The Pickwick Club discussion

I read a comment by G.K. Chesterton which applied generally to Dickens's oeuvre rather than to any specific work. There was no good place to share it, so I'm starting a topic for people to share and discuss general comments on Dickens.

The comment from Chesterton:

Dickens was a mythologist rather than a novelist; he was the last of the mythologists, and perhaps the greatest. He did not always manage to make his characters men, but he always managed, at the least, to make them gods. They are creatures like Punch or Father Christmas. They live statically, in a perpetual summer of being themselves. It was not the aim of Dickens to show the effect of time and circumstance upon a character; it was not even his aim to show the effect of a character on time and circumstance... It was his aim to show character hung in a kind of happy void.

I'm not sure I agree with, or even fully understand, Chesterton's comment, but I thought it was worth sharing. And there are certainly other comments out there which other members will find which are also worth sharing and talking about.

It's an interesting assessment, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I can think of several characters who change over time.

It may apply to Dickens' women, however.

Adam wrote: "Everyman wrote: "He did not always manage to make his characters men, but he always managed, at the least, to make them gods. "

I think that's very poetic, and acurate in a metaphorical way.

We r..."


I quite like the "perpetual summer of being themselves", which is a very apt remark considering that maybe no other author has managed to create so many characters that actually live on in people's imagination even after they might have forgotten quite a lot about the plot of the respective novel. As I remarked elsewhere, for me, Mrs. Gamp is the best example of this phenomenon.

Chesterton's comment is an interesting take. I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I do think that his thoughts show us that literature does not have to be "real" to be entertaining, interesting, and memorable.

Jonathan wrote: "Chesterton's comment is an interesting take. I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I do think that his thoughts show us that literature does not have to be "real" to be entertaining, interesti..."

Hmmm. What is "real"? What is truly real? This question will be central to the upcoming discussion in the Western Canon group on Ovid's Metamorphoses. In one sense, the myths aren't real. But in another sense, perhaps they're realer than the real real. Isn't this what Chesterton was suggesting of Dickens -- that the real and reality can be quite different things? (If I read your post correctly, you're agreeing with that?)

Everyman wrote:"Hmmm. What is "real"? What is truly real?
if reality is empirical, defined by the perceptions and views of a particular society , then doesn't it vary from generation to generation and also perhaps between social groups?That implies even myths and mythological characters were real to the people in the time and place they originated. but then what is really real?

Martina wrote: "Everyman wrote:"Hmmm. What is "real"? What is truly real?
if reality is empirical, defined by the perceptions and views of a particular society , then doesn't it vary from generation to generation and also perhaps between social groups?"

I'm not sure I'm entirely in sync with your seeming to (maybe you didn't mean to) limit empiricism to "the perceptions and views of a particular society," since some of the observations made thousands of years ago by totally different cultures can still be real. But you raise the very interesting question of whether reality is societal or universal. (My personal answer is a bit of both, much as in the nature/nurture debate, but that's only my simplistic surface answer, and doesn't even begin to address the richness of the question.)

We can go further and contrast Plato with Protagoras. Plato posited reality entirely outside of ourselves -- the forms, or eide, which are the reality of which physical manifestations are merely representations. (For example, there is a single universal eidos of chairness which allows us to call a child's high chair, a dining room chair, a wing back chair, a deeply upholstered club chair, a rocking chair, all chairs, since they all share in the universal form of chairness.) Contrast that with Protagoras, who famously said that "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." For him, reality is not outside of man, but inside of man; we don't experience reality, we create it. (There is debate about whether he intended to refer only to human constructs, or also intended to refer to objects totally outside of man -- rocks, mountains, oceans. But let that be for now; for the sake of the discussion here it is sufficient, I think, to let him stand for relativism of reality against Plato's absolutism of reality).

To bring this back to Chesterton's comment on Dickens, in which this thread originated, do the myths represent absolute truths outside of human creation, or are they limited to the meaning that any given society or age puts into or onto them? To the extent that Dickens was a mythologist, how relevant, if at all, are his myths to today's life and world?

