Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature
WILDE’S SOCIAL CRITICISM OF THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY IN THE HAPPY PRINCE AND OTHER TALES
Final Thesis Brno 2019
Supervisor: Author: Mgr. Zuzana Kršková, Ph.D. Mgr. Lucie Ševců
Ševců 1
DECLARATION
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only sources listed in the bibliography.
______
5th June 2019, Brno Author’s signature Ševců 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Zuzana Kršková, Ph.D., for her immense patience, valuable advice and kind guidance during the process of writing my thesis. Ševců 3
ANOTACE
Sbírka pohádek Šťastný princ a jiné pohádky je dílem Oscara Wilda a dodnes je předčítaná dětem, ale mají ji v oblibě i dospělí. Sbírka byla zkoumána z mnoha perspektiv. Cílem této práce je analyzovat jednotlivé příběhy z hlediska Wildovy kritiky Viktoriánské společnosti.
Wildovy pohádky kritizují společnost pro její materialismus, který utlačoval jiné názory na svět, a pro její pokrytectví a sobectví, čímž se vyznačovaly především vyšší společenské vrstvy.
Materialismus a pokrytectví spolu se sobectvím horních vrstev společnosti způsobili, že společnost se stala sociálně i ekonomicky nespravedlivou a rozdíly ve způsobu života chudých a bohatých byly obrovské.
KLÍČOVÁ SLOVA
Oscar Wilde, pohádky, Viktoriánská společnost, materialismus, pokrytectví, sobectví, chudoba, propast mezi bohatými a chudými, nespravedlivá společnost, překrucování reality
Ševců 4
ABSTRACT
The book The Happy Prince and Other Tales, written by Oscar Wilde, is still very popular among children as well as among adults. The book has been analysed from various points of view. The aim of this thesis is to analyse Wilde’s social criticism that individual stories contain. Wilde’s fairy tales criticize the Victorian society for materialism which suppressed other views of reality, and hypocrisy and selfishness which were ascribed to the upper or middle class.
Materialism and hypocrisy and selfishness enforced the economic inequality and human suffering caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich.
KEYWORDS
Oscar Wilde, fairy tales, the Victorian society, materialism, hypocrisy, selfishness, poverty, huge gap between the poor and the rich, unjust society, distortion of reality
Ševců 5
LIST OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ...... 6
OSCAR WILDE – LIFE AND SOCIETY ...... 9
SOCIAL CRITICISM IN THE HAPPY PRINCE AND OTHER TALES ...... 19
Materialism ...... 20
Hypocrisy and Selfishness ...... 29
Huge Gap between the Poor and the Rich ...... 39
CONCLUSION ...... 48
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 51
Ševců 6
INTRODUCTION
Oscar Fingal O´Flahertie Wills Wilde, who lived during the Victorian period, was a man of many faces and abilities. He was a playwright, a novelist, an essayist, a journalist, an aesthete, and a keen critic of the society. Megan Becker-Leckrone claims that Wilde perceived the criticism as an art, because he believed that “’fine imaginative work’ is actually critical” and that a critic does not criticize, he only describes the true reality. Wilde as a critic used “dizzying paradox, the witty exaggerations, carefully staged dialogues and complex narrative frameworks . . . as performative demonstration” (Becker-Leckrone) of serious ideas. Wilde used similar tools for the criticism of the Victorian society. His work parodied the Victorian society in order to highlight social problems besetting the Victorians, because the Victorians did not perceive them as problems, but rather as unchangeable social conditions. The aim of my thesis is to present Wilde’s social criticism depicted in The Happy Prince and Other Tales (1888).
I have chosen to analyse this book of fairy tales, because it was written during the years when Wilde wrote his main critical works1 and many of the reviewers of Wilde’s time “praised highly the artistic qualities . . . of The Happy Prince and Other Tales” (Aransáez 176). However, many of Wilde’s later critics ignored Wilde’s fairy tales, because they “appear somehow anomalous” (Killeen 1), for Wilde is characterized as a subversive artist but fairy tales are usually conservative. It means that they are supposed to reflect and support (conserve) values of the society. Jack Zipes claims though that fairy tales, especially Wilde’s, have “subversive potential” (Fairy Tales 105). In other words, Wilde’s fairy tales challenged Victorian values and therefore fairy tales fit into Wilde’s canon. Wilde probably chose the genre, because fairy tales seem to be a perfect space where to put your ideas and influence minds of others, but still
1 Becker-Leckrone claims that they were written between the years 1885 and 1891 and consisted of six major essays, such as “The Truth of Masks” (1885), “The Decay of Lying” (1889), “Pen, Pencil and Poison” (1889), “The Portrait of Mr. W. H.” (1889), “The Soul of Man Under Socialism” (1890), and “The Critic as Artist” (1890). Ševců 7 your ideas are not so obvious to everyone. As McCormack nicely said that all those stories
“while posting as innocent, were dangerous” (102). Fairy tales also provide Wilde an opportunity to educate children in a different way, because they were educated at school according to Victorian values which did not sued Wilde (Aransáez 216; Zipes, Fairy Tales 106).
Those critics who notice Wilde’s fairy tales debate whether the stories are fairy tales or folk tales2, and whether they are intended for children or not. Jarlath Killeen, the author of
Fairy Tales of Oscar Wilde, which is probably “the first full-length study of Oscar Wilde’s two collections3 of children’s literature” (1), refutes the opinion that The Happy Prince and Other
Tales is rather a book of folk tales than fairy tales, and claims that Wilde’s book is a collection of fairy tales intended for children and their parents as well, because Wilde supposed that parents would read the book to their children (12), thus the stories could influence minds of children same as their parents. Cristina Pascual Aransáez also agrees that stories in the book are fairy tales and that Wilde chose the genre, because it became popular and provided him a space where to criticize the values of the Victorian society inconspicuously (175-176), for he was aware that the society had a potential to quash those who stepped out of the line (Becker-
Leckrone). Zipes has the same opinion as Killeen and Aransáez and adds that Wilde designed fairy tales to reflect social problems and to deal with social taboos of the late Victorian society
(Oxford Companion 550; Fairy Tales 119). Moreover, each story of the book expresses Wilde’s protest against social injustice and inequality (Zipes, Oxford Companion 551; Fairy Tales 123).
The Happy Prince and Other Tales was interpreted in various ways. For instance, Gary
Schmidgall or John-Charles Duffy analysed it from the sexual or political points of view (Killeen
2 Fairy tales are written by a single identifiable author, in comparison, folk tales are mostly oral and emanate from communities. Fairy tales developed from folk tales and adapted some motifs and signs from them. For more see Zipes, Jack, editor. The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales. Oxford, OUP, 2000, pp. xv-xxxii. 3 These are The Happy Prince and Other Tales (1888) and A House of Pomegranates (1891). Sometimes these two books are published together as The Happy Prince and Other Stories. This thesis analyses only The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Ševců 8
17). Killeen argues that Wilde’s fairy tales are based on Irish oral stories, traditions, and
Catholicism. Aransáez focuses on the importance of a reader, and Zipes presents Wilde’s fairy tales as an attempt to subvert the Victorian society and sets Wilde’s fairy tales into the historical context. This thesis analyses the book as a critique of the Victorian society as well.
To be concrete, it tries to present that Wilde’s fairy tales emphasize the social injustice which existed within the Victorian society, because many of the Victorians did not see it as a problem at all, and that it was predominately caused by the materialistic vision of the world and selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the upper and middle class.4
As far as the structure of the thesis is concerned, it is divided into two parts. The first part served as an introductory for the second one. In the first part, the life and personality of
Oscar Wilde, and the Victorian period and its values are introduced. I decide to mention these for Wilde’s life and work seem inseparable and are highly influenced by the period he lived in as Arthur Ransome, Becker-Leckrone and other authors point out in their works. And therefore, it is important to introduce historical context in order to understand the criticism inside the book The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Since the main aim of my thesis is to present
Wilde’s social criticism of the Victorian society in The Happy Prince and Other Tales, the second part of the thesis focuses on that. I point out three social issues which are criticized but also ridiculed in the book the most. These are materialism, hypocrisy and selfishness, and the huge gap between the poor and the rich. The thesis endeavours to demonstrate that materialism of the society and the selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the upper and middle class enforced economic inequality and human suffering caused by the huge social differences between the poor and the rich.
4 For the further information, the denotation of the upper and middle class is the same as the rich and the denotation of the working class is the same as the poor for purpose of the thesis. Ševců 9
OSCAR WILDE – LIFE AND SOCIETY
“Much of the life of Wilde is so bound up with his work as to be incapable of separate treatment” Ransome says in his book Oscar Wilde. A Critical Study (28). This thesis also contains the short biography of Oscar Wilde and short description of the Victorian period5 as well, for the better understanding of social criticism in Wilde’s fairy tales in The Happy Prince and Other Tales. To be more specific, this chapter introduces the basic facts and dates about
Wilde’s life and personality, and the description of the Victorian period, especially the high and late Victorian period, and the characterization of the Victorian society intermingle with
Wilde’s life.
