When Mr. Pesca tells the story of how he scored Mr. Hartright a new job, he describes everyone in the family of the “fine house” where he teaches “fair and fat”, with the “…Papa [being] the fairest and the fattest of all … [and] a mighty merchant, up to his eyes in gold…” (Collins 16). Mr. Pesca continues to describe the Papa, saying he was “…a fine man once, but seeing that he has got a naked head and two chins, fine no longer at the present time” (Collins 16). This passage seems to connect to the idea of consumption and imperialism from “Brother Jacob”. The Papa is a merchant, and I think it can be assumed that he deals with goods imported from the British colonies. The second part of this passage seems like it can be read as a critique of imperialism and extraction. While this man is gaining rich from exploiting the people and resources from the colonies, he is losing his aesthetic value, just like the colonies are losing their resources and the people there are losing their freedom.
I think it might be possible to read into the critique of imperialism in other aspects of this book as well. The men in Anne Catherick’s life try to control her by locking her in an asylum. When Hartright first meets Anne on the road, she asks him to help her get to London, and then let her leave. Hartright agrees and follows through with his promise, even though he is worried about her (Collins 30). This lack of control or domination separates Hartright from the other men in the novel (besides Pesca). Sir Percival Glyde, like the Papa, is one of the imperializing men in the novel, and like the Papa, he has some physical affliction that shows that; his cough and scar (as Anne mentions in her letter) (Collins 80).
Ms. Halcombe is another character with physical attributes that are seen as hindering her aesthetic value (“The lady is ugly! [Collins 34]). She does not seem to be very imperializing though, and I’m not sure what to make of her role in my reading of the novel so far. Maybe because she embraces the class of the Fairlies, wearing the fancy clothes, she is seen as an accomplice or at least someone gaining something from British imperialism?
This is a really astute reading of “fair and fat,” and I love that you have made the connection of appearance and external description to the ever-present Victorian themes of industrialization and colonization. I wonder if there will be a change in Hartright’s appearance when he returns from presumably assisting colonization efforts? Aesthetically he is somewhat separate from the men of the novel, but he, like Marianne, is still an accomplice to imperialism, colonialism, and industrialization? And I wonder how you could impose “fair and fat” onto Count Fosco? He is wealthy but he is also not English, and there are many aspects of his character that align him with themes of control, etc.
This post is a brilliant commentary on Collins’ equally brilliant yet subtle critiques on British Imperialism. In connection with this theme, I am fascinated by how the characters of Count and Madame Fosco fit into this narrative in the second Epoch. Count Fosco, although not British, certainly fits into the overconsumption category based on his physical description and penchant for overeating decadent foods. His British wife, on the other hand, is described as much more reserved, after Fosco “tamed” her tigress-like ways. In this sense, it is almost as if this wealthy Italian foreigner is the one exhibiting imperialist (and mysogynistic) characteristics over a British woman. I believe that, as you astutely pointed out, the novel has a lot to teach us about the connection between imperialism and gender, and I am interested to see how this narrative will continue to unfold.