About the Author/Social Classes
William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863) was born into an unforgiving English society (Fletcher). It was a hierarchy (in descending order): aristocrats, the gentry (high and low), working class, lower class (Marks). It did not just depend on money; family and personal history were also a part of it (Marks). The aristocracy were in charge, not just of the government, but socially, too (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). The upper class was a challenge to penetrate, unless one was born into it (Marks). While the working class may have been able to move up a bit in the hierarchy, the lower class generally appeared stuck (Marks). Vanity Fair takes place during the Napoleonic Wars, prior to when Thackeray wrote the book. This was a time of great change in Britain, especially socially (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). The government was trying to address the issue of poverty, among other issues, such as slavery and women’s rights (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). They passed many acts to try to fix these conflicts within class system (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). Thackeray probably chose this time because he could call out the problems in his own time without offending anyone directly.
Thackeray was born into the upper class (Sundell 2). He was raised as a gentleman in the gentry class, which means that he was educated without a specific career in mind (Fletcher). He attended college, but did not focus on his studies, therefore failing to obtain a degree (Fletcher). Thackeray spent the next few years gambling, drinking, and presumably having sex (Fletcher). This lifestyle was just fine for a gentleman of this time. However, once his fortune was lost in a bank failure, Thackeray had to reevaluate his choices (Fletcher). Because he failed to acquire any special skills in his years of schooling (Fletcher), he had even fewer options than the few gentlemanly occupations there were to choose from (Marks). These included the law, the church, and the military (Marks). Alas, with such little money to his name, he could not be a gentleman any longer anyway. Society rejected him. He turned to journalism to generate an income (Fletcher). He had to invest many years and work into this before Vanity Fair became a success, but it paid off (Fletcher). Everyone knows the name Vanity Fair thanks to him, even if they do not realize it. He used many of his life experiences to influence his writings.
Because of his now-and-again relationship with society, it was the topic of his successful novel (Dames xviii). He was able to relate with the masses because of his journey through the class system; he knew life from all sides (Dames xviii). Thackeray pulled the title from a part in Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. The Vanity Fair in that book is full of sin, as all the inhabitants are idle or take part in various sinister deeds (Allen 113-114). For Thackeray, it is representative of his own society; not completely evil, surely not good, but definitely an accurate portrayal (Allen 113-114). He saw that the upper classes blamed the lower for the problems that society had created itself (Dyson 81). He wanted to represent all aspects of society through the characters (Melani). He generally did this through character relationships (Kettle 16). While he specifically showed the downfalls of the world around him in them, he made sure to include some of the positives, too (Melani). Even the seemingly heartless characters in the book show a soft side every once in a while. He was very able to write about the upper class snobbery because he had represented both side: he once was one, and he saw how they were once he was kicked out of their lifestyle (Kettle 18).
The women of Thackeray’s life formed his views about them, in addition to the society around him. His mother sent him away when he was five (Fletcher). Women at this time were expected to marry and raise children, nothing more (Wojtczak). His mother failed the second task, so therefore his early view of women must have been even more skewed than the rest of society’s was at this time. He used women to satisfy his whimsies, but it appeared to turn around on him, as he acquired a life-long affliction possibly caused by gonorrhea (Fletcher). Later, before and after he was married, he courted married women, which rarely worked in his favor (Fletcher). Women of this time were property of their husbands, meaning that even if they just wanted Thackeray’s innocent company, they were most likely denied it (Wojtczak). Single women were not an option, either, as they were generally socially disapproved of (Wojtczak). Most were not in his class anyway because they had to rely on a sibling’s income or work as a governess (Marks). The only other way they could support themselves was prostitution, as there were no other career paths open for them, but this was obviously a huge social downfall (Wojtczak). The only women who had social freedom, or any freedom really, were wealthy widows or very lucky daughters with a large inheritance (Wojtczak). This comes out in the book through Lady Crawley. She has a large inheritance which she uses to her advantage, without the input of a man (Thackeray 135). Thackeray himself did not treat his wife with much respect, either (Fletcher). He ignored her while he focused on her career, which possibly led to her mental instability and suicidal thoughts (Fletcher). He put her in mental institutions while he continued to carry on the life he wanted to live (Fletcher). The way he treated women was like a cycle: he felt like they disrespected him, so he did the same back. His two main female characters exemplify the traits he thought were the worst in women: weakness in Amelia and disrespect in Becky.
