Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Microeconomics Theory and Applications 12Th Edition Browning Test Bank Full Chapter PDF
Microeconomics Theory and Applications 12Th Edition Browning Test Bank Full Chapter PDF
Microeconomics Theory and Applications 12Th Edition Browning Test Bank Full Chapter PDF
Answer: B
2. Which of the following must be true for voluntary exchange to be mutually beneficial?
Answer: A
3. Qualifications to the tenet that voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial include the criterion
that _____.
Answer: A
Difficulty Level: Easy
Section Reference: Two-Person Exchange
Learning Objective: Understand why voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial.
Answer: C
5. If the MRS at an initial market basket between books [B] and Frisbees [F] is 6B/1F for Dave
and 3B/1F for Diane, then:
Answer: D
6. At their current distributions, Andrew’s marginal rate of substitution of hamburgers for fish
sticks is 6 while Betty’s is 2. Both Andrew and Betty could be made better off if:
a. they do not trade and keep their present allotment of hamburger and fish sticks.
b. Andrew trades between two and six of his allotment of hamburgers with Betty for a fish stick.
c. Andrew trades between two and six of his allotment of fish sticks with Betty for a hamburger.
d. Andrew gives all of his hamburgers to Betty for all of her fish sticks.
Answer: B
7. If the MRS at an initial market basket between books [B] and Frisbees [F] is 6B/1F for Dave
and 3B/1F for Diane, then:
Answer: A
8. When the marginal rates of substitution [MRSs] for a given distribution of goods differ for
two parties, which of the following is incorrect?
Answer: C
9. Table 6.1 lists five baskets of two goods, pizza and coke, for each of two consumers, Jane and
Bill.
Jane Bill
Basket Pizza Coke Basket Pizza Coke
A 20 2 A 20 10
B 16 4 B 22 8
C 12 6 C 26 6
D 8 8 D 32 4
E 4 10 E 40 2
Jane and Bill are indifferent between all of these baskets. From the information in Table 6.1, you
can conclude that MRSPC is:
Answer: A
10. Table 6.1 lists five baskets of two goods, pizza, and coke, for each of two consumers, Jane
and Bill.
Jane Bill
Basket Pizza Coke Basket Pizza Coke
A 20 2 A 20 10
B 16 4 B 22 8
C 12 6 C 26 6
D 8 8 D 32 4
E 4 10 E 40 2
In Table 6.1, if initially Jane has basket B and Bill has basket D, then we can conclude that a
mutually beneficial trade _____.
Answer: A
11. Table 6.1 lists five baskets of two goods, pizza, and coke, for each of two consumers, Jane
and Bill.
Jane Bill
Basket Pizza Coke Basket Pizza Coke
A 20 2 A 20 10
B 16 4 B 22 8
C 12 6 C 26 6
D 8 8 D 32 4
E 4 10 E 40 2
In Table 6.1, if initially Jane has basket D and Bill has basket A, then we can conclude that a
mutually beneficial trade _____.
Answer: D
12. Suppose, given their initial endowments of milk [M] and cookies [C], you know that
Ashley's marginal rate of substitution of cookies for milk [MRSCM] = 3M/1C, Bill's MRSCM =
8M/8C, and Carol's MRSCM = 5M/10C. Given this information, a mutually beneficial trade:
Answer: C
13. Suppose, given their initial endowments of milk [M] and cookies [C], we know that Ashley's
marginal rate of substitution of cookies for milk [MRSCM] = 3M/6C, Bill's MRSCM = 8M/8C, and
Carol's MRSCM = 5M/10C. Given this information we know that a mutually beneficial trade does
not exist between:
a. Ashley and Carol or between Ashley and Bill.
b. Ashley and Bill, but it does exist between Ashley and Carol.
c. Ashley and Carol, but it does exist between Carol and Bill.
d. any of the three individuals.
