Dickensians! discussion
All Around Dickens Year
>
Sylvia's Lovers by Elizabeth Gaskell 3: chapters 30 - 45 (end) (hosted by Claudia)
date
newest »
newest »
A coin and a watch. These two items serve as a links among Charley, Philip, Sylvia, and Bella, but how does the picture and the meaning of these two items function symbolically? Perhaps it is even possible that there is no connection to the broader novel, but I doubt it.The reader knows that the tramp is Philip; the reader knows that the watch is, in fact, Philip’s father’s; the reader knows that the hole in the coin was requested by Philip. A coin in two parts was the symbol of the pledge between Sylvia and Charley. Does a coin with a hole represent a heart broken, an item that was once of value to the owner but now of no value, no function? The hole in the coin could also suggest that it will become a talisman of a kind act from Sylvia and Bella to the tramp who is also Bella’s father and Sylvia’s husband. If we look back in the book we recall how Charley unbeknownst gave a coin to Philip. Charley’s action was one of both pity and reflection to his past and how he was connected to Philip. Charley will move forward and towards his future with his wife on his arm; Philip will return to his past, to his fate.
As for the watch we could begin with the concept that a watch tells time, marks time that has past, and brings the present into the future. The watch was broken by Bella, Philip’s daughter. Does the breakage symbolize the time lost between Philip and his daughter Bella? Could the broken watch project the future of the relationship between Sylvia and Philip?
The coin is the second coin that Philip was given without the giver knowing his identity.The first coin was given to him by Kinkaid and he gave it away quickly.
The second coin, was given by Sylvia & Bella, and he treasures it enough to devalue it in a time of extreme famine.
In both situations, Philip gives away money that would benefit him in a time of great need.
Erich, I, too, would like to hear Philip's thoughts of his sins and past. I believe he regrets his lie, but it's not clear and I may be putting my own ideas into his character.
Despite all that, I do feel that his punishment seems excessive for the crime. I'm not sure that he and Sylvia should get back together, but would prefer that outcome to Philip dying.
As Sara says, they both sinned. They were both to blame. Philip seems to be carrying the brunt of their punishments.
Sara: "I think Gaskell is thinking in much larger terms than what Phillip has done to Sylvia. She does address high moral issues in most of her books."True! I agree with your comments and your addition on Philip's hubris.
We also see how he has been tortured by his conscience since chapter 18: finding reasons for what he did, recurring dreams, fear of seeing the Alcestis moored off Monkshaven, fear of being exposed to everyone's judgement after Kinraid's reappeared in town, etc. Such situation is very well shown in the poem La Conscience by Victor Hugo in La Légende des siècles.
Chapter 45 – Saved and LostHester goes as appointed to Mr Darley again, and hopes to learn more about "the man" she believes to be Philip. She is hoping to reconcile Sylvia with her husband, despite Sylvia’s “obdurate, unforgiving heart”.
Still, Sylvia reflects on how much she misses Philip now and realises how protective, how patient he has been with her during their eighteen months of marriage. She has begun to appreciate his enduring love. She now reflects on her own unforgiving words and wonders how she would react to her vows if he were to come back and call her his wife. This is perhaps the crucial point on which Hester has tried to soften her, so far to no avail.
Sylvia is now sitting in the parlour with her outdoor things. She watches the evening sky with its hurrying clouds and warm colours, waiting for Hester to return. She cannot leave Alice alone and unattended at home. She wants to go and fetch little Bella from Fosters' and then go to the widow Dobson and enquire when Kester will be back.
Kester is indeed unexpectedly back and now arrives at Sylvia's in a hurry, visibly shaken. He urges the young woman who is shocked to come with him and tells her that her husband has saved Bella from drowning. The tide was coming in "in terrible big waves" and one of them took the child away, who was then rescued and pulled ashore by someone who turned out to be Philip.
Sylvia is then reunited with her husband, who has been badly injured while rescuing his daughter and is lying on the bed of the widow Dobson. He begs Sylvia's forgiveness for the wrongs he has done to her, while Sylvia sincerely apologises for her harsh words to him. Philip dies shortly after daybreak.
Hester comes in, bringing Bella in the hope of having her see her her father before he passed away, but it is already too late. Hester softly hints to a well-known verse from the book of Revelation: ”The former things have passed away – and he is gone where there is no more sorrow, and no more pain.” (Revelation 21:4) and breaks down in crying.
Hester kisses Philip’s brow and sees that he was wearing a coin tied on a black ribbon round his neck and says this was the coin Philip had pierced for him at William Darley’s, the silver coin Sylvia put into the cake for the poor beggar. Sylvia, softened by her daughter’s touch, burst in tears too, and puts the black ribbon with the coin round her own neck.
The narrative voice alludes to how changed is now Monkshaven, sixty years later. But the waves come lapping up the shelving shore as ever, “with the same ceaseless, ever-recurrent sound as that which Philip listened to in the pauses between life and death. And so it will be until "there shall be no more sea" (Revelation 21:1) »
The story of Sylvia and Philip is now a tale of the past, told by the inhabitants of Monkshaven to a lady on vacation.
A “bathing woman” mentions some details of the story, how the wife was blamed for allowing her husband to starve not far away from her. An old man, she mentions, could not bear people’s harsh judgment against either spouse.
The bathing woman says that the wife died before her daughter was “well grown up” and the orphan was taken care of by a Miss Rose, who subsequently founded an almshouse for disabled sailors and soldiers “in memory of PH”. The daughter inherited a substantial amount of money, married and emigrated to America.
Now the floodgates of comments, interpretation, praise or criticism are wide open! Please find some loose thoughts hereafter.1. Depending on our own response to such a dramatic ending, there is a flow of emotions. In her biography, Jenny Uglow wrote that there was 'a terrible sense of enforced weeping' here. Do we all agree?
