As history has shown Washington has always been on the hunt for campaign contributions and big donations. What the difference is now, is that this perpetual hunt for money has gone from a basic need to run a campaign to an obsessed addiction for more power and money. The time to act in congress is now, with the recently completed election cycle of 2010 setting historic expenditure records and a fresh new federal legislative session, waiting any longer for change will only damage any hope of a positive outcome. With recent news coverage on polls showing that the American people are well aware of the Citizens United decision and its impact on fiscal politics, how the government seems to have lost its way and connection with the average American citizen and just how far the big spenders in congress are willing to go to stretch the line of the laws and legal cheat just to keep their seat and the money flowing into their pockets. In present society politics is at its dirtiest and most cynical, evenly chipping away what our constitution stands for and our democratic values. I cannot in any way say what the future will hold for this uphill battle for disclosure and regulations on campaign finance. But I do know that the time for action is slowly passing by and if something is not done soon I fear the U.S. government may be lost to all and any forms of revival. Our government would basically have to start a new throwing everything off balance. Our government is standing on thin ice not only with its own citizens but also with foreign relations, it only takes waiting a day to long until the ice finally breaks and the American government sinks. In his novel Vanity Fair, William Thackeray exposes and examines the vanities of 19th century England. His characters pursue wealth, power, and social standing, often through marriage or matrimony. The present essay looks at Thackeray's use of the institution of marriage in Vanity Fair to comment on how these vanities often come at the expense of the true emotions of passion, devotion, and love. Parental Ambitions In Vanity Fair, money is central to nearly all of the characters' relationships. Thackeray connects England's merchant families, the lesser nobility, and the high aristocracy through money and matrimony, and parents are frequently the chief negotiators in these business transactions. Mr. Osborne is perhaps the novel's most avaricious parent; money and social eminence are all-important to Mr. Osborne, and he is willing to sacrifice his children's happiness to connect his family name with these vanities. He forbids his daughter Jane to marry an artist with whom she has fallen in love with, swearing to her "that she should not have a shilling of his money if she made a match without his concurrence" (p416). For Mr. Osborne love has little to do with matrimony, and marriage is simply a transaction that should increase family wealth and prestige. This concept was by no means uncommon during the 19th century: the rise of industrialism and colonialism meant an influx of wealth into England, and marriage was seen by many as a way of either rising in station or cementing business ties. This latter theme is seen in Mr. Osborne's interference in his son George's relationship with Amelia. Their courtship is arranged, the "two young people [having] been bred up by their parents" (p38) for love and marriage. George and Amelia's relationship is encouraged because of the business connection between Mr. Sedley and Mr. Osborne, and their feelings are not really an issue to be considered. As Mr. Sedley's fortunes fall, Mr. Osborne questions George if the match is not now beneath the Osborne family's station: "Why shouldn't you marry higher than a stockbroker's daughter, George, that's what I want to know?" (p124). George replies that it is a "family business," and that "you and Mrs. Sedley made the match a hundred years ago" (p 124). The terminology of business is frequent in discussions of marriage in Vanity Fair, and money, not love, is the motive for matrimony. Mr. Osborne states these feelings very clearly to his son: "Unless I see Amelia's ten thousand down you don't marry her" (p 126). Mr. Sedley's misfortunes are a convenient way for Mr. Osborne to force the cancellation of the engagement, for he sees an opportunity to marry his wealth (which was only acquired through Mr. Sedley's facilitation) through George to Miss Swartz, a young heiress with connections to the aristocracy. It is important to notice that these aspirations are Mr. Osborne's and not George's, for George ignores his father's order to marry Miss Swartz, believing that he is in love with Amelia. Thackeray's characterization of Mr. Osborne shows us how love can be subverted by parental aspirations for the many vanities that exist. The Economics of Matrimony Parental scheming for wealth and power is of course only one side of the issue of marriage for money. Thackeray's characters are often only too willing to forsake true love for money and social eminence. The arrangement between Mr. Osborne's daughter Maria and Fredrick Bullock centers on this theme, with the author noting that in such a marriage whom you marry is quite irrelevant. Maria would just as equally marry Frederick's father: "...She would have taken Bullock Senior, just the same, her mind being fixed as that of a well-bred young woman should be, --- upon a house in Park Lane, a country house at Wimbledon, a handsome chariot, and two prodigious tall horses and footmen, and a fourth of the annual profits of the eminent firm of Hulker and Bullock..." (p 113). Again, love is unimportant, and money is the issue upon which such engagements revolve. Frederick, too, is more concerned with the "economics" of matrimony: George being dead and cut out of his father's will, Frederick insisted that the half of the old gentleman's property should be settled on his Maria, and indeed, for a long time, refused "to come to the scratch" (it was Mr. Frederick's own expression) on any other terms. Osborne said Fred had agreed to take his daughter with twenty thousand, and he should bind himself to no more.... [Fred] thought himself infamously swindled by the old merchant, and for some time made as if he would break off the match altogether. (p412) Fred consents to marry Maria only after his business partners have persuaded him of "the chances of the further division of property" (p412) at the death of Mr. Osborne. Theirs is certainly not a match based on love, but it is perhaps a perfect match, for both Maria and Frederick are willing to sell the ideal of true or romantic love for money. Love has no place in the business of marriage, but as we shall see, Thackeray is very clear in pointing out that happiness is frequently sacrificed in the transaction. The Pursuit of the Vanities The relationship of Sir Pitt Crawley and Lady Crawley is another based on the pursuit of the vanities. There is certainly little happiness in their marriage: Sir Pitt is generally rude to Rose, he often leaves her completely alone, and he frequently hits her. Thackeray contrasts their relationship with what might have been had Rose given her hand in youth to a truer, purer love: O Vanity Fair --- Vanity Fair! This might have been, but for you, a cheery lass; Peter Butt and Rose a happy man and wife, in a snug farm, with a hearty family, and an honest portion of pleasures, cares, hopes, and struggles: --- but a title and a coach and four are more precious than happiness in Vanity Fair.... (p83). Here Thackeray hints that the lower classes, far less concerned with social standing, perhaps are happier than those with wealth and power.
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment