The Model Millionaire – Contextual Q&A

Question 1

"Unless one is wealthy there is no use in being a charming fellow. Romance is the privilege of the rich, not the profession of the unemployed. The poor should be practical and prosaic. It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating. These are the great truths of modern life which Hughie Erskine never realised."

(i) What does the narrator claim about the relationship between wealth and romance? (3)
(ii) How does this statement characterize Hughie? (3)
(iii) What is ironic about the narrator's tone in making these statements? (3)
(iv) What does "practical and prosaic" reveal about the narrator's view of poor people? (3)
(v) How does this opening establish the story's critique of Victorian society? (4)

Answer:

(i) The narrator asserts that wealth is a prerequisite for romance—that charm and attractiveness alone are insufficient in modern life. Without money, romantic aspirations are unrealistic. Romance is presented as a "privilege" belonging exclusively to the wealthy, not available to the unemployed. This reflects Victorian society's prioritization of financial security in marriage and relationships.

(ii) Hughie is characterized as someone who fails to understand or accept this supposed "great truth." He is charming, handsome, and in love, yet lacks the financial resources Victorian society demands for romantic pursuit. The narrator's characterization suggests Hughie is idealistic and naive—he has not internalized the materialistic values that should guide behavior according to the narrator's cynical opening.

(iii) The irony lies in the narrator's presentation of these statements as "great truths" when they are actually cynical observations reflecting Victorian society's shallow materialism. The narrator's tone is wry and satirical—he presents society's mercenary values while implicitly critiquing them. The very exaggeration of the claims suggests the narrator's skepticism about whether these truly are "truths" at all.

(iv) "Practical and prosaic" suggests the narrator views poor people as having no capacity for romance, imagination, or passion. They should focus on survival and practicality rather than aspiration or love. The words reveal a dismissive attitude toward the poor, suggesting they should abandon emotional or idealistic pursuits as unrealistic luxuries. This reflects classist assumptions of the period.

(v) This opening establishes the story's critique by immediately identifying and highlighting Victorian society's materialistic values. By stating these "truths" so baldly, the narrator invites readers to question them. The story will proceed to demonstrate the limitations and falsehood of these materialistic assumptions through Hughie's actual experience, suggesting that generosity, kindness, and character matter more than wealth in determining human value.

Question 2

"Poor Hughie! Intellectually, we must admit, he was not of much importance. He never said a brilliant or even an ill-natured thing in his life. But then he was wonderfully good-looking, with his crisp brown hair, his clear-cut profile, and his grey eyes. He was as popular with men as he was with women and he had every accomplishment except that of making money."

(i) What is the narrator's assessment of Hughie's intellectual capacity? (3)
(ii) How does the physical description of Hughie contrast with his intellectual assessment? (3)
(iii) What does "every accomplishment except that of making money" reveal? (3)
(iv) Why does the narrator use the word "Poor" to open this character sketch? (3)
(v) How does this characterization establish sympathy for Hughie despite his failings? (4)

Answer:

Question 3

"When Hughie came in he found Trevor putting the finishing touches to a wonderful life-size picture of a beggar-man. The beggar himself was standing on a raised platform in a corner of the studio. He was a wizened old man, with a face like wrinkled parchment, and a most piteous expression. 'An amazing model!' shouted Trevor at the top of his voice, 'I should think so! Such beggars as he are not to be with every day.'"

(i) What is Alan Trevor's artistic project? (3)
(ii) How does the description of the beggar's appearance create pathos? (3)
(iii) What does Trevor's exclamation about the "amazing model" reveal about his artistic perspective? (3)
(iv) Why does Trevor emphasize that "such beggars as he are not to be with every day"? (3)
(v) How does this scene set up the central moment of the story? (4)

Answer:

(i) Trevor is painting a life-size portrait of a beggar-man. The beggar is positioned on a raised platform in the studio as the model. This is presented as an unusual artistic choice—most painters would choose more prestigious subjects, but Trevor has chosen to capture the image of a poor, wretched beggar in a formal, life-size portrait.

