But however blind many of this class might still be to the signs of the

times, they found an astute leader in Disraeli, who had few principles

and could trim his sails to any wind. The Tory Reform Bill, which he put

forward in February 1867, came out a very different Bill in July, after

discussion in the Cabinet, which led to the resignation of three

ministers, and after debates in the House of Commons, where it was

roughly handled. The principle of household suffrage was conceded, and

another million voters were added to the electorate. Disraeli had made a

greater change of front than any which he could attribute to Peel, and

that without conviction, for reasons of party expediency. The real

triumph belonged to Bright. 'The Bill adopted', he writes, 'is the

precise franchise I recommended in 1858.' He had not only roused the

country by his platform speeches, he had carefully watched the Bill in

all its stages through the House, and gradually transformed it till it

satisfied the aspirations of the people. He had been content to work

with Disraeli so long as he could further the cause of Reform; and he

only quarrelled with that statesman finally when, in 1878, he revived

the anti-Russian policy of Palmerston.

During this strenuous time his domestic life was happy and tranquil.

After the death of his first wife he had remained a widower for six

years, and in 1847 he had married Margaret Leatham, who bore him seven

children and shared his joys and sorrows in no ordinary measure for

thirty years. Whenever politics took him away from his Rochdale home, he

wrote constantly to her, and his letters throw most valuable light on

his inmost feelings. She died in 1878, and after this his life was

pitched in a different key. The outer world might suppose that high

political office was crowning his career, but his enthusiasm and his

power were ebbing and his physical health failed him more than once. He

was as affectionate to his children, as friendly to his neighbours, as

true to his principles; but the old fire was gone.

The outward events of his life from 1867 to 1889 must be passed over

lightly. Against his own wishes he was persuaded by Gladstone to join

the Cabinet in 1868 and again in 1880. His name was a tower of strength

to the Government with the newly-enfranchised electors, but he himself

had little taste for the routine of office. At Birmingham, for which he

had sat since 1857, he compared himself to the Shunammite woman who

refused the offer of advancement at court, and replied to the prophet,

'I dwell among mine own people'. But events were too strong for him: he

was drawn first to Westminster to share in the government of the

country, and then to Osborne to visit the Queen. Both the Queen and he

were nervous at the prospect, but the interview passed off happily.[21]

Family affections and sorrows were a bond between them, and he talked to

her with his usual frankness and simplicity. Even the difficult question

of costume was settled by a compromise, and the usual gold-braided

livery was replaced by a sober suit of black. Ministerial work in

London might have proved irksome to him; but his colleagues in the

Cabinet were indulgent, and no excessive demands were made upon his

strength. It was recognized that Bright was no longer in the fighting

line. In 1870 he was incapacitated by a second long illness, and he had

little share in the measures carried through Parliament for Irish land

purchase and national education.

[Note 21: See Fitzmaurice, _Life of Lord Granville_, vol. i, p.

540.]

His official career was finally closed in 1882, when the bombardment of

Alexandria seemed to open a new and aggressive chapter in our Eastern

policy. Bright was true to his old principles and resigned office.

He severed himself still more from the official Liberals in 1886, when

he refused to follow Gladstone into the Home Rule camp. He disliked the

methods of Parnell, the obstruction in Parliament, and the campaign of

lawlessness in Ireland. His own victories had not been won so, and he

had a great respect for the traditions of the House. He also believed

that the Home Rule Bill would vitally weaken the unity of the realm. But

no personal bitterness entered into his relations with his old

colleagues: he did not attack Gladstone, as he had attacked Palmerston

in 1855. From his death-bed he sent a cordial message to his old chief,

and received an answer full of high courtesy and affection.

His illness lasted several months. From the autumn of 1888 he lay at One

Ash, weak but not suffering acutely; and on March 27, 1889, he quietly

passed away. His old friend Cobden had preceded him more than twenty

years, having died in 1865, and had been buried at his birthplace in

Sussex, where he had made himself a peaceful home in later life. Bright

proved himself equally faithful to the home of his earliest years. He

was laid to rest in the small burying-ground in front of the Friends'

meeting-house where he had worshipped as a child. In his long career he

had served noble causes, and scaled the heights of fame, and the crowds

at his funeral testified to the love which his neighbours bore him. He

had never willingly been absent for long from his native town. His life,

compared with that of Disraeli or Gladstone, seems almost bleak in its

simplicity, varied as it was by so few excursions into other fields. But

two strong passions enriched it with warmth and glow, his family

affections and his zeal for the common good. These filled his heart, and

he was content that it should be so.

