雾都孤儿
Oliver Twist
一、英国作家狄更斯的名著。
关于狄更斯和他的小说艺术，心里早有一些想法，趁写这篇前言之便，说出来，就正于广大狄更斯爱好者。
《雾都孤儿》是狄更斯第二部长篇小说。这位年仅二十五岁的小说家决心学习英国现实主义画家威廉•荷加斯（William Hogarth,1697一1764）的榜样，勇敢地直面人生，真实地表现当时伦敦贫民窟的悲惨生活。他抱着一个崇高的道德意图：抗议社会的不公，并唤起社会舆论，推行改革，使处于水深火热中的贫民得到救助。正因为如此，狄更斯历来被我国及前苏联学者界定为“英国文学上批判现实主义的创始人和最伟大的代表”。对此，我有一些不同的见解：文学艺术是一种特殊的社会意识形态，它必然是社会存在的反映。但是，我们决不能把反映现实的文学都说成是现实主义文学，把“现实主义”的外延无限扩展。事实上，作家运用的创作方法多种多样，因人而异，这和作家的特殊气质和性格特点密切相关。狄更斯的创作，想象力极为丰富，充满诗的激情，他着意渲染自己的道德理想，处处突破自然的忠实临摹，借用一句歌德的话：它比自然高了一层。这和萨克雷、特洛罗普等坚持的客观。冷静、严格写实的方法有显著的区别。
试以《雾都孤儿》为例，（一）个性化的语言是狄更斯在人物塑造上运用得十分出色的一种手段。书中的流氓、盗贼、妓女的语言都切合其身份，甚至还用了行业的黑话。然而，狄更斯决不作自然主义的再现，而是进行加工、提炼和选择，避免使用污秽、下流的话语。主人公奥立弗语言规范、谈吐文雅，他甚至不知偷窃为何物。他是在济贫院长大的孤儿，从未受到良好的教育，所接触的都是罪恶累累、堕落不堪之辈，他怎么会讲这么好的英文呢？这用“人是一切社会关系总和”的历史唯物主义观点是无法解释的。可见，狄更斯着力表现的是自己的道德理想，而不是追求完全的逼真。（二）在优秀的现实主义小说中，故事情节往往是在环境作用下的人物性格发展史，即高尔基所说的“某种性格、典型的成长和构成的历史”。然而，狄更斯不拘任何格套，想要多少巧合就安排多少巧合。奥立弗第一次跟小偷上街，被掏兜的第一人恰巧就是他亡父的好友布朗罗。第二次，他在匪徒赛克斯的劫持下入室行窃，被偷的恰好是他亲姨妈露丝•梅莱家。这在情理上无论如何是说不过去的。但狄更斯自有天大的本领，在具体的细节描写中充满生活气息和激情，使你读时紧张得喘不过气来，对这种本来是牵强的、不自然的情节也不得不信以为真。这就是狄更斯的艺术世界的魅力。（三）狄更斯写作时，始终有一种“感同身受的想象力”（Sympathetic imagination），即使对十恶不赦的人物也一样。书中贼首、老犹太费金受审的一场始终从费金的心理视角出发。他从天花板看到地板，只见重重叠叠的眼睛都在注视着自己。他听到对他罪行的陈述报告，他把恳求的目光转向律师，希望能为他辩护几句。人群中有人在吃东西，有人用手绢扇风，还有一名青年画家在画他的素描，他心想：不知道像不像，真想伸过脖子去看一看……一位绅士出去又进来，他想：准是吃饭去了，不知吃的什么饭？看到铁栏杆上有尖刺，他琢磨着：这很容易折断。从此又想到绞刑架，这时，他听到自己被处绞刑。他只是喃喃地说，自己岁数大了，大了，接着就什么声音也发不出来了。在这里，狄更斯精心选择了一系列细节，不但描绘了客观事物，而且切入了人物的内心世界，表现了他极其丰富的想象力。他运用的艺术方法，不是“批判现实主义”所能概括的。我倒是赞赏英国作家、狄更斯专家乔治•吉辛（George Giss－ing，1857—1903）的表述，他把狄更斯的创作方法称为“浪漫的现实主义”（romantic realism）。我认为这一表述才够准确，才符合狄更斯小说艺术的实际。
二
19世纪30年代，雾都伦敦，小男孩奥利佛•特维斯特(巴尼•克拉克饰)自幼被父母抛弃，孤独地在教区抚幼院里长大，随后他被迫进入苛刻的巴姆鲍经营的棺材店里做学徒，由于不能承受繁重的劳动和老板的打骂，他逃到伦敦街上，成为一名雾都孤儿。在伦敦游荡的时候，独自一人的奥利佛被当地一个扒手黑帮盯上，并且被险恶的费金(本•金斯利饰)骗进充满罪恶和肮脏的贼窝，费金希望能够将奥利佛训练成一位盗窃能手以成为自己的“孩子盗窃集团”的一员，从而又多了一个可以为自己获取不义之财的途径。
