THE OVERTHROW OF COERCION.
Dickens, in the preface to Nicholas Nickleby, states that, as Pickwick
Papers had given him an audience, he determined to carry out a
long-cherished plan and write for the purpose of driving out of existence
a class of bad private schools, of which certain schools in Yorkshire were
the worst types. He drew a picture of low cunning, avarice, ignorance,
imposture, and brutality in Squeers that astounded his audience, and led
to the closing of most of the Yorkshire private schools and to the
overthrow of tyranny in schools throughout the civilized world. Tyranny
and corporal punishment still exist, but not in the best schools. Not one
child weeps now on account of corporal punishment for every hundred who
wailed bitterly for the same reason when Froebel and Dickens began their
loving work. Year by year the good work goes on. Men are learning the
better ways of guiding and governing childhood. We can not yet say when
men and women in the homes and schools everywhere shall understand the
child and their own powers so thoroughly that there shall be no more
corporal punishment inflicted, but we do know that the abatement of the
terrible brutality began with the revelations of Froebel and Dickens.
Froebel taught the new philosophy, Dickens sent it quivering through the
hearts and consciences of mankind.
Members of the highest classes in England have been imprisoned near the
close of the nineteenth century for improper methods of punishing children
that would have excited no comment when Dickens described Squeers a little
more than half a century earlier. In the report to the British
Government, at the close of his remarkable half-century of honourable and
very able educational work, Sir Joshua Fitch said: “In watching the
gradual development of the training colleges for women from year to year,
nothing is more striking than the increased attention which is being paid
in those institutions to the true principles of infant teaching and
discipline. The circular which has recently been issued by your lordships,
and which is designed to enforce and explain these principles, would, if
put forth a few years ago, have fallen on unprepared soil, and would
indeed have seemed to many teachers both in and out of training colleges
to be scarcely intelligible. Now its counsels will be welcomed with
sympathy and full appreciation.”
Dickens describes Squeers as a man “whose appearance was not
prepossessing.”
He had but one eye, and the popular prejudice runs in favour of two.
The eye he had was unquestionably useful, but decidedly not
ornamental: being of a greenish gray, and in shape resembling the
fanlight of a street door. The blank side of his face was much
wrinkled and puckered up, which gave him a very sinister appearance,
especially when he smiled, at which times his expression bordered
closely on the villainous. His hair was very flat and shiny, save at
the ends, where it was brushed stiffly up from a low protruding
forehead, which assorted well with his harsh voice and coarse manner.
He then proceeds to reveal the character of Squeers by a series of
incidents:
Mr. Squeers was standing in a box by one of the coffee-room
fireplaces. In a corner of the seat was a very small deal trunk, tied
round with a scanty piece of cord; and on the trunk was perched—his
lace-up half-boots and corduroy trousers dangling in the air—a
diminutive boy, with his shoulders drawn up to his ears, and his hands
planted on his knees, who glanced timidly at the schoolmaster, from
time to time, with evident dread and apprehension.
“Half-past three,” muttered Mr. Squeers, turning from the window, and
looking sulkily at the coffee-room clock. “There will be nobody here
to-day.”
Much vexed by this reflection, Mr. Squeers looked at the little boy to
see whether he was doing anything he could beat him for. As he
happened not to be doing anything at all, he merely boxed his ears,
and told him not to do it again.
“At midsummer,” muttered Mr. Squeers, resuming his complaint, “I took
down ten boys; ten twentys is two hundred pound. I go back at eight
o’clock to-morrow morning, and have got only three—three oughts is an
ought—three twos is six—sixty pound. What’s come of all the boys?
what’s parents got in their heads? what does it all mean?”
Here the little boy on the top of the trunk gave a violent sneeze.
“Halloa, sir!” growled the schoolmaster, turning round. “What’s that,
sir?”
“Nothing, please, sir,” said the little boy.
“Nothing, sir?” exclaimed Mr. Squeers.
“Please, sir, I sneezed,” rejoined the boy, trembling till the little
trunk shook under him.
“Oh! sneezed, did you?” retorted Mr. Squeers. “Then what did you say
‘nothing’ for, sir?”
In default of a better answer to this question, the little boy screwed
a couple of knuckles into each of his eyes and began to cry, wherefore
Mr. Squeers knocked him off the trunk with a blow on one side of his
face, and knocked him on again with a blow on the other.
“Wait till I get you down into Yorkshire, my young gentleman,” said
Mr. Squeers, “and then I’ll give you the rest. Will you hold that
noise, sir?”
“Ye—ye—yes,” sobbed the little boy, rubbing his face very hard with
the Beggar’s Petition in printed calico.
“Then do so at once, sir,” said Squeers. “Do you hear?”
The waiter at this juncture announced a gentleman who wished to interview
Mr. Squeers, and the schoolmaster, in an undertone, said to the poor boy:
“Put your handkerchief in your pocket, you little scoundrel, or I’ll
murder you when the gentleman goes.”
Affecting not to see the gentleman when he entered, Mr. Squeers feigned to
be mending a pen and trying to comfort the boy he had so grossly abused.
“My dear child,” said Squeers, “all people have their trials. This early
trial of yours, that is fit to make your little heart burst and your very
eyes come out of your head with crying, what is it? Nothing—less than
nothing. You are leaving your friends, but you will have a father in me,
my dear, and a mother in Mrs. Squeers.”
Our indignation is still further aroused when we hear the conversation
between Mr. Squeers and his visitor, who is named Snawley, and who was “a
sleek, flat-nosed man, bearing in his countenance an expression of much
mortification and sanctity.”
He had brought with him two little boys, whose stepfather he was. Their
mother had a little money in her own right and he was afraid she might
squander it on her boys, so he wished to dispose of them. Our blood runs
cold as we hear the two scoundrels plotting against the unfortunate boys.
They are to be kept by Squeers till grown up. No questions are to be asked
“so long as the payments are regular.” “They are to be supplied with
razors when grown up, and never allowed home for holidays, and not
permitted to write home, except a circular at Christmas to say they never
were so happy and hope they may never be sent for, and no questions are to
be asked in case anything happens to them.”
We learn the unutterable selfishness of Squeers as he sits eating a
sumptuous breakfast, while the five wretched and hungry little boys, who
are to accompany him to Yorkshire to Dotheboys Hall, look at him. He had
ordered bread and butter for three, which he cut into five portions, and
“two-penn’orth of milk” for the five boys. While waiting for the bread to
come he said, as he took a large mouthful of beef and toast, “Conquer your
passions, boys, and don’t be eager after vittles. Subdue your appetites,
my dears, and you’ve conquered human natur.”
Nicholas Nickleby had been engaged to teach under Squeers in Dotheboys
Hall. He was shocked at many things he heard and saw the night he arrived
in Yorkshire.
But the school itself and the appearance of the wretched pupils completed
his discomfiture.
The pupils—the young noblemen! How the last faint traces of hope, the
remotest glimmering of any good to be derived from his efforts in this
den, faded from the mind of Nicholas as he looked in dismay around!
Pale and haggard faces, lank and bony figures, children with the
countenances of old men, deformities with irons upon their limbs, boys
of stunted growth, and others whose long meagre legs would hardly bear
their stooping bodies, all crowded on the view together; there were
the bleared eye, the harelip, the crooked foot, and every ugliness or
distortion that told of unnatural aversion conceived by parents for
their offspring, or of young lives which, from the earliest dawn of
infancy, had been one horrible endurance of cruelty and neglect. There
were little faces which should have been handsome, darkened with the
scowl of sullen, dogged suffering; there was childhood with the light
of its eye quenched, its beauty gone, and its helplessness alone
remaining; there were vicious-faced boys, with leaden eyes, like
malefactors in a jail; and there were young creatures on whom the sins
of their frail parents had descended, weeping even for the mercenary
nurses they had known, and lonesome even in their loneliness. With
every kindly sympathy and affection blasted in its birth, with every
young and healthy feeling flogged and starved down, with every
revengeful passion that can fester in swollen hearts, eating its evil
way to their core in silence, what an incipient hell was breeding
here!
It was Mr. Squeers’s custom on the first afternoon after his return from
London to call the school together to make announcements, and read letters
written by himself, which he pretended had been written by the relatives
of the boys. Accordingly, the first afternoon after the arrival of
Nicholas, Squeers entered the schoolroom “with a small bundle of papers in
his hand, and Mrs. S. followed with a pair of canes.”
“Let any boy speak a word without leave,” said Mr. Squeers, “and I’ll take
the skin off his back.”
Two letters will serve as samples of the rest:
“Graymarsh. Stand up, Graymarsh.”
Graymarsh stood up, while Squeers read his letter:
“Graymarsh’s maternal aunt is very glad to hear he’s so well and
happy, and sends her respectful compliments to Mrs. Squeers, and
thinks she must be an angel. She likewise thinks Mr. Squeers is too
good for this world; but hopes he may long be spared to carry on the
business. Would have sent the two pair of stockings as desired, but is
short of money, so forwards a tract instead, and hopes Graymarsh will
put his trust in Providence. Hopes, above all, that he will study in
every thing to please Mr. and Mrs. Squeers, and look upon them as his
only friends; and that he will love Master Squeers; and not object to
sleeping five in a bed, which no Christian should. Ah!” said Squeers,
folding it up, “a delightful letter. Very affecting indeed.”
“Mobbs” was next called, and his letter was read to him:
“Mobbs’s stepmother,” said Squeers, “took to her bed on hearing that
he wouldn’t eat fat, and has been very ill ever since. She wishes to
know, by an early post, where he expects to go to, if he quarrels with
his vittles; and with what feelings he could turn up his nose at the
cow’s-liver broth, after his good master had asked a blessing on it.
This was told her in the London newspapers—not by Mr. Squeers, for he
is too kind and too good to set anybody against anybody—and it has
vexed her so much, Mobbs can’t think. She is sorry to find he is
discontented, which is sinful and horrid, and hopes Mr. Squeers will
flog him into a happier state of mind; with this view, she has also
stopped his halfpenny a week pocket-money, and given a double-bladed
knife with a corkscrew in it to the missionaries, which she had bought
on purpose for him.”
“A sulky state of feeling,” said Squeers, after a terrible pause,
during which he had moistened the palm of his right hand again, “won’t
do. Cheerfulness and contentment must be kept up. Mobbs, come to me!”
Mobbs moved slowly toward the desk, rubbing his eyes in anticipation
of good cause for doing so; and he soon afterward retired by the side
door, with as good a cause as a boy need have.
There are still school tyrants who talk with philosophic air of flogging
children to make them happier, and others who say with hard tones and
clenched hands that “the one thing they will not allow in their schools is
a sulky boy or girl,” and they mean, when they say so, that if a boy is
sulky they take no steps to find out the cause of his disease or the
natural remedy for it, but they apply the universal remedy of the
old-fashioned quack trainer and whip the poor boy, who is already
suffering from some physical or nervous derangement. Squeers and such
teachers are brother tyrants. They practise the Squeers’s doctrine—“A
sulky state of feeling won’t do. Cheerfulness and contentment must be kept
up. Mobbs, come to me”—to make children cheerful and contented.
One of the most heart-stirring cases in Dotheboys Hall was that of poor
Smike. He had been sent to Squeers when an infant. He was a young man now,
but he had been starved so that he wore still around his long neck the
frill of the collar that loving hands had placed there when he was a
little child. Ill treatment and lack of proper food had made him almost an
imbecile, and he was the drudge of the institution. Nicholas was attracted
by the anxious, longing looks of the boy, as his eyes followed Squeers
from place to place on their arrival from London.
He was lame; and as he feigned to be busy in arranging the table,
glanced at the letters with a look so keen, and yet so dispirited and
hopeless, that Nicholas could hardly bear to watch him.
“What are you bothering about there, Smike?” cried Mrs. Squeers; “let
the things alone, can’t you.”
“Eh!” said Squeers, looking up. “Oh! it’s you, is it?”
“Yes, sir,” replied the youth, pressing his hands together, as though
to control, by force, the nervous wandering of his fingers; “is
there——”
“Well!” said Squeers.
“Have you—did anybody—has nothing been heard—about me?”
“Devil a bit,” replied Squeers testily.
The lad withdrew his eyes, and, putting his hand to his face, moved
toward the door.
“Not a word,” resumed Squeers, “and never will be.”
This is one of the pathetic pictures that awoke the heart of humanity.
Nicholas was the first person who had ever sympathized with Smike, so the
poor fellow naturally gave to Nicholas the pent-up love of his dwarfed
nature, and kept near him whenever it was possible to do so.