Everyman wrote: "Martina wrote: "Everyman wrote:"Hmmm. What is "real"? What is truly real?
if reality is empirical, defined by the perceptions and views of a particular society , then doesn't it vary from generati..."

As far as I am concerned I would take the existence of a table for granted as long as I would stand in danger of hurting my knee-caps as soon as I stopped taking it for granted. The same goes for trees (with the exception of the Tumtum tree and the Tree of Knowledge), apples, and cobblestone pavement, but also for a few other things. I think a table was the thing Kant tried to explain his epistomology with, and to a certain degree I can follow him.

There are undoubtedly a variety of entities, but the idea of there being an idea of "tableness" outside is hard to take for me, since it was man in the first place who must have made the first table. Did he then also give birth to the idea of "tableness"?

But let's take the idea of "stoneness" instead, because stones were not made by humans. Even the existence of such an idea seems to be an man-made concept in my eyes, since I take the existence of entities for granted, but at the same time I think that the qualities adhering to these entities are only graspable to us by way of our perception (senses) and our ratiocination (building categories), and sometimes even our perception is influenced by certain conditions (colour is a consequence of light and of the construction of the beholder's eye).

Then there are the interrelations between entities, i.e. ideas of cause-and-effect and others, which are a matter of ratiocination again - I mean that billiards stuff etc. used by Hume.

Last but not least there are moral and ethical ideas, which I would say have no reality whatever - mind, I'm not talking about usefulness here - but that inside man's head, and the more these are acknowledged by a society, the more reality they have. God, for instance, has become somewhat more real these days than Huitzilopochtli in that fewer people are cowed or killed nowadays in the name of the latter than of the former.

Dickens as a mythologist can be seen at work for example in Oliver Twist: Here is a boy who is so noble that no ill-treatment and no bad company can warp him. Oliver's absolute goodness was probably necessary for Dickens to make his contemporaries feel interested in the tale and maybe also want to change things. After all, they were prim and proper Victorians with the typical 19th century notion of what is good and what is evil, and had Oliver not been a shining paragon of what is good - he even speaks perfect English although everyone around him doesn't -, readers might have turned up their noses against the protagonist and what Dickens wanted to say by using him as a vehicle altogether.

Tristram wrote: "Oliver's absolute goodness was probably necessary for Dickens to make his contemporaries feel interested in the tale and maybe also want to change things. After all, they were prim and proper Victorians with the typical 19th century notion of what is good and what is evil, ..."

And I'm sure that their view of a parish boy born of an unwed mother would have started out highly negative. And especially one who wasn't satisfied with the charity that a generous public provided to keep him from starving, but who wanted even MORE!

(That generous public isn't totally cynical -- there really was sufficient money provided to keep him adequately housed, clothed, and fed, if the money hadn't been misappropriated by the administration put in charge of disbursing it -- the board as well as Mrs. Mann. Aren't we glad today that we can be confident that all the money provided for the health and welfare of the poor is being wisely and properly used and accounted for and none is being wasted or misused as it was in Dickens's day.)

Everyman wrote: "We can go further and contrast Plato with Protagoras..."
I find it hard to come to terms with the concept of 'absolutism of reality'.What happens to the eidos of chairness in a society that doesn't use chairs?(like a hypothetical tribal society perhaps). Does it remain a absolute reality? But then maybe when I've read as much as you have, I might revise that view. I admit I am out of my depth here.

Everyman wrote: "And I'm sure that their view of a parish boy born of an unwed mother would have started out highly negative."

Harry Maylie and Rose's problem seems to be of a similar nature. And yet, Dickens seems to have had a quite tolerant view towards children born out of wedlock.

Martina wrote: "Everyman wrote: "We can go further and contrast Plato with Protagoras..."
I find it hard to come to terms with the concept of 'absolutism of reality'.What happens to the eidos of chairness in a s..."