Type of the wise who soar but never roam,

True to the kindred points of Heaven and Home.

[Illustration: CHARLES DICKENS

From the painting by Daniel Maclise in the National Portrait Gallery]

CHARLES DICKENS

1812-1870

1812. Born at Landport, Portsmouth, February 7.

1816. Parents move to Chatham; 1821, to London.

1822. Father bankrupt and in prison. Charles in blacking warehouse.

1827. Charles enters lawyer's office.

1831. Reporters' Gallery in Parliament.

1836. Marries Catherine Hogarth. Publishes _Sketches by Boz_.

1837. _Pickwick Papers._ 1838. _Nicholas Nickleby._

1842. First American journey. 1843. _Martin Chuzzlewit._

1844-5. Eleven months' residence in Italy, chiefly at Genoa.

1846. Editor of _Daily News_ for a few weeks.

1846-7. Six months at Lausanne; three months at Paris. _Dombey and Son._

1849-50. _David Copperfield._

1850. Editor of weekly periodical, _Household Words_.

1851-2. Manager of theatrical performances. 1852. _Bleak House._

1853. Italian tour: Rome, Naples, and Venice.

1856. Purchase of Gadshill House, near Rochester.

1858. Beginning of public readings.

1859. _Tale of Two Cities_ appears in _All the Year Round_.

1860. Gadshill becomes his home instead of London.

1867. Second American journey. Public readings in America.

1869. April, collapse at Chester. Readings stopped.

1870. Dies at Gadshill, June 9.

CHARLES DICKENS

NOVELIST AND SOCIAL REFORMER

In these days when critics so often repeat the cry of 'art for art's

sake' and denounce Ruskin for bringing moral canons into his judgements

of pictures or buildings, it is dangerous to couple these two titles

together, and to label Dickens as anything but a novelist pure and

simple. And indeed, all would admit that the creator of Sam Weller and

Sarah Gamp will live when the crusade against 'Bumbledom' and its

abuses is forgotten and the need for such a crusade seems incredible.

But when so many recent critics have done justice to his gifts as a

creative artist, this aspect of his work runs no danger of being

forgotten. Moreover, when we are considering Dickens as a Victorian

worthy and as a representative man of his age, it is desirable to bring

out those qualities which he shared with so many of his great

contemporaries. Above all, we must remember that Dickens himself would

be the last man to be ashamed of having written 'with a purpose', or to

think that the fact should be concealed as a blemish in his art. There

was nothing in which he felt more genuine pride than in the thought that

his talents thus employed had brought public opinion to realize the need

for many practical reforms in our social condition. If these old abuses

have mostly passed away, we may be thankful indeed; but we cannot feel

sure that in the future fresh abuses will not arise with which the

example of Dickens may inspire others to wage war. His was a strenuous

life; he never spared himself nor stinted his efforts in any cause for

which he was fighting; and if he did not win complete victory in his

lifetime, he created the spirit in which victory was to be won.

Charles Dickens was born in 1812, the second child of a large family,

his father being at the time a Navy clerk employed at Portsmouth. Of his

birthplace in Commercial Road Portsmouth is justifiably proud; but we

must think of him rather as a Kentishman and a Londoner, since he never

lived in Hampshire after his fourth year. The earliest years which left

a distinct impress on his mind were those passed at Chatham, to which

his father moved in 1816. This town and its neighbouring cathedral city

of Rochester, with their narrow old streets, their riverside and

dockyard, took firm hold of his memory and imagination. To-day no places

speak more intimately of him to the readers of his books. Here he passed

five years of happy childhood till his father's work took the family to

London and his father's improvidence plunged them into misfortune.