2. The fact that Philip died just a few hours after rescuing his daughter and reconciling with Sylvia through a genuine gesture of mutual forgiveness may be, to a certain extent, reminiscent of Alcestis, who sacrificed her life for her husband's. Mythical symbols are significant in this novel. Did he involuntarily sacrifice his life for his wife's?
3. Are Philip's terrible accident, his injuries and infirmity and disfigurement a consequence of hamartia, ( a Greek term used in Artistoteles' Poetics refering to ancient Greek tragedy) inexorably leading him to a tragic downfall after his failure in telling the truth to Sylvia? Or, told differently, an expression of immanent justice? Why otherwise having Philip on board the Theseus during the explosion while he came out unharmed from his rescue operation a week before?
4. Was Sylvia's premature death also a consequence of her stubborn refusal to forgive, and, before that, of her feelings for Kinraid even after she had married Philip? In Chapter 29, Sylvia, after having initially refused to forgive Dick Simpson, wanted to forgive him after all, but it was too late as Simpson had just died before she could even visit him. Nevertheless, we saw her former determination never to forgive Philip gradually evolve throughout the third volume, and it was only through this change that the spouses could be reunited, albeit only for a few hours.
5. Psalm 118:23, partly mentioned in Chapter 6, soothed Mr Darley who was mourning his son killed by the recruiting agents. It makes sense now if we read attentively Philip's words on his deathbed. There is a theology - probably the author's natural theology opposed to a stiff, dogmatic religious message, e.g. Alice's.
Psalm 118:23 says: "This is the Lord's doing; and it is marvellous in our eyes". This may at last explain the epigraph and particularly "beyond the veil". The epigraph by Tennyson from In Memoriam was Meta Gaskell's choice. Meta as a young adult experienced a sore test, her broken engagement. We remember that Mrs Gaskell had suffered miscarriage and had been very much affected by the loss of their little son William. Is it only "beyond the veil" that we can comprehend such losses?
6. Philip has a vision of a "maternal haven" found instead of only a stern patriarch (God). Philip's words to Sylvia, his asking for forgiveness after the hard path he walked, are the conclusions of a true spiritual rebirth noticeable in the third volume. He and Sylvia went separately a (hard) spiritual way and through this they could forgive eachother and find peace.
There are several allusions to the Book of Revelation , bringing a spark of hope, already used by Elizabeth Gaskell in North and South, in the context of (view spoiler)
7. The epilogue shows how little people know about the reality and how quickly they/(we) are judging others, as already suggested Sara one day (hence the knot in the handkerchief). Public opinion blamed Sylvia for leaving her husband to starve nearby. She had already been frowned upon by many of the inhabitants and was seen as a deserted wife, which is why she did not go out as much as before. Except for Kester and the Fosters, no one knew anything about Sylvia's previous engagement or Philip's deliberate failure to pass on Kinraid's message. Kester, who defended Sylvia's and Philip's memory for as long as he lived, is also worth mentioning.
Bella emigrated to America with her husband and helped by Jeremiah Foster's legacy just as (view spoiler). Bella had probably heard enough of the gossip on her late parents and wanted to move on. America is, in Elizabeth Gaskell's novels I mentioned, the symbol of a new start.
8. The epilogue mentioned "a lady", a visitor who engaged in small talk with a "bathing lady" and heard about a story now becoming a local legend. The novel we have just read is a story of those sad events of sixty years earlier. I think someone of you, perhaps Connie noticed several examples of a double timeline, "now and then" in Volume One. The novel itself is a story within the thinner frame of a story, or a Matrioshka doll with a lot of more stories within. "The lady" was most probably Mrs Gaskell herself who imagined this great story, as a true storyteller.
9. To me this story is also a Greek tragedy, with Furies, ship names, real or invented, after mythical characters (Aurora, Alcestis, Theseus...) a file of injured and sick sailors arriving at Portsmouth as if back from Hades, a Greek choir showing up at least twice: when the whalers came back from the Arctic and the crowd was gathered, and right now in chapter 45, a silent choir with disapproving looks, a group of onlookers, sailors and women waiting outside with hard looks, in "the hardness of their silence.", and, over and above, hamartia.
10. Was this story a cruel tale or a moral tale?
I could not help thinking that Sylvia and Philip were severely punished even if they had just a few hours to forgive and love one another.
Kinraid instead shook the dust off his feet and moved on and found a lovely wife. As he is a cat with nine lives, I trust that he went on, through thick and thin, as unharmed as possible.
11. Hester's fate is also thought-provoking. She had set her heart on Philip, but overcame her frustration of seeing her love unrequited in helping others, also according to her faith. Neither Sylvia nor anyone else ever told her how Philip had wronged her and Charley. She transformed her unrequited love into raising Bella, who had her father's eyes, after Sylvia's premature death. Well provided for by John Foster's legacy, she founded an almshouse for invalid soldiers and sailors, both as a tribute to 'P.H.' and out of altruism. Perhaps these initials also signify that she was never able to define herself independently, nor move on after losing the man she loved. It may also be seen as humility: "Le bien ne fait pas de bruit et le bruit ne fait pas de bien" said reportedly St. Francis of Sales.
Hester's fate is perhaps partly a mirror image of Meta Gaskell's failed engagement. Meta was in love with and engaged to Captain Charles Hill, an army officer based in India. While on leave in 1857, he stayed with the Gaskells, but he had to return to India quickly due to unrest there. Eventually, Meta's correspondence with him was interrupted for reasons that are too lengthy to elaborate on here. The engagement was soon broken off by Meta — Rev. Gaskell was relieved as he obviously had felt uneasy about Captain Hill, and Elizabeth spent time trying to comfort her daughter. Meta devoted herself entirely to charity work during the Cotton Famine in Manchester but she never married. I think Mrs Gaskell foresaw this and used some of Charles Hill's traits for Charley Kinraid, and some of Meta's for Hester.