I think the question is not so much what happens to the idea of chairness in an unchair society, because an idea could still exist without a certain number of people being susceptible to it. - But chairs were invented by people, they are not part of nature. That would imply two ways of looking at things:

a) The idea of chairness came into being with the first chair being produced. In that case, some of the ideas are neither independent of human activities, nor are they absolute in the strongest sense of the word - but they were created by (wo)men.

b) The idea of chairness must have existed before without there being any emanation of it in the realm of entities. This would imply that the human spirit is unable to create anything at all; whatever it comes up with has been there as an idea before. This somehow seems absurd to me, as it leaves us with the question why some ideas should be more immediate than others.

Tristram wrote: "b) The idea of chairness must have existed before without there being any emanation of it in the realm of entities. This would imply that the human spirit is unable to create anything at all; whatever it comes up with has been there as an idea before. This somehow seems absurd to me, as it leaves us with the question why some ideas should be more immediate than others.
"

Plato would say, I think, that the concept of chairness was always there, as was the concept of virtue, for another example. We have to remember that he believed in the recycling of souls, and also in the principle, most clearly outlined in Meno, that we are born actually knowing everything, but that we have to be brought to remember it, and that teaching actually is the act of bringing into our consciousness (not that he would have used that term) things which we know but don't know we know. So we know about chairness at our birth, but only gradually recognize that we know it.

As to when the eide arose, I don't recall Plato actually addressing that, though it's been some time since I've read some of the dialogues, so it may be there. But the Greek concept of the origin of the universe is just that it came into being out of chaos (an early version of the "big bang" theory -- the Greeks were no dummies!), so presumably at that time the eide came into existence along with everything else.

All this, of course, is broadly and speculatively thinking aloud and worth no more than that.

Everyman wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "Chesterton's comment is an interesting take. I don't agree with it in its entirety, but I do think that his thoughts show us that literature does not have to be "real" to be entert..."

Perhaps, a better word would be "believable" or even better "swallowable", if there were such a word.

Everyman wrote: "Martina wrote: "Everyman wrote:"Hmmm. What is "real"? What is truly real?
if reality is empirical, defined by the perceptions and views of a particular society , then doesn't it vary from generati..."

I don't particularly agree that Dickens was a mythologist. None of his stories would fit in with any definition of "myth" which I have ever heard. However, I do agree with the definition of a humbug being applied to Chesterton, only in a Pickwickian sense, of course. It seems to me that Chesterton was trying to single him out for not fitting nicely into the category of "realism". I believe the quote actually means "Dickens was not a realist." He just found a clever way to say it.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "b) The idea of chairness must have existed before without there being any emanation of it in the realm of entities. This would imply that the human spirit is unable to create anyth..."

I must confess that I have not read more than two or three dialogues by Plato so that I find myself a bit out of my element there. However, this idea of we are born knowing actually everything has always been a puzzle to me. There is this dialogue when Plato tries to illustrate his view by having Socrates make a slave (?) aware of some tenet of trigonometry. His maieutics did not seem too convincing to me since he was working with suggestive questions quite a lot, manipulating his partner in conversation into giving the desired answers.

Looking back it is astonishing to find what a discussion of Dickens can lead us to ;-)

Everyman wrote: ""

I'm afraid there was some technical failure, Everyman, as your message got lost.

Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: ""

I'm afraid there was some technical failure, Everyman, as your message got lost."

Which one? they all seem there to me.

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: ""

I'm afraid there was some technical failure, Everyman, as your message got lost."

Which one? they all seem there to me."

Message 17 is the one where I can only see a blank. Maybe you posted an illustration there? Sometimes I can see the illustrations posted by Jonathan, then again sometimes I can't. Computers, who can understand them?

If you're using an e-reader, they tend to not show up. On a computer, they should come through.

Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "Everyman wrote: ""

I'm afraid there was some technical failure, Everyman, as your message got lost."

Which one? they all seem there to me."

Message 17 is the ..."

Yes, there's an illustration there. A Dickens-related cartoon, actually.

