Ilittkkit! lll

NOT TO BE TAKEN AWAY

SATIRE AND PARODY IN THE FICTION OF THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK AND THE EARLY WRITINGS OF WILLIAM MAKEPEACE THACKERAY

181-5-1850

Mary Elizabeth Rontree

A thesis submittedto The University of Gloucestershire in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School of Humanities

September2004 ST COPY

AVAILA L Abstract

This thesisexamines the works of Peacockand the early periodical contributions of Thackerayin the light of recent twentieth-centurycritical interpretationsof satire. In particular, attention to Peacock'suse of elementsof the Menippeansub-genre in his satirical fiction offers a reassessmentof his place in the literary tradition. While Thackeray'searly writings demonstratesome characteristicsof Menippeansatire, a review of his work from the broader perspectiveof BakhtiWsexposition of carnival influencesin serio-comicliterature provides a new understandingof the origins and usesof his narratorial devices. A comparisonof the work of the two authors, within the time constraint of the first half of the nineteenthcentury, illustrates how nineteenth-centurypublishing innovations shapedliterary perceptionsof satire. Although the high statusof the genre in the predominantculture of the previous century was challengedby the growth of the readingpublic, satire found new energy and modesof expressionin the popular magazinesof the period. In addition, writers facing the increasingheterogeneity of new reading audiences, forced were to reconsidertheir personalideals of authorshipand literature, while renegotiatingtheir position in the literary marketplace. Organizedin six chapters,the discussionopens with an account of traditional interpretationsof satire, and goes on to examinerecent analysesof the genre. The secondchapter focuses on the relevanceof these new interpretations to the work of Peacockand Thackerayand the extent to which the use of Menippeanforms of satire enabledeach to challengethe establishedopinions of their period. Changesin conceptsof reading and writing and innovations in modes of publication form the substanceof the third chapter and this is followed by an analysisof the work of both writers, using Bakhtin's interpretation of the Menippeansub-genre in the broader context of serio-comicdiscourse and the carnival tradition, Chapter five is a comparativestudy of the attitudes of both writers towards contemporaryliterature and the final section placestheir work in the political context of the period. Both Peacockand Thackeraymade extensive use of elementsof Menippeansatire in their fiction. The content of their work, however, and their modesof writing were highly individual, to someextent shapedby the different marketsthey supplied.Collectively, their writings illustrate two aspectsof the cultural watershedof the early nineteenthcentury, Peacockreflecting traditional notions of authorshipand Thackerayrepresenting a new industry, regulatedby the commercialconsiderations of supply and demand.As satirists,each succeededin adaptingthe genre to satisfyboth his own authorial integrity and the expectations of his readers. DECLARATION

I declarethat the work in this thesiswas carried out in accordancewith the regulationsof the University of Goucestershireand is original except where indicatedby specificreference in the text. No part of this thesishas been submitted as part of any other academicaward. The thesishas not beenpresented to any other educationinstitution in the United Kingdom or overseas.

Any views expressedin the thesisare those of the author and in no way represent those of the University.

m Signed Date: --Irl ;Z' . -ý-L ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am most grateful to the University of Gloucestershirefor making this researchproject possibleand to my supervisors,Professor Simon Dentith and ProfessorPhilip Martin, for their support and encouragement.In particular, I owe an immensedebt of gratitude to Simon,whose energy and enthusiasmare truly inspirational. I would also like to thank my neglectedfamily and friends for their forbearanceand patience. i

Introduction.

The position of satire in the literary tradition during the first half of the

nineteenth century has received little critical attention and remains unclear.

Contemporary discussion has focused on the Augustan period as the great age of

satire, an era during which writers explored the aesthetic principles and critical

precepts of classical authors, consciously accepting these as models for their own work. What they produced was openly imitative of their literary predecessors and

rigorously circumscribed by the cultural assimilation of these earlier modes of writing. Critical opinion has, until recently, suffered from similar constraints, with

the result that during the early years of the nineteenth century, satire, which ceased

to match the demanding criteria of the formal style, attracted little attention, and

the genre was assumed to be in a state of degeneration and decline.

This thesis explores the possibility that satire, at this time, was not only

still very much in evidence, but also gaining in energy and momentum, as it

survived a period of rapid cultural change. Central to this argument is a

contextual evaluation of new market forces operating within the publishing

industry. Changes in methods of publication and alterations in the constitution of

reading audiences brought up fundamental questions concerning the nature of

authorship, causing divisions within the profession itself. This process also

exposed hierarchical tensions between the predominant culture of the period and a

growing popular culture within the literary marketplace. For the first time, the

established notion of the pursuit of literature as a prerogative of the privileged

classes came under a serious challenge and experienced authors as well as

emerging writers were obliged to adapt to new artistic and commercial demands. 11

At the sametime, satire had encountereda direct challengefrom the

Romantic writers, and the form beganto break free from the constraintsof the formal satiristsof the previous century. Less familiar modesof the genre,which had remaineddormant, were stimulatedinto use. Although Menippeansatire has beenidentified in ancient classicalliterature and in someRenaissance seriocomic fiction, the sub-genrehas, until recently, receivedlittle attention. An investigation into the ways in which elementsof the mode surfacedin someforms of nineteenth-centurywriting will broadenthe focus of critical conceptionsof satire, and offer new interpretationsof work that hasbeen previously neglected.

The following chaptersexamine, in somedetail, the political context of the period and cultural changesin conceptsof publishingand readership.

However, this investigationis primarily intendedto analyse,in the light of recent twentieth-centuryliterary criticism, the methodsby which Peacockand Thackeray accommodatedsatire into their work. Referenceto recent twentieth-century discussionsof Menippeansatire, Frye (1957), Bakhtin (1984), Relihan (1993) and

Kaplan (2000), suggestsa context Peacock'ssatirical fiction and Thackeray'searly periodical work and indicatesthat elementsof the mode may have survived during the first half of the nineteenthcentury, as it acquirednew audiencesin an increasinglyheterogeneous literary marketplace.

Peacockmade use of the dialogic characteristicsof Menippeansatire as a tool of ideological enquiry, challengingthe establishedopinions of a largely intellectualreadership. Thackerayemployed carnivalesque modes of discoursein his periodical work, as he attackedcontemporary values. Finally, this analysiswill justify the application of recent criticism to nineteenth-centurywriting, and offer a iii re-appraisal of the respective positions of Peacock and Thackeray in the literary tradition. I

Chapter One: A Further Progress of Satire

Satire, as a literary genre, is resistant to any single definition. Early

European attempts at clarification were confused by uncertainties concerning the etymological origins of the word. Elizabethan commentary is largely based on the theory that the form derived from the satyr-gods of Greek drama, who employed harsh invective to rebuke fellow citizens for their follies and vices. Renaissance theory, in particular Casaubon's De SatjTica Graecorum Poesi et Romanorum

Satira (1605), refuted the 'satyr' connection and presented a broader, more comprehensive perspective of the genre. However, the acceptance of Casaubon's thesis was hampered by scholarly disputants, who defended one or another of the

Roman satirists, each distorting theories of satire to fit the style of his preferred

champion. The importance of Casaubon's contribution was taken up and

developed by Dryden, whose Discourse on the Origin anc4Progress of Satire

(1693), is recognised as the most prominent and influential work on English satire,

Griffin writes that: 'Our reigning notion of satire as a moral art and as a carefully

constructed and unified contrast between vice and virtue finds its fullest and most

influential presentation in Dryden's essay.' I

The Discourse owes its lasting prominence to two factors: in the first

instance, the status of Dryden's own work as a satirist earned him a secure place in

literary history; secondly, he pulled together the disparate factions of

seventeenth-century theory, producing a unified paradigm that could be used to

restore satire to the cultural eminence of its classical origins. Derived from the

work of Horace, Persius and Juvenal, his prescriptive criteria of thematic unity and

' D. Griffin, Satire: A Critical Reconsideration(Lexington- University Pressof Kentucky, 1994ý,p. 15. 2 epigrammaticstructure, aestheticconsiderations and moral purpose,became not only a major influence on the conventionsand forms of eighteenth-centurysatire, but also provided a significant core of the critical consensusuntil, at least, the middle of the twentieth century. It is only comparativelyrecently that Dryden's authority hasbeen seriouslychallenged. As Griffin points out, the Discourse was built on a 'selectivehistory of satire', which placedthe emphasis'on satire as a form of "artvv.f 2

Successiveattempts to categorizesatire have succeededonly in establishingprinciples applicableto specific areasof satirical writing and, for the most part, theseanalyses have been coloured by the cultural hierarchyof the era in which they were written. Critical investigationsinto satire, restricted by the dominantvalues and attitudes of a given period, haveresulted in the cursory dismissalof work that remainedoutside theseconsensual concepts of the genre.

During the last three decades,however, investigationsinto the traditions and forms of satire have resulted in a broader interpretation of satiric modes. This not only enrichesthe understandingof satiresalready acknowledged as part of the establishedcanon, but also invites considerationof a large quantity of satirical work which has so far remainedoutside critical recognition. Until comparatively recently, nineteenth-centurysatirical writing has beenevaluated according to the benchmarkof its cultural antecedentsand thesehave been limited to its classical originators and the work of Dryden and the Augustanpoets. One particular effect of this predispositiontowards a constrainedset of cultural idealshas meantthat the extent to which satire was usedby nineteenth-centurywriters has been underestimatedand the developmentof the genre has continuedto be presentedas

' Griffin, p, 17. 3

a fundamentallyfinalized form of monologic moral discourse. This circumscribed

interpretation overlooked or misunderstoodsatirical work not seenas appropriate to the establishedparadigm and has left large tracts of literature outside the

boundariesof critical attention.

A very large number of theseneglected texts can be seento have

emergedduring the first half of the nineteenthcentury, a period when it has been

generallybelieved that satire was in decline. Dyer (1997) has produced a bibliography of over sevenhundred volumes of satirical verse, publishedbetween

1789 and 1832.3A few titles are instantly familiar, like Byron's English Bards and

ScotchReviewers (1809), 7he Curse qfMinerva (1812), Waltz (1813), Beppo

(1818) and Doti Juan (1819-24). In addition, he includesthe lesswell known work of Peacock, Sir Proteus (1814), and ThomasMoore's Fudge Family in

Paris (1818). However, these,together with new translationsof the classical

satirists,are heavily outnumberedby numerousanonymous satires. A

cross-sectionof thesetitles showsa varied collection of imitative odes, parodic paraphrasesand comic quatrains,some written in the eighteenth-centurysatiric tradition for seriouscorrective purposes,while others could be more accurately describedas comic light verse, pennedfor pure entertainment. There is a marked declinein the recordednumber of thesepublications from the mid- I 820s, and

Dyer makesa casethat satirewas mellowing at this time in favour of subtler forms ' of wit. However, there are other explanationsfor this apparentdecline in satirical writing during this period. In the first instance,allowance has to be made for the 1825-6financial crisis which put most of the small publishinghouses out of

' G. Dyer, British Satire and the Politics qf So4e, 1789-1832(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997), pp. 210-250. ' Ibid., pp. 143-53. 4 business,drastically curtailing the production of new volumes, satirical or otherwise,which were unlikely to generatesales. Secondly,it is relevant at this stageto take a look at someof changesthat had alreadytaken place in the literary marketplace.

Dyer commentsthat his bibliography is limited to book publications only and there is still a lot of work to do in identifying the extent to which satiric verse and prose had begun to appearin the newspapersand magazinesof the period.' There are strong indicationsthat, evenbefore the production of volumes of satirical versebecame financially unviable, satirewas not so much in decline as in a processof migration towards other modesof publication. A new generation of writers was alreadylooking towards the periodical market, not merely as an alternativeoutlet for their work, but as a meansof communicatingthe social unrest and political dissensionthat emergedin the aftermathof the French Wars.

Radicaljournalists, working againstthe establishedpress and the oppressive legislation of Lord Liverpool's government,were discoveringthe effectivenessof both satire and parody in the causeof political provocation. They wrote, for the most part, with the specific purposeof promoting political disaffection and undermininggovernmental authority. This subversivenew style of journalism juxtaposed satire, parody and overstatedrhetoric with factual reporting and paid little attention to the establishedconstraints of news coverage. Provocative and inflammatory,the work of the radicaljournalists offered few rational solutionsto the political injustices it was designedto expose. However, for editors and writers who were faced with prosecutionfor seditiouslibel, satire was a godsend. It provided them with the meansto take a standagainst views that were resistantto

' Dyer, p. 10. 5 the establishedpolitical ideology while, at the sametime, offering them the means

of attracting new reading audiencesoutside the marginsof the establishedpress.

The radical pressof this period has alreadybeen the subjectof recent

critical attention. Klancher (1987) observesthat: 'Radical writers turned restive

artisansfrom machinewreckers into Luddites of language,savage parodists of the

dominant culture's ideological texts." Gilmartin (1997) points out that Wooler's

four-pennyweekly Black Dwarf (1817-24) parodied and distorted 'almost every

elementof a respectablenewspaper: there were mock news items, dedications,

speeches,advertisements, market prices, court and parliamentaryreports,

transcriptionsof meetingsand trials, accountsof crimes,notices of marriagesand

deathsand literary and theatrical reviews." Jones(2000) describesthe Black

Dwarf as a publication 'producedand receivedoutside the marginsof "literature"

proper', and identifies in Wooler's writing a counterpoint of satire and exaggerated

sentiment,not unlike that usedby Cobbett, which 'playedagainst one anotherfor

their incendiaryeffect., ' In addition, it hasto be pointed out here that it was not

only the politically radical papersthat employedsatire in attacks on their

opponents. Respectable newspapersand establishedmagazines, most of which

were, in reality, the organs of the leading political parties, were themselvesnot

above satirical attacks designedto provoke an argumentwith their ideological

opponents.

' J. P. Klancher, YheMaking ofEnglish Reading A udiences,1790-1832 (Wisconsin:University of WisconsinPress, 1987), p. 100. ' K. Gilmartin, Print Politics: 7he Press and Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-CenturyEngland (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996), p.94. ' S. E. Jones,Satire and Romanticism(Basingstoke: London: Macmillan, 2000), p.77. Further referencesto this sourceare given after quotations in the text. 6

Recent investigations into the relationship between satire and the early

commercial press support the argument that the genre had a substantial role to

play in the journalism of the period. Jones writes that 'popular print culture, from

prints to broadsides to newspapers, has traditionally made use of medleys and

combinations of satiric and burlesque forms'. ' Justman (1999), investigating the

tradition of free speech in the context of eighteenth and nineteenth-century journalism, writes: 'Indeed, not just the exploitation of scandal on the one hand

and the decrying of abuses on the other, but freedom of speech itself took satiric

form before being committed to the press and recognized by law, "

The migration of satire into the radical press of the post-Waterloo

period is a significant factor in the early growth of popular reading audiences.

This transition served to remove the genre from its earlier eighteenth-century

status as a canonical literary form, and to realign it as, at worst, a propaganda tool

of the post-Waterloo revolutionary subculture or, less controversially, a form of

light entertainment outside the parameters of the established culture. As a literary

genre, satire was, of course, no stranger to periodical publications, The varied

writings of Swift, Addison and Steele during the early part of the eighteenth

century, when satire still occupied an important position in the literary tradition,

testify to the popularity of the mode among the limited reading audiences of the

pre-modem periodical. The resurgence of satire in the radical press, until

repressive legislation forced much of it out of production by the early 1820s, also

attracted reading audiences, but these were increasingly numerous and

heterogeneous, now composed of sections of the population not previously

Jones,p. 78. S- Justman,7he Springs of Liberty: 7he Satiric Radition and Freedom of Speech(Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1999), p. 2. 7 consideredas a potential readership.The demandfor popular periodicals,despite somenegative connotations on account of their associationwith radical factions, becamefirmly established.A popular reading culture was now developingand the extent to which satire formed a part of this culture may be assessedfrom an early anthology ofjournal contributions. The next section examinessome examples of satirical writing that reachedpublication in the periodicalsof the early 1820s.

E4Q) CIS BQ) CI-13&,. -) 03 E4Q) 03

The SPWI qf the Public Journals.for 1824, publishedfor the Christmas market, is a compilation of extracts from over thirty periodicals,a range which includesestablished magazines and daily newspapers,together with provincial weeklies and other publicationswhich have long sincedisappeared from circulation into obscurity." Contributions from the Examiner andBlackwoods

Magazine, the Morning Chronicle and the Timesappear side by side with articles from the Newsof Literature mid Fashion and the Annals of Sporting. Thesecond volume in a seriesof annualpublications, it is a farrago of comic writing, prose and verse,fight-hearted, topical humour, satire, parody and brief extractsfrom seriousessays. The eclecticismof this collection demonstratesnot only the extent to which satire retainedits popular appeal,but also the cross-culturalappeal of

periodical publicationsduring the 1820-30period. The annualappears to have beenaimed at an affluent, educatedand literate audience,sufficiently privileged to be ableto buy books, but who were, nevertheless,browsers rather than scholars,

neither seriouslyacademic nor intellectual in their approachto literature. An

introductory addressby the editor clearly stateshis intention of 'contributing more

117he Spirit of the Public Journalsfor 1824, ed. by C. M. W. (London: Sherwood, Jones,& Co., 1825). 8 to the increaseof mirth, and the amalgamationof good fellowship, than to perpetuaterancorous feeling arising out of political controversy'.12 He also offers a glimpseof the bustle and disorder of the early nineteenth-centuryperiodical market. Extracts were reprinted, wherever possible,from their original sources, although the accuracyof the acknowledgementscould not be guaranteed,

'consideringhow the daily and weekly papersborrow from one another'."

There is a high proportion of satire and parody amongthis collection of reprints. Although the distanceof time reducesthe impact of someof the satire, someinferences are immediatelyrecognizable. An explanatoryparagraph,

presumablywritten by the editor, introducesthe first of severalspurious 'Cockney

Sonnets',originally publishedin John Bull. He commentsthat: 'The Cocknies

heretofore have devotedtheir time to sonnetizingeach other... ', and goes on to

explain that, now tired of these activities, they haveturned their attention to

celebratingthe achievementsof Robert Waithman,erstwhile liberal MP and Lord

Mayor of London, 'King of all the Cockniesfor the time being'." Regular readers

of Blackwood'swould no doubt recall the magazine'searlier designationof Leigh

Hunt in the samerole, and the periodical'sprolonged attacks on the collaborative

poetry of those who surroundedhim. "

'Sketchesat Bow Street' make mockeriesof court appearancesand the

petty criminal. Mischancein marriageproves to be a popular subjectfor satire,

appearingas the theme of a numberof short verses,and a nineteenth-century

"Spirit of the Public Journals, p. vi. "Ibid., p. vii. "Ibid., p.232. "Jeffrey N. Cox, Poetry and Politics in the CockneySchool: Keats, Shelley,Hunt and their Circle (CambridgeiCambridge University Press, 1998), p.25. 9

Hamlet muses'Marry, or not to many? That is the question --'. " Parodiesof

Shakespeareoccasionally take on a political connotation:Prospero's speech, from

Act IV SceneI of 1he Tempest,is adaptedto provide a commentaryon public spending:'The fairy halls, the lofty pinnacles,/ The spreadingwoodlands, the great purse itself, / Yes, all that it containeth, shall be spent,/ And, like the leannessof a spendthrift'swalletJ Leave not a rap behind'(296). Travel satire is popular. Mrs.

Ramsbottorn'sTour', originally printed in John Bull, presentsa comic view of the inexperienced,middle-aged traveller abroad (12-34). Another contribution from the New Monthly Magazine informs the reader:'Going abroadis now so common and so vulgar that it is almost more genteelto stay at home' (42).

Not all the work included is satirical, however, and there are a few versesof a sentimentalnature and some straightforward reports of significant events. A few authorswhose writings appearin this miscellany,had already

attainedliterary prominence;Scott contributesa'Character of Lord Byron' (365), and he is also the author of a comic verse, reprinted from the Examiner,

'Impromptu, on Witnessingthe Deceptionsof M. Alexandre,the Celebrated

Ventriloquist' (229). Someof the contributors have sinceachieved literary

recognition; there is a seriesof extracts from Hazlitt's 'Spirit of the Age' (referred

to in this publication as'Spirits of the Age') as yet anonymousand uncollected,and

randomly slippedbetween pages of contributions from writers who will forever

remainunidentified.

While it has to be allowed that the range of work collected here is

selective,satire is well representedin the public journals of 1824,and the columns

"Yhe Spirit of the Public Journals, pp.297. Further referencesto this sourceare given after quotations in the text. 10 of periodicals,with their limited spaceand strong focus on opinion, provided the ideal outlet for this kind of work. In addition, there are indicationsthat writers were beginningto adapt the genreto journalistic modesof publication and, in particular, to new kinds of readingaudiences. The satire that beganto migrate into newspapersand magazinesat this time reflecteda shift from the monologic, morally didactic mode of the genre, as it was representedduring the eighteenth century, into a form that was essentiallygeared towards light-heartedhumour and entertainment.

There is one notable exception among the miscellaneouscontributions reprinted in TheSpirit qf the Public Journals. Cobbett's'Letter to the Manchester

Gentlemenwho petitioned Parliamentto acknowledgethe Freedomand

Independenceof South America', originally publishedin the Political Register in

July 1824, appearswith an acknowledgementto Bell's Lffie in London. Cobbett attacks the arroganceand hypocrisy of industrialistswho dare to meddlein internationalaffairs before they have put their own housein order:

My Lords - Seigneursof the Twist, Sovereignsof the Spinning-Jenny, great Yeomen the Yam you the in Ireland is, yet of ... see state which you say nothing about Ireland, while you cross the equinoctial line in searchof objects of your tenderness.You must think the people of Ireland free enough,or your conduct is very inconsistent. However, there are your own poor creatures,who work in your factories, where you keep the heat at eighty-four degrees.You can look with an eye perfectly calm on the poor soulswho are toiling for you. You can seethe poor children pining away their lives in thesehells on earth; you can seethem actually gaping for breath, swallowing the hot and foul air, and sucking the deadly cotton-faz into their lungs: you can, with all the delight of greedinessgratified, behold sceneslike thesein your own country, under your own roofs; aye, and invented and put into practice by yourselves;and, at the very moment, when you are thus engaged,you are pouring forth your soulsin the cause of Spanish-American'freedom'... You must naturally have a contempt for men Who seekprofit, generoussouls! if we are to judge by your tenderness for the little What is creaturesthat swallow the cotton-fuz ... oppression? What is tyranny? [they] bring to the ... whole parishes verge of starvation. II

They compel kind and tender parentsto drive their children to live in heat of eighty-four degrees,and to swallow cotton-fuz."

This is the satire of the Radicaljoumalist, vigorous, pungent and provocatively written. Taking the form of a diatribe, Cobbett makeshis political commentusing a forceful combination of satire, sentimentand rhetoric. The mode of writing is undoubtedlycorrective in intent and Juvenalianin its harshnessof tone. The letter is a public denouncementof the condition of child labourersin the northern cotton mills, and attacks the Manchester'cotton-lords' for their hypocrisy, plainly spelling out that they should put their own businessesin order before taking issuewith internationalaffairs. Direct languageand straightforward syntax avoid the classicalallusions and explanatoryfootnotes employedby the formal satirists of the previous century, who sought to convincea scholarlyaudience of their erudition. Cobbett'ssatire is emphasizedby the use of alliteration; the 'cotton-fuz creatures'are 'poor children pining away their lives' in contrast to the 'greediness gratified'of the'Yeomen of the Yam'. He plays with the sensibilitiesof his readers,referring to 'kind and tender parents'who avoid starvationonly by forcing their children to work in such conditions. The caseagainst child labour is presentedin a sequenceof repetitions, with an emphasison crucial phrases,

'cotton-fuz' and 'eighty-four degrees',building up to two stark, rhetorical

questions:'What is Oppression?What is TyrannyT Cobbett is asking the

Manchester Gentlemen!directly, sincethey evidently fail to recognizethese

characteristicsin their own industrial practices.

The inclusion of Cobbett in this anthology gives someindication of the

difficulties confronted by an editor who tried to remain outside the field of political

17W.Cobbett, from the Political Register, 7 July 1824,repfinted from Bell's Life in London in 771eSpirit of the Public Jmirnals, pp.352-4. 12 dissension. In fact, a further perusalof the selectedmaterial revealsthat this aim was never fully achieved. From time to time, short verse satires,sometimes only a couple of quatrainsof political comment,have crept into the collection, but these are mainly mild in tone. Some,like the parody of The Tempestmentioned above, target the government'shandling of finances. 'A Political Epigram' exclaims:'The

Nation ispawnd! we shall find to our cost, / And the Minister sincehas the

(hiplicate lost. / We shall all be undoneby this politic Schemer,/ Who though

Weav'n-born" -- will not prove a Redeeme? (382). Individuals are lampooned with eighteenth-centuryvigour. George Colman, former dramatist and currently an over-enthusiasticLicenser of Plays, is targeted for 'uncalled-for qfficious hypercritical [sic] zeal and contemptibleconduct' in suppressingnew work (177).

Peel'shandling of the Irish question and the illicit drinking activities of two membersof the House also receive satirical thrusts. Although periodical writers were able to choosetheir subjectmatter from a broad canvasof contemporary humanactivity, the topical actions of governmentcould not be totally avoided-

Cobbett'sletter to the 'cotton-lords' was originally intendedfor the

Radicalpress of the period and his contentiousmood seemsto be oddly out of place in this miscellany. His obviously corrective stanceand sharptone provide a sharpcontrast to the statededitorial intentions of furnishing readerswith some light-heartedamusement. What is interesting,however, is that this piece of work had alreadybeen reprinted in Bell's Life in London and, possibly,in other publicationsas well. Cobbett styled his rhetoric to have an impact on a particular group of readers,tailoring his discourseto the expectationsof a circumscribed audienceof radical sympathisers,artisans and membersof the working classes. To presentit elsewhere,outside any specific compactforged betweenauthor and 13 reader,was to confront a facelessnew audience,whose own expectationsand perceptionsof reading were not yet clearly defined. The discourseof the periodical presswas, at this time, still at an experimentalstage, offering an inexperiencedreadership a multitude of stylesand genreswhich had yet to be culturally institutionalized. It was, however, through the compilations,collective

miscellaniesand the unqualified exchangeof material betweenpublications, that newly formed reading audiencesgained access to a diversity of material and the

concept of a popular literary culture beganto emerge.

C-1,35E40 Q53 BQ) CZ E0 CS EK)

Cultural divisions, which had begunto appearat the end of the

eighteenthcentury, becameeven more clearly definedduring the 1820s. Critics

and someauthors saw literature as a stylized art form, a scholarlypursuit which

transcendedthe babbleof the marketplaceto generatean elevatedresponse from a

receptivereading audience. Thesewriters engagedin a heightenedcultural

discoursethat stripped away the harshrealities of a common, classless,human

experience.However, in creating a form of discoursethat satisfiedthe exponents

of 'literature propee, they also succeededin alienatinglarge groups of new

readers,who regardedprinted material as a transitory commodity to be bought

and sold, read and discarded. For this sectionof the population, literature was

fundamentallyfunctional, a meansof seekinginformation or providing a few

moments'entertainment. Satire, in the previous century a mode formerly

approvedby the establishedliterary hierarchy,came to be assimilatedby the latter,

and the genrehad its prominent statusfurther diminishedby the appearanceof its

literary antithesis,in the form of what is now known as the Romantic movement. 14

The work of the early Romantic phase, with its emphasis on the subjective and personal experiences of humanity, was in direct conflict with the ironic tones and sometimes audacious realism portrayed by the eighteenth-century satirist. The contrast between the two modes of literary expression is so marked as to suggest that Romanticism may have come about as a direct reaction to the preponderance of satire during the previous century. Jones substantiates this view by arguing that 'Wordsworth's pro-pastoral stance is at bottom frequently antisatire' (43).

However, some members of the second generation of Romantic writers were fully aware of the cultural dichotomy that existed between those readers who continued to join the ranks of mass audiences and others who saw literature as the prerogative of the privileged and educated. Jones discusses tensions in Shelley's work between the satiric radicalism of some of his broadsheets and pamphlets and the 'other-worldliness! of his romantic writing, reiterating that he made a conscious effort 'to write for both a "high" d "low" readershipin pursuit of universal social ideals'(105). He cites, in particular, Oe&pus Tyrannus; or, sweltoot the I:yrant

(1820), a 'theatrical satire', as evidence that 'Shelley had been reading the work of men like Wooler and Hone, and even that he aspired to address their popular audience'(105).

The concept of the popular reading audience which existed outside the constraints of established literary hierarchy was not new. Counter- or anti-pastoral modes of writing had already been in existence during the eighteenth century and preceded the work of the first generation Romantic poets. Crabbe's

7he Village (1784) most immediately springs to mind, but before this, there were realistic representations of the rural scene that had their roots in first-hand 15 experiencesof the peasantculture. Duck, who wrote The 7hresher'sLabour

(1736), was a farm labourer; 7he Wommi'sLabour (1739) was the work of

Collier, a washerwoman. Jonesemphasizes the contrast betweenCrabbe's counter-pastoralof Peter Grimes (18 10) and the idealismof Wordsworth's Peter

Bell (1819) and goes on to cite Shelley'ssatirical Peter Bell the Ihird (1819.), which followed John Hamilton Reynolds'sparody of the sameyear, as a fundamentalpolarization of the confficting ideals of the earlier and later Romantic

schools(35-6). Thesetensions between the successivegenerations of Romantic writers later manifestedthemselves in the subversionof the work of the Lake

poets by their near contemporaries,Byron, Shelleyand Peacock,who used satire and parody to underminenot only the work of their primary targets, but also the

credibility of any reviewers and publicationsthat continuedto support them.

A smallgroup of contemporaryauthors came to seethe heightened

sensibilitiesand subjectiveidealism of Romanticismas an aestheticrather than

realistic representationof the humanpredicament. Byron. in particular, wrote his

mock-heroic romance,Beppo, (1818), and Don Juan (1819-24) in satirical

responseto this. However, it was the Romantic mode that cameto be favoured in

literary circles and which was later acceptedas the establishedcritical standard

throughout the nineteenthcentury and beyond. The popular culture at this time

had no spokesmanto promote it and define its own set of literary criteria. Largely

becauseof this, satirical writing, especiallythat which containedpolitical

comment,gradually ceasedto merit seriouscritical attention. Jonespoints out

that the later 'revisionist canonization'of Shelley,and the belatedrecognition of

the work of EbenezerElliott, suppressedthe politically questionablesatirical 16

comment in their work in favour of its Romantic elements (212-3).

03 BO 03 Bý3 03 LO 03 to

More will be said of the effects of changingmodes of publication in chapterthree, but it needsto be emphasizedhere that establishedauthors as well as new writers were operating in a very unstableclimate during the first two decadesof the nineteenthcentury. As Klancher points out, writers as far apart as

Shelley,Wordsworth and Coleridge, Crabbe,Cobbett and Wooler, the editor of the radical Black Dwaýf, were struggling to 'forge readershipsin what now appearsto havebeen a transitory world of readingand writing far removed from

the massaudiences and institutionalizeddiscourses of the modem "consciousness

industry" and its ideologies'." In addition to industrial changesin the modesof

print production and subsequentincrease in periodical publication, reading

audienceswere affected by the inevitabledemographic shifts that accompaniedthe

changefrom a predominantlyrural economyto modem industrialization.This, in

turn, servedto emphasizethe intensifying social stratification, which cameabout

as a result of urban commercialprosperity.

Cultural myths surround early rural literacy, but there is evidenceof

popular readingaudiences among the peasantcommunities that existed in the

countryside,in parallel to the 'high' culture of the eighteenthand early nineteenth

centuries. Klancher'sresearch into Wordsworth's Preface to the Lyrical Balladv

(1800) and the poet's private papers(1800-12) has identified evidenceof a

'peasant'swritten culture' in the ' "half-pennyBallads, and penny and two-penny

histories"', that peddlershawked around the countrysideduring the final decades

`]Mancher, p. 172. 17 of the eighteenthcentury. " He identifies this type of literature as springing straight from those sectionsof the population who were also intendedto be its readers,'the indigenousproduct of the peasantculture itself', rather than material which had beenproduced, for their consumption,by classoutsiders. A couple of decadesor so later, following a period of intenseagricultural depression,

Klancher posits that the 'indigenous'peasant reader of the chapbookand half-pennyballad sheetswas to be found among the urban artisanreading audiencesof the 1820sand the 1830s. A logical extensionto this argumentis that the integrity of a culture, which had previously produced reading material from within its own ranks, would not havebeen permanentlydestroyed by urban migration. As urban reading audienceswere increasedby an influx of first and

secondgeneration agricultural workers, writing gradually ceasedto be the

prerogativeof the educated,leisured classes and authorsbegan to emergefrom

among the cultural milieux from which they were themselvesdescended.

The idea that authors could emergefrom the public readershipitself

was a by-product of the increasein periodical publicationsand other cheap

methodsof printing during the 1820sand 1830s. EbenezerElliott, son of a

Rotherham.foundry worker, had a minimal early educationand beganby writing

unexceptionalpoetry in the Romantic tradition, before financial misfortunesturned

him into a passionatelifelong campaigneragainst the bread tax. Although

ultimately financially successfulin the Sheffieldiron trade, he turned to writing

satirical verse to draw attention to the poverty of the working man. Carlyle's

Etfinburgh review of Elliott's Corn Law Mtymes (183 1) is written in generous

praiseof the cheap,nine-penny pamphlet edition of the work, although he displays

"Kiancher, p. 145. 18 a patronizing tone of assumedsocial superiority. Of greater importancethan

Carlyle'scondescending approval of Elliott's work, however, is his implicit acknowledgementthat the widespreadincrease of cheapprinted material was having an impact on hierarchicalattitudes towards literature. He acknowledges that the concept of poetry, as an elevatedmode of discourse,was in declineand writes that the early nineteenth-centuryschools had burnt or smouldered themselvesout'; the'dying embers'of Romantic poetry were being'kicked to and fro under the feet of innumerablewomen and children in the Magazines'. 'What', he asks,'remains but to adjust ourselvesto circumstanceS?f20

The 'circumstances',to which Carlyle suggestedhis readersshould

adjust, were the changesin cultural standardswhich emergedas a new, open

literary marketplaceembraced an increasinglyheterogeneous authorship, as well as

wider public readership. The growing market for magazinesmay have been

perceivedas having a detrimentaleffect on the literary standardsof high culture,

but it was also providing opportunities for new groups of writers, all of whom

were struggling to get their work into print. Jonespoints out that Elliott was

'writing a poetry of 421 This towards the literature of experience . movement

experienceand satirical realismwas in direct contrast to the idealizedvision of

Romanticism. For the first time, popular demandwas in competition with the

literature of an establishedcultural hierarchy.

The transition of satire into the popular reading culture of the

magazines,during this period, subjectedthe mode to criticism, which judged a

work lessby its intrinsic merit than by the type of readingaudiences it attracted.

2'T. Carlyle, Edinburgh Review, July 1832,110, from Jones,p. 213. 2'Jones,p. 214. 19

Earlier associationsof the genre with the radical pressand the underminingof its impact, as writers beganto adapt satire as a mediumfor light, comic entertainment,reduced its former statusas seriousliterature. Critics, unableto break free from Dryden's prescriptive criteria, relics of an age when literature had beenviewed as a private transactionbetween author and reader,became alarmed by the associationof satire with political comment,and dismissiveof the genre's new appealto a massreadership. Prejudicial misapprehensionsarose at this time which were to inhibit subsequentanalyses of satirical work until the latter decades of the twentieth century, when new researchinto investigativemodes of the genre openedup a wider arenaof debate.

It was at this time that one of the most damagingof these nineteenth-centuryprejudices came about. Both writers and critics beganto use sarcasmas a synonymfor satire. Sarcasmis a form of wit which servesa profoundly limited and negativefunction in humandiscourse. Like satire, it can employ wit to ridicule and wound its target and it may provoke disgust, or even raise a smile, but there it ends,always reductive, offering no alternativeviewpoint in place of that which it has destroyed. In contrast to this, whether written in the

spirit of correction, or in a more relaxed,comic mode, the ridicule of satire serves to enlightenthe readerto the possibilitiesof new ways of thinking. Sarcasm,on

the other hand, can rarely be seenas productive in outcome. Peacock,writing

Melincourt (1817), when the gradualtransition of satire into the popular presshad

barely begun, had no problemswith this differentiation. Mr. Sarcastic,

parliamentarycandidate for the Borough of Onevote,having convincedhimself of

the'inefficacy of moral theory with respectto producing a practical changein the

massof mankine, appreciatesthe need for reform, but seeslittle point in 20

22 attemptingto bring this about. Ms customarycourse of action is, therefore, to reflect back to his interlocutors their erroneouspractices, exactly as he perceives them, without any expectationof changeand with no intention other than that of satisfyinghis own amusementand self-interest. Peacockuses Mr. Sarcastic's one-sided,negative attack on the perpetratorsof corruption as a contrast to

Forester'smore optimistic viewpoint that: 'If the philosophercannot reform his own times, he may lay the foundationsof amendmentin those that follow. 2'

Other writers appearto have beenless clear about this distinction. The substitutionof 'sarcasm'for 'satire' appearsin Carlyle'sreview of Elliott, chiding the poet when his radical passionovercomes his senseof social place: 'In his vituperative Notes, he seemsembarrassed; and all but hides his embarrassment, under an air of predeterminedsarcasm; of knowing briskness,almost of vulgar pertness'.' The accusationof sarcasmwas one sometimesthrown at Thackeray by his contemporaries.An anonymousreviewer of his Comic Talesand Sketches

(184 1), writing for the Atlas, says:'The author is a humorist, but, unhappily, his humour lies on the ill-natured side of things and he can hardly ever say a funny thing without blending it with a sarcasm'which 'changesthe sparkling relish to a bitter flavour'.25 Writing on Vanity Fair in the Examiner (1848), Forster was to complainthat the book sufferedfrom a 'taunting, cynical, sarcastictone that too much pervadesthe work'. " Thackerayunderstood the distinction clearly enough, but it was not easyfor him to come to terms with it. Demonstratingclearly the

"The Novels of ThomasLove Peacock,ed. by D. Garnett (London: Hart-Davis, 1948), p. 224. 21 Ibid., p.226. 'Carlyle, Edinburgh Review, from Jones,p. 216. "G. Tillotson and D. Hawes, eds., Aackeray: 7he Critical Heritage (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968), p. 18. 'J. Forster, Examiner, 22 July 1848, from Tillotson and Hawes, p. 57. 21

inner struggle he faced over his literary ideals and the reality of commercial authorship, he wrote to FitzGerald in 1836: '1 am sorry to say that I like this newspaper work very much, it is a continual excitement, and I fancy I do it very

that is though literature, sarcasm well, very sarcastically ... as we agreed about does no good either to reader or writer'; its use could be likened to 'quitting a beautiful, innocent wife (like Mrs. T. for instance) to take up with a tawdry brazen

Whore!. 2'

A critical tendencyto emphasizethe negativerather than the positive attributes of satire marked a growing hostility towards a genre which had become commonplacein the popular culture and, in so doing, had acquired somethingof a roguish reputation. However, somesatirists, writing in both the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies, have madeclear their intentionsto avoid negativity and scurrility in their attacks. A reflection on the differencein tone betweenthe work of Swift and Addison, for example,will reveal how a satirist may attack his targets with virulence, or the mildest remonstrance,depending on his intentions. Addison set out a policy of impartiality for the Speclator, which aimed to exposevice or folly, but in the 'spirit of benevolence'and without shamingany one individual."

As Griffin points out, Pope acknowledgedthe contrastingview that his pen could be capableof harm: '0 sacredweapon! left for Truth's defence) Sole Dread of

Folly, Vice and Insolence! "' Byron's attitude to personalcensure was more ambivalent. He writes, in the Prefaceto English Bardv and ScotchReviewers : 'I can safely say that I have attacked none personaJly,who did not commenceon the

27G.N. Ray, Ed., 7heLetters of William Makepeace7backeray, Vol. 1, 1817-1840(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1946), pp.322-3. 28 Justman,p. 38. 29Griffin,P. 27. 22 offensive',but in the poem itself, the tone is milder." He exhorts the readerto

Laugh when I laugh, I seekno other fame;/ The cry is up, and scribblersare my game."' Peacock'sPalmyra, one of his earliestpoems, published in 1806, opens with a messageto this effect, a'Cento', 'To The Reviewers',written in

Shakespearian style, which he hopes will exonerate him from any negative intent.

He addresses his audience directly, asking that, despite the apparent acerbity of some of the work, he hopes that they will see how 'my good intent/ May carry through itself. no levell'd malice/ Irdects one comma in the course I hold. 132 In the 1856 preface to Melincourt, he states categorically that, although he

'shadowed' the opinions and public characters in the book, he 'never trespassed on private life'. 33

However, the reputation of satire continuedto suffer throughout the first half of the nineteenthcentury, in someways a victim of its popular success.

Later, there is evidencethat satire was being groomed to suit the sensibilitiesof middle-classreaders. In 1854, Thackeraywrote a highly ironic contribution to the

Quarterly Review,which effectively summarizesthe progressof satire during this period. Reviewing the work of one of his contemporaries,illustrator and caricaturistJohn Leech, he says:We cannot afford to lose Satyr with his pipe and dancesand gambols. But we have washed,combed, clothed and taught the rogue good manners." In the samearticle, he singlesout Mr. Punch himself, now a

"Lord Byron, SelectedPoems, ed. by S. J. Wolfson and P. L. Manning (Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1996), p.6. "Wolfson and Manning, eds., p.9. " 7he Worksof ThomasLove Peacock,ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith and C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition Vol. 6, (New York: AMS Press,1967), pA. "Garnett, ed., p. 102. 'The Worksqf William MakepeaceThackeray, Biographical Edition, Vol. 13 (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1899), p.484. 23

'portly, well-dressed,middle-aged, respectable gentleman, in a white neckcloth and a polite eveningcostume, but the readeris reminded:'Time wag if we remember

Mr. P's history rightly, that he did not wear silk stockingsnor well-made clothes.

He was of humblebeginnings. "' It becomesclear that Punch himself 'is the

Satyric geniuswe spoke of anon; he cracks his jokes still for satire must live; but he is combed,washed, neatly clothed, and perfectly presentable."' The review endson an ambivalentnote; Thackerayconcludes with a rhetorical questionwhich addressesboth the position of satire in literature by the middle of the century, as well as a possibleoutcome should it becomeabsent altogether: 'Can we havetoo much of truth, and fun, and beauty, and kindness?"'

More positively, the n-dgrationof the genre from'literature propee to the commercialpress resulted in a relaxation of the formal conventionsand constraintswhich had previously defined its usageas an artistically conceived mode of moral discourse. Satire, in the periodicals,particularly as it beganto invade short, prose fictions, was now free to developthose variant strainswhich haveultimately come to provide a much more comprehensivedemonstration of its functions.

Prose satires,particularly when novelistic in structure, have, until very recently,been subjectedto confusedanalyses. PeacocWs work, in particular, has presentedproblems to both contemporaryreviewers and twentieth-centurycritics, who have erroneouslyseen his books as novels. An anonymousreviewer of

Nightmare Abbey, writing in the Literary Gazettein 1818, recognizedthe problem more accuratelythan somelater commentators: 'It would be difficult to say what

"Biographical Edition, pp.485-6. 'Ibid., p.486. 37 Ibid., p.490. 24 his [Peacock's]books are, for they are neither romances,novels, tales, nor treatises,but a mixture of thesecombined. '31 This review missesone vital ingredientfrom the 'mixture': satire is not mentioned,and Peacock'sbooks are, whatever other trace elementsthey may possess,unequivocally prose satires.

Rarely commentingon his own work, he refers to only one of his own books as a

Novel', a work which, calculatedfrom the date of this letter to Shelley,was destinedto be publishedas MaidMarian. ll Subsequently,when he was actually engagedin writing the book, he referred to it as'a comic Romance'.' In the 1837

Prefaceto the Bentley's'Standard Novels' edition of Headlong Hall, Nightmare

Abbey,MaidMarjan and Crotchet Castle, he refers to'these little publicatione."

The 1856 prefaceto Melincourt speaksof a 'story'. ' The categorizationof

'novel' as a generic description of his work has come from the handsof critics, editors and publishers,rather than from the author himself, and chaptertwo will discusssome of the misunderstandingsthat this misapprehensionhas imposedon interpretationsof his work.

The existenceof satire, in any literary form other than verse, is a notion that critics havebeen reluctant to discuss,until comparativelyrecently. Much of this difficulty may be attributed to the prescriptive criteria for formal verse satire, which still lingered on into the early yearsof the nineteenthcentury and effectively ossifiednew interpretationsof the genre. Even as alternativeconcepts of satire beganto multiply during the twentieth century, its releasefrom former hierarchical critical constraintswas slow to take effect. The situation was further complicated,

"Dyer, p.94. 39HaffifordEdition, Vol. 8, p.202. 'Ibid., p. 209. 41C _TMett, ed., p.XXi. 'Ibid., p. 102. 25 in the nineteenthcentury, by the growth of the novel and, during the latter half of the period, the absorptionof Romantic themesinto this particular form of prose

fiction. Hodgart, writing in 1969, adheresto the traditional interpretation of satire

when he writes that: 'The demandsof the novel, realism, symbolismand meaning

are not consistentwith the demandsof satire, Satire needsa tightly closed form to

its full length is likely to be satirical make point effectively ... no novel

throughout.'41 Satire, in the novel, may appearas a boost to one of its themes,or

becomeevident within the dialogue of the characters. There are, however, prose

modesof the genre, novelistic in style, that have existedin parallel to verse forms

from the classicalera and which have, only recently, becomethe focus of critical

attention. The next section attemptsto consolidateand extend various late

twentieth-centuryexaminations of theseforms of the genre as they have appeared,

outside the novel, yet in novelistic forms, in seriocomicprose writing.

CIS B") 019 B* (I e.) CIS En)

The New Critical theories of satire, which dominatedYale during the

1950sand early '60s, helpedto restorethe genre to critical attention after a long

period of nineteenth-centuryhostility. However, thesetended to separatea

literary work, as a work of art, from the context in which it was written, 'from the

author who produced it, the world out of which it grew, and the audienceto which

it was directed',thereby focusing on the existing conventionsof the genre,while

reducing any senseof its potential energy.44 Further critical researchthroughout

the 1960sand '70s acted in the sameway, acknowledgingsatire as a literary genre,

but doing so by the application of predeterminedparadigms, in particular those of

'Matthew Hodgart, Satire (London: Weidenfeldand Nicholson, 1969), p. 214. 'Griffin, p.29. 26 an artistically contrived, bipolar moral structure which, at the sametime, restricted any understandingof the full breadth and depth of the functions of the genre.

Referencehas alreadybeen made to Dryden'sDiscourse and his broad categorizationsof satire, identifying the Horatian and Juvenalianstrands by the namesof the classicalauthors in whose work they are most apparent. Thesetwo modelsattracted innovative writers as well as imitators during the eighteenth century and beyond; and,just as prescriptive authorial conventionscame to govern the forms that various modesof satire were to take, theserigid categorizations haveinhibited critical investigations. Dyer, with referenceto satirical verse publicationsduring the 1789-1830period, hasinterpreted these modes politically and asserts:'In generalterms, satire in its Juvenalianforms was dominatedby conservativeideology, whereasin its more Horatian forms it tended toward a benign, noncommittaltolerance that, nevertheless,made it effectively as conservativeas texts like Mathias's [7he Pursuits of Literature 1794,1797y

Although the model employedmay be seento bear a relationshipto the ideologies of the individual writer, ultimately the impact and relevanceof the two stylesis lessened,as eachemerges merely as a different mode of expressingfundamentally similar points of view. More recently, new appraisalsof classicalas well as

Europeanliterature have drawn attention to a tradition of satirical writing that has appearedin both verse and prose forms and which has,in turn, contributed to a new understandingof the diversefunctions that satire may perform.

In addition to the strandsof satire that cameto be identified with

Horace and Juvenal,Dryden also writes of Varroniad satire, a strain of the genre namedafter Varro, Caesar'slibrarian, with origins that may be traced back some

'Dyer, pp.40-1. 27 three hundredcenturies B. C. to the lost writings of Menippus of Gadara.

Subsequentreferences to the salient characteristicsof the works of Menippus were reflected in the writings of Varro and Lucian, but it is interesting to note that,

although Dryden distinguishedVarronian or Menippeansatire as a separate

sub-genreof satirical writing, he afforded it little considerationbeyond citing a few

examples,which include selectionsfrom the works of Lucian, Apuleius, Erasmus

and his own Absalom andAchitophel (1681-2) andMacFlecknoe (1682). Itwas

the Horatian and Juvenalianmodes of the genrewhich occupied his attention, and

theseinterpretations, variously recycled,were to monopolize literary

commentarieson satire throughout the eighteenth,nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. During the last half-century, however, critical discussionhas focusedon

the Menippeansub-genre, opening up the possibility of new interpretationsof

existing texts and a reappraisalof the mode itself

Frye (1957) identifies three traditions of prose fiction, the novel, the

romanceand the confession,and exploresMenippean satire as a meansof

categorizinga fourth fictional form, which manifestsitself as a seriocomic

medium,with a literary ancestrytraceable from Erasmus,Lucian and Varro to

Swift, Voltaire and Rabelais. Frye definesMenippean satire by its

counter-novelisticcharacteristics and its lack of naturalism,which distinguishit

from other forms of social satire that havebeen more readily assimilatedinto the

novel:

The Menippeansatire dealsless with people as such as with mental attitudes. Pedants,bigots, cranks, parvenus,virtuosi, enthusiasts,rapacious and incompetentprofessional men of all kinds, are handledin terms of their approachto life as distinct from their social behaviour. The Menippean satire thus resemblesthe confessionin its ability to handleabstract ideas and theories,and differs from the novel in its characterization,which is stylized rather than naturalistic, and presentspeople as the mouthpiecesof the ideas 28

they The folly diseases,but the represent... novelist seesevil and as social Menippeansatirist seesthem as diseasesof the intellect, as a kind of maddenedpedantry which the philosophus gloriosus at once symbolizesand defines.'

According to Frye, therefore, the Menippeansatirist's targets are abstractand intellectual. He ridicules ideologiesand philosophiesthemselves, not the customs

or behaviourof the individual. The Menippeansatirist is not interestedin social phenomenaor human relationships. His fictional charactersare createdto

representthe ideasthey propound, so that he is not obliged to place them in a naturalistic context, or within the action of a plot. Such a writer does not expect

his readerto be carried along on a streamof suspenseor mystery. Instead, he

'showshis exuberancein intellectual ways by piling up an enormousmass of

erudition about his theme,or in overwhelminghis pedantictargets with an

avalancheof their own jargon'. ' Frye identifies Burton's Anatomy ofMelancholy

as a remarkableexample of English Menippeansatire and adoptsthe word

'anatomy'as usedby Burton, in the senseof 'dissection'or'analysis', as a more

convenientterm. The counter-novelisticcharacteristics of the genre emphasizethe

intellectual focus of the writing, abstractideas and theorieswhich, although they

may be representedby fictional people, bear little resemblanceto any normal

experienceof humaninteraction.

Bakhtin provides an analysisof Menippeansatire with a broader

application. In commonwith Frye, he seesthe subgenreas being concernedwith

philosophicalor topical intellectual opinion and recognizesthat the mode has a

kind of built-in affinity with contemporarycultural issuesin the public sphere:

'Northrop Frye, An Anatomy of Criticism: Four EssaYs (New York: Atheneum, 1957), p.309. 'Ibid., P.31 I. 29

'This is, in its own way, the "journalistic" genre of antiquity, acutely echoingthe ideological issuesof the day." He emphasizes,in particular, the Menippean satirist'suse of plot, and the narratorial role as an ingenuousnarrator facing a convoluted action and counteractionof impossiblesituations. Sometimes overtakenby dreamsor insanity,possibilities of another life are revealedto him.

Philosophicaldialogue and establishedopinion arejuxtaposed with vulgar realism and inappropriatediscourse. The freedom of plot allows the narrator to test the validity of commonplaceopinion by presentingit in unexpectedsituations. Prose is interspersedwith verse, and other literary genresare absorbedin an illogical confusionof parody and allusion: Ve emphasizethat the fantastic here servesnot for the positive embodimentof truth, but as a mode of searchingafter truth, provoking it, and, most important, testing it. ' Bakhtids'menippea'isan organic and heterogeneoushybrid, with a carnivalesquepropensity to overturn other literary genresand subvert seriousattempts to establishultimate truths. In the

Bakhtinian sense,Menippean satire hasmuch in commonwith the etymological

Latin root of the word, satura,

Livy definessawra, in theatrical terms, as saturae, or performancesof a burlesquenature, incorporating songswritten to the accompanimentof a pipe:

Varro, on whose work Livy's accountis based,supplies the additional information that saturae, in a theatrical sense,were impletae modfs, or'full of tunes'.

According to Rudd (197-3,1997),per saturam cameto meanby a medley',or, more literally 'confusingly';the term later acquiredpolitical and legal

'Mikhail Bakhtin, Problems ofDostoesvsAylsPoetics, trans. by Caryl Emerson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1984), p. 118. 'Ibid., p. 114. 30 connotations.'O Griffin also exploresthe term as it was formerly usedin worship, the lanx satura, a dish of first fruits offered to the gods, 'a "mixed" or "full" platter', which suggeststhat 'satire is a formlessmiscellany and food for thought'." A more literal senseof the word comesfrom the Latin verb, saturare, which translatesas 'to fill, glut or satisfy' and, interestingly,'to disgust'.

A common strand,which runs through thesevaried interpretations,is a senseof miscellaneousliterary genreswhich serveto confusethe reader;

Menippeansatire appearsto be a medley of themesand styles,open to a diverse interpretations. Furthermore,the sub-genreshows a closer relationshipto the notion of satura, than either the Horatian or Juvenalianmodes. It is dialogic as opposedto monologic, in that it exploresa diversity of topics and opinions, the form itself echoesits own modusoperandi, which is to resist dogmatic definition.