Thackeray showed his views of society through his characters. He felt like his society was corrupt, so they were, too. He was able to relate to the people because he had been in so many different class systems. Born a gentleman, but then kicked out and forced into earning his way back, one thing is for sure: Thackeray wrote a novel that all classes and generations can relate to.
William Makepeace Thackeray (1811-1863) was born into an unforgiving English society (Fletcher). It was a hierarchy (in descending order): aristocrats, the gentry (high and low), working class, lower class (Marks). It did not just depend on money; family and personal history were also a part of it (Marks). The aristocracy were in charge, not just of the government, but socially, too (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). The upper class was a challenge to penetrate, unless one was born into it (Marks). While the working class may have been able to move up a bit in the hierarchy, the lower class generally appeared stuck (Marks). Vanity Fair takes place during the Napoleonic Wars, prior to when Thackeray wrote the book. This was a time of great change in Britain, especially socially (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). The government was trying to address the issue of poverty, among other issues, such as slavery and women’s rights (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). They passed many acts to try to fix these conflicts within class system (“Britain in the Nineteenth Century”). Thackeray probably chose this time because he could call out the problems in his own time without offending anyone directly.
Thackeray was born into the upper class (Sundell 2). He was raised as a gentleman in the gentry class, which means that he was educated without a specific career in mind (Fletcher). He attended college, but did not focus on his studies, therefore failing to obtain a degree (Fletcher). Thackeray spent the next few years gambling, drinking, and presumably having sex (Fletcher). This lifestyle was just fine for a gentleman of this time. However, once his fortune was lost in a bank failure, Thackeray had to reevaluate his choices (Fletcher). Because he failed to acquire any special skills in his years of schooling (Fletcher), he had even fewer options than the few gentlemanly occupations there were to choose from (Marks). These included the law, the church, and the military (Marks). Alas, with such little money to his name, he could not be a gentleman any longer anyway. Society rejected him. He turned to journalism to generate an income (Fletcher). He had to invest many years and work into this before Vanity Fair became a success, but it paid off (Fletcher). Everyone knows the name Vanity Fair thanks to him, even if they do not realize it. He used many of his life experiences to influence his writings.
Because of his now-and-again relationship with society, it was the topic of his successful novel (Dames xviii). He was able to relate with the masses because of his journey through the class system; he knew life from all sides (Dames xviii). Thackeray pulled the title from a part in Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress. The Vanity Fair in that book is full of sin, as all the inhabitants are idle or take part in various sinister deeds (Allen 113-114). For Thackeray, it is representative of his own society; not completely evil, surely not good, but definitely an accurate portrayal (Allen 113-114). He saw that the upper classes blamed the lower for the problems that society had created itself (Dyson 81). He wanted to represent all aspects of society through the characters (Melani). He generally did this through character relationships (Kettle 16). While he specifically showed the downfalls of the world around him in them, he made sure to include some of the positives, too (Melani). Even the seemingly heartless characters in the book show a soft side every once in a while. He was very able to write about the upper class snobbery because he had represented both side: he once was one, and he saw how they were once he was kicked out of their lifestyle (Kettle 18).
The women of Thackeray’s life formed his views about them, in addition to the society around him. His mother sent him away when he was five (Fletcher). Women at this time were expected to marry and raise children, nothing more (Wojtczak). His mother failed the second task, so therefore his early view of women must have been even more skewed than the rest of society’s was at this time. He used women to satisfy his whimsies, but it appeared to turn around on him, as he acquired a life-long affliction possibly caused by gonorrhea (Fletcher). Later, before and after he was married, he courted married women, which rarely worked in his favor (Fletcher). Women of this time were property of their husbands, meaning that even if they just wanted Thackeray’s innocent company, they were most likely denied it (Wojtczak). Single women were not an option, either, as they were generally socially disapproved of (Wojtczak). Most were not in his class anyway because they had to rely on a sibling’s income or work as a governess (Marks). The only other way they could support themselves was prostitution, as there were no other career paths open for them, but this was obviously a huge social downfall (Wojtczak). The only women who had social freedom, or any freedom really, were wealthy widows or very lucky daughters with a large inheritance (Wojtczak). This comes out in the book through Lady Crawley. She has a large inheritance which she uses to her advantage, without the input of a man (Thackeray 135). Thackeray himself did not treat his wife with much respect, either (Fletcher). He ignored her while he focused on her career, which possibly led to her mental instability and suicidal thoughts (Fletcher). He put her in mental institutions while he continued to carry on the life he wanted to live (Fletcher). The way he treated women was like a cycle: he felt like they disrespected him, so he did the same back. His two main female characters exemplify the traits he thought were the worst in women: weakness in Amelia and disrespect in Becky.
