The Morality of Sacrifice in "Little Dorrit" [ Victorian Web Home —> Authors —> Charles Dickens —> Little Dorrit Directions Where possible, bibliographical information appears in the form of in-text citations, which refer to the bibliography that appears below in this column. Clicking on superscript numbers will take you to longer notes, which appear in this column; clicking the back button on your web browser will return you to your place in the main text. Links in the text take you to other documents and images in the Victorian Web. Notes 1 . Can You Forgive Her (1864); The Eustace Diamonds (1873); The Small House at Allington (1864); The Warden (1855); The Last Chronicle of Barset (1866) 2 . Later references to this character will be simply written as “Blandois,” the last pseudonym he assumes in the novel. 3 These traits, and other references to abstract character traits that contribute the given character’s immoral behavior, are capitalized to elevate the power these traits have over a character’s moral disposition.

4 James Kay Shutlesworth’s work, from which Armstrong draws her claims, was done in the mid-1830s, about 20 years before Dickens began serially publishing Little Dorrit. 5 The Tu quoque fallacy is “the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that others have made the same error. An error is still an error, regardless of how many people make it.” (Taken from the webpage of Glenn Whitman, Professor at CSU, Northridge.) 6 Langland attributes this claim to the work of Michael E. Rose, who according to Langland, argued that “the middle classes saw the lower classes qualitatively different from themselves.” Her citation of Rose’s work is as follows: Rose, Michael E. “The Disappearing Pauper” Victorian Attitudes to the Relief of the Poor.” Sigsworth 56-72. 7 I had also intended to consider Tatttycoram as a character who sacrifices herself, however her circumstances deposit her directly between the two groups of characters I have mentioned so far — those who sacrifice others, and those who sacrifice themselves for others.

Tattycoram ultimately sacrifices herself (particularly her individuality), but it is not for others, and is actually for her own conditional happiness with the Meagles family. It seems then that her sacrifice was executed to relieve herself of a worse condition (the one with Ms. Wade), which can be likened to Mr. Merdle’s suicide, but of course is much different for several reasons. It is for these reasons that I have chosen to address Tattycoram in this footnote rather than in the body of the essay, but for what it is worth, I believe the novel neither rewards nor punishes Tattycoram for her unique circumstance of sacrifice. Works Cited Anderson, Amanda. The Powers of Distance: Cosmopolitanism and the Cultivation of Detachment. Princeton University Press, 2001. Armstrong, Nancy. “History in the House of Culture: Social Disorder and Domestic Fiction in Early Victorian England.” Poetics Today. 7.4 (1986): 641-71 Blumberg, Ilana. Unnatural Self-Sacrifice: Trollope’s Ethic of Mutual Benefit. University of California Press, 2004.

506-46 Dickens, Charles. Little Dorrit. Penguin Books, 2003. Fleishman, Avrom. “Master and Servant in Little Dorrit” Studies in English Literature 14.4 (1974): 575-86. Goodlad, Lauren. “A Middle-Class Cut in Two: Historiography and Victorian National Character.” ELH 67.1 (2000): 143-78. Langland, Elizabeth. “Nobody’s Angels: Domestic Ideology and Middle-Class Women in the Victorian Novel.” PMLA (1992): 290-304. Whitman, Glen. “Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate” ~dgw61315/ index.html. Accessed May, 2009. Yeazell, Ruth Bernard. “Do It or Dorrit” NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction 25.1 (1991): 33-49. I.

Introduction Most readers of Charles Dickens will have noticed that his novels employ characters from various social classes of Victorian England, each character developed enough for the reader to make an inference about Dickens’s commentary on social or domestic order, or at least enough for the reader to know that commentary is afoot, whether or not he or she is able to make anything of it. Additionally, most scholars who have read literary criticisms of Charles Dickens will have very likely been exposed to an extensive array of theories concerning what his commentary on social order, and the characters’ particularly defined roles within it, actually is. “It is Dickens’s almost unique genius,” begins Avrom Fleishman, Professor Emeritus of English at Johns Hopkins University, “to tell us not only how it feels to be alive in class society, but also how people shape their own character under the spell of inequality” (575).

Although Fleishman does not expand on his statement in this way, it can be read as if to say that although Dickens’s develops his characters within a specific social framework, the most provocative commentary rests not in the roles, responsibilities, virtues, and vices stereotypically found among the Victorian social classes, but rather through the ways in which the characters define their own moral characters, independent of their assigned social order. That is to say, one orphan may act entirely different than another orphan (Great Expectations’ Pip and Oliver Twist’s title orphan), one capitalist entirely different from another capitalist (Little Dorrit’s Mr. Meagles and Hard Times’ Bounderby), one cosmopolitan character entirely different from another cosmopolitan character (Little Dorrit’s Arthur Clennam and Monsieur Rigaud, to foreshadow a later discussion), and so on. Dickens’s novel then shifts from a commentary on Victorian social class, to a commentary on the individuals who are thrust, aptly or otherwise, into those classes. This shift does not deny the existence of social and domestic categories, but instead suggests that each character has the willful agency to behave in a way that is morally independent of those who share his or her social or domestic category.

Dickens’s 1857 novel, Little Dorrit, serves well — perhaps inadvertently — to demonstrate that a character’s moral development has more to do with the individual’s disposition than his or her standing in the social and domestic hierarchies of Victorian England. Ruth Bernard Yeazell, in her essay “Do It or Dorrit”, similarly theorizes that “more than most Dickens’s novels, Little Dorrit frustrates any attempt to trace human acts — or failures to act — to single determining origins” (39). In order to exercise my claim, I will investigate the ways in which Little Dorrit’s characters engage their moral identities through acts of sacrifice — both in terms of sacrificing oneself for others, and of sacrificing others, either for oneself or otherwise. This should be an important and fruitful exercise, as “the relation of sacrifice to the mid-Victorian novel is an extraordinarily rich, surprisingly understudied topic” (Blumberg 515). It is indeed surprising, for as Blumberg goes on to note, “mid- to late-nineteenth century writings are exceptionally prone to conceive of social relations in terms of sacrifice” (515).

Although her essay focuses this trope of sacrifice on five Anthony Trollope novels, the mid-Victorian novels with which she expands her claim are Bronte’s Jane Eyre (1847); Charolette Mary Yonge’s The Heir of Radcliffe (1853); George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss (1860) and Silas Marner (1861); Wilkie Collins’ The Moonstone (1868) and No Name (1862); Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations (1861) and A Tale of Two Cities (1869). 1 With regards to George Eliot, this trope could as well include Daniel Deronda (1876), and with regards to Dickens, we might also consider Bleak House (1853) in which Esther Summerson, determined to do good and “win some love”, is confronted with a potential sacrifice of her happiness in her efforts to thank Mr. Jarndyce. Additionally, investigations of the individual and sacrifice have also resonated in political and fantastical novels of the Victorian era.

