Author: Nsomma Alilonu

Posted on

Oliver Twist and the Struggle of the Migrant Child for Justice in London

In Dickens’ Oliver Twist, Oliver descends into the world of criminals when the Artful Dodger introduces him to Fagin. Throughout the novel, Oliver is led across London by these criminals as they attempt to initiate him into a life of crime. Oliver’s migration around the city implicates the entire city as bystanders to his unjust treatment, thus placing London itself on trial. In this trial, London is charged with an indictment of injustice against a migrant child in need. Evidence of the city’s guilt emerges from a variety of sources: mob justice, the court system, and the policing system all fail to provide the migrant child with aid. Thus, by the end of the trial, there is little choice but to find London guilty of all charges.

The mob justice system is an incredibly potent force in the novel. It often acts as the first level of law enforcement before officers can arrive on the scene. This is especially evident in the passage where Oliver is chased by an angry mob after he is falsely accused of stealing a handkerchief. Here, Dickens writes of the pursuit:

“’Stop thief! Stop thief!’ There is a passion for hunting, something deeply implanted in the human breast. One wretched
breathless child, panting with exhaustion; terror in his looks;
agony in his eyes; large drops of perspiration streaming down
his face; strains every nerve to make head upon his pursuers; and
as they follow on his track, and gain upon him every instant,
they hail his decreasing strength with joy.” – Oliver Twist, Chapter 10

Oliver’s pursuers are not drawn into the chase because they’re concerned with the proper execution of justice; rather, they are enthralled by the thrill of the hunt. The language in this passage is so powerfully evocative of a predatory pack that the word ‘child’ can easily be replaced with the word ‘deer’. Dickens’ portrayal of the “attraction of repulsion” comes from a history of observing the attitudes of London bystanders in relation to capital punishment. In February 1946, Dickens wrote a letter about his experiences at Courvoisier’s hanging in 1840. He remarked that among the entire crowd he saw “no sorrow, no salutary terror, no abhorrence, no seriousness; nothing but ribaldry, debauchery, levity, drunkenness, and flaunting vice in fifty other shapes.” He further goes on to say “I should have deemed it impossible that I could have ever felt any large assemblage of my fellow-creatures to be so odious” (Horne). Dickens is repulsed by their lack of repulsion, a sentiment that emerges clearly in his references to mob justice carried out on an innocent child. He continues with this theme in the second instance Oliver is placed at the mercy of the crowd: when he is being kidnapped from Pentonville.

When Mr. Brownlow sends Oliver on a task to return some books to the book-stall in Clerkenwell, Nancy captures the boy by pretending he is her runaway brother. Despite Oliver’s protests, all of the looker-ons refused to believe him. Rather, they encouraged his kidnappers, even when Bill Sikes used violence:

“With these words, the man tore the volumes from
his grasp, and struck him on the head.
‘That’s right!’ cried a looker-on, from a garret-window. ‘That’s
the only way of bringing him to his senses!’
‘To be sure!’ cried a sleepy-faced carpenter, casting an
approving look at the garret-window.
‘It’ll do him good!’ said the two women.” –Oliver Twist, Chapter 15

Just as in the Clerkenwell mob, the crowd is unified by their approbation of punishment despite a lack of evidence proving the child’s guilt. There seems to be something about Oliver that makes him appear particularly culpable to the public eye. From the very beginning of his life, Oliver is classified as a ruffian. When Oliver was named by Mr. Bumble, he was given the last name “Twist”. “Twisted” was one of the slang words for “hanged” at the time, referring to the way one twisted as they swung on the rope (Horne). By giving Oliver this name, Mr. Bumble lays out his expectations for a young child born in poverty, as well as that of London society. Criminals were often sentenced to death by hanging, especially thieves. The Londoners predict that a child like Oliver is bound for the same fate. Nothing Oliver says seems to be enough to convince the crowd of his innocence, so much so that “overpowered by the conviction of the bystanders that he really was the hardened little wretch he was described to be” (ch. 10), Oliver gives up resistance.

