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?
In the specified paragraph, Thackeray is criticizing the depiction of battle shown by the artist, reenforcing his chosen character of slighted fellow artist unsatisfied with the work chosen over his. Since the battle represented, to the British people, their surprising victory over a man who gained his fame for 'never being defeated in battle', Thackeray is calling for more nobility and less brutality in depictions of the events. While Waterloo was admittedly devastating (as to the number of lives lost), Thackeray suggests that the bloodlust behind that devastation be left out of the British soldiers shown so the nobility of their actions could be admired instead of their ability to lose their consciences in the fury of battle.
ReplyDeleteI read the discussion of race as though a black man = an animal to Thackeray. Since this is a battle scene, and death is bound to enter the picture some way, his expression of horror at the inclusion seems a bit bizarre, especially once he emphasizes his dislike for the chosen doomed soldier. Rather than referring to him as 'a solider', or even 'a Frenchman', Thackeray ignores everything except his skin tone, as if nothing else matters.
I read the piece somewhat differently, given the description of the events leading up to the war in Vanity Fair. If anything, Thackeray appears to be mocking the bravado and genteel politeness exhibited by those without firsthand knowledge of the brutality of war. In Vanity Fair, Thackeray seems to make a mockery of the laid-back style with which the soldiers and their wives march off to war, focusing only on the military titles and glory they may gain and treating the entire affair as if it is a joyful party. On p. 275, he writes: "all the country and Europe was in arms, and the greatest event of history pending; and honest Peggy O'Dowd, whom it concerned as well as another, went on prattling about Ballinafad, and the horses in the stables at Glenmalony, and the clar't drunk there... as if these were the great topics of the world." In displaying his horror over the violence of the cartoon, then, he seems to be invoking the spirit of those who speak of war as if it is an exciting adventure, or ignore it altogether. Given how frequently Vanity Fair satirizes those who choose charming facades over substance, I believe this piece is similarly satirical in nature, poking fun at those who know nothing of the true nature of war and would prefer not to.
ReplyDeleteI think Thackeray is gently criticizing the brutality of war—perhaps he is able to do so, thirty odd years after Waterloo, in particular—from the very first drawing he chooses to include. The lion depicted is indeed “good-humoured”, concerning itself inwardly with its paws (as if Britain’s focus might not be on the world, on imperialism and war and conquest) and allowing its tail to be manipulated into the first letter of “Professor Byle’s” satire. The battleground must now consider the point of view of a “delicate lady”, though ironically the picture Thackeray chooses to include is not terribly violent, at least not in a graphic way. It really does look like the soldier is “poking” at the enemy—I found this repeated word choice humorous—yet it is the soldier who is a “monster”, and so the heathen is a victim.
ReplyDeleteThe question of race is fairly complicated, here, however. For one, Thackeray explicitly condemns the “worst of murders”, that of a black man, and yet the only definition I could find for a Scindian was for the name of the ship that carried convicts to West Australia around the year 1850. Meanwhile, the swords in the background are curved like those of Turks (or farther Eastern peoples), and the curved clown shoes flying in all directions suggest general foolery. Really, I think the national question of England versus Napoleon, and the Battle of Waterloo in particular, is past. Now, it is a question of England in relation to its imperial conquests, and the moral ramifications of this expansion. (As suggested above, England has aggressive influence in various and disparate parts of the world. Or else the cultural confusion is for satirical purposes.) Thus, the ambiguity of the word “benighted,” which may more literally describe one “overtaken by night,” and so may refer still to Africans. Yet more generally, the word means one who is morally or intellectually ignorant, and so the British soldier transgresses very physically upon one who needs higher guidance or salvation.