Review: Mary Barton

This review of Mary Barton also appeared in John Bull. Does it seem to be an accurate summary of the novel? What does it see as the novel's objective or as its effect upon the reader? Does it perceive what we have defined as the novel's intentions, as they are laid out in the Preface? How does it read the conclusion of the novel and, in particular, John Barton's confession to Mr. Carson? Does it view this conclusion as a "success"?

The Form of Prayer

This article, from the April 22, 1848 issue of John Bull, points to a contradiction in the perceived relationship between government/law/the nation and religion. What is this contradiction, and how does it tie in to the conclusion of Mary Barton? How would readers in 1848 have understood the religious implications of the novel's conclusion, and would they have accepted the religious answer provided by the novel. How might an article like this--and those who espoused its argument--have commented on the novel's conclusion (and, in particular, the final conversation between John Barton and Mr. Carson)?

Henry Mayhew, The Criminal Prisons of London

The following passage appeared in Henry Mayhew's The Criminal Prisons in London. Mayhew, one of the original founders of Punch, is best known for his compilation of sketches on the London poor. This less well-known treatise on criminal prisons first appeared in pieces in periodicals (including the Illustrated London News) and then in volume form in 1862. While readers would not have seen this quotation in 1848, they would have read studies like it. How does this passage relate to our discussion of phrenology/physiognomy last Thursday? How might we relate this passage to Mary Barton and, in particular, to the descriptions of Jem, Mary, and Mr. Carson at the trial?

“When the chapel is filled, it is a most peculiar sight to behold near upon three hundred heads of convicts—and the heads only, the whole of the prisoner’s body being hidden by the front of the stalls…Nor are the heads there assembled such as physiognomical or phrenological prejudice would lead one to anticipate, for now that the mask-caps are off we see features and crania of every possible form and expression—almost from the best type down to the very lowest. True, as we have said, there is scarcely one bald head to be observed, and only two remarkable men with gray, or rather silver, hair—the latter, however, being extraordinary exceptions to the rule, and coming from a very different class from the ordinary convict stock. Nevertheless, the general run of the countenances and skulls assembled in Pentonville Chapel are far from being that of the brutal or semi-idiotic character, such as caricaturists love to picture as connected with the criminal race. Some of the convicts, indeed, have a frank and positively ingenuous look, whilst a few are certainly remarkable for the coarse and rudely-moulded features—the high cheek-bones and prognathous mouths—that are often associated with the hard-bred portion of our people. Still it has been noticed by others, who have had far better opportunities of judging than ourselves, that the old convict head of the last century has disappeared from our prisons and hulks; and certainly, out of the 270 odd faces that one seems assembled at Pentonville chapel, there is hardly one that bears the least resemblance to the vulgar baboon-like types that unobservant artists still depict as representative of the convict character. There are few countenances, be it remarked, that will bear framing in the Old Bailey dock, and few to which the convict garb—despite our study of Lavater and Gall—does not lend what we cannot but imagine, from the irresistible force of association, to be an unmistakably criminal expression. At Pentonville Chapel, however, as we have said, we see only the heads, without any of the convict costume to mislead the mind in its observations, and assuredly, if one were to assemble a like number of individuals from the same ranks of society as those from which most of our criminals come—such as farm-laborers, costermongers, sweeps, cabmen, porters, mechanics, and even clerks—we should find that their cast of countenances differed so little from those seen at the Model Prison, that even the keenest eye for character would be unable to distinguish a photograph of the criminal from the non-criminal congregation” (164)

Central Criminal Court

This description of a criminal case appeared in the John Bull on March 4, 1848. What type of language does it use to describe the case? What information does it see fit to include? Does the trial in Mary Barton contain similar types of information? Why or why not? Can we hypothesize what would have been the public interest in reading accounts of this type (which were often included in weekly newspapers)?

Definitions in Phrenology

How do you interpret this article from the London Pioneer? How is it defining phrenology? To what type of audience might these descriptions appeal? Is this meant to be humorous or not? If so, in what way might they be funny? Alternatively, is this article meant to be useful, parsing and explaining a "scientific" method of character analysis in a way that would be useful for the average person?

Telling the Character to a Hair

What is the argument in this sketch from Punch? What methods of characterization does the person find acceptable/unacceptable? What does the article's opinion (and satire) say about the status of "scientific" characterization in the late 1840s? Why would people want to use phrenology and physiognomy (and other assorted methods of character analysis)? Alternatively, what might people have against such strategies?

The Chartist Folly Has Had its Day

According to The Satirist; Or the Censor of the Times, the Chartist folly quickly ended. What does the article represent as the greatest folly of the Chartists? Why? What type of person would hold such views about the Chartists? Do you think John Barton succumbs to such folly? Does Gaskell represent him and the other Chartists as foolish or naive in any way?