The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
The Forsyte Saga
All Other Previous Group Reads
>
The Forsyte Saga -In Chancery - Part II
I'm on Chapter 4. Val is falling in love with Holly. Was it legal for first cousins to marry in 1904?
Rochelle wrote: "I'm on Chapter 4. Val is falling in love with Holly. Was it legal for first cousins to marry in 1904?"Isn't it their parents (Winifred and young Jolyon) who are first cousins? But I don't recall the answer to your question, Rochelle.
Yes, first cousins could marry then and still can - Queen Victoria and|Prince Albert were first cousins as were Charles Darwin and his wife. However, after research into the ill effects of first cousin marriages upon offspring was done in the 19thC the practice became less common. It is still legal here and in our Pakistani Muslim communities it is very common and there are a lot of hereditary illnesses, so the authorities try to discourage it. The US is the only Western country to ban it today.
☯Emily wrote: "Val and Holly are second cousins."Right, but it still bothers me. They're still related by blood.
That's the American coming out in you:)
Yes, in my experience non-Americans don't have the same overwhelmingly negative reaction to the marriage of cousins as Americans do. In addition to Pakistani Muslims in England, marriage between cousins is not in at all unusual in many cultures around the world.
MadgeUK wrote: "That's the American coming out in you:)"It's the sense of incest coming out in me.
I have to admit I cannot help but to feel a bit sorry for Soames, considering the position in which he is trapped within. Both unable legally to move on with his life with someone new, and still infatuated with his estranged wife of whom he can not have a marriage with. While it is part his own fault that he is in this situation, on account of his not simply getting a divorce when he should have both I think because he is still infatuated with Irene and because of his Forstyian ideals in which he cannot let go of his "property"
While I understand why Irene does not want to go back to Soames, and do not think she should, I feel bad for him because he is just so clueless. He is so wrapped up in his own ideology which is tied into seeing everything in terms of value and property, that he cannot even convenience of why Irene wouldn't want to get back together with him.
Also I feel bad for him being denied the opportunity and possibility of having a legitimate son, by being stuck within this estranged marriage. Though even his desire for a son is tied in with property, and his wanting someone who he could rightfully pass down his own legacy too.
Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "That's the American coming out in you:)"It's the sense of incest coming out in me."
I don't think any culture, including the USA, considers marrying a second cousin as incest.
Trying to imagine my brother's son marrying my cousin's daughter... Yep. Creepy. Incest creepy.
Renee wrote: "Trying to imagine my brother's son marrying my cousin's daughter... Yep. Creepy. Incest creepy."Perhaps for family dynamics; for sheer genetic DNA considerations, maybe less risky than some of the issues beginning to occur in our society with the prevalence of IVF.
Anyway, we have to look past the creepiness because Galsworthy considers it normal.
Speaking of incest, try Angels and Insects by A.S. Byatt, or see the excellent film with Kristin Scott Thomas. It will haunt you for years.
As a Brit I find the repugnance to cousin marriages and references to incest thereto rather OTT. It denigrates a huge section of humanity and the vast majority of European Kings and Queens. (The Queen and Prince Philip are third cousins.)Also, incest is not illegal in several European countries and there are moves to decriminalise it in Germany:-
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007...
This is rather a good analysis of the Soames-Irene relationship:-http://www.ceejbot.com/EricPorter/For...
MadgeUK wrote: "This is rather a good analysis of the Soames-Irene relationship:-http://www.ceejbot.com/EricPorter/For..."
Good article! Really hit the mark for me.
MadgeUK wrote: "As a Brit I find the repugnance to cousin marriages and references to incest thereto rather OTT. It denigrates a huge section of humanity and the vast majority of European Kings and Queens. (The Qu..."What's OTT? I know OT.
OK for siblings too? How about parents with son or daughter?
It's illegal in some places because offspring can get 2 copies of a recessive gene, although that wasn't known many years ago. The taboo goes farther back than the Nazi law they cited. I can't imagine why it's legal in so many countries.
