Selected Stories by Katherine Mansfield – 1

Ping went the door.
(Mansfield’s interest in sounds)

‘Oh,’ she cried, ‘I am so miserable–so frightfully miserable. I know that I’m silly and spiteful and vain; I’m always acting a part. I’m never my real self for a moment.’
(So many of her characters feel like they’re acting a part)

‘Nobody understands me. I feel as though I were living in a world of strange beings—do you?’
(Edna speaking for all of us, in ‘Something Childish but Very Natural’)

Open this book anywhere, start reading any one of these wonderful short stories, and you know at once that you are in the presence of something very special. Something edgy, lyrical, disconcerting, always moving beyond what you expected, opening doors where you didn’t even know there were walls. Katherine Mansfield is a magical writer whose stories overflow with subtle but overwhelming power.

She wrote about 100 short stories in her short life. This Oxford University Press paperback brings together 33 of them. This post contains a short biography then my summaries of the first 15 stories. In a subsequent blog post I summarise the remaining 18 stories, then in a third blog post I look at some of the themes and images which recur in them.

Biography

Katherine Mansfield was born in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, in 1888. Her parents were affluent and she was sent to a good private school. In 1903 she was sent to London to be educated at a private school. From 1903 to 1906 she travelled in Europe and then returned to New Zealand for a year. Unsurprisingly, on her return she found New Zealand life provincial and her family stifling, and so in 1908 she returned to London, aged 19. Her father gave her an annual allowance of £100 for the rest of her life, but she often lived in some poverty.

In England Mansfield was introduced to the society hostess Lady Ottoline Morrell and the Bloomsbury Circle, the Woolfs, the Stracheys and all the rest of them. She complained that, with their characteristic snobbery, they treated her as an outsider. She had a closer if challenging relationship with that other outsider, D.H. Lawrence. They eventually fell out, as everyone did with Lawrence.

She began a relationship with the literary editor John Middleton Murry, with her leaving him 1911 and again in 1913, although they ended up getting married in 1918. It is widely agreed that the characters Gudrun and Gerald in D. H. Lawrence’s Women in Love are based on Mansfield and Murry, although I’ve read Murry’s quote that if Lawrence thought Gudrun was a portrait of Katherine, it just went to prove that he didn’t know or understand her at all.

Mansfield’s first collection, ‘In A German Pension’, was published in 1911 directly resulting from her stay in Germany. During the Great War, in 1915, her brother Leslie was killed, triggering thoughts, poems and stories nostalgic for her girlhood and family. In 1917, she was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and she had her first lung haemorrhage in March 1918. She went to stay with friends at Looe in Cornwall in the hope of improving her health. It was here that the American painter Anne Estelle Rice painted a brilliant portrait of her:

Portrait Of Katherine Mansfield by Anne Estelle Rice (1918)

As soon as the war was over she was advised to go to a warmer climate and from 1919 onwards she spent every winter abroad. She travelled round France seeking a cure. ‘Bliss and Other Stories’ was published in 1920. In October 1922 she abandoned traditional medicine and moved to Fontainebleau to stay at G.I. Gurdjieff’s Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man. On 9 January 1923, she suffered a pulmonary haemorrhage after running up a flight of stairs and died within the hour. She was just 34.

In the last few years of her life, Mansfield was a prolific writer and much of her work remained unpublished at her death. Her widower, Murry, took on the task of editing and publishing it in two further volumes of short stories, ‘The Doves’ Nest’ in 1923, and ‘Something Childish’ in 1924.

The OUP edition

This Oxford University Press edition is edited with introduction and notes by Angela Smith and was published in 2002. Of Mansfield’s 100 or so stories, it selects 33.

1. Frau Brechenmacher Attends a Wedding (1910)

Frau Brechenmacher is the wife of the village postman, Herr Brechenmacher, and mother of his five children. It is winter and snow lies thick on the ground. It’s the end of the working day and the pair are late to a wedding taking place in the Gasthaus. Having helped him into his best suit and boots, the pair hasten to the festivities. Inside is warm and packed and noisy and smelling of beer. Frau Brechenmacher plumps into a chair beside friends Frau Rupp and Frau Ledermann. It is like Breughel, a vigorous celebration of north European peasant life and manners. The bride, Theresa, has brought her baby, born out of wedlock, to the wedding.

Frau Brechenmacher turned round and looked towards the bride’s mother. She never took her eyes off her daughter, but wrinkled her brown forehead like an old monkey, and nodded now and again very solemnly. Her hands shook as she raised her beer mug, and when she had drunk she spat on the floor and savagely wiped her mouth with her sleeve.

The village gossips tell our Frau that the man the frail young bride got pregnant by only stopped a couple of nights in the village. He was a travelling button salesman. The dance music makes Frau Brechenmacher feel young again and she wishes she could dance, too. Then things quieten down for her husband to make a speech and present the happy couple with a present but as the crowd roar and laugh she has an oppressive feeling that everyone is laughing at her.

They make it back to their house alright and Frau Brechenmacher feeds her man then checks on the children and then, in the last brutal lines, undresses and gets into bed ready for the onslaught of his big drunk drooling husband.

Then even the memory of the wedding faded quite. She lay down on the bed and put her arm across her face like a child who expected to be hurt as Herr Brechenmacher lurched in.

2. The Woman at the Store (1912)

In the New Zealand outback (apparently referred to in New Zealand as the ‘backblocks’) three travellers on horseback, Hin and Jo and the unnamed woman narrator, after a long hot ride arrive at a remote farmstead. They’re greeted by a half-mad wizened lady holding a gun and tending a 6-year-old girl. She says her husband is off sheep-shearing and asks them to ride on but they stop, hitch a tent and bathe in the creek.

Jo talks the woman round to inviting them up to the house for drinks, they all get slowly drunk while the woman moans and feels sorry for herself, taking her frustration out on beating the child almost whenever she speaks. The woman has been seduced by Jo and they’ve reached an arrangement to sleep together. Slowly a storm comes up and breaks overhead with lightning and rain. The woman invites them to get their stuff from the tent and bunk down in the store, alongside the girl, while she and Jo share the bed.

All through the afternoon and evening drinking the girl (clearly a bit mad herself) has been sketching and drawing. Now, angry at her ma, she draws the drawing her ma threatens to shoot her for. She shows it to Hin and Jo who see it’s a drawing of a woman shooting a man then digging a grave: the husband she was moaning about and complaining had gone off shearing, she must have shot him!

Hin and the narrator stay up all night terrified and as soon as dawn comes, strike camp and pack their horses. Jo announces he’s going to stay on with her but the other two can’t wait to put distance between them and the murder store. A story packed with utterly believable detail and then with a mule kick in the tail.

Commentary

It is fascinating to learn from Angela Smith’s introduction that Mansfield refused to allow this story to be reproduced during her lifetime. This is because that ‘mule kick in the tail’, that last-minute punchline, is precisely the standard short story format which she was hoping to escape or move beyond, towards stories with less predictable structures, which make their impact through vivid details and puzzling, fugitive moments.

3. How Pearl Button was Kidnapped (1912)

Little Pearl is stolen from outside her house by two plump Indigenous women and walks miles to their camp where everyone is delighted with her and pets her, then they load her up into a cart, one among many horsedrawn wagons (‘a green cart with a red pony and a green pony’) and they trek for miles through the bush till they reach a bluff overlooking the sea and the women take Pearl down to the beach and she digs holes and frolics in the warm little surf until she hears whistles and men in blue coming running towards them. It is the police come to ‘rescue’ her.

4. Millie (1913)

New Zealand: Millie is the working class wife of Sid, a labourer in a rural farming community, waiting for him and some other men who have gone in search of Harrison, an Englishman who has supposedly shot and killed a neighbour, Mr Williamson. Millie hears a noise and finds a wounded man lying in the garden. When she sees he is little more than a boy she stops being scared and, despite realising that this is probably Harrison the alleged murderer, she becomes sympathetic and helps him, and then hides him, promising that he will go free. The men return home, eat, and settle down to sleep, with Millie on tenterhooks about Harrison in his hiding place – until a neighbour’s dog starts barking, the men rouse and go outside, only to see Harrison saddled up and go galloping through the compound and off. The men set off in pursuit and Millie, who had been so sympathetic and nursing, is swept up in the thrill of the chase, runs into the street in her nightdress and yells after the men to catch him and shoot him:

‘A—ah! Arter ‘im, Sid! A—a—a—h! Ketch him, Willie. Go it! Go it! A—ah, Sid! Shoot ‘im down. Shoot ‘im!’

A brilliant evocation of the susceptibility, the deep irrationality, of human nature.

5. Something Childish but Very Natural (1914)

Henry is not yet 18 and likes books. Browsing in a bookshop at the railway station he is so enchanted with a poem titled ‘Something Childish but very Natural’ that he nearly misses his train, jumping into the nearest carriage as it pulls away, where he gets talking to a girl, really a girl, 16-year-old Edna, and feels an overwhelming attraction to her. The next Saturday he seeks her out at the station and they get on the train and talk again.

Somehow they have both been seized by a tremendous but somehow naive friendship, attachment, understanding. They both feel it and are shy and laugh.

Their eyes were not frightened—they looked at each other page with a sort of desperate calmness. If only their bodies would not tremble so stupidly!…
‘I feel as if I’d known you for years.’

She tells him her mother is Hungarian and wild and rebellious and she shares her character, completely unlike her small quiet father. He asks her to take off her hat and let down her hair and they both marvel at how natural their intimate friendship seems:

‘My God!’ he cried, ‘what fools people are! All the little pollies that you know and that I know. Just look at you and me. Here we are—that’s all there is to be said. I know about you and you know about me—we’ve just found each other—quite simply—just by being natural. That’s all life is—something childish and very natural. Isn’t it?’

They exchange love letters. One Saturday he buys tickets and takes her to a concert. Here he becomes really vexed because she won’t ever let him touch her, won’t let him touch her hair or take her hand, won’t let him help her off with her coat, won’t let them jointly hold the concert program. He is desperate to touch her, feel that she is real, and she is just as anxious, almost panic-stricken, at the thought of being touched, and after the concert, in the square, she bursts into tears and says it tortures her that he is upset at her refusal to let him touch her, let alone kiss her, but she just can’t: she feels that if they did that they would cross a line, it would no longer be childish and innocent, they would be hiding something from their parents, they would no longer, somehow, be free.

They wander London until they come to a suburb down by the river (Brentford? Kew?) and fantasise about living in one of the riverside cottages. Henry naively says they can live without money, they just need each other and faith.

Cut to a new scene of them in a wood, Henry lying on a bed of leaves ‘faint with longing’ – it seems like he is sexually aroused and primed but, when he goes to find Edna he discovers her in a dell picking flowers, so he has to suppress himself in order not to spoil her sexless happiness.

As if in a dream, in a hallucination, they get up and walk for miles until they come to a village tea rooms whose owner asks if they know anyone who is interested in renting her sister’s cottage, so they go and inspect the cottage, in their dreamy idyll mode. Here she suddenly impulsively embraces him and tells him she’s been wanting him to kiss her all day. Well, there is the language of speech; she could say: ‘Kiss me’, but they are young and think everything happens by unspoken agreement.

In the last scene Henry is in the cottage impatiently waiting for Edna’s train to arrive so he can collect her and walk her back through the country lanes and their ideal life can continue. Only now does the text make it explicit that this is all a dream.

Henry thought he saw a big white moth flying down the road. It perched on the gate. No, it wasn’t a moth. It was a little girl in a pinafore. What a nice little girl, and he smiled in his sleep

A young girl in a white pinafore comes down the road and hands him a telegram.

He laughed gently in the dream and opened it very carefully.

And we aren’t told what the telegram says but suddenly a web of darkness is thrown over the woods, the cottage and Henry – and that is the end of the story. How wonderful, lyrical, transporting and strange.

Colours

[Spring] had put a spangle in every colour… the black portfolio… her cheek and shoulder half hidden by a long wave of marigold-coloured hair… one little hand in a grey cotton glove… Henry noticed a silver bangle on the wrist… She wore a green coat… She bent her head to hide the red colour that flew in her cheeks… her grey eyes under the shadow of her hat and her eyebrows like two gold feathers… her throat was whiteWhite smoke floated against the roof of the station—dissolved and came again in swaying wreaths… She pulled it round her shoulders like a cape of gold… A blue net of light hung over the streets and houses, and pink clouds floated in a pale sky… above his head the new leaves quivered like fountains of green water steeped in sunlight… Two little spots of colour like strawberries glowed on her cheeks… It was evening—the pale green sky was sprinkled with stars…

6. The Little Governess (1915)

This text vividly conveys the terror of travelling abroad as a small, vulnerable woman in a man’s world, presumably based on the lonely journey Mansfield took to Germany to have an abortion in 1911.

A small, shy young woman gets a job via an agency for governesses. It’s in Germany and the text describes her solo journey there from England. Basically she is terrified of everything. The Governess Bureau set the tone by telling her to lock all doors and not to speak to strangers. When her ship docks a big rough man asks where she’s headed then seizes her baggage and strides off before she can stop him. She struggles to keep up and when he finally delivers her to the right train platform, he is cross that she doesn’t tip him adequately. Then a group of rowdy men come shouting down the corridor and go into the next-door compartment, re-emerging to knock on her door and invite her to join them, with mock courtesy. ‘I wish it wasn’t night-time. I wish there was another woman in the carriage. I’m frightened of the men next door.’

The train bounds forward through the night and at the next station an old man is shown into her carriage. He is to be her downfall. He appears to be a courteous old man who tuts and frets about the rowdy blokes next door. Most of the text is devoted to the way he very slowly butters her up. When he discovers she’s going to Munich he offers to show her to her hotel and around the sights of Munich which he proceeds to do. The woman who is employing her as a governess isn’t due to meet her at her hotel till 6pm, so they have all day to get her settled in, then for the old man to reappear and take her round the sights.

With each new sight and lunch and treats, ice cream at a cafe and so on, she feels more relaxed in his company until, at the end of the afternoon, he makes his move and invites her back to his humble abode. This turns out to be down a dark alley and in a grubby house and a dingy apartment where he invites her to sit next to her on the sofa and next thing she knows has leaned over and kissed her on the lips!

Leaping up, she runs out the room and takes a cab back to the hotel but disaster has struck. It’s well past 6pm and, according to a porter, the woman offering her the job turned up at 6pm only to be told that she had gone swanning off with an older gentleman and hadn’t been seen since. The implication is that by being taken in by the old man, she has lost the position she came all this way to take up.

It sounds simple but as with all Mansfield, the story is riven by complicated dynamics and psychology which I haven’t had space to summarise. It is another small masterpiece.

7. An Indiscreet Journey (1915)

Like ‘Something Childish but Very Natural’ only more so, this is a fantasia, a fever dream, a wild, exaggerated, fanciful narrative which follows the first-person narrator as she dashes out of her Paris apartment, runs down into the Metro and catches a train to the main railway station, hurtles onto a train to X (it is never explained where this is). The narrative is full of fancy and whimsy.

I conjured up my sweetest early-morning smile and handed it with the papers. But the delicate thing fluttered against page the horn spectacles and fell.

But it is wartime and so the train and every station are packed with soldiers and Red Cross nurses and the train flies past fields full of flowers except they are graves with bunches of coloured ribbon attached. She arrives at the unnamed town and rushes into a buffet which is all hustle and bustle and colours and sounds.

A little boy, very pale, swung from table to table, taking the orders, and poured me out a glass of purple coffee. Ssssb, came from the eggs. They were in a pan. The woman rushed from behind the counter and began to help the boy. Toute de suite, tout’ suite! she chirruped to the loud impatient voices. There came a clatter of plates and the poppop of corks being drawn.

From where she ran to another platform and jumped onto a smaller train. She has been invited to stay by her uncle and aunt. M. and Mme. Boiffard. Whimsy. Fantasia.

I smiled faintly, and tried to keep my eyes off her hat. She was quite an ordinary little woman, but she wore a black velvet toque, with an incredibly surprised looking sea-gull camped on the very top of it. Its round eyes, fixed on me so inquiringly, were almost too much to bear. I had a dreadful impulse to shoo it away, or to lean forward and inform her of its presence… Could the bird be there on purpose? I must not laugh… I must not laugh.

And indeed, the seagull starts interrogating the narrator, asking why she’s going to X at this perilous time (in the middle of a war)? The narrator passes a cursory passport control with two bumptious colonels and is taken by a corporal to a hotel with a cab which she takes with him, and they set off round the town, dropping off stuff, a parcel at the barracks, then onto a house which the corporal urges her to jump into and there are two figures who, she assumes, are her uncle and aunt.

In the next section she has been out walking and gotten lost. The fragility of her location, her bearings, of the aunt and uncle she’s never seen before – all feel highly experimental and modernist. And yet veined with wonderfully vivid descriptive phrases.

Already the village houses were sealed for the night behind big wooden shutters. Strange and mysterious they looked in the ragged drifting light and thin rain, like a company of beggars perched on the hill-side, their bosoms full of rich unlawful gold.

She is rescued by the waiter-boy who takes her to her favourite cafe which, as she takes a seat, turns into a big barn with strange wallpaper and the clatter of dishes being washed. For a moment the narrative gives up any pretence of being realistic.

And years passed. Perhaps the war is long since over—there is no village outside at all—the streets are quiet under the grass. I have an idea this is the sort of thing one will do on the very last day of all—sit in an empty café and listen to a clock ticking until—.

‘What one will do on the very last day of all…’ Wow. Suddenly a massive idea. And then back to the cafe-barn where the pretty waiting-boy serves some orange drink but the bottle is knocked over, the liquid drips onto the floor. Then she finds herself in an extended conversation with two soldiers and the corporal, about trivia, about whether the English drink whiskey with their meals, a big drunk one with a black beard, a slighter one with blue eyes. Blue eyes insists on dragging them across the village to a bar, the Café des Amis, to drink what he swears is the finest drink, Mirabelle. The landlady is scandalised because it’s past the 8 o’clock curfew but she serves them anyway.

The patriarchy

So silly – men, the patriarchy, the war.

It was a hot little room completely furnished with two colonels seated at two tables. They were large grey-whiskered men with a touch of burnt red on their cheeks. Sumptuous and omnipotent they looked. One smoked what ladies love to call a heavy Egyptian cigarette, with a long creamy ash, the other toyed with a gilded pen. Their heads rolled on their tight collars, like big over-ripe fruits… ‘What’s this?’ said God I., querulously.

8. The Wind Blows (1915, revised 1920)

A wild wind is blowing, where? Across the island, New Zealand? The wind symbolises and echoes the turbulent heart of Matilda, the teenage girl protagonist who disobeys her mother, running out into the tearing wind in order to get to her music lesson with kind old, tweed-jacketed Mr Bullen. The turmoil is in her heart, too, because she has a crush on Mr Bullen and notices every aspect of his physical presence, the way he reaches across the shoulders of the piano student before her, the way his hands nearly touch hers, the way he sits close to her on the piano bench, and so on. Feverish teenage crush.

Finally the wind accompanies Matilda and her (male) friend, Bogie, when they walk down to the docks and watch a big old steamer pushing through the waves and, in a magical modernist touch, suddenly she and Bogie are adults, on just such a steamer returning to the island after years away.

Breath-taking and singled out for praise by Virginia Woolf, apparently.

9. Prelude

‘Prelude’ is a long piece, based on Mansfield’s memories of her family moving from the centre of Wellington to a country suburb in 1893 when Katherine was 5. It was originally the first chapter of a novel which she worked at off and on between 1915 and 1918, and which her widower, John Middleton Murry, edited and published in 1930 under the title ‘Aloe.’

It’s long and in 12 parts but the basic idea is simple enough: Stanley Burnell, his wife Linda, and their two children – Lottie, Kezia and Isabel – along with her mother, Grandma (Mrs Fairfield) and her sister (Aunt Beryl Fairfield) Fairfield, along with the servants (Pat, the Irish handyman and Alice, the servant girl with adenoids) are moving house in the slow laborious late-Victorian way of piling their belongings on a horse and cart. In the morning the husband goes off to work while the women supervise the loading of the cart, its journey to the new place and unpacking, while the children are left behind in the care of a fat friendly neighbour, Mrs Josephs (who happens to have a comically heavy cold). In the evening Fred the storeman returns with the cart to take the second and final load of belongings and collect the three young children.

The day’s wait, the eerie emptiness of the old home, the cart journey as night falls, the sights and smells of the new house, the arrival of morning and exciting new sights – are all seem through the children’s eyes with a magical freshness and vividness. The text has more than the usual amount of vivid similes and descriptions.

As she stood there, the day flickered out and dark came. With the dark crept the wind snuffling and howling. The windows of the empty house shook, a creaking came from the walls and floors, a piece of loose iron on the roof banged forlornly.

Bright stars speckled the sky and the moon hung over the harbour dabbling the waves with gold… ‘There comes the Picton boat,’ said the storeman, pointing to a little steamer all hung with bright beads.

From all over the house came the sound of steps. The house itself creaked and popped. Loud whispering voices came from downstairs. Once she heard Aunt Beryl’s rush of high laughter, and once she heard a loud trumpeting from Burnell blowing his nose. Outside the window hundreds of black cats with yellow eyes sat in the sky watching her–but she was not frightened.

It wanted a few minutes to sunset. Everything stood motionless bathed in bright, metallic light and from the paddocks on either side there streamed the milky scent of ripe grass.

A strong theme is the adult women’s sense of entrapment. Linda (pregnant) daydreams about getting into a cart and just driving away from her family, leaving them without even a parting wave goodbye. Towards the end she has a passage where she seems to be thinking about them having sex and how she hates and fears those moments (‘When she had not quite screamed at the top of her voice: “You are killing me.”‘) And her sister, Aunt Beryl, wishes she wasn’t utterly dependent on Stanley and dreams of a phantom lover who will take her away from it all, the final section is a letter she writes to her friend, Nan Pym, full of disgruntlement and frustrated longing. Both of them want to be free…

10. Mr Reginald Peacock’s Day (1917)

A satirical portrait of a pompous music teacher, his tremendous self-regard, his flirtations with all his female students, his strained relationships with his son Adrian but especially his wife, who he considers has the inestimable privilege of living with an artistic genius, but doesn’t seem to appreciate it.

11. Feuille d’Album (1917)

A short piece about that stock figure, The Artist, only in this case it’s not a big famous Society artist but the opposite – a young unknown called Ian French. The narrative starts in the voice of a Society lady, established in the very first sentence: ‘He really was an impossible person!’ which continues in this vein for the first half. It describes how a succession of well-meaning women of the Parisian, artist-hunting type set their caps at young Ian and tried to seduce him, or take him out partying and so on, but always he slipped away and when they went knocking at his studio door… silence.

Inside his studio was not the chaotic mess of legend, but spick and span and tidy. He worked all day at his painting and then he sat and read. Until (and this is where part two beings) one day he spies a young woman his own age emerge onto the balcony of the small shabby house across the way, and is entranced and soon sits every evening, waiting for her to appear. She seems to speak sometimes to someone else back inside the apartment but he never sees anyone, although he fantasises about the characters of her mother and father.

In fact he gets quite carried away and imagines their life together, if they were living together, how frugally they would live, how she disliked the drawings he made of her because they made her look so thin, how she had a terrible temper and rarely laughed…

Then he discovers that goes shopping every Thursday evening, and on the third Thursday he runs down the stairs and out into the street to follow her. He watches her at the grocer’s, the butcher’s, the draper’s, and then the fruit shop (where she buys a lemon). Finally she visits the dairy and he watches her buy an egg. When she comes out he pops in and also buys an egg, and follows her home. He slips through the front door of the house and tiptoes up the stairs behind her. And as she’s putting the key in the door of her rooms, he runs up and faces her and:

Blushing more crimson than ever, but looking at her severely he said, almost angrily: ‘Excuse me, Mademoiselle, you dropped this.’ And he handed her an egg.

How extraordinarily strange, beguiling, mysterious, spooky, and moving but with an unknown emotion, or an unknown complex of complicated emotions and responses. You can speculate all you like whether this Ian is a young idealist, or a creepy stalker, or an obsessive or a romantic – the point of this as so many Mansfield stories is that no one label fits because so much is going on. Similarly, as to genre, is it a satire (as it starts out) or a fairy story (as it ends up) or both with a lot of realistic stuff about the market outside his apartment building thrown in? Or is it a kind of love story to Paris, and its strange, eccentric, Bohemian alleyways and people? It’s just two-and-a-half thousand words long but feels like, within its sliver of a story, it somehow contains worlds.

12. A Dill Pickle (1917)

Everything about this story is marvellous. It describes the encounter of a young man and woman (Vera) six years after they had an ill-fated affair which ended abruptly. She bumps into him in a restaurant, after a moment’s blankness (which should be sufficient warning) he remembers her and offers her a chair at his table.

Right from the get-go she recognises all his mannerisms, including his controlling:

She was thinking how well she remembered that trick of his–the trick of interrupting her–and of how it used to exasperate her six years ago. She used to feel then as though he, quite suddenly, in the middle of what she was saying, put his hand over her lips, turned from her, attended to something different, and then took his hand away, and with just the same slightly too broad smile, gave her his attention again.

He was obviously a bit of a fool six years ago. She remembers his farcical behaviour trying to deal with a wasp in the tea rooms at Kew, at his melodramatic declarations that he wanted to die for love of her. Now he is much more sleek and successful, well-dressed and offers her hand-made cigarettes from a Russian cigarette case.

In fact it turns out he has been doing all the travelling they used to fantasises about, to Spain, Corsica, Siberia, Russia, Egypt. In Russia he spent some days on a river boat on the Volga and at length sings the praises of the marvellously warm unaffected river people. And here we get to the title of the story: One evening a party of him and some friends went for a picnic by the Black Sea, taking supper and champagne. And while they were eating the coachman came up and offered them a dill pickle.

For the affected, pretentious young man, this epitomised the wonderful free spirit of the unaffected ordinary Russians. There’s a silence as she vividly imagines the scene. Then he cuts to remembering how candid they used to be, how he told her all kinds of stories of his boyhood. But the gap between them is indicated by the way she remembers the occasions but different details: if he is remembering what he told her about running away from home as a boy, what she remembers is that he made a huge fuss about an expensive jar of caviar he had bought her.

He describes how he recently found and reread the letter in which she dumped him, and loftily says how accurate it was. But around about now, she begins to suspect him and his whole tone; he is mocking his younger self but, as part of that, also mocking her.

She buttons her coat and lets down her veil (she’s wearing a veil? well, it is set during the First World War) preparatory to leaving, but she tells her more and she stays and she feels the strange beast, love, stirring in her bosom again. And as he carries on flattering her, she is stricken with regret: was he the only person who’d ever understood her? Had she thrown away her only chance at happiness?

But then he blows it. He leans back in his chair and his pompous, pretentious, sounding-off side kicks in. He begins to mansplain that while he was in Russia he studied the ‘Mind System’ and when he looks up again… she has gone!

All this has been staggeringly vivid and beautifully described, I felt like both the man and the young woman, I felt like they were my memories. And Mansfield rounds it off perfectly with a beautiful comic touch. The young man calls the waitress over and asks for the bill but, penny-pinching to the last – as we saw in the anecdote about the expensive jar of caviar — he asks her not to include the cream he ordered to accompany Vera’s coffee.

‘But the cream has not been touched,’ he said. ‘Please do not charge me for it.’

In just 5 or 6 pages it feels as if all of human nature has somehow been explained. Marvellous!

13. Je ne parle pas francais (1918)

‘Pray don’t imagine…’

This is one of Mansfield’s longer stories, at ten and a half thousand words. It’s an experiment in tone of voice, a first-person narration by a loftily superior, artistic type, a writer, archly self-aware and toying with phrases, priding himself on little turns of phrase and observations (‘That’s rather nice, don’t you think, that bit’). He addresses the reader as ‘ladies and gentleman’. He says ‘don’t you know’. Posh and performing. He is a dandy, priding himself on his immaculately stylish appearance.

Well into the story, the narrator introduces himself as Raoul Duquette, a 26-year-old Parisian, who wants to be a writer, tackle new subjects, amaze the world etc. He swanks that he is the author of ‘False Coins’, ‘Wrong Doors’, ‘Left Umbrellas’ and, he assures us, two more in preparation. But is he a writer at all, or a man of a different profession lying to his readers?

In the event, very little happens. The narrative is in about 8 stages: 1) the narrator meets an Englishman named Dick at an arty party, and they become friends; 2) Dick goes back to England; 3) Dick mails the narrator to tell him he’s coming to Paris with his true love so can he find them somewhere to stay; 4) Raoul meets the pair off the train and immediately notes the distance and restraint between Dick and the sweet little woman he calls ‘Mouse’; 5) he’s barely taken them in a cab to the hotel rooms he’s fixed up for them before Dick, very flustered, says he just has to pop out to post a letter to his mother; 6) when, after a wait, Mouse goes across the hall to her husband’s room she discovers he’s bolted and left a letter for her; 7) the letter says he’s gone back to England to look after his mother, he should never have left her, he felt bad the moment he got onto the train with Mouse; 8) the narrator offers Mouse his help, says he will look after her etc, then takes his leave. You might expect that they then have an affair, but the whole thing is stranger and more blocked than that because in the event 9) he never sees her again. He thinks about it, he tries, he sets off, but he never follows through.

Instead he prefers, in his dilettantish, aesthetic manner, to harbour the memories of Dick, then of greeting the unhappy couple, and of their unease with each other. These are more thrilling sensations than actually going out with her could ever provide; that would just be banal.

As to the title of the story, ‘Je ne parle pas francais’, it’s a phrase the little woman used half a dozen times after they’d arrived in Paris, apologising for herself. And the entire ‘story’ is really a flashback, triggered some time later when the narrator has dropped into his favourite café and is leafing through his notebook when, among his numerous bad drawings, he comes across the phrase written out and it sparks a wave of intense memory.

It’s a peculiar piece, not so much because of the central narrative, which I’ve summarised, but because of the extremely mannered, pretentious manner of the narrator, both in terms of style, and his constant preening and celebration of himself and his fine sensibility. It would be easy to dismiss it as a satire on a certain type of pretentious author; it might even be a lampoon of a Paris author Mansfield knew or met.

Either way it has a strangeness, a wordy obliqueness, which is often puzzling. And then again, viewed a different way, it may have started out as Mansfield’s own notes and jottings describing sitting in your average Parisian café – perceptions, descriptions and phrases she recorded, ordered, and then cobbled together a plot around. From this perspective is the odd, frustrating ‘plot’ more like a pretext, a scaffold on which to hang fantastical ideas? Such as this description of Dick’s fiancée, the Mouse,

She was exquisite, but so fragile and fine that each time I looked at her it was as if for the first time. She came upon you with the same kind of shock that you feel when you have been drinking tea out of a thin innocent cup and suddenly, at the bottom, you see a tiny creature, half butterfly, half woman, bowing to you with her hands in her sleeves.

That touch of fantasy at the end – not of finding an ant or a woodlouse at the bottom of your cup (as is possible) but a creature ‘half butterfly, half woman’, is typical of the unexpected phrases, ideas and tone which characterise this strange ‘story’.

The influence of cinema

I’ve noted the references to movies in the comic stories of P.G. Wodehouse, including one character in the Blandings series who’s absolutely dominated by film, perceives everything that happens through movie filters, incessantly quotes movie dialogue.