12. Metaphors of waves are rhythmically recurring throughout the concluding chapter and, sporadically, throughout the entire novel, particularly, of course, in the seaside scenes. They serve as a harrowing Leitmotiv, enhancing the tragic tone and the inexorability of human fate. However, they may also suggest the idea of an eternal new beginning, the rhythm of ebb and flow, of days and seasons — a concept that is very palpable in this novel, which spans roughly six years.
Of ribbons and coinsThere are many coins, ribbons and gowns in this novel. They all are symbols.
There was a briar-rose patterned ribbon in chapter 12, referring to real briar rose in chapter 1 and later in chapter 20 and almost unnoticed in chapter 34. That pink ribbon ended its course on Kinraid's hat that lay abandoned on the shore and let people suppose he was drowned. Our hero wore a half coin tied on a black ribbon as a love token shared with Sylvia, a token that even the French could not take from him.
Sylvia later gave a half crown hidden in a cake to the unknown poor man on the bridge (chapter 44). Philip accepted the King's Shilling but Kinraid's coin burned his fingers and he gave it to Jem and his family. He, "Stephen Freeman", who sold Zachary Hepburn's watch, had a hole made in Sylvia's coin and tied on a black ribbon, found by Hester when she kissed dead Philip's brow in chapter 45, and eventually worn by Sylvia...
Drama or melodrama? Hamartia or immanent justice? How do we feel about that ending?I wish you all a good recovery after this final chapter and am looking forward to reading your comments!
While this wasn't the ending I would have wanted, I do think it's an appropriate one in the sense that this may be a cautionary tale about the importance of self-forgiveness. Both Sylvia and Philip forgave each other but neither forgave themselves. They tortured themselves to the bitter end. Bella goes to America, symbolizing leaving the past behind and starting fresh & anew. I hope this means that she became a strong person who could find a good and happy life.
Claudia, I'll come back with some answers to your other questions. I wanted to put my initial thoughts down while I'm feeling the emotions of this final chapter.
As for Hamartia or immanent justice......I'm not sure whether justice was done. Neither Sylvia or Philip deserved their ends. They should have had some peace at some point in their later lives but both were denied a later life.
This ending was hamartia, I think, since a mistake lead to the tragedies.
Petra wrote: Both Sylvia and Philip forgave each other but neither forgave themselves. They tortured themselves to the bitter end. (...)This ending was hamartia, I think, since a mistake lead to the tragedies.. I agree, Petra! To me that was a tragedy! Noone but Charley Kinraid came out unharmed. Perhaps even not Bella, who still experienced a new start in life, but perhaps took in something of her mother's and Hester's sadness...
I like to believe that Bella landed on her feet. Moving to a new, pioneering country takes strength, determination, grit and Faith. Bella may have had all of these traits. Perhaps not, but I like to believe it. Of course, we'll never really know. Bella isn't part of the story being told around Monkshaven.
What a story for the town! To still be talked about 60 years after it happened. This was a big story being passed on through the generations.
A wonderful novel lead by an equally wonderful moderator. Thank you Claudia.I always have difficulty making final assessments of novels from other times. ‘Sylvia’s Lovers’ was completed in 1863, and set in late 1790’s to 1800 and here we are in 2025 in the process of making final decisions about the novel. Readers must be like Janus. We need to both look back and look forward if we want to experience the richness and timeless nature of a good book.
I found the novel to be tragic. The central characters — with the possible exception of Charley Kinraid — seemed doomed to their separate fates from the early chapters. What happened in the novel was inevitable. Each character’s fate was balanced on a decision, and once that incorrect decision was put into action nothing could redeem them.
I wonder to what extent Gaskell’s personal faith found its way in the novel. With that question, I admit confusion. The Unitarians were much more open to the role and inclusion of women in society. That said, Sylvia and Hester seemed fated to follow their separate paths to a bleak end.
I really enjoyed following the symbolic paths of colour, ribbons, coins, as well as the interplay of rural and urban settings. Each was woven into the letterpress with great skill.
What a treat it was to read and discover all the insightful comments of the participants reading this book. Thank you all very much.
Peter
I could not have imagined this ending. It is amazing to see how Gaskell structured this novel so intricately to lead us here. I would deem this to be a tragedy, and I would not classify it as melodrama. The characters have depth and substance to me and I do think of melodrama as being over-the-top and less realistic. I did not find any of these characters to be stereotypes.I was sad to think that Sylvia did not live a full life, but it was sweet to think of Hester raising Bella and doing good works in Phillip's memory.
This novel had a very Thomas Hardy like flavor to it for me. I was surprised, because I don't think any of her other novels have particularly brought that comparison to mind. It felt as if one decision going the other way could have changed all these lives completely and that fate (Charley being taken when he was, Phillip being present at his seizure, Daniel being hanged and leaving Sylvia so vulnerable) worked against happiness for anyone.
I enjoyed this read tremendously. Claudia--you were a superb leader and added so much to my understanding of the time and the context of the events. I valued all of the comments and erudite thoughts of my fellow readers. Thank you all so much!
This certainly was a tragic ending, and it seemed Gaskell planned in advance for the story to end in Philip's death. Everything that happened since Philip left home seemed planned to end in Philip being a hero, Philip connecting with his daughter (the coin and the near drowning), Philip and Sylvia forgiving each other, and Philip dying as a good Christian at the end. Hester never married Philip, but she was involved in raising the child of the man she loved. The Fosters were generous to all the women characters. The ending was tied up in a bow. This is not a criticism because I really enjoyed the book, but just a comment about Gaskell's meticulous planning. I enjoyed the main characters since they all had some goodness and some flaws. Claudia, you were marvelous in bringing the book to life for us and including so much background material. I hope you can be enticed to lead another book for the group sometime since this was such a great experience! I enjoyed reading the comments of the other members of the group too.