OTT Is Over The Top. Perhaps it is legal in so many countries because they are not so OTT about it. The argument is that we do not prevent people with known hereditary illnesses from marrying, like those with Down's syndrome or with Cystic Fibrosis, so why should we prevent others because of consanguinity? We all have minor genetic mutations but because they're usually recessive, they aren't expressed unless both parents contribute the same genetic defect. Sickle cell anemia is a good example of this. Sickle cell is recessive, but let's say that both parents have the gene (but not the disease itself). They have a 50-50 chance of their kids becoming carriers, and a 25% chance of their kids having the disease itself. Again, we do not ban the marriage of sickle cell carriers. Other countries perhaps do not ban cousin marriages because state inference in such personal matters is considered unnecessary and redolent of eugenics. Incest taboo is a very complex subject and incest is defined differently all over the world. I love this quote from the anthropolist Margaret Mead when an an Arapesh man was asked about sleeping with sisters:-
'What, you would like to marry your sister? What is the matter with you anyway? Don't you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man's sister and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-in-law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will you hunt, with whom will you garden, who will you visit?'
Nothing about hereditary illness, all about alliances.
MadgeUK wrote: " I love this quote from the anthropolist Margaret Mead when an an Arapesh man was asked about sleeping with sisters:-'What, you would like to marry your sister? What is the matter with you anyway? Don't you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man's sister and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-in-law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will you hunt, with whom will you garden, who will you visit?'"
I love it too!
I haven't read that particular book, but maybe she felt the Arapesh man wouldn't have understood the part about hereditary illnesses.
The point I was making (badly) is that incest taboos throughout the world are about alliances and social, familial cohesion, not about the likelihood of hereditary diseases, the existence of which have only been known for a couple of centuries (Darwin was one of the first to look into this). BTW the high incidence of haemophilia in Queen Victoria's extended family led to research into cousin marriages and publicity about this so affected my parents that I was prevented from seeing my male first cousin, of whom I was very fond, after my menarche began.
Well, I don't like Val anyway. He's a little snot, a junior version of the rest of his family, and Holly's too good for him.Since old Jolyon died, I don't have much positive feeling toward anyone in the saga. Why am I reading novels about 15 or 20 unpleasant people? ;-)
To make those around you seem more pleasant perhaps:).I see it more as a comedy of manners and appreciate the descriptions of London as it was and the behaviour of those times. I also like the descriptions of clothing and interiors. It is like reading about my great-grandparents, had they been rich Forsytes:) As it is, I probably have more in common with the Rougons:(
Rochelle wrote: "Well, I don't like Val anyway. He's a little snot, a junior version of the rest of his family, and Holly's too good for him.Since old Jolyon died, I don't have much positive feeling toward anyone..."
I have not yet finished this section yet, so maybe something will occur to change my opinion, but I have to admit that thus far there is something about Val that I rather like. I find him amusing.
I have to say it is Jolly, I find I do not care much for. There are aspects of Jolly that to me seem to be very Forsyte like in spite of the fact that he was raised away from the family and that his own father rebelled against the Forstye's and do not hold their values.
MadgeUK wrote "To make those around you seem more pleasant perhaps:)."Reminds me of Maggie Smith assessment of her son's American mother-in-law in Downton Abbey, "She makes me appreciate the English."
In Chapter 7, WInifred goes to court and wins a restitution, but not a divorce. What is the restitution? Why were the Forsytes so ambivalent about this? Don't understand the legal maneuvering in this chapter.
Silver wrote: "Rochelle wrote: "Well, I don't like Val anyway. He's a little snot, a junior version of the rest of his family, and Holly's too good for him.Since old Jolyon died, I don't have much positive feel..."
I've seen the 2002-03 series, and I found Fleur fascinating, but she's not in view yet at my point in this book.