Before some basic facts are introduced, I would like to add that the personality of Oscar
Wilde and the Victorian period have much in common, even though Wilde was a keen critic of the Victorians. Ransome or Holland came to the same conclusion that it is sometimes hard for biographers to describe what kind of person Oscar Wilde was. Ransome believes that Wilde expressed his “true” self through art (18), Holland emphasizes contradictions which accompany Wilde’s life and claims that Wilde wanted to be mysterious and make the findings of “true” Wilde difficult (3), and Gagnier argues that Wilde presented himself according to the type of audience (27). As well as it is not easy to characterize Wilde’s personality, it is not easy to characterize the Victorian period. It seems that the Victorian period was full of opposites and contradictions, same as Wilde. It was the era of progress, but also the era of decline. It was the period of the Industrial Revolution6, of imperialism and colonialism, moreover, it was
5 The Victorian period was named after the Queen Victoria who ruled between the years 1837 and 1901, and most historians date the period the same, although some of them see the beginning of the period earlier, for example, in 1832 when the Reform Act (Reform Bill) was forced, because it started the political changes, or in 1833 when the Factory Act was forced which improved conditions for children working in factories (Morrill, Chaney). 6 Started in 18th century in Great Britain. Industrial Revolution probably mostly shaped the time of the Queen Victoria. Ševců 10 full of political reforms and social changes. The Victorian period and its society, same as Wilde, were presented somehow to “audience”, but they were different inside. Holland indicates in his article “Biography and the Art of Lying” that truly understands who Wilde was as a person is problematic, because Wilde believed that art should be done for art’s sake, because it does not imitate anything. The art of lying, which Wilde developed, is related to that. It means manipulation with language, which Wilde loved, and taking a pose. It seems that the art of lying is also one commodity which Wilde and the Victorians had in common, because it was the style, not sincerity what counted within the Victorian society (Kiberd 280 – 281) and Kiberd adds that Wilde lived in the period in which it became obvious that “to talk is to learn how to tell lies” (276). In other words, Wilde manipulated with language in order to keep his style, and “revolt against convention” (McCormack 97), but a deeper meaning of his words was not obvious to everyone. Wilde, likewise the Victorians, had more than one pose and spoke double. McCormack puts forward that Wilde developed his own style, or pose, called dandyism in which he combined speaking double “in the ironical and self-cancelling wit”(McCormack 97), fashion and the way how to “assume power and importance”
(McCormack 97). Wilde’s pose was different from the pose of the Victorians, though. He mostly put the mask in order to emphasize or ridicule bad habits of the society, as it will be explained further.
Going back to the main focus of this part, some basic facts are following. Oscar Wilde was born on October 16, 1854 in Dublin. It means he lived his life during the high Victorian
Period (1850 – 1870)7 and the late Victorian Period (1870 – 1900)8. These parts of the Victorian period started to see some defects of the Industrial Revolution, not just its welfare. It is true that the Industrial Revolution brought many inventions, discoveries and also new knowledge
7 Dated acccording to Klímová, Blanka. Aspects of British Cultural History. Hradec Králové, Gaudeamus, 1997. 8 Dated acccording to Klímová, Blanka. Aspects of British Cultural History. Hradec Králové, Gaudeamus, 1997. Ševců 11 which shaped the Victorian society. People started to long for information and “a river of knowledge (and questions) about how the world worked coursed through every aspect of
Victorian life” (Childers 77). The number of readers was growing and education became important value (Childers 77-78). On the other hand, the Industrial Revolution made the gap between the poor and the rich deeper than ever, because new machines took the job from humans. People even founded the movement called Chartism in 1839 and destroyed a lot of new machines. They called it “our French Revolution” (Sanders 403). There were also critics of the Industrial Revolution within writers who mostly criticized the poor living conditions of the working class. For example, Charles Dickens, John Ruskin, George Elliot or Oscar Wilde9.
Wilde’s family background also influenced his work and his opinion on the society. He was born into an Irish aristocratic family which was quite well-situated. His parents were educated people with a passion for oral Irish folklore and criticism of “an imperial regime”
(McCormack 105). He had one brother and one sister. Wilde’s sister died in childhood which influenced Wilde’s life and forced him to think about mortality. He also wrote a poem called
“Requiescat”(Ransome 29) where he tried to deal with the death of his sister and ponder about mortality. The pondering about mortality is also noticeable in his fairy tales, for example in “The Nightingale and the Rose” where the reader is forced to question the price of a life.
Wilde had the opportunity to study, for he came from well-situated family. Wilde was sent to the Portora Royal School at Enniskillen at the age of eleven (Ransome 30). In 1871, he continued his studies at Trinity College in Dublin where he studied Greek and his passion for aesthetic started. He entered Magdalen College at Oxford three years later and studied
Classical Moderations and Literae Humaniores (Ransome 31). At Oxford, Wilde “came under
9 For more see Childers, Joseph W. “Industrial Culture and the Victorian Novel.” The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 77-96. Ševců 12 the influence of Ruskin and Pater” (Zipes, Fairy Tales 117). Zipes points up that especially
Ruskin “drew Wilde’s attention to social questions” (Fairy Tales 117).
Later Wilde travelled to Italy and Greece with his Professor which deepened his love for mythology (Ransome 31). Actually, Wilde was interested in Irish folklore and Antic mythology since childhood due to his parents. Moreover, he and his siblings were included in conversations about these topics since they were small children (Ransome 30) and that probably helped Wilde developed into such a skilful writer (Zipes, Fairy Tales 117). He also worked as a lecturer and sailed to New York and Canada and visited Paris (Raby, The
Cambridge Companion xx). Wilde wanted to be famous, though, so he moved to London in
1878 and started his writing carrier (Zipes, Fairy Tales 118). Six years later, in 1884, he got married to Constance Lloyd who brought him money (Ransome 32). Being financially secured, helped Wilde with his writing.
All the previous travelling influenced and inspired Wilde’s stories. He gathered some experience and shaped his writing. In Zipes opinion, Wilde became even more interested in social topics after he was “exposed to social conditions of London, America and Continent”
(Fairy Tales 118). Killeen claims that Wilde cared about the problems of the society thanks to his social position, for he was an aristocrat in Ireland, but in England he was a middle-class writer, moreover he was an Irish immigrant and therefore he was in a good position to be aware of “the conditions that existed in the city [London] in order to fully grasp the aims of the social critique he [conducted]“ (24) and depicted in his work. Killeen also compares Wilde’s position in the society to the position of Wilde’s house, because “looking out over Paradise
Walk10 from the upper floors of his home in Tite Street gave Wilde . . . visual perspective on poverty” (25). Killeen also suggests that Wilde used this motive in “The Happy Prince”, because
10 Slum in Chelsea. Ševců 13 the Prince as a statue also gets the opportunity to see poverty from his pedestal (25). Zipes adds that Wilde’s interest in social topics was influenced especially by the fact that Wilde was born outside established English society and was inspired by John Ruskin and William Morris, two social critics (Fairy Tales 116). All these led Wilde to the criticism of the Victorian society, especially its materialism, hypocrisy and selfishness, and the huge gap between the poor and the rich.
Wilde grasped a lot of different topics as an author, not just social topics of course, for instance, homosexuality, art for art’s sake, hedonism, love (any kind) and so on. These topics were provocative and not suitable for the puritan and rational Victorians, though. Zipes argues that Wilde picked up these kinds of topics, because he “refused to kowtow to contemptible social conventions and authority, for he wanted to be accepted by society as unacceptable
. . . and the more he was accepted by society, the more he sought to break the norms and test the repressive tolerance of a cruel system of class justice” (Fairy Tales 118). In other words, the more he was popular, the more he provoked.
A year 1885 became a milestone for Wilde, because he became a father. That year his first son Cyril was born, and a year after, Constance gave birth to a second son called Vyvyan
(Raby, The Cambridge Companion xx). McCormack suggests that it was the birth of Wilde’s sons what inspired him to write fairy tales which provided him the space where he could have criticized the society and dealt with the new role as a father (105). First collection of fairy tales, which the thesis analyses, was called The Happy Prince and Other Tales that was published in
1888 and three years later, in 1891, Wilde published another collection of fairy tales called A
House of Pomegranates. Then Wilde’s great creative period started, as for example Raby,
Zipes, Becker- Leckrone and other authors agreed on. Critics highlight mostly Wilde’s comedies of society that made fun of the Victorians, such as A Woman of No Importance Ševců 14
(1893) (Zipes, Fairy Tales 119), The Importance of Being Earnest (1895), Ideal Husband (1895)
(Raby, “Wilde’s Comedies of Society” 143) or his best-known novel The Picture of Dorian Gray
(1891) that questions double moral of the society or essay The Soul of Man under Socialism
(1891) (Zipes, Fairy Tales 119). Especially these works made Wilde popular, even though he had a lot of opposers who described Wilde’s work as obscene (Danson 86). Wilde’s reputation also suffered when he started a relationship with lord Alfred Douglas, called “Bosie”, who was considered to be his lover and also one of the reasons for Wilde’s downfall (Holland 6).
Homosexuality was a crime and also the sign of a profligate lifestyle which was not acceptable by the Victorians.
The Victorian society is to be described more deeply now, for the better understanding of what Wilde’s fairy tales criticize. Gagnier characterizes the Victorian society as the society of values (18). Each society based on values has also its rules and the Victorians quite insisted on them and punished those who tried to think independently (Becker-Leckrone). Gagnier further characterizes the Victorians as the modern society longing for bread (a symbol of material well-being), knowledge, freedom and individualism (20). Killeen also points out similar Victorian values – “respectability, independence, rationality, individual dignity” (26).
However, he adds that these values “were really codes for the middle-class point of view”
(Killeen 26) and that they were not suitable for the working class which should have laboured and remained silent. Moreover, the upper and middle class physically pushed the working class out of sight (Childers 78), because the rich did not care about the poor. That is one of the reasons why the Victorians can be labelled as hypocrites. They had values and rules they insisted on, but these rules were applied differently for different social classes. In other words, the Victorians had strong values, but double meter. Ševců 15
What Wilde criticized and loved on the Victorians at the same time were aphorisms.
McCormack points out that the Victorians used them as “eternal truth” (99). Aphorisms had the power to condemn “all opposing opinion as untruth” (McCormack 99) and they were able to disengage the language from reality, because the proper meaning of words was distorted
(McCormack 98; 103). Wilde used this feature of the Victorians as a weapon for social criticism. McCormack uses the term counterspeech which means that speech itself can counter or even transform the reality (97; 103). This is emphasized especially in the fairy tale
“The Remarkable Rocket” in which the Rocket has his own view of the reality and is able to manipulate with the language in order to adapt the reality in his favour. The Rocket is sure about his success despite the remarkable failure. Killeen claims that thanks to counterspeech, in McCormack’s terminology, the Victorians, especially rich ones, were also able to present total selfishness as altruism and philanthropy (Killeen 81).
The previous part is related to the opinion of the Victorians on truth. Truth was a matter of an authority represented by the state and the Church (McCormack 100) and objective truths of science, economics and other institutions that Wilde attacked in order to protest against social inequality (Danson 86).
