Charles Dickens: A critical studyChesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
General
Charles Dickens: A critical study
Chesterton, G. K. (Gilbert Keith)
Dickens, Charles, 1812-1870
matters very much that he hated the New Poor Law while it was still
new.
The moral of this matter in “The Chimes” is essential. Dickens had
sympathy with the poor in the Greek and literal sense; he suffered
with them mentally; for the things that irritated them were the things
that irritated him. He did not pity the people, or even champion the
people, or even merely love the people; in this matter he was the
people. He alone in our literature is the voice not merely of the
social substratum, but even of the subconsciousness of the substratum.
He utters the secret anger of the humble. He says what the uneducated
only think, or even only feel, about the educated. And in nothing is he
so genuinely such a voice as in this fact of his fiercest mood being
reserved for methods that are counted scientific and progressive.
Pure and exalted atheists talk themselves into believing that the
working-classes are turning with indignant scorn from the churches.
The working-classes are not indignant against the churches in the
least. The things the working-classes really are indignant against are
the hospitals. The people has no definite disbelief in the temples
of theology. The people has a very fiery and practical disbelief in
the temples of physical science. The things the poor hate are the
modern things, the rationalistic things--doctors, inspectors, poor
law guardians, professional philanthropy. They never showed any
reluctance to be helped by the old and corrupt monasteries. They will
often die rather than be helped by the modern and efficient workhouse.
Of all this anger, good or bad, Dickens is the voice of an accusing
energy. When, in “The Christmas Carol,” Scrooge refers to the surplus
population, the Spirit tells him, very justly, not to speak till he
knows what the surplus is and where it is. The implication is severe
but sound. When a group of superciliously benevolent economists look
down into the abyss for the surplus population, assuredly there is only
one answer that should be given to them; and that is to say, “If there
is a surplus, you are a surplus.” And if any one were ever cut off,
they would be. If the barricades went up in our streets and the poor
became masters, I think the priests would escape, I fear the gentlemen
would; but I believe the gutters would be simply running with the blood
of philanthropists.
Lastly, he was at one with the poor in this chief matter of Christmas,
in the matter, that is, of special festivity. There is nothing on which
the poor are more criticized than on the point of spending large sums
on small feasts; and though there are material difficulties, there
is nothing in which they are more right. It is said that a Boston
paradox-monger said, “Give us the luxuries of life and we will dispense
with the necessities.” But it is the whole human race that says it,
from the first savage wearing feathers instead of clothes to the last
costermonger having a treat instead of three meals.
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