Dickens made Smike the centre of the terrible interest in Dotheboys Hall.
Poor Smike was so badly treated that he ran away, but, after a long chase,
he was brought home in triumph by Mrs. Squeers, bound like an animal.
Squeers, of course, determined to flog him before all the boys as an
example, and this led to the first great step toward the overthrow of the
power of Squeers in Dotheboys Hall.
The news that Smike had been caught and brought back in triumph, ran
like wildfire through the hungry community, and expectation was on
tiptoe all the morning. On tiptoe it was destined to remain, however,
until afternoon; when Squeers, having refreshed himself with his
dinner, and further strengthened himself by an extra libation or so,
made his appearance (accompanied by his amiable partner) with a
countenance of portentous import, and a fearful instrument of
flagellation, strong, supple, wax-ended, and new—in short, purchased
that morning, expressly for the occasion.
“Is every boy here?” asked Squeers, in a tremendous voice.
Every boy was there, but every boy was afraid to speak; so Squeers
glared along the lines to assure himself; and every eye drooped, and
every head cowered down, as he did so.
“Each boy keep his place,” said Squeers, administering his favourite
blow to the desk, and regarding with gloomy satisfaction the universal
start which it never failed to occasion. “Nickleby! to your desk,
sir.”
It was remarked by more than one small observer that there was a very
curious and unusual expression in the usher’s face; but he took his
seat, without opening his lips in reply. Squeers, casting a triumphant
glance at his assistant, and a look of most comprehensive despotism on
the boys, left the room, and shortly afterward returned, dragging
Smike by the collar—or rather by that fragment of his jacket which
was nearest the place where his collar would have been had he boasted
such a decoration.
In any other place the appearance of the wretched, jaded, spiritless
object would have occasioned a murmur of compassion and remonstrance.
It had some effect, even there; for the lookers-on moved uneasily in
their seats, and a few of the boldest ventured to steal looks at each
other, expressive of indignation and pity.
They were lost on Squeers, however, whose gaze was fastened on the
luckless Smike, as he inquired, according to custom in such cases,
whether he had anything to say for himself.
“Nothing, I suppose?” said Squeers, with a diabolical grin.
Smike glanced round, and his eye rested for an instant on Nicholas, as
if he had expected him to intercede; but his look was riveted on his
desk.
“Have you anything to say?” demanded Squeers again; giving his right
arm two or three flourishes to try its power and suppleness. “Stand a
little out of the way, Mrs. Squeers, my dear; I’ve hardly got room
enough.”
“Spare me, sir!” cried Smike.
“Oh! that’s all, is it?” said Squeers. “Yes, I’ll flog you within an
inch of your life, and spare you that.”
“Ha, ha, ha,” laughed Mrs. Squeers, “that’s a good ’un!”
“I was driven to do it,” said Smike faintly, and casting another
imploring look on him.
“Driven to do it, were you?” said Squeers. “Oh! it wasn’t your fault;
it was mine, I suppose—eh?”
“A nasty, ungrateful, pig-headed, brutish, obstinate, sneaking dog,”
exclaimed Mrs. Squeers, taking Smike’s head under her arm, and
administering a cuff at every epithet; “what does he mean by that?”
“Stand aside, my dear,” replied Squeers. “We’ll try and find out.”
Mrs. Squeers, being out of breath with her exertions, complied.
Squeers caught the boy firmly in his grip; one desperate cut had
fallen on his body—he was wincing from the lash, and uttering a
scream of pain—it was raised again, and again about to fall—when
Nicholas Nickleby suddenly starting up, cried: “Stop!” in a voice that
made the rafters ring.
“Who cried stop?” said Squeers, turning savagely round.
“I,” said Nicholas, stepping forward. “This must not go on.”
“Must not go on!” cried Squeers, almost in a shriek.
“No!” thundered Nicholas.
Aghast and stupefied by the boldness of the interference, Squeers
released his hold of Smike, and, falling back a pace or two, gazed
upon Nicholas with looks that were positively frightful.
“I say must not,” repeated Nicholas, nothing daunted; “shall not. I
will prevent it.”
Squeers continued to gaze upon him, with his eyes starting out of his
head; but astonishment had actually, for the moment, bereft him of
speech.
“You have disregarded all my quiet interference in the miserable lad’s
behalf,” said Nicholas; “you have returned no answer to the letter in
which I begged forgiveness for him, and offered to be responsible that
he would remain quietly here. Don’t blame me for this public
interference. You have brought it upon yourself, not I.”
“Sit down, beggar!” screamed Squeers, almost beside himself with rage,
and seizing Smike as he spoke.
“Wretch!” rejoined Nicholas fiercely, “touch him at your peril! I will
not stand by and see it done. My blood is up, and I have the strength
of ten such men as you. Look to yourself, for, by Heaven, I will not
spare you, if you drive me on!”
“Stand back!” cried Squeers, brandishing his weapon.
“I have a long series of insults to avenge,” said Nicholas, flushed
with passion; “and my indignation is aggravated by the dastardly
cruelties practised on helpless infancy in this foul den. Have a care;
for, if you do raise the devil within me, the consequences shall fall
heavily upon your own head!”
He had scarcely spoken, when Squeers, in a violent outbreak of wrath,
and with a cry like the howl of a wild beast, spit upon him, and
struck him a blow across the face with his instrument of torture,
which raised up a bar of livid flesh as it was inflicted. Smarting
with the agony of the blow, and concentrating into that one moment all
his feelings of rage, scorn, and indignation, Nicholas sprang upon
him, wrested the weapon from his hand, and pinning him by the throat,
beat the ruffian till he roared for mercy.
The boys—with the exception of Master Squeers, who, coming to his
father’s assistance, harassed the enemy in the rear—moved not hand or
foot; but Mrs. Squeers, with many shrieks for aid, hung on to the tail
of her partner’s coat, and endeavoured to drag him from his infuriated
adversary; while Miss Squeers, who had been peeping through the
keyhole in expectation of a very different scene, darted in at the
very beginning of the attack, and after launching a shower of
inkstands at the usher’s head, beat Nicholas to her heart’s content:
animating herself at every blow with the recollection of his having
refused her proffered love, and thus imparting additional strength to
an arm which (as she took after her mother in this respect) was, at no
time, one of the weakest.
Nicholas, in the full torrent of his violence, felt the blows no more
than if they had been dealt with feathers; but, becoming tired of the
noise and uproar, and feeling that his arm grew weak besides, he threw
all his remaining strength into half a dozen finishing cuts and flung
Squeers from him, with all the force he could muster. The violence of
his fall precipitated Mrs. Squeers completely over an adjacent form;
and Squeers, striking his head against it in his descent, lay at his
full length on the ground, stunned and motionless.
Having brought affairs to this happy termination, and ascertained, to
his thorough satisfaction, that Squeers was only stunned, and not dead
(upon which point he had had some unpleasant doubts at first),
Nicholas left his family to restore him and retired to consider what
course he had better adopt. He looked anxiously round for Smike, as he
left the room, but he was nowhere to be seen.
After a brief consideration, he packed up a few clothes in a small
leathern valise, and, finding that nobody offered to oppose his
progress, marched boldly out by the front door and started to walk to
London.
Near the school he met John Browdie, the honest corn factor.
John saw that Nicholas had received a severe blow, and asked the reason.
“The fact is,” said Nicholas, not very well knowing how to make the
avowal, “the fact is, that I have been ill-treated.”
“Noa!” interposed John Browdie, in a tone of compassion; for he was a
giant in strength and stature, and Nicholas, very likely, in his
eyes, seemed a mere dwarf; “dean’t say thot.”
“Yes, I have,” replied Nicholas, “by that man Squeers, and I have
beaten him soundly, and am leaving this place in consequence.”
“What!” cried John Browdie, with such an ecstatic shout, that the
horse quite shied at it. “Beatten the schoolmeasther! Ho! ho! ho!
Beatten the schoolmeasther! who ever heard o’ the loike o’ that noo!
Giv’ us thee hond agean, yongster. Beatten the schoolmeasther! Dang
it, I loove thee for’t.”
And the world agreed, and still agrees, with John Browdie.
Squeers and Smike began the real movement against cruelty and corporal
punishment not only in schools, but in homes. Dickens described both
characters so admirably that the world hated Squeers and pitied Smike to
the limit of its power to hate and pity, and unconsciously the world
associated cruelty and corporal punishment with Squeers. This was exactly
what Dickens desired. The hatred of Squeers led to a strong disapproval of
his practices. Corporal punishment was associated with an unpopular man,
and it lost its respectable character and never regained it. The dislike
for Squeers was accentuated by the long-continued sympathy and hopefulness
felt for Smike as he gradually succumbed to the terrible disease,
consumption, induced by poor food, neglect, and cruelty.
Squeers and Smike are doing their good work still, and doing it well. They
could do it much better if men and women when they have become acquainted
with Squeers would candidly ask themselves the question, “In what respects
am I like Squeers?” instead of yielding to the feeling of
self-satisfaction that they are so very unlike him.
Just before writing about the coercive tyranny of Squeers in his school,
Dickens had written Oliver Twist, in which he had made a most vigorous
attack upon two classes of characters for their tyrannical treatment of
children, and especially on account of their frequent use of corporal
punishment. Bumble represented the officials in institutions for children,
and “the gentleman in the white waistcoat” was given as a type of the
advanced Christian philanthropy of his time. He meant well, gave his time
freely to attend the meetings of the board, and supposed he was doing
right; but Dickens wished to let philanthropists see that they were
terribly cruel to the helpless children, and that their good intentions
could not condone their harshness, even though it resulted from ignorance
and lack of reverence for childhood, and not from deliberate evil
intentions.
Poor, friendless little Oliver! His beautiful face and gentle spirit might
have touched the hardest heart, but the institutional heart becomes hard
easily, even two generations after the time of Bumble and “the gentleman
in the immaculate white waistcoat.”
Dickens says:
It must not be supposed that Oliver was denied the benefit of
exercise, the pleasure of society, or the advantages of religious
consolation in the workhouse. As for exercise, it was nice cold
weather, and he was allowed to perform his ablutions every morning
under the pump, in a stone yard, in the presence of Mr. Bumble, who
prevented his catching cold, and caused a tingling sensation to
pervade his frame, by repeated applications of the cane. As for
society, he was carried every other day into the hall, where the boys
dined, and there sociably flogged as a public warning and example. And
so far from being denied the advantage of religious consolation, he
was kicked into the same apartment every evening at prayer time, and
there permitted to listen to, and console his mind with, a general
supplication of the boys, containing a special clause, therein
inserted by authority of the board, in which they entreated to be made
good, virtuous, contented, and obedient, and to be guarded from the
sins and vices of Oliver Twist.
After Oliver had been sent to work for Mr. Sowerberry he was goaded to
desperation one evening by the disrespectful remarks of Noah Claypole
about his mother, and bravely gave the mean bully the personal
chastisement he so richly deserved. Noah was sent to complain to the
parish board, and the gentleman in the white waistcoat said:
“Bumble, just step up to Sowerberry’s with your cane, and see what’s
best to be done. Don’t spare him, Bumble.”
“No, I will not, sir,” replied the beadle, adjusting the wax end which
was twisted round the bottom of his cane, for purposes of parochial
flagellation.
“Tell Sowerberry not to spare him either. They’ll never do anything
with him without stripes and bruises,” said the gentleman in the white
waistcoat.
The innocent, manly child was beaten unmercifully and abused cruelly by
Sowerberry and Bumble, yet he bore all their taunts and floggings without
a tear until he was alone. Then, “when there was none to see or hear him,
he fell upon his knees on the floor, and, hiding his face in his hands,
wept such tears as, God send for the credit of our nature, few so young
may ever have cause to pour out before him!”
There are not many “gentlemen in white waistcoats” of the type described
by Dickens now on charitable boards, and the enlightened sentiment of
civilized countries turns the legal processes of nations upon officials
who dare to treat children unkindly. Dickens made humane people everywhere
sympathize with Mr. Meagles, who said: “Whenever I see a beadle in full
fig coming down a street on a Sunday at the head of a charity school, I am
obliged to turn and run away, or I should hit him.”
Ten years after Squeers began his good work Dickens produced Squeers’s
associate, Mr. Creakle, the master of Salem House.
David Copperfield was sent to Salem House by his stepfather, Mr.
Murdstone, because he bit his hand when he was punishing him unjustly. For
this offence he was compelled to wear a placard on his back on which was
written: “Take care of him. He bites.” This dastardly practice of
labelling youthful offenders persisted until very recent times. Children
in schools are even yet in some places degraded by inconsiderate teachers
by being compelled to wear some indication of their misconduct. Dickens
vigorously condemned this outrage in 1849.
