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 it is the American part of “Martin Chuzzlewit” which is our
concern, and which is memorable. It has the air of a great satire; but
if it is only a great slander, it is still great. His serious book on
America was merely a squib, perhaps a damp squib. In any case, we all
know that America will survive such serious books. But his fantastic
book may survive America. It may survive America as “The Knights” has
survived Athens. “Martin Chuzzlewit” has this quality of great satire
that the critic forgets to ask whether the portrait is true to the
original, because the portrait is so much more important than the
original. Who cares whether Aristophanes correctly describes Kleon,
who is dead, when he so perfectly describes the demagogue, who cannot
die? Just as little, it may be, will some future age care whether the
ancient civilization of the west, the lost cities of New York and
St. Louis, were fairly depicted in the colossal monument of Elijah
Pogram. For there is much more in the American episodes than their
intoxicating absurdity; there is more than humour in the young man who
made the speech about the British Lion, and said, “I taunt that lion.
Alone I dare him;” or in the other man who told Martin that when he
said that Queen Victoria did not live in the Tower of London he “fell
into an error not uncommon among his countrymen.” He has his finger on
the nerve of an evil which was not only in his enemies, but in himself.
The great democrat has hold of one of the dangers of democracy. The
great optimist confronts a horrible nightmare of optimism. Above all,
the genuine Englishman attacks a sin that is not merely American,
but English also. The eternal, complacent iteration of patriotic
half-truths; the perpetual buttering of one’s self all over with the
same stale butter; above all, the big defiances of small enemies, or
the very urgent challenges to very distant enemies; the cowardice so
habitual and unconscious that it wears the plumes of courage--all
this is an English temptation as well as an American one. “Martin
Chuzzlewit” may be a caricature of America. America may be a caricature
of England. But in the gravest college, in the quietest country house
of England, there is the seed of the same essential madness that fills
Dickens’s book, like an asylum, with brawling Chollops and raving
Jefferson Bricks. That essential madness is the idea that the good
patriot is the man who feels at ease about his country. This notion of
patriotism was unknown in the little pagan republics where our European
patriotism began. It was unknown in the Middle Ages. In the eighteenth
century, in the making of modern politics, a “patriot” meant a
discontented man. It was opposed to the word “courtier,” which meant an
upholder of the _status quo_. In all other modern countries, especially
in countries like France and Ireland, where real difficulties have been
faced, the word “patriot” means something like a political pessimist.
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