may not have been near us when we closed our eyes: and of whose vicinity we have had no waking consciousness.”And then, Jean, you related the incidence when Oliver saw Fagin and Monk in his dreams and "It was but an instant, a glance, a flash, before his eyes; and they were gone. But they had recognised him, and he them". So, not only did Oliver see them, but more importantly, Fagin and Monk saw Oliver. So this is how also, Monk sensed Nancy's presence when he was secretly talking to Fagin in Fagin's lair. If I am finally understanding this correctly, during an episode of a mesmeric bond, this "mesmeric fluid in the universe" temporarily binds both parties together so that they each sense the other's presence, regardless of where they are geographically. Wow... that is a lot to absorb.
Again, thank you for putting that mystery to rest for me, Jean. It's been bothering my sense of believability (if that's a word). And thank you for the welcome back. I am thoroughly enjoying this read, as I do all of the group reads I've had an opportunity to participate in. There is no way now I would tackle one of his novels on my own. ☺️
I have another big thought on my mind, but I will wait until later to ask that question.
message 155:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 08, 2023 01:13PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
YES, and yes, isn't it! It's no use us saying "How could they have been there?" and trying to solve all the practical impossibilities, when Charles Dickens tells us repeatedly that that is not how it is!
I'm happy that Oliver has had his story fully confirmed and that they have more information, but I am worried about Nancy--even with Sikes asleep, so many could see and report her with all of the people involved with Fagin and Sikes.Yes, Grimwig was fabulous, and I do have to say that he has redeemed himself in my eyes by being happy he was wrong. It's much easier now to see how he and Mar. Brownlow could be such good friends.
Mod
message 158:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 10, 2023 04:50AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Two figures are making their way to London. The man is long-limbed, knock-kneed, shambling [and] bony“, and the woman ”young, but of a robust and hardy make, as she need have been to bear the weight of the heavy bundle which was strapped to her back”.
We learn that these are Noah Claypole and Charlotte, who have stolen the money from Mr. Sowerberry’s till and plodded along the road until they see the lights of London.
"Look there! Those are the lights of London" - James Mahoney 1871
Charlotte is despondent at how far they still have to go, but Noah threatens her:
“Never mind whether they’re two mile off, or twenty …but get up and come on, or I’ll kick yer, and so I give yer notice.”
He continues in his bullying tone, then saying that she was the one who had taken the money from the till, and he had trusted her to carry it, whereupon Charlotte calls him a “dear”, chucks him under the chin, and draws her arm through his. The narrator observes sardonically that Noah had allowed Charlotte to carry the stolen cash so that:
“if they were pursued, the money might be found on her: which would leave him an opportunity of asserting his innocence of any theft, and would greatly facilitate his chances of escape.”
Noah is keen for them not to be identified, so they trudge on through the main thoroughfare of London, to the more obscure and dirty parts of the city. He chooses an inn in:
“one of the lowest and worst [areas] that improvement has left in the midst of London”
between Gray’s Inn Lane and Smithfield. This happens to be the “Three Cripples” inn, where Barney works as a waiter. He looks at him very hard, but Noah is dressed like a countryman so he lets them stay, and serves the couple in the back room. Little do they suspect however, that the room has a spy hole. When Fagin arrives to ask after some of his “young pupils”, Barney tells him of the country travellers, and suggests that they might be in Fagin’s way of business. While they are eating dinner, Fagin spies on them and observes to Barney:
“He’d be of use to us; he knows how to train the girl already”
and listens intently to Noah’s conversation. Fagin learns that Noah wants to join a criminal gang and make his fortune. He then makes himself known, also letting Noah know that everything he said has been overheard. But Fagin says:
“I’m in that way myself, and I like you for it …
I have taken a fancy to you and the young woman; so I’ve said the word, and you may make your minds easy”
"The Jew and Morris Bolter begin to understand each other" - George Cruikshank - November 1838
Noah is just as intent on not getting caught in a crime as he is willing to be a criminal. So Fagin suggests various types of crime from robbing old ladies’ purses to “the kinchin lay”: stealing change from children sent on errands by their parents. Noah likes that idea very much so Fagin offers to show him the best places in Camden Town and Battle Bridge, to perform a crime.
