The Victorian period, 1 or so-called "second English Renaissance", is often wrongfully described with attributes like "prudish", "repressed", and "old fashioned".2 In this period, lived and wrote Mary Ann Evans under the pen name of George Eliot.3 Her short story "Brother Jacob"4 is a typical exponent of the literary creations of the Victorian Age. Examples for prophetic modes, social protest, dense, even grotesque image and analogy, contemporary, middle-class subjects, can be found in it.5 They are ascertained by help of a network of character traits, or character indicators.

What are character indicators? According to Rimmon-Kenan’s definition in Narrative Fiction, character indicators are "elements which are most frequently, though not exclusively, associated with characterization" (59). She distinguishes between two types of indicators, namely direct definition and indirect presentation. Direct definition is forthright naming the trait. If it stems from a reliable source, it creates the impression of rationality, authority and does not have time dimension. The second type that is called indirect presentation, refers to the case when the trait is shown, but not actually named. In this sense, the character is displayed by means of describing his or her action, speech, external appearance and environment.

In "Brother Jacob", implied author uses both types of characterization. The direct definitions given by a reliable source are used to create the guidelines for understanding the story. All forms of indirect presentation are used to confirm and supplement already established character traits.

First of all, the voice of the narrative should be determined, for characterization depends on the reliability and qualities of the voice. "Brother Jacob", is told by an authoritative and reliable narrator, whose intersubjectivity is not for a moment called in question in the whole text. Even when the narrator says: "I am not ignorant that this sort of thing is called the inevitable course of civilization, division of labour, and so fort […]" (9), which can be interpreted as a justification, or an attempt to re-establish a shaken authority of the narrative voice, the rest of the text will not allow that the narrator’s reliability would ever be overclouded. So, as long as the narrator gives the character qualities, they can be considered commendable. When characters from the text are assigning qualities to other characters, it has to be discussed from case to case, on the reliability of given quality.

For instance, when Mr. David Faux has the idea to leave the country and to take his master’s money for the first time, the narrator gives a direct definition: "but he was a cautious youth, and quite determined to run no risks on his own account" (2). It can be concluded that David is not driven by moral laws, but by pure cautiousness, and fear of being caught red-handed. This is confirmed a little bit later in the story. When David’s plan of stealing his mother’s guineas is ruined by brother Jacob the narrator states in an ironic manner: "But David was by no means impetuous; he was a young man greatly given to calculate consequences, a habit which has been held to be the foundation of virtue" (5). This can also be read as social criticism, because taking into consideration the consequences of his deeds is considered virtuous not only by David, but in general. In another instance, a direct definition of Mr. David Faux, alias Mr. Edward Freely, is given by Mrs. Chaloner, the rector’s wife:

Mr. Freely is a most civil, obliging young man, and intelligent to a surprising degree for a confectioner; well-principled, too, for in giving her useful hints about choosing sugars he had thrown much light on the dishonesty of other tradesmen. (8)

This stands in direct opposition to previous statements made by the narrator, which discredits Mrs. Chaloner as a reliable source. We do not doubt her sincerity, she does not have the intention to mislead us, but her perception is wrong, because it is based on unessential events. From these examples can be concluded that the text uses the concept of direct definition in order to give unambiguous character traits. This is done either by statements uttered by an authoritative narrator or by disreputing an unreliable source.

For the second type of characterization, namely indirect presentation, the reliability of the voice is not of such crucial importance. Of course, it should not be neglected, but it can be put aside for a moment. One way of presenting a character trait is the depiction of external appearance. When doing so, two features can be differentiated: the ones that are beyond the control of the character and the ones that are at least partially in his or her control. Mr. David Faux, alias Edward Freely, for example, is described as "a young gentlemen of pasty visage, lipless mouth, and stumpy hair" (2) a couple of times. Edward Freely is described as "the stranger with a sallow complexion and a buff cravat" (7), or "the sallow-complexioned stranger" or "pale-faced fellow" (7), who has "bow-legs and a sallow, small-featured visage" (11). Constant repetition of his complexion might imply that Mr. Faux spends a lot of time working and just a little bit enjoying himself or that his character is like his complexion – pale and weak. On the other hand, Miss Penelope Palfrey is described in detail:

Her yellowish flaxen hair did not curl naturally, I admit, but its bright crisp ringlets were such smooth, perfect miniature tubes, that you would have longed to pass your little finger through them, and feel their soft elasticity […] Like the waxen ideal, she had round blue eyes, and round nostrils in her little nose, round thing, as neat as a pink and white double daisy, and as guileless […] (11)

In this example, we see both features of external description – the ones that can be influenced (the hairstyle) and the ones that are beyond the character’s influence (the colour of the eyes, the shape of the nose). Both of them indicate that she is no match for Mr. David Faux.

