Author: ladybug

“What does informal empire mean?” Jessie Reeder’s essay illuminating the paradox inherent in informal empire brings to his reader’s attention that the agents of empire, while invading lands they have no ownership over in quest for wealth, often do so without the awareness that they are “‘missionaries of capitalism’ and the ‘capitalist vanguard’” (Reeder, 432). Indeed, another definition for “informal empire,” he informs us, is “financial imperialism” (431). Freed from the hierarchies demanded by the supervision of centralized power, “most individuals simply followed their own individual, rather than any large systemic, motivations” (432). The key word here is most.

In The Women in White, both Count Fosco and Sir Percival Glyde operate as agents of informal empire, aiming to gain financial control over Laura Glyde née Fairlie. They do so outside of structured, hierarchal power dynamics: in this setting, that is the Glyde’s marriage and Count Fosco’s dominance over the takeover. Additionally, Count Fosco is himself a foreigner, and is entering not only onto English territory but specifically Laura and Percival’s territory, in order to enact “a system of coercive power” (432). Both Percival and the Count are aware of their actions and their financial desire, and both are enacting nefarious works to obtain their desires; however, where Percival strives to do so within the bounds of his marriage with Laura – when he is trying to convince her to sign the mysterious document: “I have told her this is merely a formal document – and what more can she want? You may say what you please; but it is no part of a woman’s duty to set her husband at defiance.” (Collins, 246) – Count Fosco exerts control over Percival himself, the sending and receiving of mail, the animals and people surrounding him, and the health of the people around him. Some scholars, Reeder informs us, reject the term “informal empire,” and instead suggest “that ‘sphere of influence’ or ‘dependency’ better fits the bill” (Reeder, 433). Both Fosco and Percival foster exert their influence to encourage dependency in others, often by using their status, in their effort to pursue their individual desires for first financial freedom, and then financial control. Walter and Mariane, upon their reunion, understand that “[they] had no mercy to expect from Count Fosco and Sir Percival Glyde. The success of the conspiracy had brought with it a clear gain to those two men of thirty thousand pounds – twenty thousand to one: ten thousand to the other” (Collins, 431).

In direct opposition to Percival and Count Fosco, Walter Hartright embodies the unaware vessel for informal imperialism within the novel. Whereas Fosco and Percival are actively participating in their desire for financial domination, Hartright leaves England to escape from his ill-begotten love for the then-Laura Fairlie. To do so, he joins an expedition to Central America, to “make excavations among the ruined cities” (178). While it is unclear exactly what is happening during his time away, it can be assumed that the excavations he is joining are in the interest of financial gain – if not for the individual, then for the empire. However, it is clear that upon his return to England, he has not netted financial gain from the expedition. Although he returns “a changed man,” the money he contributes to his and Mariane’s fund is only “the purchase-money obtained from the sale by the sale of [his] drawing master’s practice before [he] left England” (406; 432). Later, when Walter meets with Mr. Kyrle, he refuses to discuss Laura’s affairs with him and tells him “There shall be no money-motive…no idea of personal advantage, in the service I mean to render to Lady Glyde” (445). Although Walter can’t count himself among the individuals intentionally participating in the financial imperialism happening within the novel, and indeed flat-out denies wanting to, he is still complicit in it through his vague expedition to Central America – he faces death by “disease,” “Indians,” and “drowning” – and, I theorize, his involvement with Mariane and Laura. Although we have yet to read about it in the novel, I wonder the ways in which Walter Hartright will experience the benefit of his informal imperialism, just by virtue of being among the men intruding into Mariane and Laura’s lives.

Throughout the first third of The Woman in White “unexplainable feelings” often become entirely explainable. Walter Hartright’s first unexplainable uneasiness upon the prospect of his going to teach at Limmeridge House is enlightened given his disastrous love for Miss Fairlie. His unexplainable tension upon first seeing Miss Fairlie is realized when he at last connects her similarities with Anne Catherick. These “unexplainable” feelings have generally been found to be very explainable, when the situation is placed in the correct context. Mr. Gilmore’s obliviousness over the situation between Walter and Laura during Mr. Hartright’s last night at Limmeridge House is an excellent example of dramatic irony; the reader understands the situation the character is confused about.

When Miss Halcombe is obliged (perhaps coerced is the better word here) by Percival Glyde to write a letter to Anne Catherick’s mother, his behavior seems entirely by-the-book to Mr. Gilmore, but it is clear to the reader that Mrs. Halcombe doubts his character despite herself. She had “a certain hesitation of manner,” and “looked uneasy” (WIW, 132). There are small moments in the text that reinforce the importance of paying attention to “unexplainable uneasiness,” regardless of what a character is trying to convince themselves of – here, it is Percival’s upstanding character. The reader is encouraged to trust observations before the character’s feelings, and try to separate the two the best they can.

An excellent example of this is Percival’s interaction with Miss Fairlie’s dog. The reader has observed, along with Mr. Hartright in his account of events, that the dog is loyal to her mistress; she always accompanies Laura on walks, and the dog is “pressed against her dress impatiently for notice and encouragement,”  when Walter observes her from his window. Even as Mr. Gilmore is entirely convinced (or determined to convince himself) that Percival is a good man, he still details his observations; when Percival “good-humouredly” calls out to the dog, she instead “shrank away from his outstretched hand, whined, shivered, and hid itself under a sofa… As he opened the door, the [dog] poked out her sharp muzzle… and barked and snapped at him” (133-134). This makes the reader question what is real and what is not: we haven’t seen the dog interact beyond Walter’s observance of her with Miss Fairlie; perhaps this is just how she behaves.

Mr. Gilmore entirely attributes this behavior to the dog, but Miss Halcombe hesitates around him; Anne Catherick sent a warning letter; Walter is suspicious of Percival’s character – the investigation is ongoing. How much of the doubt can be attributed to easy explanations: young, foolish love between Walter and Laura; Anne Catherick’s mental illness; Marianne’s desire to see her sister in a happy relationship? Mr. Gilmore has thus far described Percival’s behavior as entirely morally upstanding. Walter and Miss Halcombe have received no concrete proof their suspicions are founded in fact. And yet the dog cowers away and snaps at him. When Mr. Gilmore himself later approaches Miss Fairlie and her dog on his own, he expects the dog to snap at him, too. Instead, “the whimsical little brute falsified [his] expectations by jumping into [his] lap, and poking its sharp muzzle familiarly into [his] hand” (141). Who is a better judge of character: Mr. Gilmore, or the dog?

When Mr. Gilmore leaves his meeting with Laura, he recalls that though he had entered the room “believing Sir Percival Glyde had fair reason to complain of the manner in which she was treating him… [he] left it, secretly hoping that matters might end in her taking him at his word and claiming her release” (145). By the end of his account, Mr. Gilmore has completely changed his attitude towards Percival – “no daughter of mine should have been married to any man alive under such a settlement as I was compelled to make for Laura Fairlie” (161). Character’s “unexplained feelings” or suspicions are often validated by the surrounding subtext – Anne and Laura’s white clothing, and the dog’s behavior are examples of this. The unreliability of narrators in this novel serves to encourage the reader to pay closer attention to what is written between the lines. What is real, and what is imagined? Paying attention to patterns and “unexplainable feelings” will very likely yield explanations in due time, if this trend stays consistent.