Charles Dickens on “The Voice of Society”

The last chapter of Dickens’ last completed novel is entitled, “The Voice of Society.” The novel is OUR MUTUAL FRIEND published in 1765; Dickens died in 1770. This chapter followed by a Postscript is his last statement in a novel. This last word shows his hatred of exclusion, ostracism based on class. The last chapter, “The Voice of Society,” comes after the story has ended. The plot and subplots have all unraveled. But Dickens uses this chapter after the book really ends to deliver a final statement, a last pronouncement.

The setting is the family mansion of former M. P. Hamilton Veneering and his wife, Anastasia. Their only function in the novel is to throw excessive dinner parties where the privileged gather to discuss and to determine the mores of their community. They determine who is accepted and who is rejected. The Veneerings throw lavish parties as the need arises, the calling of the committee, so to speak, to settle a particular issue.

The need for this particular banquet emerges because a marriage has taken place. One of their own, Attorney Eugene Wrayburn, under strange circumstances has married a young woman not included in this circle of well-to-do Londoners. The second chapter of the book introduces this same well-heeled, closely guarded circle. In chapter 2 Eugene Wrayburn is present at the party with his life-long friend, Attorney Mortimer Lightwood. Wrayburn is not in attendance at “The Voice of Society” party; he is its subject. Actually he is attending his bride, a woman numbered among the hoi polloi, not the creme de la creme at the Veneerings’ gathering.

The events preceding the marriage prove to be one of several subplots in OUR MUTUAL FRIEND. The marriage that has rattled the rigid few is between Eugene Wrayburn and the beautiful twenty-year-old Lizzie Hexam. Her father made his living as a “nightbird” on the Thames, recovering corpses, robbing them before turning them over to the police. Lizzie all her life unwillingly rowed her father’s boat and all the while financed her younger brother’s education under Schoolmaster Bradley Headstone. On Lizzie’s father’s death she met Eugene Wrayburn who took an interest in her and paid for her education. Headstone has fallen desperately in love with Lizzie. And proportionately Headstone’s jealously of and hatred for Wrayburn has intensified. Wrayburn, too, is in love with Lizzie Hexam.

Headstone bludgeons Wrayburn and leaves him for dead at a river’s edge. Lizzie, an expert boatperson, rescues Wrayburn and takes him to her house. A vicar of the Church of England performs the marriage of Eugene and Lizzie as the attorney lies at the point of death. Slowly he recovers under Lizzie’s loving care.

The committee meeting of the rigid is called by the Veneerings. What is to be done about this travesty, this disobedience? The committee meeting is chaired by Lady Tippens, an old aristocratic babe whose morals may have slipped from time to time. However, any indescretion with men in this social circle would be overlooked because those slips occurred within the group and not without it. Lady Tippins warns Mortimer Lightfoot, Eugene’s dearest friend, that this ridiculous affair “is condemned by the voice of Society.” Tippins further states to the gathering, “The question before the committee is, whether a young man of very fair family, good appearance, and some talent, makes a fool or a wise man of himself in marrying a female waterman, turned factory girl.”

Mortimer counters with a superb defense citing the courage, virtue, worth and beauty of Lizzie Hexam. Garrulous Lady Tippins asks Mortimer, “How was the bride dressed? In rowing clothes? I hope she steered herself, larboarded herself, and starboarded herself, or whatever the technical term may be, to the ceremony?”

Mortimer replies, “However she got to it, she graced it.” Lady Tippins exclaims for the whole house to hear, “Graced it! Take care of me if I faint, Veneering. He means to tell us, that a horrid female waterman is graceful.”

“Pardon me. I mean to tell you nothing, Lady Tippins, replies Mortimer Lightwood. And keeps his word by eating his dinner with a show of utter indifference.”

Then breaks in one of Dickens’ most famous creations, John Podsnap, a pig-headed English businessman in the marine insurance line. We get the term “Podsnappery” from this buffoon’s comments and mannerisms. John Podsnap attends every Veneering event. He clears the world of its most difficult problems by exclaiming, “I don’t want to know about it, I don’t choose to discuss it, I don’t admit it.” On the Wrayburn-Hexam marriage Podsnap allows, “All I have to say is that my gorge rises against such a marriage–that it offends me and disgusts me–that it makes me sick–and that I desire to know no more about it.” Lady Tippins canvasses the remaining crowd and all but one in varying degrees of energy agree with Podsnap.

