Victorians! discussion

Week 2: Chapters 7-14
The second instalment of Felix Holt was perhaps a little less eventful than the opening chapters, but we still had some occurrences of note, and the revelation of another person with a secret, though this time, we haven’t any clue what that secret might be! (In fact, now that I think back, more than one secret)

summary
Harold Transome is back and has announced his intention to contest as a radical. Rumours start to float, Transome’s true wealth being multiplied several times. Meanwhile unaware of his political inclinations, the Dubarrys visit and extend an invitation to Harold (though his mother), and we also get hint of some past scandal involving Sir Maximus and Mrs Transome. Their son Philip is also contesting the election. But soon after leaving the shocking news is broken to them that Harold is to contest as a radical.

Meanwhile, Felix and the Lyons have become close friends, interacting often, though the conversations between Felix and Esther seem to be getting sharper with Felix becoming more critical of not only her reading but also her manner of life, causing in her much dejection. While neither seems to be acknowledging any ‘feeling’ towards each other in particular, it is clear that Felix is interested in her and Esther too looks for his approval.

The Debarry household sees a minor upheaval as Philip attempts to send a pocket book and some papers via his valet Christian to his uncle Augustus, but Christian’s health troubles and opium dose lead to him stopping to rest and falling asleep on the way, and a prank by another of the servants ensures these valuables are lost. But luckily, Felix comes upon them and hands them over to Mr Lyon.

This turns out the means to another possible secret being discovered—Esther’s real father. The discovery of the locket with her mother’s name, identical to one he has, causes Mr Lyon much perturbation, but when it seems that Esther’s father might be just a valet, he is reluctant to hand he over. But of course, Christian we find is hiding some secret of his own, and the locket likely belonged to someone else, perhaps one whose name Christian has taken.

In the Transome household, Mrs Transome feels sidelined by Harold even though he is showing her every consideration, and attending to her comforts. But her opinions are never relevant. Some more hints too surface to her own secret, though we might need further confirmation.

With the Reform Act the vote has extended to newer quarters and as electioneering begins, an agent (working on behalf of Transome) arrives among the miners with the typical exaggerated promises (and beer) angering Felix. But when he tries to speak, the others in awe of and taken in by Johnson’s seeming grandeur aren’t prepared to listen; in fact they’d rather he leave.

So the stage is set for the electioneering to begin, and which seems to be taking the typical course, while on the more personal front for our characters, relationships are starting to form, and secrets and revelations seem to come with each instalment.

the elections and radicalism
Electioneering has begun, and already on a less than ethical note, for the agent Johnson with his grand appearance and language has caught the miners’ attention treating them to beer, making exaggerated promises and with his grand language and ways, the former at least which he knows they won’t understand. Nothing much has changed it seems.

One also is interested to see what Harold sees as his radicalism and how it compares with the views that Felix holds (his approval of work done with one’s hands for instance, or disapproval of grandeur and frills and fancies).

secrets, secrets
It seemed for a moment that Esther’s real father might become known and Mr Lyon is heartbroken at the prospect of having to lose Esther, but Christian appears abrupt and not quite the kind of father Mr Lyon would want to hand Esther over to. We of course, know now that he isn’t the right person but what is his secret.

Mrs Transome seems to have another scandal associated with her from a time before her marriage, and we also get some further hints as to what she refers to as her sin.

Esther and Felix
A friendship of sorts between Esther and Felix has developed, but Felix perhaps because of his interest in her is also rather critical, seeing her as capable of more than she’d doing. Esther on the other hand, also values his opinion and wants his approval, and his criticism gets her to at least reassess herself, though it also causes her pain.

Women’s role
This week again we see Mrs Transome’s grief and disappointment over her opinions being sidelined (not even considered, in fact), while Esther is once again chided by Felix over her reading; his expectations of her being very different from how she’s been living her life and the things she values. So once again Eliot getting us to reflect on women’s place and value, and likewise what should be of value to them. While the men are certainly misogynistic in their views (Transome and Felix), at the same time, I think Eliot does also mean to being up issues of women’s education and role in society which is something she did in Middlemarch as well.