Thackeray showed his views of society through his characters. He felt like his society was corrupt, so they were, too. He was able to relate to the people because he had been in so many different class systems. Born a gentleman, but then kicked out and forced into earning his way back, one thing is for sure: Thackeray wrote a novel that all classes and generations can relate to.
Social Class within Vanity Fair
There is not a page in Vanity Fair
that does not have a reference to social class on it. Set in the early to
almost-mid 1800s, the whole plot of the novel is based on the social hierarchy.
Most characters are trying to climb the ladder, but some fall. Even those who
have nothing to do with it cannot avoid it, including Thackeray
himself.
At the beginning of the novel, Becky and Dobbin are at the low end. Becky was
raised by an artist, which was not an upper class occupation. Becky tried to
hide her past, but as she did not have a prominent name, this did not gain her
any ground. She tries to better her position by marrying. During this time,
parents set up their children for marriage in order to make sure there were no
major class shifts (Wojtczak). Since this “dear girl has no dear mamma to settle matters with the young man,
she must do it for herself” (Thackeray 27). She tries to get herself set up with
Amelia’s brother, who, though unattractive and awkward, had a fair amount of
money. However, no one wanted her in the family, not even a potential
brother-in-law, George. George did not want the family he was marrying into
“should make a mesalliance with a little nobody” (56). Neither did the groom’s mother: “It was, of course,
Mrs. Sedley’s opinion that her son would demean himself by a marriage with an
artist’s daughter” (49). This not only shows that no one wanted to be in
connection with the lower classes, but no one wanted a woman of this time to
better her position, either.
Going up in class was much more acceptable for a man, which is exemplified in Dobbin.
He started off low, as his parents were grocers, but his friendship with
superior George Osbourne, gave him many opportunities to better his position
(41). Joining the military was also beneficial because that was a gentleman’s
occupation (Marks). He was able to earn money at a respectable job. Having money
generally ups one’s position, too, especially if male (Marks). He was able to
raise his social position so much higher that women wanted to marry him for it.
If he would have stayed where he was, no one would even be looking at him.
On the other side, Miss Crawley was at the very top of the ladder and stayed there.
This was a rarity for a woman of this time, because they were supposed to be
supported and controlled by men, either their husbands or their brothers, if
they were unmarried (Marks). Instead of looking after her, they her family
looked up to her, hoping to gain her inheritance: “What a dignity it gives an
old lady, that balance at the banker’s! how tenderly we look at her faults, if
she is a relative (and may every reader have a score of such), what a kind,
good-natured old creature we find her!” (Thackeray 84). They long for it so
much, they ignore the way she mistreats them. The following quote exemplifies
this perfectly: “Gratitude among certain rich folks is scarcely natural or to be
thought of. They take needy people’s services as their due” (135). Miss Crawley
took everything she had for advantage. Without her money, she would have had to
work to support herself (Marks). Since she had more money than the men in her
life, however, she was able to take charge of her own affairs.
While it was nearly impossible to get to the very top from where Becky was, she did
her best. She did get pretty far, or so it appeared. They lived like they were
rich, but they cheated and lied for their money (Thackeray 363). Being poor was
an uncomfortable way to live, in addition to being shameful (“Britain
in the Nineteenth Century”). They were not like the Sedley’s, who, upon losing
their fortune, gracefully retreated back into a lower-end lifestyle. Or at
least, they did until it was becoming uncomfortable to do so, in which case
Amelia married for money (Thackeray 671). Even though social class was not
solely based on money, the higher up one is, the better the lifestyle one lives,
and these characters would do what they could to get there.
