The Pickwick Club discussion

Hello friends,

I have actually not even started reading these five chapters yet, but the thread for the latest chapters is due on Sundays, and so here it is :-)

I'm glad to see Joe back. I hope he is reunited with hi father, and that they reconcile now that he has seen a bit of the world and realizes how fond he really is of the Maypole (which I'm sure the Willetts will be able to fix back up and return to its former glory).

I glad that Hugh and Barnaby's father got re-arrested. They both need to have Dennis's help in being escorted out of this life.

Barnaby, OTOH, I rather hope gets off and is allowed to go home to his mother.

Dennis reminds me of the Vicar of Bray.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoS2Xs...

I have to admit, I couldn't help but read on, to the very end of the book! That was my impatient side coming out. LOL.

But anyway, the scene that stuck in my head the most in this section involved Miggs in chapter 70. Oh, she's a horror! I couldn't help but laugh at her audacity, imagining herself on a par with Dolly and Miss Haredale for desirability and believing her reason for being held captive as someone's treasure. I thought she got her just desserts when Dennis let's it out of the bag that Sim wanted Dolly, not Miggs. Oh, "poor lamb!" LOL.

Is it me or is it that Dickens seems to be starting his wrap up of all the events rather early in this novel?

We are also almost at the point that we can discuss the question of the book's title. I'm still not sure why the title is Barnaby Rudge.

I will probably join your discussion on whether Barnaby has it really in himself to be the eponymous hero of the novel or not, when I have finished the whole book because I have forgotten quite a lot since last time I read it.

I see your point about wrapping up things rather early, Peter, because plot-wise it is rather strange to have Hugh, Rudge and Barnaby arrested so soon after Newgate has been taken and destroyed. There has not been a lot of time for character or relation development between the villainous father and the deluded son.

Mr. Dennis is really the most loathsome character among the rioters, always with the exception of Gashford, of course. What a filthy traitor! Saying this, I might also just say that I do not consider Hugh such a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard at all. He might harbour a deadly grudge against Haredale for no apparent reason, and he has looted and plundered with a most venomous rage, but then he has also set Barnaby free, and though he has destroyed most of the Maypole he took care that no-one hurt his former employer. Of course, he is still a villain, but he is not the worst of the villains in the book. Let's Gashford, Dennis and Rudge vie for that epithet!

While some of the chapters here, especially Chapters 66 and 67, are quite cumbersome to read because Dickens's narrator becomes a meticulous chronicler of historical events, yet there are some vivid and moving descriptions, e.g. the scenes in which Mr. Haredale was faced with his environment's fear, which made people abstain from helping him in even the most basic things. This is a gruesome example of the power a mob can exert.

Tristram wrote: "I will probably join your discussion on whether Barnaby has it really in himself to be the eponymous hero of the novel or not, when I have finished the whole book because I have forgotten quite a l..."

Tristram

Gashford, Dennis or Rudge? As we close in on the end of the novel you raise a good discussion point on who is the most vile character. Hugh falls off my most despised radar as well. He has always seemed like a puppet, and someone else has always pulled his strings. We should let a few more chapters roll by, but I'm leaning strongly towards one of the three above named characters.

Tristram wrote: "Saying this, I might also just say that I do not consider Hugh such a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard at all. "

Oh, goody, another point we can disagree on. I find him a fully dyed-in-the-wool blackguard. While we perhaps can agree that Willet was not the most considerate employer, at least he provided Hugh with food, clothing, shelter, and work for many years when probably nobody else in England would have taken him in and treated him half so well. And he responds by virtually destroying the Maypole. Then, as you point out, for no reason we can determine, and certainly no reason worth the result, he burns down Haredale's house. He helps lead the riots which destroy a considerable chunk of London. His saving of Barnaby, which you cite to his credit, is done by attacking the one institution, the law, which separates the civilized person from the savage, and frees a number of despicable rogues and murderers to wreak their evils on the society which had finally managed to lock them up to end their predations.

And you don't consider this a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard? I suspect that if it had been your home and community which Hugh had been attacking and burning, and if you were the victim of one of the criminals he let loose from Newgate, you might feel quite differently. But since it is happening to a city not yours and people not your friends, you forgive him.

Pah and pfui.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Saying this, I might also just say that I do not consider Hugh such a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard at all. "

Oh, goody, another point we can disagree on. I find him a fully dyed-i..."