Thank you so much everyone for your kind lines and reactions to the final chapter!I am above all happy that you enjoyed reading Sylvia's Lovers, a definitely less known novel.
Thank you very much for your regular participation - without you and your pertinent comments, and of course without Jean who entrusted me with the keys again this year, I would have been a voice in the wilderness 🙂!
You all saw things I had not always noticed or expressed some thoughts better than my home-made summaries and my English as a fourth language, and you shared your opinions on the book in an interesting way!
I told you in my introductory posts that there was no screen adaptation, nor any other. Meanwhile, there was a radio drama (2024) in two episodes on BBC 4 with actors featuring the protagonists. I listened to it only partly and it seems to stick to the text, while it is challenging to adapt a novel into two radio episodes of roughly one hour each and convey the atmosphere and all. I did not inform you either about it as I was not quite sure if it would interfere with spoilers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b072...
I hope the link works for everyone!
Mod
I think everyone here "enjoyed this read tremendously. Claudia--you were a superb leader and added so much to [our] understanding of the time and the context of the events. [We] valued all of the comments and erudite thoughts of my fellow readers. Thank you all so much!"
Despite all our gratitude and congratulations, I hope discussions will continue on this, hopefully for a good week or more, to allow everyone to reflect. I'm sure we can do both! Claudia has mentioned some loose ends, and there will be plenty more to consider in this extraordinary but lesser known novel 🙂
Thank you too Claudia for giving us the link to the 2 part radio adaptation. These BBC ones are always good, but usually the story is necessarily heavily abridged with sometimes key characters and their story arc missed out. Still enjoyable though I would think, especially afterwards, as Claudia says.
Claudia, I add my thanks for your leadership through this read. The information you gave us added immensely to my appreciation and enjoyment of this novel. This is my third novel by Elizabeth Gaskell and it's my favorite. That may be because of the wonderful experience here (and a great story).
Petra wrote: "Claudia, I add my thanks for your leadership through this read. The information you gave us added immensely to my appreciation and enjoyment of this novel. This is my third novel by Elizabeth Gask..."
Thank you so much Petra! I am happy that you enjoyed reading Sylvia's Lovers and actively participating as you did last year, and I am also delighted to hear that it is your favourite (mine too, but I also very much like Mary Barton and Ruth)!
Sylvia's Lovers is indeed best enjoyed with some background information!
First in case Claudia has other commitments or holiday coming up, I also offer my praise and thanks for her wonderful discussion lead.Second, since I am still gathering thoughts on the novel, I also hope like Jean that discussion is not finished.
I thought the book was fascinating. It has left me with much to ponder and I while I am usually content with just the text of a book to ruminate on seeking answers to my questions, I wish, in this case, there was so much more. Letters, diary entries, statements from others around during the writing, anything, that could answer a myriad of questions would be welcome. But, without that, I just randomly scanned some links from what others in present day wrote in response to Sylvia's Lovers and I think they are interesting enough to add here. What strikes me about these is the strong positive though very varied responses to the novel and what in each response the reader takes from the novel.
https://returnofanative.com/stories/s...
https://thefword.org.uk/2012/02/sylvi...
https://annesebba.com/book-reviews/ha...
https://dearauthor.com/book-reviews/o...
Another thought I wanted to add is how well this novel fits with the big three by the Brontes, with seemingly doomed characters, "stuck in a bad romance," to quote Lady Gaga. Author Freya Larsen has a list of such books which I have borrowed and copy below:
"The Great Gatsby" by F. Scott Fitzgerald
"Wuthering Heights" by Emily Brontë
"Anna Karenina" by Leo Tolstoy
"Love in the Time of Cholera" by Gabriel García Márquez
"Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Brontë
"Romeo and Juliet" by William Shakespeare
"Tristan and Iseult" (various versions and adaptations)
"Madame Bovary" by Gustave Flaubert
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" by Victor Hugo
"Tess of the d'Urbervilles" by Thomas Hardy
"Gone with the Wind" by Margaret Mitchell
"Doctor Zhivago" by Boris Pasternak
"The Sorrows of Young Werther" by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"The English Patient" by Michael Ondaatje
"Ethan Frome" by Edith Wharton
https://www.freyalarsen.com/classic-b...
And I'll add one she missed. The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Feel free to add your favorites.
Sam wrote: "First in case Claudia has other commitments or holiday coming up, I also offer my praise and thanks for her wonderful discussion lead.Second, since I am still gathering thoughts on the novel, I al..."
Thank you Sam!
If you wish to know more about Sylvia's Lovers background do not hesitate to read Elizabeth Gaskell's biography by Jenny Uglow.
Elizabeth Gaskell: A Habit of Stories. There are lots of useful sources, particularly from Mrs Gaskell's letters and many endnotes under each chapter, leading to yet more material. I actually mentioned many of Jenny Uglow's comments on Sylvia's Lovers, particularly in my preliminary posts and at the beginning or at the end of each volume. There are, of course, more researchers I mentioned or quoted in the course of this group read!
There should also be volumes of Elizabeth Gaskell's letters in many libraries in English-speaking countries, but I am sure of one thing: Charles Dickens has destroyed all her letters to him 🙂!
Claudia, I'm going to echo others in offering my thanks for your leading this group in such a masterful way. I second the comment that I would follow you in another book discussion in the future. As for Sylvia's Lovers, I have had a somewhat mixed reaction to the final chapter compared to what other readers are reporting. It may be due to other books I've been or am currently reading, but I had some difficulty with the degree of Philip's deathbed piety. I know he had been reading religious works and the bible while staying at St.
Sepulchre, but this seemed to me such a different man than the one who skipped out on religious meetings with Mrs. Rose. Is this supposed to have arisen from his sense of guilt? It seemed he had developed a personal belief never before expressed. Was this simply a fact of existing at that time in English life? I suppose people were more steeped in religion than people are now in terms of expressing longings for their afterlife, of having the vocabulary for it.
