Dombey and Son: Essay One – Jarring the Revolution.

Marx famously wrote that time repeats itself in complex ways: In the a revolution the past is called upon to embody the spirit of the present. In a true revolution this is not a gathering of ghosts – but a genuine innovocation- as through an apparent return of the past – a new future manages to manifest itself – and give itself. Within a revolution then the future somehow manifests itself through the past – through conjuring the past – and transforms everything. However Marx goes on to suggest that this is not the only possibility and another type of apparently revolution is conceivable. It is possible that rather than the future invoking itself within the past – it is possible that the past gives the ghost of itself within the future. This he argues was the case in the French revolution of 1848. The past offered within the present a past that parodied itself – in giving itself. He actors self-consciously aped the past achieve nothing beyond this aping of what had been. One needs Marx suggests instead a poetry of the future - a poetry where the future – as it is created in the present – can then fold back upon that present and ensure progressive and constant change. Ere then Marx suggests a very complex series of links. On the one hand he is suggesting that radical change and action is somehow tied to an apparent temporal anomaly whereby one time appears to give something to another – and erupt into the world through this giving of another. On the another there is an apparent Platonism at work here. Not all eruptions of one time into the other are active positively. It is possible that one is caught within a collective madness that will whirl you around but not be able to achieve anything. One of the tasks of the modern revolution is he thinks to define the future in the present – and ready a poetry of the future that will be capable of acting directly upon the present. Here then one has an explicit theory linking anomalies in tense to action – and which also attempts to understand how no all relations to the past are the same. And yet there is something still naïve in Marx’s account ; He simply assumes that the present defines as poetry will somehow and in due course be directly applicable to the present itself. The revolutionary is then someone who has some kind of direct access to the future – which unlike the past is the same in the present and as it acts upon the present. And yet this is surely an assumption. The future I scheme is never quite the same as the future that will be manifested – or it  is there will be costs – and problems in this very similarity will create problems of its own – and penalties else where in the system.  What if then dual tense relations (that is the haunting, conjuring and poetry of the Brumaire were much more complex – and defies any simple arrangement into a conventional temporal sequence such that Marx’s naive assumption that one can have a realisable poetry of he future in the present implies? Is it possible to let the jolting of one time into another stand on their own two feet (as the nineteenth century revolution must), and become a theory in its own right? And what would happen to theories of action then> Would all action b hopelessly suspended – or would it become merely problematized and complexified. What could such a world look like.

The conjecture in this essay is that such a world was already at hand for Marx, if only he could have read it aright, in Dickens book Dombey and Son. My argument is that this book needs be understood as a terribly subtle enquiry into the manner in which one tense gives itself within another – and through another- as of course its very title of course implies.  What is more Dickens is very aware that within a world of dual tense relations time ceases to be have univocity. In that there is no one one effect of time (as arguable there is for Marx) and therefore one single time. It is rather the case that time will sometimes heal – at others exasperate-  at other mitigate – and that its action depends uon the manner in which is its being given across the existibng temporal relations that populate the book. Both these moves are explicitly stated in first chapter of the book. Here Dombey I revealed as a man who clearly in the grip of a past – which possess him – and drives him constantly into the future, having a  present in between . He is then quite literally blind to the fact that his wife lies dies in front of him (and his daughter hiding) , and can only perceive how the fact he has a son extends the ways in which his company can create new possibilities for itself – with each possibility baring witness to the greatness of a tradition-  namely Dombey and Son. He sees not the dying wife, but this already dead forebears – and what in their name he will achieve. He is then imediatelky set up as a man of who gives the weight of the past (in the sense of the having been – Dombey and Son) across the future – and through the future. For Dombey everything –be it the business world or the weather or his wife must serve the greatness of the pat – that is there future – and how they are caught changing what is must itself always by a witness to what was. And yet – and still in that first chapter another point is revealed. Time is clearly problematized by the presents of dual tenses. Such tenses do not slavishly follow time and cannot be imply bound up as decrete past, present or future within one all encompassing reality. In the second aparagrph of the book Dickens initially seesms to suggest this is the case – and that Dombey as he is past the zenith of life is mared for death, and Paul for life; And yet of course exactly the possite occurs. It is donby who lives and Paul who dies What time can do then is not an absolute – but depends upon the manner in which one exists across relations established within tense. Paul therefore does not grow up – but becomes more and more old fashioned. The effect of time is the to gradually capture his present within a past – he becomes more and more like an old man or goblin, fixated in trying to see something not present (in the Wall paper or the sea) and obsessed with being remembered well . He does not grow then in time but is caught up increasingly in the past- and as a thing of the past – and thereby reveals the uncanniness of the past as it catches up what is present.

The opening chapter then sets two complex problems. On the on hand the simple presence of beings which exist through a span of time stops being a simple guaranteing that all parts of that time are comparable. Both Paul and his Father are caught up in giving a past in another tense – and yet the past they give is very different. Dombey senior’s past demands the ceaseless creation of things in the future. His is then the past of a tradition which demands that the future is made to for its glory; While little Paul is caught up in quite a different past-  the past the waves have always been wispering – the past of death that remains with us in life-  and the immortality beyond (298). One can then be giving the same tense-  but not in the same sense – and can utterly misunderstand the sense the other gives that past-  while still at another level be aware that something indefinable is shared. Dombey is aware then the Edith shares something with him – and that there is something about her that he deeply accords with  – namely that both are caught giving the past (and are so Proud) – and yet give it in a totaly different manner he is the future – and she in the devaluing of all presents (736) – something Eddith likewise and in her own peculiar way feels (656). The past is no longer a single things – and Dombey and Son of populated by a plethora of contrasting pasts, presents and futures. Secondly the role of chonological Time ( which Dickens capitalizes and eludes to as a character through the novel – see  149) is transformed. Time is no longer a single phenomena – and what it can ‘achieved’ depends upon the communications that are constantly being opened up between differing tenses. The relations can then be helpful or harmful; long term or short term; and complex or simple within their constitution – depending upon the exact circumstances of what is involved. Within this essay I will examine both of these two aspects of dual tense relations – and attempt to outline how Dombey and Some offer not a ‘refinding’ of what is lost but rather a geography for temporal navigation.  First though a word of caution about what I am not looking at in this chapter. Dombey and Son does not just contain characters which embody a duality in tense. Certain character ( Captain Cuttle, Busby, Major Bagistock and Cousin Feenix) work in a slightly different way. What is at issue with these character is less a double tense and more a doubling up of the present – which endlessly re-gives itself across becoming and being. Such characters are therefore interesting in their own rught and the next essay will be devoted to them. Finally there are two character – Florence herself and Harriet Carker – who operate exclusively in the present – and will be the subject of the third essay in this series. My aim then in this essay is to investigate the nature of dual tense relations. My aim is not only to diagnose the nature of such relations but also to investigate the differing kinds of action (and its relationship with temporality) associated with such relations.

However even a cursory reading of Dombey and Son will reveal that there is not one way in which character establish double tense relations. Dombet – or Edith or for that matter Carker or Mr even Mr Tootle are not caught in the same manner by such a relation as say Alice Marwood or her Mother. A critical difference is where exactly the dual tense embodied opens out on the world. Dombey – a Man who bends facts to his will ( 718) or Edith – are never open in the past which defines them (515). That is been and done – either as tradition or a non-childhood – and therefore is totally un-negiocatable. The tense that is  caught witnessing this defining tense is likewise not of itself open. As it gives the other tense –it must do what it does. Edith then is aware of the pain she causes (to herself and others) – and yet feels she can do nothing about it – and that she is harried into being thus (701). Or again Carker (whom embodies a present as it is in the act of creating the future) is not simply open to different presents or different futures. On the contrary his ability to inhabit the possibility of  the future is constigated only once a present is established (and he foresees in the course of the novel quite distinct future, each linked to a different manifesting present -735) . Nor is this world of possibility ever simply open in itself. It is true there are nearer and remoter possibilities –that is ones for which he can plot, and ones he knows are merely to come (690) – but this to come is already given with the present in which they are defined. The contrast then with these closed (or perhaps ontological) dual tenses are apparently open ones. A character such as Alice Marwood – who exists as a past which the present has not done with yet ( 572) – and her Mother  ( whom embodies the past made present 459, or 826) are open in the tense that determines them. Alice knows then the story that holds both her and Carker in it has not finished yet – and that there is more to come (725). Such character then appear – on the face of it to b more open to possibility – and perhaps more able to act (if the former are ontological these are phenomological). It will therefore be necessary to characterize each  manner of being in double tense separately – before I turn to consider the Hybrid cases that span across they two manners.

