Very Good, Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse (1930)

‘The tie, if I might suggest it, sir, a shade more tightly knotted. One aims at the perfect butterfly effect. If you will permit me⁠—’
‘What do ties matter, Jeeves, at a time like this? Do you realize that Mr Little’s domestic happiness is hanging in the scale?’
‘There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.’

‘Great Scott, Jeeves, you seem to know everything.’
‘Thank you very much, sir.’

‘What earthly use do you suppose you are without Jeeves, you poor ditherer?’ (Aunt Dahlia)

This is the third collection of P.G. Wodehouse’s Jeeves short stories, bringing together 11 which had been published in the later 1920s.

  1. Jeeves and the Impending Doom (December 1926)
  2. The Inferiority Complex of Old Sippy (April 1926)
  3. Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit (December 1927)
  4. Jeeves and the Song of Songs (September 1929)
  5. Episode of the Dog McIntosh (October 1929)
  6. The Spot of Art (December 1929)
  7. Jeeves and the Kid Clementina (January 1930)
  8. The Love That Purifies (November 1929)
  9. Jeeves and the Old School Chum (February 1930)
  10. Indian Summer of an Uncle (March 1930)
  11. The Ordeal of Young Tuppy (April 1930)

They feature empty-headed posh boy Bertram ‘Bertie’ Wooster and revolve around the supernatural ability of his impeccably dressed, supremely clever and always-in-command valet, Jeeves, to solve the problems faced by Bertie and his posh boy pals. The stories are almost all narrated by Bertie in his upbeat, slang-rich, posh boy tones which are quite candid about his own shortcomings.

If you ask my Aunt Agatha, she will tell you⁠—in fact, she is quite likely to tell you even if you don’t ask her⁠—that I am a vapid and irreflective chump. Barely sentient, was the way she once described me: and I’m not saying that in a broad, general sense she isn’t right.

The formula

Early on in each story Bertie or a posh young pal of his is faced with a tricky social problem, mostly revolving around entanglements with unsuitable young ladies, or social commitments foisted on them by their aunts which they are trying to wriggle out of. In every instance Bertie calls in Jeeves who comes up with a cunning plan to solve the situation. But there is always a kind of second climax or double take, whereby the initial plan often goes awry but Jeeves is revealed as having anticipated this and put in place an even better, more all-encompassing plan B, so that every story invariably ends with ‘Well done, Jeeves’.

Jeeves and Bertie’s eternal battle over clothes

When I read the earliest stories I thought Jeeves’s insistence on telling Bertie what to wear was one among many foibles, but I came to realise it plays a central role, for at least two reasons. The obvious one is to demonstrate the comic principle that Jeeves is always right and Bertie is always wrong. About everything.

But the deeper reason is that the argument about a piece of clothing which Bertie is frightfully proud of buying but which Jeeves thinks is beyond the pale, these arguments often top and tail the stories, providing a structure and an added layer of comic plot. So that:

  1. The story opens with the pair behaving frostily towards each other over such a squabble with Bertie insisting on his independence and how he is the master and how he will never cave in to Jeeves’s taste; then…
  2. We have the entire central plot of saving Bertie or a buddy from a fate worse than death, and after that’s all sorted out…
  3. The narrative returns to the silly squabble about a tie or a shirt or a pair of spats and Bertie, awed by Jeeves’s triumph at solving the central problem, caves in.

1. It’s part of the comic formula that Bertie starts every story insisting he’s going to show the true Wooster mettle:

  • ‘I mean to say, where does a valet get off, censoring vases…’
  • ‘I mean to say, one has got to take a firm stand from time to time. The trouble with Jeeves is that he tends occasionally to get above himself…’

Bertie’s tone, the comic over-assertion of the man who knows he’s going to lose, is typified by the spat over his moustache in the Hard-Boiled Egg:

I was sorry if Bicky was in trouble, but, as a matter of fact, I was rather glad to have something I could discuss freely with Jeeves just then, because things had been a bit strained between us for some time, and it had been rather difficult to hit on anything to talk about that wasn’t apt to take a personal turn. You see, I had decided—rightly or wrongly—to grow a moustache, and this had cut Jeeves to the quick. He couldn’t stick the thing at any price, and I had been living ever since in an atmosphere of bally disapproval till I was getting jolly well fed up with it. What I mean is, while there’s no doubt that in certain matters of dress Jeeves’s judgement is absolutely sound and should be followed, it seemed to me that it was getting a bit too thick if he was going to edit my face as well as my costume. No one can call me an unreasonable chappie, and many’s the time I’ve given in like a lamb when Jeeves has voted against one of my pet suits or ties; but when it comes to a valet’s staking out a claim on your upper lip you’ve simply got to have a bit of the good old bulldog pluck and defy the blighter…

2. Then there’s the main story in all its complexity, and complete with the double ending I’ve pointed out.

3. And then the comic punchline as Bertie, yet again, gives in to Jeeves’s silent disapproval. At the end of the Hard Boiled Egg adventure, Bertie considers that Jeeves himself didn’t make enough out of the adventure and then… proceeds to give in on the moustache issue.

