The Old Curiosity Club discussion

Hello Fellow-Curiosities,

Most of us have been very critical and fault-finding as far as our protagonist Pip is concerned up to now, and I am afraid that the events reported in Chapter 51 will not exactly contribute to endear Pip any more to us – but see for yourselves.

As soon as a possible connection between Magwitch and Estella has dawned upon Pip, he describes himself as in a fever of finding out more about it, and as to his motives he says:

”I really do not know whether I felt that I did this for Estella’s sake, or whether I was glad to transfer to the man in whose preservation I was so much concerned some rays of the romantic interest that had so long surrounded me. Perhaps the latter possibility may be the nearer to the truth.”

Note the word “in whose preservation I was so much converned”. Are we to understand that at last, Pip has come to take some personal interest in his unloved benefactor, that he is genuinely worried about Magwitch’s lot – or is this just the prim and proper kind of fellowship-feeling that is speaking out of Pip, i.e. his idea of everyone being supposed to act kindly upon others?

One might also ask what good deeper knowledge about Estella’s origins can possibly do. Would it not be better to let sleeping dogs lie? Would definite knowledge about Estella being Magwitch’s daughter not also lead Drummles to treat her even worse?

Be that as it may, Pip hies to Mr. Jaggers’s office, where he finds the lawyer and his chief clerk Wemmick going through their papers together. Of course, Wemmick is quite his Little Britain self, i.e. he hardly encourages Pip to show any familiarity with him – a point in fact that I think important for what is going to follow. Pip tells Mr. Jaggers what happened at Satis House, and he also draws the 900 Pounds for Herbert, but all this is just a pretence for what he really has in mind, and so Pip eventually leads their conversation towards the topic of Estella and her parents, saying that he thinks that Molly is Estella’s mother and that her father is none other than Magwitch. As could have been expected, Jaggers is not to be got out of his shell by these allegations, although he very briefly hesitates, but he tries to get rid of Pip by telling Wemmick to go on with their work. At this moment, Pip decides to draw Wemmick into the conversation, using the following words:

”’Wemmick, I know you to be a man with a gentle heart. I have seen your pleasant home, and your old father, and all the innocent, cheerful playful ways with which you refresh your business life. And I entreat you to say a word for me to Mr. Jaggers, and to represent to him that, all circumstances considered, he ought to be more open with me!’”

Jaggers is surprised at this turn of events, and for a moment Pip does not know whether the lawyer will give in or whether he will dismiss Wemmick, but then he sees “Jaggers relax into something like a smile”, and Wemmick becomes bolder. He even defends himself by saying that as long as his private life does not interfere with his business, there cannot be anything to be said against having a happy home. He even adds that he is sure that one of these days, Jaggers himself will try to build up a happy home. Jaggers eventually relaxes and tells Pip the background story of Estella and her mother, which – in a nutshell – boils down to this: When Jaggers could not know yet whether he would be able to get Molly off the hook, he saw an opportunity of getting Estella out of the way, into the household of Miss Havisham, and, by hook and crook, he managed to convince Molly to comply with his plan. His motive for doing so is best given in his own words:

”’Put the case that he lived in an atmosphere of evil, and that all he saw of children was their being generated in great numbers for certain destruction. Put the case that he often saw children solemnly tried at a criminal bar, where they were held up to be seen; put the case that he habitually knew of their being imprisoned, whipped, transported, neglected, cast out, qualified in all ways for the hangman, and growing up to be hanged. Put the case that pretty nigh all the children he saw in his daily business life he had reason to look upon as so much spawn, to develop into the fish that were to come to his net, – to be prosecuted, defended, forsworn, made orphans, bedevilled somehow.’

‘I follow you, sir.’

‘Put the case, Pip, that here was one pretty little child out of the heap who could be saved; whom the father believed dead, and dared make no stir about; as to whom, over the mother, the legal adviser had this power: “I know what you did, and how you did it. You came so and so, you did such and such things to divert suspicion. I have tracked you through it all, and I tell it you all. Part with the child, unless it should be necessary to produce it to clear you, and then it shall be produced. Give the child into my hands, and I will do my best to bring you off. If you are saved, your child is saved too; if you are lost, your child is still saved.” Put the case that this was done, and that the woman was cleared.’”