Regarding the political, Beauchamp’s Career (1875) by George Meredith involves the sacrifice of its protagonist to selfless morality as he attempts to save a street urchin from drowning, while previously sacrificing his connection with a rich uncle in his attraction to the Radical ideology. Regarding sacrifice in the fantastical, the conclusion of George MacDonald’s Phantastes (1858), while vague, ought to be considered as the character Cosmo sacrifices his own life to save the soul of his beloved. It appears then that Blumberg is correct in noting the tendencies of mid-Victorian novels to conceive of relationships in terms of sacrifice; however, Little Dorrit separates itself with greater emphasis on morality and individuality, and this essay will be chiefly concerned with that emphasis. To capture a broad perspective of sacrifice, my investigation will consider several of Little Dorrit’s developed characters — from the pivotal players of Arthur Clennam, Mr. Merdle, and Amy (Little) Dorrit, to the supporting cast members such as Tattycoram, Rigaud/Langier/Blandois, 2 and Ms. Wade, among others.

Ultimately, the novel suggests that those characters who sacrifice others, either for their own personal benefit or in negligence, will in turn find themselves fatally sacrificed by the very forces within themselves — Greed, Ignorance, Pressure, 3 etc. — that catalyzed their sacrifice of others. Conversely, the novel suggests that those characters who sacrifice themselves for others will in turn find themselves rewarded with happiness, perhaps the most beloved reward of them all. II. Sacrificing Others Let us first consider those characters who sacrifice others, knowingly or negligently. With each character thus analyzed, I will show, in order, who they sacrificed, why their social class or label cannot be an excuse for their moral flaw, and finally how they in turn become sacrificed by the forces within themselves that catalyzed their sacrifice of others. Since the novel begins with the sinister Monsieur Rigaud, so then will I. It will be first useful to identify him, as he does himself, as a “cosmopolitan gentleman” (24). More explicitly, he declares, “I own no particular country. My father was Swiss — Canton de Vaud. My mother was French by blood, English by birth. I myself was born in Belgium.

I am a citizen of the world” (24). This “gentleman” makes three attempts at sacrificing others, two of them successfully, the other nearly executed, but ultimately unsuccessful. First, he kills his wife — “Struggling with her — assassinating her!” (27) Then he deliberately poisons the Gowon’s dog — both instances of course contrary to his own side of the story. The third instance materializes in his unsuccessful attempt to sacrifice Mrs. Clennam by exposing her lie that concerns Arthur’s legitimacy, and likewise the legitimacy of her motherhood. The reader may now wonder why I found it “useful” to identify Monsieur Rigaud as cosmopolitan. First, with regards to a character’s moral disposition, Rigaud’s cosmopolitan nature coincides with Amanda Anderson’s observation of how Dickens involves cosmopolitan characters in Victorian English society: On the one hand, Dickens ambitiously strove in his novels to comprehend a social whole, and his narratives repeatedly assert omniscient and comparative knowledge as an intellectual and ethical value.

On the other hand, insofar as the knowledge embodied in the narratives, and accessible to select characters, involves exposure to scathing truths about economic inequities or systemic corruption, it actually becomes a negative force as well, threatening the individual’s sense of purpose and capacity for clear moral vision when dealing with others who are suddenly viewed as fully complicit in the forms of power that structure the social world more broadly [emphasis added] (70). In short, Anderson argues that a character’s cosmopolitanism can sometimes generate an “ethical value,” and sometimes it can generate an ethical flaw. While this argument is not false, I believe it requires a slight adjustment. I would like to suggest that a character’s moral behavior is not governed by cosmopolitanism itself, but is governed rather by the character’s individual response to his or her cosmopolitanism — that is, how the characters use their cosmopolitanism, and not how cosmopolitanism uses the characters. To assert that Monsieur Rigaud’s “capacity for clear moral vision” is “threatened” is to put it as mildly as our English vocabulary allows. But to use the vocabulary that Anderson uses, what is his capacity for moral vision threatened by?

For Anderson, it is the very actuality of his cosmopolitanism. In chapter two of her book, The Powers of Distance, she alludes to Dickens’s broader anxiety that “cultivated detachment — aesthetic, scientific, and cosmopolitan — poses a distinct threat to moral integrity, purposiveness, and forms of belonging” [emphasis added] (82). She goes on, however, to stress that “in many of [cosmopolitanism’s] Enlightenment manifestations, it comprises both intellectual and ethical dimensions, with a prominent emphasis on the practice of self-cultivation” (64). Since other cosmopolitan characters — in Little Dorrit, in other Dickens’s novels, and in other Victorian works — behave much differently than Rigaud, it seems more reasonable to say that his capacity for moral integrity is not threatened by cosmopolitanism, but rather his individual response to it. The moral differences between the cosmopolitan characters are therefore determined not by cosmopolitanism’s effect on the individual, but by the individual’s effect on cosmopolitanism — by the degree to which they use cosmopolitanism to morally cultivate themselves.

This is an important distinction to make because by shifting accountability to the characters themselves, the novel is justified in the rewards or punishments it allots to the moral or amoral characters, respectively. Although granting that Monsieur Rigaud is perhaps more cosmopolitan than other characters who seem to be worthy of such a label, it must be noted that these other characters with traces of cosmopolitanism adhere to an entirely different program of moral values. After all, the “Fellow Travellers” from the East in Chapter Two behave without the coldness, deceitfulness, and manipulation to which Rigaud subscribes. The Meagles, granting their unwillingness to (further) improve Tattycoram’s well-being, by and large behave respectfully. Miss Wade, while pessimistic and suspicious, commits no real harm. And Arthur Clennam, the novel’s hero, might be regarded as Rigaud’s moral antithesis. Additionally, although she is not one of these “Fellow Travelers,” the cosmopolitan Mrs.

General, who “in the course [of about seven years] made the tour of Europe, and saw most of that extensive miscellany of objects which it is essential that all persons of polite cultivation should see with other people’s eyes, and never their own . . . was a name more honorable than ever” (473). Hence it is Rigaud’s reaction to — and decided involvement with — his cosmopolitanism that defines his moral makeup. When viewed in this light, the collection of cosmopolitan characters crumbles down, and the individuals, with their own unique dispositions, remain unscathed by this social category. The novel, with regards to moral temperament, is therefore neither pro- nor anti-cosmopolitan; however, it is decidedly in favor of those who react to their cosmopolitanism honorably and selflessly (sacrificing themselves for others), and is against those who react dishonorably and selfishly (sacrificing others, knowingly or otherwise). Part of my thesis stated that those characters who sacrifice others, either for their own personal benefit or otherwise, will in turn find themselves fatally sacrificed by the very forces within themselves that catalyzed their sacrifice of others.