Bakhtin extendsthe understandingof the role of Menippeansatire, as elementsof

the mode emergedin nineteenth-centuryprose, by identifying a relationship betweenthe sub-genreand the carnivalesquetraditions of seriocomicdiscourse:

Carnivalizationeven penetrates the deepestphilosophical and dialogic core of the menippea. Characteristicfor the genre,as we have seen.,is the naked posing of ultimate questionson life and death, a universalismof the most extremesort (personalproblems and elaboratephilosophical argumentation are unknown to it). Carnivalistic thought also lives in the realm of ultimate questions,but it gives them no abstractlyphilosophical or religiously dogmatic resolution; it playsthem out in the concretely sensuousform of carnivalisticacts and images._52

This is an exploration of imagesof medievalcarnival, as they have appearedas

recurrent motifs in seriocomicliterature. Bakhtin depicts carnival in concrete

terms, a finite period of time during which the social divisions and the rituals of the

"Horace, Satires and Epistles, ed. by D. Rudd (London: Penguin, 1973,1977), P.10. "Griffin, p.6. "Bakhtin, Problems ofDostoevskys Poetics, p. 134. 31 official world of the Nfiddle Ages, constructedout of the laws of feudalismand ecclesiasticaldogma, were parodied, subvertedand renewed. He then transfers this imageto forms of seriocomicliterature, which mock the humanpreoccupation with seekingphilosophical or religious resolutionsto unanswerable,universal questions. Carnival literature generatesmirth and liberatesthe reader from hierarchical,authoritarian ideologies; it can reducethe exalted while elevatingthe humble;it exploresquestions, but provides no 'dogmatic resolution'. The laughter it provokes is ambivalentand full of contradictions. 'it is gay, triumphant, and at the sametime mocking, deriding. It assertsand denies,buries and revives'." This ambivalencetowards dogmatic resolution is the key to the relationshipbetween carnivalesqueliterature and Menippeansatire, as outlined above,and is particularly relevant to investigationsinto nineteenth-centurysatire. Recent critical appraisalsof Menippeansatire, while acknowledgingBakhtin's contribution, distinguishthe genre from the context of carnivalesquewriting by its topicality.

Menippeansatire is immediate,its relevancebound by temporal constraints, whereasthe carnival and its 'realm of ultimate questions'exist outside time and secularauthority. The two strands,however, havea clear point of intersection.

They in their 'dogmatic converge opposition to resolution'.

It is not difficult to seeparallels between Bakhtin's depiction of carnival and the periodical market-placeof the early nineteenthcentury. Always a vehicle of opinion rather than systematicscholarship, the newspapersand magazines openedup readingaudiences to include an increasinglydiverse cross-sectionof the generalpublic. Like the carnival crowds of folklore, thesereaders could dispute,

"M. Bakhtin, Rabelais atul his World, Trans. by H. Iswolsky, First Midland Book Edition (Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1984), 1-12. pp-I 32 deride, humiliate, or accept establishedauthority. Throughout the pagesof the periodicals,satire, in a variety of modes,was to becomean essentialdiscourse in a new pluralist culture that was developing outside the previously established hierarchiesof the privileged and intellectual classes.

Bakhtin's frequently cited fist of fourteen characteristicscommon to

Menippeansatire have proved helpful in drawing critical attention to the mode.

However, there hasbeen a tendencyto use this formulation as a definitive paradigmin order to provide, as Frye suggestedearlier, a convenientlabel for works of fiction, like those of Peacock,which have previously proved difficult to categorize. Refthan(1993) arguesagainst a too prescriptive use of the mode in isolation from the main body of the genre, cautioning that the terms 'anatomy'and the'menippea',have dropped 'satire', thus avoiding'the glib associationsof social criticism that the word normally entails', and narrowing their relevance.' During the last decade,however, new researchhas exploredfunctions of Menippeansatire basedon the dialogic nature of the mode, in contrast to earlier monologic and morally didactic interpretationsof the genre, which presupposeda superior understandingon the part of the author.

Relihan,writing from a classicist'sperspective, examines Menippean satire as a distinct sub-genreand producesan historicized account,which returns to the ancienttexts of its origin for clarification. He questionsthe validity of its applicationto modem literature, challengingFrye's inferencethat it could be used to 'categorizeforms of prose fiction which are not essentiallynovelistic'. "

Referring to the work of both Frye and Bakhtin, Relihan points out that the term

'Joel C. Relihan,Ancient Menippean Satire, (Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press, 1993), p. 8. "Ibid., P.3. 33

Menippean satire'was not used during the classicalperiod, but emergedduring the sixteenthcentury. He views Frye's 'anatomy'as misleadingin that the elements it catalogues-- dialogue, stylized characters,fantasy and the satire of ideas -- can be too loosely applied to many seriocomicforms of literature. He also indicates that someof thesefeatures, either in isolation or in certain combinations,can be accuratelyapplied to other related genres. While accepting,in principle, Bakhtin's analysisof the fundamentalelements of Menippeansatire, Relihan arguesthat

Bakhtin 'castshis net very wide' and offers an epochalexplanation of the form, as an antithesisto the traditions of tragedy and epic.,without sufficient evidencefor such a unified view of the genre." In presentingMenippean satire as a critical theory relevant to the study of modem literature, Relihan posits that Bakhtin has deprivedthe ancienttexts of their history. His own approachto a definition of

Menippeansatire is to restrict his analysisto texts of the late classicaland early

Christian era. Within this period, he further separatesthe form from the traditions of classicalverse satirewith which it hasbecome intermingled, and augmentsthe interpretationsof Frye and Bakhtin by identifying within Menippeansatire a self-parodicstrain of writing, which not only debunksphilosophical thought, but also burlesquesthe literary forms it embodies:

We shall seethat we have to deal with an intellectualjoke. which in its origins is not concernedwith finding new ways to truth but only in making fun of those who would claim to have found it, or who would try to preach it. Mennipus is a mocker, and those who follow in his stepsmock themselvesand their own works: the creation of a work of literature is itself a violation of the cardinal principle that there can be no authoritative point of view about anything important. 57

'Relihan, p. 6. "Ibid., p. 17. 34

Relihan also emphasisesthe self-parodicnature of the form by further seekingto define satura in its relationshipto Menippeansatire. Using, as an example,

Capella'sDe Nuptfis Philologiae el Mercurfi, which introducesan allegorical

Saturainto the work itself, Relihan usessatura in a stylistic senseas a medley of prose, verse and parody. He points out, however, that in De Nupffis, this understandingof satura does not relate solely to the form of writing alone, but also to the content of the work. The subjectmatter, too, containsa confusion of paradoxesand contradictionsthat defy coherentmeaning denying any possibility of a text which can enlighten or instruct. De NtVffis is an extremeexample of a

Menippeansatirist's self-mockery.

The self-mocking characteristicsof Menippeanwriting are emphasized as Relihandevelops Frye's observationof the frequentjuxtapositioning of prose and verse:

The author, who usually begsto be identified with his narrator, makesfun of his own standardsof literary taste, by writing in this bizarre fashion. impropriety of form is closely linked to the inadequacyof preachingand of truth, for speakingin verse is itself a parody of the conventionsof rational and civilized discourse."

Theinsertion of verseextracts into prosecan serve a numberof purposesin a novel:it canvary the paceof the narrative,or involvethe reader'semotions directlywith thoseof the characters;poetry can be usedto illustrateor enhance the atmosphereof an epicor tragedy,by directquotation or reference.In

Menippeansatire, however, the useof versefor illustrativepurposes or aspart of the dialogueis almostinvariably parodic. Relihanargues that this motif createsa

idiosyncraticsense of improprietywithin the literaryform itself, castingdoubt not

only on the substanceof the theme,but alsoon the veracityof a narratorwho

"Relihan, p. 18. 35 pervertsthe style of rational argument. Thesereflexive attributes of Menippean satire are distinctive, in that the satirist mocks the presuppositionsof traditional satire. The satirist usually has no intention of leading his audiencetowards some ideological truth, and writes in such a way that he underminesand calls into questionthe whole validity of his own narrative. Menippeansatire, according to

Relihan,is'primarily a parody of philosophicalthought and forms of writing, a parody of the habits of civilized discoursein general,and it ultimately turns into a parody of the author who has dared to write in such an unorthodox way."' The

Menippeansatirist, 'militant in his denial of authority', deliberatelysets out to provoke and frustrate the readerwho, if in pursuit of truth, expectsthe reassuranceof resolution.'

Kaplan (2000) adds a further dimensionto the debateby establishing parallelsbetween the literary context of Menippeansatire and those of other disciplines,in particular philosophy, theology and science. Using the later work of

Wittgensteinas a starting-point, Kaplan identifies similaritiesbetween his techniquesof descriptiveanalysis and the self-referentialproperties of Menippean satire as it enquiresinto itselý as well as exposingthe conceptualconfusion, and the inadequateunderstanding, which surround mythologizedcultural issues. From an exploration of theological and scientific methodsof enquiry which, in their various forms, both resembleand contrast with Kaplads interpretation of

Menippeansatire, he goes on to make a casefor distinguishingthe mode, not by its previous function as a literary genre, but as a challengeto any dogmatic critical

"Relihan, p. 10. 'Ibid., P.17. 36 theory, an analyticalform of literary exposition which operates,within its own framework, as a constantlydilating, self-corrective monitor of debate.

Kaplan!s interpretation of the mode in the light of Wittgenstein's theorieswidens Relihan'sview that Menippeansatire follows 'the cardinal principle that there can be no authoritative point of view about anythingimportant'. "

According to Wittgenstein, philosophy, as an intellectual discipline, cannot stand

in its own right. Rather than a theoretical searchfor an ultimate truth, scientific,

theological, cultural or any problem of philosophicaldebate, it should be used as

the meansof assessingthe senseof methodsof theorizing used in other specific

areasof enquiry, a tool to modify or affirm the interpretation and significanceof

empirical evidence. Kaplan explains:'Wittgenstein arguedthat philosophymust

seekan analyticaldissolution of conceptualconfasion; therefore, true philosophy

must becomean activity of contextual identification and linguistic clarification.

This is the activity of synoptic analysis."'

The link betweenMenippean satire, as it monitors contemporary

themesdisplayed in a literary context, and synoptic analysis,as a tool of

philosophicalenquiry, now becomesclearer, Kaplan analysizesthe function of the

genre as investigative.rather than parodic, as it exploresmodes of philosophical

enquiry. Conceptualconfusions, which have arisenas a consequenceof illusionary

reasoningor the impreciseinterpretation of evidenceand meaning,can be more

accuratelyand systematicallyrepresented. Furthermore,Menippean satire, as it

attacks its externaltargets and focuseson an exploration of all possiblepoints of

view, containswithin itself the monitoring device of self-mockery. Dogmatic

11Relihan, P. 17. "C. Kaplan, Critical Synoptics:Menippean Satire and the Analysis of Intellectual Mythology (London: AssociatedUniversity Presses,2000), p. 30. 37

opinion runs too great a risk of adding to conceptualconfusion and mythologized

'truths'.,like the apophatictheologists, the Menippeansatirist definesmeaning by

pointing out what his topic or theme cannot possibly mean, His discourseis

markedby ambivalence,the juxtaposition of seeminglyincompatible differences

which he does not seekto reconcile. He hides behind his own synoptic analysesto

mock those who believe that they have found definitive answers,he is obliged to

pre-empt any tendencythat he may have to fall into the sametrap, by holding his

own methodsin question. Whereasa follower of Wittgenstein may conduct a

seriousanalytical enquiry into a commonplaceviewpoint, seekingto exposethe

intellectual flaws of the argumentin order to clarify its significance,the Menippean

satirist, in his medium of seriocomicfictioný will point out the ludicrous and the

absurd,the ridiculous and the impossible,leaving the readerto reconstruct, if he is

able.,a semblanceof meaningout of the resultant chaos.

Kaplan also establishesa connectionbetween Menippean satire and a

mode of analysismore commonly found in the context of theological discourse:

Falsetheology is poetic and mythological. What then is true theology? From a Menippeanperspective, the exerciseof pointing out the errors in poetry makesup a large part of theology. This is to say that an important is part of theology teachingus what theology is not. Much of what we know about 'God' is by understandingwhat we know 'God' not to be. This negativetheology is conventionally styled 'apophatictheology, ' or theology by negation.'

is difficult how It to see Menippeansatire, an essentiallycomic form of writing,

can be closely linked to theological theory. However, the connectionthat Kaplan

implies can be more clearly seenthrough the processmethodologies of the two

modes. Apophatic theology views languageas an inadequatemeans of expressing divine concepts,and approachesthe truth of a conceptby a processof quietly

"Kaplan, p. 3 1. 38 eliminatingwhat is obviously untrue. So far, there is a connectionwith Menippean

satire. In the sensethat Kaplan employsit here, Menippeansatire can be seenas a test of 'truth, which demonstrateswhat the 'trutw is not, thereby making room for

what it possibly could be: that which cannot be exposedas erroneous. This is a

reflection of the way that Peacockused the mode, as a processof intellectual

investigation. On the other hand, however, Thackeray,sought to uncover the

'truth' by the paradoxicalmethod of practising a seriesof complex deceptions.The

reality he presentsis displayedthrough the distorted perceptionsof a seriesof

untrustworthy narrators, so obviously fictive that readershave to sift beneath

layersof exaggeration,in order to discover what the author really intendsthem to

understand.

(M EO C6 to Cla E41%) C1 EPI)

Recentcritical theories Of satire have been emphasizedhere becauseof

their specific relevanceto the work of Peacockand Thackeray. For a long period

extendingfrom the early decadesof the nineteenthcentury until the 1950sand

'60s, discussionsof satire lay dormant, locked in traditional notions of the genre as

a corrective and didactic monologic discourse.' Those satiristswho adopteda

dialogic form of discourseand failed to instruct their readersto a clearly defined

point of view, were seenas inadequateexponents of their art, even potentially

dangerous,existing beyondthe pale of seriousliterary criticism. Peacock,still

performing within the eighteenth-centuryideal of authorial autonomy,produced

prose steepedin classicalallusions and erudition. He did not, however, conform

to conventionalmodels of satire, and although he earnedthe respectof his

contemporaries,he was sometimesmisunderstood. Thackeray,whose early work

'See above,p. 24. 39 was moderatelysuccessful in the popular magazineculture of the period, failed to attract any real degreeof critical attention until after the publication of Vanity

Fair. Both writers sufferedfrom the misapprehensionsof a critical hierarchy which, at the time, could find no literary precedentto their work. However, since

Frye and Bakhtin have drawn attention to the traditions of Menippeansatire, and this work has beenfurther developed,new interpretationsof their writings have becomepossible,

Particularly relevant to the work of Peacockand Thackerayis the idea

that, while the Menippeansatirist may deride the folly and fallaciesof the world as

he finds it, he does so without any presumptionof resolving conflict produced in

the reader. Menippeansatire will be shown to provide a defenceagainst recurrent

critical accusationsthat Peacockand Thackeraylacked consistentmeaning and

moral purposein their writing. Butler (1979) writes of a 'formidableconsensus' of

opinion'that if Peacockbelieves in anything, he has not shown what" She also

commentsthat he'has never convincedthe world of his seriousness',and also

remarksthat other twentieth-century critics, Priestley(1927), Nfills (1968),

Dawson (1970) and Felton (1973), 'havebeen unanimous on the point that it is

uselessto look for a consistentmeaning'. 66

Both Peacockand Thackerayused satire in ways which were unfamfliar

and sometimesuncongenial to their more prosaic contemporaries. The next

chapterexamines their writings in the context of Menippeansatire and will suggest

how this critical mode of interpretation may be able to extend previous

interpretationsof their work.

`M. Butter, PeacockDisplayed. A Satirist in his Context (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), p.3. 'Butler, p.2. 40

Chapter Two: Authority Undermined

Severaltwentieth-century analystsof Menippeansatire have cited

Peacock'swork as clearly demonstratingelements of the sub-genre. For the most part, thesereferences direct attention to the narrative style of his work, detecting componentsof the mode accordingto the studiesof Frye and Bakhtin. There has beenvery little mention of Thackeray'searly periodical writings in this context, and, while the Menippeanelements reflected in his work are lessimmediately obvious than those found in Peacock'sbooks, he demonstratesnew developments in the use of satire, as the genre migrated into the popular culture of periodical

publication.

Frye, Butler and Dyer all identify Peacock,by name,as a writer in the

Menippeantradition. Frye's discussionof Peacockpoints out that the lack of

the form has 'a impression that his critical understandingof created general ...

statusin the developmentof prose fiction is that of a slapdasheccentric'. ' He

tracesthe developmentof the Menippean sub-genrefrom its origins as a form of

verse satire, to which'prose interludes'were added. Eventually, the prose

interludessuperseded the verse to the extent that it has now becomerecognized

as: 'a prose form, though one of its recurrent features(seen in Peacock)is the use

of incidentalverse'. 2 Frye also writes, in generalterms, of the Menippeansatirist's

use of characterization,which is 'stylized rather than naturalistic, and presents

people as mouthpiecesof the ideasthey represent'.'

I N. Frye, p. 309. 2 Ibid. I Ch.1, n.47. 41

Butler refers to Frye's interpretation of Menippeansatire, or'anatomy', and observesthe relationship of the form to Peacoclesfiction, acknowledgingthat

Frye provides: 'an excellentdiagnosis of the spirit and intention of Peacockian satire, invoking as it does the very writers to whom Peacockhimself consistently paystribute'. ' In her opinion, it is Crotchet Castle (183 1), with its wide-ranging

debates,'a dispersed fits cultural panorama-- the book of Peacock'swhich best the term "anatomy"' and accordsmost readily with Frye'sanalysis. ' Butler's discussionof Peacoclesmodes of characterizationsuccessfully dismisses the rontand clef name-gamesby which contemporaryreviewers and early twentieth-centurycritics have previously attemptedto explain his stylized methods of representinghis people in his satirical fictions.' Although shemakes no

specificreference to Menippean satire as such in this context, her analysisof

Peacoclesuse of characterreflects, in general,Frye's assertionthat ? edants,

bigots, cranks,parvenus, virtuosi, enthusiasts,rapacious and incompetent

professionalmen of all kinds, are handledin terms of their occupationalapproach

to life as distinct from their social behaviour'.'

Peacockwas well aware of distinctive modesof presentingcharacters,

both fi7omhis own studiesand the skiffs he developedas a literary analystwhen

writing reviews for periodicalsduring his later career. InTrench Comic

Romances'(183 5), written for the London Review, he enumeratestwo kinds of

comic fiction: in the one, the 'charactersare abstractionsor embodied

classifications,and the implied or embodiedopinions the main matter of the work';

' Butler, pp 56-7. 5 Ibid., p. 183. 6 Ibid. Ch.1, n.47. 42

in the other, the charactersare drawn 'individuals the however as ... opinions, prominent they may be made,being merely incidental'.' To the former category

he assignsAristophanes, Petronius, Rabelais, Swift and Voltaire, a list to which he

could well have addedhis own name. This facet of Peacock'swork is expanded

by Dyer, who asserts,perhaps too comprehensively,that 'Peacock'sbrilliant

in Menippean 9 Dyer narratives... unquestionablyare the tradition'. reinforces

Frye's emphasisthat Menippean satire dealswith intellectual problemsusing

impersonalmodes of characterization,and he also illustrates,by referencesto the

work of numerouscontemporary writers, that Peacock'ssatire, confined to

targeting topical issuesand the ideologiesof public figures, was not typical of a

period during which satirists delighted in exposingthe personalaffairs of their " victims. Indeed,this is a chargewhich Peacockhimself was most anxiousto

evade,and his intentions in this respecthave alreadybeen mentionedin chapter

one."

Butlees allusionsto the unresolvednature of Peacock'ssatire,

mentionedat the conclusionof the previous chapter,can be further developed by when informed the later treatisesof Bakhtin and Relihan. While this

characteristicof Peacocleswork may have contradictedtraditional interpretations

of satire as a monologic form of discourse,both Bakhtin and Relihan have

emphasizedunresolved debate as a salientfeature of the Menippeansatirist's work.

The author or narrator makesit his businessto exposethe fallaciesin orthodox

points of view, while consistentlyresisting any form of dogmatic resolution. In

Halliford Edition, Vol. 9, p. 258. Dyer, p. 18. and p. 10 1. "Ibid., pp. 10 1 passim. "Ch. 1, n. 33 and n. 34. 43

addition, Bakhtin identifies traces of other literary antecedentswithin the

sub-genre,which arejust as relevant to an analysisof Peacock'snarrative style.

Flis historicized account of the Menippeansub-genre posits that its origins are to

be found during the period when use of the Socratic dialoguewas in decline, the

first emergenceof the form predating the life of Menippus himself Although

stressingthat Menippeansatire is not descendedfrom the Socratic dialogue alone,

he identifies a dialogic mode of discoursecommon to both styleswhich acts as a

form of investigativeinquiry into ideological theory and intellectual attitudes.

According to Bakhtin, both the Socratic dialogue and Menippeansatire are

essentiallyopen-ended modes of inquiry, which seekto exposeideological

anomalieswhile avoiding any authoritative assertionof principles.

The Socratic dialogue, according to Bakhtin, is a processof refining

argument:

The dialogic meansof seekingtruth is counterposedto official monologism, which pretendsto possessa ready-madetruth, and it is also counterposedto the naive self-confidenceof those who think that they know something,that is, who think that they possesscertain truths. Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person,it is born betweenpeople collectively searchingfor truth, in the processof their dialogic interaction,"

Peacock'suse of the form of the Socratic dialogue in his satirical fiction offers

someexplanation towards the lack of 'consistentmeaning' which has confounded

critics and readersused to moral-didactic, closed forms of satire. In particular,

emphasison the dialogic characteristicsof the mode and the deliberate juxtaposition of conflicting points of view throws new fight on the ways in which

he deliberatelyavoided resolutions to the debatesof his fictional disputants. In

Headlong Hall (1816), the 'insides'of the Holyhead mail display conflicting views

"Bakhtin, Problems ofDostoevskyIs Poetics, p. I 10. 44 of the perfectibilarianand deteriorationist doctrines of humanprogress even before they arrive at their destination,but the argumentis interrupted by the prospect of breakfastat an inn. Mr. Fax of Mefincourt (1817) propoundsMalthusian principles of population and upholds the causeof reason,while Forester deplores the'tangible eloquenceof the pocket', concluding the discussionwith a satirical remark on university education,which has little to do with either side of the argument." In chapter six of Crotchet Castle, aptly entitled 'Theories',Mr.

MacQuedy elaborateson the principles of JamesMill's Elementsof Political

Economy (1821) to a cacophonyof counterproposals,which range from support for Robert Oweds co-operationist movementto dubiousmethods of scientific research. However, Peacock'suse of the form of the Socratic dialogue differs from the classicalmode of the genre in one important respect. He employsan uncharacteristiclightness of tone and frequently introducestopics of superficial interest, suggestingthat, although he presentshis subjectmatter as a searchfor the

Itruth', he has no intention of drawing any firm conclusions. Dawson (1970) refers to the discussionsin Crotchet Castle as 'mock Socratic dialogues,without a guiding Socrates'." In other words, Peacock,in his ideological debates,is, in fact, parodyingthe style of the Socratic dialogue.

While somedisputants present their opinions with a degreeof logic, others, especiallythe minor characters,lapse into absurdity. Theseconversations, especiallythose of Headlong Hall and Crotchet Castle, deal with topical frivolities as well as intellectual subjects,and the pursuit of 'truth' takes secondplace to ridicule. In someof the books, in particular, Headlong Hall, Nightmare Abbey

I'Gamett, ed., p. 143. 14Carl Dawson, His Fine Wit (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul: 1970), p. 266. 45

(1818) and Crotchet Castle, it could be arguedthat the comic exuberanceof

Peacock'sfiction outweighs any seriousphilosophical intention. Although many of thesediscussions serve to exposethe fallacies of the various stancestaken by the disputants,none of them ever reachesan explicit resolution. Rather than reaching a specificviewpoint, Peacockprefers to leave matters open to the reader's judgement,concluding with the prospect of a meal or an adjunct to 'passthe bottle'. Much later in his career as a writer, in a review of Muller and Donaldson's

History of Greek Literature publishedin Fraser's Magazine (1859), he remarks,in defenceof Lucian!s work: 'To clear the ground of falsehoodis to leave room for the introduction of truth. ' " Peacockuses satirical debateboth as a meansof exploring important contemporaryideologies and as a method of 'clearingthe ground' of trivial or establishedfallacies, but the 'truth', if it makesany appearance at all, remainscloaked in suggestionrather than expressedin definitive terms.

Furthermore,the philosophicalfocus of the dialogue often becomesmore complex when a plot, usually a love interest, which is just as stylized in presentationas the charactersthemselves, is introduced into the narrative.

Bakhtin emphasizesthat there are fundamentaldifferences between the

Socratic dialogue and Menippeansatire. Although Menippeansatire, like the

Socratic dialogue,focuses on examiningthe validity of a theory or an idea, the treatment of the plot and subject matter remainsessentially novelistic. As in

Peacock'swork, the comic elementis more in evidence,and whereasthe

ideologiesexplored in the Socratic dialoguesremain abstractin form, the

Menippeansatirist presentsideas as concreteimages, often as fictional characters

in an imaginarycontext. In this way, the searchfor'truth! may be representedas a

"Halliford Edition, Vol. 10, p.225. 46 voyage or journey and the theory under evaluation may be embodiedin the form of the traveller. The addition of a plot allows the satirist room to manoeuvrehis protagonist, who can usually be identified with the focal idea, through the actions and counteractionsof circumstancesand situations,either of this world or on an imaginaryplane of the writer's own creation. Bakhtin makesthe point that 'the menippeais characterizedby an extraordinaryfteedom ofplot andphilosophical invention'." The Menippean satirist is not constrainedby a naturalistic representationof either characteror events. The strengthof the underlying ideology is tested as the protagonist interacts with incidentsand circumstances, frequently fantastic or bizarre, but all, nonetheless,subordinated to discoveringthe

'trutlf of the central theme. 'And it is essentialto emphasizeonce again',writes

Bakhtin, 'that the issueis preciselythe testing of an idea, of a truth, and not the

human individual type' testing of a particular character,whether an or a social ."

Elementsof fantasyand the incongruousjuxtaposition of underlying philosophies appearfrequently in Peacock'sbooks, to the extent that it is rarely possibleto identify a focal argument. Sometimesthe novelistic form is overshadowedby a preponderanceof Socratic dialogue, as in the symposiaof Headlong Hall,

Nightmare Abbey and Crotchet Castle. However, the greaterfreedom of the

Menippeantradition becomesvery much more in evidencein Melincourt (1817) and in the lessconstrained forms of the historical romances,Maid Marian (1822) and 7heMisfortunes ofElphin (1829). Thesebooks will be discussedin greater

detail later.

"Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, p. 114. 17Ibid. 47

It is difficult to gaugehow far Peacockhad assimilateda conscious analysisof the Menippeanmodes of satire employedin his writing. Those of his letters and diariesthat havebeen preservedgive someclues to the extent of the depth and breadth of his reading. The range of this is mademore apparentin the books themselves,largely from his extensiveuse of literary allusions. This intenselyallusive style of writing pays tribute to a host of literary predecessors, from classicalwriters to the work of his contemporaries,and hasprovoked much critical commentary,mostly influencedby the cultural context in which the work was produced. Garnett writes: 'I know of few other writers (T. S. Eliot is one of them) whose work is so full of phrasestaken from the great literature of the world and so fortified with quotations."' His editing of the numerousliterary allusions in Peacock!s novels is a painstakingpiece of scholarship,and he offers three explanationsfor the frequent occurrenceof thesereferences:

Just as many writers think and write in the threadbarecommonplaces of current journalism, so Peacockthought and wrote allusively in passages taken from the works of other writers whom he admired. He usedthem, for the most part, as parliamentaryorators of the old school usedthem - to gain the good will and respectof his audience.But he also used then I believe, to give a certain remotenessand perspectiveto his characters."

Here,the secondsentence contradicts the senseof the argumentcontained in the first. If, as Garnettbegins by saying,Peacock's use of literaryallusion derives spontaneouslyfrom an internalizedfamiliarity with the works of otherauthors, it is difficult to acceptthe notionthat he alsoemployed the techniquedeliberately as a meansof gainingthe respectand goodwill of his audience.Bums (1985) supportsGarnett's opinion that Peacock'sallusive style emerged as a by-productof

his extensivereading: 'At times,we havethe suspicionthat this is cultivated

"Gamett, ed., p. xvi. "Ibid., pp.xvi-xvii. 48 bric-a-brac, floating loose in Peacock'swell-read mind, and finding its way gratuitously onto the pagesof the book." This bearsout Garnett'sview that

Peacock'thought and wrote' sometimesin the words of writers whose work had struck a chord with the material he was handling at the time. However, Bums extendsthe argumentby citing literary referencesto Milton, Shakespeareand

Cervantes,which, he claims, havebeen used with the specificpurpose of illustrating themesin the work. In this case,Bums claims, the use of allusion is intentional and often employedironically, for the purposeof contrasting the commonsenseof theseearlier writers with the foolishnessof the opinions put forward by Peacock'scontemporaries. Garnett'sthird explanationof Peacock's use of literary allusions,in order to maintain the 'remotenessand perspective'of his characters,also assumesauthorial intent. It seemsmost likely that Peacock actually usedliterary allusion deliberately,usually in a parodic sense,with the specific purposeof emphasizingthe philosophicalinconsistencies of his speakers, or as a meansof underminingthe meaningof what they had to say.

An examinationof Peacock'sprolific literary allusions,at this stageof the discussion,reveals that, in addition to the standardclassics of his period, he was also familiar with the works of a wide range of authorswho have sincebeen identified as writing in the Menippeantradition. He quotesfrom both Petronius and Apuleius and makesfrequent allusionsto the works of Lucian, Butler's

Hu&bras (1662-80) and European seriocomicliterature in the tradition of

Rabelaisand Cervantes. Peacock'sknowledge of literature implies a familiarity with forms of satire and seriocomicwriting which were in sharpcontrast to the

I'B. Bums TheNovels of Aomas Love Peacock(London: Sidney:Croom Helm, 1985), pp. 103-5. 49 eighteenth-centuryformal modesof the genre. Although he appearsto have made no direct referencesto Menippeansatire by name,there can be little doubt that he had assimilateda tacit understandingof the style from his classicalstudies and extensivereading of Europeanliterature, and was able to draw on elementsof the mode as he developedhis own methodsof writing. The next sectioninvestigates ways in which recent theories of Menippeansatire can extendinterpretations of

Peacocleswork, and be used to explain someof the problemshis readershave encountered.

Cz &-) CIZ &) 03 811) C1 &)

Contemporaryand early twentieth-century critiques ofMefincourt, many of which were basedon the assumptionthat the book was intendedto be read as a novel, stumbleinconclusively through all three volumes of its shifting satirical foci and political comment. The book bearsa close resemblanceto some of the characteristicsdiscussed in the previous chapter,particularly those which link Menippeansatire to the form of the satura. Melincourt, as a satura, deals with an extraordinarymedley of satirical targets and, in further keepingwith the

Menippeantradition, makesuse of numerousinserted genres. The narrative form is that of a parodic Romance,interspersed with passagesof Socratic dialogue, balladsand poems,but the story is continually interrupted by incidentsand adventuresapparently unconnected with the main plot. A rustic wedding, an elopementand a desertedmansion all serveto diversify the text and to disseminate the ideological opinions of the participants. Peacocktargets numerousintellectual themesand political questions. In addition to an exposureof the contemporary argumentof Malthusianprinciples of population, he presentsa moral perspective

of the West Indian sugartrade, the early abusesof paper currency, theories of 50

Kantian metaphysics,parliamentary corruption and the politics of reform. The diversethemes of the book are bound together by a plot which examinesthe validity of the idealsof chivalry and romantic love, recurrent motifs in fashionable contemporaryfiction.

The first volume of Mefincourt openswith Anthelia'ssearch for her knight-effant, and volume three endswhen she has found him -- or, at least, the man shebelieves to be a close nineteenth-centuryequivalent. It is no accidentthat sheis heiressto a castle situated high among the raging torrents and mountainous beautiesof Westmoreland,the home of the Lake poets, whose poetry and political apostasyare shadowedthroughout the book. Born and bred in seclusionamong

'the majesticforms and wild energiesof Nature' of her native countryside,Anthelia is staunchlyindependent and sufficiently educatedto be influencedby a taste for

Italian poetry, whichnourished a naturally susceptibleimagination by conjuring up the splendidvisions of chivalry and enchantmentin scenesso congenialto their development'." Convention demandsthat a young lady in her position should be suppliedwith a husbandand suitors arrive to invade her solitude. In the second chapter,a dialoguebetween Anthelia and Mrs. Pinmoneysets the romantic ideal in juxtaposition to the financial practicalities of the contemporarymarriage market.

Challengedby an observationfrom the latter, that the spirit of chivalry is irrelevant

to present-daymatrimonial considerations,Anthelia remainsunequivocal in her

conviction: 'I believeit possibleto find as true a knight-effant in a brown coat in

the nineteenthcentury, as in a suit of golden armour in the days of Charlemagne'

(113). Further Socratic dialoguesand verse insertionsin the form of balladsand

songsillustrate both sidesof the argument,and Anthelia identifies a moral basis

21Garnett, ed., pp. 105-6. Further referencesto this edition will be given in the text. 51 for her objectionsto marriageas a financial arrangement:'I fear that in ninety-nine

casesout of a hundredin which the courseof true love is thwarted by

considerationsof fortune, it will be found that avaricerather than prudenceis to be

consideredas the cause'(153).

Anthelia'squest for her chivalrous 'knight-errant in a brown coat'

plungesher into a seriesof dramatic adventuresworthy of her role as the heroine

of a love-story, and Peacockuses these to burlesquepopular literary conventions.

She is rescuedfrom a raging torrent by the superhumanstrength of Sir Oran

Haut-ton, and subsequentlyabducted and imprisonedat Alga castle. However,

the perpetrator of this outrage, Lord Anophel Achthar, appears,not as the

customaryblack-hearted villain of a Romance,but as a 'fool and a coxcomb' (148).

Anthelia'sfaithful lover, Forester, temporarily shakenby the disappearanceof his

sweetheart,sets out on an expedition, a kind of knightly quest, in order to

discover her whereabouts. His journey, however, is frequently interrupted by

chanceencounters, irrelevant narrativesand random dialogues,which have

nothing to do with the plot but reinforce Peacock'sideological thernes.

Both Bakhtin and Relihan make referenceto the degreeby which

Menippeansatire subsumesother modesof writing. Bakhtin identifies a diversity

of insertedgenres, in addition to the form of the Socratic dialogue: 'Characteristic

for the menippeais a wide use of insertedgenres: novellas, letters, oratorical

speeches,symposia, and so on; also characteristicis a mixing of prose and poetic

speech',which, with'varying degreesof parodying and objectification', serveto

reinforce'the multi-styled and multi-toned nature of the menippea!.' Relihan sees

the insertion of verse into passagesof dialogue as serving a more specific purpose:

"Bakhtin, Problems ofDostoevsAy's Poetics, p. 118. 52

'Another weapon in the arsenalof Menippeansatire is the creation of amusing verseparodies, put in the mouths of people who are ridiculous becausethey speak in verse."

Peacockdoes use verse quotationsto underminethe authority of his speakers,but sometimesthese are employedwith different intentions. In chapter sixteen,'The Symposium!,Feathernest cites Much Ado About Nothing and

Hudibras, apparentlyundermining his defenceof pecuniarypreferment (196-7).

In contrast to this, Foresterýsmore seriousline of argumentagainst such practices is presentedonly in prose. When his journey takes him to MainchanceVilla, however, during his searchfor the missing Anthelia, a verseextract appearsin his dialogue serving a different purpose. Peacockintroduces the last five lines of

Wordsworth's sonnet,November 1806:

We shall exult if they who rule the land Be men who hold its many blessingsdear, Wise, upright, valiant; not a venal band, Who are to judge of danger,which they fear And honour which they do not understand.(320)

In this instance, verse is not used with the intention of undermining Forester's point of view, but as an attack on the contemporary position of the poet himself, emphasizing the way in which the ethics of his present public office conflict sharply with the sentiments he expressed just over a decade earlier, when the poem was first written. The 'fallen state of the poet, so much lamented by Forester, and the underlying theme of political corruption, is emphasized by the subtle alteration of one word. The substitution of 'venal' for the 'servile' of the original poem accentuates the degradation and cupidity of those who use government office for personal gain.

23Relihall,p. 19. 53

In Melincourt, Peacock'sspeakers not only communicatein verse, they

also burst into song and the lyrics are used to illustrate themesin the narrative.

Mr. Derrydown and Anthelia sing their argumentsfor prudence(or avarice) as

opposedto romantic love in marriage. The ballad of 'Old Robin Grey', as sung by

Mr. Derrydown, endorsesMrs. Pinmoney'srespect for the financial implications of

matrimony, as set out in the dialogue in the secondchapter (150). Anthelia

reiteratesher own viewpoint by countering with 'The Tomb of Love, which, she

declares,'does not contain too severean allegory in placingthe tomb of chivalric

love amongthe ruins of the castlesof romance'(154). The drinking songsand

glees,which appearregularly throughout Peacock'sfiction, frequently work to

diffuse the mounting tension of differing opinions. Sometimesappearing at the

end of a long sectionof dialogue -- for example,as in chapterfive of Headlong

Hall -- a song will act as a meansof reconciling opposingviewpoints, without

having to declarein favour of one side or the other (37). Elsewhere,Peacock

usessong for the purposeof undertniningthe credibility of his speakersand the

validity of their intellectual stances. The ridicule of the political stanceof the

Quarterly Reiliew, and the corrupt practicesof Paperstamp,Feathernest and

Antijack, is brought to a climax as the 'Quintetto' concludesthe debateat

MainchanceVilla (321-2).

Forester'sviews, as they appearin the dialoguesin Melincourt, are put

forward as serious,but Peacockdoes not allow his opinion to remain

unchallenged.Even more importantly, from the point of view of a discussionof

Menippeansatire, they cannot in any way be identified with the author'sown

beliefs. Forester'sdialogue is balancedagainst Mr. Fax's dogmatic Malthusian

approach,both points of view being treated seriouslyand given equal weighting in 54 the debate,without the satirical ridicule that Peacockuses to underminesome of the more flivolous themeselsewhere in the narrative. In the juxtaposition of the ideologies, Peacocksuccessfully exposes the weaknessesof both argumentsin a way which precludesany sensethat the discussioncan be resolved. However, although philosophicalquestions are left open, as a parodic Romance,the plot of

Melincourt has to be resolved, and Peacock'shandling of this aspectof the book increasesthe significanceof the roles of both Forester and Sir Oran Haut-ton.

By the time that Forester'scircuitous and frequently interruptedjoumey to secureAnthelia! s liberation is finally completed,he is the most prominent contenderfor her hand in marriage.However, it is Sir Oran who leadsthe rescue, not Forester. Peacocknot only parodiesthe knightly quest of popular Romance, but also plays a Menippeantrick on the reader. As the door to Anthelia'sprison bursts open, Sir Oran appearsframed in the aperture,'with the ReverendMr.

Grovelgrub in custody', ready to avengeAnthelia! s honour, with true knightly ardour (339). As Bums points out: 'Peacock'sultimatejoke inMefincourt, and one that he plays slyly on his charactersas well as his readers,is that the novel's consurnmateknight-at-arms, the embodimentof Anthelia!s maidenlydreams, is not a man at all but an orang-outang.'24Anthelia subvertsthe dramatic climax of the narrative by rushing, not into the arms of her liberator, but into Forestees embrace:'"Oh Forester!" said Anthelia, "you haverealised all my wishes. I have found you the friend of the poor, the enthusiastof truth, the disinterested cultivator of the rural virtues, the active promoter of the causeof humanliberty"'

(340).

'Bums, p.65. 55

In Melincourt, Peacockupdates the concept of chivalry by offering the hypothesisthat the nineteenth-centuryknight 'in golden armour' is a thinker and intellectual,who transposesthe daring exploits of the Romantic hero into the practical tasks of upholding liberal principles. Forester'squest is not so much that of an intrepid knight-at-arms,but of a Menippeanideological hero, a seekerof

'truth', one who lives by the intellect rather than the sword. In his searchfor

Anthelia, Forester is confronted, not by potentially physicallydangerous situations, but by orthodox contemporarypractices, opinions and argumentswhich test his principles of fair-play and forbearance. It is Sir Oran's fate to fulfil the literary conventionsof courtly love and, like the Satyr in Fletcher'sFaithful Shepherdess, he hasto be content to worship an unattainablelove (341).

Sir OraWsrole in Melincourt is complex. As alreadyshown, he shadowsthe ideals of valour and chivalry, sentimentand self-sacrifice,which

Peacockburlesques in the narrative. He also presentsthe author with opportunities to explore eighteenth-centurytheories of primitivism, and the innate goodnessof man in his natural state, as opposedto the corruption that civilization haswrought on society. Sir Oran is appropriately presentedas Forester'sprot6g6 but, unlike his mentor and Peacock'sother fictional people, he is unableto express his opinions. Theseare exemplified by his actions,which are not moderatedby reasonbut occur as the spontaneousresponses of a'natural man', as situations occur during the courseof the narrative. He sheds'tears in great abundance'when

Anthelia is abductedand administers'natural justice' to her enemies. Hewrecks the hustingsat the Borough of Onevote out of fear and misapprehension,but retains his dignity throughout the following skirmishes,in contrast to the riotous he mob leavesbehind. Apart from music, for which he has a natural aptitude, he 56 remainsuntouched by literature, philosophy and the arts, and those intellectual disciplineswhich commandedthe respectof early nineteenth-centurycultural circles. Peacocksolemnly justifies Sir Oran's attributes in copious scholarly footnotes, which allude, in detail, to the writings of Lord Monboddo and Buffon.

He puts forward the concept of the orang-outangas anatural man', playing with

Rousseau'stheory of the 'noble savage',and then juxtaposesthese ideas against the corrupt conventionsof 'civilized' behaviour. As Sir Oran accompaniesForester's travels, he takes on a role in Menippeansatire, describedby Relihanas that of the

'naif in the 'who ,a participant narrative observesa wholly ridiculous other world!, which, in the caseof Mefincourt, is unmistakablythat of early nineteenth-century

England.2' Unable to speak,Sir Oran cannot expressan opinion on what he sees or make much senseof what he hears,and, unlike his articulate companions,he cannot rationalizeor attempt to justify the chaosthat surroundshim. The readeris compelledto seethings as they must appearto him, unjustifiable and irrational, and, at times, the narrative itself, with its numerousthemes and capriciousvagaries of plot, addsto the senseof disorder and disorientation.

Butler has attemptedto establishorder in the construction of the book by producing a diagramof chaptersand themes,which demonstratesa symmetry of structure, acrossall three volumes." The apex of this diagrammatic representationappears in the middle of volume two, in the centre of Sir Orads election campaignto the City of Onevote and the Borough of Novote. Whilst this appearsto emphasizeparliamentary reform as an important theme in the narrative,

Peacockhas alreadyplayfully pre-emptedany such obvious conclusionon the part

2'Relihan, p. 10. 2'Butler, p. 85. 57 of the readerin an earlier chapter. At RedroseAbbey, Sir TelegraphPaxarett implies that Forester'sintentions, in purchasinga baronetcyand seat in parliament for Sir Oran, are to exposepolitical corruption, but Foresterprotests that his motives are ideological: 'I really think him a variety of the humanspecies: and this is a point which I have it much at heart to establishin the acknowledgementof the world'(133). Peacock'sown referencesto contemporarytheories which appearto support this argumentundermine the reader'sconfidence in Forester'spoint of view. The notion, that an orang-outangis'a variety of the humanspecies', is given more weight by Foresterthan the political implications of unfair representationand the purchaseof parliamentaryseats. Furthermore, although Forester seeksto protect Sir Oran firom'any kind of contumely', he is himself affirming political injustice and social convention in pursuit of his own ideological ends: 'With a view to ensuringhim the respectof society, which always attendson rank and fortune, I havepurchased for him a baonetcy,and madeover to him an estate' (132).

There is a marked conflict of interestshere, The corrupt purchaseof a parliamentarysinecure, in order to securethe well-being of Sir Oran and the universalacknowledgement of his anthropologicalheritage, is set in opposition to the obvious benefitsof fairly elected representation. At this point in the narrative, there is eventhe possibility that Peacockis underminingone of the predominant political themesof his period, the movementfor ParliamentaryReform. Butler's contention that, 'if Peacockbelieved in anything, he has not shown what', lies at the heart of his relationshipwith the Menippeantradition of satire.2' As Altick has remarked,'The Four Ages of Poetry' (1820) showsa marked authorial subordinationto the Benthamitepoint of view, but the tone is so subservientthat

27 ch. 1, n. 64. 58 there is a strong possibility that Peacock'sunderlying intentions were, in fact, ironic." In the literary culture of his most productive period of writing and, indeed,for a long time afterwards, satirists whose work did not presenta didactic point of view were not taken seriouslyand their place in the literary canon remaineduncertain. Peacockoverreaches the monologic discourseof formal satire, which replacesone attitude with another, and demonstratesa method of philosophicalinvestigation which usesa dialogic mode of the genre, exposing intellectual problemsin ways that deny any possibility of closure. The next section discussesrecent critical researchin this area and looks at the implications of this interpretation.

(I &l) C93 EK) C9 B") cle w

Referencehas already beenmade to Kaplaifs discussionof

Wittgensteiris theories,but at this point, it is relevantto expandon thesein order to add a new dimensionto applicationsof Menippeansatire. Kaplan explains:

Vhat Wittgenstein finally introduced as a replacementfor philosophy shares astonishingconceptual and methodological similarities with the oldest and most trenchantform of literary/critical analysis:Menippean satire. " Wittgenstein's

'replacementfor philosophy'is basedon the theory that languagehas come to be seenas a sourceof meaningin itself, rather than the mediumby which meaning may be expressed.Philosophical problems come about as a result of misapprehensionsin the use of language,and the reification of an abstractidea, particularly when presentedout of context, results in conceptual

"R. D. Altick, 7heEnglish CommonReader: A Social History of the Mass Rea&ng Public, 1800-1900(Chicago ý London ýUniversity of ChicagoPress, 1957), p. 134. 2'Kaplanp. 26. 59 misunderstandingsand confusion. A concept, however adequatelyit may appear to be expressedby language,has to be decontextualizedand reassessedin unfamiliar usage. Philosophy,according to Wittgenstein, is not about uncovering conceptualtruths or reality, but rather a meansof testing the senseof intellectual propositionsin a variety of different contexts. Kaplan arguesthat 'It is just this rearrangementof expressions,concepts and propositions that one finds in

Menippeansatire.

To the reader of Melincourt, Anthelia's literary conceptof the ideal of medievalknighthood is transposedinto a nineteenth-centurysetting, and, initially, it lacks substance,being merely the whim of a young girl whose headhas been filled with Italian poetry. However, set againsta broader canvas,in the manner outlined by Kaplan above, it takes on new meaningsand possibilities. In the context of early nineteenth-centuryEngland, againsta backgroundof political injustice, rural poverty and dogmatic ideologies,Peacock presents a new concept of chivalry basedon intellectual principles.

Kaplan also explores a postmodernistinterpretation of Menippean satire, as'the revelation of what is alreadyknown', by contrastingdogmatic and scepticalapproaches to literature and philosophy:

A dogmatistis one who has hit upon sometruth, somedogma, somegreat approach,some great design, somecelebrated manifesto, and who seeksto measureall phenomenaand experiencebased upon the apparatusof this truth. The dogmatist rejects all phenomenawhich fail or refuseto conform to this grand design. The dogmatist, in surrenderingto the grand design,is in dangerof becomingdictatorial, and often succumbsto a compartmentalizedand pragmatic resignation. The skeptic, on the other hand, approachesgrand design and fixed approacheswith caution. While the dogmatistlabors to hammerexperience into generalities,the skeptic is a cool observerof particulars. The dogmatist seesblack and white where the 60

skeptic seesgray. Most of all the skeptic does not seekto promote her sensibilitythrough coercion, but through illustration, sobriety, and humor."

This interpretation emphasizesthe dichotomy betweenthe interpretationsof satire that had governedeighteenth-century critical analysesand the Menippean sub-genre. The latter offers a broader, looser style of discoursewhich not only toleratesopposing points of view, but is also non-didactic and non-assertive, avoiding dogmatic resolution. Seenfrom a liberal perspective-- for Kaplan's extract quoted above is certainly an echo of classicliberalism -- it is not difficult to appreciatehow the scepticalviewpoint is clearly illustrated in the work of both

Peacockand Thackeray,and this highlights similarities in their fundamental principles. It also demonstrateshow their satire can be interpreted as a reaction againstthe predominantculture of their period,

Both authors lived and wrote in a cultural context which was very much influencedby a growing emphasison factual scientific discovery and the satisfactionof definitive answers. Ideologies were contrived out mistaken concepts,and authoritative assertionsof unproven principles,the 'intellectual mythologies'of the early nineteenthcentury, underpinnedjust about every aspect contemporarylife. " On the one hand, it can be arguedthat it was exactly these dogmatic attitudes, generatedby a prescriptive and authoritarianculture, that stimulatedwriters like Peacockand Thackerayinto making satirical challenges.

On the other hand,it has to be rememberedthat this austere,dogmatic, black and white image of nineteenth-centuryEngland hasbeen transmitted to succeeding generationsthrough culturally selectivemedia which, in themselves,may be seen

"Kaplan, p.33. 31 Ibid., p.9. 61 to be promoting dogmatic points of view. It is through the satire of the period that we are afforded glimpsesof what may havebeen a much richer reality.

Peacock'ssatire presentsan essentiallynon-dogmatic challenge to the intellectual mindsetof his era. Deeply engagedin the ideologiesof the period, he informs and illustrates his work with referencesto both ancientand contemporary literature. The underlying theories of treatises,fiction and poetry are all subjected to scrutiny and analysis. Thackeray'searly periodical contributions, however, presenta more generalizedoverview of contemporarysociety. Working in the commercialworld of periodical publication, he presentsthe readerwith an intricate canvasof nineteenth-centurysociety, drawn from his immediate

observations. From their differing standpoints,both writers were united by a

challengeto dogmatismand orthodox opinion.

CS B11) CS V1113 (S EO C93, EO

Thackeray's attitude to the dogmatic spirit of his age is more readily

gleaned from his letters and private papers than his fiction. However, even in his

correspondence and diaries, he gives little indication of any deep, intellectual

engagement with philosophical problems or doctrinal theories. He records his

spontaneous reactions to immediate experiences but does not attempt to refine

these by thoughtful deliberation. This reluctance to intellectualize his experiences

has sometimes led to negative criticism.

Afler spendingtwo days in his companyduring a lecture tour in 1857,

an acquaintancereports: 'He does not develop his ideasmuch; he only puts into

words just the thought that passesthrough his own mind.G' The underlying

principlesthat appearin his periodical writings are implicit in what is, essentially,

"Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 4, p. 377. 62 satirical description and any apparentresolution, when it rarely occurs, is usually of an ambivalentnature. Ray quotesHenry JamesSenior's remark to Emerson,in

1853,that: '"Thackeray could not seebeyond his eyes,and had no ideas,and merely is [sic] a soundingboard againstwhich his experiencesthump and resound"

', adding that this commentmay well have beenthe stimulusfor Thackeray'sown admission,"'I have no head above my eyes." 111 An anonymousreviewer of Me

Newcomes(18 5 5) acknowledgesThackeray as a 'great humorist', but writes:

'What he can see,hear, smell and taste he can describe,and even idealize,but he can go no further than the range of his five senses'.34 Roscoe,writing for the

National Review in 1856, commentsthat'It is curious how independenthe is of thought; how he managesto exist so entirely on the surfaceof things." Later, in the samearticle, he commentsfurther on Thackeray'slack of intellectual engagementwith his material:

Thackeraynever reasons,he never gains one step by deduction; he relies on his instincts, he appealsto the witness within us; he makeshis statement,and leavesit to find its own way to the conviction of his readers;either it approvesitself to you, and you accept it; or it does not, and you leave it. The highestmoral truths have beenthus enunciated,perhaps can only be thus enunciated;but Mr. Thackeraydoes not enunciategreat truths. The most he doesis to generaliseon his social observation.36

Thislack of intellectualdeliberation and unwillingness to 'enunciategreat truths' fell shortof the criticalexpectations of the period. However,when placed in the traditionof seriocomicwriting, his open-endedpresentation of an argument,which

"G. N. Ray, Thackeray: TheAge of Wisdom1847-63 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958), p. 119. "[Samuel Lucas], The Times,29 August 1855, from G. Tillotson and D. Hawes, eds.,Thackeray, 777eCritical Heritage (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968, pp.228. IV. C. Roscoe,W M. Thackeray,Artist and Moralist', National Review, Vol. 2, January 1836,pp. 264-308, from Tillotson and Hawes, p.272. 36 eds., Ibid., p. 273. 63

finds'its to the his it does either own way conviction of readers... or not', gains a new significance. The fact that Thackerayrelied so heavily on'his instincts', his immediateimpressions and observations,suggests something of Kaplan'sapproach to Menippeansatire through postmodernisttheory. Unlike Peacock,Thackeray showslittle interest in presentingabstract arguments and ideological problems,but emergesmore in the role of the 'cool observerof particulars',a writer whose natural scepticismand hurnour portray the real experience,in a way that is much closer to the Iruth', than the heavily idealizedand fictive'great truths' that the literary critics of the period had come to expect.

Later in his career, Thackeray's fidelity to a realistic portrayal of nineteenth-century life was acknowledged by his contemporaries. Lewes (1848) comments that Thackeray's work is distinguished by'a strong sense of reality pervading his writing -- a reality never lost sight of even in his most extravagant

17 bursts of humour'. Thackerays close affinity with contemporarysociety and the

subjectmatter that this provided for his satire is in direct contrast to the

intellectual problemsthat Peacockchose to examine. In particular, this aspectof their work is distinguishedby their techniquesof characterization. Peacock's

speakers,especially in the conversationsatires, appear as the physical

embodimentsof intellectual concepts,voices rather than people, identified by their

own attitudes and what they have to say rather than by any personalattributes.

Thackeray,however, createshis charactersfrom his real-life observations,with an

acute faculty for realistic visual detail. Forster, in the Examiner (1848), writes:

'They are drawn from actual life, not fi-om books or fancy; and they are presented

"G. H. Lewes,Morning Chronicle, 6 March, 1848,from Tillotson and Hawes eds.,p. 48. 64 by meansof brief, decisive,yet always most discriminative,touches. "'

Unfortunately, in much of the contemporarycriticism of Thackeray's early work, the sharpnessof his observationsand the often unflattering realism of his descriptionsproved to be unpalatableto a sizeableproportion of his critics. An anonymousreviewer of YheParisSketch Book (1840) in the Spectator says:'His vein of humour is essentiallysatirical; it is too severeand biting to be pleasant."'

Eight yearslater, in an article suggestedby the book publication of Snobs,Lewes praisedThackeray'for his admirablejudgement in steeringclear of party questions, and didactic purposes',but complained:'As a satirist, it is his businessto tear away the mask from life, but as an artist and a teacherhe grievously errs when he shows us eve"here corruption underneaththe mask. His scepticismis pushedtoo far.' Thackerayhimself commentedon theseaspects of his work as he reviewed his developmentas a writer, and his attitude beganto change. The young

Thackeray,beginning an associationwith Punch in 1842, delighted in satire as an opportunity for'unrestrained laughing sneeringkicking and gambadoing'." His early work, governedas it was by the practicalitiesof the publishingmilieu in which it was produced, was far removed from the eighteenth-century interpretation of satire as a mode of corrective discourse. It was a few yearslater that the didactic functions of satire becameclear to him, when he was making the transition from periodical writer to novelist.

