Ivanov by Anton Chekhov (1887)

Leaving aside his 50-plus stories, Anton Chekhov wrote a surprising amount just for the theatre: about 13 dialogues and parodies during the 1880s; ten one-act monologues or farces in the later 1880s; and then the five major four-act plays on which his reputation rests:

  • Ivanov (1887)
  • The Seagull (1896)
  • Uncle Vanya (1897)
  • Three Sisters (1901)
  • The Cherry Orchard (1904)

Ivanov was commissioned in 1887 by Fiodor Korsh, owner of the Korsh Theatre in Moscow which specialised in farces. Chekhov wrote it the four-act drama in just ten days but the first performance was a fiasco and Chekhov rewrote it. The revised version was premiered in St Petersburg in 1889 and was a success. Since it’s the first in the run of greatest hits, critics and scholars always say it gives a foretaste of the style and themes of his subsequent masterpieces.

What came over to me was the comic characters were funnier than I expected while the ‘serious’ characters (Ivanov, his wife Anna, the doctor Lvov, and the young woman, Sasha, who worships Ivanov) were given speeches of way over-the-top melodrama and hysteria. I was enjoying it as a comedy with a completely over-the-top part for the self-pitying lead character, right up to the moment when he ended the play by suddenly shooting himself. That wasn’t so funny.

Characters

  • Nikolai Ivanov – a government official concerned with peasant affairs. Chekhov depicts him as the quintessentially melancholy Russian from the upper social strata, severely afflicted by internal conflicts, loss of appetite for life, and problems managing his estate and his debts
  • Anna (born as Sarah Abramson) – Ivanov’s wife of five years who unknowingly suffers from tuberculosis; she has renounced Judaism and converted to Russian Orthodoxy in order to marry Ivanov
  • Paul Lebedev – chairman of the rural district council, confidante and good friend to Ivanov
  • Zinaida – Lebedev’s wife, a wealthy lender who Ivanov owes a large sum of money
  • Sasha – the Lebedevs’ 20-year-old daughter, infatuated with Ivanov and nearly ends up marrying him
  • Eugene Lvov – a pompous young doctor on the council’s panel, and a self-consciously ‘honest man’; throughout the play he moralizes and attacks Ivanov’s character, later resolving to reveal what he believes are Ivanov’s intentions in marrying Sasha
  • Count Matthew Shabelsky – Ivanov’s maternal uncle, a geriatric buffoon; he tells antisemitic jokes but his tenderness to Anna is unmistakable
  • Martha Babakina – a young widow, estate-owner and the daughter of a rich businessman, she has a turbulent relationship with the Count
  • Michael Borkin – a distant relative of Ivanov who is steward of his estate, a jester who keeps coming up with many money-making schemes throughout the play, including his proposal for the Count and Martha Babakina to marry
  • Dmitry Kosykh – an excise officer

Act 1

The play tells the story of Nikolai Ivanov, a man struggling to regain his former glory. For the past five years he has been married to Anna Petrovna, a disinherited Jewess, who has become very ill.

Ivanov’s estate is run by a distant relative, Mikhail Borkin, who regularly advises people on how he can help them make money. The doctor, Lvov, an ‘honest’ man as he frequently reminds everyone else, tells Ivanov that his wife is dying of tuberculosis and that, in order to recover she needs to be sent to the Crimea. Unfortunately, Ivanov is unable, and unwilling, to pay for the trip. He is heavily in debt and already owes Zinaida Lebedeva 9,000 roubles.

Ivanov is criticised for heartlessness and for spending time with the Lebedevs instead of his seriously ill wife. At the end of Act 1 Ivanov leaves to attend a party at the Lebedevs’ and, unbeknown to him, is followed by Anna and Lvov.

Act 2

This shows a party at Lebedevs’ and features various people discussing Ivanov. They say his only motive for marrying Anna was for the large dowry but she suffered because when she married him, she was forced to convert from Judaism to Russian Orthodoxy and was disowned.

Lebedev is married to Zinaida, who manages his money-lending, and they have a daughter, Sasha, who is infatuated with Ivanov. During the party Sasha throws herself at Ivanov and he is unable to resist so that the act concludes with the two kissing. Unfortunately, Anna (his wife) arrives just this moment and witnesses the betrayal.

Act 3

A series of conversations between Ivanov and other members of the cast: Lebedev begs Ivanov to repay his debts, and Lvov confronts Ivanov once again about the heartless way he treats Anna.

Sasha then appears, concerned by Ivanov’s refusal to visit since the incident at the end of Act Two.

The act ends with Anna confronting Ivanov about Sasha’s visit, and about how he has lied and cheated on her for the entirety of their marriage. Ivanov’s anger is aroused by the false accusation and in a fit of anger he reveals to her, for the first time, the devastating news that she is dying.

Act 4

Cut to a year after the previous acts. Anna has died, and Sasha’s love for Ivanov has triumphed to the extent that they are preparing to get married.

As the wedding is about to begin, Lvov appears, intending to reveal to everyone his interpretation which is that Ivanov is only marrying Sasha for her dowry. He makes the accusation publicly but, although all the other characters had previously expressed doubts along the same lines, they all leap to Ivanov’s defence and challenge Lvov to duels.

Ivanov finds the whole situation amusing, returning to his old self, and takes out his gun. Sasha realises what he is about to do, but is unable to stop him: Ivanov runs away from the crowd and shoots himself, abruptly ending the play.

Animal imagery

I found the jovial bantering parts of the dialogue the most attractive while finding the hysteria surrounding the central protagonist ridiculous and his suicide wilful and silly. On a aide note, I also noticed and enjoyed the use of animal imagery throughout the play.

