By William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863)

W.M. Thackeray, one of the greatest English prose writers, provided the best portrait of the ruling classes of his country in the first half of the 19^th century.

“Vanity Fair” (1846 – 1848) is his masterpiece. It is a broad panorama of contemporary life written with power and brilliance. The novel is heavy with satire. Thackeray attacks the most common vices of the upper classes: money-worship, reverence for ranks and titles, hypocrisy, cruelty and corruption. The plot develops around the fate of two women, Rebecca Sharp and Amelia Sedley. The central figure in the novel is Becky Sharp, the daughter of poor artists. She is determined to make her way into high society at any cost.

In the selection, given below we see the cruel, selfish, unscrupulous, eternally scheming and plotting, devoid even of material feelings.

In the second part of the extract the reader finds references to the lower classes. And the lower classes in Thackeray’s novels are the servants. In their own way they criticize, they are always there observing and noticing things, pronouncing judgement on their masters. The vast army of the working people finds no place in Thackeray’s novels.

Chapter XLIV

A Roundabout. Chapter between London and Hampshire

[…] He* was a fine open-faced ¹ boy, with blue eyes and waving flaxen hair, sturdy in limb, but generous and soft in heart: fondly attaching himself to all who were good to him – to the pony – to Lord Southdown,** who gave him the horse (he used to blush and glow all over when he saw that kind young nobleman) - to the gloom who had charge of the pony – to Molly, the cook who crammed him with ghost stories at night, and with good things from the dinner ² – to Briggs,*** whom he plagued and laughed at – and to his father especially, ³ whose attachment toward the lad was curious too to witness. Here, as he grew to be about eight years old, his attachments may be said to have ended. ⁴ The beautiful mother-vision had faded away after awhile. During [9] near years she had scarcely spoken to the child. She disliked him. He had the measles and the hoping-cough. He bored her. One day when he was standing at the landing-place, having crept down from the upper regions, attracted by the sound of his mother’s voice, who was singing to Lord Steyne,**** the drawing-room the door opening suddenly, discovered the little spy, who but a moment before had rapt in delight, and listening to the music.

His mother came and struck him violently a couple of boxes on the ear. He heard a laugh from the Marquis in the inner room (who was amused by this free and artless exhibition of Becky’s temper), and fled down below to his friends of the kitchen, bursting in an agony of grief.

“It is not because it hurts me” little Rawdon gasped out – “only – only” sobs and tears would up the sentence in a storm. It was the little boy’s heart bleeding. ⁵ “What ”mayn’t hear her singing? Why don’t she ever sing to me ⁶ – as she does to that bald-headed man with large teeth?” He gasped out at various intervals these exclamations of rage and grief. The cook looked at the housemaid; the housemaid looked knowingly at the footman – the awful kitchen inquisition ⁷ that sits in judgment in every house, and knows everything – sat on Rebecca at the moment.

After this incident, the mother’s dislike increased to hatred: the consciousness that the child was in the house was a reproach and a pain to her. His sight annoyed her. Fear, doubt, and resistance sprang up, too, in the boy’s own bosom. They were separated from that day of the boxes on the ear.

Lord Steyne also heartily disliked the boy. When they met by mischance, he made sarcastic bows or remarks to the child, or glared at him with savage-looking eyes. Rawdon used to stare him in the face, and double his fists in return. He knew his enemy and this gentleman, of all who came in house, was the one who angered him most. One day the footman found him squaring his fists at Lord Steyne’s hat in the hall. The footman told the circumstance as a good joke to Lord Steyne’s coachman; that officer imparted it to Lord Steyne’s gentleman, and to the servants’ hall in general. And very soon afterward, when Mrs. Rawdon Crawley made her appearance at Gaunt House,* the porter who unbarred the gates, the servants of all uniforms in the hall, the functionaries in white waistcoats, who bawled out from landing to landing the names of Colonel and Mrs. Rawdon Crawley, knew about her, or fancied they did. The man, who brought her refreshment and stood behind her chair, had talked her character over with the large gentleman in motley-colored clothes at his side. Bon Dieu!** It is awful, that servants inquisition. ⁸ You see a woman in a great partly in a splendid saloon, surrounded by awful admirers, distributing sparkling glances, dressed to perfection, curled, rouged, smi-[10]ling and happy: Discovery walks respectfully up tot her, in the shape of a huge powdered man with large calves and a tray of ices – with calumny (which is fatal as truth) – behind him, ⁹ in the shape of hulking fellow carrying the water-biscuits. Madam, your secret will be talked over ¹⁰ by those men at the public house tonight. Jeameswill tell Chawles his notions about you over their pipes and pewter beer-pots. Some people ought to have mutes for servants in Vanity Fair ¹¹ – mutes who could not write. If you are guilty, tremble. That fellow behind your chair may be a janissary with a bowstring in his plush breeches pocket. If your are not guilty, have a care of appearances; ¹⁰ which are as ruinous as guilt.