"Fagin and Noah understand each other" - Harry Furniss 1910
Fagin arranges for Noah—who introduces himself as “Morris Bolter” and Charlotte as “Mrs. Bolter”—to meet someone the next day who can set them up with a place to live and jobs in the gang.
message 159:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 10, 2023 08:22AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
What a toad Noah Claypole is! I think he’s the character I most dislike in Oliver Twist, built like a bean pole with a stupid thick head (and morals) of clay . The fictitious name he has invented for himself is typically stupid. It’s a bit of a giveway to call himself “Bolter” when he just bolted with the proceeds of a robbery!
Noah thinks he is so clever, making Charlotte do all the hard work, and is perfectly willing to give her the blame for everything. We might have thought we had left him well behind back at Mr. Sowerberry’s. However …
Charles Dickens has been quite clever in depicting two characters with similar backgrounds, who are the exact opposite of each other. Whatever Oliver is presented with, he rises above it all; he is a paragon of good morals and gratitude; a sweet innocent boy, and the good characters in the novel always recognise him as such. As we’ve discussed, he embodies the idea of a lonely ill-used child. Yet society has dealt with Oliver so badly, with the cruel treatment he has suffered in Mrs. Mann’s baby farm and workhouse—and afterwards too—that he should have turned out a monster or a wretch. This is what the subtitle “A Parish Boy’s Progress” would lead us to believe, if it were to be a moral fable. But we are rooting for Oliver, and the original readers would also love this wellspoken, nicely behaved boy with middle class values.
However in Noah Claypole we have a contrast. He is everything we would expect from a morally dubious system, and this would really hit home to the readers of the day. The “Charity Enquiry Commission” had revealed appalling practices in what was called “Organised Charity”. Funds were silently appropriated by officers, funds were spent on little else but enormous annual dinners, or wastefully and inefficiently used, “bounties” were given which encouraged hypocrisy and extravagance, endowments were so restricted that their purpose could no longer be fulfilled and so on. The Enquiry revealed such things everywhere in the Charity Schools.
This was one reason for the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1844, with all its concomitant—and oddly similar—malpractices, as we have seen. The workhouse Oliver was born in suffers from all these things, but is additionally harsh, with familes split up (to discourage “breeding”) a diet the inmates could barely survive on, and so on.
At the time of the serial in 1837-8, these practices resulting from what was intended to be a fairer system were just beginning to bite, and poor people feared the consequences. They seemed even worse that what had gone before. Charles Dickens is describing a world which feels a million miles away from the middle classes, but is becoming familiar to poorer folk, and it would be a terrifying prospect to them. This novel is read now for different reasons, but for the middle classes and law-makers of the time, it was a real eye-opener.
So back to Noah Claypole, who as a product of a Charity School, looks down on anyone who has been in a workhouse, and even calls Oliver “Work'uss”.
But we see that Noah is lazy, devious, greedy; he lies, and whines; he is both a coward and a bully, and only out for himself and his own comfort. We came across another such product of the Charity Boys’ School in the later novel Dombey and Son (view spoiler) and ended up just like this. In that case Charles Dickens wrote a long damning paragraph about the iniquities of such institutions, but in Oliver Twist he contents himself with Noah looking down on workhouse boys, whilst being far more deceitful and unprincipled himself. This is the genius of Charles Dickens, to show us the dangers of such institutions while engaging us with his hero!