What do these words tell us about Jaggers?
What do they tell us about the penal system at that time?
Last, but not least: Do you think that Pip did well in betraying Wemmick’s secret to Jaggers, although Wemmick originally entreated him to keep silent about his private life and never to tell Jaggers or anybody else in the office about his little home and the aged parent? Pip could not know how Jaggers would have reacted, and he had nothing in Wemmick’s behaviour to go by which could have disengaged him from his vow of silence.

In the following, Jaggers points out to Pip that there is no point in divulging the secret to anyone. Not even Estella’s father would be any the happier for it, and if her husband got wind of it, this would surely throw her into public disgrace. Pip agrees to keep mum about it, and we know how good he is at keeping this kind of promise. When Jaggers and Wemmick go back to the work they have been doing, Pip notices that they are quite ill at ease with each other because

”each of them seemed suspicious, not to say conscious, of having shown himself in a weak and unprofessional light to the other”,

but, luckily, the arrival of a client, who cannot control his feelings for his imprisoned father, soon unites them in their indigation at somebody showing his feelings in the office.

In Chapter 52, we are told that Pip, as soon as he left Jaggers, goes to Clarriker’s office to finally settle all affairs in favour of Herbert, and he rightly remarks:

”It was the only good thing I had done, and the only completed thing I had done, since I was first apprised of my great expectations.”

It is in the month of March that one day, Pip gets a secret note from Wemmick which tells him that now is the best moment to get Magwitch out of the country, preferably on Wednesday. Pip and Herbert develop a plan to put Magwitch on a steamer for Hamburg, a plan in which they want to rely on the rowing power of Startop. There is yet another note that Pip receives, “a very dirty letter, though not ill-written.” It reads:

”’If you are not afraid to come to the old marshes to-night or to-morrow night at nine, and to come to the little sluice-house by the limekiln, you had better come. If you want information regarding your uncle Provis, you had much better come and tell no one, and lose no time. You must come alone. Bring this with you.’”

Pip is at a loss as to who wrote this letter, and he is not too inclined to follow its instructions because he is pressed for time but the reference to Provis finally leads him to take the risk and go to the marshes. Who might have written that letter, and why does the writer make a point of Pip’s bringing the letter with him and coming alone? I also noticed the reference to the limekiln, which put The Mystery of Edwin Drood into my mind, where a limekiln plays a special role – I would not have noticed this particular, though, had it not been for the interesting link posted by Mary Lou a few days ago!

Pip returns to his old haunts, and this time the waiter of an inn, who does not recognize him, tells him about Pip, who now and then goes to see his old friends, but never the man who made his fortune – this poor, neglected saint being none other but uncle Pumblechook. Pip asks a very interesting, and telling (!), question and receives a funny answer:

”’Is he ungrateful to no one else?’

‘No doubt he would be, if he could,’ returned the landlord, ‘but he can’t. And why? Because Pumblechook done everything for him.’”

This conversation makes Pip think of poor Joe and Biddy, who never complain about him although they would have every right to do so. Does this indicate a change in Pip’s behaviour?

Tristram wrote: "Hello Fellow-Curiosities,

Most of us have been very critical and fault-finding as far as our protagonist Pip is concerned up to now, and I am afraid that the events reported in Chapter 51 will not..."

We are rapidly coming to the end of the novel. I think the first paragraph of Chapter 51 is the fulcrum of the novel. Tristram has asked how we perceive Pip. The first paragraph shows Pip's vulnerability and his candour. He admits he is not certain about his thoughts and actions. Further, the voice of the mature Pip comments that there are "wiser head[s] than my own." Here we see Pip admitting his fallibility.

This does not mean Pip is much more likeable. He tells us that he is "much concerned" about Magwitch and that is admirable I suppose, but we still have the issue of how Pip has consistently treated and avoided Joe. Is there a character in the novel to whom Pip should be more thankful for in his life? We know Dickens must resolve the Pip-Joe relationship. Can there be more surprises to come?

