Frank Gresham vs Mr Moffatt.

I am not sure I like this Frank Gresham. I let ride him calling Mr Moffatt a muff for saying he would vote to let Jews stand for parliament. SPOILER However the violent act he commits on Mr Moffatt: I am surprised it could be considered tolerable even then. I remember reading in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall one of the gentlemen protagonists committed a very violent act, and thinking that was very shocking. However, I felt that was more acceptable than Frank Gresham's behaviour, as it was not premeditated, he was being needled by the person he assaulted, who he had warned and who knew he was already upset. OTOH, Frank Gresham would be prosecuted for Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent if he did what he did today. What makes it worse is that it was premeditated and that he conspired with a friend to make it happen.

I have a bit of a temper that has got me into scrapes, but nothing like this. Sorry Frank, I think you're a cad, and I would black ball you if you applied to join my gentleman's club.

I have been wondering how bad a whipping like that would be. The book says the whip was the heaviest Frank could find. From dim memories of watching Roots, whips would take the skin off your back. However, in general they were used to control animals, which their owners would not usually want to kill. There was also a character from the Alexandria Quartet, who was very skilful with a whip. He loved whipping small animals to pieces. How badly was Mr Moffat injured? I still find it hard to imagine that Anthony Trollope thought it was defensible for his hero to behave in this way. I have read that Victorians took engagements very seriously, such that a man might be sued if he reneged on a marriage proposal. Higher up the social scale, marriages were of crucial economic importance. I wonder when duelling stopped being practised in England. I would have thought Mr Moffat could have called Frank Gresham out, particularly as the police did not think the assault was worth prosecuting.

"He should be horse-whipped." was a sort of saying. I can imagine reactionary colonel types in old British films saying it. I wonder how often they were carried out. In Wives and Daughters by Mrs Gaskell, someone comments that Mr Gibson might horse-whip Mr Preston for allowing his daughter's reputation to become besmirched. Horse whipping is mentioned, in passing, in The Pickwick Papers. Duels are described often in 19th century novels, but this form of settling grievances is not portrayed so often. It is less deadly, but shows more contempt. In the Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Mr Markham hits Mr Lawrence with his horse whip in a shocking incident. I think that might be slightly different because I think he hit him with the stock of a short whip. Maybe it was more a riding crop. Mr Lawrence was badly hurt. Mr Markham lowered himself in my respect for that, although there were mitigating circumstances. Frank Gresham lost all my respect. I wonder if this horse whipping scene is in the TV adaptions.

Surely you don't think horse whips should be used to beat horses? The poor beasts have done nothing wrong!

Col. Brandon fights a duel with Willoughby, because he has seduced and abandoned Brandon's ward Eliza. "Elinor sighed over the fancied necessity of this; but to a man and a soldier she presumed not to censure it." If Elinor Dashwood can not presume to censure dueling, maybe you can do the same with horse whipping.

Horse whipping is an extreme and violent response, but not so bad as killing someone in a duel. I wonder if the victim of the whipping ever challenged the whipper?

In Kristin Lavransdatter, disputes are often settled between the aggrieved and aggrieving parties. Even for crimes like murder, vengeance is sought and blood money is often paid to assuage it. This was in 14th century Norway, and it smacks of Roman law. We now think of crimes as offenses against the state, but that was not always the case.

We must allow the customs of the time and place to offer some excuse to duelists, horse whippers, slave owners, and Romans who attend the Games. It's certainly reasonable to lose respect for Frank Gresham, but to lose "all respect" seems extreme. Do we lose all respect for Scarlet Ohara because she owns slaves? How about Achilles, or Julius Caesar?

I just read part of the chapter again to see if it was as bad as I remembered it. It is, it really is. Frank Gresham had his friend, Harry Baker, detain Mr Moffatt outside his club, and Frank Gresham gave him five or six lashes with his heavy, cutting whip. Not a short, leather whip jockeys use to encourage their horses to run faster. As Mr Moffatt did not stand still to receive his whipping, he received lashes around the the legs and head.

Doctor Thorne was published in 1858. I think the story is set about 1850. The Offences Against The Person Act came into effect in 1861. What Frank Gresham did seems like Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent, which was a felony. He also seems guilty of conspiracy of GBH w/i. The police were pathetic. They arrested him, but once Mr Moffatt was out of danger the case was not proceeded with. I am not sure what he could have been charged with before the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Presumably there were laws against injuring people.

I suppose people take each other to court for defamation or damages rather than challenging each other to duels these days/ The outcome is just as random, but at least nobody dies.

Frank Gresham doubtless thought he was defending his sister's honor and punishing Moffat's perfidy in what was then a culturally accepted manner. Of course we now think that his behavior is criminal and evil. We accept divorce and adultery, let alone beaking off an engagement.

I think it's fair to criticize Frank's brutality, while recognizing that he's acting within accepted norms. Horse whipping a villain isn't as bad as owning slaves (who were probably whipped on a whim), but decent people owned slaves back in ancient Athens (every citizen did). I don't really know what the accepted norms of Victorian England were, though. I'll crack open my copy and read the chapter again, so I can reform my opinion.

