Satire In The Writings Of Thomas Love Peacock, Thomas De Quincey, And William Hone

Romantic writers were a far cry from being merely irresponsible jesters without clear satirical aims in view lacking a proper understanding of the age they were born into. , as Bulter suggests. They offered an insight into many elements of society, including their own social and literary worlds. Satire can be thought of as the use of sarcasm or irony, often to ridicule or criticise, but at the same time can be seen to have jovial intentions. Satire, although amusing, was more significant than just being farcical. Romantic authors did not make a jovial point of just anything their use of satire demonstrates that there was a limit and purpose to their humour. However, although Jones comments that Satire was in fact extremely important in early nineteenth-century culture it is not the case that satire only helps to shape the boundaries of the Romantic from the outside . The importance of satire was already prevalent in the Romantic era, and it was the writers themselves who shaped the period with the clever and intentional use of satire, from the inside. Satire takes on many forms Romantic period literature, and provides a tool for gaining insight into a great deal of contemporary topics. Political satire will be the predominant focus of this essay, paying particular attention to Thomas Love Peacock s Melincourt and William Hone s The Political House that Jack Built, but the complexity of satire extends beyond just the political. The Romantics were multi-faceted writers, far more complex than the critics have suggested. This complexity is evident in Peacock s literary satire Nightmare Abbey, and what I term aesthetic satire in Thomas De Quincey s essay On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts. These texts all show an authorial awareness of serious contemporary society, so it seems impossible to say that Romantic writing is only satirical through the lens of a modern critic, and even less so that the Romantics were simply irresponsible jesters.

Undermining both Jones notion that Romantic era writing is only satirical from the perspective of a modern critic, and countering Butler s idea that Romantic authors had little awareness of the era into which they were born, Melincourt is arguably a biographical satire of the life of George Canning. Joukovsky comments that one of the the most memorable attacks on [an] individual politician(s) in his novels [is] the caricature of George Canning as Mr. Anyside Antijack in Melincourt . Canning, despite being the founder of the Anti-Jacobin, a paper opposing the radicalism of the French Revolution, enabled the Reform Bill of 1832 to be carried. This explains the satirical name Peacock assigns to Canning s caricature in Melincourt despite his opposition to reform, he readily aids any side of the revolution, and Antijack could be seen as referring to his anti-Jacobin publication, or his general anti-Jacobin sentiment.

Jones also draws this parallel, commenting that parodies, by authors such as George Canning mocked in order to defuse fashionable trends in poetry and political and intellectual liberalism. Romantic writers went further than just mockery, they did not only defuse fashionable trends , they set them. Satire was being used as a political tool, not just a jovial commentary on society being intentionally published in order to allow the elite to maintain their social standing. Jones comments that the ubiquitous Anti-Jacobin-was satirical , however, if it was indeed ubiquitous, it would have been satirising those writers who undermined the political agenda, not the political elite, especially considering Canning s involvement in its publication. However, it is evident in Hone s writing that Romantic satire also aimed to undermine the elite Loud when they beg, dumb only when they steal highlights the corruption and insolence of the ruling powers. Being published as a pamphlet, it was intended as a way of persuading the public onto the side of the revolutionaries, not simply to mock. This is also evident in Hone s repeated use of the inclusive pronoun we , as it indicates an assumption that the reader will be in agreement with his views, because this type of satire was predominantly used to solidify the public s already existing sentiments about politics. The Romantics were jesters, but they were much more than just comics and they certainly were not irresponsible. They had political aims, and satire was the tool they used to achieve them.

To further counter Butler s idea that Romantic writers had little awareness of the world around them, in Ancient Examples of Modern Political Virtue, Peacock writes This was his way of repealing the protective system of Babylon . Joukovsky comments that this is Peacock s allusion to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Satirising the Corn Laws and Peel s betrayal of agricultural protection as protecting the landowners monopoly over trade and produce in England, the laws that damaged the masses of contemporary society protected the stronghold of the British government and the ruling elite. This is further evident in Melincourt several workmen were busily breaking the ground with spade and pickaxe . Combining images of farming and violence alludes to Peacock s possible dissatisfaction with the repeal of the Corn Laws the government are breaking the foundations of the country and leaving it without protection. This idea of Peacock s works satirising the actions of Peel is further supported by Joukovsky He [Peacock] obviously despised Peel s policy of expediency, which must have struck him as more dishonest than the selfish defence of a corrupt system by the old Tories who he had satirized in Melincourt. Peacock is interjecting satirical comments on politics, regardless of what his actual thoughts were. Being described by Tave as the elegant author of shapely satires Peacock s work does not only serve as a mockery of contemporary politics, but satirises themes across Romantic society displaying his astute awareness of the world he was born into and his purposeful look at society from the inside.