Does Noah remind you of anyone else in the novel? Will he turn into a carbon copy of someone familiar when he is older? Or are his faults all his own?
message 160:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 10, 2023 08:24AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
And of course Fagin is just as despicable with the “kinchin lay”, which Noah and Fagin both find so amusing. I enjoyed the narrator’s comment when Noah Claypole has said his name is Mr. Morris Bolter, and thinking quickly tries to pretend that Charlotte calls him Noah as a fond name; a ploy that anyone could see through, not least the wily Fagin:
“I understand—perfectly,” replied Fagin, telling the truth for once”
So the chapter ends with Noah complacently thinking he is a very clever criminal. And crafty Fagin no doubt thinks Noah is easy to manipulate and has fooled him completely. Earlier (in chapter 15), we were told that Fagin reads the police newpaper the “Hue-and-Cry” which advertises criminals. Perhaps he has even seen something in there about Sowerberry’s till being emptied, and a description—and names—of the thieves. Or perhaps it is too soon for the news to have got to London. At any rate I should think that these two oafs are putty in the master criminal’s hands. I wonder what Fagin really has in store for them.
And who do we think Fagin’s “friend” is? Does he exist? And if not, what can Fagin mean by:
“I don’t think he’d take you, even on my recommendation, if he didn’t run rather short of assistants just now”.
message 161:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 10, 2023 07:45AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
It strikes me that we have quite a few dysfunctional couples here: Noah and Charlotte, Mr. and Mrs. Bumble (nee Mrs. Corney), Bill Sikes and Nancy … can you think of any more?
Noah and Mr. Bumble have in common that they are both overbearing bullies, but Mrs. Bumble is far more wily than her husband - and will fight back physically too. Then we have have another asymmetric relationship in Mr. Brownlow and Mr. Grimwig. Mr. Brownlow is the intelligent, equable one, but he doesn’t seem to be able to function without his friend! He took him with him to the West Indies, and now he wants him there for the planning group to trap Monks.
message 162:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 10, 2023 08:27AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
On their way into London, Noah Claypole and Charlotte travel along the Great North Road, (now the A1 and A1M motorway) the main route from the north, and pass the “Angel” in Islington. This was an important coaching inn that dated to the early 1600s. The inn was a landmark, and readers in Victorian England would have been able to place them exactly, as can we, as there is now a tube station at the Angel, Islington.
Readers would understand very well why Noah would not want to stay at the Angel. Not only would it charge more than he wanted to spend, but he and Charlotte might be conspicuous, and stand out from the crowd.
Over to you.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall," (Proverbs 16:18)The Victorian reading public expected didactic novels. As I am reading Mr. Claypole's arrogant attitude, I am now expecting some bad ending for him. He is acting like he is still the biggest fish in a little pond when he is now nothing but bait for the likes of Fagin.
I did note Noah, despite attending a Charity School, could not read the street signage for the Three Cripples relying on Charlotte instead.
Mr. Claypole taking cold beef from the dish, and porter from the pot, and administering homeopathic doses of both to Charlotte,
A tenet of homeopathic medicine was the use of minimal doses of the so-called medicine. Another example, of how poorly Noah treats Charlotte. As Ms. Bionic commented, his chauvinistic treatment of Charlotte is a positive sign to Fagin.
Dickens multiple times alludes to how impractical it was for Charlotte to steal a 20 pound bank note. People in the seamy parts of London do not carry around an amount equivalent to the annual income of many households. Also, the note, like a modern check, can be stopped since the banknotes have serial numbers. And the amount was so much it was worth the trouble to cancel it. Although one can image Charlotte just grabbing everything she can from Sowerberry's till.
“Number and date taken, I suppose? Payment stopped at the Bank? Ah! It’s not worth much to him. It’ll have to go abroad, and he couldn’t sell it for a great deal in the market.”
So Dickens has brought together most of the characters, with the exception of the Bumbles, into London. Has the Bumbles served their purpose, or will they find themselves in London too?
Mod
Noah is just asking for an ignoble fall. And, sadly, he will likely take Charlotte with him as she appears so dependent. Maybe Nancy could influence her positively (probably too modern an idea).
