Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Constructing masculinities under Thomas Arnold of Rugby (1828–1842): gender, educational policy and school life in an early‐Victorian public school

2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 16; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09540250042000251461

1360-0516

Fabrice Neddam,

Gender Roles and Identity Studies

Abstract Thomas Arnold has been a controversial figure for historians of the English public schools. He has been depicted either as the great reformer of these famous institutions or as an ordinary head master who did not do better than his contemporary colleagues. This article seeks to continue the debate about the assessment of his head master‐ship by using gender as a category of analysis of this early Victorian, all‐male environment. It opens with a consideration of the gap that existed between the particular form of 'moral masculinity' Arnold wanted Rugby schoolboys to adopt and the different masculinities that actually emerged from the interactions of that miniature society. Bullying is particularly understood not only as an institutionalised form of rebellion but also as a gendered practice which consisted in rejecting what was considered effeminate. Finally, while it is shown that a demarcation of masculinities took place away from adult check, it is also argued that the degree of rebellion against the prescribed form of masculinity was partly dependent on the personality and methods of the 'prescriber'. Notes Universite´ de Paris, France. Email: f.neddam@yahoo.com Arnold (1835 Arnold, T. 1835. On the discipline of public schools, Quarterly Journal of Education, 9(18): 280–292. [Google Scholar]) defined it as follows: 'the power given by the supreme authorities of the school to the sixth form [consequently called the 'prefects'], to be exercised by them over the lower boys [who thus 'enjoyed' the status of 'fags' and had several tasks to perform for their assigned perfect], for the sake of securing a regular government amongst the boys themselves, and avoiding the evils of anarchy, in other words, of the lawless tyranny of physical strength' (p. 286). The reasons that explain my choice of Thomas Hughes's famous novel, Tom Brown's schooldays (1857), which depicts Rugby life under Arnold, should be mentioned here. Its interpretation as a reliable representation of reality has been a controversial question for historians. For instance, Norman Wymer (1953 Wymer N Dr Arnold of Rugby (London, Robert Hale) [Google Scholar]) claims that 'it must not be assumed that Tom Brown's schooldays gives a faithful picture of Rugby under Arnold' (p. 8). However, that warning appears in the introduction of his book, in which he tries to justify his writing of yet another biography of the head master. The most relevant evidence that his assertion is groundless is given by Rugby schoolboys themselves. When Tom Brown is alluded to in their memoirs it is always in order to point out, like Albert Pell, that 'my schoolfellow Hughes has drawn so complete a picture of life at Rugby School that I have little or nothing to add to it' (Mackay, 1908 Mackay T 1908 The reminiscences of Albert Pell (London, John Murray) [Google Scholar], p. 38). Richard Temple also asserted that 'that novel is veritably a sketch from schoolboy nature. I and many others lived just the life therein depicted' (Temple, 1896 Temple R 1896 The story of my life (London, Cassell) [Google Scholar], p. 5). (See also, for instance, Bradley, 1883 Bradley GG 1883 Recollections of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (London, John Murray) [Google Scholar], p. 23; Lake, 1901 Lake K 1901 Memorials of William Charles Lake, Dean of Durham 1869–1894 (London, Edward Arnold) [Google Scholar], p. 17). The statement that finally settles any possible doubt on the authenticity of Tom Brown is that given by Arthur Penrhyn Stanley himself. In the preface of the twelfth edition of his reference biography of Arnold, he writes: 'it is not too much to say that—at least so far as the school is concerned—a more vivid picture of Dr. Arnold's career is conveyed in the occasional allusions and general tone of that charming book [Tom Brown] than is given in the elaborate descriptions of this work' (Stanley, 1881 Stanley AP 1881 The life and correspondence of Thomas Arnold (London, John Murray) [Google Scholar], p. 2). Finally, it should be remembered that Tom Brown's schooldays author entered Rugby School in 1834. Another kind of 'evil' is utterly absent from the primary sources dealing with the early Victorian public schools—sex. Thomas Bamford, one of the specialists of the history of the public schools, and most particularly of Rugby, has argued that it was the startling omission from the catalogue of evils. 'Both he [Arnold] and the boys', he further adds, 'knew that the problem of homosexuality was the most serious one of all, but the code of the times prevented it from being mentioned' (Bamford, 1970 Bamford TW 1970 Thomas Arnold on education: a selection from his writings (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press) [Google Scholar], p. 9). Again, only in Tom Brown is there a hint of the subject. Indeed, John Chandos has convincingly demonstrated that the note that Thomas Hughes added in the 1871 edition—'I can't strike out the passage; many boys will know what I mean'—actually refers to a part of the novel describing a boy who had become the 'favourite of his elders' (Chandos, 1985 Chandos J 1985 Boys together: English public schools, 1800–1864 (Oxford, Oxford University Press) [Google Scholar], p. 290). The different forms were not organized by age, as they are now. When a boy entered a public school he was placed in the form that corresponded to his abilities and knowledge. The consequence was twofold: first, a ten‐year‐old boy and another one of fifteen could be in the same form; second, a bright boy could reach the highest form very young while an idle one stayed for years in the lower ones.