This story, also, contains a few contemporary movie references which reinforce the notion that film colonised the imagination, crystallising a range of character types so that, after a while, writers of novels and stories started to see, not the person in front of them, but see them as a type such as you’d see in a movie.

Query: Why am I so bitter against Life? And why do I see her as a rag-picker on the American cinema, shuffling along wrapped in a filthy shawl with her old claws crooked over a stick?
Answer: The direct result of the American cinema acting upon a weak mind.

And:

If the pale, sweaty garçon had not come in at that moment, carrying the tea-tray high on one hand as if the cups were cannon-balls and he a heavy weight-lifter on the cinema…

Film came to provide an immediate and widely understood language of character types and situations. It’s hard to see this as anything but a reduction in the range and variety of the human imagination.

14. Sun and Moon (1920)

Sun and Moon are the son and daughter of an upper middle class family. the house is in uproar because the parents are hosting a big party. All the preparations – the furniture taken out of the living room to be replaced by hired chairs, the piano pushed to one side – and the marvels being prepared in the kitchen by Minnie the cook, until they are marched off by nurse to wash and get dressed. Full description of two Edwardian children in full fig, and Nurse calls their mother in to admire them.

Finally the bell rings and they are summoned to go downstairs and be on their best behaviour in front of all the adult guests.

The drawing-room was full of sweet smelling, silky, rustling ladies and men in black with funny tails on their coats—like beetles. Father was among them, talking very loud, and rattling something in his pocket.

After being petted and adored, they are taken back to their bedrooms, hustled through their prayers and it’s time for bed. Periodically they wake up at later points in the evening… Bounding up the stairs their father nearly trips over them and, clearly drunk, decides they must come down and share scraps from the meal and so scoops them up under each arm and carries them downstairs despite the joking objections of his wife (Kitty).

Both children are staggered at how wrecked everything is, with food and dirty plates and glasses everywhere, knocked over bottles, all the fine lace bows undone, all the wreckage of a grand dinner. Moon is delighted to be carried to a chair at the table and be fed sweet titbits from the candy toy house by her father.

But the son (Sun) remains by the door and it feels so right, so true, if only because it so completely fits the stereotype, that the sight of so much wreckage appals him and suddenly he starts wailing (although to be honest, it would work as well or better the other way round, with the chunky son heedlessly stuffing his face with sweetmeats and the more sensitive daughter finding the whole thing overwhelming). Either way, it is a brilliantly vivid rendition.

15. Bliss (1918)

What can you do if you are thirty and, turning the corner of your own street, you are overcome, suddenly, by a feeling of bliss—absolute bliss!—as though you’d suddenly swallowed a bright piece of that late afternoon sun and it burned in your bosom, sending out a little shower of sparks into every particle, into every finger and toe? . . .

Although Bertha Young is now 30 she still feels overcome with moments of shout-out-loud blissful happiness! She has a husband Harry, a nice house, a baby, a nurse and maids and all the rest, but is still regularly seized by fires of bliss! She has modern, thrilling friends, writers and painters and poets or people keen on social question. She admires her house, she admires the lovely garden.

‘I’m too happy—too happy!’ she murmured.

She’s hosting a dinner party tonight and this is described in the usual satirical way, with the usual arty friends:

The Norman Knights—a very sound couple—he was about to start a theatre, and she was awfully keen on interior decoration, a young man, Eddie Warren, who had just published a little book of poems and whom everybody was asking to dine, and a “find” of Bertha’s called Pearl Fulton.

The Knights arrive in their preposterous clothes, he with his monocle, and Eddie the poet in his lovely white scarf, complaining about his taxi driver. Moments later, running late as usual, arrives Bertha’s adorable husband Harry, so funny, so rich, so adorable, such a zest for life.

Last to arrive is Miss Fulton, Bertha’s ‘find’, all in silver, with a silver fillet binding her pale blond hair, Bertha feels they have such an understanding. In to dinner they go and have such scintillating conversation, the new play that’s being written, the wonderful soufflée, Bertha is beside herself with happiness, everything is too too perfect. She is so happy she wants to laugh hysterically and only by digging her nails into the palms of her hands can she stop herself.

Bertha feels she is waiting for some kind of ‘sign’ from Miss Fulton to full acknowledge their sympathy and it finally comes when Miss F asks whether they have a garden and Bertha whisks the curtains aside to reveal it and the women stand side by side to admire the pear tree in the silver moonlight. Have any two women ever understood each other more perfectly? When Harry is a trifle curt to Miss F when he offers round a cigarette case, Bertha is wounded and vows to tell him later how much the silver young woman means to her, a talisman of all her happiness.

And yet, somehow, inspired by the happiness of her day and the union of minds with Miss Fulton, for the first time in her life Bertha experiences heterosexual desire. She has always loved her husband, just not in that way. She worries that he initially resented her physical coldness but he assured her it was fine and they have grown to be good friends without any of that other messy business. But tonight, for the first time, she feels she could actually ‘give herself’ to him.

It’s time for the Knights to catch their train back to Hampstead. Bertha and Harry shake hands and wave them goodbye. Eddie goes to get his coat and Miss Fulton makes for the hall, when Harry, almost rudely, pushes past Bertha to get to her. Bertha thinks he just wants to make amends for his earlier rudeness. How sweet of him.

She turns to talk to Eddie who tells her about some recently published poem and they both walk silently to a table to get the book and open it. It is here, from this vantage point, that Bertha sees Harry:

Harry with Miss Fulton’s coat in his arms and Miss Fulton with her back turned to him and her head bent. He tossed the coat away, put his hands on her shoulders and turned her violently to him. His lips said: ‘I adore you’, and Miss Fulton laid her moonbeam fingers on his cheeks and smiled her sleepy smile. Harry’s nostrils quivered; his lips curled back in a hideous grin while he whispered: ‘To-morrow’, and with her eyelids Miss Fulton said: ‘Yes’.

Not suspecting a thing, Miss Fulton comes into the living room to touch hands and thank her for a wonderful evening, and dwells on the pear tree, the pear tree in the moonlight which Bertha thought symbolised their imaginative union.

Harry, boisterous and efficient as always, tells her he’ll lock up. But Bertha runs over to the garden window and stares out at the pear tree in the moonlight and wails:

‘Oh, what is going to happen now?’


Credit

‘Selected Stories’ by Katherine Mansfield was published by Oxford University Press in 2002. I read the 2008 reissued paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

Love Among the Haystacks by D.H. Lawrence (1930)

Six short stories by D.H. Lawrence, published in the UK after his death, in 1930.

  1. Love Among the Haystacks (1930)
  2. The Lovely Lady (1933)
  3. Rawdon’s Roof (1928)
  4. The Rocking-Horse Winner (1926)
  5. The Man Who Loved Islands (1929)
  6. The Man Who Died (1929)

1. Love Among the Haystacks (40 pages)

Part 1

It all takes place during one long, hot day harvesting hay and building massive ricks in the Nottinghamshire countryside.

The story of two young brothers who work on the family farm, countrymen who speak in broad dialect, Geoffrey, 22, and Maurice, 21. I think the family name is Wookey. They’ve been raised by their mother, an outsider who speaks proper English and considers herself above the locals, and so consider themselves above the local girls. The result is they are in the prime of their youth, know no women and are deeply frustrated.

There’s an attractive German-speaking governess at the Vicarage and, after they were both involved in a minor accident (with a rake) she agreed to meet Maurice and, the night before the story opens, sat with him and let him kiss her. As the story opens Maurice is reliving the scene in order to taunt his heavier, surly, jealous brother.

It is harvest time, a boiling hot day. The brothers are atop a high haystack and work as a trio with their father tossing hay up from a cart and Geoffrey tossing it onto Maurice. When they’ve finished Maurice goes round testing the corners but their verbal sparring reaches such a peak that the red mist comes down over Geoffrey’s eyes and he forces his brother over the edge of the stack, falling quite a way to the ground.

Their elder brother, Henry, other farm workers and the German woman from the Vicarage who saw it happen, all come running. For a tantalising moment Geoffrey thinks he’s killed Maurice and will at last be free of the poisoned curdling of his soul within itself, the permanent self poisoning which makes him so surly and angry. But then his brother starts coming round and Geoffrey feels trapped again.

On the last pages the governess comes to the fore. We learn she is Polish, named Paula Jablonowsky, just 20 years old, swift and light as a wild cat and, in Lawrence’s characteristic way, the phrase wild cat is repeated again and again.

Now she tends Maurice as he comes round and staggers to his feet, assuring everyone he is fine, especially as he is so publicly receiving the wild Polish girl’s caresses as she ‘gives him lordship over her’.

Squeezed in at the end of this section is the vicar confiding in Maurice’s father that she, the Polish girl, is for the chop. He obviously dislikes her wild impulsive character. She’ll be leaving in three weeks. Immediately the reader sees the problem: Maurice is falling in love with a woman who’ll be gone in weeks.

Part 2

Maurice thinks he loves Paula. He wants to marry her. Following immediately on from the preceding scene, the Wookey men and other labourers lay out a large picnic supplied by their mother. In the middle of the feast Paula walks over the fields from the vicarage with cold chicken for Maurice. The other men josh both Maurice and the girl for being so obviously in love.

Paula tells her more about her life, she hails from Hanover but ran away from home (wild cat!). She tells then she hates the vicarage, no life! She says she’ll move on, maybe go to Paris, maybe get married!

While this is ramifying, a seedy tramp comes up, ‘a mean crawl of a man.’ He asks if there’s any work. The father replies no, they’ve nearly finished. He explains he was a jockey, pulled a race for his manager, was found out and fired. He begs some of the pie, then bread and cheese, then a wedge of tobacco.

While he’s smoking his pipe with the rest of the men, his woman appears through the gap in the hedge and joins them. She’s tough, hard-bitten but only young. She ignores all the others and asks the man if he’s got any work and is angry when he says no. In that queer perceptive way of his, Lawrence points out how there’s a secret sympathy between angry Geoffrey and this embittered young woman, ‘There was a sort of kinship between them. Both were at odds with the world’ (p.25)

Part 3

The men carry on with the haymaking all afternoon but the break in work for Maurice’s accident means they won’t finish today. Somebody needs to sleep the night in the field to protect the tools and Maurice volunteers, because as Henry waspishly points out, he wants to continue his courting of the Polish girl.

Night falls at the end of the long hot day. There’s a brilliant moment:

Maurice wondered what to do. He wandered round the deserted stacks restlessly. Heat came in wafts, in thick strands. The evening was a long time cooling.

That phrase, ‘Heat came in wafts, in thick strands’ suddenly took me back to evenings in the country. Lawrence gives hauntingly beautiful descriptions of the flowers – meadowsweet, ragged robin and bell flowers – while Maurice decides to strip off and wash all over ahead of his rendezvous with Paula at 9.

She is late, it took a while getting the vicar’s baby off to sleep. Now they walk through the grass till she suggests a mad dash through the hay. They hear horses approaching and she asks to ride one. Maurice gentles one of the horses, a mare, and attaches a bridle, then helps the girl onto the horse’s back, swinging up in front of her.

They ride gently to the top of the hill and Lawrence gives a beautiful description of the vista with lights of collieries and the town in the distance. Then she wants excitement and asks him to make the mare gallop down hill, which he does, thrillingly. They dismount breathless and excited and Maurice takes her in his arms and kisses her. They stroll on with arms round each others’ waists.

Maurice feels a spot of rain and tells Paula he needs to cover the stacks with a rain cloth, goes fetches one from the shed, places the ricketty ladder against the stack and clambers up it holding the leading edge of the cloth. She helps.

Part 4

Geoffrey comes to help with the cloth. He’s cycled up with a bike light on. He can’t see the others and doesn’t call out. Suddenly he hears a slithering against the stack. It’s the ladder the couple climbed up slowly falling over. Geoffrey hears Maurice realise this and explain it to Paula. They’re stuck up there for the time being. Oh well, they can shelter from the rain under the cloth.

During none of this does Geoffrey reveal his presence. Instead he slinks back to the shed where the farm equipment is and feels sorry for himself. He spends a page fantasising about what it would be like to have Paula love him. He is far deeper and darker than Maurice; it would be a deep passionate love. He is entranced by her foreignness (reminding me of how Tom Brangwen is hypnotised by Lydia Lensky’s foreignness in ‘The Rainbow’. Lydia, also, is Polish).

At that moment, almost as if summoned by his unconscious, a figure slips into the shed. Big strong Geoffrey reaches out and grabs it and the helpless female voice reveals it’s the young woman in a sailor hat attached to the tramp who had cadged food off them that afternoon.

She is antagonistic but also soaked through by the rain. He tells her to take her wet things off otherwise she’ll catch her death etc, and gets a big old rug to cover her. She’s also famished so he opens the chest where the remains of the afternoon’s bread and cheese and butter is kept, although she doesn’t eat that much.

He bumps into the chest and knocks the lamp over, spilling its oil. From now on they chat by the light of a few matches until he stops striking them and they talk in the increasingly mystical dark, he shy, she angry and snappish. She confirms she’s been married to the jockey-cum-tramp for four years and hates him. He’s workshy and useless. They had a baby which died at ten months. Often she’s wished she would catch her death and die but it ain’t to be. Instead she is vindictively determined to track him down and dog him.

Long pause then he hears her shivering and offers to warm her feet. Reluctantly she acquiesces. They’re like ice. He kneads them and blows on them. Then he realises she’s crying. She leans forward and strokes his hair. When he moves his head to look at her, her hands stray over his face. He strokes her hair with one hand. Then she clasps him to her breast and cries and cries. Then he takes her into his big strong arms and warms her against his big body. Then he mumbles his lips down over her forehead and she turns hear face up and he experiences his first love kiss.

I thought this was extremely beautiful and touching.

Part 5

Next morning dawns with her still in his arms. She tells him her name is Lydia (Lawrence’s mother’s name, the name he gives the Polish woman in ‘The Rainbow’). But she won’t marry him. So what if they run off to Canada together? She says she has a sister married to a farm hand. She could go and stay with them; he’ll contact her in the spring and they’ll go together to Canada. She agrees with all this but he doesn’t believe her.

When he mentions about the cloth and the rain and his brother she immediately insists he goes and puts the ladder back up, so he leaves her to get fully dressed.

Geoffrey moves the ladder back up against the stack but doesn’t hail his brother, instead collects sticks for a fire. Maurice finds the ladder and is amazed, he was sure it had fallen down. When he tells the Polish girl she is livid, furious, calls him a liar and mean. From this maybe we are meant to deduce that she thinks it was all a ploy to keep her there under the cloth all night and that therefore… something happened! They had sex?

Geoffrey listens to all this with amusement and watches his brother navigate climbing down the dangerous ladder and Paula refusing to follow. Maurice walks round the stack and bumps into Geoffrey who tells him it was he who restored the ladder. if I was Maurice, I’d have run back up the ladder to tell Paula but, oddly, he doesn’t.

Instead he listens while Geoffrey blurts out his news, how he spent the night in the shed cuddling the wife of the tramp. Both brothers are shyly proud and discomfited. Geoffrey takes Maurice to the shed where Lydia is washed and dressed and has let her hair down and looks pretty. He makes a fire while she gets coffee out of the provisions box.

Paula joins them, surprised to see the girl. Geoffrey explains it was him who set the ladder back up against the haystack so she owes Maurice a big apology but when he returns with more kindling for the fire they’re too embarrassed to look at each other.

Coda

In a paragraph, Lawrence tells us that within a week she was engaged to Maurice, and when she was released from the vicarage went to live at the Wookey’s farm. And in a final cryptic sentence:

Geoffrey and Lydia kept faith one with the other. (p.47)

Three things: Pairs, couples, as in ‘Women in Love’. A foreign woman, as in ‘The Rainbow’. And it turning out not at all the soppy Mills and Boon romance you might have expected from the title (cf ‘The Virgin and The Gypsy’, also a completely unexpected narrative).

2. The Lovely Lady (20 pages)

A strange tale, a kind of faux ghost story, set in a strange middle-class household. Pauline Attenborough is the matriarch, 72 but marvellously well preserved. With her fine bone structure, in some lights she could pass for 30. She is strong willed and made her own money. She inherited her father’s fine collection of Oriental curiosities and art, and his expertise, so she was able to expand his collection and his sales activities. The house is full of luxury goods and Pauline takes care to be seen in the best light against fine backdrops.

She was married by one day just left her weak husband to live independently. They had an elder son, Henry, who sickened and died when he was 24. There was a second son, Robert, now 32, a stout barrister, plain and almost speechless, deeply repressed and dominated by his mother. He has a secret hobby which is collecting old Mexican legal documents.

Third member of this oppressed and heavy household is her plain, dim niece, Cicely (Ciss), also very dominated. She has a job, 2 hours a morning teaching the grand-daughter of nearby Sir Wilfred Knipe.

Old Mrs Attenborough often doesn’t get up till late. One of her favourite activities, if the sun’s shining, is to take a ‘sun-and-air bath’ (presumably the word ‘sunbathing’ hadn’t been coined yet – according to the Etymological dictionary the first recorded use is from 1935). There’s a square behind the stables which is a nice suntrap and she lies here, in the sun, with a book.

The story proper gets going when timid Ciss decides to have a sun bath, too. She’s always lived in the rooms above the old stables. One of the windows opens onto the stables flat roof, just adjacent to the little suntrap where Mrs Attenborough takes the sun. One afternoon, very quietly, Ciss steals out onto the sunroof, strips off (oh, I say!) and lies down in the lovely warm sun.

After a while, feeling slightly dazed, she has an extraordinary experience: she hears voices. She hears what seem to be disembodied voices talking about Henry, Mrs Attenborough’s dead son, recriminations and blame about his death. Bewildered, for several pages Ciss thinks she’s hearing voices from the beyond, and the surprised reader thinks Lawrence has written a ghost story! (Although I now realise these aren’t are rare in his oeuvre as I thought: witness the four ghost and horror stories in The Woman Who Rode Away and Other Stories.)

But no. After some time she realises that Aunt Pauline, half stunned by the sun, talks in a wandering disconnected way, and her voice comes up the gutter downpipe which runs from Ciss’s flat roof, down the side of the stables, to a drain in the little courtyard, not far from Aunt Pauline’s lying and quietly babbling to herself.

This discovery gives Ciss an idea, two ideas. That evening, after dinner and after Aunt Pauline has retired to bed, she confronts Robert, in a timid sort of way. She steers the conversation round to the idea that they’re both sad, frustrated people whose lives are slipping away. Bold, she asks if he will kiss her, and clasps his hand to her bosom. Robert acquiesces but is useless, has no passion, For several nights Ciss fruitlessly waits for him to come to her bedroom, but he doesn’t.

A day or two later she bumps into him in the garden and takes him to the paddock, the sit on hay, he says he can’t marry her because he hasn’t got any money, she asks if she can touch him, and strokes his hair, but he doesn’t try to kiss her or put his arm round her. Instead he feebly says: ‘I suppose I shall rebel one day.’ What a disappointment.

So a few days later Ciss is lying in the stable roof again, out of sight of Pauline sun bathing below, and she does a funny thing. She puts her mouth to the top of the gutter pipe and talks down it. She puts on a deep bass voice and pretends to be Henry’s ghost.

Aunt Pauline is as bewildered as Ciss was on first hearing a voice, but slowly Ciss coaxes her into believing she is Henry’s ghost. She starts off by accusing Aunt P of murdering him, which she fiercely denies. But her main message is Let Robert go, let him marry, let him be free. Aunt P rouses herself and leaves, Ciss waits before quietly climbing back through her window.

And that evening there is a Great Transformation in the household – Aunt Pauline looks haggard and old. It is as if all the age and exasperation pent up in her for decades has broken through. She looks old and her skin is wizened and wrinkled. The biggest impact is on Robert. Somehow it is liberating for him to realise what a shrivelled old lady his mother is.

Not only her appearance but her behaviour. She yaps her food like a dog, then walks into the living room in a crazy crab-like way, then angrily refuses coffee and says she’s going to bed. Suddenly she has aged 40 years.

But then she suddenly reappears, dressed in a wrap and recklessly announces that Robert and Ciss ought to marry. When Robert says he thought she objected to cousins marrying, Pauline reveals that Robert is not her husband’s son but the result of an affair she had with an Italian Jesuit priest. As she tells it she tries to look flirtatious but only looks grotesque. Her effortless manner has completely broken. It doesn’t return. Ciss thinks this is what she was like all along.

The two young people don’t exactly leap into each other’s arms, they aren’t like that. But the scales have fallen from Robert’s eyes. He pronounces his analysis of the situation, explaining to Ciss that his mother wanted power:

‘Power to feed on other lives,’ he said bitterly. ‘She was beautiful and she fed on life. She has fed on me as she fed on Henry. She put a sucker into one’s soul and sucked up one’s essential life.’ (p.68)

A few days later Pauline dies in her bed of an overdose of veronal. She leaves Robert £1,000, Ciss £100 and the rest of her large fortune to set up the Pauline Attenborough Museum.

That information is the information conveyed in the dry and droll last sentence so that we never find out whether the timid youngsters marry. It’s left to the reader’s imagination to decide whether they’ll overcome a lifetime of inhibitions. Do you think they did?

Thoughts

A fairy story. We seem to have come a long way from Lawrence’s early stories. The setting amid luxury pieces, the talk of fortunes, the terrifying old lady, the hag-ridden younger generation, the country manor, all of it reminded me of Agatha Christie more than early Lawrence.

3. Rawdon’s Roof (10 pages)

A first-person narrator which allows the tone of voice to be more informal and chatty with many a ‘by Jove!’ and ‘Bless me!’, creating the voice of a bluff Edwardian chap. To my limited mind the narrator suggested the bluff obtuseness of Dr Watson, a similarity which grows as the story unfolds and the narrator spots ‘clues’ which the main protagonist doesn’t see.

The narrator is called Joe Bradley. He knows this fellow Rawdon who’s always boasting that ‘No woman shall sleep again under my roof!’ This is despite the fact that he has a wife (who he communicates with by letter and occasional half hour interview) and a mistress. But none of them are allowed to sleep ‘under his roof’.

The mistress is Janet who lives five minutes away and whose husband is in the diplomatic service. The narrator sees him paying visits to this Janet almost daily, but always during the day, never at night. Lonely woman.

The narrator finds it a great mystery and puzzle that neither Rawdon nor Janet ever come out and confess anything. He guesses the husband, Alec Drummond, knows about the affair, all of which makes Rawdon’s stupid boast that no woman will sleep under his roof sound all the sillier.

As to the wife, neither of them want a divorce, and she is practical and witty about the situation:

She said: ‘I don’t mind in the least if he loves Janet Drummond, poor thing. It would be a change for him, from loving himself. And a change for her, if somebody loved her –’

All of this is background to the actual story which kicks off one evening in November after he’s been to dinner at Rawdon’s and has stayed on while Rawdon talked interminably about one of his favourite subjects, 14th century music, for Rawdon is a fine amateur musician, even giving music lessons to Janet Drummond’s three children.

We learn that it’s set after the war for Rawdon fought in it as a major and brought back a man, Hawken, to be his butler or servant. Now this servant enters to announce that Mrs Drummond has called by. Rawdon is astonished and asks her to be shown into his room where he and the narrator are having brandy and cigars etc. When the narrator offers to go he begs him to stay.

Long story short, Janet confesses that Drummond’s just come home, more broke and chaotic than usual and insists on making love to her. She doesn’t like him and now confesses, in front of the narrator, that she loves Rawdon and wants to be with him. Rawdon agrees but says he’ll sleep at a hotel, given his famous vow. He’ll leave her in the capable hands of his man, Hawken.

Now let’s just pause and consider this man Hawken. He showed Janet in and then retired. When Rawdon mentioned him a few times, each time Janet made sarcastic remarks about him ‘busy man, that Hawken’. When Rawdon says she can stay here the night under Hawken’s care, she says not likely. When he suggests Hawken drive her home, she says no. This is enough to create a strong mystery around the servant.

But when they go to seek him out in the servants quarters, he is not there, all there is is an empty bottle of beer and two glasses on the table. Suddenly he appears down the stairs with his arms full of bed linen. He claims he’s been airing it in the drawing room which had a fire in it. But he looks flustered and this adds to the air of mystery. I began to wonder whether Hawken and Janet were having some kind of secret affair?

In the event, Hawken and Rawdon set off with a flashlight to accompany Janet across the fields back to her house and the narrator goes up to the spare room because Rawdon has asked him to stay the night. To his surprise the bed in the spare room has been freshly slept in, the pillow crushed and the sheets still warm. He hears a soft voice call ‘Joe’ and steps across the hall and through the padded door into the servants’ quarters and to what he assumes is Hawken’s bedroom. And here the whole mystery is solved because he sees ‘a pretty white leg and a pretty feminine posterior very thinly dimmed in a rather short night-dress’ quickly disappearing under the bedsheets. He beats a hasty retreat back to the spare bedroom and goes to bed.

Next morning Hawken comes to attend on him and the narrator tells him his secret is out. At which Hawken comes clean with surprising candour, telling the narrator that this bed, the spare bed, is the most comfortable in the house, as if he’s tried them all.

This explains the sarcastic remarks Janet made about Hawken. Quite clearly she knows all about his shenanigans. And this makes a mockery of Rawdon’s bombastic boast that no woman would ever sleep under his roof again. Seems that at least one and quite possibly more than one have been sleeping under his roof for years, without him ever knowing.

Thoughts

Did Lawrence write this for money, as a pastiche of a bluff 1920s story for chaps? The most notable element for me, once again, is the poshness of the characters: Rawdon isn’t some bloke down the pub, he owns a house with a drive down to metal gates which can be locked, and with paths off over the fields. And his mistress is the wife of a chap in the Diplomatic Corps. Why did this son of a miner write so often about the posh upper middle-classes?

4. The Rocking-Horse Winner (16 pages)

A sort of ghost story. A boy is brought up, along with two younger sisters, in a posh Edwardian household which is struggling for money. Although the father is an Old Etonian he never manages to succeed at anything and the family gets deeper into debt. The bitter, hard mother can’t conceal her disappointment from her children, especially the sensitive son, Paul.

She has a fateful conversation with him on the issue of luck, pointing out that she and her husband have little of it. It’s better to be born lucky than born rich. You can lose wealth but, with luck, can be confident of regaining it.

The children think they hear ghostly whispers in the house, the house talking, saying ‘there must be more money, there must be more money’. The boy becomes obsessed with riding his rocking horse, thrashing it with the whip his uncle Oscar gave him and obsessively chanting ‘Now take me to where there is luck! Now take me!’. The childrens’ nurse, the two sisters and his mother all demand he stop riding it in such a frenzy.

When Uncle Oscar calls by one day he asks the boys the horse’s name and Paul gives the name of a recent winner at the Ascot races. When Oscar asks Paul how he knows the name, sister Joan snitches that he’s always talking to Bassett the gardener about horse races. (Bassett has his current post with Paul’s family because he was Uncle Oscar’s batman during the war, in which he was wounded.)

When questioned, Bassett reveals that he and Paul have been betting on horseraces. To be precise, Paul gets the names of winners and Bassett places the bets. Paul makes his uncle swear ‘honour bright’ that he won’t tell anyone, least of all his mother.

Long story short: Uncle Oscar thinks this is childish fantasy but decides to take the boy to Lincoln races. Here Paul successfully predicts the winner, a rank outsider, so that he, Bassett and Oscar all make money. Slowly Oscar gets sucked in and comes to believe in Paul’s powers. Both Bassett and Paul tell him it was his gift of ten shillings which set off Paul’s winning spree. Slowly Oscar comes to realise that Paul really has made the astonishing sum of 1,500.

Oscar joins the syndicate and so realises it’s true when Paul’s bet at the Leger wins £10,000. All the time Paul is explaining that he is obsessive about winning in order to stop the whispering, stop the house whispering, stop the incessant whispering ‘There must be more money, there must be more money’ and help his mother who endlessly complains about their poverty.

Uncle Oscar has promised secrecy but once he realises the boy’s motivation, he comes up with a plan. He’ll take £5,000 of Paul’s money, give it to the family solicitor, give a false story about some distant relative dying and wanting a thousand a year handed over to Paul’s mum every year on her birthday (in November).

The only problem is that as soon as the mother hears the plan, she wants all the money at once. The household is deeply in debt and needs the full £5,00 just to pay off the debts. To Paul’s dismay, the voices he hears, the house’s voices, simply intensify.

Summer comes and Paul makes some losses. He only wins when he’s certain’, when he’s unsure, the syndicate generally loses. Having realised the depth of debt and the need for money, Paul becomes more and more desperate. ‘I’ve got to know for the Derby! I’ve got to know for the Derby!’ the child reiterated, his big blue eyes blazing with a sort of madness.

His mother notices how overwrought he is and tells him he must go away, have a holiday, go to the seaside, but the boy feverishly insists he can’t go till after the Derby. He is equally as insistent that, although he’s now outgrown it, the old rocking horse is moved up to his room.

The climax of the story comes when the husband and wife are at a big party in town when she has a rush of anxiety about the boy. She knows she must be at home. She telephones home and the nanny says everything is OK but still she insists they leave the party early and drive home.

She creeps up to his room, hears a strange noise as she stands at the door, goes in and turns on the light – to find her son riding riding riding the rocking horse with demented energy, crying out manically ‘Malabar! Malabar! Tell Bassett! Tell Bassett!’

She takes him off the horse and puts him to bed, later asking her brother Oscar what ‘Malabar’ means. It’s a horse running in the Derby. Oscar puts a thousand pounds on it at 14 to 1. The boy continues feverish, unwell and bed-ridden for days. On the third day Bassett asks the mother if he can see the boy, gains admission to the bedroom, tells the feverish boy that Malabar won, netting him over £70,000 so he now has over £80,000 in his fund.

The mother hears all this as the boy feverishly and disconnectedly explains about the luck and the gambling and the horses, and tells her he’s lucky, he’s lucky. And that night, with the fatality of a fairy story or folk tale, he dies, and the reader is shaken by the secret, subterranean power of this intense, strange and compelling story.

5. The Man Who Loved Islands (28 pages)

The First Island

The narrative starts off sounding like a children’s story, addressing the reader straight out.

An island, if it is big enough, is no better than a continent. It has to be really quite small, before it feels like an island; and this story will show how tiny it has to be, before you can presume to fill it with your own personality.

And:

It seems that even islands like to keep each other company.

But then it becomes strange. The text is divided into three parts as the mysterious protagonist lives on three successive islands, each successively smaller and more isolated. The first one is quite large with a farm and three cottages each with inhabitants who contribute to the island economy. The owner, in this section, is called ‘the Master’. While they labour, the Master spends his time in a library compiling a reference book of flowers mentioned in Greek and Latin literature. But he is losing money badly. Long discussions with the bailiff and more bank loans to help the second year.

Bad luck: cows fall off cliffs, a man breaks a leg, the pigs get a disease, a storm drives his fancy yacht onto the rocks. At the end of the second year staff start leaving. In the third year he makes cut backs and sacks staff. He starts to feel it is doomed. The second half of the fourth year he spends on the mainland, eventually selling it at a loss to a company who want to build a hotel and golf course.

The Second Island

He moves to island number two, much smaller but still in sight of the first one. He still has people with him, though far fewer: the faithful old carpenter and his wife, a widow and daughter and a young orphan. He moves into the much smaller house, the other live in two joined cottages. They no longer call him ‘the Master’ but by his name, Mr Cathcart.