Pip's thoughtfulness towards Herbert through the transfer of £900 from Miss Havisham to him is an interesting plot development. First, we had Pip who initially acted as the person who helped Herbert in his apprenticeship with money, and now Pip as an agent brings Miss Havisham into the equation. Herbert has, in effect, now become an apprentice to both Pip and Miss Havisham who are both unknown to Herbert. Added to that we have Magwitch's anonoymous support to Pip. The concept of the apprentice has been furthered again from earlier references to George Lillo 's "The London Merchant" and thus continues to be a major trope in the novel. I think Dickens is expanding the concept of the master-apprentice relationship into a comment on how people are often helped in their lives by anonomyous others, either by direct action, a presence, or even a word or gesture. To me, Dickens is clearly pointing out how we are all interdependent. There are no isolated events in the world.

I really enjoyed reading how Pip's introduction of Wemmick's home into the conversation tilts the relationship between Jaggers and Wemmick. The short vignette when Mike comes snivelling into the office and the Wemmick-Jaggers tag team response reminded me of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I could imagine either Wemmick or Jaggers shouting "off with his head" and being told by Pip that there was a third mask on the shelf in Jaggers office next day.

Peter wrote: "I really enjoyed reading how Pip's introduction of Wemmick's home into the conversation tilts the relationship between Jaggers and Wemmick. "

It's so minor in the scheme of things, but such an interesting little exchange that tells so much about the characters.

Peter, it is very nice to see how you faithfully and sturdily take up the cudgels for Pip, come hell or high water. I really long to see some signs of his becoming more thoughtful in the next few chapters because I was very much taken aback by seeing Pip sort of betray Wemmick here for his own purposes.

Tristram wrote: "”It was the only good thing I had done, and the only completed thing I had done, since I was first apprised of my great expectations.”."

Realizing, of course, that he was doing it with somebody else's money.

I wonder yet whether he has considered that all Magwitch's money properly should go to his daughter, not to the stranger Pip. If Magwitch knew he had a daughter, and that that daughter could be known to him, would he change his mind about where that purse went?

Peter wrote: "Here we see Pip admitting his fallibility.."

I am reminded of the quote attributed to Winston Churchill, whether rightfully or wrongfully doesn't really matter.

When a person praised another to Churchill as being a modest man, Churchill reportedly replied "he has much to be modest about."

In the same vein, Pip has much fallibility to admit to.

Peter wrote: "
I really enjoyed reading how Pip's introduction of Wemmick's home into the conversation tilts the relationship between Jaggers and Wemmick."

But aren't you disturbed by Pip "outing" Wemmick's home life to Jaggers, who clearly wasn't aware of it? Wemmick made clear that he lived two separate lives, and here Pip, without any consultation with or approval from Wemmick, smashes the barrier between them. A barrier which Wemmick will never be able to rebuild.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "Here we see Pip admitting his fallibility.."

I am reminded of the quote attributed to Winston Churchill, whether rightfully or wrongfully doesn't really matter.

When a person praise..."

A wonderful quotation, and by the quality of it, it must have been Churchill. My favourite Churchill is the one when a lady spitefully tells him, "If you were my husband, I would poison your tea", and he nonchalantly replies, "If you were my wife, I would drink it."

Everyman wrote: "Tristram wrote: "”It was the only good thing I had done, and the only completed thing I had done, since I was first apprised of my great expectations.”."

Realizing, of course, that he was doing it..."

I wonder why this idea never has occurred to Pip. However, there are two caveats: One, how would Estella explain the increase to her fortune to her husband without telling him who her father is and how her father got by his fortune? Two, there would still be the danger of Magwitch being found out and all the money being forfeited to the crown because he has returned to England.

Actually, I read somewhere that the law was no longer as strict about the forfeiture of a returned ex-convict's property and about the death penalty waiting for him at the time the novel is set. Dickens apparently accepted this kind of anachronism for the sake of dramatic intensity. To my surprise, I also read that up to 1870 a suicide's property would also automatically go to the Crown.

Tristram wrote: "Actually, I read somewhere that the law was no longer as strict about the forfeiture of a returned ex-convict's property and about the death penalty waiting for him at the time the novel is set. Dickens apparently accepted this kind of anachronism for the sake of dramatic intensity. ."

I have read the same thing. For a former Parliamentary reporter, Dickens sometimes plays fast and loose with the law.