As just shown, the catalyst cannot be Rigaud’s cosmopolitanism, as this trait surfaces in some of the moral characters of the novel as well. Manipulation, Deceit, and Malice, therefore, seem to be the safest bets — what instigated these traits, one can only guess. In any case, it follows then that Rigaud fittingly dies beneath the very house that he tried to manipulate, or literally, “the great beam that lay upon him, crushing him” (828). Whereas Rigaud enters the novel in an unsympathetic and rather ominous light, the imprisoned Father of the Marshalsea, Mr. William Dorrit, is first introduced as “a very amiable and very helpless middle-aged gentleman . . . .a shy, retiring man; well-looking, though in an effeminate style; with a mild voice, curling hair, and irresolute hands” (73). Yet Mr. Dorrit, instead of sacrificing himself for the sake of his children, imposes sacrifices upon them — Little Dorrit bearing most, but Fanny and Tip (because of their unwillingness to sacrifice themselves for others) suffering most.

He loosely spends Testimonial money from visitors and perpetuates his stay in the Marshalsea, which perpetuates the misfortune of the Dorrit children. The most poignant demonstration of Mr. Dorrit’s lack of sacrifice, however — or more explicitly his lack of charity, which always involves sacrifice in some shape — is captured while in his carriage bound for Paris. While “every cripple at the post-houses, not blind, who shoved his little battered tin box in at [Mr. Dorrit’s] carriage window for Charity in the name of heaven, Charity in the name of our Lady, Charity in the name of all the Saints,” Mr. Dorrit preoccupies himself with “castle-building.... running towers up, taking towers down, adding a wing here, putting on a battlement there, looking to the walls, strengthening the defenses, giving ornamental touches to the interior, making in all respects a superb castle of it” (664). Not only does he sacrifice his own children, but he fails to make a charitable sacrifice when the opportunity stares him in the face — which especially weakens his moral character when the reader recalls that acts of charity or sacrifice by visitors to the Marshalsea (strangers to Mr.

Dorrit) were that which made his bitter imprisonment tolerable, and daresay comfortable. Of what Mr. Dorrit is supposed to be representative, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell. He is literally a father, though for most of the novel cared for as a child. He was “brought up as a gentleman,” and “Ed’cated at no end of expense,” though often times detrimentally ignorant (79). It is perhaps for these reasons that we need not demonstrate any further how the novel distinguishes Mr. Dorrit as a morally unique individual, but it should be remembered that no character — save for Mr. Merdle — who at any time shares a social or domestic category with him, behaves with the immoral recklessness to which Mr. Dorrit subscribes. The closest argument would go to the cosmopolitan Rigaud, but this obliges one to see Mr. Dorrit’s travel experiences as cosmopolitan, which becomes difficult to do when he simply surrounds himself with Englishmen while abroad. He is like the American who vacations in Japan and books a reservation at Planet Hollywood — not exactly the cosmopolitan experience.

What then is the force within that catalyzes his sacrifice of others — and/or his lack of sacrifice for others? Some critics of Victorian-era behavior, both in and outside of the novel, want to blame disrupted households. Contemporary critic Nancy Armstrong, recalling the research of James Shuttleworth, explains that machinization and problems of political order produced disorder in Victorian households, and likewise that “geographies of domestic disorder were also maps of moral disorder” (654). 4 First, this starkly contrasts with Elizabeth Langland’s assertion that “the nineteenth-century novel presents the household as a secure and moral shelter from economic and political storms,” however neither Armstrong’s nor Langland’s assertions add up in Little Dorrit, if at all elsewhere. Concerning Armstrong’s view that domestic disorder produced moral disorder, we have only to recall that not only do Amy Dorrit and her father both subscribe to domestic disorder, but they are in the same family! How did Amy evade moral degeneracy while it captured the rest of the family? How did Arthur behave so well despite the troubling circumstances of the Clennam household?

Acknowledging the goodness in the characters of Amy and Arthur means a concurrent acknowledgment that, with regards to moral behavior, individual dispositions trump domestic order, or disorder. Mr. Dorrit therefore has no social or domestic category to blame; the most likely culprit seems to be a combination of Self-Absorption and Ignorance. This combination surfaces visibly in the “castle building” scene mentioned earlier, though Ignorance takes precedence concerning the sacrifice of his children: “All I have been able to do, I have done,” he says to Amy (248). And again to Amy: “I cannot, my dear child, think of engrossing, and — ha — as it were, sacrificing you” (638). Both forces (Self-Absorption and Ignorance) again contribute to his injurious investments with Mr. Merdle: his Self-Absorption drives him into the company of society’s most esteemed members, and his Ignorance of how to manage himself and his money in a society for which he pretends to be equipped (“though of course I should, under any circumstances, like the rest of the civilized world, have followed in Mr.

Merdle’s train”) drives him to lose everything, bringing his children down with him, again (643). Early in the novel, Amy foreshadows the danger of her father trying to exist in the world outside the prison, saying “he might not be so fit himself for the life outside, as he is for [the Marshalsea]” (113). Because of this he is in turn sacrificed by the resulting pressure of his humiliation that follows these unfavorable endeavors. One might sympathize with a man who caught the same Epidemic “in common with the rest of the world,” but the Ad Hominem fallacy “Tu quoque,” 5 while often tempting, is hardly a worthy excuse (538). Mr. Merdle brings us to my last — though not the novel’s sole remaining — example of these amoral sacrificers. He is, however, the most obvious example, making sacrifices of everyone who trusted him with their investments, and spreading the symptoms (with help) of his own Epidemic. Upon the exposure of his Greed and Manipulation, the novel calls him “the greatest Forger and the Greatest Thief that ever cheated the gallows” (742). The novel explicitly labels Mrs.

Merdle as one of his victims, explaining that she “had been sacrificed to the wiles of a vulgar barbarian” [emphasis added] (838). Mr. Merdle, however, attempts to save face — as most guilty people do — by attempting to explain the “sacrifices” he had born. While discussing society with his wife, Mr. Merdle claims she does “not know anything of the sacrifices [he makes] for it,” but these “sacrifices,” just like his self-sacrifice of suicide, are made solely for his benefit — the former contributing to his bottomless pockets, the latter relieving him of the impending humiliation. He is thus ultimately sacrificed by the Greediness that caused him to sacrifice others — or at least the “Pressure” resulting from that greed (741). Like Mr. Dorrit and Monsieur Rigaud, Mr. Merdle’s amoral inclination to sacrifice others for himself stands independent of any social or domestic category. His behavior actually subscribes to the kind of morality that most middle-class citizens assigned to the bottom rungs of society.

