Charles Dickens’ Bleak House is a novel with an extensive cast of characters, ranging from all walks of life. More importantly, Dickens critiques and satirises characters from different social classes. The Industrial Revolution had caused a major change during the Victorian era, which gave the opportunity to middle and lower-class citizens to break free of their servitude and acquire wealth for themselves. Louis Crompton writes Dickens’ biting satirisation and symbolism of the diverse set of characters in the novel “intensifies the novel’s satiric meaning” (Crompton 2). Indeed, the members of the aristocratic class, symbolised by the Dedlock family, are often depicted as helpless and emasculated. The novel’s depiction of Chancery Courts, the symbol of the nation’s justice system, also critiques its utter lack of efficiency, where “justice delayed is justice denied”. As Gridley and Richard Carstone tragically pin their hopes on the Law to bring them wealth in inheritance only to be bankrupted in the end, we further see the failings of the so-called aristocratic dream. The Dedlocks continue with their lives of leisure, happily indifferent to “the suffering of members” (Donovan 2). In contrast, Esther Summerwood and Mr. Bucket, both middle-class characters display social responsibility as the readily come to the needs of the poor and needy. This essay will examine several characters central to the story of Bleak House. I argue that Dickens depicts an ailing, socially indifferent aristocratic class and inefficient justice system as counterpoint to the rising socially responsible middle-class in the form of Esther Summerwood.
The opening scenes of Bleak House offers a perfect introduction to the world of Chancery, which is depicted as inefficient and corrupt:
The raw afternoon is rawest, and the dense fog is densest, and the muddy streets are muddiest near that leaden-headed old obstruction, appropriate ornament for the threshold of a leaden-headed old corporation, Temple Bar. And hard by Temple Bar, in Lincoln’s Inn Hall, at the very heart of the fog, sits the Lord High Chancellor in his High Court of Chancery.
(Dickens 8)
Dickens uses superlatives in “densest” and “muddiest” to describe the overwhelming filth and grime surrounding the Court of Chancery. The imagery of the dirt and filth which encircle the Court allude to its corrupt and inefficient status. The “dense fog” surrounding the Court further alludes to a sense of confusion. The unnecessary obtrusiveness and opacity of Jarndyce and Jarndyce quickly becomes a recurring theme in the novel. Rather than make good on the Law and enact Justice, the Court blinds and distorts cases just as the literal fog surrounding it does. Dickens describes the Court building and the institution itself as “a leaden-headed old corporation”. By doing so, he implies that the Court has become antiquated and outdated in its ways whilst refusing to change. He suggests that the Court, having become old and inefficient, is ripe for reform.
It is hence intensely ironic that the victims of Chancery are all middle-class citizens. As the lawyers of Chancery, such as Mr. Vholes, delay and obstruct their cases to their own monetary benefit, ordinary citizens like Richard Carstone and Gridley are bankrupted and confused by their lawyers, while those in power “remain persistently remote and insensitive: their sins are not sins of passion but sins of neglect.” (Crompton 3) Mr. Vholes is a middle-class lawyer who bribes Mr. Skimpole to introduce him to Richard Carstone, such that he can profit off the insolvable Jarndyce and Jarndyce case. Mr. Vhole is described by Dickens as looking at Richard “as if he were looking at his prey and charming it” as a “gaunt pale horse with its ears pricked up” watches on (Dickens 796). Dickens suggests that Mr. Vhole’s existence is a predatory one. As he is the hunter, his clients are his prey. Dickens’ narrator makes clear that the “one great principle of the English Law, is to make business for itself” (Dickens 815). Mr. Vholes knows that Richard’s case is unsolvable. He only intends to profit off his legal fees, making “business for itself”. In the scene, Mr. Vholes persuades Richard to leave his friends and return to London with him, as there has been an improvement in the case. We see that Mr. Vholes latches onto Richard parasitically, seducing him with imaginary wealth. While his countenance is friendly and welcoming, the “pale gaunt horse” in the background alludes to biblical imagery, where Death’s personification rides a pale horse. Dickens makes clear to the reader that Mr. Vholes intends to bankrupt Richard, the horse foreshadowing his impending demise.