身陷囫囵的奥利佛得到和蔼的布郎罗先生的帮助，但仅仅是他一系列冒险经历的开始。恶劣的环境、重重的误会、人性的黑暗包围着奥利佛，在流浪中他历尽艰辛，但奥利佛始终保持纯真的心，对生命抱有希望，甚至让二号贼首赛克斯的情妇南希良心发现，在他天真纯洁的身上看到往日清白的自己，最终冒着生命危险将奥利佛救出贼窟。然而，南茜为了救这位可怜的孤儿而被杀，奥利佛•特维斯特经过百般周折之后，终于知道了自已真实的身份…………
三
故事发生在19世纪30年代的英国，在一个寒风料峭的深夜，一个男婴刚在贫民区里呱呱坠地，苦命的母亲便撒手人寰。谁也不知道产妇的身份，男婴由此成了无名孤儿。后来他被当地教会收养，抚养他的女管事给他起名奥利弗•忒斯特。
奥利弗(巴尼•克拉克饰)9岁时，由于没人供养他上学读书，于是进了济贫院的童工作坊，每天从事繁重的体力劳动。因为奥利弗既不会耍滑偷懒，也不会阿谀奉承，所以经常受到管事的打骂。这些正在发育的孩子们终日衣不遮体、食不裹腹，万般无奈下，他们决定抽签选定提出加粥的人选，结果抽中的正是奥利弗。晚餐时，奥利弗如实提出了要求，大惊失色的管事决定撵走这个造反的隐患。
不过幸运的是，奥利弗终于没能成为打扫烟囱的小工，而是被殡仪馆老板索尔比利相中，成了他用五英镑买来的学徒。循规蹈矩的奥利弗很快得到老板夫妇的器重，却也遭到了年长学徒诺尔的嫉妒。诺尔取笑奥利弗死去的母亲，奥利弗忍无可忍大打出手，后来却被老板误解，遭到毒打。一气之下，奥利弗含恨出走，奔向远方的雾都伦敦。
在伦敦郊区，饥寒交迫的奥利弗遇到了阿特福，阿特福不仅为他提供了栖身之处，还将他引荐给一个叫费金的人(本•金斯利饰)。天真无邪的奥利弗还蒙在鼓里，他住的地方其实是个贼窝，这些孩子都被当作犯罪工具，而费金正是他们的“教父”。
一天，奥利弗和阿特福等人一起上街，阿特福行窃时意外败露，混乱中，奥利弗被人当作小偷抓进了警局。幸亏一位书店老板证明了奥利弗的无辜，而被偷的富翁布朗罗也心生爱怜，于是将奥利弗接到了家中。
费金和同伙西克(杰米•福尔曼饰)并未善罢甘休，趁奥利弗外出买书之际将其绑架，而布朗罗则误以为小男孩携款潜逃，心中失望不已。又回到贼巢的的奥利弗在费金的哄骗下道出了布朗罗家的境况，并被西克胁迫前去抢劫。虽然抢劫被成功阻止，但奥利弗却被冷枪击中，正当西克准备将他抛进河中之际，同行的托比救下了奥利弗。
险恶叵测的西克依然鼓动费金除掉奥利弗以绝后患，而他的女友南茜则试图保护奥利弗，并和布朗罗取得联系，希望帮无辜的奥利弗逃出魔窟。孰料，南茜的意图已被费金察觉，不久便被西克残忍的杀害。
警方很快对西克和费金展开抓捕，逃跑中，西克不慎丧命，费金最终被绳之以法。不久，布朗罗带着奥利弗探望狱中的费金，尽管经历了种种费金造就的不幸，而善良的奥利弗却仍在心底默默为他祈祷……
四
《雾都孤儿》中的南希为例，
作一番研究分析。我认为，南希这个人物有无比丰富、复杂的内心世界，远比E.M.福斯特所称羡的一切“浑圆人物”更富于立体感和活跃的生命力。南希是个不幸的姑娘，自幼沦落贼窟，并已成为第二号贼首赛克斯的情妇。除了绞架，她看不到任何别的前景。但是，她天良未泯，在天真纯洁的奥立弗，看到往日清白的自己，同情之心油然而生。她连奉贼首之命，冒称是奥立弗的姐姐，硬把他绑架回贼窟时，内心充满矛盾。归途中，她和赛克斯谈起监狱绞死犯人的事，奥立弗感觉到南希紧攥着他的那只手在发抖，抬眼一看，她的脸色变得煞白。后来，她冒着生命的危险偷偷地给梅莱小姐和布朗罗通风报信，终于把奥立弗救了出来。梅莱和布朗罗力劝南希挣脱过去的生活，走上新生之路，但南希不忍心把情人赛克斯撇下。赛克斯在得知南希所作所为后，他只能持盗匪的道德标准，把南希视为不可饶恕的叛徒，亲
手把她残酷地杀害。狄更斯在给这两个人物取名时是有很深的用意的，南希（Nancy）和赛克斯（Sikes）英文缩写是N和S，正是磁针的两极。他俩构成一对矛盾，既对立又统一，既相反又相成，永远不可分离。南希离不开赛克斯，宁愿被他杀害也不肯抛弃他；而赛克斯也离不开南希，一旦失去她，他就丧魂失魄，终于在房顶跌落，脖子被自己的一条绳子的活扣套住而气绝身死。南希的形象复杂、丰富又深刻，不但不是“扁平”的，而且达到极高的艺术成就。
五
读完这本书，我心中久久不能平息。可怜的奥利弗，在已经失去家人的痛苦下，还受到了这么多折磨。真不知道在他瘦弱的躯体下，有着怎样的意志，能使他坚持不懈，使他在饥饿、寒冷、孤独、悲伤、痛苦下顽强的斗争，向美好的生活前进！
