The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

This week we have a lot of conversations. Both Rachel and Hester are subject to lectures of various kinds. There is "mansplaining" from men and hypocrisy from women. The only authentic conversations are between the two of them. There are several pronouncements on women's roles and the importance of marriage.

The satire throughout about church services is pretty biting. The vicar and his wife are smug and judgmental, and most of the parishioners are thinking about other things. But society conversation is also vapid and self-centered.

We see again Dick and Hugh, who both are pursuing Rachel in their own ways, joined by her former flame, the romantically named Tristram. I think it's a common experience for people to meet again someone they were heartbroken over and realize how unappealing that person now is. This seems to free Rachel up for a new relationship - will she choose, Dick, Hugh, someone else, or nobody?

The section ends with a dramatic scene where Lord Newhaven rescues Hugh and second guesses the "gentleman's agreement" that started the book. Did this surprise you?

Does this section change or enhance your views on any characters? Do you have predictions for how the story will go?

Lord Newhaven explains to Dick the realities of matrimony for many women, and urges him to pick a more vulnerable woman if he wishes to marry.

All the same, a man with one eye can see that women with money, or anything that makes them independent of us, don't flatter us by their alacrity to marry us. They will make fools of themselves for love—none greater—and they will marry for love. But their different attitude towards us, their natural lords and masters, directly we are no longer necessary to them as stepping-stones to a home and a recognized position, revolts me. If you had taken my advice at the start, you would have made up to one among the mob of women who are dependent on marriage for their very existence. If a man goes into that herd he will not be refused. And if he is it does not matter. It is the blessed custom of piling everything on to the eldest son, and leaving the women of the family almost penniless, which provides half of us with wives without any trouble to ourselves. Whatever we are, they have got to take us. The average dancing young woman living in luxury in her father's house is between the devil and the deep sea. We are frequently the devil; but it is not surprising that she can't face the alternative-a poverty to which she was not brought up, and in which she has seen her old spinster aunts.

This has the makings of a feminist manifesto, and is presumably how Cholmondeley views the marriage market for gentlewomen. She explains the precariousness of their existence, and the need to move from their father's support to a husband's support, with no opportunity to support themselves (unless we come to see Hester as able to support herself through her writing).

I also found the meeting with Tristram very well written, and wonder what impact it will have on Rachel's feelings for her current suitors. While she certainly seems to be favouring Hugh, I wonder how his near death experience will affect her-will he seem more heroic, or weaker?

Frances wrote: "This has the makings of a feminist manifesto,... "

But Cholmondeley is not ready to chime in with empty praise for women as Mr. Harvey practices in his declaring superiority of women. She sees through this male manoeuvre that, as we well know, turns feminism upside down and thus evades all real discussion about equality.

I also noted the way in which Cholmondeley used the (then brand new) moniker of the "New Woman". It appears twice:

Consequently to her [Sybell Loftus'] house came the raté in all his most virulent developments; the "new woman" with stupendous lopsided opinions on difficult Old Testament subjects;

***
"I trust, Miss West," said the deep voice of Mr. Harvey, revolving himself and his solitaire slowly towards her, that I have your sympathy in the great cause to which I have dedicated myself, the emancipation of woman."

"I thought the new woman had effected her own emancipation," said Rachel.

Mr. Harvey paid no more attention to her remark than any one with a theory to propound which must be delivered to the world as a whole.

In the first case, she pricks the New Woman with her sharp pen: is it because she resents the superficial categorization, or the phenomenon itself? In the second case, the name is used again ironically - at least it seems so to me. But the irony could also be directed at Mr. Harvey's pompous glorification of women, the vacuity of which is proven immediately by his ignoring her remark.

Cholmondeley has been classified as an author of the New Woman wave, but I think she would not at all have relished this categorization. She was much too aware of the pitfalls of fashions and comfortable classifications - but I am still not certain what she thought of the substance of the concept: the educated, independent woman.