Societal expectations for the migrant, impoverished child are not only evident in the city’s common crowd, but also in its court system. Oliver is shown no mercy by the judge, even when evidence against his involvement in the crime is produced by the officer. At the trial, the policeman gives his account of the events:

“The policeman, with becoming humility, related how
he had taken the charge; how he had searched Oliver, and
found nothing on his person; and how that was all he knew
about it. ‘Are there any witnesses?’ inquired Mr. Fang. ‘None,
your worship,’ replied the policeman.” – Oliver Twist, Chapter 11

Oliver is found innocent of the crime that he is charged with; however, he is still treated like a criminal. Right after receiving this evidence, the justice calls Oliver a young vagabond, branding him with the title of a criminal simply because Mr. Brownlow assumed Oliver to be connected with the thieves that had performed the crime. Moreover, the court dismisses the fear and illness of the boy, even when he faints in the courtroom:

“’I think he really is ill, your worship,’ remonstrated the
officer.
‘I know better,’ said Mr. Fang.
‘Take care of him, officer,’ said the old gentleman, raising his
hands instinctively; ‘he’ll fall down.’
‘Stand away, officer,’ cried Fang; ‘let him, if he likes.’
Oliver availed himself of the kind permission, and fell to the
floor in a fainting fit. The men in the office looked at each
other, but no one dared to stir.
‘I knew he was shamming,’ said Fang, as if this were
incontestable proof of the fact. ‘Let him lie there; he’ll soon
be tired of that.’” – Oliver Twist, Chapter 11

In the eyes of the court, Oliver didn’t deserve the kindness that would normally be shown to a child of his age on account of his possible association with criminality. Childhood is a social construct; who is perceived as a child varies between cultures, hence, the concept of child innocence also carries a sort of ambivalence. There is an ignorance expected of children at a certain age that makes it unreasonable to accuse them of a crime. Legally, in 19th century London, this age only extended as far as seven years old. Any child older than this would have to prove their innocence before a court of law. Oliver, who is older than seven when he is placed before the court, is not guaranteed protection because of his age. He is tried as any adult would be in a court of law, and unfairly. Hence, he is given a sentence of 3 months’ hard labor as he lays unconscious on the floor of the courtroom. Dickens’ juxtaposition of judgement and vulnerability in Oliver Twist emphasizes the city’s black and white approach to justice. In the robbery at Chertsey this juxtaposition resurfaces, demonstrating the importance of this idea in identifying the problems with London law enforcement.

Bill Sikes takes Oliver to Chertsey to break into the home of Mrs. Maylie and let the robbers inside. Oliver attempts to warn the family as soon as he enters the house, but in the process he gets shot in the arm. Abandoned by the robbers, Oliver is left with no choice but to crawl to the Maylie’s door and beg for assistance. When the child has begun to recover, he divulges his entire story to the doctor and Rose Maylie. Yet, even this does not seem to free Oliver in the eyes of the law. The doctor and Rose discuss Oliver’s predicament in this passage:

‘Surely,’ said Rose, ‘the poor child’s story, faithfully
repeated to these men, will be sufficient to exonerate him.’
‘I doubt it, my dear young lady,’ said the doctor, shaking
his head. ‘I don’t think it would exonerate him, either with
them, page or with legal functionaries of a higher grade.
What is he, after all, they would say? A runaway. Judged by
mere worldly considerations and probabilities,
his story is a very doubtful one.’ – Oliver Twist, Chapter 31

In the end, to prevent his arrest, the boy’s supporters have no choice but to cast doubt on the claim that Oliver was the same child who broke in through the window. The doctor firmly believed that if they had told the truth, Oliver could still be arrested while he was on the brink of death. This cold-hearted approach to justice appears to be an intense dramatization of a rather small crime. Indeed, Wolff speculates ‘if Dickens indulges in some displacement of affect, charging the issue of theft with the highest literary energy, it is because there may be more at stake than stealing. For Dickens himself theft was the first term, and the only criminally specific term, in a series that culminated in “all that’s bad.”’ Oliver Twist isn’t a novel about a child struggling against becoming a thief; rather, it is a novel about a child battling against total moral corruption. Hence, the punishment for becoming a thief, a choice that is comparative to becoming all that is evil, is most severe. However, Oliver wasn’t a thief, nor the willing associate of thieves. He was a sickly, weak, and wounded child. The fact that his story would not be accepted by London’s enforcers of justice is one of the greatest injustices in the novel. Indeed, a punishment so severe for a child so innocent threatens the very meaning of justice itself. Chertsey’s law enforcement, just like the law enforcement in other parts of the city, has failed Oliver.