Answer: C
14. Suppose, given their initial endowments of milk [M] and cookies [C], we know that:
Ashley's marginal rate of substitution of cookies for milk [MRSCM] = 3M/1C; Bill's MRSCM =
8M/8C; and Carol's MRSCM = 5M/10C. Given this information we know that a mutually
beneficial trade would involve Ashley selling ______ to Carol and Bill selling ______ to Ashley.
a. milk; cookies
b. milk; milk
c. cookies; milk
d. cookies; cookies
Answer: C
15. Suppose, given their initial endowments of milk [M] and cookies [C], we know that:
Ashley's marginal rate of substitution of cookies for milk [MRSCM] = 3M/1C; Bill's MRSCM =
8M/8C; and Carol's MRSCM = 5M/10C. Given this information we know that a mutually
beneficial trade would involve Carol selling _____ to Bill and Ashley selling _____ to Bill.
a. milk; cookies
b. milk; milk
c. cookies; milk
d. cookies; cookies
Answer: C
Answer: A
17. What are the dimensions of the Edgeworth box if Frank's endowment is 15 hamburgers and
20 soft drinks per month and Linda's endowment is 12 hamburgers and 25 soft drinks?
Answer: A
18. The vertical and horizontal dimensions of an Edgeworth box diagram are determined by:
Answer: B
At point A in Figure 6-1, Monica's endowment of steak and wine is _____, respectively.
Answer: B
20. Given an Edgeworth exchange box showing Homer’s and Sandy’s endowments of donuts
and coffee:
a. for Homer to have more coffee Sandy must have less donuts.
b. if Sandy is on the contract curve Homer must be off the contract curve.
c. Homer and Sandy will be equally well off at any point on the contract curve.
d. for Sandy to have more coffee Homer must have less coffee.
Answer: D
Answer: C
22. Figure 6-1 shows the distribution of steak and wine between Monica and Hank.
In Figure 6-1, a movement from J to K:
a. is ideal because the steak and wine are more equally divided between Hank and Monica.
b. is preferred to a move from J to H.
c. benefits Hank and harms Monica.
d. harms both Hank and Monica.
Answer: C
23. Figure 6-1 shows the distribution of steak and wine between Monica and Hank.
Regarding the distribution of steak and wine in Figure 6-1, it is correct to say that:
a. at A, the marginal rates of substitution [MRSs] between steak and wine differ for Hank and
Monica.
b. at A, Hank and Monica will engage in further trade which will eventually make one of them
worse off.
c. at H, Monica is better off at Hank’s expense.
d. trade between Monica and Hank will eventually lead them to the unique efficient outcome K.
Answer: A
Answer: D
25. In an Edgeworth exchange box diagram, if the two consumers' indifference curves intersect
at point A, then:
Answer: B
26. If Frank's and Jan's indifference curves intersect at the endowment point A, then:
Answer: C
Answer: C
28. When the marginal rates of substitution differ for two consumers:
Answer: B
29. When the marginal rates of substitution for two consumers differ:
Answer: B
a. Tom can consume six more marshmallows so that his marginal utility equals that of Cara.
b. Cara can provide Tom some of both hot chocolate and marshmallows in order to equalize their
marginal values for both goods.
c. Tom can trade some hot chocolate with Cara in exchange for some marshmallows.
d. Tom can trade marshmallows with Cara for some hot chocolate.
Answer: D
31. When the marginal rates of substitution for two consumers differ:
Answer: C
a. social welfare
b. Pareto optimality
d. relative efficiency
c. equity
Answer: B
Answer: A
34. Suppose Jen and Mike have initial distributions of movie theater passes and gallons of gas
such that Jen’s marginal utility of movie passes and gasoline are both 5, while Mike’s marginal
utility of movie passes and gasoline are 8 and 1 respectively. If movie theater passes are $9 each
and gasoline is $3 per gallon, which of the following should occur?
a. Jen should trade gasoline for movie passes until her marginal utilities for both are 3 and 1
respectively.
b. Mike should trade movie passes for gallons of gasoline until his marginal utilities for each
is 2 and 3 respectively.
c. Mike should trade gasoline to Jen for movie passes until the marginal utilities of both goods
are the same between the two of them, and their marginal rates of substitution of movie passes
for gasoline are both equal to 3.
d. Mike should trade gasoline to Jen for movie passes until the marginal utility of gasoline for
each is three times the marginal utility of movie passes for each.
Answer: C
35. If through prior trade, the marginal rates of substitution for two goods between two people
are equal, we say that the last trade:
a. made one person better off and the other worse off.
b. was Pareto optimal.
c. was Edgeworth final.
d. was inefficient.