For those who know Wilkins Micawber it is needless to describe the

failings of Mr. Dickens; for others we may be content to say that he was

kindhearted, sanguine and improvident, quite incapable of the steady

industry needed to support a growing family. When his debts overwhelmed

him and he was carried off to the Marshalsea prison, Charles was only

ten years old, but already he took the lead in the house. On him fell

the duty of pacifying creditors at the door, and of making visits to the

pawn-broker to meet the daily needs of the household. His initiation

into life was a hard one and it began cruelly soon. If he was active and

enterprising beyond his years, with his nervous high-strung temperament

he was capable of suffering acutely; and this capacity was now to be

sorely tried. For a year or more of his life this proud sensitive child

had to spend long hours in the cellars of a warehouse, with rough

uneducated companions, occupied in pasting labels on pots of

boot-blacking. This situation was all that the influence of his family

could procure for him; and into this he was thrust at the age of ten

with no ray of hope, no expectation of release. His shiftless parents

seemed to acquiesce in this drudgery as an opening for their cleverest

son; and instead of their helping and comforting him in his sorrow, it

was he who gave his Sundays to visiting them in prison and to offering

them such consolation as he could. The iron burnt deep into his soul.

Long after, in fact till the day when the district was rebuilt and

changed out of knowledge, he owned that he could not bear to revisit the

scene; so painful were his recollections, so vivid his sense of

degradation. Twenty-five years later he narrated the facts to his friend

and biographer John Forster in a private conversation; and he only

recurred to the subject once more when under the disguise of a novel he

told the story of the childhood of David Copperfield. By shifting the

horror from the realm of fact to that of fiction, perhaps he lifted the

weight of it from the secret recesses of his heart.

When his father's debts were relieved, the child regained his freedom

from servitude, but even then his schooling was desultory and

ineffective. Well might the elder Dickens, in a burst of candour, say to

a stranger who asked him about his son's education, 'Why indeed, sir,

ha! ha! he may be said to have educated himself.'

At the age of fifteen Charles embarked again on his career as a

wage-earner. At first he was taken into a lawyer's office, where he

filled a position somewhat between that of office-boy and clerk, and two

years later he was qualifying himself by the study of shorthand for the

profession of a parliamentary reporter, which his father was then

following. He entered 'the Gallery' in 1831, first representing the

_True Sun_ and later the well-known _Morning Chronicle_; and at

intervals he enlarged his experiences by journeys into the provinces to

report political meetings. Thus it was that he familiarized himself with

the mail coaches, the wayside hostelries, and the rich variety of types

that were to be found there; with London in most of its phases he was

already at home. So, when in 1834 he made his first attempts at writing

in periodical literature, although he was only twenty-two years old, he

had a wealth of first-hand experiences quite outside the range of the

man who is just finishing his leisurely passage through a public school

and university: of schools and offices, of parliaments and prisons, of

the street and of the high road, he had been a diligent and observant

critic; for many years he had practised the maxim of Pope: 'The proper

study of mankind is Man.'

Friends sprang up wherever he went. His open face, his sparkling eye,

his humorous tongue, his ready sympathy, were a passport to the

goodwill of those whom he met; few could resist the appeal. Many readers

will be familiar with the early portrait by Maclise; but his friends

tell us how little that did justice to the lively play of feature, 'the

spirited air and carriage' which were indescribable. On the top of a

mail coach, on a fresh morning, they must have won the favour of his

fellow travellers more easily than Alfred Jingle won the hearts of the

Pickwickians. And beneath the radiant cheerfulness of his manner, the

quick flash of observation and of speech, there was in him an element of

hard persistence and determination which would carry him far. If the

years of poverty and neglect had failed to chill his hopes and break his

spirit, there was no fear that he would tire in the pursuit of his

ambition when fortune began to smile upon him. He had touched life on

many sides. He had kept his warmth of sympathy, his buoyancy, his

capacity for rising superior to ill-fortune; and the years of adversity

had only deepened his feeling for all that were oppressed. He had much

to learn about the craft of letters; but he already had the first

essential of an author--he had something to say.

The year 1836 is a definite landmark in the life of Dickens. In this

year he married; in this year he gave up the practice of parliamentary

reporting, published the _Sketches by Boz_, and began the writing of

_The Pickwick Papers_. This immortal work achieved wide popularity at

once. Criticism cannot hope to do justice to the greatness of Sam

Weller, to the humours of Dingley Dell and Eatanswill, to the adventures

of the hero in back gardens or in prison, on coaches or in wheelbarrows.