The gentle gentleman, Melvin Twemlow, displays inordinate courage when he says to John Podsnap, “Pardon me, sir, I don’t agree with you. I say if such feelings on the part of this gentleman, induced this gentleman to marry this lady, I think he is the greater gentleman for the action, and makes her the greater lady. I beg to say, that when I use the word, gentleman, I use it in the sense in which the degree may be attained by any man.

Charles Dickens knew the pain of a starving stomach. Oliver Twist speaks for Charles Dickens when he says, “Please, Sir, I want some more.” Charles Dickens’ spirit broke under the weight prison of living in debters’ prison and having to call it “home.” Arthur Clennam speaks to Charles Dickens when he says to Amy Dorritt (Little Dorrit) that she must never again speak of debters’ prison as “home.” Dickens as a child supported his family while they lived in Marshalsea Prison for unpaid debts. Mr. Bumble speaks for Charles Dickens and his family when he utters, “The law is a ass–a idiot.”

AS I LAY DYING

William Falkner’s novel, AS I LAY DYING, gets its title from Book 11 of the ODYSSEY when Agamemnon tells of his murder by Aegisthus along with his wife, Clytemnestra. Odysseus is visiting Agamemnon in hell. Agamemnon explains to his old associate, Odysseus, that as he lay dying the “dog-eyed woman” would not even close his two eyes. This of course refers to the fact that none of the decent burial rites was afforded Agamemnon by his wife. The Atlanta world of power sees the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. as a dying thing. It lies at the point of death. And as a part of that death, I wonder who might come to close its two eyes? Who will come from “the powers in the towers” or from “the golden mile” from the state house northward to honorably bury the dead? Will a member of the the corporate community come to bury the dead honorably? Perhaps a few. Will the priests and clergy and rabbis along the golden mile come with condolences? A few will. Will elected politicians bring flowers? Three will! Will the dog-eyed woman be there to shed a tear? No, for sure.

Anyone, who, along with the downtown dunces, believes the Task Force is dying should research the Phoenix and the history of King Hezekiah’s health.

James Wilson Beaty, PhD
Jeremiah 22.16

Shakespeare On Social Injustices

Outside the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, I know of no statement exposing social injustices more powerful than Shakespeare’s Sonnet 66. He gave the world 154 sonnets, give or take a few, that some scholars believe might have been written by somebody else. Like the 150 Psalms of David, a few may have been set down by a second writer. I don’t care. For our purposes authorship is secondary; content is primary.

Sonnet 66 is unique for several reasons. First, ten of its lines begin with the coordinate conjunction, “And.” Ten lines beginning with the same word displays a regularity not to be found elsewhere in the remaining sonnets. I have not seen this regularity anywhere else in good writing. Shakespeare has a reason for his unvarying rhythm. He is creating a regularity that matches the monotony of the world’s injustice. And that monotony has its own dismal pattern of relentless repetition. A second unique feature of Sonnet 66 is its abandoning the three quatrains and rhyming couplet. Each of the “stanzas” forms a mini-poem while the couplet serves as a commentary on the fourteen lines. Not Sonnet 66.

For our accessibility and enjoyment I want to put the 14-line poem in front of us:

Sonnet 66
Tired with all these, for restful death I cry:
As to behold desert a beggar born,
And needy nothing trimmed in jollity,
And purist faith unhappily forsworn,
And guilded honor shamefully misplaced,
And maiden virtue rudely strumpeted,
And right perfection wrongfully disgraced,
And strength by limping sway disabled,
And art made tongue-tied by authority,
And folly (doctor-like) controlling skill,
And simple truth miscalled simplicity,
And captain good attending captain ill.
Tired with all these, from these would I be gone,
Save that to die I leave my love alone.

Line 1 tells that the poet cries for death because he is exhausted by the injustices he’s about to list. Lines 13 and 14 which close the sonnet repeat that his devastated state remains, and his desire to be gone from “these” remains. However, his only grip on constancy is his faithfully loving those around him. He cannot leave them alone.

A litany of evil smudges the page from line 2 through line 12. A parade of victims and victimizers file before the eyes of the narrator. The first seven lines form a lament while the last five lines name the victims and their victimizers. Each of the five lines is an J’accuse.

