I have heard that in some debating clubs there is a rule that the members may discuss anything except religion and politics. I cannot imagine what they do discuss; but it is quite evident that they have ruled out the only two subjects which are either important or amusing. The thing is a part of a certain modern tendency to avoid things because they lead to warmth; whereas, obviously, we ought, even in a social sense, to seek those things specially. The warmth of the discussion is as much a part of hospitality as the warmth of the fire. And it is singularly suggestive that in English literature the two things have died together. The very people who would blame Dickens for his sentimental hospitality are the very people who would also blame him for his narrow political conviction. The very people who would mock him for his narrow radicalism are those who would mock him for his broad fireside. Real conviction and real charity are much nearer than people suppose. Dickens was capable of loving all men; but he refused to love all opinions. The modern humanitarian can love all opinions, but he cannot love all men; he seems, sometimes, in the ecstasy of his humanitarianism, even to hate them all. He can love all opinions, including the opinion that men are unlovable.
In feeling Dickens as a lover we must never forget him as a fighter, and a fighter for a creed; but indeed there is no other kind of fighter. The geniality which he spread over all his creations was geniality spread from one centre, from one flaming peak. He was willing to excuse Mr. Micawber for being extravagant; but Dickens and Dickens's doctrine were strictly to decide how far he was to be excused. He was willing to like Mr. Twemlow in spite of his snobbishness, but Dickens and Dickens's doctrine were alone to be judges of how far he was snobbish. There was never a more didactic writer: hence there was never one more amusing. He had no mean modern notion of keeping the moral doubtful. He would have regarded this as a mere piece of slovenliness, like leaving the last page illegible.
Everywhere in Dickens's work these angles of his absolute opinion stood up out of the confusion of his general kindness, just as sharp and splintered peaks stand up out of the soft confusion of the forests. Dickens is always generous, he is generally kind-hearted, he is often sentimental, he is sometimes intolerably maudlin; but you never know when you will not come upon one of the convictions of Dickens; and when you do come upon it you do know it. It is as hard and as high as any precipice or peak of the mountains. The highest and hardest of these peaks is Hard Times.
It is here more than anywhere else that the sternness of Dickens emerges as separate from his softness; it is here, most obviously, so to speak, that his bones stick out. There are indeed many other books of his which are written better and written in a sadder tone. Great Expectations is melancholy in a sense; but it is doubtful of everything, even of its own melancholy. The Tale of Two Cities is a great tragedy, but it is still a sentimental tragedy. It is a great drama, but it is still a melodrama. But this tale of Hard Times is in some way harsher than all these. For it is the expression of a righteous indignation which cannot condescend to humour and which cannot even condescend to pathos. Twenty times we have taken Dickens's hand and it has been sometimes hot with revelry and sometimes weak with weariness; but this time we start a little, for it is inhumanly cold; and then we realise that we have touched his gauntlet of steel.
One cannot express the real value of this book without being irrelevant. It is true that one cannot express the real value of anything without being irrelevant. If we take a thing frivolously we can take it separately, but the moment we take a thing seriously, if it were only an old umbrella, it is obvious that that umbrella opens above us into the immensity of the whole universe. But there are rather particular reasons why the value of the book called Hard Times should be referred back to great historic and theoretic matters with which it may appear superficially to have little or nothing to do. The chief reason can perhaps be stated thus -- that English politics had for more than a hundred years been getting into more and more of a hopeless tangle (a tangle which, of course, has since become even worse) and that Dickens did in some extraordinary way see what was wrong, even if he did not see what was right.