Besides that the Victorian society is characterized as the society that preferred form over substance (Gagnier 23) which means that the Victorians focused on man’s position in the society, his wealth, his presentation, in other words his material well-being, not on the man himself or his personality. Thus, the Victorian society can be criticized for its materialism that is related to utilitarianism and rationality, as Killeen posits (26) and that idealism11 lost its purpose (Aransáez 213). Rationalism12 is the view of reality based on reason as the source for
11 For the purpose of the thesis, it means the opposite of materialism and is related to spirituality. For more see Horyna, Břetislav, et al. Filosofický slovník. 2nd ed., Olomouc, Nakladatelství Olomouc, 1998, pp. 184; 379. 12 For more see Horyna, Břetislav, et al. Filosofický slovník. 2nd ed., Olomouc, Nakladatelství Olomouc, 1998, pp. 341. Ševců 16 knowledge, moral values and opinions, rather than on the emotions. The Victorians not only preferred reason over emotions, they valued the practicability and due to that they started to prefer utilitarianism13 which is based on the principle of utility (usefulness). It means if something (mostly material wealth) satisfies the needs of people, it is useful, and when people are satisfied, they are happy and that is good. In other words, Killeen or Aransáez claim that materialism, rationality and utility are related in the Victorian society and together created the view of pragmatic reality where is no space for other views, such as idealism. All these thoughts were supported by the theory of predestination that basically meant that the poor deserved to be poor and they could not change it, because “poverty was the result of predetermined damnation” (Killeen 34). On the other hand, the good social status and wealth were the sign of a success and blessing. Killeen adds that Wilde named utilitarianism and the theory of predestination “as disguises for egotism” (26). Childers also claims that Wilde, and many other writers, criticized the upper and middle class for their total ignorance of the living conditions of the working class or the people who worked for them (78-82). In other words,
Wilde blamed the rich Victorians that they did not want to see social problems, such as poverty, and used the theory of predestination and utilitarianism to justify their selfish behaviour. This kind of behaviour of the successful Victorians who were not keen to help the poor, because they believed that the poor deserved it, in addition with the material, rational and utilitarian vision of the world that limited other views enforced the existence of huge social differences.
To be fair, the Victorian society was not only based on materialism or selfishness and hypocrisy, but also on knowledge that made life easier and better as Gagnier indicates (24).
13 The main controversial idea of the utilitarianism is that the happiness of the majority is superior to the happiness of the minority or the individuum. For more see Horyna, Břetislav, et al. Filosofický slovník. 2nd ed., Olomouc, Nakladatelství Olomouc, 1998, pp. 423–424. Ševců 17
New pieces of knowledge spread over the society and discussion became one of typical features of the Victorian society (Gagnier 25). Another positive feature of the Victorian period was a rise of women’s emancipation. Wilde also supported feminism. He accepted the editorship of the magazine called Ladies’ World which he renamed to Woman’s World14, since
“the word ‘woman’ signalled a more serious and responsible approach to affairs in general”
(Stokes 71).
Wilde’s support of feminism, topics he chose to write about, and his relationship with
Alfred Dougles caused that Wilde made some enemies and since he became a celebrity during the years, people started noticing more. For example, National Vigilance Society insisted on prosecution of Wilde after the publication of The Picture of Dorian Gray (Danson 86). Later
Marquis of Queensberry, father of Douglas, called Wilde a sodomite and Wilde sued him for libel (Raby, The Cambridge Companion xxi). Unfortunately, Wilde lost the case and was arrested. However, he was released on bail, “perhaps in the hope that he would leave the country” (Ransome 34). Wilde did not leave the country, though, he rather waited for the trial, and was sentenced to two years for indecency (Raby, The Cambridge Companion xxi). When he was released from prison, he moved to Italy, then to Switzerland and finally to France. He never saw his children again (McCormack 107) and Constance changed their surname to
Holland. Wilde died in Paris on November 30, 1900 (Ransome 35).
Wilde’s downfall that started in 1895, basically the same year while he was on the top, caused the shock within the artist community that started to be more circumspect (West 150).
Marshall suggests that 1890s actually ended in 1895 (9), because, apart from Wilde’s downfall, it was a year when female, decadent and other avant-garde artists started to be oppressed again, for the society associated them with Wilde’s scandal (Ledger 167).
14 Magazine for women. Apart from fashion or theatre the magazine informed about books written by women, French literature, carrier opportunities for women in medicine or education (Stoke 72). Ševců 18
To sum up, it is quite clear that Wilde’s life is not just dates and facts, but it is full of experience and inspiration. The same can be applied to the Victorian period, as this part has tried to present. The Victorians and Wilde had a lot in common. They had more than one
“face”, because there was a difference between how they presented themselves and what they really were, and they “both” were full of contradictions. This part of the thesis has also endeavoured to show that it is important to know some facts about the author and the period, because they influence each other and of course, they influence author’s work. Wilde lived in the age of huge social differences that he was able to perceive, and that is why he projected social topics into his work. This thesis focuses on the book The Happy Prince and Other Tales in order to show that even Wilde’s sometimes neglected work was concerned with social issues, and presented Wilde’s criticism of the Victorian society focusing predominately on materialism, hypocrisy and selfishness as the biggest issues enforcing the human suffering caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich. These topics are developed in his later work as well, especially his comedies of society.
Ševců 19
SOCIAL CRITICISM IN THE HAPPY PRINCE AND OTHER TALES
This part of the thesis focuses on the analysis of stories from The Happy Prince and Other
Tales. Firstly, the book itself is introduced and then some opinions on Wilde’s choice of the fairy-tale genre follow. Secondly, the main social problems which are reflected in Wilde’s fairy tales are described. Being more specific, materialism, selfishness and hypocrisy are the main characteristics of the Victorian society that stories depict as the biggest issues enforcing the suffering of the poor caused by the huge social differences within the Victorian society.
The Happy Prince and Other Tales was published in 1888 with illustration by Jacomb
Hood and Walter Crane (Ransome 87). Wilde probably wrote it for his two sons. Ransome sees the book as “an experiment, to show . . . that he could have been Hans Andersen if he had liked” (87). However, it is important to add that The Happy Prince and Other Tales is not considered as a book of fairy tales meant for children by many critics. They argue that it is rather a book of folk tales than the book of fairy tales and that the target readers are supposed to be adults, not children. Nonetheless, this thesis analyses The Happy Prince and Other Tales as a book of fairy tales meant for children as well as for their parents, because this statement seems to be in an agreement with recent critics, such as Killeen, Zipes, Aransáez and others.
Fairy tales provided Wilde a space where he set a mirror to the society and criticized it
(Zipes, Fairy Tales 105). As I have already explained in the previous section, I agree with Killeen or Childers that the upper and middle class probably did not understand materialism or hypocrisy as problems at all, nor that they enforced the economic inequality caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich. Wilde’s fairy tales then should have helped the
Victorians to realize the existence of these social problems. Likewise, Aransáez claims that
Wilde used fairy tales as a tool for “an indirect attack on [Victorians] standardised social values“ (178). Fairy tales are a perfect space where to put someone’s opinion and influence Ševců 20 someone’s mind, also because they are “universal, ageless, therapeutic, miraculous, and beautiful” (Zipes, Fairy Tales 2), and seem harmless. Fairy tales were originally used as a tool for supporting “bourgeois standards” (Zipes, Fairy Tales 105), but Wilde used fairy tales as “a radical mirror to reflect what was wrong with the general discourse on manners, mores, and norms in society, and . . . commented on this” (Zipes, Fairy Tales 105). In other words, Wilde’s fairy tales did not conserve traditional Victorian values, as fairy tales are supposed to do, but they subverted them. Fairy tales also served Wilde as an alternative for educating the children, because Wilde perceived the school as a prompter of hypocrisy (Aransáez 216) that spread in the society, for there were children educated according to Victorian values which allowed the origin of the materialistic and hypocritical society. Zipes also highlights, that Wilde’s fairy tales try hard to reverse “the process of socialization or civilization” (Fairy Tales 125) of children providing in schools and families.
Wilde’s fairy tales mostly criticize materialism, hypocrisy and selfishness, and the huge gap between the poor and the rich. I have decided to analyse these social issues separately but more closely, even though they sometimes intermingle, because they are related.
Additionally, this artificial division serves for the better organization of the thesis.
Materialism
As it has been presented in the previous section, Wilde criticized the Victorian society for a lot of things and one of them was materialism which is “the belief that money, possessions and physical comforts are more important than spiritual values” (Turnbull 948). And it really seems that the Victorian society was based mostly on the material well-being as for example Gagnier claims in her article Wilde and the Victorians in which she describes the Victorian society as the society longing for bread (material well-being) and preferring form over substance. In Ševců 21 addition, Killeen illustrates that materialism is related to the theory of utilitarianism which means, simply said, what is useful is more valuable and practical than what is useless (Becker-
Leckrone). Becker-Leckrone also puts forward that the Victorians associated utility with value, and that Wilde wanted to disprove this opinion, because this association makes people think that for instance paintings or statues or any kind of art lost its purpose. This is criticized for example in “The Happy Prince” where Town Councillor emphasizes that the statue is nice but
“not quite so useful” (Wilde 3), therefore unpractical, and being practical “headed the list of
Victorian values” (Killeen 26) indeed.
The same can be applied to the marriage for love. There was no sense to marry someone who would not help you to get a better social status and more money, in other words, better life. That is to say that it was not useful and thus it was neither valuable nor practical. For example, in “The Nightingale and the Rose” is highlighted that Love was not important for people. At the end of the story disappointed Student laments that Love is unpractical and “in this age to be practical is everything” (Wilde 41). The Student also exclaims, “What a silly thing
Love is, . . . It is not half as useful as Logic, for it does not prove anything, and it always telling one of things that are not going to happen and making one believe things that are not true”
(Wilde 40-41). In “The Remarkable Rocket” is also mentioned that “love is not fashionable any more” (Wilde 93). The Victorians treated Love as unimportant, because it was unpractical emotion, therefore the arranged marriage was typical of the Victorian society. Moreover,
Love, which was quite important for Wilde since it is one of the main themes of his fairy tales, was presented as an opposite to Reason (or Logic) as the Student has mentioned. And that is why the stories criticize that Love and also other emotions started to fade away and Reason gained the main position in the society. And therefore, materialism is related not just to utilitarianism but also to rationalism (Killeen 26; Becker-Leckrone; Aransáez 213). Ševců 22
Materialism of the society is criticized and sometimes ridiculed in some way in each story presented in The Happy Prince and Other Tales. However, it seems that materialism is mainly criticized in “The Happy Prince”. Some authors even see the story “as an attack on the utilitarian and pragmatic mentality which governed public” (Killeen 21). Another story that criticizes how the Victorians stuck to things is “The Nightingale and The Rose”. Aransáez puts forward that the story criticizes materialism and its consequences the most (207). For those reasons, these two stories are described more deeply, and the rest is only mentioned marginally.
