The poverty of Victorian London was, though not unlike in kind from poverty elsewhere, unique in its concentration, its ubiquity, and its endless variety of cruelties. As documented by Henry Mayhew, the London poor engaged in so many endeavors to sustain themselves, that there were literally thousands -- mostly children -- who specialized in a single 'profession' such as collecting dog droppings (referred to as "pure"), dragging the mud of the Thames at low tide ("mudlarks"), or sweeping the filth from the streets so the "better sort" could cross unsullied. Street-vendors sold every many of goods from coffee and tea to ballads and oysters. Those working on the streets offered entertainments as well -- Punch-and-Judy, the Chinese Shades, and even a street-exhibition of views of the Moon via telescope. The poor, however poor they were, also had at least some entertainments of their own, among them the raree-show and the "penny gaff" -- the latter a sort of tawdry theatre full of obscene songs and guffawing, often set up in an empty storefront on a short-term basis. Mayhew's description of his visit to one is hilarious for his breathless condemnation of all he sees and hears -- but in the case, as with others of his hundreds of columns for the Morning Chronicle, he figuratively held his nose in order to obtain the first-person accounts of the darker corners of London which had become, oddly, a source of entertainment for his middle-class readership.
Charles Dickens, remembered to this day as a champion of the poorer classes in his fiction, had a complex relationship with the actual poor. On the one hand, he inveighed against the worser sort of public "solutions" to poverty, such as workhouses and ragged schools. On the other, he became a sort of voyeur of poverty, extending his "Night Walks" to the worst parts of London, often in the company of his redoubtable guide, Chief Inspector Charles Frederick Field of Scotland Yard. And, as we'll see in Hard Times, he took a very critical view of the sort of "education" provided to the poor.
The late great Victorianist Richard Altick documented those schools in his groundbreaking work the English Common Reader, in which he showed that the real goal of such schools was to keep the poor in their place, rather than to give them any way to move up the class ladder. Indeed, as he documents, the educational methods used -- rote memorization, drills, and quizzes -- were so harsh that many who learned to read at them never read after completing their studies -- merely to open a book was to bring back nightmares.
NEW: Have a look at the uncanny resemblance the standards and assumptions of the 19th-century and those of the "latest" Common Core Curriculum!
The life of a Mudlark is an unfulfilling and laborious job that often does not pay much and is an occupation that children around 8-15 take in order to sustain themselves. As the passage of a young boy states, “About two year ago I left school, and commenced to work as a mudlark on the river, in the neighbourhood of Millwall, picking up pieces of coal and iron, and copper, and bits of canvas on the bed of the river, or of wood floating on the surface” (London Labor). This acknowledges that families were often so poor they could not support their child to pursue an education and therefore they had to work in order to survive. A Mudlark would go to the beach and pick up anything they could find to sell in the neighborhood and were paid very little for their efforts though depending on the day they were able to profit more or less. For example, “the mudlarks generally have a pound of bread to breakfast, and a pint of beer when they can afford it… They often have no dinner” (London Labor). These children would have been lucky to find enough and sell enough extra food and drink and on the occasion a nice place to sleep depending on the day and according to the boy, he was more successful in the winter than the summer as he was healthy enough to endure the cold and therefore, more findings for him. “Yet in winter we generally are more successful than in the long days of summer. There are generally thirteen or fourteen mudlarks about Limehouse in the summer, and about six boys steadily there in the winter, who are strong and hardy, and well able to endure the cold” (London Labor). A job such as this is bound to take a toll on a child’s mind and as for the boy in this passage, he is tired of this unfulfilling work. He has been stealing other findings in hopes to plan to find a Captain that can hopefully give in a new life at sea. “I have been in the habit of stealing pieces of rope, lumps of coal, and other articles for the last two years… It is my intention to go to sea, as my brothers have done, so soon as I can find a captain to take me on board his ship” (London Labor).