The place is dominated by the numerous different sounds of the sea. The place is a kind of refuge for all of them. Occasionally he goes to the mainland, to the city, but with a faraway look. He has dropped out of the rat race. Slowly he gives up on the big reference book he was going to read. He falls in love with the widow’s daughter, Flora but he doesn’t want sex. With Lawrentian mysticism, he wants to move beyond sex to a place of desirelessness.

In fact he becomes so disillusioned with the merely mechanical acts of sex and loving that he leaves the island altogether and wanders the continent looking for freedom. Flora writes to say she is pregnant with his child. He takes her to the mainland and they’re married and return to the second island and he hates it. It’s become suburban, being a nice happily married young couple. ‘They might have been a young couple in Golders Green.’

He scours newspapers for islands coming up for sale and finds a tiny one off the north coast. The baby is born to Flora’s delight but Cathcart feels depressed and trapped. he gives Flora money and a cheque book and departs.

The third island

On the tiny island he has men build him a hut with a corrugate irons roof, a simple room with a bed, table and chairs. Coal, paraffin, book. He’s forgotten about the book. He spends his time sitting and watching the sea. He becomes obsessed by the seabirds, which Lawrence describes in loving detail. But one day they all depart.

When the boat arrives to bring provisions, he can barely stand the two humans who accompany it. The days shorten and the world grows eerie. He is clearly declining. He has the sheep removed because they are too much company. He doesn’t bother reading the letters the provision boat brings. He loses track of time. He becomes unhinged, tearing the labels off the stove and other bits of equipment because he doesn’t want to see letters any more.

He prowls the island in an oilskin coat in all weathers. He falls ill. In his fever day and night merge into Time. It gets colder and colder and one night it snows and again the next day. Vaguely he feels he has to get away and spends hours trying to unmoor his boat. There is a storm and more snow, deep drifts. The island disappears under snow. When he makes it through the drifts to the boat it is swamped with snow. With the classic symptoms of the cold and snowbound, he just wants to lie down and go to sleep.

In fact he doesn’t actually die, the ending is more mysterious than that. I give this extended quote to give you a sense of the gently lulling rhythms of the prose which convey the way the man has been worn down to mute acceptance.

The wind dropped. Was it night again? In the silence, it seemed he could hear the panther-like dropping of infinite snow. Thunder rumbled nearer, crackled quick after the bleared reddened lightning. He lay in bed in a kind of stupor. The elements! The elements! His mind repeated the word dumbly. You can’t win against the elements.

How long it went on, he never knew. Once, like a wraith, he got out, and climbed to the top of a white hill on his unrecognizable island. The sun was hot. ‘It is summer’, he said to himself, ‘and the time of leaves.’ He looked stupidly over the whiteness of his foreign island, over the waste of the lifeless sea. He pretended to imagine he saw the wink of a sail. Because he knew too well there would never again be a sail on that stark sea.

As he looked, the sky mysteriously darkened and chilled. From far off came the mutter of the unsatisfied thunder, and he knew it was the signal of the snow rolling over the sea. He turned, and felt its breath on him. (p.124)

6. The Man Who Died (48 pages)

To be back! To be back again, after all that! (p.128)

An extraordinarily brilliant imagining of being Jesus, waking suddenly, with a start, in the tomb, coming back to life with infinite pain and resentment. As you might expect from Lawrence, there is no God. No God speaks to Jesus. Jesus has no sense of his divinity. He is just a man who’s been tortured to death, thought he had done with the whole squalid thing, and now finds himself dragged back into the wretched world.

Chapter 1

A poor peasant near Jerusalem buys a cock which grows into a fine vaunting specimen. One morning it leaps to the top of the wall of its compound and leaps free. At the same time the unnamed man is awaking in his tomb, slowly coming back to life, feeling again all the pain from his wounds. He stumbles out into the daylight and finds a man chasing a runaway chicken towards him. He spreads his linen shroud enough to startle the runaway cock and the peasant catches it. Then, awed at the sight of the resurrected man, invites him to come and hide out at his humble cottage made of clay.

Lawrence was fascinated by death as a realm of knowledge or completion beyond the world. See Birkin’s meditations on death and dying throughout ‘Women in Love’. The figure of Jesus gives him a spectacular opportunity to imagine how it must have felt to die.

Desire was dead in him, even for food and drink. He had risen without desire, without even the desire to live, empty save for the all-overwhelming disillusion that lay like nausea where his life had been.

He likes to lie in the morning sun feeling the surge of new life. He is amused by the jaunty cockerel, now tied by string in the peasant’s yard, who still struts and vaunts and, when a hen comes within reach, jumps and mounts her. The man thinks it is life which cannot be quenched.

And the man who had died watched the unsteady, rocking vibration of the bent bird, and it was not the bird he saw, but one wave-tip of life overlapping for a minute another, in the tide of the swaying ocean of life. And the destiny of life seemed more fierce and compulsive to him even than the destiny of death. The doom of death was a shadow compared to the raging destiny of life, the determined surge of life.

‘The doom of death was a shadow compared to the raging destiny of life, the determined surge of life.’ Incidentally, many of the paragraphs start with ‘And’ or ‘For’, copying the style of the Bible, and the man is never named, nor the peasant, giving them the primal simplicity of Bible or fable, deliberately.

After a few days he goes back to the tomb and finds Mary Magdelene there, weeping, only here she is called Madeleine. He presents himself to her but here the story really starts diverging from the Bible account. For this resurrected man has finished with preaching and teaching. His death marked the end of that entire mode.

‘What is finished is finished, and for me the end is past,’ he said. ‘The stream will run till no more rains fill it, then it will dry up. For me, that life is over… I have outlived my mission and know no more of it… The teacher and the saviour are dead in me; now I can go about my business, into my own single life.

‘I don’t know what I shall do,’ he said. ‘When I am healed, I shall know better. But my mission is over, and my teaching is finished, and death has saved me from my own salvation. Oh, Madeleine, I want to take my single way in life, which is my portion. My public life is over, the life of my self-importance. Now I can wait on life, and say nothing, and have no one betray me…’

He sees that she still wants to give. She has exchanged the life where she took (money, as a prostitute) for the opposite extreme, where she is now addicted to giving and sacrifice. Both nauseate the man. And when she looks at him:

She looked at him again, and she saw that it was not the Messiah. The Messiah had not risen. The enthusiasm and the burning purity were gone, and the rapt youth. His youth was dead. This man was middle-aged and disillusioned, with a certain terrible indifference, and a resoluteness which love would never conquer. This was not the Master she had so adored, the young, flamy, unphysical exalter of her soul. This was nearer to the lovers she had known of old, but with a greater indifference to the personal issue, and a lesser susceptibility.

I find this magnificent, completely, totally believable, and conveying a strange and obscure but important meaning about life, the nature of experience.

So intense is Madeleine’s need for a saviour, that she twists what he said into his opposite, convinces herself that the preacher and saviour has returned, which is exactly what he doesn’t want.

He takes some money from Madeleine and returns to the peasant’s cottage, giving it to the woman. He is aware of the woman’s young body serving him simple food and becomes aware of his virginity and his body’s limitations. Virginity is a kind of selfishness. The body is designed to give and take. But he doesn’t want narrow sex, certainly not with the peasant’s wife, with her small greedy soul.

He admires the cock for its natural life. On the third day he returns to the tomb and sees Madeleine, his mother and a third woman. He refuses to go over to his mother but speaks to Madeleine, telling her he must go to his Father. He knows this is the kind of language she wants to hear.

Back at the peasant’s house his wounds heal and his soul heals. He realises he was addicted to giving (advice and compassion). Now that is finished. He is detached. He decides to become a physician, cuts his hair and beard, and buys the right clothes and shoes with the money Madeleine gave him. And asks the peasant for the lively cock. With him in his arm he goes into the town. Behold the seething life. He will leave the lusty cock in some yard full of hens to fornicate. Will any woman tempt him out of his loneliness into physical union.

On the road he meets two men who realises were his disciples but he conceals his identity. He asks about himself and they tell him with shining eyes that their saviour is risen from the dead and will soon return to his father in heaven in glory. Then he reveals himself to them and they are amazed, and while they’re still stunned he runs off under the walls of the town.

He lets his cock get into a fight with the rooster of an inn. His cock wins and he gives it to the innkeeper. As he wanders through the chaotic world, he is revolted by his former self and his efforts to compel men to love and forgiveness. After death, he has risen without any desire or intention of any kind. He now sees his attempts at compulsion as like everybody else’s need to compel their neighbour to their beliefs, everyone imposing on everyone else in a vast net of egos. From all this, he wishes to escape.

Chapter 2

Part two shifts scene completely to a little promontory sticking out into the warm sea under the Mediterranean sun in January. Two young servants are preparing pigeons for sacrifice. The girl slips and lets a pigeon escape at which the boy beats her, then turns her over and quickly rapes her. Guiltily he looks up and sees he is watched by two figures. Down by the sea is a man, dressed in a simple cloak with a hat and dark beard. Further up the hill, towards the temple of Isis, is the slaves’ owner, 27, a virgin, the priestess of Isis.

She’s the daughter of a powerful man who knew Mark Antony, in fact Antony spent many a half hour talking to the beautiful virginal girl. She was propositioned by other men, often, who wanted to open her bud, but she consulted a philosopher who told her she should ‘wait for the reborn’. Well, the male figure she saw down by the shore, obviously that was the man who died. The reader has a strong suspicion of what is going to happen.

Her father died, Antony was overthrown, and her mother brought her to an estate in Judaea near the coast. And here she herself paid for and supervised the erection of this small temple to Isis Bereaved, Isis in Search of her beloved brother Osiris.

Then he is in front of her asking for shelter. She orders her slave to take the man to a cave in a nearby gully. Here he beds down for the night. Next morning the slave comes tells the priestess the man is a criminal. He takes her to the cave where she sees for herself the marks of the cross on his feet and hands. But she dismisses it, and the slave. Watching the thin, haggard man sleeping, for the first time she is touched by desire, more precisely, by ‘the flame-tip of life’.

The sun rises. The day begins. The slave fetches the man. At the temple she asks him about his marks. He simply asks to be allowed to go on his way. She invites him into the temple, into the inner sanctum where he bows to the statue of the goddess. And suddenly the priestess realises that he is Osiris reborn, sister of the goddess. Out in the daylight she asks him to stay, and he feels his loins twitching. Why.

He goes down to the promontory and wonders whether he should give himself to the touch of the priestess:

Like the first pale crocus of the spring. How could I have been blind to the healing and the bliss in the crocus-like body of a tender woman! Ah, tenderness! More terrible and lovely than the death I died. (p.158)

While she sits in the dark of the temple all day, staring at the statue of the goddess, wondering whether she should give herself to the wanderer-brother. At the end of the day she begs him to stay another night.

Outside in the evening, Lawrence devotes a page to describing the day to day life of the peasants on the estate. I haven’t made it clear that the temple sits in the (dry, rocky) grounds of a villa, which belongs to the priestess’s mother. For this mother work a number of slaves and the man who died sits watching them work, an old man scraping scales off fish by the shore, some other guys carrying nets, two maidens, and the steward of the estate who dresses like a Roman.

So the man and the priestess don’t exist in an empty allegory, but are embedded in broader society. Although you and I might refer to this as the ‘wider’ world, the man thinks of it as the narrow world. The wider world is the world of his reborn soul.

And he senses the mother’s opposition to him. Very slowly the sun sets and the day dies and the man goes to the cave and discovers it has been swept and cleaned and a nice bed made for him at the priestess’s command.

When night falls he goes to the temple, she takes him inside and locks the door. She tells him to strip naked and starts to oil his wounds. This brings back the terrible pain of his killing and he is afraid. But he has a revelation that all his teaching was around death and led up to death and all he had to offer his followers was his corpse. Whereas here, now, beside this beautiful woman, he feels the amazing power of life.

Suddenly it dawned on him: I asked them all to serve me with the corpse of their love. And in the end I offered them only the corpse of my love. This is my body – take and eat – my corpse – A vivid shame went through him. ‘I wanted them to love with dead bodies. If I had kissed Judas with live love, perhaps he would never have kissed me with death. Perhaps he loved me in the flesh, and I willed that he should love me bodilessly, with the corpse of love – ‘

There dawned on him the reality of the soft, warm love which is in touch, and which is full of delight. ‘And I told them, blessed are they that mourn,’ he said to himself. ‘Alas, if I mourned even this woman here, now I am in death, I should have to remain dead, and I want so much to live. Life has brought me to this woman with warm hands. And her touch is more to me now than all my words. For I want to live –’

She oils him and he feels himself healing. She embraces him and he feels the sun rising in him, becoming something new. Then she turns to worship her goddess and he stands beside her and feels himself rising.

He crouched to her, and he felt the blaze of his manhood and his power rise up in his loins, magnificent. ‘I am risen!’

And he loosens her tunic which falls, leaving her naked, and touches her breasts, and feels that electric shock of desire at the touch of a naked woman.

He untied the string on the linen tunic and slipped the garment down, till he saw the white glow of her white-gold breasts. And he touched them, and he felt his life go molten. ‘Father!’ he said, ‘why did you hide this from me?’ And he touched her with the poignancy of wonder, and the marvellous piercing transcendence of desire. ‘Lo!’ he said, ‘this is beyond prayer.’ It was the deep, interfolded warmth, warmth living and penetrable, the woman, the heart of the rose! My mansion is the intricate warm rose, my joy is this blossom!

You can see why orthodox Christians would have gone nuts. Now, 100 years later, though it’s easy to mock, I still find Lawrence’s descriptions of sex wonderful and life affirming.

They are one. Afterwards, towards dawn, she returns to her mother’s villa, full of the god Osiris while he looks at the sky full of stars and feels one with the great rose of space. It starts to rain and he spends the day in his cave looking out at the rainy world and one narcissus bent over. At the end of the day she comes to the cave and they are one, again. And so days and nights pass as they perfect their touch.

When she meets him on a hot day when he can smell the pine needles, he sees a change in her and knows she is pregnant. It is time to move on. He confirms that her mother is not happy. The small world of property and jealousy is reasserting itself. To be safe he moves to a cave closer to the sea. They meet and she begs him to stay but he says he must leave very soon.

One night he hears voices and knows the slaves have arrived at the tip of the promontory in a boat. They disembark and he hears the steward give orders for his capture. Never again. never again will he be caught and handed over to Roman justice.

I was worried that Lawrence would have him caught and killed again. Using death to end stories is such a bore. But fortunately Lawrence has other plans. The man dodges the little crew coming for him and casts his voice out of the rocks to terrify the one slave left in the boat, who leaps out and flees.

And the man who died carefully steps into the boat, takes the oars and rows out to where the current will take him far, far down the coast. Good.

The man who had died rowed slowly on, with the current, and laughed to himself: ‘I have sowed the seed of my life and my resurrection, and put my touch forever upon the choice woman of this day, and I carry her perfume in my flesh like essence of roses. She is dear to me in the middle of my being. But the gold and flowing serpent is coiling up again, to sleep at the root of my tree.

‘So let the boat carry me. Tomorrow is another day.’ (p.173)

Excellent. The triumph of life.

Three thoughts

1. So the pagan worship of this life, of the body, the flesh and its pleasures and its innocence, triumph over the stale, dead teachings of the Christ which the man himself has rejected.

2. Is it any surprise so much of Lawrence’s work was banned by the Christian authorities?

3. The character of Rupert Birkin in ‘Women in Love’ is widely thought to be a self portrait by Lawrence. The other characters routinely comment on his love of preaching and, on at least one occasion, compare him to Jesus in his self righteousness. Well, in this story, all those criticisms of Lawrence, in fiction and in life, come to a kind of climax. You can imagine the same friends and critics falling round laughing, saying ‘He’s finally done it! He’s finally turned himself into Jesus!’ Yes, from one point of view it is ludicrously conceited and self-important to dare to describe the thoughts and desires and then the sexual activity of Jesus Christ! Maybe it should, under the blasphemy laws, have been banned. But what a stunningly vivid narrative, what uncanny but convincing descriptions!


Credit

‘Love Among the Haystacks and Other Stories’ by D.H. Lawrence was first published in 1930. References are to the 1984 Penguin paperback edition.

Related reviews

The Virgin and the Gypsy by D.H. Lawrence (1926)

‘I suppose it’s sex, whatever that is,’ said Lucille.

‘The Virgin and The Gypsy’ feels drastically unlike other Lawrence I’ve read so far because it is:

  1. funny
  2. ‘with it’ (i.e. littered with fashionable 1920s slang)
  3. written (mostly) in surprisingly pared-back, declarative prose

The wife of meek Arthur Saywell, the vicar, runs off and leaves him with two young daughters to raise. The scandal makes his current post untenable so the Church moves him to the Yorkshire parish of Papplewick and makes him rector there. The rectory is a much bigger house and into it move Saywell’s ancient, fat domineering mother, ‘The Mater’, as well as silently seething Aunt Cissie and self-absorbed Uncle Fred.

The depiction of ‘the Mater’, her psychological domination of Saywell, and of Aunt Cissie with her hissing green rages, are done for comic effect and reminiscent, in their grotesqueness and the repetition of key words for comic effect, of Dickens. For example, the way the mother who ran away comes to be referred to as ‘She-who-was-Cynthia’, a phrase Lawrence repeats 16 times for comic effect. Or straight out sitcom-style comedy like the daily palaver of getting Granny involved with the evening crossword puzzle. Comedy! Who knew Lawrence was capable of lols!

‘With it’ phraseology

  • So the young people set off on their jaunt, trying to be very full of beans.
  • Leo, always on the go, moved quickly.
  • ‘More glad rags!’ said her father to her, genially.
  • Leo arrived with his car, the usual bunch.
  • Lucille kept breaking out with: ‘Oh, I say!’

I assume Lawrence is satirising these ‘with it’, ‘always on the go’ sorts of phrases – they are solely associated with the young generation of characters – but they indicate a comically satirical effect I haven’t come across before in his writing.

Prose style

Lawrence’s basic unit of meaning is the paragraph and a lot of the prose conforms to the fundamental Lawrence playbook, namely depicting character, perceptions and moods through a kind of whipped-up meringue of paragraphs which repeat key words and phrases to magnify the thing and view it from different angles.

What feels new is that there are quite a few sentences which are freestanding statements of fact, which simply state something and not part of paragraphs constructed with repetition of key words or feelings in mind. This is completely normal for other writers, in fact it’s how most writers operate but it is completely new in my reading of Lawrence.

Posh women

What is like the other stories I’ve been reading is that ‘The Virgin and the Gypsy’ has 1) a woman protagonist and 2) she’s posh. The narrative tells us that Saywell sent his two daughters, Lucille and Yvette, away to boarding school and when the story opens they’re returning from finishing school in Lausanne. They both have fashionable 1920s haircuts and:

were quite the usual thing, tall young creatures with fresh, sensitive faces and bobbed hair and young-manly, deuce-take-it manners

where I assume ‘deuce’ was the acceptable version of Devil, as in ‘the Devil take it’!

The two sisters say ‘frightfully’ and ‘awfully’ and ‘jolly’ all the time. Their friends at home – Lottie and Ella and Leo and Bob – are similarly posh. Lawrence is crystal clear about the gulf that separates them from the ‘workmen’ whose cottages they occasionally visit in a spirit of charity.

If anybody asked her out to a meal, even if a woman in one of the workmen’s houses asked her to stay to tea, she accepted at once. In fact, she was rather thrilled. She liked talking to the working men, they had often such fine, hard heads. But of course they were in another world.

When the others ask why she tipped the gypsy, Yvette explains:

‘You have to be a bit lordly with people like that.’ (p.191)

The household employs a cook, a housemaid and a gardener who are never named or, I think, even speak. Why did Lawrence, the son of an illiterate miner, the most working class of our great writers, end up writing stories about phenomenally posh middle-class ladies?

Despising men

‘St Mawr’ is a novella about two women who despise modern men for being pathetic, tamed and lifeless. So is this. Yvette thinks the gypsy woman is strong but, like Lou in St Mawr, she can only define a woman’s strength, or her own desire for independence, by contrast with men and, more specifically, by denigrating contemporary men who, in both women’s opinions, are barely worth the name.

She liked her [the gypsy woman]. She liked the danger and the covert fearlessness of her. She liked her covert, unyielding sex, that was immoral, but with a hard, defiant pride of its own. Nothing would ever get that woman under. She would despise the rectory and the rectory morality, utterly! She would strangle Granny with one hand. And she would have the same contempt for Daddy and for Uncle Fred, as men, as she would have for fat old slobbery Rover, the Newfoundland dog. A great, sardonic female contempt, for such domesticated dogs, calling themselves men. (p.196)

The disappointing younger generation

Like E.M. Forster in ‘Howards End’, Lawrence has to accept that people drive cars, but he can still cordially dislike them, their noise and pollution, and associate them with spiritual emptiness. Bigger than this, though, is his disappointment with the empty-headed younger generation.

Six young rebels, they sat very perkily in the car as they swished through the mud. Yet they had a peaked look too. After all, they had nothing really to rebel against, any of them. They were left so very free in their movements. Their parents let them do almost entirely as they liked. There wasn’t really a fetter to break, nor a prison-bar to file through, nor a bolt to shatter. The keys of their lives were in their own hands. And there they dangled inert.

Combine the two, disappointing young people and disappointing men and you have a the simple setup that when a real man enters pampered Yvette’s life, she will, of course, fall for him off a cliff.

The plot

So meek, genial Arthur Saywell lives in the Rectory, dominated by the monstrous figure of fat, farting, deaf old Granny who insists on having a stiflingly hot fire burning at all times in the living room where she squats, with jealous passive-aggressive Aunt Cissie seething off to one side. Lawrence is particularly disgusted by the aroma of human ordure which taints the air.

Her heart was hard with repugnance, against the rectory. She loathed these houses with their indoor sanitation and their bathrooms, and their extraordinary repulsiveness. She hated the rectory, and everything it implied. The whole stagnant, sewerage sort of life, where sewerage is never mentioned, but where it seems to smell from the centre of every two-legged inmate, from Granny to the servants, was foul. (p.196)

The daughters, Lucille and Yvette, return from finishing school abroad to be appalled by the literally oppressive, smelly atmosphere of this sordid dwelling. The narrative is interesting for depicting the extreme boredom which most people of the day endured. There was nowhere to go, except the pub or for walks in the surrounding country, so most people spent most of their time in their little houses. The radio was still uncommon so, in the Rectory, the two bright young girls sit in an agony of boredom, trying to read or sew while Arthur and Uncle Fred shout clues to the daily crossword at the deaf and blind Mater.

They go out as much as they can, in fact they’re very sociable, but it isn’t enough for Yvette.

So the months went by. Gerry Somercotes was still an adorer. There were others, too, sons of farmers or mill-owners. Yvette really ought to have had a good time. She was always out to parties and dances, friends came for her in their motor-cars, and off she went to the city, to the afternoon dance in the chief hotel, or in the gorgeous new Palais de Danse, called the Pally.

Yet she always seemed like a creature mesmerised. She was never free to be quite jolly. Deep inside her worked an intolerable irritation, which she thought she ought not to feel, and which she hated feeling, thereby making it worse. She never understood at all whence it arose.

At home, she truly was irritable, and outrageously rude to Aunt Cissie. In fact Yvette’s awful temper became one of the family by-words.

Occasionally the girls’ posh young friends call round only to be trapped in the same stifling atmosphere, being laboriously introduced to deaf, blind Mater then sitting on the edges of their chairs in agonies of boredom before they’re allowed to go out to play.

Best of all is when Leo comes round and invites everyone to go for a drive through the hilly, laney countryside. On one such drive they motor up to Bonsall Head and come across a small gypsy camp under the shelter of some cliffs. They have to slow right down because the lane is blocked by a gypsy backing his cart into the entrance of the small quarry where the others have parked their three caravans. As they’re stationary an older gypsy woman calls out to ask whether they want their fortunes read and the young people agree to do so for a lark.

But the point of this extended scene is the animal magnetism of the 30-year-old male gypsy who was backing the cart into the little camp, and now sardonically watches the young people one by one have their palms read amid squeaks and squawks of amusement, but all the time has his eye on Yvette, who feels watched and caught and weighed.

‘Don’t the pretty young ladies want to hear their fortunes?’ said the gipsy on the cart, laughing except for his dark, watchful eyes, which went from face to face, and lingered on Yvette’s young, tender face. She met his dark eyes for a second, their level search, their insolence, their complete indifference to people like Bob and Leo, and something took fire in her breast. (p.185)

He looked at Yvette as he passed, staring her full in the eyes, with his pariah’s bold yet dishonest stare. Something hard inside her met his stare. But the surface of her body seemed to turn to water. (p.189)

Yvette realises he is married to the fortune teller, though it doesn’t affect the uncanny impact his hard stare has on her body and mind.

Chapter 4

A big row when Aunt Cissie discovers Yvette has been pilfering cash from the box where she’s been storing funds towards commissioning a stained glass window for the church to commemorate the fallen of the Great War. Massive row which genial Arthur steps in to resolve by replacing the money, as a loan on which Yvette will have to pay interest, but Aunt Cissie hates Yvette with a hissing malignity.

A second row breaks out when the girls have cluttered the table with all the paraphernalia of making a dress and Yvette accidentally knocks a large mirror off the piano. It doesn’t break but Cissie (filled with ‘a great tumour of hate’) bursts out with accusations which blind old Granny joins in and the household is instantly in an uproar. From all this tension, Yvette retreats to her room where she lies, dreaming of the gypsy.

And the gipsy man himself! Yvette quivered suddenly, as if she had seen his big, bold eyes upon her, with the naked insinuation of desire in them. The absolutely naked insinuation of desire made her life prone and powerless in the bed, as if a drug had cast her in a new molten mould. (p.197)

Chapter 5

The gypsy comes by on his cart, pulled by a roan horse, into Papplewick to hawk his wares, and knocks at the Rectory door. The maid answers and calls Aunt Cissie but Yvette saw him from the landing window and also goes to the door. The gypsy is handsome and dapper, soft and submissive, but his eyes flash desire.

‘The candlestick is lovely!’ said Yvette. ‘Did you make it?’
And she looked up at the man with her naïve, childlike eyes, that were as capable of double meanings as his own.
‘Yes lady!’ He looked back into her eyes for a second, with that naked suggestion of desire which acted on her like a spell, and robbed her of her will. (p.205)

Maybe the key point about her, is that Yvette wants someone, or something, ‘to have power over her’. Not in a BDSM way. More because she suffers an existentialist emptiness. The whole of her life, whether the stifling atmosphere of the Rectory or the endless shiny parties, both seem equally as meaningless.

Dimly, at the back of her mind, she was thinking: Why are we all only like mortal pieces of furniture? Why is nothing important?
That was her constant refrain, to herself: Why is nothing important? Whether she was in church, or at a party of young people, or dancing in the hotel in the city, the same little bubble of a question rose repeatedly on her consciousness: Why is nothing important?
There were plenty of young men to make love to her: even devotedly. But with impatience she had to shake them off. Why were they so unimportant? – so irritating! (p.208)

She wants something real, something that matters, something that will shake her out of her emptiness.

Lest anyone think she is the unqualified heroine of the story, it needs pointing out that she is selfish. She cultivates a vague, heedless manner which doesn’t hide the fact that she genuinely doesn’t care about other people, ‘her straying, absent-minded detachment from things’ (p.226).

This is especially true of the friends her age. Loads of men throw themselves at her and she dismisses them all. At a dance, poor young Leo shyly proposes to her. Yvette has no idea that, without meaning to, she has been sweet with him and has led him on, leading him away from poor Emma Framley who is besotted with Leo and distraught that he ignores her for Yvette. And Yvette snorts with laughter at Leo’s proposal, he makes a few attempts to talk her into it then goes off in anger. She has no idea she has this effect on others.

And a key part of this aloofness is despising the young men of her generation (exactly as Lou Carrington despises the men of her generation in ‘St Mawr’). Here she is at a dance watching the young men.

She looked at the young men dancing, elbows out, hips prominent, waists elegantly in. They gave her no clue to her problem. Yet she did particularly dislike the forced elegance of the waists and the prominent hips, over which the well-tailored coats hung with such effeminate discretion… The elegance of these dancers seemed so stuffed, hips merely wadded with flesh. Leo the same, thinking himself such a fine dancer! and a fine figure of a fellow!… She gazed glaringly at the insipid beaux on the dancing floor. And she despised them. Just as the raggle-taggle gipsy women despise men who are not gipsies, despise their dog-like walk down the streets, she found herself despising this crowd. Where among them was the subtle, lonely, insinuating challenge that could reach her? She did not want to mate with a house-dog. (p.211)

In St Mawr, Lou describes the pallid young Englishmen she knows as domesticated dogs. Obviously it was a favourite thought of Lawrence, from a different class and generation and an unfathomably different worldview.

On a practical note, when Aunt Cissie bought a candlestick of the gypsy and went inside, Yvette playfully asked about his wife, the fortune teller and the gypsy quietly tells her his wife is absent every Friday. Every Friday. This fact sticks in her mind…

Chapter 6

A few Fridays later Yvette goes for a bike ride, up to the tops and then finds herself meandering and arrives at the gypsy camp. The sexy gypsy is there tapping a brass pot, the old woman is tending a fire, three kids are playing ‘like little wild animals’. She stays for the meal the old woman has been cooking. They all eat and the gypsy’s soul masters hers.

And he, as he blew his hot coffee, was aware of one thing only, the mysterious fruit of her virginity, her perfect tenderness in the body.

Like a snowdrop blossoming. God, Lawrence has such a magician’s way with words.

The gypsy, supremely aware of her, waited for her like the substance of shadow, as shadow waits and is there.

Anyway, he has complete control over her almost as if he’s hypnotised her and suggests she go into his caravan to wash her hands where he transparently plans to have sex with her and she, hypnotised, is on the steps up into the caravan, when they all hear a motor car approaching.

I thought it would be her friends but it isn’t, it’s strangers who stop and ask if they can warm their hands at the fire. It’s winter and they (foolishly) have been driving with the car’s top down. Must be freezing! Of course this breaks the spell and the gypsy goes back to tapping his bronze pot, now with the anger of frustrated lust. Again, the trope of men as dogs.

The man… strolled over to the gipsy, and stood in silence looking down on him, holding his pipe to his mouth. Now they were two men, like two strange male dogs, having to sniff one another.

This couple stay a long time, it becomes an entire episode during which the athletic chap with his expensive clothes goes over to watch the gypsy at work while the rich mistress sits with Yvette and explains her situation in unnecessary detail. She explains that she is the wife of the well-known northern engineer, Simon Fawcett, and she is divorcing him. Then she’ll be free to marry the handsome rich sportsman, Major Eastwood, who’s driving her round in his big manly car.

In the kind of coincidence which only occurs in fiction it turns out the gypsy was in the same regiment as Major Eastwood during the war, and Lawrence captures the big blond man’s officer-class confidence:

‘I thought I remembered his face,’ he said. ‘One of our grooms, A. 1. man with horses.’ (p.220)

Mrs Fawcett is Jewish, a fact Lawrence really drives home (see Antisemitism section, below). It’s clouding over and getting cold. They offer to give her a lift down to a nearby town from which it will be an easy cycle back to Papplewick.