I know that this goes against the grain, but I have always liked Pip. I know, I know, he has not acted well towards Joe and though I don't defend his actions I can see why he behaved as he did. He was young and, unfortunately, displayed the awful callowness of youth in his dealings with others. But then there was his upbringing. While Joe was always kind his sister beat him within an inch of his life (true this is hyperbole!) and nearly poisoned him with the dreaded medicine. It seems that his newfound wealth went to his head little by little which was disappointing. I did not foresee that.

Perhaps I was asleep during some of the worst parts of Pip's conduct or perhaps I find it hard to turn against the narrator. Yes, I suppose my bias is largely that. After all he is telling his own story, warts and all. He could have prettied it up had he been so inclined.

I do hope that he properly acknowledges Joe for the part he has played and at least thanks him. Perhaps there are other relationships that must be ironed out ...

Pip at Mr. Jaggers's Office

Chapter 51

Harry Furniss

1910

Text Illustrated:

"Standing by for a little, while they were at work, I observed that the odd looks they had cast at one another were repeated several times: with this difference now, that each of them seemed suspicious, not to say conscious, of having shown himself in a weak and unprofessional light to the other. For this reason, I suppose, they were now inflexible with one another; Mr. Jaggers being highly dictatorial, and Wemmick obstinately justifying himself whenever there was the smallest point in abeyance for a moment. I had never seen them on such ill terms; for generally they got on very well indeed together.

But they were both happily relieved by the opportune appearance of Mike, the client with the fur cap and the habit of wiping his nose on his sleeve, whom I had seen on the very first day of my appearance within those walls. This individual, who, either in his own person or in that of some member of his family, seemed to be always in trouble (which in that place meant Newgate), called to announce that his eldest daughter was taken up on suspicion of shoplifting. As he imparted this melancholy circumstance to Wemmick, Mr. Jaggers standing magisterially before the fire and taking no share in the proceedings, Mike’s eye happened to twinkle with a tear."

"Know him!' repeated the landlord. 'Ever since he was no height at all.'"

Chapter 52

John McLenan

1861

Text Illustrated:

"My inn had once been a part of an ancient ecclesiastical house, and I dined in a little octagonal common-room, like a font. As I was not able to cut my dinner, the old landlord with a shining bald head did it for me. This bringing us into conversation, he was so good as to entertain me with my own story,—of course with the popular feature that Pumblechook was my earliest benefactor and the founder of my fortunes.

“Do you know the young man?” said I.

“Know him!” repeated the landlord. “Ever since he was—no height at all.”

“Does he ever come back to this neighborhood?”

“Ay, he comes back,” said the landlord, “to his great friends, now and again, and gives the cold shoulder to the man that made him.”

“What man is that?”

“Him that I speak of,” said the landlord. “Mr. Pumblechook.”

“Is he ungrateful to no one else?”

“No doubt he would be, if he could,” returned the landlord, “but he can’t. And why? Because Pumblechook done everything for him.”

“Does Pumblechook say so?”

“Say so!” replied the landlord. “He han’t no call to say so.”

“But does he say so?”

“It would turn a man’s blood to white wine winegar to hear him tell of it, sir,” said the landlord.

I thought, “Yet Joe, dear Joe, you never tell of it. Long-suffering and loving Joe, you never complain. Nor you, sweet-tempered Biddy!”

“Your appetite’s been touched like by your accident,” said the landlord, glancing at the bandaged arm under my coat. “Try a tenderer bit.”

“No, thank you,” I replied, turning from the table to brood over the fire. “I can eat no more. Please take it away.”

"'Him that I speak of,' said the landlord. 'Mr. Pumblechook'"

Chapter 52

F. A. Fraser

1876

The Household Edition

Text Illustrated:

My inn had once been a part of an ancient ecclesiastical house, and I dined in a little octagonal common-room, like a font. As I was not able to cut my dinner, the old landlord with a shining bald head did it for me. This bringing us into conversation, he was so good as to entertain me with my own story — of course with the popular feature that Pumblechook was my earliest benefactor and the founder of my fortunes.

"Do you know the young man?" said I.

"Know him!" repeated the landlord. "Ever since he was — no height at all."

"Does he ever come back to this neighbourhood?"

"Ay, he comes back," said the landlord, "to his great friends, now and again, and gives the cold shoulder to the man that made him."

"What man is that?"

"Him that I speak of," said the landlord. "Mr. Pumblechook."

"Is he ungrateful to no one else?"