In my inbox today, I read this quote from Anthony Trollope's 1869 novel He Knew He Was Right: "No man after twenty-five can afford to draw special attention to his coat, his hat, his cravat, or his trousers." Could Trollope have been thinking, when he wrote this line, of his rival Dickens, who was famously fond of splendid attire well past age 25?

He may have had Dickens in mind, he seemed to think of him often. In his autobiography he says this:

"There can be no doubt that the most popular novelist of my time--probably the most popular English novelist of any time--has been Charles Dickens. He has now been dead nearly six years, and the sale of his books goes on as it did during his life. The certainty with which his novels are found in every house--the familiarity of his name in all English-speaking countries--the popularity of such characters as Mrs. Gamp, Micawber, and Pecksniff, and many others whose names have entered into the English language and become well-known words--the grief of the country at his death, and the honours paid to him at his funeral,--all testify to his popularity. Since the last book he wrote himself, I doubt whether any book has been so popular as his biography by John Forster. There is no withstanding such testimony as this. Such evidence of popular appreciation should go for very much, almost for everything, in criticism on the work of a novelist. The primary object of a novelist is to please; and this man's novels have been found more pleasant than those of any other writer. It might of course be objected to this, that though the books have pleased they have been injurious, that their tendency has been immoral and their teaching vicious; but it is almost needless to say that no such charge has ever been made against Dickens. His teaching has ever been good. From all which, there arises to the critic a question whether, with such evidence against him as to the excellence of this writer, he should not subordinate his own opinion to the collected opinion of the world of readers. To me it almost seems that I must be wrong to place Dickens after Thackeray and George Eliot, knowing as I do that so great a majority put him above those authors.
My own peculiar idiosyncrasy in the matter forbids me to do so. I do acknowledge that Mrs. Gamp, Micawber, Pecksniff, and others have become household words in every house, as though they were human beings; but to my judgment they are not human beings, nor are any of the characters human which Dickens has portrayed. It has been the peculiarity and the marvel of this man's power, that he has invested, his puppets with a charm that has enabled him to dispense with human nature. There is a drollery about them, in my estimation, very much below the humour of Thackeray, but which has reached the intellect of all; while Thackeray's humour has escaped the intellect of many. Nor is the pathos of Dickens human. It is stagey and melodramatic. But it is so expressed that it touches every heart a little. There is no real life in Smike. His misery, his idiotcy, his devotion for Nicholas, his love for Kate, are all overdone and incompatible with each other. But still the reader sheds a tear. Every reader can find a tear for Smike. Dickens's novels are like Boucicault's plays. He has known how to draw his lines broadly, so that all should see the colour.

He, too, in his best days, always lived with his characters;--and he, too, as he gradually ceased to have the power of doing so, ceased to charm. Though they are not human beings, we all remember Mrs. Gamp and Pickwick. The Boffins and Veneerings do not, I think, dwell in the minds of so many.

Of Dickens's style it is impossible to speak in praise"

Another great find, Kim!

Add to this Dickens's being satirized as Mr. Popular Sentiment in Trollope's The Warden, and it seems that good old Tony seems to have suffered from a slight condition of Charleymania.

Now let me say that I really enjoy reading Trollope's novels and that I admire him for his ability to create a microcosmos of believable and interesting characters, to recreate a slice of Victorian reality, but his criticism of Dickens only seems fair in one respect, i.e. that there are hardly any real-life characters in Dickens's novels, but, as he says, puppets. However, they are brilliant puppets, and it is quite wondrous how appealing these puppets are - not little of Dickens's vivacity and dynamics have found their way into his characters. So Trollope might be right in what he says - but, as far as I'm concerned, he still misses his point because if we want life-like characters we don't go to Dickens.

What he says about Dickens's style and humour, however, is untenable. Just consider, for instance, how Dickens's description of Arthur Gride's house reflects Gride's miserly character. Or Dickens's way of endowing most of his characters with their own, unmistakable ideolects.