In 1849, at the height of the 'Snobs'controversy, he wrote to Lemon:

"J. Forster,Examiner, 22 July 1948, pp. 468-70, from Tillotson and Hawes, eds., p.54. "Unsigned review, Spectator, 18 July 1840, Vol. 13, p.689, from Tillotson and Hawes,eds., p.25. 'G. H. Lewes,Morning Chronicle, 6 March 1848,from Tillotson and Hawes eds., p. 46. 41Ray,ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p.54. 65

A few yearsago I should have sneeredat the idea of setting up as a teacher at all, and at this pompous and pious way of talking about a few papersof jokes in Punch - but I have got to believe in the business,and in many other things sincethen. '

The mature Thackerayhad learnedftom reactionsto Vanity Rdr (1847) that mid-nineteenth-centurycritics were often reluctant to face up to the unpleasantnessof reality. This createdtensions between his authorial integrity, his ideal of presentingthe 'truth', and the conventionalartistic constraintsof the literature of the period. It was a problem he endeavouredto accommodatein his later years. In the prefaceto Pendennis(1850), he says:'I ask you to believethat this personwriting strives to tell the truth. If there is not that, there is nothing.' in the samepiece, he records how it had becomenecessary to modify fact in order to pleasecontemporary tastes; how, sincethe demiseof Fielding, 'no writer of fiction amongus hasbeen permitted to depict to his utmost power a MAN. We must drape him, and give him a certain conventionalsimper. Society will not tolerate the Natural in our Art. " At the end of the preface,his tone is openly apologetic: 'A little more franknessthan is customaryhas beenattempted in this story; with no bad desireon the writer's part, it is hoped, and with no ill consequenceto any reader. If the truth is not alwayspleasant, at any rate truth is best.'

Searchingfor the 'truth' was to becomea feature of Thackeray'slater work, but evenafter he had 'come to believe in the business',there was very little

'Edgar F. Harden, ed., SelectedLetters of William Makepeace7hackeray (London: Basingstoke:Macmillan, 1996), p. 136. "W. A Thackeray, TheHistory qfPendennis, Biographical Edition, Vol. 2, (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1898), p.xlvii. "Ibid., p.x1viii. 'Ibid. 66 in his writing that could be construedas expressingan authoritative point of view.

However, the young Thackerayof the 1830s,immersed in the periodical trade and barely making himself a living, had lessserious preoccupations.

03 B* CIS BI-) 03 Bý3 CIS LIM9

It was through the transitory world of magazinesand the new popular culture of the periodicalsthat Thackeray'sscepticism eventually found satiric expression. Over a relatively long period, roughly the decade1835-45, Thackeray was ableto develop complex narratorial techniqueswhich distinguishhis work from much of the popular periodical satire of the day, and place this phaseof his writing in the context of seriocomicliterature and the literary traditions of

Menippeansatire.

Recentanalysis of Thackeray'swork examinesthe techniquesby which he overtums the conventionsof narrative to reveal multiple layersof meaning beneaththe surfaceof his fiction. Full of topical referencesto the immediate context of nineteenth-centurysociety, his early texts are a mixture of satire, parody and keen observations. Peters (1987,1999) commentson his narratorial technique,in this instanceas it appearsin the YellowplushPapers (1838):

Thackerayestablished himself as a writer of fiction who hada uniqueand instantlyrecognisable narrative method: one which works by strippingoff layersof pretence.The observeris himselfobserved, and the assumptions the narrativehas first encouragedthe readerto makeare undercut, forcing him to look again.'

The methodthat Thackeraydevised was, in reality, an extensionof the literary conventionof the authorial pseudonym,and it is in the developmentof this techniquethat he most clearly demonstratesa relationshipwith Menippeansatire.

'C. Peters, Thackeray: A Writer's Lffie (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), pp. 81-2. 67

The use of a pseudonymwas, of course,not just confined to the periodical press.

Peacockalso publishedhis books anonymously,Melincourt, in 1817,being attributed to the 'Author of Headlong Hall, ' which had appearedin the previous year. However, Peacock'suse of a pseudonymwas very different. There is no suggestionthat he disguisedhis identity for any reasonother than to preservehis authorial anonymity,and, as a narrator, namedor otherwise, he exertedtotal control of his material. On the other hand, Thackeraydeveloped the nom de plume to servea number of intricate functions. In the first instance,in the competitive context of commercialwriting, the complex narratorialpersonae he adoptedwere used, as Pearsonsuggests, as a meansof promoting his work by providing 'a literary identity for himself that would be recognisableand memorable'.' Secondly,thisliterary identity' could be changedat will, giving

Thackeraythe possibility of severalaliases from which to choose,according to the nature of his subjectmatter, the focus of his satire and the editorial stanceof the periodical concerned- Thirdly, his interchangeableper. vonae ultimately developed a sophisticatednarratorial function, whereby the author distancedhimself from the narrative in order to call into question the authority of a narrator who was, after all, the author'sfictional creation. The narrator, whose own discourseis essentiallysatirical, becomes yet another target of the authoessatire, while the author dissociateshimself from the immediatepersuasions of the text and provokes the reader into reinterpreting a new set of possibilities. The next section will examinetwo of Thackeray'smagazine contributions which illustrate the early

" R. Pearson,W. M. Thacherayand the Mediated Text: Writingfor Periodicals in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Aldershot: Burlington USA: Ashgate,2000), p.32. 68 evolution of thesenarratorial techniques.

CZ &I) C9 e-) CIS e-) CI e-)

The first of these,a 'Letter from Augustus Wagstaff Esq.', which appearedin the Paris Literary Gazettein 1835, has recently beenreprinted for the firsttime. ' This 'Letter', a comic review of the Narrative qf a Second Voyagein

Searchof a North- WestPav. sage (183 3) by Captain Sir John Ross, is a reductive dissertationon the chroniclesof an expedition to the magneticpole, as recorded in the author'sdiaries. The Wagstaff 'voice' initially undenninesthe epic pretensions of the book in a brief summaryof its contents:

All that I can gather from this bulky volume is, that Sir John Ross, like the King of Francerecorded by the poet, 'who with twenty thousandmen, marchedup the hill -- and then marcheddown again,' hasbeen to the North Pole, and has come back again; that he has plantedhis Majesty'sflag upon severalislands and tracts of land, the possessionof which no monarchin Europe will be such as fool as to dispute; and that the end of his labours, and the glorious reward for his exertions hasbeen to dedicatehis work to his majesty, and to add the nameof William IV. to the magnetic pole!' (220-1)

The contentsof this bulky volume' are summarizedin a single sentence.The inflated importanceits writer gives to the expedition is underminedby comparing

Ross'sleadership to the antics of a French king who, like the Grand Old Duke of

York in the English folk song, set off "'with twenty thousandmen, marchedup the hill - and then marcheddown again"' (220). The'islands and tracts of land' designatedas British by the Captain, in the nameof the king, are of so little value as to excite no competition or counterclaimsfrom other sources. Wagstaff subvertsRoss's'glorious reward for his exertions'when, a few lines later on, we learn that William IV saw fit to dispersethe sovereigntyof the magneticpole around the crowned headsof Europe with a 'liberality' that he would most

"Pearson, pp.220-8. Further referencesto this sourceare given in the text. 69 certainly have beenreluctant to demonstratehad the Arctic wastesbeen of any obvious practical use. The great discovery of the magneticpole is ultimately reducedto a pantomime,as it becomes'the most aristocratic spot in the world -- as full of kings and queensas a "'fairy tale'(221). Wagstaff goes onto attack the

Captain!s personalvanity by pointing out that it is not actually Sir John Ross who reachesthe pole, but his nephewwho, as a Commander,outranks him. He then emphasizesagain the length and irrelevanceof the narrative; Sir John Ross, 'the man who did not discover the magnetic pole, has given to the world five hundred pages,which contain the history of his virtues and those of his men' (22 1).

In this piece, Thackeray successfullyundermines a pretentiousauthor and an unremarkablebook and also experimentswith the conventionsof the formal review by using a fictitious narrator. From the beginning,the reader is aware that Wagstaff himself is also a target of the satire. He beginsby beguiling the readerwith formal expressionsof self-deprecationto his editor: 'I recollect an opinion regardingmy merits as a critic, which my known modestywill forbid me here to mention' (220). However, as he later starts to exposethe personalvanity of Sir John Ross, he exhibits some his own authorial ambitions;styling himself as

AugustusWagstaff, Esq. in the title of the review, he announcesthat he 'is ready, at three monthsnotice to make a book twice as amusingas the captain'sand equally as edifying' (222). The flow of the text is interrupted by digressive insertions. Wagstaffs wife is a woman who cannot hold her tongue; shefalls asleepand setsfire to a manuscript. The formal reception of the travellers, by the

Esquimaux,appears as a parody of the Court Circular; a ceremonialexchange of gifts betweenthe explorer and his hosts is burlesquedby an image of the Captain wearing the 'completefemale dress, which was presentedto him (223). 70

The reader,at the end of the piece, is just as aware of the intrusive

Augustus Wagstaff as the book which is the subjectof the review. Thackeray, however, does not stop with the creation of a fictional reviewer, but experiments with another authorial deceptionthat he was to continue to practisein his later

work. Speakingas Wagstaff, he reminds his editor:

I confessthat I expectedto have commencedmy labours in your journal, either with a profound metaphysicalpaper, or a touching article on poetry, brilliant historical or a essay;-- why, then, did you (entertainingthose sentimentswhich you have been so pleasedto express)send me this unfortunatebook which figures at the head of this letter? (220)

The creation of a fictional editor and the epistolary review was a narratorial device

which reappearedwith the introduction of both Yellowplush and Titmarsh, and

this allowed Thackeraythe opportunity to extend his subjectmatter. By 1835, he

had alreadyexperienced the practicalities of running the National Standard, but no

longer ffifly in control of editorial decisionsat the Gazette,he was not in a position

to direct his satire at rival publications. Instead, as Wagstaff, he makesa tentative

attack from within, questioningthe editor's decisionthat this unfortunate book'

was actually worthy of anyone'sattention and offering what was, in effect, the

antithesisof a periodical 'puff. Thackeray,still only in his twenties, had already

had enoughexperience of the magazinetrade to discover somedoubtfiA editorial

practices,and editors, as the long-suffering 'Oliver Yorke! at Fra5er's was to

discover,were entitled to no deference.

In 1837,Yellowplush, Thackeray'ssuccessor to Wagstaff, appearedin

Fraser's. His d6but was as the author of'FashnableFax and Polite Annygoats',a

comic review ofMy Book; or, 7he Anatomy of Conduct by John Henry Skelton

(1837), a manualof nineteenth-centurysocial behaviour.' Thackerayestablishes

'Fraser's Magazine, Nov. 1837, Vol. 16, pp. 644-9. 71 the characterof his footman narrator immediately,as Yellowplush informs his

'editor' that he is definitely a cut above 'the common writin creaturswho do your and other magazinesat so much a yard'." The adoption of a servant'spersona and speech,complete with con-dcmalapropisms., misplaced aspirants and popular slang,gives Thackeray'ssatire a new focus. He usesthis fictional narrator to cross the assumptionsof classstratification, on which both My Book and Praser'V dependedfor their reading audiences. Thackerayis no longer writing for his middle-classreaders as 'one of themselves',but as an outside observerfrom the lower ranks of society.

The review of My Book is at once both knowing and naive. It is

introduced as 'a work that has beenlong wanted in the littery world'; this

immediatelycasts doubt on the skills of the reviewer, and establishesthe review in

the comic mode (25 1). In a tone of cheerful familiarity, Yellowplush rambles

discursivelythrough his narrative, commentingon details and interrupting the flow

of the text with amusinganecdotes on the lives of his fellow servantsand their

upper-classemployers. He beginswith enthusiasm:'A reglar slap-up,no-mistake,

out-an'-out accountof the mannersand usitchesof genteelsociety, which will be

appreciatedin every famly from Buckley Squareto Whitechapelmarket' (25 1). As

Yellowplush progresses,however, the reader becomesaware of an ironic quality

in his enthusiasm;his tone turns to mockery and he calls on his editor for support:

'But read the whole bunch of remarx, Mr. YORKE; they Why, an't rich? ... sich

things an't done, not by the knife-boy, not the skillery-made,who dine in the back

kitchen after we've done!' (258). There is, throughout the review, an implicit

"Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p-251. Further referencesto this volume are given in the text. 72 authorial understandingthat the readershipof Eraser's Magazine would have no need of a book of this nature. My Book may havebeen aimed at those aspiring to the 'genteel'classes, but Thackeraymakes it clear that he does not believe it to be a necessaryaddition to the bookshelvesof his readers.

The whole concept of using a footman as a reviewer satirizesthe expectationsof the literary review, particularly when Yellowplush attacks

Skelton'spretentious, formal style of prose and exposeshis own shortcomingsas a writer: Miss Simpkins,my Lady'sfeel de chamber, saysits complete ungramatticle,as so it is' (252). Skeltorfs presumedauthority on the subject of mannersis ultimately subjectedto the mockery of a servantfrom 'below stairs'.

However Yellowplush, like Wagstaff, has pretensionsof his own and Thackeray, in a spuriouseditorial comment,has the last word: 'We at once saw that only Mr.

Yellowplush was fit for Mr. Skelton, Mr. Skelton for Yellowplush'(259).

03 Er,3 03 EQ) 03 Le) c53 te)

It was said at the beginning of this chapterthat elementsof Menippean

satire in Thackeray'swork are not easyto identify. However, thesebecome more apparentas he continuesto refine his narratorial techniques. Wagstaff, as an early

in experiment this vein, discloseda method of writing satire which had more than one layer of meaning. In the creation of Yellowplush, there is evidencethat

Thackeray'snarratorial deviceswere reachingnew levels of sophistication. The

characterizationis stronger and the character'sfictional context is more clearly defined. In addition, the use of a fictional 'voice' createsa complex undercutting

of authorial assumptionsand reader expectations,and together theseindicate further possibilitiesof linking Thackeray'swork to the Menippeanmode. 73

Yellowplush is, essentially,a Menippeannarrator, 'oblivious to his own inadequaciesand contradictionsas he strives towards his goal'." Thackerayuses him to satirize his primary target, but there are underlying ambiguitiesin the discourse. The reader is askedto accept the opinion of a narrator whose authority is underminedby his own parodied speech. The narrative doesnot run smoothly;

Yellowplush distracts the reader'sattention with comic anecdotes,and Thackeray introducescomplex agendasand ambiguitiesin the text, implicating other targets in addition to the central focus of the satire. This createsa strong sensethat elementsof Menippeansatire are present,but in an organic form, an amorphous accumulationof seriocomictraditions that have infiltrated an essentially journalistic style of writing. At times, however, characteristicsof the mode emergemore clearly. There is clear evidencethat he is using satire as a meansof investigation,not into intellectual conceptsand ideologies,but into the orthodox social valuesof his period.

Yellowplush introduces the 'subjick' of My Book by contendingthat it warrants more seriousattention than 'politix, mettafizzix, or other silly sciences'

(25 1). As the review continuesto ridicule Skelton'swork, there is an implicit

sensethat Thackerayis also deliberatelyundermining both the valuesof

nineteenth-centurysociety and the contemporarycultural preoccupationwith dogmatic political and scientific concepts. The upper classes,as Yellowplush

clearly shows,are certainly not constrainedby the conventionsof formal conduct;

when Lady Smigsmag'sdentures are almost swallowedby an important guest, the

whole company,servants as well, join in the laughter. Furthermore, as

Yellowplush points out, a literary review, even of a book like Skelton's,should

"Relihan, p. 24. 74 take priority over the'silly sciences'. Thackerayis not merely ridiculing a pretentiouspiece of nonsense;he is also pointing out than anyonelike Skelton, who setshimself up as an authority, will ultimately havehis point of view challenged.

C19 LVII) C19 &3 C,9 &J C-1 EO

Part of the problem in identifying elementsof Menippeansatire in

Thackeray'swork has come from the nature of his subjectmatter. Peacock,who was deeply engagedin the intellectual preoccupationsof his period, fits more

closely to the paradigmsof the sub-genreas defined by twentieth-century literary

criticism. However, there is a dangerthat too much relianceon structured analysis

will becometoo prescriptive, particularly with a mode of writing that essentially

challengesformal constraints.

Relihan has commentedthat Bakhtin, in his analysisof Menippean

satire, 'castshis net very wide', but it is this wider applicationof Bakhtin's theories

that best contributesto an understandingof Thackeray'suse of the genre, and this

argumentwill be extendedin chapter four. " However, in order to clarify

contextual issuesthat this will raise, it is necessaryto acknowledgesome of the

changesthat occurred during the period, in particular those within the publishing

industry. The impact of these developments,and their relevanceto the work of

both authors,will be examinedin the next chapter.

"Relihan, p. 6. 75

Chapter 3: Menippus in the Marketplace

No attempt to identify a place for the writings of Peacockand

Thackerayin the literary tradition would be completewithout somecontextual discussionof their work in relation to contemporarychanges in the publishing industry. Although publishinghistory has come to the forefront of researchduring the last two decades,highlighting both the meansof production and the responses of reading audiences,little hasbeen done to examinethe effects of these revolutionary changeson the way writers worked and on the texts they produced.

The growth of periodical publication, and the greater emphasison commercial interests,brought together groups of authors who would be called on to collaborateand interact in a way unheardof by previous generationsof writers.

This chapterlooks at how changingmodes of publication in the first half of the nineteenthcentury challengedtraditional values in literature. in particular, it is an investigationinto the ways in which Peacockand Thackerayresponded to the cultural tensionswhich cameto exist in a new world of massproduction and public readership.

Peacockand Thackeraybegan their writing careersfrom a similar social standpoint. Both enjoyed a degreeof gentlemanlystatus and both were possessed of a small financial independence,which neither found sufficient for the support of a family and household. However, the twenty-six yearsthat divided their birth dateswas a quarter-centurywhich saw someof the most revolutionary changesin the publishingindustry. New methods of production, the growth of periodical publicationsand, in addition, changesin reading audiences,swept away eighteenth-centurytraditions of authorshipforever. Inevitably, thesealterations in production methodshad a profound and lasting effect on readerships.Although 76

Thackeray'searly work immediatelyfollowed the most productive period of

Peacock'swriting career,the marketsthey servedgraphically illustrate the demise of traditional notions of the author as a gentlemanof letters, and the emergenceof a new kind of writer who was, in effect, a tradesmanand a man of business.

Siskin (1998) tracesthroughout the eighteenthand early nineteenth centurieschanges in the publishing industry, which culminatedin a transition from earlier traditions of literary output to a recognizablymodem form of print production:

The year 1830 may appearto be an obvious candidatefor the endpoint since it matchesroughly the conventional close of British Romanticism,but it arisesfrom this book [ 7he Work of Writing] for different reasons. A combinationof technological and econon-ficchange points to the third decadeof the nineteenthcentury as a kind of watershed:beyond this lies the ' modem ... world of print.

While it may be arbitrary and historically unsoundto adopt a specific endpoint for what was, after all, a gradual processof change,other commentatorsshow an awarenessthat, as the 1820smerged into a new decade,the whole concept of writing and publishing had openedup unprecedentedcommercial opportunities for both businessmenand authors. Just as Peacockwas completing Crotchet Castle, his sixth and penultimatesatirical fiction, Thackeray,desperate for direction and financial independence,was looking for employmentin a publishing enviromnent very different to that of book production: the world of journals and newspapers.

Pearson'sinvestigation into Thackeray'searly work clearly demonstratesthe dilemmathat faced seriouswriters at this time:

Culturally, he (Thackeray] emergedonto a faultline betweenthe declining notion of writing as a gentlemanlyand aristocratic pursuit, and the modem age of commercialpublishing, More than any other writer of the period, he

' Clifford Siskin, 7he Work of Writing. - Literature and Social Change in Britain 1700-1830 (Baltimore: London: John Hopkins University Press, 1998), p. 11. 77

exemplifiesa transitional figure, continuously renegotiatingbetween the ideal and the reality of authorship. Though ultimately successful,financially and artistically, he remaineddeeply ambivalentabout the power image and responsibilityof the writer in a world of trade and trade-off.'

It is possible to place Peacock and Thackeray either side of Pearson's Thultline.

Peacock, representative of traditional values, the 'ideal' of an author as a scholar and a gentleman, was engaged with a book trade which still belonged predominantly to the educated and intellectual privileged classes. Thackeray, a

'transitional figure', caught up in a whirlwind of new production methods and market forces, was able to look forward to a new age of commercial publishing, a world of mass media opportunities, where the working writer would still be able to claim a modicum of class privilege and artistic integrity, but also where lucrative, full-time employment within the industry was rapidly becoming a possibility.

Although Pearson's research into Thackeray's early writings raises possibilities that he had made significant contributions to periodicals prior to acquiring his own paper, it is generally accepted that his literary apprenticeship commenced when he bought the National Standard in 183V This took place just two years after

Peacock had completed the first and main phase of his literary production. By this time, he was almost fifty years old, living quietly in Lower Halliford and enjoying a well established and prosperous career in the service of the East India Company.

Unlike Thackeray, there is no evidence to suggest that Peacock ever looked to literature as the means of earning a regular income. His earliest published work, the largely unsuccessful poems that appeared during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, was placed firmly outside contemporary changes in the publishing industry and the emerging public readership. Financed

2 Pearson,pp. 1-2. ' Ibid., pp. 231-5. 78 by a small independenceand the generosityof his mother, his situation at this time reflects what Pearsondescribes as the 'ideal' of authorship,writing as the part-time occupationof an educatedman, the'gentlemanly and aristocratic pursuit' of those who enjoyeda comfortable lifestyle of financial independence,or who wrote in their sparetime while engagedin some other kind of profession.

At the beginningof the nineteenthcentury, the idea of professionalism was just beginningto emerge,not yet as in the modem senseof undertaking remunerativeemployment, but as a pattern of behaviouralexpectations attributable to the leisuredclasses and those occupations,commonly legal and medical,which required extensivetraining: 'Even the very word prqfessional - as an adjective

into describinga particular set of behaviors- first appearedat the turn the nineteenthcentury, a moment also marked lexically by the debut of terms of differencesuch as amateur.4 The concept of the author or poet as a professional did not yet exist, not least becausethe notion that true gentlemanlystatus precludedthe necessityof earninga living.

Peacock,during the first two decadesof the nineteenthcentury, had the meansand leisureto follow an enthusiasmfor literary studiesand writing poetry,

when necessarymeeting the expensesof publication out of his own pocket. The

Monks qf St. Mark, by T. L. P., appearedin 1804 in pamphletform, two folded

sheets,probably privately printed. In January 1806,Palmyra and Other Poems,

by T. L. Peacock,reached the booksellers,this time as a bound volume of one

hundredand forty-one pages,published by W. J. and J. Richardson,price seven

shillings.His next poem, The Genius qf the Thames,did not appearuntil four

yearslater, although a self-deprecatoryletter to Hookham revealsthat he had

' Siskin, p.21. 79 begun work on it three years previously: 'PerhapsI haveundertaken more than I can perform, and shall be obliged at last to leavethe poem unfinished:however, as

I have no better occupation, I will return to the "idle trade" of writing verses.'5

There was one interruption to Peacock'sprogress in the 'idle trade' in 1808, when he was encouragedto embark on a short-lived naval career:'As to writing poetry, or doing anythingelse in this floating Inferno, it is almost next to a moral impossibility.' The Creniusof the 7hames:A Lyrical Poem in Two Parts, by

ThomasLove Peacock,was eventuallypublished in London by Hookham, and in

Edinburgh by Manners and Miller, in May 1810.

In a letter to Hookharn in the sameyear, he reflects on the financial implications of bringing out a secondedition of Palmyra. He also statesexplicitly his ultimate wnbition, the hope of literary recognition:

Richardson's bill - the expence,of printing - the little probability of encouragement from the trade to a work which was strangled in its birth - it be better and many other considerations - induce me to think that would to defer the republication of PalmyTa till some other work of mine shall have attained a degree of popularity, which I do not expect to be the case in the be by course of the ensuing winter. -- The temple of Fame must gained slow approaches, not taken byStorM. 7

Peacock'sliterary aspirationsin 1810, his vision of achievingthe'temple of Fame' as a poet, reflect an attitude which viewed recognition as a reward in itself. He saw the 'expenceof printing' and lack of encouragementfforn a 'trade', which knew only too well the financial implications of a restricted market, as minor inconveniencesin his progressas a man of letters. Before him stood the gentlemanly'ideal' of authorship,where the intrinsic value of a work was unrelated

to financial reward. Commercialtransactions necessary to the publication of a

' Halfiford Edition Vol. 8, p. 160. 6 Ibid., p. 162. ' Ibid., p 188. 80 book were mattersfor the trade concerned,not for the author and his anticipated readers. It is important to rememberthat, as Klancher points out, the literary world of early nineteenth-centuryEngland was still, for the most part, culturally circumscribedin ways which madeit 'possibleto conceivethe writer's relation to an audiencein terms of personalcompact'. I

Klancher offers an analysisof eighteenth-centuryEnglish reading audiencesby tracing an index of changein the modesof interaction which evolved, during the eighteenthcentury, betweenperiodical writers and the reading public.

Citing Defoe'sReWew (1704-13) and Addison's Spectator (1711-12 and 1714) and allowing for a degreeof editorial pretence,he elaborateson a method by which periodical writers frequently madeuse of readers'lettersto shapethe content and style of their own discourse:'The reciprocity of the reader and writer becomesso fundamentalto the discoursethat it must be suspectedeven where the

style is apparentlythe monological signatureof the writer himself ' This

interactive relationshipbetween editors and their readers,which continuedin

various forms until the last decadeof the eighteenthcentury, appearsto have had a

dual effect on readingaudiences. Initially, the reciprocal contact betweena writer

and his readers'constructed a knowable community of discoursethat united its

membersand distinguishedtheir social languagefrom that of other audiences'."

Later, as magazineproduction increasedduring the courseof the eighteenth

century and theseintimate communitiesof readersand writers becamemore

numerous,small groups had the effect of colonizing an amorphousreading public

into focusedsubdivisions, which in turn stimulatedthe production of yet more

Klancher, p. 14. Ibid., p.2 1. "Ibid., p.20. 81 periodicals,each designed as a specific approachto somesection of the culturally diverse,middle-class reading public.

This conceptionof writing, as a personalizedinterchange between the author and his readers,was already changing,even during the early years of

Peacock'scareer. Klancher identifies the French Revolution as the catalyst which dramaticallygalvanized the cultural structure of English literary production. He calculatesthat alterationsin authorial modesof addresschanged the eighteenth-centuryreader-writer balanceof power, creating new forces in the relationshipbetween an author and his audience. Radical writers, in adopting conventionsof classicalrhetoric to addresstheir audiences,assumed authorial precedenceover their readers. The intimacy betweenthe middle-classreaders and writers of eighteenth-centuryperiodicals now gave way to a new authoritarian stanceon the part of the writer, with the reader assuminga passiverole. In addition, authorswere now producing work for a lesseasily indentiflableaudience.

Klancher continues:

The phenomemonof the unsought massaudience also appearedin the early nineteenthcentury: Lord Byron and Walter Scott awakenedto something hardly imaginableto the writers who thought in terms of a deliberately formed compactbetween writer and audience. The new masspublic Byron faced could not be shaped,imagined or directed."

The concept of the public readership,however, with a few exceptions,did not gain

real impetusuntil the 1820s. Peacock,in Nightmare Abbey (1818), shows that he was aware of this 'unsought massaudience. Mr. Flosky, createdby Peacockto

shadowthe opinions of Coleridge, remarks: 'How can we be cheerful when we are

surroundedby a rea&ngpublic, that is growing too wise for its betters?"'

" Mancher, p. 172. "Ciamett, ed., p.413. 82

According to Jones'scontention as outlined in chapter one (p. 14), Shelleywas, by

1820, attemptingto embracea more heterogeneousaudience, but this appearsto have escapedPeacock's notice. " A couple of yearslater, Peacockwas to write to him in the following terms, making an implicit referenceto Byron's popular success:

Cain is very fine; SardanapalusI think finer; Don Juan is best of all. I have read nothing else in recent literature that I think good for anything. The poetry of your Adonais is very beautiful; but when you write you never think of your audience. The number who understandyou, and sympathisewith you, is very small. If you would considerwho and what the readersof poetry are, and adapt your compositionsto the depth of their understandings and the current of their sympathies,you would attain the highestdegree of poetical fame."

Peacockmay well have had a growing awarenessof the new author/writer relationshipsthat were emergingin the literary marketplace,but in his own work at least, there is little indication of a changein practice. For Peacock,a public reading audiencethat could not be 'shaped,imagined or directed' was a phenomenonto be resisted. The notion that an author wrote to satisfy an identifiableaudience, and that this reciprocal process,to someextent, controlled the work he produced,was a strategy firn-dyentrenched in Peacock'sconcept of authorshipand the coterie nature of some of his work will be expandedupon below.

A few yearslater, when Thackeraywas about to begin his careeras a journalist, literary recognition, within a selectivereadership, was fast becoming

irrelevant in a publishingclimate that took its cue ftom the economicsof industrial

production and profit. Work had to sell to a rapidly increasingmass audience and

the author would expect to be rewarded accordingly. Writing as a full-time

"Jones, p. 105. "Haliffiord Edition, Vol. 8, p.228. 83 occupationhad becomea reality. A prolific writer could hope to gain a viable income from his work, but successcame at a price, a constantengagement with the demandsof the marketplacewhere his work was bought and sold. Flis performance,to a vast and anonymousreading public, was governedby the economicconsiderations of trade. Altick assessesexternal factors fundamentalto the growth of the reading public. Demographic and economicchanges, which acceleratedat this time, had almost doubled the population: 'At the sametime, the classstructure and the occupationaland geographicaldistribution of the people underwentalterations which affected the availability of reading matter, educational opportunities,the conditions under which readingcould be done, and the popular attitude towards print. '" This argumentmay be extendedby a reconsiderationof the position of the reading population. It is unlikely that any steadilyincreasing group of people would remain totally passive,shaped only by external stimuli and pressures.Furthermore, the emergenceof a 'popular attitude towards print, would havebeen influenced by political events,changing cultural perceptionsof what was actually being written, as well as the way printed material was being producedand distributed.

Thackeray'sambitions as a writer, during the early years of his career, reflect an engagementwith the economic climate of the publishingindustry which was, to someextent, dictated by his own difficult financial circumstances.In

1841, mistakenfor the anonymousauthor of Cecil, which was, in fact, the work of

Mrs. CatherineGore, Thackerayexpressed a wish to his correspondent,Mrs.

Procter, that the rumour were true:

"Altick (1957), p. 81. 84

Not for the book's sakebut the filthy money'swhich I love better than fame. The fact is I am about a wonderful romanceand oh I long for the day the 3 vols. shall be completed-- not for fame'ssake again but for the disgusting before-mentionedconsideration. "

During this period, in direct contrast to Peacock'sexpectations of literary recognition of its own sake,Thackeray was looking to writing as a meansof making a living. There is no referenceelsewhere to the'wonderful romance' mentionedin his letter to Mrs. Procter. Throughout the last months of 1840, he was negotiating copyright terms for Titmarsh in Ireland with Chapmanand Hall, correspondingwith Fraser's over the publication of 'A ShabbyGenteel Story', and offering someComic Miscellanies to Cunninghamfor republication,in addition to making regular contributions to a number of periodicals. In 1845, Thackeray,with over a decadeofjoumalistic experience,was still belittling his achievementsin a

mannerthat implies a view of successin commercialrather than artistic terms. In

a letter to Richard Bedingfield, he wrote that his stories were 'not saleable'and

that it was a 'questionof trade', adding 'I can suit the magazines(but I can't hit the public, be hangedto them)'." The young Thackeray,his hand forced by adverse

financial circumstances,elected to engagein the realities of the trade. Peacock, who had reacheda similar situation in his own careera few yearsearlier, pursueda

very different route.

Ms approachto the 'temple of Fame'was slow indeed,although it

appearsthat 7he Genius of the Thamesdid, eventually,attain a small 'degreeof

popularity'. Palmyra was reprinted in 1812 in a collected edition of 1he Genius of

the Thames,Palmyra and Other Poems,by T. L. Peacock,published by Gale &

Curtis as a seven-shillingvolume. This publication also carried an advertisement

"Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p. 13. "Harden, ed., P.122. 85 for ThePhilosophy ofMelancholy, which had been publishedby the Hookhams the previous Februaryat eighteenshillings. The former volume had a modest successand reacheda secondedition, being reissuedat five shillings a copy in

1817,but the latter remainedin one edition only. Peacock'smost obvious success at this time, in terms of book sales,was in the children'smarket. Sir Hornbook: or, Childe Launcelot's Expedition, a'grammatico-allegoricalballad'for children, written in verse,was publishedanonymously in December1813 by Sharpeand

Hailes. This book, dubbed'an aid to grammarwithout tears', went into five editions, being revived in the mid-nineteenthcentury. " Sir Proteus: A Satirical

Ballad followed in 1814, publishedby the Hookhams at three shillings and

sixpence,a bound volume of seventy-two pages,under the pseudonymof P.M.

O'Donovan,Esq. Although listed as a new publication in the British Crific for

March 1814, and retailing at half the price of his previous volumes,there is no

record of its receiving any critical attention, and it was not reprinted until 1875 in

Cole!s edition of his Works. Peacockwas to continue writing versesthroughout

the remainderof his fife, but with the exception of Rhododaphne(1818) and a few

short satirical poems,which were publishedin the periodicals,the greater number

of theseremained in manuscript,appearing for the first time in posthumous

collections of his works. However, his interest in writing poetry was waning and

he shortly begana transition from poet to prose satirist.

The appearanceof Peacoclesfirst three prose satires,Headlong Hall

(18 16), Melincourt (1817) and Nightmare Abbey (1818), marked an acceleration

in his speedof production, but only a marginal increasein readership. In the first

11TIx- Works,of ThomasLove Peacock, ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith and C.E. Jones, Halliford Edition, Vol. I (London: Constable& Co., 1934), p-Iii. 86 instance,his work would have had potential readersrestricted to those classes which had not only the financial resourcesto purchasehard-backed volumes, but also sufficient leisure time in which to read them. This readership,however, would havebeen extended by library membership,the most rapidly expanding mode of distribution at that time. Secondly,his audienceswould have beenlimited by intellectual considerations. Much of the humour in Headlong Hall, Melincourt and Nightmare Abbey would be lost to readerswithout sufficient educationto appreciatethe numerousallusions to classical,Renaissance and contemporary literature found in the books. To the increasingnumber of readersof his own classwho were attracted by the growing popularity of the novel, his books must have seemedquaint, lacking the vital ingredientsof plot, incident and character,

and overwhelminglyheavy with classicalscholarship, literary allusion and ambivalentopinion.

During most of this seconddecade of his writing career,Peacock had

no occupationother than his writing. The Biographical Intro&iction to the

Haliffiord E&tjon quotes a letter from CharlesClairmont to his sister: 'He

[Peacock] seemsan idly-inclined man; indeed,he is professedlyso during the

summer."' At this stageof his life, having no other priorities, Peacockmay well

have agreed. His diary for July and August 1818,written while living at Marlow,

containsinnumerable references to passingdays on end on the river. He studied,

sailedor wrote at his leisure, without pressure. Although now in his early thirties,

unlike the young Thackerayat a similar age, he had no editors to satisfy and no

deadlinesto meet. He wrote as he wished to write, when he wished to do so,

influencedscarcely at all by market considerations,but a great deal by the

10HalfifordEdition, Vol. 1 (1934), p.lxiii. 87 stimulation of the ideological debatesand intellectual pursuits within his immediate circle of associates.

In 1812,Peacock had been introduced to Shelley,and throughout their ftiendship, they sharedan acquaintanceshipwhich, in addition to writers and poets, eventuallycame to include someof the more radical representativesof the publishingindustry and periodical trade. initially, this circle consistedof a number

of eccentricindividuals, whose ideological enthusiasmsPeacock found to be

lacking in reasonand restraint. In 1813, Shelleywas in Bracknell and actively

involved with the Newton-Boinville circle, but Peacockwas becomingincreasingly

amusedby someof the philosophiesthat Shelleyand his acquaintancesso

earnestlyespoused. In hisMemoirs of Percy ByssheShelley', published in

Fraser's in 1858,he recalls this period of his life:

At Bracknell, Shelley was surrounded by a numerous society, all of a great measure of his own opinions in relation to religion and politics, and the larger portion of them in relation to vegetable diet. But they wore their rue with a difference. Every one of them adopting some of the articles of the faith of their general church, had each, nevertheless some predominant his crotchet of or her own, which left a number of open questions for earnest and not always temperate discussion. I was sometimes irreverent enough to fervour laugh at the with which opinions utterly unconducive to any practical result were battled for as matters of the highest importance to the well-being of mankind; Harriet Shelley was always ready to laugh with me, and we thereby lost caste with some of the more hotheaded of the party. "

This ambivalent attitude towards an overzealous preoccupation with philosophical

trivia becomes very apparent in the parodies of Newton's treatise on

vegetarianism and Shelley's Notes to Owen Mab that appear in Headlong Hall.

Peacock's fight-hearted treatment of contemporary issues in this first prose satire

illustrates an attitude which owed its development to his experiences with the

Bracknell during company, the early years of his fliendship with Shelley. The

2'Halliford E&tion, Vol. 8, pp. 70- 1. 88 ideologies-- or, possibly, fads -- that he tackled in Headlong Hall, deteriorationismas opposedto the potential perfectibility of the humanrace, vegetarianismand the currently fashionablecrazes for landscaping,phrenology and metaphysics,were the preoccupationsof those whom Frye was later to describeas pedants,bigots and cranks, and whose deliberations,in reality, had little real use or practical application. Taken to obsessionalextremes, such notions merited satire rather than seriouscontemplation, but it is essentialto note that, as Butler points out, it was the opinions themselvesthat Peacockattacked, not the individuals to whom they were ascribed." Entertaining as someof theseideas may have been, they were, nevertheless,incompatible with Peacock'sperception of an age which valued rational thought and logical deduction. There is a sensethat Headlong

Hall was written in opposition to the group, perhapseven with the intention of enlighteningthose members,including a young and impressionableShelley, who took such matters so seriously.

When Shelleyadopted a new circle of acquaintances,Peacock was invited again to becomepart of the group. In this way, he met, amongothers,

Hunt, Hogg and Flazlitt, a body of practising writers and thinkers whose literary interests and political were of a more substantialnature than any he had previously encountered. The localized coterie of the Bracknell group, with its entertaining repertoire of eccentricitiesand crotchets, was replacedby a more seriously inclined associationof intellectuals,whose discussionscentred on a much wider issues. rangeof Although Nightmare Abbey was produced as a satire on the literary tastesof someof his contemporaries,in Melincourt (1817) andMaid Marian, but by all complete the end of 1818,Peacock demonstrates a much

2'Butler, p. 16. 89 stronger focus on the political issuesof the day, an aspectof his work which will be expandedin a later chapter.

Peacockwas probably not introduced to this group until the spring of

1817,but there is no doubt that he met with them frequently during his period of residenceat Marlow. Cox (1998) writes of a well-organized associationof intellectuals:'With Hunt as their chief organizer, they formed an intelligentsia,with the Examiner as their organ, with reform, anticlericalism,and joyful paganismas their platform, and with sharedenthusiasms such as Mozart, vegetarianism and myth.122 He further cites a letter from Alaric Watts to William Blackwood, which links CharlesLamb to the group 'listed with "Procter, Hazlitt, Hunt, Peacock,

ChasOllier, Talford, Reynoldscum mulfis affis"', who "'boast of their freedom from the kind"' 2' Although Peacock shacklesof religious sentimentof every . may havebeen unable to take too seriously some of the 'sharedenthusiasms' of the group, many of his sympathieswere akin to those expressedwithin the more central membership.

It is a measureof the prominenceof the Hunt circle that it came under frequent attack from the establishedperiodicals of the day, in particular

Blackwood'sMagazine and the Quarterly Review, and, as illustrated in chapter one, also becamea target for satire in the public journals. The unpopularity of the

group stemmedfrom the views expressedin the work of its members,which were

construedas radical and oppositional by the reactionarypress of post-] 815

Britain:

The bothered very things that the Cockney School critics - its attacks upon the governmentand organizedreligion, its celebrationof sexuality,its very

22COX, pp. 21. "Ibid., pp. 19-20. 90

statusas a coterie - identify it a countercultural movement,rejecting establishedauthority, embracingeroticism rather than violence as a means for revolutionizing life, and offering in its own communalorganization a 21 model for a society remade.

It was the united strength of the underlying ideologiesof the coterie that provoked

Blackwood's attacks on the'Cockney School'. Manuscript coteries had existed in literary circles throughout the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies as a common, interactive processof literary production in the pre-printing era. However, the term also had political connotations. Used in eighteenth-centuryFrance to refer to groups of peasants,united againsttheir landlords in the common causeof defendingtheir rights of tenure, coterie activities cameto be viewed as culturally marginal. In the volatile political climate of post-Waterloo Britain, such a highly articulate, organisedcircle led by Hunt, who had already sufferedimprisonment for his radical publications,would have been seenas a threat, a thorn in the side of those who upheld reactionaryattitudes towards governmentand religion.

However, there is no evidencethat the group ever had revolutionary intentions or evenaspired to organisethemselves politically. Like Peacock,their interest in contemporaryaffairs was intellectual. They were held together by intellectual deliberation,educated, politically and culturally aware,but open-mindedand freethinking, engagedwith the ideas rather than the actualitiesof the period. The novel-readingpublic may have found Peacock'sbooks hard to digest. To membersof the Hunt circle, they would have seemedrelevant and representative, confirming Peacock'sallegiance to the group's oppositional opinions and hopesfor cultural change.

'Cox, p. 61. 91

Cox has argued a strong casethat coterie writing was central to the

Hunt circle and that these activities, for the most part, revolved around the work of its core membership. The extent to which Peacocktook part in these sonnet competitionsand epistolary versesis not particularly clear. There are, however, recordsthat he was involved in argumentssurrounding Ollier's refusal to publish

Shelley'sLaon and Cythna on account of the radical views it expressed,and he was engagedin the critical discussionsand communalediting sessionsthat eventuallyproduced the modified form, publishedin 1818 as the Revolt of 14am

Cox confirms that his connectionswith the group were maintained,even after

Shelley left Englandin 1818, and he continued to associatewith someof its membersin later years: While we think of thesenew additions [Hogg and

Peacock] as the ffiends of Shelley,after Shelleywent to Italy Hunt reported that

"Hogg and Peacockgenerally live here Sunday over ... and we passvery pleasant afternoons,talking of mythology, the Greeks I Furthermore,he and ...... and Shelleycontinued to sharea common interest in Hunt's Examiner, and following the latter's departureto Italy, Peacockregularly forwarded his back copiesto the

poet, later arrangingfor Ollier to 'executethe commission'of having the magazine

mailed directly to Shelley.27

Just as Peacockhad found satirical targets amongthe crotchets and

ideologiesof the more extrememembers of the Newton-Boinville circle, he came

to perceivecultural excessesin the work of someof his contemporaries.

Although, ultimately, he respectedthe work of Byron, there were aspectsof his

style that Peacockfound untenable. Nightmare Abbey was written as a protest

2'HalfifordEdwon, Vol. 8, p. 141. 26COX, pp. 46-7. 2'Halfiford Edition, Vol. 8, pp. 196-7. 92

he felt be againstwhat to the exaggeratedmelancholy of modem literature -- in particular, that which he had encounteredin the fourth canto of Byron's (7hilde

Harolde (1816-18). While engagedon the book, he wrote to Hogg that he was amusinghimself 'with the darknessand misanthropyof modem literature, from the lanternjaws of which I shall endeavourto elicit a laugh'. -ýs

In May 1818,Nightmare Abbey was'almost finished'and he wrote to

Shelleythat Byron's 'fourth Canto of (7hilde Harold is really too bad. Icannot consentto be auditor tantrum of this systematical"poisoning" of the "mind" of the

"readingpublic"'. " Shelleyagreed: 'I entirely agreewith what you say about

Childe Harold. The spirit in which it is written is, if insane,the most wicked and mischievousinsanity that was ever given forth. "' This'wicked and mischievous insanity'was alreadyin the processof being exposedin Nightmare Abbey, and

Byron receivesno mercy at the handsof Peacock. Mr. Cypress'sdialogue would havebeen immediately recognizable to readersof C.hilde Harolds Pilgrimage, and in casethe relationshipwas not sufficiently clear, Peacockpointed out very specifically,in his own footnotes, his allusionsto the text as, for example,in this extract of dialogue:

I haveno hope for myself or for others. Our life is a false nature; it is not in the harmonyof things; it is an all-blastingupas, whose root is earth and whose leavesare the skies which rain their poison-dewsupon mankind. We wither from our youth; we gasp with unslakedthirst for unobtainablegood, lured from the first to last by the phantoms-- love, fame, ambition, avarice -- all idle and all HI -- one meteor of many names,that vanishesin the smoke of death."'

2'New Shellej, Letters, ed. by W, S. Scott (London: The Bodley Head, 1948), p. 112. 'Walliford Edition, vol. 8, p. 193. 1 7-heProse Worksqf Perc:y JýyssheShelky, by H. Buxton Fonnan, Vol. 4, ed. (London: Reevesand Tumer, 1980), 60. 31 p. Gamett, ed., p.4 10. 93

This is is a parody of canto 4, versescxxiv and cxxvi, and echoesa Menippean tradition in which the speakeris mocked by his own narrative, an effect which

Peackockheightens by a dislocation of his readers'expectations. He presents poetry in prose form, and Byron's words and the sentimentsthey convey are made to soundridiculous when used as part of a prose dialogue in which the reader's attention is focusedon literal meanings,rather than configurationsof rhythm and style in the verse. However, Peacock'ssatire of Byron, and the insertion of a chapterdevoted to his work, are a mark of his respectfor the poet; on the other hand,Keats, prot6g6 of Hunt and foremost among the 'Cockney poets' at this time, was, in his opinion, not worth the effort. In 1820, he wrote to Shelley:'If I should live to the age of Methusalern,and have uninterrupted literary leisure, I should not find time to read Keats'sHyperion. Hogg and I are now readingDemosthenes. ' 32

Peacockwas about to throw down a public challengeto Shelleyand other membersof the Hunt fraternity.

'The Four Ages of Poetry'was printed in the first and only issueof

Offier's Litermy Miscellany, a short-lived project of 'prose and verse by several hands'.Published by CharlesOllier, a fellow memberof the Hunt circle, it questionsexplicitly the value, in utilitarian terms, of poetry as a literary medium, but, as alreadymentioned in the precedingchapter, Altick acknowledgesthat the essayis'so faithful to the Benthamiteview that its ironical intention is sometimes

overlooked'." In this essayPeacock argues for the declineof poetry and assigns

it to an ineffective role in contemporarysociety. The whole tenor of the work

readsas a new departure,a transition into the businessof writing periodical

"HallifordEdition, Vol. 8, p. 219. "Ch. 2, 28, n. P-58.- 94 contributions. Authoritative in tone, the work is leavened by characteristichints of ironic humour. There is a senseof platform rhetoric, words designedless to wound than to provoke, inflame and, more importantly, to elicit a response. The prose is vigorous, a cropped rhythm of short sentences,those of longer duration being divided into numeroussub-clauses and phrases;it has pace and energy;the languageis direct and forceful, with much lesstrace of the scholarlyallusions and copious footnotes that litter the fictional narrativesand Sir Proreus (1814). The colloquial denunciationof individual writers burlesquescontemporary poetry as a seriousform of literature. Written to raise a responsefrom the second-generation romantic poets engagedin the collaborative network of the Hunt coterie, it succeeded.In 1821, Shefleypublished his Defence (?f Poetry.

Peacock'sdisillusionment with contemporarytrends in literature did not begin and end with poetry. A year later, he was complainingto Shelleythat 'the presentstate of literature is so thoroughly vile that there is scarcelyany new publication worth looking at, much less buying. " Once establishedin his appointmentat India House, he urged his fhend to follow this exampleby

flesh pursuing'some schemeof and blood - someinteresting matter connected with the businessof life, in the shapeof a practical man'." The influenceof an administrative,rather than creative environmentwas making itself felt, and although connectionswith the Hunt circle were not completely severed,they gave way to new interests. It seemslikely that his close proximity to JamesMill at

India House may have had somebearing on the fact that Peacockturned his attention from literature as an mode of artistic expressionto the more austere

-'Halfiford Edition, Vol. 8, p. 22 1. "Ibid., p. 226. 95 doctrines of Benthamand Utilitarianism. The impetusto gain literary recognition, never very vigorously pursued,now retreated againstthe advanceof a different kind of success.

CAS EO 03 BO C93 z1Q) CIS e)

The 1820sand the 'watershed'effect that this decadebrought to the publishingindustry was beginningto influence Peacock'smodes of publication.

Whilst his engagementwith literature continued as a'gentlemanly and aristocratic pursuit', he begana desultory flirtation with the periodical press. Between the publication of 'The Four Ages of Poetry' (1820) andMaid Marian (1822), he contributed 'Rich and Poor; or, Saint and Sinner'to both The Traveller and The

Examiner in 1821. This was a light-hearted verse responseto Wilberforce's commentthat 'the offencesof the poor camemore under observationthan those of the rich'. It appearedagain in the Globe and Traveller (1825), and was picked out by Thackeray,some fifteen years later, and appended,as a footnote, to his 'Essay on the Geniusof George Cruickshank'(1840), with this explanation:'The lines following -- ever fresh -- by the author of "HeadlongHall", publishedyears ago in the Globe and 7javeller, are an excellent commenton severalof the cuts from "Sundayin London". "' 'PaperMoney Lyrics', written in 1825-6,was twice privately circulated among Peacock'simmediate acquaintances, the first time, in

1826,in manuscriptform, perhapsan echo of the coterie practicesof the Hunt circle. On the secondoccasion, one hundredcopies were privately printed, together with a few other poems,shortly after the versesappeared in 1837 in Me Guide.

'Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p.300. 96

For a short period, between 1827 and 1830, Peacock became a contributor to the Westminster Review, no doubt through his connection with

James Mill, then his superior at India House, John Stuart Mill comments on the inception of the magazine:

Contrary to what may havebeen supposed,my father was in no degreea to the WestminsterReview Mr. Benthamdetermined to party setting up ... establishthe Reviewat his own cost, and offered the editorship to my father who declinedit as incompatiblewith his India House appointment."

One of the intentions in setting up the Weqminvier was that it should both monitor and challengethe quality of the other review publicationsof the period, Between

1827 and 1830, Peacocksupplied four contributions to the magazine,the first three appearingas reviews of recently publishedbooks, the fourth being an essay.

A selectionof Peacock'swork for the Westminsterand other periodicals'Ail]

receivemore detailed attention in chapter five,

In 1830,Peacock was still active as an author. In addition to a few

satirical verses,which bad been publishedin periodicals, 7he Misfortune-19of

Rphin appearedin 1829, and Crotcbel Cawle was nearingcompletion, There is

also evidencethat he had somekind of engagementwith various periodicalsin the

role of a theatre critic. At the sametime as he was writing for the Westminvter,he

was also contributing short theatre notices to the Globe and the,hiraminer,

Brett-Smith and Joneshave traced numerousunsigned examples of thesefrom

cuttings retainedin the Peacockfamily papers,some of which they claim to be

certainly his work. " Other referencesappear to support this theory. Hazlitt, in

an article on 'The Utilitarian Controversy' for the AtIaF (1829), attackedthe

"J. S. Mill, Autobiography (New York: New American Library of World Literature, 1964), pp,80-1, "Halfiford Edition, Vol. 9, pp. 414-420. 97 puritanical fervour of someof the Weuminsterreviewers and suggestedthat

Peacock'sposition as a contributor to that magazinewas incompatiblewith his role as theatre critic:

Will Mr. Irving [Rev. Edward Irving] sendyou to the opera to hear sounds ftom MadamePasta 'that might create a soul under the ribs of deathT No Westminster! his more will the P ------poor fellow! dare no more show face there than his own Sir Ourang-Outang!"'

Peacock'sreactions to Hazlitt's commentsare not recorded,but he must have been well aware that subservienceto the internal politics of the periodical market could act as an embarrassingconstraint on authorial autonomy. Among thesetheatre notices, somethat were originally publishedin the Examiner (183 1-34) have been reproducedin the Haffiford Edition of his works.4" Thesereviews relate almost exclusivelyto opera at the King's Theatre and appearwith a regularity that

suggestsa contractual obligation to the magazine. The Examiner also printed, in

1831, 'The Fate of a Broom', which Peacockincluded as a footnote to Dr.

Folliatt's strictureson Brougham in Crotchet Castle, publishedin the sameyear.

Throughout the 1830sand coinciding with Thackeray'searly debut as a journalist, Peacockcontinued to engagewith the periodical market, but it appears

to havebeen an activity that was incidental to the main businessof his life, which

focusedon the affairs of the East India Company. Ns articles were published

through personalconnections, rather than by any active canvassingon his own

behalf. The London Review publishedsome of his work during the 1835-6 period,

a review of Lord Mount Edgec7imbe'sMusical Reminiscences,and three essays,

'FrenchComic Romances!,'The Epicier' and 'Bellini', the last two appearingin the

sameissue. 'PaperMoney Lyrics', now over a decadeold, madea first public

39HajjýfordF Vol. 9, 403. ýdjtjon' p. "'Ibid., p.405. 98 appearancein Me (Wde in 1837. This signalledthe end of Peacock'sfirst period of literary production. There is no record of publishedmaterial from his pen during the 1840s,although manuscriptpoems exist from this decade,but in 1851,

'Gastronomyand Civilization' made an appearancein Fraser's. This heraldeda connectionwith the magazinewhich culminatedin the serializationof Gryll

Grange in 1861.

Peacock'speriodical contributions are of lessliterary interest than his prose fictions. In these,the wild satire and exaggeratedhumour of his books is conspicuousby its absence,but there is stifl a senseof intenseinteflectual activity beneaththe surfaceof his work. There is also an almost pedanticpreoccupation with accuracy,which unsettlesthe readerwith a suspicionof an underlying authorial irony, and this is a theme which will be explored in chapterfive,

03 LIO 03 &,l) 03 EPI) C18 Btol

At this point of the discussionit is important to emphasizethat

Peacoclesengagement with literature relatesclosely to eighteenth-century traditions of authorship;Thackeray's relationship with the periodical marketplace of the 1830swas very different. From the beginningof his career,Thackeray looked to writing as a meansof earning a livelihood, and he found himself at the mercy of a commercialenvironment which not only demandedprofit, but exploited both its authors and readershipby advertisingits own interests. He quickly found that somewho were engagedin the fast-growing market of print production had few principles and less scruples.

As a very young man, he suffered a baptism of fire. Duped into buying

from a non-existentnewspaper two scoundrels,he purchasedanother which was to fail just over a year later. However, Thackerayseemed able to learn from his 99 experiencesvery quickly. Pearsonsummarises his position at this time: 'Thackeray enteredthe professionat a moment of significant cultural changein the production, marketing and saleof literature. He is a writer who participatesin the

emergingmass media and reflects upon the transformationof literary production."

