Charles Dickens: A critical studyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Charles Dickens: A critical study
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870
As I have said elsewhere in this book Dickens was deeply and radically
English; the most English of our great writers. And there is something
very English in this contentment with a grotesque democracy; and in
this absence of the eloquence and elevation of Scott. The English
democracy is the most humorous democracy in the world. The Scotch
democracy is the most dignified, while the whole abandon and satiric
genius of the English populace come from its being quite undignified in
every way. A comparison of the two types might be found, for instance,
by putting a Scotch Labour leader like Mr. Keir Hardie alongside an
English Labour leader like Mr. Will Crooks. Both are good men, honest
and responsible and compassionate; but we can feel that the Scotchman
carries himself seriously and universally, the Englishman personally
and with an obstinate humour. Mr. Hardie wishes to hold up his head as
Man, Mr. Crooks wishes to follow his nose as Crooks. Mr. Keir Hardie is
very like a poor man in Walter Scott. Mr. Crooks is very like a poor
man in Dickens.
Dickens then had this English feeling of a grotesque democracy. By that
is more properly meant a vastly varying democracy. The intoxicating
variety of men--that was his vision and conception of human
brotherhood. And certainly it is a great part of human brotherhood.
In one sense things can only be equal if they are entirely different.
Thus, for instance, people talk with a quite astonishing gravity about
the inequality or equality of the sexes; as if there could possibly be
any inequality between a lock and a key. Wherever there is no element
of variety, wherever the items literally have an identical aim, there
is at once and of necessity inequality. A woman is only inferior to
man in the matter of being not so manly; she is inferior in nothing
else. Man is inferior to woman in so far as he is not a woman; there
is no other reason. And the same applies in some degree to all genuine
differences. It is a great mistake to suppose that love unites and
unifies men. Love diversifies them, because love is directed towards
individuality. The thing that really unites men and makes them like to
each other is hatred. Thus, for instance, the more we love Germany the
more pleased we shall be that Germany should be something different
from ourselves, should keep her own ritual and conviviality and we
ours. But the more we hate Germany the more we shall copy German guns
and German fortifications in order to be armed against Germany. The
more modern nations detest each other the more meekly they follow
each other; for all competition is in its nature only a furious
plagiarism. As competition means always similarity, it is equally true
that similarity always means inequality. If everything is trying to
be green, some things will be greener than others; but there is an
immortal and indestructible equality between green and red. Something
of the same kind of irrefutable equality exists between the violent and
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