UNDERSTANDING HARD TIMES: AN ANALYTIC NOTE BY F.R LEAVIS

-By Arya James

F.R Leavis in this famous essay which appears in his The Great Tradition talks about why he considers Hard Times as the best work of Charles Dickens. Right in the beginning he calls this brilliant work which is set in the fictional industrial Coketown a masterpiece. He asserts that Hard Times has, of all Dickens’ works, all strength of his genius and it is a completely serious work of art.

Leavis says that it is because of the traditional approach to ‘the English novel’ that Hard Times did not get the recognition it so deserved. He observes a lot of unexacting expectations from the author by the readers of those times. He says Henry James’ The Europeans also suffered like Hard Times because of these unexacting expectations.

The title of the novel confirms Dickens’ inspiration. Usually Dickens’ criticism of the world around him is casual. But in Hard Times, he has a comprehensive vision of the inhumanities of Victorian England which is represented by Thomas Gradgrind and his philosophy of Utilitarianism. He is the Member of Parliament for Coketown and has brought up his children on the lines of the ideals of John Stuart Mill which was previously carried out on himself. He marries his eldest daughter of to the much older Josiah Bounderby who is Victorian ‘rugged individualism’ – a belief that an individual can succeed on his own without any help whatsoever from the government. Bounderby claims to have come from humble background and to have made it on his own.

Leavis considers Hard Times to be a well-formed novel as he says that it combines flexibility with consistency. He gives the example of the opening scene in school-room to prove his point:

‘Girl number twenty,’ said Mr. Gradgrind, squarely pointing with his square forefinger, ‘I don’t know that girl.  Who is that girl?’

‘Sissy Jupe, sir,’ explained number twenty, blushing, standing up, and curtseying.

‘Sissy is not a name,’ said Mr. Gradgrind.  ‘Don’t call yourself Sissy.  Call yourself Cecilia.’

‘It’s father as calls me Sissy, sir,’ returned the young girl in a trembling voice, and with another curtsey.

‘Then he has no business to do it,’ said Mr. Gradgrind.  ‘Tell him he mustn’t.  Cecilia Jupe.  Let me see.  What is your father?’

‘He belongs to the horse-riding, if you please, sir.’

Mr. Gradgrind frowned, and waved off the objectionable calling with his hand.

‘We don’t want to know anything about that, here.  You mustn’t tell us about that, here.  Your father breaks horses, don’t he?’

‘If you please, sir, when they can get any to break, they do break horses in the ring, sir.’

‘You mustn’t tell us about the ring, here.  Very well, then.  Describe your father as a horsebreaker.  He doctors sick horses, I dare say?’

‘Oh yes, sir.’

‘Very well, then.  He is a veterinary surgeon, a farrier, and horsebreaker.  Give me your definition of a horse.’

(Sissy Jupe thrown into the greatest alarm by this demand.)

‘Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!’ said Mr. Gradgrind, for the general behoof of all the little pitchers.  ‘Girl number twenty possessed of no facts, in reference to one of the commonest of animals!  Some boy’s definition of a horse.  Bitzer, yours.’

The scene continues as Bitzer gives a very logical definition of a horse(quadruped, graminivorous, fourty teeth etc.). Here, Sissy Jupe’s idea of a horse doesn’t matter. People whose livelihood depends upon horses don’t matter. All that matters is facts which the model pupil Bitzer vomits out. The irony is very evident here. This kind of ironic method, according to Leavis, has very little effect usually. But in Dickens we can see the flexibility of his art. Sissy Jupe, the conventional character is established in a symbolic role here. “She is part of the poetically creative operation of Dickens’ genius in Hard Times.”

Sissy Jupe becomes the opposite of “calculating self-interest.” She stands for vitality, goodness. There is a scene where Bitzer and Sissy Jupe are described:

“But, whereas the girl was so dark-eyed and dark-haired, that she seemed to receive a deeper and more lustrous colour from the sun, when it shone upon her, the boy was so light-eyed and light-haired that the self-same rays appeared to draw out of him what little colour he ever possessed.  His cold eyes would hardly have been eyes, but for the short ends of lashes which, by bringing them into immediate contrast with something paler than themselves, expressed their form.  His short-cropped hair might have been a mere continuation of the sandy freckles on his forehead and face.  His skin was so unwholesomely deficient in the natural tinge, that he looked as though, if he were cut, he would bleed white.”

Here, Sissy who is so full of vitality is described as receiving the lustrous bliss of sun than the “quasi mechanical product of Gradgrindery” that is Bitzer.

Sissy’s symbolic significance is connected to Sleary’s horse-riding. Both of them are associated with human kindness. The significance of horse riding here is the “poetic dramatic effect of Dickens’ art. ”

Gradgrind’s utilitarian house, Stone Lodge is described as some sort of an inescapable prison for the Gradgrind children. Going home, nearby his house, Gradgrind catches his own children peeping though a hole to get a glimpse of the Tyrolean flower act of the circus people nearby. Both the children, Louisa and Thomas are described by adjectives like metallurgical and mathematical. This chapter is titled as “A Loophole.” Circus people, in the novel, represent human spontaneity and vitality. Even though they are scorned by people like Bounderby and Gradgrind they bring art and joy to the industrial Coketwon and thus becomes symbolically relevant. They are indeed Dickens’ reaction to industrialism. This Leavis describes by comparing it to a passage in Lady Chatterly’s Lover by D.H Lawrence.