Chapter 21

Both were conscious, like "Celia Chettam," that since the birth of their first child their opinions respecting literature, politics, and art had acquired additional weight and solidity, and that a wife and mother could pronounce with decision on important subjects where a spinster would do well to hold her peace. Each was fond of saying, "As a married woman I think this or that"; yet each was conscious of dislike and irritation when she heard the other say it.

HA.
I used to express more opinions when visiting, talk more freely, and be a more interesting conversationalist, with my SIL. But I got sick of being told "You don't understand because you don't have kids."

Robin P wrote: "The satire throughout about church services is pretty biting. The vicar and his wife are smug and judgmental, and most of the parishioners are thinking about other things"

So funny. Worms. Doll Loftus in church during the sermon:

'I will walk up to Beaumere this afternoon,' said Doll, stretching a leg outside the open end of the pew. 'I wish Gresley would not call the Dissenters worms. They are some of my best tenants, and they won't like it when they hear of it. And I'll go round the young pheasants.'

I've caught up but don't have anything deep to say about the characters or the plot, except that I'm enjoying it so far. I wish I hadn't seen the Goodreads page for the book, as it has some spoilers.

There is so much great writing in this section, too many instances to mention here. But I will pick out a few gems relevant to the discussions and plot.

My favourite was the description of Hester and her brother in the garden with the symbolism of the magnolia swirling around them.

Hester’s submergence in the pure beauty of the garden was described exquisitely.

‘ Hester, standing in a white gown under the veiled trees in a glade of silver and trembling opal, which surely mortal foot had never trod, seemed infinitely removed from him. Dimly he felt that she was at one with this mysterious morning world, and that he, the owner, was an alien and a trespasser in his own garden…….
…..’ She was gazing with an absorption that shut out all other sights and sounds at the solitary blossom on the magnolia-tree. Yesterday it had been a bud; but to-day the great almond-white petals which guarded it, overlapping each other so jealously, had opened wide, and the perfect flower, keeping nothing back, had laid bare all its pure white soul before its God………..
…… Something of the passionate self-surrender of the flower was reflected in her eyes.

Hester and the magnolia were almost as one until her brother, the rude interruption of her serenity, despoiled her idyll.

’ Hester found herself suddenly transplanted into the prose of life, emphasized by a long clerical coat and a bed of Brussels sprouts.’

What a great comparison. Hester the magnolia flower harangued yet again by her brother Brussels sprout.

Regarding Rachel’s feelings, there is no doubt that a special connection exists between her and Hugh, unlike her relationships with the other men.

’ In another instant they recognized each other. "Superfine! What nonsense," she thought, as she met his eager, tremulous glance. "A plain woman. Rachel plain!" He had met the welcome in her eyes, and there was beauty in every movement, grace in every fold of her white gown.’

On recognising each other they both eagerly dived below that superficial appearance that they first noticed, to savour their admiration for each other. It is clear that throughout this section, Rachel’s awareness of Hugh being in the vicinity influenced her behaviour and added to her determination to be rid of her former lover.

I loved the way Mr. Tristam got his comeuppance. Pompous and supercilious, his knowledge of Rachel was so poor after knowing her for so many years. He excused his behaviour as being like ‘all men’ and it was clear he only saw Rachel like ‘all women.’ I enjoyed this simile from the author.

’ His knowledge of womankind supported him like a life-belt, but it has been said that life-belts occasionally support their wearers upsidedown. Theories have been known to exhibit the same spiteful tendency towards those who place their trust in them.’

How important was this to Rachel’s future?
’ But now the dead past had risen from its grave in her meeting with her former lover, and in a moment, in two short days and wakeful nights, the past relinquished its false claim upon her life. She saw that it was false, that she had been frightened where no fear was, that her deliverance lay in remembrance itself, not in the handcuffs with which until now she had bound her deliverer.’

As for the irony of the final chapter, is Newhaven a hypocrite? He actually said that in different circumstances he would have helped Hugh get out of the mess he was in if it hadn’t been his wife he was involved with. I had to read that again. Hugh may be weak and somewhat fragile but Newhaven’s morals seem just as bad, if not worse than his adversary.

sabagrey wrote: "But the irony could also be directed at Mr. Harvey's pompous glorification of women, the vacuity of which is proven immediately by his ignoring her remark..."