David was sent to school during the holidays, and was soon brought before
Mr. Creakle by Tungay, his servant with the wooden leg.
“So,” said Mr. Creakle, “this is the young gentleman whose teeth are
to be filed! Turn him round.”
Mr. Creakle’s face was fiery, and his eyes were small and deep in his
head; he had thick veins in his forehead, a little nose, and a large
chin. He was bald on the top of his head; and had some thin,
wet-looking hair that was just turning gray brushed across each
temple, so that the two sides interlaced on his forehead.
“Now,” said Mr. Creakle. “What’s the report of this boy?”
“There’s nothing against him yet,” returned the man with the wooden
leg. “There has been no opportunity.”
I thought Mr. Creakle was disappointed. I thought Mrs. and Miss
Creakle (at whom I now glanced for the first time, and who were, both,
thin and quiet) were not disappointed.
“Come here, sir!” said Mr. Creakle, beckoning to me.
“Come here!” said the man with the wooden leg, repeating the gesture.
“I have the happiness of knowing your stepfather,” whispered Mr.
Creakle, taking me by the ear; “and a worthy man he is, and a man of
strong character. He knows me, and I know him. Do you know me! Hey?”
said Mr. Creakle, pinching my ear with ferocious playfulness.
“Not yet, sir,” I said, flinching with the pain.
“Not yet! Hey?” repeated Mr. Creakle. “But you will soon. Hey?”
“You will soon. Hey?” repeated the man with the wooden leg. I
afterward found that he generally acted, with his strong voice, as Mr.
Creakle’s interpreter to the boys.
I was very much frightened, and said, I hoped so, if he pleased. I
felt all this while as if my ear were blazing; he pinched it so hard.
“I’ll tell you what I am,” whispered Mr. Creakle, letting it go at
last, with a screw at parting that brought the water to my eyes, “I’m
a Tartar.”
Mr. Creakle proved to be as good as his word. He was a Tartar.
On the first day of school he revealed himself. His opening address was
very brief and to the point.
“Now, boys, this is a new half. Take care what you’re about in this
new half. Come fresh up to the lessons, I advise you, for I come fresh
up to the punishment. I won’t flinch. It will be of no use your
rubbing yourselves; you won’t rub the marks out that I shall give you.
Now get to work, every boy!”
When this dreadful exordium was over, Mr. Creakle came to where I sat,
and told me that if I were famous for biting, he was famous for
biting, too. He then showed me the cane, and asked me what I thought
of that, for a tooth? Was it a sharp tooth, hey? Was it a double
tooth, hey? Had it a deep prong, hey? Did it bite, hey? Did it bite?
At every question he gave me a fleshy cut with it that made me writhe.
Not that I mean to say these were special marks of distinction, which
only I received. On the contrary, a large majority of the boys
(especially the smaller ones) were visited with similar instances of
notice, as Mr. Creakle made the round of the schoolroom. Half the
establishment was writhing and crying before the day’s work began; and
how much of it had writhed and cried before the day’s work was over I
am really afraid to recollect, lest I should seem to exaggerate.
I should think there never can have been a man who enjoyed his
profession more than Mr. Creakle did. He had a delight in cutting at
the boys, which was like the satisfaction of a craving appetite. I am
confident that he couldn’t resist a chubby boy especially; that there
was a fascination in such a subject which made him restless in his
mind until he had scored and marked him for the day. I was chubby
myself, and ought to know. I am sure when I think of the fellow now,
my blood rises against him with the disinterested indignation I should
feel if I could have known all about him without having ever been in
his power; but it rises hotly, because I know him to have been an
incapable brute, who had no more right to be possessed of the great
trust he held than to be Lord High Admiral or Commander-in-chief: in
either of which capacities it is probable that he would have done
infinitely less mischief.
Miserable little propitiators of a remorseless idol, how abject we
were to him! what a launch in life I think it now, on looking-back, to
be so mean and servile to a man of such parts and pretensions!
Twenty years after Dickens described Creakle a new teacher stood before a
class in a large American city, and, holding a long rattan cane above his
head, said in a fierce, threatening tone: “Do you see that cane? Would you
like to feel it? Hey? Well, break any one of my forty-eight rules and you
will feel it all right.” The tyrant in adulthood dies hard. No wonder.
Tyranny has been wrought into our natures by centuries of blind faith in
corporal punishment as the supreme agency in saving the race from moral
wreck and anarchy in childhood and youth. Men sought no agency for the
development of the good in young lives. As they conceived it, their duty
was done if they prevented their children from doing wrong, and the
quickest, easiest, most effective way they knew to secure coercion was by
corporal punishment. The most successful tyrant, he who could most
thoroughly terrorize children and keep them down most completely, was
regarded as the best disciplinarian. Squeers and Creakle were fair
exponents of the almost universally recognised theory of their day, and
they had many successors in the real schools of the generation that
followed them. No man could remain a week in a school now if he began on
the opening day in the way Creakle did.
Dickens was right in revealing the position of the teacher as one of
“great trust,” and he was right, too, in insisting that Creakle was no
more fitted to be a teacher “than to be Lord High Admiral or
Commander-in-chief, in either of which capacities it is probable he would
have done infinitely less mischief.” This was another plea for good normal
schools and for state supervision.
Dickens makes a good point in his remark about the degradation of abject
submission to a man of such parts and pretensions as Creakle.
Subordination always dwarfs the human soul, but when the child is forced
to a position of abject subordination to a coarse tyrant the degradation
is more complete and more humiliating. It does not mend matters for the
child when the tyrant is his father. The tyranny of parenthood is usually
the hardest to escape from.
In the same book in which Creakle is described—David Copperfield—Dickens
deals with the tyranny of the home. David’s widowed mother married Mr.
Murdstone, a hard, severe, austere, religious man, with an equally
dreadful sister—Jane Murdstone.
Firmness was the grand quality on which both Mr. and Miss Murdstone
took their stand. However I might have expressed my comprehension of
it at that time, if I had been called upon, I nevertheless did clearly
comprehend in my own way that it was another name for tyranny, and for
a certain gloomy, arrogant, devil’s humour, that was in them both. The
creed, as I should state it now, was this: Mr. Murdstone was firm;
nobody in his world was to be so firm as Mr. Murdstone; nobody else in
his world was to be firm at all, for everybody was to be bent to his
firmness.
There was no more depressing tyranny in the time of Dickens than the
tyranny exercised in the name of a rigid and repressive religion.
The gloomy taint that was in the Murdstone blood darkened the
Murdstone religion, which was austere and wrathful. I have thought,
since, that its assuming that character was a necessary consequence of
Mr. Murdstone’s firmness, which wouldn’t allow him to let anybody off
from the utmost weight of the severest penalties he could find any
excuse for. Be this as it may, I well remember the tremendous visages
with which we used to go to church, and the changed air of the place.
Again, the dreaded Sunday comes round, and I file into the old pew
first, like a guarded captive brought to a condemned service. Again,
Miss Murdstone, in a black-velvet gown, that looks as if it had been
made out of a pall, follows close upon me; then my mother; then her
husband. Again, I listen to Miss Murdstone mumbling the responses, and
emphasizing all the dread words with a cruel relish. Again, I see her
dark eyes roll round the church when she says “miserable sinners,” as
if she were calling all the congregation names. Again, I catch rare
glimpses of my mother, moving her lips timidly between the two, with
one of them muttering at each ear like low thunder. Again, I wonder
with a sudden fear whether it is likely that our good old clergyman
can be wrong, and Mr. and Miss Murdstone right, and that all the
angels in heaven can be destroying angels. Again, if I move a finger
or relax a muscle of my face, Miss Murdstone pokes me with her prayer
book, and makes my side ache.
Mrs. Chillip said: “Mr. Murdstone sets up an image of himself and calls it
the Divine Nature,” and “what such people as the Murdstones call their
religion is a vent for their bad humours and arrogance.” Mild and cautious
Mr. Chillip observed, “I don’t find authority for Mr. and Miss Murdstone
in the New Testament,” and his good wife added, “The darker tyrant Mr.
Murdstone becomes, the more ferocious is his religious doctrine.”
When David first learned that Mr. Murdstone had married his mother he
relieved the swelling in his little heart by crying in his bedroom. His
mother naturally felt a sympathy for her boy. Mr. Murdstone reproved her
for her lack of “firmness,” ordered her out of the room, and gave David
his first lesson in “obedience.”
“David,” he said, making his lips thin, by pressing them together, “if
I have an obstinate horse or dog to deal with, what do you think I do?”
“I don’t know.”
“I beat him.”
I had answered in a kind of breathless whisper, but I felt, in my
silence, that my breath was shorter now.
“I make him wince, and smart. I say to myself, ‘I’ll conquer that
fellow;’ and if it were to cost him all the blood he had, I should do it.”
There are still a few schoolmaster tyrants who boast of their ability “to
subdue children.” They are barbarians, who understand neither the new
education nor the new theology, who have not learned to recognise and
reverence the individual selfhood of each child, who themselves fear God’s
power more than they feel his love.
When David was at home for the holidays he remained in his own room a
considerable part of the time reading. This aroused the anger of Mr.
Murdstone, and he charged David with being sullen.
“I was sorry, David,” said Mr. Murdstone, turning his head and his
eyes stiffly toward me, “to observe that you are of a sullen
disposition. This is not a character that I can suffer to develop
itself beneath my eyes without an effort at improvement. You must
endeavour, sir, to change it. We must endeavour to change it for you.”
“I beg your pardon, sir,” I faltered. “I have never meant to be sullen
since I came back.”
“Don’t take refuge in a lie, sir!” he returned so fiercely, that I saw
my mother involuntarily put out her trembling hand as if to interpose
between us. “You have withdrawn yourself in your sullenness to your
own room. You have kept your room when you ought to have been here.
You know now, once for all, that I require you to be here, and not
there. Further, that I require you to bring obedience here. You know
me, David. I will have it done.”
Miss Murdstone gave a hoarse chuckle.
“I will have a respectful, prompt, and ready bearing toward myself,”
he continued, “and toward Jane Murdstone, and toward your mother. I
will not have this room shunned as if it were infected, at the
pleasure of a child. Sit down.”
He ordered me like a dog, and I obeyed like a dog.
David’s lessons, which had been “along a path of roses” when his mother
was alone with him, became a path of thorns after the Murdstones came.
The lessons were a grievous daily drudgery and misery. They were very
long, very numerous, very hard—perfectly unintelligible.
Let me remember how it used to be. I come into the parlour after
breakfast with my books, an exercise book and a slate. My mother is
ready for me, but not half so ready as Mr. Murdstone, or as Miss
Murdstone, sitting near my mother stringing steel beads. The very
sight of these two has such an influence over me, that I begin to feel
the words I have been at infinite pains to get into my head all
sliding away, and going I don’t know where. I wonder where they do
go, by the bye?
I hand the first book to my mother. I take a last drowning look at
the page as I give it into her hand, and start off aloud at a racing
pace while I have got it fresh. I trip over a word. Mr. Murdstone
looks up. I trip over another word. Miss Murdstone looks up. I redden,
tumble over half a dozen words, and stop. I think my mother would show
me the book if she dared, but she does not dare, and she says softly:
“Oh, Davy, Davy!”
“Now, Clara,” says Mr. Murdstone, “be firm with the boy. Don’t say
‘Oh, Davy, Davy!’ That’s childish. He knows his lesson, or he does not
know it.”
“He does not know it,” Miss Murdstone interposed awfully.
“I am really afraid he does not,” says my mother.
“Then you see, Clara,” returns Miss Murdstone, “you should just give
him the book back, and make him know it.”
“Yes, certainly,” says my mother; “that’s what I intended to do, my
dear Jane. Now, Davy, try once more, and don’t be stupid.”
I obey the first clause of the injunction by trying once more, but am
not so successful with the second, for I am very stupid. I tumble down
before I get to the old place, at a point where I was all right
before, and stop to think. But I can’t think about the lesson. I think
of the number of yards of net in Miss Murdstone’s cap, or of the price
of Mr. Murdstone’s dressing-gown, or any such ridiculous problem that
I have no business with, and don’t want to have anything at all to do
with. Mr. Murdstone makes a movement of impatience which I have been
expecting for a long time. Miss Murdstone does the same. My mother
glances submissively at them, shuts the book, and lays it by as an
arrear to be worked out when my other tasks are done.