The ‘ontological’ double tense relations are characterized by a fixed relationship which is opened up between two contrasting tenses-  where by the reality of one is witnesses in the being of the other . Such relation is then typified by a certain affect. Dombey – the giving of the past in the future which is made to conform to this past – is then proud. His Unflexible demand is that all around will continually act (that is enter new futures) according to the rigours of the past. His quarrel then with Edith is that she fails to realize how she is bound up in giving a future  - her sin for him then is less extravagence that the fact that she does not see how extravagence should in creating action in others create a constantly remewed future which serves to give the past (the greateness of Dombey – 652). In Edith then one finds another distinct affect. It is less that she is proud and more she embodies the comtempt that a past has for its present. The Past  arranges neat little presents for her –be they her list of accomplishments ( 469-472) or her luxurious dressing room (650) – and yet each present fills her with contempt even has she is it. In this contempt the value of what she has done is effaced – and she is harried into giving yet another (valueless) present. Hence her reason for marrying Dombey. It was not that she thought she could happy within him – but rather that she thought that in marrying him at least all her contempt for herself would b given in a given through – and she would be spared the agony of constantly having to relive it across ever new presents. Hence also her desperation then Dombey – who desires the future never the present – drives her on and forces her to resist him (that is to create new resisting present -700). The affects that stream from a single tense relationship are frequently a little more complex than this. For example there is  Mrs Skewton who embodies as it were all the rotteness of memory. That is she embodies in her contrast of age and contrived ‘youthfulness’  the fact that as one remembers  a past present given in present present.  and as if nothing between then had changed in spite of the fact that what is changing is crowding all around that memory – and screaming to be seen - and visible to everyone else (362). Three affects then accompany such a giving of the present through the past – in the contrast with the past. Firstly is an idiotic nostalgia for the past irrespective of its horrors ( 462-467). The past that is made present in the present looses its reality therefore- and is seen through rose coloured curtains. Secondly there is here endless appeal for ‘Heart’ and being ‘Natural’ She defines  being natural as ‘following all the ’yearnings, gushings, and impulsive throbbings with which we have been endowed’ ( 368) : And yet two things about this ‘nature’ are immediately apparent. On the one hand, Mrs Skewton is clearly a hypocrite – and she it utterly contrived (362); on the other, there is a sense that this talk of yearning and gushings are (although Mrs Skewton would of course never admit this) the nostalgic memory of the elderly Mrs Skewton – whose passion has ebbed – and is merely remembering how things ‘were better in her day’ when everything was so much more natural (363). What is more (and even more complexly) Dickens is aware of the interlinking of these two apparently different aspects of being ‘nature’. To remember in this way –that is to understand ones aging in the present  in terms of the falling off ‘heart’ and ‘nature’ – is to be a hypocrite. One is no longer expressing what one is in the present- but in the past –or rather in terms of how that past is falling away. Those who have heart are then those who make her present  more bareble. Finally, Mrs Skewton is relentlessly in her demands . Her being is clearly a brittle one and  her ability to be a memory which is present precarious. She is constant then in her demands for attention from Edith and the world – and unable to hear anything that runs against the past she is so desperately giving ( 472-474).  To be in a double tense is to be bound up in the middle of  a complex and highly nuanced affect  - which constantly expresses one tense from effects and feelings it creates within another; So that to have affects is to be bound not in one tense but two – or rather to be pitched in one by the other. All the resisting that the pitched tense can offer in such a situation is the happy defiance of Susan Nipper – who embodies a sense in which the future defies the present (with is black eyes) and always (powerlessly) attempts to run elsewhere from it  or the tragic defiance of Edith – who knows she is on the path to ruin and yet can do noting about it. The Ontological dual tense is then always given is acion. Dombey or Edith (or Crker) are always doing something – and cannot be anything other that doing.

The second clear aspect of these ontological dualities is that the character who gives them have no idea of themselves or anyone else apart from the giving of this tense.  This lack of individuality has two distinct aspects. The defining tense is pre-individual. Whether it is singular or multiple then is oitise. The Dombey tradition or the the ‘Edith past’ – that is the sense both of these present a ‘having a history’ cannot be meaningfully said to be either singular or plural. The sense that tense is given is likewise complex. Each defining tense will no doubt have an individual who embodies this relation, so that one can certainly say in its giving – in the fact that it is what it given a defining relation is singular.  And  yet it is clear that such an individual will never of in themselves express that relation- but must always gather up others in the giving of it. Dombey makes no sensible division therefore between the others and himself – everyone (including him) is caught up in the giving of the past in the future – and he (and his pride) is merely the conduit that ensures the rights of the past. Dombey is then proud without being egostistical. A totally different example could be found in Mr Toodles. Mr Toodles is a man of whom it is said that he only has three states of existence . ‘ He was either taking refreshing himself with tea in the bosom (of his family), or he was tearing through the country at from twenty to fifty miles per hour or he was sleeping after his fatigues’ (618).  In both the former to states this easy going man is a hive of activity. He is either stovellng coal into a steam engine or bread into his mouth. He thereby embodies the fact that any present (be it the engine or the bosom of the family) is only present in that it creates within in it a certain running towards the future. He is then the future through which the placid present gives itself. What is more this future (and the present which underpins it) is collective. Toodles was either part of the machine (‘connected’ with it) or he was with his ever growing family (he always had a good supply of children) whom are arrange in a series around him (running from oldest to youngest) – and whom he constantly keeps amused with spoonfuls of tea and bites of bread. The Children surrounding him then exist in two states – either dancing for joy at the proceeding or awaiting in an expectant circle (620). The present then that Toodles gives does not just include him therefore  but his children (and wife) – all together become part of the way through which  that present is given in arranging futures. A final example is again found in Edith.  The relationship that Edith embodies is essentially clearly a most individualistic one.   She is, after all, a women caught up by her own sense of past. And yet this past does not unite her but rather pull her apart – that is dissolves her into numerous seperate presents – which are only united by a mutual contempt for themselves. It is no wonder then when after she has Fled with Carker and is response to his question ‘ what daemon possesses Edith answer ‘ There name is Legion’ (859). The question of one or many is then very complex. To ask whether a defining tense or many is oitise. To can be seen a singular only at the point that another expresses it./ ads it is expressed – and being given it is then saidto be singular (as Dombey and son is expressed by the current Dombeys). But then as defining tense are then given in the defined tense that defined tense will take up many thingss and arranges itself across disparate ‘agents (who may or may not have a dual tense relation of their own).

There is another critical feature to such ontological dual relation. Each relation is curiously flexible. Once a relationship has been set up –of course it is not open –and everything in the world will be ignored or bought into relation with this relationship. And yet there is nothing absolute in exactly how any one relation is expressed. Again this is perhaps clearest seen in Dombey. Dombeyy simply embodies h manner in which a past is given on the future – andhe is open to the exact manner of this giving. Indeed Dombey and Son charts three separate incarnation of Dombey. Up to the death of Paul he is very much Dombey and Son. Theis the sense that the pride of the Dombeys straddles time, and forces everything to conform to it. After the death of Paul (or more particularly after his mediation on Death in the train) a different Dombey emerges. His basic structure is the same. He still aims to give the past (the power of Dombeys) in the future-  and yet that future is now embodies not in a dour straddling of time– but in is conspicuous consumption.  Dombey now expresses the ability that the past gives to the future in a certain  kind of house, and a certain kind of wife, his aim is not to straddle time itself, but overwhelm his current world with his splendour – and force it to be caught up within giving the power of Dombey and Son.  His finally incarnation occurs after the flight of Edith.  As he struggles to keep Dombey and Son afloat – the past becomes more and more insistance upon the future – and more and more demanding. It is unable to understand that it is in trouble, and assumes its history is enough to safe from disaster  - and so it lost ( 908).  Each relationship then is not of itself absolute. The fates through which it is given can always be rethrown. And yet it is clear that such a rethrowing is not random. Dombey does not spontaneously change from one form into another- but is rather dirivev to it be events. More interestingly  the shift from manner of expression to manner of expression depends upon the presence of either Major Bagistock or Florence ( I will examine why in the subsequent essays). In his meditation on the train the idea of Florence swims into his mind, but at this point of his life fails to engage him – ad it is Major Bagistock who calls him back to reality (357). Likewise it is to the Major (and Cousin Feenix) whom Dombey turns after the flight of Edith and whom (as constituting the ‘World’) inaugurate his final incarnation (810-812).  The major is then the individual to whom Dombey turns when distaster demands he changes the manner of his giving. Florence  though has quite a different power. Flornce – if only he can attend her has the power to change him utterly and apparently spontaneously. The merest sight of her after he has returned from his honeymoon almost triggers a repentance – and the emergence of a totally different Dombey, a repentance that is cut short by Dombey’s inexperience in creating a present – and Edith entry  ( 586-7). In a sense one might say Dombey is right to fear (and Hate) Florence as the present she gives effortlessly and innocently defied the future he demands. The role of Florence is again critical in the serious attempt Edith makes to re-throw fate. It is the thought of Florence alone that leads her on to suggests that her and Dombey attempt to learn to value each other – across time – and in their old age (656) – an offer Dombey distanced from Florence as his is cannot accept. The manner of existence – then of the ontological dual relation is far from absolute in its manner of existing. At certain times- and in response to changing events (or in the present of Florence or Harriet) – other possibilities are always open to it – other away in which it can be given. From this it follows that the effect of chronological time on tense relations are legion. What the passage of time might mean is then relative to the specific manner of being through which a particular tense relation –and how that relation is involving other in its giving. Time cannot heal the marriage of Dombey and Edith – and as it passes they become more and more entrenched in their respective position ( 736) – and yet it need not have been like that-  if only Dombey had followed Edith appeal time the passage of chronological time would have achieved quite an other effect. It is not then time that drives forward difference so much as the disparate tenses – that demands that – changes and difference constantly emerge (a change that is the framed within the respective tenses involved). Or to put it another way it is tenses that drive time in Dombey and son, and not the other way around.

