"#$%

&
The Tale of Faithful Thady
When Castle Rackrent was published, Maria Edgeworth had specifically portrayed it to
be a satire detailing the irresponsible mismanagement of properties and tenants by the Anglo-
Irish landlords. But instead of writing a criticism in her own voice, Edgeworth leaves the work to
honorable servant Thady Quirk. One might wonder how a devoted servant to the Anglo-Irish
landlords ultimately succeeds as the medium for Edgeworths criticisms. On one hand, Thady
speaks with an honest tone, strongly biased in favor of the family often to a point he is nave to
their mistakes. On the other hand, even though Edgeworth empowers Thady with his loyalty to
the family, she also makes him an untrustworthy narrator by establishing an editor who
undercuts his authoritative voice with a condescending introduction, description footnotes, and
glossary. With the use of the editor, Edgeworth makes Thady an unconventional medium, one
that readers do not expect due to situations regarding his position and authority. Thus, Edgeworth
leads unsuspecting readers to a satiric trap by using nave Thady as the narrator of the story, who
lacks validity as a narrator but speaks highly of the family members while unintentionally
exposing their many vices.
By using Thadys voice to narrate the events rather than with her own, Edgeworth allows
the audience to read Castle Rackrent without any reservations or expectations of what overall
opinions the story might entail. The book would have been less persuasive had it been
Edgeworth as her own narrator: readers who know her stance on the Act of Union and Anglo-
Irish landowners would expect a more blatant subjective opinion regarding these matters and
would see the book as more of a political propaganda, rather than a fictional story to be told.
With Edgeworth creating a servant as the narrator of the story, it becomes a safer way to criticize
her own class; by disguising as lower-class narrator, Edgeworth creates a less damaging critique
"#$%

'
by indirectly condemning the actions of the Anglo-Irish. Because Edgeworth portrays Thady as a
long-time family servant who is extremely loyal to the Rackrents, readers expect his tale to be
honest, without malicious intent to slander the family. Therefore, when Thady so blatantly and
innocently proclaims the misdeeds of the family, the readers are shocked to believe the news and
wonder how such a loyal servant so easily confesses these deeds.
Throughout Castle Rackrent, Edgeworth focuses on establishing Thadys personality and
sense of loyalty to the Rackrent family. At the beginning of the book, Thady establishes himself
as a proud and the contemporary of the familys lineage of servants to the Rackrents by
mentioning his grandfather as the driver to Sir Patrick OShaughlin and nobly stating, The
family of the Rackrent is, I am proud to say, one of the most ancient in the kingdom (Edgeworth
8). This statement listed on the second page of the book, right from the start establishes to the
reader Thadys high opinions of and devotion to the family. And often times throughout the
book, Thadys unwavering bias towards the Rackrents make him seem highly nave with an
inability to judge right from wrong.
In Another Tale to Tell: Postcolonial Theory and the Case of Castle Rackrent, Mary
Jean Corbett writes, He fails to discern the patently ridiculous habits and manners of many of
his masters, resorting instead to a blind obedience to his quasi-aristocratic betters; he lacks the
acuteness to see through the deficiencies of those whom he serves (Corbett 6). Thady reveals
some of the Rackrents most unethical actions and bad manners with an objective, matter-of-fact
tone as if he is merely talking about some bland topic or current event. For example, Thady still
speaks positively and does not seem deterred in his narration even after he witnesses Sir Kit
imprisoning his Jewish wife. After the imprisonment he speaks proudly of his master that, Sir
Kits character was so well-known in the county, that he lived in peace and quietness ever after,
"#$%