BORKIN: A man’s life is like a bright flower blooming in a meadow. A goat comes along and eats it up.

MRS BABAKIN: He made a big mistake marrying that wretched Jewess and now he gives her a terrible time – it’s enough to make a cat laugh.

 AVDOTYA (an old lady): Look at all our young men – there they sit preening their feathers like a lot of wet hens.

LEBEDEV to SHABELSKY: This is a wedding, everyone’s enjoying themselves, but you go on like a dying duck in a thunderstorm.

Funny although sadly, this kind of light-heartedness doesn’t occur in the subsequent plays which focus almost entirely on the characters’ pathetic love lives. ‘It’s enough to make a cat laugh,’ I must find an opportunity to say that sometime.


Credit

Quotations are from the 1980 World’s Classic paperback edition of Five Plays by Anton Chekhov, translated by Ronald Hingley.

Related links

Related reviews

  • Chekhov reviews
  • Russian reviews

The Truth Of Masks: A note on illusion by Oscar Wilde (1889)

‘Moral grounds…are always the last refuge of people who have no sense of beauty.’

The Truth of Masks was first published in the Fortnightly Review in 1889. It is one of the four essays Wilde chose to revise and publish in the volume titled Intentions in 1891.

The premise

Wilde begins by stating that some contemporary critics have criticised the trend for sumptuous productions of Shakespeare which place a pedantic and ‘archaeological’ emphasis on correctness of costume and dress. Wilde says these critics are completely wrong as:

There is absolutely no dramatist of the French, English, or Athenian stage who relies so much for his illusionist effects on the dress of his actors as Shakespeare does himself.

Far from being dismayed by late-Victorian attempts at authentic historical costume:

A dramatist who laid such stress on historical accuracy of fact would have welcomed historical accuracy of costume as a most important adjunct to his illusionist method.

Clothing in Shakespeare’s plays

Wilde lists the many ways dress and costume are important in Shakespeare’s plays:

  • Shakespeare constantly introduces masques and dances for which characters dress up: there is a dance of reapers in rye-straw hats, and of rustics in hairy coats like satyrs; a masque of Amazons, a masque of Russians, and a classical masque
  • Henry VIII features three grand processions with detailed prescriptions for the costumes
  • some Elizabethan critics criticised his costumes for being too realistic
  • but it wasn’t just for appearance’ sake; Shakespeare knew ‘how important costume is as a means of producing certain dramatic effects’; many dramatic moments hinge on the exact costume a character is wearing
  • disguise is a central element of Shakespearian drama; Posthumus, Edgar, Portia, Rosalind, Imogen, Jessica, Julia, Viola, Henry the Eighth, Romeo, Prince Hal, Poins and Falstaff all wear disguises
  • he achieves effects through dramatic changes of costume, as when Macbeth appears in his night-gown as if aroused from sleep, Timon ends his play in rags, Richard flatters the London citizens in a suit shabby armour, or when Prospero throws off his enchanter’s robes and changes to the costume of an Italian Duke
  • even small details of dress, such as the colour of a major-domo’s stockings, the pattern on a wife’s handkerchief, the sleeve of a young soldier, and a fashionable woman’s bonnets, become points of dramatic importance
  • exchanging or squabbling over clothes, such as a master and servant exchanging coats in front of the audience, shipwrecked sailors squabbling over the division of a lot of fine clothes, a tinker dressed up like a duke while drunk
  • big points hinge on tiny elements of dress, such as Desdemona’s handkerchief, Orlando’s blood-stained napkin, Imogen’s bracelet, the ring Duncan sends to Lady Macbeth and Portia’s ring; the climax of Antony’s speech is when he presents Caesar’s blood-stained cloak to the crowd, a great part of King Lear’s dramatic effect is the rags to which the once-great king wanders the heath in a storm
  • he gives directions about the costumes of Perdita, Florizel, Autolycus, the witches in Macbeth, the apothecary in Romeo and Juliet, elaborate descriptions of his fat knight, and a detailed account of the garb Petruchio is to be married in, the children who play at fairies in Windsor Forest are to be dressed in white and green, with green garlands and gilded vizors, Bottom wears homespun, Lysander is distinguished from Oberon by wearing an Athenian dress, Launce has holes in his boots, the Duchess of Gloucester stands in a white sheet with her husband in mourning beside her, the motley of the Fool, the scarlet of the Cardinal, and the French lilies broidered on the English coats are all occasions for jest or taunt in the dialogue
  • Shakespeare uses the costume of his day in metaphors and as the subject of dialogue: characters frequently discuss the absurdities of contemporary fashion, or analyse what other characters are wearing; or in serious mode, discuss how clothes maketh the man, how clothing denotes very precisely a person’s status in Elizabethan society

To summarise: dress and costume were not trivial details for Shakespeare, who understood that costume is a vital part of drama, that clothes denote people’s status and character, that changing clothes denotes comic or tragic upheaval, that even tiny details of costume (a hankie) can have dramatic consequences.

Wilde can’t resist summing all this up in an alliterative epigram:

Of Shakespeare it may be said he was the first to see the dramatic value of doublets, and that a climax may depend on a crinoline.

Wilde goes on to list the costumes included in an inventory of Shakespeare’s company, an impressive array.

He tackles the anti-historical tendency of the critics of his time, by emphasising that the Elizabethan age was itself deeply fascinated in history and in reviving all aspects of the beauty of the ancient world, its architecture, writing and dress. As soon as he discusses history he lapses into empurpled prose, but his point is that:

Archæology to them was not a mere science for the antiquarian; it was a means by which they could touch the dry dust of antiquity into the very breath and beauty of life, and fill with the new wine of romanticism forms that else had been old and outworn.