Furthermore, although much of Romantic satire carried a political agenda, it is not the case that this was its sole purpose. Peacock s satire makes it difficult for the reader to determine his political allegiance because it is so multi-faceted. Unlike Peacock, Hone s political alignment is evident in his writing as he adopts a more directly critical rather than jovial tone highlighting the difference between the authors assessments of contemporary politics. Hone attempts to influence society with his satire, whereas Peacock remains a commentator. The forms of Peacock s texts are often similar to that of a dramatic scri pt. They are broken up with interjections of the names of the speakers the characters in Peacock s work are individuated, offering unique perspectives on the narrative s events. The perspective is never Peacock s own rather he uses satirical characters to offer a plethora of ideas:

MR FLOSKY

How can we be cheerful when we are surrounded by a reading public, that is growing too wise for its betters?

SCYTHROP

How can we be cheerful when our great general designs are crossed every moment by our little particular passions?

MR CYPRESS

How can we be cheerful in the midst of disappointment and despair?

If Mr Flosky represents Coleridge, Scythrop Shelley, and Mr Cypress Byron, Peacock is succeeding in satirising his literary contemporaries on the one hand, whilst simultaneously offering comments on Romantic politics. This shows dissatisfaction with the government, as well as offering a jovial swipe at other authors. The Romantics had such an awareness of their own context, that they skilfully interlink their satirical ideas across themes in their writing.

Peacock s political views are not overt in his writing, although political events, such as the Corn Laws, are alluded to whereas sections in Hone make it very evident that he opposed much of contemporary politics, such as Taxation too great to be borne , and THE PEOPLE all tatter`d and torn Who, in vain, Petition in every form, Who, peacably Meeting to ask for Reform . Hone s capitalisation of THE PEOPLE emphasises that his intended audience was the common man. Furthermore, Hone s rhyming couplet poetic form, lends itself to be repeated in a chant-like fashion, and Peacock s repetition of How can we be cheerful , brings the reader s attention to the serious side of his subject matter, as the repetition provides emphasis. The forms of these authors works could be seen as jester-like in their use of rhyme and repetition, but this does not undermine that both Hone and Peacock were thoroughly aware of the society they were making serious comments on.

Satire does not have to be a political commentary to be effective and show a rootedness is one s surroundings, as indeed Tave comments that Peacock [is] without real commitment to political action. Peacock is arguably just a jester, commenting on the world around him for his own and his readers pleasure. Peacock has developed satire beyond political commentary in Nightmare Abbey he may simply be satirising his friends and contemporaries in jest, but nevertheless, is offering satirical commentary about his world. Peacock satirises how Shelley easily falls for new women Scythrop proved an easy conquest. Peacock knew Shelley abandoned his first wife for another woman, and then later went on to marry Mary. This perceptive social comment displays that Peacock was aware of the world he was born into, and is hardly irresponsible it was likely just a joke between two friends. Nightmare Abbey, might not have any ulterior motives other than for Peacock to be jovial or write an amusing squib, but nevertheless, it shows not only a great awareness of what was happening around him, but also purposeful intent to be satirical.