Answer: B
Answer: C
37. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
Answer: A
38. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
Answer: C
Difficulty Level: E
Section Reference: Efficiency in the Distribution of Goods
Learning Objective: Explain what economists mean by efficiency in exchange and the benefits
associated with the promotion of such efficiency.
39. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
In Figure 6-2, a movement from D to A will:
Answer: D
40. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
Refer to the Edgeworth box in Figure 6-2. Which of the following statements is true?
Answer: D
Answer: B
42. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
At point C in Figure 6-2, which of the following is true of the comparison between Tim's
marginal ate of substitution of candy for bread [MRSCB] and Kathy's MRSCB?
Answer: C
43. Figure 6-1 shows the distribution of steak and wine between Monica and Hank.
In Figure 6-1, points on the contract curve would include _____.
a. A and J
b. J and K
c. H and A
d. K and L
Answer: B
Answer: B
45. Which of the following is true of an efficient distribution of two goods among two
individuals?
a. The efficient distribution of goods is represented by a point off the contract curve.
b. The individuals' marginal rates of substitution are not equal at an efficient distribution of
goods.
c. If the distribution of two goods is efficient, one person can be made better off without harming
the other.
d. The point of tangency between two indifference curves shows an efficient distribution of
goods.
Answer: D
46. In an Edgeworth Box diagram, showing the distribution of two goods among two
individuals:
Answer: B
Answer: B
a. All points on the contract curve are potential points of equilibrium but not all are efficient.
b. All points on the contract curve are potential points of equilibrium and are efficient.
c. A movement from one point on the contract curve to another reduces total welfare.
d. The midpoint of the contract curve is the most efficient point because it is the most equitable.
Answer: B
49. Which of the following statements about the contract curve is correct?
a. The slope of the contract curve reflects the relative prices of the goods to consumers.
b. All points on the contract curve are efficient.
c. A point below the contract curve is always preferred to a point above the curve.
d. A point on the contract curve shows inequitable allocation of resources.
Answer: B
50. Two goods are allocated efficiently between consumers when _____.
Answer: B
51. Two goods are said to be allocated efficiently between consumers when _____.
Answer: C
52. Two goods are allocated inefficiently between consumers when _____.
Answer: D
53. Figure 6-2 shows an Edgeworth box with the preferences of Kathy and Tom toward bread
and candy.
Refer to Figure 6-2. Relative to point D, Tim's marginal rate of substitution of cookies for milk
[MRSCB] at point C is _____.
a. indeterminate
b. 0
c. the same as at point D
d. larger, smaller or the same as at point D
Answer: C
Difficulty Level: Medium
Section Reference: Efficiency in the Distribution of Goods
Learning Objective: Explain what economists mean by efficiency in exchange and the benefits
associated with the promotion of such efficiency.
a. A point of tangency between two indifference curves identifies the uniquely best distribution
of goods between consumers.
b. It is possible to move from an inefficient point to an efficient point in a way that makes one
consumer better off and the other no worse off.
c. Some inefficient distributions of the good may be preferred to some efficient distributions on
equity grounds.
d. It is possible to move from a point off the contract curve to a point on the contract curve and
make both consumers better off.
Answer: A
Answer: D
56. Why is it difficult to compare two efficient points and decide which one is better?
a. The Pareto efficiency criterion cannot be applied to more than one allocation.
b. Interpersonal comparisons cannot be made scientifically.
c. The criteria for efficiency are subjective.
d. There is no difference between various efficient allocations.
Answer: B
57. How does a competitive exchange differ from a two-person model of exchange?
a. The Pareto criterion is satisfied only in a competitive exchange and not in a two-person
exchange.
b. In two-person exchanges, the exact outcome of bargaining cannot be predicted unlike with a
competitive exchange.
c. The outcomes of two-person exchanges tend to be more equitable than competitive exchanges.
d. In two-person exchanges consumers are price-takers while competitive exchange involves
price-makers.
Answer: B
a. the decision rule is the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
b. scientific criteria can be used to lead us to the correct distribution of goods.
c. subjective criterion is required to allocate resources.
d. efficiency is always preferred to inefficiency.