(N.B. Wilde uses the word ‘archaeology’ and ‘archaeological’ where we would write ‘historical’ – historical research into ancient costumes etc, and ensuring the look and fabric of costumes was historically correct.)

Bringing history to life

Wilde moves from this general observation to make the point that a key element of Renaissance life was processions, which demonstrated social order and hierarchy and status, which towns and cities took a lot of time and money organising, and which they preserved in prints and paintings. In other words, the clothing and outer appearance of people was immensely important to the Elizabethans. And the stage is by far the most effective way of bringing history to life.

The ancient world wakes from its sleep, and history moves as a pageant before our eyes, without obliging us to have recourse to a dictionary or an encyclopædia for the perfection of our enjoyment.

Thus, paying close attention to the historical accuracy of the costumes actors wear is not a trivial matter of academic pedantry, but vital to giving the drama its full meaning and also the most effective way of bringing historical eras to life in front of us. The historical accuracy is what makes the drama live.

Only the foolish called it pedantry, only those who would neither look nor listen spoke of the passion of the play being killed by its paint.

Not only that, but the Renaissance period saw an outburst of interest in other nations’ costumes and traditions.

Europe began to investigate its own clothes, and the amount of books published on national costumes is quite extraordinary.

It wasn’t only academic. Ambassadors and travellers left an increasing number of accounts not only of key diplomatic decisions, but of the appearance, manners, etiquette and dress of foreign courts and foreign lands.

After the departure from England, for instance, of the ambassadors from the Czar, the Sultan and the Prince of Morocco, Henry the Eighth and his friends gave several masques in the strange attire of their visitors. Later on London saw, perhaps too often, the sombre splendour of the Spanish Court, and to Elizabeth came envoys from all lands, whose dress, Shakespeare tells us, had an important influence on English costume.

We have evidence that Shakespeare used these writings, and his own observations of visiting foreigners, to mimic their clothes and style on the stage.

In addition, societies for the first time became interested in the history of their own dress and costumes.

Historical accuracy

Wilde admits that the plays are full of historical anachronisms, a fact which undermines the general drift of his argument that historical fidelity in dress and accoutrements was important to Shakespeare and his contemporaries – but dismisses it by saying the examples are minor and the Bard would no doubt have corrected them if they’d been pointed out.

(Most modern scholars think that historical accuracy just didn’t matter to Shakespeare and his audiences, and that he was far from being the pedantic purist which Wilde implies. All that mattered for Shakespeare was that it worked on the stage and in that moment; he didn’t care what contradictions later scholars would reveal by close study of the texts. The texts were for him, just scripts, aids for presenting a drama.)

But Wilde goes on at length about the historical accuracy of the plays, suggesting that they make a perfect introduction to the history of the peers of England and that Board School children would learn more history from Shakespeare’s plays than from their dull history books.

But he is careful to hedge his points about Shakespeare’s historical accuracy with one big caveat: the Artist can base his art on facts, but is never bound by them.

Of course the æsthetic value of Shakespeare’s plays does not, in the slightest degree, depend on their facts, but on their Truth, and Truth is independent of facts always, inventing or selecting them at pleasure.

Facts are there to embellish, help bring to life, to create the illusion. But the artist remains free to pick and choose them at will.

Thus he takes the example of the cloak of Coriolanus, mentioned by Plutarch in his biography, which goes into some detail about Coriolanus’s peculiar dress:

Shakespeare, in the spirit of the true artist, accepts the facts of the antiquarian and converts them into dramatic and picturesque effects…it is evident from [this example] that, in mounting a play in the accurate costume of the time, according to the best authorities, we are carrying out Shakespeare’s own wishes and method.

The essay concludes with a long passage about specific colours, how to attain them in England, which colours relate to which character, how they appear by the gaslight of a theatre and so on, which contains no ideas but a lot of suggestive detail about the theatre of Wilde’s day.

He makes the point that there ought to be many more dress rehearsals than there currently are, precisely so the actors can feel as at home in their costumes, know how to move and gesture and express themselves in them, as their characters are meant to. All too often modern actors look embarrassed and puzzled in period costume.

Criticism and attitude

Right at the end he makes a wittily paradoxical point, by saying there is much in the essay we have just read that he himself disagrees with. Worth quoting in full:

Not that I agree with everything that I have said in this essay. There is much with which I entirely disagree. The essay simply represents an artistic standpoint, and in æsthetic criticism attitude is everything. For in art there is no such thing as a universal truth. A Truth in art is that whose contradictory is also true. And just as it is only in art-criticism, and through it, that we can apprehend the Platonic theory of ideas, so it is only in art-criticism, and through it, that we can realise Hegel’s system of contraries. The truths of metaphysics are the truths of masks.

That’s a complex interplay of ideas, but I take from it the notion that, since there is no one interpretation of a work of art, or one position regarding art in general – instead, the important thing is at least to adopt a position, an attitude, in order to present a thorough and consistent case, even if you don’t necessarily believe with every element of the case you’ve found yourself making.

I sympathise with that. I often find myself in the same position, arguing points in these blog reviews in order to make them work, while at the same time aware of strong counter-arguments…

Summary

The Truth of Masks is an impressively thorough piece of work. It is remarkably free of the purple prose or swooning over handsome young men you find in other Wilde essays, and instead sticks very much to its subject. It amasses an impressive pile of detailed references to Shakespeare plays, characters and costumes.

