[pre-departure week 2.] I wonder. Cannadine's title is an inversion of E. P. Thompson's view of the 18th-century (in a long view, that century dates from the Glorious Revolution, 1688-89 to the Great Reform Act of 1832; in Cannadine's version, it dates to 1776). But in this chapter (as in most of his chapters) he notes that there are 3 models at play of what English and British society looked like (both then and by historians now): a two-class, polarized model ("us" versus "them," "rich" vs. "poor," "patricians" vs. "plebeians"); a three-layer model (elite-middle-lower; "landowning sort," "middling sort," "labouring sort"); and a hiearchical, layered, continuous chain model (from a Great Chain of Being in which people are ranked between and even within a myriad of stations). Your job is to come up with an understanding of which model William Hogarth used and which group or rank or class he valued most.
I ask you to look at Hogarth (a) because his paintings and engravings are easily available on the web; and (b) because Cannadine does not give you too many examples of what happened within the 18th century (and I certainly don't expect that you all have had a class on 18th-Century Britain). Cannadine is correct to note that England was one of the most urbanized countries in 18th-century Europe: London housed perhaps 10% of the English. But, compared to 19th and 20th century Britain, this was a rural, agricultural country. And landed values remained dominant. "A nobleman, a gentleman, a yeoman; the distinctio of these, that is a good interst of the nation, and a great one!": thus said, Oliver Cromwell in a speech in 1654. His 18th-century descendants would understand the values embraced in that. One distinction that Cannadine does not make much of is the contemporary distinction between the landed interest (the gentry, the "acre-ostracracy"--to use the title of a 19th-century book) and the new, monied interest (the latter centered mainly in "the City"--London).
Again, the assignment for this chapter is to read it, decipher what the three models of class are, then examine several paintings or engravings by Hogarth, and tell what model you think he is using in two of them, why you think this is the model, and which group he tends to support. Hogarth prints are available at:
8 comments:
It is hard to determine Hogarth's view on class from the available prints. In most of Hogarth's work class is not integreted; meaning, a picture usually depicts only one social group. For instance "Gin Lane" depicts the urban poor. Buildings are in disarray. People are dressed in rags. Also, there is a child chewing on a bone. These are just a few examples of how this engraving points toward the condition of the poor.
One would think that the engraving entitled "Beer Street" would be similar to Gin Lane, but it is not. Beer Street does depict the people enjoying themselves with alcohol but they are not in the debauched condition of those in Gin Lane. The men are dressed like working men, tradesmen of some kind on break from work. The neighborhood is in relatively good condition. And in the background one sees a nice carriage and a procession of some kind. This engraving portrays people who are obviously not rich, but are not poor either.
There are several Hogarth prints that depict the wealthy. The "Marriage of Stephen Beckingham and Mary Cox" is just one. This painting portrays, what appears to be, an upperclass wedding. The participants are dressed nicely, they are located in a nice setting, and there are people watching from the gallery who are clearly not on the same social scale as the bride and groom. This last observation shows that there was a separation in the classes. However, it does not appear to be polarized. Afterall, the onlookers are still in the same building and do not appear to be hiding. Thus this painting at least hints at some interaction between the classes, unlike many other Hogarth prints.
Given these three prints I contend that Hogarth did not portray a polarized society. Instead, it seemes Hogarth understood the subtleties of class, and hence did not draw a clear line of demarcation between the classes. Since I have to choose a model Hogarth uses I would say he portrays a hierarchical model. In the prints I have listed people are in thier expected settings. There are the poor who are expected to be suffering, others who not in any class but still appear to be doing what they should, and then the wealthy who are separated from everybody else. This is a weak argument, I know. But I would love to argue that Hogarth uses none of the models Cannadine offers. Under compulsion, I have submitted my answer.
As to who Hogarth sympathizes with, I say those not engaged in frivolity. In a lot of Hogarth's pictures the subjects are engaged in some debauched activity. This applies to the rich and the poor. In "Beer Street" some of the subjects are drinking but they seem content. Nothing bad is happening and they do not appear out of control. In fact, the subjects appear normal. Moreover, this engraving portrays a painter painting what he sees. This could be indicative of Hogarth and how he saw himself.
It is hard to determine Hogarth's view on class from the available prints. In most of Hogarth's work class is not integreted; meaning, a picture usually depicts only one social group. For instance "Gin Lane" depicts the urban poor. Buildings are in disarray. People are dressed in rags. Also, there is a child chewing on a bone. These are just a few examples of how this engraving points toward the condition of the poor.
One would think that the engraving entitled "Beer Street" would be similar to Gin Lane, but it is not. Beer Street does depict the people enjoying themselves with alcohol but they are not in the debauched condition of those in Gin Lane. The men are dressed like working men, tradesmen of some kind on break from work. The neighborhood is in relatively good condition. And in the background one sees a nice carriage and a procession of some kind. This engraving portrays people who are obviously not rich, but are not poor either.
There are several Hogarth prints that depict the wealthy. The "Marriage of Stephen Beckingham and Mary Cox" is just one. This painting portrays, what appears to be, an upperclass wedding. The participants are dressed nicely, they are located in a nice setting, and there are people watching from the gallery who are clearly not on the same social scale as the bride and groom. This last observation shows that there was a separation in the classes. However, it does not appear to be polarized. Afterall, the onlookers are still in the same building and do not appear to be hiding. Thus this painting at least hints at some interaction between the classes, unlike many other Hogarth prints.