“The Happy Prince” starts with opinions of citizens on the statue of Happy Prince which serve as a presentation of the Victorians’ focus on being practical and materialism. They admire the Happy Prince and one of Town Councillors remarked that “’[h]e is as beautiful as a weathercock, . . . only not quite so useful,’ he added, fearing lest people should think him unpractical, which he really was not” (Wilde 3). The opinion of the Town Councillor shows that the Victorians also cared about what other people think about them, for he stressed that the statue, as a piece of art, is not useful. The story parodies and criticizes at the same time the importance of the social status and the pose you took. Other stories also emphasize and ridicule the importance of showing how much the Victorians are practical, because the practicability was an important value. For example, in “The Remarkable Rocket” the Roman
Candle with the Bengal Light are described as “extremely practical”, because they use just one word for expressing their objections, and it is “humbug” (Wilde 103). And therefore, when they say “humbug” it clearly means that they object to something. This part wants to ridicule the need for being practical at any rate and show its absurdity.
“The Happy Prince” further criticizes another materialistic thinking. The Swallow at the beginning falls in love with the Reed and other swallows comment on it that “[i]t is a ridiculous Ševců 23 attachment, . . . she has no money, and far too many relations” (Wilde 5). Birds and the reed are supposed to show the opinion of the Victorians, especially the rich, on relationships – you had to have money and the status and then you were a good match. The longing for better social status, which could have been gained by the marriage of convenience, is highlighted here again. This longing for better social status is pointed up, for instance, at the beginning of
“The Devoted Friend” as well. The mother duck teaches her ducklings how to properly stand on the head and she says, “You will never be in the best society unless you can stand on your heads” (Wilde 59). All those examples do not just criticize or describe the importance of the social status for the Victorians, they ridicule it in order to emphasize its absurdity. Another example is described later in “The Happy Prince” when the Swallow talks about the miller’s sons with disrespect, “Last summer, when I was staying on the river, there were two rude boys, the miller’s sons, who were always throwing stones at me. They never hit me, of course; we swallows fly far too well for that, and besides, I come of a family famous for its agility; but still, it was a mark of disrespect” (Wilde 10). In this passage, the Swallow emphasizes that he comes from a good family and implies that the miller’s sons are lower class for him. It clearly describes the relationship between the poor and the rich that was assigned by the society.
However, there are more important passages in “The Happy Prince” that criticize materialism. The story depicts all the characters as materialistic, at least at first. The Swallow also first perceives gold, money and a good social status as the most important things in life.
He does not want to assist the Happy Prince to help the poor. The Swallow also does not understand why the Happy Prince cries when he is made of gold. “What! is he not solid gold?”
(Wilde 8), the Swallow exclaims. He cannot comprehend why gold does not make the Happy
Prince happy. The story shows that the Happy Prince finally realizes that there are problems within the society, and he wants to do something about it. Ironically, the Happy Prince wants Ševců 24 to solve the problem by giving people gold which did not make him happy at all as he mentioned himself. Wilde allowed the Happy Prince to say that “the living always think that gold can make them happy” (Wilde 20). Wilde probably did not see private charity as an answer to social problems, but he believed that moral transformation of the individual can bring a change and improve the whole society (Killeen 22). The story probably suggests that when you stop being materialistic as the Happy Prince then you can start to see other important things, such as love or friendship and thus become happy. Wilde believed that “the true perfection of man lies not in what man has, but what man is” (Soul of Man under
Socialism, qtd. in Zipes, Fairy Tales 120), therefore true happiness cannot be found in gold or money, but inside ourselves. However, the story probably implies that the whole Victorian society predominantly preferred material wealth over spiritual.
At the end of the story, the Swallow stops being materialistic, like the Happy Prince at the beginning, and perceives other important things too. The Happy Prince and the Swallow stop caring about opinions of others and about material things and they stop being selfish as well. When the Swallow helps the seamstress, he makes the first step and when he comes back to the Happy Prince, he says that “it is curious, . . . but [he feels] quite warm now, although it is so cold” (Wilde 12). The Happy Prince remarks that it is “because [the Swallow has] done a good action” (Wilde 12). And finally, they both start to see problems of the society and moreover they want to do something about it. I have endeavoured to demonstrate that the story shows that the addiction to material wealth caused social differences, because people cared just about their well-being and were not keen to share, in other words were selfish. As the Happy Prince was not happy until he stopped being addicted to material wealth and started to share, the society cannot be happy until it changes its attitude to private property. Zipes gives similar example in “The Selfish Giant” as he points out that the Giant Ševců 25 suffers, because “he cannot share his wealth” (Fairy Tales, 124) and he cannot be happy unless he shares his property with everyone, for then he “shares their joy as well” (Fairy Tales, 124).
The story ends with the death of the Swallow and with the elimination of the statue of the Happy Prince. He was no longer beautiful in the eyes of the Victorians, for he gave all his gold to the poor. Zipes claims that the story suggests that the beauty of the Prince cannot be appreciated anymore, because “the people are accustomed to identifying beauty with material wealth and splendor” (Fairy Tales 122). The ending again highlights the materialistic values of the society, and a reader should then appreciate different values of two main characters while they are refused by the society in the end.
Another story which criticizes materialism is “The Nightingale and the Rose”. The whole theme is focused on how ridiculous materialism is, especially, how the Victorians are addicted to material things. The Nightingale sacrifices herself so as the Student gains love of the
Professor’s daughter, but neither he nor the girl appreciates it. It looks like the Nightingale died for nothing. Aransáez believes that Wilde used the story to “question the social and moral assumptions of the Victorians” (178).
The story begins with the Student’s despair because of the lack of red roses in the garden. He wants to accompany the Professor’s daughter to the ball. She promised to come, but just on condition he brought her a red rose. The Student as a representative of intellectuals
“has now been forced to realise the existence of an emotional side of the reality which escapes logical explanation and consequently conflicts with his empirical vision of the world”
(Aransáez 208). Romantic love, as something spiritual, did not fit into the Victorian materialistic and rational society, yet it still existed. The Student had to deal with the issue, even though it was difficult for him, since he perceived only a rational side of reality. The same Ševců 26 is described in the opening dialog of “The Happy Prince” that indirectly criticizes the Victorians’ rationality and that they forgot about dreaming that is, same as Love, something spiritual:
“[Happy Prince] looks like an angel,” said the Charity Children as they came out of the
cathedral in their bright scarlet cloaks and their clean white pinafores.
“How do you know?” said the Mathematical Master, “you have never seen one.”
“Ah! But we have, in our dreams,” answered the children; and the Mathematical
Master frowned and looked very severe, for he did not approve of children dreaming.
(Wilde 4)
The Victorians used “reason and logic [as] tools for understanding the world“ (Winterson).
However, “we need a means of understanding ourselves, too. That is what imagination allows“, Winterson points up. That is to say that the stories highlight that the rationality limits the view of reality.
Later in “The Nightingale and the Rose” the Nightingale sees the Student’s misery and decides to help him, because she wants to help him to fulfil true love. However, she realizes that she must sacrifice her life for that. At first, she hesitates whether to sacrifice her life for a red rose or not, but in the end she recognizes that she will sacrifice herself for love not for a rose and she says that “Death is a great price to pay for a red rose, . . . and Life is very dear to all . . . Yet Love is better than Life, what is the heart of a bird compared to the heart of the man?” (Wilde 33). And therefore, the Nightingale decides to sacrifice her life:
“Be happy,” cried the Nightingale, “be happy ; you shall have your red rose. I will build
it up out of music by moonlight, and stain it with my own heart’s-blood. All that I ask of
you in return is that you will be a true lover, for Love is wiser than Philosophy, though
she is wise, and mightier than Power, though he is mighty. . . . ” Ševců 27
The Student looked up from the grass and listened, but he could not understand
what the Nightingale was saying to him, for he only knew the things that are written
down in books. (Wilde 34)
I agree with Aransáez or Killeen who claim that Wilde used the story to indicate that materialism and rationalism were dominant values in the Victorian society and consequently they suppressed idealism and spirituality (Aransáez 213; Killeen 45). The Nightingale symbolizes both, love and idealism, which are presented in the story a contrast to materialism and reason which are represented by the Student (Killeen 42; Aransáez 208). The Student then represents the rational view and the Nightingale the idealistic or probably artistic view and these two views are in contrast (Aransáez 208), for it should highlight the existence of other visions of the world. Aransáez also argues that Wilde wanted to emphasize the differences through the language which characters use – the Student uses simply plain sentences and the
Nightingale seems to be almost a poet (208). Killeen adds that the Victorian society liked the contrast, because they “so intensively separated body and soul, women and men” (43).
McCormack also agrees that the Victorians kept apart areas such as “’good’ and ‘bad’, ‘manly’ and ‘womanly’, ‘trivial’ and ‘important’” (99), because it helped them to separate Love and
Reason as well. This passage also emphasizes that the Student is not able to understand the beauty of the song that the Nightingale sings, because the Student’s vision of the world is limited by social structures he lives in, and that is materialistic and rational society. In addition, the Student’s evaluation of the Nightingale’s song, which is described later in the story, expresses his total ignorance, for he says that it “[does] not mean anything or [does] any practical good“ (Wilde 35), in a sense that what is useless is not beautiful. Actually, these are similar reasons why the Happy Prince was ugly in the eyes of the citizens when he was no longer gold. Ševců 28
Most of the characters from “The Nightingale and The Rose” are described as materialistic again. Especially the Professor’s daughter is characterized as a vain, materialistic person who symbolizes hypocrisy and selfishness of the upper and middle class. At the end of the story she refuses the Student because of materialistic arguments, for she is afraid that the rose will not go “with [her] dress, . . . and besides, the Chamberlain’s nephew has sent [her] some real jewels, and everybody knows that jewels cost far more than flowers” (Wilde 40).