Additionally, Draper comments that it is possible to define the place of Peacock at the joining of the old and new ages, this one person with the learning and tastes of the ancestors, with the irreverent criticism of the moderns, to comment on the transition and, having fashioned him, to have broken the mould. . Not only was Peacock highly perceptive of the world that he was born into, his awareness allowed him to break the mould , and develop his satire beyond the political, whilst still being greatly pertinent to his era. It is not the case either that Peacock can only be viewed as an effective satirist when looking back at his work, instead he so subtly, but cleverly comments on his world, that the modern critic is led to assume that these subtleties mean an absence of real awareness. But on the contrary, his subtleties so such a high level of awareness, that even in his style, it is evident to see that he is aware of and therefore purposefully avoiding possible repercussions for speaking out against the government. Peacock is arguably having a subtle swipe against the passing of parliamentary reform in Nightmare Abbey Might it not be a mermaid? It was possibly a mermaid. It was probably a mermaid. It was very probably a mermaid. Nay, what else could it be but a mermaid? It certainly was a mermaid. . Peacock is satirising parliamentary decision making what starts as a simple postulation, becomes a certainty, and this supposed certainty forms the foundation of rule, despite it having no factual basis. Draper comments further He [Peacock] is an invaluable register of the thought of this transition, a period which few of the Romantic poets lived long enough to experience, but which Peacock has summarized in a series of delightful, penetrating satires. The Romantics were rooted in their context so much so, that it was not only politics that they encountered as a muse for their satires, their satire had many levels that penetrated deep below the surface of society, and sometimes bled into their own lives.

Literary satire, alongside aesthetic satire, also features in Romantic works. They have such an awareness of their literary world that they are able to satirise across a literary context, not only inventing their own satirical characters, but understanding those of other authors. Consequently, multiple Romantic authors have satirised the same works. Hobbes Leviathan features as a theme in the works of Hone and De Quincey, perhaps commenting on the brutishness of humanity in the Romantic era, and blurring the lines between animal and human a theme also evident in Peacock s Sir Oran Haut-ton character. De Quincey writes Hobbes managed to take care of his throat pretty well for ten years but at the end of that time, by way of paying court to Cromwell, he published his Leviathan. Alluding to the idea that society had become like Hobbes state of nature and those powerful, elite members had diminished the sanctity of human life in order to satisfy their want for an artistic outlet. Just as Cromwell s body was snatched from its grave and beheaded, De Quincey is satirising how the dead were used to convey ideas. He is responsibly using the notion of the dead bodies as art to show how it is possible for ideas to be pertinent, even from beyond the graves of those who purported them. Hone too appropriates the voices of those who suffered in the Peterloo riots, and Peacock uses the voices of his contemporaries in order to satirise them. Although the authors may be appropriating others voices in a comical and satirical style, they nevertheless are doing so responsibly, with an aim to show their importance, rather than to demean them. Hone s work can be seen to further this idea that the elite and the government act for their own benefit Leviathan is not so tamed." . Hobbes Leviathan purports a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign: the government and the elite are not tamed, they are murderous and animalistic, even to the extent that they take on animal traits THE SPOUTER OF FROTH . Like a rabid animal, the government infect society. This is furthermore evident in Peacock s Melincourt, where his satire of the brutish government extends into the allegory of having an orang-utan parliamentary member. The government are not only acting like animals, they have become animals. Although the Romantics in these instances are comical, they are intentionally mocking the parliamentary powers.

Additionally, Blackwell comments that De Quincey demonstrat[es] how murder is aestheticized by Romantic writers . By introducing murder as an art-form, and the corpses as artworks, De Quincey cleverly satirises Romantic art, ethics, and morality, in one fell swoop. The act of murder may also be treated _ sthetically_...that is, in relation to good taste. It seems contradictory to say that murder can occur in good taste De Quincey is satirising other Romantic writers as being detached from morality and reality, and gives credence to Butler s view that the Romantics were unaware of the age they were born into. However, in satirising other authors, De Quincey demonstrates that he, a Romantic writer himself, is aware of the realities of the world in which he lives. Jones supports this idea using Political House as an example of satire taking on an artistic form The powerful example of Hone and Cruikshank serves as a reminder that , in early nineteenth-century London, the most common form of satire was not literary in the strict sense at all-it was graphic. Graphic satire had wider appeal, highlighting that the Romantics were aware of their satirical aims and how they would impact on society they were not merely jesting. It was not Cruikshank that made Hone s work satirical, Hone wrote with the intent that it would be accompanied by these engravings. Romantic satire should be viewed as being intentional, the meaning was not attributed posthumously.