In conclusion, Oliver Twist is a story that follows a migrant child and his struggle against the injustice of the city of London. London fails to prove Oliver’s guilt through a fair trial and questioning, instead assuming his criminality from the start; it fails to help him when his life is in danger; finally, it fails to believe him when he attempts to show his innocence. London is guilty of grave injustice to the migrant child; it is only through the kindness of individuals that Oliver is saved in the end.

Works Cited:
Dickens, Charles. Oliver Twist. Leigh Little.
Wolff, Larry. “”The Boys are Pickpockets, and the Girl is a Prostitute”: Gender and Juvenile Criminality in Early Victorian England from Oliver Twist to London Labour.” New Literary History, vol. 27 no. 2, 1996, p. 227-249. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/nlh.1996.0029.
Horne, Phillip. “Crime in Oliver Twist”. British Library. 15 May 2017. https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/crime-in-oliver-twist#. Accessed 3 May 2021.

Posted on

Charles Dickens Image Gallery

Posted on

Charles Dickens: A Brief Biography

Charles Dickens was born in Portsmouth on February 7, 1812 to a middle-class family. His father was a clerk in the navy pay office, a job that paid well, but due to John Dickens’ extravagance, became insufficient to support the family. By 1824 Charles’ father was put in debtor’s prison. Charles, who had the fortune of beginning education at 9, was forced to cut it short at age 12 by working at Warren’s blacking factory for 3 years. Charles resumed education after this 3-year retreat, but was soon removed once again to work as a clerk in a solicitor’s office. In 1833, he became a parliamentary journalist for The Morning Chronicle. There, he began writing a series of sketches under the pseudonym “Boz” and published the first installment of The Pickwick Papers in 1836, the same year he married his wife Catherine Hogarth. The Pickwick Papers became incredibly successful, launching his literary career.  He went on to publish an autobiography, author many books, edit weekly periodicals, write plays, and lecture against slavery in the United States. In 1865, he was in a train accident from which he never recovered. Five years later he had a stroke, ending his life.

Posted on

Hannah on the Threshold: Children of the Ghetto Commentary

‘The hands of the clock crept on. It was half-past nine. Hannah sat lethargic, numb, unable to think, her strung-up nerves grown flaccid, her eyes full of bitter-sweet tears, her soul floating along as in a trance on the waves of a familiar melody. Suddenly she became aware that the others had risen and that her father was motioning to her. Instinctively she understood; rose automatically and went to the door; then a great shock of returning recollection whelmed her soul. She stood rooted to the floor. Her father had filled Elijah’s goblet with wine and it was her annual privilege to open the door for the prophet’s entry. Intuitively she knew that David was pacing madly in front of the house, not daring to make known his presence, and perhaps cursing her cowardice. A chill terror seized her. She was afraid to face him—his will was strong and mighty; her fevered imagination figured it as the wash of a great ocean breaking on the doorstep threatening to sweep her off into the roaring whirlpool of doom. She threw the door of the room wide and paused as if her duty were done.

“Nu, nu,” muttered Reb Shemuel, indicating the outer door. It was so near that he always had that opened, too.

Hannah tottered forwards through the few feet of hall. The cloak and hat on the peg nodded to her sardonically. A wild thrill of answering defiance shot through her: she stretched out her hands towards them. “Fly, fly; it is your last chance,” said the blood throbbing in her ears. But her hand dropped to her side and in that brief instant of terrible illumination, Hannah saw down the whole long vista of her future life, stretching straight and unlovely between great blank walls, on, on to a solitary grave; knew that the strength had been denied her to diverge to the right or left, that for her there would be neither Exodus nor Redemption. Strong in the conviction of her weakness she noisily threw open the street door. The face of David, sallow and ghastly, loomed upon her in the darkness. Great drops of rain fell from his hat and ran down his cheeks like tears. His clothes seemed soaked with rain.

“At last!” he exclaimed in a hoarse, glad whisper. “What has kept you?”

“Boruch Habo! (Welcome art thou who arrivest)” came the voice of Reb Shemuel front within, greeting the prophet.

