Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from The prisoner of Zenda, by Anthony Hope
“I rather like being an Elphberg myself.”
When I read a story, I skip the explanations; yet the moment I begin to
write one, I find that I must have an explanation. For it is manifest
that I must explain why my sister-in-law was vexed with my nose and
hair, and why I ventured to call myself an Elphberg. For eminent as,
I must protest, the Rassendylls have been for many generations, yet
participation in their blood of course does not, at first sight, justify
the boast of a connection with the grander stock of the Elphbergs or
a claim to be one of that Royal House. For what relationship is there
between Ruritania and Burlesdon, between the Palace at Strelsau or the
Castle of Zenda and Number 305 Park Lane, W.?
Well then--and I must premise that I am going, perforce, to rake up the
very scandal which my dear Lady Burlesdon wishes forgotten--in the year
1733, George II. sitting then on the throne, peace reigning for
the moment, and the King and the Prince of Wales being not yet at
loggerheads, there came on a visit to the English Court a certain
prince, who was afterwards known to history as Rudolf the Third of
Ruritania. The prince was a tall, handsome young fellow, marked (maybe
marred, it is not for me to say) by a somewhat unusually long, sharp and
straight nose, and a mass of dark-red hair--in fact, the nose and the
hair which have stamped the Elphbergs time out of mind. He stayed some
months in England, where he was most courteously received; yet, in
the end, he left rather under a cloud. For he fought a duel (it was
considered highly well bred of him to waive all question of his rank)
with a nobleman, well known in the society of the day, not only for his
own merits, but as the husband of a very beautiful wife. In that duel
Prince Rudolf received a severe wound, and, recovering therefrom, was
adroitly smuggled off by the Ruritanian ambassador, who had found him
a pretty handful. The nobleman was not wounded in the duel; but the
morning being raw and damp on the occasion of the meeting, he contracted
a severe chill, and, failing to throw it off, he died some six months
after the departure of Prince Rudolf, without having found leisure to
adjust his relations with his wife--who, after another two months, bore
an heir to the title and estates of the family of Burlesdon. This lady
was the Countess Amelia, whose picture my sister-in-law wished to remove
from the drawing-room in Park Lane; and her husband was James, fifth
Earl of Burlesdon and twenty-second Baron Rassendyll, both in the
peerage of England, and a Knight of the Garter. As for Rudolf, he went
back to Ruritania, married a wife, and ascended the throne, whereon his
progeny in the direct line have sat from then till this very hour--with
one short interval. And, finally, if you walk through the picture
galleries at Burlesdon, among the fifty portraits or so of the last
century and a half, you will find five or six, including that of the
sixth earl, distinguished by long, sharp, straight noses and a quantity
of dark-red hair; these five or six have also blue eyes, whereas among
the Rassendylls dark eyes are the commoner.
Explanation
Detailed Explanation of the Excerpt from The Prisoner of Zenda by Anthony Hope
Context of the Source
The Prisoner of Zenda (1894) is a classic adventure novel by Anthony Hope, set in the fictional Central European kingdom of Ruritania. The story follows Rudolf Rassendyll, a young English gentleman who bears a striking resemblance to the King of Ruritania, Rudolf V. Due to this resemblance, Rassendyll becomes entangled in a political conspiracy, impersonating the king to save the monarchy from a treacherous usurper, Duke Michael of Strelsau.
The excerpt provided is from the opening chapter, where the narrator (Rudolf Rassendyll) explains his family’s obscure but significant connection to the royal House of Elphberg, the ruling dynasty of Ruritania. This connection—rooted in a historical scandal—sets up the premise for the novel’s central plot: Rassendyll’s ability to impersonate the king due to their shared physical traits.
Themes in the Excerpt
Heredity and Identity
- The passage emphasizes how physical traits (the "long, sharp, straight nose" and "dark-red hair") are inherited markers of nobility and royal lineage.
- Rassendyll’s resemblance to the Elphbergs is not just coincidental but genetic, tying him to a hidden royal bloodline. This foreshadows his later role as the king’s double.
- The idea that appearance determines destiny is central to the novel—Rassendyll’s face makes him both a pawn and a savior in Ruritanian politics.
Scandal and Secrecy
- The narrator reveals a family secret—an illicit affair between Prince Rudolf III of Ruritania and Countess Amelia of Burlesdon, which produced an illegitimate line (the Rassendylls) carrying Elphberg traits.