A possible objection to this symbolism could be that what if it is sentimentally false? Isn’t Dickens’ symbolism of the circus people too far-fetched? Leavis says, that the virtues and qualities that Dickens presents in horse riding is true and is necessary for his critique of utilitarianism. It is indeed impossible to charge the book with misleading representation of human nature and it wouldn’t be intelligent criticism to do so to “suggest that anyone could be misled about the nature of circus in Hard Times.” The question could be that “was it right for him to try to do that with a travelling circus?” Rather, it could be how he did it? Because he is incredibly successful in his attempt. It might be because we have been conditioned for a conventional narrative from the first chapter itself. An extraordinary flexibility can be seen in the art of Hard Times especially in its dialogue. Some passages are like that of an ordinary novel. Some show the ironic pointedness like that of a Jonsonian comedy. Some are literary like Gradgrind's conversation with Louisa when she escapes the attentions of  James Harthouse. 

There is incredible diversity to the narrative of Hard Times. This is evident in the richness of life that characterizes the book everywhere. This portrayal of life is incredibly 'real.' Dickens doesn't write poetic prose. But he so sharply sees and feels what he writes. So he writes with a poetic force. That's why it affects the readers as a poetic work. 

Leavis again talks about the symbolism of horse riding. There is no instance of recoil or disgust in the portrayal of Sleary who is shabby, "brandy-soaked" and "flabby surfaced." He is the humane, anti-utilitarian positive in Hard Times. This is not Dickens' sentimentality but pure genius. If D.H Lawrence were to write this he would have said, 'My God!They stink.' 

Dickens' sentimentality can be seen in the portrayal of the victimized workman Stephen Blackpool. Another matter is Sissy Jupe whom Dickens assigns work in the utilitarian household of Gradgrind. "The quite victory of disinterested goodness is wholly convincing in her" as she tells Harthouse to leave Louisa alone. She is also Dickens' tool in establishing the distinction between Gradgrind and Bounderby. While Gradgrind is capable of humane feeling(evident when he takes Sissy home) Bounderby is Jonsonian in the sense that he is incapable of change and he remains the egotistic braggart. But for Gradgrind life proves him and his philosophy wrong. He shows a change in character by the end of the novel. Leavis says that Dickens' art differs from Ben Johnson's in its flexibility and inclusiveness. 

"The confutation of Utilitarianism by life is conducted with great subtlety." This can be seen in the scene where Gradgrind tells Louisa about the marriage proposal of Bounderby. Louisa keeps her reserved posture throughout the conversation. She indeed had become what Gradgrind had brought her up to be.  Leavis calls this "the triumph of the ironic art." Louisa in complete vain try to make him understand that she is a living creature and not an emotionless houyhnhnm. 

The psychology of the development of Louisa and Tom is perfect. She has no other emotional outlet but the love for her brother and she marries Bounderby for him. Tom decides to do his revenge for the way he was brought up when he gets a post in the bank. "Hence, his descend into debt and bank-robbery is natural." Fleeing the advances of Harthouse Louisa reaches her home and falls at the feet of her father crying and says that all she knew is his philosophy which was of no help. Gradgrind's love for his child overtakes the philosophy and here we can see how the philosophy is confuted. 

Tom is the sardonic comedy imagined with great intensity. There is a scene where Gradgrind sees Tom disguised as a Negro servant and Sleary makes his escape possible so. Gradgrind's conversation with Tom here becomes an example of sardonic tragic where satire consort with pathos. Leavis here calls Dickens a poetic dramatist and associates his flexibility in the interpretation of life to Shakespearean drama. 

Ironically, the product of Gradgrind's philosophy, Bitzer, prevents the escape of Tom. Tom's escape however is an example of Dickensian high fantastic comedy. The solemn moral of the story is put into the mouth of Sleary. He tells Gradgrind the possibility of the death of Sissy's father because his performing dog had returned to the horse riding. Dickens had subtlety of art. 

His understanding of Victorian civilization is adequate for his purpose. He had a command of word, phrase, rhythm and image which no other literary master except Shakespeare had. His triumph of sentimentality and pathos can be seen in the portrayal of Mrs Gradgrind.

Points of Criticism:

1. Stephen Blackpool is too good a character,

2. Dickens' lack of understanding of trade unionism.

3. His adaptation of the objection against Uncle Tom (who was a White man's good nigger in Uncle Tom's Cabin) in the events concerning Stephen Blackpool.

4. His lack of understanding of politics. 

References:

Dickens, Charles. Hard Times, Project Gutenberg, 2013.

Leavis, F.R. The Great Tradition, Faber & Faber, 2011.

Watch the YouTube video here

Hey, I am Arya. I am a blogger and content creator. Follow me on my YouTube Channel for more.

For business inquiries: aryajames25@gmail.com