The Liberalism which Dickens and nearly all of his contemporaries professed had begun in the American and the French Revolutions. Almost all modern English criticism upon those revolutions has been vitiated by the assumption that those revolutions burst upon a world which was unprepared for their ideas -- a world ignorant of the possibility of such ideas. Somewhat the same mistake is made by those who suggest that Christianity was adopted by a world incapable of criticising it; whereas obviously it was adopted by a world that was tired of criticising everything. The vital mistake that is made about the French Revolution is merely this -- that everyone talks about it as the introduction of a new idea. It was not the introduction of a new idea; there are no new ideas. Or if there are new ideas, they would not cause the least irritation if they were introduced into political society; because the world having never got used to them there would be no mass of men ready to fight for them at a moment's notice. That which was irritating about the French Revolution was this -- that it was not the introduction of a new ideal, but the practical fulfilment of an old one. From the time of the first fairy tales men had always believed ideally in equality; they had always thought that something ought to be done, if anything could be done, to redress the balance between Cinderella and the ugly sisters. The irritating thing about the French was not that they said this ought to be done; everybody said that. The irritating thing about the French was that they did it. They proposed to carry out into a positive scheme what had been the vision of humanity; and humanity was naturally annoyed. The kings of Europe did not make war upon the Revolution because it was a blasphemy, but because it was a copy-book maxim which had been just too accurately copied. It was a platitude which they had always held in theory unexpectedly put into practice. The tyrants did not hate democracy because it was a paradox; they hated it because it was a truism which seemed in some danger of coming true.
Now it happens to be hugely important to have this right view of the Revolution in considering its political effects upon England. For the English, being a deeply and indeed excessively romantic people, could never be quite content with this quality of cold and bald obviousness about the republican formula. The republican formula was merely this -- that the State must consist of its citizens ruling equally, however unequally they may do anything else. In their capacity of members of the State they are all equally interested in its preservation. But the English soon began to be romantically restless about this eternal truism; they were perpetually trying to turn it into something else, into something more picturesque -- progress perhaps, or anarchy. At last they turned it into the highly exciting and highly unsound system of politics, which was known as the Manchester School, and which was expressed with a sort of logical flightiness, more excusable in literature, by Mr. Herbert Spencer. Of course Danton or Washington or any of the original republicans would have thought these people were mad. They would never have admitted for a moment that the State must not interfere with commerce or competition; they would merely have insisted that if the State did interfere, it must really be the State -- that is, the whole people. But the distance between the common sense of Danton and the mere ecstasy of Herbert Spencer marks the English way of colouring and altering the revolutionary idea. The English people as a body went blind, as the saying is, for interpreting democracy entirely in terms of liberty. They said in substance that if they had more and more liberty it did not matter whether they had any equality or any fraternity. But this was violating the sacred trinity of true politics; they confounded the persons and they divided the substance.
Now the really odd thing about England in the nineteenth century is this -- that there was one Englishman who happened to keep his head. The men who lost their heads lost highly scientific and philosophical heads; they were great cosmic systematisers like Spencer, great social philosophers like Bentham, great practical politicians like Bright, great political economists like Mill. The man who kept his head kept a head full of fantastic nonsense; he was a writer of rowdy farces, a demagogue of fiction, a man without education in any serious sense whatever, a man whose whole business was to turn ordinary cockneys into extraordinary caricatures. Yet when all these other children of the revolution went wrong he, by a mystical something in his bones, went right. He knew nothing of the Revolution; yet he struck the note of it. He returned to the original sentimental commonplace upon which it is forever founded, as the Church is founded on a rock. In an England gone mad about a minor theory he reasserted the original idea -- the idea that no one in the State must be too weak to influence the State.
This man was Dickens. He did this work much more genuinely than it was done by Carlyle or Ruskin; for they were simply Tories making out a romantic case for the return of Toryism. But Dickens was a real Liberal demanding the return of real Liberalism. Dickens was there to remind people that England had rubbed out two words of the revolutionary motto, had left only Liberty and destroyed Equality and Fraternity. In this book, Hard Times, he specially champions equality. In all his books he champions fraternity.
The atmosphere of this book and what it stands for can be very adequately conveyed in the note on the book by Lord Macaulay, who may stand as a very good example of the spirit of England in those years of eager emancipation and expanding wealth -- the years in which Liberalism was turned from an omnipotent truth to a weak scientific system. Macaulay's private comment on Hard Times runs, "One or two passages of exquisite pathos and the rest sullen Socialism." That is not an unfair and certainly not a specially hostile criticism, but it exactly shows how the book struck those people who were mad on political liberty and dead about everything else. Macaulay mistook for a new formula called Socialism what was, in truth, only the old formula called political democracy. He and his Whigs had so thoroughly mauled and modified the original idea of Rousseau or Jefferson that when they saw it again they positively thought that it was something quite new and eccentric. But the truth was that Dickens was not a Socialist, but an unspoilt Liberal; he was not sullen; nay, rather, he had remained strangely hopeful. They called him a sullen Socialist only to disguise their astonishment at finding still loose about the London streets a happy republican.