最令我感动的是奥利弗遇到强盗集团的那章。奥利弗在路上走了七天七夜，饥饿和疲倦威胁着他。他遇到了杰克•道金斯：一位小偷。
杰克把奥利弗带到了贼窝，小偷们想把奥利弗也训练成一位小偷。但奥利弗不愿意做小偷，逃了出来。读完这章，一种油然而生的敬佩之情环绕着我的心扉。奥利弗是一位多么坚强，多么正义的孩子啊！他宁愿逃出贼窝，继续流浪，也不愿做一位小偷。面对生死的关头，面对是死在街头或做一位小偷，他坚定的选择了正义。虽然他只有10岁，和我们一样大，但他的坚强，他的正义，他的勇敢，是谁也比不上的！奥利弗承受着巨大的痛苦，但他对美好生活的向往，对生命的向往，是支持他前进的力量！
我们生活在蜜罐里，福窝里，却总是抱怨，总是不满足。但我们可曾想过，在世界上，还有许多孩子，正承受着巨大的痛苦；正和饥饿、寒冷、疾病作战；正面对着失去亲人，飘泊流浪的生活。他们充满着对生命的渴望，对生活的热爱，可是苦难和他们作对。作为和他们一样活生生的生命，我们难道能视而不见吗?不，我们不能！让我们用双手和大脑，来帮助他们，来满足他们对生命的渴望！
六
〈雾都孤儿〉是狄更斯的第二部长篇小说，在世界文学史上占着重要的地位。小说的主人公奥利弗。特威斯特，是一名生在济贫院的孤儿，忍饥挨饿，备受欺凌，由于不堪棺材店老板娘、教区执事邦布儿等人的虐待而独自逃往伦敦，不幸刚一到达就受骗误入贼窟。窃贼团伙的首领费金千方百计，企图把奥利弗训练为扒手供他驱使。奥利弗跟随窃贼伙伴“机灵鬼”和贝茨上街时，被误认为他偷了一位叫布朗洛的绅士（恰巧是他父亲生前的好友）的手绢而被警察逮捕。后因书摊老板证明了他的无辜，说明小偷另有其人，他才被释放。由于他当时病重昏迷，且容貌酷似友人生前留下的一副少妇画像，布朗洛收留他在家中治病，得到布朗洛及其女管家比德温太太无微不至的关怀，第一次感受到人间的温暖。窃贼团伙害怕奥利弗会泄露团伙的秘密，在费金指示下，塞克斯和南希费尽心机，趁奥利弗外出替布朗洛归还书摊老板的图书的时候用计使他重新陷入了贼窟。但当费金试图惩罚毒打奥利弗的上时候，南希挺身而出保护了奥利弗。费金用威胁、利诱、灌输等手段企图迫使奥利弗成为一名窃贼，成为费金的摇钱树。一天黑夜，奥利弗在塞克斯的胁迫下参加对一座大宅院的行窃。正当奥利弗准备趁爬进窗户的机会向主人报告时，被管家发现后开枪打伤。窃贼仓惶逃跑时，把奥利弗丢弃在路旁水沟之中。奥利弗在雨雪之中带伤爬行，无意中又回道那家宅院，昏到在门口。好心的主人梅丽夫人及其养女罗斯小姐收留并庇护了他 。无巧不成书，这位罗斯小姐正是奥利弗的姨妈，但双方都不知道。在梅丽夫人家，奥利弗真正享受到了人生的温馨和美好。但费金团伙却不能放过奥利弗。有一天一个名叫 蒙克斯的人来找费金，这人是奥利弗的同父异母兄长，由于他的不肖，他父亲在遗嘱中将全部遗产给了奥利弗，除非奥利弗和蒙克斯是一样的不肖儿女，遗产才可由蒙克斯继承。为此蒙克斯出高价买通费金，要他使奥利弗变成不可救药的罪犯，以便霸占奥利弗名下的全部遗产，并发泄自己对已去世的父亲的怨恨。正当蒙克斯得意洋洋的谈到他如何和帮布尔夫妇狼狈为*，毁灭了能证明奥利弗身份的唯一证据的时侯，被南希听见。南西见义勇为，同情奥利弗的遭遇，冒生命危险，偷偷找到罗斯小姐，向她报告了这一切。
正当罗斯小姐考虑如何行动时，奥利弗告诉她，他找到了布朗洛先生。罗斯小姐就和布朗洛商议了处理方法。罗斯小姐在布朗洛陪同下再次和南西会面时，布朗洛获知蒙克斯即他的已故好友埃得温。利弗得的不肖儿子，决定亲自找蒙克斯交涉，但他们的谈话被费金派出的密探听见。塞克斯就凶残的杀害了南西。南西之死使费金团伙遭到了灭顶之灾。费金被捕，后上了绞刑架，塞克斯在逃窜中失足被自己的绳子勒死。与此同时，蒙克斯被布朗洛挟持到家中，逼他供出了一切，事情真相大白，奥利弗被布朗洛收为养子，从此结束了他的苦难的童年。为了给蒙克斯自新的机会，把本应全归奥利弗继承的遗产分一半给他。但蒙克斯劣性不改，把家产挥霍殆尽，继续作恶，终被
铛入狱，死在狱中。邦布尔夫恶有恶报，被革去一切职务，一贫如洗，在他们曾经作威作福的济贫院度过余生。
在这本书中，奥利弗、南希、罗斯小姐都是善良的代表，他们都出生于苦难之中，在黑暗和充满罪恶的世界中成长，但在他们的心中始终保持着一偏纯洁的天地，一颗善良的心，种种磨难并不能使他们堕落或彻底堕落，发而更显示出他们出污泥而不染的光彩夺目的晶莹品质。最后，邪不胜正，正义的力量战胜了邪恶，虽然南希最后遇难，但正是她的死所召唤出来的惊天动地的社会正义力量，正是她在冥冥中的在天之灵，注定了邪恶势力的代表——费金团伙的灭顶之灾。因此在小说中，南希的精神得到了升华，奥利弗则得到了典型意义上的善报。而恶人的代表——费金、蒙克斯、邦布尔、塞克斯无不一一落得个悲惨的下场。