There is a pile of these arrears very soon, and it swells like a
rolling snowball. The bigger it gets the more stupid I get. The case
is so hopeless, and I feel that I am wallowing in such a bog of
nonsense, that I give up all idea of getting out, and abandon myself
to my fate. The despairing way in which my mother and I look at each
other, as I blunder on, is truly melancholy. But the greatest effect
in these miserable lessons is when my mother (thinking nobody is
observing her) tries to give me the cue by the motion of her lips. At
that instant, Miss Murdstone, who has been lying in wait for nothing
else all along, says in a deep warning voice:
“Clara!”
My mother starts, colours, and smiles faintly. Mr. Murdstone comes out
of his chair, takes the book, throws it at me or boxes my ears with
it, and turns me out of the room by the shoulders.
It seems to me, at this distance of time, as if my unfortunate studies
generally took this course. I could have done very well if I had been
without the Murdstones; but the influence of the Murdstones upon me
was like the fascination of two snakes on a wretched young bird. Even
when I did get through the morning with tolerable credit, there was
not much gained but dinner; for Miss Murdstone never could endure to
see me untasked, and if I rashly made any show of being unemployed,
called her brother’s attention to me by saying, “Clara, my dear,
there’s nothing like work—give your boy an exercise.”
One morning when I went into the parlour with my books, I found my
mother looking anxious, Miss Murdstone looking firm, and Mr. Murdstone
binding something round the bottom of a cane—a lithe and limber cane,
which he left off binding when I came in, and poised and switched in
the air.
“I tell you, Clara,” said Mr. Murdstone, “I have been often flogged
myself.”
“To be sure; of course,” said Miss Murdstone.
“Certainly, my dear Jane,” faltered my mother meekly. “But—but do you
think it did Edward good?”
“Do you think it did Edward harm, Clara?” asked Mr. Murdstone,
gravely.
“That’s the point!” said his sister.
To this my mother returned “Certainly, my dear Jane,” and said no
more.
I felt apprehensive that I was personally interested in this dialogue,
and sought Mr. Murdstone’s eye as it lighted on mine.
“Now, David,” he said—and I saw that cast again, as he said it—“you
must be far more careful to-day than usual.” He gave the cane another
poise, and another switch; and having finished his preparation of it,
laid it down beside him, with an expressive look, and took up his
book.
This was a good freshener to my presence of mind, as a beginning. I
felt the words of my lesson slipping off, not one by one, or line by
line, but by the entire page. I tried to lay hold of them; but they
seemed, if I may so express it, to have put skates on, and to skim
away from me with a smoothness there was no checking.
We began badly, and went on worse. I had come in, with an idea of
distinguishing myself rather, conceiving that I was very well
prepared; but it turned out to be quite a mistake. Book after book was
added to the heap of failures, Miss Murdstone being firmly watchful of
us all the time. And when we came at last to the five thousand cheeses
(canes he made it that day, I remember), my mother burst out crying.
“Clara!” said Miss Murdstone, in her warning voice.
“I am not quite well, my dear Jane, I think,” said my mother.
I saw him wink, solemnly, at his sister, as he rose and said, taking
up the cane.
“Why, Jane, we can hardly expect Clara to bear, with perfect firmness,
the worry and torment that David has occasioned her to-day. That would
be stoical. Clara is greatly strengthened and improved, but we can
hardly expect so much from her. David, you and I will go upstairs,
boy.”
They went upstairs. David was beaten unmercifully, notwithstanding his
piteous cries, and in his desperation he bit the hand of Murdstone. For
this it seemed as if Murdstone would have beaten him to death but for the
interference of the women. “Then he was gone, and the door locked outside;
and I was lying, fevered and hot, and torn, and sore, and raging in my
puny way, upon the floor.”
Oh! Blind, self-satisfied “child-quellers,” who so ignorantly boast of
your ability to conquer children! Dickens described Murdstone for you.
Think of that awful picture of the beautiful boy, created in the image of
God, lying on the floor, “fevered and hot, and torn, and sore, and
raging,” with every element of sweetness and strength in his life turned
to darkness and fury, and next time you propose to “conquer a child” who
has been rendered partially insane, possibly by your treatment, and with
whom you have unnecessarily forced a crisis, remember the Murdstone
tragedy—a real tragedy, notwithstanding the fact that the boy’s life was
spared.
Remember, too, that your very presence and manner may blight the young
lives that you are supposed to develop.
When Mr. Murdstone was sending David away to work he gave him his
philosophy of coercion as his parting advice:
“David,” said Mr. Murdstone, “to the young, this is a world for
action; not for moping and droning in.”
—“As you do,” added his sister.
“Jane Murdstone, leave it to me, if you please. I say, David, to the
young, this is a world for action, and not for moping and droning in.
It is especially so for a young boy of your disposition, which
requires a great deal of correcting; and to which no greater service
can be done than to force it to conform to the ways of the working
world, and to bend it and break it.”
“For stubbornness won’t do here,” said his sister. “What it wants is
to be crushed. And crushed it must be. Shall be, too!”
First he fills the boy as full as possible of self-depreciation, and then
trains him to expect that his leading experiences in life will consist of
being forced into submission, conforming to the plans of others, bending
to authority, the breaking of his will, and the crushing of his interests
and purposes. What a depressing outlook to give a child!
John Willet, in Barnaby Rudge, is used as a means of convincing parents
that they should respect the feelings and opinions of children. No two
maxims relating to child training are more utterly wrong in principle,
more devoid of the simplest elements of child sympathy and child
reverence, than the time-honoured nonsense that “children should be seen
and not heard,” and “children should speak only when they are spoken to.”
Dickens exposes these maxims to deserved ridicule in John Willet’s
treatment of his son Joe. John kept the Maypole Inn. Joe was a fine,
sturdy young man, but his father still ruled him with an unbending
stubbornness that he believed to be a necessary exercise of authority.
John was encouraged in his tyranny over his son by some of his old
cronies, who were in the habit of sitting in the Maypole in the evenings
and praising John for his firmness in training his son. One evening a
stranger made a remark about a gentleman, to which Joe replied.
“Silence, sir!” cried his father.
“What a chap you are, Joe!” said Long Parkes.
“Such a inconsiderate lad!” murmured Tom Cobb.
“Putting himself forward and wringing the very nose off his own
father’s face!” exclaimed the parish clerk metaphorically.
“What have I done?” reasoned poor Joe.
“Silence, sir!” returned his father; “what do you mean by talking,
when you see people that are more than two or three times your age
sitting still and silent and not dreaming of saying a word?”
“Why that’s the proper time for me to talk, isn’t it?” said Joe
rebelliously.
“The proper time, sir!” retorted his father, “the proper time’s no
time.”
“Ah, to be sure!” muttered Parkes, nodding gravely to the other two
who nodded likewise, observing under their breaths that that was the
point.
“The proper time’s no time, sir,” repeated John Willet; “when I was
your age I never talked, I never wanted to talk. I listened and
improved myself, that’s what I did.”
“It’s all very fine talking,” muttered Joe, who had been fidgeting in
his chair with divers uneasy gestures. “But if you mean to tell me
that I’m never to open my lips——”
“Silence, sir!” roared his father. “No, you never are. When your
opinion’s wanted, you give it. When you’re spoke to you speak. When
your opinion’s not wanted and you’re not spoke to, don’t give an
opinion and don’t you speak. The world’s undergone a nice alteration
since my time, certainly. My belief is that there an’t any boys
left—that there isn’t such a thing as a boy—that there’s nothing now
between a male baby and a man—and that all the boys went out with his
blessed majesty King George the Second.”
On another occasion Joe had been hit with a whip by a stranger, and he
expressed his opinion to Mr. Varden about the character of the man who hit
him.
“Hold your tongue, sir,” said his father.
“I won’t, father. It’s all along of you that he ventured to do what he
did. Seeing me treated like a child, and put down like a fool, he
plucks up a heart and has a fling at a fellow that he thinks—and may
well think, too—hasn’t a grain of spirit. But he’s mistaken, as I’ll
show him, and as I’ll show all of you before long.”
“Does the boy know what he’s saying of!” cried the astonished John
Willet.
“Father,” returned Joe, “I know what I say and mean, well—better than
you do when you hear me. I can bear with you, but I can not bear the
contempt that your treating me in the way you do brings upon me from
others every day. Look at other young men of my age. Have they no
liberty, no will, no right to speak? Are they obliged to sit
mumchance, and to be ordered about till they are the laughingstock of
young and old? I am a byword all over Chigwell, and I say—and it’s
fairer my saying so now, than waiting till you are dead, and I have
got your money—I say, that before long I shall be driven to break
such bounds, and that when I do, it won’t be me that you’ll have to
blame, but your own self, and no other.”
John never trusted his son, never entered into his plans, and treated even
the most sacred things of Joe’s life with contempt.
Joe was about to start to London on business for his father, and he was to
ride a mare that was so slow that a young man could not enjoy the prospect
of riding her.
“Don’t you ride hard,” said his father.
“I should be puzzled to do that, I think, father,” Joe replied,
casting a disconsolate look at the animal.
“None of your impudence, sir, if you please,” retorted old John. “What
would you ride, sir? A wild ass or zebra would be too tame for you,
wouldn’t he, eh, sir? You’d like to ride a roaring lion, wouldn’t you,
sir, eh, sir? Hold your tongue, sir.” When Mr. Willet, in his
differences with his son, had exhausted all the questions that
occurred to him, and Joe had said nothing at all in answer, he
generally wound up by bidding him hold his tongue.
“And what does the boy mean,” added Mr. Willet, after he had stared at
him for a little time, in a species of stupefaction, “by cocking his
hat, to such an extent! Are you going to kill the wintner, sir?”
“No,” said Joe tartly; “I’m not. Now your mind’s at ease, father.”
“With a military air, too!” said Mr. Willet, surveying him from top to
toe; “with a swaggering, fire-eating, biling-water drinking sort of
way with him! And what do you mean by pulling up the crocuses and
snowdrops, eh, sir?”
“It’s only a little nosegay,” said Joe, reddening. “There’s no harm in
that, I hope?”
“You’re a boy of business, you are, sir!” said Mr. Willet
disdainfully, “to go supposing that wintners care for nosegays.”
“I don’t suppose anything of the kind,” returned Joe. “Let them keep
their red noses for bottles and tankards. These are going to Mr.
Varden’s house.”
“And do you suppose he minds such things as crocuses?” demanded
John.
“I don’t know, and to say the truth, I don’t care,” said Joe. “Come,
father, give me the money, and in the name of patience let me go.”
“There it is, sir,” replied John; “and take care of it; and mind you
don’t make too much haste back, but give the mare a long rest. Do you
mind?”
“Ay, I mind,” returned Joe. “She’ll need it, Heaven knows.”
“And don’t you score up too much at the Black Lion,” said John. “Mind
that too.”
“Then why don’t you let me have some money of my own?” retorted Joe
sorrowfully; “why don’t you, father? What do you send me into London
for, giving me only the right to call for my dinner at the Black Lion,
which you’re to pay for next time you go, as if I was not to be
trusted with a few shillings? Why do you use me like this? It’s not
right of you. You can’t expect me to be quiet under it.”
Dickens in this interview condemns several mistakes often made by parents
in restraining instead of sympathizing with their children in the natural
unfolding of their young manhood or womanhood. It was wrong for John
Willet to ridicule Joe’s desire to ride a smart horse. It was wrong to bid
him “hold his tongue.” It was wrong to criticise his method of dressing to
look his very best. It was wrong to sneer at him because his consciousness
of unfolding manhood and his hope of Dolly Varden’s love made him carry
himself with a “military air.” What a difference it would make in the
characters of young men if they all carried themselves with a military
air, and walked with a consciousness of power and hope!
It was especially wrong to make fun of the nosegay Joe had pulled for
Dolly Varden. What a pity it is that so few fathers or mothers can truly
sympathize with their boys and girls during the period of courtship! Why
should the most sacred feelings that ever stir the soul be made the
subject of jest and levity by those whose hearts should most truly beat in
unison with the young hearts that are aflame? If there is a time in the
life of young men or women when father or mother may enter the hearts of
their children as benedictions and form a blessed unity that can never be
broken or undone it is surely when young hearts are hallowed by love. Yet
there are few parents to whom their children can speak freely about the
mysteries and the deep experiences of love that come into their lives.
It was wrong to treat Joe as if he was unworthy to be trusted with money.
Every wrong revealed by Dickens in this interview had its root in John’s
feeling that it was his duty to keep Joe down, to prevent the outflow of
his inner life.
