Writing of Personal Hygiene in Great Expectations and Its Moral Metaphor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54691/g139nd26Keywords:
Great Expectations; personal hygiene; moral metaphor; sanitary reform.Abstract
In the Victorian period, sanitary reform and religion combined to endow personal hygiene with ethical and moral significance, forming a dichotomy marked by dirt that dirt became a criterion for judging cleanliness and filth, virtue and depravity. In Great Expectations personal hygiene is the measure by which Pip measures the ethics and morality of others, the external representation of Miss Havisham’s moral degradation, and the tool by which Mrs. Joe and Mr. Jaggers whitewash themselves. The writing of personal hygiene in the novel presents the Victorian ethical imagination and ethical structure, reveals the hypocrisy of the society and the ethical predicament in that period, implies the arbitrariness and unreliability of personal hygiene discourse, and shows Dickens’ reflection on sanitary reform and the demand for new ethical criteria.
Downloads
References
[1] Allen, Michelle. Cleansing the City: Sanitary Geographies in Victorian London. Ohio University Press, 2008.
[2] Bloom, Harold. Bloom’s Guides: Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations. Chelsea House Publishers, 2005.
[3] Dickens, Charles. Great Expectations. The Bobbs-Merrill company, INC., 1964.
[4] Easley, Keith. “Self-Possession in ‘Great Expectations’.” Dickens Studies Annual, vol. 39, 2008, pp. 177-222.
[5] Gilbert, Pamela K. Disease, Desire, and the Body in Victorian Woman’s Popular Novels. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[6] Han, Qiqun. “The Material Turn: A Keyword in Critical Theory.” Foreign Literature, no. 6, Nov. 2017, pp. 88-99.
[7] Jackson, Lee. Dirty Old London: The Victorian Fight Against Filth. Yale University Press, 2014.
[8] Kelly, Victoria. Soap and Water: Cleanliness, Dirt & the Working Classes in Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2010.
[9] Luo, Can. “Sanitary Reform, Epidemic Diseases and Bleak House.” Foreign Literature Studies, no. 3, Jun. 2021, pp. 123-34.
[10] Penn, David. “‘Broken … into a better shape’: Justice and Mercy in ‘Great Expectations’.” Dickens Studies Annual, vol. 47, 2016, pp. 127-43.
[11] Porter, Dorothy. Health, Civilization and the State: A History of Public Health from Ancient to Modern Times. Routledge, 1999.
[12] Quabeck, Franziska. “Dickens’ Dirty Children.” Victorian Surfaces in Nineteenth-Century Literature and Culture: Skin, Silk, and Show, 2021, edited by Sibylle Baumbach and Ulla Ratheiser, Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, pp. 117-33.
[13] Robert, M. J. D. Making English Morals: Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England, 1787-1886. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[14] Rosen, George. A History of Public Health. Revised expanded ed., Johns Hopkins UP, 2015.
[15] Schülting, Sabine. Dirt in Victorian Literature and Culture: Writing Materiality. Routledge, 2016.
[16] Smith, Karl Ashley. Dickens and the Unreal City. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
[17] Smith, Virginia. Clean: A History of Personal Hygiene and Purity. Oxford University Press, 2007.
[18] Steinbach, Susie L. Understanding the Victorians: Politics, Culture, and Society in Nineteenth-century Britain. Second Edition, Routledge, 2017.
[19] Sullivan, Heather I. “Dirt Theory and Material Ecocriticism.” Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 19, no. 3, 2012, pp. 515-31.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