这部名著在我心中留下了深刻的印象，使我懂得无论环境怎样恶劣，世界怎样复杂，我们都应该保持一份善良、博爱的的精神，这样于人于己都会带来快乐和幸福。
七
Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles Dickens
In considering Dickens, as we almost always must consider him, as a man of rich originality, we may possibly miss the forces from which he drew even his original energy. It is not well for man to be alone. We, in the modern world, are ready enough to admit that when it is applied to some problem of monasticism or of an ecstatic life. But we will not admit that our modern artistic claim to absolute originality is really a claim to absolute unsociability; a claim to absolute loneliness. The anarchist is at least as solitary as the ascetic. And the men of very vivid vigor in literature, the men such as Dickens, have generally displayed a large sociability towards the society of letters, always expressed in the happy pursuit of pre-existent themes, sometimes expressed, as in the case of Molie or Sterne, in downright plagiarism. For even theft is a confession of our dependence on society. In Dickens, however, this element of the original foundations on which he worked is quite especially difficult to determine. This is partly due to the fact that for the present reading public he is practically the only one of his long line that is read at all. He sums up Smollett and Goldsmith, but he also destroys them. This one giant, being closest to us, cuts off from our view even the giants that begat him. But much more is this difficulty due to the fact that Dickens mixed up with the old material, materials so subtly modern, so made of the French Revolution, that the whole is transformed. If we want the best example of this, the best example is Oliver Twist.