And you can see how the whole thesis echoes or reinforces Wilde’s fundamental belief that, in a civilised society, it is the most elaborate and artificial aspects of a culture which are sometimes the deepest and most significant.

A note on race

Maybe worth pointing out that Wilde, like all the other writers of his time, didn’t use the word ‘race’ as we do to denote ethnic groups with an emphasis on skin colour. For him it means something closer to what we’d call ‘nation’ and denotes a national culture. So:

He is even true to the characteristics of race. Hamlet has all the imagination and irresolution of the Northern nations, and the Princess Katharine is as entirely French as the heroine of Divorçons. Harry the Fifth is a pure Englishman, and Othello a true Moor.


Related link

Related reviews

The Master of Ballantrae by Robert Louis Stevenson (1889)

If the Nonesuch foundered, she would carry down with her into the deeps of that unsounded sea the creature whom we all so feared and hated; there would be no more Master of Ballantrae, the fish would sport among his ribs; his schemes all brought to nothing, his harmless enemies at peace. At first, I have said, it was but a ray of comfort; but it had soon grown to be broad sunshine. The thought of the man’s death, of his deletion from this world, which he embittered for so many, took possession of my mind. I hugged it, I found it sweet in my belly. I conceived the ship’s last plunge, the sea bursting upon all sides into the cabin, the brief mortal conflict there, all by myself, in that closed place; I numbered the horrors, I had almost said with satisfaction; I felt I could bear all and more, if the Nonesuch carried down with her, overtook by the same ruin, the enemy of my poor master’s house.
(Chapter 9. Mr Mackellar’s Journey with the Master)

Like Treasure Island and KidnappedThe Master of Ballantrae is a gripping, fast-paced adventure story told in the first person, serious and foreboding and Gothic. It starts off in a gloomy old Scottish mansion and takes its protagonists, powerfully and vividly, to the immense forests of New World.

A mix of texts…

The narrative is presented as the written account of Ephraim Mackellar, steward of the Durrisdeer estate in Scotland. He writes as an old man, telling his story long after the events, lamenting the many misfortunes which befell the noble Durie family during his time of service. We know it is a written account because Stevenson himself intervenes at a few points, as the Editor of Mackellar’s manuscript, to make comments and explain how he has edited and is presenting it to us.

The text further foregrounds its own artifice when Mackellar’s account itself breaks off to include long chunks taken from the supposed autobiography of the Irish soldier of fortune ‘Colonel’ Francis Burke, and also to include the texts of letters from the various protagonists.

… and styles

The way the narrative is assembled from various sources means it deploys various prose styles. Whereas the old retainer Mackellar’s style is a kind of ‘honest old Scotsman’, Burke’s is completely different – foppish and Anglicised, while the letters of, for example, the Master himself, reveal his venom and cruel sarcasm.

The story is set in the 18th century and concerns two Scottish brothers who develop a life-long blood feud which spills over into blackmail, murder, madness and revenge – and their different attitudes to life, the way they hold themselves and speak, are also brought out through differences in manner, speech and style.

Heteroglossia

The net effect of all this is that the book is rich not only in straightforward adventures and melodramatic scenes, but in the range of voices and styles it uses. It is a good example of the Russian literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of ‘heteroglossia’ – meaning the novel’s distinctive ability to incorporate a host of voices and styles.

And these voices are often themselves in competition or are themselves compromised or questioned:

  • Mackellar considers Burke’s version of events to be unreliable, advising us to read between the lines
  • Mackellar uneasily says that many critics have questioned his role in the events he’s describing, so he is touchy about key moments where different interpretations are possible
  • and at the heart of the story is the radically different interpretations the two feuding bothers put on central events

So it is easy to show that this text is a virtual battlefield where numerous conflicting voices compete. And to attribute to this conflict and clash of voices and styles, much of the book’s energy and thrill.

The plot

We are in Scotland, in the mid-18th century, near the town of St. Bride’s, on the shore of the Solway firth. Here stands the house of Durrisdeer, home of the noble Durie family, built in the Continental style with fine gardens, and attended by numerous servants. The Durie family consists of:

  • the old Laird, who has relinquished control of the estate and likes to read classic books by the fire
  • his eldest son, the Master of Ballantrae, James Durie, not yet 24 in 1745, a determined, arrogant man, rumoured to have fathered a child by a wench in the village
  • the second son, Mr. Henry Durie, an honest, solid sort of young man
  • Miss Alison Graeme, a near kinswoman, an orphan and the heir to a fortune which her father acquired in trade, a spirited, independent-minded woman, much in love with the dashing Master

It is generally accepted that, in time, Miss Alison will become the Master’s wife, and her fortune will go a long way to paying off the big debts the Durrisdeer estate has acquired.

The toss of a coin

When Bonny Prince Charlie lands in Scotland in July 1745 and raises an army to march south and claim the throne that is rightfully his, families all across Scotland are placed in a quandary: whether to throw in their lot with the ‘rebels’ – backed as they are by a large number of Highland clans and appealing as Charles does to their patriotism as descendant of the last Stuart king of Scotland – or to remain loyal to the anointed king of Great Britain, George II, from the royal (German) house of Hanover, who have been rulers of Great Britain since 1714. The conflict between the brothers is real and psychological but also reflects the conflict at the heart of Britain’s seriously divided society and body politic.

At Durrisdeer, as at so many other gentry houses, the family is split by divided loyalties and decides to hedge their bets with a pragmatic solution: one son will go off to join the rebels, the other will stay at home with ostentatious loyalty. But which son should do which? There is a violent quarrel about whether James the Master or young Mr Henry should go to join the Prince and the Master, with his characteristic violent frivolity, suggests they toss a coin for it. The fateful toss decides that he, the Master, will ride to join the rebels while Mr Henry will stay at the estate, representing loyalist support for the established king.

With some bitterness the Master rides off, leaving Miss Alison in tears. In the following weeks the old Laird, Miss Alison and Henry follow, on tenterhooks, the progress of the prince’s invasion. They follow as the Bonny Prince succeeds in penetrating as far into England as Derby, before the Hanoverian English army stop his advance, and then pushes the combined Scottish, Irish and French forces all the way back into Scotland and, at the notorious battle of Culloden, slaughter the flower of the Scottish aristocracy. Many of the survivors are hanged in the subsequent reprisals and the Highlands are laid waste in a vengeful campaign which resonates with Scottish nationalists to the present day.

Nothing more is heard of the Master, for months, and then years, and the family dolefully conclude he must be dead. During this time Mr Henry grows into the role of the careful, responsible guardian of the Durrisdeer estate, taking all the burden and responsibility upon himself, and Miss Alison finds herself eventually, reluctantly, marrying him, and blessing the estate with her fortune.

News of the Master – and a second narrator

Then one day, out of the blue – on 7 April 1749 to be precise – a pompous preening Irish aristocrat, one Colonel Francis Burke, arrives at Durrisdeer, bearing the not-entirely-unexpected news that the Master survived Culloden after all. Burke is invited in for dinner and afterwards, by the fire in the big baronial hall, tells the most amazing account of his and the master’s adventures in the three years since the disastrous battle. (Mackellar elaborately explains that some time later the Colonel sent him a written version of his memoirs, and he now includes in his manuscript excerpts from that written account.)

The Master and Burke’s adventures

Briefly: the Master and Burke escaped pell-mell from the battlefield of Culloden, agreeing to co-operate even though they spend a lot of time arguing. They made their way with other survivors across country to one of the French ships which brought the rebel army, and now collects them off the coast. But in a disastrous turn of events, the ship is seized by pirates, led by the bizarre and manic Captain Teach. Sizing up the situation, the Master and Burke immediately throw their lot in with the pirates and so escape walking the plank, which is what happens to the rest of the crew and passengers.

The Master of Ballantrae illustration by Walter Paget

The Master of Ballantrae illustration by Walter Paget

There then follow a gruelling 18 months as Burke and the Master assimilate with the pirates, taking part in various adventures and attacks. Early on the Master realises that ‘captain’ Teach is a hopeless strategist, often drunk and making bad decisions – and leads a rebellion against him, persuading the crew to name him quartermaster and effective leader. But with the kind of psychological realism which lifts Stevenson’s adventures a cut above the rest, the Master realises that he needs to keep Teach alive, as both a psychopathic mascot for the crew when they go into battle, and a useful lightning rod for ongoing disaffection among a group of man much given to drunken grumbling.

Eventually, after many adventures, the pirate ship makes the mistake of running up the jolly roger as it approaches a strange ship at sea, only to discover it is a Royal Navy warship. They turn tail and sail to an empty waste spot they know on the American coast, and are saved by a fast-descending fog from pursuit. The Master organises a party to celebrate their escape and gets the whole pirate crew legless, steals all their accumulated treasure, and then rows the ship’s skiff ashore, with Burke and the one pirate they slightly trust – a certain Dutton who claims to know his way about the marshes where they are planning to go ashore.

From the moment they land every step of Burke and the Master’s adventures are fraught with peril and excitement; they could almost have made a story on their own, as the lads make their way through up the beach in a thick fog, then into impenetrable wooded marsh, terrifyingly aware that there are Red Indians in the woods nearby, trying to avoid getting captured and scalped, and also falling into the treacherous quicksand which surrounds them. At last, when they think they are nearing habitation, the Master cold-bloodedly leaves Dutton to drown in a quicksand, stealing his portion of the treasure.

Eventually, after many days, they come across the crew from another anchored ship making a fire and food. It is a trader out of Albany, New York, with a cargo of slaves, and the Master and Burke cockily stroll up to them and offer to pay their way to Albany as legitimate passengers. Thus rendered respectable, they sail up the Hudson River and put up at the ‘King’s Arms’ in Albany to find the town up in arms against the French. Worried that they might be on a wanted list – as both pirates and rebels from the Uprising – they masquerade as loyal subjects of King George; but as soon as possible set off across country heading northwards to join the French (in what will eventually become Canada).

There follows a long sequence of travel through the wastes of unspoilt, untamed colonial America, paddling a native canoe they’ve got hold of with the help of a native guide, Chew. After some days of rough travel, Chew dies of some unknown ailment and then they drop and smash the precious canoe. Now they are lost in the middle of uncharted wilderness, with no means of transport and no guide.

Burke reports that, with the advent of these adversities, the Master became even more savage than usual and railed with particular bitterness against his brother. For the first time he tells Burke about the toss of the coin which sent the Master off on the ill-fated Culloden campaign, led him into a life of piracy and now has led him to certain death, without canoe or guide or food, lost in the barren wastes of America. He pledges to take revenge against the brother who ‘betrayed’ him.

Burke’s narrative takes the reader deep into the vast untamed forests of the East coast of America. It resonates powerfully of the ‘Leatherstocking’ series of novels by James Fenimore Cooper, the most famous of which is The Last of the Mohicans, which is set in almost exactly the same year (1757).

Back in Scotland

And that is where we leave Burke’s narrative – on something of a cliffhanger – to return to ‘the present’ in Scotland.

The three members of the family listen to all this with very different emotions, but its main effect is to create bitter division between Mr Henry and his wife, Alison, who only married him out of pity when she thought the dashing Master was dead. Now a great animosity grows between them. Burke has brought with him letters for the Master which are designed to sow and foment dissension between the three members of the family. The one to Mr Henry is full of accusations and recriminations about how he has ‘stolen’ that Master’s patrimony.

Burke leaves the Master’s contact details in Paris (where he and the Master both now safely live) and Mr Henry, with a misplaced sense of duty, decides to pay the Master a regular allowance.

More years go by and the narrator explains how conscientious Mr Henry gets a reputation for penny-pinching and miserliness, not only in the neighbourhood but within their little household, where his embittered wife treats him with more and more scorn – what no-one realises is that he is pinching the pennies to fund the lavish, spendthrift lifestyle of his distant brother. It is not a happy house.

The Master returns

After seven years the Master returns, set ashore by the local smugglers who have been periodically referred to throughout the book as a local feature.

The passenger standing alone upon a point of rock, a tall, slender figure of a gentleman, habited in black

‘The passenger standing alone upon a point of rock, a tall, slender figure of a gentleman, habited in black.’

He announces his return to a startled Mackellar, Henry, Alison and old Laird, and proceeds to re-establish himself in the manner to which he’s become accustomed. The narrative paints him as an unmitigated cad – hypocritically presenting himself as a kind and loving son to the old Laird and Miss Alison – but whenever he is alone with Henry, taking every opportunity to jeer and insult him, blaming him for everything that’s gone wrong in his life, completely heedless of the way Henry has bled the estate dry to fund his lifestyle.

Enraged by the treatment of his good honest master, Mackellar breaks into James’s correspondence and discovers letters which prove that the Master long ago sold out the Jacobite cause by becoming a spy for the Hanoverian government – all the time boasting to his father, to Alison, to the servants and peasants of the heroic risks he is running by returning to Scotland. What a bounder!

Eventually he goes too far by telling Henry to his face that his wife, Alison, has in fact always preferred him, James, and is still in love with him.

Taunted beyond measure, Henry punches the Master in the face and insists on a duel. A terrified Mackellar helps them get swords off the wall and walk out to a patch of flat lawn in the grounds. Here they fight and Henry’s steady controlled anger begins to tell over the Master’s flash flourishes. At the climax of the duel, the Master cheats, grabbing Henry’s sword, and making a lunge – but Henry pulls his sword free of his grip and plunges it right through the Master’s body.

Illustration for the 1911 edition of The Master of Ballantrae by Walter Paget.

Illustration for the 1911 edition of The Master of Ballantrae by Walter Paget.

Appalled, Mackellar establishes that there is no sign of life. The Master is dead! They stagger inside and tell first the old Laird and then Alison. But when they finally return to the duelling ground to remove the body… it has gone!

They follow a trail of blood and broken bushes down to the bay and realise that the smugglers must have removed the body – for the Master had timed his worst taunts and insults for the very night he had arranged to flee Durrisdeer and the pirates have kept their part of the bargain, carrying him off dead or alive.

The Master gone

The old Laird sickens and dies. Henry and Alison have a child, Alexander. Mackellar shows Alison the letters of the Master proving he is a spy and hypocrite but she appals him by burning them. On the upside the letters reveal to her what a cad the Master is and she is finally reconciled to her husband. But it is too late: Henry has changed drastically since he killed his brother. He is now a haunted man, sometimes almost unhinged. On the rare occasions when the subject is raised, Henry is almost demented, claiming his brother is a devil and that nothing can kill him. Years later Mackellar finds Henry showing his young son the patch of ground where the duel took place and explaining that it was here that a man fought a devil. Mackellar worries for his sanity.

In India

Mackellar’s text is then interrupted a second time by an excerpt from Colonel Burke’s memoirs. It is a much shorter snippet which describes how chance took him to India, where his path crossed James Duries’s once more. The Master is in company of a wiry Indian named Secundra Dass. I was hoping that the Indian adventures would be as long and convincing as the pirate and Leatherstocking escapades of the American section – but this episode is disappointingly brief – only really long enough to introduce Dass, who will turn out to be a key character in the story’s final scenes.

Slight return

In the spring of 1764 James returns once more to Durrisdeer, accompanied by his Indian familiar, Dass. Now the old Laird is dead, the Master is harsher and more abrupt than before. He swears he will be a vengeance on the house and a plague to the family. Goaded beyond endurance, Henry has his wife pack all their things and in the dead of night they flee the house. Next morning the Master is incensed to discover their flight and, in Mackellar’s presence, swears to track them down and destroy them.

It doesn’t take long for him to discover that Henry, Alison and Alexander have taken ship to New York. Remember Alison’s family inheritance? It included land in New York, thither they have now gone to build a house and live in peace. But the Master sets off after them, accompanied by Mackellar.

The crossing of the Atlantic is one of the most vivid things in the book. After Henry and family have fled, Mackellar is left alone with the Master and they develop a peculiar relationship, Mackellar hating and detesting the Master for his selfishness and wickedness, for the way he has persecuted his good brother – and yet part of him admires and warms to the Master’s indomitable refusal to be beaten, his genuine charisma.

This ambivalence feels very Stevensonian; although the plot moves from drama to melodrama and then into Gothic horror and a lot of the characterisation is hysterical and stagey – nonetheless, there is something very penetrating about the love/hate, or admiration/disgust, relationship which grows up between the honest retainer and the dastardly villain.