Antisemitism

In ‘St Mawr’ Mrs Witt hates looking at the rich Jews riding their horses along Rotten Row.

Her eyes became dagger-like as she watched the clipped, shorn, mincing young Englishmen. She refused to look at the prosperous Jews.

The entire episode of Major Eastwood and Mrs Fawcett stopping by the gypsy camp in the quarry is dominated by Lawrence’s negative depiction of her as a Jewess, invoking classic tropes around her wealth, her fingers festooned with jewels, her sharp malice. So:

She was a very small woman, with a rather large nose: probably a Jewess. Tiny almost as a child, in that sable coat she looked much more bulky than she should, and her wide, rather resentful brown eyes of a spoilt Jewess gazed oddly out of her expensive get-up.

She crouched over the low fire, spreading her little hands, on which diamonds and emeralds glittered.

‘Ugh!’ she shuddered. ‘Of course we ought not to have come in an open car! But my husband won’t even let me say I’m cold!’ She looked round at him with her large, childish, reproachful eyes, that had still the canny shrewdness of a bourgeois Jewess: a rich one, probably.

Apparently she was in love, in a Jewess’s curious way, with the big, blond man…

The gipsy had laid down his work, and gone into his caravan. The old woman called hoarsely to the children, from the enclosure. The two elder children came stealing forward. The Jewess gave them the two bits of silver, a shilling and a florin, which she had in her purse, and again the hoarse voice of the unseen old woman was heard.

The gipsy descended from his caravan and strolled to the fire. The Jewess searched his face with the peculiar bourgeois boldness of her race.

We know her name is Mrs Fawcett because she tells us so. But Lawrence doesn’t refer to her name, instead insists on describing her as ‘the Jewess’, ‘the little Jewess’, ‘the tiny Jewess’, nearly 50 times, denying her individuality, emphasising her ‘race’ and racial stereotypes.

Chapter 7

Unexpectedly, the Eastwoods – Major Eastwood and the soon-to-be-divorced Mrs Fawcett, who give out to the world that they’re married – become a major part of the story. They’ve rented a small summer cottage, by the moors up at Scoresby, not far from the hills. Mrs Fawcett is diminished even further by being referred to as ‘the little Jewess’ or even ‘the tiny Jewess’. They have filled the rented cottage with fine treasures but have dispensed with a maid and so the tall strong blond Major does the washing up and ‘the tiny Jewess’ dries. Unconventional for the 1920s, we assume.

Back from a visit where she witnesses all this, Yvette and Lucille have a conversation about what makes men and women fall in love, is it sex (which neither of them have experienced or understand)? What is sex? Why are the ‘low’ ‘common’ sort of men, who you could never associate with, noted for sex, while the posh good sort of chap they know, is never associated with sex? Oh if men and women could only be people without all this beastly sex business interfering? Will we ever get married? Will we ever fall in love?

‘I believe, one day, I shall fall awfully in love.’
‘Probably you never will,’ said Lucille brutally. ‘That’s what most old maids are thinking all the time.’ (p.225)

This long conversation is very similar to the long conversation on the same topic between March and Banford in ‘The Fox’. I note it for two reasons. 1) It marks extended and relatively short, brisk dialogue, something absent from his master text, The Rainbow. And 2) why are these male writers drawn to writing stories about young women protagonists who have conversations about sex and marriage?

Anyway, Yvette takes to regularly visiting ‘the Eastwoods’, where she is intrigued by ‘the little Jewess’ and attracted to tall, handsome, athletic, commanding Major Eastwood. Hang on. I thought this was a story about the virgin and a gypsy. It’s more than that, isn’t it? More variegated and complex.

On one of her visits Yvette raises the subject of love and marriage, asking this experienced couple about it. Mrs Fawcett explains that love means being attracted to someone who makes you feel different, is there any man who does that to her? After a pause, Yvette replies that the only one she can think of is the gypsy. Mrs Fawcett is appalled that such a low commoner should be the only one Yvette can think of but the Major makes one of his rare interventions.

Major Eastwood on desire and appetite

There’s something quietly comic about the strong, mostly silent, pipe-smoking Major Charles Eastwood. He intervenes in Yvette and Mrs Fawcett’s conversation to say:

‘I think,’ said the Major, taking his pipe from his mouth, ‘that desire is the most wonderful thing in life. Anybody who can really feel it, is a king, and I envy nobody else!’ He put back his pipe.
The Jewess looked at him stupefied.
‘But Charles!’ she cried. ‘Every common low man in Halifax feels nothing else!’
He again took his pipe from his mouth.
‘That’s merely appetite,’ he said.
And he put back his pipe. (p.229)

Then he says something strange and mysterious. He tells them the gypsy was really a notable man in his regiment for his way with horses. He nearly died of pneumonia but survived. So the Major regards him as ‘a resurrected man’. This is all the more significant because the Major himself is a resurrected man. He was buried under a huge snowfall for 20 hours but survived. In a throwaway but immensely telling detail, he says they only dug him out by accident.

It’s a tiny detail at the end of the chapter but conveys a kind of seismic implication: all of our lives hang on the slightest coincidences and accidents.

Chapter 8

Chapter 8 opens with a detailed description of the rector’s character. On the surface he is genial, humorous and tolerant but deep down he doesn’t believe and this makes him afraid of the unconventional, afraid that it will unmask him.

With what feels like a sudden lurch of tone, Lawrence has the rector suddenly hating his daughter for consorting with the adulterous Eastwoods, hate her with a rat-like venom. Hang on. Where did this come from. This is a throwback to the rhetorical exorbitance of The Rainbow. The rector is suddenly viciously hateful to his daughter which leads up to the ridiculously melodramatic declaration: ‘But I will kill you before you shall go the way of your mother.’ Where did this come from?

And with the old Rainbow manner comes the old Rainbow approach of repeating key words.

Somewhere inside him, he was cowed, he had been born cowed. And those who are born cowed are natural slaves, and deep instinct makes them fear with prisonous fear those who might suddenly snap the slave‘s collar round their necks.

It was for this reason the rector had so abjectly curled up, who still so abject curled up before She-who-was-Cynthia: because of his slave‘s fear of her contempt, the contempt of a born-free nature for a base-born nature.

So that’s the root of it. The rector and the Saywell family in general, are base-born while the two daughters have inherited their mother’s spirited freedom. But it was that free-spiritedness which prompted her to run off with a man causing great hurt but also social scandal, and so the rector is terrified his two daughters will turn out the same. Hence his mad over-reaction to Yvette seeing the ‘dirty’ ‘unclean’ adulterous Eastwoods. Hence his ludicrous threat:

‘But I will kill you before you shall go the way of your mother.’ (p.232)

Well, she depends on him for her food and housing so she buckles down. She writes a short note to the Eastwoods saying her father disapproves so she can’t visit them again and she stops. But she hardens inside. She becomes more cynical. She realises her father is a scared little man and despises him. But most of all she comes to hate the old Granny, squatting like a red fungus as the centre of the household. God, what a ghastly existence!

What was the revolt of the little Jewess, compared to Granny and the Saywell bunch! A husband was never more than a semicasual thing! But a family!–an awful, smelly family that would never disperse, stuck half dead round the base of a fungoid old woman! How was one to cope with that?

She sees the gypsy once, from the landing window as he comes to hawk wares again, but she doesn’t go down, but they see each other through the glass. How can she escape? Sometimes she fantasises about running away with him, but she likes being ‘inside the pale’, she likes the warmth and prestige being a rector’s daughter brings her, albeit small. She likes safety.

Lucille says a woman has till she’s 26 to have her ‘fling’, then she must marry and settle down. Yvette is 21. Five years to have her ‘fling’, whatever that means, and then settle down with someone like Leo or Gerry Somercotes.

The gypsy again

Months pass and it is March. Yvette bumps into the gypsy hawking his wares to cottages by Codnor Gate. She stops to have a look and buys ‘a little oval brass plate, with a queer figure like a palm-tree beaten upon it.’ She feels the connection between him but he is as distant as ever. He tells her the old gypsy (referred to as the hag) had a dream about her, in which it was said ‘Be braver in your body, or your luck will leave you’ and ‘Listen for the voice of water.’

He tells her they’ll be breaking camp soon and heading north. She says maybe she’ll come and visit before they leave, to say goodbye to them all.

Chapter 9. The Flood

Yvette is dawdling in the terrace garden leading down to the wall by the hump-backed bridge over the river Papple. The water is loud with spring torrent from melting snow. Her father is out. She senses Aunt Cissie saying goodbye and she accompanies her sister, Aunt Nell, over the bridge and back towards her home.

Then she sees the gardener running towards her and, of all people, the gypsy running downhill the road opposite and she hears a mighty roar and the next thing she knows a huge tsunami of water engulfs the garden. The gypsy has made it across the bridge and grabs her as the water sweeps her off her feet. In the next few action-packed minutes, he manhandles her through the flood up the terraces to the house, but even here the flood is up to their waists.

He clings to the wisteria with one hand, her wrist with the other, till she’s in a position to make it to the back door and he follows her inside. Here it’s flooding fast. They run to the stairs and are on the first landing when she sees old Granny struggling in the flood, gasping and going under.

They feel the house itself shake with the shock of the waters. He knows the chimney piece will stay so orders her to take him to their bedroom. He is correct, the chimney, and her room around it, remains in place, but when he re-opens her bedroom door they see that half the house has been swept away. It opens into raving flood water and the evening sky.

They are both shivering from the snow melt water and shock and so he orders her to strip and strips himself and rubs them both dry with a towel. She gets into her bed shivering and he climbs in, too, and holds her, till the shock passes away, and the warmth takes them and they fall asleep.

The flood reminds me of the canal breaking, flooding Marsh Farm and drowning drunk Tom Brangwen in The Rainbow.

Chapter 10

The last few pages describe the efforts of the rescuers. The bridge over the Papple has been swept away so they cross it on ladders to the perilously half-wrecked rectory, surrounded by mud and broken trees and detritus. Very tentatively they enter the ruins, encountering Granny’s foot sticking out of a wall of mud, then use ladders to go up to the only first floor windows remaining, all the time shouting with no reply.

When one smashes the window it wakes Yvette from her deepest ever sleep with a cry, and she takes minutes to come fully conscious. And then she wonders where on earth the gypsy is! Where is he? They were in the bed together.

But she quickly gets dressed in her soaking wet things (! did none of the rescuers think of bringing blankets?) and is coaxed by the friendly policeman into climbing down the wobbly ladder to greet her father who’s crying his eyes out for his dead mother but also for the life of his daughter.

She faints and is taken to the nearby house of friends, the Framleys to be reunited with weeping Aunt Cissie, hysterical Lucille etc.

The flood was caused by the sudden bursting of the great reservoir, up in Papple Highdale, five miles from the rectory. It was found out later that an ancient, perhaps even a Roman mine tunnel, unsuspected, undreamed of, beneath the reservoir dam, had collapsed, undermining the whole dam. That was why the Papple had been, for the last day, so uncannily full. And then the dam had burst.

Yvette is vague at the best of times. Now she tells everyone the gypsy ran across the bridge to warn her and helped her to the porch, she went in and upstairs by himself. Witnesses saw him running across the bridge in the last moments. To everyone’s surprise Bob Framley declares the gypsy is owed a medal for saving Yvette’s life.

But when they motor up to the quarry they find the gypsies have vanished, struck camp and disappeared. And Yvette cries and cries and tells herself she loves him but, at the same time, knows the wisdom of his going. He has left her something much deeper than sex could ever be.

Names

But after Granny’s funeral, she received a little letter, dated from some unknown place.

‘Dear Miss, I see in the paper you are all right after your ducking, as is the same with me. I hope I see you again one day, maybe at Tideswell cattle fair, or maybe we come that way again. I come that day to say goodbye! and I never said it, well, the water give no time, but I live in hopes. Your obdt. servant Joe Boswell.’

And only then she realised that he had a name.

Wow. After all the gruelling travails (the smelly Granny, the stifling house), madness (of the rector ranting about clean and unclean), the dreamlike digression of the Mrs Fawcett and her blond lover, the dance parties and puppy love, somehow the whole thing ends with this fairy tale completion.

Feelings are so complicated

Between her and the gypsy is always a complicated web of feelings.

Something almost like a perfume seemed to flow from her young bosom direct to him, in a grateful connection… She looked at him with clear eyes. Man or woman is made up of many selves. With one self, she loved this gypsy man. With many selves, she ignored him or had a distaste for him.

But then something similar is true of her feelings for the rector, her father, after he rants and threatens to kill her.

Under the rector’s apparently gallant handsomeness, she saw the weak, feeble nullity. And she despised him. Yet still, in a way, she liked him too. Feelings are so complicated.

And it is this complexity, love unto hate, attraction and repulsion, the unsettling irrationality of the soul, the never-still nature of these ever-changing moods, which is Lawrence’s territory, of which he is king. As he puts it in ‘The Captain’s Doll’:

But then one never can know the whys and the wherefores of one’s passional changes.


Credit

‘The Virgin and The Gipsy’ by D.H. Lawrence was written in 1926 but first published in 1930. References are to the 1984 Penguin paperback edition, where it is packaged with ‘St Mawr’.

Related links

Related reviews

Freud’s Antiquity: Object, Idea, Desire @ the Freud Museum

The Freud Museum

The Freud Museum is located at 20 Maresfield Gardens, London NW3 5SX, a six or seven minute walk from Finchley Road tube station.

It’s the house which Freud’s English colleagues and supporters bought for him and his family to come to after the Nazis annexed Austria and Freud’s lifelong home town of Vienna in March 1938, forcing him to flee the country.

Freud himself was already very ill with the throat cancer which would kill him 18 months later in September 1939. But after his death Maresfield Gardens remained the Freud family home until his daughter, Anna Freud, herself a pioneer of child psychoanalysis, died in 1982. The house opened as a museum four years later.

It’s a fascinating place to visit at any time, light and clean and airy, with a comprehensive bookshop at the back, opening into a modest, leafy London garden.

But the centrepiece of the museum is the ground floor where Freud recreated the study from his house in Vienna and which has been lovingly restored to how it was in his time. You can see the desk where he wrote so many great works, his bookshelves packed with leather-bound volumes of psychology, history and literature.

Freud’s desk at the Freud Museum, London (photo by the author)

You can see the famous couch, smothered in dark patterned rugs, where his patients came and lay and free associated their thoughts, projecting their hopes and fears and fantasies onto the inventor of psychoanalysis, who sat quietly listening.

Freud’s couch at the Freud Museum (photo by the author)

So far, so Victorian, in décor and furnishings.

But maybe the most striking and unexpected aspect of the room is the astonishing number of antiquities scattered everywhere. There are half a dozen or more glass cases packed with ancient statuettes and figurines, vases and jugs, there are busts on platforms and stands, lined up along shelves all round the room, and a double row of small antique figurines on his desk right in front of him, in his field of vision every day as he either wrote or listened to his patients.

Freud was an obsessive collector of ancient figures and antiquities all his life, building up a collection of several thousand by the time he died, and literally hundreds are stacked on shelves, in cases, on mantlepieces and stands. Everywhere you look, in every direction, hundreds of ancestral presences sit silently, looking out at you with a cold timeless regard, from very angle.

Another view of Freud’s study, showing desk (in the foreground), shelves and glass cases packed with antiquities

And that’s what this exhibition is about. It’s a small but powerful exploration of Freud’s lifelong fascination with archaeology and antiquity and the role they played in his writings, his practice, in his deepest formulations of the new ‘science’ of psychoanalysis which he invented and developed through 40 intensely productive years, and in the successive models of the human mind which he developed, refined and publicised.

Freudian reservations

Let me explain my position regarding Freud. Very like the other two world-shattering geniuses, Karl Marx and Charles Darwin, Freud’s influence is so enormous and all-pervasive, so underpins almost everybody’s modern notions of human nature and our behaviour in the world, that it’s more or less irrelevant whether most or all of it is ‘true’ or not.

The various versions of his theories and the hundreds of insights they generate have provided mental maps, sociological constructs amounting to an entire worldview which we all now inhabit, thronged with insights, phrases and terminology (Freudian slip, the unconscious, the ego, being repressed, ‘anal’ behaviour, Oedipal conflict) which are freely used in newspapers, magazines and conversation.

With regard to the psychoanalytical method – the talking cure – my understanding is that many scientific trials have been undertaken to assess the efficacy of psychoanalytical therapy compared with other depth psychologies, with more orthodox psychiatric treatment, with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and with drugs. But the attempt is problematic for quite a few reasons. For a start no two people are alike so what works for one patient might simply not work for another. It’s impossible or very challenging to set up a double-blind, controlled study.

For another thing, Freudian psychoanalysis doesn’t necessarily aim at a fixed outcome. CBT may cure a symptom which is preventing you from living your life happily, but Freudians would say it’s only addressed a symptom, not the underlying cause. Freudian psychoanalysis can be open-ended, can indeed last the whole of the rest of your life – which leads cynics and critics to attack it as a money-making scam, hooking the vulnerable into an endless sequence of sessions, at an exorbitant fee.

I was offered and took depth therapy on the NHS in my 20s, and know lots of people who’ve had extended psychotherapy of one sort or another. It didn’t cure me of anything but it certainly helped to be listened to, at length, discussing issues and memories which became quite painful to recall.

Nut even then, in the 1980s, there were lots of varieties and schools and flavours of psychotherapy and my understanding is that the range of practices and theories underlining them has continued to grow. But my understanding is that Freud invented the paradigm of counselling, of extended therapy which aims to dig deep to resolve deep psychological problems, on which all other schools of therapy are based.

Another line of attack is the number of scandals which have come to light about abusive analysts, drunk analysts, power-mad analysts, and so on. The analyst-analysand (therapist-patient) relationship does give the therapist an unprecedented amount of power to steer and control the emotional lives of the very vulnerable. But my understanding is that this kind of thing, like the abuse of power in many other positions (in the church, in sports coaching) can be reported and handled by the relevant professional bodies as well as the police and legal system.

Another line of attack comes from feminists who, right from the start, pointed out the hair-raisingly sexist nature of almost everything Freud wrote and protested his engrained view of women as biologically, physically and mentally inferior to men. You can’t deny it, it’s there on almost every page, along with entire essays dedicated to proving women’s inferiority. Feminist Freudians have tried to overwrite concepts like the notorious ‘penis envy’ which he thought girls and women suffered from, but  in this and many other concepts and assumptions, Freud remains rebarbatively sexist.

Then there’s the earliest and most unimaginative argument against Freud, that his obsession with sex, sexual drives, libido, anal eroticism, fetishism and so on prove that he himself was a sex maniac, a pervert, and so discredit the theory. You can see why a one-sided reading of his earlier theory, especially the early focus on the sexuality of children, would trigger this attack. But, for me, it betrays ignorance of the wider context of the theory which, especially in its later, expanded form, is just as interested in aggression, anger, depression, group psychology, and spends a lot of time exploring the idea of the conscience, the part of the mind which holds us to high standards and punishes us for our failures.

And most powerful of all is the accusation that, although many of his patients in the 1890s told him they had suffered real, physical sexual abuse as children, he was so disturbed by its apparent ubiquity that he couldn’t countenance it, couldn’t accept it; and that one of his central claims – that children fantasise about sexual activity (sex with the parent of the opposite sex, while hating the parent of the same sex, the insight he named the Oedipus complex) – was a denial of the reality of child abuse; that  Freud made what we now regard as the cardinal sin when treating child abuse, which is to refuse to listen and refuse to believe what his patients were telling him.

If true, this was obviously shameful for a physician, sworn to help his patients; but, more powerfully, successive critics have argued that this rejection of actual real-world abuse compromises his entire theory, leading to the accusation that the entire theory is based on a self-serving lie. His rejection of the fact of child abuse and transformation of it into the realm of infantile fantasy may be the most difficult accusation to counter and one which resonates to this day.

So I hope I’m aware of the battery of arguments which can be brought against Freud the man, against his theories, against his personal attitudes, against the inefficacy and/or luxury nature of his type of therapy, of the disproveability of the efficacy of the talking cure, along with plentiful historical examples of its abuse.

But, in my opinion, although many of these attacks deserve to be taken seriously, especially the final one, none of them can really dent the incalculable impact, for good or ill, which Freud has had on the vast shared set of values, ideas, concepts, phrases and ideas which we call Western culture.

Ancient figurine of the sphinx, central player in the legend of Oedipus, symbolising for Freud, as for generations of thinkers before him, the riddle of human existence, but which Freud boldly (arrogantly) thought he had solved

Until Freud’s time most psychologists, most philosophers and lawyers and, following them, most people thought of the human mind as basically Rational, a thinking machine which is aware of its own thoughts, can order and control them, home to Reason which guides our behaviour to rational, definable ends.

If people behaved irrationally then experts directly involved with human nature, such as philosophers or theologians or lawyers, developed explanations and excuses for this falling away from Ideal reason, ideas of possession by outside forces, or temporary madness and so on, notions which explained away people’s irrational behaviour in such a way as to preserve the basic premise that man is the Rational Animal.

In the Christian tradition which dominated western thought for a thousand years, and which in fact predates Christianity, going back through Stoic philosophy for centuries before Christ (cf Cicero and Seneca) – in this immense tradition, human beings have been endowed with reason by the Creator of the universe and, although this spark of Divine Reason may sometimes be clouded by ‘passions’ or frenzy or extreme emotion or drink or drugs, these are temporary aberrations from the basically rational soul which God has given each of us.

Freud’s theory blasts this model to smithereens. By the 1890s there had been plenty of secular thinkers, especially in the life sciences which were swiftly converted to Darwin’s revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection, but no-one who undermined the old models of a God-given, rational mind so completely.

For Freud the mind is a battlefield, a site of endless conflict between conflicting psychological forces, drives, urges, instincts, wishes, dreams, fantasies, angers, anxieties and many more. His fundamental insight was that the human mind, far from growing into a stable, mature and reliable tool for managing our way through the world, is a dynamic, ever-changing site of tremendous psychic conflict.

Because – second big idea – the majority of mental activity is unconscious. We are only dimly aware or not aware at all, of the tremendous forces, urges, drives and so on which motivate us every waking moment and haunt us in our dreams. Why do so many people behave so irrationally? Why are so many people in the grip of compulsive behaviour which they know is self-destructive (smoking, alcohol, over-eating, drugs, risk-taking, outbursts of psychopathic anger or helpless despair) yet feel powerless to change?

Because we are driven by tremendously powerful unconscious forces which we repress and prevent ever emerging into full consciousness.

As Freud stumbled deeper into these discoveries in the 1980s, trying to make sense of what his clinical patients were telling him, engaging in the slightly dubious ‘self analysis’ of his own dreams and memories and feelings, and corresponding with his friend and intellectual confidant Wilhelm Fliess, he threw again and again used metaphors around the idea of having to dig down below the level of conscious thought, having to excavate layer after layer to get down to the basic fears, anxieties and so on which seemed to be driving his patients.

“Thus it came about that in this, the first full-length analysis of a hysteria undertaken by me, I arrived at a procedure which I later developed into a regular method and employed deliberately. This procedure was one of clearing away the pathogenic psychical material layer by layer, and we liked to compare it with the technique of excavating a buried city.”
(Studies on Hysteria, 1895)

Again and again Freud referred to the work he was doing with his patients to try and rediscover their childhood memories in order to free them of their adult illnesses, and the parallel work he was doing on himself, digging deeper and deeper into his own repressed memories, as forms of archaeology.

And it’s this, the meeting place between Freud’s continua use of the metaphor of excavation and archaeology, and the ancient objects derived from the actual practice of real world archaeology which Freud obsessively collected and packed into his study and invoked in his writings from the start to the end of his career as a thinker and writer – which this exhibition addresses and explores. Which it excavates.

The exhibition

The exhibition space is upstairs. It’s only one room but, considering the ideas whose origin it describes and investigates went on to transform all human culture and to underpin how almost everyone alive today conceives of human nature and of themselves, it feels like it contains an entire world. An atom bomb of ideas.

Installation view of ‘Freud’s Antiquity: Object, Idea, Desire’ at the Freud Museum, showing three of the six themes and their display cases, being Oedipus, Charcot and Dreams. Note the small number of items on display. But it isn’t the number of artefacts, it’s the ideas behind them that fill the room.

Exhibition structure

The exhibition selects twenty-five key objects – antiquities, figurines and statuettes, books and prints – each normally hidden from view, extracted from the clutter of Freud’s study for special attention and investigation at close range, to illustrate how Freud’s collecting was bound up with his development of the concepts and methods of psychoanalysis.

The exhibition is divided into six themes, which I’ll briefly list here then explore in greater detail:

  1. Oedipus:
  2. Charcot
  3. Dreams
  4. Gradiva
  5. Totem and Taboo
  6. Moses

1. Oedipus: the riddle of desire

Inevitably the narrative must start with Oedipus who gave his name to Freud’s notion of the Oedipus Complex. This is in fact just one part of the process of growth and maturing which Freud thought all boys go through. At around the age of 5 all boys have grown enough, and experienced enough pre-pubescent sexual feeling, to sense that they want to be very close to their mother and come to resent their father’s possession of her. In the unconscious mind, the boy wants to have sex with his mother and kill his father. Freud introduced the idea in The Interpretation of Dreams (1899) and coined the term in his paper A Special Type of Choice of Object made by Men (1910).

The Oedipus story is super well-known ad previous thinkers had interpreted it and its symbolism. Freud used it to dramatise what he saw as a universal condition, a universal experience of all growing boys which they have to completely suppress in order to mature properly, but whose repression leaves its marks on the adult and, in some men, is constantly threatening to return, so that it has to be staved off with harsh mental defences which sometimes result in florid mental beliefs, patterns and behaviour.

But early on in the myth of Oedipus he has to solve the riddle put to him by the sphinx and so the story had another significance for Freud: for trying to excavate down into the psyche of each patient could also be described as solving their riddle.

Objects on display

On display from Freud’s collection are six objects connected with Oedipus, three vases, a statuette, an amulet and a print of Ingres’ classic painting of Oedipus and the Sphinx.

2. Charcot: from iconography to archaeology

Jean-Martin Charcot was a French neurologist and professor of anatomical pathology. Freud went to study with him in Paris in 1885 (when Freud, born in 1856, was 29). Charcot used hypnosis to treat patients who displayed physical symptoms with no organic cause, a class of patients categorised as ‘hysterics’. His work made the subject of ‘hysteria’ a popular one for doctors interested in psychology across Europe. A book was published containing comprehensive descriptions of Charcot’s work and numerous prints of his hypnosis of hundreds of patients.

A Clinical Lesson at the Salp​etri​ere​. Print of engraving by E. Pirodon after the oil painting by Andre Brouillet​ (​1888​)

But this stuff about Charcot is really here because Charcot was about the surface. There was a fair amount of showmanship in Charcot’s demonstrations, made to auditoriums full of admiring students, and Freud came to dislike the way Charcot exaggerated the patient’s superficial symptoms in order to cure them.

In reaction against Charcot, Freud set off in the opposite direction. His cures would be conducted not in public but in private; they would not be wonder cures achieved in one flashy demonstration, but the result of sustained engagement over a prolonged period of time. And above all they would not work by bringing florid symptoms (hysteria, weeping, sobbing, moaning, screaming) to the surface of the human mind, but quite the opposite, entail a systematic, extended, and ever-deeper excavation down through layer after layer of the human psyche.

Which is why the exhibition places next to the Charcot print a copy of the big leather-bound volume of Ilios, the huge work in which the German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann described his discovery of the legendary city of Troy (in western Turkey). Freud was going to be an archaeologist of the human psyche.

3. Dreams: decoding the way to the wish

From ancient times through the Middle Ages and Renaissance, dreams were given a special place as omens, as warnings from the gods, as indicators of good or bad fortune for the dreamer, and thousands of books had been written interpreting the universal symbolism of dreams. In 1880s and 1890s scientific circles the view was the opposite: that dreams are the meaningless by-products of physiological processes of the mind.

In his breakthrough book, The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud proposed a middle way: that dreams do have a meaning, a symbolic purpose, but that they are not universal to mankind. Each dream has a meaning which is specific to the dreamer. Each dreamer’s mind selects images which symbolise individual and specific hopes, fears etc.

Each dream is a wish fulfilment but what exactly the wish is, and how it is converted into particular images, can only be established by lengthy, in-depth excavation down through the layers of the conscious mind and into each patient’s unconscious.

The display case shows an ancient wine jug, a bust and a warrior figurine. The Interpretation of Dreams includes scores of Freud’s own dreams. In one of them his wife Martha gives him a drink from an Etruscan cinerary urn like the one on display here. The urn represents satisfaction of a basic instinct (thirst) but also symbolises the wished-for return of an object like it which he had given away then regretted.

It’s a fairly simple demonstration of the way we humans give objects multiple everyday or conscious meanings, and then how images of the objects are recombined in the unconscious to emerge in strange combinations, accompanied by sometimes haunting, sometimes terrifying, sometimes blissful emotional feelings, in our dreamlife.

4. Gradiva: tracing the pathways of archaeological desire

Gradiva plays a special role in the history of Freud’s writing about writing i.e. about literature, which he was to come to have such a seismic influence on. In 1907 he published his first full-length analysis of a literary text, a novel by the German writer and poet Wilhelm Jensen titled Gradiva: A Pompeian Fantasy which had been published in Vienna in 1902, so it was quite a current work.

Straightaway the word Pompeii should alert us to the fact that the book is going to play straight into Freud’s fascination with ancient ruins. Freud refers to the relevance of Pompeii, where secrets had been long buried and were now being excavated and restored to the light, to his own concepts of psychoanalytical therapy, in his letters to Fliess in the mid-1890s, and he actually visited Pompeii itself in 1902.

In this novel the hero, Norbert Hanold, who is studying archaeology, ‘falls in love with’ (becomes obsessed with) an ancient bas-relief of a young woman striding along in a Roman toga.

Cast relief of ‘Gradiva’​ (​1908​)

Since the relief was found as part of the excavation of the buried city of Pompeii (just recently being unearthed) the hero decides to travel to Italy, and to the archaeological site, to find this woman, or her spirit, or her reincarnation.

So you can straightaway see how the novel is about a man in the grip of a delusion and a compulsion, psychological territory Freud was striving to make his own during the later 1890s and early 1900s.

In the end, after failing to find the modern avatar of the beautiful statue anywhere in the real world and after some painful self-analysis, Hanold comes to realise that who the woman reminds him of is a childhood friend who lives opposite him back home, returns, tells her of his love etc.

For Freud the novel is rich in confirmations of his theories. The hero had youthful erotic feelings for this neighbour but his strict upbringing forbade him from acknowledging them. Instead he repressed them and sublimated them i.e. redirected his psychic energy into the socially acceptable medium of studying archaeology and ancient history.

When he came across the bas relief as part of his studies, he was seized, possessed by something about it which he couldn’t define. Well, that’s because he had completely repressed his childhood longing for his sweetheart. the feeling remained but divorced from its source. So the bas relief became what Freud calls a compromise formation i.e. a real-world object which can ‘satisfy’ his libidinal drive and desire, but in a socially acceptable mode (i.e. a perfectly natural part of his adult studies).

The obsession he develops with it, however, obviously goes beyond the bounds of the ‘normal’ and this is like the patients who came to see Freud, people in the grip of obsessive, compulsive, neurotic thoughts or behaviour which they couldn’t explain and couldn’t shake off.