Answer: C
59. Which of the following is the best example of a price taker market?
Answer: A
Answer: A
Answer: B
a. Any point where the indifference curves of the two individuals intersect
b. All points that show an equal distribution of the two goods between the two individuals
c. Any point inside the box representing scope for mutually beneficial trade.
d. A point of tangency between the indifference curves of the two individuals.
Answer: D
63. Which of the following is most likely to be the most efficient method of allocation of a
scarce resource?
Answer: D
Answer: B
65. A secondary market for the resale of baseball tickets, known as scalping:
Answer: B
a. inefficient distribution of goods because the wealthy get the highest quantity.
b. efficient distribution of goods because goods go to those who value them the most.
c. inefficient distribution of goods because goods go to those who value them the most.
d. efficient distribution of goods because the wealthy consumers are unable to buy the quantity
they wish.
Answer: B
a. inefficient because it is unlikely that those who value the good the most will get it.
b. inefficient because they result in surpluses in the market.
c. efficient because more emphasis is placed on equity and less on wealth.
d. efficient because goods are distributed to those who deserve them most.
Answer: A
68. A ration scheme using coupons could lead to an efficient outcome if _____.
a. consumers could trade coupons with each other
b. the government allocates coupons among consumers
c. the coupons were replaced with money
d. the number of coupons in circulation was limited
Answer: A
a. is more efficient, the higher the opportunity cost of the consumers’ time in line.
b. is more equitable than handing out coupons.
c. is less efficient, the higher the opportunity cost of the consumers’ time in line.
d. is less equitable than handing out coupons.
Answer: C
70. Hurricane Ike led to landfall in Galveston, Texas in September 2008. One effect of Ike was
to disrupt gasoline supplies, especially to stations in the southeast United States, many of which
were unable to raise the price of their gasoline due to legislated anti-price gouging laws.
Consequently, people waited for up to four hours for gasoline, provided they were able to find a
station that had gasoline to sell. The effect of these anti-price gouging statutes is:
a. to make consumers better off since there is no cost to spend time waiting in line.
b. to ensure that the marginal utility of gasoline across all consumers in a region is equal.
c. to allocate gasoline so that those who value it most are able to get some.
d. to allocate gasoline to those who value it less at the expense of those who value it more.
Answer: D
a. is more efficient in that those who value the good or service most are more likely to get some.
b. is less efficient in that waiting in line imposes a cost on those waiting in line, with no
offsetting benefit to the seller.
c. is less efficient in that in order to sell more of the good or service, suppliers will have to
increase the quality of their product beyond what the consumer desires.
d. is more efficient in that in order to sell more of the good or service, suppliers will have to
increase the quality of their product beyond what the consumer desires.
Answer: B
Answer: B
73. Two consumers Jim and Pam both have opera tickets and movie tickets. They wish to
exchange tickets with each other. Jim’s utility function can be expressed as U J (OJ , M J ) and
Pam’s as U P (OP , M P ) . An efficient distribution of the fixed quantities of opera and movie
tickets between Jim and Pam can be described as:
Answer: B
74. Two consumers Jim and Pam both have opera tickets and movie tickets. They wish to
exchange tickets with each other. Jim’s utility function can be expressed as U J (OJ , M J ) and
Pam’s as U P (OP , M P ) . If you take maximizing Pam’s utility as the objective function there are
how many constraints to be accounted for?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
Answer: C
75. Two consumers Jim and Pam both have opera tickets and movie tickets. They wish to
exchange tickets with each other. Jim’s utility function can be expressed as U J (OJ , M J ) and
Pam’s as U P (OP , M P ) . If you take maximizing Pam’s utility as the objective function there are
how many constraints to be accounted for?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4
Answer: C
73. Let the total quantities of two goods, apples and oranges, be 100 and 200 respectively. Jill
has an initial allocation of 50 apples and 100 oranges and considers the two goods perfect 1-for-1
substitutes. Jack considers apples and oranges perfect 1-for-1 complements. Using an Edgeworth
box, describe the set of allocations which improve economic efficiency.
Answer:
The initial allocation is at the center of the Edgeworth exchange box, point A, where Jill has 50
apples and 100 oranges and Jack has the same quantities. Jill’s indifference curve through point
A has a slope of –1. Jack’s indifference curve through point A is right-angle AEC. We know this
because Jack considers apples and oranges perfect 1-for-1 complements, therefore the corners of
his indifference curves will lie along the 45-degree line which starts at his origin. Thus, any point
inside triangle AEC will be preferred by both Jack and Jill to point A and thus improve economic
efficiency.
