The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Hi everyone,

We are now in the third part of Pip’s great expectations, and I think that matters are now coming to a head. In Chapter 40, the narrator tells us about the five days he spends in the company of his old convict, who introduces himself as Abel Magwitch but who has adopted the name of Provis in order not to be detected in England. The presence of his benefactor is not only a disappointment with regard to his being somebody else than Pip always imagined, but it also proves a practical problem because Pip somehow has to account for the stranger’s arrival, and get him out of the way – lest he should arouse the suspicions of his two servants, an old woman and her niece who look after the apartment, and who are described as follows:

”True, I had no Avenger in my service now, but I was looked after by an inflammatory old female, assisted by an animated rag-bag whom she called her niece, and to keep a room secret from them would be to invite curiosity and exaggeration. They both had weak eyes, which I had long attributed to their chronically looking in at keyholes, and they were always at hand when not wanted; indeed that was their only reliable quality besides larceny.”

This little comment on Pip’s part is not only funny, but it also had me wondering again why on earth Pip hires servants who later prove a burden to him in that they make his life rather more difficult than easy. Is this simply more proof of Pip’s naïve view of the world, or does it mean to imply that wealth is not necessarily a fountain of pleasure and well-being? Does this little detail, maybe, mirror the nature of Pip’s expectations in a small measure?

Be that as it may, Pip is at a loss as to what to do, and the narrator puts this into a wonderful simile:

”As to forming any plan for the future, I could as soon have formed an elephant.”

To Pip’s horror, Magwitch seems to have come to the intention to stay in England for good and enjoy the sight of the gentleman that he has created – again, we have lots of references pointing that way that in making Pip a gentleman, Magwitch also did something for himself to be proud of – and whom he expects to spend even more money in order to lead a life befitting his rank and position in society. For Pip, however, living on the money earned by Magwitch now seems out of the question and his main aim is to find some sort of hiding-place for his benefactor. At the same time, this man about whose well-being and safety he now has to worry, fills him with abhorrence and repugnance. We learn, for instance, that Pip finds Magwitch to have a “ravenous way” of eating and to be altogether uncouth in his manners and that the ex-prisoner again reminds him of an old dog.

Does this not seem like a parallel to Pip himself, who was looked down on, for his manners, by Estella, and who felt like a dog when he was offered something to eat at Satis House?

Like Estella, who could not see anything but the blacksmith’s boy in Pip, Pip now cannot see anything but the convict in Magwitch, and he even thinks that the new clothes he is given and the way he has his hair now only increase this dismal impression. Magwitch himself also has a way of swearing people to secrecy on “a greasy little clasped black testament”, whose only purpose seems to be that of swearing people in. I noticed this particular, because the two pound-notes that Pip received from Magwitch, were also described as greasy.

Then I found the following passage, which I found interesting inasmuch as Peter made a congenial remark in one of the earlier threads:

”The imaginary student pursued by the misshapen creature he had impiously made, was not more wretched than I, pursued by the creature who had made me, and recoiling from him with a stronger repulsion, the more he admired me and the fonder he was of me.”

So Dickens himself was thinking of Frankenstein, as it seems, but he had Pip slip into the role of the persecuted part although Pip regards himself as the creature rather than the creator.

Do we have to agree with Pip, though? Is he simply the creature, or might the choices he made also have contributed to the position he finds himself in now?
What do you think about the following parallel: Miss Havisham as the creator of Estella, and Magwitch as the creator of Pip? What are their respective motives?
What do you think of Jaggers’s glib way of dealing with Pip in this chapter, and of the practice of doublethink he uses here?

The Chapter ends with Herbert’s coming from his journey, and Magwitch’s swearing him into silence and, oddly, promising that Pip shall also make a gentleman of Herbert.

Is Pip more likely to make a gentleman of Herbert, or is it rather the other way round?

Tristram wrote: "Is Pip more likely to make a gentleman of Herbert, or is it rather the other way round?"

In 21st century America, the concept of "gentleman" is much more about good manners than breeding or financial status. We'd have to define the term to answer that question. Certainly, Pip's expectations allow him to be a gentleman of leisure, and even a philanthropist. But Herbert wins the title hands-down if we're talking about etiquette.

A fine summary Tristram. I think that, to a great extent, Pip has been the author of his own despair. I think Pip is the most human of all the Dickens characters we have read about. Your observation that as Estella could only see the blacksmith's boy in Pip, so now Pip can only see the convict in Magwitch is very important. The concept of perception is becoming a yet another major troupe in the novel. Remember how Trabb's boy aped Pip and yet Pip could not see himself in Trabb's boy's actions? More and more it seems that the question of how does one orient themself to the world is becoming important. Over and over Magwitch refers to Pip as "my gentleman." In Chapter 39 Magwitch asserts, over and over, that that he "made that boy" and "I made that gentleman." All in all, a rather distressing choice of words, but extremely revealing. I do think Dickens is incorporating intertextual references to Shelley's Frankenstein.