Throughout the sonnet the single line does what the four-line quatrain usually does. It makes a complete statement. For instance the second line notes that a worthwhile person is born to be a beggar while line 3 finds a worthless nothing, unjustly raised up and dressed in jollity, in a merry mood. Line 3 reminds me of the fop, prominent in Eighteenth Century English literature. The fop is the vain, overdressed dandy unaware that he hopes to be avoided by everyone in every room that he enters. “Oh no, look who just arrived.” He’s the one who has just been promoted over three others more qualified than he. Line two brings to mind Bobby Kennedy’s proclaiming that every baby born of woman in any one of the United States of America has an engagement ring on its tiny finger. And that ring is a promise of citizenship that carries with it the full protection of the Constitution. That promise is the guarantee as an American to the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Shakespeare’s second line “As to behold desert a beggar born” deplores that in his world that right had not been granted.

Lines 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 move from lament to J’accuse. Each of these lines accuses a perpetrator. And each of these lines exposes a mover and a shaker acting CUI BONO, for whose benefit? for what use? of what good? Each victimizer has made a victim for fear of being removed, replaced. Shakespeare, the master of words hates most miscalling, misnaming. Secondly, he hates the pretense of learning, the novice pretending to be an expert. Look with me if we dare at the five victimizers.

Line 8 reads, “And strength by limping sway disabled.” “Limping sway” is defective authority; any citizen in Atlanta ever heard of “defective authority”? I remember some years ago the Task Force leadership was at City Hall pleading for something. We were actually casting our pearls before swine. Robert S. Cramer, Jr., Chair of the Board, said to Mayor Bill Campbell, “Mr. Mayor, we own a huge building on Peachtree Street; we believe we have rights.” Campbell’s response in front of 12 people was, “Bob, you have rights; we have enforcement.” In 1995 the Task Force had the strength to apply for and to obtain $12.4 million that was dispersed among shelters throughout the greater Atlanta area. Campbell held a copy of the check for the media lying that the city had applied for and had gotten the $12.4 million. A shelter provider in my hearing said last month that the Task Force’s dispersement of that money was the only time that the accounting was fair. The Task Force since 1995 has been “disabled” constantly, unremittingly since 1995. Debbie Starnes came alive following the Super NOFA federal grant in 1995; the present Czar was on City Council. She saw then that federal bucks were to be had. The calculating Starnes as member of the City Council had her work cut out for her. Starnes, like Bruce Gunter, that safe point of light, is always close to the money. The “sway” in Shakespeare’s sonnet is that unsteady authority that pulverizes threatening strength. J’accuse Debi Starnes; J’accuse defective authority mirrored in the likes of Bill Campbell. J’accuse Shirley Franklin. J’accuse them in the names of 600 men at the Pine who will soon be on the streets of Atlanta fulfilling the wishes of defective authority.

Line 9 reads: “And art made tongue-tied by authority.” The City of Atlanta has never, not one time, not now, not ever addressed the homeless population. Pages of discovery (evidence) showing that Central Atlanta Progress, the City of Atlanta and the sad Atlanta Journal-Constitution have for years plotted to overthrow Anita Beaty and the shelter at Peachtree-Pine. I’m under lock and key not to BLOG what I know and who I know e-mailed whom in order to block funding, coaching reporters, asking about lenders, speaking with mega-million bucks donars, etc., etc. In a few days when all the court stuff is on record, I can post and, honey, I will. But for now, “Art” for Shakespeare meant articulation, oration, expression and truth telling. The Atlanta Journal Constitution has lied incessantly. It is Debi Starnes’ newsletter slandering the Task Force. Reporters for the local newspaper are coached by the brass at Central Atlanta Progress on which “spin” to take. And all the while those of us who know the truth are “tongue-tied” without the resources to pay the water bills because the creditor to whom we owe the water bill has illegally (tortious interference) stopped our funding. J’accuse Central Atlanta Progress. J’accuse Deborah “the whole truth” Cook. J’accuse Debi Starnes. J’accuse David “Great News” “Wake up Atlanta” Wardell. And I accuse these leaders of our city in the names of the hundreds of homeless men whose hands I shake all the time.