74. What did the moral philosopher Adam Smith mean by his invisible hand theorem?
Answer: Each buyer and seller in a market behaves in his or her own self-interest. Behaving in
one’s self interest means that each individual engages in market exchange with the goal of
maximizing his or her own utility. The invisible hand guides these individual exchanges to a
socially efficient result. The invisible hand is a metaphor that explains that market exchanges
lead to efficient individual as well as social outcomes without a central guiding authority.
Difficulty Level: Easy
Section Reference: Competitive Equilibrium and Efficient Distribution
Learning Objective: Discuss how competitive markets promote efficient distribution of goods
between consumers.
a) What is meant by Pareto efficiency? (b) Take an economy with a given level of national
wealth. 40% of the population own 60% of the wealth. The government redistributes the wealth
among the population such that 50% of the population now own 50% of the wealth. Does this
redistribution satisfy the Pareto criterion? Is the new distribution more equitable than the
previous one? Why?
Answer:
a) Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian economist, formulated a rule for efficiency which came to be
known as Pareto optimality. An allocation is considered efficient if the allocation cannot be
changed to make someone better off without making another person worse off. A distribution is
considered efficient if it cannot be rearranged so as to make someone better off without making
another person worse off. It follows from the Pareto optimality rule that an efficient distribution
is one where everyone is at their best possible point. Any change would not increase total
welfare, it would merely redistribute welfare. Interpersonal comparisons cannot be made with the
Pareto criterion.
b) The Pareto criterion for efficiency states that an efficient distribution of fixed total quantities
of goods is one in which it is not possible, through any change in the distribution, to benefit one
person without making some other person worse off. By this rule, the redistribution by the
government is not Pareto efficient. The share of wealth that was owned by 40% of the population
had to be taken away, making them worse off, in order to make 10% of the population better off.
The total wealth available for redistribution has not increased in the economy; the existing
quantity of wealth has only been redistributed. This process of redistribution will inevitably
make some better off at the expense of others.
The new distribution may be more equitable based on the criteria that you use to evaluate
fairness or equity. If the criterion for fairness is that wealth should be evenly spread among the
population, then the new wealth distribution is more equitable. If the criterion for equity is that
those who earned their wealth (40% of the population) should be allowed to keep it, then the new
distribution is unfair. Fairness and equity are normative considerations.
Answer: The price discovery process is not the same in all these markets. The price at an auction
is determined by the marginal valuation of the buyers in the audience. The relative importance of
the good to the buyer determines the price. At a garage sale, the possibility of haggling and
strategic behavior arises because it is mostly a two-person exchange. A single buyer or seller,
who is persuasive enough, can influence prices. At a drugstore, the buyers and sellers are price
takers. There are many drugstores and many buyers. A single drugstore or buyer cannot
influence the price and has to take the price as given. The price discovery process varies
depending on the number of buyers in the market (keeping supply unchanged).
Answer: Each consumer purchases a combination of goods such that the marginal rate of
substitution (MRS) equals the ratio of the prices. Also an efficient distribution of goods (one that
is on the contract curve) requires that the marginal rates of substitution be equal for the two
consumers. Inequality of MRS’ implies that the consumers place different values on the two
goods and will prefer a different distribution. Each consumer makes their consumption decisions
independently in a competitive market, and they set their own MRS equal to the price ratio. But
because the price ratio is the same for each consumer, their MRSs must be equal to each other,
which is the condition for an efficient allocation of goods.
Answer: Distributing goods according to rules other than prices (such as issuing coupons or
imposing price ceilings) is unlikely to produce an efficient outcome because goods will not be
distributed so that the marginal value is the same for all consumers. For example, a price ceiling
that is set below the market-determined price will create a divergence between the maximum
price allowed and the marginal value consumers place on the good. This marginal value is given
by the height of each individual’s demand curve, which is equal to the maximum the consumer is
willing to pay for another unit of the good. When the marginal values (or marginal rates of
substitution) are not equal across consumers, that allocation of goods is inefficient.
Difficulty Level: Medium
Section Reference: Price and Nonprice Rationing and Efficiency
Learning Objective: Explore the extent to which price and nonprice mechanisms for rationing
goods across consumers serve to promote efficiency.