There is a particularly vivid moment on the ship over: Mackellar is recounting tales to the Master who is sitting on the bilges of the ship as it heaves and yaws in a big swell and at a particularly low plunge, Mackellar, obsessed with the Master’s evil determination to harm Henry and his family, lashes out with his foot, aiming to push the Master overboard and be done. The Master leaps cannily out of the way.

Illustration of The Master of Ballantrae by William Brassey Hole (1896)

Illustration of The Master of Ballantrae by William Brassey Hole (1896)

The scene itself is dramatic but what raises it is the way Stevenson makes the Master thereafter respect Mackellar for taking positive action to defend his lord. And for his part Mackellar, though he tried to kill the man, cannot repress feelings of respect and attraction for his mastery. For me, this odd relationship between Mackellar and the Devil is one of the most interesting things in the book.

New York

When they arrive in New York the roles are reversed. The Master finds Mr Henry well established with a tidy house, servants, and having established good friendships with the governor and other authorities. All the Master’s barbs, taunts and attempts at public humiliation rebound on his own head.

Stymied in his attempt to pull rank, the Master adopts a different tack and sets out to humiliate the family. He secures a shabby shack and sets himself up as a tailor, sitting outside under a big sign which proclaims his parentage and asserts his degradation at the hands of his brother.

But Henry is now – in public – a much changed man, more confident, less feeling. He routinely strolls along to his brother’s shack and sits there quite comfortably, sunning himself, ignoring his brother’s remarks and even existence, but quietly enjoying his humiliation.

However – in private – Mackellar finds Henry liable to hysterical outbursts when his brother is mentioned. Part of his mind really does believe James is the Devil, an unkillable spirit sent to torment and pursue him to the grave.

And it is now that the Master reveals another plan, to journey back into the wilderness. Way back in Colonel Burke’s long account of their wanderings after escaping the pirates, it’s mentioned that the pair buried their treasure, the loot they stole from the pirate ship. Now James asks Henry for money to fund an expedition to find that treasure, buried out in the wilderness. Henry, now passed beyond normality into a realm of pure obsessive hatred, organises for the Master and Dass to set off accompanied by a gang of low cut-throats who he commissions to murder him.

In the wilderness

Having despatched his devilish brother into the wilderness with a pack of murderers, Henry discovers that an official expedition is setting off along much the same route, led by Sir William Johnson. Mackellar and Henry get themselves invited along.

Some days into the journey they encounter the only survivor of the Master’s expedition, an obvious cut-throat named John Mountain.

In a particularly egregious bit of test-stitching, Mackellar explains that the account of the expedition we are about to read has been pieced together from several sources:

  • A written statement by Mountain
  • Conversations with Mountain
  • Two conversations with the key player, Secundra Dass

Briefly, the Master quickly realises that he’s been despatched into the middle of nowhere with murderers commissioned to kill him. Mountain is impressed at his attempts to defuse the conspiracy by playing the crooks off against each other, planting suspicions that their leaders are planning to betray them etc. On one occasion the Master tries to run away, only to be caught and brought back, once more at their mercy.

Finally, the Master plays his last trick and falls ill, wasting away over many days and finally dying and being buried by the loyal Dass. On his deathbed the Master reveals the whereabouts of the treasure and off the murderers go to find it.

Mountain’s account now goes on to describe how one by one the members of the expedition are murdered, their bodies discovered each morning, horribly scalped. Maybe a solitary Indian brave is proving his manhood by picking them off. Maybe, it crosses the reader’s mind, the Master’s spirit is taking some kind of supernatural revenge. Certainly, the sequence of uncanny deaths in the fearful wastes takes the story across a border into the realm of Gothic horror – a kind of cross between Edgar Allen Poe and the Blair Witch Project.

Finally, only Mountain is left alive and he gives up the treasure hunt, turning tail and fleeing the wilderness, travelling day and night back towards civilisation in a blind panic. And this is the condition he’s found in by the well-armed and well-provisioned Johnson expedition, and by Mr Henry and Mackellar.

As John Mountain gives this detailed account to Mackellar, Johnson and Henry, Mackellar is horrified to see the impact it has on his good sweet master: the once-solid Mr Henry snaps, upon hearing of the Master’s death, he rolls his eyes and is almost gibbering. At the end of the tale Henry refuses to believe his brother is dead, convinced he is a supernatural spirit and that nothing can kill him.

Ignoring these outbursts, the solid Sir William Johnson orders Mountain to take them back along the trail, to the place where they buried the Master.

Dead and alive

And here in the Gothic horror climax of the whole tale, the expedition comes to the burial place only to find the Master’s loyal Indian servant, Secundra Dass, working feverishly with a spade, up to his knees in the grave, digging up his master’s body.

As they watch in horror, they see Dass uncover the Master’s body and pull it up to the surface. When our chaps enter the clearing and confront him, Dass ignores them in his frenzy and carries on trying to revive the Master. In his Indian accent he explains that this is an old Indian trick he and the Master agreed on (aha, the reader realises – the entire rather spindly excuses for Dass’s presence were all designed to build up to this artifice). The Master’s sickness was feigned and Dass taught him the Indian trick of swallowing his tongue and going into a state of suspended animation.

And as Dass chafes his hands and body the Master, sure enough, opens his eyes and his mouth begins to move.

And at that moment Henry, at the end of a long tormented life, driven beyond sanity by the jeers and bullying and haunting of his brother, gives up the ghost and drops dead on the spot. But the Master’s eyes moving was itself only some kind of reflex action, for he too expires despite all Dass’s efforts.