Relatively to the other works of Dickens Oliver Twist is not of great value, but it is of great importance. Some parts of it are so crude and of so clumsy a melodrama, that one is almost tempted to say that Dickens would have been greater without it. But even if be had been greater without it he would still have been incomplete without it. With the exception of some gorgeous passages, both of humor and horror, the interest of the book lies not so much in its revelation of Dickens's literary genius as in its revelation of those moral, personal, and political instincts which were the make-up of his character and the permanent support of that literary genius. It is by far the most depressing of all his books; it is in some ways the most irritating; yet its ugliness gives the last touch of honesty to all that spontaneous and splendid output. Without this one discordant note all his merriment might have seemed like levity.
Dickens had just appeared upon the stage and set the whole world laughing with his first great story Pickwick. Oliver Twist was his encore. It was the second opportunity given to him by those who ha rolled about with laughter over Tupman and Jingle, Weller and Dowler. Under such circumstances a stagey reciter will sometimes take care to give a pathetic piece after his humorous one; and with all his many moral merits, there was much that was stagey about Dickens. But this explanation alone is altogether inadequate and unworthy. There was in Dickens this other kind of energy, horrible, uncanny, barbaric, capable in another age of coarseness, greedy for the emblems of established ugliness, the coffin, the gibbet, the bones, the bloody knife. Dickens liked these things and he was all the more of a man for liking them; especially he was all the more of a boy. We can all recall with pleasure the fact that Miss Petowker (afterwards Mrs. Lillyvick) was in the habit of reciting a poem called "The Blood Drinker's Burial." I cannot express my regret that the words of this poem are not given; for Dickens would have been quite as capable of writing "The Blood Drinker's Burial" as Miss Petowker was of reciting it. This strain existed in Dickens alongside of his happy laughter; both were allied to the same robust romance. Here as elsewhere Dickens is close to all the permanent human things. He is close to religion, which has never allowed the thousand devils on its churches to stop the dancing of its bells. He is allied to the people, to the real poor, who love nothing so much as to take a cheerful glass and to talk about funerals. The extremes of his gloom and gaiety are the mark of religion and democracy; they mark him off from the moderate happiness of philosophers, and from that stoicism which is the virtue and the creed of aristocrats. There is nothing odd in the fact that the same man who conceived the humane hospitalities of Pickwick should also have imagined the inhuman laughter of Fagin's den. They are both genuine and they are both exaggerated. And the whole human tradition has tied up together in a strange knot these strands of festivity and fear. It is over the cups of Christmas Eve that men have always competed in telling ghost stories.
This first element was present in Dickens, and it is very powerfully present in Oliver Twist. It had not been present with sufficient consistency or continuity in Pickwick to make it remain on the reader's memory at all, for the tale of "Gabriel Grubb" is grotesque rather than horrible, and the two gloomy stories of the "Madman" and the "Queer Client" are so utterly irrelevant to the tale, that even if the reader remember them he probably does not remember that they occur in Pickwick. Critics have complained of Shakespeare and others for putting comic episodes into a tragedy. It required a man with the courage and coarseness of Dickens actually to put tragic episodes into a farce. But they are not caught up into the story at all. In Oliver Twist, however, the thing broke out with an almost brutal inspiration, and those who had fallen in love with Dickens for his generous buffoonery may very likely have been startled at receiving such very different fare at the next helping. When you have bought a man's book because you like his writing about Mr. Wardle's punch-bowl and Mr. Winkle's skates, it may very well be surprising to open it and read about the sickening thuds that beat out the life of Nancy, or that mysterious villain whose face was blasted with disease.