79. What would you expect to see in the market for healthcare if the government decided that
healthcare allocation would be done on the basis of altruism? Why?
Answer: Any allocation mechanism that is not based on prices would lead to an inefficient
outcome; efficiency being defined as the allocation of resources to those who value them the
most. In a market based on altruism, the price of a commodity is zero. On the supply side, a zero
price will reduce or diminish the incentive to sell and increase the quantity demanded for the
good resulting in a shortage in the market. A philanthropist cannot possibly know the preferences
of all the beneficiaries who wish to use healthcare services. In the absence of prices, it will not be
possible to evaluate the marginal value placed by a consumer on a good and goods may not be
allocated to those who place the highest value on them.
80. Two consumers Jim and Pam both have opera tickets and movie tickets. They wish to
exchange tickets with each other. Given their utility functions U J (OJ , M J ) and U P (OP , M P ) ,
show that their marginal rates of substitution need to be equal for any given distribution of
tickets to be efficient.
Answer: For a distribution to be efficient, it has to make Jim as well off as possible keeping
Pam’s well-being unchanged, or make Pam as well off as possible without reducing Jim’s well-
being. Therefore one consumer’s utility is maximized subject to the constraint that the other
consumer has reached a particular level of utility. This can be expressed as:
U J U J (OJ , M J ) k ; where k is an arbitrary level of utility.
Since the total number of opera tickets and movie tickets are fixed, there are two more
constraints:
OJ OP O *
MJ MP M *
where O* and M* are the fixed quantities of the tickets.
Using the Lagrangian technique of constrained profit maximization:
Z U P (OP , M P ) 1[k U J (OJ , M J )] 2 (O * OJ OP ) 3 (M * M J M P )
The first-order condition for a maximum require setting the partial derivatives (with respect to
OJ, MJ, OP, MP, λ, λ1 and λ2) equal to zero. However, we only need the first four conditions.
Z U P
– 2 0 1
OP OP
Z U P
– 3 0 2
M P M P
Z U J
1 – 2 0 3
OJ OJ
Z U J
1 – 3 0 4
M J M J
It is a bit frigid and a bit stilted for the merry outlaws. “If love were
all,” we might admit that conventionalism had chilled the laureate’s
pen; but, happily for the great adventures we call life and death, love
is not all. The world swings on its way, peopled by other men than
lovers; and it is to Tennyson we owe the most splendid denial of
domesticity—and duty—that was ever made deathless by verse.
With what unequalled ardour his Ulysses abandons home and
country, the faithful, but ageing, Penelope, the devoted, but dull,
Telemachus, and the troublesome business of law-making! He does
not covet safety. He does not enjoy the tranquil reward of his
labours, nor the tranquil discharge of his obligations. He will drink life
to the lees. He will seek the still untravelled world, and take what
buffets fortune sends him.
Poor Penelope! What chance has she against such glad decision,
such golden dreams! It is plain that the Ithacan navy was less
distinguished than the British navy for the development of domestic
virtues. Until such time as Germany fulfils her threat, and drives the
“bastard tongue of canting island pirates” from its hold on the
civilized world, Tennyson’s Ulysses will survive as the embodiment of
the adventurous spirit which brooks no restraint, and heeds no
liability.
The great Victorian novelists were well aware that, albeit the
average man does his share of love-making, he neither lives nor dies
for love. Mr. Edmund Gosse, reared in the strictest sect of Plymouth
Brethren, and professing religion at ten, was nevertheless permitted
by his father to read the novels of Dickens, because they dealt with
the passion of love in a humorous manner. More often they deal with
it in a purely perfunctory manner, recognizing it as a prelude to
marriage, and as something to which the novelist must not forget to
make an occasional reference. Nicholas Nickleby is a young man
and a hero. Consequently an assortment of female virtues and of
female charms is labelled, docketed, provided with ringlets and a
capacity for appropriate swooning,—and behold, Nicholas has a
wife. Kate Nickleby’s husband is even more sketchily outlined. He
has a name, and—we are told—an impetuous and generous
disposition. He makes his appearance when a suitor is needed,
stands up to be married when a husband is called for, and that is all
there is of him. But what do these puppets matter in a book which
gives us Mrs. Nickleby, Vincent Crummles, Fanny Squeers, and the
ever-beloved Kenwigses. It took a great genius to enliven the
hideous picture of Dotheboys Hall with the appropriate and immortal
Fanny, whom we could never have borne to lose. It took a great
genius to evolve from nothingness the name “Morleena Kenwigs.”
