Chapter III

But I am a Professor, and ought to have begun by assuring you that this figure in Westminster Hall has a real historical interest in connexion with your studies “on the subject of English Literature.”

Well, then, it has. The date of the apparition is New Year’s Day, 1834, and by New Year’s Day, 1838, Charles Dickens was not only the most popular of living authors, but in a fair way to become that which he remained until the end in 1870--a great National Institution.

I use no exaggerated term. Our fathers of the nineteenth century had a way (and perhaps not altogether a bad way) of considering their great writers as national institutions; Carlyle was one, Ruskin another. It was a part of their stout individualism, nowadays derided. And it was, if you will consider, in the depths of its soul [say, if you will, its Manchester Soul] a high-polite retort upon such a sworn enemy as Ruskin. “Curse us, Sir: but _we_ and no _Government_ make you a demigod.” You will never understand your fathers, Gentlemen, until you understand their proud distrust of Government save by consent. Take a favourite term of theirs--say “The Liberty of the Press.” By that _they_ meant liberty from interference by _Government_. _We_, using that term to-day, should mean nothing of the sort. _We_ should mean “liberty from control by capitalists.”

I interrogate my youthful memories and am confident that, in a modest country household these men--Carlyle, Ruskin--were, with decent reverence, though critically, read for prophets. Tennyson, too, and Browning had their sacred niches; and Darwin and Huxley, and Buckle, who perished young attempting a _History of Civilisation in Europe_: John Stuart Mill, also, and Kingsley, Maurice, George Eliot, and Thackeray. These names leap to memory as names of household gods. A few weeks ago, rummaging over some family papers I came upon the following entry:

1848, June 20. I received a visit from Mr. Alfred Tennyson, the
Poet. He came into Cornwall along the North Coast, and from about
Camelford crossed over to Fowey, where I called on him on the 19th.
He came to Polperre in a boat, with Mr. Peach and others; and
after viewing our scenery in all directions and taking tea at our
house, they all rowed back to Fowey late in the evening. I find
him well-informed and communicative. I believe a good Greek scholar
with some knowledge of Hebrew. His personal appearance is not
prepossessing; having a slouch in his gait and rather slovenly in
his dress tho’ his clothes were new and good. He confesses to this.
He admired the wildness of our scenery, deprecated the breaking in
of improvements, as they are termed. He enquired after traditions,
especially of the great Arthur: his object in visiting the County
being to collect materials for a poem on that Chief. But he almost
doubted his existence. He show’d me a MS. sketch of a history of
the Hero: but it was prolix and modern.

You see, hinted in this extract from a journal, how our ancestors, in 1848 and the years roundabout, and in remote parts of England, welcomed these great men as gods: albeit critically, being themselves stout fellows. But above all these, from the publication of _Pickwick_--or, to be precise, of its fifth number, in which (as Beatrice would say) “there was a star danced” and under it Sam Weller was born--down to June 14, 1870, and the funeral in Westminster Abbey, Dickens stood exalted, in a rank apart. Nay, when he had been laid in the grave upon which, left and right, face the monuments of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Dryden, and for days after the grave was closed, the stream of unbidden mourners went by. “All day long,” wrote Dean Stanley on the 17th, “there was a constant pressure on the spot, and many flowers were strewn on it by unknown hands, many tears shed from unknown eyes.”

Without commenting on it for the moment, I want you to realise this exaltation of Dickens in the popular mind, his countrymen’s and countrywomen’s intimate, passionate pride in him; in the first place because it is an historical fact, and a fact (I think) singular in our literary history; but also because, as a phenomenon itself unique--unique, at any rate, in its magnitude--it reacted singularly upon the man and his work, and you must allow for this if you would thoroughly understand either.