ReplyDeleteAgustin Custer
As mentioned in the above blog post, though Dickens wrote as almost a champion for the poor, he seems to be less of a champion in reality. In reading “A Walk in the Workhouse,” I found that Dickens seems to want everyone to tell him that everything is alright (though obviously it is not). When he begins questioning the old men who do not answer him, Dickens becomes more and more upset before one old man and a nurse finally begin to speak and give him answers. They explain the six-ounce ration of bread and that it is simply not enough for anyone, but most definitely not a person who is also ill. Dickens seems to almost understand this (in my opinion) but does not do anything to rectify this.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison, Inspector Field opens his pocket to the Irishman and is sure to set the condition that is to be shared amongst all. Inspector Field seems more actually sympathetic to these people and more solution-oriented. Dickens seems more interested in making himself satisfied or finding satisfaction in the workhouse even though he is aware of the Death that is coming. He even mentions that “The dropped child seemed too small and poor a thing for Death to be in earnest with, but Death had taken it…” anyway.
Death is also mentioned in “On Duty with Inspector Field,” but Dickens’ focus here lies more with the respect that the people have for Inspector Field. When they are standing amongst a variety of criminals, they all freeze– none of them try to get away, try to avoid being caught. This is because “they know the weight of the law and they know Inspector Field and Co. too well.” Inspector Field’s presence demands respect while Dickens’ does not. He does not hold the same power or openness that Inspector Field does, and this makes him less respectable and seemingly, less familiar with the people around him.
I wanted to highlight some of the observations I made in Dickens "A Walk in the Workhouse". Dickens mentions some sad truths that he noticed while observing the workers such as people wiping their eyes with dirty handkerchiefs, dirty looking people, and the age range of people working in these horrid places ranging from children to elderly. During this time, having a job was normalized no matter what age you were. It is really sad to hear the descriptions of these people in these work places, especially knowing that children were there. Additionally, although Dickens observations are depressing to know, it also brings awareness to the wrong doings of the time period Dickens lived in. His observations bring light to child labor, disabled people working in the same conditions as others, and the horrible mental state the workers were in. During the time period, this was seen as normal but Dickens sees this work place as controversial.
ReplyDeleteJessica Fandino
In Charles Dicken’s A Walk in the Workhouse, Dickens explains the appalling conditions of a Victorian era workhouse. He claims that the workhouses were inhabited by paupers who were made up of “evil looking women… beetle browed young men,” most of which were in “very weak and impotent condition,” with subdued and depressed faces. Dicken’s observation showed readers how people in the workhouse were being treated. He explained how there was a huge age range from children to elderly. He explained how the people looked dirty, sickly and they were being treated poorly. The workhouse was a place that brought out the worst in people, for example child labor and the horrible mental and physical state that those people were in during that time. Dicken’s saw this as a huge problem when most people saw this as very normal circumstance during this time period.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of Dickens’ relationship with his fictional poor in comparison to the actual poor of London, I think it is of intrigue to look into the sick romanticism of poverty. Often, people look to poverty in fiction as an almost and twisted “aesthetic” or a lifestyle. On the other hand, when encountered with poverty in real life, these same people would refer to poverty as anything but a lifestyle. This is something that transcends the time in which Dickens wrote, as this is an issue that has come to light in modern media thanks to modern platforms, such as Instagram and Tik Tok.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how we as a society decide to put certain people on pedestals based on completely fictional representations of themselves. Oftentimes, these same idols end up not being worth the celebration they are hailed for. Overall, it is interesting food for thought.
I decided to read Henry Mayhew’s introduction in his second edition of London Labour and the London Poor. In this introduction he expresses the reason for this research, which is to give an accurate description of “London Street-Folk” because the government’s description of them is never correct. Mayhew gives us an overview of the census that he has recorded and tells us the categories of these vendors, including the children. The fourth paragraph, as discernable from white space although the section itself being one sentence, made me stop and repeat the list of “mineral productions” as one of them was simply “coke.” The rest of the list included salt and sand, indeed general minerals a Londonite might need. Then, is coke a necessity? I don’t know much about the history of it, but was it a substitute for a pain killer or were people addicted already and would thus need an available supply? I wonder if we could compare this point in time to the 1900s where Big Tobacco had everyone buying cigarettes and cigars with a little help from Nicotine.
ReplyDelete- Spock Nardone
The passage about the young woman in Dickens' account of the Workhouse stands out to me. I find it in poor taste to use this individual to spout some benign commentary about class disparity. I am inclined to agree that his aim is a sort of hard-boiled gritty aesthetic rather than actual felt compassion. It feels like he is aiming for a sort of gratuitous masochism where all the well-to-do readers can admonish this 23 year old "girl" for not being poor enough. He plants this seed of felony upon her, but what about everyone else? Wouldn't that logic apply to literally everyone in the building? Or at the very least himself?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, and perhaps more importantly though this is an account he does still get to choose his language in description, and by singling her out with this hypothetical felony nonsense as well as contrasting her to all the other inmates he is maintaining the status quo. Even while literally destitute she is still not a part of the surrounding “witches” and dirty “madwomen.”