So perfect a result, achieved from a mere combination of letters,
confers distinction on the English alphabet.
The charge of conventionalism brought against Thackeray and
Trollope has more substance, because these novelists essayed to
portray life soberly and veraciously. “Trollope,” says Sir Leslie
Stephen, “was in the awkward position of a realist, bound to ignore
realities.” Thackeray was restrained, partly by the sensitive propriety
of British readers who winced at the frank admission of sexual
infirmities, and partly by the quality of his own taste. In deference to
the public, he forbore to make Arthur Pendennis the lover of Fanny
Bolton; and when we remember the gallant part that Fanny plays
when safely settled at Clavering, her loyalty to her old friend, Bows,
and her dexterity in serving him, we are glad she went unsmirched
into that sheltered port.
The restrictions so cheerfully accepted by Thackeray, and his
reticence—which is merely the reticence observed by every
gentleman of his day—leave him an uncrippled spectator and
analyst of the complicated business of living. The world is not nearly
so simple a place as the sexualists seem to consider it. To the author
of “Vanity Fair” it was not simple at all. Acting and reacting upon one
another, his characters crowd the canvas, their desires and
ambitions, their successes and failures, inextricably interwoven into
one vast social scheme. It is not the decency of Thackeray’s novels
which affronts us (we are seldom unduly aware that they are
decent), but the severity with which he judges his own creations, and
his rank and shameless favouritism. What business has he to coddle
Rawdon Crawley (“honest Rawdon,” forsooth!), to lay siege to our
hearts with all the skill of a great artificer, and compel our liking for
this fool and reprobate? What business has he to pursue Becky
Sharp like a prosecuting attorney, to trip her up at every step, to
betray, to our discomfiture, his cold hostility? He treats Blanche
Amory in the same merciless fashion, and no one cares. But Becky!
Becky, that peerless adventuress who, as Mr. Brownell reminds us,
ran her memorable career before psychology was thought of as an
essential element of fiction. Becky whose scheming has beguiled our
weary hours, and recompensed us for the labour of learning to read.
How shall we fathom the mental attitude of a novelist who could
create such a character, control her fluctuating fortunes, lift her to
dizzy heights, topple her to ruin, extricate her from the dust and
débris of her downfall,—and hate her!
Trollope, working on a lower level, observant rather than creative,
was less stern a moralist than Thackeray, but infinitely more cautious
of his foot-steps. He kept soberly in the appointed path, and never
once in thirty years trod on the grass or flower-beds. Lady Glencora
Palliser thinks, indeed, of leaving her husband; but she does not do
it, and her continency is rewarded after a fashion which is very
satisfactory to the reader. Mr. Palliser aspires somewhat stiffly to be
the lover of Lady Dumbello; but that wise worldling, ranking love the
least of assets, declines to make any sacrifice at its shrine. Trollope
unhesitatingly and proudly claimed for himself the quality of
harmlessness. “I do believe,” he said, “that no girl has risen from the
reading of my pages less modest than she was before, and that
some girls may have learned from them that modesty is a charm
worth possessing.”
This is one of the admirable sentiments which should have been
left unspoken. It is a true word as far as it goes, but more suggestive
of “Little Women,” or “A Summer in Leslie Goldthwaite’s Life,” than of
those virile, varied and animated novels which make no appeal to
immaturity. In Trollope’s teeming world, as in the teeming world
about us, a few young people fall in love and are married, but this is
an infrequent episode. Most of his men and women, like the men
and women whom we know, are engrossed in other activities. Once,
indeed, Bishop Proudie wooed and won Mrs. Proudie. Once
Archdeacon Grantly wooed and won Mrs. Grantly. But neither of
these gentlemen could possibly have belonged to “the great cruising
brotherhood of the Pilgrims of Love.” “Le culte de la femme” has
never been a popular pastime in Britain, and Trollope was the last
man on the island to have appreciated its significance. He preferred
politics, the hunting-field, and the church.