I would go further and suggest that the entire idea of making a person takes us back to the idea of apprenticeships. We have earlier mentioned Dickens's reference to George Lillo's play "The London Merchant." This again is an intertextual reference. Consider all the apprentice patterns we have had so far in the novel, some of which were good and promising, others negative and destructive. First, there was Pip's blacksmith apprenticeship to Joe. Then Pip began what he thought was an apprenticeship with Miss Havisham to become a gentleman and win Estella. We also have the comic relief of Trabb's boy to Trabb. With Pip's secretly funding Herbert, Pip is now a person who allows Herbert's apprenticeship to begin with Clarriker. Most recently, we are confronted with the discomforting fact that Pip was actually apprenticed to Able Magwitch to learn how to become a gentleman.

In the middle of this matrix of apprenticeships is Pip. Clearly, Dickens intends to bring some understanding, some insight, some learning to Pip. Who will be the best teacher? How and when will this learning occur? There is much more to come.

Mary Lou wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Is Pip more likely to make a gentleman of Herbert, or is it rather the other way round?"

In 21st century America, the concept of "gentleman" is much more about good manners than b..."

Yes, according to Victorian standards, being a gentleman implied that you did not have to work for an income (cf. What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew: From Fox Hunting to Whist—the Facts of Daily Life in 19th-Century England) so that in the early 19th century even doctors or lawyers were, strictly speaking, not considered gentlemen since their wealth was not funded on landed property and its rents but on the fact that they offered their skill for a fee.

Maybe even Dickens was in some way suffering from that common social prejudice: He was a man that had achieved a lot, worked himself up from rags to riches, and yet in the eyes of Society - as Mrs. Merdle would put it - his way of earning his living would just not do. Some of the awkwardness we find in Pip's character may well have been Dickens's own, may it not?

Yes. I ageee with you Tristram. The concept of the gentleman was very different in Dickens's time. Gentlemen did not work.

Perhaps Jean could help us understand what the English perceive to be a gentleman today. I think that in casual speech and interplay the English vocabulary still marks some distinction in rank. For example, a cab driver or worker in a factory may refer to his/her fare or boss as "governor" or "gov" whereas in reference to their peers and friends the word would be "mate." Then again, I may be watching too much Coronation Street.

Very few of our illustrators seemed interested in giving us an illustrations for this chapter, but I do have two illustrations of our convict. I could have shared this one earlier, but it has the convict's name on it "Magwitch", and I didn't want to give that away until Dickens tells it to us. The best thing about it is that it is by Kyd, and it seems obvious to me that it came from those long ago days when Pip and Magwitch were in the marsh together.



Abel Magwitch

J. Clayton Clarke ("Kyd")

Watercolor

c. 1900

Dickens's Great Expectations, Garnett edition, frontispiece.

And now "Provis" by Harry Furniss:


"Provis"

Harry Furniss

1910

And that's all I've come up with, so far anyway.

Wow! another one by Kyd!:



Abel Magwitch

Kyd

For a "Kyd", the first illustration is not that bad, I'd say, although Magwitch somehow reminds me of a baseball player here. Why is it that his clothes have arrows all over them?

Harry Furniss's Magwitch is far too old and venerable to my taste. I picture Magwitch as in his mid-fifties, beefy and stocky, and very agile. The Provis character here could well have passed as Dr Manette in 19th century clothes.

Tristram wrote: "For a "Kyd", the first illustration is not that bad, I'd say, although Magwitch somehow reminds me of a baseball player here. Why is it that his clothes have arrows all over them?

Harry Furniss's ..."

Yes. This Furniss illustration misses the mark. What a great comment about how it could be Dr Manette in 19C clothes.

Tristram wrote: "For a "Kyd", the first illustration is not that bad, I'd say,..."

But why is he wearing leg irons in this chapter?

I am totally disgusted with Pip. I want to take him across my knee and spank him like the ungrateful child he is.

Here is a man who has done so much for him, who has thought about him with gratitude for what the little boy did for him, and who has sacrificed to make this boy's life one on easy street. And what is Pip's response? Disgust, horror, a total absence of any sense of appreciation or gratitude whatsoever. So Magwitch isn't a gentleman. (Though by the definition of one who doesn't have to work for a living, he is!) What snobbery to look down on him because of the hard life he has led, even when he has risked his life to see Pip and reveal himself as the provider of all good things for Pip.

I throw Pip on the dust heap of failed humanity. Any growth or improvement in him that Peter saw has gone totally out the window, and he has shown himself as immature, ungrateful, snobbish, and in all ways a disgusting waste of skin.

