It must be admitted, though, that it is a happier lot to stand before open doors, even in dismay at the illimitable vistas, than to confront closed doors or none at all. And I wish in this connection to offer my tribute of appreciation and admiration to one who has prëeminently the scholar’s talisman of Open Sesame into the many and rich realms of literature. It was my good fortune to prepare this study under the direction of Professor Ashley H. Thorndike, of Columbia University, by whose benignly severe criticism so many students have profited, by whose sure taste and searching wisdom so many have been guided. To him, to his colleagues in the English Department, and to the other officers of the University who helped to make my term of residence the satisfaction it has been, it is a pleasure to express my gratitude. To my Stanford colleague, Miss Elisabeth Lee Buckingham, I am indebted for the drudgery of copy-reading, both in manuscript and in proof, and for many valuable suggestions.
F. T. R.
CONTENTS
| PART I | |
| PREMISES | |
| Chapter I | |
| THE SATIRIC SPIRIT | |
| PAGE | |
|---|---|
| Various interpretations because of various manifestations. Chief constituents,criticism and humor. Relation of these in the formula. Testimonyof satirists as to the presence of humor, criticism being taken forgranted. The satiric motive; temperamental cause and ethical intent.Testimony as to both. Symposium on the discrepancy between prospectusand performance. The realizable ideal. Objects: empiric data on vice,folly, and deception. Reason for universal criticism and ridicule of deception.Criteria of good satire. Difficulties, limitations, and real function | [1] |
| Chapter II | |
| THE CONFLUENCE | |
| Relationship between satire and fiction. Ancient but incomplete anduneven alliance. Union in the nineteenth century. The Victorian novelists.Their chronology and background. Classification as satirists.Testimony of the novelists themselves as to satire | [41] |
| PART II | |
| METHODS | |
| Chapter I | |
| THE ROMANTIC | |
| Possible methodic categories. Reason for present choice. Proportion ofthe romantic or fantastic type. Peacock and Butler. Lytton and Disraeli.Thackeray and Meredith. Characteristics of this form of satire:wit, invention, exaggeration, and concentration | [59] |
| Chapter II | |
| THE REALISTIC | |
| Character of Victorian realism. Nature of realistic satire. Subdivisions,based on authors’ methods and devices. The direct or didacticsatirists: Lytton, Thackeray, Dickens, Meredith. Satire in plot or situation:Martin Chuzzlewit, Vanity Fair, The Egoist. Minor episodes. Satireexpressed by witty characters, of various types | [84] |
| Chapter III | |
| THE IRONIC | |
| Verbal and philosophic irony. Banter and sarcasm. The Irony of Fate.Relation of irony to satire. Differing opinions. Distribution of ironyamong the novelists. Direct or verbal: present in varying degrees inpractically all. Crystallized and pervasive forms. Irony in circumstance:Trollope, Eliot, and Meredith. Subdivisions: dramatic irony; the reversedwheel of fortune, the granted desire; the lost opportunity. Meredithianirony directed against the ironic interpretation of life | [121] |
| PART III | |
| OBJECTS | |
| Chapter I | |
| INDIVIDUALS | |
| Personalities the original and primitive element in satire. Effect of thisinfluence upon the satiric product, and of this in turn upon the attitudetoward satire. Citations. In fiction no hard and fast line between real andimaginary characters. Lack of personal satire among the novelists. Itsprevalence limited to the earlier writers: Peacock, Lytton, Disraeli, andThackeray before 1850 | [167] |
| Chapter II | |
| INSTITUTIONS | |
| Victorian attitude toward established institutions. Satire directedagainst the following: Society, including the home, woman, marriage; theState, including politics, sociology, law, charities and corrections, war; theChurch, treated both by partisans on the inside, and pagans on the outside;the School, signifying education, from the fireside to the college; Literatureand the Press; the English as a nation. Lack of complementary reconstruction | [179] |
| Chapter III | |
| TYPES | |
| Impossibility of maintaining fixed classes. Unity and emphasis securedby artificial devices. Several human traits temptingly vulnerable, thoughall some form of deceit. Hypocrisy the specialty of Dickens, Folly, ofDickens and Meredith, Snobbishness, of Thackeray, Sentimentality andEgoism, of Meredith. Scattered fire against vulgarity, fanaticism, andother targets. Combination and interplay of traits in one character exemplifiedby Trollope’s Lady Carbury | [229] |
| PART IV | |
| CONCLUSIONS | |
| Chapter I | |
| RELATIONSHIPS | |
| The various novelists compared as to respective quality, quantity, andrange of satirical element. Discussion of the merging of satire into cynicism,tragedy, and idealism on the critical side, and into comedy, wit, andphilosophic humor, on the humorous. Relation to intellect and emotion.Relative ranking of satirists influenced by these considerations | [269] |
| Chapter II | |
| THE VICTORIAN CONTRIBUTION | |
| The cumulative inheritance. Recent change in form from heroic coupletto prose fiction. Progressive change in substance from hypocritical tosentimental side of deceit. Seen in institutions as well as in types of character.Science and democracy the most influential factors. Scientificsearch for causes of failure. Democratic sense of social responsibility. Satiredirected against self-deceived inefficiency mistaken for success. Satiricmethod concentrated on exposure of motives. Satiric manner less assertiveand more casual and urbane. Recognition of the paradox in ridicule.Reduction of it to minor rôle, though staged with more finesse and effectiveness.Stress shifted from the critical element to the ironically humorous | [288] |
| Bibliographical note | [317] |
| Index | [329] |
PART I
PREMISES
Satire in the Victorian Novel
CHAPTER I
THE SATIRIC SPIRIT
“Are ye satirical, sir?” inquired the Ettrick Shepherd, warily suspicious of the cryptic eulogy just pronounced by his companion on the minds and manners of the English shopocracy.
“I should be ashamed of myself if I were, James,” was the grieved reply.
We know very well, however, that Christopher North was not ashamed of himself, at least not with the true contrition that leads to reformation. On the contrary, we fear that he cherished and cultivated quite shamelessly his gift of caustic wit. In any case, whether the disavowal came from ironic whim or from a concession to the popular attitude toward satire, it illustrates the first difficulty confronting the student of this indeterminate subject.