It also plays right into Freud’s hands that the hero is depicted as having numerous florid and bizarre dreams, thus allowing Freud to apply the insights he’d recorded in The Interpretation of Dreams to show how Hanold’s dreams were continually urging acknowledgement of his real-world love, but were blocked from doing so by the forces of repression and so emerged in complex combinations of symbols and imagery.

And the way the heroine, Zoe, cares for Hanold after his breakdown, slowly coaxing him back to health and to accept his love for her, is comparable to the psychoanalytic method Freud had devised, the famous listening cure.

Objects on display

On another level, the novel is about the journey of a repressed north European to the warm south which has, for centuries, symbolised release into and acceptance a world of sensual pleasures which we uptight northerners deny ourselves in order to function in our advanced capitalist economies.

The excavations of Herculaneum and Pompeii had unearthed a surprising number of explicitly sexual objects, specifically depictions of the erect penis, often with wings, a magical object worthy of veneration or kept as a lucky charm or amulet. The fact that this is still regarded as shocking or bizarre shows you how far we are from the ancient world’s frank acceptance of the facts of sex.

Six phallic objects and amulets from various cultures of antiquity, part of Freud’s collection. You are free to regard these as sinister, sexually suggestive, funny (as I do), or as examples of the ancient world’s frank acknowledgement of the importance of sexuality in human life, which had to be censored, suppressed and policed in industrialised, capitalist societies. At the same time, this or any other view you have is quite obviously a projection of your own personal ideas, memories, associations and patterns of thought onto simple, cold, inanimate objects, and it is this power of mental projection onto objects which it is part of the aim of the exhibition to both explore and to demonstrate.

5. Totem and Taboo: the search for origins

Another criticism of Freud is that he quite early on strayed beyond his area of supposed expertise i.e. psychology (theory of the mind) and psychiatry (practical cure of mental illness) into subjects quite beyond his speciality. And it’s true. He not only produced a substantial body of literary and art criticism (essays and book-length studies) but did the same in anthropology and theology.

In 1913 he published Totem and Taboo. It was partly a response to his protegé Carl Jung who was rebelling against Freud’s insistence on the centrality of repressed sexuality and the Oedipus Complex in all human development. Therefore it ups the stakes by asserting that the Oedipus Complex is not only a part of the normal development of every boy, but explains a founding event in actual, real-world history.

Freud asserted that the founding event of ancient societies was an actual parricide, where the sons of the chief rose up and killed him, then claimed access to the queen or women of the harem. A sexual rebellion. But, crippled by guilt at murdering their father, the sons then set about repressing all memory of it, denying and blocking anything which would indicate their great crime. And this is the origin of the compulsive taboos which contemporary anthropologists observed in so many ‘primitive’ societies.

Freud then goes on to make the grandiose claim that this Primal Event was the foundation stone of all religion, morality, society and related art.

Objects on display

On display are copies of ‘The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion’, the hugely influential compendium of myths, legends gathered from all round the world by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer, which influenced a generation of writers and thinkers. A two-volume edition had been published in 1890 but Freud owned the twelve volumes of the third edition, published serially from 1906 to 1915. His copies, some of which are on display here, are covered with pencilled notes and he incorporated much material from the book into Totem.

Amusingly, Freud sent a copy of Totem and Taboo to Fraser, who didn’t deign to reply.

The curators don’t mention this but my understanding is that almost every aspect of Totem and Taboo has been disproved. It very obviously represents a kind of imperial ambition by Freud to move his theory out of the world of private practice and discreet papers written for specialist journals, and stake a claim to making major discoveries in history, anthropology, the origins of religion, morality and so on.

Although the specific claims made about ‘primitive’ societies being comprehensively rejected by actual anthropologists, Freud successfully made a new myth about himself and his role as explainer of everything. It was the kind of grandiose ambition which drove one-time followers like Jung, and others like Adler and Rank, to secede from the official psychoanalytic movement and set up their own variations.

A digression on Freud’s sociological writings

This world-claiming ambition, this tendency to stray way beyond his area of expertise and set himself up as a master explainer of society is evident in many of Freud’s later works. In The Future of An Illusion (1927) he sets out to disprove religious belief by rewriting every religious belief and practice in terms of psychoanalytic terminology (repression of sexual urges, ‘sublimated’ into love of an all-powerful father, accompanied by a world of obsessive-compulsive rituals and ceremonies).

In 1930’s Civilization and Its Discontents Freud applies psychoanalysis to sociology, arguing that modern, mass, industrial, capitalist societies need to enforce widespread suppression and control of people’s libidinal urges, not just to sex but to express other needs and drives, and it is this systematic repression of human needs which makes so many people unhappy in modern society. In many ways this turned out to be Freud’s most influential work, because it influenced social reformers and would-be revolutionaries, especially in the utopian 1960s.

Anyway, this final display is about Freud’s deepest foray into myth, legend and so on as he took on the roots of Christianity and, behind it, of Christianity’s parent, Judaism.

Freud was a Jew who accepted his secular inheritance but rejected the religious aspects of Judaism. Running alongside the obsessive references to archaeology throughout his writing career, which this exhibition focuses on, was Freud’s parallel obsession with denying and debunking religious belief and practice at every opportunity.

There are quite a few Freudian explanations of this noticeable obsession. One is that he was guilty about rejecting the religion of his forefathers and so spent his entire life trying to deny its reality. A subtler one is that Freud didn’t so much deny the reality of the Jewish religion as attempt to rewrite it in his own terms. In his imperial way, he attempted to overwrite religion, to write it away. Coming from a different angle, you could say that this ‘obsession’ was a response to the lifelong anti-semitism which he and his family and Jewish friends and colleagues suffered on an almost daily basis, in personal encounters but also in the press and culture of turn of the century Vienna.

Everyone mentions the fact that from 1897 to 1910 Vienna was run by the unusually powerful mayor, Karl Lueger, who oversaw the transformation of the city into a modern metropolis but at the same time exploited populist and anti-semitic feeling, legitimising widespread and semi-official antisemitism which some historians think established a model for the psychotic racism promoted by Adolf Hitler who was, of course, Austrian and an impressionable teenager during Lueger’s time in office.

You can take your pick of interpretations or mix and match all of them and this, also, is a Freudian idea which he called over-determination. In The Interpretation of Dreams Freud speculated that individual dream images or narratives can operate on multiple levels or be representing more than one wish or drive. Same with the symptoms his patients presented with. Overdetermination occurs when a single-observed effect is determined by multiple causes any one of which alone would be sufficient to account for the effect.

Thus I routinely describe historical events as ‘over determined’, such as the First World War, for which historians have proposed a vast number of causes. The Freudian notion of over-determination i.e. multiple cause for one event, frees you up, allows you to accept a number of different explanations, allows you to experiment with apportioning different levels of responsibility for different events.

It’s an example of the way Freud’s theory gives conceptual definition to the complexity of life, motivation, simple and complex events which we all know are multi-levelled and multi-motivated. Freud’s theory provides a theoretical underpinning for this multiplicity of viewpoints, about anything.

6. Moses: the return of the repressed

Freud’s last published work was not a grand summary of his theory (although he was working on one, which remained unfinished). It was the long, densely argued and eccentric work of religious sociology, Moses and Monotheism. In it he applies the Oedipus story to the entire history of the Jewish people, his people, in an attempt to dethrone the founder of Judaism, Moses. It was itself a nakedly Oedipal attempt to overthrow the father and assert his (Freud’s) moral and intellectual independence.

For Freud makes the scandalous assertion that Moses was not himself Jewish. Freud argues that Moses was in fact an Egyptian prince, but one who followed the heretical teachings of the pharaoh Akhenaten. From what we can tell, Akhenaten, the tenth pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, who ruled from 1353 to 1336 BC, attempted to overthrow the Egyptians’ traditional polytheism i.e. belief in a large and florid pantheon of gods, and replace it with worship of the One True God.

Tasked with overseeing the Israelite captives in their slave tasks, this Egyptian prince, Moses, tried to impose Akhenaten’s strict monotheism on them but they rose up and, as in the classic Oedipal narrative, murdered their father figure. But, like all good Oedipal actors, they then couldn’t cope with the guilt of their deed and repressed it, wiping out all memory of the historical event, and instead reinventing Moses as one of their own and a wise and good teacher.

Following the basic model of the mind he had postulated as long ago as 1897, Freud speculated that knowledge of their collective murder kept threatening to leak out and so the Jews, as a people, instituted a comprehensive system of taboos and restrictions, the most famous being not to eat pork, but there are hundreds of others. As time went by these taboos were expanded and elaborated until they dictated almost every aspect of everyday life, as well as a host of religious rituals.

This last display takes Moses and Monotheism to be not only the climax of Freud’s career as a writer but of his vaulting ambition to establish a psychoanalytical version of human history, society, and the origins of religion and morality. Like Totem and Taboo there’s something slightly mad about this book, disreputable about its theories and the interpretations which Freud applies to history and strain to breaking point. It’s absurd. But there’s also something awe inspiring about the man’s grandiose ambition.

If you stop thinking about it as a serious piece of archaeology or sociology and consider it as simply a piece of imaginative writing, the ambition and the ingenuity with which Freud attaches his theory to every aspect of Jewish history, theology and practice are dizzying.

Objects on display

A small statuette of the Egyptian god Amon-Ra, who Akhenaten promoted as the one true God. A print of Rembrandt’s famous painting of Moses coming down from the mountain holding the tablets of the law. An edition of the Philippson edition of the German Bible. And a small hannukah lamp, associated with domestic Jewish ritual.

The end wall and right-hand wall of the exhibition, showing the section about Gradiva (at the end) and Totem and Moses, on the right

Objects and meanings

The title of the exhibition includes the word ‘objects’ because among Freud’s many insights is the way all of us project wishes, desires, anxieties onto all the objects around us all the time. We not only relentlessly anthropomorphise the world – that’s level one psychology; we also personalise the world by investing all manner of objects around us with value and meaning. And these meanings alter over time, over very short periods as our moods or memories change, as events invest them with new auras of meaning, some of them over lifetimes.

In other words, all the objects around us are invested with some measure of significance, we can’t stop ourselves. And so the exhibition’s attention to the objects which Freud a) collected obsessively b) positioned all around him in his working environment c) described, discussed, referred to and invoked endlessly in all his writings from start to finish is both an ‘exploration’ of the significance of some of the objects, but also the evocation of all kinds of associations and feelings in us, the visitors.

H.D.’s interpretation

Freud arrived in London before his belongings. When these arrived, especially the crates containing his carefully wrapped antiquities, his friend and former patient, the American poet H.D., sent Freud a bunch of gardenias with a note ‘to greet the return of the Gods’.

HD is also represented by a short but powerful quote on the main introductory wall label. Here she is recorded as noting, in her memoir of Freud and her psychoanalytical treatment, what we’ve already observed, that his rather staggering array of figurines, statuettes and antiquities were intimately bound up with his development of the concepts and methods of psychoanalysis. But she goes on to say something more. She has the insight that they helped Freud to ‘stabilise the evanescent thought’ that was continually at risk of dissipation.

This is a new and powerful insight. I’ve already mentioned the idea of ambivalence, which follows from Freud’s dual structure of the mind (conscious mind struggling to repress all kinds of unconscious urges). Once developed, this explains how we can all have ambivalent or contradictory feelings about objects, because there is so much going on in the unconscious which we’re not aware of, and because the human psyche’s tendency to project these feelings, moods, anxieties, desires onto all manner of inanimate objects around us.

So much for ambivalence. And so much for the notion that Freud used the antiquities to inspire his ideas about excavating and archaeology. It’s a typically voodoo, Freudian, psychoanalytical insight, one which appears absurd on the surface but slowly makes more sense the more you ponder it, that the figurines littering his desk and study, also in some sense, limited and controlled his thought.

Because if there’s one thing about Freud’s achievement as a writer, it’s that he was so very fecund with ideas. From the initial insights around 1900 were to spring an exploding, ever-ramifying, ever-more complex system or network or matrix of ideas and insights and categories and theories and terminology which he never ceased developing and refining, and which he consciously amplified and spread beyond psychology into disciplines far removed from his area of expertise, as this exhibition makes abundantly clear.

So maybe the figurines not only inspired his writing (and his treatment) but also brought him back to the thing he started writing about, focused things back on the project in hand. They were instruments of inspiration and control.

Who’s to say whether this is ‘true’ or not, but by this stage, hopefully, you have joined me in not being so concerned about the truth of a lot of this so much as its interpretive and, above all discursive power. It enables the imagination. Psychoanalysis’s uncanny combination of scientific phraseology applied to ideas which sometimes seem acute, sometimes way off beam, sometimes suck you in and make you see the world in a completely different way, this all leaves the pragmatic world of truth values far behind as we go romping through a wild and shaggy, dense and huge, huge and fascinating imaginative realm.

Three figurines from Freud’s collection. Which one – smooth elegant Egyptian, primitive fertility figure, or happy dancer – do you identify with, and why?

Digital archive

The exhibition is accompanied by a digital multimedia resource, containing video recordings, podcasts, photos of rarely seen objects from the collection, and a list of suggested reading.


Related links

The Freud Museum has had a previous exhibition specifically on the theme of archaeology:

Related books

The Museum has produced a comprehensive catalogue for the exhibition, with essays expanding the themes raised in the wall labels. But, unsurprisingly, there also turn out to be quite a few book-length academic studies of Freud’s fascination with antiquity and obsession with collecting:

Artspeak key words

Modern Couples was a enormous exhibition held at the Barbican in the winter of 2018/19, which examined the role played by couples, women, lesbians, gay men and transgender people in the avant-garde art and literary movements of the early twentieth century.

Beginning by describing the working relations of no fewer than 40 (mostly heterosexual) artistic couples, the exhibition went on to examine a variety of other forms of artistic collaboration – between same-sex partners, between trios of artists, ménages à trois, and among larger groupings and movements, such as the Surrealists. The exhibition was a polemical one designed to show that:

  1. not only was the core of the Modernist movement based around radical new ideas about love, sex and eroticism, but also that:
  2. Modernism was the result of an unprecedented number and variety of types of artistic collaboration

With over 80 named artists and some 600 objects and artworks on show, the exhibition was an overwhelming bombardment of information and took a lot of time and several visits to really absorb.

Key words of contemporary artspeak

Above all, it was a very wordy exhibition, with over 40 lengthy wall labels, totalling some 100 paragraphs of densely factual text, plus extensive quotations from the writings, letters, diaries and so on of the numerous artists and authors featured.

As I read through these labels I became more and more aware of the repetition of key words and phrases and the recurrence of key themes and ideas. Eventually I began to wonder what it would be like it I cut and pasted together all the phrases which used one or more of these keywords; to see what picture would emerge from this textual collage.

A collage of quotes

So: this blog post is intended as a collage of the keywords (and, therefore, the key themes) from the exhibition. After all, collage – cutting up and re-arranging words and images – was a distinctive invention of the Modern movement.

I’m not sure what conclusions to draw. On a purely logical level, the repetition of a small set of closely related terminology to do with love, sex, desire and gender suggests the narrowness of the concepts underpinning the exhibition and the tremendous limitedness of the curators’ concepts and vocabulary.

But, on another level, the repetitions may have a sort of incantatory quality: like the holy words and phrases repeated by Christians and other religions at their weekly services, annual festivals, rites of passage, baptisms, christenings and deaths. In Christianity these would be keywords like God, love, Father, Son, sin, forgiveness, love, atonement, saviour, saint. In the jargon of modern artists and curators the keywords are bourgeois, challenge, desire, erotic, gender, practice, queer, sex, subvert, same-sex desire, transgressive and unconventional. If religion concerns things of the spirit, modern art is all about the body.

Repetition and faith

Repetition performs a number of functions for a believer: it grounds them in their beliefs; the reassuring litany of familiar words and ideas binds you to the community of the faithful; repetition drums home key terms and concepts with a brainwashing function which eventually makes independent thought impossible. To the initiate, the litany is a quick introduction to the value system of the ideology.

In much same way, the following keywords are central elements in the modern secular religion of critical theory, touching on notions of identity politics, LGBTQ+ activism, feminist theory, and a kind of watered-down Marxism – the key elements which dominate modern art jargon.

Their purpose is not to explain anything but to create a sense of identity and community among believers, to identify the enemy, rally the faithful, and endlessly repeat the key dogmas which the true believer must hold in order to be saved.

A dictionary of received ideas

Viewed another way, this post invokes the spirit of Gustave Flaubert’s Dictionary of Received Ideas. This was:

A short satirical work assembled from notes compiled by Gustave Flaubert during the 1870s, lampooning the clichés endemic to French society under the Second French Empire.

For his own amusement Flaubert assembled notes towards ‘a dictionary of automatic thoughts and platitudes’, where a platitude is defined as:

A remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful… A trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement, often used as a thought-terminating cliché… The statement may be true, but its meaning has been lost due to its excessive use.

Note how a key aspect of a platitude is that it has lost its meaning due to repetition. That’s my point about these artspeak ideas. They may seem radical and shake your world the first time you read them, when you’re 17 or so. But just in this exhibition the same ideas are repeated 10, 15, 20 times, which makes them start to lose their power. And if you visit 10 exhibitions which feature the same basic ideas, rephrased 10 or so time, you’ll have read the same ideas about art ‘subverting bourgeois norms’ 100 times. And if you’ve visited hundreds of art exhibitions then you’ll have seen this same handful of ideas expressed in all possible permutations, thousands of times.

Over time repetition makes them go from exciting and mind-opening, to familiar and comfortable, and then on to threadbare empty. Incessant repetition turns them into platitudes and clichés.

So I am both a) lampooning the clichés of contemporary artspeak, using the texts available at this particular show and b) showing how endless, brainless repetition of the same handful of ideas and phrases eventually empties them of all meaning.

The list of keywords

In what follows I give three elements:

  1. the keyword
  2. the attitude any self-respecting, progressive follower of intellectual fashion should adopt towards it (in italics) – that’s the bit which is most a homage to Flaubert’s dictionary of platitudes and stock attitudes
  3. then quotes from the wall labels at the Modern Couples exhibition, which illustrate how the keyword is used by curators

N.B. I’ve punctuated the list with illustrations of images from the exhibition.

Bourgeois

Bourgeois morality. Bourgeois conformity. Bourgeois conception of marriage. Awful. Stifling. Must be combated and overthrown.

‘Toyen and Štyrský believed in the political nature of eroticism, convinced that desire could transform human consciousness, fight bourgeois conformity, assault the hypocritical status quo, while opening up a liberated space unfiltered by aesthetic and moral constraints.’ (Hannah Höch and Raoul Hausmann)

‘In Hausmann’s eyes, Höch needed to free herself from the bonds of bourgeois morality and as he wrote to her, ‘kill the father in yourself’.’ (Hannah Höch and Raoul Hausmann)

‘Inspired in part by their friend and collaborator Vladimir Mayakovsky’s 1921 assertion that henceforth “the streets shall be our brushes, the squares our palettes“, bourgeois representation was to be eliminated and photography and design were to be valued equally with painting and sculpture.’ (Varvara Stepanova and Alexander Rodchenko)

‘[Mayakovsky, Osip and Lilya Brik’s] unconventional relationship placed friendship, love and creativity at the centre of a way of life that paid no heed to the bourgeois conception of marriage.’ (Lilya Brik, Osip Brik and Vladimir Mayakovsky)

Alexander Rodchenkom Lilya Brik and Vladimir Mayakovsky

Alexander Rodchenko, Lilya Brik and Vladimir Mayakovsky

Challenge

All good art ‘challenges’ bourgeois conformity, popular conceptions, gender stereotypes and everything else bad.

‘Within the same photographs, polarities such as poetry and violence; submission and agency; and male and female are challenged.’ (Lee Miller and Man Ray)

‘Throughout the 1920s, Cahun and Moore pursued a project of theatrical camera play that yielded hundreds of photographic images, mostly featuring Cahun in a variety of roles that challenged the established repertoire of gender stereotypes.’ (Claude Cahun and Marcel Moore)

‘Stieglitz interpreted O’Keeffe’s early paintings as embodying female sexuality and O’Keeffe, perhaps in an attempt to counter such an interpretation, began painting New York City, challenging the popular perception of urban motifs being essentially masculine territory.’ (Georgia O’Keeffe and Alfred Stieglitz)

Georgia O'Keeffe by Alfred Stieglitz (1918)

Georgia O’Keeffe by Alfred Stieglitz (1918)

Desire

This is polite curatorspeak for sexual attraction, lust, sex, sex drive, libido, carnality, lasciviousness, all of which are banned. ‘Desire’ is the very broad term which covers all of this. Heterosexual ‘desire’ is deprecated. The best form of ‘desire’ is same-sex desire, preferably female. Purer, more refined.

‘Toyen and Štyrský believed in the political nature of eroticism, convinced that desire could transform human consciousness, fight bourgeois conformity, assault the hypocritical status quo, while opening up a liberated space unfiltered by aesthetic and moral constraints.’ (Hannah Höch and Raoul Hausmann)

‘The exhibition begins on the Lower Level where all the principal themes that gave rise to Modernism and underpin Modern Couples are introduced: desire, agency, transgression, liberation, activism, collaboration and the urgent pulse of experiment.’ (Introduction)

‘In her confident embrace of female same-sex relationships, Sackville-West engendered desire in Woolf that then permeated her writing…’ (Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf)

‘The relationship [with Vita] gave rise to Woolf’s Orlando (1929), a transformation of desire into writing.’ (Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf)

‘Zürn shared Bellmer’s fascination with mapping desires and fears onto the female body. Eyes, limbs and breasts, often entangled with hybrid animal forms are recurrent motifs in her work.’ (Unica Zürn and Hans Bellmer)

‘For Bellmer, Zürn was a living incarnation of his Poupée and so he played out his desires on her body in a number of works that are powerful but undeniably shocking.’ (Unica Zürn and Hans Bellmer)

‘Klimt was one of Austria’s most acclaimed artists, who put the female form centre-stage, celebrated desire and the human psyche and created luxurious canvases, murals and mosaics.’ (Emilie Flöge and Gustav Klimt)

‘Male homosexuality was illegal in the United States when the American photographer George Platt Lynes was active from the mid-1930s until his death, and yet he trailblazed defiantly homoerotic works that celebrate male desire.’ (George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott and Monroe Wheeler)

George Platt Lynes, Stoneblossom (c. 1941) by PaJaMa. Collection Jack Shear

George Platt Lynes, Stoneblossom (c. 1941) by PaJaMa. Collection Jack Shear

Erotic

Just as same-sex desire is the best form of desire, so the optimum form of eroticism is homoeroticism. Both are based on the universal if unspoken disapproval shared by women and gay art curators of heterosexual male sexuality.

‘More than any of his contemporaries, the French sculptor Auguste Rodin knowingly placed eroticism at the centre of his work.’ (Camille Claudel and Auguste Rodin)

‘The, inanimate, naked figure sprawled on a bed of twigs and only visible through a peephole was cast from her body, the result of a long artistic and erotic dialogue between the two artists.’ (Maria Martins and Marcel Duchamp)

‘Saint Sebastian became one of [Lorca and Dali’s] coded signs, the preferred mascot for their different aesthetics. The saint’s historical association with male homoeroticism and sado-masochism may also have been on their minds.’ (Federico García Lorca and Salvador Dalí)

‘Male homosexuality was illegal in the United States when the American photographer George Platt Lynes was active from the mid-1930s until his death, and yet he trailblazed defiantly homoerotic works that celebrate male desire.’ (George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott and Monroe Wheeler)

‘Homophobic views were rife in post-war America when PaJaMa – an acronym for the collective formed by Paul Cadmus, Jared French and Margaret French in 1937 – began taking their homoerotically charged photographs.’ (PaJaMa: Paul Cadmus, Jared French and Margaret French)

‘Erotically charged photographs of these dolls were celebrated in Surrealist circles and remain extraordinary relics of a “mad love”.’ (Unica Zürn and Hans Bellmer)

‘Together [Lee Miller and Man Ray] made the darkroom and studio a place of shared photographic and erotic experiment.’ (Lee Miller and Man Ray)

Lee Miller with a cast of her torso, Downshire Hill, London, England 1940 by Roland Penrose © Roland Penrose Estate, England 2018. The Penrose Collection

Lee Miller with a cast of her torso, Downshire Hill, London, England 1940 by Roland Penrose © Roland Penrose Estate, England 2018. The Penrose Collection

Gender

‘Gender’ is possibly the central concept of modern art theory. What all modern art is about. What all contemporary art curators are obsessed with. The best art subverts, interrogates, undermines etc bourgeois gender stereotypes, expectations etc.

Gender indeterminacy, sexual empowerment and the fight for safe spaces of becoming were part of the avant-garde currency.’ (Lili Elbe and Gerda Wegener)

‘Capturing Picasso with his eyes closed and wearing only his bathing trunks while holding a bull’s skull, Maar makes Picasso’s famous machismo her subject. In a turnaround of gender expectations, Picasso becomes Maar’s muse.’ (Dora Maar and Pablo Picasso)

‘In 1934 [Toyen and Jindrich Štyrský] founded the Czech Surrealist Group that was known for rejecting notions of gender entirely.’ (Toyen and Jindřich Štyrský)

‘[Toyen]’s use of phallic imagery is a rare example of a female artist humorously commenting on the standard erotic language of the time and subverting gender expectations.’ (Toyen and Jindřich Štyrský)

‘Born Maria Cerminova, Toyen chose an ungendered pseudonym, which she claimed, came from the French word for citizen “citoyen”.’ (Toyen and Jindřich Štyrský)

‘With new inspiration Hannah Höch continued to comment on the battle of the sexes, gender and the ‘new woman’ as an engine of social renewal.’ (Til Brugman and Hannah Höch)

‘Throughout the 1920s, Cahun and Moore pursued a project of theatrical camera play that yielded hundreds of photographic images, mostly featuring Cahun in a variety of roles that challenged the established repertoire of gender stereotypes.’ (Claude Cahun and Marcel Moore)

Suzanne Malherbe/Marcel Moore (1928) by Claude Cahun. Courtesy of Jersey Heritage Collections

Suzanne Malherbe/Marcel Moore (1928) by Claude Cahun. Courtesy of Jersey Heritage Collections

Practice

Blanket term for what any artist actually does.

‘The photograms have solely been attributed to László, yet a double portrait of both artists is evidence enough of their collaborative practice.’ (Lucia Moholy and László Moholy-Nagy)

‘[Sonia]’s practice soon impregnated all aspects of life, experimenting with domestic interiors, dress, theatre designs and textiles in parallel with the chromatic fireworks found in Robert’s painting.’ (Sonia Delaunay and Robert Delaunay)

‘Taeuber-Arp’s puppets for King Stag show the importance of performance and dance within her practice.’ (Sophie Taeuber-Arp and Jean Arp)

‘[Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov] were prolific and versatile, engaging in a Russian form of expressionist practice known as Neo-Primitivism.’ (Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov)

‘The American photographer Margrethe Mather was instrumental in the development of her fellow countryman Edward Weston’s practice as a photographer.’ (Margrethe Mather and Edward Weston)

Edward Weston and Margrethe Mather (1922) by Imogen Cunningham. George Eastman Museum © Imogen Cunningham Trust

Edward Weston and Margrethe Mather (1922) by Imogen Cunningham. George Eastman Museum © Imogen Cunningham Trust

Queer

Hugely important concept. Far larger than the art world, ‘queer’ is a central part of the campaign throughout the humanities and beyond to overthrow traditional bourgeois notions of gender stereotyping and heterosexual convention. See ‘Queer Studies’.

‘Many of their images were taken on the beaches of Fire Island, Nantucket and Provincetown, offering a record of a long standing LGBTQ community in the United States, as Fire Island especially, was – and still is – a sanctuary for queer freedom.’ (PaJaMa: Paul Cadmus, Jared French and Margaret French)

‘With Orlando [Virginia Woolf] craftily weaved together one of the most important queer texts of the 20th century.’ (Chloe liked Olivia)

‘These lively, cultural spaces attracted a variety of creative queer women such as the female modern dandy, the Symbolist inspired femme-fatale and the androgyne.’ (Chloe liked Olivia)

Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West

Virginia Woolf and Vita Sackville-West

Sex

Generally disapproved-of word because mostly (but not always) associated with male sexuality, toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, gender stereotyping, gender conventions, bourgeois conformity and everything bad. Meaning men, basically. Thus Rodin’s ‘sexual prowess’ and Klimt’s ‘sexual exploits’ are disapproved of.

Broadly speaking, men have the rather disgusting ‘sex‘ while women, gay men and lesbians have the far more spiritual and superior ‘desire‘.

‘Dating from when Claudel and Roding first met, Je suis belle (1882) pairs two previously existing works and expresses the older artist’s feelings of sexual prowess with characteristic bravura.’ (Camille Claudel and Auguste Rodin)

‘Duchamp made sexual union the focus of much of his conceptually oriented work.’ (Maria Martins and Marcel Duchamp)

‘The Erotic Objects became sexually charged keepsakes for Duchamp.’ (Maria Martins and Marcel Duchamp)

‘With “Chloe liked Olivia” Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own made a thinly veiled reference to female like-with-like sexuality for those looking out for it.’ (Chloe liked Olivia)

‘She was close to the Dadaists and Surrealists and was known for her sexually liberated relationships with artists and writers, including Louis Aragon, Aldous Huxley and Ezra Pound.’ (Nancy Cunard and Henry Crowder)

‘The extent of Dali and Lorca’s sexual relationship is unclear, although Dalí made a pointed reference to it in his later autobiography.’ (Federico García Lorca and Salvador Dalí)

‘This adventurous ménage à trois escaped the intolerance of American society for Paris and Villefranche-sur-Mer where they met a diverse artistic and largely sexually liberated community. (George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott and Monroe Wheeler)

‘Klimt was well known for his sexual exploits and illegitimate children, but his relationship with Flöge was respectful and mutually enabling.’ (Emilie Flöge and Gustav Klimt)

The Bride by Gustav Klimt (1918)

The Bride by Gustav Klimt (1918)

‘The decidedly cool and precise evocation of the hawk in the story reflects Westcott’s own struggles with aging and sexual frustration.’ (George Platt Lynes, Glenway Wescott and Monroe Wheeler)

‘The three first met at the Art Students League of New York, where Paul and Jared were lovers. Jared married Margaret in 1937, after which he sustained a sexual relationship with both partners.’ (PaJaMa: Paul Cadmus, Jared French and Margaret French)

‘Hausmann also upheld that a sexual liberation would enable a life unconstrained by monogamy and so was happy to maintain a relationship with Höch while still married to his wife.’ (Hannah Höch and Raoul Hausmann)

Subvert

The key central aim of all modern and contemporary art is to ‘subvert’ bourgeois convention and gender stereotyping and all bad things. Can be used interchangeably with ‘challenge.’

‘They also subverted the Greek myth of Narcissus (the tale of a young man who falls in love with his own reflection) to celebrate queer desire and refute historical ideas of feminine vanity.’ (Claude Cahun and Marcel Moore)

‘[Toyen]’s use of phallic imagery is a rare example of a female artist humorously commenting on the standard erotic language of the time and subverting gender expectations.’ (Toyen and Jindřich Štyrský)

Drawing 18 from the cycle '21' by Toyen (1938)

Drawing 18 from the cycle ’21’ by Toyen (1938) Subverting gender expectations?