Everyman wrote: "I am totally disgusted with Pip. I want to take him across my knee and spank him like the ungrateful child he is.

Here is a man who has done so much for him, who has thought about him with gratitu..."

Pip certainly has his work cut out for himself if he ever wants to get back into your good books. I may have to give him a nudge soon. :-))

Everyman wrote: "I am totally disgusted with Pip. I want to take him across my knee and spank him like the ungrateful child he is.

Here is a man who has done so much for him, who has thought about him with gratitu..."

I agree. And he doesn't have the excuse of just being a little boy anymore. This poor guy (Magwitch) has worked and saved everything he owned for Pip and Pip is horrified. Jerk.

As to the Kyd illustrations, I'm not sure what he is holding, is it a rock? And if it is, why?

Haha Peter, you couldn't do much better than to watch Coronation Street. I haven't watched it for a while and I miss it!

I thought I'd gatecrash on the question about a 'gentleman'. My perception is rather dated as it is based on when I lived in London forty years ago. At that time (and today) the class system was very much alive. People were very much allocated certain boxes - working class, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class, upper class, others (maybe). Jean, do feel free
to edit this.

At that time, a man did not necessarily need to have a title in order to be called a 'gentleman'. Usually belonging to the 'good' clubs, having
the 'right' job, having 'proper' manners (not just table manners), doffing of the hat - a bowler - to a lady, standing when ladies or others enter a room where the gentleman is already seated, rising to the feet when the lady leaves the room and so on and speaking with the 'right' accent. Oh yes, there are dress codes such as not buttoning the bottom button of a waistcoat and so on ad nauseum.

My husband takes great delight in breaking the rule of the waistcoat. He delights in buttoning the bottom button. He used to be much more biddable! :D

Hi Peter - Sorry for the delay in adding to the discussion of what makes a gentleman in present day British society.

Tristram observed:

"in the early 19th century even doctors or lawyers were, strictly speaking, not considered gentlemen since their wealth was not funded on landed property and its rents but on the fact that they offered their skill for a fee."

Yes - and we see this even more clearly a little earlier, in the novels of Jane Austen. There is a fine but definite distinction between the aristocracy, the upper class, and the gentry. Then, continuing to move further down the social scale, we get those who work ie. we get professionals, those in trade, servants (who had an internal class system of their own) and labouring folk. This is my understanding anyway, but I'm happy to be corrected.

I think the shifts must have started during the Industrial Revolution, when those with money started to invest in the railways and manufacturing processes, factories and the like, and the boundaries between having money and making money began to be confused. "Trade" began to be equated with prosperity, and those who wanted to sit on their status via their titles - and their money - were likely to see them diminish, unless they were willing to move forward with the New Age. Some impoverished aristocrats managed to hang on to their properties by having their sons marry rich American heiresses, and bring wealth back into their families, but that was very short-term.

So once work had become de rigeur, and schools and education were available for all (even if the standards were not very good) the idea of what was desirable changed too. Being a gentleman began to be restricted more to manners and behaviour, as Hilary says, and the idea of "breeding" was more outmoded. In Britain now, it tends to be plumber and builders who have a lot of wealth, and live in the finest houses, yet they are not (necessarily) "gentlemen" in the traditional sense of the word.

These are my impressions, but it really is very confused, and no doubt one of the old aristocratic families, those who may marry royalty or those with inherited titles, may argue that I am completely mistaken!

Thanks, Jean

Yes. The Industrial Revolution did reshuffle the landscape a great deal. In a recent course at UVic on Victorian England we studied Harold Perkin which shed much light into my brain. He described how the vertical society of the aristocrats shifted and transformed into a horizontal society as the 19C marched through ( and over) the old ways of defining class, power and wealth. Great read. A bit slogging and academic, but very enlightening.

Peter wrote: "Thanks, Jean

Yes. The Industrial Revolution did reshuffle the landscape a great deal. "

This was also about the same time that the description of England as "a nation of shopkeepers" came into use. I think Adam Smith was the first to use it in print; the Frenchman Vieuzac in the 1790s called England that as an insult, but it soon came to be considered a positive aspect of the country, as wealth transitioned from the landed to those who took money "over the counter."

Peter and Everyman - yes both good names. Thank you for giving substance to my vague thoughts!

We have a lot of entrepreneurs too, but they rarely seem to be what we call "gentlemen". I think along with this shift the respect afforded to gentlefolk has also undergone a sea change. Often they are figures of fun, and tabloid newspapers particularly derive much glee in poking fun at aristocracy and the Royals - although perhaps that is nothing new after all. I'm now thinking of 18th century lampooning, and satirists.