- The scandal is something Lady Burlesdon (Rassendyll’s sister-in-law) wishes to suppress, symbolizing how aristocratic families conceal embarrassing truths to maintain reputation.
- The duel and mysterious death of Lord Burlesdon add a layer of intrigue, suggesting that the Rassendylls’ royal connection is both a source of pride and a burden.
Class and Royalty
- The passage contrasts Burlesdon (England) and Ruritania, highlighting the gulf between a British aristocrat and a European monarch.
- Rassendyll’s casual remark—"I rather like being an Elphberg myself"—reveals his playful arrogance and fascination with royalty, despite his family’s lower status compared to the Elphbergs.
- The irony is that while the Rassendylls are "eminent," they are not truly royal—yet Rassendyll will soon assume a royal role due to his inherited features.
Fate and Coincidence
- The physical resemblance between Rassendyll and the Elphbergs is presented as a quirk of genetics, setting up the novel’s reliance on chance and impersonation.
- The fact that this resemblance stems from a centuries-old scandal suggests that history repeats itself—Rassendyll, like his ancestor, will become entangled in Ruritanian affairs.
Literary Devices
Irony & Understatement
- "I rather like being an Elphberg myself." → Rassendyll’s lighthearted tone contrasts with the serious implications of his royal connection.
- "It is not for me to say" (regarding whether the Elphberg nose is a mark of beauty or deformity) → False modesty, since he clearly takes pride in the resemblance.
Foreshadowing
- The physical traits (nose, hair, blue eyes) that link Rassendyll to the Elphbergs foreshadow his later impersonation of the king.
- The duel and scandal hint at the political intrigue and violence that will dominate the plot.
Juxtaposition
- Ruritania (exotic, royal, dramatic) vs. Burlesdon (staid, aristocratic, British) → Highlights the clash of worlds that Rassendyll will navigate.
- Legitimate royalty (Elphbergs) vs. illegitimate nobility (Rassendylls) → Reinforces themes of identity and usurpation.
Historical Allusion & Satire
- The George II era (1733) and the duel culture of the 18th century lend the story a pseudo-historical feel, blending romance and realism.
- The scandalous affair parodies real royal scandals (e.g., the affairs of the Hanoverian kings), adding a satirical edge to the tale.
Symbolism
- The nose and red hair → Symbolize royal blood, destiny, and the inescapable past.
- The portrait of Countess Amelia → Represents the hidden truth that Lady Burlesdon wants to erase, much like how Rassendyll’s true role will be concealed.
Significance of the Excerpt
Establishes the Premise
- The passage explains why Rassendyll can impersonate the king—not just by chance, but due to a genetic link.
- It sets up the central conflict: a commoner (in relative terms) must play a king to save a monarchy he is distantly connected to.
Introduces Key Themes
- Identity vs. Appearance → Rassendyll’s face defines his role more than his actual status.
- Legitimacy vs. Illegitimacy → The Rassendylls are "bastard royals," yet their bloodline becomes crucial.
- Secrets and Deception → The family scandal mirrors the political deceptions to come.
Tone & Style
- Hope’s witty, conversational narration makes the backstory engaging, blending humor with intrigue.
- The self-aware, almost mocking tone ("I skip explanations when I read, but must give one when I write") invites the reader into a playful yet suspenseful adventure.
Historical & Cultural Context
- The novel reflects late 19th-century fascination with royal impostors (e.g., the Tichborne Claimant case).
- The fictional Ruritania became a trope for a romantic, politically unstable European kingdom, influencing later works like The Prisoner of Shenda and even The Princess Diaries.
Line-by-Line Breakdown of Key Moments
"I rather like being an Elphberg myself."
- Rassendyll’s casual arrogance—he enjoys the idea of royal connection, even if it’s not socially accepted.
- Dramatic irony: The reader knows this will soon become more than just a boast.
"For eminent as the Rassendylls have been... it does not justify the boast of a connection with the grander stock of the Elphbergs."
- Highlights the class disparity—the Rassendylls are noble but not royal.
- The word "boast" suggests that claiming Elphberg heritage is audacious, foreshadowing Rassendyll’s later bold impersonation.
"In the year 1733... there came on a visit to the English Court a certain prince, who was afterwards known to history as Rudolf the Third of Ruritania."
- The specific date lends credibility to the fictional history.
- "A certain prince" → Mysterious, almost like a folktale beginning, setting up the scandal.