It is probably one of the oldest, and cheapest, tricks in the book - one that deserves the interjection with which you so emotionally ended your latest contribution - to pick one sentence from your opponent's statement and argue against it as though it had no context at all, thus insinuating a slightly different thing from what your opponent has actually said.

The full passage reads: "Saying this, I might also just say that I do not consider Hugh such a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard at all. He might harbour a deadly grudge against Haredale for no apparent reason, and he has looted and plundered with a most venomous rage, but then he has also set Barnaby free, and though he has destroyed most of the Maypole he took care that no-one hurt his former employer. Of course, he is still a villain, but he is not the worst of the villains in the book. Let's Gashford, Dennis and Rudge vie for that epithet!"

For your convenience I highlighted the sentence that qualifies the part of my comment you picked to construe your indictment of my moral integrity upon. To anyone who would not deliberately misunderstand me it should be clear that I consider Hugh a criminal and a villain, but not as heinous a one as Dennis, or Rudge, or, most of all, Gashford. We must, of course, add Chester to that bunch.

I could also see why Hugh has such hatred against society - mark, this is not to excuse his actions but to understand why he committed them: Growing up without a proper home, seeing his mother hanged for a petty crime - of course, this was done on behalf of the law, the institution "which separates the civilized person from the savage" -, and being regarded no better than an animal by most of the people around him. I do not think that Dickens has added all these little details for nothing, and neither do I think that he wanted his readers to fail to see the ambiguity of the destruction of Newgate - its prisoners were not all "despicable rogues and murderers" as you suggested, and Dickens makes this clear quite often -, and it is definitely with a meaning that one of the perpetrators in the riots simultaneously represents the most hideous and gruesome tool of the law, i.e. death penalty.

One can always be of different opinion on how to judge a character in a novel or some such thing, and the leeway a work of art gives for interpretation can also be regarded as a benchmark of its quality and richness, but to mingle one's arguments with attacks on the moral integrity of your opponent - something that I feel you are doing here:

"And you don't consider this a dyed-in-the-wool blackguard? I suspect that if it had been your home and community which Hugh had been attacking and burning, and if you were the victim of one of the criminals he let loose from Newgate, you might feel quite differently. But since it is happening to a city not yours and people not your friends, you forgive him.

Pah and pfui."

- to do such a thing, I consider, by your leave, not only bad style but downright insulting. This harsh tone, and its repeated occurrence, come as a surprise to me, all the more so as I cannot remember ever having used this tone in any of my statements directed at you. So you see me quite at a loss as how to react to postings like your last one.

Tristram wrote: " Of course, he is still a villain, but he is not the worst of the villains in the book."

I didn't claim that you didn't see him as a villain. I recognize that you did. It was the degree of villainy that you refused to attribute to him that I take exception to. That's why I kept your phrase "dyed-in-the-wool villain."

I found him totally that. Unequivocally that. I find nothing in his character, once he joined the rioters, that is anything BUT dyed-in-the-wool villain except perhaps his unwillingness to slaughter John Willett along with all the other people he is quite willing to dispatch to the other life by fire and sword.

I agree that Dennis is duplicitous, but he doesn't do nearly as much destructive violence to the city and its inhabitants as Hugh does. Gashford is a snake, but he doesn't ride through the city slaughtering innocents right and left. If at the height of the riots I had to face Hugh, Gashford, or Dennis riding down the street at me, you can be sure that I would rather face ten Gashfords or Dennises than one Hugh. And, I suspect, so would you.

They're all villains. I never challenged you on that. But to say that Hugh is the lesser evil of the three is, in my view, badly wrong-headed.

And while we're evaluating his potential for villainy, let's not overlook his deliberately lying in wait for poor Dolly, waylaying and attacking and terrifying her, and stealing her letter and bracelet. If you don't call that dyed-in-the-wool blackguarding, you and I have very different understandings of that term.

Tristram wrote: "So you see me quite at a loss as how to react to postings like your last one. "

That long response was at a loss? You sure fooled me.

And I don't consider thinking about how we would react to a character in a novel if we met them in real life to be the least bit unfair. If you do, I'm sorry. But to me, that's part of literature, to use it to inform us in the present as well as just in the pages of the book.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: " Of course, he is still a villain, but he is not the worst of the villains in the book."

I didn't claim that you didn't see him as a villain. I recognize that you did. It was th..."

Everyman

There are certainly different forms and types of villains and your argument is clear and convincing regarding Hugh. At this point of the novel I'm trying to pretend that I have not read the ending in my responses, but I have, so I'm walking a thin rope.

