Contributed by Marian Gentile (Temple University, Philadelphia)

In the opening line of Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield (1850), David states, “Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show” (Chapter 1, 13). As reflected in The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, literary scholars and theorists tend to view the literary hero as one who acts, typically out of courage or nobility. Thus, the term “protagonist” is often more preferable than the term “hero.” However, David does not question whether he is a protagonist, but a hero, and his neglect to clarify what constitutes a hero leaves the word open for interpretation. In “Being in the Plot: Action, Intuition, and Trolleys,” Jesse Rosenthal draws on Northrop Frye’s theory of the literary hero as “someone doing something,” suggesting that David’s passivity and failure to act removes him from the status of hero. This emphasis on action prescribed by Oxford, Rosenthal, and Frye is one way of reading heroism, and perhaps may even be the most common way. If defined in relation to action, then many could likely agree that David fails as a hero. However, in the Victorian age, readers would not have been so quick to doubt David’s heroic status.

In order to understand the concept of heroism in this novel, readers must first understand what David means by the phrase, “the hero of my own life.” Jeremy Tambling addresses this question in his introduction to the 2004 Penguin edition of David Copperfield, drawing attention to the ambiguity of the word “life” and suggesting that the word does not simply reference his existence, but, more specifically, the life he records in the text (xxviii). Thus, David does not literally want readers to believe that he is his own hero; rather, he asks if he will be known as the hero of the text. This emphasis on text draws attention away from his actual existence—or rather, his actual fictional existence—and towards the pages of the novel. Ironically enough, the pages of David Copperfield focus less on David’s own adventures, and more on his observations and opinions on society.

If the word “life” in David Copperfield does not reference his existence, but instead the text, the definition of “hero” then shifts from the definition put forth by Oxford, Rosenthal, and Frye. In the case of this novel, it shifts towards the view put forth by Dickens’s friend, Thomas Carlyle. Tambling mentions Carlyle’s discussion of heroes in his introduction. Although he does not specifically name it, the discussion he mentions is a series of public lectures titled On Heroes, Hero Worship and the Heroic in History that were delivered in England from May 5-22 1840 and published as a book with the same title in 1841. According to B.H. Lehman’s Carlyle’s Theory of the Hero, these lectures also stemmed from “a movement which had for some years been under way,” noting that the topic of the “great man” had already been addressed by writers such as William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (131-132). At the start of his first lecture, titled “The Hero as Divinity. Odin. Paganism: Scandinavian Mythology,” Carlyle asserts that these lectures seek to explore how men “shaped themselves” in universal history, or the history of “what man has accomplished in this world” (21). Through these lectures, Carlyle discusses different types of heroes as they emerged throughout history. Among these are the hero as divinity, the hero as prophet, the hero as poet, the hero as priest, the hero as man of letters, and the hero as king. As Tambling states in his endnotes, the first line of David Copperfield alludes to Carlyle’s man of letters (934)[1].

Carlyle holds the man of letters and the literature he creates in a particularly high regard. To Carlyle, literature is the University, literature is the Church, and literature is Parliament (137-139). In simpler terms, literature is everywhere; teaching, preaching, and governing society. Because of its powerful nature, the man of letters holds a large responsibility. When speaking of the man of letters, Carlyle describes him as a“Literary Man” who “lives in the inward sphere of things, in the “True, Divine, and Eternal” (133). However, he warns audiences to be aware of the “false unheroic” man of letters (134). His example of this false man of letters is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whom he accuses of having a problem with “egoism; which is indeed the source and summary of all faults and miseries whatsoever” (154). Instead, Carlyle suggests throughout his essay that the man of letters should be humble and ordinary; a man to whom readers can relate, and a man with enough divine knowledge to instruct the world. This hero, however, is not one that existed in the past, but rather, in Carlyle’s words, “is altogether a product of these new ages” (132).