As far as humour is concerned, this is surely a matter of personal taste, but I find Dickens excelling even here. Thackeray's humour is nearly exclusively scathing, and if you have a look at Vanity Fair you will probably find that with the exception of Becky Sharp there are hardly any more-dimensional characters.

Trying to have Thackery come off better against Dickens, wow - that's quite an act of bravery.

Everyman wrote: ""

Very funny. I just now was able to see the image.

Kim wrote: "He may have had Dickens in mind, he seemed to think of him often. In his autobiography he says this:

"There can be no doubt that the most popular novelist of my time--probably the most popular En..."

I cannot say that I entirely agree with his synopsis of Dickens. For one, how can you not praise Dickens' style? It is unique, rather, I should say inimitable, humorous, entertaining. He uses symbolism, foreshadowing, satire... What Mr. Trollope does his style lack?

Good find.

Susanna wrote: "It's an interesting assessment, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I can think of several characters who change over time.

It may apply to Dickens' women, however."

There is a theory that, in the early Dickens-say up through COPPERFIELD, the villains and heroes are one-dimensional, but that starting with BLEAK HOUSE, everyone begins to show more shades of gray. This may simply have been a function of age as Dickens was around 25 when he started writing novels, and left his last one unfinished at age 58.

S wrote: "Susanna wrote: "It's an interesting assessment, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I can think of several characters who change over time.

It may apply to Dickens' women, however."

There is a the..."

I get so mad that the last one was left unfinished, whenever I read it I think "you couldn't have finished the book first??" However, I have since learned that it just MAY have been finished. One of the biographies I read said this:

"In 1873, a young Vermont printer, Thomas James, published a version which he claimed had been literally 'ghost-written' by him channelling Dickens' spirit. A sensation was created, with several critics, including Arthur Conan Doyle, a spiritualist himself, praising this version, calling it similar in style to Dickens' work and for several decades the 'James version' of Edwin Drood was common in America. Other Drood scholars disagree. John C. Walters "dismiss[ed it] with contempt", stating that the work "is self-condemned by its futility, illiteracy, and hideous American mannerisms; the mystery itself becomes a nightmare, and the solution only deepens the obscurity."

So maybe it was finished after all. :}

I am always astonished when commentators (be they great or small) refer to Dickens' one sided, simplistic characters. Did they somehow miss Great Expectations, Our Mutual Friend and Bleak House? Even David Copperfield, is shortsighted and self involved along with being brave and loving.

Margaret wrote: "I am always astonished when commentators (be they great or small) refer to Dickens' one sided, simplistic characters. Did they somehow miss Great Expectations, Our Mutual Friend and Bleak House? ..."

Well, we'll get to those works in time.

But for our reading so far, do you disagree that most of the characters in PP, NN and so far in TOCS are fairly shallow and one-sided (either always good or always bad)? Are there any characters in these works who you think are well rounded, complex characters?

I'll look forward to discussing this question with you down the road as we read GE, OMF, and BH. But for now ...

how do you rate Barnaby Rudge with regards to complexity? I personally love love love this book. can't wait for it to come up.

so far TOCS leaves me flat in the good guy area. but the bad guys are colorful. and we have been introduced to the theater troups etc. a little more dimension...

Everyman wrote: "But for our reading so far, do you disagree that most of the characters in PP, NN and so far in TOCS are fairly shallow and one-sided"

I disagree with anything you say.:-} Quit picking on NN.

Kim wrote: "I disagree with anything you say."

Well, I say you're a valuable member of this group.

Uh oh.

Christine wrote: "how do you rate Barnaby Rudge with regards to complexity?..."

That's one of the few Dickens I haven't read. So I'll have to let you know after we've read it here.

Kim wrote: "Quit picking on NN. "

I'll quit picking on NN when you quit picking on me.

If history is any judge, I'll have plenty more opportunity to trash NN. Or won't I?

Everyman wrote: "But for our reading so far, do you disagree that most of the characters in PP, NN and so far in TOCS are fairly shallow and one-sided (either always good or always bad)? Are there any characters in these works who you think are well rounded, complex characters?
..."