"Marked (maybe marred) by a somewhat unusually long, sharp and straight nose, and a mass of dark-red hair..."
- The physical description is repeated for emphasis—these traits are hereditary and defining.
- "Marred" suggests that some might see these features as ugly, but Rassendyll (and the reader) sees them as distinctive and powerful.
"He left rather under a cloud."
- Euphemism for scandal—the duel and affair force Rudolf to flee, leaving behind a pregnant Countess.
- "Under a cloud" implies disgrace, which will later parallel Rassendyll’s own precarious position in Ruritania.
"The nobleman was not wounded in the duel; but... he died some six months after..."
- Suspicious timing—was the duel a cover for foul play? Or just a convenient death?
- The delayed death adds mystery, making the scandal more intriguing.
"This lady was the Countess Amelia, whose picture my sister-in-law wished to remove from the drawing-room..."
- Symbolic erasure—Lady Burlesdon wants to hide the past, but the narrator exposes it.
- The portrait represents hidden truth, much like Rassendyll’s future hidden identity.
"And, finally, if you walk through the picture galleries at Burlesdon... you will find five or six... distinguished by long, sharp, straight noses and a quantity of dark-red hair."
- Visual proof of the genetic link—these portraits foreshadow Rassendyll’s role.
- The blue eyes (uncommon in Rassendylls) further confirm the Elphberg connection.
Conclusion: Why This Excerpt Matters
This opening passage is not just backstory—it is the foundation of the entire novel. By explaining Rassendyll’s physical and genetic connection to the Elphbergs, Hope sets up:
- The plausibility of the impersonation plot.
- The themes of identity, legitimacy, and deception.
- The tone of witty adventure that defines the book.
The scandal of Prince Rudolf and Countess Amelia is more than a historical footnote—it is a mirror of the novel’s central conflict, where appearances deceive, bloodlines determine fate, and secrets shape kingdoms. Rassendyll’s casual pride in his Elphberg features will soon become his greatest asset—and his greatest danger.
Questions
Question 1
The narrator’s assertion that “I rather like being an Elphberg myself” primarily serves to:
A. establish a tone of ironic self-awareness that undermines the gravitas of royal lineage while simultaneously asserting a claim to it.
B. highlight the narrator’s genuine belief in his aristocratic superiority over the Ruritanian royal family.
C. foreshadow the political ambitions that will later drive the narrator to usurp the Ruritanian throne.
D. contrast the frivolity of British nobility with the solemn duties of European monarchy.
E. reveal the narrator’s deep-seated resentment toward his sister-in-law’s disapproval of his appearance.
Question 2
The passage’s treatment of the duel between Prince Rudolf and the Earl of Burlesdon is most accurately described as:
A. a straightforward historical account intended to clarify the moral failings of the Ruritanian prince.
B. a layered narrative device that obscures culpability while implying scandalous consequences.
C. an allegorical critique of the decadence of 18th-century British aristocracy.
D. a romanticized portrayal of chivalry, emphasizing the prince’s nobility in waiving his rank.
E. a satirical exaggeration of dueling culture to underscore its absurdity in matters of honor.
Question 3
The “long, sharp, straight nose” and “dark-red hair” function in the passage as:
A. arbitrary physical traits that serve no purpose beyond distinguishing the narrator from his relatives.
B. symbols of moral corruption, inherited from a disgraced ancestor.
C. literal markers of genetic inferiority, explaining the narrator’s exclusion from high society.
D. recurring motifs that embed the narrator’s identity within a contested lineage, blending fate and farce.
E. evidence of a supernatural curse, hinting at the novel’s gothic undertones.
Question 4
The narrator’s decision to “rake up the very scandal which my dear Lady Burlesdon wishes forgotten” is primarily motivated by:
A. a desire to expose the hypocrisy of British aristocratic values.
B. personal vengeance against his sister-in-law for her criticism of his appearance.
C. an obligation to provide historical context for his narrative, despite its unsavory nature.
D. a need to justify his own audacious claim to Elphberg heritage by grounding it in verifiable history.
E. a playful disregard for familial reputation, reflecting his broader disdain for social conventions.
Question 5
The passage’s structure—beginning with a dismissive attitude toward explanations before providing one—is most effectively interpreted as:
A. a meta-commentary on the artificiality of narrative conventions in adventure fiction.
B. a rhetorical strategy to engage the reader’s curiosity while feigning reluctance.
C. an admission of the narrator’s unreliable perspective, casting doubt on the scandal’s veracity.
D. a critique of historical storytelling, suggesting that all explanations are inherently biased.
E. a device to mimic the oral tradition of scandalous family lore, passed down through generations.
Solutions and Explanations
1) Correct answer: A
Why A is most correct: The narrator’s remark is laced with irony: he admits to skipping explanations in stories he reads yet feels compelled to provide one here. His “rather like” phrasing is playfully arrogant, acknowledging the absurdity of his claim to Elphberg status while still asserting it. This duality—simultaneously mocking and embracing royal lineage—sets the tone for the novel’s blend of adventure and self-aware humor. The line undermines the seriousness of hereditary nobility even as it stakes a claim to it.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- B: The narrator does not genuinely believe in his superiority over the Elphbergs; his tone is ironic and provisional, not earnest.
- C: There is no evidence of political ambitions here; the remark is whimsical, not machiavellian.
- D: While the passage contrasts British and Ruritanian nobility, the line itself focuses on the narrator’s personal irony, not a broader cultural critique.
- E: The narrator’s tone is amused, not resentful. His sister-in-law’s vexation is mentioned as an aside, not a grievance.
2) Correct answer: B
Why B is most correct: The duel is recounted with deliberate ambiguity. The prince’s “severe wound” and the earl’s convenient death (from a “chill”) are presented as coincidences that strain credulity, especially given the subsequent birth of an heir. The passage implies scandal (adultery, possible foul play) without explicit accusation, using euphemisms (“under a cloud,” “adroitly smuggled off”) to obscure culpability. This layered storytelling invites inference while maintaining plausible deniability.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The account is not “straightforward”; it is evasive and suggestive, not moralizing.
- C: The focus is on the personal scandal, not a broad critique of British aristocracy.
- D: While the prince’s waiving of rank is noted, the tone is ironic, not romantic. The duel’s aftermath is too sordid for chivalric idealization.
- E: The passage does not exaggerate dueling culture; it exploits its conventions to hint at deeper intrigue.
3) Correct answer: D
Why D is most correct: The nose and hair are hereditary markers that tie the narrator to the Elphbergs, but their significance is both serious and absurd. They are the biological justification for his later impersonation of the king, yet their repetition (e.g., “stamped the Elphbergs time out of mind”) lends a comic, almost grotesque quality to the lineage. The traits embed the narrator in a contested history, where fate (genetics) collides with farce (the ridiculousness of a nose determining destiny).
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The traits are central to the plot and themes, not arbitrary.
- B: There is no moral judgment attached to the features; they are neutral markers, not symbols of corruption.
- C: The narrator is not excluded from high society; the Rassendylls are eminent aristocrats, just not royal.
- E: There is no suggestion of a supernatural curse; the traits are genetic, not occult.
4) Correct answer: D
Why D is most correct: The narrator’s “raking up” of the scandal serves a rhetorical purpose: to validate his audacious claim to Elphberg heritage. By grounding his boast in a verifiable (if scandalous) history, he transforms a frivolous assertion (“I rather like being an Elphberg”) into one with genealogical weight. The scandal is not just gossip; it is the evidentiary backbone of his narrative, making his later impersonation plausible.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: The passage does not critique aristocratic values; it exploits them for narrative effect.
- B: The narrator’s tone is amused, not vengeful. The sister-in-law’s disapproval is a minor detail, not a motivating grievance.
- C: While he provides context, the primary motive is to justify his own claim, not mere obligation.
- E: The narrator does not show broader disdain for conventions; he plays with them to his advantage.
5) Correct answer: B
Why B is most correct: The narrator’s initial dismissal of explanations (“I skip the explanations”) is a feigned reluctance designed to pique the reader’s curiosity. By pretending to dislike what he is about to do, he creates a rhetorical tension that makes the subsequent revelation more engaging. This strategy mirrors the oral tradition of scandalous storytelling, where the teller protests even as they indulge the audience.
Why the distractors are less supported:
- A: While meta-commentary is present, the primary effect is reader engagement, not a critique of narrative conventions.
- C: The narrator does not admit to unreliability; his tone is playful, not deceptive.
- D: The passage does not critique historical storytelling; it uses history as a device to entertain.
- E: The structure is more rhetorical than folkloric; it is a literary technique, not an imitation of oral tradition.