"No doubt he would be, if he could," returned the landlord, "but he can't. And why? Because Pumblechook done everything for him."

"Does Pumblechook say so?"

"Say so!" replied the landlord. "He ha'n't no call to say so."

"But does he say so?"

"It would turn a man’s blood to white-wine winegar to hear him tell of it, sir," said the landlord.

I thought, "Yet Joe, dear Joe, you never tell of it. Long-suffering and loving Joe, you never complain. Nor you, sweet-tempered Biddy!"

Hilary wrote: "I know that this goes against the grain, but I have always liked Pip. I know, I know, he has not acted well towards Joe and though I don't defend his actions I can see why he behaved as he did. He ..."

Hilary

We are on the same wavelength regarding Pip. Here's hoping he sharpens up even more in the concluding chapters.

Kim wrote: ""'Him that I speak of,' said the landlord. 'Mr. Pumblechook'"

Chapter 52

F. A. Fraser

1876

The Household Edition

Text Illustrated:

My inn had once been a part of an ancient ecclesiastical h..."

Kim. Always, thanks for the illustrations.

Pip seems to have lost his appetite in these illustrations. His comment "I can eat no more. Please take it away" is clearly directed to the meal in front of him, but I would suggest that it is also reflective of the slowly-changing Pip's insight into his own character which Pip is now finding rather sour. Dickens has cleverly throughout the novel lead the reader to dislike the pompous Pumblechook. Now, Pip as an adult can fully appreciate how one's words, be they boastful or pompous, can be hurtful, misguided and cruel. There are often different levels to Dickens's phrasing and the dinner scene is one.

Also, we have Pip 's words "Yet Joe, dear Joe, you never tell of it. Long-suffering and locing Joe, you never complain. Nor you, sweet-tempered Biddy!"

Our novel is coming to a close, and Dickens is beginning to turn Pip's mind, thoughts - and stomach - towards clearer insights into his own character. Will these insights be too little too late to excuse his earlier outlandish behaviour? We shall see.

Everyman wrote: "I have read the same thing. For a former Parliamentary reporter, Dickens sometimes plays fast and loose with the law."

Maybe he did that because he thought that people would not know or care, anyway, whether the law in reality was like the law in his books. I don't know how an author might feel if somebody pointed out to him that one major plot device of his was just an error.

Peter wrote: "and Dickens is beginning to turn Pip's mind, thoughts - and stomach"

A wonderful expression, Peter! Unlike you and Hilary, I cannot as yet bring myself to a more lenient reading of Pip and his actions because even though Mrs. Joe was a little hard on him, he still had Joe as a stalwart friend, and it is particularly Joe - and not his sister - that he abandons so callously.

Coming to think of it, Remorse and Atonement seem to be other motifs of the novel. There is not only Pip that feels sorry about his past actions, but we also have Miss Havisham who feels compunction and tries to make up for past atrocities by helping Herbert and by offering her support to Pip. We can also say that Magwitch is forced to atone for his past crimes, and he definitely thinks that he has done so because it's at least twice that he says whatever he had done, it's paid for.

Maybe, there will be yet another character who will come to regret his doings. I'm thinking of Estella there.

Well, isn't Dickens full of surprises here. Again, an unexpected turn with Magwitch being Estella's father. I couldn't help but wonder at the coincidence of Pip coming to be involved in each of these people's lives, and then to have them all connected to one another.

My favorite line was by Mr. Jaggers after he became aware of information regarding Wemmick's personal life. Jaggers says

"What's all this? You with an old father and you with a pleasant and playful ways?"

I think we've all had the experience of working with someone for years, only to find out something of their non-work life that throws everything out of whack in your usual way of thinking of them. I thought it was humorous at the time of reading it, however Everyman does bring up a good point that Wemmick went out of this way to keep his work and personal lives very separate and he trusted Pip with his secrets, so it was not very considerate of Pip to mention anything of Wemmick's home to Jaggers.

At the end of chapter 51, I was jolted when the character Mike was introduced, if only because the name of Mike feels so unusual for Dickens to use! It goes to show how I've become accustomed to Dickens' odd character names.

Tristram wrote: "Peter wrote: "and Dickens is beginning to turn Pip's mind, thoughts - and stomach"

A wonderful expression, Peter! Unlike you and Hilary, I cannot as yet bring myself to a more lenient reading of P..."