Old John having long encroached a good standard inch, full measure, on
the liberty of Joe, and having snipped off a Flemish ell in the matter
of the parole, grew so despotic and so great, that his thirst for
conquest knew no bounds. The more young Joe submitted, the more
absolute old John became. The ell soon faded into nothing. Yards,
furlongs, miles arose; and on went old John in the pleasantest manner
possible, trimming off an exuberance in this place, shearing away some
liberty of speech or action in that, and conducting himself in this
small way with as much high mightiness and majesty as the most
glorious tyrant that ever had his statue reared in the public ways,
of ancient or of modern times.
As great men are urged on to the abuse of power (when they need
urging, which is not often) by their flatterers and dependents, so old
John was impelled to these exercises of authority by the applause and
admiration of his Maypole cronies, who, in the intervals of their
nightly pipes and pots, would shake their heads and say that Mr.
Willet was a father of the good old English sort; that there were no
newfangled notions or modern ways in him; that he put them in mind of
what their fathers were when they were boys; that there was no mistake
about him; that it would be well for the country if there were more
like him, and more was the pity that there were not; with many other
original remarks of that nature. Then they would condescendingly give
Joe to understand that it was all for his good, and he would be
thankful for it one day; and in particular, Mr. Cobb would acquaint
him, that when he was his age, his father thought no more of giving
him a parental kick, or a box on the ears, or a cuff on the head, or
some little admonition of that sort, than he did of any other ordinary
duty of life; and he would further remark, with looks of great
significance, that but for this judicious bringing up, he might have
never been the man he was at that present speaking; which was probable
enough, as he was, beyond all question, the dullest dog of the party.
In short, between old John and old John’s friends, there never was an
unfortunate young fellow so bullied, badgered, worried, fretted, and
browbeaten; so constantly beset, or made so tired of his life, as poor
Joe Willet.
The end came at last. One evening Mr. Cobb was more aggravating than
usual, and Joe’s patience could hold out no longer. He knocked the
offending Cobb into a corner among the spittoons, and ran away from the
unbearable tyranny of home.
What a moral catastrophe occurs when a young man leaves home with a
feeling of relief! Dickens develops this thought in the case of Tom
Gradgrind. With the best of intentions, with a single desire of training
his son in the best possible way, Mr. Gradgrind had repressed his natural
tendencies and robbed him of the joys of childhood and youth to such an
extent that when he was about to go to live with Mr. Bounderby, and his
sister, Louisa, asked him “if he was pleased with his prospect?” he
replied, “Well, it will be getting away from home.” The boy is never to
blame for such a catastrophe.
Dickens attacked another phase of the flogging mania in Barnaby Rudge, in
a brief but suggestive scene. Barnaby and his mother were travelling, and
were resting at the gate of a gentleman’s grounds, when the proprietor
himself came along and demanded to know who they were.
“Vagrants,” said the gentleman, “vagrants and vagabonds. Thee wish to
be made acquainted with the cage, dost thee—the cage, the stocks, and
the whipping post? Where dost come from?”
Learning that Barnaby was weak-minded, he asked how long he had been
idiotic.
“From his birth,” said the widow.
“I don’t believe it,” cried the gentleman, “not a bit of it. It’s an
excuse not to work. There’s nothing like flogging to cure that
disorder. I’d make a difference in him in ten minutes, I’ll be bound.”
“Heaven has made none in more than twice ten years, sir,” said the
widow mildly.
“Then why don’t you shut him up? We pay enough for county
institutions, damn ’em. But thou’d rather drag him about to excite
charity—of course. Ay, I know thee.”
Now, this gentleman had various endearing appellations among his
intimate friends. By some he was called “a country gentleman of the
true school,” by some “a fine old country gentleman,” by some “a
sporting gentleman,” by some “a thoroughbred Englishman,” by some “a
genuine John Bull”; but they all agreed in one respect, and that was,
that it was a pity that there were not more like him, and that because
there were not, the country was going to rack and ruin every day.
Dickens always enjoyed ridiculing the people who long for the good old
times and approve of the good old customs. There are some who even yet
deplore the fact that children are not repressed and coerced as they used
to be, and who prophesy untold evils unless the good old customs are
re-established. They long for the recurrence of the days when “lickin’ and
larnin’ went hand in hand,” when “Wallop the boy, develop the man” was the
popular motto, expressive of the general faith. Dickens pictured them in
John Willet and this “country gentleman of the true school.” He also
criticised them severely in the Chimes.
The depressing influence of another form of coercion is shown in Our
Mutual Friend by the effect of Mr. Podsnap’s character on his daughter
Georgiana. Mr. Podsnap was one of the absolutely positive people who know
everything about everything, who never allow other people to express
opinions without contradicting them, and who take every possible
opportunity of expressing their own opinions in a loud, emphatic, dogmatic
manner. Of course, no woman should hold opinions, according to Mr.
Podsnap’s way of thinking, although Mrs. Podsnap, in her own way, did
credit to her more Podsnappery master. It was therefore not to be dreamt
of for a moment that a “young person” like their daughter Georgiana could
have any views of her own regarding life or any of its conditions, past,
present, or future. She was a “young person” to be protected, and kept in
the background, and guarded from evil, and sheltered, so that she should
not even hear of anything improper, and shielded from temptation to do
wrong, or to do anything, indeed, right or wrong. Her father was rich; why
should she wish to do anything but listen to him, and go away when he told
her to do so, if he wished to speak of subjects that he deemed it unwise
to let a “young person” hear discussed?
There was a Miss Podsnap. And this young rocking-horse was being
trained in her mother’s art of prancing in a stately manner without
ever getting on. But the high parental action was not yet imparted to
her, and in truth she was but an undersized damsel, with high
shoulders, low spirits, chilled elbows, and a rasped surface of nose,
who seemed to take occasional frosty peeps out of childhood into
womanhood, and to shrink back again, overcome by her mother’s
headdress and her father from head to foot—crushed by the mere dead
weight of Podsnappery.
Georgiana explained the reason of her shyness to Mrs. Lammle, for, strange
as it may seem, considering her heredity, Georgiana was shy. Podsnappery
as environment is always much stronger than Podsnappery as heredity.
“What I mean is,” pursued Georgiana, “that ma being so endowed with
awfulness, and pa being so endowed with awfulness, and there being so
much awfulness everywhere—I mean, at least, everywhere where I
am—perhaps it makes me who am so deficient in awfulness, and
frightened at it—I say it very badly—I don’t know whether you can
understand what I mean?”
Thoughtful people need no explanation regarding the influence of
Podsnappery on children.
The time will come when in normal schools character analysis will be the
supreme qualification of those who are to decide who may and who may not
teach. When that time comes, as come it must, no Podsnaps will be allowed
to teach.
It was no wonder that—
Whenever Georgiana could escape from the thraldom of Podsnappery;
could throw off the bedclothes of the custard-coloured phaeton, and
get up; could shrink out of the range of her mother’s rocking, and (so
to speak) rescue her poor little frosty toes from being rocked over;
she repaired to her friend, Mrs. Alfred Lammle.
Dickens fired another thunderbolt, in Our Mutual Friend, to set the world
thinking about its method of teaching children, by his brief description
of Pleasant Riderhood, the daughter of Rogue Riderhood.
Show her a christening, and she saw a little heathen personage having
a quite superfluous name bestowed upon it, inasmuch as it would be
commonly addressed by some abusive epithet; which little personage was
not in the least wanted by anybody, and would be shoved and banged out
of everybody’s way, until it should grow big enough to shove and bang.
Show her a live father, and she saw but a duplicate of her own father,
who from her infancy had been taken with fits and starts of
discharging his duty to her, which duty was always incorporated in the
form of a fist or a leather strap, and being discharged hurt her.
In Little Dorrit Dickens gives one of his most striking verbal
descriptions of the effects of coercion in Arthur Clennam’s account of his
own early training. He said to Mr. Meagles, when the kind old gentleman
spoke of working with a will:
“I have no will. That is to say,” he coloured a little, “next to none
that I can put in action now. Trained by main force; broken, not bent;
heavily ironed with an object on which I was never consulted and which
was never mine; shipped away to the other end of the world before I
was of age, and exiled there until my father’s death there, a year
ago; always grinding in a mill I always hated; what is to be expected
from me in middle life? Will, purpose, hope? All those lights were
extinguished before I could sound the words.”
“Light ’em up again!” said Mr. Meagles.
“Ah! Easily said. I am the son, Mr. Meagles, of a hard father and
mother. I am the only child of parents who weighed, measured, and
priced everything; for whom what could not be weighed, measured, and
priced had no existence. Strict people, as the phrase is, professors
of a stern religion, their very religion was a gloomy sacrifice of
tastes and sympathies that were never their own, offered up as a part
of a bargain for the security of their possessions. Austere faces,
inexorable discipline, penance in this world and terror in the
next—nothing graceful or gentle anywhere, and the void in my cowed
heart everywhere—this was my childhood, if I may so misuse the word
as to apply it to such a beginning of life.”
When he returned to the presence of his mother, after an absence of many
years in China, “the old influence of her presence, and her stern, strong
voice, so gathered about her son that he felt conscious of a renewal of
the timid chill and reserve of his childhood.”
It was a terrible indictment of all coercive, child-quelling,
will-breaking training that Arthur made when he said to his stern mother:
“I can not say that I have been able to
conform myself, in heart and spirit, to your rules; I can not say that I believe my forty years
have been profitable or pleasant to myself, or any one; but I have
habitually submitted, and I only ask you to remember it.”
Speaking of her own training, Mrs. Clennam said: “Mine were days of
wholesome repression, punishment, and fear,” and she frankly avowed her
deliberate purpose of “bringing Arthur up in fear and trembling.”
Those were the dreadful ideals that Dickens aimed to destroy. Repression,
punishment, fear, and trembling are no longer the dominant ideals of the
Christian world regarding child training. They are rapidly giving way to
the new and true gospel of stimulation, happiness, freedom, and creative
self-activity.
Great Expectations was a valuable contribution to the literature of child
training. Mrs. Gargery was a type of repressive, coercive, unsympathetic
women, who regard children as necessarily nuisances, and who are
continually thankful for the fact that by the free use of “the tickler”
they may be subdued and kept in a state of bearable subjection.
Mrs. Gargery had no children of her own, but she had a little brother,
Pip, whom she “brought up by hand.” Her husband, Joe Gargery, was an
honest, affectionate, sympathetic man, who pitied poor Pip and tried to
comfort him when his wife was not present. The dear old fellow said to Pip
one evening, as they sat by the fire and he beat time to his kindly
thoughts with the poker:
“Your sister is given to government.”
“Given to government, Joe?” I was startled, for I had some shadowy
idea (and I am afraid I must add hope) that Joe had divorced her in
favour of the lords of the Admiralty, or Treasury.
“Given to government,” said Joe. “Which I meantersay the government of
you and myself.”
“Oh!”
“And she ain’t over partial to having scholars on the premises,” Joe
continued, “and in particular would not be over partial to my being a
scholar, for fear as I might rise. Like a sort of rebel, don’t you see?”
I was going to retort with an inquiry, and had got as far as “Why——”
when Joe stopped me.
“Stay a bit. I know what you’re a-going to say, Pip? stay a bit! I
don’t deny that your sister comes the mo-gul over us, now and again. I
don’t deny that she do throw us back-falls, and that she do drop down
upon us heavy. At such times as when your sister is on the ram-page,
Pip,” Joe sunk his voice to a whisper and glanced at the door,
“candour compels fur to admit that she is a buster....
“I wish it was only me that got put out, Pip; I wish there warn’t no
tickler for you, old chap; I wish I could take it all on myself; but
this is the up-and-down-and-straight on it, Pip, and I hope you’ll
overlook shortcomings.”
Poor Joe! His father had been a blacksmith, but he took to drink, and, as
Joe said, “Hammered at me with a wigour only to be equalled by the wigour
with which he didn’t hammer at his anwil.”
Dickens gives an illustration of Mrs. Gargery’s training which reveals not
only her coercive and unsympathetic tendencies, but points to other errors
in training children that are yet too common. Pip was warming himself
before going to bed one night, when a cannon sounded from the Hulks, or
prison ships, near the Gargery home.
“Ah!” said Joe; “there’s another conwict off.”
“What does that mean?” said I.
Mrs. Joe, who always took explanations upon herself, said snappishly:
“Escaped. Escaped.” Administering the definition like medicine.
“There was a conwict off last night,” said Joe, aloud, “after sunset
gun. And they fired warning of him. And now it appears they’re firing
warning of another.”
“Who’s firing?” said I.
