Many thousands are in want of common necessaries
Since Screechy Monkey and Pliny the In Between both quoted it, here is the full passage in A Christmas Carol:
They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.
“Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,” said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. “Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr. Scrooge, or Mr. Marley?”
“Mr. Marley has been dead these seven years,” Scrooge replied. “He died seven years ago, this very night.”
“We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,” said the gentleman, presenting his credentials.
It certainly was; for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word “liberality,” Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.
“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned—they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides—excuse me—I don’t know that.”
“But you might know it,” observed the gentleman.
“It’s not my business,” Scrooge returned. “It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!”
Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him.
Charles Dickens
Question for any Dickens scholars: is there any implication that Scrooge and Marley were lovers? It’s an interesting detail that Marley died at Christmastime, and I was wondering if they were particularly close such that his death helped soured Scrooge on the holiday. Google was not particularly helpful on this point.
Oh, nah. I’m not a Dickens scholar but I have read a fair bit about him, and more about 19th century British novelists, the 19th century, the Victorians, etc etc etc – and no.
Ahab and Queequeg now, that’s another story, but Dickens, no.
O–I think you mean Ishmael and Queequeg? They’re the ones who shared the delightfully ambiguous romp in bed.
The general background information for Scrooge is that he was a loner, who always considered holidays (especially Christmas) as something which got in the way of work. Even as a schoolboy, he had no time for his fellows dragging him away, then later, as the obsessive greed set in, he lost his fiancée due to his behaviour. Marley was certainly a companion in obsession, and with that degree of intensity of feeling, he may well have been the perfect platonic partner for Scrooge. The habit of sharing chambers – especially if you both live there, rather than having another living arrangement – means that you’re spending more time with that person than you would be spending with whoever you married! It’s indicated that they have different rooms, (but so do Holmes & Watson – same deal), but there’s nothing on the surface which suggests lovers, as far as I know.
It’s more like Marley died at a time of year he already hated, and since Scrooge is terrible at making friends, he realises that he would be unlikely to encounter anyone as perfectly suited to his own way of thinking ever again – especially because Marley was actually someone he liked/loved – and although there were certainly other men who shared his views, most of them were horrible people who nobody would want to spend time with!
He might have been pulled back into standard society if there had been some way to break his fixation on money/work, but it looks like he just never encountered anyone who had that ability. Then he met Marley, and both reinforced the other’s obsessive spiral. It’s certainly a form of love that allows Marley to return as the first of the warnings from the Spirits – he doesn’t want Scrooge to suffer as he has.
I am aware of some very “interesting” work which is basically an academic version of fanfic; suggesting exactly what has already been questioned, but the reception was apparently rather cool, to say the least! The hypothesis wasn’t supported, not sufficiently to associate the university/department which such an offering.
However, I must point out that this isn’t my field at all, totally different departments/schools, so maybe someone who knows more would be useful.
Cluecat, I sometimes think there is a tendency to read way too much into classic literature. Yes, there are definitely things that suggest more than just friendship, but not everything that has male friends has male friends meaning male lovers. We just tend to put our own way of thinking onto people who looked at the world differently.
Jeezus, what a brain fart – yes, I did of course mean Ishmael. *slaps head*
iknklast, that was pretty much what the official response to the “academic fanfic” was, as far as I know!
It’s also what I would have said to anyone who was serious about putting the idea forward, because I really don’t get that obsessive thing of insisting that any really close friendship just *has* to be “something more”. It’s kinda weird that people keep doing that, when there’s things which *are* there in the text – like the example of platonic love shown by Marley wanting to prevent his friend from suffering, and how their relationship enabled each man’s obsession, because there was no real “check” from the outside world, and so on – which are much more interesting and have the benefit of being actually *there*!
Yes, the whole purpose of Marley returning is a device, but in order for it to work, he would have to care about his friend! That’s there in the text! He saw that his behaviour was inappropriate, and although denied the chance to fix the problem in his own case, he tries to help his friend avoid the same fate. No “additional” relationship required!
Thanks everyone. It was just a passing thought, and I figured I’d get more informed thoughts.