Frank Gresham's horse whipping Mr. Moffat is structurally necessary to the novel. It is compared to the seminal event of the novel: Roger Scatcherd's killing of Dr. Thorne's brother and Mary Thorne's father. If you remember, Mary Thorne's mother (Mary Scatcherd, Roger's sister) was engaged to marry an honorable tradesman. Henry Thorne (who was gentry) promised to marry her, and either seduced or raped her. She got pregnant (with Mary, the novel's heroine) and Roger beat Frank Thorne with a stick so severely that he died.

Roger Scatcherd was sent to prison (for some charge equivalent to manslaughter), and Mary Scatcherd later accepted an offer of marriage from a man who was headed for (horrors!) America. The husband, however, had no desire to raise Henry Thorne's child, so she (our heroine) stayed behind with Dr. Thorne. Dr. Thorne blamed his wicked brother for the whole thing, and later befriended Roger, who got out of prison, worked on the railroads, and did so well that he became immensely rich.

Frank's beating of Mr. Moffat is minor league stuff, compared to Roger's killing of Henry Thorne. True: Henry's offense was worse -- he not only reneged on his promise of marriage, he also either seduced or raped Roger's sister. But the reader is certainly invited to compare the two cases.

Dr. Thorne apparently thought Roger was justified in beating his brother (the death was probably an accident). Exactly what Trollope thinks of the affair is unclear. The narrator says, "Poor Mr. Moffat" a few times, showing pity, at least, for the victim.

At one point, a bystander restraining Frank says, "Do you want to murder this man..."

Obviously Frank is a hothead; but Roger is a drunk, a hothead and a killer. Yet Trollope seems to sympathize with them both. In any event, we can't be horrified by Frank's (relatively mild) behavior, and excuse Roger. Yet Dr. Thorne appears to have done just that.

I appear to be talking to myself, but Kev has aroused my interest. Why (I wonder) does Trollope have his romantic lead horse whip someone? Why does Roger Scatcherd do the same (and worse)? What is Trollope driving at?

I don't know, of course, and I wonder what Kev's opinion is. We know that Frank and Roger are (along with Dr. Thorne) the key figures in Mary Thorne's life. We also know that Mary prides herself on her sense of honor. Are both Roger and Frank displaying their sense of honor by beating transgressors?

I was going to reply before, but I was a bit drunk last night. I have learnt through experience not to post when drunk. I thought I'd better re-read the bit about Roger's killing of the Doctor's brother, which actually I have not done.

I was surprised when Dr Thorne forgave Roger Scratcherd after killing his brother. I am not sure how realistic that would be. I have not read that chapter, but the doctor's brother was a scapegrace. Personally I did not think Roger Scratcherd's case was quite so bad as Frank Gresham's, despite the worse result. He did go to gaol, although six months sounds a short sentence. He did not intend to kill the man.He did not involve others. He did not use weapons. It seems less premeditated. I cannot remember whether the doctor's brother had promised to marry Mary Scratcherd. He got her pregnant, which I suppose even for a working class family was a scandal, as well as another mouth to feed for someone. Mr Moffat and his fiance did not love each other. They were barely interested in each other. I cannot remember the name of Mr Moffat's intended, but I think by marrying her, Mr Moffat intended to buy himself an in with the aristocratic families in the area. She was willing to marry him because he had enough money to keep her in the style she was used to.It seemed like a sham marriage to me, and breaking it off was not worth a horse-whipping.

Roger Scatcherd did use a weapon. It's unclear whether it was a club or a stone (Roger himself didn't remember, because he was drunk).

I agree (of course) not that it was a "Sham marriage", but that the potential spouses didn't much care for each other. It was no love match.

I reread the two relevant chapters after I remembered that Roger had committed almost the same crime (I'd forgotten in my earlier posts).

Mr. Gresham clearly admires his son for beating Mr. Moffat. Dr. Thorne (you couldn't ask for a kinder, more honorable judge) seems to forgive Roger (I don't know if his reaction to Frank's horsewhipping is ever recorded). Honor (which you and I see differently from Victorians) is a theme of the book. Mary's discussion with Arabella (one of my favorite scenes) involves her saying that she would never renounce a promise she had made. If we compare horsewhipping to dueling, obviously in many ways dueling is more extreme. It's certainly more likely to lead to death. But duels only occured between equals. A "gentleman" would not consider accepting or giving a challenge to a tradesman (or worse). Horse whipping (it seems to me, but I don't have any expertise) seems like an attempt to humiliate -- to insinuate that the victim is not worthy of a challenge (I'll grant that by 1860 dueling had probably almost vanished).

It's an interesting topic, especially once I remembered Roger's similar offense. Thanks for introducing it.

I wondered why Mr Moffat did not challenge Frank Gresham to a duel after he recovered from his injuries. I gather duelling was still frequent on the continent but strongly discouraged here. Maybe it just was done any more. Maybe Mr Moffat is too much of a coward. Frank Gresham is good at everything, including sport, so I dare say he would have won.