At the age of twenty-two, Thackeray, full of energyand ambition and

desperatefor financial independence,became at once the proprietor and editor of

the National Standard (1833-4). The experience,although brief, gave him not

only an insight into the writing skills neededto produce good copy and meet the

hectic paceof printers' deadlines,but also a unique awarenessof how an editor

had a responsibilityto his readersto maintain a corporate identity for a publication

as a whole. He also learnedvery quickly that in a market which depended

increasinglyon successfulnetworking among its participants,some vaguely

dubiouspublishing practices were a necessarycorollary to financial survival (12).

Authorial autonomy,in a commercialcontext, was bought at the price of isolation,

and isolation meant financial ruin.

Thackeray'searly difficulties within the periodical market were due a

lack of experiencein the business,rather than any problem with the creative side

of the work. There is evidencethat he may have begunhis careeras a journalist

earlier than previously credited. Pearson's researchinto Thackeray'searly work

identifies eighteenpossible contributions to the Original (183 2), a short-lived

comic miscellanyedited by John Thom and Henry Plunkett Grattan (23 1). He also

augmentsexisting records of Thackeray'scontributions to the National Standard,

building on the work of Saintsbury(1899), Gulliver (1934) and Hawes (1972), to

produce a list of over two hundred,and fifty articles, probably attributable to

"Pearson, p. x. Further referencesto this source are given in the text. 100

Thackeray,spanning three volumes of the periodical. It would appearthat he was not only the paper'sowner and editor, but also its chief contributor, and it is possibleto concludethat, by the time Thackerayapproached the next stageof his career,he had alreadyamassed a range of journalistic experience. In 1835, he beganto write for the Paris Literary Gazette,and Pearsonoffers a substantial argumentthat the transition from his former role as editor of the Standard to that of a contributor to the Gazettewas instrumentalin his developmentas a writer:

The alteration of concernsin moving from the National Standard to the Paris Literary Gazette,the suddeninappropriateness of engagingin satirical combat with other rival magazines,forced Thackerayto develop new strategiesfor his own writings. A study of Thackeray'scontributions to this small magazinecompared to Thackeray'sother known writings of the 1830s, gives a greater senseof continuity to the developmentof his ideas and the evolution of his narrative techniquesthan has hitherto been accepted.(26)

Someof Thackeray'swork for the Paris Literary Gazetteand the developmentof his narratorial skills have alreadybeen mentioned in the previous chapter(see pp.66-67). The paper itself bore similarities to the National Standard in that it was a'fight-hearted miscellany, but there were marked differencesin the markets servedby the two papers(23). The SlaWard, which was issuedfrom London and forced to increasein price during Thackerays first year as editor, attemptedto

for createa market itself as a low-priced literary weekly, targeting a mainly middle-classreadership. Attempting to maintain independencefrom the major houses, publishing which owned or controlled the journals to which they fed their products, Thackeraylaunched a seriesof satirical attackson the commercial practicesof periodical publication. Isolated from his competitors and by his misunderstood readers,he was forced to abandonthe paper. On the other hand, however, Gazette the was aimed at a more specific readershipwithin a less competitive marketplace. His engagementwith the magazinefreed him from the 101 ties of marketing practiceswhich he found unacceptable,and enabledhim to evolve a personalstyle of writing with wider applicationswithin the perodical market. The Gazette,with its readershipconfined socially and geographicallyto the middle-classEnglish population of Paris, provided a safeenvironment in which he could experimentwith forms of writing that allowed him a degreeof authorial autonomy,but did not transgresseditorial authority. it also enabledhim to engage with a knowable reading audience,allowing a degreeof author/readerintimacy which reflected earlier styles of periodical publication. This apprenticeship, although fraught with uncertaintiesand financial problems,was a highly significant period in his developmentas a writer. As mentionedin the previous chapter (see p.67), someof theseexperiments lay the foundationsof his future work, and on

his return to England, they were to becomethe trademarkof his craft as a writer.

Between the years 1837 and 1846,Fraser's Magazinefor Townand

Country, to give it its full title, bought numerouscontributions fi-om Thackeray.

Once again he was forced to accommodatechange, adapting his skills to suit a

new corporate identity and a different set of editorial criteria. From Thackeray's

point of view, one factor in favour of Fraser's would have beenthat the magazine

was independentof any book publishersand prided itself on the non-pairtizan

quality of its reviews. This was the very principle that had guided Thackeray

during his period of editorship and had ultimately contributed to the demiseof the

National Standard. In addition, Fraser's Magazine was obliged to meet the needs

of a very much wider audiencethan that of the Paris Gazette. Thackeraywas

now addressinga readership,diverse in social and cultural interests,which

included the rural gentry and aristocracy,as well as a growing group of successfid

businessmenfrom all strata of the urban middle classes. A typical monthly issueof 102

Fraser'. v consisted of approximately a hundred and twenty pages, printed in two columns, with perhaps two or three very small illustrations. One such copy, that which published 'Nfiss. Shum's Husband', includes book reviews, a long and detailed critique of Parisian newspapers, essays on topical affairs and an occasional

12 piece of verse. The tone of this issueis, for the most part, serious,didactic and satirical-in a politically prescriptive manner. 'The Prospectsof the New Year' debatesthe possibility of the Whigs and Radicalsjoining forces againstthe Tory party, and advisesagainst it-, the last contribution to the number is an assessment of the effects of the Reform Act, entitled 'How Long Can it LastT, explicitly resentfulthat, as far as Fra.verv was concerned,the Radicalshad servedthe interestsof the Whigs.

In one respect, 'Miss. Shum'sHusband', which signalsYellowplush's successfUltransition from comic reviewer to storyteller, seemsstrangely at odds with the mood of the accompanyingtexts, but the fiction, with its robust humour and con* style, provides a light contrast to the more earnesttones of the other contributions. Thackerayhad found a-narratorialmethod which not only allowed him to develop his complex style of satire, but also suited his determinationto maintain authorial autonomy. Disguised as a fictionalized narrator who was

himself a part of the fiction, Thackeraywas safefrom the censureof both the

publishinghierarchy that controlled the market for his work, and the public to whom his texts were addressed.He had attained a significant advantagein his

approachto an ideal of authorshipthat would allow him to write as he wished.

Thackeraywas still contributing regularly to 1;)-aser's in July 1838 as but Yellowplush, a new narratorialpersona was following hard on the footman's

'Eraser's, Vol. 17, January 1838. 103 heels. Michael Angelo Titmarsh first appearedin the sameissue as Yellowplush's

Mr. Deuceaceat Paris', as the writer of 'Strictures on Pictures',a comic review of the Royal Academyexhibition at the National Gallery." The style of this piece is by now very familiar. The epistolary form, the narratorial interruptions, the rambling, disjointed nature of the discourseand a fictive editorial footnote all distinguishthe creation of this new narratorial identity, others were to follow.

During the sameyear, ZheAdventurev ofMajor Gahagan, written in the style of a confic n-tilitarymemoir novel, was being serializedin Colburns New Monthly

Magazine. In 1839,Fraver's serializedCatherine, as related by Ikey Solomon, a very dubiousnarrator appropriate to the subjectmatter: This was followed by the creation of George SavageFitzboodle, middle-agedclubman and bon viveur, who regularly sent in contributions to Fraser's, and acted both as the narrator of Men'V

Wivesand the fictional editor of YheMemoir,, v of Barry Lyndon (1844). F),ayer's exploited Thackeray'smultiple identities by spinninga web of intrigue around thesemysterious contributors. 'But who is TITMARSHT demandsthe anonymousauthor of' Titmarsh's Tour Through Turkeydom', a review of

Thackeray'sTourfrom Cornhill to Cairo (1845): 'Is he a man or myth? humanor a hoax?" With inside knowledge of the periodical trade, the writer lists his other aliases,Yellowplush, Gahagan,FitzBoodle, and namesthe'latest incamation'as the Fat Contributor in Punch.

With the exception of Titmarsh, these'incarnations' have several characteristicsin common. They are comical and foolish. In varying degrees,

most of them exhibit an inclination towards dishonesty. They are materialistic,full

'Frayer's, Vol. 17, June 1838, pp.758-64. "Traser's, Vol. 33, April 1846, p.86, 104 of their own importance, and collectively embody someof the least attractive attributes of their classand period. Each merits the satire that Thackerayhands out to him, and each,convinced of his own veracity, demolisheshis credibility with every line.

Titmarsh, however, was different, The best known and easily the most prolific of Thackeray'snarrator-personae, he was also a more versatile conception than Yellowplush or FitzBoodle and, undoubtedly, the favourite of the Thackeray family. In later years, the author's daughter, Anne Ritchie, spoke of Titmarsh: 'To the kingdom of heavenhe assuredlybelongs! kindly humorous,delightful little ftiend; droll shadowbehind which my father loved to shelterhimself. " Titmarsh was Thackeray'sprofessional voice, the journalist within a journalist, who satirized contemporarycultural values and commentedon the practicesof his own profession. He was also a loyal and faithful recorder of his creator'simpressions and Thackerayoften referred to himself as Titmarsh. In a letter to his mother, written in 1840in desperatepersonal circumstances, he laments:'0 Titmarsh

did Titmarsh why you marry? - why for better or for worse.' Titmarsh was the

literary cover which allowed Thackeraythe freedom to attack humbugand cant without compromisinghis personalposition in the publishingworld. He created

Titmarsh as a failed artist, and the irony of this would not havebeen lost on his fiiends; however, although Titmarsh'sbehaviour may occasionallyappear to be wanting in discretion, he is never presentedas a fool. The readeris left with a

strong impressionthat Titmarsh.'s authority is not underminedby the -authorand

'Biographical Edition, Vol. 3, p. xxxviii. 'Harden, ed., p.73. 105 his remarks,although often flippant, are worthy of seriousreflection.

CIS L*-) CIS Bell) (M E0 C93 L*-)

The realities ofjournalism in the mid-nineteenthcentury confirmed for

Thackerayhis own disillusionment,both with the professionand with the spurious valuesof his era: 'Our calling is sneeredat becauseit is not well paid. The world has no other criterion for respectability.' No longer in possessionof any form of gentlemanlyindependence, he sketchedand wrote to support his daughtersand a sick wife. For a time, he was caught in a dislocatedset of valuesand tensions,a victim of developingcommercial practices still at an innovative stage. As a

'transitionalfigure, trapped in the superstructureof an evolving industry, he would have beenwell aware that traditional notions of an author'sposition in society were anachronisticand unviable in this new commercialcontext. The public readershipwas expandingrapidly, as was the numberof writers seekingthe opportunity to get their work into print. Competition was intense;frequently it was a question of quantity rather than quality, and Thackeray'searlier experiences as the lone voice of the National Standard had taught him that a moral crusade againstthe commercialpractices of the literary marketplacewas doomed to failure. If he were to survive financially, he must acceptthe popular image of the writer as a tradesmanand accept a tradesman'sposition in society, working long

hours under intensepressure. He wrote for financial reward and to gratify the

popular readership,but used his satire to challengethe commercialculture on

which he was dependent.

The theme of money as a criterion of respectis central to TheHistory

of Samuel Tumarshand the Great Hoggarty Diamond (184 1), first publishedas a

471A Brother of the Press,Fraser's Vol. 33, March 1846, p.334. 106 serial in Eraser'sMagazine and attributed to SamuelTitmarsh, the nephewof

Michael Angelo. In the book, Thackerayuses a referenceto Peacock'sMaid

Marian, the only one of Peacock'sbooks to achievea measureof popular success.

Brough, the chairmanof the IndependentWest Diddlesex Fire and Life

AsssuranceCompany, has a rebellious clerk, Bob Swinney,who, 'too knowing by half, had obtainedfree admissionto the Covent GardenTheatre,

He was always talking down at the shop, as we called it (it wasn't a shop, but as splendidan office as any in Cornhill) -- he was always talking about Vestris and Miss Tree, and singing 'The bramble,the bramble, The jolly jolly bramble!' one of CharlesKemble's famous songsin 'Maid Marian; a play that was all the rage then, taken from a famous story-book by one Peacock,a clerk in the India House; and a precious good place he hastoo. "

The song differs from Peacock'soriginal words: 'The bramble,the bramble,the bonny forest bramble probably a lyricist's adaptationof Brother Mchael's song for the stage.' The use of this referencesets the action of Thackeray'sfiction fim-Ayin the historical context of the early 1820s,when Planch6adapted Peacock's book for the stage. It is also a satirical reduction, which trivializes MaidMarian as a'story-book'and its author as a'clerk in the India House'. The throwaway rider, 'and a preciousgood place he has too', may be a contemporaryreference to

Peacock'spromotion in 1836 to the position of Chief Examiner,with an annual salaryamounting to two thousandpounds. The financial security that accompaniedthis appointment,together with the respectand statusit conferred, may well havebeen a sourceof envy for the penurious,debt-beleaguered

Thackeray. However, it is essentialhere to rememberwhose viewpoint is being revealed. The book and its author are not being evaluatedby Thackerayhimself,

4'Biographical Edition, Vol. 3, p. 10. 'Gamett, ed., P. 451. 107 but through the words of SamuelTitmarsh, who is unableto understandthe deepersignificance of Peacock'swork, either as a parody of contemporarytastes in literature or, in parts, as a seriouspolitical satire, His superficial perceptions may be the product of youthful inexperience,but they are also representativeof the growing popular culture, a massaudience taking at face value whatever the mediaprovided as entertainment.

Thackeraywas slow to acknowledge,publicly at least, any significance in the role that a journalist could play in this new world of mass-produced literature and inexperiencedreading audiences. The authorial objectiveshe discussedin his correspondenceappear to be closer to the popular values he professedto despise,rather than suggestiveof any seriouscommitment to literature. In 1836, he wrote to FitzGerald: 'I like the newspaperwork very much, it is excitementto I think in to deal a continual me ... politics where all are rogues with (yr. hble Servt. among them) a man cannot sneerand scorn too much'.5" In

1842,when he beganhis associationwith Putich, his motivation was still centred on financial reward, but there was also a senseof sheerenjoyment in writing satire: 'I've beenwriting for the FQ [Foreign Quarterly) and a very low paper

but called Punch, that's a secret - only it's good pay, and a good opportunity for unrestrainedlaughing, sneering,kicking and gambadoing." Howeveritwould be unfair to gain an impressionfrom the cheerful flippancy of his correspondence that Thackerayhad no seriousintentions as a journalist and writer.

C53 WQ8 &-) C's e-) C1 8")

"Harden, ed., p.38 5IRay,ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p.54. 108

Someof the work. Thackerayproduced, particularly during the 1835-45 period, provides evidencethat he was a competentreporter of news and events, capableof tackling complex and emotive issueswith sensitivity and skill.

Although contributing regularly to Fraser's Magazine and later to Punch, he continuedto experimentwith styles ofjournalism relevantto a much VAderrange of publishingoutlets. In 1840, he contributed 'An Essayon the Geniusof George

Cruickshank'to the WestminsterReview, a long and sensitivelywritten appraisalof the artist, showing him to being very much in sympathywith his subject." During the sameyear, Fraser's published'Going to Seea Man Hanged',a perceptivepiece of reporting on the execution of FrangoisCourvoisier. " Ray indicatesthat

Thackeray,during the early yearsof his career,had hopesof obtaining newspaper work as a staff reporter, rather than continuing in his better known role as a freelancecontributor to the magazines. Of the two main dailies of the period, he entertaineda preferencefor the Morning (7hrollicle: 'The Chrollicle's liberal political policies madeit far more congenialto Thackeraythan its great rival (the

Times],and for many years he endeavoredunavailingly to obtain a place on its staff."' Whateverhis scruplesabout the politics of the Times,he was still happy to contribute to their columns and his review of Carlyle'sHistory of t1wPýench

Revolution appearedin the paper in 1837. None of theseovertures were to lead to long-term engagements,however, although he did manageto securea floating associationwith the Chronicle, during the 1840s. Ray hasidentified a number of theseanonymous contributions to this publication, largely from the evidenceof

12Westminster Review, June 1840, Vol. 34, pp. 1-60. 53Fraser's Magazine, Auj. 1840, Vol. 22, pp. 150-8. "'G. N. Ray (ed.), William Makepvace Mackeray: Contributions to the Morning Chronicle (University of Illinois Press, 1955), p. xi. 109 referencesin the author'sletters and private papers. As examplesof his work, they show that Thackeraywas a competentjournalist, a perceptiveand knowledgeable art critic and a capableliterary reviewer. In this latter capacity, he was able to recognisethe potential of work, which later cameto be acknowledgedamong the classicsof the period and, with a few exceptions,offered positive encouragement towards those authorswhose publicationswere lessthan remarkable. Ray confirms one aspectof his talents that has alreadybeen observed in the comic reviews of Wagstaff and Yellowplush: 'Perhapshe shows his greatestingenuity in making tedious books amusing,in transforming soVs earsinto silk purses."'

There are, no doubt, numerouspieces ofjournalism. written by

Thackeraythat lie unaccountedfor in the newspapersand magazinesof the first half of the nineteenthcentury, and the volume of work he produced, together with his paceof production, is in direct contrast to Peacock'sliterary engagements.To the fictional material,books, reviews and reports of this period of Thackeray's careermay be addedthe numerousillustrations he provided for his own work and a wide range of periodicals. His correspondenceshows him to be in constant engagementwith editors and publishers, Anne Ritchie writes of this period: 'He was writing for newspapers,he was maturing his future plans,looking for work whereverhe saw a chance. He was also working steadilyon "Barry Lyndoly', and readingbooks of every description, chiefly for his work. "' The picture here is one of a working writer, engagedin every feasibleaspect of the innovative and competitive marketplacehe sought to supply. Together with his newspaperwork, he brought out severalbooks publishedindependently of the magazines. The

"G. N. Ray, Thackeray: Me UsesofAdvemity, 1811-1846(London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. xv, 'Biographical Editioti, Vol. 5, p. xxxiii. Ho

SketchBooks, Comic Mies and Sketches,Me SecontAFuneral qf Napoleon and

the Tourfirom Cornhill to Cairo all appearedas singlevolumes between 1840 and

1845, someas compilations of previous magazinecontributions, others as new

publications. In addition to the work already mentioned,he was also contributing

to the New York Corsair (1839), the Comic Almanack (1839-40), Ainsworth's

Maga: ine (1842), Colburn's New Monthly (1844) and the FAIMburghReview

(1845). A monthly issueof Fraser's could contain two contributions from

Thackeray,each on averagetaking up ten two-column pages;one weekly copy of

Punch would sometimesinclude a prose feature, versesand illustrations by his

hand. By the mid-1840s,his efforts were beginningto pay off: in a letter to

William Nickisson he wrote: 'Between ourselvesI believe I am in a careerof most

wonderful money-getting."' Those publicationslike thefi,'xaminer, which

demandedtoo much of his time for less than he was preparedto accept, were cast

aside."

His first contributions to Punch, 'Miss. Tickletoby's Lectures on English

History (1842), madean inauspiciousstart to his careerwith this cornic weekly.

It was, however, the prelude to later success. Against the advice of Edward

Fitzgerald and with someambivalent feelings of his own towards the paper,

Thackeraybegan writing almost continuously for Punch from 1843. In December

that year, he was acceptedon the staff of the magazine,an engagementwhich was

to last until 1854,although his connectionswith the paper were sustainedafter his

resignation. He continuedto write with indefatigableenergy, increasing the pace

of his earlier output to meet the demandsof weekly publication. Once again, the

"Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p. 191. "Ibid., p.203. III move to a different publication illustrates his ability to craft his work to the expectationsof an unfamiliar audience,as well as satisfyingnew criteria within the identity of the magazineitself, and Punch's satirical style madethe magazinea particularly appropriatevehicle for his versatile narratorial strategies.

Altick's account of Punch's first decadeof publication and the commercialsuccess of the magazineprovides an interestinginsight into conditions within the literary marketplace,as the middle of the nineteenthcentury

approached.He also illustrates the way in which literary perceptionsof writing for the public readershipwere beginningto change, In a sense,Punch acted as a

bridge betweenthe growing popular culture and the lessaccessible interests of

intellectual circles. Altick setsthe paper in a cultural context:

Punch's quick successamong men and women of discriminatingtaste was all the more remarkablefor two reasons. One was that, far from being a seriousmagazine targeted at the intelligentsia,its closestancestral ties were with gutter papersbetter known for their scurrility and sensationalism.The other was that it was launchedwithout capital by a group of workaday journalists who had no higher ambition than to put bread on their tables. They were not consciousinnovators or reformers;they did not set out to break the hard encrustedmold of comic journalism. But that is exactly what they did.19

Altick attributesPunch's acceptability,in part, to its innocuoussatire, which

avoidedpersonal attack and promoted a senseof generousgood humour with a

desirefor fair play. In the literary marketplaceof the early 1840s,the paper also

found that it had someestablished and respectedallies. The Timesbegan by

printing small extracts as column fillers, later reproducingwhole features,which

were sometimesused as a focus for editorial comment. In October 1842, the

WestminsterReview ran a fifty-three page evaluationof the first two volumes of

"R. D. Altick, Punch: The Lively Y(mlh of a British Institution 1841-1851 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1997), p. xvii. 112 the magazine. Favourablein the main, but with somereservations, the impact of this was to promote the paper to the attention of the readersof seriousperiodicals, who may have otherwise shown no interest in a cheapcomic weekly. Part of

Punch's early successstory was due to the fact that the paper appealedto differing levels of reader expectations.The paper was aimed at a heterogeneousand largely unidentifiablepublic readershipbut, nonetheless,still succeededin attracting an audienceof celebratedliterary practitioners, including Barrett and Browning,

Carlyle, the Brontds and, in America, Emersonand Longfellow.' The'workaday' journalists who madeup the retained staff of the magazineand whose business was to provide the weekly copy, however, had yet to make their literary reputations.

The staff who worked on Punch during its first formative yearswere a cross-sectionof writers and illustrators, far removed from the artistic and intellectual preoccupationsof 'high' literature, all engagedin the new industry of masscommunications, described by Altick as 'a world where Grub Street and Fleet

Street Met'.61 Although they were contracted to the paper in the sensethat they were allowed a guaranteedweekly space,income from other sourceswas essential,and Thackeraywas not alone in continuing to searchfor work outside the pagesof Punch. Someof the contributing team, like Thackeray,had had experienceof periodical work, but not all of this was particularly distinguishedor desirable. All had energy,talent and a vAll for the paper to succeed. Each, in his

own way, sought fortune and fame. Ages within the group ran from twenty to

'Altick (1997), pp. 19-26. " Ibid., p. 43. 113 forty-one and they representeda wide range of social and educational

backgrounds.

Ray demonstratesthe heterogeneityof this group of practising journalists. Mark Lemon, who becamethe sole editor following Bradbury and

Evans'spurchase of the magazinein 1842, and was affectionatelyknown by his

staff as 'Uncle Mark', was a former publican. Douglas Jerrold, acerbic wit,

penuriousdramatist, Thackeray'sclosest rival and, on occasions,his fiercest

opponent,was the most radical of the group. As Ray points out: 'He read Cobbett

and Leigh Hunt eagerlyand was converted to their political creed.1 62 Other

contributors included two former barristers, i Becket and Taylor, two medical

students,Percival Leigh and John Leech, and a former surgeon,Albert Smith.

Altick puts Thackerayinto context amongthe magazine'searly contributors: 'Of

all the Punch regulars,Thackeray had the strongestsocial credentials,as a scion of

a wealthy Anglo-Indian family; the others camefrom distinctly lower levels of the

middle class."' He was also one of the few who had enjoyedthe advantagesof a

classicaleducation.

For the first time in his writing career,Thackeray found himself part of

a group of writers and illustrators engagedin a common project. He had also, by

this time, amassedsufficient experienceof the periodical market to be in a position

of someauthority in the decision-makingprocesses of publication. Altick's

researchinto the constitution of the Punch 'cabinet',and the composition of the

staff team, provides an interesting insight into the trial and error editorial methods

of the new industry of periodical publishing. He writes: 'If Punch had a deliberate,

62Ray,Uses ofAdversity (1955), p. 356. 61AItick(1997), p. 45. 114 well-articulated editorial policy, as contrastedwith ad hoc decisionmaking, it is not on record."' Although, after the departure of Mayhew, Lemon ultimately had the last word, the final cuts appearto have beendecided by a mutual consensus, evidenceof a democraticmode of control that contrastssharply with the formal, authoritarianeditorial identity of the more establishedpublications. The group that surroundedLemon during the early years of Punch also illustratesthe cultural contrast betweenthose engagedin the production of the mid-nineteenth-century popular pressand the intellectual preoccupationsof the literary group, including

Peacockand Shelley,which had beencentred around Hunt and the Examiner just over two decadespreviously.

Hunt's Examiner hasbeen describedby Thompsonasthe weekly of the

Radical [sic] intelligentsia'and the magazinewas distinguishedfor its radical views

61 and by the quality of its contributions. WhereasHunt's circle followed a broadly homogeneouspolitical and intellectual ideology, the Punch contributors took their material from whatever aspectsof the popular culture happenedto be immediately topical. Both groups, however, were obliged to learn strategiesto accommodate internal dissensionand the responseof eachgroup to differencesof opinion were variable. Cox writes of the Hunt circle-, 'Productive debate,not universal agreement,was the group's goal.'66 All who contributed regularly to the

Examiner, as well as those who, like Peacock,remained on the peripheryof the group, were committed to the artistic and ideological idealsof the journal. There was lessaccord amongthe Punch group, however, and the political tensions

'Altick (1997), p. 42. "E. P. Thompson, Ae Making of the English Working Class (New York: Random House, 1966), p.675. 'Cox, p.54. 115 which existed,particularly betweenJerrold and Thackeray,have been documented by both Ray and Altick, and will be discussedfurther in the final chapter.

Of Punch's own claim to the 'miracle' of the paper'searly popularity,

Altick comments:'What was miraculous about it was the way an oddly assorted

group of talentedmen managedto suppresswhatever personalantipathies and

ffictions them in the interests turning each a paper existedamong ... of out, week,

with a pronouncedand distinctive flavor."' In spite of the diversity of interests

amongits staff writers, weekly issuesof Punch did indeedreflect a senseof unity.

This, as Altick points out, was partly governedby demandingproduction

schedules,but there are stylistic aspectsof the paper which haveto be considered

in this context. Unlike the radical pressof the post-Waterloo period, which was

largely madeup of diatribes, mixed with satire, parody, factual reporting and

polemical debate,the style of Punch was uniformly satirical, often displayinga

thematic unity of content. Topical rather than intellectual, a single issuewould

sometimesexpose all anglesof a subject in fiction, prose,parody, verse and

drawings. It would be too sweepinga generalizationto say that the corporate

identity of Punch was Menippeanin character,but there is evidenceto suggest

that the magazine,with its variety of genresand consistentlysatirical style, owes

somethingto the influencesof this mode on traditions of seriocomicwriting.

Unlike Hunt's E=miner, Punch, during the early yearsof publication, did not

attempt to createthe grounds for a new society. It ridiculed irrational aspectsof

its period, celebratedthe bizarre, and left humour to do the rest.

Volume nine, August to December 1845, appearedat the height of

railway speculationand its subsequentcollapse, and is a good demonstrationof

"Altick (1997), p. 42. 116 how Punch exploited a topical theme. Full of satire, parody, verse and caricatures,the first issueof November is devoted almost entirely to the scandals of Capel Court, and in the spaceof twenty or so pages,portrays the panic and hysteriaof those who were obliged to watch their fortunes ebb away." A full-page piece of artwork, 'The Momentous Question',depicts Victoria comforting a despairingPrince Consort, imploring him to confesshis dealingsin railway shares(186). Another drawing, entitled'Anti Railway Meeting of

Fox-Hunters',depicts a runaway train with wings pursuingHudson on horseback

(188). ? unch' himself presentsa parody of a railway sharesprospectus, 'his own inimitable lines, branchingout in an infinite series,without the smallestprospect of

a terminus' (189). The personalcolumns of the limes are parodied in a short

account of the'Births, Deaths and Marriages (of Railway Companies)' (192).

Jacques,from Shakespeare'sAs You Like 11,is transportedfrom the Forest of

Arden to Capel Court where he proclaims: 'All the world are stags!/ Yea, all the

men and women merelyjobbers! ' (197). Thackeraycontributed 'A Doe in the

City', in verse,a drawing by 'Frederick Haltamont de Montmorency' entitled

'Holborn Hill Settling Day(191), and an instalmentof'Jeames's Diary'entitled

'Jeameson the Time Bargings' (195),

Perhapsthe most marked differencebetween the I-lunchproduction

team and the writers who contributed to Hunt's Examiner is reflected in the

cultural identity assumedby the latter group. In a letter to Hogg dated October

1824,the widowed Mary Shelley'eulogized the membersof the Shelley-Byron

circle as "a part of the Elect" '.19 Her actual words were:

"Punch, Vol. 9,1 November 1845. Further referencesto this issueare given in the text. 'Betty T. Bennett, 7he Letters f Mary Wollstonecraft ed., (? Shelley, Vol. I 117

I can sometimesfor a while enter into the spirit of the game,but my affectionsare in the past & my imagination is not so much exalted by a representationmean & puerile when comparedto the real delight of my intercourse[with] my exalted Shelley,the frank heartedand affectionate Edwa[rd] and others of less note, but rememberednow with fon[dness] as having madepart of the Elect. (450)

It is doubtful that Peacockwould have been included among Mary Shelley'sfond memories,and the tension betweenthem reflects the cultural conflicts of the

Romantic and anti-Romantic schoolsof writing of the period. She madeno secret of her dislike of her husband'sfliend, and her letters to Hogg, Hunt and even

Shelleyhimself, during the Marlow period, are pepperedwith unflattering referencesto him (10-4 1). Following Shelley'sdrowning in 1822, she was still complainingto Maria Gisborne: 'Is not Peacockvery lukewarm & insensiblein this affair?'(262). However, much as shemay have resentedhis lack of demonstrative grief, it was to Peacockshe turned for practical help, and ultimately shecame to rely very heavily on his advice and administrativeskills in negotiationsconcerning the late poet's estate.

It hasto be rememberedthat among the Shelley'simmediate associates, which included Lord Byron, there were a small numberwhose social ranking offered a degreeof privilege in their pursuit of literature. Not all of them, however, would have subscribedto a view of themselvesas a'part of the Elect'.

In fact, the social mix of the Hunt circle was almost as diverseas that of Lemon's

'cabinet'. Of the literary membersof the circle that surroundedPeacock during the

1818-22period, Hunt and Hazlitt, as practisingjournalists, madewriting their livelihoods. Others followed non-literary careers,writing in their sparetime.

Lamb, in common with Peacock,had an appointmentwith the East India

(Baltimore: London: John Hopkins University Press),p. xi. Further referencesto this edition are given in the text. 118

Company,and Hogg spent many months on the road in his capacityas a circuit judge. Like the contributers,to Punch, they had beendrawn together, initially, by

coincidencesof time and place, and, for a period at least, were united by shared

goals and related interests. In any case,the almost religious connotationsof

forming a'part of the Elect', in the senseof being speciallychosen, would have

beenin seriousconflict with Hunt's statedprinciple of 'freedomfrom superstition'

and, therefore, alien to their essentialbeliefs. However, in spite of their reformist

politics, there is a sensethat, fundamentally,they continuedto subscribeto the

standardsand tastesof an establishedcultural hierarchy,distinguishing themselves

as an intellectual elite.

Whether united by commercialinterests or ideological aims, both the

Hunt circle and the Punch writers acquired public identities. The literary group

connectedwith the Examiner gained unsought recognition as the 'Cockney

School', a designationthrust upon them by outside agencies,namely Blackwood's

and the Quarterly Review. Cox interprets the classvalues encoded in the word

'cockney'as an attempt, by Blackwood's in particular, to isolate the Hunt circle,

not only as a reaction againstits political principles and attacks on religion, but

also becauseof the social ranking of some of its members. He also identifies an

attempt, by somereviewers, to 'detach Shelleyand Byron, the aristocratsof the

group, from the rest of the circle', a move emphasizinghow the established

magazinesof the period still subscribedto the 'premisethat poetry is best left to

gentlemen',and that a reactionary elementin literary culture was becoming

increasingly'disturbed by what appearsto them as a democratizationof

literature'.' Although, during Hunt's editorship at least, the Examiner had a very

'Cox, p.27. 119 strong corporate identity among its own contributors, it was an internalizedimage, very much the product of the coterie style of the group itself and the responsesof an experiencedbut circumscribedcircle of readers,some of whom had followed the fortunes of the periodical sinceits inception in 1808. Punch, on the other hand,as a new publication operating in a largely unknowablemarketplace, could

not rely on historical reputation or a perceptivereadership. The magazineneeded to deviseits own image, one that was immediate,relevant and commercially

unique. In contrast to Blackwood.-v portrayal of Hunt as the'King of the

Cockneys'and the Fmamineras his 'court gazette',Punch had to project an identity

that was entirely its own."

As Altick points out, during the first eighteenmonths or so of its

existence,the paper seemedto suffer from a lack of corporate intention, other than

making a living for its staff.' There was little focus in its contents,a certain lack

of direction in the miscellanyof satire, theatrical reviews and comic drawings and

essaysto be found betweenits pages. Certainly Thackeraydid not seemto have

much senseof a common mission beyond the 'unrestrainedlaughing, sneering,

kicking and gambadoing'mentioned earlier. This attitude was perhapsthe greatest

sourceof contentionbetween him and Jerrold, who complainedbitterly to Dickens

in 1846: '1 am convincedthat the world will get tired (at least I hope so) of this

things Some I believe, Con& eternalguffaw at all ... men would, write the

Sermonon the Mount. "' Where Punch did succeed,however, almost from its

outset, was in presentingthe public with a personalizedimage which, in theatrical

"Cox, p.25. '2.AJtick (1997), p. 10. "E. P. Thompsonand Eileen Yeo, eds., Me t.litknawitAlayhew:,. Velectionsfrom the Morning Chronicle 1849-50 (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984), pp. 15-16. 120 terms, may be comparedto the title role in a dramatic production. While some of the lesssuccessful mass journals madelittle attempt to presenta unified commercialimage, Punch borrowed from the marketing techniquesof established periodicalsand addedan individual touch of inspiration. N1r.Punch was already an acknowledgedfigure, a frequenter of the streetsand marketplaces,a hero of comic entertainment. Using the image of an eponymousshowman was the masterstroke,which placedthe magazinefirmly in the centre of the popular

culture and allowed limitless opportunities for development. Although a character

from fiction, Nir-Punch'santics, depicted pictorially in the pagesof the magazine,

provided the readerswith a concrete image that easily surpassedthe lessdefinitive

'ChristopherNorth' of Blackwood's, or the pseudonymous'Oliver Yorke' of

Fraser's Magazine. It was, in a sense,a collective extensionof those narratorial

techniqueswhich had already beentried and tested by Thackeraywhen he created

Yeflowplush, Titmarsh and Gahagan,

It is important to note here that Thackeray'screation of Yellowplush

and Gahaganpreceded his connectionwith Punch. Both thesenarratorial

identities are central to the discussionin the next chapter,which placeshis work

more firmly in the traditions of seriocomicwriting. In addition, there follows and

investigationinto the work of both Peacockand Thackerayfrom the perspective

of Bakhtirf s broader interpretationsof Menippeansatire. 121

Chapter 4: Carnival Crowds and Bourgeois Banquets

The position of Peacockand Thackeray in the Menippeantradition, as shown in chaptertwo, demonstratesboth writers' different approachesto elements of the sub-genre. Peacock'suse of the form of the Socratic dialogue as a meansof investigatingideological problems, and the emphasishe placeson the comic aspectsof his work, is more easily recognizableas Menippeanwriting as it has come to be understoodby late twentieth-century theorists. Thackeray,on the other hand, writing in a very different publishing environment,evolved narratorial techniquesin the presentationof his satire which display elementsof the mode as it has appearedin the tradition of seriocomic writing, but which are, nevertheless, open to a broader interpretation. In this chapter, the work of both writers will be examinedin the light of Bakhtin's theories of carnival influenceson the tradition of seriocomicwriting. In particular, attention will be given to his study of the relationshipbetween carnivalesque characteristics of literature and the Menippean sub-genre. The discussionwill explore the concept of 'carnival' and its relevance to literary criticism, with particular referenceto Thackeray'suse of narratorial devices. Bakhtin's theorieswill also be used to develop the significanceof the banquet,an imagefrequently used by both writers.

Late twentieth-centuryliterary analysisof modesof seriocomicwriting hasbeen deeply influencedby Bakhtin's exposition of the influencesof folk humour on literature, and in particular, the medievaland Renaissancetraditions of carnival. The collective humanexperience that Bakhtin describesas 'carnival', once a physicalreality, has reappearedin literature as an inherited memory of compositefolk traditions, 'thoughts' which have 'coalescedand survived for 122 thousandsof yearsamong the broadestmasses of European mankind'.' Although these 'thoughts',or inherited memories,predate the social stratification of the modem world by centuries,Bakhtin posits that they still resurfacein certain literary modes-- in particular, those forms of seriocomicwriting which presenta non-authoritativechallenge to the predominatingculture.

Of the elementsof carnival writing that can be identified in the work of both Peacockand Thackeray,certain features of the style are particularly conspicuousin the latter's periodical contributions. On the one hand,there is the

Menippeanmode that Peacockemployed in his work, which had its origins in classicalphilosophy and makesa great display of the author's erudition, as it exposesintellectual problemsin abstractionsof languageand dialogue. On the other hand, Menippeansatire can also be interpreted as a mode of enquiry into the humanexperience, a non-didactic challengeto popular opinion and established hierarchieswhich provides questionsrather than supplying any answers. This mode of the sub-genreis particularly relevant to the social commentthat predominatesin Thackeray'searly periodical satire, and it is closely related to the influencesof folk humour that Bakhtin has traced in the seriocomicEuropean literature of the pre-modemera.

Ifis explanationof this particular form of humour is significant in this context:

Let us say a few initial words about the complex nature of carnival laughter. first festive laughter. it is, of all, a Therefore it is not an individual reaction isolated to some 'comic' event. Carnival laughter is the laughter of all the Second,it is people. universalin scope: it is directed at all and everyone, including the carnival'sParticipants. The entire world is seenin its droll in its Third, aspect, gay relativity. this laughter is ambivalent:it is gay,

' Bakhtin, Prohlems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, p. 123. 123

triumphant, and at the sametime mocking and deriding. It assertsand denies,buries and revives. 2

The carnival of the Middle Ages and the Renaissancehad its origins in pagan ritual. It was a way of life, led by the people, for the people; a time of temporary insanity when everydaylife was turned on its head,yet it was also a time of cleansingand renewal,of change,or of reaffirmation of the establishedorder.

United in laughter and irrespectiveof rank, those who took part in thesefestivals found a temporary accessto a new world. Carnivalswere 'the secondlife of the people, who for a time enteredthe utopian realm of community, freedom, equality and abundance'.' Throughout the period of this temporary alternativeculture, in a parody of the feudal and ecclesiasticinfrastructure of society, hierarchical precedencewas suspendedand all were seenas equal. Bakhtin presentsa picture of carnival as an inviolable human right, even when challengedby the established order: 'But this true festive characterwas indestructible;it had to be tolerated and even legalizedoutside the official sphereand had to be turned over to the popular sphereof the marketplace.04

With its origins in popular culture and an ambiguousattitude towards the establishedorder of society, the carnival traditions of impropriety, ambivalence and laughterwere ideally placed to make the transition from the medieval fairground into the popular culture of the rapidly developing nineteenth-century periodical marketplace. However, although this new medium offered

for opportunities the regenerationof the seriocomic mode, its boundaries,for most writers, were circumscribedby new social stratifications and economicconditions.

2 Bakhtin, Rabelais and His World, pp. II- 12. 1 ibid., p-9- 4 Ibid. 124

The very act of substitutingprinted material for the physical realities of the streets and the market squaresmeant that large tracts of the population had little or no accessto a tradition which had been a universal right. Furthermore,the predominantculture, during Peacock%most productive period as an author, was turning towards the subjectiveindividualism of the secondgeneration of Romantic writers. Although a considerablequantity of satire and comic fiction still found its way into the popular culture of the periodicals, much of this was imitative and derivative and offered little indication of the universal ambivalenceof opinion that was fundamentalto the carnival tradition.

Recentcriticism has questionedthe validity of Bakhtin's theories in the context of modem literature. Blanchard (1995), writing of Menippeansatire, has

raisedthe point that Bakhtin's readingsof Rabelaisneglect the intellectual

substanceof the work, emphasizingthat 'the Menippeanform is often an extremely

learnedform with a necessarilylimited audience'.I Kaplan also has reservations

about the relevanceof carnival, particularly in the context of contemporarysatire:

' "Carnival, " despite the promise it holds for some academics as an instrument for

social reform, remains a place where people go to find cheap thrills and lose

money. t6

It is not difficult to concedeBlanchard's point in the context of Peacock's

satirical fiction, but any generalizedrestriction of Menippeansatire to a

'necessarilylimited audience'of intellectualsis most certainly in conflict with the

protean spirit of a sub-genrewhich is able to infiltrate a wide range of modesand

discourses. Certain elementsof Menippean satire were lessfocused on intellectual

I W. Scott Blanchard,Scholar's Bedlam: Menippean Satire in the Renaissance (London: Toronto: AssociatedUniversity Presses,1995), pp. 26-7. 6 Kaplan, p.5 1. 125 subjectmatter and Bakhtin has identified a relationship betweenthese and carnival modesof writing: 'Menippeansatire becameone of the main carriers and channels for the carnival senseof the world in literature, and remainsso to the presentday. "

This connectionbetween the two modes rescuesthe former from intellectual exclusivenessand confirms the place of the latter in the literary tradition. Kaplan's dismissivescepticism, founded on a culturally selectiveinterpretation of Bakhtin's discussion,ignores one essentialconcept of the carnival mode; in a literary context, it may indeedprovide superficial entertainmentand fleeting laughter, but its significancegoes much deeperthan this, working on different levels as it monitors the existing hierarchy and mocks establishedpatterns of authority. The commentsof both Blanchardand Kaplan appearto reinforce a cultural divide in two modesof writing when, in fact, they may be seenas united in intention, each offering an investigativeapproach to authority and establishedopinion. The distinguishingfeatures of the two modes are determinedby the subjectmatter of the text. WhereasPeacock, to a certain extent, retainedthe intellectual values of an earlier generation,Thackeray investigated the customsand values of contemporaryurban society and his satire found expressionthrough the imageshe derived from this, someof which will be shown to relate directly back to an earlier period of the popular culture.

03 eD C18 &-) C13 &3 C113&-)

Anne Ritchie, Thackeray'sdaughter, commentson this essentialfeature of her father'swork in her biographical introduction to the YellowphishIapers

Etc., unconsciouslyusing carnival imagery:

I Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poeticq, p. 113. 126

We know that Haroun al Raschidused to like to wander the streetsof Bagdadin various disguises,and in the sameway did the author of "Vanity dominos Fair" - though he was not a Caliph - enjoy putting on his various Sensitive disguise, familiar and characters... people are glad of a and of a who will speaktheir thoughts for them... '

The'dominos', or carnival costumes,that Thackerayused to cloak the narrators of his early work for Fraver's and Colburn's New Monthly Magazine, as well as some of the later contributions to Punch, were much more than authorial disguises.

They were sophisticatednarratorial deviceswhich allowed him to explore new modesof satirical expression. As masks,they also allowed him the freedom to write as he wished in a protean publishing climate that demandedsubjugation to

editorial policy, readershipexpectations and establishedopinion.

Bakhtin's discussionof the use of a mask can be closely related to the

position in which Thackerayfound himself as he embarkedon his careerin journalism:

Even more important [than imagesof the grotesque] is the theme of the mask, the most complex theme of folk culture. The mask is connectedwith the joy of changeand reincarnation,with gay relativity and with the merry negationof uniformity and similarity; it rejects conformity to oneself The mask is related to transition, metamorphoses,the violation of natural boundaries,to mockery and familiar nick-names. It containsthe playful elementof fife; it is basedon a peculiar interrelation of reafity and image, characteristicof the most ancient rituals and spectacles.'

Thackeraywas writing in an era of rapid change,in which reading was no longer a

solely intellectual pursuit but had becomefor many readersa recreationalactivity,

a form of entertainmentthat replacedthe street spectaclesand marketplace

festivities of the pre-modemworld. The use of a mask, in the context of carnival

celebration,reflects one of the paradoxesof the tradition. It affords the wearer a

greater degreeof freedom and familiarity of contact with those he entertains,while

Biographical Edition, Vol. 3, pp. x)oMi - viii. Bakhtin, Rabelais andHis World, pp.39-40. 127 at the sametime increasinghis distancefrom them. The adoption of such a mask, or narratorialpervona, allowed Thackeraygreater freedom from the conventional boundariesofjournalism and absolvedhim from authorial responsibility.

According to Rudlin (1994), tradition demandedthat 'A maskedman had no right to bear arms during Carnival seasonin medieval Italy becausehe was considered to have divestedhimself of his own identity by assuminganother persona,for whose actionshe was therefore not responsible'." The man behindthe mask is no longer himself but another,and, as such, cannot be held responsiblefor his actions. in using a mask, Thackeraywas able to challengeconformity of opinion, whilst being grantedabsolution from any personalimplication in the points of view

expressedin the text.

Thackeraywas no strangerto the masksand dominos of street carnivals

and the pavemententertainments of Southern Europe. His work shows not only

the literary influencesof carnival, but also describesevents of this nature. 'Shrove

Tuesdayin Paris', which he wrote as Titmarsh, was first publishedin Ae

Britannia in 1841, and the piece is interesting as a record of one of the original

EuropeanCarnivals, the carne vale, or feast of the last of the preservedwinter

meat,which anticipatedthe renewal of the yearly cycle of food production and, in

the Christian era, precededthe fast of Lent. Superficially,the picture of

Shrovetidein Paris emphasizessome depressinglytawdry details,but the voice of

Titmarsh is so faithful to the English point of view that the readercannot fail to

suspectan undertoneof irony. The focus of the piece is the contrast betweenthe

assumedrespectability of the readersof 7he Britannia and the dubious morals of

"Rudlin, Commediadell'Arte: An Actor's Handhook (London: Routledge, 1994), p,34. 128 their French neighbours,who 'lead a life of immorality so extraordinary that an

Englishmancannot even comprehend,much more shareW. " Thackeray,in role as

Titmarsh, describesthe kind of madnessthat grips the Parisiansduring the carnival period with its feverishround of theatre masqueradesand maskedballs, a period of liberation unimaginablein England. Meeting an old acquaintance,Mile.

Pauline,lately governessto an English family, he finds that shehas voluntarily rejectedthe comforts and privileges of her former position and, in the excitement of the season,has pawnedher one good gown for a disgustingly dirty carnival costume. Thackeraycontrasts the constraintsof her previous situation with the joyful freedom of her new identity, and makesit very plain that she has found a new liberation, a senseof rebirth in the spirit of the carnival. There is an ambivalentirony in Thackeray'scomment: 'There are a hundredthousand Paulines in Paris, cheerful in poverty and prodigal in good fortune, but dreadfully lax in

somepoints of morals in which our own femalesare praiseworthily severe(569).

Pauline,a grisette, representsa part of the social history of Francewhich is

culturally alien to the English, at least to the middle-classreaders of The

Brammia. The griselles of Paris, cheerfully improvident working-class women, in

whose way of life there still lingered the remnantsof an indigenousfolk culture,

understoodan entirely different set of values to that of the'praiseworthily severe'

ladiesof England. Mr. Titmarsh may shakehis head sadly at Pauline'srejection of

the English way of life, but the reader retains a strong impressionthat it is

Thackerayhimself who puts in a generousplea for tolerance: 'Let us neither abuse

her nor pity her too much, but look at the woman such as we find her, if we look

"Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p.569. Further referencesto this volume are given in the text. 129 at her at all' (569). Similarly, the schoolboy of fifteen who spendsthree days dancingwith'des demoisellescharmantes' may provoke raised eyebrows,but the reader cannot fail to admire, or even envy, his joy and vitality (5 72). The ambivalentirony of the piece is encapsulatedin the closing paragraph:'the wonderful differencethat a score of miles of salt water can make in the ways and morals of people'can be interpreted in two ways; either the Channelis vital in protecting the English from their profligate neighbours,or perhapsit preservesa more liberatedrace from the stem moral prejudicesof a selectiveculture, which deniesall but it own authority (572). Titmarsh, reporting theseevents in Paris, is playing with attitudes that may, or may not, scandalizethe readersof The

Britannia, and Thackerayas author leavesthe matter unresolved.

As mentionedin the previous chapter, Titmarsh madehis d6but as an art critic in Fraser's Magazine, the author of 'Strictures on Pictures', a comic review of the Royal AcademyExhibition of 1838, and Thackeraycontinued to use this narratorial device throughout his career, until Titmarsh'sfinal appearanceas the narrator of the Roseand the Ring in 1855. Like the earlier reviews by

Wagstaff and Yellowplush, 'Strictures on Pictures' is written in epistolary form, as a letter to a fictitious M. de BricaBrac of Paris. The mannerof Titmarsh's introduction immediatelysets the satirical tone of the piece, and once again, the intrusion of random domesticdetails setsthe narrator in a novelistic context.

The review beginsby underminingthe new venue for the Royal

AcademyExhibition, which is held 'in one wing of a little building like a gin-shop';

Wilkins's National Gallery, begun in 1835, is describedas a'pigmy abortion, in lieu of a noble monumentto the greatest school of painting in the greatestcountry of the modem world', although Titmarsh concedesthat its interior is 'marvellously 130 pretty and convenientfor the reception and exhibition of the pictures it will hold'

(262).

He picks up an Academy catalogueof contributors, and caricaturesits listings of seriousartists with a seriesof spoof titles. Maclise, a fellow contributor to Fraser's, who wrote under the name of Alfred Croquis, is dubbed'Prince

Daniel'.` William Mulready is honoured by a carnivalesquecrowning as King, while CharlesEastlake, later knighted for his work as Director of the National

Gallery, appearsas an Archbishop, 'becausethe rank is so respectableand there is a certain purity and religious feeling in all that Mr. Eastlakedoes, which eminently entitles him to the honour of the prelacy' (263). The review itself is a mixture of lively descriptivewriting and offhand, disparagingcomments: Sir David Wilkie

'does everythingfor a picture nowadays,but the drawing. Who knows? Perhapsit is as well left out'(265). Mulready's 'SevenAges'is a'beautiffil monument',but the king is then ritually decrownedfor producing some 'queer-lookinglimbs'; other artists are shown evenless mercy: JamesWard has produced 'mysteriously hideous'religious paintingswhich are 'monstrous,livid, and dreadful, as the dreamsof a man in the scarletfever' (266-7).

There is a Menippeantwist to the piece, as the review tails off into a seriesof irrelevancies,undermining the narratorial position and confusingthe reader. A rambling fiction, inspired by a painting of the prodigal son, is followed by the randominsertion of a menu for serving fatted calvesin general. The piece concludes,just as it reachesTitmarsh's own fictitious masterpiece,'Heliogabalus in the Ruins of Carthage',with an 'editorial' explanationthat the manuscripthad been

':"Christmas Revels: An Epic Rhapsody', by Alfred Croquis Esq., Eraser's Magazine, Vol. 17, May 1838, pp. 633-44. 131 retrieved ftom a gutter outside the Academy,its inebriated author having been previously removedftom the scene. However, this comic irreverenceis not to be mistakenas mere ffivolity. Beneaththe fight humour, which underminesthe authoritative prestigeof the Royal Academy, Thackerayis raising serious questionsabout the artistic standardsof the dominant culture.

The ambiguitiesinherent in Thackeray'swork, as Titmarsh, were recognizedby his contemporaries. An anonymouscontributor to Fraserv, in a review of Thackeray'stravel book, A Journey.from Comhill to Cairo (1845), commentson this aspectof his writing:

His book, though apparentlyjocular, is in truth profoundly suggestive;nor hasit beenthe first time in our experience,as reviewers,that the solemnity of the impressionmade on our minds was in inverse ratio to the assumed gravity of the work placed before us."

Just as the author of 'Titmarsh's Tour Through Turkeydom' found food for thought in A Journeyftom Cornhill to Cairo, the reader of 'Strictures on Pictures, is left with a number of irreconcilable impressions of the Royal Academy

Exhibition of 1838. Even the most accomplished of its contributors display some weakness of technique, some are scarcely worthy of comment, while others, whose skills are obviously less proficient, justify their inclusion in the catalogue by possessing some special quality, 'a great heart'as it is called in the text (266).

However, there is energy and a deep engagement in the way Thackeray describes individual works of art. Although the tone is light and, at times, mocking and derisory, there is also a sense of reaffir-mation: the selection methods of the Royal

foolproof Academy may not be but, in general, they adhere to the established criteria of good taste.

13,Titmarsh's Tour Through Turkeydom', Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 3 3, April 1846, P.91. 132

Thackeraywrote as Titmarsh in order to comment on the cultural standardsof his era. He also usedthe narratorial disguiseto draw attention to social prejudiceswithin the cultural hierarchy. 'OnMenandPictures'(1841)is explicit in its messagethat art should not be solely the prerogative of the privileged classes:

I must confess,with a great deal of shamethat I love to go to the picture gallery of a Sundayafter church, on purposeto seethe thousandhappy peopleof the working sort amusingthemselves -- not very wickedly as I day fancy -- on the only of the week on which they have their freedom. Genteelpeople, who can amusethemselves everyday throughout the year, do not visit the Louvre on a Sunday. You can't seethe pictures well, and are pushedand elbowed by all sorts of low-bred creatures.(365)

Here the narrator affects an assumedsuperiority over the working-classvisitors to the galleries,a speciousreinforcement of the expectationsof his reading audience, but the focus of his satire is turned towards thesevery samepeople who choose not to visit the Louvre on a Sunday. There is a senseof carnival liberation in the ensuingglimpses of Paris, with its street entertainmentsand 'uproariously happy' children; and the comic description of a seethingcrowd of excited Sundayvisitors beliesthe condescendingtones of the author. There is also a sensethat the cheerful spectatorsprovide more entertainmentthan the masterpiecesdisplayed on the walls; it scarcelymatters that 'you can't seethe pictures well', becausethe people themselvesprovide more interesting amusement.Titmarsh makesit plain that it is not he who objectsto being 'pushedand elbowed; he loves to see'the

happy it is 'you' in thousand people'; -- other words, the 'genteel'reader -- who would resenta public intrusion into such a cultural preserve.

Thackeray'sstance on the Sundayopening of galleriesand museums will be discussedfurther in chapter six, in connectionwith Oxford election of days 1857,but during the early of his work as Titmarsh, he rarely discussed 133 political questions. He did, however, question the internal politics of the newspaperbusiness. His awarenessof the shortcomingsofjoumalism as a mode of factual writing, and the way facts could be representedto suit political or editorial purposes,is particularly evident in the' The SecondFuneral of Napoleon', a short volume of one hundred and twenty-two pages,published by Cunningham in 1841.