Lady Clementina wrote: "for the agent Johnson with his grand appearance and language has caught the miners’ attention treating them to beer, making exaggerated promises and with his grand language."

I have been wondering why the candidates should care to win over those who have no vote - what's the purpose? Could it be that it lies in these words of Johnson:

if you lost a day's wages by giving a cheer for Transome, he'll make you amends.
No pommelling—no striking first. There you have the law and the constable against you. A little rolling in the dust and knocking hats off, a little pelting with soft things that'll stick and not bruise—all that doesn't spoil the fun. If a man is to speak when you don't like to hear him, it is but fair you should give him something he doesn't like in return. And the same if he's got a vote and doesn't use it for the good of the country; I see no harm in splitting his coat in a quiet way. A man must be taught what's right if he doesn't know it. But no kicks, no knocking down, no pommelling ...

Does he try to recruit the workers as thugs to disturb the election? Is this literally a call to violence? - It does seem so, although I don't know where and how the mob would come in.

Felix has already left the pub when these words are spoken, but he seems to know where Johnson is heading:

I don't know what sort of man Transome really is. It's no use my speaking to anybody else, but if I could get at him, he might put a veto on this thing. Though, when once the men have been promised and set a-going, the mischief is likely to be past mending.

The characters have become more complex, and we’re getting some strong hints as to the parentage of both Esther and Harold. There have also been some indications of redeeming qualities in Felix, but he still seems to be judgmental, arrogant, and insensitive. His telling Esther that he wants her to change is beyond offensive to the mind of a modern woman, and although it has made Esther re-consider some of her behavior to her father, it has also angered her (even in the 19th century!). As for Harold, he’s just an ass.

Does Rufus Lyon remind anyone else of the gentle Septimus Harding in Anthony Trollope’s wonderful Barchester series?

Nancy wrote: "As for Harold, he’s just an ass."

Aside from considering his flaws as a neglectful son, Mrs Transome is clearly aware that Harold is a typical misogynist of the day.

"I trust he is not unkind to you in any way. I know his opinions pain you, but I trust you find him in everything else disposed to be a good son."

"Oh, to be sure - good as men are disposed to be to women, giving them cushions and carriages, and recommending them to enjoy themselves, and then expecting them to be contented under contempt and neglect. I have no power over him - remember that - none."

Sarcastic, feminist, realist, and downright angry, all in a single sentence of conversation. That's some pretty ingenious writing and another great example of "Show, don't tell"!

Certainly in her well-fitting light-blue dress—she almost always wore some shade of blue—with her delicate sandaled slipper stretched toward the fire, her little gold watch, which had cost her nearly a quarter's earnings, visible at her side, her slender fingers playing with a shower of brown curls, and a coronet of shining plaits, at the summit of her head, she was a remarkable Cinderella.


What a contrast between Esther and Felix and yet something is drawing them together. The superficiality of Esther’s life is being challenged by Felix. I don’t think he is deliberately trying to upset or belittle her and he is certainly not being arrogant. Esther herself, having been over indulged and having had her own way for such a long time had begun to accept that Felix’ voice of ‘conscience’ is troubling her.

’ Esther had not seen so much of their new acquaintance as her father had. But she had begun to find him amusing, and also rather irritating to her woman's love of conquest. He always opposed and criticised her; and besides that, he looked at her as if he never saw a single detail about her person—quite as if she were a middle-aged woman in a cap.’

If anything, it is Esther’s arrogance that Felix is attacking in his blunt, honest but tactless way. Despite his insults, Esther was having her head turned a little towards what Felix was saying to her.

’Did he want her to be heroic? That seemed impossible without some great occasion. Her life was a heap of fragments, and so were her thoughts: some great energy was needed to bind them together. Esther was beginning to lose her complacency at her own wit and criticism; to lose the sense of superiority in an awakening need of reliance on one whose vision was wider, whose nature was purer and stronger than her own.’