Dickens is the one living link between the old kindness and the new, between the good will of the past and the good works of the future. He links May Day with Bank Holiday, and he does it almost alone. All the men around him, great and good as they were, were in comparison puritanical, and never so puritanical as when they were also atheistic. He is a sort of solitary pipe down which pours to the twentieth century the original river of Merry England. And although this Hard Times is, as its name implies, the hardest of his works, although there is less in it perhaps than in any of the others of the abandon and the buffoonery of Dickens, this only emphasises the more clearly the fact that he stood almost alone for a more humane and hilarious view of democracy. None of his great and much more highly-educated contemporaries could help him in this. Carlyle was as gloomy on the one side as Herbert Spencer on the other. He protested against the commercial oppression simply and solely because it was not only an oppression but a depression. And this protest of his was made specially in the case of the book before us. It may be bitter, but it was a protest against bitterness. It may be dark, but it is the darkness of the subject and not of the author. He is by his own account dealing with hard times, but not with a hard eternity, not with a hard philosophy of the universe. Nevertheless, this is the one place in his work where he does not make us remember human happiness by example as well as by precept. This is, as I have said, not the saddest, but certainly the harshest of his stories. It is perhaps the only place where Dickens, in defending happiness, for a moment forgets to be happy.
He describes Bounderby and Gradgrind with a degree of grimness and sombre hatred very different from the half affectionate derision which he directed against the old tyrants or humbugs of the earlier nineteenth century -- the pompous Dedlock or the fatuous Nupkins, the grotesque Bumble or the inane Tigg. In those old books his very abuse was benignant; in Hard Times even his sympathy is hard. And the reason is again to be found in the political facts of the century. Dickens could be half genial with the older generation of oppressors because it was a dying generation. It was evident, or at least it seemed evident then, that Nupkins could not go on much longer making up the law of England to suit himself; that Sir Leicester Dedlock could not go on much longer being kind to his tenants as if they were dogs and cats. And some of these evils the nineteenth century did really eliminate or improve. For the first half of the century Dickens and all his friends were justified in feeling that the chains were falling from mankind. At any rate, the chains did fall from Mr. Rouncewell the Iron-master. And when they fell from him he picked them up and put them upon the poor.
I was reading Dickens' 'Hard Times' and noticed in the descriptions of Mrs Sparsit that Dickens describes first her nose and then her eyebrows as "Coriolanian". What on earth are "Coriolanian eyebrows"? They are first described as "dense black eyebrows" (Chapter VII) but is there more to a Coriolanian eyebrow than this and does it refer to Coriolanus or Corioles? I don't remember any descriptions of eyebrows in Shakespeare's play but I could be wrong. Please help satisfy my curiosity.
Do you think that Hard Times might have been better after another edit? I wonder whether time considerations meant it was not as good as it might have been. 1) Stephen Blackpool's accent and Sleary's list make them difficult to read. Sleary's long speeches become wearing because of his lisp. Blackpool's accent is not right. 2) Stephen Blackpool refuses to join the union because he made a promise to someone. It is not clear who this person is or why he made this promise. I think this was originally in the text, but Dickens took it out again. 3) In the original text, Rachel had lost her sister in an industrial accident about twenty year before. I think this had an important bearing on the story, but again it was taken out.
I have just been reading a bit about the Irish potato famine from 1845-51. Dickens rarely mentions Ireland or the Irish, so far as I know, but he must have heard what was going on. In Hard Times, written in 1854, Dickens attacks laisser-faire economics, advocated by Adam Smith (I believe), after whom Tom Gradgrind named one of his sons. Since Tom Gradgrind named another his sons after Robert Malthus, I assume he was no fan of his neither. Robert Malthus believed each species of animal increased in numbers until its food supply ran out, and that this applied to humans too. Dickens is very harsh towards the Houses of Parliament. This interesting. One of the reasons that the British government did not do enough to relieve the Irish potato famine was that it believed in laisser-faire economics, i.e. leaving alone, letting the invisible hand do its work. This was particularly the case after Robert Peel was defeated by Lord John Russell in the 1846 general election. Robert Peel had brought in limited aid, for example American maize and Indian corn, and had initiated work projects to enable Irish labourers to pay for it. This relief stopped with the new government. The Irish population had increased 5 million in 1800 to 8 million in 1840, but had not undergone the same sort of industrialisation as England had, and the majority of the population still lived and worked on the land, in ever-more subdivided plots. When the potato blight came along and the Irish started to starve, Lord Russell and his cabinet probably thought, well, that's Robert Malthus for you.