As a nightmare, the work is really admirable. Characters which are not very clearly conceived as regards their own psychology are yet, at certain moments, managed so as to shake to its foundations our own psychology. Bill Sikes is not exactly a real man, but for all that he is a real murderer. Nancy is not really impressive as a living woman; but (as the phrase goes) she makes a lovely corpse. Something quite childish and eternal in us, something which is shocked with the mere simplicity of death, quivers when we read of those repeated blows or see Sikes cursing the tell-tale cur who will follow his bloody foot-prints. And this strange, sublime, vulgar melodrama, which is melodrama and yet is painfully real, reaches its hideous height in that fine scene of the death of Sikes, the besieged house, the boy screaming within, the crowd screaming without, the murderer turned almost a maniac and dragging his victim uselessly up and down the room, the escape over the roof, the rope swiftly running taut, and death sudden, startling and symbolic; a man hanged. There is in this and similar scenes something of the quality of Hogarth and many other English moralists of the early eighteenth century. It is not easy to define this Hogarthian quality in words, beyond saying that it is a sort of alphabetical realism, like the cruel candor of children. But it has about it these two special principles which separate it from all that we call realism in our time. First, that with us a moral story means a story about moral people; with them a moral story meant more often a story about immoral people. Second, that with us realism is always associated with some subtle view of morals; with them realism was always associated with some simple view of morals. The end of Bill Sikes exactly in the way that the law would have killed him -- this is a Hogarthian incident; it carries on that tradition of startling and shocking platitude.
This entire element in the book was a sincere thing in the author, but none the less it came from old soils, from the graveyard and the gallows, and the lane where the ghost walked. Dickens was always attracted to such things, and (as Forster says with inimitable simplicity) "but for his strong sense might have fallen into the follies of spiritualism." As a matter of fact, like most of the men of strong sense in his tradition, Dickens was left with a half belief in spirits which became in practice a belief in bad spirits. The great disadvantage of those who have too much strong sense to believe in supernaturalism is that they keep last the low and little forms of the supernatural, such as omens, curses, specters, and retributions, but find a high and happy supernaturalism quite incredible. Thus the Puritans denied the sacraments, but went on burning witches. This shadow does rest, to some extent, upon the rational English writers like Dickens; supernaturalism was dying, but its ugliest roots died last. Dickens would have found it easier to believe in a ghost than in a vision of the Virgin with angels. There, for good or evil, however, was the root of the old diablerie in Dickens, and there it is in Oliver Twist. But this was only the first of the new Dickens elements, which must have surprised those Dickensians who eagerly bought his second book. The second of the new Dickens elements is equally indisputable and separate. It swelled afterwards to enormous proportions in Dickens's work; but it really has its rise here. Again, as in the case of the element of diablerie, it would be possible to make technical exceptions in favor of Pickwick. Just as there were quite inappropriate scraps of the gruesome element in Pickwick, so there are quite inappropriate allusions to this other topic in Pickwick. But nobody by merely reading Pickwick would even remember this topic; no one by merely reading Pickwick would know what this topic is; this third great subject of Dickens; this second great subject of the Dickens of Oliver Twist.
This subject is social oppression. It is surely fair to say that no one could have gathered from Pickwick how this question boiled in the blood of the author of Pickwick. There are, indeed, passages, particularly in connection with Mr. Pickwick in the debtor's prison, which prove to us, looking back on a whole public career, that Dickens had been from the beginning bitter and inquisitive about the problem of our civilization. No one could have imagined at the time that this bitterness ran in an unbroken river under all the surges of that superb gaiety and exuberance. With Oliver Twist this sterner side of Dickens was suddenly revealed. For the very first pages of Oliver Twist are stern even when they are funny. They amuse, but they cannot be enjoyed, as can the passages about the follies of Mr. Snodgrass or the humiliations of Mr. Winkle. The difference between the old easy humor and this new harsh humor is a difference not of degree but of kind. Dickens makes game of Mr. Bumble because he wants to kill Mr. Bumble; he made game of Mr. Winkle because he wanted him to live for ever. Dickens has taken the sword in hand; against what is he declaring war?