Every one must read them in the original for himself. In this book

Dickens reached at once the height of his success in making his fellow

countrymen laugh with him at their own foibles. If in the art of

constructing a story, in the depiction of character, in deepening the

interest by the alternation of happiness and misfortune, he was to go

far beyond his initial triumph,--still with many Dickensians, who love

him chiefly for his liveliness of observation and broad humour, Pickwick

remains the prime favourite.

The effect of this success on the fortunes of the author was immediate

and lasting. Henceforth he could live in a comfortable house and look

forward to a family life in which his children should be free from all

risk of repeating his own experience. He could afford himself the

pleasures and the society which he needed, and he became the centre of a

circle of friends who appreciated his talents and encouraged him in his

career. His relations with his publishers, though not without incident,

were generally of the most cordial kind. If Dickens had the

self-confidence to estimate his own powers highly, and the shrewd

instinct to know when he was getting less than his fair share in a

bargain, yet in a difference of opinion he was capable of seeing the

other side, and he was loyal in the observance of all agreements.

The five years which followed were so crowded with various activities

that it is difficult to date the events exactly, especially when he was

producing novels in monthly or weekly numbers. Generally he had more

than one story on the stocks. Thus in 1837, before _Pickwick_ was

finished, _Oliver Twist_ was begun, and it was not itself complete

before the earlier numbers of _Nicholas Nickleby_ were appearing. In the

same way _The Old Curiosity Shop_ and _Barnaby Rudge_, which may be

dated 1840 and 1841, overlapped one another in the planning of the

stories, if not in the execution of the weekly parts. There is no period

of Dickens's life which enables us better to observe his intense mental

activity, and at the same time the variety of his creations. Here we

have the luxuriant humour of Mrs. Nickleby and the Crummles family side

by side with the tragedy of Bill Sikes and the pathos of Little Nell.

Here also we can see the gradual development of constructive power in

the handling of the story. But for our purpose it is more significant to

notice that we here find Dickens's pen enlisted in the service of the

noblest cause for which he fought, the redemption from misery and

slavery of the children of his native land. Lord Shaftesbury's life has

told us what their sufferings were and how the machinery of Government

was slowly forced to do its part; and Dickens would be the last to

detract from the fame of that great philanthropist, whose efforts on

many occasions he supported and praised. But there were wide circles

which no philanthropist could reach, hearts which no arguments or

statistics could rouse; men and women who attended no meetings and read

no pamphlets but who eagerly devoured anything that was written by the

author of _The Pickwick Papers_. To them Smike and Little Nell made a

personal and irresistible appeal; they could not remain insensible to

the cruelty of Dotheboys Hall and to the depravity of Fagin's school;

and if these books did not themselves recruit active workers to improve

the conditions of child life, at least society became permeated with a

temper which was favourable to the efforts of the reformers.

As far back as the days of his childhood at Rochester Dickens had been

indignant at what he had casually heard of the Yorkshire schools; and

his year of drudgery in London had made him realize, in other cases

beside his own, the degradation that followed from the neglect of

children. On undertaking to handle this subject in _Nicholas Nickleby_,

he journeyed to Yorkshire to gather evidence at first hand for his

picture of Dotheboys Hall. And for many years afterwards he continued to

correspond with active workers on the subject of Ragged Schools and on

the means of uplifting children out of the conditions which were so

fruitful a source of crime. He discovered for himself how easily

miscreants like Fagin could find recruits in the slums of London, and

how impossible it was to bring up aright boys who were bred in these

neglected homes. Even where efforts had been begun, the machinery was

quite inadequate, the teachers few, the schoolrooms cheerless and

ill-equipped. Mr. Crotch[22] has preserved a letter of 1843 in which

Dickens makes the practical offer of providing funds for a washing-place

in one school where the children seemed to be suffering from inattention

to the elementary needs. His heart warmed towards individual cases and

he faced them in practical fashion; he was not one of those reformers

who utter benevolent sentiments on the platform and go no further.