Another
person that switched social classes was Thackeray himself. He started off
towards the top, but once he lost his money, he was shunned by them until he
became one of them again (Dames
xviii). This was what inspired the whole novel. He resented the class system
because it had treated him unfairly, and he made this the theme of the text. One
passage particularly shows his views:
“Yes,
I suppose that will be the better ending of the two, after all. Suppose you are
particularly rich and well-to-do, and say on that last day, ‘I am very rich; I
am tolerably well-known; I have lived all my life in the best society, and thank
Heaven, come of a most respectable family. I have served my King and country
with honor. I was in Parliament for several years, where, I may say, my speeches
were listened to, and pretty well received. I don’t owe any man a shilling; on
the contrary, I lent my old college friend, Jack Lazarus, fifty pounds, for
which my executors will not press him. I leave my daughters with ten thousand
pounds a piece--very good portions for girls: I bequeath my plate and furniture,
my house in Baker Street, with a handsome jointure, to my widow for her life;
and my landed property, besides money in the Funds, and my cella of
well-selected wine in Baker Street, to my son. I leave twenty pounds a year to
my valet; and I defy any man after I am gone to find anything against my
character.’ Or suppose, on the other hand, your swan sings quite a different
sort of dirge, and you say, ‘ I am a poor, blighted, disappointed old fellow,
and have made an utter failure through life. I was not endowed either with
brains or with good fortune: and confess that I have committed a hundred
mistakes and blunders. I own to having forgotten my duty many a time. I can’t
pay what I owe. On my last bed I lie utterly helpless and humble: and I pray
forgiveness for my weakness, and throw myself with a contrite heart at the feet
of the Divine Mercy.’ Which of these two speeches, think you, would be the best
oration for your own funeral? Old Sedley made the last; and in that humble frame
of mind, and holding the hand of his daughter, life and disappointment and
vanity sank away from under him” (599).
This shows that while prosperity may leave everyone around the dying appearing to be
satisfied, the man losing it will not be. He will lack humility and repentance
for his sins to God, and that is actually what matters in the end.Thackeray
believed money left people in a worthless and lonely state, which showed in
almost all of his characters (Dames xv). Miss Crawley died rich but alone and
unwanted. Becky’s thirst for it also lead her to be banished from her husband
and friends. While Amelia did not long for wealth the way some of the other
characters did, she ended up marrying for money at the end, and the marriage was
not as successful as she hoped it would be.
Vanity Fair is about the social hierarchy. Thackeray viewed it as a futile system, which is
shown through his characters. Whether they tried to climb the ladder or just
maintain their position, all end up falling. Thackeray himself had experienced
this very same tumble down, which is why he chose to express his opinions
through this novel. He knew that the only real influence affluence brought is
unhappiness.
There is not a page in Vanity Fair
that does not have a reference to social class on it. Set in the early to
almost-mid 1800s, the whole plot of the novel is based on the social hierarchy.
Most characters are trying to climb the ladder, but some fall. Even those who
have nothing to do with it cannot avoid it, including Thackeray
himself.
At the beginning of the novel, Becky and Dobbin are at the low end. Becky was
raised by an artist, which was not an upper class occupation. Becky tried to
hide her past, but as she did not have a prominent name, this did not gain her
any ground. She tries to better her position by marrying. During this time,
parents set up their children for marriage in order to make sure there were no
major class shifts (Wojtczak). Since this “dear girl has no dear mamma to settle matters with the young man,
she must do it for herself” (Thackeray 27). She tries to get herself set up with
Amelia’s brother, who, though unattractive and awkward, had a fair amount of
money. However, no one wanted her in the family, not even a potential
brother-in-law, George. George did not want the family he was marrying into
“should make a mesalliance with a little nobody” (56). Neither did the groom’s mother: “It was, of course,
Mrs. Sedley’s opinion that her son would demean himself by a marriage with an
artist’s daughter” (49). This not only shows that no one wanted to be in
connection with the lower classes, but no one wanted a woman of this time to
better her position, either.
Going up in class was much more acceptable for a man, which is exemplified in Dobbin.
He started off low, as his parents were grocers, but his friendship with
superior George Osbourne, gave him many opportunities to better his position
(41). Joining the military was also beneficial because that was a gentleman’s
occupation (Marks). He was able to earn money at a respectable job. Having money
generally ups one’s position, too, especially if male (Marks). He was able to
raise his social position so much higher that women wanted to marry him for it.