I also thought of Thomas Hardy while reading the last couple of chapters. The sense of fate overriding all else with human beings at the mercy of greater, often unkind, powers.
Sam wrote: "First in case Claudia has other commitments or holiday coming up, I also offer my praise and thanks for her wonderful discussion lead.Second, since I am still gathering thoughts on the novel, I al..."
Thanks Sam. The articles further expand our knowledge and appreciation of ‘Sylvia’s Lovers’. I had never read the novel before but I agree with the prevailing sentiment that Gaskell was much more than just another 19C woman novelist. Gaskell comfortably sits at the table with the Bronte’s and Eliot.
I'm also grateful to Claudia for the thoughtful and informative leadership, right to the end! And as someone pretty new to this group, thanks to all the rest of you as well for providing some reads of the chapters that have challenged my own initial takes.As for my take on the end--I hardly know. Or rather I know what I think--I really, really don't like it--but I can't decide whether it's a good, solid ending or one that pulls up short of the potential of the rest of the book.
I enjoyed the rest of the book so much, for so many reasons. It was plotty and eventful: so many twists, so many things happening much faster than I expected. It quickly became very difficult for me to put down. I agree with Sara that these characters are too fully-realized to be melodramatic, and just as much, if not more, I enjoyed the portrayal of the setting and society. I will never look at press gangs the same way again. I always saw them as a tragedy and misfortune for the captured sailors, but I hadn't thought about the harm sustained by the family and friends the sailors left behind.
This book does so much, and the reason I am on the fence about it is that I can't decide whether it follows through on its insightful take on these people and their place and time, or whether it backs off its insight in favor of convention in the end. I like the book most when it's pointing out the injustice against which Daniel rebels, or the horrible dilemmas Sylvia faces, or the way minor characters like Hester and Kester make life livable for everyone else through kindness and care. But then the book sides with the law and the kidnapping navy, or sentences Sylvia to a pining wifely death, or leaves Hester incapable of living any life independent of a man who never gave her a sympathetic thought.
The only thing that makes me think maybe all of this is something more than capitulation is how miserable everyone obviously is at the end of the book. Even Bella decides it's not worth sticking around. Is this a book that accepts and endorses the wrongs it sees in its world, or is it a book that shows how devastatingly ruinous those wrongs are?
Claudia points out the double timeline of the book. I do wonder if Gaskell heard a story about a heartless wife and the old man who could never stand to hear her blamed, and thought, "I bet there is more to this woman's story than that."
Sue: Thank you so much for your appreciation! We as modern readers may feel Philip's ending words a bit "otherworldly" or strange to us because of its contents.
Philip indeed has no real denominational affiliation: he lives among Quakers, but, mind you "early Quakers" i.e. more puritans and less diversified than Friends are today. I don't think you will ever meet Friends like Alice nowadays...
Then he attends, or skips, Methodist services.
Having inherited money from a great-uncle he considered becoming a churchwarden in the Church of England, and when he comes back from the Middle East he spends time in the Hospital of the St Sepulchre. It used to be a Catholic place, where praying for the soul of its founders is still in use, even if it has been ruled and taken care of the Church of England for ages. The present Rector is Polish but a COE priest. Philip's last experience, his ordeal and need of redemption and Bible reading and attending to prayers there, and suffering much may have influenced his Weltanschauung and vocabulary.
But of course, you may not have expected or liked this tragic ending and I appreciate this and all your comments before!
Thank you very much Julie for your appreciation!I enjoyed reading all your comments and as you were new, I was waiting for your different opinions, at any rate well-structured and solid arguments backed up by logical and honest reasoning. It was very constructive for me!
Your comments right now are a wonderful review and appreciation of the book!
The only thing that makes me think maybe all of this is something more than capitulation is how miserable everyone obviously is at the end of the book. Even Bella decides it's not worth sticking around. Is this a book that accepts and endorses the wrongs it sees in its world, or is it a book that shows how devastatingly ruinous those wrongs are?
Indeed. We may think that too. When I first read the book I was just devastated as the deep sadness was contagious. A French lecturer of mine called that "le charme de l'histoire", i.e drifting with the plot, letting the plot and the text enchant us (here, a positive page-turning quality), you are in the book, served by a beautiful style (I prefer Elizabeth Gaskell's style and George Eliot's style than Charlotte Brontë's). But I also read some essays who asked the question you are asking and it is not wrong to be asking it as well.
In reading one of the articles that Sam included (thank you, Sam), I came across a piece of information that I hadn't thought about before regarding Kinraid:"Kinraid is a thoroughgoing opportunist, as shown by his later career. As a Navy Captain, he must necessarily collude with the press gangs whose activities he once opposed to the point of murder, for at that time a Navy Captain needed them to supply a large percentage of his crew."
I hadn't thought about how Kinraid's rising within the Navy also meant that his mindset towards the press gangs would have to change.
The man who came back to Sylvia is fundamentally a different man than the one who left her. I doubt if their marriage would have worked any better than Sylvia's and Philip's. The difference is that Sylvia entered marriage with Philip with indifference and she would have entered marriage with Kinraid with enthusiasm. The end betrayal would have been the same, in the end.
Indeed Petra! Charley's example shows us how much the main protagonists evolved in the course of those six years and all the more because of the war background. And how the rest of us do evolve as well.I did mention Charley's shifting to the other side of the law under chapter 40: Charley has also changed ideologically. He is no longer the harpooner who fought the recruiting agents with the most ferocious recklessness. He is now on the side of military force. Mrs Kinraid was a vivid illustration of how the Captain was not quite the Specksioneer we first met!
And yes if Sylvia had married him back then and seen him so much changed, it would have perhaps been disastrous...