I voted Hugh "off the island" in an earlier post in this section and will probably still maintain that another character gets to wear the title of worst villain around their neck. Your comments about Hugh, however, do make me pause and re-consider. Maybe we can create different categories of villainy and evil.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: " Of course, he is still a villain, but he is not the worst of the villains in the book."

I didn't claim that you didn't see him as a villain. I recognize that you did. It was th..."


Maybe there is a misunderstanding as to what we mean by the expression "dyed-in-the-wool villain". I did not use this expression in order to belittle the actions Hugh committed or to make them seem less despicable and condemnable than the misdeeds perpetrated by Dennis or Sim. However, his sparing of Willet's life, when Dennis would have hanged him, or his setting Barnaby free, although probably for the reason that he can wreak more havoc and destruction with such a one as Barnaby, make him different from people like Dennis or Gashford. If you remember correctly, it is actually Gashford who continually drove the others to rioting and who also expressly asked them to destroy Haredale's place. It was also Gashford who had Emma kidnapped for his personal delight - still I wonder where he has ever seen Emma, but that's a different matter.

Now somebody like Gashford is more despicable to me because rather than sullying his own hands and taking personal risks he prefers to have his vile plans executed by others. A bear like Hugh is doubtless dangerous, but an under-handed snake like Gashford is much more so. The same goes for Chester, whose machinations are so clever that he seems to have slipped from our memories (and even from the narrator's).

There is yet another aspect that made me say that Hugh is not a "dyed-in-the-wool" villain, namely that I associate with this word meanings like "innate, through and through, bred-in-the-bone". And from what I gather from the novel, the narrator gives some clues as to why Hugh has this destructive hatred against society. Hugh tells Chester about his mother's execution, and he repeatedly likens himself to a dog. Even old Willet, whom you consider such a benevolent man, argues that if Hugh has a soul at all, it must be a pretty small one.

I actually find it very meaningful that Dickens gives us all this background information on Hugh, which can be taken as evidence of how society sometimes creates its own criminals - I am actually not one of those bleeding-heart people who exonerate a criminal and blame it all on society – by denying some people access to education and opportunity. It is all the more noteworthy as Dickens normally is rather conservative in that in his earlier novels, e.g. Oliver Twist a person does not seem to be influenced by their social environment at all. Oliver is and remains virtuous and noble even though he grows up in poverty and filth. In Hugh, however, we find a first instance of a cause-and-effect relationship between a person’s moral development and their surroundings – but Dickens is careful enough not to strain that point too much. Yet the repeated hints at Hugh’s antecedents imply, to me at least, that Dickens might have known what he was doing. Therefore I’d say that Hugh is not a dyed-in-the-wool villain in that his villainy can partly be explained (rationally) by having a look at how he grew up – it is not an ingrained quality of his, as it seems.

So maybe this might help clarify what I meant by putting Hugh aside – if clarification is wished for at all.

Everyman wrote: "That long response was at a loss? You sure fooled me.

And I don't consider thinking about how we would react to a character in a novel if we met them in real life to be the least bit unfair. If you do, I'm sorry. But to me, that's part of literature, to use it to inform us in the present as well as just in the pages of the book."

Indeed it was being at a loss that made me write such a long reply because frankly I don't know what to make of interjections like "Pah and pfui" or the "Shame on you" in your other posting. I have a feeling you were not joking there, i.e. using these words in a strictly Pickwickian sense, and that you meant them quite seriously.

If you did intend them in a Pickwickian sense, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, but if you did not I'd like to know what made you use them. Because I don't take it gladly to be pah'ed and pfui'ed, and I cannot see that I have given you any reason to do this.

Likewise there is also a difference between imagining you met a fictitious character in real life and implying that somebody would condone crimes like looting, killing and destroying houses as long as their own house and friends are not concerned. That's what I consider a personal slight - all the more so when a statement like this is rounded off with "Pah and pfui".

And yes, you spoke about my forgiving Hugh - in my post no.7 I cannot find a sentence that would give anyone reason to believe that I'd actually forgive Hugh. All this was, in the first place, about a ranking amongst the novel's villains, and not about exonerating Hugh.

I was wondering what everyone felt about Miggs as villain? In her female ways, she's caused damage upon the ones she has worked for. Is she just as bad as Sim and Hugh? Her motives for her actions clearly revolve around her obsession for Sim - you could even consider her a victim. I'm not really sure what Hugh's excuse is. Can anyone help me out with that?

And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause the maximum trouble for the hell of it?