“Drat that boy,” interposed my sister, frowning at me over her work;
“what a questioner he is! Ask no questions and you’ll be told no lies.”
It was not very polite to herself, I thought, to imply that I should
be told lies by her, even if I did ask questions. But she never was
polite, unless there was company.
“Mrs. Joe,” said I, as a last resort, “I should like to know—if you
wouldn’t much mind—where the firing comes from?”
“Lord bless the boy!” exclaimed my sister, as if she didn’t quite mean
that, but rather the contrary. “From the hulks!”
“And please, what’s hulks?” said I.
“That’s the way with this boy!” exclaimed my sister, pointing me out
with her needle and thread, and shaking her head at me. “Answer him
one question, and he’ll ask you a dozen directly. Hulks are prison
ships, right ’cross th’ country.”
“I wonder who’s put into prison ships, and why they’re put there?”
said I, in a general way, and with quiet desperation.
It was too much for Mrs. Joe, who immediately rose. “I tell you what,
young fellow,” said she, “I didn’t bring you up by hand to badger
people’s lives out. It would be blame to me, and not praise, if I had.
People are put in the hulks because they murder, and because they rob,
and forge, and do all sorts of bad; and they always begin by asking
questions. Now, you get along to bed!”
I was never allowed a candle to light me to bed, and, as I went
upstairs in the dark, with my head tingling—from Mrs. Joe’s thimble
having played the tambourine upon it, to accompany her last words—I
felt fearfully sensible of the great convenience that the hulks were
handy for me. I was clearly on my way there.
Pip said later: “I suppose myself to be better acquainted than any
living authority with the ridgy effect of a wedding ring passing
unsympathetically over the human countenance.”
My sister’s bringing up had made me sensitive. In the little world in
which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there
is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice. It may
be only small injustice that the child can be exposed to; but the
child is small, and its world is small, and its rocking-horse stands
as many hands high, according to scale, as a big-boned Irish hunter.
Within myself, I had sustained, from my babyhood, a perpetual conflict
with injustice. I had known, from the time when I could speak, that my
sister, in her capricious and violent coercion, was unjust to me. I
had cherished a profound conviction that her bringing me up by the
hand gave her no right to bring me up by jerks. Through all my
punishments, disgraces, fasts and vigils, and other penitential
performances, I had nursed this assurance; and to my communing so much
with it, in a solitary and unprotected way, I in great part refer the
fact that I was morally timid and very sensitive.
Mrs. Gargery’s training was bad because she refused to answer the boy’s
questions, or abused him for asking them; and when she did condescend to
answer she answered in a snappy, unsympathetic way. The cruelty of first
scolding a child, then trying to terrify him from asking questions by
telling him that “robbers, murderers, and all kinds of criminals began
their downward career by asking questions,” then rapping him on the head,
and finally sending him to bed without a light, is admirably described.
All these practices are terribly unjust to children. Parents and teachers,
in the picture of Mrs. Gargery, are warned against scolding, against
threatening, against falsehood and misrepresentation in order to reduce
children to submission, against corporal punishment with “the tickler,”
against the more dastardly and more exasperating corporal punishment by
snapping and rapping the head, and against sending children to bed in the
dark. He was especially careful to make the retiring hour in his own home
a period of joyousness and freedom from all fear. He made the crime of
sending children to bed without light and without sympathy one of the
practices of that model of bad training—Mrs. Pipchin; and one of the most
dreaded of little Oliver Twist’s experiences was to be sent to sleep among
the coffins in the dark at Sowerberry’s.
The hour of retiring is the special time when children most need the
affectionate spirit of motherhood, and wise mothers try to use this sacred
hour to form their closest unity with the hearts of the little ones, and
to sow in their young lives the apperceptive seeds of sweetness, and joy,
and faith.
The wrong of making children sensitive, and then blaming them for being
sensitive, is admirably shown in Pip’s training.
The revelation of the child’s consciousness of the sense of injustice in
the treatment of those who train it is worthy of most careful study and
thought by parents and teachers. There can be no doubt that infants have a
clear sense of wrongs inflicted on them, even before they can speak.
The comparison of the child’s rocking-horse with the big-boned Irish
hunter reveals one of the most essential lessons for adulthood: that what
may appear trifling to an adult may mean much to a child. Kind but
thoughtless adulthood is often most grievously unjust to childhood,
because it fails to consider how things appear to the child. However kind
and good such adults are, they are utterly unsympathetic with the child.
Many people are very considerate for childhood who are very unsympathetic
with children. Consideration can never take the place of sympathy. An
ounce of true sympathy is worth a ton of consideration to a child.
Adulthood has measured a child’s corn in the bushel of adulthood. Mr.
Gradgrind, for instance, was a good man, and he meant to be kind and
helpful to his children. He was most considerate for them, and spared no
money to promote their welfare and happiness. But he did it in accordance
with the tastes and opinions of adulthood, and totally ignored the fact
that children have opinions and tastes, and he ruined the children whom he
most loved. “The rocking-horse and the big-boned Irish hunter” suggest
rich mines of child psychology.
The pernicious habit of so many adults who fill the imaginations of
children with bogies and terrors of an abnormal kind in order to keep them
in the path of rectitude by falsehood, is exposed in Mrs. Gargery’s method
of stopping Pip’s questions by telling him that asking questions was the
first step in a career of crime. This habit leads parents insensibly into
a most dishonest attitude toward their children. It leads, too, in due
time, to a lack of reverence for adulthood. Falseness is certain to lead
to the disrespect it deserves. Parents who make untruthfulness a basis
for terror should not be surprised at the irreverence or the scepticism of
their children.
In The Schoolboy’s Story, old Cheeseman was brought to school by a woman
who was always taking snuff and shaking him.
There is a great deal of pedagogical thought in Dombey and Son. At the
period of its issue (1846-48) Dickens appears to have devoted more
attention to the study of wrong methods of teaching than at any other
time, so in Dr. Blimber, Cornelia Blimber, and Mr. Feeder he gave his best
illustrations of what in his opinion should be condemned in the popular
methods of teaching. But while this was evidently his chief educational
purpose in writing the book, he gave a good deal of attention to wrong
methods of training, especially to the most awful doctrine of the
ages—that children must be coerced, and repressed, and checked, and
subdued. He evidently accepted as his supreme duty the responsibility for
securing a free childhood for children. Mrs. Pipchin is an admirable
delineation of the worst features of what was regarded as respectable
child training. Her training is treated at length in Chapter XI. It is
sufficient here to deal with her coerciveness, and recall the epithet
“child-queller” which Dickens applied to her. No more expressive term was
ever used to describe the wickedness of the coercionists. It means more
than most volumes. It has new meaning every day as our reverence for the
divinity in the child grows stronger, and the absolute need of the
development of his selfhood by his own self-activity becomes clearer. It
reveals a perfect charnel house full of dwarfed souls and blighted
selfhood, and weak characters that should have been strong, and false
characters that should have been true, and wailings that should have been
music, and tears that should have been laughter, and darkness that should
have been light, and wickedness that should have been a blessing. The one
awful word “child-queller” means all of evil that can result from daring
to stand between the child and God in our self-satisfied ignorance to
check the free, natural output of its selfhood which God meant to be
wrought out with increasing power throughout its life. Our work is to
change the direction of the outflowing selfhood when it is wrong, to
direct it to new and better interest centres, but never to stop it or turn
it back upon itself.
There are thousands of child-quellers teaching still. Would that they
could see truly the dwarfed souls they have blighted, and the ghosts of
the selfhood they have sacrificed on the altar of what they call
discipline!
The term child-queller was the creation of genius.
Mrs. Pipchin disdained the idea of reasoning with children. “Hoity-toity!”
exclaimed Mrs. Pipchin, shaking out her black bombazine skirts, and
plucking up all the ogress within her. “If she don’t like it, Mr. Dombey,
she must be taught to lump it.” She would “shake her head and frown down a
legion of children,” and “the wild ones went home tame enough after
sojourning for a few months beneath her hospitable roof.” She tamed them
by robbing them of their power, as Froebel’s boy tamed flies by tearing
off their wings and legs, and then saying, “See how tame they are.”
Teachers used to boast about their ability to tame children, when their
ability really meant the power to destroy the tendency to put forth
effort, to substitute negativeness for positiveness.
Susan Nipper, in her usual graphic style, expressed her views regarding
the coercive practices of Mrs. Pipchin and the Blimbers.
“Goodness knows,” exclaimed Miss Nipper, “there’s a-many we could
spare instead, if numbers is a object; Mrs. Pipchin as a overseer
would come cheap at her weight in gold, and if a knowledge of black
slavery should be required, them Blimbers is the very people for the
sitiwation.”
One of Mrs. Pipchin’s favourite methods of coercing, or taming, or
child-quelling was to send children to bed.
“The best thing you can do is to take off your things and go to bed
this minute.” This was the sagacious woman’s remedy for all
complaints, particularly lowness of spirits and inability to sleep;
for which offence many young victims in the days of the Brighton
Castle had been committed to bed at ten o’clock in the morning.
Another assault on coercion was made in Dombey and Son in the brief
description of the Grinders’ school.
Biler’s life had been rendered weary by the costume of the Charitable
Grinders. The youth of the streets could not endure it. No young
vagabond could be brought to bear its contemplation for a moment
without throwing himself upon the unoffending wearer and doing him a
mischief. His social existence had been more like that of an early
Christian than an innocent child of the nineteenth century. He had
been stoned in the streets. He had been overthrown into gutters;
bespattered with mud; violently flattened against posts. Entire
strangers to his person had lifted his yellow cap off his head and
cast it to the winds. His legs had not only undergone verbal criticism
and revilings, but had been handled and pinched. That very morning he
had received a perfectly unsolicited black eye on his way to the
Grinders’ establishment, and had been punished for it by the master: a
superannuated old Grinder of savage disposition, who had been
appointed schoolmaster because he didn’t know anything and wasn’t fit
for anything, and for whose cruel cane all chubby little boys had a
perfect fascination.
Poor Biler went wrong, and when he was taken to task for it by Mr. Carker
he gave his theory to account for the fact that he had not done better at
school.
“You’re a nice young gentleman!” said Mr. Carker, shaking his head at
him. “There’s hemp-seed sown for you, my fine fellow!”
“I’m sure, sir,” returned the wretched Biler, blubbering again, and
again having recourse to his coat cuff: “I shouldn’t care, sometimes,
if it was growed too. My misfortunes all began in wagging, sir, but
what could I do, exceptin’ wag?”
“Excepting what?” said Mr. Carker.
“Wag, sir. Wagging from school.”
“Do you mean pretending to go there, and not going?” said Mr. Carker.
“Yes, sir, that’s wagging, sir,” returned the quondam Grinder, much
affected. “I was chivied through the streets, sir, when I went there,
and pounded when I got there. So I wagged and hid myself, and that
began it.”
When Mr. Dombey, by whose act of superior grace Biler had been sent to the
Charitable Grinders’ school, upbraided the boy’s father for his failure to
turn out well,
the simple father said that he hoped his son, the quondam Grinder,
huffed and cuffed, and flogged and badged, and taught, as parrots are,
by a brute jobbed into his place of schoolmaster with as much fitness
for it as a hound, might not have been educated on quite a right plan.
Sagacious teachers and parents often blame and punish children for being
what they made them.
Still another illustration of the cruel coercion practised on children is
found in Dombey and Son, in the training of Alice Marwood.
“There was a child called Alice Marwood,” said the daughter, with a
laugh, and looking down at herself in terrible derision of herself,
“born among poverty and neglect, and nursed in it. Nobody taught her,
nobody stepped forward to help her, nobody cared for her.”
“Nobody!” echoed the mother, pointing to herself, and striking her
breast.
“The only care she knew,” returned the daughter, “was to be beaten,
and stinted, and abused sometimes; and she might have done better
without that.”
The picture of George Silverman’s early life is one of the most touching
of all the appeals of Dickens on behalf of childhood. He lived in a
cellar, and when he was removed at length he knew only the sensations of
“cold, hunger, thirst, and the pain of being beaten.” The poor child used
to speculate on his mother’s feet having a good or ill temper as she
descended the stairs to their cellar home, and he watched her knees, her
waist, her face, as they came into view, to learn whether he was likely to
be abused or not. Many mothers realized their own cruelty by reading such
descriptions of cruelty toward little children.
The whole system of training of Mr. Gradgrind and his teacher, Mr.
