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)?
Both the article and the conclusion of Mary Barton discuss religious hypocrisy—that is, the noticeable gap between the Victorians’ rhetoric and actions. They are, in practice, unconcerned with piety and do not apply biblical scripture—that is, any notions of Christian charity or mercy—to their legislation, but profess to believe in, and to uphold, its tenets. The article claims that the Victorians are told, "religion has as much to do with legislation as with cookery or with cobbling," and yet, their sermons invoke "the mercy of heaven, […] beseeching its influence in the restoration of order and the accomplishment of peace," which are, presumably, areas that are governed and impacted by the creation of laws. Similarly, on his deathbed, John Barton explains, “God forgive me; but I can say this, I would fain have gone after the Bible rules if I'd seen folk credit it; they all spoke up for it, and went and did clean contrary.” He (and, likely, the author of this article) suggests that “it's a hard one for a poor man to find” the “right path,” when much of society acts in opposition to its stated dogmas.
ReplyDelete