“Hush!” said Hannah. “Listen a moment.”‘ – Children of the Ghetto, Chapter 25

 

The passage above reflects the inner turmoil of Hannah, the daughter of a rabbi, as she chooses between running away with the man that she loves and remaining a part of her family.  It begins with a focus on time. She is thirty minutes late to meet David. As Hannah is caught in indecision, the focus on the slow, creeping movement of the hands of the clock in the first paragraph is important to increasing the suspense of the moment. This moment of suspense and fear is further captured by the anathema present in the articulation of Hannah’s feelings. “Her strung-up nerves…, her eyes…, her soul”, the structure of this sentence takes us into the interior life of Hannah. We more personally feel her panic in these lines as she is frozen with indecision.

The reasons for this indecision, a choice between her religion and her love, are partly revealed by references to previous points in the passage. “Her soul floating along as in a trance on the waves of a familiar melody” clearly refers to a moment earlier in the chapter when she sits with her father through the Seder service. When she hears the choir, she says that “the words seem fateful, pregnant with a special message”.  This message is all about adhering to the strict obedience of the very Law she is about to defy. Her guilt steered her back to the words of this song, making it more difficult for her to choose her lover over her religion.

Religion continues to play a role in the meaning of the passage as the Seder dinner continues. It is Hannah’s “annual privilege to open the door for the prophet’s entry”. In the Bible, Hannah gives birth to the prophet Samuel after fervent prayer to God.  In a matter of speaking, Hannah opens the door for the entry of the prophet into the world just as her namesake opens the door during the Seder dinner. Ironically, the person waiting outside the door is David, who is not the prophet Elijah nor a prophet in the Bible. In fact, the downfall of the biblical David resembles that of his namesake, for he falls in love with the wife of Uriah although it is unlawful for them to be together (2 Samuel 11).

Realizing that David would be waiting for her once she opened the door for Elijah is the “returning collection” that “whelmed her [Hannah’s] soul”, as it meant that she could no longer ignore David. The will of David to marry her is compared to a great ocean “threatening to sweep her off into the roaring whirlpool of doom”. This is likely a Biblical reference to the great flood. In this story, God sends a great flood upon the earth to wipe out the wickedness of humanity, preserving only the righteous, Noah’s family, in an ark. Here, it seems David is among the wicked and is doomed to drown Hannah as well as himself if she goes with him. Later in the passage, David is described as “soaked with rain”, his face “sallow and ghastly”, almost as if he was already drowned. To go with David would be to risk drowning and dying with him. This is further hinted to in the passage where it says “Hannah saw down the whole long vista of her future life,…on, on to a solitary grave”. She associates death with her life with David.

This is in contrast with Hannah’s thoughts earlier in the passage. She seems to desperately want to go with David before it’s too late. When she thinks “Fly, fly; it is your last chance”, it is suggestive of the Israelites flight from Egypt. Like her, they were fleeing persecution, but unlike her, they were being persecuted by the Egyptians, while Hannah is being persecuted by her own religion. This becomes even more important in the light of the fact that they are eating the Seder meal, the meal that commemorates the Israelites’ freedom from the Egyptians. In the original instructions for how this meal was to be eaten, Moses told the Israelites that they must eat the meal in haste, wearing sandals on their feet and holding their staff (Exodus 12:11), as if ready to make flight. Hannah, too, seeks to make flight, but hesitates. When she thinks of her choice, she feels defeated, saying “there would be neither Exodus nor Redemption”. Here, Exodus refers to the fact that she cannot flee, while Redemption could refer to her belief that she cannot be redeemed, or saved from her unhappiness, by David. Redemption could also refer to her unwillingness to abandon her religion, as Jesus is called the Redeemer (and Jesus is from the line of David). Either way, Hannah’s final lines of the passage clearly show that she has made up her mind. She chooses to listen to her father, who is greeting the prophet in Hebrew, rather than David, who is speaking in English. She is drawn back to her family and religion, leading her to finally reject David.

