Unit 1 English Literature 2- Marta Iglesias PDF

Preview

Summary

Universidade de A Coruña Facultade de Filoloxía Marta Iglesias González ​February 11th, 2021 ​ Filoloxía 2ºENGLISH LITERATURE 2. FILOLOXÍA 2ºUnit 1: "The novel in the 18th century- Introduction”1. General overview.It’s difficult to understand the 18th century in Britain. It was a very compl...

Description

Universidade de A Coruña

Facultade de Filoloxía

Marta Iglesias González

February 11th, 2021

Filoloxía 2º

ENGLISH LITERATURE 2. FILOLOXÍA 2º Unit 1: "The novel in the 18th century- Introduction”

1.1. General overview. It’s difficult to understand the 18th century in Britain. It was a very complex one for many reasons. During that time, there were many different political events, and especially a tremendous presence and influence of war. The relationship between England and Europe was very complex (as it is complex today). It’s a matter of a clear difference of perspective, between the continent and the British Isles. The important aspect about the 18th century is, probably, more on the side of social (society is going to change a lot during this period as compared to the previous centuries) and economic evolution, and in the field of philosophic ideas. So we have a real evolution, mostly provoked by Enlightenment. Because of these new intellectual and cultural ideas —most of them coming from Europe—, science reached a very high development in England at that moment. Meanwhile, as I said, philosophy, education and culture were developing a lot in Europe. Thus, there was truly an exchange of culture and new ideas among England and European countries (specially Central European countries). It was a very interesting exchange, and one we need to take into account if we actually want to understand contemporary times. In order to understand the 18th century, we need to have a knowledge of the previous period, the period of Restoration. The 17th century, and the fact that the British monarchy was interrupted in a very dramatical way, obviously provoked lots of political changes. But not only political, the restoration of the monarchy actually contributed to a tremendous change also in society and in everyday life. So all these changes in British society of course were provoked by Enlightenment, new ideas etc., but there was a very strong political influence and movement behind. Politics and the monarchy issues are fundamental, and are reflected in literature very profoundly. As I said previously, when we analyze the 18th century, we have to take into account the 17th century if we want to understand what actually happened.

1.2. The city of London after Restoration. We have the possibility, by using paintings, por instance, from that time, of analyzing the evolution of London in the 17th and 18th centuries. The real development of London as a big city actually started by the end of the 17th century. So it is very interesting to analyze a big city like London, which was so important and significant to the world at that moment, it was probably kind of the capital of the world, together with Paris. We don't often pay close attention to architecture, to urban development, to the growth of population at that moment in London… All these elements, which are not purely literary, which are not purely political, are relevant, and they have a very profound meaning. And, actually, we are not paying attention to just London, there are many other towns and important cities in London which were developed at that moment. We have to consider the tremendous difference between the countryside and the city, the urban context, in the 18th century. This is the reason why it is so important to analyze the city of London, to study some not- very- complex ideas about these developments. What is the reason why the city of London developed so much in the 18th century?

Restoration London , by Liza Picard, describes beautifully how London, after Restoration, actually changed a lot as a city, explaining how everything changed, not just the general appearance of the city, but also services, citizens, infraestructures, etc. It needs to be considered that from the Roman times to the 17th century (more or less), changes in cities, and, of course, even more in the countryside, were very little. We know that, during the Roman times, public works were very important, they were able to build bridges, monuments, and many others, so architecture and urban design during the Roman times were very important. But for many centuries, and specially during the Medieval times, cities evolved very little, they were simply devoted to defend from the enemy. But later on, even though the 17th and 18th century did not present a very clear political stability (there were, as I said earlier, many political problems and wars all around), it is obvious that a very impressive transformation took place. The landscape, which was mostly a medieval landscape (ex.: n  o big buildings), suddenly started to change.

And, of course, we already have this evolution during the Renaissance time, but it, above all, took place in Italy (the important evolution of several cities such as Florence). So it’s obvious that during those periods, during the Quattrocento, the Cinquecento and so on, obviously the evolution of cities (as I said, in Italy specially) was already very relevant. This is, in fact, the reason why British politicians are going to be interested in Italian architects in many different moments of history. Thus, we’ll have Italian painters and architects working in the city of London. For instance, when they were to decorate the Banqueting Hall and some other buildings linked to politics or to the government, many artists and architects from Italy were invited to take part in these constructions. However, in England, and specially and in London, as I was saying earlier, the real development took place in the 18th century. This is a real success, thanks especially to British architects (above all, to Christopher Wren), who were at that time building Saint Paul's Cathedral, one of the most prominent buildings built in the 18th century. Neoclassical style is very present in this massive, huge cathedral (Neoclassicism was really important in the 18th century), which was kind of an iconic symbol of the city of London. Christopher Wren was, therefore, one of the most important architects working in the city and in many other places at that time, he is responsible for many changes in the city of London. Also John Nash, who is going to be another important architect working in the city, transforming very significant buildings and also its general urban aspect. We have some paintings representing London in the 18th century, which show quite a big city (as compared to the standards at that moment), a city of half a million people. This is, indeed, a good quantity of people, considering that facilities —health facilities for instance, or sanitary facilities— were not very developed at that time. Because real changes started appearing exactly at that time, it is obvious that life in London was not easy. London was both an amazing city, a big city, with a lot of people living in it; and, at the same time, a very uncomfortable and difficult- to- live- in one. So it depended very much on the money you had, and the place of the city in which you lived. But what is the reason why people decided to move to London in the 18th century? Well, some of the reasons were linked to the rise of conflicts. Many people with no possibilities or with no education decided to enroll in either political structures or military structures. Many of them were sent to Europe for war, something for which they needed a lot of soldiers. The rank and file during the war at that time was composed of soldiers who were not educated people, and who had no other possibilities of having a better life than joining the army or the navy. Thus, many people moved to London, especially young people, for these reasons (to find a job in the army  or in the navy). 