Bionic Jean wrote: "Does Noah remind you of anyone else in the novel? Will he turn into a carbon copy of someone familiar when he is older? Or are his faults all his own? ..."Noah's treatment of Charlotte reminds me of Sikes treatment of Nancy, always bullying Charlotte and making her do all the work. But Noah (at this point in his life) isn't as mean as Sikes. He doesn't seem to have that "killer instinct" that Sikes has. Noah is afraid of little old ladies.
I enjoyed all the illustrations today (as I always do :-). I didn't pick up on how funny Noah's clothes were while reading, but the illustrations make him look hilarious. Its especially funny because Noah thinks he looks great. No wonder Fagin marked them as people from the country.
As far as who he will meet, it might be The Artful Dodger. I'm guessing Fagin sees Mr. and Mrs. Bolter as more of a "mark" to be robbed then new members of his criminal gang.
Lee G wrote: "In literature, mesmerism adds an otherworldly color to a story. It blends perfectly with the concept of visions or spirits or even ghosts."It definitely does here in the recent chapter with Oliver's vision of Fagin and Monks. To me, more so than (for example) the vision of Fagin with his treasure box, it feels almost supernatural, like Oliver has some kind of "far sight."
I will also thank Jean for her efforts in presenting some basic information about mesmerism. I'd known it to be connected with what we now call hypnotism, but wasn't familiar at all with Elliotson's more overarching theory of animal magnetism and a kind of "music of the spheres" (my words, not Jean's) that exists in all creatures.
Bionic Jean wrote: "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!"
It's good to know that it isn't just my being unfamiliar with England (or London, for that matter) except in the very broadest strokes that is giving me trouble with a sense of place and/or distance in this novel. In my mind I contrast Oliver Twist with, say, Jane Austen's novels, or Dickens' own Bleak House (well, the 2/3 of it I've read), where the sense of scale, and how people move about in their settings (walking, carriage, et al.) and how much time each takes to go this or that distance, is vivid and comprehensible.
What a weaselly character Noah Claypole is. Every time he shows his face I dislike him more. I hope Fagin has some rather nasty future in store for him. Cannot help feeling some sympathy for Charlotte. She has cast her lot with a weak and sniveling scoundrel and eventually he is sure to leave her holding the bag (probably of stolen goods).
Thanks for the explanation about the 20 pound note, Michael. I thought it odd to say it could be "canceled" since we don't think of money that way, but you have made it make sense to me now.
I'm guessing whoever Fagin puts forth as the "friend", it will be Fagin pulling all the strings and making all the decisions. He will use these rubes as much as he can, but he will never give them information or trust, even the kind he gives to Sikes or Dodger. I couldn't help thinking that Sikes would scare the britches off Claypole.
Beth wrote: " It's good to know that it isn't just my being unfamiliar with England (or London, for that matter) that is giving me trouble with a sense of place and/or distance in this novel. . . the sense of scale, and how people move about in their settings (walking, carriage, et al.) and how much time each takes to go this or that distance. . . "And also, in Ch 42, ". . . there advanced towards London, by the Great North Road, two persons. . . Thus, they had toiled along the dusty road. . . "
Exactly! Beth has pinpointed a major adjustment we in the US, and particularly myself, in Texas, have to make when reading a British novel. I imagine it must be very fruitful to live in England and especially London, where every road or inn described by Charles Dickens either still exists or you can identify it precisely on a map. And moreover, you can see yourself walking along those same roads on foot or in a carriage that Dickens so carefully describes! As a reader, I find it enchanting to imagine setting out on the street and walking to the nearest town - enchanting, but impossible.
"Texas is approximately 678,052 sq km, while United Kingdom is approximately 243,610 sq km, making United Kingdom 35.93% the size of Texas."
Mod
The chapter follows on the next morning, beginning with Noah (aka Mr. Bolter) finding out that Fagin’s “friend” was none other than Fagin himself.
They talk about friends and enemies, and the discussion becomes rather convoluted. Their conversation moves into the risks of hanging (the “halter”) and Fagin sees that he has totally captured Noah’s attention and so spins stories—some true and some false—about his operations. Noah is rapt by the tales, so Fagin goes into a long exposition about his philosophy. It seems to boil down to one rule: always look after yourself (number one) first, but also make the other person think that they are as important to you, as you are to yourself:
“The more you value your number one, the more careful you must be of mine; so we come at last to what I told you at first—that a regard for number one holds us all together, and must do so, unless we would all go to pieces in company.”
Noah is very impressed by this, and calls Fagin a “cunning old codger”.
Fagin reiterates what he had said the day before, that he has just lost his “best hand”. The Artful Dodger (Jack Dawkins) has been arrested for pickpocketing, and Fagin says he may only be in custody for a few weeks, but he he expects he may become “a lifer”, explaining that this means being transported for life.
Charley Bates arrives, and is uncharacteristically sad. Fagin is angry, and demands to know what he is “blubbering” for, but Charley explains that “the Artful’s booked for a passage out”. This news is depressing to Charley Bates who wishes that the Dodger had robbed some old gentleman and thus will “go out as a gentleman”. He regrets that the Artful Dodger won’t be remembered in the “Newgate Calendar”, and feels the Artful Dodger will be letting the pride of their trade down. Fagin is pleased, remarking to ”Mr. Bolter”:
“see what a pride they take in their profession, my dear. Ain’t it beautiful?”
and convinces Charley that Jack Dawkins is so clever that he will have the courtroom in stitches with his humour. He marvels at the fact that the Dodger is so young it will be a distinction for him to be transported. The narrator tells us that Charley Bates comes round to thinking that the Dodger will be “the chief actor in a scene of most uncommon and exquisite humour.”
Because nobody will recognise him, Noah is persuaded to dress up as a country waggonner, and given detailed intructions on how to get to the court. He is sent to attend the trial and report back on the outcome for the Artful Dodger.
“He found himself jostled among a crowd of people, chiefly women, who were huddled together in a dirty frowsy room … The room smelt close and unwholesome; the walls were dirt-discoloured; and the ceiling blackened … depravity, or poverty … had left a taint on all the animate matter, hardly less unpleasant than the thick greasy scum on every inanimate object that frowned upon it.”
"What is this?" inquired one of the magistrates. — "A pick-pocketing case, Your Worship." - James Mahoney 1871
"The Artful Dodger before the Magistrates" - Harry Furniss 1910
At his trial Jack Dawkins’s confidence and wit keeps everyone in the court, and even the police laughing, but it does not prevent him from being sentenced and taken off to gaol. Fagin is given the news that the Artful “Dodger was doing full justice to his bringing-up, and establishing for himself a glorious reputation”.
This ends installment 19.
message 171:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 11, 2023 04:01AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
The conversation between Fagin and Charley Bates in Chapter 43 reflects the importance of the Artful Dodger to the mythology of the group. Fagin talks it up in the hope that Charley Bates will retain his naïve sense of the fun, flash, and romance of being a thief—in line with the popular image of the dashing highwayman.
It is Jack Dawkins, the “Artful Dodger”, with his wit, humour, and endearing self-assurance, which has helped to brand Fagin’s gang in this way. But now, with everything seeming to fall apart, Fagin must be trying desperately to hold on to this image.
message 172:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 13, 2023 07:56AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Chapter 43 returns again to the Victorian justice system. Fagin talks about the gallows with Noah, who then watches Jack Dawkins’s trial. Jack Dawkins is tried at Bow Street Magistrates Court.
As we know, Charles Dickens was familiar with the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court because he had covered trials there as a reporter. Bow Street Magistrates’ Court was one of the most famous magistrates’ courts in England, and established in 1740. It is where the Bow Street Runners worked from, and was the main magistrates’ court in London until 2006. Over its 266-year existence it occupied various buildings in Bow Street in Central London, immediately north-east of Covent Garden.
