Who, do we imagine, wrote this poem for the Church Missionary Gleaner (published September 1, 1847)? Who is its intended audience? What is its objective? What is the function of poetry as opposed to prose? Does this poem seem to espouse the same religious ideology as St. John Rivers? What beliefs does it teach?
In this article from Punch, the primary subject is a meeting of the London Missionary Society. What type of language does Punch use to describe this meeting? What connotations does it associate with the missionaries? We are accustomed to thinking of Punch as satirical: what is the subject of satire here? Could St. John be criticized for the same reasons as the missionaries are criticized here?
At first glance, this text from the August 14, 1847 issue of Punch seems to be making a basic point: that the Duke of Wellington remains so famous 30 years after the battle of Waterloo that people want to claim relation to him. More interestingly, I think, this article makes reference both to mustaches (much like the one that Jos grows before heading to Belgium) and to sales/business (a point that might be compared to the narrator's assessment of Englishmen as shopkeepers on p. 272). How do we read these seemingly small details? What are the connotations of facial hair? What about the idea of Englishmen as shopkeepers? Is Thackeray criticizing the English or praising them? How do you read the economic and financial language used in his article (coinage, Protectionist, tip, counterfeit, etc)?
This Punch article, written by Thackeray under the pseudonym of Professor Byles, appeared on July 10 (one month before the "Waterloo" issue of Vanity Fair). Focus on the paragraph beginning "With respect to the third prize." What is Thackeray criticizing? It this a satirical criticism? How do we read it in comparison with the depiction of the events leading up to the war in his novel? What significance did representations of the battle have for English readers/viewers over thirty years after the fact? How do you read the discussion of race in this article in light of our conversation on Tuesday? How might you analyze the image provided?
What exactly is this article from Punch (June 19, 1847) talking about? What is the article's opinion of the topic? How do we interpret the image of the half-European/half-African man? What sorts of stereotypes and methods of racial analysis does this seem to employ? Is this article satirical and, if so, what is it satirizing? Does it help us to understand representations of race in the period?
What image of American slavery is being presented in this series of excerpts, republished in The Anti-Slavery Reporter (June 1, 1847)? We might assume that readers of this text would be already invested in the cause of abolition, since they are reading the periodical, but what in particular would they notice about this text? What aspects of slavery are highlighted in particular? Does there seem to be a conscious decision to underscore particular aspects of slavery in the United States? Do these idea of slavery (and, by correlation, race) resonate with the novels that we are reading or with Carlyle's essay?
What is the "type" presented in this depiction of Italian women? What assumptions does it make about female character or even about the process of or methodology behind characterizing people? Is it positive or negative, something for English women to emulate or reject? Why, as with the essay on marriage, would this be interesting to readers in 1847? (Can you think of a similar type of publication today, a modern-day equivalent to reading a seemingly straightforward description of women in another country?) This article was published in the London Pioneer: a journal that was originally called The Penny Satirist. Is it, in fact, satirical, and if so, to what purpose? (May 6, 1847).
How does this article, published in The Lady's Newspaper on May 22, 1847, depict the marriage in Algeria? Is it a positive representative, compared to what we imagine the author's perspective on marriage in England to be? Do we imagine the author to be male or female? Why would a woman in England be interested in reading this article? What would intrigue her either about the representation of "otherness" (race) or about the portrayal of marriage rites?
This prayer is not from Punch but from The Children's Missionary Magazine (published in London from March 1838 through December 1894). What type of religion does it depict? What type of child might be expected to say this prayer? In what type of household would he or she reside? Can you imagine children at Lowood School saying this type of prayer? Why or why not? What are the implications about the British empire in this prayer? What would it mean to have small children thinking about Madagascar, Jerusalem, and Ireland? Why these three places in particular (especially Madagascar and Ireland, since Jerusalem has obvious Biblical implications)? Can you compare the type of religious belief expressed here to that held by Bute Crawley, Mr. Pitt Crawley, Miss Temple, Mr. Brocklehurst, Helen Burns, or Jane herself? (April 1, 1847)
Does it seem accurate to suggest that these advertisements are looking for "slaves"? How would people in 1847 have interpreted that language? What do you make of the reference to Turkey (one that came up in the first reading from Jane Eyre)? How might we perceive Becky Sharp and Miss Temple (or the other teachers at Lowood School) responding to these advertisements? What about Jane herself, toward the end of the reading? How might we read the language in this sketch from Punch against the language of slavery used in Bronte's novel? Are they the same? Different? (April 17, 1847)
What is the tension between the university and the military expressed here? Why is Prince Albert, as the queen's consort (but, importantly, NOT king), torn between them? What does this tension have to say about social boundaries and the way in which they are drawn? What is Punch's attitude toward these divisions? Can you think of characters in the novels (particularly in Vanity Fair) to whom these divisions might apply? What function do the divisions serve in the novel?
What is the conception of the author employed here? Does it apply to either Thackeray or Charlotte Bronte/Currer Bell? Is it different from our common definitions of authorship today? How? What implications does this definition of the "author" have for our reading?
This review of Vanity Fair also appeared in October 1847 (in the Art Union). How does it differ from the review of Jane Eyre, particularly in the questions that it asks and the readership that it assumes? What does it mean to review a novel that is only partially completed? What does the reviewer emphasize and/or leave out? Do you agree with the review? Do you think that the same type of person (of course not the exact same person) could have written this and the review of Jane Eyre?
