The Moonstone

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1868

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Prologue-Part 1, Section 1, Chapters 1-10

Part 1, Section 1, Chapters 11-23

Part 2, Section 1

Part 2, Section 2: “Contributed by Matthew Bruff, Solicitor of Gray’s Inn Square”

Part 2, Sections 4-6

Part 2, Section 7-Epilogue

Character Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Public Reputation Versus Inner Nature

Many characters in the novel have inner traits that contrast with their outward appearance, drawing attention to the way in which they are misperceived by others. Characters who seem to be unattractive or even sinister are shown to be brave and helpful, while characters who seemingly display strong moral and religious sentiments turn out to be deceitful and selfish.

Ezra Jennings is one example of a character who is initially presented in a negative light. When Franklin first encounters Jennings, he is struck by the man’s unusual appearance and Betteredge explains that, “nobody knows who he is—and he hasn’t a friend in the place” (331). Even at the very end of his life, Jennings resolves to “die as he had lived, forgotten and unknown” (470). Despite his unattractive aura, which leads to him leading a very isolated life, Jennings is clever, logical, and works doggedly to help solve the crime. His reclusive behavior is also partially explained because Jennings is dying of a painful disease and can only tolerate the agony by consuming regular doses of opium. Jennings does not allow his suffering to prevent him from serving a useful purpose, but his pain and isolation lead to him often being isolated and misunderstood.

Similarly, Rosanna Spearman is something of a loner within the Verinder household even before the theft, with Betteredge (who is fond of the young woman) bluntly describing her as “a housemaid out of a reformatory, with a plain face and a deformed shoulder” (51). Like Jennings, Rosanna has a past that triggers suspicion and mistrust amongst most people, she is physically unattractive, and her physical disability makes many people uncomfortable. However, Rosanna turns out to be loyal and intelligent, even though her efforts are misplaced when she strives to cover up Franklin’s role in the disappearance of the diamond.

Rosanna is unfairly suspected of somehow being involved in the theft of the diamond, whereas the actual thief is much more surprising. Godfrey Ablewhite is handsome, charismatic, and seemingly a devout Christian. However, it is eventually revealed that “Mr. Godfrey Ablewhite’s life had two sides to it” (462), and that he was motivated to steal the diamond due to high debts he had accrued while providing for a secret mistress. By depicting unattractive and unpopular characters as possessing a high degree of integrity while revealing an apparently perfect man to be grasping and conniving, Wilkie Collins reveals that reputation and outward appearance do not necessarily align with personality and motivation. Part of what makes solving the mystery so complex is that individuals cannot necessarily be trusted, and may be very different from who they appear to be on the surface.

The Tensions Between Empirical Evidence and Faith

In order to solve the mystery, both Sergeant Cuff and, later, Ezra Jennings rely on careful observation and work on the presumption that observable evidence gleaned through the senses will provide access to truth (empiricism). Cuff meticulously inspects the Verinder household, questions everyone, and uses the trademark deductive reasoning of the detective. Their commitment to empiricism contrasts with the more intuitive and faith-based approaches of other characters.

When Jennings and Franklin Blake later collaborate to understand what Franklin might have done with the diamond, they also take an empirical and scientific approach, referring to their simulation of events as an experiment. Comically, the elderly Mrs. Merridew complains, “I used to attend scientific experiments when I was a girl at school. They invariably ended in an explosion” (425). This confusion between Jennings’s process and more traditional scientific protocols affirms that both Cuff and Jennings foreground the use of reason, relying on training and professional expertise. Significantly, neither man comes from an upper-class background, and presumably they rely on the income they earn from their respective careers. Their skills as meticulous investigators reflect their skill as a policeman and a physician, as well as knowledge of a wide variety of people.

While empirical evidence advances the resolution of the mystery, several other characters rely on other sources to guide their action. Betteredge declares, “I am not superstitious” (13), but relies on his favorite novel as an almost mystical source of truth, even believing it capable of predicting the future. Betteredge is intelligent, but he is guided by his emotions and prejudices: He finds it impossible to believe, for example, that Rachel could have had anything to do with the theft. Miss Clack is extremely religious and becomes obsessed with her efforts to convert Rachel and Lady Verinder, but she is otherwise unreliable, hypocritical, and not very discerning: She adores Godfrey Ablewhite, who turns out to be a manipulative liar.

Interestingly, while the British characters who rely on faith and superstition rather than observation and logic are generally less successful at accurately understanding events, the three Indian men are capable of uniting religious faith with shrewd deduction and strategy. The Indian men are Brahmin priests, and they view the diamond as a sacred object—unlike the British characters, who see it as a source of wealth. While they are motivated by religious belief, the Indian men cleverly use observation and deduction in order to determine what has happened to the diamond, and how to get it back. Their success suggests that, while tensions between empiricism and faith abound in the novel, the two ways of approaching the world may not be irreconcilable.

The Unreliability of Witnessing and Memory

Much of the confusion and suspense of the plot is derived from characters being mistaken about what they think they know, or what they believe they saw. By calling the reliability of eyewitness accounts and memory into question, Collins anticipates many of the key insights of psychology, forensic science, and criminal investigation, all of which were emerging fields at the time he was writing.

When Rachel finally reveals the information that has been tormenting her since the theft, she lashes out at Franklin: “[Y]ou villain, I saw you take the Diamond with my own eyes” (352). Rachel, understandably, presumes Franklin has been lying about his involvement in the theft because she witnessed him taking the gemstone, and gives primacy to her own sensory observations. While Rachel’s firsthand observations turn out to be accurate, the context is much more complex than it initially seems. Rachel’s eye-witness account of events can only be undermined by further observation: During the simulation of the theft, Jennings, Betteredge, Rachel, and Bruff all watch Franklin carefully, and what they see him do confirms that he “took the Diamond, last year, acting unconsciously and irresponsibly” (437, emphasis added). Collins acknowledges that witnessing is an inevitable source of information, but that sensory observations can be misleading unless they are properly contextualized.

Rachel’s misleading version of events is especially confusing because Franklin himself cannot recall what he did on the night in question. Due to the influence of opium, Franklin has no memory of having been in Rachel’s room; events take even longer to reconstruct because Mr. Candy (the man who gave the opium to Franklin) has also suffered memory loss due to contracting a severe fever on the night that the theft took place. The convergence of these events mean that the two men who could have quickly resolved the mystery if they had access to clear recollection are unable to do so. Rachel, Franklin, and Mr. Candy are all trapped by their inability to recollect or accurately understand their interpretation of what they think happened or didn’t happen on the night that the diamond disappeared.

Before Franklin’s involvement is revealed, suspicions abound based on prejudices and misunderstandings: Roseanna’s past as a thief makes her seem suspect, while Rachel’s standing as an upper-class young woman makes her appear automatically beyond reproach in the eyes of some of the characters. These prejudices imply that memory and perception can also be shaped by emotions and biases, further complicating an individual’s interpretation or recall of events. While some level of active deceit does occur due to Godfrey Ablewhite’s covering up his involvement, Collins creates an innovative mystery by showing that most of the errors result from the unreliability of observations and memory.