Yes I agree. The man with the ‘poached egg in his palm’ then goes on to mention Tennyson’s poem Tennyson's The Princess and attempts to stand higher than the (at least official) highest poet in the land.

’ "that though I accept in all reverence the position of woman as the equal of man, as promulgated in The Princess, by our lion-hearted Laureate, nevertheless I advance beyond him in that respect. I hold"—in a voice calculated to impress the whole table—"that woman is man's superior, and that she degrades herself when she endeavours to place herself on an equality with him.


What clever satire the author employs here, especially in the way the ‘great man’s’ audience react.

(Tennyson’s poem might be worth considering as a short group read if ever there is a gap between longer books.)

Trev wrote: "As for the irony of the final chapter, is Newhaven a hypocrite? He actually said that in different circumstances he would have helped Hugh get out of the mess he was in if it hadn’t been his wife he was involved with. I had to read that again. Hugh may be weak and somewhat fragile but Newhaven’s morals seem just as bad, if not worse than his adversary.."

I cannot see Newhaven as a hypocrite. Rather I see him as another prisoner in the fatal "honour game" of the Victorian gentleman. On one level, he is aware of the absurdity of creating a matter of life and death about a woman whose charms and weaknesses he knows all too well, and whom he respects only as his property. On another layer, he is serious about punishing Hugh for his transgression - but he does not demand the death penalty.

"I believe I should have to let him off," he said, half-aloud. "I believe I would let him off if I was not as certain as I stand here that he will never do it."

What he wants is for Hugh to be ashamed of himself for life. Which, in the gentleman's world of honour and chivalry, is somehow worse than death - but would not be so for a man who does not come up to these standards, who "has not a law within him." - This is a quote from the epitaph to this chapter:

The main difference between people seems to be that one man can come under obligations on which you can rely—is obligable—and another is not. As he has not a law within him, there's nothing to tie him to.—EMERSON.

Diana Tempest is full of references to Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose philosophy must have made a strong impression on Cholmondeley. Sometimes epitaphs are like afterthoughts, mere add-ons, but this one seems to me more like a "leitmotif" to the whole novel. Cholmondeley seems to have found inspiration for her male characters in Emerson (see John Tempest as an embodiment of his concept of Self-reliance). ... for the female characters too? - I have no idea what Emerson had to say about women.

Just a few miscellaneous comments (because all my fellow readers have covered the subject so well!):
1) I also gloried in Tristram's comeuppance. What a pompous ass!
2) Hester really needs to get far, far away from her brother and SIL before her spirit is entirely broken. Amazing how unkind seemingly devout people can be in some instances.
3) As a childless woman, I have also received unkind comments from women with children. "You can't understand because you don't have children:" "You don't have any maternal instinct since you don't have children:" "You don't know what real responsibility is until you have children." Infuriating.
4) Why did they have to kill the dog? It was not necessary to the story and very sad. I don't particularly like Hugh, so I could see his death as a convenient way to solve that particular problem, but it would also have made his presence in the novel unnecessary. I like that Lord Newhaven at least thought about releasing Hugh from his pledge. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Before we go on to the next section: there is one section that I find disturbing.

Her voice was full of tender pity, not for the crouching unhappiness before her, but for the poor atrophied soul. Could she reach it? She would have given everything she possessed at that moment for one second of Christ's power to touch those blind eyes to sight. … "The fault is in me," she said to herself. "If I were purer, humbler, more loving, I might have been allowed to help her."

This is about Rachel, and what is said about her here goes way beyond a helper syndrome. It is a sort of missionary frenzy and, to my mind, pathological.

Such a fanaticism is utterly alien to my way of thinking, I cannot understand this character at all. I find it even somewhat repugnant.

I ask myself whether Cholmondeley also sees it as “too much of a good thing”, or whether this is meant seriously, as an ideal? Maybe the novel will shed light on her own position.

sabagrey wrote: "This is about Rachel, and what is said about her here goes way beyond a helper syndrome. It is a sort of missionary frenzy and, to my mind, pathological."

