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)?
The main conflict brought up in the article is the growing number of counterfeit nobility in the merchant class.
ReplyDelete1. The increased counterfeit currency allows the counterfeit nobility the purchasing power of the actual nobility.
2. The increase in knock-off, high-end products (clothing for example) usually reserved for nobility allows the counterfeit nobility the appearance of the actual nobility.
The crisis is this: On one hand, the counterfeit nobility degrades the social structure enforced by nobility to keep the powerful in power. On the other hand, as England is a currency-crazed "nation of shopkeepers", no one cares enough to stop the flow of counterfeit currency as long as everyone is getting paid. So while one may claim himself a protectionist, it he is receiving more funds, he won't do anything to protect.
I look at the mustachios section as sort of a joke. The author proposes a tax on mustaches in order to retain distinction between nobility and non-nobility because now that the counterfeit nobility can purchase and look the same as the nobility, the only thing separating them is absurd facial hair.
It seems to me that the article criticizes the aristocracy inasmuch as it speaks against “the counter-nobility.” He claims that these imitators are “base” and “exceedingly embarrassing,” often found within disreputable establishments (i.e. saloons and cigar-shops), and yet, it is almost impossible to discriminate between Wellington’s genuine and feigned relatives. He seems to suggest that all of England, irrespective of class, has become infatuated with materiality or perhaps, artificiality. In terms of finances, their stock—that is, their value as a nation—has been collectively cheapened. As follows, the section on mustaches seems to be a comment on dandyism—specifically, how a well-manicured aesthetic has become paramount to genuine achievement or titling.
ReplyDeleteI’m a bit confused about the idea of England as a “nation of shopkeepers.” Thackeray, immediately after making this claim, refers to the British soldiers as an “army of customers.” Wouldn’t Belgium have been at a greater economic advantage, and if so, is Thackeray being purely ironic? Or is he suggesting that war, like British society, is now entirely fuelled by commerce?
In addition to this, I think the monetary diction reflects the rise of the nouveau riche, who attempt to buy or impersonate the nobility with their wealth. Hence in this article, they are being labelled as imposter or counterfeit. The diction reflects a trend that although the nobility may still differentiate the class of new money from themselves, the power or the wealth of the new money is not to be denied, just as counterfeit money would likely have been accepted by most shopkeepers--if unknowingly.
ReplyDeleteThe nouveau riche gained their wealth from the large commerce industry that Britain controlled at the time which may be why Thackeray refers to Britain as a nation of shopkeepers. The large majority of Britain's wealth and power at the came stemmed from its commerce industry. I don't believe Thackeray is outrightly criticizing the British for their interest in money, but I do believe it plays into the money hungry jab that Thackeray makes at English society.
When I first read this piece, I noticed the obvious disdain with which the “imitation aristocracy” was regarded. After rereading it, however, what became more apparent was a great underlying fear. With the advent of imitation clothing, visual markers of wealth and privilege disappear, and it becomes exceedingly more difficult to separate the genuine aristocracy from the impostors. Without this demarcation, the social hierarchy collapses, resulting in a type of panic for members of the upper class. What else is there to set them apart from the rest of society?
ReplyDeleteThe author asserts that a list of those claiming to be directly related to the Duke of Wellington would be “fearfully voluminous.” Again, this notion of fear is palpable in the writing. All of the language of currency reinforces the defining role that money plays in British society; in a quite literal but also figurative sense, it determines one’s worth or value. A crisis ensues when the boundaries between classes become eroded, and it is for this reason that a mustache tax is proposed. “The beard and moustachios would thus be…evidence of a certain stake in the country at least,” and those who could not afford to pay such a tax would then be visually relegated to the lower classes to which they rightfully belong.
When I first read “The Duke of Wellington” I felt it criticized the commercialization of the British army and not as a criticism of all of British society. The reason I thought this was because the men described in the article seemed to be buying their way into the army. I don’t know the exact page number, but I know there have been multiple moments in Vanity Fair where the suggestion that George buy a higher rank in the army is made. Also the article seems to argue that becoming part of the army is as easy as purchasing a beard thus the need for a “heavy duty” on them.
ReplyDeleteHowever after reading some of the other responses I noticed that the men discussed in “The Duke of Wellington” are not actually buying a position, but rather buying their relationship to the army. I tip my hat to Brendan for this one. It does seem like the article is criticizing the “counterfeit nobility,” and their ability to imitate the nobility by simply buying fancy products. This reminds me of Mr. Osborne’s comment to George that “the British Merchant’s Son shan’t want” (133). There seems to be an inferiority complex with the Osbornes and they make up for it by spending. I wonder when privilege changed from bloodline to money because this would help me understand more what exactly the criticism focuses on.
To follow up on some of the comments here, you're absolutely correct that a widespread FEAR existed in the Victorian period about not being able to recognize true nobility by their outward appearances: dress, mannerisms, etc (since the nouveaux riches could buy their way into the same "look"). Of course, the idea of working one's way into the upper ranks through money dates back to the mid 18th century and the rise of capitalism, but it was exacerbated both by imperial wealth (in the West Indies and India) and by industrial wealth in the 19th. By mid-century, Dickens could refer to one couple in Our Mutual Friend as the "Veneerings," people who were all veneer, all show (they pretended to have money but did not). This fear was part of the reason for the popularity of phrenology and physiognomy: they offered a more "scientific" way of ascertaining someone's real background and birth than the outward show of money.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Corinne in interpreting this article as a jab at the counterfeit aristocrats more than anything else. Although there are various undertones for critiques of multiple other aspects of English society, I feel like this article was criticizing the trend of English people using money and appearances to put on an image that they were "better" and higher in social standing than they really were in terms of blood relations. Describing the group of imitators of the duke's relations as "fearfully voluminous" reflects this fear and condescension of the lower class.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel that the article implies that regardless, money is money and no matter who has money and if they really are descendants of the Duke or not, money will allow you to climb up in society. The diction just addresses the fears of much of the population about this issue. The ending about the moustachios, in my opinion, pokes fun at giving a ridiculous solution to distinguish the "genuine" aristocracy from the "counterfeit".