On the other hand someone who has made a lot of money seems to have a lot of respect, irrespective of how they acquired it. "Celebrity" status is desirable - which again is nothing new, but I feel it is now more powerful than ever. Whereas a century ago a good education, or good trade, was what people aspired to, and even fifty years ago we had "Workers' Education" for those who had somehow missed out but wanted to better themselves, now celebrity is sought above all else.

Youngsters dream of becoming footballers and pop stars. We live in a consumer society and people are increasingly acquisitive, and want the money to pursue their lifestyles, whereas their counterparts a century ago would have been more keen to put bread on the table and support their family and the community. These are their highest aims, and often learning of itself goes by the board. "Meritocracy" does not seem to exist, if it ever did.

Where being a gentleman fits into this I am at a loss to know! "Attitude" is rated way above politeness. A gentleman is a bit of a wimp. I'm not sure how a gentleman views himself, but I know I feel stuck in the middle here. I like and admire confidence, but loathe "attitude"; approve of courtesy and respect, but am amused by what to me seem outmoded manners and pomposity - which the upper classes encourage to preserve the distinction.

I've a feeling this post is very subjective, and perhaps reveals more about me than anything. No doubt a sociologist could classify me by my attitudes very specifically now ;)

Jean wrote: "Peter and Everyman - yes both good names. Thank you for giving substance to my vague thoughts!

We have a lot of entrepreneurs too, but they rarely seem to be what we call "gentlemen". I think alon..."

Thanks for your detailed reply. Hilary and you are our embedded experts and commentators on today's British world.

Whatever a sociologist would classify you is immaterial. You are a Pickwickian, a member of the Curiosity Class, found in the Three Jolly Bargemen. What larks, Jean!

Oooo I love that I'm a member of the Curiosity class!

All the talk about gentlemen and the English class system makes me wonder if anyone has ever seen the "Up Series"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series

The Up Series is a series of documentary films that have followed the lives of fourteen British children since 1964, when they were seven years old. So far the documentary has had eight episodes spanning 49 years (one episode every seven years)...

It's time consuming if you do a marathon viewing, but I found it to be fascinating. The participants were from all income levels, and included some that were obviously in the upper classes, as well as a farm kid from Yorkshire, and kids from poor city neighborhoods. Certainly the class system was still alive and well when they started the experiment in 1964, but I wonder if they did started it again now with a new batch of 7 year olds, if the differences would be so stark.

Everyman wrote: "I am totally disgusted with Pip. I want to take him across my knee and spank him like the ungrateful child he is.

Here is a man who has done so much for him, who has thought about him with gratitu..."

Absolutely!!!

Mary Lou wrote: "All the talk about gentlemen and the English class system makes me wonder if anyone has ever seen the "Up Series"...

Absolutely!!! In fact I've watched it every 7 years from its start!

It has been fascinating watching the participants' ups and downs, and how they fall in and out. One dropped off the radar, was discovered homeless and then returned. Some prefer not to contribute, then 7 years laters have a change of heart. Sometimes it's funny to see the children who wanted to be astronauts, or missionaries - and see what actually happens. I loved seeing what would happen to one little tyke every seven years. He did really well for himself, is happily married, living abroad, built his own home. The 21 up and 28 up ones were the most surprising ones - 35 up a bit more predictable. Sometimes it is upsetting though.

I have shown the programmes to school children, if the seven years is due, and they are always gripped too. Most people seem to remember the stories!

The programme makers' one regret was that they did not follow many girls, as they said they did not expect their futures to be as interesting or varied.

Everyman wrote: "I am totally disgusted with Pip. I want to take him across my knee and spank him like the ungrateful child he is.

Here is a man who has done so much for him, who has thought about him with gratitu..."

Pip is being smothered with affections from a stranger who turns out to be his convict from the marshes; I think Pip is still a work in progress unable to make sense of the multiple emotions (both good and bad) he's feeling.

What snobbery to look down on him because of the hard life he has led, even when he has risked his life to see Pip and reveal himself as the provider of all good things for Pip.
Take into account his perception of wealth, his experience with it...Having it and what it affords. Most importantly, Pip equates having money to having respect. Since the day Pip came into his fortune, he has used it in a superficial fashion; buying for appearances, buying for the affections of Estella, and using his newfound clout as a means to keep people at bay. It was not until he came of age, and in debt no doubt, that he chooses to do something good with his money for somebody else. Magwitch's arrival and everything that has come to light with him, is shocking for Pip, he is taken aback. I don't think he comprehends the gravity of the situation regarding Magwitch or what he has endured making his fortune, but it does not mean he will not either. Pip in his awful state is still coming to terms with his misguided expectations, he's been struck on more than one front...It has to be a lot for him to process. It's all very unfortunate how Pip is coming off, I understand, but Pip also sees the vulnerability in Magwitch.