The question that David raises in the first lines of the novel, then, is whether he himself is such a hero. The first step is to ask the following question: What instruction does David perform through his narrative? At nearly a thousand pages, David Copperfield delivers quite a bit of instruction for both sociopolitical and domestic spheres. Per Victorian ideals, the sociopolitical commentary largely centers on the men in David’s life, while the women teach proper domesticity. The clearest instance of sociopolitical commentary occurs near the end of the novel, when David and Tommy Traddles tour a London prison with their childhood schoolmaster, Mr. Creakle. Dubious of Creakle’s views on crime and punishment, David remarks that “nobody appeared to have the least idea that there was any other system, but the system, to be considered” (Chapter 61, 854). Through this statement, David encourages readers to look beyond the common standard of society and towards social reform. He does not make it clear what a reformed society looks like, but draws attention to the need for it all the same.

David instructs readers on proper conduct in the private, domestic sphere through the narrative of his love life. His first marriage to“child-wife” Dora Spenlow serves as an example of a woman’s failure within the domestic sphere. Dora neglects household duties, leaving the house messy and “always cramped for room,” and does not adequately support David in his writing career (Chapter 44, 648). His subsequent marriage to Agnes Wickfield following Dora’s death brings about a reformation in David’s domestic life. Known as David’s “good Angel,” Agnes fulfills the ideal domestic role of a Victorian woman by taking care of household duties, serving as his moral voice, and supporting his career by sitting beside him as he writes. Through this narrative, David instructs women to take on the role of the “angel in the house,” while men are encouraged to choose their wives wisely in order to achieve domestic happiness.

There is little doubt that David fulfills the first qualification of Carlyle’s man of letters, as he instructs in the hopes that readers will learn truth through his narrative, but does he fulfill the second qualification and remain humble? This inquiry is difficult because naturally, readers want to support David. However, he is not without flaws. George Orwell once said that “in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure” (71). This is the flaw with not only Dickens, but also David. Rather than attacking the structure of Victorian society, David attacks individuals within his society, believing that he has the moral authority to correct others. In this sense, he may not seem like Carlyle’s humble hero as a man of letters. However, he is aware of his flaws and seeks guidance from Agnes. As he closes his narrative, he writes, “O Agnes…so may thy face be by me when so close my life indeed; so may I…shall still find thee near me, pointing upward!” (Chapter 64, 882). Thus, he continues searching for divine truth and moral guidance as he closes the “life” in his narrative. This search draws attention to the fact that while David sees the world from the“inward sphere of things” (Carlyle 133), he still has room for growth.

When modern readers ask whether David is a hero, they must remember the context in which Dickens was writing. In the contemporary world, David is not the courageous, brave figure readers may expect when they hear the word “hero.”However, in the Victorian era, he was a hero to be admired—a hero as the man of letters.

Works Cited:

Baldick, Chris. “Hero.” The Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford University Press, 2015. Oxford Reference Online. Accessed 4 December 2019.

Carlyle, Thomas. On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. Edited by David R. Sorensen and Brent E. Kisner. 1841. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2013. pp. 21-195.

Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. 1850, New York: Penguin Books, 2004.

Edwards, Owen Dudley. “‘The Tone of a Preacher’: Carlyle as Public Lecturer in On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History.” On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History, by Thomas Carlyle, edited by David R. Sorensen and Brent E. Kinser, Yale University Press, 2013, pp. 199-208.

Orwell, George. “Charles Dickens.” A Collection of Essays by George Orwell. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1954. pp. 55-110.

Rosenthal, Jesse. “Being in the Plot: Action, Intuition, and Trolleys.” Boundary 2, vol. 40, no. 2, 2013. MLA International Bibliography. pp. 25-39.

Tambling, Jeremy. “Introduction.” Introduction.
David Copperfield, 1850, by Charles Dickens, New York: Penguin Books, 2004. pp. xi-xxxix.

——-. “Endnotes.” Endnotes. David Copperfield, 1850, by Charles Dickens, New York: Penguin Books, 2004. pp. 943-974.

[1] All citations in my analysis of this text will be from the 2013 Yale University Press edition.