Thomas Love Peacock published his first novel, Headlong Hall, anonymously, reflecting in it his dislike of progress and all of its “new-fangled” ideas. In what would become a regular approach for Peacock, Headlong Hall presents a satiric discussion in Platonic symposium form among a group of guests, each symbolic of a particular personality or character type. Their host, Squire Headlong, invites his acquaintances to pay him a Christmas visit for good food and good conversation, which varies in emphasis from cultural to philosophical to scientific. The debate, ironic in its detachment from reality, reflects Peacock’s stronger affinity for books than for people. He seems to satirize his own self-imposed isolation, in which he preferred interacting with the written word to interacting with his fellow humans. Peacock likely understood the dangers in such a life, which could lead to devotion to abstract ideals. Such ideals could prove useless when one was forced to embrace the reality of everyday living and the cultural expectations that colored real-world activities.

Peacock’s belief in free intellect undercuts the dogma voiced by his major characters. They include Mr. Foster, the perfectionist; Mr. Escot, who believes in the deterioration of life as he knows it; Mr. Jenkison, who supports the norm, or status quo; and Reverend Doctor Gaster, who, as his name suggests, appreciates gastronomy more than economics, evidenced by the fact that he presents a treatise on the proper approach to turkey stuffing. The “ice is broken,” the narrator states, by a discussion of “the various knotty points of meteorology.” Mr. Escot voices some of Peacock’s own beliefs when he states that the improvements to society noted by his colleagues “appear to me so many links in the great chain of corruption, which will soon fetter the whole human race.”

The aptly named Dr. Cranium, a phrenologist, and his daughter Cephalis join the group later, as does a landscape gardener named Mr. Miletstone and Mr. Panscope, the polymath. Escot’s affection for Cephalis is obvious to all, and the narrator remarks that Escot could imagine “one change for the better.” His love for her lifts him above the gloom “even in this terrestrial theatre of universal deterioration.” While he had previously attempted to romance Cephalis, he made the grave error of laughing at one of her father’s “craniological dissertation[s],” incurring his wrath.

Peacock does not support any of these characters’ individual philosophical approaches in isolation but rather demonstrates the irrationality that often accompanied support of pure doctrine. He inserts an absurd comparison of the dancing of “savage” Indians to that of the “magnificent beau,” in an attempt to determine which activity is more justifiable as a survival act. Eventually, an assortment of musicians, poets, and single young daughters are added to the mix, orbiting around the debate over civilization and its need for progress. Peacock peppers the discussion with allusions to classical ideals, supported by occasional Greek phrases, a reflection of his leisurely training in the classics. The characters also support philosophies of more contemporary figures, including English philosopher, essayist, critic, and novelist William Godwin, French philosopher and essayist Rousseau, English economist Thomas Malthus, and English poet Percy Bysshe Shelley. They mostly frame Foster’s arguments, and his rational optimism generally wins the debate. A close friend of Shelley, Peacock gives a nod to his great poetic talent, a talent that Peacock himself admitted he lacked. The esoteric character conversation is enlivened by explosions and comic near-death experiences and concludes with Headlong Hall bargaining marriage agreements for four different gentlemen, including him. That conclusion reminds readers that the demands of reality can be counted upon to shatter the façade of idealistic dogma.

Peacock’s approach echoes that of Tobias Smollett, who constructed characters representing the various “humours” that marked individuals as having particular types of personalities. Headlong Hall prefigures Peacock’s future works, which not only continued the debate premise but also included characters based on real-life figures in the roman à clef style. As his intellectual works regained an audience at the end of the 20th century, Headlong Hall became available as an electronic text.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dawson, Carl. His Fine Wit: A Study of Thomas Love Peacock. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.
Freeman, Alexander Martin. Thomas Love Peacock: A Critical Study. Folcroft, Pa.: Folcroft Press, 1969.

Categories: British Literature, Literature

Tags: 19th-century literature, Alexander Martin Freeman, Analysis of Thomas Love Peacock's Headlong Hall, Carl Dawson, character-driven narrative, classical ideals, cultural criticism, Dr. Cranium, English Literature, free intellect, Headlong Hall, Headlong Hall analysis, idealism vs. reality, landscape gardening, Literary Criticism, Mr. Escot, Mr. Foster, Mr. Jenkison, Percy Bysshe Shelley, perfectionism, philosophical debate, philosophical doctrines, phrenology, Platonic symposium, polymath, Reverend Doctor Gaster, roman à clef, Rousseau, satirical novel, social progress, Thomas Love Peacock, Thomas Love Peacock bibliography, Thomas Love Peacock's Headlong Hall, Thomas Malthus, Tobias Smollett, William Godwin