This building is now an hotel and a police museum.
Jack Dawkins both “performs” for the court, and is sentenced to transportation, just as Fagin had predicted. Serious or habitual child criminals under 14 were not generally sentenced to death but to transportation. In the 1830s some 5,000 young convicts per year were transported to Australia, where they were employed in construction and other manual labour.
Our member Janelle has written several posts about what happened to those criminals who were transported from Britain in the 19th century, (as opposed to those who emigrated by choice) and how they made new lives for themselves.
The "Newgate Calendar" by the way, was an ongoing intermittent series of books containing biographies of the most notorious criminals confined in Newgate Prison.
message 173:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 11, 2023 04:00AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I was curious about how many child convicts there were and came across this Five child convicts under the age of 16 arrived with the First Fleet. ‘‘More than 160,000 convicts were ultimately transported to Australian colonies on about 800 ships,’’ writes Harris. ‘‘As many as 25,000 were under 18, with between 10,000 and 13,000 young boys dispatched to Van Diemen’s Land.’’ in a review for this book:
The Lost Boys of Mr Dickens: How the British Empire turned artful dodgers into child killers by Steve Harris which tells the story of two young convicts.
In another review (in a Dickens newsletter no less!) was this To add to the interest for Dickensians, the boys were initially imprisoned on HMS Euryalus before transportation, as was Samuel Holmes, Dickens’s probable real life inspiration for the Artful Dodger.
Jean gave lots of info about Samuel Holmes here LINK
Review links: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...
https://dickens.asn.au/wp-content/upl...
I found this fascinating!
(Jean I hope this isn’t too off topic!)
Bionic Jean wrote: "Chapter 43:"As one has seen already earlier in this work, Dickens once again alludes to the depravity and moral corruption of English justice through physical description of the place. Perhaps the apotheosis of this is the opening chapter of "Bleak House".
This is all so interesting! Thanks for those links, Janelle--looks like a fascinating story, and I appreciate the link back to when Jean initially told us about Samuel Holmes. Perfect to revisit this now. And Jean, your note that the Magistrates' Court is now the home of a police museum sent me down a rabbit hole to the museum's website. Going on my list for a hopefully future visit to London!
I enjoyed the all for one and one for all tone to Fagin's little speech to Noah ... satirical as it was, since Fagin doesn't practice what he preaches! It certainly feels like Dickens is wrapping up here. There are so many threads, it will take him a while!
message 177:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 11, 2023 08:55AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Off Topic
And it was fascinating for me to see the extra bits in the "Dickens Fellowship"'s affiliated Oz Association's magazine. I think I've said elsewhere that there are over 65 branches around the world, all associated to the original in Doughty Street. "Our" Spring 2023 issue (there are 3 a year) arrived last week! 😂 Perhaps time doesn't matter so much when you mentally live in the 19th century. It contains articles on the friendship of Pip and Joe, rhetoric in Hard Times, Dickens's beard, Dickens and hydrotherapy, a piece on early Dutch Dickensians, a note on textual errors in Sketches by Boz and the enigmatically titled "A Tale of Two Monkeys'". 😊 Yes, I'm off topic!
And Kathleen - I'd love to see that museum too - hadn't known of it before!
But after today's chapter you see why I couldn't share the rest of Samuel Palmer's story. When he and others were interviewed, he was actually on the ship which was transporting him.
I'm going to miss the Artful Dodger! He should have been an actor with his flair for the dramatic, and he made sure he was remembered in London. When I read about these impoverished boys trying to survive, I often think about their lost potential. If the Artful Dodger came from a family with money, with his brains and ability to think on his feet, he could have been a litigator in court instead of the criminal.
Thanks for all the information on Samuel Holmes and the child convicts, Jean and Janelle.
Michael wrote: ""Mr. Claypole taking cold beef from the dish, and porter from the pot, and administering homeopathic doses of both to Charlotte,"This was one of my favourite sentences in this entire chapter, and not just because it's such a brilliant description of the tiny bits she was being fed. I was drawn to the fact that Dickens used it and wonder what his thoughts on it were. It showed so much very quickly.