Again writing as Titmarsh, and using the epistolary form to a fictional

IMss. Smit1f,Thackeray begins by questioning the accuracyof historical facts, as they are customarilypresented to young ladies in Bowdlerized form: 'As for those

Greeksand Romanswhom you have read of in "sheep-skin," were you to know

what those monsterswere, you would blush all over as red as a hollyhock, and put

down the history-book in a fury."' He then presentsa narrative of Napoleon's

disintermentat St. Helena,as written by 'an eloquent anonymousCaptain in the

Navy', to show how eventscan be fictionalized according to the preferred style of

the author and the tastesof his anticipatedreading audience(676). His concerns

with the veracity of authors andjournalists becomemore immediateas the cort6ge tlys6es. winds impressivelyup the Champs Thackeray,or rather Titmarsh,

presentsa long and detaileddescription of the proceedings. He is, however,

forced to acknowledgethat this too is, for the most part at least, a fiction:

dear NEss. Smith, But as, my the descriptions in this letter, from the words in 697, line 29 page - the party moved - up to the words paid to it, on this have page [7011, purely emanated from your obedient servant's fancy, and not from his personal observation (for no being on earth except a newspaper reporter, can be in two places at once), permit me to now communicate to little you what circumstances fell under my own particular view on the day of the 15th of December. (70 1)

Vol. 4. 674. "Biographical Edition p. Further references to Vol. 4 are given in the text. 134

The account of the re-intermentprocession and ceremony,as Titmarsh imaginesit, is a parody of the kind of pressreport that elaboratesceremony and ritual as a reinforcementof the establishedorder. Thackeraywas well aware that the ceremonywas a political attempt to reaffirm the strength of the Franco-British alliancein the eyesof the people, some of whom engagedin mutual animosity on the streetsof Paris. He gives an amusingaccount of a family of English spectators masqueradingas French and comments:'Did the French nation, or did they not, intend to offer up someof us English over the Imperial grave? (695). On this occasion,working independentlyof the conventionsof the periodical market, he was able to write outsidethe constraintsof editorial opinion.

As he continues,Thackeray undermines the solemnity of the ceremony by presentingit in terms of a festival. Street merchantshawked their wares, and right up to the last minute, 'carpentersand workmen were still making a huge banging and clattering among the shedswhich were built for the accommodation of the visitors' (702). An English woman, wrapped in a tartan blanket, had to be ejectedfrom the VIP seats. The cue for the arrival of the coffin was given prematurely,an hour before it was actually due to arrive, underminingthe solemnityof the occasion. When it eventually cameinto view, there was a sense of anticlimax, the processionchanting 'somethingin a weak, snuffling, lugubrious manner,to the bray of a serpent',the coffin itself topped by a dingy crown. The fights were switchedoff prematurely,Louis Philippe departedvia a back door, and the people, including Titmarsh, went home. Thackeray'sauthentic account of the proceedingsexposes the fictive nature of the official life of a nation, as it is reinforced by displaysof authority, ritual and ceremony;it also exposesthe complicity of the pressin perpetratingthis deception. 135

Just as the fictional persona of Titmarsh granted Thackerayan opportunity to underminethe predominantculture of his era, he createdother roles for himself, eachrelevant to a particular topic or satirical target. A few of these,used for his work in Fraser's, Colbum!s New Monthly Magazine and Punch, appearas grotesques,comic exaggerationsof fictional stereotypes,which not only exhibit the influencesof earlier folk cultures in his writing, but actually owe their origins to the traditions of the street performances,festivals and carnivalsof the

Europeanmarketplace. In the pre-modem world, for much of the population, these entertainmentswere their only accessto the written word, physical manifestationsof symbolswhich could be interpreted by a minority readership.

The next sectionis an extendeddiscussion of the heritage of folk entertainments and will examinethe relevanceof these to Thackeray'swork for the popular literary marketplace.

Qý3 QI CIS CISLK3 4:1&j

Frost and Yarrow (1990) investigatethe origins of early forms of public performanceand suggestthat the art may have developedfrom the religious rituals of the tribal shaman,mediators between the spirit world and humanbeings, who were believedto havethe power of interpreting the will of the gods to mankind.

Writing of the techniquesof mime and dramatic improvisation, they point out that the theatre clown has long been recognizedas a universal manifestationof the humanneed for the relief of laughter, He appearsin Sanskrit drama as Vidusaka, a bald dwarf with red eyesand protruding teeth, allowed to speakonly in the vernacularPrakrit rather than the formal Sanskrit, an outcast from the highest caste, In someof the early traditions of Dorian Greek drama(circa 581 BQ, predatingthe era of the tragediansand Satyr plays, a similar role is to be found in 136 the autokabdaloi, the street buffoons and improvisers of the town of Megara: 'At the heart of the performancelay both the burlesquing - the relativising - of sacred myth, and the celebrationof the human body.' Just as Vidusaka spoke only in the commondialect, his Greek counterpartsrevelled in low tricks and obscenities-, both belongedto the popular culture of their day, mocking the dignity of gods and men. Significantly,Frost and Yarrow continue by reminding us that 'the parodic impulse the the is intermingled the coexistswith religious; profane with sacred...

The spirit of carnival is a powerfid and enduring force."'

The oxymoronicjuxtapositioning of the sacredwith the profane, authority and dissension,is fundamentalto the spirit of early popular entertainments,and echoesthe influencesof the carnival tradition that Bakhtin has identified in later Europeanwritings. The parody, irony and burlesquethat existed in thesepublic spectacles,as well as the literature that was descendedfrom this

areaof the popular culture, contribute to a senseof comic ambivalencewhich, unlike the formal satire of Horace, Juvenaland the eighteenth-centurysatirists,

makesno didactic judgements. Instead, it is an acknowledgement,even a

celebration,of the polarities of humanexperience. Representedin someof the

earliestforms of dramaand finding expressionin forms accessibleto all levels of a

commonculture, the spirit of carnival, both comic and profound, pervadedart

forms throughout Europeancultural history. In sixteenth-centuryEurope, it

becamemanifest as an integral part of folk theatre, the Comme&a dellArte.

Commediahad its origins in the marketplacesand street carnivalsof

Italy. Performancesportrayed a number of stock charactersas standardized

"'Anthony Frost and Ralph YarrOw, ImProvisations in Drama (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990), p.7. 137 representationsof universally recognizablesocial types, whose masks,costumes, ritualized gesturesand speechpatterns showed only slight regional variations.

Rudlin gives an account of the growth and developmentof Commedia,showing a wide disseminationof the style, as itinerant troupes of players spreadacross

Russia,Czechoslovakia and Denmark as well as SouthernEurope: 'Wherever

Commediafound itself, without compromising in essentials,it adjustedto local

detracted circumstancesand suchnational variations contributed to, rather than from, its universality."' There are few eye-witnessaccounts of the extent and nature of commedia dell'Arte performancesat carnival times. As Rudlin points

out: 'The Renaissancewas a period of rapid oligarchical cultural advancementin which no ink seemsto have been wasted on documentingthe traditional popular

calendricalmanifestations of Carnival'(28). What is reasonablycertain, however,

is that the travelling bandsof players,very often family groups, professionalswho

madea living from their performances,spread across Europe, entertaining

whereverthere was a sufficient gathering of people to make a worthwhile

audience. Although most accountsof Commedia,as a distinct form of theatre,

date its period of declinefrom the early eighteenthcentury, it appearsthat such

performanceswere still entertainingcrowds throughout a much more extended

period, As late as 1826, a contemporaryaccount of the Roman Carnival speaksof

-pulchinelli, Arlecchini, Brighelli, Pantaloni cutting a thousandcapers of terror"'

at the appearanceof a 'Spectre',to the delight of crowds watching a street

performance(30).

"Rudlin, p.5. Further referencesto this sourceare given in the text. 138

Bakhtin examinesthe relationshipbetween Commediadefl'Arte and the traditions of carnival and identifies its continuing influence on comic-grotesque forms of literature producedin the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies:

in all thesewritings, in spite of their differencesin characterand tendency, the carnival-grotesqueform exercisesthe samefunction: to consecrate inventive freedom,to permit the combination of a variety of different elementsand their rapprochement,to liberate from the prevailing point of view of the world, from conventionsand establishedtruths, from clichds, from all that is humdrum and universally accepted.This carnival spirit offers the chanceto have a new outlook on the world, to realize the relative nature of all that exists, and to enter a completely new order of things."

By the time that Thackerayembarked on his career in journalism, the principles which had governedthe carnival-grotesqueforms of writing outlined above were becomingovershadowed by artistic divisions that servedto segregatean establishedculture from the public marketplace. Literary representationsof the grotesquehad alreadyassumed a mantle of respectability. The carnivalesque principle of the universalrelativity of all aspectsof human experiencehad been underminedby hierarchicalassumptions within the establishedculture of the late eighteenthand early nineteenthcenturies. Bakhtin cites Sterne'sTristram Shai4

(1759-67) as an exampleof the'subjective grotesque',and the Gothic novel as anotherform, the Romantic grotesque, both being modesof writing which no

longer related to the universalculture of the marketplace,but which were 'marked

by a vivid senseof isolation', transposingthe carnival spirit 'into a subjective,

idealistic philosophy' (37). Moreover, it was not only literature that becamethe

subjectof cultural tensions. As the prevalenceof Commediaperformances

declined,eighteenth-century critics (Moser, 1761 and Flogel, 1788) turned their

attention to a disputethat was gathering in the Germantheatre as the Arlecchino,

World, "Bakhtin, Rabelais and His p. 34. Further referencesto this sourceare given in the text. 139 previously confinedto popular, comic theatre, also intruded into seriousdrama.

Bakhtin raisesa questionwhich puts this controversy into a much broader cultural context: 'Beyond the narrow scopeof this dispute there was a wider problem of principle: could manifestationssuch as the grotesque,which did not respondto the demandsof the sublime,be consideredart? ' (3 5). In a partial answer,he puts forward the view that 'Pre-Romanticismand Romanticismwitnessed a revival of the grotesquegenre but with a radically transformed meaning'(36). Althoughthis artistically idealizedversion of the grotesquemay havebeen acceptableto the predominatingculture of the period, the literature it produced was alien and inaccessibleto the most numeroussection of the population. Older modesof the

comic grotesque,as it had existed in the Commediadell'Arte and Renaissance

confic writing, were being discardedin favour of artistic principles which deprived

both the old texts of their traditions and a whole culture of a part of its heritage.

The establishedcultural order was, however, shortly to be overtaken by

a resurgenceof the popular culture in the magazinesand periodicals. In addition,

someintellectuals and membersof literary circles had begunto questionthe

validity of theseidealized modes of literature. AustenýsNorthanger Abbey,

publishedposthumously in 1818, and Peacock'sNightmare Abbey, which appeared

in the sameyear, both satirize the Gothic grotesqueas it appearedin the

contemporarynovel. In the public readership,the satire and parody that appeared

in the periodicalsof the 1820spresented challenges which reachedmuch wider

audiencesthan those who had watched the carnivals and street performancesof

earlier times. What had hitherto been localized physicalmanifestations of

hierarchicalreversals, temporary aberrationswithin the establishedorder, were

now written down and fixed in print, availableto an increasingnumber of readers. 140

The literary standardsof the educatedclasses, which had traditionally dominatedthe publishingmarkets of the seventeenthand eighteenthcenturies, were, in the early yearsof the nineteenthcentury, challengedby forms of literature that were directed towards culturally marginal readerships. The physical manifestationsof carnival ritual, with its parodies,burlesques and reversalsof the establishedorder, had given way to a paper commodity which was, in essence,just as transitory as the real thing, literature that was bought to be read and then thrown away. The next sectionwill suggestways in which Thackeraymade use of his experienceof the traditions of European carnivals and popular entertainment, as he sought to satisfythe demandsof this new public reading culture.

CIL",') 03L*) Q>3E4('D CS Ell') 03 Bm)

The periodical markets of the late eighteen-thirtiesand early forties provided the ideal context for a resurrection of theseold traditions of folk entertainment. Punch himself was a comic-grotesqueof street festivals and his establishmentas the eponymouseditor of a comic weekly indicatesthat these traditional influenceswere still a part of the popular culture. Thackeray'sextended use of the authorial pseudonymhas alreadybeen discussedin the preceding chapters,but a closer examinationof his narratorial 'dominos',in the context of popular entertaimnentand street carnivals, will reveal a strong relationship betweensome of theseand comic grotesquesof the Commediad'ell Arte.

Although the stock roles of Commediaare, as social stereotypes, clichýs in themselves,when set in juxtaposition againstthe idealizedconceptions of their literary counterparts,they emphasizethe tedium of convention and the

fixed impossibility of substantiating representationsof character. Each, in his or her own way, the Lovers, Arlecchino, Colombina, 11Dottore, Runalone, II 141

Capitano and the Zanni representgrotesque exaggerations of universalhuman weaknessesand the comic vitality with which these are exposedis both provocative and liberating. CommediddellArte, in the spirit of carnival mockery, is non-judgementaland has no respectfor rank or fortune. Masters are madeto appearjust as ridiculous as their servantsand the ignorant can have flashesof insight,just as the wise may be madeto appearfoolish. Those who believe in their own infallibility suffer the greatestreversals.

As the traditional street theatre of CommediadellArle died out, the stock charactersof the tradition lingered on, in Bowdlerized form, in popular nineteenth-centurytheatre performances. In particular, the Arlecchino and

Colombina maderegular appearancesin the Harlequinade,'the bizarre afterpiece of the English pantomime'." Thackeray was no strangerto the pantomime. In'A

Night's Pleasure',published in Punch in 1848, he records his enjoymentof exactly one such bizarre afterpiece':Xing Gorgibus becamePantaloon, the two Giants first secondClowns, and the Prince Princess becamethe and and ... most elegant Harlequin and Colombinethat I have seenfor many a long day."'

images of carnival and modes of popular entertainmentappear again and

again in Thackeray'searly work and drawings. Thesemake a tentative

appearancein the 'Yellowplush Papers'and feature much more strongly in 'The

Diary of C. Jeamesde la Pluche',the Punch reincarnationof the garrulous footman

narrator, who appeared1845-6. Both Jeamesand the earlier Yellowplush exhibit

characteristicsof the Arlecchino of the traditional Commediadell Arle, the

competentbut wily servantwho is never quite bright enoughto succeedin his

IgRudlin,P. 4. 19Biographical Edition, Vol. 6, p. 573. 142 elaborateschemes, but still often succeedsin outwitting his master.The

Arlecchino mask is reflected in the mixture of ignorance and naivetdcommon to both the'PluslYnarrators, who nonethelessalso show characteristicflashes of

intelligence,especially when their own interestsare at stake. Like Yellowplush

and Jeames,Arlecchino displaysa superficial coarseness,tempered by deep

sensitivity,but there is more comedy than pathos in his childlike transports of grief

andjoy. He is a good servant,faithful up to a point, but also ambitious and

greedy,and this makeshim more than willing to undertake any slightly fraudulent

businessthat may be to his advantage.

Yellowplush, as an Arlecchino mask in'Miss. Shum'sHusband' (183 8),

takes the ups and downs of his trade in his stride. As a young valet to Frederic

Altamount, he listensat doors, facilitates the course of true love betweenthe

lovers, his masterand Mary Shurn,almost stealsan illicit kiss from Mary when the

opportunity arises,and cheerfully acceptsa slapstick retribution, as a kick to his

rear sendshim'sprawling amongthe wet flannings and things'. " In the serviceof

Mr. Deauceace,he grows more cunning and less likeable, clearly echoing the

unattractive qualitiesof his master. He helps himself generouslyto his unofficial

fpurquizzets'andpeeps and spiesinto his master'saffairs. Eventually he colludes

with him in order to escapedebtors, celebratestemporary prosperity in 'foring

parts', and ultimately acceptsa bribe to desert him for the more prestigious service

of the Earl of Crabs,when he faces ruin.

His successor,'James Plush, Esq., lately footman to a respectedfamily

in Berkeley Square',makes and loses a fortune in railway speculation. At the

Vol. 3, 242. 2'Biographical Edition, p. Further references to this volume are given in the text. 143 height of his good fortune, he assumesthe French version of his appellation, returning to the plainer JamesPlush when he falls into his former station in life.

Jeames,as a fictional narrator, demonstratesthe fundamentalprinciple of

Commedia,the ascendancyof apersona, or'type', over the individual personality.

In many ways a maturer creation than CharlesYellowplush, he is closer to the

Arlecchino than his predecessor,being just as devious but a great deal more naive in his dealingswith people. The story-line that progressesthrough the pagesof

Jeames'sDiary is closeto being a re-enactmentof the traditional 'Harlequinade'.

In the pagesof Punch, this particular Arlecchino meetshis Colombina, and, after making and losing a fortune, is successfullytamed, 'Mary Hann 'Oggins', in the tradition of the Colombina, loves JamesPlush, although shecan seestraight through his tricks and foolish pride. The lovers of the Commediatradition, Lady

Angelina and her sweetheart,Captain Silvertop, commandMary Ann's loyalty and by she aids their elopement, which they escapePantalone -- in this case,Lord

Bareacres. Like her Commediacounterpart, Mary Ann is a lady's maid, well-dressedin her mistress'scast-offs and beautiful to the extent that, when the dallying Jeamessees her, the plot usesthe Commediatradition of mistaken identity, as he believesher to be Angelina. Realisinghis mistake, he admits: 'I coodn help comparingthem and I coodnt help comparing myself to a certing

found HanimaleI've read of, that it diffiklt to make a choice betwigst 2 Bundles of

A'(406). Like the Arlecchino, he has a roving eye and makesa fool of himself by paying inappropriateattentions to Angelina: He was the laughter of all the her servant'shall' (417). In role as Colombina, 'the only lucid, rational person in commediadell'arte', Mary Ann, unable to changehim, acceptshim as he is."

21Rudlin, p. 130. 144

At the sametime that Thackeraywas creating Yellowplush, in the likenessof an Arlecchino, for Fraser's Magazine, he was also fashioninga new carnival domino for himself basedon another stock characterfrom Commedia,11

Capitano. The origins of Il Capitano have been traced to classicalliterature, as

Plautus'sMiles Glorioso or the 'Trasone'of Terence'sEunuchus. In European history, this stock characterhas also been connectedwith the hildago, a member of the minor Spanishnobility who, as a mercenaryand military adventurer, traditionally appearsas 'a mixture of Don Juan, Pizarro and Don Quixote'."

AugustusWagstaff of Me Paris Literary Gazette,hero of Bundlesbund,Futtygur and Ferruckabad,with a black glasseye and a 'large piece of sticking-plaster covering the spot where once had grown a goodly nose', is sufficiently alarming, but his appearancepales into insignificancebeside that of Major Gahagan." The

Major enteredthe pagesof Colbum's New Monthly magazine in 1838 and his personalvanity is unparalleled:

I am, so I have statedalready, six feet four inchesin height, and of matchless symmetryand proportion. My hair and beard are of the most brilliant aubum, so bright as to be scarcelydistinguished at a distancefrom scarlet. My eyesare bright blue, overshadowedby bushy eyebrowsof the colour of my hair, and a terrific gashof the deepestpurple, which goes over the forehead,the eyelid, and the cheek, and finishesat the ear, gives my face a more strictly military appearancethan can be conceived. When I have been drinking (which is pretty often the case)this gash becomesruby bright, and as I had anotherwhich took off a piece of my under-lip, and shows five of my front teeth, I leaveyou to imaginethat 'seldomlighted on the earth (as the monsterBurke remarkedof one of his unhappyvictims) 'a more extraordinaryvision. ' I improved thesenatural avantages;and, while in the cantonmentduring the hot winds at Chittybobbary, allowed my hair to grow very long as did my beard, which reachedto my waist. It took me two hours daily to curl my hair into a thousandlittle corkscrew ringlets, which waved over my shoulders,and to get my moustacheswell round to comer of my eyelids.I dressedin loose scarlet trousers and red morocco boots, a scarlet

22Vernon Lee, Stu&es of the Eighteenth Century in Italy (London: Satchell, 1880) from Rudlin, p. 120, n. 267. 23 Pearson,p. 224. 145

jacket, and a shawl of the samecolour around my waist; a scarlet turban, three feet high, and decoratedwith a tuft of scarlet flamingo feathers, formed my head-dress,and I did not allow myself a single ornament,except a small silver skull and cross-bones,in front of my turban. (145-6)

Major Gahagan,arrayed from headto foot in scarlet, is a nineteenth-century

incarnationof R Capitano, the soldier braggart of the Commediadell'arte, a

larger-than-lifeliar who is, at heart, a coward and a fraud. His costumeillustrates

two possibilitiesfrom the Commediatradition: the loose trousers, shawl around

the waist and the turban may be indicative of his empty boasting and cowardice,

for It Capilano, in hostile terrain, would avoid attack by dressinglike the natives;

alternatively,in the spirit of the Commedia,he could be wearing the head-dressof

a slain enemy,an infidel. His stature too, 'six feet four inches',which is

incidentally comparableto Thackeray'sown height, is also in the tradition of 14

Capitano, whose costume,movements and stanceare all designedto give an

impressionof great size, so that he occupiesthe maximum amount of space,

indicative of his high statusand 'feet on the ground, head in the clouds'

characteristics.'4 Major Gahagan,commander of the AhmednuggarIrregulars is

a satire on the military profession,or, more specifically,a satire of a particular

type of professionalsoldier.

Like his Commedicpredecessor, the Major is a showmanof the first

order and boastsof his conquests:'I have been at more pitched battles, led more

forlorn hopes,had more successamong the fair sex, drunk harder, read more, been

a handsomerman than any officer now serving Her Majesty' (121). It is

interestingto comparehis exaggeratedaccounts of battlefield exploits with an

24Rudlin,p. 121 146 excerpt from an original commedia,script. Il Capilano, in this instance'Captain

Coccodrillo', speaksof his prowessin battle:

While I am fighting there comes a cannon ball and strikes me in the mouth, knocking out, as you see, two teeth, but without doing me further harm. I turn this ball round in my hands and hurl it back to the enemy, and, striking a tower in which there are fifteen hundred men, knock it down, killing all the soldiers and reducing the whole to dust so that there remains no trace of it whatsoever. 25

Confronted by a femalewarrior, he seizesher by the hair and throws her up to the

'fifth heaven',where sheknocks out Mars. Jove, who seesCaptain Coccodrillo below, brandishinghis sword, urges the gods to be silent, lest the enragedsoldier should enter heavenand slay them all. Although Major Gahagancannot quite equal his predecessor'sfeat of terrifying Jove and a heavenfull of gods, hyperbole comesjust as easilyto him. On one occasion,he fells one hundredand thirty-five elephantswith one bullet and slaysan opponent with a singleblow: 'His head, cut clean in two betweenthe eyebrowsand the nostrils, evenbetween the two front teeth, fell one side on eachshoulder' (129). Later, fettered to a stake 'a couple of feet thick and eight higN, driven five feet into the ground, he wrests it free, and wields it to upend his executionersand the Maharata!s palanquinbearers, neatly batting them on to the sabresof an approachingarmy. When he runs out of ammunition,Gahagan loads the garrison'slast remainingfood suppliesinto the guns, bespattersthe enemywith cheeseand kills Loll Mahommed,with 'one hun&ed and seventeenbest Spanish olives' (178).

Traditionally, H Capitano of the CommediadellArte suffersa denouementat the handsof the other characterswhen he is exposedas a coward and a liar. Major Gahagan,as the narrator of his own story, successfullyevades

"Fabrizio de Fomaris, A ngelica, (15 8 5), from Rudlin, p. 124. 147

exposure by others, but falls ignominiously into his own trap. He asserts 'gravely

and sadly' to his incredulous readers that he is unequivocally 'a teller of THE

TRUTIT (13 1). Booth has commented that, 'though the author can to some

extent choose his disguises, he can never choose to disappear. 26 Thackeray, as

the author of Major Gahagan's memoirs, is still very much in evidence, reinforcing

one of the key principles of the Menippean satirist: those who claim to tell the

truth deceive themselves more than anyone else.

This examination of Thackeray's use of carnival imagery in the

narratorial devices he employed in his magazine fiction illustrates an important

aspect of his work. The assimilation of the traditions of folk culture into his

writing reflects a tacit understanding that, at this period of his career, his work

belonged to a transitory marketplace culture. He was writing, not for an

intellectual minority, but to appeal to a heterogeneous public readership, with the

intention to amuse rather than instruct. In spite of the spurious discourse of his

narrators, their self-delusions and naivet6, their lies and knavish tricks, in the true

in spirit of comedy and the carnival tradition, each triumphs over his misfortunes.

Yellowplush rises through the ranks of domestic service, Major Gahagari

ecstatically announces his marriage, and, when James Plush comes to his senses,

live happily he and Mary Ann ever after. Ailthough Thackeray's letters of this

inherent distrust period show an of bigotry and humbug, he was not yet prepared

didactic his to take a view of writing. A few years later, he came to appreciate a

different view of authorial responsibility; for the moment, however, like the

26 The Rhetoric Wayne C. Booth, ofFictioll (Chicago: London: University of Chicago Press, 1961,1968), p. 20. 148 buffoons and entertainersof the ancient marketplaces,he found it sufficient to celebratefoolishness with ambivalenceand good humour.

Thackeray'suse of Menippean satire, in particular those elementsof the mode that also reflect the carnival traditions and folk humour of seriocomic writing, are especiallyrelevant to both his subject matter and the literary markets he soughtto supply. On the other hand, Peacock,exploring topical ideologiesand in writing for a more intellectual readership,usually employedthe sub-genre ways that reflect those twentieth-century interpretations of the mode as a meansof philosophicalenquiry. However, both writers madeextensive use of one pivotal

image of the carnival tradition, the banquet, and their work demonstrateshow the

been,by celebratoryfeast, the symbolof universal plenty and abundance,had the

nineteenthcentury, all but destroyedby the increasinglydivisive structure of

society.

CIM3 C-IM) C13&-) CS&O OW)

Any readerfamiliar with the works of Peacockand Thackeraycannot

fail to observethe importancethat both writers attach to the subjectof food.

Among Peacock'slater paperswas found an incompletecookbook in manuscript,

dated 1849-50,probably intended, at some stage,for publication." His

conversationsatires revolve around a loaded dinner table. From Dr. Gaster's

mishap,as he respondedto meet the call to breakfast at the start of Headlong

Hall, to Dr. Opimian's 'Bacchic ordnance'of champagnecorks at the end of Gryll

Grange (1860), Peacock'sspeakers fill their stomachsand loosentheir tongues

" with an abundanceof food and wine. It is also well documentedthat Thackeray

2'HallifordEdition, 1967, Vol. 9, Appendix 11,pp 446-455. 2'Gar;ett, ed., p.982. 149 wasnever reluctant to write on the subjectsof food anddrink. His published works aboundwith a wealthof culinarydetails, as do his privatepapers and letters. Memorialsof Gourmandising'(Fraser's, 184 1), 'A Dinnerin the City'

(Punch,1847), 'A Little Dinnerat Timn-lins's'(Punch, 1848), all markhim out asa gourmand,a bon viveurand, ultimately, as Carey points out, 'hisgourmandizing wasthe deathof him'.'s'

Bakhtinhas analysed and historicized the imageof the banquetas it has appearedin seriocomicliterature, and presents an accountof festiveeating as one of the ritualsof carnival,a symbolof abundanceand equality, of man'striumph overthe world by his work. In its earliestmanifestations, in feudalEurope, the feastfulfilled boththe physiologicaland psychological needs of its participants,It symbolizeda temporaryperiod of liberationfor the people,which existed outside the prevailingestablished order, with plentyof food, laughterand frank, regenerativeconversation.

Bakhtinalso examines the significanceof the 'officialfeast', the formal banquet,from whichordinary people were excluded, and by which the predominantculture sought to reinforceits authorityand the establishedorder:

On the otherhand, the official feastsof the NliddleAges, whether ecclesiastic,feudal, or sponsoredby the state,did not leadthe peopleout of the existingworld orderand created no secondfife. On the contrary,they sanctionedthe existingpattern of thingsand reinforced it. The link with time becameformal; changes and moments of crisiswere relegated to the past. Actually,the official feastlooked back at the pastand used the pastto consecratethe present. Unlike the earlierand purer feast, the official feast assertedall that wasstable, unchanging, perennial: the existinghierarchy, the existingreligious, political and moral values, norms and prohibitions. It was the triumphof truth alreadyestablished, the predominanttruth that wasput forwardas eternaland indisputable. "

29J.Carey, Thackeray:Pro&gal Genius (London: Faber& Faber, 1977), p.82. 3'Bakhtin,Rabelais and His WOrld,P. 9- 150 it is difficult to identify, in nineteenth-centuryliterature, recreationsof the 'earlier and purer feast'which featuresso strongly in Bakhtids interpretation of carnival tradition. The whole concept of work and the production of food, which had been central to the subsistenceeconomy, had, by this time, becomedistorted by the market priorities of the growing consumersociety. In an agricultural economy, elementsof the celebrationof man'striumph over his environmentcould still be found in the celebrationsof successfulharvests, where all had worked together for one commonpurpose. However, in the divisive class stratification of urban industrialization,where commercialprosperity was won at the expenseof the social exclusionof those who laboured in production, the celebratoryfeast had been replacedby the ceremonialbanquet, a meansby which hierarchicalvalues were reinforced. Even the private dinner party, its form dictated by the expectationsof the host and his guests, servedto emphasizeand maintain the establishedsocial order. In the public sphere,the 'official feast', with its ritual toasts and formal speechmaking,became a monologic reinstatementof the existing

hierarchy. The grotesqueimagery of carnival, in both art and literature, with its

folkloric, elementalhumour and its universal applications,was rapidly being

relegatedto the past or, at least, reducedto specific eventsand isolated social

groups. Nineteenth-centuryliterature echoedthe classcultures it representedand

which sponsoredits creation, and, as Bakhtin has summarizedthe situation,

,laughter was cut down to cold humour, irony, sarcasm. It ceasedto be joyful and

triumphant hilarity. Its positive, regeneratingpower was reducedto a minimum."'

C16L*_) CISL*1) (ýSBII) CýSB111) CMI)

31Bakhtin, Rabelais and his World, p.3 8. 151

Peacock'suse of the form of the Socratic dialogue has alreadybeen examinedin chaptertwo. Theseconversation scenes, often centred around a private dinner-tablein the mode of the classicalsymposium, present opinions by the juxtaposition of conflicting points of view, eachimparted with a senseof conviction that allows no room for any other interpretation. Collectively, however, the ideologiesthemselves are shown to be flawed by the contraststhat becomeapparent as they are set side by side with eachother, and the ultimate focus of the satire centreson the intellectual limitations and the presumptionof those who claim to have discoveredthe truth.

In MajdMwlan, however, Peacockmakes use of the feast in a way which clearly illustrates somedistinctive featuresof the banquetin its original form, as a celebrationof marfs temporary liberation from the establishedorder and of his triumph over the world. The final chapter of the book setsa sceneof carnival feastingand hierarchicalreversal. In an atmosphereofjoyful celebration, the forestersgather for their banquetto enjoy an abundanceof food and drink, the fiUits of their outlawed labours. The friar enters into a dialogue with an unidentified knight and puts forward the casethat, in his own domain, Robin the outlaw has as much right to rule as King Richard:

Richard is courteous,bountiful, honest and valiant: but also is Robin: it is the false word that makesthe unjust distinction. They are twin-spirits, and shouldbe friends, but that fortune hath differently cast their lot: but their namesshall descendtogether to the latest days, as the flower of their age and of England: for in the pure principles of fireebooteryhave they excelled all men; and to the principles of freebootery, diversely developed,belong all the qualitiesto which song and story concederenown. 32

here be The themesexplored will discussedfurther, in chaptersix, in the context At of Peacock'spolitical satire. this Point, it is relevant to look at the content of

"Garnett ed., pp.537-8. 152 the fflar's speech,as an exampleof banquetdiscourse outside the domain of the

'official' feast. He suggeststhat power and the right to rule are attained by

'freebootery',the acquisitionof wealth by nefarious means. He who excelsin plunderinghis peersgains authority over them, but of those who actually obtain this kind of power, circumstancesdictate the supremacyof one faction over another. The idealsof royalty, traditionally presentedin religious and heroic terms by the establishedorder, are little short of a celebration of robbery and violence.

In a different set of circumstances,the deedsthat confirm kingship fall outside the law and are subjectto punishment. Robin and Marian, presiding over the feast as the king and queenof the forest fellowship, are ritually decrownedwhen the unidentified knight turns out to be the reigning monarch,but the hierarchical reversalis ambiguous. The king and the outlaw are 'twin-spirits' and between them there is little to choose. The principles by which they uphold their positions are commonto each; eachhas earnedhis right to rule and eachis as good, or as bad, as the other.

The context of Maid Marian, the nature of the book as a comic

Romanceand the location of the story in the forests of medievalEngland, successfullydistances the reader from the narrative in a way which can

informal accommodatethe spontaneityof a carnival banquet. Thackeray'swork, however, in its urban settings,among populations governedby rigid class stratification, cannot be liberatedfrom establishedauthority in this way.

Thackeray'sfeasts are those of the official life, ceremonialbanquets designed to confirm and uphold the existing order of society. A frequent participant in official banquets,Thackeray came to understandthe esoteric nature and hollow significanceof thesefunctions. 'A Dinner in the City', publishedin Punch in three 153 parts in 1847, satirizesthe extravagance,pomp and ceremonyof such an event.

The narrator, on this occasion,is Mr. Spec, middle-classand respectable,living with his equallyrespectable wi* and their children in'one of the most healthy of the suburbsof this great City'. " The invitation is an enormoushonour to this

rather inconsequentialfamily, and the piece, written as one of the seriesof

'Sketchesand Travels in LondoW,is in sharp contrast to the stark poverty that

Thackeraydepicted in the immediatelypreceding contribution, 'The Curate's

Walk',

Mr, Specis invited to accompanyan acquaintanceto a formal banquet

given by the'Worshipful Companyof Bellows-Menders,at their splendidHall in

Marrow-pudding Lane'(553), As the guestsof the Bellows-Mendersbegin to

convergeon the City, there is a carnival atmosphereabout the event, The military

in scarletand gold lace and the equipagesof foreign ambassadors,resplendent

with their cockadedservants, form a triumphal processiontowards the City, the

stronghold of commerceon which the prosperity of the establishedorder depends.

However, this is not a carnival of 'all the people', and the wholenessof the

celebrationhas been lost. As the guests approachtheir destination,the mood

changes:

In Cornhill we fell into a fine, and formed a complete regiment of the aristocracy. Crowds were gatheredround the stepsof the old hall in Marrow-pudding Lane and welcomedus nobility and gentry as we stepped out of our equipagesat the door. The policemencould hardly restrain the low fellows ardour of these and their sarcasticcheers were sometimesvery There unpleasant, was one rascal who madean observationabout the size of for my white waistcoat, which I should have liked to sacrificehim on the spot. (554)

Edition, Vol, 6, "Biographical p. 592. Further reference to Vol. 6 are given in the text. 154

The arrival of the guestsat Marrow-pudding Lane emphasizesthe social divisions that mark the occasionas an 'official feast'. The name 'Marrow-pudding' is suggestiveof abundantfood, but many of those who have worked to contribute to the national prosperity are excludedfrom the feast. The 'welcome'is ironic, a barrageof insults by which they show their resentmentof 'us nobility and gentry'.

There hasbeen no carnival 'suspensionof all hierarchicalrank, privileges, norms and prohibitions'. ' Spec,as narrator, reacts with a spontaneoushostility but is pulled away. However, the incident outside the door is forgotten in the rush of the

,black strearningcrowd, into the gorgeous hall of banquet' (557). The extravaganceof the glass,plate and gold statues,the turtle soup, peasand blanemange,all signify an abundancewhich is no longer availableto all. The

Worshipful Companyof Bellows-Mendersrepresents a new precedencein the establishedorder, in which commercial successnow lies parallel to the old hierarchiesof rank and prestige,and is affirmed in a public display of spectacleand ceremony. Guestsare announcedby nameand rank at the door, emphasizing aflegianceto the old order. Portraits of the Prince Regent and the Dukes of Kent and Cumberlandlook down from the walls, consecratingthe past and affirming the present. The City tradesmenconduct their distinguishedguests to the table and it becomesclear that the old order is now inextricably linked to the new. Future honour and distinction are no longer the privilege of birth but the right of commercialsuccess and financial prosperity (558).

Spec,as narrator, is initially overwhelmedby the splendourof the occasionand the prominenceof the guests,and he confesses:'To be in a room

14Bakhtin,Rabelais and His World, p. 10 155

with thesegreat people gave me a thousand sensationsofjoy'(556). However, he

grows scepticalof the excessesof the banquet and its tedious rituals:

On in hall, a centretable the on which already stood a cold Baron of Beef -a grotesquepiece of meat -a dish as big as a dish in a pantomime,with a little standardof England stuck on top of it, as if it were round this we were to rally - on this centre table, six men placed as many huge dishesunder cover; and at a given signal the master cook and five assistantsin white caps and jackets marchedrapidly up to the dish-covers,which being withdrawn, discoveredsix great haunches,on which the six carvers,taking out six sharp knives from their girdles beganto operate. It was, I say, like somethingout of a Gothic romance,or a grotesquefairy pantomime.(558-9)

Thackeray'sdescription of a nineteenth-centuryCity banquetworks as the

antithesisof the significancethat Bakhtin found in the banquetimagery of

Renaissancewriting. The ritual of carving is elaboratelystaged, re-enacting the

past: 'Feudalbarons must have dined so, five hundredyears ago', but the festive

significanceof the re-enactmentis changed(559). The relationshipof the feast

'with speech,with wise conversationand gay truth', is lost in the nonsensical

babbleof full mouths and befuddledbrains; the ceremonialrituals of formal

speeches,toasts and patriotic songsare meaninglessparodies of official

languages." Writing a retrospectiveaccount, sevenmonths after the event, Mr.

Specasks:

," What the deucehas that absurd song to do with her Majesty, and how does it

set us all stampingwith our glasseson the mahogany?"' (561). The whole scene

transformsitself into a grotesquepantomime, a burlesque. The original senseof

banquetimagery, with its 'inherenttendency towards abundanceand an

is destroyed all-embracingpopular element', by imagesof gluttony and excessby a f 36 Others, labour selected ew. whose has contributed to this luxury and

"Bakhtin, Rabelais awJ His World, p. 281. 36ibid. 156

abundance,are left to jeer outside the door. The popular festive energy has

suffereda reversaland the banquet,for these people at least, has beenreduced to

an occasionfor resentmentand derision.

Bakhtin examinesthe changingsignificance of banquetimagery, as class

stratification brought about social and cultural divisions:

However, evenwithin bourgeois culture the festive elementdid not die. It merely narrowed down. The feast is a primary, indestructibleingredient of humancivilization; it may become sterile and even degenerate,but it cannot vanish. The private, 'chamber'feast of the bourgeois period still preservesa distorted aspectof the ancient spirit; on feast daysthe doors of the home are open to guests,as they were originally open to 'all the world. ' On such days there is a greater abundancein everything: food, dress,decorations. Festive greetingsand good wishes are exchanged,although the ambivalencehas faded The feast has (as has daily ... no utilitarian connection rest and relaxationafter working hours). On the contrary the feast meansliberation from all that is Utilitafian.37

Thackerayprovides a compelling picture of the bourgeois 'chamber'feast

in 'A Little Dinner at Timn-dns's',which was publishedin Punch in 1848. This

short, five-part novella demonstratesthe altered significanceof the banquetimage,

it is longer'open "all when no to the world"', but confined to the restrictive area of

a suburbandining-room. It depicts a form of feastingwhich has becomesterile

and corrupt. Rosa Timmins!s motives for this lavish entertainmentare the

antithesisof the original spirit of the banquet; aided and abettedby her mother, feast Mrs. Gashleigh,she uses the as a meansof confirming her own social liberation has position. Universal been supplantedby the triumph of a few at the is expenseof many. It not even an 'official feast' in the sensethat it affirms the for, dinner establishedOrder, unlike the in the City, it cannot call on history and Her tradition for justification. guest list includesnot even her closestfiends, but

only those acquaintanceswhom shebelieves will benefit her socially. The

37Bakhtin, Rabelais awl His World, p. 2 76. 157 banquet,in this context, representspersonal ambition; nothing is freely given and there is no senseofjoyful festivity. High-ranking guestsattend unwillingly and their conversationis meaningless,broken by strained pauses,during which the guestshear the voices and activity of the servants,those who have beenexcluded,

The atmosphereis tenseand claustrophobicand the Timmins's'uncommonly compact'little housein Lilliput Street cannot accommodateeveryone. Every soundfrom the kitchen permeatesthe sceneand the feast is reducedto a cacophonyof noises. The baby screams,china and banistersare smashed,and an attempt to dancebrings down the dining-room lamp. The concept of the feast, as a period of abundanceand temporary liberation from work, is destroyedin a pantomimeof hired plate and servants,professional caterers, escalating expenditureand, ultimately, financial ruin. Like Robin and Marian, the host and hostessare ritually decrowned,but, in contrast to Peacock'sbanquet in Sherwood

Forest, there is no ambivalencein their descent, Timmins and Rosa emerge without honour, victims of their own foolishness. In this context, the concept of feast is the popular not merely distorted, as it is in the 'official' banquetat

Marrow-pudding Lane. Along with the Timmins'schina and banisters,the dining-room lamp and their dignity and reputation, it hasbeen totally destroyed.

03 L*) ORkI.) Cle-3 09 DO CISE10

Carnival imagery,in most of Peacock'swork, is not easyto find. His feast, literary image, use of the as a is circumscribedby his subjectmatter and his Although anticipatedreadership. the act of feasting servesto generate ideological conversationand debate,there is no suspensionof the social hierarchy amongthose who participate. Furthermore, the talk that surroundsthe dinner-tableis to 'all not relevant the people', but servesto stimulatethe kind of 158

intellectual discussionwhich can be accessedonly by,an educatedminority. In

much of his work, significantlyHeadlong Hall, Nightmare Abbey, Crotchet Castle

and the much later Gryll Grange, there is a sensethat, in the feast, Peacockhad

found a useful formula around which he is able to construct his dialogues,and

intellectual considerationstake precedenceover the act of eating.

Thackeray'swork, on the other hand, shows a much deeperassimilation

of carnival influences,and Bakhtids discussionof the tradition, and its relationship

to Menippeansatire, is helpful in providing an historicized literary context for his writings. His subjectmatter, basedon social rather than intellectual problems,

accommodatesimages from the contemporary popular culture as well as those of

the pre-modemworld. Graphic descriptionsof food and referencesto the

contemporaryconsumer market provide the reader with a very visual, physical

reality. 'Dinner in the City' andA Little Dinner at Timmins's',both publishedin

the late-eighteen-forties,show how the festive impulsewas constrainedby

contemporarysocial strictures.

Both Peacockand Thackeraythought deeply about the quality of

contemporaryliterature. Each defendedhis own attitude towards both the

traditions and the innovationsof nineteenth-centuryliterature, and their respective in positions are revealed the literary reviews they publishedin the magazinesof the

period. The following chapter examinessome of thesein detail, and demonstrates

how their differing principleswere guided by their respectivereading audiences

and by their own authorial integrity. 159

Chapter Five: The Case for'BeHes Lettres' versus a Brother of the Press

This chapterfocuses on the work of Peacock and Thackerayas literary reviewers. Both authors wrote critical appraisalsof the literature of the first half of the nineteenthcentury. Their reviews of the work of other writers and the ways in which they viewed their own writings, define not only their personalliterary ideals,but also underlinethe differencesin their attitudes towards the cultural changesof the period. In addition, it will be shown how both writers questioned the standardsand underlying ideologies of the reviewersthemselves.

Peacock'sdiscussions of contemporarywork display expectationsthat

were predominantlyeighteenth-century in character. He viewed the author as

occupying a position of intrinsic responsibility towards the traditions of literature

and scholarshipand, by subscribingto utilitarian principles of criticism, tested the

validity of this ideology in a reassessmentof literary values. Thackeray,whose

careerbegan just as Peacockhad begun to write for the periodical market, also

showsa strong awarenessthat an intellectual and artistic approachto writing was

still the ultimate ideal of authorship. However, his close interaction with the

contemporarypublishing market brought him to the understandingthat the

changingnature of the popular readership,together with commercialdemands,

required a more flexible approach. For Thackeray,literature that took into

accountthe interestsof an ever-widening audiencefor printed material, could be

just as culturally soundas that which sought to satisfy an exclusivelyintellectual

readership.

Peacockbegan his writing careerby publishing small volumes of poetry

and satirical fiction, later exchangingthis role for that of an occasionalcontributor

to periodicals. His earliestpublished book review, 'The Epicurean, by Thomas 160

Moore', appearedas an anonymouscontribution to the October number of Ae

WestminsterReview of 1827, The essayillustrates the tensionsthat were beginningto emerge,as the new demandsof the novel-readingpublic collided with both the influencesof contemporaryideologies and Peacock'spersonal ideals of scholarship. First of all, it is helpful to considerthe background of Peacock's connectionwith the Westminsterand the ideological context of the periodical.

As mentionedearlier (p. 96), the WestminsterReview was establishedin

1824, by JeremyBentham, as an organ of the philosophical radicalsand was designedto challengethe respectivepolitical strangleholdsof the Quarterly and the Edinburgh Reviews. Although JamesMill declined Bentham'soffer of editorship, he becamea regular contributor to the periodical during its formative years. John Stuart Mill capturessome of the philosophical and political intensity that surroundedthe publication during its early issues. He writes of his father's

first contribution, a critical analysisof the Edinburgh Review: 'So formidable an

attack on the Whig party and policy had never before been made;nor had so great

a blow been struck, in this country, for radicalism,nor was there, I believe, any

living personcapable of writing that article, except my father."

Peacock,whose interest in radical reform had grown during the period

of his acquaintancewith Shelley,Hogg and Leigh Hunt at Marlow, was also

employedat India House, during the early years of the WestminsterReview, in an

administrativecapacity immediately subordinate to that of Mill. However, in spite

of a commoninterest in radical politics and close contact within their sphereof

employment,there does not appearto have been a great deal of sympathetic

understandingbetween the two men. Peacock,although contributing to the

J. S. Mill, Autobiography, p. 82. 161

Westminster,seems to have remainedsceptically aloof from the inner circle of

Mill's ideological disciples,and Howard Mills suggeststhat his'reactions to James and John Stuart Mill were bare humantolerance and intellectual distaste'.' His acquaintancewith Bentham,however, seemsto have flourished on a closer correlation of philosophicalexchanges, and it has been recorded that the two men, for sometime, enjoyeda weekly dinner engagement,although there is no account of their discussionsat thesemeetings. It would appearmore than likely that the utilitarian ideology propoundedby Bentham was of interest to Peacockas topic for intellectual deliberation. Although the views that he expressedin someof his early essays-- the 'Essayon FashionableLiterature% which he was working on in

Four Ages Poetry, 1818, and 'The of publishedin 1820 -- reflect Bentham'sideas, there is little reasonto suggestthat, among the many philosophicaldebates that coloured the yearsof the Regency,these principles alone should have been allowed to remainimmune from the intenselyobjective scrutiny that he was in the habit of applying to other contemporarytenets and beliefs. As already pointed out in a previous chapter,Peacocles faithful subservienceto Benthamitephilosophy as shown in 'The Four Ages of Poetry may well be read as an ironic challengeto the very opinions he is pretendingto support, and his apparentallegiance to

Benthamism masksa satirical enquiry into the validity of a utilitarian view of literature?

Altick summarizesthe relationship betweenutilitarian thought and the

literature of the period:

Literature, and poetry in particular, was judged above all in terms of its didactic its moral Other power, usefulness... values,such as the pleasure

2 H. Mills, p. 204. I Ch. 2, n.28. 162

arising from the music of the verse or striking images or felicity of phrase, were always subordinate to this, if indeed they were recognised at all. The function of literature as sheer entertainment was seldom conceded in critical discussion. '

In generalterms, the utilitarians viewed literature as a potential obstaclein the path of progress. Writing, which was elegantly constructed or imaginatively conceived,was beyondthe pale of serious literary considerationunless it could be seento fulfil a moral or didactic function. One may register here a marked relationshipbetween this view and the cultural values attachedto eighteenth-centurysatire as discussedin the first chapter, Poetry and satire, in the context of classicalliterature, had proved their worth as a valid meansof conveyingphilosophical thought. This role had now been supersededby the

philosophicalessayist, and poetry or satire which lacked intellectual substanceor

didactic intent was of little relevant consequence. Such views were explicitly

expressedin an anonymousarticle in the WestminsterReview which, in 1825,

declared: 'Literature is a seducer;we had almost said harlot. Shemay do to trifle

with; but woe be to the statewhose statesmenwrite verses,and whose lawyers

read more in Tom Moore than in Bracton."

Peacock'sreview of Moore's novel, 771eEpicurean, is interestingfor a

numberof reasonsand merits an extensivediscussion in this context. In the first

instance,it representsthe type of work that was designedto attract the

novel-readingaudiences of the period. Siskin confirms an'increasedemphasis on

the positive entertainmentvalue of the novel' in the late eighteenthcentury, adding

that this 'was accompaniedby a reformulation of its dangers." Whereasearlier

4Aftick (1957), pp. 136-7. WestminsterReview, Vol. 4, (1825), pp. 165-66, from Altick (1957), p 135. 6 Siskin, p. 185. 163 efforts to elevatethe novel as a literary genre had met with opposition on both moral and artistic grounds, later opinion demonstrateda relaxation of rigid modes of criticism. However, the advent of utilitarian theory, largely stimulatedby

Bentham,demanded a re-evaluationof standardsof literature during the early nineteenthcentury. In addition, Peacock'sapplication of utilitarian literary theory to Moore's novel illustratesthe intensifying cultural tensionsof the period, as readingpopulations increased and authors and publisherssought to create new markets. The review of Moore's Epicurean also demonstrateshow Peacock,now writing in a new publishingcontext and, ostensibly,in a seriousvein, was still unableto resist underminingprescriptive ideologies.

Superficially,Peacock's review of the novel supportsutilitarian literary theory. The excessiveornamentation of the style in which the book is written, and the inaccuraciesand licencewith which Moore treats his subjectmatter, set it

firmly outside the boundariesof serious literary consideration. Peacockbegins

with an obliquely satirical attack on the novel as an exampleof commercially

producedfiction, designedfor an artistically undiscerningsection of the market,

the femalereadership:

Thisvolume will, no doubt,be infinitelyacceptable to the ladies'who make the fortuneof newbooks. ' Love, very intense;mystery, somewhat recondite;piety, very profound;and philosophy, sufficiently shallow; with the helpof -- newmythological machinery, And very handsomesupernatural scenery, strungtogether with an infinity of brilliant andflowery fancies,present a combinationeminently calculated to delightthis very numerousclass of readers!

In the first short sentence,Peacock demolishes Ae Epicurean as serious

literature, and attacksthe relianceOf the fiction market on a female readership. He

7HalfifordEdition, Vol. 9, p.3. 164 then reducesthe literary tastesof women readers,and finally questionsthe integrity of an author who writes in a way 'eminently calculated'to appealto this sectionof the market. However, the topic of a female reading audiencewas not new to Peacock. In Headlong Hall, publishedeight years before the inception of the WestminsterReview, he was already satirizing authorial subservienceto the popular taste, presentinghis opinions in the person of Miss PhilomenaPoppyseed.

Aided and abettedby her publisher'smarketing team, the reviewersMr Gall and

Mr. Treacle,Miss. Poppyseedhad become'an indefatigablecompounder of novels,written for the expresspurpose of supporting every speciesof superstition and prejudice'.' Peacockhere takes a markedly Bentharnitestance that such work was indeed'almost a harlot'; not only was it of no intellectual value, but it could also be seenas symptomaticof social decadenceand moral decay. Writers of

Miss.Poppyseed's calibre influencedyoung ladies 'to considerthemselves as a sort of commodity, to be put up at public auction and knocked down to the highest bidder'.' The unfortunate Mr. Panscope,'heir-apparent to an estateof ten thousanda-yeae, is blissfully unawarethat his apparentpopularity among the calculatingmajority of his female acquaintance,'whose morals had been formed by the novels of suchwriters as Miss Philomela Poppyseed',is directly in proportion to his financial prosperity." Even AntheliaMelincourt, whose attraction to Italian poetry preservedher from the worse forms of moral atrophy, hasbeen shown to be under the fictive influencesof literature when applying her romantic idealsto

her searchfor a flesh and blood husband,

I Gamett, ed., p. 20. 9 Ibid., P-40, "Ibid., P-39. 165

WhereasPeacocks application of utilitarian principles to literature is, in his fictions, essentiallysatirical, his essaysand reviews are coloured by potentially contentiousstatements and a provocative irony. He pursueshis argumenton the subjectof women as readersin the unfinished 'Essayon FashionableLiterature', which remainedunpublished during his lifetime. In this work, he writes: 'Young ladies read only for amusement:the best recommendationa work of fancy can have is that it should inculcate no opinions at all, but implicitly acquiescein all the assumptionsof worldly, "isdom. "' The accusationthat the tastesof female readerswere causinga decline in standardsin the novel was not confined to

Peacock. Godwin, in his essay'Of History and Romance',published as an appendixto Caleb Williams (1794), had made similar claims." Peacock's referenceto the subjectin his 'Essayon FashionableLiterature' evincessuch a senseof challengeand deliberateprovocation that it must havebeen purposefully designedto invite inflamed response,either from a generalreadership or, possibly, even from individual membersof the Hunt coterie itself There is also a sharp contrast here betweenPeacock's reduction of the female intellect and the implicit valuesthat he emphasizesin his portrayals of the women who appearin his

satirical fiction. As Garnett points out, he was 'markedly in advanceof his age in

showing a preferencefor intelligent, well-educated, and even moderately

emancipatedwomen, 13 Referencesto Celinda Toobad of Nightmare Abbey,

Matilda Fitzwater ofMaid Marion, or Lady Clarinda of Crotchet Castle, illustrate this point. All are revealedas young women of intelligence,whose own opinions

"HalfifordEdition, Vol. 8, p. 274. Things 11W,Godwin, as they are: or the Adventures of Caleb Williams, ed. M, Hindle (London: Penguin, 1794,1988), p. 369. "Garnett, ed., p. 646. 166 most definitely do not 'implicitly acquiescein all the assumptionsof worldly wisdom!. There is also a sensethat the independenceof mind shown by some of

Peacock'sfemale fictional speakersgoes far beyond the usual social expectations of women of their period. Much less likely than their male acquaintancesto becomethe targets of authorial satire, Peacock'sladies and their opinions are, for the most part, treated with authorial sympathyand respect.

Having openedwith a challengeto Moore's novel in generalterms,

Peacockquickly moves on to more specific criticisms. As he turns his attention to the academicdiscrepancies that appearin the subject matter of the book, he adopts a sternly didactic tone and issuesadvice to the aspiring author: 'He will go really through the preliminary labour of accumulatingall that is essentialto his object, insteadof making a vain paradeof scrapsand fragments,which will be found, on due examination,to be not the relics of a rich table, but the contentsof a beggar's

Wallet,914 Here, it hasto be rememberedthat Peacock was, at this time, engagedin writing YheMisfortunes qf Elphin (1829), and this work was precededby many years of researchinto the legendof Taliesin. It was a matter of pride to him that his studiesin this areaeventually earned the respectof Welsh archaeologists,who consideredittobe'a seriousand valuable addition to Welsh history'." Asa self-taughtclassical scholar, he was also familiar with the details of Epicurean philosophy,and he took exceptionto the licencewith which Moore adaptedthese principlesto the needsof his fiction.