   The other great manner of giving tense can be typified as phenomomological. The key difference here is that the dominate tense it itself open – and given as it itself changing. The determinate tense then registers this change. Perhaps the most poignant example given is Dombey is Alice Marwood – a women who is a past that the present has not finish with yet. She embodies then all the anger and pain of her ruin by Carker (and always describes herself as one who sold herself many years ago – 664). Or to put it another way – she is the creation in the present of the past that is yet to ‘catch up with’ Carker. The Sense then she is the past which catches up is very subtle. She refuses her mother’s (who represents the counter tense of past which gives present)  that Carker is simply exposed (and so the past the past made present) or blackmailed (725); But rather as the past that will of itself foreshadow what must be ( 665) .and as it can foreshadow it – can capture up others (that is Dombey) in its anger-  and wreak revenge through them ( 819-820). The past revengegs itself by remaining in the past (she tells does not tell Dombey her story) –  but rather uses him for her revenge.

  Several things are at play in this above example. The phenomological dual tense is not only endlessly open to what is occuring (and Alice and her Mother dog Carker and Edith’s footsteps), but they are also essential inactive. Alice does not act to gain revenge – while her Mother acts only for money, ; there role is then to know things rather than to do things.  But what is more there is a very different sense of identity at play here.  I will examine briefly each of these in turn.

He first point then relates to the inactivity of this relationship.  This inactivity is complex – any one individual might in their defined tense be active (as Mrs Brown is as she grasps for Money) – and yet there activity cannot achieve anything of itself (save the amassing of information). For example Uncle Sol – who embodies a sense which the phenomological future – that is what is in the process of being given must turn is back on the past. Uncle Sol then knows his shop has seen better days – and is behind the times – and that he can do nothing about this, and describes his ownership of the shop as a mere habit (93) –  and inspite of the fact he is a skilled man of science (one who can get free passage on boats because of his skill – 894). Likewise when he is looking for Walter – he beats about looking for information – but only learns too late that Walter has already set of on the homeward journey (895).  He therefore fails to actually find his nephew Walter, as he fails to move with the times – and learns only of his failure as he is put in the past by it. However (and more subtly) , Sol  actually exists is a domain of indescernibility between the past the future has done within, and the past which has a future, and the future is creating as its past. As what is given in the past is the future which cannot itself be known it is clear on a wider (ontological) level,, Sol does not actually know which he is. He merely experience being a past caught in a future. In the end of the book then the relationship is reversed, and actually he is revealed as the past that has a future (971)Or to give another example Mrs Tootle aka Richards, who exists as in the sense a future is made present. She clearly understands much ( she successfully defines why Nipper is upset - 108 – and how to deal with the dying Paul and Florence – 296). And yet her attempt to act of herself – are fraught. Not only does he fail to reconcile Dombey with Florence (84), but also her attempts to go on a journey to see Rob the grinder in this uniform (an action she is put up to by Nipper) leads to her sacking (142) – and her ability to effect a final reform of Rob is problematic (386).  Her abilities then are confined by her ability to grasp a situation – and make present (to her Husband and others0) what is emerging within it (70).

The role of these relations is then not to act but to amass information. Two example will serve to Clarify this. Alice’s mother (the Good Mrs. Brown) embodies the the opoosite relationship than the one Alice gives. She gives the greed of the past as it gives itself in the present . Her role here is not simply to recall the past . Rather her strategy is to take an existing present- and capture it a nest of pasts that threaten it  (she threaten Edith with a fortune telling (459) – by interconnecting that present (and its past) with a whole series of other pasts as yet unknown to it . She foresees the future then in knowing how apparently unlinked pasts are already hooked up (573)-  pasts that will take it to a quite different world than the one it supposes . Perhapos the high point of this method is seen in her blackmailing of  Rob in order to find Edith and Carker are  after their elopement (830-833) –. Her she mingles together four quite distinct pasts ( see  p.725-730 for a similar set of moves). Firstly there is the immediate past – the elopement of Edith and Carker, of which she wants information; Secondly there is the past of Rob the Grinder-  the past that haunts him throughout the novel – in the sense that h has had ’form’ – and there are people in his past that want to get even with him – people  Mrs. Brown claims to know – and threaten with; Thirdly there is the immediate past of Dombey (who is listening behind the door) the past of a wronged man; Fourthly there Is the past of Alice -  and her desire for revenge. All these pasts are then hooked up – in diverse ways (Dombey is partly responsible for the Grinder’s past, while he employed Carker who was responisible for Alices. What is more of course by his action of employing Carker to humilate Edith Dombey has ensured the past has repeated itself…). Mrs Brown then takes up these four distinct pasts – and by making Rob confess to the immediate past  and act which involves not only his past – but Alice’s as she threatens him as well) – allows a link to be given between Dombey’s past and the grinder (a link hat was of course indirectly already there). The role of the Good Mrs Brown is then never to act – but rather to reveal diseprate links between already existing pasts-  and inspire action in others. There is here a second very subtle point. Once the past has been made present by the Good Mrs. Brown it of course looses its character as past – and which it its power The question is then how can one witness such a lose of being past-  how can the fact that the past as  it creates presents for itself ceases to be past at all –be given as part of the pasts defining of the present? The answer is of course that this past demands continued witnessing – in money. Money (and Mrs. Brown is constantly avaricious,) represents in the present the flattenes of the past that makes presents. As the past makes present – it is gathered into a single locus of being – and yet in that locus it has differing value – a differing value that is of course given In the giving of money.

My second case inolves  Rob the grinder. On one level oe can of course simply read Rob as a hypocrite – one who evesdrops (415), whistles down pigeons ( 401) which he cages ((633), and who lies to Mrs Tox about what he would do with a shilling (627).  And yet there is a little more to it than this. Rob is not simply ‘still bad’; - and when Mrs. Brown threatens him with his past he is genuinely alarmed – and he I moved b the fact that his mother believes ‘what is good’ (385). So that rather than simply thinking Rob the Grinder as a hypocrite it is better to say that he is a present that is haunted by a past ( As the name Rob the Grinder impilies). This past does not simply control him – or exist as a memory but rather it  locates him within the perpetual subjunctve. He is someone aware of what he would have done if he were bad – and all his protstations of innoncens are the protestatios of someone who knows what it is to be wrong-  and is even thinking of going it – and yet has not yet (quite) done it (634) . He might listen into conversation – and yet he fails to write then down in any meaningful way (that is fails to give them as anything other than an eaves dropping)(). But then of course as the subjunctive- as someone whose pasts haunts him in the present by telling him what he would have done – He is  useful to others (as he really does think like a thief). Both Carker and the good Mrs. Brown then take up with Rob – and force him to tell them (and inspite of all his protestation of innocents) what the bad-grinder is thinking. His Subjunctve past then becomes a source of information for others – and part of their schemings.