Kate wrote: "I was wondering what everyone felt about Miggs as villain? In her female ways, she's caused damage upon the ones she has worked for. Is she just as bad as Sim and Hugh? Her motives for her action..."

Hi Kate

Good to see your posts. To me, Miggs is a lightweight in the grand scheme of "bad people" in BR, but she is certainly not a person I'd want in my house. If love teases out both the best and worst of people, then Miggs is a rather nasty bit of business. You mention her "obsession with Sim" and you are certainly right there. Liking/loving Sim? Hmmm. Perhaps she does deserve some of our sympathy ;>)

Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause the maximum trouble for the hell of it?"

Hi Kate

I'm trying very hard to be good and not give my personal opinion of who is the greatest villain in BR yet, but it will certainly be a sparky debate. I'm rounding up all my points now.

Tristram wrote: "A bear like Hugh is doubtless dangerous, but an under-handed snake like Gashford is much more so. The same goes for Chester, whose machinations are so clever that he seems to have slipped from our memories (and even from the narrator's)."

That's a very interesting philosophical point. It sort of depends on how they interact with the victims. Given the choice of meeting one of the three in a dark alley, I suspect we would all choose Hugh as least desirable to meet there. Are those who incite to riot more dangerous than those who actually riot? I would be quite open to discussing whether they are more villainous, but as to which is more dangerous, that's a different question.

Tristram wrote: "frankly I don't know what to make of interjections like "Pah and pfui" or the "Shame on you" in your other posting. I have a feeling you were not joking there, i.e. using these words in a strictly Pickwickian sense, and that you meant them quite seriously."

I am aghast that you would think them other than Pickwickian. When have you ever known anybody, let alone me, to say "pah and pfui" and mean them seriously? Ever??

Tristram wrote: "... if clarification is wished for at all. "

That you could even make this comment is a bit disappointing. Clarification of misunderstood points is essential to quality discussion, and when have you ever known me to shy away from a quality discussion? Of course clarification is welcome. We are not barbarians here, are we?

Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause the maximum trouble for the hell of it?"

Good question. I also think we need to distinguish villainy from dangerousness.

Really, if we want to consider those who incite to riot as more dangerous than those who actually riot, shouldn't we consider Gordon as the greatest villain of the book, since even though he will claim that his intent wasn't riot, without his incitement none of this would have happened? He was left off Tristram's list, but if Sir Chester is to be added, it seems that Gordon should be also.

Tristram -- just to clarify, I never intended to attack you personally, but have always found you open to and even eager to engage in some intellectual sparring over our views about characters. If my efforts offended, well,

Gentle, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
I will make amends ere long;
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Peter shall restore amends.

Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause the maximum trouble for the h..."

Yes, Chester and Gordon should be there too, but, don't you think Gordon was used as a puppet? Gashford's puppet to be precise? Still, whatever he intended, his escapades turned brutal so he has to be held responsible too.

Kate wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause the maximum ..."

Kate/Everyman

All the evil choices. Who is most dangerous? Who is most sly? Who is most evil? Who was lead to evil by the nose most easily? I think we could have an Oscar Awards programme. I'm all for it. Are we far enough along in the novel to make our final decision(s)?

Should we just take one? I can't wait for the bell to ring so we can cast our ballots.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram -- just to clarify, I never intended to attack you personally, but have always found you open to and even eager to engage in some intellectual sparring over our views about characters. If..."

Puck ... ehm, Everyman -

I am quite relieved to find this matter cleared up now and to learn that you had spoken in a purely Pickwickian sense.

Maybe this is one of the snares and pitfalls of Internet communication, i.e. that there is just the written word and neither a tone of voice or a gesture to accompany it and hint at other levels of meaning.

However, thank you for clearing it up eventually, and please take my sincere apologies for having misread you and reacted rather hot-headedly.

So let's shake hands then :-)

Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out there to cause..."

Peter / Kate / Everyman -

there are quite some comments to be made about who is the greatest villain in Barnaby Rudge, and maybe we could have another poll on that question. It's been a long time since our last poll. So why not have another one ...

I've been working a lot these last few days, and so all I want today is some sleep, and maybe a few pages of Dickens, but during the weekend I'll try to figure out more about the nature of evil and how it can be applied to our novel here.

Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "I was wondering what everyone felt about Miggs as villain? In her female ways, she's caused damage upon the ones she has worked for. Is she just as bad as Sim and Hugh? Her motives f..."