1.3. Life in the city vs. life in the countryside. But also life in the countryside was very difficult at that moment. In fact, life in the countryside was not very different  from the medieval  times, its evolution from the medieval times to the 17th century was not prominent. So, normally people lived in very bad conditions in the countryside. They had to manage everyday problems concerning making a

living, trying to dominate nature (which was quite wild in the countryside), and managing very difficult problems with transportation. Of course, the only possibility was to go walking from one place to another. And it was very dangerous, because there were many thieves and other potential dangers. It was a very risky thing, especially at night. They, of course, also used carts and horses and some other animals in order to travel greater distances. However, in most cases, they spent their whole lives  in the very  same places. This is one of the fascinating things that took place in the 18th century, that many people spent their lives in the very same place they were born. Perhaps they visited some villages nearby, from time to time, several kilometres away, but that was all. So, they had no knowledge about the world around them. Obviously, there was no radio, no television, no possibilities of getting any news from anywhere. So in this sense life was a bit medieval. Only travelers, jugglers, etc. sometimes gave them some kind of information from other places. But normally life was very domestic, it was a small life in the sense they had no news about almost anything. But they were not particularly worried about it, because they were used to living in this domestic context, they were very busy trying to get the most out of their difficult lives —trying to get a job, to do some kind of agricultural activities (and, in fact, agriculture evolved a lot in the 18th century as well)—. But, apart from this real evolution in agriculture, in general, it was difficult to live in the countryside. In addition, of course, the access to education,  to employment, etc. was absolutely arduous if you lived isolated in a small village.

1.4. Emigration from the countryside to the city. Thus, many people decided to go to London because the rumor that London was growing very quickly and was becoming a very important city for many reasons started to spread. Despite it not being easy to get to London at that moment, especially people living far away, many flocked into the city. Long lines of people walking to London could be seen at all times, simply because it was said that it was possible to find a job, to change one’s life, etc., there. Most of these individuals left all their previous lives behind, as well as their family waiting for them to get any news from them that their life had actually changed. There were, as Charles Dickens’ novel, Great Expectations at that time, because of the economic evolution, and because of the changes that the city of London was experiencing. But, obviously, as you can easily imagine, emigrating to London was a risky action for many, because they were actually arriving in a city that most of them knew nothing about. Most of them had never seen a map from London, they had no previous knowledge of the city. The only thing they had was this rumor that London was growing and a lot, and that important architects were transforming the city, and new factories and inventions were coming. This is the reason why it is so important to emphasize that, in the 18th century, politics are important, yes, but the real relevant aspect is always how society evolved, how it was transformed. Real changes sometimes take place in the lower parts of society, it is probably the most important place we have to look at in order to detect if a country is changing or not, is improving or not.

So many people actually spent their lives working in the fields. They had no particular education, because for many years and for many centuries education was non-existent for the average people (not for women, not for men), unless they were aristocrats, noble people, or people who devoted their lives to church. Thus, it is easy to imagine that most people at that time were illiterate. Illiteracy was, in addition, a real problem in order to get a better job. Education is always linked to employment. So, at that time, a lot of people coming from the countryside had no education at all. Thus, most of them experienced a lot of problems when reaching London without any previous knowledge of the city, without friends or acquaintances in London, without any place to live in for most of them. They normally went either close to the factories, to the big buildings that were in the outskirts of the city; or to the banks of the river Thames, because some mills and factories were actually built by the river banks. Obviously, they could spend days and weeks, in some cases, waiting for an important person to come and tell them “Well, do you want to work with me?”, “Are you waiting here to get a job?”, and up until that moment when they were actually offered a job they lived in terrible conditions, and, in some cases, after they got the job as well.