Felix speaks up at the pub in the same blunt and honest way that he spoke to Esther. He doesn’t differentiate according to the audience when it comes to saying what he thinks he ought to say. However, the agent is offering too many worldly temptations for anyone’s head to be turned by Felix’s words and they all turn their backs on him. Nevertheless, he seems to be determined to continue his own personal campaigns to achieve what he thinks is right.

sabagrey wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "for the agent Johnson with his grand appearance and language has caught the miners’ attention treating them to beer, making exaggerated promises and with his grand language.

I have been wondering why the candidates should care to win over those who have no vote - what's the purpose? Could it be that it lies in these words of Johnson:..."

Very often there were only a small number of eligible voters in a borough, many of whom were tradesmen like the owner of the pub.

The townsfolk could be ‘bribed’ to boycott establishments unless the tradesman’s vote was given to a certain candidate. They could also be bribed to cause trouble as you suggest by intimidating voters and causing a groundswell of opinion to change in favour of a certain candidate.

Therefore those without a vote could influence the outcome of the election. Such corruption was witnessed first hand by Anthony Trollope when he stood as a candidate for Beverley. He used that experience to write about corrupt election practices in his novels Ralph the Heir and Phineas Redux.

Trev wrote: "Therefore those without a vote could influence the outcome of the election. Such corruption was witnessed first hand by Anthony Trollope when he stood as a candidate for Beverley. He used that experience to write about corrupt election practices in his novels Ralph the Heir and Phineas Redux.."

Trollope also depicts election practices in a subplot in Doctor Thorne

"You know what a Tory is - one who wants to drive the workingman as he'd drive cattle. That's what a Tory is; and a Whig is no better, ... but Transome's neither Whig nor Tory; he's the workingman's friend, the collier's friend, the friend of the honest navvy."

I'm reminded of a a mid-20th century speech of Tommy Douglas (he was the leader of the NDP, Canada's first socialist government, recognized as the founder of the concept of universal health care) in which he likened the Liberals and the Conservatives as a choice between a white cat and a black cat to govern a country full of gray working mice. It could certainly be likened to a historical stump speech by a Radical campaigning against the Tories and the Whigs.

Paul wrote: "It could certainly be likened to a historical stump speech by a Radical campaigning against the Tories and the Whigs.."

... and it's as false as most campaign speeches are, because Transome doesn't care a fig. He is indeed very modern in this regard, in that he wants to belong to the political class for power and social status by hook or by crook.

sabagrey wrote: "Paul wrote: "It could certainly be likened to a historical stump speech by a Radical campaigning against the Tories and the Whigs.."

... and it's as false as most campaign speeches are, because because Transome doesn't care a fig …….."

Yes, and what a (another) contrast between the ‘Radical’ ethics of Harold Transome and those of Felix and Mr. Lyon. It is illustrated in the exchanges between Felix and Lyon, when the preacher tells off the young man during his exchanges with the deacon.

Lyon tells Felix

’ You yourself are a lover of freedom, and a bold rebel against usurping authority. But the right to rebellion is the right to seek a higher rule, and not to wander in mere lawlessness.’

And in just the same way that Esther has been influenced by Felix’ words, Felix himself is influenced by her ‘father’s.’

’ When the deacon was gone, Felix said, "Forgive me, Mr. Lyon; I was wrong, and you are right."
"Yes, yes, my friend, you have that mark of grace within you, that you are ready to acknowledge the justice of a rebuke. Sit down; you have something to say—some packet there."’

I doubt whether Harold Transome has ever admitted he was wrong.

The family intrigues are beginning to heat up, not the least those of Mrs. Transome and her seemingly scandalous past. I think this quote leaves no doubt about at least one illicit liaison and the long lasting effect it has had on Mrs. Transome’s peace of mind.

’Jermyn had turned round his savage side, and the blandness was out of sight. It was this that had always frightened Mrs. Transome: there was a possibility of fierce insolence in this man who was to pass with those nearest to her as her indebted servant, but whose brand she secretly bore. She was as powerless with him as she was with her own son.’

Trev wrote: "I doubt whether Harold Transome has ever admitted he was wrong."