(
and was a great favorite with the ladies. And even when his masters wife was about to die,
Thady blatantly says that his master, tried all his arts to get her diamond cross from her on her
death bed, and to get her to make a will in his favor of his separate possessions (Edgeworth 31).
It seems surprising that Thady would so openly declare all of the corrupt acts of his landowners,
ones such as egregious as Sir Kits.
The fact that Thady so easily proclaims his masters misdeeds shows that he is unaware of
the implication of his actions, the confessions which so easily leads Jason to his rise in power
and which reveals to the reader the Irish-Anglo landowner corruption. Thus, Edgeworth easily
exploits Thadys honesty and devotion to the Rackrents to establish a seemingly harmless
persona: From what the readers see, Thady appears to be the least likely source to incriminate the
Rackrents due his role as a devoted servant to the family. However, he also appears to be
believable due to the positive perspective he conveys of the landowners and his lack of ill intent
while incriminating them. By portraying Thady as a nave servant and by making clear to the
readers Thadys position in the family, Edgeworth succeeds in using him as a medium of her
criticism by creating the least likely narrator whom readers will not suspect of slander.
Thus, Edgeworth uses Thady to expose and promote awareness for the corruption and
irresponsibility of many of the Anglo-Irish landlords at the time. Critic Kate Cochran writes that
the book was an innovative method to story-telling to adequately communicate her ideas about
the need to reform colonialism in Ireland (Cochran 71). However, one may feel unsure of
Edgeworths ambivalent motives as they seem to both promote and deride Irish culture. Besides
using Thady as a medium to reveal the Irish-Anglo landlord corruption, Edgeworth also exploits
his simplicity in reinforcing traditional Irish stereotypes, such as drinking and gambling. Other
than when Thady recalls Sir Patricks drinking skills at lavish parties and Sir Condys
"#$%

)
alcoholism, he talks about how the drunken Sir Patrick gives up his religion and his family
name so as to secure his estate and pass it along to his son, Sir Murtaugh, who exploits his
tenants and produces no heir; upon his death Sir Kit, an inveterate gambler and absentee, inherits
and squanders it (Corbett 394). Thus, Edgeworth does more than besides simply providing
awareness to her readers of the issues regarding landlord irresponsibility. By employing Thady to
retell tales of his masters, she also laces in stereotypical Irish vices and behavior.
Castle Rackrent becomes a double-edged sword in that Edgeworth promotes the need for
Irish reform, while at the same time degrading the Irish culture through offensive stereotypical
characterization of her characters. On one hand, Edgeworth uses Thady to divulge the secrets of
the Rackrents, which include stereotypical vices. On the other hand, by revealing such scandals
of family secrets, Edgeworth makes reform a real issue for the readers. By portraying careless
and irresponsible landlords, Edgeworth shows that these events may emulate some of the actions
as those of real Anglo-Irish landlords. Using Thady as the narrator of the story, Edgeworth
makes it so that he has the power to change the story: by giving Thady the power to narrate,
Maria Edgeworth gives him the power to rule the story, and so to plot the future of the
Rackrents, the Quirks and the future of Ireland (Neill 80).
With the use of Thadys narration, Edgeworth creates an unexpected ending of the story,
with Jason Quirk as the new power. Perhaps with this new ending to the story, Edgeworth sends
a message to the audience indicating that after the Act of Union, change will be inevitable. This
sentiment is specifically forecasted in the preface in which the editor states, When Ireland loses
her identity by an union with Great Britain, she will look back with a smile of good-humored
complacency on the Sir Kits and Sir Condys of her former existence (Edgeworth 5). The
message seems to indicate that the Rackrents, representative of Old Ireland, falls out of power
"#$%

*
while Jason Quirk, representative of the New Ireland, takes over control of the estate. With
Thady navely narrating the story, he leads his beloved landlords into ruins and paves the path
for his son to come into power, to start a generation of new rule.
But how does Edgeworth utilize Thadys narrative to create such an outcome of the book?
Ultimately, Edgeworth succeeds in creating her satiric trap by making Thady the most
unexpected source for her critique: by placing him in a position of low authority, she gives
makes unsuspecting readers unaware of the slander Thady is about to commit. She undermines
Thadys power with the use of an editor, who undermines his authority as a narrator and pushes
for authentication of his narrative. Throughout the entire preface, the editor belittles and looks
down on Thady by saying that, the ignorant may have their prejudices as well as the learned
cannot be disputed, but we see and despise vulgar errors; we never bow to the authority of him
who has no great name to sanction his absurdities (Edgeworth 3). With this said, the editor
establishes himself as a literary elite, believing those lacking authority are not truly plausible.
By saying that only the powerful ones have the ability to rewrite history, the editor portrays
to the readers that Thadys narrative is a sort of joke that does not need to be taken seriously. The
sophistication of the editor marks a large contrast to Thadys simplicity. Interestingly according
to Corbett, Thady Quirk and his masters are only to the extent that we persist in seeing them as
beneath or below us (Corbett 383). From this perspective, it seems obvious now that Edgeworth
establishes the difference in speech between the colonized and the colonizers. She uses the
physical distance between the two countries to construct a sense of superiority of the English
reader over the ridiculous Irish colonized people.
This perspective can also be seen in the editors preface, where he tries to strip Thady of
his credibility, focusing on his lack of education and illegibility. The editor shows contempt with
"#$%