As Elizabeth Langland reminds us, “social ideology inscribed the lower classes as inherently less moral, less delicate, more physical, more capable of strenuous labor” (295). 6 To what then can we attribute his extreme lack of morals? It cannot be that he is a father; consider Mr. Meagles, the elder John Chivery, the kind-hearted plasterer Mr. Plornish, and Mr. Rugg. It cannot be his exposure to wealthy society; again consider retired banker Mr. Meagles and Mr. Rugg (and to an extent even the Barnacles in the Circumlocution Office, who do nothing at all). It cannot be his capitalist nature; consider Daniel Doyce, who Arthur describes as “the honest, self-helpful, indefatigable old man, who has worked his way all through his life,” and who Mr. Meagles reminds us, “never complains” (134). Mr. Meagles’ description of Doyce especially contrasts with Mr. Merdle when we recall that Merdle’s “complaint had been, simply, Forgery and Robbery” (742) [emphasis added].

As the narrator in Chapter Eleven points out, “There never was, there never had been, there never again should be, such a man as Mr. Merdle” (597). III. Self-Sacrifice Just as the novel demonstrates — again, perhaps inadvertently — the amoral independence of characters such as Monsieur Rigaud, Mr. Dorrit, and Mr. Merdle, and punishes them accordingly by killing them at the hand of those forces within themselves that catalyzed their sacrifice of others — Malice, Self-absorption, Ignorance, Greed, etc. — the novel also displays those moral, self-sacrificing characters, as independent of social or domestic categories. That is to say, it is not only the amoral characters who eradicate a moral mold of social or domestic distinctions. Let us now consider for what or for whom these self-sacrificing characters sacrificed themselves, how they stand morally independent of social or domestic category, and likewise how the novel rewards them for this moral behavior. The obvious example is Amy Dorrit, who sacrifices herself for just about everybody she meets in the novel (excepting young John Chivery, poor fellow).

In fact, she sacrifices so much for the well-being of others that her family’s existence entirely depends on Amy’s selfless industriousness: “My brother would have been quite lost without Amy,” says Mr. Dorrit. “We should all have been lost without Amy” (108). Any reader of Little Dorrit should not need further examples of Amy’s sacrificial character; however, her moral independence may not be as obvious. That she is the daughter of a poor family, or even that she is a child of an imprisoned widower (and therefore might seem to be saddled with greater responsibility), is not enough to explain her selfless actions for others; consider Tip and Fanny, both of whom are thrust into the same circumstances, and both of whom unload the sacrifices they ought to make onto the already feeble back of their youngest sibling. Additionally, just as was the case with her father, Amy’s actions stand entirely independent of Armstrong’s supposed cause-and-effect of domestic disorder and moral degeneracy. Amy also pays no heed to the “social ideology [that] inscribed the lower classes as inherently less moral, less delicate, more physical, and more capable of strenuous labor” (Langland, 295).

Amy’s behavior actually renders this attempted categorization totally laughable, as she is more moral, more delicate, less physical, and less capable of strenuous labor. The novel itself identifies Amy as morally independent of others who share her social or domestic category, explaining that “she was inspired to be something which was not what the rest were, and to be that something, different and laborious, for the sake of the rest” (86). Amy’s ideals of being something, or doing something, “for the sake of the rest” is perhaps one of wholesome nostalgia. (Esther Somerson from Bleak House, as mentioned earlier, might coincide with Amy here as well).

In the same article referenced earlier concerning domestic and moral disorder, Nancy Armstrong discusses Peter Gaskell’s lamentation of the passing of a time when families were ï¿½bound together by the strong link of affection, each member in its turn, as it attained an age fitted for the loom, joined its labor to the general stock, its earnings forming part of a fund, the whole of which was placed at the disposal of the father or the mother, as the case may be; and each individual looked to him or to her for the adequate supply of its wants.’ [656] Aside from the discussion of role reversals — upon which this paper’s thesis could have rested entirely (and differently), and for which another twenty pages would be necessary — this passage, when considering the Dorrit family’s dependence upon Amy’s sacrifices, seems to deposit her amid an old-fashioned family unity that the rest of the Dorrits selfishly resist. Or perhaps the rest of the Dorrits are unknowingly caught in the sway of what Blumberg calls “the emergent system of consumer capitalism, [which] with its emphasis on materialism and material success, recommended taking advantage of the sacrifices of others” (513).

Among other things, considering the Dorrit family in accordance with Gaskell’s lamentation serves to morally distinguish her from others in her social or domestic sphere. This lack of help from the family becomes more interesting when the novel reaches its conclusion and Arthur, perhaps siding with the reader, declares to Amy, “It is not my imprisonment only that will soon be over. This sacrifice of you must be ended” (849). I mention Arthur’s acknowledgement of Amy’s sacrifices here specifically with regard to the lack of offered help from Amy’s family because it seems the person best equipped to help Amy is a self-sacrificing character who also subscribes to a similar set of moral principles. Amy, of course, is not the only character benefiting from Arthur’s self-sacrifices. The entire Dorrit family benefits from the sacrifices of his time, energy, and money, and if these were not enough, he accepts the full burden of the ruined partnership venture with Daniel Doyce.

In addition to mentioning for what or for whom Arthur sacrifices himself, it is important to reveal how the novel describes the beautiful history of his moral development: He was a dreamer in such wise, because he was a man who had deep-rooted in his nature, a belief in all the gentle and good things this life had been without. Bred in meanness and hard dealing, this had rescued him to be a man of honorable mind and open hand. Bred in coldness and severity, this had rescued him to have a warm and sympathetic heart. Bred in a creed to darkly audacious to pursue, through its process of reversing the making of man in the image of his Creator to the making of his Creator in the image of an erring man, this had rescued him to judge not, and in humility to be merciful, and have hope and charity.

[180] It is hardly worth pointing out that Arthur’s moral character is independent of social and domestic categories, since the novel tells us it is rather “deep-rooted in his nature.” However, for the sake of thicker substance, I will say that his moral character cannot be attributed to his experiences in travel (or to Cosmopolitanism), for we have only to look at Rigaud and Mr. Merdle; it cannot be that he is a son (of any social class), for we have only to look at Tip Dorrit and Henry Gowon; it cannot be his domestic rootlessness or his bitter upbringing, firstly because he lives unaware of his illegitimacy, but secondly — and more importantly — because Ms. Wade, also “bred in coldness and severity,” while committing no real harm, has anything but “hope and charity.” It cannot be the domestic disorder of the Clennam household — this paper has already said plenty on that topic. In short, it cannot be anything to do with social or domestic classes. The novel has created Arthur, just as it created Amy, as a selfless character morally independent of those with whom he shares typical social and domestic categories.