I like this description of his character very much:

In fact Harold Transome was a clever, frank, good-natured egoist; … with a pride that was moulded in an individual rather than an hereditary form; unspeculative, unsentimental, unsympathetic; fond of sensual pleasures, but disinclined to all vice, … if Harold Transome had been among your acquaintances, and you had observed his qualities through the medium of his agreeable person, bright smile, and a certain easy charm which accompanies sensuousness when unsullied by coarseness—through the medium also of the many opportunities in which he would have made himself useful or pleasant to you—you would have thought him a good fellow, highly acceptable as a guest, a colleague, or a brother-in-law.

He is not the 'bad guy' - far from it: he appears as your average, agreeable acquaintance among business people. Very acceptable in a time where egoism is the new normal, and instrumentalizing your fellow human beings is called 'friendship'. A very modern character, in fact.

So, to answer your doubt: I think he would admit he is wrong - and without hesitation - when it serves his purpose.

sabagrey wrote: "Trev wrote: "I doubt whether Harold Transome has ever admitted he was wrong."

So, to answer your doubt: I think he would admit he is wrong - and without hesitation - when it serves his purpose. .."

Yes I think you are right, sabagrey, and also correct about him fitting in well with our modern society.

sabagrey wrote: " he appears as your average, agreeable acquaintance among business people. "

Well, for my money, the operative word here is "appears" and, just to play devil's advocate, I'll give my opinion that while he may outwardly "admit" that he was wrong, he would do so without any meaningful apology and he would only modify his behaviour if it suited his purposes. Like so many other politicians, I'm getting the impression that narcissism and self-interest are the guiding motives.

Paul wrote: " I'll give my opinion that while he may outwardly "admit" that he was wrong, he would do so without any meaningful apology and he would only modify his behaviour if it suited his purposes. Like so many other politicians, I'm getting the impression that narcissism and self-interest are the guiding motives.."

oh, I fully agree with you there ... Transome is motivated by self-interest. Business success, status, power, and pleasure - that's what drives him. Apart from the pleasure side, his motives are externally defined: how he appears to others. He would change his principles like his shirt if other views served him better. -

That's where he is the opposite of the 'principled' characters Felix Holt and Rufus Lyon. I think it shows Eliot's mastery that the antagonism comes without easy judgements between good and bad.

a little question - to the English natives maybe?

Why does Eliot always call a pub a "public" in quotation marks? - Was that maybe already an abbreviation from 'public house' on the way to the shortened 'pub', and not so common as to go without the quotation marks?

I know it's not really relevant to our novel, but I find myself looking up and behind a number of unfamiliar English expressions.

'Benefit Club' is another one of those - although similar institutions were well-known all over Europe, I think. (and the region where I come from claims to have invented them - the silver miners putting a little of their wages aside collectively to help widows and orphans as early as the 14th century)

Nancy wrote: "There have also been some indications of redeeming qualities in Felix, but he still seems to be judgmental, arrogant, and insensitive. His telling Esther that he wants her to change is beyond offensive to the mind of a modern woman ."

I agree with what you say about Felix, BUT .... I've found out why I have a soft spot for him: I've known a real life Felix Holt in my youth - just as radical, and everything spot on except the curly hair ;-). And yes, he could tell you uncomfortable truths ... even to 'modern women' - in fact, we were feminists dyed in the wool. The real Radical is a little larger than life, and makes a lasting impression beyond the -isms, if you have a chance of meeting him (or her - but to tell the truth, I have never met a woman so rigorous and implacable, including the consequences for private life)

Ah yes ... he repaired bikes, not watches, which was a political statement in its own right (thus topping our fictional hero in symbolism). And of course he had a university degree which opened the way to easy money - but instead travelled the country on his old bike and in torn, worn clothes, living in abandoned farmhouses. ... It was that time in the mid-70s, when we read 'Limits of Growth' and 'Small is Beautiful', when ecology and the environment came into focus, and the dark side of capitalism and exploitation of the Global South.

(and his mother was just as dissatisfied with him as Mrs. Holt was, although - fortunately - more resigned and less cantankerous)

sabagrey wrote: "a little question - to the English natives maybe?