Finally – there is a clear contrast in the manner in which ontological and pheno,logical relations think of identity. A character such as Edith has not little or no idea of a separate identity across time. She asks her mother ‘when did I have a childhood…you gave birth to a women’ (471), and the only childhood she ever knew was her late ‘childhood’ – after her Husband’s death, when she was touted on the marriage market and dragged from spar to spar – until she found someone , in Dombey who was totally blind to what she was (472). This late  ‘girlhood’ is then clearly episodal – as Edith is dragged by her mother from one false’ hope’ to another. Such unity as Edith posses is then firmly ‘owned’ by her past – by the sense that she was a history – a history that is ‘in its pride’ as it shows off to Dombey. Alice ‘s is clear that Alice’s parallel account is somewhat different. Unlike Edith Alice is united across the past – and divided in the present – or rather is a series of present (being a pretty child with a poor mother, a thief, a criminal, a transported individual, a returned daugher ( 571-2). And yet it is clear (from what is said above, and from Dickens subsequent remark that when quite Alice had the departed light of a fallen angel – 573), that it is the present which defined what Alice is, and the past that records that presents departed light – and tries to hoard it to itself. The contrast then is between a relation where the definer is what is unifed and the defined is diverse (as is the case for Edith) – the exact opposite that Alice represents. She is united in the past which the present defines (as the history that ha not been finished with. However this identity, as it is defined by something that is mult-iverse (or perhaps poly-verse), is complex and interwoven. Alice is similantaneously a girl and a women, a child, a prostitute, a thief and a beggar, and a fallen angle, and her identity is comprised then in having – owning all these as her past – as part of her story. Or as Dickens might have it (about Rob the Grinder), he was Biler, or otherwise known as the Grinder, or otherwise Rob, but always a Tootle underneath (). 

Asssociated with this last point is another poignant point about  phenomological relations. It is clear that unilike ontological relations which can throw again their manner of being – no such luxury exists for phonological relations. Alice tells the stroiy of ‘Alice Marwood’ not only as her past- but has the story she remains caught within and must live in. likewise Rob the Grinder cannot simply reform – but must rather entire into the subjunctve – and know what he would have been. And perhaps sadest of all the Good mrs Brown cannot understand that her ‘Hansome ‘gal’ is dying – and still thinks she will get better (920).  Alice – unlike Edith – cannot simply relent and re-throw fate. She might repent of her action – and trying to stop Dombey killing Carker – (849) but not only s it to late-  but her Death will follow ((923). There exists then a profound dissimilarity in the way these two relation exists across time. The Ontological relation pitches itself a cross time – and can find endless manners of being – endless ways in which it expresses itself  - and takes up others in that expression. It is open to fate and can be rethrown. But it pays the price that at any one point it does not have a sense of identity of its own.   It merely gives the identity of another – which has no identity of its own save in this being given in another (so Dombey and Son – the past – is only given in the way it forces the future to conform to itself- and has no other realitiy space in this perpetual enforcing-  for Edith’s past has reality to giving contempt in the present). The contrast then is with what have called here phenomological relations. In such relation the defined tense has somekind of identity of its own, even if this identity is only given as it is caught in being for another – and that ‘another’ it always complex and multiple – always by ‘fine words or strong arm’ dragging into other places. In the former case then the effects of time is dependent upon the relations being given – and how they are already relating in certain manners of being to one another-  already impelling certain outcomes and results – with always the chance that as these manner runs across disparate relations – there will be a throwing of fate – and a different possibility will be given. ‘Time’ then – as a concept cannot be correctly attributed to such relations – as there are no definitive past or futures given by them. It is rather the case that each relation involves a particular temporal construction, which is then pitched against ll the others – and force to jangle up against them. For any such ontological relation one cannot then ask what is time but only ‘which tense, which past which future, which present relation am I in?’. The Phenomological in contrast are directly arranged within time – across which they are endlessly re-arrange and remade-  and yet remain themselves. In this re-arranging – through this re-arranging they amass knowledge about the themselves and the world (knowledge that the ontological relation clearly lack) – and yet do so in a way that can neither change their fate – nor act within the world. These relations then have a history – but a history that both distances them from any action – and also from  any chance of changing their nature. They are then endlessly passive (and always a toddles underneath) and trapped in their ow way of being in all time (even if that way is its diverse).

However  there is more to double time relations that this simple division might suggest. Other possible hybrids between these two types are possible. On the one hand there is th possibility that the defining tense might relation not to a state (a having a history – or being within the bosom of ones family) but an particular event – in which a character is then caught up in witnessing. On the other there is the possibility that what is witnessed is as much a constant misaccord between tense as any real accord. I will very brefly examine each case. The former example us typified by two examples – namely Walter and John Carker (whose fate is self consciously likend within the novel).  Walter’s very basic temporality is clear enough. He embodies (as does Mr.Domber) a past that is giving a future.. When his uncle then proposes a toast to tradition – and the Mayor– Walter also wants to toast the admiral (and in the same breadth ) and Adventure (93). However it is clear the exact way he does his is complex. When he thought Walter was drowned Ned Cuttle claimed that there was not one Walter but ‘ a round half  a dozen, all Drowned along with with Walter (545). He identified though only three – the school boy that used to ‘be as merry…as a piece of music’ the Fresh faced lad who blushed at the memory of Florence, and the man.  However it is also clear that what is changing between these three Walters – is not really a manner of being – so much as the exact past remembered. We Walter enters the Novel (as the Boy), he does so as a romantic boy – who sees in the past-  what he will become ( Cuttle then talks in reference to him of Whittington – 99). He therefore – with his Uncle makes up a story of the adventures of the maderia Wine they are drinking – but where Uncle Sol sees this firmly as a  history he is telling – Walter becomes obsessed by the adventure of it all –and limitless possibilities afforded by it(96). The effect is of course that while Uncle Sol (as the future into the past) meant the mere telling of adventure stories to be enough – and to satisfy Walters longing – they serve only to inflame them ( while Walter himself will remind Uncle Sol of something he has forgotten – that is the future which his past is indirectly giving). The move to the second stage of Walter’s personality is conditioned by Florence. Paul rescues Florence when she is lost in London ( an event that feels like a real adventure for Walter – 137, and which becomes the spoilt child of his memory 172). This event then becomes the past that captures Walter in it (and he becomes a ‘fresh faced lad’ ( 287), with a hope that he might one day ‘aspire to Florence’ in some distance of time ( 199): That is they left him with the hope of a hope – which he only become really aware of when that hope was nipped by Dombey’s disapproval of him. This memory certainly then remains important to Walters (and he and Florence directly refer to it on their marriage day 903),, but it is now a broken hope of a hope which is sometimes before him even as he prepared to leave England (335), and which inspires him to sometimes stand outside the Dombey house (this no doubt is the third Walter Cutles identifies – the Man – who lives within the shards of broken hope). It is in this guise that Walter gets caught up in Pauls’s last moments (as he helps Nipper find Richards). This in turn leads to a Florence’s second visit to his Uncle Sol’s parlour-  a visit which then creates a new defining memory. Florence, I this visit, and in the name of her past-  and Paul’s dying recommendation of him – offers to be Walter’s sister – which he responds by pledging to ‘ cherish and protect her very image in his banishment’ (337).  So again memory inspires Walter-  and se sees not just what has been – but pledges himself to any and every change – and way of behaving that will keep the image of her fresh to his mind. That is he responds to a past memory by pledging a future. It is then of course this memory and the future that is creates for him that stop him taking any sort of advantage of Florence when he returns. That is – what he is pledged to is the memory of Florence – and her pledging that he was her Brother-  a memory that (as it is memory) means he should not presume upon it – and act as if it were true in the present, let alone to her lover (794). It is then again up to Florence to switch him over again – and to become no longer the memory he must treasure- but his wife (805).  Walter’s complexity lies then in the fact that the memory – the past which has caused him to pledge a certain future (of respect and reverence – 804) – and yet (and for reasons beyond his control that past is highly textured– and not simple. It is no one event he is pledged to – but rather a sequence of different event – all focused around Florence – and which she herself consciously and unconsciously patterns. He might then be composed of an affect of hope – and be in his form ontological (that is he clearly has a stronger sense of Florence’ identity than his own), and therefore giv the sense that a past event-  as one attempts to honour it, already impels one into the future  –And yet – that past in its very inception was not so much ‘open’ (it is not phenomological in that respect) but complex – and multi- layered a feature it then shares phenomological identities. Walter therefore in himself behaves ontologically – and as an active agent within the world – and yet the tense that defined him remains anything other than simple-  and even in his giving of it demands a certain complexity from him – and an ability to move across differing perspectives  ( a move he can only achieve in the presence of Florence).

