English Literature
looking for it. Thackeray, after a boyhood spent in the best of English
schools, with money, friends, and comforts of every kind, faces life
timidly, distrustfully, and dislikes the literary work which makes him
famous. He has a gracious and lovable personality, is kind of heart, and
reveres all that is pure and good in life; yet he is almost cynical toward
the world which uses him so well, and finds shams, deceptions, vanities
everywhere, because he looks for them. One finds what one seeks in this
world, but it is perhaps significant that Dickens sought his golden fleece
among plain people, and Thackeray in high society. The chief difference
between the two novelists, however, is not one of environment but of
temperament. Put Thackeray in a workhouse, and he will still find material
for another _Book of Snobs;_ put Dickens in society, and he cannot help
finding undreamed-of possibilities among bewigged and bepowdered high lords
and ladies. For Dickens is romantic and emotional, and interprets the world
largely through his imagination; Thackeray is the realist and moralist, who
judges solely by observation and reflection. He aims to give us a true
picture of the society of his day, and as he finds it pervaded by intrigues
and snobbery he proceeds to satirize it and point out its moral evils. In
his novels he is influenced by Swift and Fielding, but he is entirely free
from the bitterness of the one and the coarseness of the other, and his
satire is generally softened by a noble tenderness. Taken together, the
novels of Dickens and Thackeray give us a remarkable picture of all classes
of English society in the middle of the nineteenth century.
LIFE. Thackeray was born in 1811, in Calcutta, where his father held a
civil position under the Indian government. When the boy was five years old
his father died, and the mother returned with her child to England.
Presently she married again, and Thackeray was sent to the famous
Charterhouse school, of which he has given us a vivid picture in _The
Newcomes_. Such a school would have been a veritable heaven to Dickens, who
at this time was tossed about between poverty and ambition; but Thackeray
detested it for its rude manners, and occasionally referred to it as the
"Slaughterhouse." Writing to his mother he says: "There are three hundred
and seventy boys in the school. I wish, there were only three hundred and
sixty-nine."
In 1829 Thackeray entered Trinity College, Cambridge, but left after less
than two years, without taking a degree, and went to Germany and France
where he studied with the idea of becoming an artist. When he became of
age, in 1832, he came into possession of a comfortable fortune, returned to
England, and settled down in the Temple to study law. Soon he began to
dislike the profession intensely, and we have in _Pendennis_ a reflection
of his mental attitude toward the law and the young men who studied it. He
soon lost his fortune, partly by gambling and speculation, partly by
unsuccessful attempts at running a newspaper, and at twenty-two began for
the first time to earn his own living, as an artist and illustrator. An
interesting meeting between Thackeray and Dickens at this time (1836)
suggests the relative importance of the two writers. Seymour, who was
illustrating the _Pickwick Papers_, had just died, and Thackeray called
upon Dickens with a few drawings and asked to be allowed to continue the
illustrations. Dickens was at this time at the beginning of his great
popularity. The better literary artist, whose drawings were refused, was
almost unknown, and had to work hard for more than ten years before he
received recognition. Disappointed by his failure as an illustrator, he
began his literary career by writing satires on society for _Fraser's
Magazine_. This was the beginning of his success; but though the
_Yellowplush Papers, The Great Hoggarty Diamond, Catherine, The Fitz
Boodlers, The Book of Snobs, Barry Lyndon_, and various other immature
works made him known to a few readers of _Punch_ and of _Fraser's
Magazine_, it was not till the publication of _Vanity Fair_ (1847-1848)
that he began to be recognized as one of the great novelists of his day.
All his earlier works are satires, some upon society, others upon the
popular novelists,--Bulwer, Disraeli, and especially Dickens,--with whose
sentimental heroes and heroines he had no patience whatever. He had
married, meanwhile, in 1836, and for a few years was very happy in his
home. Then disease and insanity fastened upon his young wife, and she was
placed in an asylum. The whole after life of our novelist was darkened by
this loss worse than death. He became a man of the clubs, rather than of
his own home, and though his wit and kindness made him the most welcome of
clubmen, there was an undercurrent of sadness in all that he wrote. Long
afterwards he said that, though his marriage ended in shipwreck, he "would
do it over again; for behold Love is the crown and completion of all
earthly good."
After the moderate success of _Vanity Fair_, Thackeray wrote the three
novels of his middle life upon which his fame chiefly rests,--_Pendennis_
in 1850, _Henry Esmond_ in 1852, and _The Newcomes_ in 1855. Dickens's
great popular success as a lecturer and dramatic reader had led to a
general desire on the part of the public to see and to hear literary men,
and Thackeray, to increase his income, gave two remarkable courses of
lectures, the first being _English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century_,
and the second _The Four Georges_,--both courses being delivered with
gratifying success in England and especially in America. Dickens, as we
have seen, was disappointed in America and vented his displeasure in
outrageous criticism; but Thackeray, with his usual good breeding, saw only
the best side of his generous entertainers, and in both his public and
private utterances emphasized the virtues of the new land, whose restless
energy seemed to fascinate him. Unlike Dickens, he had no confidence in
himself when he faced an audience, and like most literary men he disliked
lecturing, and soon gave it up. In 1860 he became editor of the _Cornhill
Magazine_, which prospered in his hands, and with a comfortable income he
seemed just ready to do his best work for the world (which has always
believed that he was capable of even better things than he ever wrote) when
he died suddenly in 1863. His body lies buried in Kensal Green, and only a
bust does honor to his memory in Westminster Abbey.