Given these three prints I contend that Hogarth did not portray a polarized society. Instead, it seemes Hogarth understood the subtleties of class, and hence did not draw a clear line of demarcation between the classes. Since I have to choose a model Hogarth uses I would say he portrays a hierarchical model. In the prints I have listed people are in thier expected settings. There are the poor who are expected to be suffering, others who not in any class but still appear to be doing what they should, and then the wealthy who are separated from everybody else. This is a weak argument, I know. But I would love to argue that Hogarth uses none of the models Cannadine offers. Under compulsion, I have submitted my answer.
As to who Hogarth sympathizes with, I say those not engaged in frivolity. In a lot of Hogarth's pictures the subjects are engaged in some debauched activity. This applies to the rich and the poor. In "Beer Street" some of the subjects are drinking but they seem content. Nothing bad is happening and they do not appear out of control. In fact, the subjects appear normal. Moreover, this engraving portrays a painter painting what he sees. This could be indicative of Hogarth and how he saw himself.
Hogarth's paintings depict a polarized society based upon money. In any of his paintings with people of an obvious higher class status (based upon dress or the background scenery) the richer people are always depicted as being well mannered, well dressed, and acting appropriately. The urban poor, however, are depicted as lecherous, criminal, and dirty in many of his paintings. I was not able to find any positive portrayal of poor working class people aside from the painting "Shrimp Girl" which was not either positive or negative, merely a smiling, still portrait.
Examples of Hogarth's polarized views on the urban poor and the upper class are well portrayed in "The Four Times of Day Plate IV, Night" The Magistrate walks through squalor without seeing the problems around him. The people living on a higher floor dump a chamber pot onto his head.
The two paintings "Beer Street" and "Gin Lane" are examples of richer and poorer lifestyles. Beer was a more expensive drink than Gin. Gin became the drink of the alcoholic poor. Hogarth's vision depicts beer drinking as a sort of solution to the problem of rampant alcoholism.
The triatic or "Great Chain of Being" models are difficult to place within Horgath's prints mainly due to the lack of qualifying material regarding the subjects of the paintings. We have no reliable way of knowing whether or not the rich people in the "Marriage a La Mode" series are landowners or capital merchants. Making assumptions regarding the status of the people in a print such as "Tavern Orgy" or a similar one would be impossible.
Hogarth's sympathies are difficult to extract from his paintings. He obviously feels that urban poor have a difficult situation. The unfeeling and unseeing magistrate in the "The Four Times of Day Plate IV, Night" and the dichotomy of the Beer and Gin prints suggest that Hogarth feels that the urban poor's situation can be rectified and changed for the better.
From viewing some of the engravings of Hogarth's, it seems to me that he viewed society in a very triadic manner, viewing the countless "mob" as drunken fools, while considering the rich and powerful as money-loving and not so stately. Comparing any of his paintings of various "stately" weddings to "Gin Lane" it's easy to see that he held both upper and lower classes contemptible. This very polarized view that he held of society was based only on a "us" verses "them" ideal (for as it has previously been mentioned that he also had some quite satirical articles for the wealthy, but seemed to keep the middle classes out of his "fun"), but also shows that his version of "us" verses "them" seemed to be more directed from the middle class outward, both up and down. He seems to take both polarized and triadic and mesh them together to form his own outlooks.
It appears that Hogarth understood the different social classes and was able to portray each correctly and effectivly. Also, in his paintings, the classes don't seem to be intergrated...each painting portrays a certain class participating in an activity suitable for the class in which they belong. Given this, I would say Hogarth portrayed a hierarchical society.
In "Gin Lane", Hogarth portrays a polarized society. He illustrates the poor urban class. The buildings are delapidated (sp?), the people are dressed is grunging clothing and there is an dismal aura being dipicted.
His painting, "The Marriage Conract" portrays a totally different class of people...the rich and elite. For this work, Hogarth is using the dichotomous model.
I definitely see Hogarth's work as being very polarized in depicting the upper and lower classes.
When Hogarth's engravings depict the urban poor, they are shown in very crowded and unorganized settings. Both "Gin Lane" and "Beer Street" support this.
Then, when Hogarth engraves pictures of the upper class they are less crowded, organized, even their stature is different; as in "The Ashley and Popple Family" and in "The Marriage Contract".
I think this shows his frame of mind when he is doing his work. It shows that even in his thinking he is polarized as to the rich and the poor. There is no middle ground, there are no structured representations of the poor as there are no unorganized, crowded pictures of the rich.
Hogarth depicts many different types of people in the work that we can view. The side of the fence that he seems to be on when considering the different types of class models-hierarchical, triadic, and dichotomous-is the one of a dichotomal modle of class. Most of his prints depict either the rich or the poor, the well-off and the misfortunate. In his print titled "Gin Lane" he depicts the apparrent unruliness of the lower class. In his print "The Strode Family" he illustrates a well-off family sitting for tea, s decidedly civilized English past-time.
In all his work, Hogarth doesn't seem to choose a side in the battle of rich vs. poor. He points out in both the failings and the accomplishments/values. His role does not seem to be to judge but merely to comment and exaggerate the qualities-good or bad-in each class.
Out of the three models of society, Hogarth seems to use the two-class model the most, the 'us and them' model. Out of his paintings, he has two that are of different women. The first that I noticed was of an elite woman and the title of the painting was 'Portrait of a Young Woman.' The other painting that he has of a woman is of an obvious working-class woman and the title of that painting is 'The Shrimp Girl.' Just the titles of these two paintings shows the differences between the two classes and the distinctions between them. And the style of the paintings is much different as well. The elite woman painting is very neat and detail oriented and the woman is dressed in fine clothing and jewelry with her hair done nicely. The portrait of the 'shrimp girl' is done in a much more haphazard style with not much attention to detail. The girl is also wearing working clothes and has a large hat on her head that would lead me to believe that she wears it for a working purpose.
Post a Comment