This bothers me too. I think this will get her into trouble. Probably with Hugh.

sabagrey wrote: "Before we go on to the next section: there is one section that I find disturbing.

Her voice was full of tender pity, not for the crouching unhappiness before her, but for the poor atrophied soul...."

I think Rachel’s missionary zeal emanated from her growing feeling of inadequacy and self loathing, having been rejected by her lover. She was in fact blaming herself and her own deficiencies for his rejection. This ‘helping others’ fervour could have arisen out of not being able to help herself. Now that she has broken free (and the lines below are brilliantly written) she might focus more on herself and her own happiness than that of others.

’ But now the dead past had risen from its grave in her meeting with her former lover, and in a moment, in two short days and wakeful nights, the past relinquished its false claim upon her life. She saw that it was false, that she had been frightened where no fear was, that her deliverance lay in remembrance itself, not in the handcuffs with which until now she had bound her deliverer.’

I was even more intrigued by the way Rachel was described by Cholmondeley as ‘Death’ in the near drowning scene involving Hugh.

‘ The struggle was over. "It is better so," said the other voice, through the roaring of a cataract near at hand. "Your mother will bear it better so. And all the long difficulties are over, and pain is past, and life is past, and sleep is best." "But Rachel?" She was here in the warm, swaying darkness. She was with him. She was Death. Death was only her arms round him in a great peace. Death was better than life. He let go the silly boat that kept him from her and turned wholly to her, his closed eyes against her breast.’

Rachel’s dead past and Rachel as ‘Death,’ both described amidst the emotionally disturbing scenes. It might not be just coincidence that they follow closely in the plot.

Trev wrote: "Rachel’s dead past and Rachel as ‘Death,’ both described amidst the emotionally disturbing scenes. It might not be just coincidence that they follow closely in the plot"

Your comment made me notice how much this novel revolves around death and dying.

Apart from the protracted life-and-death reflections that Newhaven has forced upon both himself and Hugh, there is also the struggle of both Rachel and Hester. Rachel frees herself from her old lover, Hester finishes her novel - both are life-affirming acts pointing to the possibility of happiness. But Hester's health is deteriorating in the toxic environment of the vicarage, and Rachel is on the verge of falling in love with a moribund man. And she "would give everything" - her life included? - to "save" Lady Newhaven's soul.

Cholmondeley sets the secondary characters as a counterpoint to our tragedy-bound male and female pairs. But are not all of their life-affirming activities painted as somewhat more shallow and trivial, less "worthy" and essential?

Trev wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "But the irony could also be directed at Mr. Harvey's pompous glorification of women, the vacuity of which is proven immediately by his ignoring her remark..."

Yes I agree. The man..."

Trev, thanks for the heads up regarding Tennyson‘s poem, which prompted me reach to my bookcase for my volume of Tennyson’s works with the intention of reading it. Then I realised it was circa 80 pages long, so I would agree with your suggestion about a group read in the future!

sabagrey wrote: "But Hester's health is deteriorating in the toxic environment of the vicarage, and Rachel is on the verge of falling in love with a moribund man. And she "would give everything" - her life included? - to "save" Lady Newhaven's soul"

I also noticed that after that initial meeting coming out of their respective rooms, whilst Rachel seemed strengthened by the presence of the weak Hugh, Hugh himself realised that she was powerless to help him in his plight.

’ But the presence of Rachel afforded no clew to the labyrinth. What vain hope was this that he had cherished unconsciously that she could help him. There was no help for him. There was no way out. He was in a trap. He must die, and soon, by his own hand. Incredible, preposterous fate! He shuddered, and looked around him involuntarily.’

Yes, that death shadow seemed to cast darkness on all their thoughts. Rachel would ‘give her life’ to save Lady Newhaven and Hugh felt honour bound to give his life as a forfeit to Lord Newhaven even after that man had just saved him from drowning.

I also had the impression that the drowning seemed an easy way out for Hugh compared to the horror of having to kill yourself. Maybe Newhaven thought that at as well.