Social Satirists in the Novels of Thackeray

Abstract

The subject of William Makepeace Thackeray an d his work has been but barely explored in consideration of the possibilities for study in a figure so significant of his age. The most complete and valuable critical work available to date is John W. Dodd's Thackeray, A Critical Portrait, published in 1941 by t he Oxford University Press. Work on Thackeray's life was delayed and hampered by his express wish to his family that no biography be written. Students of literature are indebted to Anthony Trollope and to Herman Merivale and Frank T. Marzials for interpreting Thackeray's command as an antipathy to a prevalent type of sentimental eulogy. They thought it not contrary to the feelings of their friend to publish accounts of his life which would no t be marred by affectation or hyperbole. The most valuable works which have be en added to the efforts of these first biographers are a two-volume life by Lewis Saul Benjamin and collections of letters, some of which are still being released, from time to time, by his family. Much of Thackeray's personal experience was poured into his novels. Consequently, almost every discussion of his works includes comparison of the author with the characters among whom he divided his life, Arthur Pendennis, Clive Newcome, and Philip Firmin. So many events in the careers of these young men coincide with the facts of Thackeray's life that critics are tempted to attribute to the author the remaining experiences of his creatures, but these have no verification in the biographical data available. For example, Mr. Merivale suggests, because of Pen's affair with the Fotheringay, "that in the narrow precincts of the Exeter Theatre, Thackeray wooed, loved and lost," though he is careful to admit that there is no legend to substantiate the hypothesis. This hunt for autobiography in Thackeray's works leads to the complementary search for originals of the other characters. Prototypes are plainly visible, and, again, nearly all discussions of this author devote some space to the possibilities among Thackeray's friends. The possibilities are multiple and some debate has ensued from differences in claims, especially regarding the Colonel of The Newcomes. P. Q. Krishnaswami collected some of these theories and added his own conclusions in articles for The Comhi1l Magazine during 1927 and '28. Careful checking of chronology in the Thackeray novels by W. A. Hirst has revealed mistakes imperceptible to the casual reader but not frequent or serious enough to discredit the remarkable dove tailing of events which makes a chain of all the novels from Vanity Fair to The Virginians, as Mr. Hirst describes in his exact and practical study. An almost totally neglected field of criticism in Thackeray's drawings is suggested by Dodds. Inferior in technical skill to his contemporaries, Leech, Cruikshank, Doyle and DuMaurier, he is not thought of as an artist. But he was the only novelist to illustrate his own works, and his drawings, imperfect as they are, most aptly interpret and reinforce his criticism of life. Becky, reduced to caricature, is a vixenish Mona Lisa; Amelia , a pretty imbecile; and Thackeray himself, a flat-nosed, bespectacled jester in fool's uniform, with a humorous mask in his lap and an expression of wistful melancholy on his face. His ballads might also be looked to as illustrative of the purpose and concepts of his novels. His love of burlesque and hatred of sham find expression in terse, felicitous rhymes that should delight the critics who complain of his more expansive side-essay treatments in the novels. Thackeray's literary ancestors and his relation to the other novelists of his age furnish another approach to the complete appreciation of his work. His roots are in the Eighteenth Century, but, though he passed over the romantics to join with Fielding, he did not entirely escape their atmosphere. He writes with the critical, wistful grace of Goldsmith, Steele, and Addison. He has an affinity with Richardson, Austen and Scott in the matter of family life and relationship. Comparison with Scott and Dickens, carried out on a purely objective basis, clarifies the art of each of these three literary giants. This approach is directly and positively presented by Ernest Albert Baker in his History Of The English Novel and by Chauncey W. Wells in an essay, Thackeray And The Victorian Compromise. These questions are mentioned here with the realization that a separate, thorough investigation of each would add desirable depth to the point under consideration in this paper. This study is concentrated upon Thackeray's use of character for social satire. Its purpose is to present from the novels a plain, composite picture of the objects of satire in early Victorian society and a collection of social generalizations deduced therefrom. Its method is to organize the matter of the three great novels of Victorian manners under frequently recurring types of character. In doing this, no attempt is made to frame the whole of Thackeray; for copiousness, variety, and the absence of any deliberate plan are his peculiar characteristics as a novelist. Nor is it implied that Thackeray consciously devised these types of character and fitted his material to them. But it is clear, from the whole of Thackeray's work, from his ballads, from his sketches, from the numerous papers for Fraser's and Punch and from his lectures, as well as from the novels, that his mind was naturally bent upon seeing circumstances in social life which shaped the motives and conduct of individuals, and often reduced them to common denominators even while they retained their individualizing features. This organization should assist the claims of greatness for Thackeray as the social historian of his age, and should relieve some of the misunderstandings regarding his technique of characterization and deficiency of plot. Baker defines the novel as "the interpretation of human life by means of fictitious narrative in prose." Wells expands the definition to insist on "a full blend of society's ideals and customs," explaining that “….the novelist may omit to record public events, …. but must not omit the stir of events and the effect of institutions upon the lives of men and women, upon social groups, upon society as a whole …. and he must not miss the cast of thought, the tone and temper of his age.” According to these concepts, Thackeray's excellence as a novelist is beyond dispute. The appreciation of Thackeray attempted in this paper suffers by the omission of his greatest work, The History Of Henry Esmond. This novel deviates from his general pattern in several respects, most obviously by its presentation of the life and manners of an earlier century. It is worthy of an exclusive study, along similar lines of organization, together with its sequel The Virginians in which is completed the life-span of Beatrix, Thackeray's fullest portrait of a woman. The Adventures of Philip has been given no space in this discussion because it adds so little to the conceptss fully developed by the completion of The Newcomes.