Something that always stands out to me any time I read Dickens’ fiction is how he seems to suggest to readers all the ways in which their society and/or its systems are corrupt or unjust. He typically seems to do so using satire, as well as in his depiction of distinct characters such as Fagin, Mr. Bumble, and Oliver Twist. In Oliver Twist, one of the things I picked up on as a criticism of the relationships between men and women, and especially the role of women in these relationships, as portrayed by Mr. Bumble and Mrs. Corney. After everyone is brought to justice in the final chapters of the novel, there is a moment where the focus of the story becomes an account from this married couple:
‘It was all Mrs. Bumble. She would do it,’ urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round to ascertain that his partner had left the room.
‘That is no excuse,’ replied Mr. Brownlow. ‘You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.’
‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass–a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience–by experience.’
Laying great stress on the repetition of these two words, Mr. Bumble fixed his hat on very tight, and putting his hands in his pockets, followed his helpmate downstairs. (Dickens 422)
What stands out in this passage is how their relationship is solely based on advantage. Mrs. Corney is only good to Mr. Bumble as far as the law gives him an advantage over her, and in thanks to her (i.e. her inheritance). In this case, he is made responsible for his wife’s actions, actions which he facilitated, and the law is no longer his friend. Prior to this, he is grateful for how the law binds the two together because it promoted him to being a master in the workhouse, rather than simply a beadle. Sadly, he quickly realizes that even this “promotion” is not favorable to him; his wife is the mistress and he must only do what is favorable for her. It is this demotion from master that really seems to cause Bumble to resent his wife. In other words, Bumble calls the law “a ass” because it is foolish to believe that his wife acts the way he orders her to.
The relationship between Bumble and Corney is in a way not what is suggested by the law, which creates a system where men are in control and women must submit to their husbands, who in a way, become like the law since as it says in the quote, they must act according to their direction. Rather, Mr. Bumble is portrayed in this quote, and throughout the novel, as a cowardly excuse for a man (evidenced by the fact that he could only blame his wife if she was absent from the room), or at least the kind of masculine gentleman the law promotes.
For me, this kind of behavior from Mrs. Corney creates a sense of admiration for her because she is pushing back against the image of the Angel of the House, which the reader sees in Rose Maylie. However, the difference in these two characters is their station in life. Mrs. Corney is a modest employee of the parish, while Rose is a beneficiary of an estate. This suggests that the law is only truly useful to those who are in power – the ones who have the money to wield power (i.e. the rich white men). Even characters such as the Bumbles, who are unlikeable for their villainous roles in the novel, receive some sympathy for readers as a result of the lower station in life, and how that affects their happiness and opportunities. As Bumble states, experience is really what matters, and the way society is set up in Victorian England leaves a lot to be desired for most in the way of truly experiencing the effects of the law on their society. Oliver Twist’s story is entirely a testament to that fact.
Great points here, Maggie! I wonder what you think of the way Dickens portrays the institution of marriage here. For Mr. Bumble marriage doesn’t seem to be a boon, but perhaps (as you point out) this is associated with his own reasons for entering into it. I wonder what the rest of you think about whether Dickens is critical of marriage as an institution in this novel or just using this particular faulty marriage as a satirical method of critiquing other issues: inappropriate gender roles, the law and its power structures (as you point out here, Maggie), the way individuals can manipulate and use one another, etc. A great start to our blog!