Sue wrote: I also thought of Thomas Hardy while reading the last couple of chapters. The sense of fate overriding all else with human beings at the mercy of greater, often unkind, powers.Yes, this really comes to mind and Sylvia's Lovers may stand on the same shelf with novels Sam mentioned earlier.
For some reasons still unclear to me, this novel was neglected: dialect, a rushed ending, some discrepancies, perhaps even the somehow misleading title, said the critics who missed more significant aspects.
No screen adaptation, no Richard Armitage effect as in North and South, which perhaps made that novel despite its quality more approachable. Yet the magnificent scenery of the Yorkshire coast and moors and Whitby were available, and I am sure that good actors may have been found!
Yes, Peter, you are pertinently ranking Elizabeth Gaskell among the great English writers of her era! I prefer her writing style to Charlotte Brontë's more pompous prose particularly in Villette. I am seeing on GR that Mrs Gaskell is being appreciated in Italy too - which is rewarding because she loved Italy so much.
You also noticed the many symbols and found that they made sense, which corroborated or added to my thoughts!
Petra wrote: "In reading one of the articles that Sam included (thank you, Sam), I came across a piece of information that I hadn't thought about before regarding Kinraid:"Kinraid is a thoroughgoing opportunis..."
Yes. That particular article that Sam provided spun my thinking around. Kinraid, once the victim of a press gang becomes part of the system that depends on the press gangs to keep England’s navy supplied with sailors. How could I have missed that obvious fact for so long.
Next, while I do understand that Kinraid’s subsequent marriage was a logical next step for him, I never spent much time pondering why his wife referred to him as Captain. With the help of others comments in this forum I now believe that Gaskell might well have been directing us to see the irony of a former press gang detainee now a captain of a. British warship. Wow! I missed that!
Now, when I consider Gaskell’s portrayal of Kinraid’s wife, I see her somewhat blinkered view of her husband in a different light. There is so much to unpack in this novel.
Peter wrote: "With the help of others comments in this forum I now believe that Gaskell might well have been directing us to see the irony of a former press gang detainee now a captain of a. British warship. Wow! I missed that!..."I did, too. But once I knew it seemed so obvious. Gaskell is truly a wonderful writer.
I truly regret that I was unable to keep up with the comments since message 93. Family events took over, but thankfully I was able to stay on track with each day's reading. I'm planning on going back and reading your amazing daily postings, Claudia, which helped me to see and put into context so much that I would have missed otherwise. And of course, everyone added so many wonderful insights which often changed mine. Thank you all!I must say this is one of the saddest "death bed" endings I have ever read. Having been raised in a Christian home where Bible readings were a daily family event, I understood Philip and grieved with him, as he could not forgive himself for having loved Sylvia more than he loved God. We don't understand that nowadays, but in earlier times, this was considered a sin. Throughout all the months that Philip was disabled, he had plenty of time to reflect on his life and on how he had sinned against God and Sylvia. In a way, I think he saw his earthly parting from Sylvia as his sacrifice to God (much as Abraham had been willing to sacrifice Isaac to prove his love of God).
I can definitely see Gaskell's faith coming through in this last chapter, and I wonder if she was using this story as a parable of sorts to her readers who would also have been familiar with Bible teachings.
I found Gaskell's repeated observation of the sound of "the ceaseless waves lapping against the shelving shore" to be so foreboding. And when Gaskell says "there came a rush and an eddying through his brain--his soul trying her wings for the long flight home", I felt the waves symbolized Philip's soul striving relentlessly to go Home. What a beautiful but incredibly sad imagery! This was my favorite quote in that last chapter so full of memorable passages.
This was my first acquaintance with Gaskell's writing, but I can't wait to read her again.
Claudia wrote: "Drama or melodrama? Melodrama. Definitely.
Gaskell's ending disappointed me. In Sylvia's Lovers she created a finely tuned novel with very well drawn characters, until the very end. I felt that she didn't know how to wrap it up and was in a hurry to be finely done with this story. Maybe the deadline came up to fast.
The last chapter, for me, was a mess. There was too much going on at one time. Bella, the water, and the brothers were not necessary. Yes, there had to be a reconciliation, but Philip's death was unsettling and unnecessary.
Despite my disappointment with the last chapter, Sylvia's Lovers was an impressive novel. I very much appreciated its depth which Claudio led us through, and everyone's comments were helpful to help us see different aspects of the setting and the characters. Now that we have finished, I need to go back and reread the background information which Claudia gave us. It will mean even more now.
Thank you, Claudia, for your excellent leadership throughout the novel. You definitely enhanced the book and the author for us.
Gaskell fascinates me because I never heard of her until a few years ago. And Claudia's interest in her has spiked mine even more. Thank you very much!
If another Gaskell book is discussed, I will definitely read it with the group, especially if Claudia leads it!
Claudia, you mention above some possible reasons for why this novel may have been neglected. The mention of the rushed ending spoke to me and I'm thinking that may have contributed to my problems with the ending. Too much happens much too quickly. In a novel that seemed to strive to create people from a real world, albeit one even from the author's past, the final chapter especially simply didn't feel real. The emotions of earlier chapters felt real and earned by everyone. And I enjoyed the novel thoroughly until the end. Interesting thoughts on Kinread and his changes after being forced to become a sailor. I would also think that anyone who lives on the sea learns to survive the best they can and Charley is obviously a smart, skilled seaman and sailor. He definitely has rolled with the punches. As for his quick marriage after seeing Sylvia, I wasn't particularly surprised. After all, Sylvia admited her feelings but denied the possibility they could ever be together. He believed her. Took her at her word. As he had accepted her word before.
I really did enjoy this book but, for me it tailed off at the very end.
Oh Yes, Kathleen, I agree with you and would join in on such a read too. We were apparently posting at the same time.