Hi Everyman and all,
I was responding to the Chesterton quote which it seems to me to be directed at the entire body of Dickens' work:

"It was not the aim of Dickens to show the effect of time and circumstance upon a character; it was not even his aim to show the effect of a character on time and circumstance...

Having just arrived in the Pickwick Club I have read only Nicholas Nickleby and can't comment on TOCS or TPP.

In Nicholas Nickleby we begin with a weak patriarch whose poor choices effect his circumstance to the extent that he dies an early death leaving his wife and children without a home or the means to support themselves.

In this novel it seems to me that Dickens handles personal development mostly by means of simple exposition. The characters tell us their stories. Dickens certainly isn't Nabokav (thank god!) but the vast majority of the NN cast of characters are effective participants in life for good or ill.

Is Nicholas a one sided saintly character for you? For me he is a normal, well-raised young fellow who responds appropriately to cruelty and indecency. Left to his own devices he takes to the road with a friend for a time and partakes of the not so respectable pleasures of a life on the boards.

Not sure how any of this evidences characters "hung in a kind of happy void."

Margaret wrote: "Is Nicholas a one sided saintly character for you? For me he is a normal, well-raised young fellow who responds appropriately to cruelty and indecency. Left to his own devices he takes to the road with a friend for a time and partakes of the not so respectable pleasures of a life on the boards."

Yes Margaret!! Finally I have someone on my side in the big Nicholas fight!! Thank you so much for sticking up for him, I having been battling for the poor guy all by myself for months. Now I'll have some support when the Nick bashing starts up again. Or since we've moved on to The Old Curiosity Shop I guess it will be the Nell bashing. :-}

Hi Kim,

I'm starting The Old Curiosity Shop now! Nicholas Nickleby is one of my most beloved books. Have you seen the film? It wasn't perfect I suppose but I really enjoyed it. I'm so sorry that I couldn't see the epic play!

Margaret wrote: "Hi Kim,

I'm starting The Old Curiosity Shop now! Nicholas Nickleby is one of my most beloved books. Have you seen the film? It wasn't perfect I suppose but I really enjoyed it. I'm so sorry tha..."

Hi Margaret, Nicholas Nickleby is one of my all time favorite books. That and A Christmas Carol and Bleak House top the list. All my favorite books are Dickens books however. It's kind of like when someone asks me what my favorite song is.."The First Noel", next White Christmas, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, Angels From The Realms of Glory; you get the idea. Then they will ask what is your favorite song besides Christmas songs and I can't think of any. That's how I am with Dickens books, it takes me awhile to think of any other favorites. As to the NN film, no I've never seen a film based on a book, a "classic" book that is, except A Christmas Carol. I've seen lots of versions of that, it would be hard not to. But I've never watched films on my other books, I'm afraid I'll be disappointed. The it can't be as good as the book feeling.

Thinking of movies, oddly enough, just about the only movies I do watch are horror movies. When I was a kid that's what we did on Saturday afternoons. There was a show on tv called Dr. Shock's Horror Theater, or something like that, and they showed old horror movies on there. My mom always let us watch it. Probably one of the reasons I ended up as crazy as I did. :} But even now if there's a horror movie on tv, I almost always watch, for a while anyway. :-}

Hi all

I've just discovered this thread and read the posts. The flat/round character discussion was great, and I'll add nothing to it since you have all touched the major points. That said, I feel Dickens is one of the authors that readers can see growing in powers of character development, setting, style and development of theme. I'm eagerly waiting for each novel in our discussion.

Joy wrote: "I wonder if someone here could help me with a few things that I've seen over and over again in Dickens?

1. Clothing. What is the "collar" that boys wear when they grow up and "get a situation"? Is..."

Hi Joy

There is a Google site you might find helpful to convert the 19C British pound into a 21C estimate. The site is Victorian Money . It is probably as accurate as our own Canadian/American economic estimates, perhaps even better. lol

You are correct in commenting that many of the collars worn by men in the Victorian times were detachable. It was a way to dress up your shirt for business. In practical terms most collars could be flipped over so you could wear them longer before washing them.