WORKS OF THACKERAY. The beginner will do well to omit the earlier satires
of Thackeray, written while he was struggling to earn a living from the
magazines, and open _Henry Esmond_ (1852), his most perfect novel, though
not the most widely known and read. The fine historical and literary,
flavor of this story is one of its most marked characteristics, and only
one who knows something of the history and literature of the eighteenth
century can appreciate its value. The hero, Colonel Esmond; relates his own
story, carrying the reader through the courts and camps of Queen Anne's
reign, and giving the most complete and accurate picture of a past age that
has ever appeared in a novel. Thackeray is, as we have said, a realist, and
he begins his story by adopting the style and manner of a scholarly
gentleman of the period he is describing. He has an extraordinary knowledge
of eighteenth-century literature, and he reproduces its style in detail,
going so far as to insert in his narrative an alleged essay from the
_Tatler_. And so perfectly is it done that it is impossible to say wherein
it differs from the style of Addison and Steele.
In his matter also Thackeray is realistic, reflecting not the pride and
pomp of war, which are largely delusions, but its brutality and barbarism,
which are all too real; painting generals and leaders, not as the newspaper
heroes to whom we are accustomed, but as moved by intrigues, petty
jealousies, and selfish ambitions; showing us the great Duke of Marlborough
not as the military hero, the idol of war-crazed multitudes, but as without
personal honor, and governed by despicable avarice. In a word, Thackeray
gives us the "back stairs" view of war, which is, as a rule, totally
neglected in our histories. When he deals with the literary men of the
period, he uses the same frank realism, showing us Steele and Addison and
other leaders, not with halos about their heads, as popular authors, but in
slippers and dressing gowns, smoking a pipe in their own rooms, or else
growing tipsy and hilarious in the taverns,--just as they appeared in daily
life. Both in style and in matter, therefore, _Esmond_ deserves to rank as
probably the best historical novel in our language.
The plot of the story is, like most of Thackeray's plots, very slight, but
perfectly suited to the novelist's purpose. The plans of his characters
fail; their ideals grow dim; there is a general disappearance of youthful
ambitions. There is a love story at the center; but the element of romance,
which furnishes the light and music and fragrance of love, is
inconspicuous. The hero, after ten years of devotion to a young woman, a
paragon of beauty, finally marries her mother, and ends with a few pious
observations concerning Heaven's mercy and his own happy lot. Such an
ending seems disappointing, almost bizarre, in view of the romantic novels
to which we are accustomed; but we must remember that Thackeray's purpose
was to paint life as he saw it, and that in life men and things often take
a different way from that described in romances. As we grow acquainted with
Thackeray's characters, we realize that no other ending was possible to his
story, and conclude that his plot, like his style, is perhaps as near
perfection as a realistic novelist can ever come.
_Vanity Fair_ (1847--1848) is the best known of Thackeray's novels. It was
his first great work, and was intended to express his own views of the
social life about him, and to protest against the overdrawn heroes of
popular novels. He takes for his subject that Vanity Fair to which
Christian and Faithful were conducted on their way to the Heavenly City, as
recorded in _Pilgrim's Progress_. In this fair there are many different
booths, given over to the sale of "all sorts of vanities," and as we go
from one to another we come in contact with "juggling, cheats, games,
plays, fools, apes, knaves, rogues, and that of every kind." Evidently this
is a picture of one side of social life; but the difference between Bunyan
and Thackeray is simply this,--that Bunyan made Vanity Fair a small
incident in a long journey, a place through which most of us pass on our
way to better things; while Thackeray, describing high society in his own
day, makes it a place of long sojourn, wherein his characters spend the
greater part of their lives. Thackeray styles this work "a novel without a
hero." The whole action of the story, which is without plot or development,
revolves about two women,--Amelia, a meek creature of the milk-and-water
type, and Becky Sharp, a keen, unprincipled intriguer, who lets nothing
stand in the way of her selfish desire to get the most out of the fools who
largely constitute society. On the whole, it is the most powerful but not
the most wholesome of Thackeray's works.
In his second important novel, _Pendennis_ (1849-1850), we have a
continuation of the satire on society begun in _Vanity Fair_. This novel,
which the beginner should read after _Esmond_, is interesting to us for two
reasons,--because it reflects more of the details of Thackeray's life than
all his other writings, and because it contains one powerfully drawn
character who is a perpetual reminder of the danger of selfishness. The
hero is "neither angel nor imp," in Thackeray's words, but the typical