Whereas the novel punishes those characters who sacrificed others — particularly by sacrificing them to the vices that catalyzed those sacrifices — the characters who have sacrificed themselves for others — Little Dorrit and Arthur Clennam — find themselves rewarded for their moral behavior. 7 Specifically, they tie the knot and enter “a modest life of usefulness and happiness” (859). This contrasts with Beauchamp’s Career in which the protagonist, while curiously in a loveless yet happy marriage, is punished (drowned) in his selfless moral act of saving a drowning child. One might read a reward into that, though that is for another essay all together. Similarly, the Tulliver children of Mill on the Floss are punished (drowned) in their attempt to find and save Lucy Deane, however both children can as well be guilty of sacrificing others for their own ends, and thus deserve the drowning according to the reward-punishment system discussed above. Regarding Little Dorrit’s self-sacrificers, the reader should understand that although Arthur and Amy’s reward does not necessarily cease their sacrifices — they continue “to give a mother’s care to Fanny’s neglected children no less than their own . . .

and to give a tender nurse and friend to Tip” — this does not negate their reward. The novel describes them as “inseparable and blessed” and knows that they find “happiness” in seeing “the light shine on others and hailing it” (859, 181). Of course, neither one of them has hardly any capital to their name, but with the fates of other characters mentioned in this essay, it is hard to imagine they would prefer anything to honorable moral company. IV. Conclusion By now, it might be tempting to recall the characters this paper has put beneath the moral microscope and think that many of them have found ways to except themselves from the rule, as the saying goes. That is to say, the novel makes judgments about the morals of specific social and domestic categories — parents, children, cosmopolitan, provincial, poor, wealthy, etc. — but shows how certain characters have found ways to behave outside of those conventions. However, when the number of exceptions becomes equal to or near the amount of rules, the foundations of the rules (behavioral conventions and stereotypes in this case) become brittle at best. This is especially the case when there exists more than one exception to a given convention.

Arthur Clennam is not the only cosmopolitan character who subscribes to honorable moral behavior; consider Mr. Meagles and Mrs. General. Likewise, Monsieur Rigaud is not the only cosmopolitan character to behave wickedly; remember “the greatest Forger and the Greatest Thief that ever cheated the gallows” (742). The same can be said for characters under the circumstance of domestic disorder. Arthur and Amy both emerge as the novel’s two most selfless, morally behaving characters, yet the other members of the Dorrit family are morally blind or shallow. No matter which social or domestic category presents itself in Little Dorrit, there are always at least two characters who behave morally independent of that category. It is important to notice that behaving independently of social or domestic category is not synonymous with behaving in a certain way despite behavioral conventions typically associated with a given social or domestic categeory. After all, to behave despite X first requires an acknowledgement of X’s existence and then requires one to behave in a way contrary to X — X in this case meaning “lower-class citizens behave this way,” or “capitalists behave this way,” and so on.

That Little Dorrit’s characters act independently however, insinuates that its characters’ social or domestic category has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of their behavior. This does not suggest that social or domestic categories do not exist in Little Dorrit (that would be downright silly), but rather suggests, as the reader may recall from the introduction, that each character has the willful agency to behave in a way that is morally independent of those who share his or her social or domestic category. Removing morality from the discussion, there are undoubtedly many things which social and domestic categories can and probably do influence, inside and outside of the novel. However, that is not with what this paper, in its limited scope, concerns itself. By demonstrating — again, perhaps inadvertently — that characters (and likely the citizens of the society within which, for which, or about which the novel was written) can act morally and selflessly independent of any social or domestic category, Little Dorrit creates individuals in a society obsessed with compartmentalizing the many levels of social and domestic life in Victorian England.

Amanda Anderson is perhaps the literary critic most in touch with this as she explains “it is crucial to note that Dickens does seek at least partly to ground the capacity for achieved attachments in individual nature or temperament” (76). She carries this idea further by saying “the true moral distinction that Dickens makes is between those who assert forms of redemptive belief against such bleak conditions and those who fail to do so” [emphasis added] (76). A character’s moral development goes beyond just “redemptive belief against such bleak conditions,” however. As exemplified in Mr. Merdle, it is the characters in all conditions of society — from top to bottom, side to side — who must strive to hone selfless moral dispositions. Critics of the Victorian novel, and likewise of Charles Dickens, will continue to draw lines around social and domestic categories, shaping and reshaping them as a new theory demands it. However, with the lens of morality, these boundaries dissipate more and more, and eventually disappear. This dissipation especially plays out in moral boundaries concerning social classes — that is lower-, middle-, or upper-class distinctions.

As we see in Little Dorrit, members of the upper-classes include both moral and amoral characters, and the same can be said for the lower-classes. Most interesting perhaps is Mr. Dorrit, who moves from the lower society of the Marshalsea to upper-society toward the end of the novel, and behaves immorally in both. The creation of these morally independent characters also justifies the reward or punishment divvied out to them. Since it is easier to gauge a character’s moral disposition by the extreme forms of morality, there was no better assessment than to follow Little Dorrit’s characters into their engagement with sacrifice — sacrificing oneself for the sake of others being the extreme form of selfless moral behavior, and sacrificing others (either in full knowledge or negligence) being the extreme form of immoral behavior. Little Dorrit rightfully rewards those characters — Arthur and Amy — who willing sacrificed themselves for the sake of others by granting them happiness. Conversely, the novel punishes (by death) those characters who sacrificed others, fittingly at the hand of the forces within themselves that catalyzed their sacrifice of others.

In other words, none of the immoral characters die accidentally; if a character is guilty of something as serious as sacrificing others, he or she can never be an innocent bystander. As more critics begin to consider the ways in which Little Dorrit exercises the ideas of morality, sacrifice, and individuality as discussed in this paper, this novel will likely join other Victorian works considered to be one of the “novels [that] served among the century’s chief agents in secularizing and spreading the gospel of self-sacrifice” (Blumberg 514). This consideration will perhaps prove useful in an analysis of Victorian culture outside the novel as well, with the understanding that the nineteenth-century novel is drawn to self-sacrifice in part as an exploration of its own aesthetic and historical tensions: between individual psychology and social structure; between idealized and realist representation; between the sympathetic, socially concerned aims of its writers and their professional, commercial ambitions. [Blumberg 516] Not only does Little Dorrit demonstrate the possibility of moral self-cultivation, but insists on it, and rewards or punishes those characters according to their moral behavior. In short, no one gets away with anything because everyone’s accountable for themselves.

Optimists would love to believe this is representative of real Victorian society and even of real life today, but realists who want justice served ought to stay inside and read another book. Little Dorrit - AbeBooks Little Dorrit Results (1 - 30) of 339 1 ISBN 10: 1853261823 ISBN 13: 9781853261824 New Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Paperback. Book Condition: New. Not Signed; With an Introduction and Notes by Peter Preston, University of Nottingham. With Illustrations by Hablot K. Browne (Phiz). Little Dorrit is a classic tale of imprisonment, both literal and metaphorical, while Dickens' working title for the novel, Nobody's Fault, highlights its concern with personal r. book. Bookseller Inventory # ria9781853261824_rkm Published by Hazell, Watson & Viney Ltd (1930) Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Hazell, Watson & Viney Ltd, 1930. Hardcover. Book Condition: Very Good.