“Was Rebecca guilty or not?”, the Vehmgericht*** of the servants‘ hall had pronounced against her.

And, I shame to say; she would not have got credit had they not believed her to be guilty. It was the sight of the Marquis of Steyne’s carriage-lamps at her door, contemplated by Raggles, burning in the blackness of midnight “that kep him up”**** as he afterward said; that even more than Rebecca’s arts and coaxings.

And so – guiltless very likely – she was writing and pushing onward toward that they call @a position in society”, and the servants were pointing at her as lost and ruined. So you see Molly, the housemaid, of a morning watching a spider in the doorpost lay his thread and laboriously crawl up it, until, tried of the spot, she raises her broom and sweeps away the thread and the artificer.

COMMENTARY

1. He was a fine open-faced boy…

This sentence is rich in epithets. The epithet is a word or a group of words, giving an expressive characterization of the object described. Grammatically epithets commonly appear as attributes. They disclose the emotionally colored individual attitude of the writer towards the person or thing qualified. Thus Thackeray speaks of little Rawdon as a “fine open-faced boy” , calls him “generous and soft in the heart”.

2. … Molly, the cook, who crammed him with ghost stories at night, and with good things from the dinner”

“Ghost stories” and “good things from the dinner” are treated here by the author as word combinations of the same rank. The parallel use of these word combinations so different in meaning helps the author to reach a humorous effect.

3. He was a fine open-faced boy… fondly attaching himself to all who were good to him – to the pony – to Lord Southdown… - to Molly, the cook… - to Briggs… and his father especially…[11]

Note the reverse way, in which little Rawdon’s attachments are listened. First comes the pony, then Lord Southdown, who gave him this pony, then Molly, the cook, the Briggs, who actually brought him up, and finally his father. This reverse innumeration helps in creating a humorous effect.

4. Here, as he grew to be about eight years old, his attachments may be said to have ended…

Make a note of the use of the Subjective Infinitive Construction. The Perfect Infinitive shows priority of the action expressed by it.

5. It was a little boy’s heart that was bleeding

A common deceive to achieve emphasis is to place “it is” or “it was” before the member of the sentence that is to be accentuated. It is usually followed by a clause introduced by “that” or “who”.

6. What mayn’t hear her singing? Why don’t she ever sing to me…?

The violation of grammar rules that we see here may occur in children’s speech.

7. The cook looked at the housemaid; the housemaid looked knowingly at the footman – the awful kitchen inquisition…

The stylistic device used in this sentence is known as parallelism. It consists in the similarity of the syntactical structure of successive phrases, clauses or sentences. Parallel constructions are often accompanied by the repetition of one or more words. In the sentence analyzed these words are “cook” and “housemaid”. The latter word completes the first clause and is repeated at the opening of the second clause. The sameness of the structure and vocabulary accentuates the fact that everyone in the servants’ quarters was drawn into gossip.

Scandal lived in the kitchens as well as in the parlours. According to Thackeray, the servants gossiped about their masters, criticized them and passed their sentence on them. The satirical effect is heightened by juxtaposing the words “kitchen” and “inquisition” so different in sphere of usage.

8. Bon Dieu! It is awful, that servants inquisition!

Thackeray here digresses from the narration expressing his views on contemporary society. Such digressions from the thread of narration could be traced throughout the novel and are very characteristic of Thackeray’s manner of writing. Here the author comments on the events described, reflects on the vices of the bourgeois world, expresses his philosophical views on life.

9. Discovery walks respectfully up to her… with Calumny…

The abstract nouns “discovery” and “calumny” are used instead [12] of the names of the persons who were living embodiments of these vices, who were engaged in slander (calumny), in discovering the particulars of other people’s life. This transfer of the name of one object to another with which it is in some way connected is known as metonymy. Here it comes very close to allegory and serves to create a physically pal[able image of slander and gossip.

10. Madam, your secret will be talked over… If you are guilty, have a care of appearances…

The use of the direct address as well as the use of the second person pronoun involves the reader into events of the book and lends a greater generalizing force to the passage.

“Vanity Fair” is the name Thackeray gave to English aristocratic and bourgeois society. The title of the book is highly symbolic and shows Thackeray’s attitude towards the contemporary society. He brands it as vain, mean, vicious and corrupt. The title can be traced back to the novel “The Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan (1628 - 1688). The pilgrims come to the city of Vanity and there at Vanity Fair “houses, lands, trades, places, honours… and delights of all sorts as whores, bawds, wives, husbands, children… could be sold and bought”.