[Note 22: _Charles Dickens, Social Reformer_, by W. W. Crotch

(Chapman & Hall, 1913), p. 53.]

Critics have had much to say about Dickens's treatment of child

characters in his novels; the words 'sentimental' and 'mawkish' have

been hurled at scenes like the death of Paul Dombey and Little Nell and

at the more lurid episodes in _Oliver Twist_. But Dickens was a pioneer

in his treatment of children in fiction; and if he did smite resounding

blows which jar upon critical ears, at least he opened a rich vein of

literature where many have followed him. He wrote not for the critics

but for the great popular audience whom he had created, comprising all

ages and classes, and world-wide in extent. The best answer to such

criticism is to be found in the poem which Bret Harte dedicated to his

memory in 1870, which beautifully describes how the pathos of his

child-heroine could move the hearts of rough working men far away in the

Sierras of the West. Nor did this same character of Little Nell fail to

win special praise from literary critics so fastidious as Landor and

Francis Jeffrey.

In 1842 he embarked on his first voyage to America. Till then he had

travelled little outside his native land, and this expedition was

definitely intended to bear fruit. Before starting he made a bargain

with his publishers to produce a book on his return. The _American

Notes_ thus published, dealing largely with institutions and with the

notable 'sights' of the country, have not retained a prominent place

among his works; with _Martin Chuzzlewit_ and its picture of American

manners it is different. This stands alone among his writings in having

left a permanent heritage of ill-will. Reasons in abundance can be found

for the bitterness caused. He portrayed the conceit, the self-interest,

the disregard for the feelings of others which the less-educated

American showed to foreigners in a visible and often offensive guise;

and the portraits were so life-like that no arrow fails to hit the mark.

The American people were young; they had made great strides in material

prosperity, they had not been taught to submit to the lash by satirists

like Swift or more kindly mentors like Addison. Their own Oliver Wendell

Holmes had not yet begun to chastise them with gentle irony. So they

were aghast at Dickens's audacity, and indignant at what seemed an

outrage on their hospitality, and few stopped to ask what elements of

truth were to be found in the offending book. No doubt it was one-sided

and unfair; Dickens, like most tourists, had been confronted by the

louder and more aggressive members of the community and had not time to

judge the whole. In large measure he recanted in subsequent writings;

and on his second visit the more generous Americans showed how little

rancour they bore. But the portraits of Jefferson Brick and Elijah

Pogram will live; with Pecksniff, 'Sairey' Gamp, and other immortals

they bear the hall-mark of Dickens's creative genius.

To America he did not go again for twenty-five years; but, as he grew

older, he seemed to feel increasing need for change and variety in his

mode of life. In 1844 he went for nearly twelve months to Italy, making

his head-quarters at Genoa; and in 1846 he repeated the experiment at

Lausanne on the lake of Geneva. Later, between 1853 and 1856, he spent a

large part of three summers in a villa near Boulogne. Though he desired

the change for reasons connected with his work, and though in each case

he formed friendly connexions with his neighbours, it cannot be said

that his books show the influence of either country. His genius was

British to the core and he remained an Englishman wherever he went. He

complained when abroad that he missed the stimulus of London, where the

lighted streets, through which he walked at night, caused his

imagination to work with intensified force. But even in Genoa he proved

capable of writing _The Chimes_, which is as markedly English in temper

as anything which he wrote.

The same spirit of restlessness comes out in his ventures into other

fields of activity at home. At one time he assumed the editorship of a

London newspaper; but a few weeks showed that he was incapable of

editorial drudgery and he resigned. His taste for acting played a larger

part in his life; and in 1851 and other years he put an enormous amount

of energy into organizing public theatrical performances with his

friends in London. He always loved the theatre. Macready was one of his

innermost circle, and he had other friends on the stage. Indeed there

were moments in his life when it seemed that the genius of the novelist

might be lost to the world, which would have found but a sorry

equivalent in one more actor of talent on the stage, however brilliant

that talent was. But the main current of his life went on in London with

diligent application to the book or books in hand; or at Broadstairs,

where Dickens made holiday in true English fashion with his children by

the sea.

Victorian worthies · 第 10 / 29 段