The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

XXII. SOMEBODY IN THE ROOM WITH THE COFFIN

XXIII. I TALK WITH DOCTOR BRYERLY

XXIV. THE OPENING OF THE WILL

XXV. I HEAR FROM UNCLE SILAS

XXVI. THE STORY OF UNCLE SILAS

XXVII. MORE ABOUT TOM CHARKE'S SUICIDE

XXVIII. I AM PERSUADED

Is anybody still reading/discussing this?

I haven't started on Volume II yet - from Chapter XXVI onwards.

I've finished the entire book. Because I'm concerned about possible spoilers, I usually wait for others to start the discussion. Here's a minor point to start us off.

Has anybody notice how all LeFanu's women "glide" instead of walk? It makes me feel like they have no feet. What do you guys think?

Hadn't noticed but it's sure to bring a smile to my lips now that you've mentioned it.

But isn't this typical of most authors of the period due to the fact that women's dresses came down to the floor and gave the appearance of gliding rather than walking?

It just made me smile every time I read it, because I kept picturing them on roller skates or something under the long dress ;-)

I think in this case it is to imply 'glide like a phantom' to add to the atmosphere of a gothic mystery.

This passage below makes me think that the Ruthyn family inter-married in the past, which may explain some of Austin's eccentric behaviour. I don't mean just marrying close cousins within the Ruthyn family, but cousins within the Alymer family too. Cousin Monica mention earlier on that Maud bore a resemblance to someone named Alymer. At that point I thought it only a given name and not a surname also. But this chapter certainly raised an eyebrow with regards to propinquity and this much vaunted 'ancient lineage'. It was common in times past for families to intermarry especially when there were estates and large fortunes to pass along. It kept the estates and fortunes in the family.

Whatever, by this stage of the novel, I'm inclined to believe that Austin is of unsound mind due in part to the past propinquity of his family connections.


'I, Austin Alymer Ruthyn Ruthyn, being, I thank God, of sound mind and perfect recollection,' &c, &c.; and then came a bequest of all his estates real, chattels real, copyrights, leases, chattels, money, rights, interests, reversions, powers, plate, pictures, and estates and possessions whatsoever, to four persons--Lord Ilbury, Mr. Penrose Creswell of Creswell, Sir William Aylmer, Bart., and Hans Emmanuel Bryerly, Doctor of Medicine, 'to have and to hold,' &c. &c. Whereupon my Cousin Monica ejaculated 'Eh?' and Doctor Bryerly interposed--
'Four trustees, ma'am. We take little but trouble--you'll see; go on.'

Malcolm wrote: "I think in this case it is to imply 'glide like a phantom' to add to the atmosphere of a gothic mystery."

Yes, that's what it does for me -- adds to the mystery.

I'm curious about everyone's thoughts about Maud's discussion with Dr. Bryerly in Ch XXIII when she questions his medical skill. Perhaps it's just the perspective we've seen earlier in the book with respect to Swedenborgianism, but we've seen so much of his religious side that I assumed his medical experience was rather light. He seems to have such an arrogant air in his retort to Maud defending his medical abilities, but only a few paragraphs later he's preaching to her about the power of prayer and the protection of the angels.

Malcolm wrote: "This passage below makes me think that the Ruthyn family inter-married in the past, which may explain some of Austin's eccentric behaviour. I don't mean just marrying close cousins within the Ruth..."

I didn't see it that way. I saw the "being of sound mind, thank God" as part of his deeply religious beliefs.

BunWat wrote: "Snort, with the roller skates!! That's amusing me a lot. I'm behind on my chapters this week because I'm having a hectic one. I'm only up to Chap 24 at the moment."

So glad I could make you smile during a tough week!

Deborah wrote: "Malcolm wrote: "This passage below makes me think that the Ruthyn family inter-married in the past, which may explain some of Austin's eccentric behaviour. I don't mean just marrying close cousins..."

The opening part of the will "'I, Austin Alymer Ruthyn Ruthyn, being, (I thank God), of sound mind and perfect recollection,' &c, &c."; is just a standard formula. However, the "I thank God" comment is down to his religious character.

I was referring mostly to his trustee Sir William Alymer, Bart.

Deborah wrote: "It just made me smile every time I read it, because I kept picturing them on roller skates or something under the long dress ;-)"

Ha! Now I'm going to think of that every time I read about them "gliding"...

Some thoughts:

- Why does Lady Knollys get so upset everytime Maud asks her whether or not she thinks that Silas actually murdered Tom Charke? Just speculating because I'm only reading what we are discussing for the week, but I wonder if she knows something that she's not saying. She certainly doesn't want Maud to go and live with Silas.

- Again, I am just speculating, but I think Uncle Silas did it. ;) Owed the guy a lot of money, didn't have the money.

- Even though I love literature from the 19th and 18th centuries, I'm always glad that I live now rather than back then when I read that women had little say in their destinies. A big "thank you!" to all the women who fought for equal rights over the centuries (especially Virginia Woolf who I know Madge doesn't like, but who I adore. lol...)