     If Walter is characterized  by an ‘ontological’ defined relation, but a complex defining relation – a defining relation that has the features of a phenomological identity . John Carker – is in many ways the reverse. He is a man whose caught in a perpetual present-  which is defined in relation to a fixed and unpayable debt within the past. His Present his then have many of the hallmarks of what was referred to above as a phenomologcal present – and yet the past it relates to is not merely ontological – but has the features of an ontological defined relation – rather than a defining one. John Carker’s present (his defined reltion) is then open to the world – and highly sensitive of present relations. He sees therefore the potential danger in Walter’s situation(248 and 341), and his sisters weakness (373)  as well and his brother’s distain and merciless use of him (245) . And yet all this openness is conditioned by his past – as he sees is Walter what he had been, and understand both his sisters and his brother attitudes in terms of that past. He then is open only as there is in the present things that either touch upon –or repeat  his own past. And yet the past has a some curious features about it. Firstly t is clearly not the same kind of past as Edith’s or the Good Mrs. Brown. Edith has a past in the sense of ‘having a certain history’ – her past is then a general state – through which what she does in the present is given. In Contrast the good Mrs. Brown has in terms of that past which is always greater than a single history  - and in which links, unknown to any individuals are formed. Both these defining past are then in differing way ‘generalized’ pasts – and do not refer to specific events. However this is precisely the nature of John Carker’s past. He is caught up in the legacy of his action – and his attempt many years before to defraud Dombey and Son (249). He might have changed since then – and clearly has repented of his action – and yet he remains caught up in this single error. This is then the past as an empty gesture – an empty rememberance-  which captures one in its consequence  and does so even after all the circumstances have changed. In this this past in a sense has the features of the ontological ‘defined’ relationship’. It has no unity of it own – but is rather as being unified in relation to another. – and yet this other – the ‘past’ of John the Carker the criminal has long since ceased to be at all – and all that is left of it is this sense of being caught its legacy. John Carker then has an identity of his own (and is as he is ‘phenomologically present’ quite able to form an identity and know himself as a single being). And yet that single being – is always given in reference to a past- and as he is given ain the consequences of a past action which he identifies and understands (245), and yet is clearly empty in itself – as the stesne to which it then refered to has long since ceased to exist.

In Walter and John Carker therefore it could be said presents two faced for fidelity. Walter is faithful to a certain memory faithfulness which is given manifested in hope or the hope of a hope. This memory itself however is complex an multilayered – and at times (and through the agency of Florence) is transformed  and enriched – and with each transformation a new aspect of Walters personality is forged. Walter is therefore faithful to the memory of an shifting present and is capable of updating his thoughts ( I will return to this in the final essay in this sequence). John Carker is in contrast faithful to the memory of a past mercy-  a mercy before which he was humbled.. The past he honours is then a past which in putting his criminality in the past – caught him up within it-  as gave him as the being present of its past – a past that put him-  and any hopes h might have had firmly within the past. One is faithful then to a memory is two ways: either the memory is made in reference to a complex present that is quite capable of re-weaving it – and giving it anew – or one in the act of being faithful to a memory puts ones in the past in relation to it – and creates a past – which overarchs ones being  - and which even though it is essential empty catches one up within it.

The second example referred to above relates to those character which are caught up in a tense which only erupts across their giving of it. The Dombey and Son the two characters who perhaps best embody this relationship do so in relation to the future, these being Mr Toots (the Future which is gives a present within it) and Mrs. Chick (the future which is always fashioning the past). The exact way the future manifests itself is howver very different in each case. Mr. Toots is clearly a many who knows himself to have an important part in Florence’s future,  His aim throughout the novel is then to uncover the exact nature of this part, which he not unreasonably not assumes will be as her husband.  His problems being twofold . On the one hand Toots himself complains that he is caught up within things of which he has no understanding or control (767), leading him to cast about this way or that to uncover the future he is part of  . He therefore attempts to woo Florence by having a boat (478), giving her a dog (323), or even saying he is going to get down on one knee (669) – all without much success.  His problem is of course that he has mistaken here is his true role in Florence’s future – a role that Dickenss signals by having  two places Toots comes to chuckle- either when he is in Florence’s company – or he is visiting Captian Cuttles – and sitting in his palour (633). I will examine the full significance of why visiting Cuttles makes toots chuckle in the subsqeunt essay – for how all that need to said is that Toots is right to chuckle here – as the Florence of the Future is present in this palour (and with her no doubt Toots he will be so useful for her) – and Toots, the man who the future bothers is right to feel it. One the other hand it is clear that part of Mr. Toots trouble is that he is caught by bothers him – and leaves him with very little present to be within. His Grasp then of his position in Florence’s future is described as ‘filmy’  (389) and much of his courtship consists in leaving cards testifying to his presents or in  always saying exactly the same things-  even to the extent that if he has run out of th things he has planned to say – he merely repeats them (321) . And yet – (or perhaps because the ontological future holds him onto is – by such a very short leash – Toots never achieves anything on his own  - but is frequently gathered up by Susan Nipper to function as her aid or messenger. It is on her instruction that news of Walter’s death is given to Captain Cuttles ( 543), and his eventual return,   as well a Toots performs the role of escorting Nipper into her brother after her dismissal (712), and  bringing her back again  (801) . He is then a perpetual messenger – who lacks the ability to hold his own present – but comes immediately under the sway of those whose defined state is in the future – and who can thereby arrange futures for him. He remains therefore purely whith in the domain of the ontological (and unable to amass information in his own right) and yet will take  within the ontological domain the role of communicator – between otherwise seperate states. Finally then there is Mrs Chick. Mrs Chick forms the opposite pole to Toots (a well as the mirror to her brother) . Mrs Chick is the immediate future – as it is given in the past. So that past that Mrs. Chick retains is not so much the real past where things occurred-  but the very rush whereby the future tumbles into being. As such she presents a past that is always right – and that has always been saying or agreeing with whatever has just occurred (102). She is therefore both emotion (156)– as she reacts to the way a future is being fashioned – and not the fashioning itself – it no wonder that she is forever exhalting over towards a ‘little effort’ – (55) as it is in terms of such efforts that she perceives the world at all ( hence he extolling change as the  only philosophy (490). However such an immediate giving of past of the future is itself blind. Not only is it always wise after the event – but it is quite unable to foresee likely consequences. Mrs Chick fails to see that Mr. Domber will reject Mrs. Tox (499) – and then – when she has been told in no uncertain terms that this was the case – (and in the name of herself and Mr.Dombey)  angrily denounced the poor innocent Tox (495) and does it in terms of advice she always would have given (if asked –493). She certainly then does not embody ‘fate’ – in th sense of giving anything predestined – the contrary the world is a perpetual mystery for her, as she is caught in the tumble to the future – and all she is positve about is that what ever happens she will always have already known it must be the case. Philsophically then she could be said to represent the immediate union of Kantian apprehension and recollection. She is the memory of the immediately given future – but a memory without any understanding beyond that giving – and so utterly unable to in itself comprehend the world.And yet though she appear powerless (and herely a comic character) Mr. Chck is clearly vital for the progress of the plot. I is through her that Domber meets Mrs Tox – and through Tox that not only Richards/Toodles but also the Major and Madame Pipchin  - and so even more indirectly it is through here initial action that he meets with Edith (via the Major). Again the point her is a sublte one. Chick might be the giving of a idiotic abstract future – the very tumble beyond any one tense – and so never know where she is going – but that does not mean that at another level she is not going anywhere. Events therefore occur through the future she is creating and inspite of here ability to forsee them-  in the same way that understanding occurs through apprenhension and recollection, even though they are unaware of it.  The contrast then needs to be made between the Toots future which caught up in another action – and makes him more of less directly link up disperate characters – his jounreyting then having a immediate effect (and on directly known to someone if not to him. On the other hand there is Mrs. Chick whose ability to set things in motion is far less directl-  and yet all the more powerful for the fact that the effects she has are quite unintendend.

