A Character Study
(Spoiler Alert: This piece contains some major character/plot giveaways from the book, David Copperfield. I definitely recommend reading that novel before this essay on it.)
As a teacher I appreciate the difference between merely giving a student information and leading him to gain real understanding. One great way to maximize a lesson so that any person — young or old — walks away with solid knowledge rather than just a collection of facts, is to let him discover the truth for himself — reach his own conclusion. Certainly, the teacher providing information is part of the process, but the trick is not to provide all of it. When we are allowed to connect the dots for ourselves our rationality is engaged at a deeper level and convictions are formed.
Was Charles Dickens deliberately employing this pedagogical device in his writings, or was he just blessed with the instincts of a great story teller? I don’t know. In any event, his readers experience the joy of making certain discoveries for themselves. Since reading David Copperfield three years ago, I personally have been ruminating on one such gem highlighted by the characters of this story — true and false humility. Dickens doesn’t tell us that Uriah Heep is the poster child for counterfeit virtue, while the beloved protagonist, David, is the real McCoy. He lets us figure it out.
Through expert character development, we are given a peek at the motivations of each. What was Uriah Heep’s motivation for how he comported himself? How did he treat people, and why? What was his end game?
Before answering these questions, let us look at David Copperfield. What was his bearing? Did you notice how he was respectful to everyone he met? Man or woman, rich or poor, kind or wicked — he was considerate and gentlemanly with everyone. But why?
I believe David’s character was meant to show us the connection between charity — truth in action — and humility — truth in understanding. Yes, I realize in this tale we are only looking at the natural virtues, but perhaps the same link exists between the supernatural virtues. Humility leads to charity. Copperfield’s genuine respect for others motivated his noble actions towards them.
If we look at little Davy as a child, we see a thoughtful and kind boy. Was it his mother who taught him to treat other people so courteously? He was consistently honest, obliging, and cheerful. It’s not that he liked everyone, but he was good to everyone, regardless of their behavior. From Barkis, to Daniel Peggotty, to Mr. Murdstone — he was gracious with all. I was especially impressed by the part when he took great pains, genuinely trying not to annoy Mr. Murdstone, even after receiving such cruel treatment from that man (monster). I was quite edified.
But this goodwill flowed from a truth in his intellect. From his internal dialogue we know that he never thought of others as lesser than himself. Come to think of it, he didn’t really think of others as better than himself, either. And there is a truth in this. In certain ways, not all ways, men are radically equal. All people were made by the good God for a great end. When we recognize ourselves as equal in this way, we know the truth about how we stand before our Creator — humility. To the extent that Dickens understood this truth himself, he put it into the mind of our beloved hero, and the reader sees it played out in David’s actions — charity; he was respectful, considerate, and honest with everyone because that’s how he thought people deserved to be treated.
These habits stayed with him into adulthood. He looked down on nobody, and therefore was charitable to everybody. The motives behind his actions were not self interested. He wasn’t kind so that he would be thought of as kind. He truly wanted to do good to those around him, for their benefit.
Turning back to Uriah. His education was very different from dear Davy’s. Whereas little David learned to do good to others, Uriah was taught to stay beneath others. Now that’s a funny thing to be taught. What was the point of that? Not to help those around him, but to show others he knew his place, with a particular emphasis on the word show.
However, Uriah Heep didn’t actually think he was lesser than other people, did he? We can see from his actions that he thought he was better than, well, Wickfield, for starters. Think about it. Do we exploit someone’s weakness and manipulate them into promoting us because we think ourselves beneath them? Or is it perhaps that we consider our own interests as more important than theirs? Was Uriah really content to remain at the bottom — or did he want to climb to the top, even if that meant stepping on others along the way?
It seems to me he thought himself superior to others, maybe because of his moral rectitude, his sharp intelligence, or even his poverty. Whatever the reason, he looked down on “the proud ones” and believed he deserved better than them. According to his idea of justice, he, Uriah Heep, should be at the top instead of Wickfield and Copperfield.
Dickens must have had fun with this little character twist: “umble” Uriah was not humble at all. He didn’t recognize the truth of his equality with all men at the most fundamental level. And his false ideas lead to false actions.
The worst stench of the heap was his perpetual posing. This gets back to his real motives. He didn’t profess his inferiority because he believed it, and he didn’t show deference out of any genuine respect. It was all about playing a part — convincing others he was virtuous. The “umble” persona, served as a mask while he viciously attacked his neighbors. He had no charity because he had no true humility. For all his contortions (literal, physical ones) to present himself as content to be lowly, he was not. The many declarations of surprise and gratitude at his “unexpected” rise in fortune were all a show, all a facade.
Living a constant lie within himself, poor Uriah was a shackled creature, incapable of any real happiness (apparently even incapable of smiling). The repulsive fruits of disingenuousness were cleverly demonstrated by this pathetic, writhing, snake of a man.
I suppose we can feel sorry for him inasmuch as he was never educated to appreciate the true, the good, and the beautiful, to consider others, to see beyond his own needs and desires, never taught the liberty of honesty whereby one’s words and actions convey his true self. We can pity his desires for greatness that were never fostered or directed. For, in truth, any man of any social rank can be truly great, as the fatherly Mr. Peggoty demonstrated. Conversely, anyone can be a lowdown wretch, as the rich Steerforth proved to be. I wonder if Dickens made Uriah physically tall to show a calling to — a propensity for — greatness.
To summarize, I believe the lightsomeness of David’s true humility was being contrasted with the darkness of Heep’s false humility. The former was the basis for the hero’s benevolence, and the latter led to the villain’s malevolence.
Half the fun of discovering these hidden truths was hearing the whole story from David’s point of view. The first person narrative was brilliant and captivating. The reader felt as if he understood the extent of Uriah’s wickedness better than the kind-hearted Copperfield. It was all a part of Dickens’ setting us up to discover the truth for ourselves.
Harold Copping, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