Dust Jacket Condition: No Dust Jacket. Hablot K Browne (Phiz) (illustrator). Reprint. Lightly marked blue blind-printed covers with gilt lettering and decoration on the spine, lightly bumped corners, sound binding, clean pages and end-papers, black and white illustrations. No dust-jacket. Undated by publisher. Estimated date only. Illustrator: Hablot K Browne (Phiz). Quantity Available: 1. Shipped Weight: under 1 kg. Pictures of this item not already displayed here available upon request. Inventory No: 10116121047. 20% discount at abe during January 2017, please bowse our other books for more bargains. Prices shown include the discount. Bookseller Inventory # 10116121047 ISBN 10: 0140621210 ISBN 13: 9780140621211 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Penguin, 1994. Paperback. Book Condition: AVERAGE. Paperback; English language; a fair reading copy.

Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping. Bookseller Inventory # 04300bjd011 ISBN 10: 0140430253 ISBN 13: 9780140430257 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Penguin, 1967. Paperback. Book Condition: AVERAGE. Paperback; English language; a fair reading copy; Colour fading to cover. Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping. Bookseller Inventory # 06639kdm007 ISBN 10: 0140621210 ISBN 13: 9780140621211 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Penguin, 1994. Paperback. Book Condition: GOOD. Paperback; English language; good condition.

Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping. Bookseller Inventory # 07964jaj041 Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Collins. PAPERBACK. Book Condition: Good. B001H385W4 Binding: Paperback ---Publisher: Collins ---Date: None Stated ---Edition: ---Pages: 832 ---Condition: Good ---DJ Condition: ---Description: All of the pages are unmarked, uncreased and tightly bound, the only flaws are a couple of minor scuffs to the covers and an inscription to the inside front cover. MOST OF OUR BOOKS ARE SHIPPED WITHIN 1 WORKING DAY OF PURCHASE. YOU GET A FREE BOOKMARK WITH EVERY ORDER. BUY WITH CONFIDENCE - WE UPLOAD A SELECTION OF HIGH QUALITY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH EACH LISTING, HOWEVER IF NOT ALREADY PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF OUR TITLES CAN BE PROVIDED BY REQUEST VIA E-MAIL.B001H385W4.

Bookseller Inventory # SKU1029723 Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Collins. Book Condition: Good. Binding: Hardback ---Publisher: Collins ---Date: None Stated ---Edition: ---Pages: 770 ---Condition: Good ---DJ Condition: None ---Description: All of the internal pages are unmarked, uncreased and tightly bound, no stamps or inscriptions, the only flaws are some scuffs and light marks to the boards. MOST OF OUR BOOKS ARE SHIPPED WITHIN 1 WORKING DAY OF PURCHASE. YOU GET A FREE BOOKMARK WITH EVERY ORDER. BUY WITH CONFIDENCE - WE UPLOAD A SELECTION OF HIGH QUALITY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH EACH LISTING, HOWEVER IF NOT ALREADY PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF OUR TITLES CAN BE PROVIDED BY REQUEST VIA E-MAIL.B001OZSE3K.

Bookseller Inventory # SKU1030287 ISBN 10: 0192835661 ISBN 13: 9780192835666 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Oxford, 1999. Paperback. Book Condition: GOOD. Paperback; English language; good condition. Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping. Bookseller Inventory # 05648joy008 Published by Books, Inc., New York Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Books, Inc., New York. Hardcover. Book Condition: Good. No Jacket. 12mo - over 6¾ - 7¾" tall. Volume 10 in " The Works of Charles Dickens". Hard Cover in Good condition. Clean, Strong binding and unmarked pages. No underlining or notes in the margins. Minor scuffing on the covers. No Dust Jacket. CAREFULLY PACKED in a sturdy BOX. All USA orders ship with tracking number and email confirmation.

Payment may be made by Check, Money Order or Paypal. Bookseller Inventory # 002075 ISBN 10: 1409506797 ISBN 13: 9781409506799 New Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Hardback. Book Condition: New. Not Signed; The classic story by Charles Dickens retold for children ready to tackle longer and more complex stories. Amy Dorrit grows up in Marshalsea Prison, where her father is imprisoned for debt. But in this classic tale of poverty and wealth, sacrifice and greed, fortunes can change in a moment - even Lit. book. Bookseller Inventory # ria9781409506799_rkm ISBN 10: 190623065X ISBN 13: 9781906230654 New Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Paperback. Book Condition: New. Not Signed; Poor Little Dorrit. Her future looks as bleak as her past and her present.

Born and brought up in a debtors' prison, she relies on her sewing skills to help support her father. Little does she know that her sewing will soon present an opportunity for change. When change arrives in the form of Arthur. book. Bookseller Inventory # ria9781906230654_rkm ISBN 10: 0333346424 ISBN 13: 9780333346426 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Palgrave Macmillan, 1985. Paperback. Book Condition: AVERAGE. Paperback; English language; a fair reading copy. Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping. Bookseller Inventory # 08396gae013 Sucksmith, Harvey Peter and Charles Dickens: Published by Oxford Univ Pr, 09.10.2008.

(2008) ISBN 10: 0199538212 ISBN 13: 9780199538218 Used Softcover LITTLE DORRIT Dickens, Charles Published by (Some 40+ other books by this author available.)) Paperback. Reduced postage on multiple orders.> Penguin rpt.19?? (826pp) Used ISBN 10: 0140621210 ISBN 13: 9780140621211 Used Softcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Penguin, 1994. Softcover. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: No Dust Jacket. . Size: 12mo - over 6¾ - 7¾" tall. 826 pages. Item Type: Book. Text body is clean, and free from previous owner annotation, underlining and highlighting. Binding is tight, covers and spine fully intact, but spine is faded/sunned. No inscriptions. Shipped Weight: Under 500 grams.

Category: Literature & Literary; ISBN: 0140621210. ISBN/EAN: 9780140621211. Please contact H4o Books if you require images or further information. Inventory No: 022411. Bookseller Inventory # 022411 Published by Chapman and Hall Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Chapman and Hall. Hardcover. Book Condition: Good. No Jacket. Binding: Hardback --Publisher: Chapman and Hall --- Date: None Stated ---Edition: ---Pages: 435 ---Condition: Good ---DJ Condition: None ---Description: All of the pages are unmarked, uncreased and tightly bound, the only flaws are a couple of minor scuffs to the boards, a name written on the front endpaper and some light age spotting to the endpapers. MOST OF OUR BOOKS ARE SHIPPED WITHIN 1 WORKING DAY OF PURCHASE. YOU GET A FREE BOOKMARK WITH EVERY ORDER.