Peacockobjected to Moore's 'vain paradeof scrapsand fragments'on divided grounds. In addition to an inherent contempt for carelessresearch, he also

14HallifordEdition, Vol. 9, pp.66-7. Further referencesto this volume are given in the text. 15Gamett,ed, P, 550, 167 seesMoore's misuse of fact in a moresinister light -- as a meansof exploitingthe commercialmarket by panderingto the tastesof contemporaryreaders. He cites severalextracts which he seesas deliberately misrepresenting aspects of the

Epicureanphilosophy in the causeof fiction. Alciphron,the heroof the novel,is his electedto leadthe Epicureanschool of philosophersby virtue of youth and good looks,'a circumstance,the authorsays, without precedent,and we conceive his without probability'(3). Moore'ssubservience to the expectationsof reading historical audiencebecomes even more irritatingly apparentto Peacockas, with inaccuracy,the formercontrasts the "'simple and sublimeausterity"' of

Christianitywith the '"alarmedbigotry"' of decliningEpicurean philosophy (6). A festivaldescribed in terms'much more Vauxhallian than Attic' leadsto sweeping accusationsof plagiarism,and Moore's hero is ultimatelydismissed as'a bon

Wvant,a gaydeceiver, a seekerafter eternallife, anda believerin dreams',who furthertransgresses Epicurean ideals by conceivinga violentand exclusive passion for onewoman, together with an atypicalpreoccupation with omensand portents

(11), In short,Peacock claims that Moore, in the creationof his protagonist,'has drawna portraitof everythingan eminentEpicurean was not, andpresents it to us asa fair specimenof what he was. Hamlet'suncle might as fairly havesat for the portraitof Hamlet'sfather' (5 1).

He continuesby emphasizingmuch unintentional hurnour in someof the

morebizarre twists of the narrativeand Moore's inaccurate presumptions. As the

historyof Alethe!s birth unfolds,he comments:'So hereis a pregnantwoman

electeda priestessof Isis, andlying-in, as a matterof course,under the auspicesof

the SacredCollege! '(334). He picksup anachronisticnames applied to the

architectureof ancientEgypt by a purportedlyGreek narrator: Ve wish Mr. 168

he Moore would tell us what is the Attic word for a chapel' (24). Further on, asks how an Athenian could have acquired a notion of a'spire', a feature of British high architecture,as an illustration of harmoniousfemale voices "' towering and finds flowers, clear over all the rest"' (25). When the hero himself among shrubs and 'verdant turf in a subterraneangarden, Peacockexhorts the author to try

'growing a pot of grassin his cellar before he again amusesthe public with similar fantasies'(28).

With a utilitarian ardour for the functional accuracyof language,

Peacockthen raisesobjections to what he seesas contrived extravagancein

Moore's prose. As he underminesthe text with attacks on someof the literary

has be conceitsand overblown imagery of the descriptive passages,it to acknowledgedthat the tone of the review begins to exhibit a degreeof comic pedantry,rather than earnestdiscussion. Moore depicts Alciphron rowing through

the moonlight towards the City of the Dead, but, as Peacockremarks, his 'very

for the tricksy petty straining after pantomimic effect ... sakeof a phantasy',

together with inaccuraciesin the renderingsof the interplay of moonlight and

beauty ftifther illustrates shadow,reduce the potential of the scene(15). He

Moore's unjustified use of forced embellishmentand literary ornamentation,by

quoting directly from an extract in which Alciphron embarkson his journey

towards the Nile: '" The gay, golden-wingedbirds that haunt theseshores, were,

in every direction, skimming along the lake; while, with a graver consciousnessof

beauty, the swanand the pelican were seendressing their white plumagein the

mirror of its wave" ' (3 1). Peacockargues that the passageis 'a conceit, a

misrepresentation,and an impossibility, adding that, whilst he has never had the behaviour opportunity of observingthe of pelicans,he is able to statewith 169 conviction that 'the swan never looks into the water for any purposebut to detect food'(31). Such exaggeratedand fanciful forms of description come 'from books and imagination,and not from nature!(32). He underlineshis point by citing

Wordsworth's poem, Yarrow Unvisited', as an exampleof literature which results from accurateobservation: 'The swan, on still St. Marys lakeJ Floats double, swan and shadow'(32). Mifls commentson the somewhatsurprising selection of this reference:'He hascome to respect much of Wordsworth, but not before his time, and only suchas can be assimilatedto eighteenth-centuryor classicalcanons of correctness."'

Peacock'sacademic conservatism and respectfor scholarshipwould have madehim naturally inclined towards the literary principles of this earlier age.

However, his opinions cannot be ful1yidentified with the utilitarian view, in its

strictest sense,that literature can be of value only when, stripped of all decoration,

it servesa functional and didactic purpose. The reader is left in no doubt that

Peacockdoes indeedfind aspectsof Moores work to be absurd,but it is the

inappropriatenessof the languageand scholarly inaccuraciesthat are offensive,

rather than the sentimentsthe writer hopesto convey. Although, as a contributor

to the WestminsterReview, he may have felt obfiged to demonstratea degreeof

authorial allegianceto the underpinningideology of the magazine,he does show a

certain sympathywith Moore's attempts to depict elevating scenes. in the extract

mentionedabove, Peacock does not deny the potential 'sublimity of the picture of

City the Dead by but the of moonlight, standing ... on the margins on the water',

merely objectsto Moores clumsy rendition of the scene. As his referenceto

Wordsworth illustrates,descriptive writing of the highest order is to be admired

16Mills,P. 221. 170 for its verisimilitude to nature, the product of sustainedthought and accurate observation,rather than fanciful emotions. Furthermore, this was a point of view acquiredseveral years before he cameinto contact with Mill and the Westminster.

In 1818, he had forwarded to Shelleya copy of Birkbeck's Notes on America, commentingthat: 'He is a man of vigorous intellect, who thinks deeply and

describesadmirably. "' Unfortunately, Peacockfound that Moore's work lacked this kind of authenticity: 'The truth is, the sublimeis beyond his grasp; and, in

aiming at it without adequatepower, he only achieves,as many worthy aspirants

have done before him, a pompous seizure of its close neighbourthe ridiculous'

(15-16). The 'sublime'had a place in literature, but only when attemptedby the

most accomplishedauthors.

In the review, Peacockappears to reflect the views of those who were

shapingthe identity of the Westminster,but it is possiblethat they may have been

dissatisfiedwith the way he presentedhis material. John Stuart Mill, JamesN&H

and others who were strongly interestedin the principles of the Westminsterare

recordedas being disappointedwith the conduct of the magazine. The younger

Mill writes: 'But it is worth noting as a fact in the history of Benthamismthat the

periodical organ by which it was best known was from the first extremely

unsatisfactoryto those whose opinions on all subjectsit was supposedspecifically

to represent." Certainly his Autobiography does not mention Peacockamong

those contributors Who were favoured by the central core of the magazine,

Peacock'sexamination of Moore's flamboyant style does, however,

reflect Mill's own opinion. Only a year previously, Mill had publishedan essayin

'WalfifordE&tion, Vol. 8, P.205. III S. Mill, Autobiography, p. 84-5. 171 the Westminstercommenting generally on the preoccupationof English authors with ornamentationand literary conceits and comparing their style with that of

French writers. NEUimplies that the work of French authors was closer to utilitarian literary principles than their English counterparts and that they avoided extravagantembellishment, writing in the expectation of providing the reader with more than mere entertainment:'Though many of them are highly gifted with the beautiesof style, they never seemdesirous of shewingoff their own eloquence; they seemto write becausethey have somethingto say and not becausethey desire to say something."' Peacock'ssummary of his objectionsto Moore's prose appearsto agreewith NEU'spoint of view. Arguing that the conceitsand misrepresentationsof fact that Moore used for effect in his text may have been pardonablein a'cockney poet' or a magazinecritic (Peacock,of course,was writing in this capacityat the time, as was I S. Mill), they could not be tolerated in'an author who quotes Greek, and has had opportunities of observationbeyond the Regent'sPark' (33). However, there is an underlying irony and lightnessof tone, which will be discussedfurther in relation to Peacock'slater review of

Moores work on Byron.

As a proficient classicalscholar, Peacockmay have been expectedto examineMoore's commandof the classics. Having identified, in the novel, a misquotationfrom Plato, he goes on to discussother examplesof Moore's n-fisuse of Greek: 'He is very fond of parading scrapsof Greek and on one occasion treated the public with a Greek ode, which is still an unrepentedsin, as we seeit

figuring in every new edition of his Anacreorf (61-2). This was indeed a

long-standingerror ofjudgement in Peacock'seyes, as Moore's translation of the

19Westminster Review, 1826,Vol. 6, p.63, from Altick, pp. 136-7. 172 odes ofAnacreon had first beenpublished in 1800. Peacockexamines Moore's commandof Greek in this ode, using a combination of technicalterms and plain

English, together with a long explanatory footnote which would havebeen largely incomprehensibleto anyoneother than a master of classicallanguages. Moore's

to mixing up 'iambic dimeters Trochaic culpability extends catalectic ... with dimeters if they isochronical', 'poor acatalectic ... as were misusingthe particles' and committingin short, as many sins againstlanguage, syntax, and prosody, as it was almost possibleto perpetratewithin so small a compass'(63-4). However,

Moore is not his only target in this context.

Peacockalso makesan attack on the way that reviewers in generalhave failed to monitor theseslipping standardsof scholarship:

We have noticed this ode in this place, becauseit is of a piece with the Greek pretensionswhich Mr. Moore is always putting forth: becauseit is, as we have said, an unrepentedsin: and becauseit is doubly curious as illustrating, at once, the sort of thing that passeswith the multitude for scholarship,and the materialsof which the great herd of trading critics is made,seeing that none of the gentry who professedto review Mr. Moore's Anacreontook any notice of the matter. (64)

The use of the corporate 'we' is significant in that it showsthat Peacockwas aware of literary convention;it also implies an adherenceto the ideological stanceof the

Westminster,which was to monitor the quality of literary reviews.

Fundamentally,Peacock would not have beenin disagreementwith the editorial intentionsof the periodical. Recalling his sustainedattack on the Quarterly in chapterthirty-nine of Melincourt, it is clear that he entertaineda long-standing dissatisfactionwith the 'great herd of trading critics', which actually predatesthe inception of the Westminster. Measuredagainst an inflexible utilitarian

he framework of critical principles, makesMoores book the subject of somevery his amusingridicule, although arguments,even when expressedwith a certain 173 degreeof ironic humour, carry conviction. The penultimate sentenceof the review is a close summaryof the Benthasrýiteposition on literature. Even if The

Epicurecuthad demonstratedgreater literary merit, this 'would scarcelyreconcile us to the total absenceof any moral purpose in a work of so much pretension'

(67). Here, however, Peacocksubtly introduces an implicit distinction. In certain circumstances,the absenceof moral purpose, in writing of an otherwise exceptionallyhigh quality, may be forgiven. Nevertheless,for an author who aspiresto literary recognition, or, indeed, even in one who has alreadyattained this distinction, such a lack of direction is unpardonable.

Although, superficially at least, Peacockappears to have adhered faithfully to the spirit of utilitarian literary values, it is difficult to reconcile this view with what is known of his work as an author and satirist. The whole fiction ambienceof his satirical leanstowards a Menippeanstyle of cornic writing, from which shiesaway the unquafified espousalof any one particular ideology or doctrine. In the seriousideological debatesin his books, his speakersare carefully arrangedin a way that exposesall sidesof a discussion,and no argumentis brought to a dogmatic conclusion. In addition, certain aspectsof the Epicurean review seemto underminethe apparentindignation of the author. Whilst there is no questionthat Peacocksaw little to praise in Moore's book, the comparisons demolish and imageshe usesto the work are, at times, expressedwith too much satirical humour to convincethe reader that his intentions are totally serious.

Cluesto unravellingthis apparentinconsistency in his work are to be found in

Moore's anotherdiscussion of work, Peacock'sreview of the Letters andJournals of LordByron, the first volume of which was publishedin 1830. 174

Peacoclesreview of Moore's work, on this occasion,appeared in the

April edition of the WestminsterReview in the sameyear. As with the review of the Epicurean, he criticizes Moore's 'shallow sophismsand false assumptions'in a manner'imperiously demanded of us by our senseof moral duty' to enlightenthe reader of such discrepanciesin the text (139). There are also characteristicattacks on Byrorfs accuracyin his commandof classicaltexts and allegationsof Moore's sycophancytowards both his subject and the literary world in general. However, there are indicationselsewhere that, although Peacockis giving an authentic reading of the work before him, his commitment to the corporate ideology of the

Westminstermay not havebeen as complete as the essayimplies.

This review of Moore's work openswith a generaldiscussion of the problemsa biographerfaces in discriminating betweenthe real and the 'artificial semblance'of his subject(71). Stating unequivocally that Byronwas early distinguishedby a scrupulousregard to truth', but that this had been undermined by 'the attrition of the world!, Peacockcites other reminiscencesof the poet, in particular those of Medwin and Hunt, as being unreliableinterpretations of anecdotalbiographical evidence (74). He points out that Byron often engagedin a light, playful, banteringtone, very much in the spirit of badinage:

both in his indeed, writings and conversationhe dealt, in his latter years largely especially,very in mystffication; and said many things which have his faithful brought reminiscentsinto scrapes,by making them report, what others, knowing he never could have believed,think he never could have asserted:which are very different matters. (73)

badinage 'things He defines as not meant or expectedto be believed,and which interpretation into literal would turn somethingnever dreamedof by the writer, providing examplesof the style taken from Don Juan and from the poet's 175 letters (8 1). The jests that Byron engagedin, sometimesat his own personal expense,led ultimately to embarrassmentin the credulous and denial among those who knew him better. However, as Peacock points out, neither parties recognized that Byron employedthe techniquedefensively against public intrusions into his

life, meansof 'playing personal as a with self-conceitedcredulity, or ... parrying or misleadingimpertinent curiosity' (75). Peacockacknowledges that Moore understoodthis facet of his subject'scharacter, and, quoting with typical erudition from Aristo, appearsat this point in the text to condoneByron's tendencyto stretchthe truth of things for his own purposes. Then there is a sudden, exaggeratedlyself-righteous condemnation of any such application: 'For ourselves, we hope we shall never adopt, we certainly shall not justify, the practice. We are for the maxim of the old British bards : "The Truth againstthe World" ' (76). The

Westminstermay havedisapproved of such practices,but Peacock,writing in other contexts,did not. The spirit of badinage that he recognizedin Byron's work was a tool of the satirist and the seriocomic writer, one which he often employed himself, and there are glimpsesof it in the style of his prose, even when he is purportedly expressingthe most austerepoint of view.

Peacock,however, does not always treat the subjectsof his reviews to

suchirony and ridicule, and at times puts forward opinions with earnestsincerity.

Above all, he admiresauthorial integrity, and the style of writing that he employs

in his reviews of suchworks is entirely free from the ironic twists he uses

elsewhere.One such commentary,his review of the Memoirs of J-homasJefferson

(1829), publishedin the WestminsterReview in 1830, exactly summarizesthose

qualitiesin writing that he consideredto be most worthy of praise. In contrast to

his opinion of Moore's work on Byron, he applaudsthe editorial techniqueby 176 which the memoirsare presented:'The publication before us carries With it intrinsic evidenceof being an honest and complete publication of all papersof public interest. The sanctity of private life is respectedthroughout' (146). He writes that the subjectmatter is of sound wisdom and encouragementto all who would 'makeit their study to amelioratethe condition of their fellow-men'(146).

He concludeswith a harshcomparison to similar volumes produced in his own country; Jefferson'sMemoirs present'such a body of good sense,of careful and comprehensiveinvestigation, of sound and dispassionatedecision, of kindly feeling, of enlargedphilanthropy, of spotlessintegrity, that they disgrace'the soul-witheringinfluence of our own frivolous and sycophanticliterature' (184-6).

There are other indications that, as Peacock'sengagement with periodical reviews developed,he cameto reservehis satirical pen for fiction and verse. His essayon Chronicles of London Bridge, by an Antiquary (1827), which appearedin the sarnenumber of the Westminsteras Jefferson's'Memoirs', incorporatesreferences to parliamentaryreports and the meetingsof relevant committees.21 This article, meticulously researched,well-argued and informative, proves to be not so much a literary review, but an essayon public expenditure.

Although it becomesclear that Peacock,and, presumably,the Westminster,do not

support the constructionof the new London Bridge, the real focus of his writing

lies in his condemnationof corruption in public affairs. From his investigation,he

discernsthat evidenceis indeedcollected, but it is tailored to meet the arguments

of those who standto gain most financially from the venture, there is a public

show of accumulatingplans and tenders when, in fact, the architect and

contractors havealready been selected,and 'millions are thrown away in buildings,

2077wWestminster Review, Oct. 1830, Vol. 13, pp.404-15 177 in colonies,in baublesand incumbrancesof all kinds, in order to put a few thousandsinto the pockets of favoured individuals' (218). The essayconcludes with what may be a rare glimpseof a subjectiveconservatism, for in addition to corrupt practices,he did not like to see'these sweeping changes, which give to the metropolis the appearanceof a thing of yesterday,and obliterate every visible sign that connectsthe presentgeneration with the agesthat are gone' (219).

The degreeof conservatismthat is to be found in Peacock'sattitude towards his contemporaryculture is reflected in a concern for what he identifies as declining standardsof taste: 'The public taste has changedand the supply of the market has followed the demand'(244). This comment could have equally well been appliedto literature, but was written in the context of the English opera. In a review of the revisedfourth edition of Lord Mount Edgcumbe'sMusical

Reminiscences(1834), written for the London Review, he expressesanxiety for

libretto." Giving the state of the operatic examplesof 'English musical poetry -- astoundingand impertinent nonsense-- answeringno purpose',he comparesthese unfavourablywith 'the poetry of the Italian Opera', which offers, 'With little or no ornament,the languageof passionin its simplestform'(232). The simplicity with which old English songswere written has been corrupted byfalse sentiment, overwhelmedwith imageryutterly false to nature', a situation he partly blameson

,ý&. Moore, with his everlasting'brilliant and sparkling" metaphors'. However, there is a deeperunderlying social cause,'a very generaldiffusion of heartlessness and false pretension'(234).

Peacocknot only despisedthe public's taste for poor quality entertainment;he also condemnedthe way in which damagewas done to

21Ae London Review, April 1835,Vol. 2, pp.69-84, 178

individualsby the invasionof their privacy. His determinationthat his own work

would satirize only the public personae and never the private concernsof his

subjectshas alreadybeen mentioned in chapter one. Theseprinciples are reflected

in his own conduct and reiterated in his discussionof Moore's work on Byron. It was a matter of regret to him that anyonein the public interest should have to

suffer intrusionsinto their privacy, in order to provide material for'the prurient appetite of the readingrabble' (76). Furthermore, there is a senseof his cultural

conservatismcoming to the fore in his resentmentat the effect that the growth of the public readershipand the sway of popular taste was having on the quality of

contemporarywriting. In 1818, he wrote in his'Essay on FashionableLiterature':

'This speciesof literature, which aims only to amuseand must be very careful not to instruct, had never so many purveyors as at present',and, averseto 'the product investigation of reasonand the bold of truth', had come about as a result of intellectual idleness-" He believedthat this lack of mental application, together for 'that with the need more of solid and laborious researchwhich builds up in the

silenceof the closet', was underminingthe stability of literature.23 Work without intellectual substancewas, in Peacock'sview, just as transientas the fashionable

for it tastesof the readers whom was produced, and he passedcomment that such feature transitory literature was a of periodical publications,not becauseof a lack of individual talent among authors, but because'what it has gainedin breadth it haslost in depth!.'

In Crotchet Castle, he presentsthe Ap-Llyrnry householdin terms of a rural idyll and remarkson the 'venal panegyric'of elaboratedescriptions:

22HallifordEdition, Vol. 8, p. 263, 211bid.,p. 267. 241bid.,pp. 266-7. 179

We shall leavethis tempting field of expatiation to those whose brains are high-pressuresteam engines for spinning prose by the furlong, to be trumpetedin paid-for paragraphsin the quack's comer of newspapers; modem literature having attainedthe honourabledistinction of sharing with blacking and macassaroil, the spacewhich used to be monopolizedby razor-stropsand the lottery, whereby that very enlightenedcommunity, the readingpublic, is tricked into the perusal of much exemplarynonsense. 125

This is an authorial comment,not an extract from the dialogue of one of his speakers,and, in the sameparagraph, he makesit clear that inordinate attention to irrelevant detail was not an indication of literary worth. Furthermore, such'prose by the furlong' receivesindiscriminate praise from those critics who worked under

contract to the periodicals. Such literature is transitory and subjectto the changingwhim of fashion,and he likens it to commonplacecommodities that

attain popularity through advertising. Peacockhad been long aware of practices which were designedto sell books on behalf of publishing housesconnected

financially to the periodicals. In 'An Essay on FashionableLiterature', he declared

that: 'The successof a new work is madeto depend,in a great measure,not on the

degreeof its intrinsic merit, but on the degreeof interest the publisher's

connectionsmight havewith the periodical press." This commercialpractice,

which Peacockrecognized in 1818, was even more widespreadby the time he

publishedCrotchet Castle in 1831. Among reading audienceswhich were

becomingmore and more dependenton circulating libraries and cheapfiction, it

was a strategythat Thackeraytoo came to question, when he took ownership of

the National Standard in 1833.

CS BI) (M &-) Q'S K) CIS Bý)

25GaMett,ed., p.736. 26HallifordEdifion, Vol. 8, p.272. 180

Thackeraybegan his careeras a newspaperowner and editor in a market that was alreadyfull of short-lived literary magazines. Many of the less successfulof theseconsisted of random, unauthorizedcompilations from other papersand books, paying little attention to the quality of the material that filled their columns. Others,with wider circulations, either attracted the interest of the major publishers,who sought favour with the reviewers, or were founded partly as advertisingchannels by those publishing housesthat had books to sell. Pearson cites Colbum'sNew Monthly as a magazinewhich was run, in part, to promote the salesof Colburns new authors, and arguesthat many of the book reviews publishedin the National Statukwd, and written by Thackerayhimself, focused on the mechanismsof the commercialmarketing of fiction and on the aberrant relationshipthat this processbrought into effect betweenthe author and his " readingaudiences. Thackeray'sreviews, at this point of his career,came to be not so much a commentaryon contemporaryliterature as an exposdof the advertisingand commercialexploitation of fiction as a transientcommodity.

Theseprocesses, which he later cameto satirize in Pendennis(1848-50), became the targets of his editorials during the National Standard's short history.

Pearsonexplores the complexities of trade relations that existedwithin industry in the newspaper the early 1830sand assertsthat Thackeraywas fully aware of the finer implications of theseon his own situation as the proprietor, editor and chief contributor of a periodical:

Thackeraypronounced the independenceof his reviews for the National Standard and situatedthem outside this industrial relationship. However, he his recognisedthe ambiguity of own editorial practice; the desire to promote in itself, the paper was, a mechanismof the market-place,and it is therefore in caught the net of commerce.Integrity is, ironically, a selling point, a form

211Pearson,pp. 12-4. 181

of commercial exploitation. Reviewing could never be without a motive, especially the profit motive. "

The ambiguity that Thackerayrecognised in his own practicesis reflected in the

ambivalenttone of his editorials and reviews. Whilst, like Peacock,he was

ruthlessin denouncingfiction that subscribedto fashionabletrends in literature and

relied on publishers''puffing'to create saleswithin a restricted market, he was

acutely awarethat the economicviability of the Standard and his own financial

stability dependedon'fishing' for an editorial image that would increasehis sales

to the wider periodical readership. 11ischosen identity for theStandard was to

presentthe paper as an independentreview which, unfettered by publishers'

interests,would offer its readersa frank, unbiasedopinion on contemporary works. Hoping to appealto a public that was tired of advertisers'cant and

humbugand would genuinelywelcome a renegotiatedstandard for literature,

Thackeraywas disappointed. Finding,his public unwilling to purchasetwopence-

worth of honestopinion, he turned his disillusiorunentto attackingjournalistic front-page practices,using a editorial column which becamea regular feature of the Standard from September1834. ' He also continued with his narratorial

experimentsto find ways of circumventing the ethics of a corrupt press. Wagstaff,

yellowplush and Titmarsh, at this point of his career,were waiting in the wings. Thackeray However, continued to write critical essaysin a more serious

vein. In 1837 he published,in the Times,an anonymousreview of Carlyle's 7he

Revolution: A Histivy, French which had beenpublished earlier in the sameyear.

The openingparagraph of the review adopts the plural pronoun, which continues

in use throughout, thus upholding the convention of associatingthe author with

28Pearson,p. 6. 291bid.,p. II- 182

the corporate identity of the publication. He beginsby acknowledgingthe

extremesof contemporaryopinion on the book, before taking a stand for the

positive attributes of the work. The review goes on to emphasiseCarlyle's

impartiality about the eventshe describes,while praising the way in which the

book was written."

Thackeraythen refers, in particular, to the idiosyncratic style of

Carlyle'sdescription of the fall of the Bastille:

This is doubt it prose run mad - no of - according to our notions of the sober gait and avocations of homely prose; but is there not method in it, and could sober prose have described the incident in briefer words, more emphatically, or more sensibly?"

Here he showsa perceptiveappreciation of Carlyle's individual mode of writing,

someyears later dubbed'Carlylese by his critics. The style of the extracts that illustrate his Thackerayuses to point is unusualfor the period; energeticand full of interjections pace, containingsudden and rhetorical questionswhich are dislocated interspersedamong short sentences.In contrast to the usual 'sober

prose' of a nineteenth-centuryhistory book, Carlyle makesfrequent use of the

presenttense, imparting a senseof energy and immediacyto his descriptive

before passages.Events appear the readers'eyes in dramaticallyheightened visual

scenes,a running commentaryof incidents as they are actually happening,rather historical than an accountof eventswhich had taken place almost half a century is feeling previously. There the that this book should be read aloud, delivered

orally to a listening audience,rather than perusedin silence.

Peters(1999) refers to the influence of Carlyle's prose style on

ThackeraY'sopening paragraphs to Catherine: A Story, which was publishedin

3oBiographicalFdifion, Vol. 13, p.240. 31 Ibid., p.242. 183

Fraser's ( 183 9_40). 32 There are other instances of Carlyle's influence in his early journalism -- in particular, 'The Fetes of July', originally published in the New

York Corsair in 1839 and later inserted into The Paris Sketch Book (1840). 'The

Fetes of July' is written in an epistolary form, an emulation of earlier journalistic modes of writing which established, however spuriously, a sense of reciprocal intimacy between the eighteenth-century reader and the editor of his periodical. "

Thackeray translates for the benefit of his correspondent, on this occasion the fictitious editor of the Bungay Beacon, a French journalist's account of the public display of mourning as'sheer, open, monstrous, undisguised humbug'. ' He finds the topic of the French Revolution and subsequent history of France so paradoxical that he suggests it should be written, not as a history by Carlyle, but by a novelist, a Dickens or Theodore Hook', and asks 'where is the Rabelais to be

faithful historian the last the of phase of the Revolution -- the last glorious nine years of which we are now commemorating the last glorious three days'. Then, in

Carlyle's prose reminiscent of version of the storming of the Bastille, he writes:

' (the 0 'Manesof July! phraseis pretty and grammatical)why did you with sharpbayonets break those Louvre windows? Why did you bayonet red-coatedSwiss behind that white fagadeand, braving canon,musket, sabre,prospective guillotine, burst yonder bronze gates,rush through that peacefulpicture-gallery, and hurl royalty, loyalty and a thousandyears of Kings, head-over-heelsout of yonder Tuileries windows?"

Thackeraywrites with rhetorical questions,a satirical parenthesisand a breathless rush of visual imageswhich reflect his description of Carlyle'sbook as an 'historic painting', but with a distinctive difference of intention. 36 WhereasCarlyle's

"Peters, p.86. 33KIancher,P. 21. 34BiographicalEdition, Vol, 5, p.3 5. "Ibid., P-36. 36Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p.242. 184 account is praisedfor its 'loftier and nobler impartiality', his own writing makesit clear that he can seenothing in the Revolution or its consequencesworthy of celebration.

Thackeraywas deeply affected by this bloody period of French history and this is a point of view which becomesapparent at the end of his critical commentaryon Carlyle'sbook. The review concludeswith the hope that those in this country who sought to repeat the experimenttried in France,would show moderationin their demands. He also makesthe responsibilitiesof his own professionvery clear:

Pert quacksat public meetingsjoke about hereditary legislators,journalists gibe at them, and moody starving labourers,who do not know how to jest, but can hate lustily, are told to curse crowns and coronetsas the origin of their woes and their poverty, -- and so did the clever French spoutersand journalists gibe at royalty, until royalty fell poisonedby their satire; and so did the screaminghungry French mob curse royalty until they overthrew it: and to what end? To bring tyranny and leave starvation,battering down Bastilles to erect guillotines, and murdering kings to set up emperorsin their stead."

fies The interest in this passage not in its apparentanti-Republicanism -- he was,

after all, writing for the Times-- but in the way that he was alreadyassimilating

techniquesofjoumalism, while at the sametime acknowledgingthe power of the

newspaperrhetoric in shapingpublic opinion. He adopts the emphasisof

alliteration; the labouring classesare taught'to curse crowns and coronets, French

,journalists gibe' at royalty, and the Bastille was battered down. One long sentence

builds up to a simplequestion: 'and to what endT followed by a succinct answer.

Thackeray'sinitial examinationof Carlyle's account of the French Revolution was

as a piece of literature, and in it he shows that, like Peacock,he is discontented

with the current superficialstandards of the literary reviewer. The first-time

37Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, pp.249-50. 185 readerof Me French Revolution has to contend with the prejudicesof 'some honestcritics' who have 'formed their awful judgements after scanning half-a-dozenlines, and damnedpoor Mr. Carlyles becausethey chancedto be lazy'." Ultimately, however, the review turns into a statementof political opinion in a straightforwardaddress to the readersof the Times,which clearly equatesthe

viewpoint of the writer with the editorial identity of the newspaper. Unlike

Peacock,who was deeply engagedintellectually with the idealsof the Revolution,

and whose more temperatedisappointment with its outcome is mentionedlater in the chapter, Thackeraymakes no allowance for the original aspirationsbehind the

insurrection. There is little humour or ambivalencein his condemnationand no

satire whatsoever. In fact, he statesunequivocally that satire, used

indiscriminatelyin the context of political journalism, can be a dangerousand

powerful instrumentof attack.

C1 to C,S 03 &l) 03 &--)

Neither Peacocknor Thackeray was able to find a great deal of

satisfactionin the stateof English literature during the decadesthat followed the

defeatof Napoleon. In 1821, Peacockcomplained to Shelleythat 'the present

state of literature is so thoroughly vile that there is scarcelyany new publication worth looking at, much lessbuying'. " Pearsoncomments on Thackeray'sefforts

to launchthe National Standard- 'It is perhapsthe misfortune of Thackeray's

it bought magazinethat was and produced at a period when the literary world

lacked genuinetalent', and he goes on to describethe production of contemporary

literature at that time as being 'formulaic'. ' Just as Peacockwas to complain

"Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p. 241. 19Hallffiord Edition, Vol. 8, p. 221. 4OPearson,P. 10. 186 later, in his review of Lord Edgcumbe'sMusical Reminiscences,that song writing had 'followed the demand,created by changingpublic tastes,authors had identified various literary blueprintsthat enabledthem to sell their work. The various schoolsof writing that appearedat this time, the 'Silver-fork' and Newgate' novels, Gothic fiction and the contemporaryromance, are evidenceof a generation of writers who had discoveredthe meansof satisfyingreaderships outside the constraintsof 'high!literature with a ready supply of printed material.

Klancherwrites that the reciprocity betweeneighteenth-century writers and their readersdeclined in the aftershock of the French Revolution, in ways which isolatedthe author and createda newly fragmentedaudience that was

forced to reorganisein terms of ideological loyalties, social classand intellectual

and literary tasteS.41 Assumingidentities according to thesedivisions, audiences

from the late eighteenthcentury cameto be seenin terms of a literary hierarchy.

Idealizednotions of authorship,which beganto develop during the early

nineteenthcentury, did not come to the fore until the rapid expansionof periodical

publishingbegan to make itself felt in the 1820s. Altick (1957) writes that Lamb

and Leigh Hunt were instrumentalin 'emotionalizingof the very idea of literature',

and for them, books 'arousedemotions almost as fervent as those with which

Wordsworth regardednature. ' Although this attitude was initially confined to a

close circle of writers of the period, it was diffused through the essaysof Lamb,

Hunt and Hazlitt, andliterature cameto be surroundedby a sentimentalaura that

contrastedstrangely with the orthodox Benthamiteview'. ' As pundits of a literary

culture which was almost evangelicalin its intensity, Hunt, in particular, urged the

41Chapter 3, n. 10. 41AItick (1957), p. 139. 4-libid. 187 readinghabit through the pagesof his journals, and this movementassumed wider proportions as the cheap,family periodicalsthat appearedduring the 1830s echoedthe cry, and readingbecame the fashionablespare-time occupation of the middle classes.

In contrast to this, however, there was still a strong body of opinion that was becomingincreasingly alarmed by the quality of printed material flooding the literary marketplace. Hierarchical notions of literature beganto develop independentlyof Benthamitetheory, showing a preferencefor work that was morally didactic or gearedtowards self-improvement;the kind of reading material that was producedto entertain massaudiences lay outside the marginsof serious criticism. Siskin,with referenceto Godwin's essay'Of History and Romance', relatesthis hierarchicalstratification of literature to the emergenceof the novel, which generatedboth quantitative and qualitative distinctions in writing, putting

,literature, previously a term for in indiscriminate all writing ... opposition to the workings of trade'.'

03 Bý) CZ b-1) Cq &.) 03 &1-)

Although Peacocksteadfastly adhered to the formal literary standards of his era, Thackeray,whilst entertaining his own personalideals of'fiterature', was forced by circumstancesto work within the constraintsof 'trade. As an occasionalcritic of new publications,he was obliged to devisea meansof reconcilingthe expectationsof formal literary criticism with a new framework of be criteria that would relevant to the increasingtracts of literature that were being interests producedto servethe of the massreading audiences.He achievedthis, his devices, once again,by narratorial manipulatingboth the comic discourseof

44Siskin,p. 171. 188 the reviewer and distancing his own point of view, not only from that of the purported author, but also from the text under discussion. This technique, first aired in the comic review by Wagstaff in 1835 and developed by Yellowplush in

1837, was continued by the inception of Titmarsh as staff reviewer for Fraser's

Magazine. 45

'A Box of Novels' (1844) is written in the form of an essayand 'treats of the severity of critics' and its author's 'resolutionsof reform in that matter. '

Writing as Titmarsh, Thackerayuses the authorial disguisefor himself and adopts the pseudonymousOliver Yorke, editor of Frasers Magazine, as his

correspondent:

Somefew - somevery few years since, dear sir, in our hot youth, when Will the Fourth was king, it was the fashion of many young and ardent geniuses who contributed their shareof high spirits to the columnsof this magazine, to belabourwith unmerciful ridicule almost all the writers of this country of England,to sneerat their scholarshipto question their talents, to shout with fierce laughter over their faults historical, poetical, grammatical,and sentimental;and thenceto leave the reader to deduceour (the critic's) own immensesuperiority in all the points which we questionedin all the world beside. I say our, becausethe undersignedMichael Angelo has handledthe tomahawk as weH as another, and has a scalp or two drying in his lodge. (398)

The introduction setsthe tone of the review as comic. The nameof the late

monarchis abbreviatedin a too familiar way and the narrator usesironic

exaggerationto depict the attitude of earlier critics in general,admitting that he

too was one of the 'young and ardent geniuses'who believedutterly in their own

authority. The attack he mounts on the techniquesof formal criticism relates

directly back to the period of Peacock'sreview of Moore's Epicurean. Titmarsh

11W.M, Thackeray,'A Box of Novels', Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1844, Vol. 29, pp. 153-69. Edition, Vol. 13, 'Biographical p.398. Further referencesto this volume will be given in the text. 189 refers satirically to exactly those 'faults' that Peacock,in this earlier review, found to be so exasperating,and Thackerayis taking to task those critics who had only one standardby which to review literature, a standardwhich, in 1844, had become largely irrelevant in the widening discourseof the literary marketplace. In 'A Box of Novels', Thackeraypresents the reader with a discursivemiscellany of ideason a wide range of contemporaryliterature, and provides evidenceof the merits of popular fiction when examinedwithin its own context. He acknowledgesthe standardsby which the evaluationof literature has come to be seenin hierarchical terms, but makesit clear that thesecriteria are not relevant as an assessmentof the type of work which was currently being enjoyedby a new, popularized readership.

Commencing with Charles Levers Tom Burke of Ours (1844), he places the book in a general context of Irish literature and begins by contrasting two extreme points of view, those of both the English and the Irish critics. The former, particularly the provincial press, although laudatory, misrepresent the

'Harry Lorrequer' stories by reducing them to nothing but 'side-splitting merriment', oblivious to the underlying melancholy of the text and the spirit of

,extreme delicacy, sweetness and kindliness of heart' in which they are written

(402). On the other hand, Irish critics prove themselves unable to accept the humour in the fiction and complain of Lever's lack of political comment and the absence of patriotic fervour. In particular, Thackeray parodies the negative tenor

it 'finds of contemporary criticism, as fault with a book for what it does not give' instead of emphasizing its positive aspects:

'Lady Smigsmag'snew novel is amusing,but lamentablydeficient in geographicalinformation. ' ' Dr. Swishtail's"Elucidations of the Digamma" show much sound scholarship,but infer a total absenceof humour.' And 190

'Mr. Levees tales are trashy and worthless, for his facts are not borne out by any authority, and he gives us no information upon the political state of Ireland. Oh! our country, our green and beloved, our beautiful and oppressed!accursed be the tongue that should now speakof aught but thy wrong; withered the dastardhand that should strike upon thy desolateharp another string! &c. &c. &c. (404)

Thackeray'sparodies of the style of the formal review stressthe contemporary preoccupationsof literary critics. 'Geographicalinformation' and comments'upon the political stateof Ireland'were criteria demandedby those reviewerswho still

adheredto notions of literature as being didactic, rather than entertaining.The

satire and exaggeratedrhetoric of the parodies are light-hearted in tone and the

humour emphasizesTitmarslYs role as a critic outside the marginsof serious

literature. However, there is a strong sensethat Thackerayis using Titmarsh to

expressa personalpoint of view. Written mainly in the first-person singular, the

opinions put forth are, superficially,those of Titmarsh and not the collective

editorial stanceof Fraser's. When the plural 'we' or 'us' does occasionallyappear,

it is with the senseof an author/readerpartnership, not the author as the

representativeof his publisher'scorporate identity.

Tom Burke of Ours is acclaimedas a'lively, sparkling, stirring volume',

which entertainsand is deservedlypopular (406). However, not all reviews have

beenfavourable, particularly in Levees own country, and Thackeray,using

Titmarsh as a mask, commentson how successfor an author can be distorted by

overexposurein the review publications. The 'Harry Lorrequee books, he writes,

were printed and approved:'But his publisherssold twenty thousandof his books.

He was a monsterfrom that moment, a doomed man; if a man can die of articles,

Harry Lorrequer ought to haveyielded up the ghost long ago' (402-3). Charles 191

Lever had becomea victim of his own popularity, in a cultural climate unable to acknowledgethat commercialsuccess did not necessarilyequate with inferiority.

Although Thackerayhad personalreservations about certain schoolsof popular fiction as being of unsoundmoral value, and his original intention in writing Catherine: A Story (1837) was to counter the popularity of the Newgate novel, he was able to acceptthat literature as entertainmenthad a valid place in the modem world of publishing. 'A Box of Novels' demonstratesa generoustolerance towards inaccuratescholarship and lack of moral didacticism and Thackeray indicatesthe delight he takes in the pace and energy of the genre. SamuelLover, author of a seriesof works entitled 4 S. D., which was publishedin parts in 1843, is praisedfor the vigour and incident that make up his tale, a 'romanceof war, and love, and fun, and sentiment,and intrigue, and escape,and rebellion' (407). There are, however, hints that Thackerayrecognizes a speciousglamour in Lover's nostalgicdescriptions of battle and victory, and his stirring lyrics arousepassions perhapsbest laid to rest: 'Leave the brawling to the politicians and newspaper ballad-mongers.They live by it. You Don't let need not ... poets and men of genius join in the brutal chorus and lead on starving savagesto murder' (411). For

Thackeray,political passionand inflammatory rhetoric had no place in popular

fiction.

'A Box of Novels' concludeswith a review of Dickens'sA Christmav Carol, which Thackerayuses to return to his primary target, the earnestand authoritarian

solemnityof formal criticism:

I do not meanthat the'Christmas Carol' is quite as brilliant or self-evidentas the sun at noonday;but it is so spreadover England by this time, that no sceptic,no Fraver's Magazine, - no, not even the godlike and ancient Quarterly itself (venerable,Saturnian, big-wigged dynasty!) could review it down. 'Unhappypeople! Deluded race!' one hearsthe cauliflowered god 192

exclaim,mournfully shakingthe powder out of his ambrosialcurls. 'What strangenew folly is this? What new deity do you worship? Know ye what ye do? Know ye that your new idol hath little Latin and lessGreek? Know ye that he hasnever tasted the birch at Eton, nor trodden the flags of Carfax, nor pacedthe academicflats of Trumpington? Know ye that in mathematics or logics this wretched ignoramusis not fit to hold a candleto a wooden spoon? Seeye not how, from describinglow humours,he now, forsooth, will attempt the sublime? Discern ye not his faults of taste, his deplorable propensityto write blank verse? Come back to your venerableand natural instructors. Leave this new low and intoxicating draught at which ye rush, and let us lead you back to the old wells of classiclore. Come and repose with us there. We are your gods; we are the ancient oraclesand no mistake.' (417).

This sharplysatirical referenceto the Quarterly Review puts this periodical squarelyin the centreof Titmarsh'sargument againstreactionary and outmoded standardsof evaluatingpopular literature. The image of the godlike critic with his powderedwig ofjudgement reflects the lingering power of cultural prejudices rooted in eighteenth-centuryideals. However, the author is no longer an educated man of letters pursuing scholarlyideals, but one now set firmly in the midst of a new culture where literature can supply the pleasureof the moment. Conservative modesof criticism can only condemncontemporary fiction, but someauthors have the power to transcendthese outdated criteria. Thackerayimplies that popular fiction was an important feature of a new reading society and traditional values in literature would haveto be adaptedto encompassnew styles of writing and authorship.

CZ BQ) (13 YEA,,) C53 L*-) CIS EQ

Championshipof the popular readershipwas a topic that Thackeray was to return to when he reviewed Laman Blanchard'slife and work for Fraserv

Magazine. in 'A Brother of the Presson the History of a Literary Man, Laman

Blanchard,and Chancesin the Literary Profession'(1846), Thackeray'sviews on popular literature are mademore explicit. Assuming the now familiar epistolary 193 form, the review is presentedas a letter from Titmarsh to the Rev. Francis

Sylvester[Mahoney], pseudonymouslyknown as Father Prout, a former Jesuit and non-practisingpriest of the Catholic faith, who had been an early contributor to

Fraser's under the editorship of Maginn. In 1846, Mahoney was currently deployedin Rome as a correspondentfor Dickens'sDaily News. Thackeray's choice to make him the focus of his appealfor the critical recognition of authors of light literature may have beenbased on the knowledge that Mahoney represented both sidesof the argumentraised in 'A Box of Novels'. Highly educatedin the classicaltradition, he was also a fellow journalist, producing work which was a

combinationof scholarlyerudition, humour and satire.

In 'A Brother of the Press',Titmarsh arguesthat reviewersshould strive

for a'liberty of conscienceagainst any authority, however great', and posesthe

question:'Why shouldnot the day have its literature? Why should not authors

make light sketches?Why should not the public be amuseddaily or frequently by

kindly fictionsT (467). He goes on to make a plea for honestyamong those who,

like himself, are literary practitioners and for whom writing, in common with other

trades,is their daily work:

In someinstances you reap Reputation along with Profit from your labour, but Bread, in the main, is the incentive. Do not let us try to blink this fact, or imaginethat the men of the pressare working for their honour and glory, or go onward impelledby an irresistableinflatus of genius.'If only men of geniuswere to write, Lord help usl how many books would there be? How manypeople are there even capableof appreciatinggenius? Is Mr. Wakely'sor Mr. Hume's opinion about poetry worth much? As much as that of millions of people in this honest stupid empire; and they have a right to havebooks suppliedto them as well as the most polished and accomplished critics have.(468)

The point of view expressedhere is in 'direct contrast to esoteric ideals of writing

and authorshipas the privilege of the intellectual classes,and professesthe validity 194 of literature that is designedto appealto the tastesand interestsof a popular readership. Thesenew groups of readersshould have accessto the books they chooseto read,just as in an open market writers have an Unrestrictedright to supply them. Thackeraywas fully aware that the qualitative distinctions drawn by reviewerswere in conflict with his own statusas a practisingjournalist. As

Titmarsh, he writes in opposition to three particular hierarchicaltrends in literary criticism. In the first instance,he deflatesthe notion that all writers should claim to aspireto literary recognition or, as Peacockcalled it, the 'Temple of Fame'. He then countersthe emotionalizationof the idea of literature as somethingalmost

sacred,a feature of the work of Lamb and Hunt mentionedearlier in this chapter.

firmly Finally, he setshimself on the side of the reading public -- that they should

be allowed to follow their own tastesand interests - againsta climate of opinion

that decreedall readingmatter should be morally uplifting, didactic and artistically

acclaimed.

Altick (1957) describeshow the'lower orders'of society, which

accountedfor a wide proportion of the public readership,were very much at the

mercy of religious and utilitarian publishing housesand their reading matter

containedlittle that could be describedas entertaining." People obliged to work

for a living, andthis included a large sector of the growing middle classes,were

perceivedto haveno needfor amusement. Evangelicaland religious publications

gradually gave way to the self-improvementmovement, and cheapprinted material

sufferedfrom classconstraints imposed on it by the illiberal attitudes of a literary

hierarchy. This situation did not show much sign of changethroughout the middle

of the nineteenthcentury, and later cameto be energeticallychallenged by Dickens

47AItick(1957), p. 137. 195 with Household Words(1849) andHard Times (1854). As Altick points out, the acknowledgementthat reading could be a 'simple, pleasurablerelaxation' was a slow process,but eventually,'The icecap of evangelicalseriousness and utilitarian distrust of the feelingswas melted by the attitudes we associatewith the

"romantic"temper'. 4'

In 'A Brother of the Press',Thackeray is quick to defendBlanchard's achievements.Attacking Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton's subordinationto hierarchicalprýudice, he suppliesa quotation from his'kind and affecting biographicalnotice of our dear friend'. Lytton writes: '"He [Blanchard]

neglectedhis talents: he frittered away in fugitive publicationstime and genius

which might have led to the publication of a great work "' (470). Thackerayis

quick to defendBlanchard, underlining his argument that there is a place for a

literature of the popular culture: 'I think his education and habits, his quick easy

manner,his sparkling,hidden fun, constant tendernessand brilliant good humour,

were best employedas they were' (470). As a professionalwriter working in the

epicentreof the massmedia publishing industry, Thackeraysaw, in Blanchard's

work, a parallelto his own. He was able to acknowledgethat light literature was

of greaterrelevance to those meimbersof the public who were new to the reading

habit, rather than those whose privileged circumstancesallowed them accessto

works of intellectual and artistic excellence. This was a recognition of the realities

of the publishingmarket. The demandfor transitory readingmaterial, via the

periodical and cheapnovel, was not incompatible with traditional literary

standards,and the marketplacehad enough spaceto accommodateboth.

"Altick (1957), p. 138. 196

In a social systemwhich offered widely differing opportunities for educationand leisure,readers, privileged or otherwise, entertaineda diversity of cultural tastesand conflicting demands. Thackeraymay have beenplanning his own ideal of authorship,a work 'of genius'from which he might yet 'reap

Reputation'. Meanwhile, as Titmarsh, he was determinedto defendthe literature of a marketplaceoutside the constraintsof a cultural minority.

03 ER) CS Er) CIS bm') CIS B*

Both Peacockand Thackeraywere fluent in Europeanlanguages.

Peacock'sknowledge of Frenchwas largely self-taught, gainedfrom the literature

of the period; Thackeray'scame from the flrsthand experienceof living and

working abroad. In 1835, The London Rei4ewpublished an article by Peacock

entitled'French Comic Romances'.' The Paris SketchBook ofMr. M A.

Tumarsh,a compilation of magazinearticles from various publications,with some

new additions,appeared in 1840 and included a chapter'On SomeFrench

FashionableNovels: With a Plea for Romancesin General'. Written only five

years apart and, with due allowancebeing madethat the form of the'comic

romance'is a rather different concept to that of a'fashionablenovel', these reviews

are still a clear demonstrationof the two writers' contrasting attitudes and cultural

values.

In 'FrenchComic Romances',Peacock begins by comparingthe work of

pigault le Brun and Paid de Kock. The main points of difference he identifies

betweenthe two writers are remarkably similar to the featuresthat distinguish his

own writing from that of Thackeray. He writes of Pigault le Brun: 'The political

and religious opinions of the author are kept always prominent; and we find him a

49'FrenchComic Romances',The London Review, Vol. 2, October 1835, pp. 69-84. 197 sturdy enemyto priestcraft and tyranny throughout."' Like le Brun, Peacock's own fiction explored opinion, often political, sometimestheological, usually as subjectsfor satirical investigation,and he frequently madeuse of topical political

situationsand eventsin his work. Ffis theological opinions, too, lay implicit in his

satire of the clerical profession,a mode of writing he identifies as a traditional

feature of Frenchcomic fiction and one which he sharesonly with le Brun, for the

'ecclesiastics,who cut a very conspicuousfigure among the buffoons of Pigault le

Brun, they havedone in French tales by as comic of all ages... are never exhibited Paul de Kock, either for good or for ill' (257). In Paul de Kock's fiction, Peacock

maintainsthat 'a theological opinion is here and there slightly indicated, but a

political opinion never; the era of his narrativesis marked by mannersonly, not by

political eventsand opinions' (256). De Kock's charactersact out their scenarios

'Sunday againsta backgroundof excursionsof the Parisians-- the village dances

and gaietiesof Sundayevening', his only vague and non-specificreferences to

governmentbeing usedas a meansof creating somekind of context for the

narrative (256).

While his own choice of subject matter bearsa closer comparisonto the

work of le Brun, Peacockis careful not to make a qualitative distinction between

the two writers and, recalling that le Brun was writing at the time of the

Revolution, suggestsa possiblereason for 'so remarkablea difference'in their

work:

Whether the regular successionof disappointmentswhich have been inflicted on the ftiends of liberty, in the personsof Robespierre,Napoleon, the Bourbons, and Louis Phillipe, has, among a very large classof readers, convertedthe bright hopesof the earlier days of the revolution into a

5OHalliford Edition, Vol, 9, p. 256. Further references to this volume are given in the text. 198

scepticalindifference to their possiblerealization, is a point we reservefor future consideration. (257)

He points out that both writers have much in common and sharesimilar liberal opinions, but le Brun, writing concurrently with the political upheavalsin France, engagedmore deeplywith the ideologies of his period, rather than de Kock, whose most productive period of writing beganin 1820. This'regular succession

of disappointments'is preciselythe sameas the disillusionmentreferred to by

Thackeray,as discussedabove, in his review of Carlyle'sErench Revolution, when

he expressesa strong senseof disgust at what he perceivesto be one form of

tyranny replacedby another. WhereasPeacock appearedto find the outcome of

the revolution a matter of regret, Thackeray, perhaps,was one of the large class of

readerswho were victims of the 'scepticalindifference' to the underlying political

ideals,and saw the Revolution as tragic and futile.

Thackeray'sreview of Carlyle'sErench Revolution had been written

anonymouslyfor the Timesnewspaper. His essay'On SomeFrench Comic

Romances',written more informally as Titmarsh, was first publishedin the Taris

SketchBook in 1840 and exhibits a more frivolous tone. Just as the introduction

to 'A Box of Novels' appearsto be a direct contradiction of Peacock'scritical

stancein'Moore's Epicurearf, Thackeray's'Plea for Romancesin General',which

beginsthe essay,could havebeen written in direct contradiction to Peacock's

albeit ironic disparagementof the female readership. Thackerayfinds justification

for readingnovels on the basisthat fiction can provide a verisimilitude to life,

which is missingin factual historical accounts:

if then, ladies,the bigwigs begin to sneerat the course of our studies,calling foolish, our darling romances trivial, noxious to the mind, enervatorsof intellect, fathers of idlenessand whatnot, let us at once take the high ground and say,-- Go you to your own employments,and to such dull studiesas 199

you fancy; go and bob for triangles from the Pons Asinorum, - go enjoy your dull black-draughts of metaphysics,- go fumble over history books, and dissert Herodotus Livy " upon and ...

Here Thackerayagain puts forward the idea that writers should cater for the tastes

ironic female of all sectionsof the reading public. Peacock's view of the fiction, readershipis now reversed. Thackeraycontinues with the argumentthat be as a sourceof insight into the human condition, may be deemedto of equal importanceas the 'contemptiblecatalogues of namesand places,that can have no moral effect upon the readef (8 1). He admits that'the writer has not so much to do with works political, philosophical, historical, metaphysical,scientifical, theological', entertaininga preferencefor novels, but only in so far as thesetexts

(82). English reflect an accuratepicture of the context in which they are set authors, and here he refers to Lady Morgan and Mrs. Trollope, who write of

'tea-partiesin the French capital, begin to prattle about French mannersand men,'

but cannot give a true rendering of their subject. On the other hand, 'a Frenchman in might have lived a thousandyears England, and never could have written

-,pickwiclel 1 (84).

Both Peacockand Thackeray discussextracts from French authors,

by which illustrate their respectiveliterary expectations. Peacockselects a work

Henri du Laurens,Le CompýreMathieu, written in the Rabelasiantradition and

first publishedin 1766:

The designof running a tilt at predominantopinions is manifestthroughout this work, but it is by no meansevident what use the author, Du Laurens, proposedto make of his victory, or what doctrines he wished to exalt in the place of those he aimed to overthrow."

5'Biographical Edition, Vol. 5, p. 80. Further referencesto this volume are given in the text - 52HallifordEdition, Vol. 9, pp.262-3. 200

This descriptioncould be appliedjust as appropriately to Peacock'sown prose satires. The Comp&e, with a cosmopolitan collection of companions,sets out on his a journey. Peacockwrites that, in common with uncle the R6v6rendissime

P6re Jeanwho accompanieshim, he has 'thrown off the yoke of all the prejudices belongingto religion and law, but has some philosophical notions of right and

he for by wrong of his own, which wishes to substitute the opinions which the ill-assortedband massof mankind is MiSled.'53 The adventureswhich befall this of

travellers are solved or evadedaccording to the differing philosophiesof the

Cornp&e and his uncle. Thesetwo charactersare in frequent dispute over their

in ethical standardsright up to the death of the Comp6re which occurs Paris.