Same-sex desire

The best kind of desire because it doesn’t involve horrible heterosexual men.

‘In her confident embrace of female same-sex relationships, Sackville-West engendered desire in Woolf that then permeated her writing.’ (Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf)

‘Woolf’s activism and advocacy for same-sex love echoed what was happening on Paris’s more tolerant Left Bank.’ (Chloe liked Olivia)

Transgressive

The main aim of modern artists is to ‘transgress’ all the terrible conventions of bourgeois / conventional / racist / sexist / homophobic society by producing fabulously transgressive art. Use with the verbs ‘challenge’ and ‘subvert’.

‘Perceived as transgressive in the racist context of the 1920s and 1930s, the relationship [of Nancy Cunard and Henry Crowder] was a source of profound enrichment for both of their careers and opened Cunard’s eyes to the segregation in the United States as well as introducing her to Black American culture.’ (Nancy Cunard and Henry Crowder)

‘It was their shared belief in the transgressive and poetic potential of erotic imagery that had the biggest impact on surrealism.’ (Lee Miller and Man Ray)

‘By all accounts, Zurn and Bellmer were magnetically drawn to each other and the intense and transgressive nature of their relationship is starkly evident in their respective works.’ (Unica Zürn and Hans Bellmer)

One of many iterations of 'the Doll' by Hans Bellmer

One of many iterations of ‘the Doll’ by Hans Bellmer

Unconventional

The modern artist is desperately unconventional. He, she and they aim to transgress and subvert and challenge as many artistic and social conventions as possible in order to attain a peak of unconventionality. Conventions are for ‘normies’. Bourgeois conventions were made to be transgressed, challenged and subverted by artists who dared to be unconventional.

‘Mather made several portraits of Weston and others, employing unconventional cropping. In a number of intimate nude portraits of Mather, Weston did the same.’ (Margrethe Mather and Edward Weston)

‘Their unconventional relationship placed friendship, love and creativity at the centre of a way of life that paid no heed to the bourgeois conception of marriage.’ (Lilya Brik, Osip Brik and Vladimir Mayakovsky)

‘From 1910 onwards, the year of their marriage, Sonia and Robert Delaunay sought to break loose from conventional approaches to painting’ (Sonia Delaunay and Robert Delaunay)

‘Most notable, was their adoption of face painting as a means of upsetting established conventions and celebrating what they considered the multi-dimensional and magical qualities of modernity.’ (Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov)

Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov, Moscow, 1913

Natalia Goncharova and Mikhail Larionov, Moscow, 1913


Related link

More art reviews

Objects of Desire: Surrealism and Design 1924 to today @ the Design Museum

SURREALISM. Noun: Pure psychic automatism by which it is intended to express, either verbally or in writing, or otherwise, the true function of thought. Thought dictated in the absence of all control exerted by reason, and outside all aesthetic or moral considerations.
(First Manifesto of Surrealism, 1924)

Surrealism is not a new or better means of expression, not even a metaphysic of poetry; it is a means of total liberation of the mind.
(Surrealist declaration, January 1925)

Introduction to surrealism

Surrealism is ‘a philosophical and artistic approach which violently rejects the notion of the Rational Mind and all its works’. For Surrealists, the True Mind, true human nature – ‘the true function of thought’ – is profoundly irrational.

The Surrealists thought the Rational Mind formed the basis of ‘bourgeois’ society, with its moral and sexual repressiveness, its worship of work and money, its fetishisation of capitalist greed, which had led both to the stifling conformity of Western society and to a series of petty wars over colonies which had themselves led up to the unprecedented calamity of the First World War.

In the Surrealists’ opinion, this entire mindset had proved to be a ghastly mistake. The Surrealists thought that we had to reject it lock, stock and barrel by returning to the pure roots of human nature in the fundamentally irrational nature of the human mind, liberating thought from all censorship and superficial, petty morality, seeking to capture ‘the true function of thought’ and creativity through the exploration of the fortuitous and the uncontrolled, the random and the unexpected, through dreams and coincidences.

The first Surrealist magazine was titled La Révolution surréaliste (1924 to 1929) not because it espoused a communist political line, but because it proposed that Surrealist writing and art would, by its radical dysjunctions and unexpectednesses, reveal to readers and viewers the true nature of unbounded thought and lead to a great social transformation.

Cadeau by Man Ray

Massive show, massive space

This is a huge exhibition containing nearly 350 objects, an overwhelming number, a flood of objects and information in the related wall captions.

Also, the exhibition space itself is big and capacious. Roomy. This allows for the display of lots of large objects, namely furniture, lots and lots of chairs and several striking sofas, mannekins wearing dresses, some enormous sculptures and so on. Not so many tables because tables tend to be enormous, but three or four petite coffee tables or tea tables.

Gae Aulenti by Tour (1993) Manufactured by FontanaArte, Glass; bicycle wheels. Vitra Design Museum

Of course this is because this is an exhibition about design rather than art or sculpture as such. The exhibition is about how the design of objects was impacted by the Surrealist approach and ‘look’ and style and fashion. Hence the need for more than paintings and photos (though there are plenty of these); of designed products.

Chronological

Surrealism was, for its first five years or so, from 1924 to 1929, a writers’ movement, led by the self-appointed pope or bully of Surrealism, André Breton. Only in 1929 when the Catalan Wunderkind Salvador Dalí joined it, did the visual arts come to play a more important role and, eventually, dominate the movement and people’s ideas about it.

The show, like almost all exhibitions, is chronological in structure covering nearly a century of Surrealism from the earliest automatic writing to its most recent manifestation in using artificial intelligence to create artworks.

Thus we start with Surrealism’s first writings and manifestos, and then the outburst of Surreal artworks in the 1930s led by Dalí but with scores of other visual artists, and there were so many of them – Hans Arp, Hans Bellmer, Brassaï, Giorgio de Chirico, Salvador Dalí, Paul Delvaux, Max Ernst, Alberto Giacometti, Paul Klee, Wifredo Lam, René Magritte, André Masson, Joan Miró, Meret Oppenheim, Pablo Picasso, Man Ray, Yves Tanguy and many more.

The strangeness of objects

The exhibition is divided into themes and begins with the importance of everyday objects. Surrealism took the revolutionary approach of investing the most everyday of everyday objects with an aura of mystery and strangeness.

.It starts with an examination of Surrealism’s beginnings from the 1920s and considers the crucial role that Everyday objects and interiors were embraced by the movement’s early protagonists, as artists sought to capture the aura or mysterious side of ordinary household objects. Cubism had looked at everyday objects – café table, newspaper, bottle of wine – from multiple angles. Surrealism looked at them from a sur-real angle, attributing them volumes of meaning never dreamed of by ordinary people, setting them in weird juxtapositions to jar us out of our everyday doze and jerk us into awareness of the strangeness of being alive and moving through this world of images and symbols.

What could be more normal and everyday than an apple, a businessman and a cloudy sky? Or, in the way René Magritte deploys them, more disturbing?

The Son of Man by Rene Magritte (1946)

The Son of Man by René Magritte (1946)

These ideas took a while to be developed and fully expressed. It was only the ‘Second Surrealist Manifesto’ of 1929 that introduced the notion of ‘the Surreal object’ – using art or writing to reveal ‘the remarkable symbolic life of quite ordinary, mundane objects’. This inspired artists including Dalí, Magritte, Meret Oppenheim and Man Ray to experiment with an entirely new form of sculpture, by creating absurd objects from found materials and items, revealing the bizarre potential of the everyday.

Object by Meret Oppenheim (1936)

This is the point of Marcel Duchamp’s famous ‘readymades’, objects he noticed amid the bric-a-brac of ordinary life and carefully selected to be placed within a gallery setting, in an exhibition in a gallery, where they acquired completely new resonances, the cheapest of mass-manufactured objects acquiring a holy aura, its entirely practical aspects magically converted into profound and mysterious statements about shape and dynamism and meaning.

Bottle Rack (Porte-Bouteilles) by Marcel Duchamp (1914/1959)

He was to some extent mocking the idea of ‘art’ and ‘the gallery’; but he was also discovering the numinous in the quotidien which was to inspire artists ever since. But this gesture also, as the curators pithily point out, prioritised concept over craft and conceptual art has been with us ever since.

Paintings

There are cases containing manifestos and magazines, key works by Breton such as Amour fou.

There are early paintings by Dalí, Le Corbusier (who was a painter before he became an architect), the mysterious desertscapes of Yves Tanguy, a couple of weird paintings by the English artist, Leonora Carrington who came on the scene a bit later, in the 1940s.

The Old Maids by Leonora Carrington (1947) © Estate of Leonora Carrington / ARS, NY and DACS, London 2022

Photos

There are lots of photos, maybe a hundred photos, performing its two functions, as documentary record and as artwork.

Among the documents are scads of photos of the founders and early protagonists, Breton and his Parisian colleagues, then the artists. There’s records of the famous 1936 Surrealism exhibition in London, of the Surrealist pavilion (the Dream of Venus’) Dalí created for the World Fair in 1939, and so on. There’s Max Ernst at home in his apartment surrounded by African and Oceanic masks and artefacts (a lovely photo by Hermann Landshoff). And so on.

In the section about ‘sex and desire’ (every art exhibition has to have a section about sex and desire) there’s a suite of photos of Surrealists cross-dressing or being deliberately androgynous, for example photos of Marcel Duchamp dressing as his female alter ego, Rrose Sélavy, in 1921, and Claude Cahun’s calculatedly androgynous photographic self-portraits, from 1928.

There are photos of works of art, such as the still-disturbing fetishistic mannekins created by Hans Bellmer, or the room full of a mile of string created by Marcel Duchamp for a 1942 exhibition in New York.

And there are photos which are works of art, such as pretty much anything by the genius Man Ray (born Emmanuel Radnitzky in 1890 in New York but who changed his name and moved to Paris where he spent most of his career).

Le Violon d’Ingres by Man Ray (1924) © Man Ray 2015 Trust/DACS, London 2022

Films

There are four or five films. There are early black and white silent Surrealist films, such as Entre’Acte by Rene Clair (1924), winningly described by the director as ‘visual babblings’.

Oddly, they didn’t have clips from the most super-famous experimental movies by Bunuel, Luis Buñuel’s ‘subversive’ early films Un Chien Andalou and L’Age d’Or.

Later in the show there’s a few art films from a generation later:

And a much later film by an African director:

But dominating one wall, not least because it has a loud musical soundtrack, is a screen showing Destino, a short Surrealist animated film which was an unlikely collaboration between Dalí and Walt Disney. It tells the love story of Chronos – the personification of time – and a shapeshifting woman. In fact the movie was never completed because war work took precedence, and the project was only revived in the 1990s when Disney animators competed it according to the original sketches and scenario.

The significance of the film is its indication of Dalí’s success and name recognition in the USA by the 1940s, and the way in which what, on the face of it, are a sequence of nonsensical absurd events, have been assimilated enough for a mainstream producer like Walt Disney to agree to it.

Partly this is down to the instant recognition of a relatively small number of surreal images associated with Dalí. The short 7-minute animation is a collection of greatest hits such as the desert landscape setting, melting clocks, ants appearing out of cracks, human faces or bodies moving into trompe l’oeil settings to cleverly morph into something else.

Also in America during the war, Dalí designed shop windows for the Bonwit Teller department story. Frederick Kiesler designed a new gallery for rich art collector Peggy Guggenheim in a Surrealist style with curving walls. Emerging designers like Ray Eames and Isamu Noguchi used the zoomorphic curves found in Surrealism to design more moulded products, such as chairs (Eames) and a chess table and baby monitor (Noguchi).

Was it during the war, when so many European artists were exiled in America, that Surrealism’s pre-war radicalism was neutralised and converted into one more among many styles and fashions?

Sculpture

There are some sculptures, especially from the early period, but not many and this is because of the focus of the exhibition which is not on art, per se, but on design. Therefore, instead of abstract art sculptures, what the rooms are full of is designed furniture.

Classic Surrealist furniture

If the 1930s was the decade when there was an explosion of Surrealist art and the movement broke through into the general consciousness via a series of well-publicised exhibitions (and carefully staged scandals and press events, such as Dalí attending the opening of the London exhibition wearing a deep-sea diver’s outfit) it was in the 1940s that designers began to incorporate elements of the style into their work.

The Surrealists themselves had led the way. If they started out by invoking the weirdness of everyday objects and thoroughly explored this in paintings, sculptures and photos throughout the 1930s, some had applied their deliberately, provocatively bizarre way of seeing to create bizarre household objects, tables, chairs, lamps.

The most florid early examples come from the joint venture between Dalí and the English collector and patron, Edward James. James had Dalí create an entirely Surrealist interior for his home at Monkton House, West Dean in Sussex, notably the famous sofa designed in a cartoon imitation of the lips of Hollywood actress Mae West.

Mae West’s Lips sofa by Salvador Dalí and Edward James (c. 1938) Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust, Brighton and Hove. © Salvador Dalí, Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, DACS 2022

Also on display is the famous lobster telephone, alongside less well-known objects such as the standard lamp made out of brass casts of a stack of champagne glasses (which ‘subverts’ the Victorian notion of a standard lamp); and, most obviously humorous, a carpet with human footprints cut out of it. These, we are told, were the footprints of his wife, the dancer Tilly Losch. When Tilly danced right out of his life, James commissioned a new carpet with the footprints of his dog in it, the dog making, he dryly remarked, ‘a more faithful friend’.

Other rich people commissioned Surrealist interiors:

  • Swiss architect Le Corbusier was commissioned by eccentric millionaire Carlos de Beistegui to design his Paris apartment in a style which combined fantastical elements with clean cut modern lines
  • clean Le Corbusier-designed furniture was included in Dali’s house in Portlligat, Spain
  • aristocrats Charles and Marie-Laure de Noailles commissioned Man Ray to shoot a Surrealist film at their modernist pad on the Riviera

By the late 1930s the new surreal style of interior design had been given a name, Fantasy Modernism.

This suite of objects amount to some of the greatest hits of first wave surrealism but they weren’t alone. Meret Oppenheim produced equally imaginative and talismanic sets of surreal objects such as the fur cup and saucer mentioned above, and her birds-leg tables.

Occasional table (1939) by Meret Oppenheim

Occasional table (1939) by Meret Oppenheim

Modern Surrealist furniture

Once you turn the corner into the post-war period, you encounter two big rooms full of more contemporary interpretations of surrealist furniture, by designers from the 1960s, 70s, 80s and through on to the present day. These include lamps, chandeliers, some tables, but above all a lot of weird, wacky, and humorous chairs.

Hand Chair by Pedro Friedeberg (about 1962; this version 1965) Vitra Design Museum

I find it very revealing that this chair started life as a throwaway, joking remark of Friedeberg’s to a carpenter. He thought it would be funny to try and make a chair shaped on a human hand. For me this little anecdote is symptomatic of the way Surrealism stopped being subversive and became a type of visual joke, more like a branch of comedy than an art movement.

There’s:

  • a chair made out of burned carbon i.e. has been burned to a crisp – Smoke Thonet chair number 209 by Maarten Baas (2019)
  • Capitello chair by Studio65, a chair shaped like the capital of a classical column only made of comfy styrofoam instead of marble
  • Ruth Francken’s Man Chair (1971), shaped like a man’s body, the legs the shape of real legs, the arms effigies of two real arms
  • a chair made out of two thick jagged slabs of grass held together by thick steel springs
  • La Momma, a feminist piece by Gaetano Pesce (1973), the ball and chain referencing the oppression of women in a patriarchal society
  • Due Più by Nanda Vigo (1971)
  • Conquest by Nina Saunders (2017)

There’s a chair by Sara Lucas, characteristically lowering the tone (not necessarily a bad thing) with its two boobs made of lots of cigarettes glued together. What I noticed was a) that’s a really basic, anonymous, institutional chair, the kind you get at a school or college, and b) the cigarettes are really nicely arranged, not just bodged together but arranged in a neat concentric circles which bring out what a visually pleasing thing a cigarette is, with its nice alternation between white tube and sandy brown filter; the brown matching the wood brown of the chair seat and back i.e. it’s a funny gag, ha ha, but it’s also a nice ensemble to look at, aesthetically.

Cigarette Tits [Idealized Smokers Chest II] by Sarah Lucas (1999) © Sarah Lucas. Courtesy of Sadie Coles HQ, London

Picking up on the sofa theme set by Mae West, there’s a bang up-to-date piece, wherein a classic Chesterfield sofa, covered in trademark buttons, has been ‘released’, set free, and ‘melted’ out of shape and over the floor, in the manner of Dali’s melting watches – Pools and Poof! by Robert Stadler (2019).

There are several chandeliers, including this striking piece by Ingo Maurer. It immediately made me think of Cornelia Parker‘s famous exploding works, and made me wonder which came first.

Porca Miseria by Ingo Maurer (2019 edition of 1994 design) Vitra Design Museum

And dominating one of the rooms, a life-sized model of a horse, cast in black plastic and with an everyday lamp coming out of its head.

Horse Lamp by Front Design (2006), manufactured by Moooi BV, Breda /Niederlande, Plastic; metal. Vitra Design Museum

When you learn that this comes in a suite of animal furniture including a rabbit lamp and a pig table, you realise the original impulse has become washed out into a kind of homely humour. It’s become about as ‘radical’ as Ikea.

Fashion

One of the most high profile aspects of design is fashion, which holds shows around the world on an annual basis at which dress and clothes designers compete feverishly to outdo each other with new and outlandish ways to ornament the (tall, skinny) female body.

The world of Surrealism overlapped the vast ocean of fashion design, events and, above all, magazines, from the start of the 1930s when, as I’ve described, the visual side of the movement took over from the purely literary.

Thus several surrealist artists also worked as fashion photographers, including Lee Miller and Man Ray. Some, like Dalí and de Chirico, created covers for fashion magazines such as Vogue (some are included here). The exhibition includes fashion photographs and vintage copies of fashion magazines to highlight these connections

Dalí’s collaboration with the French fashion designer Elsa Schiaparelli (who set up her haute couture house in 1927) resulted in several ground-breaking designs. Their first collaborative piece, the Telephone Dial Powder Compact of 1935, became very popular and was copied and bootlegged for the mass market.

Over in a side room is a dais with five shop-window mannekins sporting classic surrealist designs. One applies Schiaparelli’s signature pink to a minidress contoured to look like the chest and stomach of a very buff man. Another is a modern reworking of iconic Skeleton Dress. There’s a dress by contemporary designer Mary Katrantzou which, when you look closely, uses elements of a typewriter.

Typewriter’ Printed Silk Dress by Mary Katrantzou (2018) Courtesy of Mary Katrantzou

Alongside other designs by Maria Grazia Chuiri, Christian Dior, Iris van Herpen and emerging Afro-surrealist inspired fashion designer Yasmina Atta.

These are funny conceits well executed but I couldn’t help thinking they’ve reduced Surrealism to a gag, a gif, a meme, a one-liner. ‘Did you see the typewriter dress?’ ‘Yes, Wasn’t it funny?’

Generally, by the time something reaches the world of fashion its disruptive energy has, by definition. been neutered, for example punk. Nothing is disturbed. Everything remains in place, but with lolz for a million Zoolander clones.

From communism to consumerism

At around this point in the exhibition, where I encountered the absorption of the Surrealist impulse into the world of international jet-setting fashion, I began to have my doubts.

Breton wanted Surrealism to trigger a genuine revolution in society and perception. He thought bourgeois society could be smashed apart by ripping a great tear through reality and letting out deeper realities. He talked about ‘convulsive beauty’, he wanted a kind of stricken, epileptic aesthetic.

Breton and many other Surrealists became card-carrying communists during the wartorn 1930s. Their movement was a protest against a bourgeois industrial society which had reached the end of its useful life and needed to be torn down to create a free-er, fairer world.

Ironic, then to see the entire movement, the impetus for revolutionary change, utterly absorbed, neutralised, defanged, neutered and then absorbed into the world of the international haute bourgeoisie in the form of high fashion. For me high fashion is the acme of consumer capitalism with its relentless drive for novelty and new product to keep the profits rolling in.

Fashion is not only a forward post of consumer capitalism but at the cutting edge of unnecessary consumption, the epitome of built-in obsolescence whereby you simply have to buy this season’s must-have items and junk last year’s hideously out of date clothes, handbags etc. Epitome of the compulsive need to keep up, to buy the new thing, which we now know, without any ambiguity, is using up the earth’s finite resources and destroying the planet.

Nothing I say, do or write can dent the huge power of the destructive urge to buy buy buy ever-new stuff, but I despise it and, in a way, fear it, this hysterical need to use up all the planet’s resources in the neurotic pursuit of novelty. What will our grandchildren make of the urge to fly round the world from fashion show to fashion show, seeking endless novelty, encouraging the throwing away and junking of what we have, burning up the planet at an ever-increasing rate.

Is Surrealism dated?

Putting aside my antipathy to the world of fashion, by the end of the exhibition the plethora of objects had raised another, pretty basic question, which is: Does any of this shock and surprise any more, cause the kind of frisson of fear, unnerve the viewer, let the unconscious erupt from the conscious mind with shocking force etc, as the Breton’s manifestos hoped it would?

The short answer is, of course: No. No, it doesn’t. Surely Surrealism has been completely assimilated into our bourgeois, neo-liberal, consumer capitalist society. The famous icons, the lobster phone, the Mae West sofa, every painting by Dali, these have been around for nearly 90 years, and you see images of them in any number of art books or postcards in what my kids call bougie (pronounced ‘boozhee’) shops.

Take the series of plates by Piero Fornasetti which run variations on a wonderfully blank, idealised portrait of the Victorian opera singer Lina Cavalieri. I suppose if you were actually eating off one of these, then it might give you a frisson to scrape away at the mashed potato and slowly reveal an eye looking at you. But as an image and idea I feel I’ve seen this hundreds of times and, indeed, almost 400 variations exist, of which seven are on display in an appealing little set hanging on the wall.

Wall plates no. 116 from the series Tema e Variazioni by Piero Fornasetti (after 1950) Fornasetti Archive

In other words, surely most Surrealist art, these days, instead of conveying ‘the shock of the new’ is the precise opposite – reassuring and familiar. We smile or laugh when we see the lobster phone and go ‘oh yes’ with a pleasant feeling of recognition.

Art changes nothing. All art is swiftly assimilated into bourgeois society and loses the ability to shock or even make the viewer think. The simple act of being displayed in a gallery neutralises art, makes it into a mental commodity, to be discussed in highbrow conversations or namedropped to make you seem swanky. Or into an actual commodity, which can be safely hung on the walls of any investment banker or corporate lawyer, or bought by Arab or Russian billionaires and salted away in a vault in Switzerland as part of their diversified investment portfolio.

Thus, for example, the exhibition includes black and white photos recording the Surrealist display Dali created for the 1939 New York World’s Fair. Apparently you entered the suite of bizarrely decorated rooms by walking between models of a woman’s open legs and through a wall-sized vulva into a ‘womb’ containing a predictable congeries of Freudian imagery, complete with numerous scantily clad models arranged in alcoves or sprawling on a bed amid unlikely ‘Surreal’ bric a brac. Looking at these photos now, they seem like a standard chorus girl show with added lobsters.

A lot of the exhibition, in other words, feels warm and nostalgic, pretty much the opposite of what Breton et al originally had in mind.

Up-to-date exhibits

The curators promise, and the exhibition title indicates, a review from the 1920s up to the present day i.e. covering just about a century of Surrealism, and nearly a third of the objects on show are from the past 50 years.

Thus there are a lot of works from more recent times, the 80s, 90s, noughties, generally by artists I’d never heard of. This is particularly true of the big items of furniture, mostly chairs, which dominate the last few rooms or sections of the show, including:

  • Gae Aulenti’s Tour (1993), a table made from a glass top supported by four bicycle wheels set in chrome forks
  • Jasper Morrison’s ‘readymade’ Handlebar Table (1982)
  • Roberto Matta’s amusing MagriTTA Chair, a sofa style chair which is filled with an enormous green apple, obviously a nod to Magritte’s apple paintings
  • the cartoon chair of Fernando and Humberto Campana from 2007, a basic wide-angle modernistic chair which is then infested with cuddly toys based on Disney characters
  • Sella (1957), by brothers Achille and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni, which is composed of a bicycle saddle mounted on a post fixed into a hemispherical base, blurring the boundary between furniture and art
  • video of how contemporary designers Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec use an intuitive, automatic drawing process to discover new imagery and forms
  • sketch furniture which is created using motion capture cameras to capture the movements of a designer’s hand in the air, save this as a digital file and then use 3D printing technology to print out the object the designer originally sketched out in the air; there’s a video of the process and an actual life-sized chair designed and created using this approach

Or simpler things, Surrealist objects like this absurdist hairbrush spouting hair, worthy of Magritte.

Beauty Hairbrush by BLESS (2019 edition of 1999 design) Vitra Design Museum

Maybe I’m being unfair, maybe I lack taste or sympathy, but I found most of the works in the second half of the show, from the 1960s onwards, far less engaging than the material from the first, classic, era. Take three examples from towards the end of the exhibition.

Björk

The famous musician, composer, performer, singer, songwriter etc Björk, is represented by videos of three fairly recent tracks. Visitors pop on swish earphones and listen to the track while you watch the video. They are:

Well, they’re very well made indeed, both the music and the videos – deliberately different, eschewing visual and musical clichés, consciously innovative and imaginative. And yet…and yet…Björk Guðmundsdóttir, born in 1965, has been Björking for 40 years now (her first single was in 1983). She has become a byword in the pop/fashion/music video businesses for her wildly inventive outfits and compellingly original videos etc. Her oeuvre demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of being a lifelong innovator in pop music. But whatever you think of her exactly, she doesn’t tear the veil of bourgeois convention from the world because thousands of pop and rock musicians and video makers have been doing similar or comparable things for decades.

Tilda Swinton

Over by the fashion mannekins are some photos of famous and award-winning actress Tilda Swinton wearing some bizarre / surreal jewellery.

Same as with Björk, Tilda, born in 1960, feels over familiar. She has been doing her brave androgynous schtick since she first appeared in Derek Jarman’s films in the mid-1980s i.e for nearly 40 years. Far from disturbing me, tearing the veil from my mad unconscious urges, Tim Walker’s photos of Swinton looked like standard Sunday supplement fashion shoot any time in the past 30 years, just with a particularly ‘arty’ kink.

Sarah Lucas

I went to the original Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts back in 1997 and it was a genuinely transformative experience, to see so much vibrantly exciting and innovative artworks, all by a young generation of artists reflecting the ‘modern’ world, all in one place. But it’s been some time now since Damian Hirst’s sharks in a glass tank stopped being subversive or world-shattering and became a kind of joke, common enough knowledge to be used in popular cartoons.

Sarah Lucas never reached Hirst-like levels of fame and notoriety, because she kept (I think) her visual metaphors to a much more modest scale and her works reek of laddish, pub culture, and schoolboy (or girl) jokes. Hence her cheap and cheerful work, Cigarette Tits.

Cigarette Tits by Sarah Lucas (1999)

Compare and contrast with Lucas’s fried eggs t-shirt which has become a popular postcard in the kind of bougie shops I mentioned earlier.

When has an art movement run its course?

This all raises the question: when do you recognise that – or admit that – a style has run its course, is worn out, has become pedestrian – has, in fact, become a cliché?

It’s a more relevant question for Surrealism than maybe any other art movement in history because Surrealism set out to be more shockingly subversive than any other art movement in history (with the possible exception, I suppose, of its parent, Dada).

So where are you, what are you to make of it, when the most deliberately bourgeois-bating, consciously ‘subversive’ art movement of the 20th century has long since arrived on the front of colour supplements, inspires high fashion dresses, is reduced to jokes and cartoons, has been done to death in TV, movies, comedy, in every channel of output, only to feature in calm and sedate and scholarly exhibitions like this one?

The curator’s view

Kathryn Johnson, the exhibition’s main curator, optimistically claims that:

“If you think Surrealism fizzled out in the 1960s, think again. This exhibition shows that it is still alive and well and that it never really went away. The early Surrealists were survivors of the First World War and the 1918 influenza pandemic, and their art was in part a reaction to those horrors. Today, in the context of dizzying technological change, war and another global pandemic, Surrealism’s spirit feels more alive than ever in contemporary design.”

Hmm. Are we in the midst of dizzying technological change? I mean, isn’t your laptop this year, or your smartphone, pretty much like the one you had one or five years ago? Maybe you can do a few more tricks on it, but isn’t it basically the same? And did the COVID-19 pandemic produce shattering changes in social structure and values? Not really. I don’t think so. And has the war in Ukraine turned Britain upside down, decimated a generation of young men, traumatised the western world? No, not really, not at all.

Like all curators, Johnson is paid to make the most powerful possible case for her show, and you can see how she’s roping in these adventitious historical events to try and do so, but…she doesn’t persuade me.

Did Surrealism have any impact on twentieth century design?

For the entire time I was at the gallery I was beguiled by the objects on display and spent all my mental energy reading the main wall labels, and then the many captions for each of the individual pieces. A labour of love or a fool’s errand, depending on your point of view.

It was only on the Tube home that something really struck me. The curators claim that Surrealism had a major impact on 20th century design but I’m not sure they prove it in this exhibition. They have gathered nearly 350 Surrealist exhibits, hundreds of which demonstrate how striking and powerful individual Surrealist objects, furniture, photos, films and so on can be. No doubt about it.

But whether Surrealist principles, the Surrealist aesthetic, actually impacted the broad range of 20th century design, that’s a lot less clear and the more I thought about it the less plausible it seemed.

Sure there were striking Surrealist chairs and lamps and chandeliers and some ‘Surreal dresses’, but…these are all one-offs. No-one is going to buy the melted Chesterfield sofa or the chair made out of two jagged slabs of glass, or the lamp sticking out of a horse (well, one or two wealthy people might).

My point is that pretty much all the designed objects in the show are one-offs, inspiring, amusing luxury artefacts or art objects, but…could any of them be mass produced and sold in significant numbers? Not really (the one notable exception is the Fornasetti plates, which have been mass produced).

The fad for adding Surreal elements to interior design was christened ‘Fantasy Modernism’ in the late 1930s, but how many homes did it every apply to? The curators name four. Not a large number, is it?

Compare and contrast with the impact of Art Nouveau or Art Deco. A glance at articles about them show that they mainly existed as styles of design: of lovely stained glass and furniture for cafes and restaurants for Art Nouveau; as an entire look in the 1930s which affected everything from blocks of flats to ocean liners.

Or take the impact of the Bauhaus. Without a shadow of a doubt the Bauhaus aesthetic of stripping away Victorian decoration to reveal the clean, geometric functional lines of everything from teapots to high rise buildings massively influenced mid-20th century design of everything, having a world-changing impact on, for example, the design of buildings all around the world for 50 years or so, from the 1930s to the 1980s. Nobody can doubt the profound impact the Bauhaus’s design principles had on all aspects of twentieth century design.

But Surrealism’s impact on design? Look around you. Is anything you can see in your house – interior design, table, chairs, sofa, workbench, laptop, sink, kettle, cups, or outside, the design of cars or bikes or buildings – does anything anywhere around you betray the slightest impact of the Surrealist impulse to yoke together the bizarre and the weird and the absurd? I don’t really think so.