The historical context that this story is placed in is the late 19th century. During this time, the Jewish population in Cape Town, including people such as David, began to rapidly expand. The Eastern European Jews who came to Cape Town in this period shed the traditional garb and customs of Judaism for more Anglo-Jewish customs. Coming from such a background, David’s shock at such a strict adherence to the laws of Judaism is understandable. A kohein could not marry a divorcee, a convert, a promiscuous woman, a woman who is the offspring of a forbidden marriage to a kohein, or a woman who is the widow of a man who died childless but who has been released from the obligation to marry her husband’s brother. An ordinary Jewsh man is only prohibited from marrying certain close blood relatives, the ex-wives of certain close blood relatives, a woman who has not been validly divorced, the daughter or granddaughter of his ex-wife, or the sister of his ex-wife during the ex-wife’s lifetime (jewishvirtuallibrary.org). We can see from this that the title of kohein changes much of what is expected by Jewish law, expectations that David was unwilling to reckon with. It is through exploring this context that we’re better able to understand the events that happened in Children of the Ghetto.

Posted on

St. Giles District: A Walk Down High Holborn

It’s a sunny day in London, weather so rare you decide you’d better not waste it.  It has been raining the past two days, giving you an excuse to put off getting a new cabinet. But now that the rain has let up, you decide you’d better go to the cabinet manufacturer on High Holden to purchase one. If only your sons hadn’t been so clumsy bringing in the furniture from the cart when you moved into St. Giles District last week. Fortunate for you, you had found steady work quite quickly, thus could afford such expenses. Besides, if you put it off any longer, Margaret, your wife, would surely have your head.

Turning left on Museum Street, you take the cart down High Holden. Immediately you can hear the sounds of activity. No one seemed to want to waste this day. The shouts of sturdy men reach your ears over the noise of your grinding cartwheels as they heave enormous bundles of linen into the Linen and Wool Draper’s.  A line has already formed outside Ferguson’s Grand Exhibition. You wondered what could be showing today. Perhaps later in the day you could take the family out to see. Moving on, you see a marvelous display of paper hangings outside the Paper Hanging Manufacturer and Decorator’s, resplendent with bright colors and beautiful patterns. You stop by to admire the wallpaper for a little while, but once prompted to buy something, you quickly excuse yourself to continue on your mission. Coming upon the cabinet manufacturer’s at last, you pick a cabinet about the same size and design as the one you had before. The price is ridiculous! After arguing with the shopkeeper for a good while, you finally settle for a smaller cabinet at a more reasonable price, loading it into your cart. You hope Margaret won’t notice the difference.

A trip on High Holborn, passing Lincoln’s Inn Hall, a hotel, two inns, and the circus.

You could turn back to Museum Street, but instead you decide to venture a little further down High Holden. You had seen so little of this district since you moved in on account of the rain: it was about time you became a little more acquainted with it.  Passing New Oxford Street, you stop for a bite in Holborn Restaurant. You hadn’t eaten all morning, after all. Pushing forward, you admire the dignified Lincoln’s Inn Hall from a distance. You had never seen such buildings on the countryside; it was truly magnificent.  Your faithful horse trods past two inns and a hotel, leading you to wonder why there are so many temporary rooms in the city. You are shaken from your thoughts upon hearing the sounds of a chittering monkey. It was walking on its hands across a rope suspended between two long poles. You are surrounded the by the sounds of festive music, see giants, dwarfs, and all sorts of wonders. You have arrived at the Holborn Circus. You have never seen a circus before! Spending hours among the entertainers, you quite forget yourself until the sun begins to set. Cursing yourself for your forgetfulness, you set on the path home again, picking up a cake from Holborn restaurant to mollify Margaret. This time, she would have your head.

Posted on

St. Giles District: Flight from Overpopulation

St. Giles District gained and lost a large percentage of its population at the beginning and end of the 19th century respectively. From 1801 to 1811, the population made a huge leap from 36,502 people to 48, 536 people, a dramatic increase of about 33%. After this initial jump, the population change of St. Giles slows down to near-zero around 1831, changing little for 4 decades. Between 1871 and 1881 this suddenly changes as the population dramatically declines to around 45,000, a 16% decrease.

These changes can only be understood in the context of the rest of London and population density. St. Giles District remained in the highest category for population density throughout the 19th century. It’s a small district, but its central location and short distance from the city of London likely made it attractive for incomers from the countryside. Moreover, at the beginning of the 19th century, those areas closer to London tended to be more developed, allowing for a higher concentration of people to live and find work there. As the century progressed, however, more areas started to be developed. Given that the population density of St. Giles was so high, it’s likely that its denizens decided to move away from this area into the less occupied areas now more available to them.