One ca see therefore I the two very basic dual temporalities offer a typology of actions ad knowledge, it is the role of the hybrids to give what it means to exist through memory and communications. Here it is perhaps useful to typify the four separate elements identified here as follows. For Walter the memory of Florence is something he firmly exists with.  I mean this both in that it is Walter’s sense of being perpetually with the memory of Florence that impels him into the future; but also I the sense that the memories themselves exist with one another and with Walter. None of his memories of Florence is then singular but is rather overlaid with al the others-  and with the ‘Walter’ appropriate to each such overlaying. John Carker in contrast entire life is given over ‘For’ the memory of another. He operates then not in terms of what he is now – but as he is given in the present for tat past which gathered him permanently within in – and  as that individual who had this past. The contrast then is between Walter – for whom memory is inclusive- and product, and John Carker for whom is exclusive – with what it is excluding is his very identity. Toots then can perhaps be best thought of as a Man who is caught up in another future. So that he knows hat something is happening – something he is a part of (the future and Walter and Florence) and yet has no abilty to grasp at what that future is – and is merely trapped within working it out. Finally Mrs. Chick is in the middle of anothers future. Her own action (and rationalizations) might be insignificant in themselves-  and yet they invariably are caught up in something she does not understand – and impel others (and her) to new places and situations.

In this first half of this essay I have outlined in detail the four effects of differing dual tenses. Tenses can either give action, knowledge, memory or information. Each relation then has its on specific form and is given by a et of characters within the novel. And yet all this still leaves open the question identified at the start of this essay of how these complex relations can interealte with one another. It I then to this topic I will now turn. Within Dombey and Son one can identify five quite distinct manners in which dual tenses relate to and synthesize one another, I will characterise them as cell, accord, exchange, capture and death. Before I consider each in turn it needs to be emphasized not only how complex each one of these synthesis are –but how difficult, the book makes clear are each to form- and how many shifts and moves are involves. In perhaps the most tricky synthesis of the book – the marriage of Edith and Dombey it take the combined power of Mrs. Skewton, the Major and Carker ( Present-future, Present-present and Present-past) to create the circumstances for a marriage to be possibile at all (448), and even Carker is not absolutely certain the marriage will occur( 471). The links then tenses form are frequently problematic and contrived, as one might expect as the tense involved -  even when they are of the same kind  reamin distinct and unique to its specific relation. Th zone of itneractino is ten frequently reduced to the narrowest film that is common to each one.

  By far the strongest synthesis in Dombey and Son are what I refer to as Cells. These are connections that are formed between two characters within exist in contrasting tenses.  Such relations are almost unvaribale highly productive – as each element in the cell can will not only communicate with the other person within it – but will do so in a way that makes that other reciporically rejoin to such a communication – and create a new situation – one morevover that provokes a subsequent reaction from their partner. Such connections can be typified both on terms of their stability but also in terms of the domain within which they are creative – with even the most creative elements not being universally so. I will then consider the firstly the stable cells in Dombey and Son, and the the unstable ones, and final cell that refer to unique events- and wil lcleafiy the domain of productively for each example as I go on.

Stable cells come then is two kinds. Firstly (and perhaps most attractively) there are cells that exist between two individuals, one of whom is ontological and the other phenomological in nature.  For example Mr and Mrs Toodles : Mr Toodles exists as the sense in which the present gives itself within being a future- and she is the sense that the any present makes present what was of the future and does it ‘phenologically (or as Rob the Grinder has it his father will always try to believe that people  can reform, while his mother always believes what is good – 385).  However there is in this relationships a profound asymmetricallity (on eDickns glories in 81)  Mrs. Toodles is then open to the world  in genral   - and able to interpret what is occurring – and make it present in such a way that Mr. Toodles can understand (70), - it is no wonder then he moved from underground to above ground work when he married her.  Mr Tootles in contrast is of course far from able for existing an any present- but is rather restricted in his nature to three  (working, sleeping and being with his family –618), and only one of these does he share with Polly. It is then only in this domain of family life that he can adequately respond to her, making the future present with  complementary rendering of a present in terms of the future (which Polly can then make present) – with the result that the Toodles always have a ready supply of children (619).  The Toodles relationship is then endlessly productive – but only in the domain of the family – and in having ever more children ( dickens repeats exactly his move with Susan Nipper and Toots who similarly embody future-present relations, but the other way around, and have conceived a child before the novel ends – 946).

However such permenant cells need not be between husband and wife. It is very clear that an exactly equivalent cell exists between Dombey and his Sister. This cell links up a future that is given in the past, an a past that creates a future. However this cell clearly only operates well in one direction. For the cell to be effective it needs Mrs. Chick to be initiating the moves. It is then ther that leads to the finding of Mrs Toodles, and the sending of Paul to Brighton. Her role her is then to take a future from elsewhere, and by rendering in terms of a past that Mr. Dombey can understand and will act upon (67 and 158). That is as his sister she alone can direct communicate (and to a degree – but only a degree inhabit the past from which Dombey flows. She will the give anything as it is reconciled to this past-  and to the dignity of  Dombey and Son. However it is clear her ability to do this is limited – and frequently misunderstood (or even resented) by her Brother,. And it stretches there resources to find the right form of words in either the two examples  cited above to allow Paul to hear here. What is also clear is that the opposite set up, of Paul from his future giving Mrs. Chick a past is far more problematic. She having very little ability to actual from her future forecast what is occurring within his . he will therefore always come in to early – and interrupt his flow of thinking( 102), or discover to late what he was thinking (499). Cells thn even between complemetary tenses need not be rigidly reciporical in their effects upon one another.

  The second type of stable cells then are between two partners both of whom are phenological or Ontological – th two sets of Mothers and Daughters (alice and Mrs. Brown, and Edith and Mrs. Skewton_ being the clear examples in Dombery and son/. In the former case this relationsihp necessary to producing knowledge: they will then very much work as a team upon Rob to make him talk (728-,729 and 827) .If the phenomological relationship is positive the same clarly cannot be said of the relationship between Eidht and her mother. Eidth’s mother of course and the present of a memory very much embodies the very past that rules Edith’s life (and fills her with so much contempt0 -  and uses this fact to constantly control her. It is the Mrs Skewton that drives Edith forwards obliging her to parade her skills for Mr Dombey (450, 468,470) – and ensuring, in her desire for an establishment that Edith does not offend Dombey before the marriage (508) even going as far as to prevent Dombey seeing Edith’s expression 510).  A cell is thereby formed in which Mrs Skewton as the embodied past  manipulates Edith t  the present caught by the past, through Edith’s own lack of confdence in the face of her history (474) . In the ace of this manipulation Edith can then only rage (and prevent the same happening to Florence472-475, and 513-516).

   So far I have considered relatively stable Cells,and yet it is clear that far less stable ones are formed. These unstable cells then come in two types. First there is a cell set up between relationation that are no compatible with one another-  and yet are useful for a time, and secondly there are relations that although they are productive are in the circumstances thy operate within unstable.  An Example then of the former is is perhaps best given by the temporary alliance of Mrs. Tox, and Mrs. Chick (and through mr. Chick Dombey). Such an alliance is in itself unlikely – not only is Mrs. Toix from a different social group than the Dombeys, but also unlike them she has as her defining tense the present. It is of course this fact that makes her so useful to the Motherless Paul. She is able – in a way that they are not – to be the present that is responding to a situation by allowing a certain future to be manifested in it and through it. It is her the  that discovers Mrs Toodles, and introduces her to Mrs Chick,( who in turn introduces her to Dombey), and again her who knows of Mrs. Pipkin (indeed she was her former pupil). However this cell (which last for all of Paul life) is only useful in the conext of that life. Once Paul is dead, and no present is needed the cell becomes destablished (by the major) and collapses. The Other possibility is that a cell destablishes itself. Or that one version of the exchange it is stable, but the other way around is not. Mrs Richards/Toodles is therefore easily able to for a stable cell with Nipper, (her opposite)  when that cell involves her intituity what Nipper is feeling by making it present for her (she examines to her why she is angry –108 ) – and is so able to form an alliance with her  (81). If however the movement starts in the opposite direction – namely form Mrs. Richards desire to see her Child as a Grinder (119)  – to Nippers taking up of the scheme (aware no doubt of the defiance implicit within it- 120) then disaster will follow and Richards then gets caught up in making that defiance present-  and is dismissed as a result. Cells therefore not only can flow in one direction only – but also ca just as easily be actually unstable if an opposite exchange it attempted.