The girl does not appreciate beauty of the rose at all. Her arguments indicate “to the reader that she is incapable of realising the abstract value of the flower due to her materialistic mentality, which makes her believe that value of things is always determined by their price”
(Aransáez 212). Killeen also describes the Professor’s daughter as committed to materialism and obsessed with material wealth rather than the spiritual (52; 58). Zipes repeats this idea in his book Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion when he generally describes the Victorians as the society that “favored greed and pomp” (122) and identified “beauty with material wealth and splendor” (122). It is quite astonishing for a reader that the Nightingale sacrifices herself for love to create a beautiful red rose which eventually ends in the dirt, probably as most idealists living in the materialistic society.
In conclusion, the fairy tales criticize the Victorian society for materialism that is related to rationalism and utilitarianism, because they altogether caused dying of idealism within the society. They also limited the view of reality and the practicability became an important value.
The materialistic society forced people to run for a better social status in order to get material wealth. Unfortunately, they became selfish on the way and adopted hypocritical attitude that allowed the rich to mask the exploitation of the poor (Aransáez 216).
Ševců 29
Hypocrisy and Selfishness
Hypocrisy and selfishness are other features of the Victorian society that are heavily criticized in Wilde’s fairy tales. Zipes argues that all Wilde’s fairy tales express “how deeply troubled
Wilde was by the hypocrisy” (Fairy Tales 122) and selfishness that he ascribed to the upper and middle class (Fairy Tales 117; 122). However, Wilde’s fairy tales criticize the rich, not only for their selfishness and hypocrisy but also for their ability to disguise total selfishness as altruism and generosity (Killeen 81). McCormack agrees that the rich were able to present selfishness as altruism, because the Victorians used the speech to transform reality in their favour (103). This distorted vision of the world caused that neither the rich nor the poor were able to see that the position between them was unequal. Moreover, the selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the rich influenced their attitude to the poor. The rich thought that the poor were the doomed ones and there was no way how to help them, thus there was also no reason why to care about them at all. Poor people should have just served to the rich because that was their purpose. The rich also believed that they did a favour to the poor by forcing them to work for them, because then the poor could have been saved from the indolence and laziness (Killeen 82; 84; 91). Aransáez emphasizes criticism of hypocrisy and selfishness in Wilde’s stories as well. She claims that the stories show that materialism and the selfish and hypocritical behaviour enforced social differences (185), as this thesis tries to present as well.
Hypocrisy and selfishness are attributes that are ascribed to the upper and middle class in Wilde’s stories (Aransáez 185; Zipes Fairy Tales 117). These attributes also characterize the
Happy Prince at first and therefore I again start with this story. When the Happy Prince speaks for the first time, he reveals to the Swallow that “[he] did not know what tears were, for [he] lived in the Palace of Sans-Souci, where sorrow is not allowed to enter. . . . Round the garden Ševců 30 ran a very lofty wall, but [he] never cared to ask what lay beyond it” (Wilde 8). It seems that the Happy Prince only cared about his happiness and he was not interested in others, it means those beyond the wall. Representatives of the town are characterized as selfish too. The conversation between the Mayor and Town Councillors at the end of “The Happy Prince” ridicules the hypocritical and selfish behaviour of these representatives of the upper class in order to underline the absurdity of their behaviour (Aransáez 185):
“Dear me! how shabby the Happy Prince looks!” he said. “How shabby indeed!” cried
the Town Councillors, who always agreed with the Mayor, and they went up to look at
it.
“The ruby has fallen out of his sword, his eyes are gone, and he is golden no
longer,” said the Mayor; “in fact, he is little better than a beggar!” . . .
“And here is actually a dead bird at his feet!” continued the Mayor. “We must
really issue a proclamation that birds are not to be allowed to die here.” And the Town
Clerk made a note of the suggestion. (Wilde 22-23)
This passage shows not only hypocrisy and selfishness of representatives but also their obsession with material wealth. Further, the Mayor decides to build the statue of himself instead of the Happy Prince who was no longer gold and therefore ugly. He lost his purpose for the Victorians then. And as a result, “the reader is compelled to acknowledge that if something is not done to change the essence of society, the unjust social differences, which are derived from its asocial selfishness and materialism will continue to be forever unsolved”
(Aransáez 185). Zipes also agrees that Wilde wanted to provoke in order to force the people to think about the fabric of the society that did not change at the end of the story and that nobody appreciated the good deeds of the Prince and the Swallow except perhaps the readers
(Fairy Tales 122) and although they were blessed by God in the end, the Mayor and town Ševců 31 representatives, “the vain buffoons will certainly rule for their own benefit” (Fairy Tales 122) and remain in charge.
Criticism of hypocrisy and selfishness can be tracked also in other stories of the book.
Moreover, the stories indicate how the hypocritical and selfish behaviour of the rich influenced their relationship to the poor. “The Selfish Giant” can be interpreted as the relationship between the rich represented by the Giant, and the poor represented by the children. The Giant expels children from his beautiful garden and forbids playing there. He also decides to build a high wall around it in order not to share his property with anyone. In
Killeen’s opinion, the wall indicates paranoid obsession with property in late nineteenth century Britain (67). The wall also probably means that the rich did not care about what is on the other side of the wall, in other words, they did not care about the poor at all. Likewise, the
Happy Prince said that he lived behind the wall and did not know what is beyond, moreover, he did not care, because he was selfish. Childers also points up that the rich totally ignored the living conditions of the poor (78-82).
In any case, the story “The Devoted Friend” was probably written as a pure critique of the behaviour of the rich. Even the beginning of the story indicates to a reader that the story is about hypocrisy and selfishness. It starts with the animals discussing what “a devoted friend” means:
“What a silly question!” cried the Water-rat. “I should expect my devoted friend to be
devoted to me, of course.”
“And what would you do in return?” said the little bird, swinging upon a silver
spray, and flapping his tiny wings.
“I don’t understand you,” answered the Water-rat. (Wilde 61) Ševců 32
The Water-rat represents a typical selfish position of the rich who cared mainly about themselves and ignored others. This dialog also indicates the further relationship between the main characters little Hans representing the poor, and big Hugh the Miller who states for the rich. Aransáez claims that the attributes “big” and “little” are used as symbols for “rich” and
“poor” as it is typical of fairy tales (214).
The story continues with the Linnet telling a story about the devoted friend:
“Hans had a great many friends, but the most devoted friend of all was a big Hugh the
Miller. Indeed, so devoted was the rich Miller to little Hans, that he would never go by
his garden without leaning over the wall and plucking a large nosegay, or a handful of
sweet herbs, or filling his pockets with plums and cherries if it was the fruit season.
‘Real friends should have everything in common,’ the Miller used to say; and little
Hans nodded and smiled, and felt very proud of having a friend with such noble ideas.
Sometimes, indeed, the neighbours thought it strange that the rich Miller never
gave little Hans anything in return, though he had a hundred sacks of flour stored away
in his mill, . . . .” (Wilde 63)
The Miller, even Hans do not see what is wrong about their friendship, because the organization of the society forces them to think that everything is alright. Of course, the behaviour of the Miller and Hans seems extreme which makes you think that both, the Miller and Hans, are targets of the criticism because Hans is so naive (Killeen 81). Probably, their behaviour is emphasized or simplified in order to outline characteristics of the upper and working class and to show the pattern of behaviour that is not healthy for the society.
Moreover, “The Devoted Friend” is a fairy tale, therefore the behaviour of main characters is simplified as is typical of the genre15. Nevertheless, the passage presents that the upper and
15 For more see Zipes, editor. The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000. Ševců 33 middle class behaved selfishly and gathered a lot of property that they did not want to share, on the other hand, the working class accepted the position of subordinated people and poverty spread among them, even though they worked. Moreover, the rich abused the poor for work and for money (taxes), or for flowers and fruit as the story depicts. Besides, this part also indicates that the Victorian society had double standards, since the Miller could get anything from Hans but Hans could not. It is probably because the rich determined moral and social standards (McCormack 100).
The story provides more examples of this selfish behaviour which oppressed the poor, basically, the whole story is about how the rich abused the poor. The next example of selfish behaviour of the Miller is presented when the Miller during the winter does not want to visit
Hans who suffers from hunger, and looks for excuses, such as that “when people are in trouble they should be left alone” (Wilde 64). In fact, the real reason probably was that Hans had nothing to give the Miller, so the Miller could not find a logical reason for a visit. It seems natural that the Miller should help Hans who is in trouble now and shared all fruits of his garden during the year, but that was not how the rich saw the situation. As it was mentioned several times, the upper class did not want to solve the problem of the poor since they did not see it as a problem, because the poor deserved to be poor as the theory of predestination claimed. Further, there is presented another evidence of this selfish behaviour and how the rich explained why they could not have helped the poor:
’But could we not ask little Hans up here?’ said the Miller’s youngest son. ‘If poor Hans
is in trouble I will give him half my porridge, and show him my white rabbits.’
‘What a silly boy you are!’ cried the Miller; ‘I really don’t know what is the use of
sending you to school. You seem not to learn anything. Why, if little Hans came up here,
and saw our warm fire, and our good supper, and our great cask of red wine, he might Ševců 34
get envious, and envy is a most terrible thing, and would spoil anybody’s nature . . . I am
his best friend, and I will always watch over him, and see that he is not led into any
temptations. Besides, if Hans came here, he might ask me to let him have some flour on
credit, and that I could not do. Flour is one thing, and friendship is another, and they
should not be confused.’ (Wilde 65-66)
Miller’s son is a child, so he does not seem to be influenced by Victorian values yet. Similar example is at the beginning of the story as the mother duck teaches her ducklings how to properly stand on the head, because it is important in order to be a part of a good society, but
“the little ducks paid no attention to her. They were so young that they did not know what an advantage it is to be in society at all” (Wilde 60). Wilde also indicated that school is a prompter of social hypocrisy (Aransáez 216), because the Miller states that the son should have learnt how to behave to the poor at school. That is to say, the school should prepare children how to behave according to standards of the Victorians which meant the middle-class standards as
I have pointed up several times. Apart from that the whole passage is an example of hypocrisy, for instance as the Miller talks about flour and friendship or as later the Miller’s wife compares the Miller’s speech to a sermon. Due to this kind of thinking, the Miller is unable to see that
Hans’ death at the end of the story is his fault (Killeen 91).