- I wish we'd hear more from Doctor Bryerly. He's creepy, but seems like a good guy. He comes in and out of the story. Kind of strange.

- Since Maud is narrating the story, it takes some of the suspense out of the novel. Obviously, Uncle Silas doesn't off her and get her money. Maybe there's going to be some twist???

I've been listening to an audiobook of Wilkie Collins' The Woman in White over the past few days and can't help comparing Maud unfavourably with the incredibly feisty and spunky Marian Halcombe. Although, even as I write these words, I'm aware that the circumstances of the two characters are very different and it may be that Marian is so much more in control simply because she is an adult.

Lynn, I agree with you about the suspense being lessened somewhat by the narrative technique. If Maud is narrating this book she is presumably still alive some period after the events have taken place. Although I guess deceased narrators are not entirely unheard of in literature!

Yes, Marian is spunky but Laura, the heroine of the Woman in White, isn't, so perhaps Collins was making a comment on the sex roles of the time, taking a more 'feminist' line with Marian?

That Maud is narrating her story and still showing herself to be of a nervous disposition at this stage of the tale, even though her father had asked her to be brave, perhaps foreshadows a bravery which will suddenly assert itself later?

Maud as narrator may still be alive but we do not know what the full effect of any future denouement might be - is she sound in mind and limb by the end of the novel, for instance?

A character who has disappeared who interests me is Captain Oakley. As a military man in a uniform I rather expect heroic things of him at some stage as Victorian novels tended to laud the military. Or is Fanu being Irish about this and intending a slur on the British military who wreaked such havoc in Ireland? (Just a random political thought...:))

I have been musing on the name 'Maud' with relation to le Fanu's Republican sympathies because he had a connection with the poet Yeats and his great (unrequited) love, the revolutionary Maud Gonne. Yeats also flirted with Swedenburg's notions. Clearly the Maud in Uncle Silas is not at all revolutionary but Fanu may have used the name Maud as a tribute to Maud Gonne I suppose, who was a much loved heroine of the Irish Republican cause.

http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/gon...

MadgeUK wrote: "I have been musing on the name 'Maud' with relation to le Fanu's Republican sympathies because he had a connection with the poet Yeats and his great (unrequited) love, the revolutionary Maud Gonne...."

Perhaps not, as she wasn't born until after the publication of Uncle Silas.

Good point:):).

MadgeUK wrote: A character who has disappeared who interests me is Captain Oakley. As a military man in a uniform I rather expect heroic things of him at some stage as Victorian novels tended to laud the military. Or is Fanu being Irish about this and intending a slur on the British military who wreaked such havoc in Ireland? (Just a random political thought...:)) ..."

I think that you are being too hard and political on Sheridan Le Fanu due to his Irishness. However, the Captain's name Charles Oakley suggests to me not only Englishness but also hints of king Charles II. The Anglican king who converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.

As I am sure you are well aware, following the Battle of Worcester, the future Charles II escaped the Roundhead army by hiding in an oak tree.

Perhaps the naming of the captain is purposely ambiguous by Le Fanu - due to Heart(s) of Oak historically referring to the British navy, and of course the Oak Apple Day in reference to the the Restoration of the monarchy following the Commonwealth. Whatever, the oak is an enduring symbol of Englishness.

Why should (and how could he damage them any more than their own actions?) Le Fanu slur the British military when they were so perfectly capable of blackening their own name in Ireland without the necessity of natives aiding them in doing so any way? LOL :o)

However, the Captain's name Charles Oakley suggests to me not only Englishness but also hints of king Charles II. The Anglican king who converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.


Now that's even more political. LOL.

MadgeUK wrote: "However, the Captain's name Charles Oakley suggests to me not only Englishness but also hints of king Charles II. The Anglican king who converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed.


Now that's ..."

Perhaps, but it's a more sympathetic reading than yours :o)

LOL. Fanu's characterisation of Oakley is hardly flattering - a bit of a fortune hunter etc. Not exactly a heart of oak:-

'...now, dear Maud, have not I told you fifty times over to have nothing to say to him? I've found out, my dear, he plays, and he is very much in debt. I've made a vow to pay no more for him. I've been such a fool, you have no notion; and I'm speaking, you know, against myself; it would be such a relief if he were to find a wife to support him; and he has been, I'm told, very sweet upon a rich old maid--a button-maker's sister, in Manchester.'

MadgeUK wrote: "LOL. Fanu's characterisation of Oakley is hardly flattering - a bit of a fortune hunter etc. Not exactly a heart of oak:-

'...now, dear Maud, have not I told you fifty times over to have nothing ..."

But it's not an insulting description and very much typical of a certain class of Englishman of the period and even earlier.

He's a young well-bred gambler who is in need of a wealthy wife to reform him. Who wouldn't prefer a wife who could keep herself in pin money?

At least he sounds as if he makes safer bets than his relation Silas, and has more taste too.

It is an insult for his aunt to warn Maud against him and to say that she will no longer pay his debts!

How does he make safer bets if he loses money and gets into debt?