BUY WITH CONFIDENCE - WE UPLOAD A SELECTION OF HIGH QUALITY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH EACH LISTING, HOWEVER IF NOT ALREADY PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF OUR TITLES CAN BE PROVIDED BY REQUEST VIA E-MAIL.--- P. Bookseller Inventory # SKU1025669 Published by Chapman & Hall (1111) Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Chapman & Hall, 1111. Hardcover. Book Condition: Fair. No Jacket. Binding: Hardback --Publisher: Chapman & Hall --- Date: None Stated ---Edition: ---Pages: 390 ---Condition: Fair ---DJ Condition: None ---Description: All of the pages are unmarked, uncreased and tightly bound, the only flaws are some scuffs to the boards and spine, some damage to the spine, and a name written on the front endpaper. MOST OF OUR BOOKS ARE SHIPPED WITHIN 1 WORKING DAY OF PURCHASE. YOU GET A FREE BOOKMARK WITH EVERY ORDER.

BUY WITH CONFIDENCE - WE UPLOAD A SELECTION OF HIGH QUALITY PHOTOGRAPHS WITH EACH LISTING, HOWEVER IF NOT ALREADY PRESENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF ANY OF OUR TITLES CAN BE PROVIDED BY REQUEST VIA E-MAIL.--- LL. Bookseller Inventory # SKU1025625 Published by Edito-Service S.A (1968) Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Edito-Service S.A, 1968. Hardcover. Book Condition: GOOD. Hardcover; English language; 12mo - over 6.75" - 7.75" tall; good condition; One volume of the 36 volume set of the Complete Works of Charles Dickens Centennial Edition published 100 years after his death: Green faux-leather boards with ornate gilt decor and titles, b/w frontis and page marker; we have many more titles from this set so please contact us for more information; Printed In Switzerland and distributed by Heron. Your book will be securely packed and promptly dispatched from our UK warehouse. For buyers outside the UK we now offer significantly lower rates on our airmail shipping.

Bookseller Inventory # 11031gae027 ISBN 10: 1853261823 ISBN 13: 9781853261824 Used Soft cover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Hardcover. Book Condition: Used: Good. This book does not have a dust cover, Date unsure, Ex-Library, All Books are dispatched the same working from the UK if ordered before 1pm GMT, Securely & carefully packed, Great customer service, Bookseller Inventory # P43A-1100 Used Paperback Oct 05, 1996 Quantity Available: 1 ISBN 10: 0460876821 ISBN 13: 9780460876827 Used ISBN 10: 0141199377 ISBN 13: 9780141199375 New Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Paperback. Book Condition: New.

Not Signed; The Penguin English Library Edition of Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens 'You talk very easily of hours, sir! How long do you suppose, sir, that an hour is to a man who is choking for want of air?' A masterly evocation of the state and psychology of imprisonment, Little Dorrit is one of the supreme. book. Bookseller Inventory # ria9780141199375_rkm ISBN 10: 0099529440 ISBN 13: 9780099529446 New Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Paperback. Book Condition: New. Not Signed; Amy Dorrit (known as Little Dorrit) was born in the Marshalsea debtors' prison in London. She has lived there with her father and two elder siblings for all of her twenty-two years, only leaving to work each day as a seamstress for the forbidding Mrs Clennam. But Amy's fortunes are about to change: book.

Bookseller Inventory # ria9780099529446_rkm ISBN 10: 0140621210 ISBN 13: 9780140621211 Used Paperback Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Penguin Books Ltd, UK, 1994. Paperback. Book Condition: Very Good. 4.25" x 7". p/b 826 pages, condition is very good. This scarce antiquarian book is included in our special Legacy Reprint Series. In the interest of creating a more extensive selection of rare historical book reprints, we have chosen to reproduce this title even though it may possibly have occasional imperfections such as missing and blurred pages, missing text, poor pictures, markings, dark backgrounds and other reproduction issues beyond our control. Because this work is culturally important, we have made it available as a part of our commitment to protecting, preserving and promoting the world's literature. Bookseller Inventory # 44217 Published by Chapman And Hall Used Hardcover Destination, Rates & Speeds Item Description: Chapman And Hall. Hardcover. Book Condition: Good.

Undated (believed to be circa 1880). A good clean condition book. No dust jacket. Some wear to the green cloth boards and spine. Tear to the head of the spine. Previous owner's name written on front page in pencil. Tanning to page edges and endpapers. Contents clear and legible. Tight and firm binding. A good reading copy. Good condition is defined as: a copy that has been read but remains in clean condition. All of the pages are intact and the cover is intact and the spine may show signs of wear. The book may have minor markings which are not specifically mentioned. Most items will be dispatched the same or the next working day. Bookseller Inventory # mon0005993209 Little Dorrit Essay - Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens - eNotes.com Little Dorrit, Charles Dickens link Link Little Dorrit Charles Dickens The following entry presents criticism of Dickens's novel Little Dorrit (1857). See also Charles Dickens Short Story Criticism, A Christmas Carol Criticism, A Tale of Two Cities Criticism, Our Mutual Friend Criticism, and Hard Times Criticism.

Judged Dickens's worst novel by many nineteenth-century critics, Little Dorrit has been reevaluated in the second half of the twentieth century and is today considered a masterpiece by many scholars who praise its criticism of the modern world's corrupt social and political institutions. Biographical Information Charles Dickens, the second of eight children, was born in 1812 in Portsmouth, Hampshire, England, to John and Elizabeth Barrow Dickens. His childhood was spent on the southern coast of England where he attended a good school until his family moved to London when he was eleven. Dickens's father was a minor government official who habitually lived beyond his means, and in 1824 he was sent to the Marshalsea debtors' prison, the same institution that became the setting for Little Dorrit. Although the rest of the family took up residence in the prison along with him, young Charles was sent to work in a factory, living on his own in a state of near starvation. When his father was released from prison a few months later, Dickens returned to school in London, but the humiliating experience had a lasting effect on his life and his writings.

Although he did not attend college, Dickens was admitted as a reader to the library of the British Museum, where he immersed himself in the study of literature, particularly Shakespeare. He worked as a clerk in a law office, as a shorthand reporter, and eventually as a journalist before he started producing sketches and novels for a variety of London periodicals. Dickens published Sketches by Boz in 1836 and it was an immediate success with both readers and critics. His first novel, Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (1837), was published, as were all of his novels, in serial form. By the time the fourth monthly installment appeared, Dickens was the most popular author in England. He produced many successful novels over the course of his writing career, many of them containing images or characters inspired by his brief unhappy experience involving the debtors' prison and the blacking factory, among them Oliver Twist (1838), David Copperfield (1850), and Great Expectations (1861). In none of these is the image of the prison as ubiquitous as it is in Little Dorrit, which many critics have termed Dickens's most harrowing novel, the product of his late or “dark” period.