I can’t remember the source, but I vaguely recall reading an article documenting how male friendships changed in the 20th century, especially (I believe it was) post-WWII. It used to be common for hetero males to express affection for each other, but that changed as men became anxious to avoid do anything that would be seen as gay.
iknklast, that tendency isn’t limited to classic literature. It seems like every modern work of fiction that involves same-sex friendships sparks a fan community that insists that those characters are actually in romantic love with each other. Sometimes the creators start to tease the fans with jokes and innuendos, which is all in good fun until fans start getting very angry when, e.g. Holmes and Watson aren’t actually hooking up with each other, as was (in their minds) “promised.”
You just know something was going on aboard the Pequod. A whole lot of sailors, all just hoping for a glimpse of big white Dick.
Screechy, the way men publically expressed friendship took a sharp u-turn around 1895, when Wilde was imprisoned. Until then men walking arm-in-arm was commonplace, and men travelling together would overnight in rooms with just one bed simply because it was cheaper. Lone travellers on a tight budget would even bunk-in with complete strangers – it was not unusual for one to be woken by a new arrival climbing into bed beside them. After Wilde it became the norm for men to have a touch of daylight between them, just to allay suspicions, although it seems that the middle and upper-middle classes showed more reluctance to drop such shows of affection for their close friends. In group photographs (university teams; the gentlemans’ club, etc) the men would often have their arms draped casually over their friends, but it was possibly the rigid formality of military life in both world wars that led to even that dying out in favour of the arms-crossed, minimum touching poses of post WWII pictures and formal attitudes in public.
I’m not sure if these were the original articles I was thinking of, but this collection of photos and commentary and this shorter summary seem familiar.
These and some other articles I skimmed while searching put a lot of emphasis on the development of “gay” as an identity rather than a behavior, in the mid-1800s, as a starting point. The Oscar Wilde trial is mentioned. There’s only a passing reference to WWII, so I’m not sure where I got that as a demarcation point, though the articles do talk about the repressed attitudes of the 1950s as being a further contributor.
If you want to look for covert longings in Dickens a better candidate would be Steerforth in David Copperfield. He’s the glamorous protective older school fellow to David, and there is an intensity to David’s feelings about him that make that more plausible than Scrooge’s for Marley. Schoolboy passions are a staple of British novels.
I also notice in watching old movies and reading old books (I do that stuff a lot because, why not?), it isn’t unusual to see two male friends kiss and hug each other upon meeting, though there is no suggestion of sexual attraction. Female friends, of course, have continued doing that, because women can touch each other without accusations of “oh, that’s so gay!”.
In short, misogyny leads to homophobia leads to macho leads to MeToo leads to…hopefully a better world? Not holding my breath.
They aren’t technically “old books,” but because they are set in the past, the Aubrey/Maturin novels by Patrick O’Brian show a close and affectionate friendship between the two male leads. The film was quite good too; a shame it wasn’t judged enough of a commercial success to merit a sequel.
iknklast, re. ‘Female friends, of course, have continued doing that, because women can touch each other without accusations of “oh, that’s so gay!”.’
Coincidentally, I was chatting to my daughter on Wednesday whilst a young actor, Brooke Vincent, who plays a lesbian character in the soap opera Coronation Street was on a game show on the TV. Vincent is, as far as I’m aware, a straight woman and is in a long-term relationship with a (male) footballer. We started discussing how hard it could be for a straight actor who has been playing the same character for a number of years, or even from childhood*, as Vincent has been doing, to have it sprung on them that their character is to have a same-sex relationship or to ‘come out’ as gay/lesbian, particulary in the filming of love scenes. My daughter said – and I agree – that in general women would probably find it easier for the very reason I quoted; women tend to be more touchy-feely** with each other than are men, so it wouldn’t be that great a leap to be filmed kissing and cuddling another woman (this is family viewing, so nothing explicit, of course).
*We both agreed that it would be different for actors going for roles knowing the character would be gay rather than playing an established character who ‘changes sides’ seemingly overnight, as is often the way in TV land; happily hetero for years without a hint of interest in their own sex then suddenly they’ve switched orientation without a backwards glance.
** Show-biz luvvies notwithstanding.