MadgeUK wrote: "It is an insult for his aunt to warn Maud against him and to say that she will no longer pay his debts!

How does he make safer bets if he loses money and gets into debt?"


It may not present him in a complimentary light but it's not said as an intended insult to him. She's merely telling his character frankly. Families talk like that of each other - much to Maud's surprise being an only child with little contact with her relatives. Look how shocked Maud was when Monica suggested Austin was 'ugly' to his face. Again not spoken as an insult but as banter between close family members. Monica is inclined to speak her mind and generally respected and loved for it.

I meant a safer bet in the choice of wife, the sister of a manufacturer compared to a relatively poor barmaid of obscure origin.

An inveterate gambler is not generally well regarded in any family and in both Regency and Victorian literature was generally associated with villainy and loss of family fortunes. Oakley would have been regarded as an unreliable rake and not good husband material.

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/t...

http://www.likesbooks.com/gambling.html

Uncle Silas' villainy also centres around a huge gambling debt and he is implicated in the 'suicide' of Clarke:

[Cousin Monica says]'...The letter said distinctly, that he, Mr. Charke, had made a very profitable visit to Bartram-Haugh, and mentioned in exact figures for how much he held your uncle Silas's I.O.U.'s, for he could not pay him. I can't say what the sum was. I only remember that it was quite frightful. It took away my breath when I read it.'

'Uncle Silas had lost it?' [Maud] asked.

'Yes, and owed it; and had given him those papers called I.O.U.'s promising to pay, which, of course, Mr. Charke had locked up with his money; and the insinuation was that Silas had made away with him, to get rid of this debt, and that he had also taken a great deal of his money.' (Chap 27.)

A number of le Fanu's stories show gamblers in a bad light. Captain Oakley is just one of many and the unflattering references to his gambling proclivities are significant in the light of the whole novel's preoccupation with the 'fall' of Uncle Silas, which we learn is due to gambling. They can instead be seen as a foreshadowing of darker deeds to come.

Gambling happens in all classes and all eras. Oakley would only be regarded as such mostly by those who do not gamble. Fellow gamblers - and there would be many - would regard him as a 'good sport' as long as he honoured his debts.

I'm aware of the stereotypes and clichés of Regency and Victorian literature. It makes little difference. Zzzz

'As long as he honours his debts' being the key words. Depending upon your aunt or your future wife to pay them is not honourable and has never been considered so. Gambling can become an addiction like other addictions and thereby bring ruin and dishonour. Le Fanu hints at the dishonour Oakley was bringing to his family and then goes on to show how Silas' gambling debt drove him to commit murder. The dishonourable results of gambling is one of the major themes of this book, cliche or not.

You may be aware of these 'stereotypes and cliches' but others here may not. You are not the only person reading these posts. I give links and other information for general interest.

Both Oakley and Silas were suitable subjects for William Hogarth's The Rakes's Progress, Scene 6, which shows a gambling den:-

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibi...

Stereotypes in literature often harbour social truths and there is no doubt that gambling was as big a problem in these eras as drugs are in ours:-

'The name of "hells," applied in our day to gambling-houses, originated in the room in St. James's Palace formerly appropriated to hazard being remarkably dark, and on that account called "hell." (Theodore Hook.) A few years ago there were more of those infamous places of resort in London than in any other city in the world. The handsome gas-lamp and the green or red baize door at the end of the passage were conspicuous in the vicinity of St. James's; and of St. George's, Hanover-square; and the moral nuisances still linger about St. James's parish and Leicester-square....

...Two or three men, flashily dressed, and exhibiting a profusion of Birmingham jewellery, sat at the table. These were the Bonnets - individuals in the pay of the proprietor of the establishment. The Bonnets are young men of education and manners, who have lost the fortunes wherewith they commenced life, in the whirlpool to which, for a weekly stipend, they are employed to entice others.'

(From Curiosities of London by John Timms, 1867.)

The Birmingham Jewellery Quarter became a famous area in the 1800s:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeweller...

Does anyone here have a compulsive gambler in the family? My late uncle gambled on greyhounds and frequently reduced his family to extreme poverty, selling or pawning their clothes and furniture (including beds) on bad days and buying it back on good ones:(. He also kept two greyhounds in his small terrace house - they slept in cupboards either side of the fireplace. Once I slapped his favourite dog's nose for stealing a lamb chop from my plate and for years my uncle grumbled that I had caused it to lose all its races that season and that I owed him £200:O:)

Unfortunately, typical of the period. The aristocracy ruled:

'The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
[God] made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate'

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/a/l/al...

Given the cold shoulder afforded by the Royal Family to 'commoner' Sarah Ferguson, the ex Duchess of York, I suspect there are many in our aristocracy today who would have the same attitudes:(.

Yes i think le Fanu was over egging the pudding with Silas and other characters - part of the gothic method. It was much worse with Walpole and Radcliffe!

There is a documentary on here this week which tells of two cousins of the Queen who have been locked up for 75 years because they were mentally ill and an embarrassment to the family. The times they don't change a-much in those circles:(

http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/248389...