In 1870, while working on The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Dickens suffered an aneurysm in the brain and died the next day. He was buried in the Poet's Corner of Westminster Abbey. Plot and Major Characters The title character of the novel, Amy Dorrit, or Little Dorrit as she preferred to be called, was born inside the walls of the Marshalsea debtor's prison; her family's home because of her father's financial failings. Amy's mother died shortly after her birth, but Amy and her siblings continued to live inside the prison until they were grown. Trained as a seamstress by one of the other inmates, Amy left the prison every day to sew for Mrs. Clennam, a widowed invalid confined to her home. Mrs. Clennam's son Arthur had spent twenty years in the Orient working with his father and when Mr. Clennam died, Arthur returned to England. He refused to join his cold, miserly mother in her business, preferring to take his portion of the inheritance and go off on his own.

Impressed by Little Dorrit's sweet nature, Arthur tried to help the girl by working to secure her father's release from prison, by helping her to obtain more customers for her needlework, and by sending her small amounts of money. In the course of the investigation into William Dorrit's debts, it was discovered that he was the sole surviving heir of a large estate, which he promptly claimed. Dorrit paid his creditors and left the prison that had been his family's home for twenty years. Ungrateful for Arthur's efforts on their behalf, the Dorrits, with the exception of Amy, refused to speak to him any longer. Determined to put the past behind them, and indeed, to deny that the past had ever existed, the Dorrits traveled to the continent where they gained admission to the community of wealthy Englishmen living abroad. Amy's older sister Fanny was pursued by Mr. Sparkle, the stepson of Mr. Merdle, a wealthy and influential banker. Both families were motivated by greed in agreeing to the match. Although Fanny didn't love Sparkle, she was anxious to marry into a wealthy family, and while Mrs.

Merdle was aware of Fanny's past as a dancer, she was impressed with the Dorrit fortune. The couple married and returned to London where Mr. Merdle offered to invest Mr. Dorrit's money and make his estate even larger. Only Little Dorrit remained unspoiled by the family's newly-found wealth; she continued to correspond with Arthur, grateful for his assistance to the family. Still in London, Arthur was investigating a mystery involving some unsavory characters and his mother. While trying to determine what business his mother could possibly have with these rogues, Arthur lost his inheritance, which he had invested with Mr. Merdle, and was sent to debtors' prison. When Little Dorrit returned to England, she again took up residence in the Marshalsea to care for Arthur just as she had for her father for so many years. Mrs. Clennam was being blackmailed and to avoid payment she decided to reveal the truth to her son. She visited him in prison to tell him that she was not his real mother and that for many years she had been withholding money from him and from Little Dorrit. Arthur was released from prison and shortly thereafter he and Little Dorrit were married.

Major Themes The most common image and theme of Little Dorrit is that of the prison. Dickens, thoroughly humiliated and deeply scarred from his own family's experience in the Marshalsea, used images of prison life in several of his novels, but in Little Dorrit they pervade the entire book. In addition to the literal use of the prison—that is, the plot elements involving the jail at Marseilles and the Dorrit family's long residence in the Marshalsea—it is also used metaphorically to represent the constraints and inhibitions of Victorian society, the rigid bonds inherent in the class system, and the inescapable maze of red tape associated with governmental bureaucracy. The family provides another prominent theme of the novel. In contrast to some of the happy, loving families of Dickens's earlier works, those featured in Little Dorrit appear as pathological case studies. Parents are self-absorbed and incompetent at best, greedy and cruel at worst. Again, the corruption and distorted values of Victorian culture are reflected on a smaller scale within the dynamics of the family. Material concerns completely govern human affairs and the normal parent/child relationship is reversed, the children bearing the responsibilities their elders have abdicated.

For characters embroiled in such perverted family relationships, it becomes essential that they never acknowledge the reality of their situation; thus the importance of maintaining appearances and illusions of normalcy and gentility at all costs becomes another prominent theme of the novel. The inhabitants of the debtors' prison, for example, refer to themselves as “collegians” rather than prisoners; Mr. Dorrit denies the source of the income he receives from his daughters' employment and from the “tributes” granted him by other prisoners; and once they leave England, the Dorrits attempt to obliterate their prison experience from their personal histories. Victorian society's corruption is also rendered metaphorically by the many references to disease and ill health in Little Dorrit. From the fetid air of the prison to the filthiness of the streets, conditions in the nineteenth-century city make for inhabitants who suffer from nameless infections and infirmities, both physical and psychological. Critical Reception In the nineteenth century, Little Dorrit was not well received by critics if, in fact, it was mentioned at all. It was widely considered Dickens's worst novel.

Since the mid-twentieth century, however, scholars have reassessed the work and many now believe it is a masterpiece, even in some cases, the author's best work. Robert Barnard (1971), for example, claims that to many modern critics, it is “the crowning achievement of Dickens's maturity”; he describes Little Dorrit as “a despairing plea to a whole people to find out how it had gone astray, how it had entrapped itself in decaying institutions and perverted modes of thinking.” George Bernard Shaw's published criticism of the novel, praising it as a revolutionary work that exposed the corruption and abuses of Victorian society, is often credited with the reevaluation of Little Dorrit. Where earlier scholars had concentrated on perceived flaws in plot and character development, later critics either followed Shaw's lead in focusing on social and political themes or they examined Dickens's imaginative use of images and metaphors. Some modern critics have even objected to the original negative assessment of Little Dorrit's plot and characters. Tom Linehan (1976) takes issue with the nearly unanimous critical belief that the novel's plot is incoherent and its characters two-dimensional and unbelievable.

While Linehan acknowledges the limitations of the plot, he maintains that an understanding of it is essential in order to appreciate the moral virtues Dickens revered and articulated within the events of the narrative. Other scholars, however, have pointed out ambiguities in Little Dorrit and have criticized the novel's unsatisfactory and inconclusive ending. Sylvia Manning (1991), for example, claims that the Circumlocution Office, a government bureaucracy Dickens employs to satirize British inefficiency, “becomes an (unintended) figure of the novel itself.” According to Manning: “In the Circumlocution Office secrets are buried, information is obscured, and in consequence an endless flow of language—most of it on paper—is generated. So, too, in the novel.” George Holoch (1978) suggests that Dickens's overall vision of society is also ambiguous as evidenced by the dilemma of characters who share “the social bitterness” of the author/narrator.

For Holoch, “the attempt to reconcile moral imperatives with social judgment is one of the sources of tension in the novel, a tension which is left unresolved at the conclusion.” Start Free Trial Start your free trial with eNotes to access more than 30,000 study guides. Get help with any book.

Question: What is the christian name of the title character in the 1857 novel Little Dorrit by Charles Dickens?
Answer: AMY