If he would have stayed where he was, no one would even be looking at him.
On the other side, Miss Crawley was at the very top of the ladder and stayed there.
This was a rarity for a woman of this time, because they were supposed to be
supported and controlled by men, either their husbands or their brothers, if
they were unmarried (Marks). Instead of looking after her, they her family
looked up to her, hoping to gain her inheritance: “What a dignity it gives an
old lady, that balance at the banker’s! how tenderly we look at her faults, if
she is a relative (and may every reader have a score of such), what a kind,
good-natured old creature we find her!” (Thackeray 84). They long for it so
much, they ignore the way she mistreats them. The following quote exemplifies
this perfectly: “Gratitude among certain rich folks is scarcely natural or to be
thought of. They take needy people’s services as their due” (135). Miss Crawley
took everything she had for advantage. Without her money, she would have had to
work to support herself (Marks). Since she had more money than the men in her
life, however, she was able to take charge of her own affairs.
While it was nearly impossible to get to the very top from where Becky was, she did
her best. She did get pretty far, or so it appeared. They lived like they were
rich, but they cheated and lied for their money (Thackeray 363). Being poor was
an uncomfortable way to live, in addition to being shameful (“Britain
in the Nineteenth Century”). They were not like the Sedley’s, who, upon losing
their fortune, gracefully retreated back into a lower-end lifestyle. Or at
least, they did until it was becoming uncomfortable to do so, in which case
Amelia married for money (Thackeray 671). Even though social class was not
solely based on money, the higher up one is, the better the lifestyle one lives,
and these characters would do what they could to get there.
Another
person that switched social classes was Thackeray himself. He started off
towards the top, but once he lost his money, he was shunned by them until he
became one of them again (Dames
xviii). This was what inspired the whole novel. He resented the class system
because it had treated him unfairly, and he made this the theme of the text. One
passage particularly shows his views:
“Yes,
I suppose that will be the better ending of the two, after all. Suppose you are
particularly rich and well-to-do, and say on that last day, ‘I am very rich; I
am tolerably well-known; I have lived all my life in the best society, and thank
Heaven, come of a most respectable family. I have served my King and country
with honor. I was in Parliament for several years, where, I may say, my speeches
were listened to, and pretty well received. I don’t owe any man a shilling; on
the contrary, I lent my old college friend, Jack Lazarus, fifty pounds, for
which my executors will not press him. I leave my daughters with ten thousand
pounds a piece--very good portions for girls: I bequeath my plate and furniture,
my house in Baker Street, with a handsome jointure, to my widow for her life;
and my landed property, besides money in the Funds, and my cella of
well-selected wine in Baker Street, to my son. I leave twenty pounds a year to
my valet; and I defy any man after I am gone to find anything against my
character.’ Or suppose, on the other hand, your swan sings quite a different
sort of dirge, and you say, ‘ I am a poor, blighted, disappointed old fellow,
and have made an utter failure through life. I was not endowed either with
brains or with good fortune: and confess that I have committed a hundred
mistakes and blunders. I own to having forgotten my duty many a time. I can’t
pay what I owe. On my last bed I lie utterly helpless and humble: and I pray
forgiveness for my weakness, and throw myself with a contrite heart at the feet
of the Divine Mercy.’ Which of these two speeches, think you, would be the best
oration for your own funeral? Old Sedley made the last; and in that humble frame
of mind, and holding the hand of his daughter, life and disappointment and
vanity sank away from under him” (599).
This shows that while prosperity may leave everyone around the dying appearing to be
satisfied, the man losing it will not be. He will lack humility and repentance
for his sins to God, and that is actually what matters in the end.Thackeray
believed money left people in a worthless and lonely state, which showed in
almost all of his characters (Dames xv). Miss Crawley died rich but alone and
unwanted. Becky’s thirst for it also lead her to be banished from her husband
and friends. While Amelia did not long for wealth the way some of the other
characters did, she ended up marrying for money at the end, and the marriage was
not as successful as she hoped it would be.
Vanity Fair is about the social hierarchy. Thackeray viewed it as a futile system, which is
shown through his characters. Whether they tried to climb the ladder or just
maintain their position, all end up falling. Thackeray himself had experienced
this very same tumble down, which is why he chose to express his opinions
through this novel. He knew that the only real influence affluence brought is
unhappiness.