This trend is mirrored in the different metropolitan districts of London. The categories on the map indicating population density are colored from light to dark. Lighter colors represent a smaller population density, while darker colors represent a larger population density.  Visually, the interactive map displays an inverse relationship between the darkness of the colors for central districts and time. This shows that as time progressed, many people moved from the center of London to the This creates a stronger argument that more occupations may have become available in the less populated districts as they developed. Thus, living in areas with a smaller population density may have allowed for more comfortable living and better job security due to a decrease in competition, creating an incentive for people to leave the center of London.

The argument for an increase in the development of areas further away from the center of London is further supported by observing the distribution of institutions over time. At the beginning of the century, most institutions are located in the center of London, but by 1890 the quantity of institutions grew and the institutions themselves became more evenly distributed, creating opportunities for more people to live in areas of smaller population density.

Posted on

St. Giles District: Charitable Institutions on the Rise (1801 – 1890)

So much of London’s history involves a series of adaptations to shifting environments over time that poets have remarked the only constant in London is change. This is no less true for the metropolitan St. Giles District of London during the 19th century. Beginning with a workhouse and a hospital for poor married women in the period of 1801-1810, the district was already concerned with serving the poor in the area. This concern only expanded as time went by.

Three decades later more charitable institutions are added: two refuges for destitute boys and an association for improving the housing conditions of the poor. The refuges for the destitute boys gave the children basic necessities such as food and clothing.  The children were also put to work; they could learn trades like shoemaking,  tailoring clothes, and housework, or get sent to a farm,  the American colonies, or training ships to learn their trades.  Twenty years later a girl’s refuge was open as well, but closed by 1881. Here, girls were also trained for jobs, but instead as laundrywomen and house servants. It’s difficult to say why there were more refuges for boys than girls, however, one may speculate that the refuges may have derived much of their income from training children for trades, therefore, valued boys more than girls given the wider variety of trades available to males. The creation of these additional institutions showed how poverty increased in the district over time.  As children who lived in poverty couldn’t be supported by their families either due to their being deceased or an inability to find adequate work, these refuges were their only option.  The need for the association relating to housing conditions was also very telling of the poverty in this district. Housing security remained a large concern as slums were demolished and the poor evicted, hence the continued existence of this association up to 1890 and possibly beyond.

A sketch from the Victorian era of the slums near the refuges for destitute boys in St. Giles District.

Beginning in 1875, new charities began to enter the scene. Missionaries came to serve the poor in lodging house kitchens. In the next decade, when the missionaries and the girls’ refuge had left, an orphanage and almshouse were added to the district.  In this way, the number of charitable organizations increased or remained the same as the century progressed.  Moreover, the concerns of the organizations also remained the same: to house the poor and to take care of the children. The new organizations simply did this work in different ways.  While the refuges were gendered and oriented around teaching children a trade, the orphanage was open to any child who had lost a father or both parents and provided an education in addition to basic necessities.

 

 

Posted on

Test Post: An Ode to Redmond, WA

A picture of Redmond, WAI’ve been told all my life that I’m a minimalist, and although I find that to be a little extreme, it’s more or less true. So long as I’m well-fed, safe, and have comfy clothes, I am quite content. So, when I was told I would be relocating to Redmond for my internship, I didn’t give it any thought. I wanted to intern at Microsoft, it was in Redmond, so I was in Redmond.

Perhaps it was this lack of expectation that made the city so remarkable to me. Much like an infant marvels at the things an adult considers mundane, I was awestruck by Redmond’s beauty, efficiency, and cleanliness. I enjoyed being outside so much that I would take the hour-long walk from work to my room just to appreciate the city. Bikes crossed my path from time to time, but on these walks I was mostly alone and at peace, gazing at the mountains in the distance and listening to the chirps of the birds flying overhead.

Should I ever wish to experience something more exciting, I could rely on the public transportation system. The buses were punctual, clean, and rarely crowded. My internship allowed me a free bus pass, so I used it whenever I could. In my down time I travelled to the movies, apartments to meet friends for the fourth of July, and festivals throughout the summer. Once, I even went on a hike (despite my lack of physical preparedness for such a feat) so I could better enjoy the nature in the area. I loved being in Redmond, and I hope I get a chance to visit again!