Just finished reading My Cousin Rachel by Daphne Dumaurier. Like her other books I have read so far, part of its charm lies in the fact that it can be read in more than one way, and I love her writing style.
One thing I don’t understand though about the plot. Why, ostensibly, would Rachel try to poison Philip shortly AFTER he had transferred the entire property to her? What would she gain further by his death?
by [deleted]
4 Comments
Freedom from Philip. Philip suspected that his guardian Ambrose was poisoned by Rachel. Rachel seduced Philip and got him to sign over the estate to her. Philip was both a nuisance and potential witness.
That was pretty common for “black widow” style murders – I think it’s easier to understand in terms of thinking about what the motives for all of their other actions are.
The motive for marrying a richer person is getting the money, not being with the person. There is no motive for continuing to be married, but no qualms that the average person would have about killing someone. Therefore, it becomes more appealing to murder someone than to continue putting up with them, and having them slowly spend off the fortune that the killer aims to inherit.
To bring it back to Du Maurier, if I remember correctly (it’s been a long time since I read it), it’s intentional left ambiguous as to whether Rachel did poison Phillip or not. They never uncover any hard evidence as to whether she did or not when her room was searched.
My Cousin Rachel was a commentary on the misogyny of the male gaze. Remember how much Ambrose talked about how bad women were early on before he met Rachel. How women generally are not described positively. Even with Rachel, it’s like she can’t just be human, she has to fall into either side of the madonna/whore dichotomy. The reader is meant to struggle when her frivolousness spending comes up. In reality, it’s a normal human flaw, but because you’ve been reading about her supposed poisoning and philandering, you’re supposed to start thinking that this simple flaw means she’s also a murderer. The whole point to me was that none of Rachel’s behaviour was objectively untrustworthy (even having some poisonous seeds in an envelope- she’s practically an environmental scientist so why wouldn’t she study seeds) but these 2 men being a sample of society at the time, it was viewed as such.
Oh also, if I had lived at a time where practically my only means of subsistence was to get married and where domestic violence wasn’t even illegal and was systematic in marriages, I would also pull back from a marriage if I had suddenly been given wealth.
Phillip was a severe restriction of freedom, even with the property. disregarding his potential to incriminate her if she murdered Ambrose, Phillip’s controlling and I’d say abusive behavior was still a huge threat, especially after he strangled her. living in a house where somebody’s capable of that and would probably follow you to the ends of the earth, her very existence as Rachel was being threatened. even if the property was her’s, as she wished, what use was it if her life wasn’t, if she could only spend the money improving the Ashley estate because every other action relating to her life pre-Ambrose (and maybe pre-Phillip) would be severely scrutinized by him. maybe that’s why she continued to poison him. it could also give insight into why she murdered Ambrose, since he detailed his fits of violence and icy relationship (to which extent, we don’t even know…). it reminds me of a stat I heard once (idk if it’s true) that husband poisonings were much more common in the 19th century, where violent marriage with little escape was quite common.