(ii) The description creates pathos through specific, vivid details: "wizened old man," "face like wrinkled parchment," "most piteous expression." These descriptions emphasize age, suffering, and destitution. The word "piteous" directly appeals to pity. The accumulation of miserable details creates sympathy in the observer—which is exactly what Hughie will feel moments later.

(iii) Trevor's exclamation reveals that he finds artistic value in the beggar's appearance. He is enthusiastic about the subject, not condescending. His appreciation is aesthetic—he sees the beggar not as a social problem but as a compelling subject for artistic representation. Trevor's enthusiasm suggests that authentic human suffering and wretchedness can have aesthetic and artistic dignity.

(iv) Trevor emphasizes the rarity of such a perfect model because finding someone with genuine, visible poverty and misery is not common. This serves multiple purposes: it explains why this particular beggar is valuable to the artist, it emphasizes the beggar's genuinely wretched appearance, and it will later make Hughie's pity and generosity seem more justified—he has encountered someone truly pitiable.

(v) This scene establishes the conditions for the central moment: Hughie encounters a person who appears desperately poor, and his sympathetic nature will compel him to action. The detailed depiction of the beggar's misery primes both Hughie and the reader to expect that any compassionate person would be moved to help. This moment, where appearance and reality appear aligned (the beggar looks poor and is presented as poor), will later be revealed as deceptive—appearance and reality diverge, creating the story's central irony.

Question 4

"The old beggar-man took advantage of Trevor's absence to rest for a moment on a wooden bench. He looked so forlorn and wretched that Hughie could not help pitying him and felt in his pocket to see what money he had. All he could find was a sovereign and some coppers. 'Poor old fellow,' he thought to himself, 'he wants it more than I do,' and he walked across the studio and slipped the sovereign into the beggar's hand."

(i) What does the beggar's physical reaction reveal about his character? (3)
(ii) What is the significance of Hughie carrying only "a sovereign and some coppers"? (3)
(iii) What does Hughie's internal thought "he wants it more than I do" reveal about his values? (3)
(iv) Why does Hughie feel compelled to help despite having little himself? (3)
(v) How does this moment establish Hughie as the story's true hero? (4)

Answer:

Question 5

"'Certainly I did. He knows all about the relentless colonel, the lovely Laura, and the ten thousand pounds.' 'You told that old beggar all my private affairs?' cried Hughie, looking very red and angry. 'My dear boy,' said Trevor, smiling, 'that old beggar, as you call him, is one of the richest men in Europe. I was painting him as a beggar. And I must say he made a magnificent figure in his rags...'"

(i) Why is Hughie angry when he learns the beggar knows about Laura and the money? (3)
(ii) What does Trevor's calm revelation reveal about his attitude toward deception? (3)
(iii) How does Trevor's statement that the beggar "made a magnificent figure in his rags" work on multiple levels? (3)
(iv) What is revealed about Baron Hausberg through his ability to deceive? (3)
(v) How does this revelation transform the meaning of Hughie's earlier generosity? (4)

Answer:

(i) Hughie is angry because his private affairs—his poverty, his love for Laura, the specific amount the Colonel demands—are intimate and embarrassing. He feels humiliated that a "beggar" knows details about his financial inadequacy and his desperate situation. The anger also stems from feeling foolish: he has been deceived, and his private suffering has become the subject of conversation between the artist and the supposed beggar.

(ii) Trevor's calm, smiling revelation and his matter-of-fact tone suggest he finds the deception amusing rather than troubling. He does not apologize but rather uses it as an opportunity to impress Hughie with Baron Hausberg's wealth and identity. Trevor's attitude reveals he views the deception as a harmless prank or social experiment, not a violation of trust. He is complicit in perpetuating the deception.