Moreover, Wordsworth writes in the preface to his ballads the increasing accumulation of men in cities...produces a craving for extraordinary incident to this tendency of life and manners the literature and theatrical exhibitions of the country have conformed themselves. On Murder satirises contemporary social conditions through the allegorical use of murder being an art-form for the elite members of society. The life and manners of those in the country, as they have come to conform themselves to theatrical exhibitions and have developed cravings for extraordinary incident . Moreover, Wordsworth adds that it would be necessary to give a full account of the present state of the public taste and to determine how far this taste is healthy or depraved . De Quincey s work knowingly satirises this surge in depravity among the present state of the public taste , as he writes that Malebranche, it will give you pleasure to hear, was murdered. The man who murdered him is well known: it was Bishop Berkeley . The idea of murder can be seen a metaphorical here. De Quincey may be moving away from the notion of murder in the literal sense, to a murder , or objection and undermining of previous philosophical thought. De Quincey is not saying directly that murder is depraved, because that is too literal for the satirist he is, he is commenting that enlightenment theories are slaying the ideas of previously esteemed philosophers. De Quincey demonstrates that not only is he aware of the world he was born into, but he has the ability to comment on it objectively despite being on the inside.

Hone s serious satire of contemporary politics, De Quincey s comments on the morality of the elite and Peacock s witty social squibs demonstrate that satire is not only multi-faceted, but all three authors have an astute awareness of their society. These Romantic authors are hardly irresponsible jesters , with little idea of their contemporary era. Their works are not only satirical from the perspective of a modern critic, they were written for this very purpose. They offer valuable social commentary, are aware of doing so, and do so with intent. Without a full awareness of the state of society around them, it seems hardly feasible that Peacock, Hone and De Quincey would be able to offer any satirical comments whatsoever, never mind such rooted and shrewd commentary.

Word Count: 3,296

Bibliography:

Aspinall, Arthur C.V.D., George Canning , Encyclop dia Britannica Online website, (September 2014) [accessed 27 May 2014].

Blackwell, Scott, The Aesthetics of Murder (review) , MFS Modern Fiction Studies, 38:4 (1992), 1007-8.

Butler, Marilyn, Satires and the images of self in the Romantic period: The long tradition of Hazlitt s Liber Amoris , The Yearbook of English Studies, 14 (1984), 209-25.

De Quincey, Thomas On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts, Part I , Project Gutenberg (January 2004) [accessed 28 April 2014].

De Quincey, Thomas On Murder Considered as one of the Fine Arts, Part II , Project Gutenberg (January 2004) [accessed 29 April 2014].

Draper, John W., The Social Satires of Thomas Love Peacock , Modern Language Notes, 33:8 (1918), 456-63.

Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, The Encyclopedia of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars: A Political, Social, and Military History (ABC-Clio: Santa Barbara, CA, 2006).

Hone, William, The Political House that Jack Built , Romantic Circles (March 1998) [accessed 27 May 2014].

Jones, Steven E., Satire , in Romanticism: An Oxford Guide, ed. by Nicholas Roe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp.390-408.

Joukovsky, Nicholas A., Thomas Love Peacock and Sir Robert Peel: An Unpublished Satire , Modern Philology, 73:1 (1975), 81-4.

Leather, Tony H., Body Snatching Tales (May 2014) [accessed 2 June 2014].

Peacock, Thomas Love, Ancient Examples of Modern Political Virtue, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001), p.91 quoted in Nicholas A. Joukovsky, Thomas Love Peacock and Sir Robert Peel: An Unpublished Satire, Modern Philology, 73:1 (1975), 81-84.

Peacock, Thomas Love, Melincourt, (London: J.M.Dent Co., 1893).

Peacock, Thomas Love, Nightmare Abbey , Project Gutenberg (February 2006) [accessed 23 April 2014].

"Percy Bysshe Shelley," The Biography.com website, 2014 [accessed 25 May 2014].

Tave, Stuart M., Peacock Displayed: A Satirist in His Context , Ninteenth-Century Fiction, 35:4 (1981), 547-51.

Wordsworth, William, Preface to Lyrical Ballads , Famous Prefaces. The Harvard Classics (1800), < http://www.bartleby.com/39/36.html> [accessed 29 May 2014].