3658943594
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
vait till I'm ready, and I believe she vill. If she don't, she's not the young 'ooman I<br />
take her for, and I give her up vith readiness."<br />
It is easy to imagine what the young woman would have said to this in real life. But<br />
notice the feudal atmosphere. Sam Weller is ready as a matter of course to sacrifice years of life to<br />
his master, and he can also sit down in his master's presence. A modern manservant would never think<br />
of doing either. Dickens's views on the servant question do not get much beyond wishing that master<br />
and servant would love one another. Sloppy in Our Mutual Friend, though a wretched failure as a<br />
character, represents the same kind of loyalty as Sam Weller. Such loyalty, of course, is natural,<br />
human and likeable; but so was feudalism.<br />
What Dickens seems to be doing, as usual, is to reach out for an idealised version of the<br />
existing thing. He was writing at a time when domestic service must have seemed a completely<br />
inevitable evil. There were no labour-saving devices, and there was huge inequality of wealth. It was<br />
an age of enormous families, pretentious meals and inconvenient houses, when the slavey drudging<br />
fourteen hours a day in the basement kitchen was something too normal to be noticed. And given the<br />
fact of servitude, the feudal relationship is the only tolerable one. Sam Weller and Mark Tapley are<br />
dream figures, no less than the Cheerybles. If there have got to be masters and servants, how much<br />
better that the master should be Mr. Pickwick and the servant should be Sam Weller. Better still, of<br />
course, if servants did not exist at all—but this Dickens is probably unable to imagine. Without a high<br />
level of mechanical development, human equality is not practically possible; Dickens goes to show<br />
that it is not imaginable either.<br />
4<br />
It is not merely a coincidence that Dickens never writes about agriculture and writes endlessly about<br />
food. He was a Cockney, and London is the centre of the earth in rather the same sense that the belly<br />
is the centre of the body. It is a city of consumers, of people who are deeply civilised but not<br />
primarily useful. A thing that strikes one when one looks below the surface of Dickens books is that,<br />
as nineteenth-century novelists go, he is rather ignorant. He knows very little about the way things<br />
really happen. At first sight this statement looks flatly untrue, and it needs some qualification.<br />
Dickens had had vivid glimpses of "low life"—life in a debtor's prison, for example—<br />
and he was also a popular novelist and able to write about ordinary people. So were all the<br />
characteristic English novelists of the nineteenth century. They felt at home in the world they lived in,<br />
whereas a writer nowadays is so hopelessly isolated that the typical modern novel is a novel about a<br />
novelist. Even when Joyce, for instance, spends a decade or so in patient efforts to make contact with<br />
the "common man," his "common man" finally turns out to be a Jew, and a bit of a highbrow at that.<br />
Dickens at least does not suffer from this kind of thing. He has no difficulty in introducing the common<br />
motives, love, ambition, avarice, vengeance and so forth. What he does not noticeably write about,<br />
however, is work.<br />
In Dickens's novels anything in the nature of work happens off-stage. The only one of his<br />
heroes who has a plausible profession is David Copperfield, who is first a shorthand writer and then