Line 10 reads, “And folly (doctor-like) controlling skill.” Remember Shakespeare despised almost as much as lying with the language, miscalling with the inaccurate words. Some years ago I was an honorable member of the Atlanta Kiwanis Club. I loved my time there, and those good folks let me speak once, with some trepidation I might add, theirs and mine. Before I left (the Task Force nor I could pay the dues), Horace Sibley, Esquire, was the quest speaker. He was invited to speak because he was then (and now I think) the Chair of Mayor Franklin’s newly appointed Commission on Homelessness. Among other things this retired attorney said that the commission which he chaired would end homelessness in Atlanta in ten years. Sibley mosied around Peachtree-Pine for ten months taking notes while his lovely daughter painted dozens of homeless people in our little art studio. “And folly (doctor-like) controlling skill” portrays Horace Sibley talking about ending homelessness. I’m sure he’s a brilliant lawyer, but he knows as much about ending homelessness as a rabbit knows about teaching Sunday School. J’accuse Hosby in the names of the 600 men who languish tonight at the Pine wondering where Team Goliath will stab us next,

Line 11 reads: “And simple truth miscalled simplicity.” The first century Christians were first called Chrestians, or simpletons. Brilliant Atlanta attorneys will soon show the Superior Court of Fulton County that the Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless, Inc. has methodically, regularly and unremittingly been depicted by the local paper, agents of city hall and the wise Central Atlanta Progress to be at best simpletons who harm rather than help homeless people. Misnaming! Why this lie? Let me count the ways. One answer is enough! LOCATION! LOCATION! LOCATION! Bruce “safe point of light” Gunter sidled up to Anita Beaty years ago in order to deliver the building to developers. He couldn’t deliver; he’s been an enemy ever since. No money; no Bruce. The Task Force has told the truth about homeless people since its inception. Truth speaking to power rarely wins. J’accuse Debi Starnes for telling people not to buy the Pine because it would soon be foreclosed. J’accuse the local paper for consistently reporting lies about Peachtree-Pine from lice infestation to human squalor. J’accuse them in the names of the twenty men thriving in transition at the Pine.

Line 12 reads: “And Captain Good attending Captive Ill.” When Bob Cramer graciously asked Mayor Campbell for relief, we all went there trusting that ILL would help. After Andy Young and Maynard Jackson, the Task Force has approached city hall only with hat in hand. In fact, the only times we’ve seen Shirley Franklin was when she drove by the Peachtree-Pine facility, slowly, taking notes. I think Hosby did that for her (that’s Horace Sibley). One of our staff members named him “Hosby” because we love him so much. He’s our friend. And he bats cleanup on Team Goliath.

The Pretrial hearing in the Superior Court of Fulton County is set for September 21, 2009. I can’t tell you yet what I know. I yearn to talk about subpoenas and motions and possible sanctions and 4000 pages of stuff and city attorneys and other Keystone Cops stuff like that. I asked a knowledgeable person how in blazes could the city have 4000 pages that mentioned the poor little David, the ruined Task Force. One smarter than I asked me, “How long did you say Debi Starnes has been running her mouth?” Speaking of “dismal pattern of relentless repetition.” Incidentally those 4000 pages are now in the hands of Task Force lawyers, along with subpoenaed e-mails from Central Atlanta Progress. I’m permitted to write that. As the Reverend Joseph Lowry has said, “And the beat goes on.” Stay tuned my little ones. The fat lady has not yet begun to sing. Watch for “Does A Worm Squirm?”

James Wilson Beaty, PhD
Jeremiah 22.16

“Sir, I wrote that speech in a garret in Exeter Street.”

Samuel “Dictionary” Johnson served from November 1740 to February 1742 as a reporter of the debates in Parliament. The reports were sold on the streets by publishers like Johnson’s friend Edward Cave. The name of Cave’s leaflets was THE SENATE OF LILLIPUT. Using Jonathan Swift’s LILLIPUT alerted the literate that satire lay ahead. Note takers attended the debates and conveyed their findings to Johnson who in turn, out of his imaginings, composed the speeches.

Guests at a Francis Foote dinner party heard their host marvel at the brilliance of a William Pitt speech. Foote allowed that the speech was the best he had ever heard and superior to anything in Demosthenes. Johnson, a dinner guest, said, “Sir, I wrote that speech in a garret in Exeter Street.” The group applauded Johnson’s eloquence and impartiality. On the impartiality Johnson confessed, “That is not quite true; I saved appearances tolerably well, but I took care that the Whig dogs should not have the best of it.”

I explain to my students and to my children that I read Johnson unabashedly and devotionally. Moral: sometimes the “dogs” do not have the best of it.

James Wilson Beaty, PhD
Jeremiah 22.16