  Finally there are one of cells which are created is response to a single event. Perhaps the most sublte of these is concerns the complex exchange between Edith Carker and the Good Mrs. Brown before Carker knows that Edith is the women Dombey is interested in (458-460). (althought the exchange between the Major, Mrs Skewton and Carker  mentioned above, which creates the situation that makes the marriage possible in th first place, is perhaps just a sublte) These exchanges first see Carker witness Edith’s distress and the thought of her Marriage; and then Mrs Brown threatening to read Edith’s fortune; Carker then intervenes, and the Good Mrs Brown immediately sees how his past and Edith’s past are interwoven (she drops her voice looking at him and speaks in earnest) – and then her threatening him with his fortune -; at which he pays her and she calls as he leaves ‘ one child dead, one living. One wife dead, one living’. These are of course complex exchanges in their own right – with Mrs. Brown being performing her subtle role of revealing how pasts are interwoven with one another. And yet there is something much subtle going on here. Carker on  very deep level clearly fails to understand Edith. She might feel naked infromt of him and nervous in his company (465) – and yet it is clear that all he is controlling (as a present which steams off into the future) is her present – and that he has little or no grasp of her past ; either in the strange affinity it creates between her and Dombey, some Carker denies is possible ( 717); nor the resource that ultimately it will give her to resist (and damn) him – as not only does her contempt for herself (which arises from her past) washes over him – and captures him within it (Their name is Legion for they are many 859) ; but also the very fact that she has a past at all gives her somewhere else to go once she as effectively destroyed the possibility that either of them can hold down a present any more (in ‘bearing a false shame- 860); Edith then is free to flee to the past (in the form of Cousin Feenix, while Carker shorn as he is of his defining tense flees into a restless future.  Now in this one of cell – th presence of Mrs. Brown clearly complexifies this point. Carker might never understand Ediths past-  but through the agency of Mrs Brown –(who makes past present) he certainly gains some inkling of it – but only insofar as she is making that part of it present that will connect up with his own past. (which he never itself remembers). He therefore proceeds in his relationship with Edith from, albeit subtly the wrong place – he knows he has been told something but assumes that something refers to Edith alone – and not to  him as well. This fact then gives a misplaced self assurance in his dealing with Edith, and a confidence in his power of her (461) that is eventually of course misplaced. It is no wonder that Mrs Bown boasts of this ecounter to her daughter – and decribes her curses upon Carker (573), or baosts that she knows more than he thinks (575). Here then is a one off (and complex) cell where by a past is givien into the preent (and mxed with another past) which is the taken up by a future (Carker) who fails to grasp the complex nature of the pasts from which it originates- and is caught out by this error.

 

The second synthesis was referred to above as accord.  Accord occur when a temporality is shared in either the defining or the defined format. However thre is a clear difference here. If the temporality is shared in the defined from then any accord made between the two relations is very much a marriage of convenience. Carker, in conversation with either makes this very explicit. He says of his relationship with Dombey that ‘ our interests and convenience commonly oblige many of us to make professions that we cannot feel. We have partnerships of interest and convenience, dealings of interest, and convenience of marriage, marriages of interest and convenience , every day’ (717)  He is therefore very clear that although He shares the defined temporality (the future) with Dombey he shares nothing more. He is not therefore doing the same thing in the future as Dombey-  and merely uses the fact that thy share a temporality for his own aims and uses (something Mr. Morfin later accuses him of -  843). This lack reciprocality and element of manipulation   is then a common feature for s uch relations. It is repeated again in the example of Rob the Grinder’s and  Captain Cuttles. (634 – see below for a fuller discussion of Rob’s role here) . In both these example the exchange of course involves one element deliberately appearing to conform to the other  exactly but doping so for its own reasons. In both the two example mnetione above this manipulation is malevolent and sent deeply self interested – however the example of Mrs. Tox and Dombey shows that it is equally possible for ther eto be a degree of innocence and even well wishing (if never simple disinterestedness) in this relation: Miss Tox therefore does want to marry Dombey – and yet still values him for his own sake and pities him in his despair (934). The second type of accord is much deeper (and yet potentially problematic) accord felt between two determining tenses. The example already given is the accord that does exist between Dombey and Edith –given another set of circumstance (Edith not going to find Florence when Dombey was about to be reconciled with her - 587) or his bending a little when she pleaded with him (in the name of Florence – 654) things might have fallen out differently between them. The deep accord between shares defining temporalities offers the numerous possibilities for redemption – even when such possiblites are blithely discarded.

The Third synthesis is the that of exchange. Exchanges come in two main types. Firstly there are those exchange that run across a past present and future. Such exchanges are frequently associated with a major break in the novel. This major break then occurring because of  the tense relations involved cannot exist at did and either breaks or distorts in some way. Here of curse the link up is complex and will be different depending on whether the sharedtesne of determining or determined – with as a rule death occurin (is some way) if it is the determing tense that is questioned. For example there is the complex relationship linking up Carker and Edith. Together of course they run across past present and future – and yet this linking up is only possible because Carker is dragging Edith’s present into his future (735) – while she eventually relates by removing either of their abilities to be present at all (835) – as well of course of depriving Dombey of the one man who could translate the present into the future for him.  The effect though on the two is the different. Deprived of her Past Edih retreats into the past ( she goe under the protection of cousin Feenix, while Carker – deprived as he I of his determining tense is driven into restless madness. This event of course then leads (after a year) To Domeby’s eventual ruin. In which he then – once he loses the abilty to have a future at all (and so looses his determined tense) is, in the past at least intiail - reconciled to Florence. Another equally dramatic example is Dombey’s mediation following Paul’s death. Paul Death – whereby a present moved into a past – challenged Dombey’s notion of what the past was – and whether he could own it at all. The entire world appeared to be morning for his Son – and to have a claim over him-  and his past – when Dombey desperately would claim that past for him own (353). There therefore has a vision  that everyone is caught in the same future relation to the same past – that is everyone was caught up in dying (355). It is then only the Major who pulls him out of such a vision, and re-directs his thought elsewhere (357). Here then the thret is to his determing tense  and so the image that run through the long prose poem written as his meditation to a train 9and the the rhytm of the train) is death..Or the final examples concern the respective marriage of Edith and Florence. The former is only made possible because of the constant attention of the Major, Mrs Skewton and Carker – who between of course embody the present at is defines past, present and future, and are operating to link up two relations neither of which are defined in the present (and one of which is never itself of the present at all). It is then through their only in their careful and constant manipulation is any marriage possible.- and it is only possible by the Edith’ present abandoning itself to a single roll of fate (that is abandoning the determined tense. Finally Flrence’s marriage to Walter is possible only when she has allowed him to renounce the past (where they were brother as sister to each other) and move of into a future with him. This move being complex as Walter is of course renouncing/ updating a determining tense – which figuratively at least is associated with death (a fact that is symbolized by his and Florence’s going to sea, and the waves has ru through the book as a metaphor for both death and memory). However, is much a case of course noi death results – as Florence again proves herself again to change Walters past (and his memory) – but this time becoming a part in his life.

The Second main type of exchange involves a subtxt that runs throughout the entr plot about the ownership of Floernce, and to a lesser degree Harriet. At different times different characters claim Florence for their own ( For example Mrs. Slkewton, uses of her to keep Edith quitet, and Edith’s, and Walter, and Captain Cuttles not to mention th Skittles and Carker’s calims upon her.  Florence – then and the ownerhup of Florence becomes the source of onrunning series of exchanges between differing tenses. Most dramatic here of course is the very bitter quarrel between Edith and Dombey as to has the right to Florence. Dombey (through Carker) initially asserting his right and threatening not Edith but Folrence herself if those rights are in any way questioned or undermined by Edith (720). But even more dramatically in their final quarrel both Edith and Dombey claim to interpret Folrence-  and communicate through thier conflicting views upon her. Domeby simply calims Florence as his own (746)  – and set out Edith as an example to her of what not to be – while Edtih response by claiming herself to be Florence own ( 748). That is  - Domeby attempt to assert Florence in relation to a future – while Edith sees her as the justification for a past action (and one she cannot any longer continue). This move of Edith’s of course will lead direct to Florence’s eventual banishment (757). A simaliar battle then rages between the Carker’s themselves about their sister Harriet – who has chose to live with John Carker rather than his brother. Her Brither denies that she exists a all – and affects not to care about her remotely – and yet he amtians the rose rden she once made if noting else within his house.