(iii) On the surface, Trevor is discussing the beggar's appearance in the painting—he looked authentic and compelling as a beggar model. But beneath this is a deeper meaning: Baron Hausberg's "magnificent figure" extends beyond appearance to character and bearing. Despite dressing as a wretched beggar, he retains dignity. This suggests that true nobility is internal, not dependent on clothing or appearance.

(iv) Baron Hausberg's ability to deceive reveals he is not merely wealthy but sophisticated and curious. His willingness to pose as a beggar and allow himself to be painted suggests intellectual interest in human nature and social observation. His ability to deceive also suggests power—he can move freely through society in different guises, observing people honestly because they do not know his true identity. His deception is chosen and controlled.

(v) The revelation transforms Hughie's generosity from ordinary kindness toward a poor beggar into something more remarkable: he has shown generosity toward a man he believed to be wretched but who is actually one of Europe's richest men. His act becomes not about social obligation or charity but about pure compassion. He gave without knowing the recipient's identity, which makes his generosity genuine and disinterested. The revelation proves the story's point: Hughie's character—his kindness—is what matters, regardless of the recipient's actual status.

Question 6

"The next morning, as he was at breakfast, the servant brought him up a card on which was written 'Monsieur Gustave Naudin, messenger from Baron Hausberg.' 'I suppose he has come for an apology,' said Hughie to himself... An old gentleman with gold spectacles and gray hair came into the room and said, 'Have I the honour of addressing Monsieur Erskine?' Hughie bowed. 'I have come from Baron Hausberg. The Baron----' 'I beg, sir, that you will offer him my sincerest apologies,' stammered Hughie."

(i) What does Hughie's expectation of an apology demand reveal about his conscience? (3)
(ii) How does the formal arrival of the messenger create dramatic tension? (3)
(iii) What is ironic about Hughie's rushing to apologize before hearing the Baron's message? (3)
(iv) What does Monsieur Naudin's formal appearance and manner convey? (3)
(v) How does this scene demonstrate Hughie's fundamental character? (4)

Answer:

(i) Hughie's assumption that he should offer an apology reveals his sense of responsibility and guilt. Though he acted generously, he feels ashamed about giving money to a wealthy man without knowing it. He assumes the Baron may be offended by the implication that he needed charity or that Hughie pitied him. Hughie's immediate instinct to apologize demonstrates his conscience and his concern for others' feelings, even in his own discomfort.

(ii) The formal arrival of an official messenger in Victorian tradition suggests gravity and importance. The reader, along with Hughie, does not know whether this visit brings punishment, demand for return of the money, or something else. The formal credentials ("messenger from Baron Hausberg") elevate what could be a simple conversation into an official interaction, creating uncertainty and tension about what the Baron's intentions are.

(iii) Hughie's immediate apology before hearing the message is ironic because he assumes the worst—that he has offended the Baron. In his eagerness to make amends, he interrupts the messenger's formal communication. This rush to apologize demonstrates Hughie's anxiety and his tendency to blame himself. It shows he feels fundamentally at fault despite having acted generously, suggesting he has internalized societal expectations that his poverty is shameful.

(iv) Monsieur Naudin appears as a formal, dignified gentleman—"old gentleman with gold spectacles and gray hair" speaking formally as a representative of a powerful man. His formality conveys respect for both the Baron he represents and for Hughie as the recipient of his message. His official manner suggests the message is significant and deserves proper ceremony. His presence and formality elevate Hughie, treating him as someone worthy of official attention.

(v) This scene demonstrates Hughie's fundamental character as modest, conscience-driven, and anxious to make amends. He doesn't demand explanations or assert his own dignity; instead, he immediately assumes responsibility and seeks to apologize. His readiness to sacrifice his own comfort for others' feelings, evident in giving to the beggar, is evident here in his discomfort and self-blame. Paradoxically, this anxiety and shame about his poverty actually reveal his goodness—he does not defend his generosity but rather seeks to make things right, demonstrating genuine moral sensitivity.