Why does Eliot always call a pub a "public" in quotation marks? - Was that maybe already an abbreviation from 'public house' on the way to the sh..."

I haven’t often come across that term “public” being used on its own to describe a public house or pub, but at the time of Eliot’s novel, houses actually licensed to sell alcohol to the public were relatively new, so maybe the terminology was still settling down. I found this definition of a public house.

There were no specific historical names for a public house in antiquity, with original establishments being known as Taverns, Alehouses and Inns but there were actually many of these establishments that had no name at all and relied on reputation alone for patronage.
Whilst pubs as we know them have surely been around for centuries the term Public House itself seems to have first popped up in the mid-17th Century as a term to identify the simple difference between private houses that may have provided drinks to the public and houses that were actually licensed to serve alcoholic drinks to the public.

More information about pubs ancient and modern can be found here.

https://www.londonspubs.com/what-is-a...

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK...

Nancy wrote: "The characters have become more complex, and we’re getting some strong hints as to the parentage of both Esther and Harold. There have also been some indications of redeeming qualities in Felix, bu..."

Re Mr Harding, yes, I'd agree Nancy, Mr Lyon is much like him in character, unlike the others he is surrounded by.

sabagrey wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "for the agent Johnson with his grand appearance and language has caught the miners’ attention treating them to beer, making exaggerated promises and with his grand language...."

To an extent, it would seem so, loud (and violent) support. And of course, to that the reasons Trev adds. This emerges in the chapters that follow; and as to another thread of influence, the epigraph to chapter 16 throws some light.

sabagrey wrote: "Paul wrote: " I'll give my opinion that while he may outwardly "admit" that he was wrong, he would do so without any meaningful apology and he would only modify his behaviour if it suited his purpo..."

Very much the typical politician, whether of his day or the present, as many of you have remarked.

I have not understood yet in what Harold Transome's radicalism consists, while we can see Felix Holt's in his words and in his actions and way of living.

Lady Clementina wrote: "the epigraph to chapter 16 throws some light.."

RE: the epigraphs - Eliot does not always mention the sources. Is there any resource where one can find them? or maybe some of you are reading an annotated edition which contains them?

Daniela wrote: "I have not understood yet in what Harold Transome's radicalism consists, while we can see Felix Holt's in his words and in his actions and way of living."

Yes, this was my question-why has Harold chosen to stand as a Radical? It sounds as if he would have a clear shot if he stood as a Tory so he is clearly throwing away his "advantages" of support from the surrounding families. So what are his politics?

I agree with the comparison with of Mr Lyon with Mr Harding, although Mr Harding would have higher social standing.

I really enjoyed the verbal sparring between Felix and Esther, although Esther certainly takes the criticism to heart far more than Felix appears to.

"...and I want you to see that the creature who has the sensibilities that you call taste, and not the sensibilities that you call opinions, is simply a lower, pettier sort of being-an insect that notices the shaking of the table, but not the thunder." "Very well, I am an insect; yet I notice that you are thundering at me."

To his credit, Felix does seem to take her seriously, and speaks honestly to her, not settling for flattery and pretty speeches, though his honesty can be brutal at times.

sabagrey wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "the epigraph to chapter 16 throws some light.."

RE: the epigraphs - Eliot does not always mention the sources. Is there any resource where one can find them? or maybe some ..."

No luck tracking this down yet, Sabagrey. I'll have another look though. Felix Holt it seems was the first time she used chapter epigraphs. Her use of epigraphs is however been the subject of discussion

a short piece: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...

and another:
https://19.bbk.ac.uk/article/id/1926/

Lady Clementina wrote: "Felix Holt it seems was the first time she used chapter epigraphs.."

thank you so much for your effort! - one article says that '‘half of them are her own compositions’, of which I was not aware: it seems an unusual practice.

As I trust Eliot not to steal quotations from others, I will conclude that the epigraphs where no source is given were written by herself. - That makes them more interesting, in my view, and much more part of the text than epigraphs usually are.