Kate,

I don't know if Miggs is actually a lightweight. Let's do her all the justice she deserves for delivering her master up to the insurgents, or plotting against Dolly and going so far as to have her actually kidnapped. She is one of the rare examples of really evil female characters in Dickens, I'd say.

As to Hugh's excuse, I'd point out his miserable childhood - even at the risk of sounding like the cliché of a psychologist - and the bad treatment he got from everybody, but I would not want anybody to regard it as an excuse but rather as an explanation of his actions. In the end - at least I think so - people can still decide if they want to carry out an action or if they don't. So one cannot blame it all on society and on one's parents etc etc as fashion and certain ideologies would have it.

As to Miggs, her obsession with Sim may explain her duplicitous behaviour towards Dolly, but hypocrisy seems to be part of her habitual behaviour, anyway.

Kate wrote: "Yes, Chester and Gordon should be there too, but, don't you think Gordon was used as a puppet? Gashford's puppet to be precise? Still, whatever he intended, his escapades turned brutal so he has to be held responsible too.
"

Yes. Yes. And yes.

Peter wrote: "Are we far enough along in the novel to make our final decision(s)?"

Close, but maybe not quite. We still need to see, for example, whether Dennis slips out of his sentence, what happens to Hugh (does he attack his jailors and escape from Newgate, which would add to his issues), whether Chester pulls any further villainy to thwart his son's chance for a happy life, etc.

But if we're not ready (or at least I'm not ready) to finally put the name into the envelope, we're certainly at a point to be strongly handicapping the potential winners and losers.

Though I still maintain that there is a difference between villainy and dangerousness, so maybe we need two categories for our BROscars.

Tristram wrote: "So let's shake hands then :-) "

Peter wrote: "All the evil choices. Who is most dangerous? Who is most sly? Who is most evil? Who was lead to evil by the nose most easily?"

Yes, when you think about it, Dickens gives us a wide range of ways of being wicked.

But I don't see anybody who is totally wicked. All of them have at least some potentially redeeming or exculpating features.

Except maybe Chester? Is he total wickedness?

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "All the evil choices. Who is most dangerous? Who is most sly? Who is most evil? Who was lead to evil by the nose most easily?"

Yes, when you think about it, Dickens gives us a wide r..."

Everyman

The BROscars. Oh my. You have created a new word. Dickens would approve.

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out ..."

Tristram

To sleep, perchance to dream ...

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "I was wondering what everyone felt about Miggs as villain? In her female ways, she's caused damage upon the ones she has worked for. Is she just as bad as Sim and Hugh? ..."

Hi Tristram

I think Miggs is up there with the worst of them (it was actually Peter who said she was a lightweight).

I think in Hugh's case, Dickens could be leaving it up to the audience again, to determine his deep hatred. I think we had this conversation about Scrooge. We were left to come up with our own reasons as to why he was so cold and isolated. With Hugh, we get an idea with how Willett treated Joe. I can only imagine John would treat Hugh far worse. Why he has it in for Haredale so much, beats me.

The more we dig, the more questions arise. Lol.

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who just seem to be out ..."

Oh yes, I think we need a poll. :-)

Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Tristram -- just to clarify, I never intended to attack you personally, but have always found you open to and even eager to engage in some intellectual sparring over our views abou..."

You two are both still coming to my house at Christmas aren't you? I want you to see the decorations up close. Grumps. :-}

One of the things I got thinking about reading your posts on villians/bad guys/whatever, is how many of these people were Dickens imaginations and how many he based on actual people. So I started looking of course.

Now Lord George Gordon was a real person, and I won't say too much about him or what happened to him because we're not at the end of the book yet.

Sir Chester a definite villian in my opinion anyway, was based on "Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th earl of Chesterfield", looking him up I found:

" Chesterfield’s winning manners, urbanity, and wit were praised by many of his leading contemporaries, and he was on familiar terms with Alexander Pope, John Gay, and Voltaire. He was the patron of many struggling authors but had unfortunate relations with one of them, Samuel Johnson, who condemned him in a famous letter (1755) attacking patrons. Johnson further damaged Chesterfield’s reputation when he described the Letters as teaching “the morals of a whore, and the manners of a dancing master.”

Another of our favorites "Gashford" is thought to be based on Robert Watson, MD, a friend of Gordon's who published his" Life of Lord George Gordon: with a Philosophical Review of His Political Conduct" in 1795. I found it extremely interesting to know that when Robert Watson died, he commited suicide at the age of 88, about nineteen scars were found on his body. This is believed to be the reason Dickens named his character "Gashford".