And it is left to Mackellar to bury both brothers there in the wilderness, leaving a wooden sign over their graves, and there the narrative comes abruptly to a full stop.


A key factor in the book’s success is the immediate establishment of Mackellar as the recognised authority for this tale and a brisk spinner of prose. Although other texts intervene, Mackellar’s is the main manuscript and the dominating voice for the majority of the story.

The full truth of this odd matter is what the world has long been looking for, and public curiosity is sure to welcome. It so befell that I was intimately mingled with the last years and history of the house; and there does not live one man so able as myself to make these matters plain, or so desirous to narrate them faithfully.

June the 1st, 1748, was the day of their marriage. It was December of the same year that first saw me alighting at the doors of the great house; and from there I take up the history of events as they befell under my own observation, like a witness in a court…

The narrative voice is four-square and candid, sharing with us all his impressions in an open, winning style with many vivid Scots expressions and turns of phrase thrown in:

My pen is clear enough to tell a plain tale; but to render the effect of an infinity of small things, not one great enough in itself to be narrated; and to translate the story of looks, and the message of voices when they are saying no great matter; and to put in half a page the essence of near eighteen months—this is what I despair to accomplish…

Such was the state of this family down to the 7th April, 1749, when there befell the first of that series of events which were to break so many hearts and lose so many lives…

This brings us to the use of –

Anticipation

The narrative is given added tension by frequent use of prolepsis or the anticipation of events, generally using variations on the ‘little did we know then…’, ‘if only things had been different…’ formula which give the reader an enjoyably thrilling sense of dread and expectation.

Such was the state of this family down to the 7th April, 1749, when there befell the first of that series of events which were to break so many hearts and lose so many lives…

… it is a strange thought, how many of us had been storing up the elements of this catastrophe, for how long a time, and with how blind an ignorance of what we did.

Doubles

So much has been written about the double or Doppelgänger in adventure fiction that I won’t add to the pile. Stevenson’s strict Calvinist upbringing is often blamed for giving him a starkly dualistic sense of the world, hordes of upright holy elders concealing a seedy world of sin and vice; and plenty of commentators have lined up to say that the Edinburgh of his day was a city divided between the clean, rational elegance of the New City and the filthy, vice-infested slums of the Old Town. With this upbringing some critics make it seem almost inevitable that he’d go on to write novels about the divided self, of which Dr Jeckyll and Mr Hyde is the classic example and this rambling Gothic yarn is the longest example.

Maybe. But:

  1. A lot, probably most, of Stevenson’s fiction isn’t about doubles.
  2. Two is the smallest number. Two is an easy number to manage. For example, a doubleist could argue that The Black Arrow is about two sides in a conflict and young Dick Shelton must decide which side he’s on. But civil wars tend to have two sides, there was no real psychological doubling involved. Similarly, in The Wrecker, the narrator, Loudon Dodds, becomes friends with the entrepreneur Jim Pinkerton, and their characters are fairly different. But this doesn’t mean they represent opposite aspects of something; just that a novel, a story, a narrative, tends to focus on a handful of characters, and two is the smallest possible number of characters, and so a preponderance of pairs is inevitable in all forms of narrative.

Related links

Related reviews

Allan’s Wife and Other Tales by Henry Rider Haggard (1889)

Allan’s Wife and Other Tales is a collection of stories by Henry Rider Haggard about his African hunter hero, Allan Quatermain. The title story is by far the longest, describing Allan’s childhood, upbringing in Africa, and meeting with his wife, and is accompanied by three genuinely short stories, Hunter Quartermain’s Story, A Tale of Three Lions, and Long Odds. They were published separately in magazines in the first flush of Haggard’s success, then collected in this volume.

Allan’s Wife

Allan’s Wife (1889) is a moving account of Quatermain’s sad English childhood. When his mother and three siblings die of fever, his father emigrates to South Africa. It describes his robust African upbringing, and the adventures which lead to his marriage. Unlike Kipling’s often forced and exhausting knowledgeableness, Haggard’s familiarity with guns and hunting, the South African landscape, and the customs and language of Zulus, Masai, Boers etc feel relaxed and convincing. Apart from the main narrative arc about Quatermain’s meeting, wooing and wedding his wife, Stella, there are two striking features:

1. The African medicine man

Indaba-zimbi accompanies Quatermain from early in his adventures and establishes himself as a voice of ancestral African wisdom, giving good advice and performing miraculous magic at key moments. Their first meeting at a competition with his rival to draw down lightning from an electrical storm is pretty dramatic. Repeatedly he says you white men are clever, but you don’t know everything. Thus, as in all the Quatermain stories, a black African is a key figure, representing wisdom, dignity, cunning and endurance.

2. The baboon lady

Key to the plot is the notion that Allan’s wife-to-be, Stella, and her father, years earlier, had rescued a woman, Hendrika, who’d been captured as a baby and brought up by baboons and who, as a result, had extraordinary climbing skills and could communicate with the baboons (rather like Mowgli the man-cub can communicate with wolves and all the other jungle animals in the Jungle Books). This unexpectedly turns out to be the trigger for the crisis of the story, when she and her baboon army kidnap Stella and take her off to a cave in the hills.

As a footnote, it’s worth pointing out that, even here, there is a Lost World since Stella and her father, deep in inaccessible Africa, have re-inhabited mysterious marble houses which they found abandoned by some previous, highly sophisticated, culture. In fact, though short, ‘Allan’s Wife’ packs in a load of the tropes and types of incident which made Haggard’s reputation.

Illustration of Quatermain finding his wife in the cave


Related link

Henry Rider Haggard reviews

Related reviews