M’Choakumchild (the latter name contains volumes of coercion) was a
scientific system of coerciveness and restraint, planned and carried out
by a good man misguided by false ideas about child training and character
building. Coercion was only one of several bad elements in his system, but
he was terribly coercive. His children were lavishly supplied with almost
everything they did not care for, and robbed of everything they should
naturally be interested in.
The results were, as might be expected, disastrous. His son Tom became a
monster of selfishness, sensuality, and criminality. Dickens uses the name
“whelp” to describe him, and, in a satirical manner, accounts for his
meanness and weaknesses in the following summary:
It was very remarkable that a young gentleman who had been brought up
under one continuous system of unnatural restraint should be a
hypocrite; but it was certainly the case with Tom. It was very strange
that a young gentleman who had never been left to his own guidance for
five consecutive minutes should be incapable at last of governing
himself; but so it was with Tom. It was altogether unaccountable that
a young gentleman whose imagination had been strangled in his cradle
should be still inconvenienced by its ghost in the form of grovelling
sensualities; but such a monster, beyond all doubt, was Tom.
When Mr. Gradgrind became convinced that he had been altogether wrong in
his educational ideals and was endeavouring to explain the matter to Mr.
Bounderby, that gentleman gave expression to the views of many people of
his time. Fortunately there are few Bounderbys now, but there are some
even yet.
“Well, well!” returned Mr. Gradgrind, with a patient, even a
submissive air. And he sat for a little while pondering. “Bounderby, I
see reason to doubt whether we have ever quite understood Louisa.”
“What do you mean by we?”
“Let me say, I, then,” he returned, in answer to the coarsely blurted
question; “I doubt whether I have understood Louisa. I doubt whether I
have been quite right in the manner of her education.”
“There you hit it,” returned Bounderby. “There I agree with you. You
have found it out at last, have you? Education! I’ll tell you what
education is—to be tumbled out of doors, neck and crop, and put upon
the shortest allowance of everything except blows. That’s what I
call education.”
In his last book—Edwin Drood—Dickens pictured Mr. Honeythunder as a type
of coercive philanthropists, whom he regarded as intolerable as well as
intolerant nuisances—people who would use force to compel everybody to
think and act as they are told to think and act by the Honeythunders.
In speaking of Mr. Honeythunder and his class of philanthropists, Rev.
Canon Crisparkle said:
It is a most extraordinary thing that these philanthropists are so
given to seizing their fellow-creatures by the scruff of the neck, and
(as one may say) bumping them into the paths of peace.
Neville Landless described his training to Canon Crisparkle in telling
words:
“And to finish with, sir: I have been brought up among abject and
servile dependents of an inferior race, and I may easily have
contracted some affinity with them. Sometimes I don’t know but that it
may be a drop of what is tigerish in their blood.”
There is a profound philosophy of one phase of the evils of coercion in
this statement. Coercion does not always destroy power by blighting it.
Often the power that was intended to bless turns to poison when it is
repressed, and makes men hypocritical and tigerish. It is true, too, that
a child who is brought up with the idea of dominating a servile class, or
even servile individuals, can never have a true conception of his own
freedom.
Dickens was not satisfied with his numerous and sustained attacks on the
more violent forms of coercion and repression. He began in Edwin Drood to
draw a picture of Mrs. Crisparkle, the mother of the Canon, to show that
the placid firmness of her strong will had a baleful influence on
character. Her character was not completed, but the outlines given are
most suggestive. What could surpass the absolute indifference she showed
to the slightest consideration for the individuality or opinions of other
people when she spoke of her wards, who were grown up, it should be
remembered, to young manhood and womanhood.
“I have spoken with my two wards, Neville and Helena Landless, on the
subject of their defective education, and they give in to the plan
proposed; as I should have taken good care they did, whether they
liked it or not.”
How exquisitely he reveals the character of the eminently dogmatic, though
quiet, Christian lady by her remarking so definitely to her son, the
Canon:
“I have no objection to discuss it, Sept. I trust, my dear, I am
always open to discussion.” There was a vibration in the old lady’s
cap, as though she internally added, “And I should like to see the
discussion that would change my mind!”
Dickens meant to show that whether the coercion partook of the nature of
that exercised by Squeers or Mrs. Crisparkle, it resulted in forcing those
compelled to submit to it to “give in,” and that all children who are
regularly made to “give in” acquire the habit of “giving in,” and
eventually become “give-iners” and hypocrites until circumstances make
them rebels and anarchists. So he condemned every form of coercion, and
taught the doctrine of true freedom for the child as a necessary element
in his best development. When this doctrine is fully understood men will
soon become truly free. All true education has been a movement toward
freedom. All true national advancement has been toward more perfect
freedom. The ideal of national, constitutional liberty has changed in
harmony with the educational revelations of the broadening conception of
freedom; and more progressive conceptions of national liberty have
rendered it necessary for the educators to reveal truer, freer methods of
training children in harmony with the higher national organization.
When the ideal of national organization was the divine right of kings to
rule their subjects by absolute authority, the system of national
organization required passive obedience on the part of the subject. To
secure this coercive discipline the prompt submission of the child to the
immediate authority over him was the ideal process. Passive submission was
required as the full duty of the citizen, and passive obedience was the
desired product of the school. But the new ideal of government is rule by
the people through their representatives, and national citizenship means
the intelligent co-operation of independent individuals; so the true
educational ideal is a free selfhood, and a free selfhood in maturity
demands a free selfhood in childhood. To secure this it is essential that
schools shall become “free republics of childhood.”
“But a free selfhood in childhood must lead to anarchy,” say those who
cling to the coercive ideal. Anarchy never springs from freedom. Anarchy
is the foul son of coercion. True freedom does not include liberty to do
wrong. The “perfect law of liberty” is the only basis for perfect
happiness, because it is not freedom beyond law, but freedom within law,
freedom because of law. Law should never be coercive to the child. When it
becomes so the law is wrong and it makes the child wrong, and produces the
apperceptive centres of anarchy in feeling and thought out of the very
elements that should have produced joyous co-operation. Law should give
the child consciousness of power, and not of restraint. Undirected
selfhood, uncontrolled selfhood, is not true freedom. The exercise of
power without limitations leads to confusion, indecision, and anarchy in
everything except its spirit of rebellion. The guidance and control of
adulthood and the limitations of law are necessary to the accomplishment
of the best results in the immediate product of effort put forth by the
child, in the effect on his character, and in the development of a true
consciousness of freedom in his life.
The terrible blunder of the past in child training has been to make law
coercive instead of directive. Law has been prohibitive, not stimulative.
Law has defined barriers to prevent effort, instead of outlining the
direction effort should take. The limitations of law have been used to
define the course the child should not take; they should have defined the
course he ought to take, and within the range of which course he should
use his selfhood in the freest possible way. Law has said “thou shalt not”
when it should have said “thou shalt”; it has said “don’t” when it should
have said “do”; it has said “quit” when it should have said “go on”; it
has said “be still” when it should have said “work”; it has stood in the
way to check when it should have moved on to lead to victory and progress
along the most direct lines; it has given a consciousness of weakness
instead of a consciousness of power; it has developed moroseness instead
of joyousness, self-depreciation instead of self-reverence; and children
for these reasons have been led to dislike law, and the apperceptive
centres of anarchy have been laid by a coercive instead of a stimulative
use of law.
By false ideals of coercive law adulthood has been made repressive instead
of suggestive, depressive instead of helpful, dogmatic instead of
reasonable, tyrannical instead of free, “child-quellers” instead of
sympathetic friends of childhood, executors of penalties instead of wise
guides, agents to keep children under instead of helping them up; and so
children have learned to dislike school, and work, and teachers, and often
home and parents. And the children have not been to blame for their
dislike of law and their distrust of adulthood.
And the children themselves by coercion have been made don’ters instead of
doers, quitters instead of workers, give-iners instead of persevering
winners, yielders to opposition instead of achievers of victory, negative
instead of positive, apathetic instead of energetic, passive instead of
active, imitative instead of original, followers instead of leaders,
dependent instead of independent, servile instead of free, conscious of
weakness instead of power, defect shunners instead of triumphant creative
representatives of the God in whose image man was created.
Every agency that robs a child of his originality and freedom and prevents
the spontaneous output of his creative self-activity destroys the image of
God in him. Man is most like God when he is freely working out the plans
of his own creative selfhood for good purposes. Coercion has been the
greatest destroyer of the image of God in the child, and anarchy is the
product of the perversion of the very powers that should have made man
hopefully constructive. The seeds of anarchy are sown in the child’s life,
when his selfhood is blighted and checked. The fountain that finds free
outlet for its waters forms a pure stream that remains always a blessing,
but the fountain that is obstructed forms a noisome marsh, wasting the
good land it should have watered and destroying the plant life it should
have nourished.
The great salt seas and lakes and marshes of the world have been formed by
the checking of beautiful fresh-water streams and rivers and the
prevention of their outflow to the ocean they should have reached. So when
the outflow of the soul of the child is checked the powers that should
have ennobled his own life and enriched the lives of others turn to evil
instead of good, and make a dangerous instead of a helpful character. So
far as coercion can influence selfhood it destroys its power for good and
makes it a menace to civilization, instead of a beneficent agency in the
accomplishment of high purposes. The reason that coercion does not more
effectively blight and dwarf the child is that childhood is not under the
direct influence of adulthood all the time. The blessed hours of freedom
in play and work have saved the race.
The absurd idea that “anarchy will result from giving true freedom to the
child” persists in the minds of so many people, partly through the
strength of the race conception of the need of coercion, from which we
have not yet been able fully to free ourselves; partly from a terrible
misconception regarding the true function of law; partly through gross
ignorance of the child and lack of reverence for him; and partly from
failure to understand our own higher powers for guiding the child
properly, or the vital relationships of adulthood to childhood.
The child should recognise law as a beneficent guide in the accomplishment
of his own plans. In Froebel’s wonderful kindergarten system the child is
always guided by law, but he is always perfectly free to work out his own
designs, and in doing so he is aided by law, not kept back or down by law.
Law is, to the truly trained child, a revealer of right outlets for power,
and the supreme duties of adulthood in training childhood are to change
the centre of its interest when from lack of wisdom its interest centre is
wrong, and to reveal to it in logical sequence the laws of nature, of
beauty, of harmony, and of life. With such training life and law will
always be in harmony, and the seeds of anarchy will find no soil in human
hearts or minds in which to take root.
Dickens uses the French Revolution, in A Tale of Two Cities, to show that
anarchy results from coercion, from the unreasoning subordination of a
lower to a higher or ruling class. Against the reasoning of wisdom the
Marquis said: “Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark
deference of fear and slavery, my friend, will keep the dogs obedient to
the whip as long as this roof shuts out the sky.” The roof came off one
wild night—burned off by an infuriated mob of the dogs who had been
repressed and whipped into anarchy. Yet the aristocracy of France claimed,
as coercionist educators claim, that the anarchy was the result of
insufficient coercion, instead of the natural harvest of the seed they had
sown.
It was too much the way of monseigneur under his reverses as a
refugee, and it was much too much the way of native British orthodoxy,
to talk of this terrible revolution as if it were the one only harvest
ever known under the skies that had not been sown—as if nothing had
ever been done that had led to it—as if the observers of the wretched
millions in France, and of the misused and perverted resources that
should have made them prosperous, had not seen it inevitably coming,
years before, and had not in plain words recorded what they saw.
When the Revolution was at its fearful height, and the repressed dogs were
having their wild carnival of revenge, Dickens says:
Along the Paris streets the death-carts rumble, hollow and harsh. Six
tumbrels carry the day’s wine to la guillotine. All the devouring and
insatiate monsters imagined since imagination could record itself, are
fused in the one realization, guillotine. And yet there is not in
France, with its rich variety of soil and climate, a blade, a leaf, a
root, a sprig, a peppercorn, which will grow to maturity under
conditions more certain than those that have produced this horror.
Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it
will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of
rapacious license and oppression over again, and it will surely yield
the same fruit according to its kind.
Six tumbrels roll along the streets. Change these back again to what
they were, thou powerful enchanter, Time, and they shall be seen to be
the carriages of absolute monarchs, the equipages of feudal nobles,
the toilets of flaring Jezebels, the churches that are not My Father’s
house but dens of thieves, and huts of millions of starving peasants!
This is the most profound and most ably written exposition of the
philosophy of anarchy.
“But by coercion I can make the child do right, and in this way I can form
habits of doing right that will control the child when he grows up.”