I do know that Dickens was also interested in health and was very much in support of small pox vaccinations. (view spoiler)
Homeopathy was rather in the forefront of many discussions bac then. due to the fact that allopathy (what we call mainstream medicine now) still used many harmful treatments. There were a number of epidemics during the 19th century where treatment by homeopathy resulted in a much lower mortality rate, but note that there were no records of mortality for victims who had no treatment.
There is a reason that "first do no harm" is so important in good health care!!!
I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the term "poddy dodger"? It's an Australian expression meaning a calf thief — a fellow who, partly for the sport of it and also for the profit, used to steal calves from his neighbor's herd, out in the pasture lands. It strikes me that it would be the ideal occupation for the Artful Dodger once he establishes himself down under! I wonder if Dickens had that in mind ...
There is a true sense of sadness that comes with this chapter, seeing The Dodger transported. Still, he might have a future in Australia, while he has absolutely none in England. Most likely, he would have ended up at the end of a rope had he remained, for he would have surely graduated to much harder crime than pick-pocketing under Fagin and Sike's tutelage.
Noah is definitely smarmy and I feel awful that Charlotte has become attached to him. We saw it happening though earlier on. I’m not sure his strategy to becoming a Fagin-type is going to work out for him. His laziness will be his detriment I think. While Fagin may not be an upstanding citizen, he is smart and knows how to handle others, especially boys and girls that can be useful to him, in getting what he wants. He’s obviously cunning enough to command order and respect from his gang of thieves and I don’t believe that Noah has the same qualities. I had hoped for more Artful Dodger scenes and feel as though he could have been involved more being such an iconic character. Maybe that’s just because the dramatizations show him more.
As a first time reader, I expected to see more of the Dodger. That’s probably due to the outsized place he has in ads for the films or plays. As for Noah, I can envision Fagin using him as a sacrifice should his gang come under close scrutiny. I doubt he cares one way or the other about Charlotte.
Sue wrote: "As a first time reader, I expected to see more of the Dodger. That’s probably due to the outsized place he has in ads for the films or plays. As for Noah, I can envision Fagin using him as a sacr..."
I also expected to see more of the Artful Dodger for the same reasons. He is someone you always hear about when this book or the movies based on it are mentioned. But he is not really a major player in the story.
message 185:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 12, 2023 04:25AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
That sounds a very likely projection of the Artful's future to me, Jim! 😁 Though no doubt Charles Dickens would hope that he would make good, just as the boys he would help to emigrate to Australia in real life, did.
Sara wrote: "There is a true sense of sadness that comes with this chapter, seeing The Dodger transported. Still, he might have a future in Australia, while he has absolutely none in England. Most likely, he wo..."I think that being sent to Australia us the best end for the Dodger. As you said, he might do very well, especially since he's more of a "go getter" in our language today. If he were to stay in London the end was a highly likely outcome.
Michael wrote: "Bionic Jean wrote: "Chapter 43:"As one has seen already earlier in this work, Dickens once again alludes to the depravity and moral corruption of English justice through physical description of t..."
The actual history of London and England in Dickens novels is just staggering to me! And the fact that people in the UK value their history enough to preserve these buildings and relics of their history is impressive.
Janelle wrote: "I was curious . . . Five child convicts under the age of 16 arrived with the First Fleet. ‘More than 160,000 convicts were ultimately tran..."
Thank you, Janelle. This becomes very real when I see the numbers. Incredible....
I never knew those numbers either, Janelle. Wow! Some were sent to the American colonies early on before independence but I have no idea how many.
Mod
Lee G wrote: "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. ..."
(Chapter 39.....I put this here for reference because I'm still catching up)
Nancy and Bill's relationship is disturbing and complicated, I find.
