The third of the four pre-departure questions refers to Cannadine, "The Eighteenth Century: Class Without Class Struggle." Cannadine's title is an inversion of E. P. Thompson's view of the 18th-century (the long eighteenth 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). (Cannadine introduces them in the opposite order.)
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. (The following picture is
The Four Times of Day Plate I, Morning, 1738; the church the one woman appears to be going to is still in Covent Garden; there also appear to be a number of drunks--in the morning?)
I ask you to look at Hogarth
- because his paintings and engravings are easily available on the web; and
- 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 distinction 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:
9 comments:
It seems to me that Hogarth is portraying the two seperations class of upper and lower. This dichotomy of classes is evident throughout all of his artwork that portrays people of society. There seems very little referrence to any middle class that would be necessary in a three tier class system or for that matter there is no reference to any finer detail of class which would be evident in a heirarchy of classes. While I'm not sure if he very much values the lower class more than the upper class. Because he constantly portrays the lower class in the dark or much lower in stature than the upper class, which they were obviously. But I would say that he very much devalues the upper class and their way of life. He portrays them in my opinion as wasteful overindulgent people who take advanatage of others.
In the "Urban Decay" part of Hogarth's work he portrays class interaction as a dichotomy of rich and poor, not of a 3-layered model that recognizes a middle class. One painting I point to would be "The Four Times of Day Plate IV, Night", where a wealthy magistrate is walking down a city street with drunken members of the lower classes all around him. The description says the magistrate seemingly ignores everything but the chamber pot being dumped on him, which is a good characterization of what Hogarth thought of the actions of the upper class in response to the lower classes. Although Hogarth paints the magistrate as self-absorbed (and apparantly drunk, according to the passage about the painting) he still paints the magistrate in a better light than the pesantry around him. In fact, in most of his paintings the lower class is painted in darker shade with much uglier features than their upper class counterparts.
After reviewing some of Hogarth's work I would venture to say its hard to pick a model from Cannadine because most of his works do not show the classes integrated. They will focus on one class like the rich or the poor doing what one might stereotype them doing. With "Gin Street" the depiction of the urban poor shows run down buildings and people dressed in rags. In "Beer Street" the people portrayed seem more middle class, dressed okay, drinking, decent atmosphere. In "Marriage a la mode" (which from being in some of the estate houses resembles some we saw...lots of paintings on the walls) the people are upper class discussing marriage documents and pointing to a family tree (which looks remarkably linear..hmmm) they are dressed nice and conducting business. All this being said, there are a few which depict the classes integrated such as "the Marriage of Stephen Beckingham and Mary Cox" in which the wedding party is of upper class and the on lookers are most definitely not of the same social standing, however they are sort of integrated... they're in the same building.
I would thus say that Hogarth would best fit into a triadic model. I would also say that he sympathizes with the poorer echelon of society because he depicts in some paintings the rich in a different light. He points out some of their frivolous behavior and their flaws to show that they engage in some of the same things as the poorer people, like showing they aren't entirely superior.
Cannadine believes there are three different models for understanding British society— hierarchical, triadic, and polarized—models the British themselves recognize. In the works of William Hogarth two of the three are at play. Looking at many of the prints Hogarth portrays the debauched goings-on of the “meaner sort” and the folderol of the “higher sorts.” In much of the “Four Times of the Day” collection there is generally those dressed in riches and those dress in rags. In his compilation of interiors depicting the marriage of a wealthy middle-class girl to the son of an aristocrat, “Marriage รก la mode,” Hogarth recognizes the “middling sort” and the need for the mingling of the wealthy “middling sort” (whose money comes from trade or manufacturing) and the aristocratic class whose years of frivolous spending are coming back to hurt them. The difference between the “better sorts” and the “middling sort” is apparent in the visible hoity-toity appearance of the aristocratic father, the and plain, simple clothes of the wealth middle-class father as well as the grandeur of the negotiation room.