Crompton accurately notes Mr. Vhole’s similarity to a “vole”, a field mouse, “consequently evok the image of a parasite that destroys crops” (Crompton 18). The symbolism of Vhole’s names emphasise two points. The first is known to us, that Mr. Vhole’s is a parasitic existence. The second is that Richard and Vhole’s clients are “crops”, entities full of potential in themselves, but ruined by their exposure to the exploitative lawyers of Chancery. We can then assert that Richard’s hubris, according to Dickens, is in trusting in the corrupt system of Chancery instead of making a living on his own. Richard is famously indecisive, pursuing different professions and eventually abandoning them and relying on the Court of Chancery to supply him with wealth. Instead of embodying middle-class values and dedicating himself to a profession, Richard falls for the false promise of aristocratic life which Chancery seduces him with. Richard wishes to live a life of leisure like the Dedlocks and other aristocrats, which is what leads to his downfall. Dickens clearly shows that the path of the aristocrat is the wrong one, decaying and corrupt as it may be.
In ‘Bleak House: The Social Pathology of Urban Life’, F.S. Schawzbach highlights that the fog and grime surrounding the city of London is not merely figurative:
ost of the mud rots and festers, soon producing infectious effluvia that are blown by the raw East Wind back over the city. This is the stuff of the novel’s dense fog, a fog that spreads disease wherever it is inhaled — which is to say, as the novel insists, everywhere To say, then, as often has been said, that the mud and fog are symbols of social malaise is to miss the point entirely: Dickens is pointing to a literal economy of filth and disease that functions not as symbol but as fact to poison the very air his readers breathe, according to scientific laws as inexorable as those of gravity.
(Scharwzbach 4)
Scharwzbach highlights the extent of the urban pollution in London. While the “dense fog” and “muddy streets” of London symbolise the outdatedness and corruption of Chancery Court, the “literal economy of filth and disease” form a toxic cloud which London’s residents are forced to breathe in. Dickens’ depiction of London as such hence highlights the indifference of the city’s ruling aristocratic class to its citizens’ plight. They allow the streets of London to be caked in mud and turn a blind eye to slums such as Tom-All-Alone’s. The city is not only unable to enact Justice readily through Chancery, it is literally unwilling to “clean its own streets and purify its own drinking water” (5). Dickens hence highlights the pathology of London. It is corrupt and filthy in both literal and figurative meanings. The ruling class have abdicated responsibility to care for the city.
The aristocratic Dedlock family perhaps best symbolise the ailing, stagnant aristocracy. In Dickens’ depiction of Chesney Wold, the Dedlocks’ abode, he describes rain, “ever falling” (Dickens 127), as a mastiff “recall the house full of company, the coach-houses full of vehicles, the stables fall of horses, and the out-buildings full of attendants upon horses” (128). The imagery of never-ending rain conveys a mood of despair and hopelessness. Dickens’ depiction of the mastiff recalling the glory days of the Dedlocks’ abode highlight the current stagnation of the aristocracy. In its heyday, Chesney Wold was a lively place, “full of company”, but now it is eerily silent, where a noises “lead off to ghosts and mystery” (129). The ghost metaphor is a poignant one: ghosts are borne of spirits from the past who have come back to haunt the living. The Dedlocks appear to lead a similar existence. The once glorious family has become antiquated and ancient, relegated to hosting dinner parties and living lives of leisure. The Dedlocks have abandoned their social responsibility: they do nothing to help or change the city. As the ghost is a symbol of death, Dickens foreshadows the imminent collapse of the Dedlock family. The aristocrats who frequent the Dedlocks’ parties are stuck in the ways of the past. The men cling to the ways of the past, parading the dying style of dandyism. The women agree to keep the world “languid and pretty” and refuse to be “disturbed by ideas” (242). Dickens depicts the aristocrats as refusing to see the ugliness of the reality of the world around them. They see the world through “a smooth glaze”, preferring to keep the status quo while ignoring the abject living conditions that many of London’s citizens live in. They are staunchly conservative and refuse to tolerate new and challenging ideas. It is clear that the aristocrats are the “ghosts” of Chesney Wold, antiquated in their ways. The Dedlocks rely on society being unchanging to preserve their elite status. In doing so, they commit the “sins of neglect” (Crompton 3). The Dedlocks and the other aristocrat abandon their social responsibility to work and provide for society. As they carry out their anachronistic dinner balls, smallpox and other diseases ravage the city. Dickens satirises the aristocratic class, showing them as antediluvian “ghosts” who haunt modern society. Most importantly, they abdicate their social responsibility to help the people of the city, preferring to keep a status quo of disease and filth for their own benefit.