The fourth  synthesis is that of capture. This synthesis comes in three parts. Firstly there is a tense where a certain determining affect is captured in the world; secondly certain aspects can capture the temporality of others by arranging themselves around this temporality. And thirdly, certain tenses may well attempt to take up another tense relation and force it elsewhere., Firstly then – it is clear that any individual whose defining tense is comprised of an ontological present is caught within the circumstances they fid themselves. Such a capture is subtle, an could be said in turn to have three forms. One th one hand there are tnses which are present in then sense that they are confined to a manifestation – and have no ability to move or challenge this manifestation. So for example Tootles has his three sates sleeping, hurtling to Birmingham or being win the bosom of his family or Susan Nipper has her domain as is not permitted to go beyond it (79 and when she eventually does and goes to see Dombey himself is sacked (703). On the other hand, it is clear that Mrs skewton is very much caught within a situation – and coaught in to different way,. Firstly she is caught in visiting spars, and attempoting to find a partner for Edith (473); but more subtly he ijust as caught be th present that is rembering her. That is, try as she might to look and behave young  the present she is in (ratr thn the one she is remembering) is ever present – not only as her age is obvious to third parties (364), but also  it is leaching of those abilities (so she suffers from word lost, anmd eventually has a stroke) and final makes it demands that it is presewnt at night when her makeup is removed and her true age revealed (472). Finally there  and much more complexly it is clear that Carker has a very complex relation to the present. Carker is formally given as the future that is arising from any one present. That is, he inhabits the future that will arise from the holding down of any one set of circumstances. However it is equally clear he has no abilty to hold down circumstances on hi own. He therefore casts about – and changes what he is doing (what future he is inhbuiting) according th the exact circumstances he finds himself within. Intially therefore he thought that it was his ole to ruin Florence (392) – and only subsequently turns hos attention to Edith (735). This then exaplins exactly why he is so attracted to ombey, Dombey might not be a man of the present- an yet in is forcing everyone to conform to the weight of the past- be effectively holds down everyone else down in a stable relation to Dombey and Son – a relation that Carker then  take up as his present- and master (372). This n turn explains Carker’s jubilation when given the commission by Dombey to humble Edith, The present that suh a commision creates – is he knows the very one he needs t ruin Edith (689). 

  The second instance of capture in similarly complicated-  and involves most the nature of Rob Grinder – and his strategy for capturing others within his temporality. The Grinder’ has the ability to insert his own subjunctive tense into the dual tense of others-  such that not only are they made to feel guilty for some alleged wrong – and forced to accept make emends. For example – The Grinder’s father alleges that his some is somehow ‘secret-like’ (619). This insult coming from Tootles amount to the accusation that Rob lacks the ability to  exist is stable and simple presents.  That is Mr  Tootles is doubting Rob’s abilities from the perspective of his (Mr. Tootles) own defining tense. Rob then (when this insult is implied by his mother) takes up this accusation – and takes into his subjunctive relation – asserting that it was hard on him that this father should think so badly of him (620). Her Rob’s use of the subjunctive allows him to have direct access to another determining tense – a determining tense he which he says he say been accused. This determining tense is then treated by the subjunctive as it is were a fully determined and acted upon tense-  and revealed as ‘hard on a cove’. The individual who this move is practised on is then left feeling guilty and is forced to apologize –or conform to the grinder’s wishes (621) .  The strategy of making explicit via a subjunctive – what is implicit need not be negative in itself. Rob the Grinder when ‘draw out’ by Mrs. Tox (626) is quite able to reflect back the virtue which gives her defining tense back upon her-  and back himself appear the very model of virtue.

The third species of capture – is by far the most violent and involves taking over a defined tense and thereby forcing it to exist other than it was. It is therefore Carker’s clear strategy to highkack Edih’s present – and force that present – irrespective of it hatred for him into his future  ( 735) – he would thereby limit its every ability to manifest itself – and force it to be permently under his sway . He therefore sees himself as accompanying her on her journey and seeing exactly what paths she was treading (736) – and means to capture her up within his future of retirement in Sicily (854). For Carker then another’s tense becomes something that can be caught-  and forced to conform to ones will; His eventual failure of course lies (as discussed above) to under stand how Edith’s determining past might effect this attempt to destroy her present.

The Fourth synthesis identified s less a synthesis as more  state into which tense fall – namely Death. Dombey and son  presents three very different ways of dying. The first form – exemplified  when the determined tense retreats into the determining one – and unable to manifest itself anymore. Pal as he dies becomes more and more old fashioned. He has a vision in dying, the  of a river running down to the sea – and has he does dying he sees his mother and discovers ‘what the waves were always saying ( 297). That I he retreats into the past , the old fasion, that was always with him – and operate across him.  This same basic equation of death equals moving of into the determining tesne is repeated in the death of Alice – in her case her last act is to renounce the past in which she had been determined (and seek to explain it), as herself looses track of time – and moves of into a perpetual present (as she dies her eyes are said to fixed in one position and remain there). An alternative death is then experienced by Edith (at least to Florence’s last visit to her). She does not dies formally-  but cut of from the world as if in the grave.

   The second kind of death is darkr. Mrs. Skewton dies strangely. The precursor of her death is a stroke which effectively reverses her temporality- instead of being the past the present gives-  she becomes the present of a random past – forver consing pasts – and mistaking what it for a synthesis of what was (so Dombey becomes confused with Edith’s former husband (657). Death then takes the form of a gradual retreat into the past (which is now her defining tense – a retreat that she is very aware of – and witnesses coming upon her form her present (in the form of the vision of a statue from a tomb – 673). As such it is protracted-   she gradually  mores more caught in the past-  and less and less able t be in the present- loosing her ability to talk or walk) – her last dying act then being to return for a flicker of a moment to her old manner . For Mrs. Skewton death then formerly involves the same structure of the more positive death of Paul and Harriet-  she like them becomes gathered within a determining tense and forced to abandon a determined one; and yet this move only occur after she has already switch tenses over – such that she is gather into what was in life her determined tense-  a move that makes her death harder to bare.

   The final vision of death in Dombey and Son is that endured by Carker. Edith in moving his ability to ahv a present – removes his determining tense. The result is that he is caught in a madness of a future without cause or purpose – a future that restlessly move onwards – towards its own death. He is therefore gripped but panic (862), and caught in a pointless fleeing – unable to turn and stop – or think through any consequences for hi actions or behaviour( 865). He comes trapped then is an endlessly changing vision –(signified in the text by repeating of the  word  ‘ Of’ – in ever changing vision Of…( 868-870)-  until in the end faced with meeting Dombey in a remote railway station he falls under a train (875). What it means to die is therefore regulated to a question of what it means to the made to loose a tense. In hat tense is the determing tesne – as it is with Carker (and in a sense it is wit Mrs. Kewton) th death is horrific and protacted. One flees – uselessly-  and linger purposely. If in contrast oe dies because the determined tense cannot be given – then death become tranquil, and almost postive.

How then should one understand the temporalities of Domeby and Son? I startyed with a Marxist problem. Namely that Marx is aware that tenses make time difficult. The problem of a revolution was a problem of somehow liberating time from tense-  and allowing the future to take its rightful role in driving ahead history. The reading of Dombey and Son I have then presented in this essay (which is of course is as a book another response to industrialization) endlessly complexified this claim. What if – Dickens says – time was not like that? What is there has no history to straighten– and that tenses rather than going anywhere in particular merely complexifed one another? What if they did that in such a way that there could be no resolution? And that any attempt to resolve forcefully other tenses as either a form of capture or an exchange? In such a situation one could at each and every point meaningfully  talk of tense – of future and past and present-  and yet have no guarantee that all the futures where reconcilable with one another – o even that the formally meant the same thing. What is time is a polyoval assembly of differing dual tense voices – which are arrangen and rearaange across a number of complex synthesis. What price history then and for that matter what price time? In what sense (if any) could time be said to be tenses master – or would tense always and very subtly elude times glance -  leading to a perpetual elsewhere – and otherwise that initially was. – and catches it in an endlessly ballet of dual shifting nd highly interrealtd dual tense relations? That is – what if Edith is rught and the ponly forgiveness really possible the only change really possible, comes if one accepts the reality of dual tense- the present that forgives the past, and the past that forgives the present? In such a world any attempt to increase in the cause of time – can only lead to avipd spelcuatio – and an ingoring of the complex goeographjy of temporality that for Dickens in Domby an son seem to be th very epitome of temporal relations themselves.

Back to Dickens index...

.