1.5. The “two faces” of London. If we had the possibility of having the whole picture of London (we do actually have some paintings, quite realistic paintings —they are not idealistic, they are realistic—), if we were to have for five minutes the whole picture of the city, it would be a bit contradictory, a really complex picture. Because, on one side, we have this flourishing and blooming London, growing a lot, transforming itself into the new modernity, with these new ideas of Enlightenment coming from Europe, with its economy growing tremendously; and with people visiting new countries around the world, new continents, going overseas, going on very long trips as well. And, at the same time, we have people with no idea of the world around. People who never went anywhere, apart from some kilometres away from their hometown. So this is a real contrast. We have these sailors, or people in the army or in the navy, with a lot of cosmopolitan experience in Europe (sometimes, also in very difficult conditions), and at the same time people living a very small and domestic life, trying to make a living, but without any particular outstanding experience. Trade and commerce played a relevant role in the development of the city. Slave trade, for instance, was very important, especially in England. After the end of the Spanish War of Sucession, among with Spain and some other countries, England became the most important country dealing with slave trade. But, luckily, later on during this period, slavery is going to start to be unacceptable and inhuman for some people. It’s going to be the beginning of the anti-slavery campaigns. But, in that moment, it’s still a real profitable business for some people, unfortunately.

People from the higher layers of society were living in high standards in London. They had very big houses, they had servants, and what’s most important: they discovered the possibility of having leisure time. These people weren’t, normally, doctors or professionals, they were merchants, sailors, etc. who had the possibility of doing business in some other countries, or overseas, or they took part in the slave trade business. So many people actually were, so to speak, rich people in London at that time. But, at the same time, there was a tremendous amount of very poor people living in the streets, with no houses, waiting for a job at the door of the factories. So this is, more or less, the picture that we have that has been described by many painters, and specially by many writers, in several art works and novels. This contrast, this profound division between the two parts of the society, the rich and the poor was very strong in the 18th century, because, obviously, not everybody was able to have an access to a better life, some of them were unsuccessful attempting to do it. However, some of them were successful indeed and reached the high layers of society, sometimes working very hard, or simply because they were intelligent enough. But also in the 19th century there’s going to be a very similar situation. When we compare the 18th century and the 19th century, we normally tend to say, “well, the 18th century is the age of Enlightenment, the age of Reason, from the philosophical point of view; and the 19th century is the age of Romanticism. These two centuries are very different, and Romanticism is a reaction against the 18th century”. And the answer to this is, well, yes, but things are not so easy, it is more complex than that, and there are many similar aspects between the 18th century and the 19th century. If you read Charles Dickens —Victorian times—, he depicts a very similar atmosphere, a very similar social landscape in London to the one we’re seeing of the 18th century. For instance, working conditions in factories, which are described by Charles Dickens in his novels, in the 19th century, were not very different from working conditions in the 18th century. So this is something we have to consider, that evolution, social evolution, was very slow and social changes only took place step by step. However, on a more positive note, if we compare the 18th century to the previous centuries, it is obvious that everything changed in London. Maybe it did more for the rich than for the poor, sure, but the poor also got the possibility of obtaining new jobs in the city, though their circumstances were not always positive, of course —some people died, they had illnesses and diseases, some never saw their families again, because they stayed in the countryside, etc.—. Going to London was like going to a very distant place, for many reasons, not only because of physical distance, but because of psychological and sentimental distances as well. It was kind of emigration, but instead of it being emigration to another country (and they also went to some other countries, for war, for slave trade, or simply for looking for a job), it was what we call inner emigration, emigration inside the same country. The outside boundaries of the country with other countries were not important at that moment, the real division was inside the country inself, specially for people living in the countryside. So, to sum up, this tremendous difference between life in the countryside and life in the city is one of the most important issues we have to consider when talking about the 18th century.

1.6. The new concept of “leisure time”. Another relevant aspect is how daily life changed in London for some people. So this new concept of life, the concept of leisure time, what does it mean? It means that you have some time every day, perhaps some hours, to do whatever you want to do, but nothing particularly related to your work or to your job. You can go to the theatre, you can go for a walk, you have some specific places to spend the afternoon, or the evening. It was quite a novelty, that feeling that you didn’t have to spend the whole day working. This is one of the most important aspects of modernity in the 18th century. To go for a walk with your friends, for instance, is something quite new. There were many new places in the city that were suitable for this, such as parks and gardens —many of them following French fashion—. In addition, people went to watch different events that were performed in parks, in gardens, in opera houses, etc. They also kept going to the theatre, because theatre was, as in Shakespeare times, very important. But in the 18th century, they now have many more possibilities, not only going to the theatre as in Shakespeare times, probably because of the spare time they start to have (especially rich people, of course). Another relevant place related to the novel concept of free time were the so-called “coffee houses”. Coffee houses were places for conversation, for debate, for reading newspapers... This is a new form of culture, it is a different way of expressing culture itself, because, if we think of the previous centuries, reading a book (those people who actually read a book, not many, because not many books were available, and huge runs of printing books actually appeared in the 18th century, not before), the few books people had, was a domestic activity, people would read their own books at their own houses. But, in the 18th century, libraries appeared in cities, along with coffee houses. These were mea...