I completely agree that the motifs of Remorse and Atonement will be front and centre by the time we complete the book. Whether we agree with the specifics for each character will be interesting to see. Remorse and atonement can occur in many shapes and forms and I imagine Dickens will present more than one method. We shall see ...

Linda wrote: "Well, isn't Dickens full of surprises here. Again, an unexpected turn with Magwitch being Estella's father. I couldn't help but wonder at the coincidence of Pip coming to be involved in each of the..."

That is a great line you mention Linda. I too was a bit shocked that Pip would break such a confidence, especially since it seems to be self-serving to him and a betrayal of a friend's confidence.

It may, however, be a plot device that will allow Dickens more creative movement in our last chapters. Dickens may have something up his sleeve.

I really enjoyed your observation about the name Mike. I have never even considered it, but you are so right. Mike?! What's that all about?

Linda wrote: "Well, isn't Dickens full of surprises here. Again, an unexpected turn with Magwitch being Estella's father. I couldn't help but wonder at the coincidence of Pip coming to be involved in each of the..."

Yes, that was a pretty massive coincidence that Magwitch was the convict on the marshes (if he had know Estella was with Miss Haversham we could contend that he escaped in order to try to get to her house to see his daughter, but since he didn't know, that wouldn't work).

But Dickens is very big on coincidences; there are a few major ones in almost all his books. One just has to swallow hard and enjoy.

Peter wrote: "I too was a bit shocked that Pip would break such a confidence, especially since it seems to be self-serving to him and a betrayal of a friend's confidence.

It may, however, be a plot device that will allow Dickens more creative movement in our last chapters. Dickens may have something up his sleeve."

But does having something up his sleeve justify Dickens having Pip do yet another wrong thing? Just as it was appearing vaguely possible that he might be able to redeem himself for all the unkind and inappropriate things he has done, bang, he does yet another one, and the chance of redemption fades further into the distance of possibilities.

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "I too was a bit shocked that Pip would break such a confidence, especially since it seems to be self-serving to him and a betrayal of a friend's confidence.

It may, however, be a plo..."

Dickens may or may not be able to pull the rabbit of forgiveness and atonement from his hat to satisfy all his readers, but a novelist has the right to structure his novel's present and its future as he pleases. Now, whether we as readers go along with him, agree with him or disagree with him is what makes the richness of a novel's possibilities possible.

Dickens is certainly running out of chapters. Perhaps we should not lean on how he has resolved his past novels too much; rather, we may be seeing an evolving style occurring. Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859 and Dickens was aware of its contents and its rather radical propositions. The more I reflect back of GE the more Darwinian it becomes to me in terms of the Dickens canon.

I look forward to a lively post-novel discussion.

Linda wrote: ""What's all this? You with an old father and you with a pleasant and playful ways?"

I think we've all had the experience of working with someone for years, only to find out something of their non-work life that throws everything out of whack in your usual way of thinking of them.."

I work with a woman who's a bitter, old shrew. But then one day her son and grandchild stopped by for a visit. Her face lit up like a Christmas tree and she seemed a completely different person. It was an amazing transformation! But, if anything, it made me dislike her all the more because I knew then that she had it in her to be a nicer person, but chose not to be. Instead, she makes a conscious effort to make those around her miserable.

As to what Everyman said -- I, too, felt that Pip had betrayed Wemmick by allowing Jaggers to see over that wall into his personal life. It was not Pip's information to share. He's showing some growth, but we can't expect miracles overnight.

Mary Lou, maybe your colleague is only able to be nice when her son and grandchild are near her, and whenever they aren't, she is just so said and lonely that she cannot put on a good and smiling face?

Everyman wrote: "But aren't you disturbed by Pip "outing" Wemmick's home life to Jaggers, who clearly wasn't aware of it? Wemmick made clear that he lived two separate lives, and here Pip, without any consultation with or approval from Wemmick, smashes the barrier between them. A barrier which Wemmick will never be able to rebuild. "

Yes, this bothered me a great deal. Pip seemed to betray Wemmick's confidence on a whim. I could see no reason for it, and thought that Dickens resolved this in a very mealy-mouthed way, by hinting that it had added an extra dimension to the relationship between Jaggers and Wemmick. Bad show Pip!