Sure, there are a lot of Surreal works of art. Certainly a contemporary photographer or fashion designer can invoke or reference some aspects of the visual language worked out by Surrealist painters and photographers all those years ago. Movies can have Surreal dream sequences etc. But design? Mass market, mass produced, widely available objects which everyone could have in their house, mass produced styles of car design or architecture? No. Not at all.

Is the entire concept of design the opposite of Surrealism?

There’s a related point: designing anything and then converting the design into an actual object, especially an object produced through industrial manufacturing, obviously takes a lot of time, effort, precision of design and co-ordination of the manufacturing process.

Surrealism was committed to automatic writing, bizarre juxtapositions, spontaneous eruptions of the unconscious, savage breaks in reality. How could the weird, dissociative effects aimed at by Surrealism be reconciled with the careful calculation required of designing anything?

I wonder whether, by bombarding the visitor with 350 examples of Surrealist art works, photos, magazine covers, sculptures, paintings and so on, the curators somehow dodge the central point at issue. ‘Objects of Desire: Surrealism and Design 1924 to Today’ is a magnificent assembly of Surrealist works in all formats, and includes a lot of interesting, intriguing and amusing pieces from its origins right up to the present day. But does it make its case for the widespread influence of the Surrealist way of thinking on 20th century design. I was left wondering…

Top ten exhibits

The curators made a handy selection of top ten items. I might as well share it with you.

1. Lobster telephone by Salvador Dalí

One of the exhibition’s most iconic works and a key moment in Surrealism’s transition from art to design. Dalí designed it for the collector Edward James, and in the show it is positioned next to a Mae West sofa to bring to mind an image of James’ wild interiors. It is a fully functioning telephone, designed to give the impression that its user is kissing the lobster when speaking into the receiver. Dalí saw both lobsters and telephones as erotic objects, and his first designs for this object were titled the ‘Aphrodisiac Telephone.’

Lobster Telephone by Salvador Dalí (1938) Photo West Dean College of Arts and Conservation. © Salvador Dalí, Fundació Gala-Salvador Dalí, DACS 2022

2. Destino by Salvador Dalí

The cartoon animation collaboration with Walt Disney described above.

3. Porte-Bouteilles by Duchamp

A 1964 re-edition of Duchamp’s 1914 original Porte-Bouteilles or bottle rack. A ready-made sculpture, the original was bought at a department store in Paris. Duchamp didn’t think to keep it, and it was only when the piece became famous later on that he got an identical rack from the same store and remade it. Placing this mass-produced, industrial object in an artistic context was a hugely important gesture. It emphasised concept over craft, one of several gestures by Duchamp which in effect created ‘conceptual art’ which has been hugely influential ever since.

Bottle rack by Marcel Duchamp

4. Look 6 Haute Couture by Schiaparelli

Maison Schiaparelli’s shocking pink dress features a trompe-l’œil pattern embroidered by glass tubes, following the contours of a muscular (male?) body. This silhouette is echoed across Maison Schiaparelli’s Spring Summer 21 collection, and is modelled on Elsa Schiaparelli’s 1930s wooden mannequins – a pair called Pascal and Pascaline – that she showed in her shop window in Paris.

Look 6 Haute Couture by Schiaparelli (Spring/Summer 2021) Courtesy of Schiaparelli

5. Hay by Najla El Zein

Created by contemporary designer and sculptor El Zein, this is a piece of porcelain with hay inserted into the holes it to give the impression that it is growing out of the stone. Part of a series called ‘Sensorial Brushes’, this work plays with the transition between familiar and unfamiliar. El Zein’s imaginative use of materials, and the call to her audience to experience the world differently, places her firmly within the Surrealist canon.

6. Fur bracelet by Méret Oppenheim

Méret Oppenheim designed a fur-covered bracelet for Elsa Schiaparelli and reportedly wore the prototype when meeting up with fellow artists Pablo Picasso and Dora Maar at a Parisian café. They played with the idea that anything might be covered in fur, and Oppenheim soon afterwards created her widely celebrated Surrealist work ‘Luncheon in Fur / Object’ – a fur covered cup and saucer (see above) which ‘disrupts expectations’ by combining the domestic with the uncanny.

Fur bracelet by Meret Oppenheim

7. Cadeau by Man Ray

One of the first works you see in the show is called ‘Cadeau’ or ‘Gift’ by Man Ray. The story goes that Man Ray was on his way to one of the first Surrealist exhibitions in 1921 and needed to make a piece on the hoof to show. He went into an ironmonger and bought a flat iron and some nails, before proceeding to stick the nails to the flat iron with glue. Not only does it make the iron completely dysfunctional, it also has this aggressive, proto-punk edge. Instead of being a domestic tool for pressing clothes neatly, it becomes a weapon that could rip your clothes.

Cadeau by Man Ray

8. Sketch Chair by Front Studio

This ‘Sketch Chair’ is designed by literally sketching in mid-air with hand gestures. These gestures are captured using motion capture technology, then translated into 3D printed works. The 3D form captures the spontaneity and messiness of human movement in a functional piece of furniture.

It connects with Picasso’s light drawings, photographed by Gjon Mili, from 1949, shown in a photograph beside the Sketch Chair.

9. Photographs by Tim Walker

Tim Walker is known for using Surrealist imagery in his fashion photography. Both photographs in the exhibition featuring Tilda Swinton as a model are from a shoot for W magazine titled ‘Stranger than Paradise’. Walker and Swinton went to Mexico, to the architectural folly La Pazas, created by Edward James – the man who commissioned the lobster telephone and Mae West Lips sofa from Dalí.

They used the folly as a set for a fashion shoot inspired by Surrealist artists, referencing works by painters like Leonora Carrington and Leonor Fini. In the exhibition the photos are placed next to original paintings by Carrington (‘The old maids’, ‘The house opposite’) and Fini. Walker’s photography also features jewellery by Vicki Beamon, namely jewel-encrusted lips reminiscent of Dalí imagery.

10. Kosmos in Blue collection by Yasmina Atta

Working in the spirit of the rapidly expanding Afrosurrealist movement, Yasmina Atta’s Kosmos in Blue – from her graduate collection – derives from the confluence of different cultures, including the designer’s Nigerian heritage and her interest in Japanese manga and Gundam girls.

The piece on display here is a set of embellished leather wings that move intermittently. The foam harness attaching the wings to the wearer’s body has an intentionally DIY-feel, as it was made in Atta’s studio over COVID lockdown when her access to materials was limited. She wanted the final product to reflect this experience of constriction, and as a result the wings represent a more personal and ready-made brand of couture.


Related links

Other Design Museum review

The Renaissance Nude @ the Royal Academy

In this review I intend to make three points:

  1. This exhibition is without doubt a spectacular collection of outstanding Renaissance treasures, gathered into fascinating groups or ‘themes’ which shed light on the role of the body in Renaissance iconography.
  2. It confirms my by-now firm conviction/view/prejudice that I don’t really like Italian Renaissance art but adore North European late-medieval and Renaissance art.
  3. Despite being spectacular and full of treasures, the exhibition left me with a few questions about the underlying premise of the show.

1. Spectacular Renaissance treasures

The exhibition brings together works by many of the great masters of the Renaissance, including Titian, Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Donatello, Dürer and Cranach. The small sketch by Raphael of the three graces is seraphic, the two pages of anatomical drawings by Leonardo da Vinci are awe-inspiring and the Venus Rising by Titian is wonderful full scale and in the flesh.

Venus Rising from the Sea (‘Venus Anadyomene’) by Titian (1520) National Galleries of Scotland

However, it isn’t just a parade of greatest hits. The exhibition includes works by lots of less-famous figures such as Perugino, Pollaiuolo and Gossaert, and lots of minor works or works which aren’t striving for greatness at all.

Indeed, there are quite a few rather puzzling or perplexing prints and images, like Dürer’s woodcut of naked men in a bath-house, or a battle scene from the ancient world where all the axe-wielding men are naked. The exhibition is more notable for its diversity and range than its concentration on well-known names.

And it is far from all being paintings. There are also large numbers of prints and engravings, alongside drawings and sketches, statuettes in metal and wood, some bronze reliefs, and fifteen or so invaluable books of the time, propped open to display beautiful medieval-style, hand-painted illustrations.

There’s even a case of four or five large circular plaques from the period, showing the patron’s face on one side and nude allegorical figures on the other. There are some 90 works in total.

In other words, this exhibition brings together pieces from across the widest possible range of media, and by a very wide range of artists, famous and not so famous, in order to ponder the role of the naked human body in Renaissance art, showing how the depiction of the nude in art and sculpture and book illustration changed over the period from 1400 to 1530.

A Faun and His Family with a Slain Lion (c. 1526) by Lucas Cranach the Elder. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

It does this by dividing the works into five themes.

1. The nude and Christian art

Medieval art had been concerned almost exclusively with depicting either secular powers (kings and emperors) or religious themes. For the most part the human figure had been covered up. So a central theme in the exhibition is documenting the increasing ‘boldness’ or confidence with which artists from the period handled subjects involving nudity, and the increasing technical knowledge of the human body which gave their images ever-greater anatomical accuracy.

You can trace this growing confidence in successive depictions of key Christian stories such as the countless depictions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, probably the locus classicus of nudity in the whole Christian canon.

This version by Dürer seems more motivated by the artist showing off his anatomical knowledge and skill at engraving (and learnèd symbolism) than religious piety.

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Dürer (1504) Los Angeles County Museum of Art

Of course the Christian Church still ruled the hearts and imaginations of all Europeans and the Pope’s blessing or anathema was still something to be hoped for or feared. From top to bottom, society was dominated by Christian ideology and iconography. And so alongside Adam and Eve there are quite a few versions of of other subjects which provided an opportunity for nudity, such as Christ being scourged or crucified, or the large number of Last Judgements with naked souls being cast down into Hell.

In fact for me, arguably the two most powerful pictures in the entire show were the images of damned souls being stuffed down into Hell by evil demons, by the two Northern painters Hans Memling and Dirk Bouts.

The Fall of The Damned by Dirk Bouts (1450)

In these images the fact that the men and women have been stripped naked is an important part of their message. It symbolises the way they have been stripped of their dignity and identity. They have become so much human meat, prey for demons to torture and even eat. Paintings like this always remind me of descriptions of the Holocaust where the Jews were ordered to strip naked, men and women and children, in front of each other, and the pitiful descriptions I’ve read of women, in particular, trying to hang on to their last shreds of dignity before being murdered like animals. The stripping was an important part of the psychological degradation which reduced humans to cowed animals which were then easier to shepherd into the gas chambers.

2. Humanism and the expansion of secular themes

Humanism refers to the growth of interest in the legacy of the classical world which began to develop during the 1400s and was a well-established intellectual practice by the early 1500s.

Initially, humanism focused on the rediscovered writings of the Greeks and especially the Romans, promoting a better understanding of the Latin language and appreciation of its best authors, notably the lawyer and philosopher Cicero.

But study of these ancient texts went hand in hand with a better understanding of the classical mythology which informed them. In the 1500s advanced thinkers tried to infuse the ancient myths with deeper levels of allegory, or to reconcile them with Christian themes.

Whatever the literary motivation, the movement meant that, in visual terms, the ancient gods and goddesses and their numerous myths and adventures became increasingly respectable, even fashionable, subjects for the evermore skilful artists of the Renaissance.

In addition, classical figures also became a kind of gateway for previously unexpressed human moods and feelings. For some painters a classical subject allowed the expression of pure sensual pleasure, as in the Titian Venus above.

In this wonderful drawing by Raphael something more is going on – there is certainly a wonderful anatomical accuracy, but the drawing is also expressing something beyond words about grace and gracefulness, about eloquence of gesture and poise and posture, something quite wonderful. It’s relatively small, but this little drawing is among the most ravishing works in the exhibition.

The Three Graces by Raphael (1517 to 1518) Royal Collection Trust © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 2019

The replacement of sex by desire in artspeak

About half way round the exhibition, I began to notice that the words ‘sex’ or ‘sexy’ do not appear anywhere in the wall labels or on the audioguide. This began to seem increasingly odd because some of the paintings are deliberately sexy and sensual, blatant pretexts for the artists to show off their skill at conveying the contours and light and shade of naked human bodies, often deliberately designed to arouse and titillate.

The word ‘sex’ was completely absent from both the wall labels and the audioguide. You get the strong impression that in curatorland it is banned, swept under the carpet. Art scholars prefer to use the vague and willowy term ‘desire’. Not only that, but you also get the strong impression that ‘same-sex desire’ is the optimum form of this, especially when it comes to men. After a good couple of hours you begin to realise that ‘same sex desire’ is preferred to ‘desire’ and wonder if it’s because (predominantly women) art curators and scholars are more comfortable dealing with women’s desire and same-sex desire, than with heterosexual male ‘desire’.

Not just in this exhibition, but in any other you attend nowadays, any way in which a straight man can look at a woman is, certainly in modern art scholarship, immediately brought under the concept of the wicked, controlling, shaping, exploitative, objectifying, judgmental and misogynistic Male Gaze.

The English language possesses many other words to describe these feelings and activities surrounding sex but I was struck how they are all banned from the chaste world of artspeak. Here’s an example:

Within humanist culture, much art created around the nudes was erotic, exploring themes of seduction, the world of dreams, the power of women and same-sex desire.

‘The power of women and same-sex desire.’ These are very much the values promoted by art institutions and art scholars in most of the art exhibitions I go to, and the values which the narrow world of contemporary art scholarship projects back onto all of history.

The sexy or horny male has been quietly and subtly elided from the picture.

I don’t even really disagree with this view, as such; up with empowering women, bully for same-sex male desire. It’s more the narrowness of perception I’m complaining about: the sense that the world of legitimised responses has narrowed down to the same constricted interpretations and carefully limited vocabulary.

For me art is about opening up – perceptions, possibilities; it’s about expanding my sense of visual and conceptual possibility, new ideas, strange feelings. Whereas the repetitive, stock, predictable use of a handful of approved ideas and buzzwords limits and closes down analysis and discussion and enjoyment. It’s not the vocabulary itself, it’s its limitedness and endless repetition which I find depressing.

Saint Sebastian

A good example of the unashamed sensuality of Renaissance art is the image the Academy has chosen for the posters for the exhibition, Saint Sebastian by Agnolo Bronzino.

Saint Sebastian by Agnolo Bronzino (1533) Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid

Saint Sebastian was an early Christian convert who was killed by Roman soldiers by being shot to death with arrows (around the year 288 AD, according to legend). There are four or five depictions of the arrow-peppered saint in the exhibition and what comes over powerfully in all of them is the way that the supposedly tortured saint is obviously experiencing absolutely no pain whatsoever. In fact, in the hands of Renaissance painters, the subject has become an excuse to display their prowess at painting (or sculpting) beautiful, lean, muscular, handsome young men, often seeming to undergo a sexual rather than religious experience.

Bronzino’s painting takes this tendency – the conversion of brutal medieval legend into Renaissance sensuality – to an extreme. The audioguide points out that the unusually large ears and distinctive big nose of this young man suggest it is a portrait from life, maybe the gay lover of Bronzino’s patron?

Whatever the truth behind this speculation, this painting is quite clearly nothing at all to do with undergoing physical agony, torture and dying in excruciating pain in order to be closer to the suffering of our saviour. Does this young man look in agony? Or more as if he’s waiting for a kiss from his rich sugar daddy? It is easy to overlook the arrow embedded deep in his midriff in favour of his hairless sexy chest, his big doe eyes, and Bronzino’s show-off depiction of the red cloak mantled around him.

It is a stunningly big, impactful, wonderfully executed image – but it also epitomises a kind of slick superficiality which, in my opinion, is typical of Italian Renaissance art – a point I’ll come back to later.

3. Artistic theory and practice

This is a scholarly room which explains how Renaissance artists began to submit the human body to unprecedented levels of systematic study and also to copy the best of classical precedents. We see examples of the sketches and sculptures made by Renaissance artists copying newly discovered classical statues, such as the Laocoön and the Boy with a Thorn in his Foot.

At the start of the period covered (1400) life drawing was unheard of, which is why so much medieval art is stylised and distorted and sometimes dismissed as rather ‘childish’. By the end of the period (1530) drawing from life models was standard practice in all reputable artists’ workshops.

It is in this section of the exhibition that we see the enormous guide to anatomy, the Vier Bucher von menschlicher Proportion created by Albrecht Dürer, in a display case, and two examples of Leonardo da Vinci’s extraordinarily detailed drawings of human anatomy (in the example below, of a man’s shoulder).

The Anatomy of the Shoulder and Neck by Leonardo da Vinci (1510 to 1511) Royal Collection Trust © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

It was a fleeting idea, but it crossed my mind that there is something rather steampunk about Leonardo’s drawings, in which intimately depicted human figures are almost turning into machines.

4. Beyond the ideal nude

This small section examines images of the human body being tortured and humiliated. The founding motif in this subject in the Western tradition is of Christ being stripped, whipped, scourged, stoned, crucified and stabbed with a spear as per the Gospel accounts of his interrogation, torture and execution.

There is an exquisite little book illustration in the Gothic style of a Christ naked except for a loincloth tied to the pillar and being scourged. If you can ignore the half naked man being scourged within an inch of his life at the centre, the detail on the faces and clothes and the pillar and architecture are all enchanting.

The Flagellation by Simon Bening (1525–1530)

This room is dominated by a vast depiction of the legend of the ten thousand martyrs who were (according to Christian legend) executed on the orders of the Emperor Hadrian by being spitted and transfixed on thorn bushes. The odd thing about images like this is the apparent indifference of those being skewered and tortured, but there is no denying the sadism of the torturers and, by implication, the dark urges being invoked in the viewer.

Here again, I felt that modern art scholarship, fixated as it is on ‘desire’ and, in particular, determined to focus on women’s desire or the ‘safe’ subject of ‘same-sex desire’, struggles to find the words to describe human sadism, brutality and cruelty.

I had, by this stage, read quite a few wall labels referring to the subtle sensuality and transgressive eroticism and same-sex desire of this or that painting or print. But none of them dwelt on what, for me, is just as important a subject, and one much in evidence in these paintings – the human wish to control, conquer, subjugate, dominate, punish, and hurt.

Reflecting the civilised lives lived by art scholars, wafting from gallery to library, immersed in images of erotic allure and same-sex desire, art criticism tends to underestimate the darker emotions, feelings and drives which exist out here in the real world. The universal use of the bluestocking word ‘desire’ instead of the cruder words which the rest of the English-speaking word uses for the same kind of thing, is a small token of this sheltered worldview.

These thoughts were prompted by the scenes of hell, the numerous battle scenes and the images of martyrdoms and whippings on display in this room. They were crystallised by this image, which was the first one to make me really disagree with the curators’ interpretations.

This is Hans Baldung Grien’s etching of a Witches’ Sabbath. The curators claim the image represents ‘male anxiety’ at the thought of ‘powerful women’ and ‘presents women as demonic nudes, rather than as beauties to be desired’. (Note the buzz word ‘desire’ being shoehorned into the unlikely context of even this dark image.)

Witches’ Sabbath by Hans Baldung Grien (1510)

Anyway, the curators’ interpretation is so bedazzled by feminist ideology as to misread this image in at least two ways.

Number one

Is it really the women’s nudity which is so scary? No. It is the thought that these are humans who have wilfully given themselves to the power of the devil, to Satan, and become his agents on earth to wreak havoc, blighting harvests, infecting the healthy, creating chaos and suffering. That was a terrifying thought to folk living in a pre-scientific age where everyone was utterly dependent on a good harvest to survive. The nudity is simply a symbol of the witches’ rejection of conventional notions of being respectably clothed. The fact that the curators completely miss the religious threat and complexities of the picture in order to focus on the ‘power’ of naked women typifies everything about the shallowness , body obsession and unimaginativeness of their worldview.

Number two

The nudity is surely the least interesting thing in the entire image. Surely the print is packed full of arcane and fascinating symbolism: what are the two great streams issuing up the left-hand side, and ending in what looks like surf? Are they some kind of wind, or actual waves of water? And why does the lower one contain objects in it? Are they both issuing from the pot between the woman’s legs and does the pot bear writing of some sort around it, and if so, in what language and what does it say? Why is the woman riding the flying ram backwards and what is in the pot held in the tines of her long wooden fork? What is lying on the plate held up in the long scraggy arm of the hag in the middle? Is it just a cooked animal or something worse (i.e. a human body part)? Are those animal bones and remains at the witches’ feet? What is the pot at the left doing and what are hanging over another wooden hoe or fork, are they sausages or something more sinister?

Feminist art criticism, by always and immediately reaching for a handful of tried-and-trusted clichés about ‘male anxiety’ or ‘the male gaze’ or ‘the patriarchy’ or ‘toxic masculinity’, all-too-often fails to observe the actual detail, the inexplicable, puzzling and marvellous and weird which is right in front of their eyes. Sometimes it has very interesting things to say, but often it is a way of smothering investigation and analysis under a blanket of tired clichés and corporate buzz words.

5. Personalising the nude

During the Renaissance individual patrons of the arts became more rich and more powerful. Whereas once it had only been Charlemagne and the Pope who could commission big buildings or works of art, by 1500 Italy was littered with princes and dukes and cardinals all of whom wanted a whole range of works to show off how fabulous, rich, sophisticated and pious they were, from palaces and churches, to altarpieces and mausoleums, from frescos and murals to coins and plaques, from looming statues to imposing busts and big allegorical paintings and small, family portraits.

Thus it is that this final room includes a selection of works showing the relationship between patrons and artists, especially when it came to commissioning works featuring nudity.

The most unexpected pieces were a set of commemorative medals featuring the patron’s face on one side and an allegorical nude on the other.

Next to them was a big ugly picture by Pietro Perugino titled The Combat Between Love and Chastity. Apparently, Isabella d’Este, Marchioness of Mantua, was one of the few female patrons of her time and commissioned a series of allegorical paintings for her studiolo, a room designated for study and contemplation.

Isabella gave the artist detailed instructions about what must be included in the work, including portraits of herself as the goddesses Pallas Athena (left, with spear) and Diana (centre, with bow and arrow), as well as various scenes from Ovid’s Metamorphoses which have been chucked into the background (for example, in the background at centre-left you can see what appears to be Apollo clutching the knees of the nymph Daphne who is turning into a laurel tree.)

The Combat Of Love And Chastity Painting by Pietro Perugino (1503)

Maybe the curators included this painting an example of the way nudity had become fully normalised in Western painting by about 1500, but it is also an example of how misguided devotion to ‘the classics’ can result in a pig’s ear of a painting. And this brings me to my second broad point.

I prefer northern, late-medieval art to Italian Renaissance art

Why? Because of its attention to sweet and touching details. Consider The Way To Paradise by Dirk Bouts, painted about 1450. This reproduction in no way does justice to the original which is much more brightly coloured and dainty and gay.

In particular, in the original painting, you can see all the plants and flowers in the lawn which the saved souls are walking across. You can see brightly coloured birds perching amid the rocks on the left. You can even see some intriguingly coloured stones strewn across the path at the bottom left. There is a loving attention to detail throughout, which extends to the sumptuous working of the angel’s red cloak or the lovely rippled tresses of the women.

The Way to Paradise by Dirk Bouts (1450)

So I think one way of expressing my preference is that paintings from the Northern Renaissance place their human figures within a complete ecosystem – within a holistic, natural environment of which the humans are merely a part.

The people in these northern paintings are certainly important – but so are the flowers and the butterflies and the rabbits scampering into their holes. Paintings of the Northern Renaissance have a delicacy and considerateness towards the natural world which is generally lacking in Italian painting, and which I find endlessly charming.

Take another example. In the centre of the second room is a two-sided display case. Along one side of it is a series of Christian allegorical paintings by the Netherlandish painter, Hans Memling. I thought all of them were wonderful, in fact they come close to being the best things in the exhibition for me. They included this image of Vanity, the age-old trope of a woman looking in a mirror.

Vanity by Hans Memling (1485)

I love the sweet innocence of the central figure, untroubled by Leonardo da Vinci’s scientific enquiries into human anatomy, undisfigured by flexed tendons or bulging musculature.

And I like the little doggy at her feet and the two whippets lounging further back. And I really like the plants at her feet painted with such loving detail that you can identify a dandelion and a broad-leaved plantain and buttercups. And I love the watermill in the background and the figure of the miller (?) coaxing a donkey with a load on its back towards the little bridge.

The other side of this display case shows a series of allegorical paintings by the famous Italian artist Giovanni Bellini, titled Allegories of Fortune (below).

In the image on the left, of a semi-naked figure in a chariot being pulled by putti, you can see the direct influence of ancient Roman art and iconography which infused all Bellini’s work. It is learnèd and clever and well-executed.

But my God, isn’t it dull! The figures are placed in generic settings on generic green grass with generic mountains in the distance. All the enjoyment of the life, the loving depiction of natural detail, has – in my opinion – been eliminated as if by DDT or Agent Orange. Unless, maybe, you find the little putti sweet and charming, but I don’t. Compared to the delicacy of medieval art, I find Renaissance putti revolting.

Thinking about these pesky little toddlers gives me another idea. They are sentimental. Northern gargoyles and kids and peasants and farmers and figures are never sentimental in the same way these Italian bambini are. There is something a bit rotten about the Italian paintings, they have the official dullness of those packs of Medici Christmas cards you get in charity shops. Sterile. Dead.

Four Allegories by Giovanni Bellini (1490)

In my opinion, by embracing the pursuit of a kind of revived classicism, many Renaissance paintings lost forever the feel for the decorative elements of the natural world and a feel for the integration of human beings into the larger theatre of nature, which medieval and Northern Renaissance art still possesses.

Reservations about the basic theme of the exhibition

This is without doubt a wonderful opportunity to see a whole range of masterpieces across all forms of media and addressing or raising or touching on a very wide range of topics related to the iconography of nudity.

The curators make lots of valid and interesting points about nudity: they invoke the revival of classical learning, the example of classical sculpture, they describe the importance of nudity in Christian iconography, the way the almost-nudity of Christ on the cross was deliberately echoed in depictions of the almost-nudity of countless saints who are shown being tortured to death.

The curators discuss nudity as symbolic, nudity as allegorical, nudes which appear to be portraits of real people (often the belovèd of the patrons paying the painter), nudes which warn against the evils of sin, nudes which revel in the beauty of the naked male or female body, nude old women acting as allegorical reminders of the passage of Time, nude witches exemplifying ‘male anxiety’ at the uncontrolled nakedness of women – all these points and more are made by one or other of the numerous exhibits, and all are worth absorbing, pondering and reflecting on.

And yet the more varied the interpretations of the nude and naked human form became, the more I began to feel that it was all about everything. Do you know the tired old motto you hear in meetings in big corporations and bureaucracies – ‘If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority’? Well, I began to feel that if the nude can be made to mean just about anything you want to, maybe it ends up meaning nothing at all.

According to the exhibition, nude bodies can represent:

  • the revival of classical learning – and yet also the portrayal of Christian heroes
  • the scientific study of anatomy – and yet also unscientific, medieval terrors
  • clarity and reason and harmony – and yet also the irrational fears of witches and devils
  • key moments in the Christian story – but also key moments in pagan myth
  • warnings against lust and promiscuity – but also incitements to lust and promiscuity
  • warnings against the effects of Time and old age – and celebrations of beautiful young men and women in their prime

Nakedness can be associated with Christ or… with witches. With the celebration of sexy, lithe young men… or with stern images of torture and sacrifice. With suffering martyrs… or with smirking satyrs tastefully hiding their erections.

In other words, by the end of the exhibition, I felt that nudity in fact has no special or particular meaning in Western art, even in the limited art of this period 1400 to 1530.

The opposite: by the end the exhibition has suggested that nudity had an explosion of meanings, a tremendous diversity of symbols and significances which artists could explore in multiple ways to the delight of their many-minded patrons, and which we are left to puzzle and ponder at our leisure. Nudity, in other words, could be made to mean almost anything an artist wanted it to.

When is a nude not a nude?

There is another, glaringly obvious point to be made, which is that a lot of the figures in the exhibition are not nudes.

  • The Bronzino Saint Sebastian is not nude, he is wearing a cloak which obscures his loins.
  • Christ is always shown wearing a loincloth, never naked.
  • Adam and Eve are held up as examples of the nude but they are, of course, almost never depicted nude but, as in the Dürer woodcut, wearing strategically placed loincloths. 
  • None of the figures in Dirk Bouts’s Way to Paradise is actually nude.
  • In fact one of the several medieval illustrations of Bathsheba shows her fully dressed except that she’s pulled up her dress a bit to reveal some of her thighs. That’s not nude.

So I became, as I worked my way round, a little puzzled as to how you can have an exhibition titled The Renaissance Nude in which quite a few of the figures are not, in fact… nude.

The more you look, the more you realise that something much more subtle is going on in the interplay between fully dressed, partially dressed and completely naked figures, and I felt the full complexities of the interrelationships between total nudity and the various forms of dress and bodily covering to be found in the pictures wasn’t really touched on or investigated as much as it could have been.

Take the Perugino painting, The Combat Of Love And Chastity. I count sixteen figures in the foreground (not counting the irritating cupids). Of these sixteen no fewer than eight are fully dressed, two are partially dressed and only six are nude. So this is not a study in the naked human body. It is a far more subtle study of the interplay between dressed, partially dressed, and fully nude figures, each of these statuses drenched in complex meanings and symbolism.

Again, I wondered whether the curators’ modish obsession with sensuality and desire and ‘the erotic’, and their requirement to assert that this period saw The Rise of the Daring Naughty Nude as a genre, has blinded them to other, far more subtle and interesting interplays between nudity and clothing, which are going on in many of these works.

Summary

This is a fascinating dance around the multiple meanings of nakedness and (near) nudity in Renaissance iconography, and a deeply rewarding immersion in the proliferation of new techniques and new belief systems which characterised the period 1400 to 1530.

But, in the end, as always, the visitor and viewer is left to dwell on with what they like and what they don’t like.

For me, the Renaissance marked a tragic break with the gloriously detailed and eco-friendly world-view of the high Middle Ages, a world (in its iconography) which often achieved a lovely delicacy and innocence.

This late-medieval world is represented in the exhibition by the works by Memling and Bouts which I’ve mentioned, but also by a clutch of exquisite, tiny, illuminated illustrations from a number of medieval books of hours which, we learn, continued to be made and illuminated well into the period of the High Renaissance (around 1500).

So I marvelled, as I am supposed to, at the skill of Bronzino and his sexy Saint Sebastian, at the subtle use of shadow to model the face and torso, at the way the artist shows off his ability to paint the complex folds of the red cloak which sets off the young man’s sexy, hairless chest, and so on.

But I got more genuine pleasure from studying the tiny illuminations in these books of hours, including this wonderful image by Jean Bourdichon, showing the Biblical figure of Bathsheba having her famous bath (in the Bible story she is ‘accidentally’ seen by King David who proceeds to take her to bed).

Yes but note the details – the apples on the tree in the centre and the cherries (?) on the tree on the right. And the flowers on the hedge of bushes across the middle, and the careful detailing of the lattice-work fence. The filigree work of the cloth hanging out the window where King David appears. And the shimmering gold of Bathsheba’s long, finely-detailed tresses as they fall down her back.

‘Bathsheba Bathing’ from the Hours of Louis XII by Jean Bourdichon (1498) The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

Compare and contrast the modesty and sweetness of Bourdichon’s image with the big, grandiose, heavy, dark and foreboding symbolism of a classic Italianate Renaissance painting like this one.