It's a delicate subject, especially for a Victorian book, but I wonder whether Bounderby ever consummated the marriage with his wife. The thought is unpleasant. In the chapter in which Louisa gets out of bed and goes to her brother Tom's bedroom to encourage him to confess if he had stolen money, it is apparent that Louisa and her husband are sleeping in different beds, probably different rooms. This is odd. You can see Louisa might prefer this situation. However, you would have thought, Bounderby having married a beautiful, young woman, would have insisted on his conjugal rights. They never have children. Bounderby was fifty when he married Louisa, and it seems to be his first marriage. Perhaps he doesn't do women. He didn't do Mrs Sparsit, although she would probably have been amenable to becoming Mrs Bounderby. Perhaps he used tarts to satisfy his carnal lusts.
Have there been any? I presume there must have been. I wondered if someone were to film an updated version, it would be set in China. They have been undergoing a phase of heavy industrialisation. I understand many industrial Chinese cities suffer from pollution. I wonder if many Chinese feel they have adopted a severe economic code, which although profitable is hard on the workers. I wonder whether there are officials like Gradgrind and bosses like Bounderby around in China. If the book was updated to modern China, I wonder how it would be received.
I struggled with the speech patterns of two of the characters: namely Stephen Blackpool and Sleary. Sleary had rather a pronounced lisp and reading through pages of it was hard work. I can't say if Stephen Blackpool's accent was accurately rendered, but it was also hard work to read and I did not reproduce the accent in my head. Could accents have changed since then? I gather Coketown was based on Preston. Accents seem to change every five miles up in that part of the country. I could understand Mr Bounderby's accent, although his was not written phonetically. His accent was suggested by his manner of speech, which sounded very Lancastrian to me. "I am Josiah Bounderby of Coketown." "I am a Coketown man." Dickens seemed pretty good at reproducing working class speech from around London and Kent, Joe Gargery's and Magwitch's for instance. I did not think Dicken's rendering of a northern accent was as good as Emily Bronte's in Wuthering Heights. I quite enjoyed trying to decipher Joe's rants, but his speeches were relatively short. I thought Emily Bronte's rendering of the Yorkshire dialect was better than Charlotte's when she attempted to make it more understandable to southern readers.
(SPOILERS) What did you think of the last couple of chapters when Mr Gradgrind, Sissy and Louisa try to get Tom out of the country with help from the circus troupe? I thought Tom was the least likeable character in the book, although one of the two best drawn. The student notes I have been reading said Bitzer, Tom's fellow pupil at the Gradgrind school and then colleague at Bounderby's bank, was the most unlikable character in the book. I did not find him so. I hoped Bitzer would drag Tom back to face a court trial. I admired his detective work. I suppose it is difficult to blame a father for wanting to spare his son a long term in prison. OTOH is it right for a responsible person, a member of parliament no less, to help someone to escape justice for quite a serious crime? If the thief had not been his son, he would surely have tried to see he was arrested. Tom stole over a £100 from the bank and put suspicion on an innocent man. £100 would not have been a huge amount of money to rich men like Gradgrind and Bounderby, but is, I suppose, equivalent to over £20,000 in today's money. By the late 1840's to early 1850's when the book was set, capital punishment had been abolished for all except the most serious crimes. Nevertheless, Tom could have expected quite a long prison sentence.