It is just here that the greatness of Dickens comes in; it is just here that the difference lies between the pedant and the poet. Dickens enters the social and political war, and the first stroke he deals is not only significant but even startling. Fully to see this we must appreciate the national situation. It was an age of reform, and even of radical reform; the world was full of radicals and reformers; but only too many of them took the line of attacking everything and anything that was opposed to some particular theory among the many political theories that possessed the end of the eighteenth century. Some had so much perfected the perfect theory of republicanism that they almost lay awake at night because Queen Victoria had a crown on her head. Others were so certain that mankind had hitherto been merely strangled in the bonds of the State that they saw truth only in the destruction of tariffs or of by-laws. The greater part of that generation held that clearness, economy, and a hard common-sense, would soon destroy the errors that had been erected by the superstitions and sentimentalities of the past. In pursuance of this idea many of the new men of the new century, quite confident that they were invigorating the new age, sought to destroy the old sentimental clericalism, the old sentimental feudalism, the old-world belief in priests, the old-world belief in patrons, and among other things the old-world belief in beggars. They sought among other things to clear away the old visionary kindliness on the subject of vagrants. Hence those reformers enacted not only a new reform bill but also a new poor law. In creating many other modern things they created the modern workhouse, and when Dickens came out to fight it was the first thing that he broke with his battle-axe.
This is where Dickens's social revolt is of more value than mere politics and avoids the vulgarity of the novel with a purpose. His revolt is not a revolt of the commercialist against the feudalist, of the Nonconformist against the Churchman, of the Free-trader against the Protectionist, of the Liberal against the Tory. If he were among us now his revolt would not be the revolt of the Socialist against the Individualist or of the Anarchist against the Socialist. His revolt was simply and solely the eternal revolt; it was the revolt of the weak against the strong. He did not dislike this or that argument for oppression; he disliked oppression. He disliked a certain look on the face of a man when he looks down on another man. And that look on the face is, indeed, the only thing in the world that we have really to fight between here and the fires of Hell. That which pedants of that time and this time would have called the sentimentalism of Dickens was really simply the detached sanity of Dickens. He cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Constitutional Conservatives; he cared nothing for the fugitive explanations of the Manchester School. He would have cared quite as little for the fugitive explanations of the Fabian Society or of the modern scientific Socialist. He saw that under many forms there was one fact, the tyranny of man over man; and he struck at it when he saw it, whether it was old or new. When he found that footmen and rustics were too much afraid of Sir Leicester Dedlock, he attacked Sir Leicester Dedlock; he did not care whether Sir Leicester Dedlock said he was attacking England or whether Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, said he was attacking an effete oligarchy. In that case he pleased Mr. Rouncewell, the Ironmaster, and displeased Sir Leicester Dedlock, the Aristocrat. But when he found that Mr. Rouncewell's workmen were much too frightened of Mr. Rouncewell, then he displeased Mr. Rouncewell in turn; he displeased Mr. Rouncewell very much by calling him Mr. Bounderby. When he imagined himself to be fighting old laws he gave a sort of vague and general approval to new laws. But when he came to the new laws they had a bad time. When Dickens found that after a hundred economic arguments and granting a hundred economic considerations, the fact remained that paupers in modern workhouses were much too afraid of the beadle, javals in ancient castles were much too afraid of the Dedlocks, then he struck suddenly and at once. This is what makes the opening chapters of Oliver Twist so curious and important. The very fact of Dickens's distance from, and independence of, the elaborate financial arguments of his time, makes more definite and dazzling his sudden assertion that he sees the old human tyranny in front of him as plain as the sun at noon-day. Dickens attacks the modern workhouse with a sort of inspired simplicity as a boy in a fairy tale who had wandered about, sword in hand, looking for ogres and who had found an indisputable ogre. All the other people of his time are attacking things because they are bad economics or because they are bad politics, or because they are bad science; he alone is attacking things because they are bad. All the others are Radicals with a large R; he alone is radical with a small one. He encounters evil with that beautiful surprise which, as it is the beginning of all real pleasure, is also the beginning of all righteous indignation. He enters the workhouse just as Oliver Twist enters it, as a little child.