Dennis is "Edward Dennis" public hangman from 1771 to 1786.

And "Hugh" is "James Jackson" a watch-wheel cutter. This is what I found about him:

As the Commons decided to adjourn till Thursday, Justice Hyde read the Riot Act in Palace Yard and then ordered the Horse Guards to charge. At this point a large red and black flag was hoisted by an equally large ‘very desperate fellow’ on a carthorse. This was James Jackson, a watch-wheel cutter who Charles Dickens incorporated into the ‘Maypole Hugh’ character in Barnaby Rudge. In a voice that ‘boomed like the crack of doom’, Jackson shouted: “To Hyde’s house a-hoy!” starting a mob surge down Parliament Street towards Leicester Fields. Lord George made it out of the House to the Horn inn and persuaded the landlord to lend him his coach. Once he was spotted, in Wilkite tradition the horses were removed from the carriage which was pulled along Parliament Street, the Strand and Fleet Street, around Newgate, to the Mansion House to cheer the apparently sympathetic Lord Mayor Brackley Kennett. As the riots developed a revolutionary dynamic independent of the Protestant cause, the mob swarmed into Leicester Fields to empty Justice Hyde’s house and make bonfires of its contents. 30 Foot Guards who appeared at the scene were greeted with ‘loud shouts and huzzas’ and promptly marched away. Susan Burney recounted: ‘Such a scene I never before beheld! As it grew dusk, the wretches who were involved with smoak and covered with dust, with the flames glaring upon them seemed like so many infernals… At last the ringleaders gave the word and away they all ran past our windows to the bottom of Leicester Fields with lighted firebrands in their hands like so many furies.’ At the end of St Martin’s Street, satisfied that Hyde had received sufficient retribution, James Jackson had shouted “A-hoy for Newgate!”

I haven't found a real life Miggs or Sims yet and I hope they aren't out there somewhere. :-}

Kim wrote: "One of the things I got thinking about reading your posts on villians/bad guys/whatever, is how many of these people were Dickens imaginations and how many he based on actual people. So I started ..."

Kim

You are a national treasure. Your research is always enlightening, and often obliges me to go back and re-read, re-consider and re-think my opinions and thoughts.

If you ever want to make extra income there are thousands of university students and professors who would pay top dollar to have you as a research assistant. But, then again, where would you have so much fun as here with all of us?

I always look forward to your posts.

Peter

Kim wrote: "You two are both still coming to my house at Christmas aren't you?"

I'm way too busy that time of year. In my other persona, I have to prepare the final list, keep the elves on schedule, mend the harnesses, oil the sleigh, and get everything ready for my big night. Way too much to do to go out.

Kate wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "Kate wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Kate wrote: "And I agree that I think we need different categories of villian, but who's worse - those with real motive or those who jus..."

I've already created a poll on this - and I went for John Chester.

Kim wrote: "One of the things I got thinking about reading your posts on villians/bad guys/whatever, is how many of these people were Dickens imaginations and how many he based on actual people. So I started ..."

Kim,

once again, I'm overwhelmed by all this information. What I find especially interesting is that apparently this Lord Chesterfield you mentiond - and whose letters Dickens's Mr. Chester himself quotes from - must have known Dr. Johnson, the guy with the dictionary (if I remember my Blackadder lessons correctly). Dr. Johnson's quotation is a first-class diatribe.

Kim wrote: "You two are both still coming to my house at Christmas aren't you?"

I should like to come, of course, but there's a high probability that I'll once again spend the better part of Christmas Eve stuck in our chimney, which my children's presents dangling around my neck. I definitely should go on a diet first :-(

On the question who the most evil character in the novel is

This proves to be a tricky question, I think, because it all depends on our personal attitudes and ideas.

First one might consider the following basic questions:

a) Is a person really to be considered evil who commits acts that are harmful to other people but who believes that he or she is doing the right thing? In other words, what is more decisive: the intention of an action, or its actual effects?

b) Is there something like a natural inclination towards evil in some people, i.e. an inclination that surpasses a normal person's inclination to egoism, laziness and stupidity to such a degree that this person sticks out as evil among his or her fellow-people? - Or is the inclination towards evil always a consequence of a person being mistreated by their environment?


If we start with the second question, one might suppose that Dickens, like most people of the 19th century, must have gone with the view that there was something like the natural born criminal. And so, in certain of his characters in the novel, evil is just taken for granted and not explained: John Chester, Gashford, Dennis, Rudge (whose motives for killing his former master are never really explained, or are they?)