As mentioned earlier, scholars like Crompton understand the main theme of Bleak House to be that of responsibility (Donovan 4). Much of London lies in abject mud and decay. But evil, in the Dickensian sense, is the crime of indifference. Dickens’ social critique serves to “render intelligible and vivid the consequences of this social impasse” (4). We witness through the eyes of Esther Summerson the deliberate corruption of Chancery, the parasitic entities upon the legal system in the form of Mr. Vholes and the conscious side-stepping of “ugly” social issues by the aristocrats. The aristocratic ruling class and Chancery are not only incompetent, but malignant blights on Victorian England, in grave need of social reform. As the aristocracy and Chancery symbolise the great “evil” of society, the abdication of responsibility, we observe that Esther Summerson, the middle-class protagonist of Bleak House, serves as a counterpoint to their thematic indifference. It is such that Dickens rejects aristocratic values as anachronistic and outdated, whereas Esther’s middle-class values are espoused. Olga Stuchebrukhov writes in ‘Bleak House As An Allegory For A Middle Class Nation’:
As a result of her moral progress, Esther overcomes the stigma of her illegitimate birth and turns into the “queen” of those middle class virtues Dickens defines as the desired national norm. Esther’s journey exemplifies the middle class idea of self-improvement, the ability to overcome vanity, egotism, and passion through reason. This ability for self-improvement is opposed to the aristocratic essentialism, the idea that legitimacy is determined by heredity instead of personal merits. it is based on the balance between duty and personal happiness, self-respect and self-sacrifice, intuition and reason. On the other hand, the aristocratic state and its law are depicted in the novel as elitist, inefficient, irrational, and morally unsound
(Stuchebrukhov 1)
As an orphan figure, Esther serves as a counterpoint to the aristocratic ruling class. Aristocrats like Volumnia Dedlock obtain their wealth through “hereditary” merits. She lives a parasitic existence, relying on Sir Leicester Dedlock to provide her with money and status. On the other hand, Esther is an illegitimate child. She is not of aristocratic blood, and cannot put a claim on familial wealth. Instead, she creates her own worth through an “ability for self-improvement”, becoming a guardian to Ada and Richard. When Jo, a small child who lives in the slums becomes sick with smallpox, she immediately takes him into her house without fear of infection and selflessly cares for him. Esther’s actions contrast Chancery’s inefficiency in solving legal cases. While the aristocrats delay or turn a blind eye to the socially weak, Esther restores the “original maxims of equity” (3) by taking care of Jo. Even when she is horribly scarred by the illness, she stands by her decision to care for him. Stuchebrukhov argues that by the end of the novel, Esther becomes “the guardian of the socially weak” when she and her husband Woodcourt “symbolically and literally take care of the whole community” (3). Esther Summerson has a fertility motif that is emphasised in the novel, both by her name and the places she lives in (Crompton 7). By the end of the novel, Dickens depicts Esther’s home Bleak House as “thr[iving” with a country garden and growlery (Dickens 1303). Esther is clearly represented as a restoring figure. She lifts up the socially weak and restores order to society, sometimes at great risk to herself. As such, we understand Esther Summerson as one of the only socially responsible characters of Bleak House, and hence Dickens espouses the middle-class values which she embodies.
In conclusion, we see that Dickens crafts a masterful social critique by orchestrating a diverse cast of characters. Bleak House, being a “novel without a center” (Donovan 22), gives the reader a glimpse into the far-reaching consequences of the aristocrats’ inefficiency. Dickens critiques aristocratic values and Chancery by satirically depicting their antiquated, inefficient ways. We see that the aristocrats commit the “sin of neglect”, wilfully turning a blind eye to the dreadful state of the city. On the other hand, the middle-class Esther Summerson serves as a counterpoint to the inept bureaucracy. Esther selflessly gives aid to the socially weak, essentially becoming a “guardian to the socially weak” (Stuchebrukhov 3). While the aristocrats are painfully slow to give aid, Esther administers it efficiently and selflessly. As such, we see that Esther contrasts the aristocrats by fulfilling her social responsibility of helping the weak, and that Dickens espouses the middle-class values which she embodies.
2512 words
Works Cited
Crompton, Louis. “Satire and Symbolism in Bleak House.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 12, no. 4, University of California Press, 1958, pp. 284–303, https://doi.org/10.2307/3044425.
Dickens, Charles. Bleak House. Wordsworth Editions, 1993.
Donovan, Robert A. “Structure and Idea in Bleak House.” ELH, vol. 29, no. 2, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962, pp. 175–201, https://doi.org/10.2307/2871854.
Schwarzbach, F.S. “Bleak House: The Social Pathology of Urban Life.” Literature and Medicine, vol. 9, 1990, p. 93-104. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/lm.2011.0162.
Stuchebrukhov, Olga. “BLEAK HOUSE AS AN ALLEGORY OF A MIDDLE-CLASS NATION.” Dickens Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, 2006, pp. 147-168,214. ProQuest, https://remotexs.ntu.edu.sg/user/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/bleak-house-as-allegory-middle-class-nation/docview/214146029/se-2?accountid=12665.