Yet surely Archdeacon Grantly is worth a brace of lovers. With
what sincerity he is drawn, and with what consummate care! A
churchman who, as Sir Leslie Stephen somewhat petulantly
observes, “gives no indication of having any religious views
whatever, beyond a dislike to dissenters.” A solidly respectable
member of provincial clerical society, ambitious, worldly, prizing
wealth, honouring rank, unspiritual, unprogressive,—but none the
less a man who would have proved his worth in the hour of
England’s trial.
It is a testimony to the power of fiction that, having read with
breathless concern and through countless pages Mr. Britling’s
reflections on the war, my soul suddenly cried out within me for the
reflections of Archdeacon Grantly. Mr. Britling is an acute and
sensitive thinker. The archdeacon’s mental processes are of the
simplest. Mr. Britling has winged his triumphant flight from “the
clumsy, crawling, snobbish, comfort-loving caterpillar of Victorian
England.” The archdeacon is still confessedly a grub. Mr. Britling has
“truckled to no domesticated god.” The archdeacon’s deity is open to
such grievous innuendoes. Yet I wish I could have stood on the
smooth lawn of Plumstead, and have heard what the archdeacon
had to say when he learned that an English scholar and gentleman
had smuggled out of England, by the help of a female “confidential
agent,” a treacherous appeal to the President of the United States,
asking that pressure should be brought upon fighting Englishmen in
the interests of peace. I wish I could have heard the cawing rooks of
Plumstead echo his mighty wrath. For there is that in the heart of a
man, even a Victorian churchman with a love of preferment and a
distaste for dissenters, which holds scatheless the sacred thing
called honour.
Trollope is as frank about the archdeacon’s frailties as Mr. Wells is
frank about Mr. Britling’s frailties. In piping days of peace, the
archdeacon’s contempt for Mr. Britling would have been as sincere
and hearty as Mr. Britling’s contempt for the archdeacon. But under
the hard, heroic discipline of war there would have come to the
archdeacon, as to Mr. Britling, a white dawn of revelation. Both men
have the liberating qualities of manhood.
It is always hard to make an elastic phrase fit with precision. We
know what we mean by Victorian conventions and hypocrisies, but
the perpetual intrusion of blinding truths disturbs our point of view.
The new Reform bill and the extension of the suffrage were hardy
denials of convention. “The Origin of Species” and “Zoölogical
Evidences as to Man’s Place in Nature” were not published in the
interests of hypocrisy. There was nothing oppressively respectable
about “The Ring and the Book”; and Swinburne can hardly be said to
have needed correction at Zola’s hands. These mid-Victorian
products have a savour of freedom about them, and so has “The
Ordeal of Richard Feverel.” Even the Homeric eloquence of Ruskin
was essentially the eloquence of the free. The two lessons he sought
to drive home to his reluctant readers were, first, that Englishmen
were not living on an illuminated earth spot, under the especial
patronage of the Almighty; and, second, that no one was called by
Providence to the enjoyment of wealth and security. If such
unpleasant and reiterated truths—as applicable to the United States
to-day as they were to Victoria’s England—are “smug,” then
Jeremiah is sugar-coated, and the Baptist an apostle of ease.
The English have at all times lacked the courage of their emotions,
but not the emotions themselves. Their reticence has stood for
strength as well as for stiffness. The pre-Raphaelites, indeed,
surrendered their souls with docility to every wavelet of feeling, and
produced something iridescent, like the shining of wet sand. Love,
according to their canon, was expressed with transparent ease. It
was “a great but rather sloppy passion,” says Mr. Ford Madox
Hueffer, “which you swooned about on broad general lines.” A pre-
Raphaelite corsair languished as visibly as a pre-Raphaelite seraph.
He could be bowled over by a worsted ball; but he was at least more
vigorous and more ruddy than a cubist nude. One doubted his
seared conscience and his thousand crimes; but not his ability to
walk unassisted downstairs.
The Victorian giants were of mighty girth. They trod the earth with
proud and heavy steps, and with a strength of conviction which was
as vast and tranquil as the plains. We have parted with their
convictions and with their tranquillity. We have parted also with their
binding prejudices and with their standards of taste. Freedom has
come to us, not broadening down
“They are than Man more strong, and more than Woman
sweet,”—