Poor Nancy is in a difficult position. She may love Bill in some way but she is also aware that if she left (should she want to) he would kill her. It's a horrible way to live. I feel for this gentle hearted girl.
She does seem to be ill in some way. I can't see Bill taking care of her in any way, so I really hope she isn't.
I recall back in the story where Fagin and Monks spoke in the upstairs room. Monks thought he saw a shadow and the house was searched. Only the boys were there and they were sleeping, so the shadow was thought to be a figment of his imagination. Could that have been Nancy? I don't recall her being in the house at that time. Could she have been? Is this how she recognized his voice?
Michael wrote: "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!”..."
Michael, I see you remembered this scene, too.
I had forgotten the part about the shawl and bonnet being part of the shadow. That explains Nancy's strange behavior of hiding these objects.
Bionic Jean wrote: "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...."Jean, you've dashed my investigative hopes. LOL.
Mod
Bionic Jean wrote: "Chapter 40:Oliver, whom Monks refers to as his “young brother”..."
Wow! I'm gob-smacked by this news!
Jean, thank you for all the information you're providing. Without it, I wouldn't have picked up on the supernatural side of this story as much (or at all) and it's adding a wonderful element to the story.
Sara wrote: "There is a true sense of sadness that comes with this chapter, seeing The Dodger transported. Still, he might have a future in Australia, while he has absolutely none in England. Most likely, he would have ended up at the end of a rope had he remained, for he would have surely graduated to much harder crime than pick-pocketing under Fagin and Sike's tutelage..."I agree with Sara. Being transported might be the best future The Dodger could have. He's a smart kid and can see opportunity. Australia is a new land with many possible legal and enjoyable options for him. He has no options in London. I wish him well and hope he takes advantage of his new surroundings and leads a happy life.
Ch. 39 (end):Bionic Jean wrote: "Dickens refers to these young women as “the Dianas”—a reference to the virgin Roman goddess Diana, a popular Victorian image of beauty."
This is a silly one: in the Norton edition that I own, "Diana" has a footnote attached to it. Glancing down, I saw: "Decommissioned ships used as prisons." ... what?
It turns out that there are two "footnote 3s" on that page, and this one is actually for the early paragraphs of Ch. 40. 😅 Not to worry, the other footnote 3 has the correct information about Diana the goddess.
Sara wrote: "It might be easy to slot Fagin into a typical Victorian idea of a Jew; Sikes into a typical evil criminal, but Nancy doesn't fit into the typical idea of a prostitute"
I agree with the gist of Sara's excellent comment here. Many of the other characters are distinctive, but they're either distanced morally from the reader--whether wicked or benign--or not given a fuller personality with the internal conflicts we recognize in ourselves. Of any of the characters thus far, Nancy comes closest to that for me, on my first read-through of the book.
message 198:
by
Bionic Jean, "Dickens Duchess"
(last edited Jul 15, 2023 03:23AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
"Decommissioned ships used as prisons." refers to the "hulks". I think I did include both of these ... But at least it gave you a laugh! 😁
Mod
Ch. 40: as I listened to this chapter, I noticed that Dickens used "the girl" rather than "Nancy" several times. The affect of the chapter is definitely one of sympathy--or at least it was for me--so "the girl" didn't have the alienating or distancing feeling that using "the Jew" did when referring to Fagin. I do wonder why it was used, though. Maybe it was something as simple as not filling the pages with "Rose" and "Nancy," and once it was established that Nancy was "the girl," the reader could clearly understand who was being referred to.As has happened in most cases, I have a great appreciation for Furniss' illustration of Rose and Nancy. Nancy kneeling on the floor in front of Rose, hands over her face, excellently evokes the same feelings that the chapter does.
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...
Chap 49: What a nice interlude to bring back into the story many of those who were charmed by Oliver and are only too willing to believe in his innocence and want to help him. Loved the humorous interaction between Brownlow and Grimwig & Grimwig's surprising exuberant action of giving Rose a kiss!!