Ford and Sylvere Monod. (Zie pag.115Red.
I do not think you are quite right in calling Jaggers„a pet
tifogger"» he is a great criminal lawyer, playing the game
according to its usual conventions of 1egalstrategy. If you
read carefully the passages in which- he is shown conferring
.with his clients, you will note that he refuses to let him
self „know" that they are swearing falsely or guilt of sub
ordination of perjury. On the other hand, of course, you are
entirely correct in saying that really, underneath, he and
Y/emmick are perfectly aware of what they are doing, and are
morally if not legally guilty, and that thus there is a
strong resemblance between the devices behind which they
shelter themselves and the defenses that men like Eichmann
put up'before the world and perhaps partly tried to believe
in the secrery of their consciences. There is no doubt in my
mind that Wemmick and Jaggers are, if not quite Eichmanns,in
danger of becoming such men, and if they continued in the
same direction under such pressures as the Third Reich impo
sed might ultimately become guilty of their crimes. But, as
one may see from Jaggers1s symbolic and compulsive washing
of his hands, and Wemmick's raising of his rawbridge, their
consciences are also unconsciously in revolt against what
they doand they try to escape from it by a schizophrenic
division of their characters into a „professional" and a
„private" self.
One final remarks I do not think Dickens was at all unaware
himself of these implications and overtures. I am convinced,
on the contrary, that he knew and intended them, and that
they were a part of the general criticism of society that
was a central underlying thema in the novel. Here, again,
though I cannot take time to discuss this in detail, I can
refer you to my treatment of the novel in my book, and also
to T.A. Jackson's discussion in his Charles Dickenss The
Progress of a Radical.
I enjoyed reading your article. With all good wishes,. I am
Cordially yours,
Edgar Johnson.
125