When the winter ends, the Miller finally goes to visit Hans, because now his garden has blossomed. Hans tells the Miller that he had to sell his wheelbarrow in order to survive the winter and the Miller decides to give Hans his old one. At first, the reader hopes for a turn, but it will not come. Although the Miller claims that he will give Hans his old wheelbarrow, he actually never will, as you will learn later in the story. Furthermore, he starts to abuse Hans, but neither Hans nor the Miller considers it as a problem. The Miller thinks that he is generous, and that Hans should be thankful and serve him, because he needs to deserve the Ševců 35 wheelbarrow. The upper class abused the poor and believed that they could. Since the old
Miller’s wheelbarrow needs to be repaired, Hans said:
‘I can easily put it in repair, as I have a plank of wood in the house.’
‘A plank of wood!’ said the Miller; ‘why, that is just what I want for the roof of my
barn. There is a very large hole in it, and the corn will all get damp if I don’t stop it up.
How lucky you mentioned it! It is quite remarkable how one good action always breeds
another. I have given you my wheelbarrow, and now you are going to give me your
plank. Of course, the wheelbarrow is worth far more than the plank, but true, friendship
never notices things like that. . . .
‘It is not a very big plank,’ said the Miller, looking at it, ‘and I am afraid that after
I have mended my barn-roof there won’t be any left for you to mend the wheelbarrow
with; but, of course, that is not my fault. And now, as I have given you my wheelbarrow,
I am sure you would like to give me some flowers in return. Here is the basket, and mind
you fill it quite full.’ (Wilde 71 – 72)
Once again, the Miller acts superiorly and for his one little act of “generosity” he wants quite a lot in return, because Hans had wanted to sell those flowers on the market in order to gain some money and his silver buttons. However, Hans does not refuse, because the Miller
“explains” him that the true friendship is quite “free from selfishness of any kind” (Wilde 72).
Aransáez also suggests that the Miller uses rhetoric as a weapon for masking his selfish purposes and hypocrisy (215). Readers are shocked again, and the story attracts their attention, so they start to doubt the society that is presented in the story.
Then the story continues with the same pattern – the Miller wants something from Hans,
Hans at first tries to explain that he cannot help the Miller now, and the Miler says, “Well, really, . . . I think that considering that I am going to give you my wheelbarrow, it is rather Ševců 36 unfriendly of you to refuse” (Wilde 74). And that is why Hans always helps the Miller although he is not able to finish his own work then. Moreover, the Miller calls Hans lazy, because, as
Killeen points out, the rich could not understand that the poor are not able to do all the tasks
(84). Miller’s perverse thinking should alert the reader that the relationship between rich
Miller and poor Hans is not equal and should point up that “the wealthy and privileged classes of society speak of moral ideas but do not really endorse them; instead, they adopt a hypocritical attitude to pretend they do because this allows them to abuse and exploit the poor while they mask their selfish intentions” (Aransáez 216).
The ending of the story should shock the reader and probably warn that this kind of behaviour of the rich but also of the poor must end up with a catastrophe. The Miller comes to Hans at night that he needs him to go for a doctor, since his son fell of the ladder. The Miller does not want to go, because there is a storm outside, so he asks Hans. As the Miller is going to give him his old wheelbarrow, he should do it for him:
‘Certainly,’ cried Hans, . . . ‘But you must lend me your lantern, as the night is so dark
that I am afraid I might fall into the ditch.’
‘I am very sorry,’ answered the Miller, ‘but it is my new lantern, and it would be a
great loss to me if anything happened to it.’
‘Well, never mind, I will do without it,’ cried Hans, . . . and started off.
(Wilde 80 – 81)
Hans is successful, and a doctor finds the Miller’s house, but the storm strengthened, and Hans fell into a deep hole and drowned. The Miller’s selfish behaviour caused Hans’ death, but he is not able to see it as Killeen states (91). Then there is Hans’ funeral, and everybody honours
Hans. The Miller also mourns but his way: Ševců 37
’A great loss to me at any rate,’ answered the Miller; ‘why, I had as good as given him
my wheelbarrow, and now I really don’t know what to do with it. It is very much in my
way at home, and it is in such bad repair that I could not get anything for it if I sold it. I
will certainly take care not to give away anything again. One always suffers for being
generous.’ (Wilde 83)
The Miller presents himself as a philanthropist, but Killeen posits that philanthropy is tendency to postpone acting against poverty and social injustice, it means that talking about loving
“your neighbour is not a substitute for helping him . . . People like Hans are dying while egoists like the Miller are being praised for their altruism” (81). In other words, the character of the
Miller presents the hypocrisy and selfishness that was typical of the upper and middle class who were not able to see that their behaviour was wrong. The character of the Miller probably also implies that the rich talk about something and do something different – hypocrisy, and only think about themselves – selfishness.
In “The Remarkable Rocket” the main attributes of characters who represent the rich are selfishness and hypocrisy too. Moreover, the Rocket thinks about himself as an altruist, but in fact he is just selfish and hypocritical (Yarbrough 148). For example, the Rocket is offended when the Cracker laughs just because he is happy:
“That is a very selfish reason,” said the Rocket angrily. “What right have you to be
happy? You should to be thinking about others. In fact, you should be thinking about
me. I am always thinking about myself, and I expect everybody else to do the same. That
is what is called sympathy. It is a beautiful virtue, and I possess it in a high degree . . .
Really, when I begin to reflect on the importance of my position, I am almost moved to
tears.” (Wilde 98-99) Ševců 38
The story is a typical example of how the rich were able to see reality differently and used the language to justify their behaviour. The conversation at the end of the story between the thrown-out Rocket and the Duck once again makes the reader doubt the society. The Rocket describes to the Duck how remarkable he is and what he does but the Duck just answers:
“I don’t think much of that, . . . as I cannot see what use it is to any one. Now, if you
could plough the fields like the ox, or draw a cart like the horse, or lock after the sheep
like the collie-dog, that would be something.”
“My good creature,” cried the Rocket . . . “I see that you belong to the lower
orders. A person of my position is never useful.” (Wilde 111)
Hypocrisy, selfishness and materialism are presented here in a slightly different way. The practicability that is stressed by the Duck and is believed in by the whole society while selfishness and hypocrisy are ascribed rather to the rich only, additionally, this example also points out the actual “uselessness” of the upper classes in the society that valued the practicability but could not really appreciate the thing that valued so much, which is the paradox.
The ending of the story may imply that the Rocket was punished, because he did not go off at the celebration and ended up in the dirt. However, he still thinks about himself as important and is able to explain to himself why he has ended up like that. The Rocket has a lot of opportunities to learn a lesson, but his vanity and selfishness persist (Yarbrough 148).
Presented fairy tales repeatedly highlight that the rich had a distorted view of their own behaviour, or maybe rather a distorted vision of the world, and they thought that abusing of the poor actually meant helping them. Wilde’s fairy tales “compel readers to question why social relations do not give rise to a better world . . . [The stories] generally depict how hypocritical social conventions and double standards serve to maintain unjust rule. The result Ševců 39 is pain and suffering” (Zipes, Fairy Tales 123), because the society did not change. Moreover, this kind of behaviour was related to materialism which is related to human’s addiction to material wealth and utilitarianism. And the circle becomes vicious, since the materialistic society allowed to the rich acted in selfish and hypocritical way, moreover, presented it as altruism, caused that the gap between the poor and the rich became bigger, because the rich abused the poor and that was allowed by the materialistic and rational vision of the world.
Huge Gap between the Poor and the Rich
Gagnier states that especially the high Victorian society consisted of “stable (or lazy) landed aristocrats, energetic (or cruel) entrepreneurs, docile and dependent (or angry and seditious) labourers” (20). Wilde also describes these three classes in his stories, for instance the King or the Professor’s daughter – aristocrats, the Miller or the Giant – entrepreneurs, who represent rich people, and Hans or the seamstress – labourers, who represent poor ones. These and other characters serve to show the huge social differences within the Victorian society and widespread poverty.
The aim of the thesis is to show that materialism which was preferred by the Victorians and hypocrisy and selfishness which were ascribed to the upper and middle class enforced economic inequality and human suffering caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich. This gap that got bigger during the period influenced the expansion of poverty too. I agree with Aransáez that this socioeconomic problem and its critic is “clearly perceptible for the reader” (184) in Wilde’s fairy tales. They show the “contrast between obscene luxury and appalling poverty” (McCormack 104) in order to highlight the issue of the huge social differences, because the rich did not care about the living conditions of the poor, they actually did not perceive it as a problem at all. In fact, neither the rich nor the poor were able to realize Ševců 40 that the relationship between them is not equal. It seems that the stories also try to point up that the selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the rich on the one hand, and the subordinate and naïve behaviour of the poor on the other, must end up with a catastrophe, as it has been stressed in the previous section.
Almost each fairy tale in the book The Happy Prince and Other Tales shows the huge differences between the post of the rich and the poor. I start with “The Happy Prince” again, which is likely concerned with this issue the most. Many critics point out that the story is an attack on “political dealings with the poor in nineteenth century London“ (Killeen 21) and shows “human suffering and ponders the problems of economic inequality and injustice”
(Killeen 21). In other words, the whole story is about poverty and social differences which the
Happy Prince as a statue sees from his pedestal. Killeen points up that Wilde was probably inspired by his own life, because from the upper floors of his house he could have seen poverty in slums as the Happy Prince from his pedestal (25). The Happy Prince as well needed to be put on his pedestal to see “all the ugliness and all the misery of [his] city” (Wilde 8). Zipes also highlights that “Wilde is able to stress the great disparities in English society by ironically making the dead prince’s pedestal so high that he can realize how miserable the common people are and how responsible he is for their misery; that is, as the major representative of the ruling class“ (Fairy Tales 122).