From the prints I looked at, I do not think Hogarth gives support to any one “class.” He seems to be painting a reality. One could venture to say perhaps his upbringing—the son of the schoolteacher, who was later imprisoned for debt—would make him more supportive to the “little people,” or "lower classes." However, he is harsh to the lower classes showing them in drunken stupors, pursuing their sexual desires. The men are unproductive louts and the women are scantily clad harlots. Yet, Hogarth is also critical of the higher echelons of society. He paints their stately manors, but portrays them as indifferent, grumpy, snooty, money-grubbers who simply want to maintain their status and prestige. Perhaps then, if he follows the triadic model he is more keen on the middle classes, wealthy merchants and tradesmen. A class of men both productive and lazy; down to earth and snobby.
I think that Hogarth has a tendency to lean towards the "us" vs. "them" idea, or the poor vs. rich. Having viewed some of his art work in the British history class, the ones elections I think are a very key insight into this. They show the rich nobles coming from out of town, into town in order to buy the votes of the towns people, only to then go on to parliament and not truly represent them. He shows the poor being led to the polls by the upper class in order to vote for them. Also, some of his paintings show the upperclass as being drunk and at times very large, while they are surrounded by the working class who is doing all the work to keep things moving. I think he focuses on these scenes, especially the elections, b/c it one time that the upper class needs the lower class in order to remain in power. The voting districts were typically poor individuals that lived in town, thus the division of being a landowner, and one that must work to survive.
I would have to say Hogarth has an "us" versus "them" theme to him. I say this because most of the paintings i observed either were of upper class or it had upper class with lower class people doing things for the upper class. An example of this would have been his "A Theft of a Watch." In this you have a lower class person stealing a watch from an uper class man. This does not portray the lower class in the most positive way. Also it lower class person stealing. This in itself give off the vibe of "us" versus "them." "Hudibras' First Adventure" shows an upper class man pointing a gun at lower class people. This nake it seem like upper class people wanted nothing to do with lower class people.
Judging by the images available it appears that Hogarth subscribed to the polarized view of class in Britain. Them images either depict the wealthy or the poor. There is no middle group. In each image that the poor are depicted in Hogarth strives to convey a sense of degradation and hopelessness in their existence. there is also a lot of effort put into the shock value of each image (i.e. women changing in a barn or a woman holding a child in a very unsafe manner with an exposed breast on a stair case). he also portrays the rich in all of the finery and frivolity. While the poor are seen struggling in their existence the rich are seen living in luxury and opulence. The rich are also portrayed in a mostly leisurely fashion, while the poor are shown to be struggling with life. Because of this I feel that Hogarth favors the dual layer model over that of a continuous chain or of a three tiered system.
Looking at the various works of art by Hogarth, I can clearly detect two classes: upper and lower. The upper class is portrayed by the way their faces are painted, and the care that is taken to get every detail right. As for the poor, the people look a bit dirtier, as well as possessing expressions that are not the most becoming. Of all the classes Hogarth valued the most, it seems to be the rich, because of how many pictures of them are there, as well as the detailed that was paid attention to while painting. I did not detect any picture that clearly defined the middle class. In the picture Beer Street, it is apparent that the people in the picture have content expression. One painting that portrayed his favoritism towards the upper class, would be Mrs. Catherine Edwards . She has her own self-portrait, that was done carefully and delicately, so the artist could catch every emotion she contained.
Hogarth seems to be portraying an upper/lower class model, without much middle class. His paintings either celebrate the lifestyles of the nobility or mock the poor. A comfortable but not wealthy class of merchants is absent. Many paintings are full of drunks and whores (the lower class) or fine statesmen and well adorned ladies (the upper class). I do not know what class he was in, but I assume the upper. He must not be middle class, because most people who fall in that area consider themselves middle class. He must not be lower class because of the debauched view he portrays the lower class in.
Those in the upper class are most likely to appreciate a binary model of upper/lower class because it benefits them the most.
Post a Comment