Regarding marrying cousins. This used to be quite common in the US also. I believe many people in the 19th/early 20th century married their cousins. Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were distant cousins. Thomas Jefferson and his wife were third cousins. In "Gone with the Wind" Ashley and Melanie Wilkes are cousins who get married.Edgar Allan Poe married his first cousin when she was 13 and he was 27 and nobody called the cops. How times have changed.
Amanda wrote: "Regarding marrying cousins. This used to be quite common in the US also. I believe many people in the 19th/early 20th century married their cousins. Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt were distant cous..."I recall once upon a time I came across this article online about cousins who married cousins within the U.S. I cannot recall if it focused only on political figures or just famous/well known people in general, but needless to say some of the individuals listed are still alive today.
Emily @ 27: Restitution is about conjugal rights, 'those rights which a husband and wife have to each other's society. When either party continues to refuse to render these rights to the other, they may be enforced by a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights. In England the jurisdiction which the old ecclesiastical courts exercised to enforce this right was transferred to the divorce court by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. The procedure is by citation and petition, but, before a petition can be filed, a written demand must be made to the refusing party for cohabitation. Previous to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1884, disobedience to a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights rendered the refusing party liable to attachment and imprisonment. The act of 1884 substituted for attachment, if the wife be the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband to the wife. Failure to comply with a decree for restitution is deemed to be desertion, and a sentence of judicial separation may be pronounced, although the period of two years prescribed by the act of 1857 may not have expired. Conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act of either party (R. v. Jackson, 1891, 1 Q.B. 671), the proper procedure being to apply to the court for relief.'The Forsyte's, even if they sympathised with Winifred, would not have liked the publicity and shame of such a court case - it would all have been published in The Times. (view spoiler)
Judicial separation instead of divorce was often sought by women with young children and by those too old to earn their own living or unable marry again. It was also acceptable to religious people who did not believe in the dissolution of marriage.
Gee, and we though the 1987 email privacy law was outdated!
I love that Jolyon refers to himself as a feminist! I did not know this term had such a long history. I thought it had arisen in the 60s for some odd reason, and supposed it had taken the place of the term suffragette. Funny, how my mind just made up its own little linguistic history. I don't particularly like or dislike any of the third generation, by the end if Part Two. They all seem so 'unformed.' Or, rather incompletely formed, still finding themselves and where they stand. A mixed bag of Nature, Nurture, and Social Pressure. I don't know too much about the Boer War and its effect on the British at home, but, at this point, the atmosphere seems to suggest that of landed Southerners just before the Civil War. I have to wonder how much the war experience will take its toll on the forming personalities of Holly, Jolly, and Val.
According to Rudyard Kipling, the Boer War taught the British 'no end of a lesson'. Thomas Pakenham, author of The Boer War has called it the 'longest, costliest, bloodiest and most humiliating war for Britain between 1815 and 1914'. The war became a war of attrition using what we now call guerrilla tactics and it deeply affected morale. This was a new experience for the British which deeply humiliated them, especially as they outnumbered the Boers 2-1.
Thanks, Madge! That's really interesting. I always thought it was "The Great War," but obviously from what you've cited, it was a combination. British troops (and morale at home) must have been so flat out exhausted and depleted by 1918. To Let starts in 1920. I will be interested to see how Galsworthy will work this into the lives and opinions of his characters. I have this impression in my mind of this brittle, glittering, desperate hedonism in the "bright young things" of the 20's, in reaction to, well, all that death. But, that may be from too many movies. (And, maybe Dorothy Sayers and Agatha Christie) (And, okay, early Barbara Cartland.)
Renee wrote: "Thanks, Madge! That's really interesting. I always thought it was "The Great War," but obviously from what you've cited, it was a combination. British troops (and morale at home) must have been so ..."I think your analysis is correct about the hedonism after the Great War. I have been reading about Hemingway and his experiences during and after the war and that seems to be what occurred to many. His book, The Sun Also Rises, is about this generation.