Allegory of Fortune by Dosso Dossi (c. 1530) The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles

The final room is dominated by this enormous painting by Dosso Dossi, the kind of sombre, portentous allegory you could, by the mid-1500s, order by the yard from any number of artists’ workshops, the kind of thing you can nowadays find cluttering up the walls of countless stately homes all across England, helping to make dark, wood-panelled rooms seem ever darker. I find this kind of thing heavy, stuffy, pretentious, dark and dull. The triumph of soulless perfectionism.

But that’s just my personal taste. You may well disagree. Go and see this fabulous exhibition – it is packed with wonders – and decide for yourself.

Curators

The exhibition is curated by Thomas Kren, Senior Curator Emeritus at the J. Paul Getty Museum, in collaboration with Per Rumberg, Curator at the Royal Academy of Arts.


Related links

More Royal Academy reviews

Queer British Art 1861 to 1967 @ Tate Britain

Can you tell whether this painting was done by a man or a woman, lesbian or gay, bisexual or transsexual?

Female Figure Lying on Her Back

Female Figure Lying on Her Back

And does it matter?

If by a man, is it a horrible example of the Male Gaze, encouraging male ‘ownership’ and mastery of the female figure, encouraging lascivious thoughts in the male viewer, reducing women to sexualised objects, exploiting women for semi-pornographic purposes?

If by a woman, is it a joyously unashamed celebration of the female body, the lazy posture and yawning stretch of the subject marvellously capturing a moment of real, unvarnished intimacy?

Does knowledge of the painter’s gender or sexual orientation change your ‘reading’ of this picture, your enjoyment of it, your ‘understanding’ of it? And why?

These are just some of the questions raised by this fascinating and thought-provoking exhibition.

Declaration of interest

I was a member of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality back in the 1970s, going on marches, signing petitions, habituating Windsor’s only gay pub, campaigning for gay rights – the central one being getting the age of gay consent brought down in line with the age for straights. In the years since, I’ve supported gay marriage, gay and women priests, and so on. It’s always been obvious to me that LGBT people should be treated absolutely the same as anyone else, and benefit from exactly the same rights and life opportunities. I am not myself gay but it’s always seemed obvious to me that a) no-one should judge any form of sexual practice among consenting adults b) no-one should be allowed to discriminate in any way against anyone on account of their sexual orientation or sexual practices.

The jargon of desire

In the late 1960s French structuralist literary criticism began to morph into post-structuralist criticism and theory. Reflecting the move from the politicised 1960s into the more narcissistic 1970s, and an ongoing obsession with Freudian psychoanalysis – and also being French and proud of it – a lot of this criticism became more personal, about identity, as constituted in texts and wider society, and a lot more about sex.

The works of literary critics like Roland Barthes (b.1915, The Pleasure of the Text), the historian Michel Foucault (b.1926 A History of Sexuality), the philosopher Jacques Derrida (b.1930), the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (b.1901), feminist theorists like Hélène Cixous (b.1937) and Julia Kristeva (b.1941 Desire in language), and the pioneer of Queer Studies, Judith Butler (b.1956, Subjects of desireGender trouble, Undoing gender), plus many others have led to the vast proliferation of the ‘discourse of desire’, to countless books and articles and conferences and degree and postgraduate courses about gender and sexuality, demonstrating how this, that or the other work of art or fiction or film ‘subverts’ or ‘challenges’ or ‘confronts’ gender conventions and ‘transgresses’ gender stereotypes and ‘rewrites’ gender narratives.

With the collapse of communism in the early 1990s, young students wanting to prove how rebellious and subversive they were found themselves bereft of an ideological alternative to consumer capitalism, and so found themselves forced towards the only two games in town, anti-sexism and anti-racism, embodied in Women’s Studies/Gender Studies, and Post-Colonial Studies, respectively.

For at least thirty years humanities departments – literature, art, philosophy – have been teaching courses showing how all Western writing, art, philosophy was riddled with racist/sexist assumptions, and built on evil imperialism and slavery. Many graduates of these courses, imbued with this way of thinking, moved on into the media and press, into film and theatre and the art world, where in the pages of the Guardian or the Huffington Post or the Independent, and in galleries and theatres across the West, they can be seen every day writing scandalised articles, producing documentaries, putting on plays angry about the persistence of sexism and racism and homophobia.

But there are more women than immigrants in this country and, as a result, more Feminist Studies, Women’s Studies, Gender Studies courses than Post-Colonial courses – and so books and articles and films and documentaries about the multiple unfairnesses and injustices perpetrated on women throughout the ages by the ever-present Patriarchy, continue to thrive and proliferate.

On one level this exhibition represents a triumph of this kind of discourse, a discourse a) obsessed by sex, conceived of in a rather dry and boring theoretical way b) driven and animated by a fathomless sense of grievance and injustice. Exhibitions about any aspect of sexuality represent a perfect marriage of victim politics with the high-flown ‘discourse of desire’.

Why use the word ‘queer’?

To quote the curators:

Queer has a mixed history – from the 19th century onwards it has been used both as a term of abuse and as a term by LGBT people to refer to themselves. Our inspiration for using it came from Derek Jarman who said that it used to frighten him but now ‘for me to use the word queer is a liberation’. More recently, of course, it has become reclaimed as a fluid term for people of different sexualities and gender identities. Historians of sexuality have also argued that it is preferable to other terms for sexualities in the past as these often don’t map onto modern sexual identities. In addition to carrying out audience research, we took advice from Stonewall and other LGBT charities and held focus groups with LGBT people. The advice from all of these sources was overwhelmingly that we should use it. While we tried other titles, no other option captured the full diversity of sexualities and gender identities that are represented in the show.

What is a queer work of art?

Does it have to portray a homosexual or lesbian act i.e. be pornographic (as a small number of the works here do, some rude sketches by Keith Vaughan and the super well-known big phalluses of Aubrey Beardsley’s illustrations to Lysistrata)?

Is queer art any work by an overtly gay or lesbian or bi or trans artist? But how many Victorian and Edwardian and Georgian painters thought of themselves in those terms? Don’t the curators run the risk of – in fact aren’t they running headlong into – defining, naming and limiting people from the past a) by our own modern 2017 categories of sexuality (Yes); and b) of defining people entirely by their ‘sexuality’, whatever that is. I thought that was precisely what CHE and Gay Rights and their successors were trying to escape from: from being tied down, limited, constrained and defined solely in terms of your sexual preferences, as if that were the only important part of your life, as if society is correct to pigeonhole all of us on the basis of this one attribute.

And what if the queer artist’s subject matter is not only not particularly erotic, what if it’s not even of human body? For example, is this queer art?

Hannah Gluckstein, known as Gluck (1895 to 1978) was a lesbian painter. So is her painting of flowers a work of queer art?

Should queer art also include works which just look ‘sort of’ homoerotic or a bit lesbian, either a) in the eyes of contemporary viewers (in which case it might have caused a ‘scandal’ and ‘shocked Victorian society’), or b) in the eyes of modern curators trained to spot the slightest sign of gender stereotypes being ‘subverted’ and gender norms being ‘transgressed’ and narratives of heterosexuality being ‘questioned’ and ‘interrogated’?

Either way, categorising art in terms of the audience’s response to it, is dicey. What constitutes ‘art’ has changed out of all recognition the past 150 years. People’s responses to ‘art’ have become similarly complex and varied.

Tricky questions. In the event, this exhibition includes works chosen by all these criteria, and more.

The drawbacks of telling history through art

This decade Tate Britain has run a series of exhibitions based not around artists or movements, but on broad themes and topics. Thus they’ve staged exhibitions about: folk art, the aesthetic of ruins, the British Empire, Victorian sculpture, the destruction of art works, the depiction of war. Many of them had an amusingly random element, delicate watercolours of Tintern Abbey placed next to vast photos of Nazi war bunkers (Ruin Lust), or some maps of the Empire next to some flags of the Empire next to random artifacts from the Empire (Artist and Empire).

Although they put a brave face on it, the cumulative impression of visiting all these shows raises the suspicion that the curators are under orders to find pretexts to bring out the more obscure and neglected works languishing in Tate’s vast archives, and display them in exhibitions with eye-catching and ‘controversial’ themes.

While the aim of rotating their (doubtless huge) collection for us to view is laudable, the pretexts the curators come up with are sometimes ambitiously wide-ranging and grand-sounding, while the collection of artifacts actually on display often turns out to be rather patchy and random. The history of the British Empire is an enormous subject: the Tate exhibition about it amounted to a jumble sale of odds and sods from across the huge geographic reach and vast periods of time involved: the Empire used maps, here’s some maps; the Empire had flags, here’s half a dozen flags; the Empire allowed botanists and naturalists to travel the world and see exotic species so here’s a painting of tiger; here’s some native spears; and so on.

Although Tate calls in plentiful loans from other collections to create the exhibitions, the core of these shows tends to be focused on dusting off and displaying many of it hidden assets, themselves bought at various times for various reasons, hence the feeling they give of a patchwork quilt made from odds and ends. Sometimes it feels as if they’re trying do a vast jigsaw without most of the pieces.

Written histories can conjure up anything with words, creating continuities, linking themes and ideas at will: in words, anything is possible. Histories told through objects, however, immediately limit which areas can be covered, and which stories can be told, by virtue of what is available, what has survived. And histories told through works of ‘art’ are even more limited by the random nature of any particular art collection, as well as biases intrinsic in what kind of subjects get turned into ‘art’ and what don’t (the experiences of most ‘ordinary’ people, for example, or the entire world of work, especially housework).

All these limitations apply to this exhibition, with the additional challenge that sex, sexuality, gender, desire – call it what you will – is, by and large, quite a private part of most people’s lives. Artists and performers, by the nature of their work and output, are a kind of exception to the rule that most people keep their sex lives pretty private. And forms of sexuality which were banned by law and subject to harsh punishments are all the more likely to be hidden and suppressed, to not leave traces in the written – and especially the painted – record.

In other words, even more than Tate’s other wide-ranging historical exhibitions, this one feels haunted by gaps and absences.

The dates

In 1861 the death penalty for sodomy was abolished; in 1967 sex between men was (partially) decriminalised. These provide handy end dates.

The exhibition is in eight rooms

1. Coded desires

This covers the later Victorian period. This was dominated by the Aesthetic Movement and the group of painters known as the Olympians, who specialised in sensuous paintings of lightly-clad women lounging around in a dreamy ancient Roman baths or terraces. Just thinking about either of these interlinked movements brings to mind the extraordinary sensuality present in so much art of this period, along with a worship of the classical world, in pictures and in words, which stretched towards a feel for the same-sex relationships present in, especially, the writings of the Greeks, where a sexual relationship between an older man and a younger man or boy was socially acceptable. This may or may not be present in the works here, But the bigger story about most late Victorian art is the remarkable extent to which ‘desire’, physical sensuousness, in all shapes and forms, was more openly depicted than ever before in this period.

The exhibition has some striking works by the king of the Olympians, Frederick Leighton, on the basis that he sometimes depicted sensual male nudes – although many of his works are characterised by sensuality for men or women.

Leighton was rumoured to be gay, but then again it’s thought he had an affair with one of his female models. Tricky, therefore, to shoehorn him into modern categories of straight, gay, bi etc. One of the liberating things about studying history, past lives, is they did things differently, thought, wrote, spoke, painted, perceived, differently to us. Don’t fit into our modern categories.

The bulk of works in the room are by Simeon Solomon, who was unfortunate enough to be arrested in a public lavatory off Oxford Street, charged with attempting to commit sodomy and fined £100, then a year later arrested in Paris and sentenced to three months in prison. This makes him a bona fide gay hero. To the viewer, however, his works seem mostly sub-standard examples of the Olympian style done much more smoothly by the likes of Alma-Tadema or Albert Moore.

Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene (1864) by Simeon Solomon (Watercolour) Tate

Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene (1864) by Simeon Solomon (Watercolour) Tate

William Blake Richmond (1842 to 1921) is a painter you don’t hear about much. He also painted supremely sensual paintings on sunny classical themes, e.g. Hera in the House of Hephaistos or just sumptuous late-Victorian portraits, for example, Mrs Luke Ionides. Nothing particularly ‘transgressive’ about these, in the way our curators want to see ‘gender norms’ being ‘transgressed’, but they’ve included one big painting The Bowlers.

Apparently, this scandalised the Victorians (didn’t everything ‘scandalise’ the Victorians?) for its inclusion of naked women (you can see some breasts) and naked men in the same scene. And some of the men have their arms round each other. Shock horror. Richmond was married and wasn’t arrested in any toilets, so not a transgressive hero per se. After looking at it for a while I noticed the way a line drawn along the top of the heads of the figures on the right forms a diagonal going down towards the centre of the composition, while the heads of the women on the left line up as a mirror diagonal heading down towards the centre: at the very centre is a black vase against a thick central pillar, to the left of which is a woman in a see-through toga and on the right the zigzagging black trunk of a wisteria tree. Which means or symbolises? Who knows.

My favourite things in this room were the three paintings by the marvellous Henry Scott Tuke (1858 to 1929). Tuke was one of a group of artists who settled in Newlyn in Cornwall and painted en plein air. Almost all are of young men, nude or half-undressed, by the sparkling sea in the sunshine. In the permanent gallery upstairs they display August Blue (1893), a wonderful composition in terms of the draughtsmanship of the figures, also the figurative accuracy of the rowboat and the ships on the horizon, and also of course the wonderfully clear blues and greens – you can smell the sea, you can feel the sun on your skin. There are three of his paintings here alongside a cabinet showing some of the many photographs he took of gorgeous-looking young men.

The Critics (1927) by Henry Scott Tuke. Warwick District Council (Leamington Spa, UK)

The Critics (1927) by Henry Scott Tuke. Warwick District Council (Leamington Spa, UK)

2. Public indecency

This ‘looks at ways in which sexuality and gender identity did – and did not – go public from the 1880s to the 1920s.’

Thus we have the trial of Oscar Wilde (who has not heard of the trial of Oscar Wilde? How many films have been made of it?) the prosecution of Radclyffe Hall for her lesbian novel The Well of Loneliness (1928), and we get some of Aubrey Beardsley’s ‘scandalous’ illustrations for the Greek play Lysistrata thrown in.

This is the kind of thing you should learn in 6th form and certainly early in an English or humanities degree course, so that you can tut and fret and criticise horrible dead white men for repressing ‘transgressive’ sexualities. But it’s worth remembering that this period also saw the persecution of male heterosexual artists as well – James Joyce’s Ulysses went on trial in 1921 because of its description of a man masturbating, the police raided an exhibition of paintings by D.H. Lawrence and (admittedly not in England) the Austrian artist Egon Schiele was arrested and 100 of his art works were confiscated – one of them was burned by the judge in court in front of the artist – for their sexual explicitness.

It was an era when many artists of all persuasions were pushing at the boundaries of what society thought was acceptable depiction of sexuality, and many artists, gay, straight or what-have-you – fell foul of the authorities.

Alongside the Wilde and Beardsley are testaments to the work of the sexologists Richard von Krafft-Ebbing and Havelock Ellis, who collaborated with the gay writer John Addington Symonds on his book Sexual Inversion (1896). These ‘scientific’ works can either be seen (optimistically) as the start of a ‘modern’ liberal attitude to a wide range of sexual practices or (pessimistically) as ‘science’ and the State beginning to move into areas of private life, with a view to defining and categorising all possible practices (or perversions as they’d have been called) and the human ‘types’ which engage in them.

You don’t have to be Michel Foucault to suspect that the ‘liberating’ effects of writing about varieties of sexuality can be accompanied by new types of definition, surveillance and control.

3. Theatrical types

The theatre and performing arts have long offered a refuge for exhibitionists, people who like to dress up, fantasise, play act and generally behave in ways which would not be acceptable in everyday life. So the theatre has long attracted gay men and this room features photos of famous performers who were gay, photographers who were gay, with a special case devoted to cross-dressing entertainers.

There’s a lot of photos by Angus McBean (1904 to 1990) the fabulous black-and-white photographer, who did lots of semi-surreal fashion shots before the war (his ‘surrealised portraits’), was arrested in 1942 for homosexual acts and served two years in gaol, before emerging to resume his career post-war in a rather more traditional vision. But everything he did is touched by class and style. The show includes a typically weird portrait of the now-forgotten actor Robert Helpmann as Hamlet, though I know him for his appearances in Powell and Pressburger’s two extraordinary films, The Red Shoes and The Tales of Hoffmann.

The British have a problem with sex, full stop, whether straight or gay, and have long had a reputation for gross hypocrisy, with the ‘respectable’ classes enforcing repressive laws at home then vacationing in Paris where they could sleep with countless courtesans (as squeaky clean Charles Dickens was reputed to do and the heir to the throne, Prince Albert certainly did) or swanning off to North Africa, to Algeria or Morocco where there was an endless supply of boys for sex.

This nervousness, shame and embarrassment may be part of what lies behind the long tradition of men dressing up as women for vaudeville entertainment, a tradition which goes back a long way, but is certainly present in the Victorian music hall, through the pre-war years and was still going strong in my boyhood in figures like Danny La Rue, Dick Emery (‘Oh you are awful… but I like you!’), Kenny Everett (‘and then all my clothes fell off!’), Dame Edna Everage, Lily Savage. And that’s without mentioning the vast tradition of English pantomime with its Widow Twanky and Ugly Sisters, traditionally played by men and a huge opportunity for all kinds of blue, risqué and ‘transgender’ comedy.

A display case here presents a dozen or so photos and posters illustrating some of the cross-dressing stars of yore, most of which I’d never heard of simply because they were before the days of TV. Here, as elsewhere in the show (and as often in the Tate ‘history’ exhibitions) you feel this is an absolutely vast subject which has been only briefly sketched and hinted at, and possibly not one which is necessarily best approached through the medium of ‘art’ at all.

Douglas Byng (1934) by Paul Tanqueray. Vintage bromide print © Estate of Paul Tanqueray

Douglas Byng (1934) by Paul Tanqueray. Vintage bromide print © Estate of Paul Tanqueray

4. Bloomsbury and beyond

I am prejudiced against Bloomsbury because of their snobbery and their smug, self-congratulatory elitism. They all slept with each other and described each other, in private letters and public reviews, as geniuses. What’s lasted has tended to be the writings of figures on the periphery – the economics of John Maynard Keynes, the novels of E.M. Forster, the novels of Virginia Woolf, though she was a core member. The art work of figures like Dora Carrington, Vanessa Bell (recently featured in a handsome exhibition at the Dulwich Picture House), Duncan Grant, Roger Fry, hasn’t really stood the test of time.

The catalogue says this room is meant to represent:

a generation of artists and sitters exploring, confronting and coming to terms with themselves and their desires.

Which makes it sound much more exciting and dynamic than most of their sleepy decorative pictures. Ethel Sands’s Tea with Sickert symbolises everything pretty, decorative and forgettable which I tend not to like about Bloomsbury art. Perhaps I just can’t slow myself down to this atmosphere of coma-like inaction. The commentary on the other hand, because Sands was in a queer relationship with fellow painter Nan Hudson, claims it is a ‘quietly subversive’ work, with ‘queer undercurrents’. Can you spot the queer undercurrents?

The commentary makes the case that, although not overtly sexual in the least, these tranquil interiors are a) painted by queer artists and b) if you look closely, very closely, you can see small hints and traces of ‘queer lives’ which ‘history has long neglected’. Maybe…

That said, I did find myself, on repeated viewings and to my surprise, warming to the selection of works by Duncan Grant on show here. These ranged from small, explicitly gay pornographic sketches to a vast mural, commissioned to decorate the dining room of the new Borough Polytechnic in 1911.

It’s a huge work – and the more I looked at it the more I admired the mix of abstract and figurative elements to achieve an overall decorative effect, and came to understand that it follows the action of a single diver from standing poised on the shore, at right, through diving in, and swimming to the boat which he clambers into at top left.

Bathing (1911) by Duncan Grant © Tate

Bathing (1911) by Duncan Grant © Tate

Similarly, I was impressed by the sheer size of the massive Excursion of Nausicaa by Dame Ethel Walker. It’s 18 metres wide by almost 4 high and makes a dramatic impact. It’s just as well a bench is provided for you to sit and take it all in. Although, when you look closer, it seems an uncomfortable mix of Gauguin-style primitivism with Art Deco style neo-classical figures, it is still at first sight, an enormous and confident composition.

There is a vibrant portrait by Glyn Warren Philpot (1884–1937) of his servant, Henry Thomas (1935). Note: his servant. In fact there were half a dozen Philpots scattered through the show, though this is the most vivid.

Similarly, the South African artist Edward Wolfe is represented by a portrait of Pat Nelson, his model and thought to be his gay lover.

The Bloomsburyites’ pursuit of ‘unconventional’ sexual arrangements (i.e. being bisexual, living with several lovers at once, and so on) through the Great War and into the twenties, led in to the cultural dominance of gay writers, poets and artists during the 1930s, given extra bite by the availability of the ‘decadent’ Weimar Republic in post-war Germany, whither trekked a generation of young gay men like Auden, Christopher Isherwood and so on.

5. Defying convention

This room shows how early 20th century British artists ‘challenged gender norms’ i.e. by being lesbians, living with other women, having ‘open marriages’ and so on. For example, Laura Knight, the curators claim, in this picture is laying ‘claim to traditional masculine sources of artistic authority by depicting [herself] in the act of painting nude female models’. It’s another very big painting and very red.

Self portrait and Nude (1913) by Laura Knight. National Portrait Gallery

Self portrait and Nude (1913) by Laura Knight. National Portrait Gallery

There is a factual background to the image in that Knight was prevented from attending the life classes at Nottingham Art College because she was a woman; only when she moved to Newlyn was she able to hire life models, and so this composition is a sort of act of defiance. That changes our attitude to the image. Still, in and of itself, would you know that it lays claims to masculine sources of artistic authority, if it hadn’t been carefully explained. Maybe…

Anyway, on pretexts solid or flimsy, a number of big, colourful and attractive works are on show in this room, especially of the phenomenally posh women who populated early 20th century feminism.

  • Lady with a Red Hat (1918) by William Strang – the lady being the lesbian and gardening writer Vita Sackville-West, the Honourable Mrs Harold Nicholson, Companion of Honour, daughter of the third Baron Sackville. She is holding her recently published book of poems – Poems of West and East – showing the influence of Tennyson’s world-weariness, A.E. Housman’s lad poems, and the childlike orientalism of John Masefield and other Georgians. They’re sweet and melancholy.
  • Dame Edith Sitwell (1916) by Alberto Guevara – daughter of Sir George Sitwell, 4th Baronet, of Renishaw Hall, and Lady Ida Emily Augusta (née Denison), a daughter of the Earl of Londesborough and a granddaughter of Henry Somerset, 7th Duke of Beaufort.
  • Romance (1920) by Cecile Walton – Walton doesn’t appear to have been gay, having had two marriages (to men) but this self-portrait is ‘challenging’ and ‘subverting’ ‘gender norms’ surrounding birth. Having been present at the birth of my daughter, I can testify that it certainly challenges the reality of childbirth which is a lot less calm and dignified than this static scenario.

6. Arcadia and Soho

‘London was a magnet for queer artists’.

The most striking works here are by the neglected surrealist artist Edward Burra (1905 to 1976). According to a review of his biography, his sensibility was gay, and his closest friend was a male ballet dancer, ‘but they were never lovers’. Am I alone in finding this modern inquisitiveness about the exact nature of other people’s sexuality, and the precise borders of their sexual activity, prurient and controlling? Who cares? His art is weird and extra, a really stunning, outlandish vision.

  • Soldiers at Rye (1941) Burra incorporates masks from Venetian carnival, fabric from Spanish baroque, with a kind of sado-military hugeness to create this monstrous surreal panorama.
  • Izzy Orts (1937) Burra was introduced to the portside bars of Charleston, with their mix of jazz musicians, pimps and dealers, and sailors in tight-fitting uniforms. Perfect!

The opposite wall is devoted to a trio of gay artists – John Craxton, John Minton and Keith Vaughan – who were loosely described as ‘neo-romantics’ in the 1940s. They were certainly gay. There’s a display case of overtly gay and pornographic pencil sketches by Vaughan, as well as a handful of photos he took of gorgeous young men.

Drawing of two men kissing (1958–73) by Keith Vaughan © DACS, The Estate of Keith Vaughan

Drawing of two men kissing (1958–73) by Keith Vaughan © DACS, The Estate of Keith Vaughan

At an exhibition years ago I saw a whole stand of the b&w photos Vaughan took of beautiful young men lounging around classic 1930s lidos, at Hampstead Pools or the Serpentine, and have been haunted by them ever since.

Next to the figurative sketches are his much more abstract paintings:

In these Vaughan seems to me to have developed a new and exciting way of depicting the (mostly male) figure. Alongside Vaughan are some lighter, more ‘naive’ works by John Craxton.

Head of a Greek Sailor (1940) by John Craxton © Estate of John Craxton. All rights reserved, DACS 2016. Photo credit: London Borough of Camden

Head of a Greek Sailor (1940) by John Craxton © Estate of John Craxton. All rights reserved, DACS 2016. Photo credit: London Borough of Camden

Craxton, Minton and Vaughan are three interesting figures, maybe worthy of a joint exhibition some time.

7. Public/private lives

In the decade leading up to the 1967 Sexual Offences Act gay men lived a strange twilight life. In many places gay relationships among the famous, especially the arty, were permitted – the eminent actor John Gielgud was arrested for indecency in a public toilet in 1953, was fined, released and was roundly applauded the next time he took to the stage. Maybe the most famous example was the close ‘friendship’ between England’s leading composer Benjamin Britten and the singer Peter Pears. The fuzz couldn’t go arresting the nation’s premier composer. But they did continue to arrest and imprison a steady stream of less well-known gay men, creating the trickle of protest which grew louder and more widespread for the law to be repealed or abolished.

This room goes heavy on the lurid relationship of gay playwright Joe Orton and his jealous lover Kenneth Halliwell, because it ended in a garish tragedy. But in the whole room the most powerful image for me was a still from the 1961 movie Victim, a genuinely taboo-breaking work starring Dirk Bogarde as an impeccably upper-middle class lawyer married to the fragrant Sylvia Sims, but who is photographed in a compromising situation with good-looking young Peter McEnery, and blackmailed. I saw this film as a boy and it left a lasting impression of the needless pain and suffering caused by bigots and criminals given license by a stupidly interfering state. It influenced me to join the Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

8. Francis Bacon and David Hockney

I think we all know about these bad boys. This final room gives us the opportunity to marvel again at the bleak power of Bacon’s nihilistic paintings and the scratchy undergraduate humour of Hockney’s early Pop style.

Life Painting for a Diploma (1962) by David Hockney © Yageo Foundation

Life Painting for a Diploma (1962) by David Hockney © Yageo Foundation

Scholarship or prurient gossip?

As I progressed through the exhibition, reading every wall label carefully, a theme began to emerge (above and beyond the obvious ones about ‘gender fluidity’ and ‘same-sex desire’):

  • ‘De Morgan’s repeated images of Hales have encouraged speculation about the nature of their relationship…’
  • ‘There is some evidence that Henry Bishop was attracted to men…’
  • ‘Beardsley does not seem to have had relationships with men…’
  • ‘There has been much speculation about Tuke’s relationships with his Cornish models although nothing has been substantiated…’
  • ‘Little is known about Meteyard’s sexuality, other than the fact that he was married…’
  • ‘Leighton’s sexuality has been the subject of much speculation from his own times to the present, but he guarded his privacy closely…’
  • ‘Glen Byam Shaw had almost certainly been the lover of the poet Siegfried Sassoon…’
  • ‘The exact nature of Thomas and Philpot’s relationship is unknown…’
  • Duncan Grant’s ‘close friend and possible lover Paul Roche…’
  • ‘There has been a lot of speculation about the nature of Walker’s relationship with the painter Clara Christian with whom she lived and worked in the 1880s although little evidence survives…’
  • ‘The poet Edith Sitwell does not seem to have had sexual relationships…’

What does it matter to an appreciation of their work what an artist did or did not do with their penis or vagina, or to someone else’s penis or vagina? Why do scholars obsess about the sexual act being a vital threshold in a relationship? On one level, this breathless fascination with the precise nature of people’s relationships, and whether they ever did the deed together, is just a highbrow form of gutter gossip, an educated equivalent to who’s shagging who in The Only Way Is Essex or Celebrity Big Brother, little different to the tittle-tattle of the tabloid press.

On a more disturbing level, this intrusion of scholarly enquiry into the heart of people’s private lives is because modern art critics and curators need to know precisely who had sex with who and when, so that they can categorise and define artists, writers, poets, photographers, performers and so on according to their tidy definitions. So that artists can be neatly arranged into canons and genres and books and essays and exhibitions about straight or gay or queer or whatever art.

  • ‘[Dirk Bogarde] never publicly affirmed a sexual identity and his personal life has to be inferred from his long relationship with his manager Tony Forwood (1915 to 1988) with whom he shared his home.’

Has to be? Who says it has to be? Why this compulsion? Why must everyone’s sexuality be nailed down and defined?

To be a bit fierce, you could say that modern art scholars and curators talk the talk about gender fluidity and multiple narratives and transgressing this, that or the other – but in practice, it is they more than any other group in British society who are obsessed with tracking down their subjects’ every sexual act and desire in order to categorise, limit, define and control both artists and their works.

I found the obsessive probing into these dead people’s private lives unpleasant and disturbing.

Conclusion

The repetition over and again, in the introductions to each room and on labels for individual works, of the phrases ‘same-sex desire’ and ‘gender norms’, all of which are ‘challenged’ and ‘confronted’ and ‘transgressed’, of artists ‘fearlessly stripping away’ convention and ‘pushing the boundaries’ – all this gets pretty monotonous after a while.

Luckily, the art itself is much more varied, stimulating and unexpected than the ideological monomania of the commentary would suggest. If the downside of these historically-themed Tate exhibitions is that they take on vast subjects which they then struggle to adequately cover, the upside is that they turn up all sorts of unexpected treasures by relatively unknown figures, and make you want to see more.

For example, I’d love to see an exhibition devoted to Craxton, Minton and Vaughan, exploring that strange sensibility of the 1940s, surely the most overlooked of 20th century decades. An exhibition devoted to the late Victorian ‘Olympian’ artists would not only be a feast of sensuality but could explore in more detail the complex areas of sexuality and sensuality which were so present in Victorian art, yet so repressed in Victorian life.

Edward Burra, can we have a show dedicated to him, please, his last retrospective was in 1973. How about a show devoted to Tuke and the Newlyn School, what a wonderful treat that would be for the dark English winter. The more I looked at the Angus McBean photos, the more wonderful they seemed – how about an exhibition of him – or a broader exhibition about Theatre and Photography? Or, as simple an idea as ‘Neglected Women Artists 1860 to 1960’, showcasing the work of less well-known women artists (Laura Knight, Cecile Walton, Ethel Walker) from this era, gay, straight or whatever.

In conclusion, I was irritated by the curator-speak but I thought it was a wonderful show, went back to see it twice, bought the catalogue, and am still being pleasantly beguiled by many of the wonderful paintings, large and small, brash or quiet. What an extraordinary, and huge, contribution gay/lesbian/queer artists have made to every aspect of British culture.


Related links

More Tate Britain reviews