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?
The tension here is between what sort of appearance is appropriate for a university chancellorship, and what is appropriate for a military officership. In particular, Prince Albert's moustache is taken by Punch to be well suited for his role as a field marshal of the British Army, but improper for his potential position as chancellor of Cambridge. The article is playful, mentioning a suggestion that he shave half of the moustache off before concluding that he should have a removable moustache that he can deploy as needed, both clearly tongue-in-cheek. The deeper implication is one of two. The first possibility is that rank and position are pretty hung up on appearance in this time. The second is that there is a rivalry of sorts between the army and the university, and the moustache debate is a microcosm of the battle between the two over the allegiance of Prince Albert, and therefore over the predominance of the respective institutions. A third possibility is that it is a little of both.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read this, I definitely felt some sarcastic, and likewise playful, undertones. "A Delicate Point," this title seems to hold a few connotations for me. In one sense it seems to portray that a topic of importance is to follow and should be handled carefully. But on the other hand, I can also see there being an argument for it portraying a lighter topic.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, I liked the mocking idea of the fake mustache and the half mustache. This article seems to be providing unrealistic ideas; by providing these unrealistic and goofy ideas, it seems to be making light of the topic and showing that the topic at hand is not one that really needs to be taken all that seriously in a sense.
This is just what I took from the sarcasm and mocking tone that I felt while reading.
I don't think this clipping presents an argument on appearance so much as an argument on political propriety. The main issue appears to be whether or not Albert should be Chancellor. That Punch would use the mustachios to diffuse a sensitive topic (i.e., that Albert is hypocritically representing both a center for preservation and a destructive power) is in line with the magazine's satirical nature. The point of the removable mustache, which as Kendyl noted, is unrealistic, is then that Albert cannot honestly represent two diametrically opposed institutions.
ReplyDeleteInteresting suggestion Sam. I do not know that I saw so much into it as you did; however, I did notice that appearances seem to play a vital role in two positions that really have nothing to do with looks. The Chancellership should be about intelligence while the Field Marshal should be about military savvyness. In the end what matters to the public is not the Prince's qualifications to do either but what look he will need to take. I don't know why favor rests on the Prince rather than the King. Perhaps the youthfulness of the Prince placed him closer to Fashion and fashionable society than the King.
ReplyDelete