+
Thadys narrative style by writing, Thadys idiom is incapable of translation, and besides the
authenticity of his story would have been more exposed to doubt if it were not told in his own
characteristic manner (Edgeworth 4). He seems to say that had it not been for the honest way
that Thady portrayed his masters, his narrative would have been completely doubtful. Thus, the
editor serves as the middleman between the English and the Irish- by introducing Thady in his
preface, the editor helps the readers familiarize themselves with Thady while also keeping him at
a distance with his illegible language.
With the use of descriptive footnotes and detailed glossary, the editor continues to undercut
Thady, as if to point out that Thadys narrative lacks credibility and is incapable of translation.
And therefore, the glossary and footnotes serve the purpose of polishing Thadys words because
his words alone are not credible enough and do not suffice. The editors condescending tone
often makes Thady seem more sympathetic, especially when his tale keeps on becoming
interrupted with the editors footnotes. These footnotes often set out to unnecessarily clarify
many aspects of Thadys words, explanations that do no real justice to the narration. In fact,
these footnotes only serve to belittle Thady more by highlighting his lack of education and lack
of authority as a storyteller. For example on page 45, the footnote states it was custom in
Ireland for those who could not write, to make a cross to stand for their signature, as was
formerly the practice of our English monarchs. This editorial interruption serves as an
unwelcoming distraction to Thadys tale; instead of appreciating Thadys story, the editor is
drawing the readers attention away to Thadys style and language.
This form of strong editorial intervention makes Castle Rackrent comparable to The
History of Mary Prince. In this slave narrative, a strong editorial presence often serves to make
Mary Prince a less credible author and to point out many of her flaws in storytelling. Like in
"#$%

,
Castle Rackrent, this slave narrative has a preface written by an editor, Thomas Pringle, who
belittles Mary Prince and establishes to the readers her lack of authority as a narrator. The
History of Mary Prince is abundant with paratexts, supplications that cannot help but to
intervene with the story (Lavery). In the first sentence of the books preface, the editor states,
The idea of writing Mary Princes history was first suggested by herself (Prince 45). The
sentence is a strange way to begin the story because it seems to suggest that nobody really wants
to write the narrative as much as she does. This introduction makes the readers question that the
narrative may not be worthy of as much attention if Prince had to be the one forcing its
publication. And interestingly, the term writing also seems to indicate that Prince was not the
one doing the actual writing, since other more appropriate words might include narrate or
recount (Lavery).
Furthermore in the preface Pringle writes that the narrative was written out fully, with all
the narrators repetitions and proxilities, and afterwards pruned into its present shape and only
touched to fix gross grammatical errors, so as to render it clearly intelligible (Prince 45). With
this statement, Pringle seems to convey that Princes original writing was not civil enough to be
read on its own- only after intense corrections does the editor make it suitable for the readers to
comprehend. Ironically since Princes narrative has been edited and pruned so intensively, it is
no longer authentic and in her original words. This preface is comparable to the one from Castle
Rackrent because both editors establish the storytellers with a sort of illegibility and lack of
intelligence, undermining their authority to speak and making them both questionable narrators.
Furthermore Princes narrative, like Thadys in Castle Rackrent, is interrupted by an
obscene amount of editorial footnotes that seem to take away the authenticity of the narrators
words. The editorial footnotes sometimes even take up more than half the page, dominating the
"#$%