Then there are also instances of evil-doers in the novel, for whose behaviour we are given some reason or find it more or less easy to infer one:

a) Hugh - he has been treated no better than a dog by everybody, he feels no sense of brotherhood towards anybody and is just burning with a desire to wreak havoc on society;

b) Sim - his stunted growth might account for his exaggerated need to compensate; plus he feels not taken seriously as an apprentice; he hankers for Dolly and knows that in his position she is out of reach for him;

c) Miggs - maybe her bitterness against the male sex is a consequence of her lack of outward charms; and her hypocrisy is the consequence of serving more or less tyrannical mistresses --- we are only left to infer this and never get any corroboration from the narrator.

I, personally, do not believe that we should hold society accountable for every instance of somebody falling into crime because after all in many cases people have the free will and the necessary knowledge to decide if they can commit a crime or remain honest. But neither do I believe that there is something like a "criminal gene" or what Mrs. Rudge regards as the curse of her husband's deed that came down on Barnaby, destroying his mental faculties.


The first question is rather tricky: Of course, most of us would say that the intention with which an action has been undertaken also counts when evaluating it, and one might say that unlike Gashford, or Chester, or Rudge, Lord George had well-meaning intentions. He might have regarded the restauration of equal rights to Catholics as a threat. But was this feeling of distrust against Catholics still reasonable? After all, the Stuart kings had long been a thing of the past in Lord George's day.

Apart from that, even such a scoundrel as Dennis can claim to have acted upon the best of personal intentions. After all, he felt that the custom of "working off" people by hanging them was a time-honoured custom and quite an achievement - from which, by the by, he made his living.

Are there any evil-doers at all who would avow, if not to others, at least to themselves, that they are not acting with some good intentions, that they have some justification for what they are doing, and who would say instead, "I'm committing an evil deed out of my own free will."?

What do you think?

Tristram said: "(whose motives for killing his former master are never really explained, or are they?)"

Two things your post reminded me of that I had forgotten, one was why did Rudge kill Mr. Haredale in the first place? I was wondering that for awhile. In chapter one as Solomon Daisy is telling the story of the murder he says:

'A bureau was found opened, and a cash-box, which Mr Haredale had brought down that day, and was supposed to contain a large sum of money, was gone."

So I guess he killed Haredale for money, but he certainly didn't use that money to become rich himself, he is penniless the entire novel, of course it is twenty two years later.

The other thing you mentioned that Emma Haredale was meant for Gashford. When I read that in the novel I was confused. In chapter 59 it says:

'I say,' growled Dennis, as they walked away in company, 'that's a dainty pair. Muster Gashford's one is as handsome as the other, eh?'

'Hush!' said Hugh, hastily. 'Don't you mention names. It's a bad habit.'

'I wouldn't like to be HIM, then (as you don't like names), when he breaks it out to her; that's all,' said Dennis.

I've looked back over the previous chapters and can find nothing in them that shows any time when Gashford ever saw Emma Haredale or even knew of her. If he wants her just because he hates her uncle I would have at least tried to meet her first, she may have been another Miggs.

Peter wrote: "If you ever want to make extra income there are thousands of university students and professors who would pay top dollar to have you as a research assistant."

Sure! I'll do their research for them, it sounds like fun! Almost as fun as working in a Christmas store would be. As long as it has nothing to do with math or some sciences anyway. And as long as I can do it from right here with my cocker spaniel laying next to me. :-}

In chapter 66 as Mr. Haredale is searching everywhere for his niece it says:

" A prey to the most harrowing anxieties and apprehensions, he went from magistrate to magistrate, and finally to the Secretary of State."

The Secretary of State? Well who is that? Of course I have to look it up.

"The Secretary of State for the southern division from 1779 to 1782 was David Murray, 2nd Earl of Mansfield, the 7th Viscount Stormont. Mansfield was ambassador to Vienna and then to France in the early years of the American War of Independence, and played a role in sending news of American actions back to England. He had been elected a Scottish Representative Peer in 1754 and served as the last Secretary of State for the Northern Department from 1779 to 1782 and as Lord President of the Council in 1783 and again from 1794 to 1796 and was also Lord Justice General between 1778 and 1795. He was appointed a Privy Counsellor in 1763 and made a Knight of the Thistle in 1768.

I'm not done though because this next guy, Lord Mansfield, is fascinating. Also in chapter 66:

"Shortly after they had gone away for the first time, one of the scouts came running in with the news that they had stopped before Lord Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury Square.