Apart from the purposes of education and the unfair treatment of workers by factory bosses, one of the themes of this book is the injustice of not being able to put an end to a mistaken marriage. This seems to be a common theme in Victorian literature. Stephen Blackpool is married to a drunken wreck, but because he is such a decent man, he cannot abandon her and set up home with the love of his life, Rachel. Louisa has unwisely married a man thirty years older than her, whom she does not even like, mainly to help her brother. I wonder how those two sub-plots are going to work out. Is Bounderby going to die or undergo a fabulous Scrooge like transformation? Is Stephen's ball-and-chain going to do the decent thing and expire, leaving Stephen and Rachel a chance of happiness, before they finally grow too old to become a family? Bounderby seems due a meeting with his mother, who will correct a few of his misapprehensions regarding his upbringing. No doubt this will leave him shaken and force him to re-examine his values, but I cannot see how it can change him into so much a better man that Louisa would want to share her life with him. Bounderby cannot divorce his wife because he has no grounds. Unless Dickens can pull a rabbit out of a hat, it looks like there is going to be a somewhat downbeat ending.
I finished volume 2 a couple of days ago. The book still seems more an attack on a too factual based education system than the critique on working class working and living conditions that I had expected. The book makes out that the education of both of Mr Gradgrind's eldest children left them unprepared for life. Young Tom Gradgrind has not turned out well. One of the characters, Mr Harthouse, says that Tom's upbringing left him unprepared for the circles that he would have to move in. It is true that young Tom does lack polish, but that is not his main failing. Mr Harthouse's education was, no doubt, more humanities based than Tom's, but his character is hardly much better. At the end of volume 2, Louisa visits her father. In a rather unlikely sounding passage, she complains that her education had not prepared her for life. She made a bad mistake in marrying Mr Bounderby. Was it really the style of education that she received that led her to make this mistake? What syllabus would Dickens have suggested to prepare a child for life? I wonder whether Victorian industrialists were actually dismissive of the arts. There is a pub in Reading called Great Expectations after Charles Dickens' book. Charles Dickens visited it when it was the Literary, Scientific and Mechanics Institute. iirc he read extracts from A Christmas Carol there. The Keighley Mechanics Institute had a library, from which I gather the Brontė sisters borrowed books. Their father delivered a lecture there in 1833 (linky). I would not mind betting these places were typical of mechanics institutes up and down the country. Incidentally, I was listening to Jean Winterson (probably most famous for Oranges are Not the Only Fruit) on the radio this morning. She criticised the present minister for education, Michael Gove, for the utilitarian aspect of his education policies. She said education was not about utility, but allowing people to be human beings. Otherwise you are back with Engels, lurking about the slums of Manchester, saying this is what happens men regard each other only as useful objects (not an exact quote).
Some of the passages take some reading in this book. I find I sometimes have to re-read a passage several times to ensure I have understood correctly, although I think I get the gist.For example (Vol 2, chap 8, Explosion): 'As you lie here alone, my dear, in the melancholy night, so you must lie somewhere one night, when even I, if I am living then, shall have left you. As I am here beside you, barefoot, unclothed, undistiguishable in darkness, so must I lie through all the night of my decay, until I am dust. In the name of that time, Tom, tell me the truth now!' What confuses me is that first Louisa seems to be talking of Tom's eventual death and final judgement, then about her own. Louisa is concerned about her brother's eternal soul, I suppose, but her own death will not affect God's judgement on her brother. Another example (Vol 2, chap 7, Gunpowder): 'Mrs Bounderby, though a graceless person, of the world worldly, I feel the utmose interest, I assure you, in what you tell me. I cannot possibly be hard upon your brother. I understand and share the wise consideration with which you regard his errors. With all possible respect both for Mr Gradgrind and for Mr Bounderby, I think I perceive that he has not been fortunate in his training. Bred at a disadvantage towards the society in which he has to play, he rushes into these extremes for himself, from opposite extremes that have long been forced - with the very best intentions we have no doubt - upon him. Mr Bounderby's fine bluff English independence, though a most charming characteristic, does not - as we have agreed - invite confidence. If I may venture to remark that it is the least in the world deficient in that delicacy to which a youth mistaken, a character misconceived, and abilities misdirected, would turn for relief and guidance, I should express what it presents to my own view.' The last sentence does not seem grammatical. This is Mr Harthouse speaking. He seems to be a villain of the Alec d'Urberville sort, although a very clever one. If I understood the chapter right, he does not at this stage have definite designs to get into Louisa's knickers, he is just seeing where things go.
Please submit a quiz here.
Here is where you find links to related content on this site or other sites, possibly including full books or essays about Charles Dickens written by other authors featured on this site.
Sorry, no summary available yet.