Fearing for his immortal soul, he returns to the faith and his uncle, in disgust at

this turnabout, becomesa captain of dragoons. No conclusionsare reached

concerningthe merit or otherwise of the protagonist's opinions and readersare left

to make their own judgements. Peacockrecognizes the influencesof Rabelaisin

du Laurens'swork. To the twenty-first-century reader of Bakhtin, Relihan and

Kaplan, Le Com*re Mathieu is also identifiable as a Menippean satire. The voice

of its naive narrator, the simple-mindedand credulousJ6rome, tells the story of a

bizarrejourney which forces the protagonist to explore establishedphilosophy,

only to arrive at an ambivalentand open ending where nothing is resolved.

Thackeray'sstated aim, in writing'On SomeFrench Fashionable

Novels,'was to introduce English readersto somenew French writers. Reviewing

Les Ailes d7care by Monsieur de Bernard, Thackeray adopts the more formal

first-person plural and saysof de Bernard: 'He is more remarkablethan any other

French author, to our notion, for writing like a gentleman:there is ease,grace, and

53HallifordF-dition, Vol. 9, p-265, 201 to,, in his style, which if we judge aright, cannot be discoveredin Balzac, Soulie, or Dumas."' He sketcheshis charactersin a'sparkling, gentlemanlikeway', and different gives a lively and malicious account of their manners',in a very style to the Ilaboureddescriptions of all sorts of unimaginablevAckedness', common in the work of other Frenchwriters (84). It is M. de Bemard's ability to suggest d6bauch,rather than write of it explicitly, which appealsto Thackeray,and he

implores the readerto judge Bernard's characters,'not so much in the words in

which he describesthem, as by the unconscioustestimony that the words

altogetherconvey'(92). This 'unconscioustestimony speaksof morals and

customsvery different to those that the English readersof the Paris SketchBook

would find acceptable,but which, nonetheless,illustrate the ability of the novelist

to portray aspectsof the fife of a nation that would never be revealedin a is, in non-fictional account. This effect, an extensionto his commentson the work

of Mrs. Trollope and Lady Morgan above, whose tea-partiesmay be set in Paris,

but are inevitably portrayed as very British. It is with a coy irony that Titmarsh

concludeshis accountwith a scandalizedreference to one elderly duchess,about

to take a new lover, and another 'with a fourth lover, tripping modestly among the

ladies and returning the gaze of the men by veiled glancesfUll of coquetry and

attack' (97).

What emergesfrom the essaymost strongly, however, is that

Thackeray'sinterest focuseson the implicit picture of French society and manners

embeddedin the fiction, and this theme is reflected in his own writing in both the

periodical contributionsand the novels. Opinions, principles,prejudices and the

14BiographicalEdition, Vol. 5, p.93. Further referencesto Vol. 5 are given in the text. 202 more profound moral questionsare raised implicitly through the incidenceof characterand action in the narrative, but, unlike Peacock, he rarely examinesthese in depth. When Thackerayseeks to make his readersquestion their commonplace values and superficialjudgements, he does not elaborateon the ideological foundationsof society,but devisesa fictional microcosm in which his characters--

and, frequently, the narratorstoo -- display their foolishness,naivet6 and defects

ofjudgement againstthe backdrop of the world they have, in part, helped to

create.

CIS &-) C1 EO C53 BMI) CZ BO

Peacock'sreviews examinedin this chapter spana period from 1817 to

1835 and those of Thackerayextend for a further decadeuntil 1846. This period,

effectively, provides a summaryof Peacoclesattitude towards literature and is

crucial in illustrating the developmentof Thackeray'sauthorial identity. These

writings also give a unique insight into someof the intellectual and commercial

pressuresbrought to bear on writers, in the context of a radically changing

publishingmarket. In addition, the viewpoints of both authors, set side by side,

illustrate a broad spectrumof the tensions and cultural prejudicesthat divided

literary criticism at this time.

Peacockand Thackerayfound themselvesin conflict with other

reviewersof the period and both had reasonto question contemporarymodes of

literary criticism. Peacock!s critical essaysand his satirical fiction make frequent

referencesto the reactionarypolitics of the establishedreviews, the Edinburgh and

the Quarterly. As shown above,there is also an implicit sensein his work that

eventhe utilitarian ideologiesof the WestminsterReview, which publishedmuch of

his work in this field, did not entirely satisfy his expectations. In commonwith 203

Thackeray,he recognizedthat the literary reviewers were often under too much

commercialpressure to be totally unbiasedin their judgements, and for Peacock,

their lack of scholarshipand knowledge was a causefor concern. Unlike Peacock,

however, who remainedfaithfW to his ideals of scholarshipand literature,

Thackeraywas able to make concessionsto the demandsof new groups of readers

and the market which sought to supply them. In order to do so, without

undermininghis own integrity, he employed narratorial deviceswhich allowed him

to speakhis mind and offer a positive approachto work which lay outside the

marginsof establishedliterary ideals,

Publishingtheir reviews in the context of a commercialmarketplace,

both Peacockand Thackerayunderstood the necessityof a superficial

subservienceto the corporate indentity of the periodical concerned. However,

althoughthe style and presentationof their work was often adaptedto editorial

requirements,neither changedhis fundamentalideals of authorship. For Peacock,

closetedin his study, theseideals were scholarly and intellectual, the product of

much solitary study and centuriesof literary tradition. Thackerayalso entertained

traditional idealsof authorship,but his daily work as a practisingjournalist forced

him to acknowledgethe transitory literature of the day and the commercial

demandsof publishing. Writing as Titmarsh, he was able to negotiate a new set of

standardsfor his work, which did not compromisehis beliefs in the dignity of

literature.

In the first chapter,we found that the editor of Me Spirit of the Public

journals could not entirely avoid political comment in his selectionof

light-heartedcontributions for the 1824 anthology. In the sameway, it has proved

difficult, so far, to focus exclusivelyon the literary and cultural context of Peacock 204 and Thackeray'swritings. Political comment has inevitably intruded and the next chapterwill investigateboth writers' responsesto contemporary government policies and historical events. 205

Chapter Six: No Final Word

This chapter investigates the ways in which Peacock and Thackeray used satire in response to the political challenges of the first half of the nineteenth century. Peacock's satire, in this context, is almost entirely contained within

Mefincourt, Maid Marian and 7he Misfortunes qf Elphin, and he uses fictional characters and situations to explore the underlying concepts of established modes of government. Initially, the predominantly social context of Thackeray's early writings, and his preoccupation with 'national peculiarities', appear to take precedence over political questions. ' However, this work, which was distributed throughout a wide range of periodical contributions and publishing outlets, also makes reference to contemporary issues and events.

Dyer has traced a relationship between satirical writing, political ideology and the commercial world of publishing, highlighting the conflicts that this produced in Peacock's prose fictions, as he sought to reconcile the radical discontent of his social circle, while retaining his own distanced impartiality and a

' sense of gentlemanly propriety. Peacock's association with a group of early nineteenth-century intellectuals has already been acknowledged, and his letters to

Shelley, during the latter's residence in Italy, make frequent references to political questions and the contemporary condition of England. Butler views Shelley's arrival in Marlow, where he joined Peacock and established a connection with

family, Leigh Hunt and his as widening an already established circle of writers whose predominant interests were literary, 'virtually a school, a dominant force in

few, English poetry in the next rich years'.3 However, this presents an incomplete

I Ray, 7he UsesofAdversity, p.350, 2Dyer, pp. 98-9. ' Butler, p. 103. 206 picture, as the group was not exclusively literary and its memberswere

representativeof a much broader spectrum of cultural interests. More recently,

Cox has placeda stronger political emphasison the work of its members,by

identifying Hunt as central to the organization of the circle and his highly

politicized, but strictly non-partizan,Examiner as the 'textual home' of the group.'

The Examiner was, as Cox makesclear by quoting Hunt's own words,

intendedto be distinguishedfor its radical views and by the quality of its

contributions:

Whether pursuinggovernment oppression, religious prejudice,and 'the spirit of money-getting',offering dramatic reviews by Hunt and Hazlitt, providing commentaryon the visual arts by Robert Hunt and Haydon, or publishing poemsby Hunt, Keats, Shelley,Byron, Wordsworth, Lamb, Reynolds and Smith, the Examiner was consistentlylively and interesting and continually committed to its program of 'Reform in Parliament,liberality of opinion in general(especially freedom from superstition), and a fusion of literary taste into all subjectswhatsoever. "

The conceptthat politics were inextricably linked to the cultural arenahad already

been establishedamong Hunt's immediate associatesand the readersof the

Examiner during the first decadeof the magazine'spublication (1808-1818). In

1812, it had been one of the most successfuljournals of its day, having'higher

salesthan any of its competitors'.6 Although some readersfelt that the

tone had following Examiner's radical softened Hunt's imprisonment(1813 -15), justification and there is some for believing that he did retreat from overt political

confrontation at this time, he was successfulin developing an editorial practice but that was anti-didactic, which, nevertheless,sought to achievethe aims of

ParliamentaryReform and promoting liberal opinion without an obvious defiance

4Cox, p.7. I ibid., P-42, 6 ibid, 207 of the law. The Ewminer, throughout the years of Peacock'sconnection with the

Hunt circle, was establishedon a broader cultural framework than previously, and although it still maintainedan appealto middle-classliberals, it had relinquished the more intenselyradical positions of the day to the popular press,

At the time that Peacockwas introduced into the Hunt circle, he was a reader of periodicals,rather than a contributor to this portion of the publishing market. As an author, his favoured mode of publication was, as yet, firmly entrenchedin the tradition of the bound volume destinedfor the library bookshelf

He hadjust publishedMelincourt and was completing Rhododaphne,his last seriousattempt to make a namefor himself as a poet. In chaptertwo, the discussionof Melincourt focused on the book as a combination of Menippean satire and a parody of romance. However, there is also evidencethat Peacock was, at this time, broadeningthe literary and intellectual themesof his prose satires,and experimentingwith methodsby which he could comment on the politics of the period.

Melincourt, as a political satire, has been criticized for sacrificing the impact of its attack on parliamentaryrepresentation, corruption and reactionary politics by diverting the reader'sattention to the satire of more generalideological and cultural issues. Spedding,writing in the Edinburgh Review, felt that

Melincourt was actually two books, one of which explored the reform issuewhile the other focusedon the literary themesof chivalry and romance.' Mals challengesthis as an over-simplification of anambitious experiment',which omits the significanceof the dialoguesbetween Fax and Forester and the apparently

Spedding,Edinburgh Review,Vol. 68, (Jan 1839), pp. 445-6, from H. Mills, P.99. 208

irreconcilableideologies of Malthus and Romanticism.' This juxtaposition of

political satire, Malthusian philosophy and parodic romancehas beenregarded as

excessive,and Butler is of the opinion that it 'has been agreed,virtually without a

dissentingvoice, that Melincourt is Peacock'sfailure. It was of course a political

failure, a fact which to Peacockwould have mattered a good deal." Bums,

discussingthe book from an aestheticpoint of view, overlooks the important fact

that Melincourt was both a parodic Romanceand a political satire. In particular,

he echoesthe main body of critical opinion with his condemnationof the

mainchanceVilla chapter. Finding it awkwardly placed and disturbing the balance

of the third volume of the book, he writes that his 'main contention' is that the

,impetuous pantomime' at the home of Paperstamphas a reductive effect on

Forester'sacceptance by Anthelia." This interpretation setsthe book firmly in the

context of the 'romance'and fails to seeit in the main generic context of Peacock's

work, which was, after all, satire.

At a first glance,there may be somejustification for theseconfused

critical reactionsto Mefincourt, which arise largely from the episodic form in

which the book is constructed. Some of the narrative interludesinserted into

volume three would, with very minor modifications, read as short prose satiresin

in their own right, if presented the columns of the periodical press. In a work of

fiction, accordingto the conventionsof the period, the numerousdisconnected

topics introduced, explored and discardedwould have been consideredas

detrimentalto the continuity of the narrative. However, it has already been

in Melincourt emphasized, chaptertwo, that makessense stylistically when read as

8 Nfills, P. 100. 9 Butler, P-97. "Bums, P-51. 209 a Menippeansatire. Peacock'suse of fantastical situations, the bizarre adventures of Sir Oran Haut-ton throughout the book, together with the meansby which the author appearsto underminehis own discoursein the argumentfor Parliamentary

Reform, are all very much in the tradition of the sub-genre.

Critical opinion, which was, until recently, circumscribedby earlier eighteenth-centurytraditions of satire and the novel, hasunderestimated the dexterity with which Peacockcontrols his subjectmatter. The deceptivelycasual insertion of political themesinto the narrative is just as adroitly managedas the cultural and ideological debatesin Headlong Hall and Nightmare Abbey, and the brevity of theseepisodic interludes, as a feature of the Menippeanstyle in which the book is written, securesthe impact of the satire. Referencesto the injustices of the West Indian sugartrade, paper currency, rural poverty and the centrally placedfocus on parliamentaryreform, togetherwrith a strongly satirical response to the reactionaryviews of the press and its lack of censureof the corrupt practicesof contemporarygovernment, indicate that Peacock,in 1817, was moving away from the satire of fashionableintellectual preoccupationsand into the political arena.

The final volume of'Melincourt has provoked more critical contention than any other aspectof the book. Butter attributes the increasedpolitical focus of the last fourteen chaptersto the worsening condition of national affairs during the winter of 1816-17,when Peacockwas in the last stagesof writing the book.

Widespreadfears of revolution, exacerbatedby the Tory press,and calls from the conservativenewspapers to curtail the widening circulation of Cobbett's'twopenny trash,, initiated concernsthat the freedom of the presswas in jeopardy.

"Butler, p.91. 210

Peacock,never a disciple of Cobbett, but certainly a regular reader of the f'olitical

Register, demonstratessympathy with his aims. Butler writes: 'Yet by and large, the political goals of Melincourt are identifiably Cobbett's goals, and his presence

is felt powerfully in the last volume which Peacockwas finishing off just as

Cobbett'sdispute with the government presscame to a head."' As a political

satire,Melincourt may have been misunderstood,but as a Menippeaninvestigation

into the polemicsof the post-Waterloo era, it is a provocative and carefully

controlled commentaryon someof the most pressingcontroversies of the

pre-reform era.

The appearanceof Nightmare Abbey in 1818 implies that Peacockwas

temporarily in retreat from political satire. Butler attributes this changeof

direction to 'the date and circumstancesof its writing', which took place during the

period of Peacocksearly assimilationinto Hunt's cultural circle, with its " predominantlyliterary interests. It has been seenhow Headlong Hall grew out

of Peacock'sreactions to the Bracknell group, and for a limited period, he now

found irresistiblematerial for satire in the literary preoccupationsof some of his

new associates.However, as Cox points out, the Hunt circle was already under

attack from Blackwood'sand other conservativereviews, as much for its perceived

political challengeas for 'its assaulton traditional literary style and the hierarchy of

genreSi.14 Hunt's statedobjective for the Examiner, the 'fusion of literary taste

into all subjectswhatsoever, undoubtedly included politics." In 1822, he was to

write in his Prefaceto 7he Liberal that, even without a political objective, 'all

12Butler, p. 93. "Ibid., p. 103. 14COX, p. 33. 15n.5 above. 211 writing now-a-daysmust involve somethingto that effect, the connexion between politics and all other subjectsof interest having been discovered,never again to be done away'. " Certainly, someof the work produced by membersof the Hunt circle was, politically, very focused. In 1818, Shelleywas producing the polemical

,Hermit of Marlow' pamphletson parliamentaryreform, as well as working on

Laon and Cythna. In addition, anyonelike Peacock and Shelley,who were regular readersof Cobbett'sPolitical Register and Hunt's Examiner, could not for long ignore the political ferment that followed the repressivelegislation of 1817.

In the two books, which followed the publication of Nightmare Abbey, Peacock experimentedwith new forms of narrative structure, in order to securea stronger focus for his political themes. Discarding the mode of the Socratic dialogue and substitutingthe fictional framework of popular folk-tale, he demonstrates,in Maid

Marian, how satire may be used to expose errors in traditional conceptsof power, in the particular context of the reactionary policies of a contemporarygovernment which threateneda return to the political injustices of pre- 1789 Europe. In Ae

Miqforlunes of Elphin, the novelistic structure is extended:Peacock uses old myths and legendsas imagesto illustrate political themeswhich have a much wider relevancein a broader historical context,

The planning ofMaidMarian has been well documented. Peacock's private papersand letters, never prolific and rarely extant, leave a comparatively generousaccount of his work during this period. The earliest referencesto the book in his diary for July and August 1818 indicate that it was Peacock'soriginal intention to write a parodic romance,perhaps drawing attention to the

for contemporarypassion medievalism,with a sprinkling of those topics which

16Quotaedfrom Gilmartin, p. 195. 212

Saintsburycalled Peacock's'redrags and black beastsin general- the Universities,

the letters in fad the clergy, professionof ... above all anything the nature of a or craze or merely fashionabletaste. "' On 4 August 1818, Peacockreported in his diary that he was 'fishing for a schemefor a romance'and had read 'some of the oldEngfishBalla&. " Two days later, hewas so excited by the project as to be unableto 'read or write', although, at this stage,there is nothing in the 'Rivers castlesforests abbiesmonks maids kings and banditti' dancingbefore him, which actually refers to the Robin Hood legendsas central to his ideas(440). However, the entry for 12 August records that he had read ballads about Robin Hood'.

Thesehave been identified as JosephRitson's Robin Hood, a collection of all the ancient poems,songs and ballads now extant relative to that celebrated outlaw

(1775). Garnett draws attention to Mayowes analysisof the close parallels betweenPeacock's work and Ritson's collection of ballads." Butler builds on the connectionby indicating the political sympathiesPeacock would have sharedwith

Ritson's radical view of Robin as an ideological hero.20

Peacock'sletters to Shelley,written during the actual composition of

Maid Marian, show an increasein political comment and a growing state of dissatisfactionwith the current condition of England. On 15 September,he refers to an article in the Edinburgh Review, 'the cream of which is, that the grand panaceafor the national grievancesis to bring the Whigs again into power, without reforming the Parliament!' -- to which he adds: 'You rememberthat the

"Thomas Love Peacock,Headlong Hall, Nightmare Abbey, (London. Macmillan, 1896), p. x. 18Hajjýford Edition, Vol. 8, pp. 43 9-40. Further references to Vol. 8 are given in the text. 19Garnetted., pp. 440-1. 2'Butler, pp. 143-5. 213 grand remedyfor pauperismproposed by this samereview was to imbue every man with his Bible'(205-6). By November, he is more explicitly critical of what he seesas power wrongly used. Writing of Tasso, the sixteenth-centuryItalian poet who was believedto have been unjustly incarceratedas a lunatic becauseof his passionfor the Duke of Este'swife, Peacock says:

I am afraid you judge too well of the modem world in sayingthat no similar iniquity could happennow. Think of the dungeonsof the SpanishPatriots alone;but I could accumulatea pile of instancesin which public opinion is powerless. Think of Ney and Labedoyere,and the murder of Derby, and Castlereaghin Ireland. (208)

The sameletter containsthe first mention of his intentions to makeMaid Marian a political satire: 'I am writing a comic Romanceof the Twelfth Century, which I shall make the vehicle of much oblique satire on all the oppressionsthat are done under the sun' (209). His next letter continuesto expressdisillusionment with the state of the country as he celebratesthe outcome of a capital trial for bank-note forgery, in which the jury, making a stand against hired informers, rejected the evidenceof the bank inspectorsand acquitted the four defendants, Peacockis uncharacteristicallyexultant, although there is a suspicionof parody in his response,as well as a foreshadowingof the collapse of the Royal Embankmentof

Gwaelod, which was to appeara decadelater in TheMisforwnes qf Elphin: 'The myrmidonsof corruption are aghast. Every new step of the soundingfoot of Time makesthe pillars of their rotten edifice tremble; it is dislocatedin all its joints, and will very soon fall to pieces,amidst the shouts of the world' (212).

Maid Marian was written, therefore, during a period when liberal thinkers like Peacock and others who associatedwith Shelleyand Hunt, were becomingintensely aware of the reactionary nature of governmentpolicies. St. Although the Massacreat Peter'sFields, Manchester,was still somemonths in 214 the future, there had been, since 1815, at least four major incidentsand Several

minor oneswhen those who attempted to challengegovernment repressionhad

met with military resistanceand arrest. However, incidents of violence and a

perceivedthreat of revolution did not causePeacock or Shelleyto modify their

beliefs. Like others in the Hunt circle, they kept faith with their liberal principles,

they believedthe bloodshedin France to be an unfortunate aberrationin the

progressof liberty, but for them, the ideals that lay behind the Revolution were

fundamentallyjust and sound. At this point in history, a return to

eighteenth-centuryaristocratic rule was unthinkable, and the reactionarypolicies

of Lord Liverpool's government,which followed the peaceof 1815, were very

much a symptomof paranoia,turning every insurrection or demandfor reform into

evidenceof imminentrevolution,

Felton arguesthat, in Maid Marian, Peacock'attacks the reactionary

post-war governmentof his time', but does not deal with his subjectsof satire in

depth 21 However, it be later in Peacock'sdistrust any . will shown this chapterthat

of hereditaryrule, the abuseof privilege and the ambivalentrole that the church

played in upholding this, are not dealt with superficially, His method, as in his

other satires,was to exposea seriesof irreconcilable questions,in this caseleaving

the readerto cometo an understandingthat the political life of the nation was

founded on a seriesof false assumptionsand traditions, As a writer in the

Menippeantradition, he was unable to comply with critical expectationsthat, the

satirist must resolvethe questionshe provokes, Although Maid Marian is

presentedas an innocuousrecounting of some popular folk legends,and the book

was often read as such,being later adaptedfor stageperformance as a comic

"Felton, P.169. 215 operetta, someof the themesthat Peacock examinesin the text are intensely political, particularly when viewed in the context of the period when the work was begun.

(M EK) C9 Bý) Qý3 &-) CIS EO

MajdMarian, conceivedwith such enthusiasmand energy during the summerof 1818,was abandonedthree months later in December,when almost finished. Four more yearswere to elapsebefore the book was eventually completedand submittedfor publication. In general, critical opinion has argued that Peacock'sappointment to the East India Company in early 1819, and his subsequentmarriage, interrupted the production of the book and, no doubt, his transition from the statusof a leisured gentlemanof letters to the responsibilitiesof family life and regular employmentrequired some adjustment. However, work at

India House was spasmodic,owing to the intermittent nature of the arrival of the post ftom India and Peacockdid find time, in the interim, to write and publish'The

Four Ages of Poetry'and the poem rRich and Poor'.

havebeen it may that the reasonfor suspendingthe writing of Maid demands Marion was not the new on his time, but a growing awarenessthat what he had actually written might well prove to be too strong for the contemporary publishingmarket. MaidMarian was a satire which cut so close to the bone of it contemporarypolitics that was not completed and publisheduntil four years after its inception. Although Peacock could scarcelybe identified as a potential is revolutionary, and there no evidencethat the Hunt circle ever set out to organizethemselves politically, the united strength of the underlying ideologies of the group 216 had alreadyalarmed the Tory pressand, as Cox points out, 'Hunt knew everyone from William Wordsworth to William Hone. 2`

in the political context of the post-Waterloo period, Peacock'ssatire could havebeen viewed as constituting an attack on the establishedgovernment, and prosecutionfor seditiouslibel was still a realistic threat in 1818. The previous year had seenthe ffight of Cobbett to America in order to avoid arrest under the suspensionof HabeasCorpus, and William Hone had been prosecutedthree times. in 1818,Richard Carlile was imprisoned for bringing out a new edition of Paine's

Age of Reason. Between 1808 and 1821, there were only seventyprosecutions for seditiouslibel, but fifty-two of these had occurred during the 1817 to 1819 period. Although the rate of successfulconvictions was just under fifty percent, the boundariesof prohibition were themselvesambiguous. ' Satirists walked a precarioustightrope over a legislative safety-netwhich could be peremptorily snatchedaway without warning. The majority of these prosecutionswere directed towards periodical writersýbut since 1789, novelists too had been obliged to tread warily. The 1797 edition of Godwin!s Caleb Willimns containeda preface previously withdrawn from the original 1794 edition at the request of booksellers.

There was, at that time, a generalalarm among publishers,caused by the five-month imprisonmentof the London CorrespondenceSociety leaders,Home

Tooke, Hardy, Holcroft and Thelwall, under the suspensionof HabeasCorpus earlier that year, on a charge of high treason. Although the 'conspirators'were it eventuallyreleased, was not until the 1797 edition of the book that Godwin was able to publish the original preface, with an explanatory note: 'Terror was the

12Cox, P. 47. 23Dyer, P. 73. 217 order of the day: and it was feared that even the humble novelist might be shown to be constructivelya traitor. "

In MaidMarian, Peacock makessatirical referencesto the most recent

suspensionof HabeasCorpus, that of March 1817, which followed an attack on

the Prince Regent,and he also underminesthe Holy Alliance and the traditional

support of the Church for the monarchy. Both were politically sensitivetopics at

that time, and Peacockcould not have been unaware that his fiction may have

beenmisconstrued by a governmentbeset by sporadic threats to law and order.

He was not being merely playful when he informed Shelleythat Maid Marian was

to be the vehicle of much oblique satire'. He knew that he was going to travel a

long way beyondthe cultural ideologies he had chosento satirize in Headlong

Hali andNightmare Abbey. Any direct attack on legislation and the institutions of

the Crown and Church, in the political climate of 1818, was dangerous,

particularly to someonewho was seekingemployment in a governmentcontrolled

office. The East India Companywas no longer an autonomousprivate enterprise;

India Bill 1794, financial rgince Pitt's of the political, and military power of the

companyhad beentransferred to the British government, and Peacockwas hoping

to become,in part at least, an employeeof the Crown.

CS B") C93 CIS E^I) CIA EO

Peacockopens his attack on the institution of monarchy in Maid

Marian by underminingthe traditional image of Richard I, as presentedin

idealizedterms by contemporaryhistorians and the chroniclersof the Robin Hood

legends. Richard is about to set off with loyal crusaders,'who eagerly flocked

24W.Godwin, Caleb Willimns, ed. by D. MacCracken, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1794,1970), p.2. 218 under his bannerin the hope of enriching themselveswith Saracenspoil, which they call fighting the battles of God'." Having sold the Locksley estates, confiscatedfrom Robin by Henry II, King Richard finds himself in a moral dilemma:

Now, as the repealof the outlawry would involve the restitution of the estatesto their rightful owner, it was obvious that it could never be expected from that most legitimate and most Christian king, Richard I of England, the arch-crusaderand anti-jacobin by excellence,-- the very type, flower, cream, pink, symbol,and mirror of all the Holy Alliances that have ever existed on earth, exceptingthat he seasonedhis superstition and love of conquest with a certain condimentof romantic generosity and chivalrous self-devotion, with which his imitators in all other points have found it convenientto dispense.To give freely to one man what he had taken forcibly from another,was generosityof which he was very capable;but to restore somethingto the man from whom he had taken it, was somethingthat wore too much of the cool physiognomy ofjustice to be easily recognisableto his kingly feelings. (490)

This presentsa very unattractive picture of kingship, particularly of a monarch

traditionally cast in the heroic mould, whose contemporary image had grown out

of epic and legend. Peacock!s Richard is a charismaticbut distinctly tarnished

hero. He appropriatesland from his subjectsand disposesof it as he pleases;he

takes part in ostensiblyreligious wars for the purpose of personalgain; he assumes

a reactionary, anti-jacobin' stancepolitically, and raisestaxes to finance his

expeditions;he has little time for justice when it entails a cost to him personally,

and his currently favourablereputation relies on popular fictions and a fashionable

taste for the medievalhero of Romance. However, as Peacockpoints out,

Richard, for all his faults, is still superior to any who have more recently

succeededto the throne. The reader is left to identify for himself these unnamed

,imitators', but the referenceto the Holy Alliance clearly indicatesa parallel with

contemporarypolitics. The Alliance, instigated in 1815 by the royal headsof

25Gamett,ed., p.490. Further referencesto this edition will be given in the text. 219

Russia,Austria and Prussia,came to be seena symbol of reaction among those, who, like Peacock,remained loyal to the underlying philosophiesof the French

Revolution. Viewed as a political attempt to reinforce the sovereigntyof the

monarchiesof central Europe according to religious principles, there were fears

that it would provide opportunities for the resurgenceof medievalecclesiastical

control.

The throne and legitimized authority assumedby medievaland

Renaissancemonarchies depended on the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

This theologically basedconception of kingship persistedin Europe until the

FrenchRevolution, and was to re-emergeafterwards in the infrastructure of the

Holy Alliance. The idea that kingship was bestowed on an individual by God was

an anathemato Peacock,Hunt and their associates,who sought 'freedom from

superstition!in all mattersand greatly feared a return to the pre- 1789 staftis quo.

Peacockexamines the prerogative of any one person to assumeauthority in a

sermonby Friar Tuck addressedto the baron Fitzwater:

What title had William of Normandy to England, that Robin of Locksley has not to merry Sherwood? William fought for his claim. So does Robin. With whom, both? With any that would or will dispute it. William raised contributions. So doesRobin. From whom, both? From all that they could, or can make pay them. Why did any pay them to William? Why do any pay them to Robin? For the samereason to both; becausethey could not or cannot help it. They differ indeed, in this, that William took from the poor and gave to the rich and Robin takes from the rich and gives to the poor: and therein is Robin legitimate: though in all else he is a true prince. (498)

The right to rule is won by force and maintainedby wealth. Wealth is obtainedby

taxation, and taxes are extorted by force or coercion. Thus far, Robin is a'true

prince' in that he extorts money by force, and his actions differ very little from

those of a crowned headof state. However, Robin is Richard'smoral superior and

this is attestedby a reversalof the usual practice. Not only does he take ftom the 220 rich to benefit the poor, but he also employs a fairer meansof distributing his acquiredwealth. The common practice of those to whom the privilege of taxation befalls is to shareout the takings among those who are of similar rank. Robin, however, distributeshis gains among those of lower rank, and although branded an outlaw by the establishedgovernment, this proves his moral superiority.

Peacockthen usesthe friar to clarify the moral and political implications of 'right'by playing with the multiple meaningsof the word:

There is no right but might: and to say that might overcomesright is to say that right overcomesitself - an absurdity most palpable.Your right was strongerin Arlingford, and ours is stronger in Sherwood.Your right was right as long as you could maintain it; so is ours. So is King Richard'swith all deferencebe it spoken;and so is King Saladin's;and their two mights are now committed in bloody fray, and that which overcomeswill be right just as long as it lasts, and as far as it reaches. (499)

The right to rule, once achievedby strength, is also 'right' in the senseofjust, as long as the victor is able to maintain his advantage. Furthermore,the moral right to rule, as the successfuloutcome of a trial of strength, is independentof faith.

Richard and Saladin,fighting a religious war, both have an equal chanceof

success.The supremacyof either dependson whoever mustersthe stronger force.

The right to rule can only be achievedby a trial of strength and is, therefore,

synonymouswith'might'. This theme is developedlater on in the book as the fliar

goes on to arguethat institutional law has little to do with ethical codes of

behaviour.

In the final chapter, Tuck addressesa travelling knight who is,

unbeknownto him, King Richard:

Richard is a hero and our Robin is a thief marry, your hero guts an exchequer,while your thief disembowelsa portmanteau;your hero sacksa city, while your thief sacksa cellar; your hero maraudson a larger scale,and that is all the difference,for the principle and the virtue are one: but two of a trade cannotagree: therefore your hero makeslaws to get rid of your thief, 221

and gives him an ill namethat he may hang him: for might is right, and the strong make laws for the weak, and they that do make the laws for their own turn do also make morals to give colour to their laws. (537)

Here, Peacockreiterates that 'might' is synonymouswith 'right', in both the legal

and the moral senseof the word, since, once the right to rule has beenestablished

by superior strength,the victor createshis own moral justification for the laws he

proclaims. The successfulcontender of the power struggle not only establishes

such laws as are necessaryto maintain his advantage,but also definesmorality in

accordancewith his own requirements. The whole superstructureof government

is, therefore, designedto preservethe social hierarchy and the interestsof the

governing classes,regardless of any obligation to the majority of its citizens.

MaidMarian was eventually completed and publishedin 1822, by

which time Peacoclesdominant political themeshad becomeless contentious. The been right of HabeasCorpus had reinstated in January 1818, and the significance

of the Holy Alliance, always uncertain, is generally consideredto have petered out

by 1822,following Mettemich's seriesof political unions betweenmost of the

headsof state of Europe. Peacock,writing MaidMarjan in 1818, had set out

with the intention of investigating some of the traditional philosophiesand political

ideologiesat the forefront of government policy at that time. In doing so, he

found the ideal mode of fiction for conveying political satire. In Headlong Hall

and Nightmare Abbey, he had adaptedthe form of the Socratic dialogue to suit his

purposes. in Maid Marian, he went on to demonstratehow political satire could

be conveyedby using folk mythology and legendas the basisof a plot.

Ideological debate,no longer the focus of the dialogue of severalspeakers, now

found expressionin the interaction of his characters. 222

Peacock'snext fiction was also a political satire, and once again, he selectedthe plot of an ancient story from folk history and legend. 7he

Misfortunes ofElphin was publishedin 1829, and Garnett cites the historical and literary sourcesfor this work as TheAf)nyrjan Archaiology of Walesand 7he

Cambro-Briton, a periodical which commencedpublication in 1819 (550). 7he

Myvyrian Archaiology was a collection of Welsh prose and versesfrom ancient manuscriptsof the sixth to fourteenth centuries, compiled by the peasant,Owen

Jones. 7he Cambro-Briton, edited by John Hurnfireys Parry, appearedin three volumesbetween 1819 and 1822, printing English translationsof Early and Middle

Welsh literature, as well as articles of historical and geographicalinterest, and

Peacockuses quotations from this in his introduction to chapter six" (580).

Other contemporarypublications indicate that Welsh literature and mythology

were enjoying a degreeof public interest at the time. In 1806, Richard Colt Hoare

had publisheda translation of TheItinerary of Archbishop Baldwin 7"brough

Walesand William Probert'sAncient Laws of Cambria was to appearin 1823.

The first two decadesof the nineteenthcentury also showed an increasedinterest

in Arthurian legend,producing numerous sourcebooks, novels, plays and

operettasbased on thesestories. Peacock'slong period of researchinto material

for this book, which necessitatedthe translation and collation of the legend of

Taliesin from the fragmentedsources then available,has been acknowledgedas a

scholarlyachievement in its own right. As a political satire, however, the book has

receivedlittle critical attention.

Again grafting his satire on to a collection of existing folk stories and

legends,Peacock draws ironic parallelsbetween contemporary situations and, this

26Garnett,ed., p.550. Further referencesto this edition will be given in the text. 223 time, sixth-century Cambria. Butler relates the political context of 7he

Misfortunes of Elphin to the return of the reactionary anti-reform politics of canning's brief administration in 1827 and the growing strength of the Tory government that followed. She also cites an article in the Edinburgh Review of

June 1827, in which Macaulay likens the French Revolution to a deluge, identifying this as the source of the collapse of Seithenyn's watch-tower into the sea and making a comparison between this and the fall of the Bastille. ' Peacock's satire, however, is less specific to time and place. For the first time, the reader becomes aware that he is using images which can be interpreted in a number of ways, thus broadening the relevance of his satirical comments.

King Gwythno 'found the business of governing too fight a matter to fill up either his time or his head', and in consequence, preferred to follow the more

'solid pursuits' of music, Poetry, feasting and hunting, his subjects having little to do other than to 'pay him revenue' and occasionally 'fight for the protection of his sacred persoif (554). This may be interpreted as a generalized view of kingship or, more specifically, as a portrait of George IV, formerly the Prince Regent.

Gwythno himself takes very little part in government, but those to whom he leaves the administrative duties of his realm are also unwilling to commit themselves to such mundane tasks. National security depends on effective political leadership and Gwythno's kingdom, the Plain of Gwaelod, is no exception. Dependent on adequate sea defences, it is left in a perilous position by an incompetent hierarchy of Court officials, who have allowed the embankment to fall into decay,

Peacock represents the High Commission of the Royal Embankment, headed by the inebriate Prince Seithenyn, as an analogous image:

27Butler, pp. 158-60, 224

The condition of the head, in a composite as in a simple body, affects the entire organizationto the extremity of the tail, exceptingthat, as the tail in the figurative body usually receivesthe largest sharein the distribution of punishment,and the smallestin the distribution of reward, it has the stimulus to ward off evil, and the smaller supply of meansto engagein diversion; and it sometimeshappens that one of the least regardedof the componentparts of the saidtail will, from a pure senseof duty, or an inveteratelove of business,or an oppressivesense of ennui, or the developmentof the organ of order, or someequally cogent reason,cheerfully undergo all the care and labour, of which the honour and profit will redound to higher quarters. (555)

The malfunctionsof this composite 'body', from the privileged head to its abused tail, are commonto any corrupt power structure, as relevant today as when

Peacockdescribed them in 1829. Corporate superstructures,without effective leadership,are doomedto incompetenceand failure. Peacockmay well have offered this imageto the reader as a representationof inefficient pre-reform parliamentaryrepresentation. It could also be seenequally well as a satire on the pre- 1789ancien r0gjme, or any ineffective form of administration,perhaps even the position in which he found himself during the early yearsof his appointmentto the East India Company. Furthermore, it is possibleto interpret this image of a beast,which thrived on the efforts of its lesserparts, as an illustration of the hierarchical,early nineteenth-centuryclass structure of England, where the prosperity of an idle ruling classdepended on the labours of a diligent 'tail' of workers.

Teithrin, a minor segmentof thetail', is assiduousin his duties and foreseesthe dangerof an imminent collapseof the seadefences. He enlists the aid of Elphin to remonstratewith the Lord High Commissionerconcerning his dereliction of duties. Seithenyn,irritated by the challenge,argues against'that very unamiablesort of people,who are in the habit of indulging their reason'and takes a reactionarystance on the question of improvements: 225

But I say,the parts that are rotten give elasticity to those that are all sound: they give them elasticity, elasticity, elasticity. If it were all sound, it would break by its own obstinate stiffness:the soundnessis checkedby the rottenness,and the stiffnessis balancedby the elasticity. There is nothing so dangerousas innovation. Seethe waves in the equinoctial storms, dashing and clashing,roaring and pouring, rattling and battling againstit. I would not be so presumptuousas to say, that I could build anything that would standagainst them for half an hour; and here this immortal old work, which God forbids the finger of modem mason should bring into jeopardy, this immortal work has stood for centuries, and will standfor centuriesmore if we let it alone.It is well: it works well: let well alone. (561)

Garnett points out similarities between Seithenywsspeech and the argumentsof the opponentsof reform (n. p. 56 1). Butler comparesthe substanceof Seithenyn's argumentmore specificallywith some of Canning'santi-reformation speechesas

Prime Minister, in which he statedthat the House of Commons,in its present form, was able to accommodateitself '"to the progressivespirit of the country"' and that ParliamentaryRepresentation was more efficient '"for that very want of uniformity which is complainedof in the petition'". 1" Seithenynsspeech is a parody of parliamentaryrhetoric. He justifies his argumentwith a meaningless juxtaposition of opposites:'soundness' and 'rottenness' combineto supply lelasticity'as a balanceto 'stiffness. There is a speciouseloquence in the rhyming pairs of adjectivesthat describethe erosion of winter storms; the play on the repetitive *ell'builds up to the authoritative 'let well alone'. The whole speechis elegantlypresented but conveysa nonsensicalpoint of view, and, in the applause that follows, Peacoclessatire encompassesnot only the arroganceof the speaker, but also those who, like the membersof Seithenyn'sHigh Commission,are deceivedby political rhetoric.

Throughout Ae Misfortunes qfElphin, Peacock makes reference to the immediate political context. He writes that the tradition of song still flourished

28Butler, pp. 163-4. 226 amongthe Welsh peasantry,'on the few occasionson which rack-renting, tax-collecting, common-enclosing,methodist preaching, and similar delights in the fight of the age, have left them either the meansor inclination of making merry'

(634). At times, there is a senseof conflict in the satire, an ambivalenceand a

tension suggestingthat, although Peacockis opposed to reactionarygovernment,

he himself has someconservative attitudes towards contemporaryinnovations. He

writes ironically that: 'The scienceof political economy was sleepingin the womb

of time. The advantageof growing rich by getting into debt and paying interest

was altogetherunknown!, and the increasinguse of paper money was 'a stretch of

wisdom to which the people of those days have nothing to compare'(580). The

subjectsof Gwythno 'madetheir money of metal, and breathedpure air, and drank

pure water like unscientificbarbarians', and once more, he returns to the subject of

paper money, pointing out that 'when any of their barbarousmetallic currency got

into their pockets or coffers, it had a chanceto remain there, subjectingthem to

the inconvenienceof unemployedcapital' (58 1). There is also a satirical reference

to the partizanshipof the establishedperiodicals. The bards enjoyed freedom of

speech,but if they'chose to advancetheir personalfortunes by appealingto the

selfishness,the passionsand the prejudicesof kings, factions and the rabble, our

free pressmay afford them a little charity out of the excessof their own virtue'

(581). SometimesPeacock cannot resist drawing attention to contemporary

parallelsin the prevalentpassion for scientific knowledge: 'In physical sciencethey

suppliedthe place of knowledge by converting conjecturesinto dogmas;an art not

yet lost, (582). Politically, however, little elsewas different, and there are echoes

here of the 'no right but might' argumentsemployed by the friar in Maid Marian:

'The powerful took all they could get from their subjectsand neighbours;and 227 called somethingor other sacredand glorious, when they wanted the people to fight for thenV(5 8 1).

At the time of writing Ae Misfortunes of Elphin, thought to be mainly in 1828, Peacockwas able to disregard the political constraintsthat surrounded the compositionof MaidMarian and the work of his associatesduring the previous decade. Hunt, with whom Thackeray later also sharedan acquaintance, consideredthat most liberal demandshad been met with the passingof the Reform

Act of 1832. lEs London Journal, brought out in 1834, declaredthat this new venture was to be'devoted entirely to subjectsof miscellaneousinterest,

unconnectedwith politics, a total contradiction to his earlier commentsmade in

1822, when everythingin literature appearedto have a political relevance." In a

climate of lesspressing political urgency, Peacock,in Crotchet Castle, returned to

satirize the cultural ideologiesof his era and the Socratic dialoguesof his earlier

works.

CS D") C93 E^,) Cz Eft) Q8 EA0

Recentliterary historiography has suggestedthat significant historical

eventshave a profound effect, both on the production of printed matter and the

nature of the material createdfor the publishing market. Altick views the sudden

proliferation of post- 1815 Radicaljournalism and the increasedpopularity of the

Sundaypapers, which followed the 1819 Newspaper Stamp Act, as being

in generatedby public interest the unstablepolitical situation of the period."

Referencehas alreadybeen made to Klancher'sresearch, which identifies the

eventsof the FrenchRevolution as instrumental in changingthe nature of the

29 n. 16 above. 30AItick(1957), pp.329-30. 228 relationshipbetween writers and periodical readers. Eliot ý1995), using figures

from Bent's Monthly Literary Advertiser and its predecessors,A Monthly List of

New Publications and Me Monthly Literary Advertiser (1802-1860), traces peaks

in publishedmaterial to political events, for example 1803,1812 and 1815,

together with a considerablerise in 1832, relating to the Reform Act. "

Peacoclesmost productive period as a writer coincided with a turbulent

period of history, fraught with political uncertainties. Maid Marimi and The

misfortunes of Elphin were motivated by significant contemporaryevents during a

turbulent period of history, and these issuesand incidents acted as a catalyst to

prompt his satiricalinvestigation into underlying conceptsof government. it is

also necessaryto emphasizehere that, as the political focus of his satire increased,

the structure of his fiction was distinguishedby a more conventionallynovelistic

style, addingthe interest of plot, action and characterizationto the satirical

discourse. In MajdMwlan, and particularly in YheMisfortunes of Elphin, his

peopletake on individual identities of much greater complexity than the speakers

in his other satirical fiction, who were designedto shadow the philosophiesand

opinions of other people. However, although Peacockchose to presenthis

political satiresin a novelistic style, his work was to remain essentially

anti-Romanticin conception. He continued to promote an intellectually objective

responsein his readers,without engagingtheir emotions in the course of his

narratives.

Q53 K) 03 &-) CIS &) (913 &13

"Simon Eliot, 'SomeTrends in British Book Production, 1800-1919',Literature in the Marketplace: NineteenthCentury British Publishing and Reading practices, ed by 1.0. Jordan and R.L. Patten (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995), p.30. 229

WhereasPeacocles satire, for a limited period, servedas an intellectual investigationinto political philosophiesand ideologies, Thackeray,writing during the eighteenthirties and forties, consciouslyavoided political comment. His early work focusedon the social interaction of his own particular reading audiencesand their responsesto contemporaryculture and values. He did not examinethe ideological and political context of his era, and Ann Ritchie writes that her father, at this time, was 'never a keen politician. Pictures and plays form a much larger shareof his early intereststhan either law casesor politics.' 11

His later work, however, shows a growing awareness of the significance of contemporary issues, and ironically, this aspect of his development came about through his involvement with a comic magazine. Altick writes that the first decade of Punch eventually came to be remembered as 'the hungry forties' and adds: 'A case could be made for their having been, in terms of human misery widespread across the countryside and city slums, the worst in remembered centuries.'31 Two decades earlier, when Peacock had been writing his political satires, the volatile climate of radical opinion had been united by a common political goal, Parliamentary Reform, but this had been quietened temporarily by the 1832 Reform Act. The 1840s saw a re-emergence of discontent, as the

Chartist movement and the Anti-Corn Law League each sought its own remedy to political unrest. However, as Altick explains, there was no uniformity of protest during this period: 'The radicalism of the 1840s was not coherently ideological or programmatic but was determined by the interests of individual persons and groups. v34

32Biographical Edition, Vol. 3, p. xxiv. 33AItick (1997), p. 185. 341bid.,P. 186. 230

Whereasthe radical pressof the post-Waterloo period had combined satirical rhetoric with factual reporting, the early years of Punch were humour buffoonery. Ray characterizedby radical outbursts, temperedwith and demonstrated'a points out that during the first few years of publication, Punch " decidedpenchant for the radical view of politics and society'. Altick adds that,

founders although they were producing what was essentiallya comic weekly, the ignore of punch eventuallydeveloped an awarenessthat they could not completely more seriouscontemporary issues:

Punch shouldbe socially responsible.In the midst of its playful humor it shouldaccommodate an outlook that was neither funny nor sunny; it would not only be a weekly purveyor of laughter but a critic of neglectful society as lasting well. Punch was the first popular English periodical of any " consequenceto whole-heartedlyenlist itself in the humanitariancause.

The 'neglectful society' of the 1840s,in this context, included the largely

middle-classreadership of the magazine. While somewere merely comfortably

complacentabout humanitariancauses, the greater proportion of the Punch

readershipremained in ignoranceof the poverty and hardshipthat was often just a

few streetsaway from their own homes. The economic divide between rich and

poor, the condition of the labouring poor, and recurrent Poor Law scandals

frequently found expressionin the writings of Jerrold and Lemon and in the

drawings of John Leech. Thackeray,whose connectionwith the magazinebegan

in 1842,initially found little common ground betweenhimself and someof his

more radical colleagues. The tensionsthat clouded his relationship with Douglas

Jerrold were not only personal,but also basedon matters of principle. Jerrold's

ardent and vociferous espousalof radical causesand his unqualified championship

"Ray, UsesofAdversity (1955), p.363. 16AItick(1997), p. 186. 231 of the labouring classeswere alarming to a man who was alreadyopposed to

revolution. The visceral intensity of Jerrold's weekly rants causedThackeray to take a step backwardsfrom the heat, and as a result, his influence at the Punch

headquartershas sometimesbeen seenas more reactionary than it actually was.

Ray writes that Thackerayinterpreted Jerrold's stanceas an unbalancedone:

its exclusivelyhumanitarian emphasis was foreign to his temperament. His fundamentaldisposition was to seeand to enjoy, and he had a largenessof him to things in In temperament mind that enabled see proportion ... anythingbut a revolutionary, he becameconscious through his opposition to his true It for him to to Jerrold of role as a writer ... was not attempt shake the foundationsof Victorian society, particularly through squibsin a comic paper:but by the proper exerciseof his talents he could at least help raise the level of feeling and cultivation among those who read him.'I

In other words, Thackeraywas aware of the problems that beset his generation,

but opposedsudden and dramatic change. He aimed to make his readersaware of

issueshe believedto be important, and thesewere mainly related, at that time, to

the socialvalues of his own class. However, Ray's assessmentof theseintentions

should not be interpretedas meaningthat Thackeray'sreluctance to engagein

radical polemicsindicated complacency, or that he was exclusively preoccupied

with middle-classculture and values. His awarenessof contemporarypolitical

issuesinceased throughout the 1840s,but he was also instinctively wary of

extremeattitudes suchas those expressedin Jerrold's work, seeingthese as a

potential dangerto the national interest. His work, at this point of his career,was he did essentiallyapolitical, although not shrink from making satirical thrusts at the

expenseof the ruling classes. Instead, he found in mid-nineteenth-centurysociety

sufficient material for comment, and he did not hesitateto exaggerateand satirize false what he perceivedto be the values of his era. Occasionally,however, during

37Ray,Uses ofAdversity, (1955), pp.368-9. 232 this early period of his career, certain political issueswould arousean intense responseand someof thesewill be examinedin the following sections.

CIA LIr") 03 &_') CZ K) C's Er')

One areaof legislative activity which caught Thackeray'sattention

during the early yearsof his reporting career was the issue of public hangings.

'Going to Seea Man Hanged'was published in Fraser's Magazine in 1840 and

written in responseto Ewart's moves to abolish capital punishment. In this article,

Thackeraydescribes not only his reactions to the event as it happened,but also the

ethics of a governmentempowered to put the death sentenceinto practice. In

addition, it becomesobvious that Thackeray, on this occasion,is addressinghis

audiencedirectly, dispensingwith the narratorial disguisesthat were a common

feature of his other contributions to Fraser's during the sameperiod.

'Going to Seea Man Hanged' reports on the public hanging of Franwis

Courvoisier, a valet convicted of the murder of his master. In an effective piece of

reporting, Thackerayobserves the excitement of the crowd, gathering in the

summerdawn outsideNewgate Prison to witness an event he cameto perceive as

a brutal public murder: 'I fully confessthat I came away down from Snow Hill that

morning with a disgustfor murder, but it wasfor the murder I saw done."' As

he awaits the execution,he speculateson the continuing stability of contemporary

modesof government. Selectingas an illustration 'yonder ragged fellow, who

'speakswith good senseand shrewd good-nature, he asks: 'What are the two great

like parties to him, and those him? Sheerwind, hollow humbug, absurd claptraps;

3'Biographical EditiOn, Vol. 3, p.648. Further referencesto this volume are given in the text. 233 a silly mummeryof dividing and debating,which does not in the least, however it may turn, affect his conditioW(639).

Thackerayurges the reader to understandthat the task of government may not remainthe prerogative of a privileged few for very much longer:

Talk to our raggedfiiend. He is not so polished, perhaps,as a memberof the'Oxford and Cambridge'club; he has not been to Eton; and never read Horace in his life; but he can think just as soundly as the best of you; he can speakquite as strongly in his own rough way; he has beenreading all sorts of books of late years, and gatheredtogether no little information. He is as good a man as the common run of us; and there are ten million more men in the country, as good as he -- ten million, for whom we, in our infinite superiority, are acting as guardians,and, to whom we give -- exactly nothing. (63940)

The mood of this extract implies a need to respect and even fear the self-educated working man and his companions. There is an ironic recognition that the 'we, in our infinite superiority', includesthe corporate identity of Fraser's, subscribersto the magazineand anyoneelse who, by the privileges of birth, wealth or class, presumesthe right to govern. However, there is no hint here of the patronizing inflections of other contemporarywriters, whom Thackeraywas to satirize later in

'The Curate'sWalk' (1847). Neither does his tone hint at the 'various modes and keys of satire and invective'that Jerrold, among others, was to employ in the columnsof Punch.19 Instead, he statesthe case simply: that the man in the street gains nothing from contemporarygovernment but, nonetheless,in matters of educationand understandinghe is, or very soon will be, able to presenta real challengeto the ruling classes. Thackeray goes on to issuea warning: 'He is a democrat, standby his friends, by In and will as you yours ... the meantimewe shall continue electing, and debating and dividing, and having every day new triumphs for the glorious causeof Conservatism,or the glorious causeof Reform,

39AItick(1997), p. 187. 234

is how far until, -- 1 (640). Just as the reader wondering he intendsto take this point of view, he calls himself back into fine with a sharp question: 'What is the meaningof this unconscionablerepublican tirade -- 6 propos of a hanging?' (640).

When Thackeraystates the caseagainst public hangings,however, there is no retraction and no narratorial ambiguity whatsoever: 'The writer has discarded the magazine"We' altogether, and spoken face to face with the reader,recording every one of the impressionsfelt by him as honestly as he could' (646). Thackeray feels shamethat he hasbeen a party to such an'act of ftightful wickednessand violence. The spectacleis'hideous and degrading', a symptom of a'hidden lust after blood', which infects all strata of society, and is condonedby a'Christian

Govemment'(646). The relevanceof the earlier'unconscionablerepublican tirade' now becomesclearer; he is warning that a government which follows the Old

Testamentteaching that Blood demandsblood, may itself fall victim to the same principle (648).

CISL111) Q9 L*1) QS L*) C!6 Erl)

in spite of his reluctanceto engagein radical causes,Thackeray's satire, his later writings and, in particular, his letters and private papersbetray an instinctive sympathytowards the republicancause. Rarely directly satirical of political issues,there is neverthelessevidence that, as his work continued into the late forties, he becameincreasingly more thoughtful about contemporarymodes of governmentand, at the sametime, increasinglydissatisfied with his own lack of understandingof these. Ifis correspondenceand diaries of this period betray a senseof personalinadequacy and frustration. In 1846, doubtful of making a successof the work he was submitting to the Morning Chronicle, he admits to being 'a very weak & poor politician only good for outside articles and occasional 235 jeux desprit'. "A month later, the sameproblems were still on his mind: 'I am making a failure at the Chronicle all my articles miss fire [sic]: except the literary ones. I shall be kicked out at the end of the year."'