Shirley (stampartiste) wrote: "I truly regret that I was unable to keep up with the comments since message 93. Family events took over, but thankfully I was able to stay on track with each day's reading. I'm planning on going ba..."Thank you so much, Shirley! I am happy that you liked this novel and were gladly acquainted with Elizabeth Gaskell. Do not hesitate to post a few additional comments if you feel like it.
I loved the quote you mentioned. It is indeed a sad ending - I know of others among the Victorians and also Victor Hugo but this chapter was tough despite the sparks of hope.
Kathleen, thank you for your appreciation. I did not doubt a second that we would see you again. Your comments are much appreciated - one may indeed consider some aspects of the ending as a bit rushed. Still it would have been more plausible that Philip did not eat sufficiently, and became weak in the aftermath of his injuries and eventually died, instead of rescuing Bella and injuring himself. This would have perhaps been more realistic.I agree with your take on the whole novel. We all noticed how the protagonists were very well drawn and never archetypal. We had no real villains but characters with their good side and their flaws just like the rest of us. Therefore it is more a tragedy than a melodrama but we may admit some melodramatic traits at the end.
It was great to have you with us and I am happy that you enjoyed reading another novel by Mrs Gaskell (yes she was a bit pressured by Charles Dickens to deliver a conclusion of A Dark Night's Work and Other Stories for his magazine and she wanted to be done with Sylvia first thing - hence a sort of rush. But we will forgive her for that, as we had a great reading time together!
Sue wrote: "Claudia, you mention above some possible reasons for why this novel may have been neglected. The mention of the rushed ending spoke to me and I'm thinking that may have contributed to my problems w..."Thank you Sue for your additional comments. We may definitely have mixed feelings on the final chapter or be touched by its spiritual dimension that may speak to us! The most important thing is that we liked the whole novel and had a great reading time.
Just some additional thoughts I have been tossing around in my head:I think the inclusion of Bella's rescue is a kind of redeeming moment for Phillip. He sacrifices his own life for that of his daughter, whom he has literally abandoned. It shows his love, but also that his longing to reunite with Sylvia and his child is not just another self-interested impulse from Phillip. It is a deep-seated desire to make an atonement.
Also, had he perished from hunger or disease at the widow's home, his identity would probably never have been discovered and it is very unlikely he would have had his parting moments with Sylvia in which they are both able to clear their souls of the burdens they are carrying. For a Victorian audience, I suspect this was as close as such a tragedy could get to a "happy ending". I'm not a Victorian, but it seems that for me, even now.
I have also been pondering the role of "fate" in what has happened to these characters. Sylvia seemed a good candidate for a happy life at the beginning of the novel; she was young, pretty and had more potential than her friend Molly. Phillip was certainly on the trail of success; favored by the Fosters and loved by both his aunt and Hester. Charley, on the other hand, seemed destined to always encounter troubles; a dangerous job and constant threat of life and limb from the press gang. By the end of this novel all has been reversed. But was it fate or action? I think action. Sylvia gave up on Charley too easily and. with the loss of her father, she took the easier route of marrying Phillip than the harder one of accepting Kester's offer of living with his sister. Phillip refused to see that Sylvia did not love him and committed his egregious lie to get her; sacrificing all his hard work and success in the process. Charley meets life head-on and makes the most of every situation he encounters. Even the loss of Sylvia. after waiting for her after the kidnapping. does not derail him. He turns his thoughts toward what he can have and continues to improve his life.
Yes indeed, Claudia. It’s the totality of the book that counts in the end and that was definitely a good experience in the reading, sharing and all of the discussion. Thank you and everyone who has contributed and made this such great time.Sara, great thoughts to add to the mix.
Well said, Sara. I believe we are the choices that we make in life and there are positive or negative consequences to those decisions. We can choose to pone away or to move on. We can choose to lie or tell the truth. It seems very simple yet we make it complicated by our desires.I am glad to have read this with the group and gained so much more than if I’d read it alone. Jean really has set up the best possible way to read Victorian novels. I’m not sure I have much else to add. I did not expect the ending but I think it is the one that makes this a complete tragedy. It seems as though the tragic ending falls in line with the Greek references we’ve talked about throughout.
I also would like to thank Claudia for her astute leadership and willingness to keep us going and learning. You did a marvelous job!!
Thank you Sara for your additional thoughts - in the context you are explaining, it all makes sense!Thank you very much Lori! We see - from the background, from all our discussions, that there is definitely much more in this novel than what first meets the eye! I am not sure that we could have discussed so much with so many in-depth contributions from many of you, if Jean had not paved the way first and make that possible!
Notifications did not reach me sooner - this is why I am responding a bit later.
I agree with Kathleen that the book ends weakly. For me it the problems begin earlier than the last chapter.We knew that Philip and Kinraid would meet again, and we speculated about what might happen. Interestingly, Sylvia automatically assumes that if they do happen to meet Philip will be killed; he lacks both physical strength and a sturdy personality. The next time we see him, however, Philip selflessly rescues Kinraid, heroically carrying him to safety in a hail of bullets. Then he is burned in a fire so that he is unrecognizable, especially under his assumed name.
After limping for hundreds of miles back to Monkshaven and hiding anonymously, Philip appears on the scene in the nick of time for a second heroic rescue, this time of his innocent child from the waves, and is mortally injured. He stays alive long enough to be recognized/reconciled, and then he dies.
Melodrama.
In my opinion, Gaskell took the easy way out (as many authors do) and killed Philip to cut the knot. To have a true reconciliation, to fully atone for the hurt that Philip and Sylvia have caused each other, would have been difficult, painful, and time-consuming. Could they have repaired their relationship and learned to trust and love each other? Would they overcome the wrongheaded public censure? Would each of them develop a healthy spirituality and learn to live a contented life? Would Hester be able to find peace?