Another way of indirect presentation is action. Rimmon-Kenan distinguishes two types of actions: one-time (non-routine) actions and habitual actions. One-time actions bring about the dynamic aspect of the character. They often enounce turning point of the narrative. Habitual actions play part in revealing the static aspect of the character. In "Brother Jacob", Mr. David Faux’s habitual action is his consistent immoral behaviour. He is consistent in cheating, lying and doing only things that he profits from. In this way, he becomes a static character, he is absolutely predictable, we know what we can expect from him. He decides to take his mother’s guineas after a short consideration:

It was certainly hard that he should take his mother’s money; but he saw no other ready means of getting any, and it was not to be expected that a young man of his merit should put up with inconveniences that could be avoided. Besides, it is not robbery to take property belonging to your mother, she doesn’t prosecute you. (2)

Six years later, as Mr. Edward Freely, he dies the same thing. Between good (honesty) and bad (lie), the latter, namely lie and deceit prevail. His intentions toward Miss Penelope are serious, and he reflects on his chances of getting approval as potential husband from her father, Mr. Palfrey:

And the first idea that occurred to him in the matter was that Mr. Palfrey would object less if he knew that the Freelys were a much higher family than his own. It had been foolish modesty of him hitherto to conceal the fact that a branch of the Freelys held a manor in Yorkshire, and to shut up the portrait of his great uncle the admiral, instead of hanging it up where a family portrait should be hung – over the mantelpiece in the parlour. (12-13)

Finally, when his brother Jacob finds him, David without hesitating, denies any relation to him:
’I don’t know who he is; he must be drunk,’ he said, in a low tone to Mr. Palfrey. ‘But he is dangerous with that pitchfork. He’ll never let it go.’ Then checking himself on the point of betraying too great an intimacy with Jacob’s habits, he added ‘You watch him, while I run for the constable.’ And he hurried out of the shop. (17)

An interesting characteristic of actions is that they are defined in time.

As opposed to action in respect to time, another form of indirect representation does not have a temporal dimension. This feature is speech. Its form and content can be analysed both in the cases of conversation or a silent activity of the mind. After seeing an announcement in the newspaper with the invitation for a visit to the attorney, Edward Freely reacts as follows: "’Father’s dead!’ exclaimed Mr. Freely, involuntarily. ‘Can he have left me a legacy?’" (14). David did not feel any sorrow for the loss of his parent, he just stats the fact and immediately thinks about its consequences.

All these character indicators that can be found in the text are enforced with the Biblical allusion, contained in the symbolism of the main characters’ names. What is allusion? According to Oxford English Dictionary, allusion is "something that is said or written that refers to or mentions another person or subject in an indirect way".

Although most critics tend to align George Eliot in the group of non-religious writers of Victorian Age, the names of main characters in this narrative have their meanings outside of it, in domain of religion. David might allude to the King David from the Old Testament. King David was also the youngest amongst brothers and he managed to kill the giant Goliath, with the use of his wit. If we suppose that brother Jacob stands for Goliath, then David also uses his intellect to defeat his strong but ignorant brother. In "Brother Jacob", David does not emerge as a winner, as he does in the Old Testament. He is actually the failer, because his aim was not fulfilled, ever though he had all the pre-requisite that would guarantee his success. To fortify the unexpected end, Eliot introduces another allusion by giving the name Jacob to David’s idiot brother. This allusion, again, relates to the character from the Bible. Jacob, the twin brother of Esau, at birth first holds Esau’s heel in order to prevent him from being born first. And then, fifteen years later, he steels his firstborn brother birth right with the help of his mother. In the similar way, by his mere presence and intervention, Jacob ruins David’s first plan of stealing the money and cold-bloodedly pretending that he did not do it. Six years later he is doing the same thing again. Jacob ruins David’s prospects by Jacob’s unwanted appearance in David’s new life. This allusion is given special importance, since the narrative is named after it.

It has been shown that the short story “Brother Jacob” contains a variety of means of characterization. It can be seen the usage of direct definition, which gives the story a magisterial feel, and allows the reader to track the basic course of conceptualisation. Apart from direct definition, the external appearance is utilized in order to emphasize character-traits. The actions’ descriptions allow the reader to see persistence in David’s character and speech examples show that there is no scruple in the track he chooses over and over again. And, finally, the Biblical allusion contained in the characters’ names enforces all these character qualities, which are already presented and established.

Bibliography:

Primary Literature:
Eliot, George. "Brother Jacob". Silas Marner; Brother Jacob. New York: AMS Press, 1970.