Barbara Cartland?!!!!!!
I think one of the reactions to WWI we see in the FS is the change in sexual mores. Having affairs with more than one person and being able to divorce if marriages went wrong were part of the post-war realisation that 'we only live once', that life is fragile and we must get the most out of it whilst we are alive. The death of a generation for no good reason brought this home to those remaining to whom, as Wilfrid Owen the war poet wrote: '... we should not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori [it is sweet and right to die for your country].
Countries, kings, governments, parents etc commanded less respect after WWI and thereafter.
I know, Madge, I should have gone with Evelyn Waugh. (chagrin) But, I was addicted to Cartland in High School. (Everything was pretty and set in so many exotic places. An endless supply of Fairytale.) Anyway, her really early stuff was set in the 20s and 30s. But, I think she ran out of virgins and had to move into the previous century. I just got the video version of The Forsyte Saga from the library. I didn't watch during the original run because I knew I wanted to read the books.
This is somewhat tangential to The Forsyte Saga, but NYT recently had an article on women's roles with a tieback to one written a few years earlier that our discussions here reminded me of a good bit, so am going to provide a link -- the earlier one can be reached via the recent; some of the contrasts are fairly subtle and thought provoking:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/mag...
MadgeUK wrote: "Barbara Cartland?!!!!!!"The great historian of WWI.
Mod
Soames continues to struggle with his unacknowledged passion for/obsession with Irene, trying to package it as an ownership issue. In chapter 2:
"And alongside the dry and reasoned sense that it was now or never with his self-preservation, now or never if he were to range himself and found a family, went the secret urge of his senses roused by the sight of her who had once been a passionately desired wife, and the conviction that it was a sin against common sense and the decent secrecy of Forsytes to waste the wife he had."
He tries to buy her back with an expensive brooch, and gets rebuffed. When he asks for reasons she replies " 'You can't have a reasonable answer. Reason has nothing to do with it. You can only have the brutal truth: I would rather die.'.....Something within him-that most deep and secret Forsyte quality, the impossibility of letting go, the impossibility of seeing the fantastic and forlorn nature of his own tenacity-prevented him (from leaving)."
So Soames continues to press his suit, but now arranges to have Irene followed, more for the knowledge of what she is doing than to gather evidence for divorce.
Later, in chapter 12, after he and Jolyon meet and Soames tries to warn Jolyon off Irene, Jolyon thinks to himself
"'I ought to have told Soames' he thought, 'that I think him comic. Ah, but he's tragic too!'
Was there anything, indeed, more tragic in the world than a man enslaved by his own possessive instinct, who couldn't see the sky for it, or even enter fully into what another person felt!"
We also see a little of June and her passion for lame ducks, and there is a telling section when she asks her father if there is any way she can touch her capital to allow her to open a gallery:
" 'Our name is Forsyte, my dear" replied Jolyon...'we live by the principle that so long as there is a possibility of keeping wealth in the family it must not go out; if you die unmarried, your money goes to Jolly and Holly and their children if they marry. Ins't it pleasant to know that whatever you do you can none of you be destitute?' "
There is also the Winifred-Dartie relationship- steps are being taken to prepare for divorce but Dartie confounds them by returning home. Winifred, like Soames, is torn-she still has feelings for Dartie but is consumed by jealousy that his passions were only truly roused by another woman. Winifred initially goes to see Soames to discuss her situation with him, and after explaining her position, Galsworthy writes ..."Their hearts were full of feeling, but they could give it no expression-Forsytes that they were." Later, when she goes to her mother he continues "As a family they had so guarded themselves from the expression of all unfashionable emotion that it was impossible to go up and give her daughter a good hug. But there was comfort in her cushioned voice, and her still dimpled shoulders under some rare black lace." There is also discussion about the return of Dartie as a return of Winifred's property.