On reflection though, I think Dickens did have a reason. He can't help himself seeing the good side of most people I think - except his out and out villains. So this shows another, kinder side to Jaggers, whom we now believe will eventually retire from all the dubious legal proceedings, and not need to keep literally washing his hands of the dirty business, like Lady Macbeth.

Also, it gives another spin to the incident with his servant Molly, where he was so keen to demonstrate his mastery over her, as a beast tamed, and got her to display her self-inflicted woulds. At first this seemed just boastful dramatics on his part, having tamed a wild animal. Perhaps though, by keeping her in his home, he feels that he is doing his duty by society. He knows he was morally wrong in getting her off the charge of murder, and is now trying to atone by acting as her gaoler, ensuring she never ventures out into the world at large.

And when Pip lost his appetite, and we had the internal thoughts:

"Yet Joe, dear Joe, you never tell of it. Long-suffering and loving Joe, you never complain. Nor you, sweet-tempered Biddy!"

I could have shouted for joy! At last! Hurrah for Pip who has shown some moral calibre at long last! Nice that it was someone from his childhood, Mr Pumblechook, whom he never rated anyway, who effected this transformation :)

I'm wondering about the name "Startop". I was surprised to see him re-entering the novel anyway. Where's he been? And how come the pair are so sure he's trustworthy?

Is he a "star" to help them out? Or is it a pun "start-up" starting up their schemes, or the rowing?

I am still not reconciled with Pip's decision to let out Wemmick's secret in order to make his friend side with him openly. It's true that immediately afterwards, Jaggers shows a kinder side and that in the story he then tells of Molly and Estella's lives, it becomes clear that Jaggers acted with the intention to help both mother and child - but Pip could not have known what effect his blurping out the secret would have. It could also have happened that Jaggers would not be mollified by any further appeals and that he would have considered Wemmick too soft to be still working for him. In that case, Pip would have done more harm than good. It's the same kind of risk Pip takes in another situation where he is giving away secret information: (view spoiler)[Namely, when he later tells Magwitch about his daughter (hide spoiler)]

Apart from that, I had the impression that Pip was so bent on knowing his suspicions about Estella confirmed that he did not really care anymore for what he had promised to Wemmick. After all, let's not forget: Pip is not divulging a secret concerning himself and running a risk of his own, but his secret belongs to Wemmick and it is Wemmick who would have had to bear the brunt, if Pip's strategy had misfired.

Tristram wrote: "I am still not reconciled with Pip's decision to let out Wemmick's secret ..."

Oh yes it's completely indefensible morally! I think Pip is behaving thoughtlessly - if not outright selfishly - here. It bears traces of the old self-centred Pip, rather than the reformed character we are beginning to see. I doubt whether this "strategy" extended any further than possibly gaining support from Wemmick as a friend - but one whom he had thereby put into a very embarrassing position, which could have a detrimental effect on his employment. It's inexcusable!

But I could not see any reason for Dickens to have written this scene, until I thought of the filling-out of Jaggers's character which this enabled.

Jean wrote: "So this shows another, kinder side to Jaggers,.."

Oh, dear. It was bad enough that Dickens took that wonderful man Scrooge and ruined him by making him come over all goody-two-shoes. But now Jaggers, too?

Say not so!

LOL!

A quotation I love from Chapter 52, is:

" I had never been struck at so keenly, for my thanklessness to Joe, as through the brazen imposter Pumblechook. The falser he, the truer Joe; the meaner he, the nobler Joe."

It's a truism, that we take our family for granted, and that we may never appreciate them fully until we are older, and have perhaps lost them. I think one of the saddest phrases in the English language is "It's too late". This passage makes me hold my breath for Pip, that he might at least see Joe once more.

Everyman wrote: "Jean wrote: "So this shows another, kinder side to Jaggers,.."

Oh, dear. It was bad enough that Dickens took that wonderful man Scrooge and ruined him by making him come over all goody-two-shoes. ..."

Nobody is perfect - not even Scrooge and Jaggers, who eventually fall in with bad company and into bad ways.

You two better stop with the picking on Scrooge comments before you even get very far into them. I'm back to protect him now.

I'd never pick on old Scrooge. Maybe on new Scrooge, but not on old Scrooge.