One scene in the story that is probably less impactful for most modern readers is that in which Sylvia swears never to live with Philip as her husband again. Of course, this is a serious vow for any one at any time, but in Gaskell's day it would have been much more shocking to readers. What makes it even more powerful, however, is that Sylvia makes the statement to Hester, who is a Friend: she does not take oaths and recognizes the law of God (marriage) over human laws. The fact that Philip is Friend-adjacent also makes his omission a more serious Lie because Friends claim always to speak the truth.
What do you all think of the title after finishing the book? I'm puzzled over Sylvia's Lovers since we spend so much of the book with Sylvia and her thoughts, have some insight into Philip, and receive little more than a sketch of Kinraid. The two men are different in almost every way. Kinraid's path seems like vivacity-->responsibility, while Philip's is mercenary-->spirituality. Perhaps Sylvia's own development parallels that of her lovers?
And I wonder as well what The Speksioneer would have been like? What made Gaskell not only abandon that idea but put Kinraid so much in the shade?
Claudia, I echo everyone's thanks and congratulations! I learned a lot through your leadership.
Thank you Erich!As I wrote in my comments on Chapter 1, Sylvia, mentioned in the title of the novel is pivotal, more precisely grammatically pivotal. We may be more focused on Sylvia than on the lovers but interestingly we have an opposite feeling in the different titles for the main translations: Gli innamorati di Sylvia, Los amores de Sylvia, Les Amoureux de Sylvia. "Gli innamorati, Les Amoureux, Los Amores" come up first.
I would have definitely preferred The Specksioneer but I am not sure if the book would have been a best seller then. There is a pronunciation issue even for English native speakers, and as I mentioned earlier that title was much discussed even in the Gaskell family circle and as a joke Rev. William said it was too much of a tongue twister and George Smith, the editor, agreed.
When I read the book for the first time, I also thought that Kinraid was more in the shades. But is he really? I mentioned that even if he was physically absent from chapter 18 to chapter 32 and 33, he was always present in Sylvia's and Philip's minds, dreams and obsession. His name was mentioned in virtually every chapter but one or two at the utmost, or he was alluded to. After chapter 38, where we see him from his own perspective, he is indirectly there with Molly Brunton's visit in chapter 39, in Mrs Kinraid's visit in chapter 40 and subsequently in Sylvia's account of this visit to Kester and in chapter 45, in Philip's and Sylvia's conversation at the deathbed.
This omnipresence of Kinraid throughout the whole novel, as he is after all the reason for the whole plot (take Kinraid away and there is, plot-wise, not much left) reminded me of another title Waiting for Godot, En attendant Godot by Samuel Beckett We studied that play at school but I cannot remember that Godot ever came, although he was the reason for the whole waiting.
I like the title and think it is appropriate to the novel. What we see is a stark contrast between the two men who pursue Sylvia and also their fates. While Kinraid's role is played mostly off-stage, I agree that he is a pivotal part of the plot and without him there is no tension and certainly no lie. I found I had a very strong image of Charley both physically and in personality.I very much like the comparison to Godot, Claudia. You are right, Godot never shows. The point is how purposeless the wait is; and I think we could make a case for the same being true of this novel: Phillip waits for Sylvia to love him, Charley waits for Sylvia only to find she didn't wait for him, and Sylvia waits for life to deal her a fair hand of cards, which isn't coming.
Erich, I very much enjoyed reading your reactions (although mine was quite different) and especially your observations regarding the "Friends" connection. Does Sylvia tell Hester that she will never be a wife to Phillip again? I know she said it to him without Hester in the room, and then she shared it with Jeremiah Foster, but I couldn't remember her saying it to Hester.
Great observations about the three of them waiting for something that did not happen (except for the ending scene) Sara!Chapter 39, Confidences, Sylvia said to Alice and Hester (without revealing the exact content of the oath)
"I ha' often thought of telling yo' and Hester, special-like, when yo've been so kind to my little Bella, that Philip an' me could niver come together again; no, not if he came home this very night——"
Same chapter, Sylvia said to Hester:
"I daren't forgive Philip, even if I could; I took a great oath again' him. Ay, yo' may look shocked at me, but it's him as yo' ought for to be shocked at if yo' knew all. I said I'd niver forgive him; I shall keep to my word."
Indeed the oath shocked Mr Foster before and Hester now, but Hester never learned anything more about the reason why Sylvia took that oath against Philip.
Thank you, Claudia. I did not remember that scene and I appreciate having my mind refreshed. I knew Hester did not know about the lie Phillip had told, but I forgot that she did know that Sylvia had sworn the oath against him.
Dickensians!
Books mentioned in this topic
Gli innamorati di Sylvia (other topics)Los amores de Sylvia (other topics)
Les Amoureux de Sylvia (other topics)
Waiting for Godot (other topics)
En attendant Godot (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Samuel Beckett (other topics)Victor Hugo (other topics)
Charles Dickens (other topics)
Anthony Trollope (other topics)
Thomas Hardy (other topics)
More...
In fact, Phillip was good to Sylvia as a husband and took care of her needs and she has labeled him herself as a "good man". Neither of them has allowed God to work in their lives; both have shunned their blessings and tried to take control themselves without regard for any higher authority. Both have paid a penalty.
Hester may have been God's gift to Phillip, but he did not want her. Sylvia may have had a very unhappy life with Charley, not being able to come up to the standards expected of a Captain's wife and/or holding him back. Theirs may have been a very unsatisfactory marriage, but since it did not happen, we cannot know. Perhaps he would have loved her for a while and then resented her when he saw the kind of woman (his current wife) that he might have had.
I also consider Hester. She isn't dreaming of Phillip now. She is trying to think of ways to mend this marriage, which is a self-sacrifice. She is following her faith, which has been one of her strong suits from the beginning.
It feels like we have a long way to go to reach a conclusion, but Gaskell obviously knows what she is wants and is able to settle everything in one more chapter. A chapter which I am anxious to read tonight.