There are three concrete examples of the huge social differences described in detail in
“The Happy Prince”. First, the Happy Prince asks the Swallow to help him to give the ruby to a poor seamstress who “is embroidering passion-flowers on a satin gown for the loveliest of the
Queen’s maids-of-honour to wear at the next Court-ball. In a bed in the corner of the room her little boy is lying ill. He has a fever, and is asking for oranges. His mother has nothing to give him but river water, so he is crying” (Wilde 9). The Swallow does not want to be a courier Ševců 41 of the Prince, because he is selfish at first, but when he sees how the Happy Prince is sad, he helps. He flies over the town and passes also the palace where he hears a dialog between a beautiful girl and her lover, “’How wonderful the stars are,’ he said to her, ‘and how wonderful is the power of love!’ ‘I hope my dress will be ready in time for the State-ball,’ she answered;
‘I have ordered passion-flowers to be embroidered on it; but the seamstresses are so lazy’”
(Wilde 11). The dialog should show that the vain girl, as a member of the upper class, is selfish and materialistic person, because she thinks only about her dress and not about love or the beauty of the stars. Above that she calls the seamstress lazy. The rich saw the poor sometimes as lazy, because workers were overworked and did not have time or strength to do their errands (Killeen 84), as it has been already indicated before. This is, incidentally, emphasized mostly in “The Devoted Friend”. Hans is not able to do necessary tasks on his own garden, because the Miller forces him to work for him, since he promised to give Hans his old wheelbarrow. He also calls Hans lazy and cannot understand why Hans after all day work is not “enthusiastic about getting out of bed for another day of labour” (Killeen 84). The dialog between the girl and her lover also emphasizes a huge difference between the life of the poor seamstress and the rich girl.
When the story continues the contrast gets more obvious:
At last [the Swallow] came to the poor house and looked in. The boy was tossing
feverishly on his bed, and the mother had fallen asleep, she was so tired. In he hopped,
and laid the great ruby on the table beside the woman’s thimble. Then he flew gently
round the bed, fanning the boy’s forehead with his wings. “How cool I feel,” said the
boy, “I must be getting better”; and he sank into a delicious slumber. (Wilde 11 – 12)
The scene on the balcony stands in contrast to the scene in the poor house – the vain materialistic rich girl contra the poor tired overworked seamstress. Unfortunately, it is true Ševců 42 that the living conditions of the working class were appalling in contrast to the life in luxury of the upper and middle class (Killeen 23; McCormack 104). It is not surprising that Wilde’s fairy tales are concerned with poverty, because according to researches from nineteenth century
“25 per cent of all Londoners lived in some form of poverty” (Killeen 23) which is inconceivable. Moreover, Charles Booth, a social researcher and author of Life and Labour of the People of London (1889 – 1902), discovered that “this poverty was not simply the result of inveterate working-class laziness and alcohol-consumption but was a function of the economy itself” (qtd. in Killeen 24). Killeen argues that the growth in the economy, which was perceivable in late nineteenth century in Britain, “had disproportionately benefited the middle-class, and the economic and social divisions between most of the population and those in the top 5 per cent increased” (23). Despite the fact that the economic growth brought improvement in welfare, it also left behind enormous part of the society in poverty (Killen 22).
Killeen points up that the middle class resided in “salubrious conditions”, the upper class in
“unbridled luxury” in contrast to “appalling circumstances” of the working class (23). It seems that Wilde’s fairy tales very likely support this statement and they want to spread the thought, because Wilde was aware that the rich did not care about the living conditions of the poor, but Wilde was exposed to poverty and noticed it, especially thanks to the travelling that allowed him to compare the living conditions in America or Continent.
More similar situations, which describe the huge differences between the position of the rich and the poor, are indicated in the story. Second example depicts the life of a young student, probably of art. The Happy Prince sees troubles of this young handsome man and wants to help him, because the young student “is trying to finish a play for the Director of the
Theatre, but he is too cold to write any more. There is no fire in the grate, and hunger has made him faint” (Wilde 14). The Happy Prince asks the Swallow to bring the young man Ševců 43
Prince’s eye that is made of sapphire. Another description of appalling conditions in which the young man lived follows when the Swallow can get easily in the garret, because “there was a hole in the roof” (Wilde 15). The young man is of course happy then and is able to finish the play.
Third and the last concrete example of poverty describes the living conditions of poor children on an example of a match-girl:
“In the square below” said the Happy Prince, “there stands a little match-girl. She has
let her matches fall in the gutter, and they are all spoiled. Her father will beat her if she
does not bring home some money, and she is crying. She has no shoes or stockings, and
her little head is bare. Pluck out my other eye, and give it to her, and her father will not
beat her.” (Wilde 17)
The passage also refers to child labour that was quite common in nineteenth century England.
Children’s and women’s contributions to the poor family income was quite important (Goose,
Honeyman 4). Contrary, members of rich families did not work or just a father for he was a breadwinner (Appell). It is not surprising that the story is concerned with child labour, for it was widespread in England. Jane Humphries analysed a large number of autobiographies of working-class members and observed that children during the late Victorian period started to work bellow the age of 10 but adds that it depended on economic circumstances of the family
(401-406). She also presents top twenty jobs occupied by children, such as an agriculture labourer, a messenger, a cotton-factory worker, or a coal miner (Table 1, p. 404). Additionally,
Childers points out that many Victorian writers were troubled by child labour and described unbelievable conditions of children working in mills and factories (79). These writers also show a sharp contrast with homes of the factory owners where life is light and nice, and no one is dying of illnesses or starving (Childers 81). Ševců 44
The story then continues with other examples of appalling living conditions of the poor as the Happy Prince asks the Swallow to fly over the city and inform the Prince about what he has seen:
So the Swallow flew over the great city, and saw the rich making merry in their beautiful
houses, while the beggars were sitting at the gates. . . . Under the archway of a bridge
two little boys were lying in one another’s arms to try and keep themselves warm. “How
hungry we are!” they said. “You must not lie here,” shouted the Watchman, and they
wandered out into the rain. (Wilde 19 – 20)
This part mostly describes the suffering of children which emphasizes poverty and helps the reader to see the problem more deeply. The Happy Prince is also astonished by what the
Swallow saw, because when the Prince was alive and rich, he did not know or care about lives of the poor. Now, when the Happy Prince has realized the appalling living conditions of the poor, he orders the Swallow to take gold that covers him and give it to the poor and “Leaf after leaf of the fine gold [the Swallow] brought to the poor, and the children’s faces grew rosier, and they laughed and played games in the street. ‘We have bread now!’ they cried.”
(Wilde 20). The Happy Prince probably did not want to solve the problem of poverty, though.
I think that there is a link to materialism – the gold or money meant bread to the Victorians
(Gagnier 24). The materialistic society is criticized there for it forced the people to be happy only when they had wealth. The Happy Prince is a little bit surprise about that “the living always think that gold can make them happy” (Wilde 20). Nevertheless, he gave the poor his gold, because he wanted to help to the suffering people at least somehow. Additionally,
Killeen argues that Wilde believed that the moral transformation of the individual can bring a change, and possibly improve the whole society (22). The Happy Prince as an alive person also thought that gold made him happy. However, when he became a statue, he finally realized Ševců 45 that wealth is not the happiness at all. The Prince now understands that the society is materialistic and that it forces people think that wealth is happiness. From the materialistic point of view, it is quite logical, because if you have a lot of money, you can buy whatever you think can make you happy. Therefore, materialists think that money can make you happy, because you can buy material things. Unfortunately, a society which holds to these principles forgets about non-material wealth and consequently its vision of the world is limited by materialism.
The rest of fairy tales in the book do not show the huge social differences in such a detail as “The Happy Prince”, but they are mentioned in relation to criticism of materialism or selfishness and hypocrisy. For instance, in “The Selfish Giant” is a comment on poverty at the beginning of the story when the Giant has banished children, “The poor children had now nowhere to play. They tried to play on the road, but the road was very dusty and full of hard stones, and they did not like it“ (Wilde 47). The dirt on the street that is the playground for poor children is a huge contrast to the beautiful Giant’s garden that he does not want to share.
“The Devoted Friend” is another story which should shock readers in order to get their attention and present them the issue of huge social differences. The story mostly criticizes selfishness and hypocrisy of the rich, but this kind of behaviour caused that the gap between the poor and the rich got bigger, for the rich thought that the poor were there to serve them, even more the poor should have been grateful for serving the rich. Moreover, the poor accepted these terms. The passage which describe how the Miller goes through the winter and how Hans goes through it, is the best example of the huge gap between them. Hans had to sell his wheelbarrow and his silver button, silver chain, and a big pipe in order to survive the winter: Ševců 46
During the spring, the summer, and the autumn he was very happy, but when the winter
came, and [Hans] had no fruit or flowers to bring to the market, he suffered a good deal
from cold and hunger, and often had to go to bed without any supper but a few dried
pears or some hard nuts. (Wilde 64)
On the other hand, the Miller’s family sat in comfortable armchairs by the fireplace with plenty of food, and Miller’s wife appreciates the Miller’s explanation of not helping Hans through the winter. The contrast is highlighted by a description of the luxury life of the clergy:
‘You are certainly very thoughtful about others,’ answered the Wife, as she sat in her
comfortable armchair by the big pinewood fire; ‘very thoughtful indeed. It is quite a
treat to hear you talk about friendship. I am sure the clergyman himself could not say
such beautiful things as you do, though he does live in three-storied house, and wear a
gold ring on his little finger.’ (Wilde 65)
“The Remarkable Rocket” is mostly interpreted as mockery of Whistler, Wilde’s merciless friend (Killeen 98). However, the story can be interpreted as a critique of the behaviour of the rich as well. For example, the King is presented as an untouchable person who has no idea how his servants live:
“She was like a white rose before,” said a young Page to his neighbour, “but she is like a
red rose now;” and the whole court was delighted . . . and the King gave orders that the
Page’s salary was to be doubled. As he received no salary at all this was not of much use
to him, but it was considered a great honour, and was duly published in the Court
Gazette. (Wilde 90-91)
The problem of poverty is presented in all stories. Even though the fairy tales mostly describe materialism of the Victorian society, and selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the rich, there is always set out how they influence the life of the poor. However, quite interesting is that Ševců 47
Wilde’s fairy tales never mention that any of the oppressed should have ever tried to gather and started a “revolt against the system that has put them in this position [at the first place]“
(Killeen 27). Killeen claims that it is because their tendency “towards revolt has been educated out of them by the value system promoted everywhere” (Killeen 27). In addition, Zipes argues that Wilde was disturbed by the way society punished young people if they did not want to follow proper rules and that he did not agree with the authoritarian schooling that was typical of the Victorian society (Fairy Tales 119). This could be another reason why Wilde chose to write fairy tales – child’s mind is still opened to other opinions than the approved ones and could be formed, and fairy tales are perfect for that. In fact, fairy tales are other option of educating the children instead of the school, as it has been presented in the previous section.