This is the real power and pathos of that celebrated passage in the book which has passed into a proverb; but which has not lost its terrible humour even in being hackneyed. I mean, of course, the everlasting quotation about Oliver Twist asking for more. The real poignancy that there is in this idea is a very good study in that strong school of social criticism which Dickens represented. A modern realist describing the dreary workhouse would have made all the children utterly crushed, not daring to speak at all, not expecting anything, not hoping anything, past all possibility of affording even an ironical contrast or a protest of despair. A modern, in short, would have made all the boys in the workhouse pathetic by making them all pessimists. But Oliver Twist is not pathetic because he is a pessimist. Oliver Twist is pathetic because he is an optimist. The whole tragedy of that incident is in the fact that he does expect the universe to be kind to him, that he does believe that he is living in a just world. He comes before the Guardians as the ragged peasants of the French Revolution came before the Kings and Parliaments of Europe. That is to say, he comes, indeed, with gloomy experiences, but he comes with a happy philosophy. He knows that there are wrongs of man to be reviled; but he believes also that there are rights of man to be demanded. It has often been remarked as a singular fact that the French poor, who stand in historic tradition as typical of all the desperate men who have dragged down tyranny, were, as a matter of fact, by no means worse off than the poor of many other European countries before the Revolution. The truth is that the French were tragic because they were better off. The others had known the sorrowful experiences; but they alone had known the splendid expectation and the original claims. It was just here that Dickens was so true a child of them and of that happy theory so bitterly applied. They were the one oppressed people that simply asked for justice; they were the one Parish Boy who innocently asked for more.
Oliver Twist- The main character of the story, Oliver is an affection-starved little boy who will not commit crimes. He was abused as a young child, and only wants to be loved. His adventures make him the best of friends and the worst of enemies.
Nancy- A woman who works for Fagin and tries to help Oliver which eventually leads to her death. She is passionate, caring, and loves Sikes, who eventually kills her.
To Regain the Nature of Goodness
Review of ‘Oliver Twist’
Oliver Twist, one of the most famous works of Charles Dickens’, is a novel reflecting the tragic fact of the life in Britain in 18th century.
The author who himself was born in a poor family wrote this novel in his twenties with a view to reveal the ugly masks of those cruel criminals and to expose the horror and violence hidden underneath the narrow and dirty streets in London.
The hero of this novel was Oliver Twist, an orphan, who was thrown into a world full of poverty and crime. He suffered enormous pain, such as hunger, thirst, beating and abuse. While reading the tragic experiences of the little Oliver, I was shocked by his sufferings. I felt for the poor boy, but at the same time I detested the evil Fagin and the brutal Bill. To my relief, as was written in all the best stories, the goodness eventually conquered devil and Oliver lived a happy life in the end. One of the plots that attracted me most is that after the theft, little Oliver was allowed to recover in the kind care of Mrs. Maylie and Rose and began a new life. He went for walks with them, or Rose read to him, and he worked hard at his lessons. He felt as if he had left behind forever the world of crime and hardship and poverty.
How can such a little boy who had already suffered oppressive affliction remain pure in body and mind? The reason is the nature of goodness. I think it is the most important information implied in the novel by Dickens-he believed that goodness could conquer every difficulty. Although I don’t think goodness is omnipotent, yet I do believe that those who are kind-hearted live more happily than those who are evil-minded.
For me, the nature of goodness is one of the most necessary character for a person. Goodness is to humans what water is to fish. He who is without goodness is an utterly worthless person. On the contrary, as the famous saying goes, ‘The fragrance always stays in the hand that gives the rose’, he who is with goodness undoubtedly is a happy and useful person. People receiving his help are grateful to him and he also gets gratified from what he has done, and thus he can do good to both the people he has helped and himself.
To my disappointment, nowadays some people seem to doubt the existence of the goodness in humanity. They look down on people’s honesty and kindness, thinking it foolish of people to be warm-hearted. As a result, they show no sympathy to those who are in trouble and seldom offer to help others. On the other hand, they attach importance to money and benefit. In their opinion, money is the only real object while emotions and morality are nihility. If they cannot get profit from showing their ‘kindness’, they draw back when others are faced with trouble and even hit a man when he is down. They are one of the sorts that I really detest.
Francis Bacon said in his essay, ‘Goodness, of all virtues and dignities of the mind, is the greatest, being the character of the Deity, and without it, man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin.’
That is to say a person without goodness is destined to lose everything. Therefore, I, a kind person, want to tell those ‘vermin-to-be’ to learn from the kind Oliver and regain the nature of goodness. |