The habit that is really formed by coercion is the habit of submission, of
passive yielding to authority, of subordination, and, in the last
analysis, this means the degradation and enslavement of the soul. Two
habits are thus wrought into the child’s nature by coercion: the habit of
doing things because ordered to do them, which is slavery; and the habit
of doing things he does not like or wish to do, which is the basis of
hypocrisy. The meanest products that can be made from beings created in
God’s image are slaves and hypocrites. One of the remarkable facts
regarding coercionists is that they blame God for creating the
monstrosities they have themselves produced by false methods of training.
“We should break the child’s will, if it is wrong, to set it right, just
as we should break a crooked leg to make it straight.”
This is a statement that betrays a lack of modern surgical knowledge, and
a carelessness of psychological thought. Modern treatment for the cure of
deformity of body avoids harsh treatment whenever it is possible to do so.
It has been found that many deformities of body may be cured by proper
exercise of the undeveloped part or parts, and with wider knowledge of
Nature’s laws will come a wiser use of the law of self-transformation, and
a smaller and smaller use of the severer methods of treatment. But no good
child psychologist now doubts that a child’s will possesses the power of
self-development and self-adjustment under proper guidance, nor should any
one be ignorant of the fact that all true will development comes from
within outward.
It is only necessary that man should study the child more thoroughly, and
learn how to change his interest centres from wrong to right, and how to
surround him with an environment suitable to his progressive stages of
development, in order to keep his own will in operation along productive
lines of self-reformation and self-regulation by creative self-activity.
Thus the will can be set to work truly with undiminished power. When a
will is broken, however, it can never regain its full power; the breaking
process blights it forever. More rational processes retain its tendency to
act and its energy of action while changing the purpose and direction of
its action.
One of the interesting anomalies of our language is the marvellous fact
that the term “self-willed” should ever have been considered a term of
reproach or a description of a defect in character. The child with
strongest self-will may become the greatest champion for righteousness if
properly trained. He needs a wise and sympathetic trainer, who will be
reverently grateful for his strong self-will, and whose reverence will
prevent him from doing anything that would weaken the strength or selfhood
of the will. The attempt to break his will may make him a destroying force
instead of a leader for truth and progress. If a strangled will ever
regains vitality it rarely acts truly. There is perhaps no other relic of
the theories of barbaric ignorance concerning child training still left
that is so baneful and so illogical as the theory that justifies will
breaking.
“But God punishes the child. The child who touches the fire gets burned,
and therefore it is right that coercive punishment should be used by
adulthood in dealing with the child.”
The punishments referred to are the revelation of natural laws. There is
no personal element of the punishing agency manifest to the child. God
does not appear to the child as a punisher, and it is an astounding error
in training to reveal such a consciousness of God to the child.
Responsibility for the consequences of their acts is a law of which all
children approve. This appeals to their sense of justice, and there is no
other sense to which we can appeal with success so universally in children
as the sense of justice. “Squareness” is the highest quality named in the
lexicon of childhood. A boy would rather be deemed “square” than receive
praise for any other characteristic or accomplishment. So he recognises
the justice of being held accountable for the directly resulting
consequences of his acts quite as readily as he accepts the fact, without
blaming any one else, that he will be burned if he touches fire. There is
no element of coercion in the law of consequences. It is a just and
universal law in harmony with his moral responsibility; therefore he will
respect it. Coercion is directly contrary to the fundamental laws of his
happiness and his true growth, and therefore he naturally and properly
dislikes and disapproves of it, and of the individual who outrages justice
by using it.
The wonderful stories of Dickens set the world thinking by first arousing
the strongest feelings of sympathy for the child and then developing
sentiment and thought against every form of coercion, more especially
coercion by corporal punishment. The awakening has been most satisfactory
in its results. When Dickens began his writing against corporal punishment
the rod was the almost universal remedy for all defects in animals or
human beings. Whatever the defect, the superior in the eyes of the law
used the one agency to overcome it. Mothers used the rod to subdue their
children. Husbands used the rod to keep their children and wives in order.
Men whipped their horses with impunity, as they did their children or
wives. They owned them, and their right to punish them as they chose was
unquestioned. Men trained animals to perform tricks in menageries by
beating them, and they trained dancing, or performing, or learning girls
and boys quite as inhumanly. Ownership or subordination justified
unspeakable cruelty. The weakness of the child, the helplessness of the
animal, appealed to the hardness of human nature, and not to its chivalry
or sympathy. Even the poor feeble-minded and idiotic, who were confined in
asylums, were terribly flogged by the most advanced philanthropists of the
highest Christian civilization. They were weak. It was the duty of the
authorities to control them, and “stripes and bruises” were regarded as
the only true agencies for securing obedience. The rod was the highest
controlling and directing force in the world.
What a change has been wrought! Horses and children and wives are
protected from brutal treatment now by law. The insane are not flogged to
make them sane in any well-conducted institutions. More than half the
children in the schools of the civilized world are free from the terror
and degradation of corporal punishment by law, or by the higher
consciousness of more intelligent teachers. Parenthood everywhere is
studying the child and trying to become conscious of its own higher powers
of guiding character so that it may be able to train the children in truer
and more productive and less dangerous ways than formerly. And Charles
Dickens was the great apostle of these grand reforms.
We shudder now as we read of the outrages practised on helpless children
and on the insane half a century ago not by the heathen, but by earnest,
conscientious Christians. The men who live half a century hence will
shudder when they read that in some schools at the close of the nineteenth
century children who were partially or temporarily insane from hereditary
taint, or imperfect nutrition, or cruel treatment, or anger, or from some
other removable or remediable cause were whipped, and that men, some of
whom occupied respectable positions, advocated the breaking of children’s
wills! If these “will-breaking” educators were in charge of asylums they
would resurrect the straitjacket and the whipping post for the insane.
The few who advocate corporal punishment openly claim that they have the
authority of the Bible for their faith in the rod. They should remember
that good men have stood with Bibles in their hands misrepresenting God
and attempting to stop the progress of every great movement toward freedom
and reform. Galileo was imprisoned by the Church because he taught that
the earth turns round. Men had no difficulty in showing that the Bible
approved of slavery, or that it prohibited woman from the exercise of the
right or the performance of the duties of responsible individuality. So
men still quote Solomon to show that corporal punishment is approved by
God, though such a conclusion would be rejected by the highest
interpreters.
“Whipping makes strong characters.” No, it makes hard characters, and
hardness is but one element of strength, and not the best element of
strength. The strength of the English character has not been developed, as
is claimed by some, by the whipping done in English schools and homes. It
comes partly by race heredity from the sturdiness of the Saxon and Norman
founders of the race, partly from the general practice of working hard
from youth up, and largely from the fact that the English playgrounds are
so universally used, and are the scenes of the severest struggles for
supremacy in skill and power that are witnessed in any part of the world.
The winning half inch or half length, the valorous struggle for
leadership on track or river—these are the things that have preserved and
developed English force and bravery, in spite of the fact that England in
her schools and homes has done fully her share of whipping. A boy or girl
who spends as much time in free strong play as the English boy, works out
the effects of a great many evils from his or her life. When men see the
futility of dependence on flogging for developing energetic strength of
character they will study the influence of play to the great advantage of
racial vigour, and courage, and moral energy.
Corporal punishment, like all other forms of coercion, robs the child of
joyousness, and joyousness is one of the most essential elements in the
true growth of a child. Corporal punishment affects the nervous systems of
children injuriously, and when applied to certain parts of the body it
stimulates prematurely the action of the sexual nature, and leads to one
of the worst forms of depravity.
Corporal punishment is ineffective as a disciplinary agency. In one
American city during the generation after Dickens began his great crusade
against corporal punishment it was the practice to whip with a rawhide all
children who came late, but the lateness steadily increased in defiance of
the rawhide. It was reduced to less than one one-hundredth part of its
former proportion when whipping for lateness was entirely abolished and
more rational means adopted.
The order and co-operation of pupils is best in those schools in which no
corporal punishment is used. If in any school only one teacher relies on
the rod as a stimulator to work and a restrainer of evil, her class is
sure to be the most disorderly, the least co-operative, and the most
defective in original power in the school. As the children throughout the
school come from the same homes, play with the same companions, attend the
same churches, and are subject to the same general influences, it is
perfectly clear that the whipping is the distinctive feature of character
training that deforms the children. They will become normal, reasonable
children when they reach the next room. This illustration assumes that
all the teachers are possessed of good natural ability to direct the child
properly. The one who uses corporal punishment fails because she has been
dwarfed by her faith in corporal punishment. She has believed in it so
fully that she has not sought to understand higher and better means. She
has studied neither the child nor her own powers of child guidance.
Dickens taught the inefficiency of coercion to accomplish what men hoped
to accomplish by it in his criticism of the revolting use of capital
punishment in former times. In A Tale of Two Cities he says:
Accordingly, the forger was put to Death; the utterer of a bad note
was put to Death; the unlawful opener of a letter was put to Death;
the purloiner of forty shillings and sixpence was put to Death; the
holder of a horse at Tellson’s door, who made off with it, was put to
Death; the coiner of a bad shilling was put to Death; the sounders of
three fourths of the notes in the whole gamut of crime were put to
Death. Not that it did the least good in the way of prevention—it
might always have been worth remarking that the fact was exactly the
reverse.
The great prophets of modern education—Pestalozzi, Froebel, Barnard, and
Mann—strongly condemned corporal punishment. These were men of clear
insight and correct judgment. The opinion of one such man is worth more
than the views of ten thousand ordinary men in regard to the subject of
their special study. They were prophet souls who saw the higher truth
toward which the race had been slowly growing, and revealed it.
Their revelations have been appreciated and adopted more and more fully as
they have been understood more and more clearly. In the case of corporal
punishment and all forms of coercion Dickens has been the John the Baptist
and the Paul of the revelation of the gospel of sympathy for the child.
Not one blow in a thousand is given to a child now as compared with the
time of Dickens’s childhood. Corporal punishment is prohibited in the
schools of France, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Brazil, New Jersey, and
in the following cities: New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Albany, Syracuse,
Toledo, and Savannah. In Washington and Philadelphia teachers voluntarily
gave up the practice of whipping. This is true of the majority of
individual teachers in the cities of America, and the number of those who
do without all forms of coercive discipline is rapidly increasing.
The whipping of girls is prohibited in Saxony, Hessen, Oldenburg, and in
many cities. Few girls are now whipped in schools anywhere. Corporal
punishment has been abolished for the higher grades in Norway and in the
lower grades in Saxony, Hessen, Bremen, and Hamburg. In the last-named
city the cane is kept under lock and key. In some places the consent of
parents must be obtained before children may be whipped, in some places
the number of strokes is limited; in other places a record is kept of
every case of corporal punishment and reports made monthly to the school
boards. Everywhere action has been taken to prohibit or restrict the use
of the once universally respected and universally dominant rod.
All wise trainers of children recognise the value of obedience, but truly
wise trainers no longer aim to make children merely submissively obedient,
nor even willingly responsive in their obedience. They try to make them
independently, co-operatively, and reverently obedient; independent in
free development of will, co-operative in unity of effort with their
fellows and their adult guides, and reverent in their attitude to law. The
substitution of independence for subserviency, of co-operation for formal,
responsive obedience, and of reverence for law for fear of law are the
most important development in child training.
In Dickens’s ideal school, Doctor Strong’s, there was “plenty of liberty.”
Gladstone’s criticism, when over seventy, of his own teachers was that
they were afraid of freedom. He said: “I did not learn to set a due value
on the imperishable and inestimable principles of human liberty. The
temper which I think prevailed among them was that liberty was regarded
with jealousy, and fear could not be wholly dispensed with.” The true
teacher is not afraid of freedom, but makes it the dominant element in his
training and in his educational theory.
May the profounder truth in regard to child training spread to the ends of
the earth! May the time soon come when there shall be no disciples of
Susan Nipper’s doctrine, “that childhood, like money, must be shaken and
rattled and jostled about a good deal to keep it bright”! May Christian
civilization soon be free from such memories as the remembrance of Mr.
Obenreizer, in No Thoroughfare, had of his parents: “I was a famished
naked little wretch of two or three years when they were men and women
with hard hands to beat me”! May Christ’s teaching soon be so fully
understood that there will be no child anywhere like the shivering little
boy in The Haunted Man, who was “used already to be worried and hunted
like a beast, who crouched down as he was looked at, and looked back
again, and interposed his arm to ward off the expected blow, and
threatened to bite if he was hit”! May teachers and all trainers of
children learn the underlying philosophy of the statement made by Dickens,
in connection with the schools of the Stepney Union, in The Uncommercial
Traveller: “In the moral health of these schools—where corporal
punishment is unknown—truthfulness stands high”!