-
text and interrupting Prince from continuing her story. Interestingly, Pringle also provides
another section to the narrative, Supplement to the History of Mary Prince, which aims to
clarify and correct many of Princes account. In an extremely long footnote almost taking up the
entire page, Pringle clarifies I have been favored from a communication from the Rev. J.
Curtinthe entire proof sheets of this pamphlet had been sent in for inspection. Mr. Curtin
corrects some omissions and inaccuracies in Mary Princes narrative (see page 74) by stating 1.
That she was baptized not in August, but on the 6
th
April 1817 (Prince 107). This egregious
footnote shows how Pringle distrusts Princes accounts so much that he goes through the trouble
of seeking proof from others. By trying to validate Princes recollections, he portrays her as an
ignorant narrator who is unable to remember important dates from her own life.
Furthermore, the supplement also includes an account from Mrs. Forsyth, who counters
Princes recount of events with her own recollection of what she believes to have truly really
happened. The corroboration of another persons account seems to be one of the largest editorial
blows to Princes credibility; the inclusion of Mrs. Forsyths account is Pringles way of taking
away Princes ability to tell her own story. Thus because of the editorial presence, Castle
Rackrent can be comparable to The History of Mary Prince. But in terms of the actual level of
editorial interference, Princes narrative draws more sympathy due to the unforgivable harshness
in which Pringle derides her.
Because of the presence of an editor in Castle Rackrent and the certain format of Thadys
narration, critics sometimes analyze it in terms of a slave narration. In The Plain Round Tale of
Faithful Thady: Castle Rackrent as a Slave Narrative, Kate Cochran categorizes Thadys
tale as a slave narration by arguing that Thady speaks from the position of a survivor, telling a
story of oppression. Cochran claims the three indications to which Castle Rackrent resembles a
"#$%

.
slave narrative include its presentation of a conflicted slave narrator, its use of the framing
device of the outside editor, and its narrative structure of episodic anecdotes that memory,
description, and didacticism (Cochran 57). By centering her argument on Thadys low status
and ambivalence with his masters, Cochran portrays Thady as a sympathetic narrator oppressed
by his Anglo-Irish landlords.
Even though Castle Rackrent has the three elements Cochran describes above, it cannot
still fully be categorized as a slave narrative due to some differences. One of the main arguments
of Cochrans article is that the narrator portrays a master-slave relationship. But in Castle
Rackrent, Thady is not really the main character as the story is centered on the Rackrent family-
Because Thady only plays the narrator of the story, there is really no master-slave relationship.
And unlike slave narratives, Thadys main purpose of the story is not to invoke sympathy for
him but to tell the story of others. Thus, through Thadys vernacular style, the audience can see
how Edgeworth utilizes the narrator to tell her own story: her main purpose of writing this novel
as a satire to the upper class.
Instead of writing a main critique of the upper class through her own words, Edgeworth
creates a low-status narrator, servant to the Anglo-Irish landlords, to reveal the story of their
corruption. Edgeworth succeeds in making Castle Rackrent a satire with the use of an
unexpected narrator. By making Thady a humble and loyal servant who unintentionally spills the
family secrets, Edgeworth allows her unsuspecting readers to quickly absorb her satire; readers
can easily read the story without having to be wary of a subjective critique of the Anglo-Irish a
person of higher authority such as herself. Furthermore, Edgeworth makes Thady the perfect
narrator with use of an editor who undermines Thadys authenticity through a preface and
footnotes. The readers cannot help but to sympathize with Thady as an editor strips him of his
"#$%

&/
authority by mocking his illegibility. Interestingly in the end, Thady achieves credibility
through self-deprecation: he becomes the ultimate medium and an interesting source of narration
when Edgeworth makes him a highly honorable, yet seemingly uneducated servant.



















Works Cited

"#$%

&&
Cochran, Kate. ""The Plain Round Tale of Faithful Thady": "Castle Rackrent" as Slave
Narrative." New Hibernia Review/Iris ireannach Nua 5.4 (2011): 57-72. Print.

Corbett, Mary J. "Another Tale to Tell: Postcolonial Theory and the Case of "Castle
Rackrent"." Criticism 36.3 (1994): 383-400. Print.

Fernandez, Jean. "Thady's Grey Goose Quill: Historiography and Literacy in Maria Edgeworth's
Castle Rackrent." New Hibernia Review/Iris ireannach Nua 13.3 (2009): 133-46. Print.

Lavery, Joseph. "Abolitionism-Mary Prince." UC Berkeley. Berkeley. 7 Oct. 2013. Lecture.

Neill, Michael. "Mantles, Quirks, and Irish Bulls Ironic Guise and Colonial Subjectivity in Maria
Edgeworth's "Castle Rackrent"." The Review of English Studies, New Series 52.205 (2001): 76-
90. Print.

Prince, Mary. The History of Mary Prince: A West Indian Slave, Related by Herself. London:
Pandora, 1987. N. pag. Print.

Solomon, Stanley J. "Ironic Perspective in Maria Edgeworth's "Castle Rackrent"." The Journal
of Narrative Technique 2.1 (1972): 68-72. Print.