Charles Dickens: A critical studyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Charles Dickens: A critical study
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870
But there is a good reason for mentioning Skimpole especially. In the
character of Skimpole, Dickens displayed again a quality that was very
admirable in him--I mean a disposition to see things sanely and to
satirize even his own faults. He was commonly occupied in satirizing
the Gradgrinds, the economists, the men of Smiles and Self-Help. For
him there was nothing poorer than their wealth, nothing more selfish
than their self-denial. And against them he was in the habit of
pitting the people of a more expansive habit--the happy Swivellers and
Micawbers, who, if they were poor, were at least as rich as their last
penny could make them. He loved that great Christian carelessness that
seeks its meat from God. It was merely a kind of uncontrollable honesty
that forced him into urging the other side. He could not disguise
from himself or from the world that the man who began by seeking
his meat from God might end by seeking his meat from his neighbour,
without apprising his neighbour of the fact. He had shown how good
irresponsibility could be; he could not stoop to hide how bad it could
be. He created Skimpole; and Skimpole is the dark underside of Micawber.
In attempting Skimpole he attempted something with a great and urgent
meaning. He attempted it, I say; I do not assert that he carried it
through. As has been remarked, he was never successful in describing
psychological change; his characters are the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever. And critics have complained very justly of the crude
villainy of Skimpole’s action in the matter of Joe and Mr. Bucket.
Certainly Skimpole had no need to commit a clumsy treachery to win
a clumsy bribe; he had only to call on Mr. Jarndyce. He had lost his
honour too long to need to sell it.
The effect is bad; but I repeat that the aim was great. Dickens wished,
under the symbol of Skimpole, to point out a truth which is perhaps the
most terrible in moral psychology. I mean the fact that it is by no
means easy to draw the line between light and heavy offence. He desired
to show that there are no faults, however kindly, that we can afford to
flatter or to let alone; he meant that perhaps Skimpole had once been
as good a man as Swiveller. If flattered or let alone, our kindliest
fault can destroy our kindliest virtue. A thing may begin as a very
human weakness, and end as a very inhuman weakness. Skimpole means that
the extremes of evil are much nearer than we think. A man may begin by
being too generous to pay his debts, and end by being too mean to pay
his debts. For the vices are very strangely in league, and encourage
each other. A sober man may become a drunkard through being a coward.
A brave man may become a coward through being a drunkard. That is the
thing Dickens was darkly trying to convey in Skimpole--that a man might
become a mountain of selfishness if he attended only to the Dickens
virtues. There is nothing that can be neglected; there is no such
thing (he meant) as a peccadillo.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account