Soon afterwards there came another, and another, and then the first returned again, and so, by little and little, their tale was this:-- That the mob gathering round Lord Mansfield's house, had called on those within to open the door, and receiving no reply (for Lord and Lady Mansfield were at that moment escaping by the backway), forced an entrance according to their usual custom. That they then began to demolish the house with great fury, and setting fire to it in several parts, involved in a common ruin the whole of the costly furniture, the plate and jewels, a beautiful gallery of pictures, the rarest collection of manuscripts ever possessed by any one private person in the world, and worse than all, because nothing could replace this loss, the great Law Library, on almost every page of which were notes in the Judge's own hand, of inestimable value,--being the results of the study and experience of his whole life."

Lord Mansfield was William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield. He was a British barrister, politician and judge noted for his reform of English law. He became involved in politics in 1742, beginning with his election as a Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, and appointment as Solicitor General. In the absence of a strong Attorney General, he became the main spokesman for the government in the House of Commons, and was noted for his "great powers of eloquence" and described as "beyond comparison the best speaker" in the House of Commons. He is perhaps best known for his judgment in Somersett's Case, where he held that slavery was unlawful in England (although this did not end slave trafficking altogether). Murray was called to the Bar on 23 November 1730, taking a set of chambers at 5 King's Bench Walk. He was introduced to Alexander Pope around this time, and through his friendship with Pope met members of the aristocracy, some of whom later became his clients.

On 6 March 1754, the Prime Minister Henry Pelham died, and this necessitated a Cabinet reshuffle. The Attorney General, Sir Dudley Ryder, became Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, and Murray became Attorney General in his place. A few months later the Master of the Rolls died, and Murray was asked to replace him; he declined, however, as he "did not want to leave His Majesty's service". After Ryder died unexpectedly on 25 May 1756, however, Murray could not turn down the opportunity, and immediately applied to replace him as Lord Chief Justice.

He was accepted, and although his appointment delighted Murray, the government was very concerned at the loss of a good Attorney General. In an attempt to persuade him to stay, the new Prime Minister, the Duke of Newcastle offered him the Duchy of Lancaster, in addition to the position of Attorney General, an extra £6,000 a year, and a pension, and finally attempted to blackmail him by saying that if he accepted the office of Lord Chief Justice, the government would refuse to grant him a peerage. It was customary for all Lord Chief Justices to be given a peerage, and Murray responded by saying that in that situation he would refuse to become either Lord Chief Justice or Attorney General. Newcastle gave in, and promised to allow him to become Lord Chief Justice and to recommend him for a peerage.

Mansfield made a notable judgment in Millar v Taylor, in relation to copyright law. Andrew Millar was a bookseller who in 1729 had purchased the publishing rights to James Thomson's poem "The Seasons". After the term of the exclusive rights granted under the Statute of Anne expired, Robert Taylor began publishing his own competing publication, which contained Thomson's poem. Mansfield, sitting with three other judges, concluded that despite the Statute of Anne there was a perpetual common law copyright, and therefore that no works can ever be considered public domain. This was a massive victory for booksellers and publishers, as it meant that they could effectively make it impossible for new companies to compete, as in the absence of new texts there was nothing they could print. Mansfield's judgment was finally overruled by the House of Lords in Donaldson v Beckett in 1774. Mansfield's judgment has been criticised as being unusually short-sighted because he failed to see that while his decision was correct for that particular case, the precedent it would set would create an unfair monopoly for the booksellers and publishers.

After his retirement, Mansfield spent the remainder of his life at Kenwood House. Most of this time was spent maintaining the grounds, although in the summer, groups of barristers would visit him and inform him of the goings-on at court. Mansfield was noted at the Bar, in Parliament, and while sitting as a judge, for his eloquence and skill as a speaker; in particular Lord Chesterfield described him as "beyond comparison the best speaker" in the House of Commons.The comment by Samuel Johnson that "Much may be made of a [Scotsman], if he be caught young" was directed at Mansfield.

Kim wrote: "Peter wrote: "If you ever want to make extra income there are thousands of university students and professors who would pay top dollar to have you as a research assistant."

Sure! I'll do their re..."

Kim

There is a Christmas store here in Victoria. I'm sure you have lots on the East coast, but just think of the fun being here in Victoria. BIG statue to Queen Victoria here and we can stand on the shoreline and there, just a short distance away, on an island, lives Everyman. If we waved he could see us. At night, with flashlights, we could signal back and forth.

What larks, Kim!