To sum up, Wilde’s fairy tales try to attract the attention of the Victorians to the issues of poverty and huge social differences between the poor and the rich, because the rich were not aware of the living conditions of the poor (Childers 78-82). The fairy tales also indicate that the behaviour of the rich but also the behaviour of the poor led to unjust social structures and that the essence of the society should have changed (Aransáez 185; Zipes Fairy Tales 122).
In Zipes words, “the plots of the tales deny a happy end because property relations and social character are not altered” (Fairy Tales 123). In the fairy tales, the living conditions of poor families where all members, included children, needed to contribute to family budget stand in contrast to the living conditions of rich families where just a father usually worked, so that the issue was more emphasized. As this part has endeavoured to demonstrate, this socio- economic problem is related to materialism, and hypocrisy and selfishness that enforced economic inequality and human suffering caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich.
Ševců 48
CONCLUSION
The aim of my thesis has been to present Wilde’s social criticism on an example of the book
The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Wilde started to criticize the Victorian society for various reasons. He grew up in Ireland, therefore he was brought up outside established English society (Zipes, Fairy Tales 116). Moreover, his parents were critical of the English ruling class
(McCormack 105). At the university, Wilde came under the influence of Ruskin who drew his attention to social issues (Zipes, Fairy Tales 117). Later Wilde travelled around the world and was exposed to social conditions of England, America and Continent (Zipes, Fairy Tales 118).
Moving to London, only increased Wilde’s concern with the expansion of poverty, because obscene luxury of London’s upper class provided a huge contrast to the extreme poverty of the working class in slums that Wilde could have seen from his house in Tite Street (Killeen
25). Wilde was a member of the middle class in England, and therefore he experienced the life of those who were the targets of his criticism. Thanks to this, he could have compared the life of the upper and middle class which he experienced, and the life of the working class which he noticed. He was aware of the appalling living conditions of the working class unlike other members of the upper class and noticed the huge gap between them. This mixture of reasons brought Wilde to the social criticism.
This thesis has characterized the Victorian period and society, and the life and the personality of Oscar Wilde at first, so as to put the analysed book in the historical context for the better understanding of analysed issues. Also, many critics point out that Wilde’s life and his work is inseparable. I have pointed up that Wilde and the Victorian period were full of contradictions and that it is hard for historians as well as for biographers to grasp a true essence of both. It is probably because of the use of language which served them for transformation of reality in their favour. Gagnier adds that Wilde criticized the Victorian Ševců 49 society for he noticed that “self” was constructed through language and social institutions, such as school, marriage, family, the law etc., and therefore Wilde “waged a life-long subversion of conventional speech pattern” (20) and of Victorian values represented by those institutions (20). Moreover, Victorian values meant mainly middle-class consensus of “what was right and wrong, true and false” (McCormack 100). That is to say that the rich determined values, social structures, and relations in the society.
Then, I have pointed up that the Victorian society was beset by three social issues – materialism, hypocrisy and selfishness, the huge gap between the poor and the rich – and analysed them separately, but more closely, even though they are related. The Happy Prince and Other Tales characterizes the Victorian society as a materialistic society based on utilitarianism and rationalism that limited the vision of the world and suppressed idealism and spirituality, and the practicability became an important value, as Killeen or Zipes also point out. Consequently, the Victorians started to focus only on material well-being, and forgot about non-material wealth, such as love or art. Aransáez or Zipes came to the same conclusion that Wilde was also troubled by hypocrisy and selfishness of the upper and middle class which he ascribed mainly to them in his fairy tales. Additionally, widely accepted theory of predestination convinced the rich and the poor that success and happiness were related to material wealth. The more wealth you had, the more you were successful and blessed by God.
The poor and the rich believed then that these were natural social conditions and they were not able to see that the society was organized unfairly. Basically, the theory of predestination condemned the selfish behaviour of the rich who did not help the poor because the poor were doomed (Killeen 34). Aransáez, Killeen or McCormack argue that although the rich pretended helping the poor, they just adopted a hypocritical attitude and disguised total selfishness as altruism and philanthropy, because it allowed them to abuse the poor while they totally Ševců 50 ignored the living conditions of the poor as Wilde and many other writers noticed (Childers
78-82). That is why Wilde’s fairy tales also depict widespread poverty and child labour in order to show sharp contrast with the obscene luxury of the rich. This contrast should attract the attention of the reader in order to shock and raise the awareness of the living conditions of the working class.
This thesis, with the support of primary and secondary sources, has tried to present that
Wilde’s fairy tales in the book The Happy Prince and Other Tales criticize the Victorian society, and sometimes ridicule it for a greater emphasis, because materialism of the society, and selfish and hypocritical behaviour of the rich enforced economic inequality and human suffering caused by the huge gap between the poor and the rich.
In conclusion, I would like to add that I agree with Winterson who argues that Wilde predicted his further ending in his fairy tales, for he wrote in “De Profundis” that “[e]very single work of art is the fulfilment of a prophecy“ (qtd. in Winterson). Wilde’s destiny was quite similar to his “heroes” who as idealists end up death, because the materialistic society crashed them. For instance, the Swallow dies because of helping the Happy Prince to feed the poor, the statue of the Happy Prince is torn down, because it is no longer gold, the Nightingale sacrifices her life for a red rose that ends up in dirt, or Hans being so devoted to his selfish friend dies because of helping him instantly. Some of them are rewarded after the death, though, such as the Happy Prince, the Swallow, or the Selfish Giant. It should probably raise a hope in readers and finally in Wilde who was also rewarded in the end for his legacy still goes on. Ševců 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Works Cited
Primary source
Wilde, Oscar. The Happy Prince and Other Tales. Boston, Roberts Brothers, 1894.
Secondary sources
Appell, Felicia. Victorian Ideals: The Influence of Society’s Ideals on Victorian Relationship.
https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/issue18/appell.htm. Accessed 10
May 2019.
Aransáez, Cristina Pascual. The Importance of Being a Reader: A Revision of Oscar Wilde’s
Works. Hamburg, Anchor Academic Publishing, 2014.
Becker-Leckrone, Megan. "Oscar Wilde: Aesthetics and Criticism." Oscar Wilde: Aesthetics
and Criticism, http://www.oscholars.com/TO/Appendix/Library/megan.htm. Accessed
23 Apr. 2015.
Childers, Joseph W. “Industrial Culture and the Victorian Novel.” The Cambridge Companion
to the Victorian Novel. Cambridge, CUP, 2005, pp. 77-96.
Danson, Lawrance. “Wilde as Critic and Theorist.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde.
Cambridge, CUP, 1997, pp. 80-95.
Gagnier, Regenia. “Wilde and the Victorians.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde.
Cambridge, CUP, 1997, pp. 18-33.
Goose, Nigel, Honeyman, Katrina, editors. Childhood and Child Labour in Industrial England:
Diversity and Agency, 1750 – 1914. 2nd ed., New York-London, Routledge, 2016.
Holland, Merlin. “Biography and the Art of Lying.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde.
Cambridge, CUP, 1997, pp. 3-17.
Horyna, Břetislav, et al. Filosofický slovník. 2nd ed., Olomouc, Nakladatelství Olomouc, 1998. Ševců 52
Humphries, Jane. “Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution.” The
Economic History Review, vol. 66, no. 2, May 2013, pp. 395-418. Wiley Online Library,
doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.2012.00651.x. Accessed 10 May 2019.
Kiberd, Declan. “Oscar Wilde: The Resurgence of Lying.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar
Wilde. Cambridge, CUP, 1997, pp. 276-294.
Killeen, Jarlath. The Fairy Tales of Oscar Wilde. New York-London, Routledge, 2016.
Klímová, Blanka. Aspects of British Cultural History. Hradec Králové, Gaudeamus, 1997.
Ledger, Sally. “The New Woman and Feminist Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to the Fin
de Siècle. Cambridge, CUP, 2007, pp. 153-168.
Marshall, Gail, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Fin de Siècle. Cambridge, CUP, 2007.
McCormack, Jerusha. “Wilde’s Fiction(s).” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde.
Cambridge, CUP, 1997, pp. 96-117.
Morrill, John S., Chaney, William A., and others. “United Kingdom.” Encyclopædia Britannica,
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 21 June 2017,
https://www.britannica.com/place/United-Kingdom/Early-and-mid-Victorian-Britain.
Accessed 26 Sept. 2017.
Raby, Peter, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde. Cambridge, CUP, 1997.
---. “Wilde’s Comedies of Society.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde. Cambridge,
CUP, 1997, pp. 143-160.
Ransome, Arthur. Oscar Wilde. A Critical Study. London, Methuen, 1913.
Sanders, Andrew. The Short Oxford History of English Literature. Oxford, OUP, 1994.
Stokes, John. “Wilde the Journalist.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde. Cambridge,
CUP, 1997, pp. 69-79. Ševců 53
Turnbull, Joanna, et al., editors. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 8th
ed., Oxford, OUP, 2010.
West, Shearer. “The Visual Arts.” The Cambridge Companion to the Fin de Siècle. Cambridge,
CUP, 2007, pp. 131-152.
Winterson, Jeanette: “Why We Need Fairytales: Jeanette Winterson on Oscar Wilde.” The
Guardian, 16 Oct. 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/16/jeanette-
winterson-fairytales-oscar-wilde. Accessed 10 Jan 2019.
Yarbrough, Wynn W. Masculinity in Children's Animal Stories, 1888-1928: A Critical Study of
Anthropomorphic Tales by Wilde, Kipling, Potter, Grahame and Milne. Jefferson-North
Carolina-London, McFarland&Co., 2011.
Zipes, Jack. Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion: The Classical Genre for Children and the
Process of Civilization. 2nd ed., New York-London, Routledge, 2006.
---, editor. The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales. Oxford, OUP, 2000.
Works Consulted
David, Deirdre, editor. The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel. Cambridge, CUP,
2005.
Eaglestone, Robert. Doing English: A Guide for Literature Students. London, Routledge, 2009.
Moran, Maureen. Victorian Literature and Culture. London, Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2011.