The closing scene of this section, the mobs celebrating a small victory in the war, is a metaphor for the changing society:
"The stream of people came from every quarter, as if impulse had unlocked flood-gates, let flow waters of whose existence (Soames) had heard, perhaps, but believed in never. This, then, was the populace, the innumerable living negation of gentility and Forsyteism. This was-egad!-Democracy! It stank, yelled, was hideous! In the East End, or even Soho, perhaps-but here in Regent Street, in Piccadilly!...Restraint, reserve! Those qualities to him more dear almost than life, those indispensable attributes of property and culture, where were they? It wasn't English!...Their want of stolidity, their want of reverence! It was like discovering that nine-tenths of the people of England were foreigners. And if that were so-then anything might happen!"
I am really enjoying not only the plot and characters but also the beautiful writing. The parallels between the family and the society at large are brilliantly done and there is tremendous skill in portraying the emotional life of so many of the characters in the saga.
Frances wrote: "...there is tremendous skill in portraying the emotional life of so many of the characters in the saga...."[g] To my mind, including portraying the emotional life of those who supposedly don't have emotions!
That (British) unwillingness to display and share what is beneath the shell [in kind and humane ways] -- one could perhaps include Irene among those. Somehow, the sense that emotions are "irrational" and hence are to be hidden or denied, instead of being able to lift them up for (rational) inspection.
Lily wrote: "That (British) unwillingness to display and share what is beneath the shell [in kind and humane ways] -- one could perhaps include Irene among those. Somehow, the sense that emotions are "irrational" and hence are to be hidden or denied, instead of being able to lift them up for (rational) inspection. "I like that approach. Instead of seeing it (our lack of Irene's inner thoughts) as a flaw in Galsworthy's writing, I can view Irene as being "British" "stiff upper lip," not thinking it worthwhile for her and Soames to go raking through all that.
But we see intimately into Soames', Old Jolyon's and James' minds. Soames in particular all through Part III.
Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Barbara Cartland?!!!!!!"The great historian of WWI."
Historian???
MadgeUK wrote: "Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "Barbara Cartland?!!!!!!"The great historian of WWI."
Historian???"
Joke.
.... This, then, was the populace, the innumerable living negation of gentility and Forsyteism. This was-egad!-Democracy! It stank, yelled, was hideous! In the East End, or even Soho, perhaps-but here in Regent Street, in Piccadilly!...Restraint, reserve! Those qualities to him more dear almost than life, those indispensable attributes of property and culture, where were they? It wasn't English!..My sentiments today when I see gatherings of English people, at football matches, even at Ascot!!! Everyone lets it 'all hang out' there is no longer any English reserve:( Bah Humbug!
Bonnie wrote: "I like that approach. Instead of seeing it (our lack of Irene's inner thoughts) as a flaw in Galsworthy's writing, I can view Irene as being "British" "stiff upper lip," not thinking it worthwhile for her and Soames to go raking through all that."We explored this issue in the Background forum, and
found it was because Irene was based in G's wife Ada, not because of any flaw on his part.
Book II - IN CHANCERY
Part II
CHAPTER I—THE THIRD GENERATION
CHAPTER II—SOAMES PUTS IT TO THE TOUCH
CHAPTER III—VISIT TO IRENE
CHAPTER IV—WHERE FORSYTES FEAR TO TREAD
CHAPTER V—JOLLY SITS IN JUDGMENT
CHAPTER VI—JOLYON IN TWO MINDS
CHAPTER VII—DARTIE VERSUS DARTIE
CHAPTER VIII—THE CHALLENGE
CHAPTER IX—DINNER AT JAMES'
CHAPTER X—DEATH OF THE DOG BALTHASAR
CHAPTER XI—TIMOTHY STAYS THE ROT
CHAPTER XII—PROGRESS OF THE CHASE
CHAPTER XIII—'HERE WE ARE AGAIN!'
CHAPTER XIV—OUTLANDISH NIGHT