I also notice his usage of nature in reference to the inmates—“groves of babies in arms; groves of mothers and other sick women in bed; groves of lunatics; jungles of men…” Is this further alienating them from his urban readers?
I chose to read the Charles dickens work "A walk in the work house" and was somewhat surprised upon reading it. The reading has Dickens walking through a workhouse, expecting certain things like guards and people to stop him at the front. None of that is there, instead he is met with children and women, doing jobs. As well as weird looking people going about their business and Dickens hoping they just go right along there marry way. This reading really give insight into the lives of children back in old England, when they were allowed to work in a workhouse, and potentially get injured. Severely injured, and then the children might still try to work even after said injury.
ReplyDelete- Dylan Brazil
Reading chapter six of The English Common Reader, I remembered a passage from the introduction of Terry Eagleton’s Ideology where he claims that dominant powers legitimate themselves in many ways, one of them being “by promoting beliefs and values congenial to it; naturalizing and universalizing such beliefs so as to render them self-evident and apparently inevitable,” (Eagleton 5). Through this perspective, it’s easier to feel differently about Dickens, despite his fetishization of poverty. I think the utilitarian philosophy seen in chapter six, especially in a profoundly class-stratified society as the one Dickens was part of, seems seductive.
ReplyDeleteWhen people are condemned to subhuman labor and living conditions they start to believe that inferiority is inherent to them as opposed to being inflicted by social inequality. Dickens, despite his undeniable talent and eye for characters, was a man of his time. When the Visit to the Workhouse paper was published (1850) was only two years after the communist manifesto had been published, a work that is pivotal in understanding the restraint class had on people who couldn’t even make enough money to get by, when the life expectancy was between 40-42. I’d argue some people today don’t have the sensibility that Dickens had while looking at his less-favored contemporaries. From this perspective, I look forward to the future (if there is one) where we acknowledge all the dreadful ways in which we perpetuate what we assumed were customs inherent to our society, for the sake of a more equal, pro-social policies that benefit collective ideas.
Matheus Moraes
I think what was the most interesting part to me was when the work environment was described and the laborers who keep everything together. It is explained that people of all ages were working their happiness away just to make ends meet in that era and today in age anyone that has a camera and can create content can make millions of dollars daily with the power of social media. It really shows how much we've grown as a society and how easy things have gotten over the years and people still find the need to complain. And I still have the strong belief that in the future things will get even easier than they are now; hard work is difficult to come by these days!
ReplyDeleteA walk in the Workhouse mentions and portrays how the workers were looked dirty and explained the horrible work environments. It really saddens me that during this time it was normalized to put workers through these work environments without repercussions. Also child labor was popular during this time and I couldn’t imagine putting my child through these extensive jobs with unhealthy conditions.
ReplyDeleteA Walk in the Workhouse by Charles Dickens is a very telling and sorrowful description of the life of poverty in London during the Victorian era. Dickens grew up poor himself - as his father had financial difficulties - forcing Dickens to work at a factory at age 12 to support his family. Since Dickens understood and empathized with the tribulations of poverty, it’s no surprise his writing reflected that. A Walk in the Workhouse is not a work of fiction, and is quite literally Dickens walking through Whitechapel workhouse and describing his observations and encounters. His writing is concise yet forthcoming, and doesn’t force the reader to feel sorry for the paupers but rather, it feels like we are walking with Dickens through the workhouse. Dickens doesn’t need to force feelings of commiseration; it just happens naturally as a result of what he describes. He describes “squalid” conditions, very ill and feeble people, and a nurse finding a dead baby. It seemed the whole attitude of the entire population of the workhouse had “[a] sullen or lethargic indifference to what was asked” and “resentful desire to be left alone again” (Dickens). This makes sense as the conditions of the workhouse didn’t create a copasetic atmosphere. A Walk in the Workhouse really encapsulated the reality of life of poverty in London during the Victorian era by engendering commiseration but in a respectful and meaningful way.
ReplyDelete