Two yearslater, when revolution broke out in France in February 1848, tlysýes Thackeray'smother was, at the time, living in the Champs and it was

inevitablethat theseevents would provoke a flurried response. The public

Thackeray,contributor to Punch and now the acclaimedauthor of Vanity Fair,

wrote the riotously satirical'Club in an Uproar, which made a great play upon

someof the more spectacularand improbable rumours that were circulating at the

time. Now writing as Mr. Spec, Thackeray comments:But oh, my friends! wild

they the truth? Was and strangeas thesestories were, were so wonderful as ...

there ever a day sincethe beginningof history, where small men were so great, " and great onesso little? In private, however, he respondedanxiously, trying to

understandsome of the political thinking that was shapingFrench history by

readingLouis Blanc'sDe FOrganisation &j Travail (1840). His reaction was not

favourable;he was unableto seehow state-controlledindustry could provide any

answersto the evils of the systemit was intended to replace. Blanc!s proposals

Thackeray 'a remedy detestable that the appearedto as so absurd and ... worst

tyranny would be more acceptablefeasible and conducive to the general

happiness'.43 Ms concernhere demonstratesan inherent distrust of extreme

measures,seeing them ultimately as the causeof far worse problems.

Nevertheless,he was still concernedby injusticesin the distribution of wealth: 'I

4ORay,ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p. 225. 41 lbid. p-229. 42BiographicalEdition, Vol. 6, p-586. 'Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, pp.355-6. Further referencesto this volume appearin the text - 236

[sic] find the the between labour the cant end of question property and ... question of poverty is that of death diseasewinter or any other natural phenomenon. I dont

[sic] know how either is to stop'(356).

Just as the events of 1789 had arousedfears of revolution in England, the deposition of Louis Philippe causeddisquiet in governmentcircles. Thackeray

echoesthis mood and makesevident his feelings that, although reforms may be

desirable,these should be brought about by parliamentarymeans, rather than by

popular insurrection:

have We wont [sic] an armed or violent revolution here, pleaseGod -- and if we do every man of orderly feelings and peaceful notions in the country would be on the Govt. side. Republicansand all. I am for a social republic not communism-- My dear old parents. You will say I am a sad luke warm (357) reformer after this ...

The republicansympathies are evident, but the actual strategiesby which such

fundamentalreforms could be achievedwere, to Thackeray,a major concern.

Having turned away from Jerrold'sradicalism in the early days of Punch, he

remainedin favour of achievingpolitical aims through peacefulmeans and

widening parliamentaryrepresentation. Among someworkers' organizations,

however, there was a greater determinationto emulatethe French, and although

Peel'srepeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 had quietenedsome of the working-class

agitation, the Chartist Movement continued to causeconcern among government

circles. Despite earlier doubts about his abilities as a political commentator,

Thackeraywas still contributing news items to the Morning Chronicle. In April

1848, he wrote to his mother: 'I am writing a little for the Chronicle and getting

good pay' (373). During the previous month, the paper had printed reports of two

Chartist rallies, which have subsequentlybeen identified as the work of Thackeray

(846). 237

The first of thesereports deals with a Chartists' meeting on Kennington

Common, for'the purposeof adopting a congratulatory addressto the French

Republicans',and this followed a disorderly demonstration in Trafalgar Square, which had beenbroken up by police sometwo weeks previously." Kennington had been chosenfor the rally beingjust outside the area of one mile radius from

WestminsterHall, which was then under prohibition of public meetingsby Act of parliament. Thackerayrecords the event and speechesof the organizers,together with the reactionsof the crowd, in a straightforward narrative style. He remarks on the prudenceof the police in keeping their strong security precautionsout of the public gazeand commentsthat disturbanceswere minimal, adding somewhat reductively that 'the proceedingsyesterday were as dull, tame, and uninteresting as the "thrice told tale" of the Chartists generally is' (193). The presentationof a tricolour flag, intendedas a'coup-de-theatre', was 'signally ludicrous, and this symbol of insurgencewas 'pitilessly pelted with mud and stonesby the crowd' at the termination of the speeches(195). The'great Kennington-common demonstratioif endedwith a sharp shower of rain, which quickly dispersedthe crowd, exceptfortwo or three little boys crouching for shelterbeneath the waggons'. Throughout the report, there is a sensethat Thackerayfound the meeting an anticlimax; unnecessarilyexcessive police precautions,the failed coup4e-tNdire, and the final picture of small children shelteringfrom the rain lend irony to the descriptionof a 'great' demonstration.

The secondof thesereports on Chartist activities describesa meeting at the Literary institution in Tottenham Court Road and is much shorter. There is a

44G.Ray, ed., William MakepeaceThackeray: Contributions to the Morning chronicle (Urbana:University of Illinois Press, 1955), p. 192. Further referencesto this sourceare given in the text. 238 satirical touch in the explanation given for the absenceof one of the speakers. A memberof the delegationto France was 'carried away to such an extent by his enthusiasticfeelings, that he was laid on a sick bed at Paris', and this mocking, ironic tone continuesthroughout the reported speechof Ernest Jones,who delivereda'not altogether "unvarnished"tale of the trials he had passed,with a

"thousandhair-breadth'scapes by flood and field"' (199). During the following speech,the speaker'scomplaint against the press coverageof the event is describedas being 'rather pathetically' presented,and once more, an intended coup-de-thidire addsup to a senseof anticlimax. A'rusty old guillotine' is produced as evidenceof the deposedmonarch's cruelty, but the description was rather over-charged,and what was intended to excite a thrill endedin a titter'

(200-1).

It has to be rememberedthat this report from Thackeraywas almost certainly bound by the editorial orientation of the Chronicle towards the Chartist

Movement. However, whilst he may have adopted a reductive tone when Chartist reporting the meetingsin a national daily newspaper,in private he did not underestimatethe need to be aware of the dangersinherent in ignoring the

condition of the labouring classes,or the strength of a gatheringopposition to the

ruling minority. His diary for the period 10 to 15 March records:

I tried in vain to convince the fine folks at Mrs. FmCsthat revolution was upon us: that we were wicked in our scorn of the people. They all thought there was poverty & discomfort to be sure, but they were pretty good in themselves;that powder and liveries were very decent& proper though certainly absurd-- the footmen themselveswould not give them up CN. said --Why the gladiators in Rome were proud of their professionand the masterssaw nothing wicked in it. "

I Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, pp.364-5. 239

The ennui inspiredby the thrice-told tale' of the Chartist Movement, which was evident in his newspaperwork, sits less comfortably betweenthe pagesof his own diary. His failure to convince 'the fine folle of the errors and possible

consequencesof ignoring the poor is followed by a description of privileged indifference,which is chilling in its ignorance and complacency.

CS BO CIA&0 CISB11) CISL*)

Various commentarieson Thackeray'sfife at this time tend to question his

grasp of contemporaryissues. Lewes has already been quoted as saying that

Thackeraydid not align himself with causesor factions. Thesewords, as applied

to Thackeray,recall Butler's commentson Peacockmentioned in chapter two: 'if

Peacockbelieves in anything, he has not shown what.' Ray traces the development

of Thackerayspolitical sympathiesduring the 1848-50 period maintainingthat

'The revolutions of the former year had so impressedhim with the terrible

consequencesof putting radical political and social ideasinto action that he

excludedsuch topics from his own worle, and he avoided the work of other

authorswho employedtheir time '"unscrewing the old framework of society''.

However, the indications are that, although Thackeraywas opposedto violence

and revolutionary changes,he was not indifferent to the injusticesof the

mid-nineteenthcentury, and he continuedto use his satire to exposethese in the

belief that reforms were necessary,although theseshould only be implemented

within existing patternsof government.

This growing political awarenessbegan to affect his professional

relationships,however, and, in 1851, he found himself seriouslyout of tune with

"G. N. Ray, ThackeraV 7he Age qf Wisdom1847-63 (New York: McGraw-Mll, 1958), p.250. 240

Punch, when the paper published a caricature of Palmerstonas "The Judicious

Bottleholder", accompaniedby an article entitled "'Old Pam," alias "The Downing

Street Pet". He explainshis reactions in a letter written in early December:

I am in a fitry with Punch for writing the'Old Pam'article againstthe chief of foreign affairs. His conduct in the Kossuth affair just suited my Radical propensities. If he could have committed his governmentto a more advancedpolicy, so much the better; and that ribald Punch must go and attack him for just the best thing he has ever done."

Kossuth had fought for Hungarian independencein 1848, but his attempts to createa new republic had been brutally crushedby the combined strength of the

Russianand Austrian armies. He made a controversial visit to England in October

1851 and Palmerston,who was then Foreign Secretary,had to be restrainedfrom granting Kossuth an interview, instead meeting two radical delegationswho expressedtheir gratitude for his support of Kossuth against Austria. This scandalizedconservatives and was seenas a snub to the reigning monarchsof

Europe. As a result, Palmerstonresigned rather than apologize to the Queenand

Prime Minister. In a secondletter to Lady Stanley, Thackeraycomplained 'at the indecencyand injustice of attacking the only man who was holding the liberal causein Europe'." Later that month, following the coup dWat by which Louis

Napoleon seizedpower, he found, in the samepublication, a sketch entitled, 'A

Beggar on Horseback:or the BrummagernBonaparte out for a Ride', in which the brandishing Emperor is depicted a bloody sword, poised above a dead man and his ' grieving widow. He immediatelytendered his resignation. His objection was intended not as a gestureof support for Napoleon III, but an indication that he saw

him as a man who was mistakenin using violence to achievehis political aims: 'I

'Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p.816. 'Ibid., p.823. 'Altick, (1997), p.73 1. 241

it's honest impossible illogical still think an man pursuing an ruinous system -- not a selfishmonster but a despot on principle a wrong principle wh. entails the use of the worst acts, the worst agents& the most monstrous consequenceof ill' (16).

Although, in general,he supported republican modes of government, he shied away from the bloodshedby which this had been achievedin France.

Furthermore,as pointed out earlier in the discussionof his review of Carlyle's

French Revolution for the Times, he believed that the 'gibes'ofjournalists could inflame political situations. He fists his concernswith the conduct of Punch outlined above,and writes that in all these cases,"? uncw' followed the "Times", which I think and thought was writing unjustly at the time, and dangerouslyfor the welfare and peaceof the Country' (432).

Thackeray,in the late 1840s and early fifties, occasionallyreferred to himself as a radical. In the letter to Lady Stanleyquoted above, he adn-dtsto having'radical propensities!. In March 1855, he wrote to his mother: 'I've been

be Whig Quietist for long trying to a and a a time -- I cant [sic] bear it no longer horribly and am growing Radical though I think the Peeliteswere good and hardly "' usedmen. Here, 'horribly Radical' readsas a deliberateoverstatement of fact, an interpretation heightenedby the precedingungrammatical double negative. in reality, Thackeray'spolitical thinking bore little relationshipto the notion of radical as it hasbeen appliedto the agitators of the 1816-20 period. At most, he demonstratesinclinations towards classicliberalism, a desirefor political justice

for and reform with a preference republicanmodes of government,but only in so far as thesecould be achievedwithout violence, bloodshedand tyranny.

(S ZZ) CIS tpl) C1 B11) C53 R)

"'Ray, Letters, Vol. 3, ed., p.429. Further referencesto Vol. 3 are given in the text. 242

Although, strictly speaking,the 1850s fall outside the period of this discussion,it is necessaryto allude to some of Thackeray'slater work in order to show that his growing engagementwith the political issuesof his period was, in the main, consistent. During the fifties, he becamemore closely involved in the actualitiesof politics. He supported the Administrative Reform Association, delivered a seriesof lectures on the Hanoverian kings of England to the

Americans,and was adopted as an IndependentParliamentary candidate for the city of Oxford.

Thackeray'sinvolvement with the Administrative Reform Association was a transitory affair. This society, which attracted the attention of Dickens, was

founded in 1855, largely as a reaction to the plight of the army at Sebastopol. The

military disasterin the Crimea was seenby many as evidenceof an aristocratic

governmentthat was totally out of touch with the needsof the country. Dickens

spoke on behalf of the Association at Drury Lane in Junethat year, and

Thackeray,although a less active participant, also lent his support. Ray quotes

from a manuscriptspeech, prepared by Thackeraybut never delivered, in which he

exhorts his intendedaudience to '"so agitate the next parliament,as to make it

shakeoff someof the monstrous old trammelswh. make all parliamentsinefficient,

and destroy for the benefit of future Houses of Commons,some of the

corruptions, wh. weaken& degradethe country"."' The'monstrous old trammels'

were, of course,the monopoly of the ruling classesand inadequatepopular

representationin government. However, the Association, which Layard and

"Ray, Ihe Age of Wisdom(1958), p.253. 243

Dickens had hoped would spearheadthe emergenceof the educatedmiddle classes in representativegovernment, did not survive the summerof 1855.

Later that year, Thackeray set off on his secondAmerican lecture tour.

For the most part, 'The Four Georges' attracted popular acclaim with audiencesin

New York, Boston and Vir&ia, but his work was less well received by the press and individualsin England. Wilson writes that somejournals were'asserting that he would not dare to attempt deliver them [the lectures] among his own people', and quotesfrom an unflattering, anonymousletter to an unnamedperiodical: '"An elderly, infidel buffoon of the name Thackeray has been lecturing on the subject of the Four Georges." 052 Leslie Stephen,in histife of W. M. Thackeray',writes

more moderately:'Over-scrupulous Britons complainedof him for laying bare the

weaknessesof our monarchsto Americans,who were alreadynot predisposedin 53 their favour.' Thackeray'sdefence to these charges-- specifically, in this case, in Ihe Saturday to objectionsraised Review, 15 December 1855 -- is to be found

in a letter to Kate Perry, written from Savannah, Thackerayprotests: 'My lecture

is rather extra loyal wheneverthe Queenis mentioned and he continuesby

quoting the 'most applaudedpassage' from his talk on George 11:

'As the mistressof St. Jamespasses me now I salutethe sovereign,wise moderateexemplary of life, the good mother, the good wife, the accomplishedLady the enlightenedfliend of Art, the tender sympathiserin her peoples glories and sorrows!. I

He is, perhaps,a little too effusive in the 'rather extra' loyalty of his account of the

Queen'svirtues for his remarks to be taken completely literally. He continues: 'I

can't say more, can IT, and the reader is left with an impressionthat he would

IIJ, G. Wilson, Thackerayin the United States, 1852-3,1855-6 (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1904,Kraus Reprint Co., 1969), p. 202. 53Biographical Edition, Vol. 13, p.707. 14Ray,ed., Letters, Vol. 3, p. 564. 244 havebeen more credible had he said less, particularly when this is followed by an admissionof what amountsto skilful showmanship;he had discoveredthat his lecture on George HI concluded most effectively, just with the people on the crying point'.

The first three of the lectures were completed in England, the fourth being written en voyageto America. 'The Four Georges'is a curious pageantof fact, historical imagination and nostalgia, and Thackeray strongly deniesany political intention: Not about battles, about politics about statesmenand measures

of Statedid I ever think to lecture you. "' However, the reader becomes

increasinglyaware of an implicit undercurrent of discontent with the constitution

of power, the Church and the ruling classes. Thackeray presentsa chilling picture

of Europe in the time of George I:

As one views Europe, through contemporary books of travel, in the early landscape part of the last century, the is awful -- wretched wastes,beggarly and plundered;half-burned cottages and trembling peasantsgathering piteous harvests:gangs of such tramping along with bayonetsbehind them, and corporalswith canesand cat-of-nine-tails to flog them to barracks. (624)

As he developshis portrayal of power and oppression,Thackeray contrasts the

splendourof Versailleswith 'a nation enslavedand ruined', and goes on to point

out that this was not only the situation in France,but that the 'horrible stainsand

meanness,crime and shame'of royalty could be found everywhere:'In the first half

of the last century, I say, this is going on all Europe over. Saxonyis a waste as

well as Picardy or Artois; and Versailles is only larger and not worse than

Herrenhausen'(625).

When writing of George 11,his aim is more specificallypersonal:

"Biographical Echtion, Vol. 7, p.621. Further referencesto volume 7 will be given in the text. 245

had Here was one who neither dignity, learning, morals, nor wit -- who tainted a great society by a bad example;who, in youth, manhood, old age, was gross, low, and sensual;and Mr. Porteous, afterwardsmy Lord Bishop Porteous, saysthe earth was not good enough for him, and that his only place was heaven! Bravo Mr. Porteous! The divine who wept these tears over Georgethe Second'smemory wore George the Third's lawn. (662)

Here Thackerayopenly attacks the weaknessof hereditary rule which allows governmentby those who are unworthy of the privilege, and he satirizes

sycophanticmembers of the clergy who guaranteetheir own interestsby securing

royal patronage. Having found nothing to praise in George 11,he is more

compassionatetowards the memory of his successor,but shows no mercy in his

treatment of the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV. While his American

listenersmay havebeen delighted by the lively vignettes of society and court life,

they must surely have recoiled from the excessesof the Regencyand the personal

debts of the Prince Regent, which reachedas much as E650,000in one year and

were paid for with taxes taken from the people. Thackerayasks in exasperation:

What did he do for all this money? Why was he to have it? If he had been a

manufacturingtown, or a populous rural district, or an army of five thousand men

he would not have cost more! (689). The implication is that a manufacturing

town, or even an army, may at least have servedsome useful function.

CIS EO (.ý3 L*J CIS E01) es B*

Although PeacocVsletters demonstratea keen intellectual responseto

the political eventsof his period, he did not take an active role in politics.

Thackeray,on the other hand, in spite of his diffidence towards political theory,

was, on two occasions,actively involved in parliamentaryelection campaigns. As he a young man had been caught up in the excitementof the reform movementand

canvassedfor CharlesBuller at Liskeard in the 1832 election. However, his letters 246 and diaries of the period betray an enthusiasmfuelled by the excitement of new experiences,rather than a commitment to political ideals. He records a wealth of detail in his descriptionsof the people he met and the meetings,addresses, processionsand social eventshe attended,but there is little acknowledgement,or evenunderstanding, of the ideologies that lay behind all this activity: 'We canvassedfor Charlesvery assiduously& successfifflypledging him to reforms in politicks & religion of wh. we knew nothing ourselves." Much later, he became more closely involved on his own account.

Early in 1857, he was offered a Whig nomination for a vacant borough.

By May, however, he was writing that he was 'in disgracewith the Whigs who haveleft me off '. " The reasonfor this changein the course of events was that he was negotiating a candidatureas an Independentin an Oxford by-election. In july, he was at Oxford, obliged to rationalize his political beliefs which had never before beenfidly explained. The election manifestowhich bearshis name is brief

I would use my best endeavoursnot merely to enlargethe Constituencies, but to popularizethe Government of this Country. With no feeling but that of good will towards those leading Aristocratic Familieswho are administeringthe chief offices of the State, I believethat it could be benefitedby the skill and talents of personsless aristocratic and that the country thinks so fikewise. I think that to securethe due freedom of representation,and to defendthe poor voter from intimidation, the Ballot is the best safeguardwe know of, and would vote most hopefully for that measure.I would have the Suffrage amendedin nature, as well as in numbers;and hope to seemany EducatedClasses represented who have now no voice in Elections."'

He goes on to exhort patriotic support for whichever Ministry may be in power in the event of war, and concludesby promising that he would 'endeavourto increase

561;Lay, ed., Letters, Vol. 1, p.246. 57 Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 4, p.45. "Ibid., pp.382-3. 247 and advance the social happiness, the knowledge and the power of the people'.

There is no hint here of the republican sympathies that had begun to emerge since the 1848 Revolution in France and the tone is one of moderation, but he remains

ideals had true to certain which been apparent since his earliest connections with

Fraser's Magazine and PUnch, concepts that had intensified since the events of

1848. Thackeray was urging the electorate to accept that government was no longer the prerogative of a privileged few, and his promise of an extended suffiage, to include the 'many Educated Classes', reiterates the aims of the

Administrative Reform Association to reduce the power of the aristocracy in government. Since the extension of the franchise in 1832, a sizeable portion of the population had been able to take advantage of the national prosperity and new opportunities for education in order to gain social advancement. Many of these people, now financially stable, well-educated and substantially influential in business matters, were still excluded from the vote.

did Thackeray not gain his seat in Parliament,but it was not, however, an ignominiousdefeat. His Cardwell, opponent, went on to representOxford with a majority of only sixty-five votes. It may have been the memory of his busy and exhilaratingexperiences as a young man campaigningfor Buller which finally decidedhim take this step. Recent biographershave been dismissiveof his motives and his campaign. Taylor (2000) claims that his intentions in standingfor election were aimed at securinga public appointment." Peters points out that he stood for Parliament'with no preliminary canvassingin the constituency,and no more knowledge Of Politics than Colonel Newcome'. ' Thackeray,however,

I'D. J. Taylor, Thackeray(London: Pimlico, 2000), p.394. 'Peters, p.242. 248 believedthat it was his support for the Sunday opening of art galleries,museums and specialexhibitions that cost him the Seat.61 Aware that his opponentswere deliberatelymisrepresenting him on this question, he issueda broadsheet supplementto his manifesto, in which he declared: 'I believe the labouring man would enjoy thesesights in company with his family, and that the enjoyment of them would keep him from intoxication, not lead him into it, as opponentsof my views fear.61 'On Men and Pictures', discussedin chapter four, demonstrates

Thackeray'sevident delight in the spectacleof ordinary working people visiting the

Louvre on a Sundayafternoon. There is a sensethat his intention to extend this privilege to the labouring classesin his own country has lessto do with the needto encouragetemperance, or even to attract votes, but rather a desireto contribute to

,the social happiness,the knowledge and the power of the people'.

(Z Eý3 Qs to (z EO CIS to

Thackerayhas been criticized for the emphasishe placed on the

political interestsof the middle classes. It has to be remembered,however, that

agricultural labourersand the unskilled industrial workforce were not enfranchised

until the Redistribution Act of 1885, and in 1857, no parliamentarycandidate

would havebeen expectedto make a direct representationof their interests. At

that time, the working classeswere a race apart from the rest of society but,

although Thackerayoften satirized the upper and middle classes,he did not

ridicule the poor, describingtheir condition objectively, with sympathyand

respect. 'Sketchesand Travels in London, a seriesof articles which also included

'A Dinner in the City, was publishedin Pimch between 1847 and 1850. It is

61p Letters, Vol. 4, ýay' ed., p.5 5. 62Broadsheet dated July 18,1857, reprinted in Letters, Vol. 4, pp.382-3. 249

particularly interestingas, during this three year period of writing, also a turbulent

period of French history, Thackeray'swork illustrates a marked changein his

attitude towards humanitariancauses and the meansby which he presentsthese in

his writing.

The narrator of this series,Mr. Spec, has received less attention than

Thackeray'sother narratorial devices and is, perhaps,the least memorableof his Spec authorialpersonae. makes a rather illogical entranceinto an early edition of

Punch as the writer of Mr. Spec'sRemonstrance' (February 1843), when he

emergesas a penurioushistorical artist, a hybrid of Wagstafflanbluster and

Titmarsh'ssensibilities, canvassing for work on the magazine. This may well have

been Thackeray'sposition at the time, as he did not becomea retained memberof

the Punch staff until the Decemberof that year. Displaced by the Fat Contributor

and Jeamesde la Pluche in the interim Spec is reincarnatedsome years later, in form, Satyr less colourful a who has been'washed,combed and clothed', and has

learnedthe good mannersof a respectable,suburban family man.' The new Spec

is an astute,rather elderly, middle-classindividual who lacks the grotesquely

exaggeratedcharacteristics of Thackerays earlier narratorial creations. A resident

of 'one of the most healthy of the suburbsof this great City' and encumberedwith

an 'inconvenientlylarge family', he has numerousrelatives and acquaintances

whose social connectionshe is at pains to relate.' He appearsas a representative

of mid-nineteenth-centuryrespectability, someonein whom someof the Punch

readershipmay have beenexpected to recognizethemselves, and initially,

Thackerayundermines the middle-classmindset by satirizing Mr. Spec'sown

"Ch. 1, n. 35. 64BiWaphical Edition, Vol. 6, pp. 592-3. Further references to Vol. 6 will be given in the text. 250 attitude and social aspirations. However, as the seriesdevelops, the reader becomesaware of Spec'sown intellectual development. As his disillusionment with mid-nineteenth-centurysociety increases,he convincesthe reader of a

growing political consciousness.

Although Mr. Spec makes a brief referenceto his earlier work as an artist, he is presented,in the introduction to 'Travels in London', as an established

contributor to the magazine. Throughout the first number of the series,'The

Curate'sWalk, Spectakes on the role of the storyteller and there are eventsin the

narrativewhich, as an observer, he could not possibly have witnessed. The good

curate, the industriouslittle Betsy caring for her two small sisters,the feckless

rogue who lurks outside the pawnbroker'sback entranceand neglectshis family

for the gin-shop, appearas social stereotypes,the stock charactersof the fiction of

the period (545-52). The reader can no more believe that the narrator actually

undertook the long walk to SedanBuildings than he can accept the meeting in St.

James'sPark between Specand Mr. ]Punch,as describedin the introduction to the is, however, series. There a strong sensethat Thackerayis using Specto satirize fiction, stylizedforms of popular which offered sentimentalportrayals of virtue in

the face of poverty. In'Going to Seea Man Hanged', he makesexactly this point:

'Boz, who knows life well, knows that his Miss. Nancy is the most unreal,

fantastical He dare personagepossible ... not tell the truth concerning suchyoung 65 ladies.' In addition, Mr. Spec'sspurious generosity, as he distributes sixpences

and coppersto poor children, is shown to be an ineffectual middle-classgesture in

the face of intensehardship.

"Biographical Edition, Vol. 3, p,643. 251

The next piece in the series,'A Dinner in the City" deliberately sets the themesof wealth and poverty in juxtaposition and Spec'sintroduction immediately underminesthe Precedingchapters:

Out of a mere love of variety and contrast, I think we cannot do better, after leaving the wretched Whitestock among his starving parishioners,than transport ourselvesto the City, where we have been invited to dine with the Worshipful Company of Bellows-Menders, at their splendidHall in Marrow-pudding Lane. (553)

The disn-tissivelyblas6 reference to the 'wretched' curate and his 'starving

parishioners're-establishes the satiric mode of the text and servesto debunk any

sensethat Mr. Specis joining a humanitariancrusade. However, it is as a result of

the excessesof the feast in Marrow-pudding Lane that Mr. Specbegins to

undergo a transformation. Although his account is, initially, full of naive wonder

at the splendourand pageantryof the occasion, and Thackeraysubtly undermines

his narrator by presentingthese observationsin satirical terms, it becomesclear

that Specbegins to experiencesomething like guilt in the face of civic

extravaganceand excess:

'And, graciousgoodness! 'I said, 'what can be the meaningof a ceremony so costly, so uncomfortable, so unsavoury, so unwholesomeas this? Who is called upon to pay two or three guineasfor my dinner now, in this blessed year 1847? Who is it that cwi want muffins after such a banquet? Are there no poor? Is there no reason?Is this monstrousbelly-worship to exist for ever? (563)

The cultural significanceof the ceremony-- in Bakhtinian terms, the 'official feast,,

which reinforcesthe establishedsocial hierarchy-- hasalready been discussed in

chapterfour. In a political context, Thackerayuses Spec's outburst of rhetoric to

draw attention, not only to inequalitiesin the distribution of wealth, but also to the

complacencyof those who attempt to deny that this constitutesa form of injustice.

Pilkington, who was responsiblefor Spec'sinvitation to the banquet, is plainly 252 embarrassedby his guest'soutburst: I make no doubt that you for one have had too much!(563). Spec readily admits to the hangover that follows, but there is also in the text the subtle implication that his having had 'too much' refers to more than just the wine.

'Child's Parties' is written in the form of a letter to Punch from a

'constantreader', which identifies Mr. Spec closely with the audienceof the magazine(594). The irritation he displayed at the feast in Marrow-pudding Lane now extendsto the expenseand extravaganceassociated with the juvenile social scene. Through Spec,Thackeray makes it plain that by gratifying their own social aspirationsadults are corrupting the values and behaviour of the younger generation:'How can they be natural or unaffected when they are so preposterouslyconceited about their fine clothesT (596). Punishinghis own children for their 'pride', he meets-with opposition from his wife, just as Pilkington had resistedhis controversial ethics at the banquet.

in Waiting at the Station', Thackeraypursues the theme of class differentiation and shows authentic indignation at superficialvalues, which have emergedas a form of social control in perpetuatingthe misery of those who suffer disadvantage.There is no indication here of narratorial identity and the text echoesthe tone of a newspapereditorial. 'We are amongsta number of people' at a railway station, surveyinga group of poor women who are about to take advantageof charity assistedpassage to Australia (599). The travellers appearto have few regrets at leaving their friends and their native country, and the narrator, arguablyThackeray, compares this to the reaction of children who are forced to escapea neglectful family home. He forcefully accusesthose who W to take for responsibility the miserableplight of the women: 'You are in the wrong, under 253 whose governmentthey only had neglect and wretchedness;not they, who can't be called upon to love such an unlovely thing as misery, or to make any other return for neglectbut indifference and aversion' (599).

There is evidencethat Waiting at the Station' was written in responseto the work of Henry Mayhew, the 'clever and earnest-mindedwriter, whose letters to the Morning Chronicle exposing the condition of the poor were published betweenOctober 1849 and December 1850 (602). Thackerayattacks the complacencyand ignorance of his own classtowards the horrors of a fife in poverty and writes of Mayhews revelations: 'Yes; and these wonders and terrors havebeen lying by your door and mine ever sincewe had a door of our own.'

There is also evidencethat Thackeray hadjust read Mayhews most recent contribution. 'The Merchant Seamen'wasprinted in the Morning Chronicle of

7 March 1850,just two days beforeVaiting at the Station' appearedin Punch, and Thackeray'sversion of the sleepingarrangements on board the best en-dgrant ships(603) tallies almost exactly with Mayhews description. '

However, even if he did borrow from another periodical writer's research,there is no mistaking the honest indignation in this direct addressto his readers:

But what I note,what I marvelat, what I acknowledge,what I amashamed of, what is contraryto Christianmorals, manly modesty and honesty, and to the nationalwell-being, is that thereshould be sucha socialdistinction betweenthe well-dressedclasses (as, if you will permitme, we call ourselves),and our brethrenand sisters in the fustianjackets and pattens. (601)

'H. Mayhew, 'The Merchant Seamen',Morning Chronicle, March 7th 1850, from UnknownMayhew, eds.E. P. Thompson and E. Yeo, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971), p.364. 254

Here, Thackerayis not iinplying the need for a fundamentalredistribution of

wealth; he had never entertainedcommunism as a realistic possibility and freely

admittedto seeingno answer to the question of 'property and labour'.67 Unlike

Peacock,he doesnot investigate political ideologies, and neither writer proposes

theoretical solutionsto practical problems. His satire questionsthe justice of a

systemwhich results in the misery he hasjust witnessed,and the attitude, accepted

by membersof his own class, that those who have money should consider

themselvesmorally superior to those who have none. The injustice of this is more

than just a questionof morality: the social discrimination of the mid-nineteenth

century takes on a political meaning,undermining the well-being of the nation.

Australia is represented in idealized terms, where future generations,

ignorant of 'that Gothic society, with its ranks and hierarchies, its cumbrous

ceremonies, its glittering antique paraphernalia, in which we have been educated',

will five in'in the midst of plenty, freedom, [and] manly brotherhood' (602), The

reader is introduced to the possibility of a new society, in which generosity and

hard work will replace the acquisition of money as the criteria of respect.

Expressed in terms of 'plenty, freedom' and 'brotherhood', Thackeray's ideal both

echoes the cry of nineteenth-century liberalism and foreshadows Bakhtin's later

cultural conception of 'carnival', which offered, however temporarily, 'a second

life for the people, in a'utopian realm of community, freedom, equality and

abundance'.68

03, &-) C-99Loll) (Z EVII) (Z EO

67Ray, ed., Letters, Vol. 2, p. 356.. 68Ch. 4, n. 3. 255

in concluding this chapter, it needsto be emphasizedthat, despite their different approachesto political issues,both Peacock and Thackeraywere fundamentallyunited in their rejection of injustice, corruption and the monopoly of power. Like the cultural and social topics of their satire, however, their responses to the complex questionsof politics and government provided no authoritative resolutions. Peacockcommunicated his own intellectual deliberationsthrough the mediumof his satire; Thackeray faithfully reported his observationsof contemporarysociety and culture; both ridiculed the ignoranceof those who failed to questionthe flawed attitudes and opinions of their period.

Peacock!s satirical challengeto historically establishedpolitical ideologiesemployed elements of the Menippean sub-genre,in the sensethat it has come to be understoodas a mode of philosophical investigation. Respondingto the political eventsand situations of the 1815-30 period, he made structural adaptationsto his prose fictions in order to emphasizethe political focus of his

satire. The novelistic style of MaidMarian and Ae Misfortunes of Elphin

presentsan integral layer of polemical debatewithin the familiar framework of old

folk tales and legends. Unlike his other satirical fictions, in which the juxtaposition

of ideasis realizedin the dialogue of his speakers,he usescharacters within the

action of the plot to expresshis themes,interrupting the progressof the narrative

with authorial insertionsin order to illustrate relevant parallelsin contemporary

issues.

WhereasThackeray's early writings mirror a personalresponse to

experiencesand events,his later magazinecontributions and lectures demonstrate

a more objective awarenessof political responsibility. Although his views cannot

be describedas 'radical', in the sensethat the term hasbeen used in the context of 256 the post-Waterloo period, the constraints of editorial control on his modes of publication haveled to misunderstandingsthat his politics were rigidly circumscribedby rniddle-classprejudices. However, attention to his private correspondenceand some of his writings indicates that, as his personalresponses to contemporaryevents intensified, he becameconscious that many of the social attitudeswhich formed the subject of his satire were a reflection of political issues.

Those few periodical contributions in which he dispenseswith reporting conventionsand addresseshis readersdirectly evince a strong senseof moral conviction. However, the complex interaction of satire and narratorial strategies employedthroughout his writing rescuethe work from the didacticism of formal modesof the genre,preserving the dialogic quality of the text. 257

Conclusion

Until comparatively recently, literary criticism has interpreted satire as a moraldidactic mode of discourse.This hasled to a reluctanceto consider innovativeapplications of the genre,and from the beginningof the nineteenth century,satirists whose work did not conformto traditionalparadigms received little seriouscritical consideration. Furthermore, during the immediate post-Waterlooperiod, cultural barriers developed,as satirecame to be associated with socialunrest and the radicalpress.

Attentionto recenttwentieth-century critical analysesof Menippean satirehas thrown new fight on the genericinheritance of someforms of nineteenth-centurysatirical writing. However,as the sub-genrehas come under scrutiny,some analyses of the modehave been rigorously applied, echoing the earlierconstraints imposed by the prescriptiveparadigms of formal satire. A more is identify realisticapproach to thoseelements of Menippeanwriting which appear in the work of Peacockand Thackeray, using these to demonstratethe breadthand scopeof the form asit hasinfiltrated a varietyof literarystyles.

Thewritings of both authorsdiscussed here have been selected mainly fi7omthe 1815-50period and illustrate how literaryconcepts of satirehave inhibitedcritical interpretations of their texts, Placedin the broadertradition of

Europeanseriocomic fiction, their work demonstrateselements of the Menippean mode,which emphasize the essentiallydialogic character of their satire. Both writersattacked their targetsfrom differentperspectives, each using several differentvoices in orderto preservehis authorialdistance. Peacock achieved this by thejuxtaposition of fictionalspeakers who debatedthe ideologicalconcepts of his generation.Thackeray assumed fictional authorial personae, whose narratives 258 he subsequentlyundermined, to ridicule contemporary social and cultural attitudes. The satire of both writers rejects the traditionally monologic form of the genre and disseminatesa diversity of opinion, as opposed to the affirmation of a definitive point of view.

Peacock'swork is able to comply with some of the more rigorous interpretationsof Menippean satire. As he exposedthe fallacies of contemporary philosophicalmisconceptions, he also ridiculed those who used authoritative speechto presentflawed opinions. His topics were often bizarre enthusiasms, which happenedto becomefashionable for a time, but sometimeshe investigated complex philosophieswhich were fundamentalto the predominantculture and deeplyentrenched in contemporary politics. Peacock has alreadybeen identified as a writer in the Menippeantradition, and this critical perspectiveeffectively frees his satirical fictions from the misusedclassification of 'novels'. Although he did

for his adopt a novelistic structure two political satires,his use of plot, action and characterscontinued to remain subsidiaryto the main purpose of the text, which was to investigatethe substanceof his ideological themes.

Thackeray'sapproach to writing has not receivedmuch attention in the context of Menippeansatire, and it may be argued that his work, which lacked intellectualmotivation, does not conform to recent interpretationsof the mode as a form of intellectual investigation. This, however, is a culturally restricted point of view and doesnot recognizethe historical associationsof the sub-genreas it in his appears periodical contributions. Thackeray'scomplex layersof satire, together with the ambivalentirony he usesto underminehis own narratives,create

a disorderedsense of purpose,and show a distinct relationshipto elementsof

Menippeanwriting which have influencedEuropean seriocomicliterature. 259

A contextual account of changing modes of publication has emphasized how the widening distribution of printed material among new sectionsof the population generatedincreasingly homogeneousreading audiences. Satire was dislodgedfrom its former elevated position by the Romantic schoolsof writing, and againsta background of commercial publishing practices,the genre began to migrate towards the literature of the popular culture. Although Peacock's satire was essentiallycounter-Romantic, and he used to it to evaluatethe underlying ideologiesof the predominant culture, his work remainedfirmly entrenchedin the scholarlyideals of authorship, directed towards those who were sufficiently educatedto appreciatehis wit and erudition. Thackeray'saudiences were drawn from a broadercross-section of the reading population, and his writing was to someextent determinedby the corporate identity of the periodicalswhich publishedhis work. However, it does not seemto be too much of a generalization to saythat his earlyjournalism was addressedto an undefined,but predominantly middle-class,group of readers,which madeup a significant proportion of the early modem public readership.

Referenceto Bakhtin's analysisof the influencesof folk traditions in

Europeanseriocomic fiction has helped to supply this section of the literary market

with a generichistory. Thackeray'searly work was deeply engagedin the

commercialinterests of publishing, and throughout his career,he was obliged to

negotiate strategieswhich would balancemarket practiceswith his own need to

retain a senseof authorial integrity. Although his assimilationof imagesof folk

culture into someof the narratorial devicesincorporated into his fiction setsit in

the commercialcontext of the periodical marketplace,this aspectof his work also

reflects elementsof a more significant literary tradition. 260

Both writers parodied popular contemporaryfiction. Peacockassumed an elevatedcritical perspective,attacking authors and reviewerswho failed to meet his esotericideals of scholarly excellence. On the other hand, Thackeray's literary reviews challengedthis hierarchical view of literature. His early fiction was shapedby the needsof a consumermarket and of readerswho were relatively new to the readinghabit and sought entertainmentrather than enlightenment.

Aware that the standardsof the establishedcritical reviews had little relevanceto the work of an emerginggeneration of new writers, he negotiateda more eclectic overview of contemporaryfiction.

In the political arenaof the late eighteenthcentury, Horatian and

Juvenaliansatire, the two predominant modesof the genre,had becomeassociated with oppositionalparty preferences. Used in this way, the constraintsof the formal stylesof the genre are even more apparent. The satirist, in an attack on conflicting political interests,maintains an intrinsically monologic,value structure, an authoritative doctrine to which he endeavoursto persuadethe reader. If the satirist is to take on a constructive role in political reform, it is first of all necessary for him to investigatethe substanceof his own argument. This dialogic processis clearly demonstratedin Peacockswork, particularly in Maid Marian, in which the whole concept of monarchyis shown to be corrupted by superstitionand power strugglesbefore being reaffirmed in the closing chaptersof the book.

Both Peacockand Thackerayresponded to the political climate of the

1815-50period, but the latter's eventualinvolvement in politics was the product rather than a focus of his satire. His acknowledgementof the political implications of social attitudes appearsto have crystallizedas a reaction to the 1848

Revolution in France. There is also a sensethat his involvementin politics was, in 261

Bakhtinian terms, a processof ideological 'becoming',the result of prolonged satirical investigationsinto the superficial and prosaic values of his own middle-classculture.

Peacockand Thackerayrarely attemptedto resolvethe problems thrown up by the ideological discrepanciesrevealed in their satire, and both have beencriticized for what appearsto be a lack of prior assumptionin their fiction.

The dialogic mode of discoursecommon to both writers confirms that the

Menippeanstrain of the genre works as an open processof discovery, an instrumentof literary and philosophical enquiry rather than a meansto its own end.

Whereas earlier critical analysis focused on verse forms of satire, those elements of the Menippean mode identified here in the work of Peacock and

Thackeray offer fresh insights into the nature of the genre as it has been used in the nineteenth-century novel. Kaplan has already suggested Menippean readings of Hawthorne's Blithedale Romance (1852) and Melville's Moby-Dick (185 1), both written during the period when Thackeray began to emerge as a novelist. '

Mallock's New Republic (1877) is so similar in structure to Peacock's satires that it justifies a re-evaluation. From twentieth century literature, Huxley's Crome

Yellow (192 1) and Waugh's Scoop (193 8) both demonstrate the type of intellectual

curiosity associated with Menippean fiction.

It would be inappropriate to present a dogmatic conclusion to a

discussion of a literary form which centres on a resistance to authoritative opinion.

Menippean satirists will continue to investigate and interpret the various versions

of the 'truth' as it is expressed by future generations. As a mode of ideological

' Kaplan, pp.79-90 and 114-30. 262 enquiry, and as a significant part of the literary tradition, Menippeansatire is unlikely to run out of subject matter, and as the title of the last chapter implies, there can be no final word. 263

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Peacock,Thomas Love, The Works of 7homasLove Peacock, ed. by H. F. B Brett-Sn-fithand C.E. Jones, Halliford Edition, Vol. 1,'Biographical Introduction and HeadlongHall'(London: Constable& Co., 1934)

Peacock,Thomas Love, The Works of Ihomas Love Peacock,ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith & C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition, Vol Vl, 'Poems'(New York: AMS Press,1927,1967)

Peacock,Thomas Love, The Works of YhomasLove Peacock,ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith & C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition, Vol. VII, 'Poemsand Plays' (New York: AMS Press,1931,1967)

Peacock,Thomas Love, The Workv of Aomas Love Peacock,ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith & C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition, Vol. VIII, 'Essays,Memoirs, Letters & UnfinishedLetters' (New York: AMS Press, 1934,1967)

Peacock,Thomas Love, Ae Worksof 7homasLove Peacock, ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith & C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition, Vol. IX 'Critical & Other Essays' (New York: AMS Press, 1926,1967)

Peacock,Thomas Love, Zhe Workvof 7homavLove Peacock,ed. by H. F. B. Brett-Smith & C. E. Jones,Halliford Edition, Vol. X, 'Dramatic Criticisms and Translations& Other Essays'(New York: AMS Press, 1926,1967)

Peacock,Thomas Love, The Novels of ThomavLove Peacock,ed. by David Garnett (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1948)

Peacock,Thomas Love, Nightmare AbbeylCrotchet Castle, ed. by Raymond Wright (London: PenguinClassics, 1986)

Peacock,Thomas Love, Headlong Hall and Nightmare Abbey (London: Macmillan 1896)

Peacock,Thomas Love, Gryll Grange, Pocket Classics(Gloucester: Alan Sutton, 1984)

ThackerayWilliam Makepeace,7he Worksof William MakepeaceThackeray, Biographical Edition, Vol 1,'Vanity Fair' (London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray,William Makepeace,Me Worksof William MakepeaceThackeray, Biographical Edition Vol. 11,'The lEstory of Pendennis'(London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898) 264

Thackeray,William Makepeace,7he Worksqf William Makepeace 77jackeray, BiographicalEdition, Vol. Ill'Yellowplush Papers&c. '(London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray, William Makepeace, 7he Works of William Makepeace Thackeray, Biographical Edition, Vol. IV, 'The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon: The Fitzboodle Papers &c. '(London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray,William Makepeace,Ae Works of William Makepiece Thackeray, BiographicalEdition, Vol. V, 'Sketch Books &c. ' (London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray,William Makepeace,Ae Worksof William Makepiece 7hackeray, BiographicalEdition, Vol. V 1, 'Contributions to Punch &c. ' (London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray,William Makepeace,The Works of William Makepiece Thackeray, BiographicalEdition Vol. IX'Christmas Books &c. '(London: Smith Elder & Co. 1898)

Thackeray,William Makepeace,The Worksqf William Makepiece Thackeray, BiographicalEdition Vol. MR, 'Ballads and Nfiscellanies'(London: Smith Elder & Co. 1899)

Thackeray,Wifliarn Makepeace,Barry Lyndon andMiscellanems Papers 1843-1857,The Oxford Thackeray,ed. by George Saintsbury(London: New York: Oxford University Press[n. d.])

Harden, Edgar F., ed., SelectedLetters of William Makepeace Thackeray (London: Basingstoke:Macmillan, 1996)

Ray, Gordon N. ed., 7he Letters atul Private Papers of William Makepeace 7hackeray,Vol. 1,1817-1840 (Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press,1946)

Ray, Gordon N. ed., 7he Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray,Vol. 11,1841-1851(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1946)

Ray Gordon N. TheLetters ,I ed., and Prilate Papers of William Makepeace 7Mckeray, Vol. 111,1852-1856(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1946)

Ray, Gordon N. ed., Ae Letters and Private Papers qf William Makepeace Thackeray,Vol. IV, 1857-1863(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,1946)

Ray, Gordon N, ed., William Makepeace Thackeray: Contributions to the Morning Chronicle (Urbana: University of Illinois Press,1955) 265

Bakhtin, Mikhail, Problew ofDostoevskyývPoeficv, ed. by Michael Holquist, trans. by Caryl Emmerson,Theory and History of Literature, Volume 8 (Minneapolis:London: University of Minnesota Press, 1984)

Bakhtin, M. M., Ae Dialogic Imagination: Four F-ssays,ed. by NEchael Holquist, trans. by Caryl Emerson and Nfichael Holquist, University of Texas Press Slavic Series, No. I (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981,2000)

Bakhtin, A M., Rabelais ard his World, trans. by H&ne Iswolsky, First Midland Book Edition (Bloornington: Indiana University Press, 1884)

Byron, Lord Byron: SelectedP(wms, ed. by SusanL. Wolfson and Peter J. Manning (London: PenguinClassics, 1996)

Carlyle, Thomas,Reminiscences, eds. K. J. Fielding, Ian Campbell,World's Classics(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Dryden, John, Of Drwnatic Poesyand Other Critical Essays,Vol. 2, Everyman Library (London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1962)

Godwin, William, 'Of 11istoryand Romance',Ihings as 7heyAre: or, the Adventuresqf Caleb Williams, ed. by M, Hindle (London: Penguin 1794,1988)

Godwin, William, Aing. v av Aey Are: or, Ae Adventures!of Caleb Wilfiam.v, ed. by David MacCracken(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1794,1970)

Hazlitt, Wiffiani, Essayson the English Comic Writers: MiscellaneouvEssays, EverymanEdition (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, [n.d. ])

Horace, Satires and Epistles, ed. by D. Rudd ( London: Penguin, 1973,1977)

Hunt, Leigh, TheAutobiography ofLeigh Hunt, ed. by E. Blunden ([Oxford]: Oxford University Press, 1928)

Nlill, John Stewart,Autobiography (New York: New American Library, 1964)

Petronius, TheSatyricon, ed. and trans. by P.G. Walsh, oxford World Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Plato, Ae Symposium,ed. and trans. by ChristopherGill (London: Penguin Classics,1999)

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, The Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Vol. 1, 'A Part of the Elect"I ed. by Betty T. Bennett (Baltimore: London: John Hopkins University Press, 1980)

Shelley,Percy Bysshe,New ShelleyLetters, ed. by W. S. Scott, (London: Bodley Head, 1948) 266

Shelley,Percy Bysshe,Shelley's Prose, ed. by D. L. Clark (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1954)

Shelley,Percy Bysshe,The Complete Worksof Shelley, Vol. 9, ed. by Roger Ingpen (New York: Gordian Press, 1965)

Shelley,Percy Bysshe,Ihe Prose Worksof Percy ByssheShelley, ed. by Forman H. Buxton (London: Reevesand Turner, 1880)

Ihe Spirit of the Public JournalsfOr the YearMDCCCXMV, ed. by C. M. W. (London: Sherwood,Jones and Co., 1825)

Wordsworth, William and Coleridge SamuelTaylor, Lyrical Ballads 1805, ed, by Derek Roper (London: MacDonald& Evans, 1968,1976)

Periodicals

Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 16, November 1837 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. !7, January 1838, May 1838, June 1838 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 2 1, February 1840 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 22, August 1840, October 1840 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 23, June 1841 Magazine, Vol. 24, Fraser's July 1841, September- December184 1. Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 25, October 1842 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 26, July 1842 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 27, January-june 1843 Fraver's Magazine, Vol. 28, August-October 1843 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 29, January-March1844 Fraser's Magazine, Vol. 33, March-April 1846

Punch, Vol. 9,2 August, 1-29 November, 6-27 December1845 Punch, Vol. 10,3-31 January,7 February 1846 Punch, Vol. 11, July -December 1846

Secondary Sources

Altick, Fichard D., TheEnglish CommonReader: A Social History qf the Mass Reading Public, 1800-1900(Chicago: London: University of ChicagoPress, 1957)

Altick, Richard D., The Lively Youth of a British Institution, 1841-1851 (Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1997)

Blanchard,W. Scott, Scholar'sBedlam: Menippean Satire in the,Renaissance (London: Toronto: AssociatedUniversity Presses,1995)

Booth, Wayne C., 77ieRhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: London: University of ChicagoPress, 1961,1968) 267

Bruce, Donald, Thackeray'sMemorials of Defeat', ContemporaryReview, Vol. 262, March 1993,pp. 151-58

Bruce, Donald, 'Thackeray: The Sentimental Sceptic', Contemporary Review, Vol. 262, June 1993, pp. 313-21

Bums, Bryan, Me Novels of 7homasLove Peacock (London: Sidney:Croom HeIn 1985)

Butler, Marilyn, PeacockDispkiyed. - A Satirist in his Context (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979)

Carey, John, Thackeray:Prodigal Genius (London: Faber & Faber, 1977)

Coffey, Michael, Roman Satire (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976)

Cox, JeffreyN., Poetry and Politics in the CockneySchool: Keats, Shelley,Hunt and 7heir Circle, CambridgeStudies in RomanticismNo. 31 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998)

Dawson, Carl, His Fine Wit (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970)

Dentith, Simon, Bakhtinian Mought: An Introductory Reader (London: New York: Routledge, 1995)

Dentith, Simon,Parody, New Critical Idiom Series(London: Routledge, 2000)

Dyer, Gary, British Satire and the Politics of Style, 1789-1.832,Cambridge Studiesin RomanticismNo. 23, (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997)

Dyson, A. E., Ae Crazy Fabric: EsWv in Irony (London: Macmillan, 1975)

Felton, Felix, ThomasLove Peacock (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973)

Fisher, Judith, 'Ethical Narrative in Dickens and Thackeray',Studies in the Nowl, Vol. 29, Spring 1997, pp. 108-17

Frye, Northrop, An Anatomy of Criticism: Four Esays (New York: Atheneum, 1957)

Frost, Anthony and Yarrow Ralph, Improvisations in Drama ( Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990)

Griffin, D., Satire: A Critical Reintroduction (Lexington: University Pressof Kentucky, 1994)

Gilmartin, Kevin, Print Politics: ThePress and the Radical Opposition in Early Nineteenth-CenturyEngland (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1996) 268

Harris, Mchael, ed., Studiesin Newspaperand Periodical History 1993 A nnual (Connecticut:London: Greenwood Press, 1994)

Harris, Michael and O'Malley Toni, eds., Studies in Newspaperand Periodical History: 1996Annual (Connecticut: London: Greenwood Press, 1997)

Harrison, J. F. C., Early Victorian Britain 1832-51 (London: Fontana Press, 1971,1988)

Herford, C. H., Ihe Age of Wordsworth(London: Bell, 1899)

lEghet, Gilbert, TheAnatomy of Satire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962)

Hodgart, Matthew, Satire (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969)

Jones,Steven E., Satire and Romanticism (Basingstoke:London: Macmillan, 2000)

Jordan,John 0. & Patten Robert L., eds.,Literature in the Marketplace.- NineteenthCentury British Publishing and Reading Practices (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995)

Joukovsky, Nicholas A., 'Peacock's Sir Oran Haut-ton: Byron's Bear or Shelley's Ape? 'Keats-Shelley Journal, Vol. 29 (1980), pp. 173-90,

Joukovsky, Nicholas A., 'Thomas Love Peacock's Manuscript Poems of 1804', Studies in Bibliography, Vol. 47 (1994), pp. 197-212.

Justman,Stewart, Ae Springs of Liberty: The Satiric Tradition and Freedom qf Speech(Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1999)

Kaplan, Carter, Critical Synoptics:Menippean Satire and the Analystv of Intellectual Mythology (London: AssociatedUniversity Presses,2000)

Kiernan, Robert F., Frivolity Unbound- Six Mavters of the Camp Novel, New York: Continuum, 1990)

Klancher, Jon P., 7heMaking of English Reading A udiences,1790-1832 (Wisconsin:University of Wisconsin Press, 1987)

Madden, Lionel, 7homasLove Peacock, Literature in PerspectiveSeries (London: EvansBrothers, 1967)

Mills, Howard, Peacock: His Circle and His Age (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1969)

Mullen, Richard, 'Thackeray:Man of Letters', ContemporaryReview, Vol. 266, pp. 187-92 269

Pearson,Richard, WM Thackerayawl the Mediated Text: Writingfor Periodicals in the Mid-Nineteenth Century (Aldershot: Ashgate,2000)

Peters,Catherine, 7hackeray: A Writer's Life (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999)

Priestley,J. B., ThomasLove Peacock (London: Macmillan, 1927,1966)

Ray, Gordon N., The Buried Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952)

Ray, Gordon N., Thackeray: 7he UsesofAdversity, 1811-1846(London: Oxford University Press, 1955)

Ray, Gordon N., Thackeray: TheAge of Wisdom, 1847-63 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958)

RelihanJoel C., Ancient Menippean Satire (Baltimore: London: John Hopkins University Press, 1993)

Rudlin, John, CommediadellArte: An Actor's Handbook (London: Routledge, 1994)

Siskin, Clifford, The Work qf Writing. Literature and Social Changein Britain, 1700-1832(Baltimore: London: John Hopkins University Press,1998)

Taylor, D. J., Aackeray (London: Pimlico, 1999,2000)

Thompson,E. P., 7he Making of the English Working Class (New York: Random House, 1963,1966)

Thompson,E. P. and Yeo Eileen, eds., Me UnknownMayhew: Selectionv.from the Morning Chronicle, 1849-50 (Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks, 1971,1984)

TiHotson,Geofrrey, 7backeray the Novelist (London: Methuen, 1974,1963)

Tillotson, GeoffTeyand Hawes Donald, eds., Thackeray: The Critical Heritage (London: Routledge& Kegan Paul, 1968)

Wilson, James Grant, Thackeray in the United States, 2 Vols., 1852-3,1855-6 (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1904, New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1969)