I'm guessing here, but I have always assumed a comforter was as you have suggested, some form of outer clothing, scarf, throw or cape to add warmth and comfort to a person in chilly or cold weather.

I hope this helps.

Hi Joy and Peter,

I was looking for the definition of comforters on the internet (because I can't help myself from solving a puzzle) and this is what I found:

a. capitalized : holy spirit

b : one that gives comfort

c : a long narrow usually knitted neck scarf

d : a thick bed covering made of two layers of cloth containing a filling (as down)

I'm guessing that in the case of Dickens the answer to the question is c. :-}

Also as to collars here's what I found:


Typically a collar was worn as part of formal day dress with a wide tie, a double-breasted frock coat and contrasting trousers. It was attached to the shirt collar with buttons at the front and a small stud at the inside back.

As well as collars, cuffs were also detachable from shirts. It meant that it was not necessary to wash the whole shirt, just the collars and cuffs. These were usually the things that got dirtiest. Washing was one of the hardest chores of the week. As there was no electricity or plumbing, all the heating of the water, washing and ironing was done by hand.

Once dried, the collars and cuffs had to be starched. This stiffened them and gave them a gloss. The starch powder was mixed with cold water to make a paste. It was rubbed directly onto the collars and cuffs. Finally, collars and cuffs were ironed.

That part about not washing the entire shirt just the collar and cuffs is disgusting and one of the main reasons God put me in the age of washing machines and dryers. :-} Not to mention bathtubs and dishwashers and, I could go on and on. :-}

That part about not washing the entire shirt just the collar and cuffs is disgusting and one of the main reasons God put me in the age of washing machines and dryers. :-}

That's why perfumes were so valuable. The King took an annual bath, but he was daring to do so since bathing was considered very dangerous to the health -- and probably was in stone castles with no central heating and hot water having to be carried up all those stairs from the kitchen and probably luke warm at best when it got to the bathroom.)

Everyman wrote: "That's why perfumes were so valuable. The King took an annual bath, but he was daring to do so since bathing was considered very dangerous to the health..."

Gross. Being covered with dirt and sweat and bugs and whatever else you would be covered with after a year without a bath wouldn't be considered dangerous? It's amazing that anyone ever agreed to become queen. :-}

I can't even wrap my brain around the yuck factor of the distant past. Athletes fungus , ringworm. Gum disease and rotten teeth. What do you do about a stomach bug? No don't anyone tell me!

The gazillions of undiagnosable diseases and syndromes.....

But just as everyday is tomorrow and yesterday no exceptions, every time is modern an innovative in its own right.

I especially enjoy characters is classic works that are on the cutting edge of their time. It's a fun spirit to be caught up in.

Christine wrote: "I can't even wrap my brain around the yuck factor of the distant past. Athletes fungus , ringworm. Gum disease and rotten teeth. What do you do about a stomach bug? No don't anyone tell me!

The g..."

Hi Christine

A book you may enjoy ... not too yucky. It is The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson. It is a wonderful and very readable account of the great London cholera outbreak in the 1850's and the man who finally solved the mystery of how cholera was really transmitted. Lots of mid 19C London feel and vibe. The book is also like a detective story, yet true. How do you track down the killer cholera?

Oooooooo!! Sounds right up my alley!! Thanx, Peter.

Christine wrote: "Gum disease and rotten teeth."

I read that George Washington, who wasn't that much before Dickens's time, by the time he was President only had a single tooth left. Yuck is right!

Everyman wrote: "Christine wrote: "Gum disease and rotten teeth."

I read that George Washington, who wasn't that much before Dickens's time, by the time he was President only had a single tooth left. Yuck is right!"

For some reason that horrible comment on George Washington's lack of teeth reminded me of something I think I read a long, long time ago. Wasn't there some king somewhere long ago who had no teeth left so the servants had to chew his food for him then put it in his mouth?