‘I fancy Mr Bickersteth intends—I judge from his remarks—to signify his appreciation of anything I have been fortunate enough to do to assist him, at some later date when he is in a more favourable position to do so.’
‘It isn’t enough, Jeeves!’
‘Sir?’
It was a wrench, but I felt it was the only possible thing to be done.
‘Bring my shaving things.’
A gleam of hope shone in the man’s eye, mixed with doubt.
‘You mean, sir?’
‘And shave off my moustache.’
There was a moment’s silence. I could see the fellow was deeply moved.
‘Thank you very much indeed, sir,’ he said, in a low voice.

In previous collections Jeeves has interfered to stop Bertie wearing:

  • a rather sprightly young check suit – ‘Jeeves Takes Charge’ (1916)
  • a blue suit with the faint red stripe – ‘The Artistic Career of Corky’ (1916)
  • a moustache – ‘Jeeves and the Hard-Boiled Egg’ (1917)
  • purple socks – ‘Bertie Changes His Mind’ (1922)
  • a cummerbund – ‘Aunt Agatha Takes the Count’ (1922)
  • soft-fronted shirts with dress-clothes – in their very first story, ‘Jeeves Takes Charge’ (1916)
  • coloured spats – ‘Without the Option’ (1925)

In this volume Jeeves triumphs in the matter of:

  • the new vase – ‘The Inferiority Complex of Old Sippy’
  • Bertie’s bright new plus-fours – ‘Jeeves and the Kid Clementina’

Holiday battles

Also worth mentioning that this battle of wills also extends to holiday destinations, as when Jeeves is disappointed when Bertie cancels their plan to spend Christmas in Monte Carlo and go, instead, to his Aunt Dahlia’s but how, by orchestrating a sequence of unfortunate events, Jeeves manages to get his way in the end.

Or in ‘Jeeves and the Spot of Art’, Jeeves is disappointed when Bertie turns down the offer of a yacht cruise with Aunt Agatha but engineers everything so that they do, as a result of the story’s main adventure, end up going on it.

Psychology

I noted in the novels of Agatha Christie the slow spread through the 1920s of ideas and terms from Freud and his followers. So it’s striking that there’s an entire story here, from 1926, entirely based on the concept of the ‘inferiority complex’, the depth psychology term which is also most used in Christie’s novels. Maybe, for some reason, it struck a chord in popular psychology and culture although, like a lot of the Freudian ideas, it is used in a crude, inaccurate, popularised kind of way.

1. Jeeves and the Impending Doom (1926)

Bertie rescues a politician from a swan.

Bertie is invited by his dreaded Aunt Agatha to go and stay at her place, Woollam Chersey, in Hertfordshire. Here he finds his old school chum Bingo Little has been hired to tutor Aunt A’s difficult son, Thomas. Bingo anxiously tells Bertie to pretend not to know him because Agatha has such a low opinion of Bertie that if she learns Bingo is his friend, she’ll sack him.

But the centre of the story is that Aunt Agatha is also entertaining a very important guest, a Cabinet Minister named A.B. Filmer.

The Right Hon. was a tubby little chap who looked as if he had been poured into his clothes and had forgotten to say “When!”

Aunt A has tasked Bingo with making sure her difficult son, Thomas, doesn’t cause trouble.

As a result Bingo is super-stressed. Both Bertie and Jeeves tell him he simply mustn’t let the little rascal out of his sight, which is perfectly sensible, until it comes to the afternoon of the tennis tournament. Bingo is nuts about tennis and becomes so immersed in the games he loses all track of Thomas. When rain stops play and everyone troops inside, they realise the VIP Filmer is missing.

Jeeves informs Bertie that Filmer took a rowing boat across the large lake to the island in the middle to explore, but the dastardly Thomas rowed after him and untied his boat, which drifted off, leaving the politician marooned.

Rather heroically, Bertie and Jeeves rush down to the lake, take another boat and row out to the island. Here Bertie discovers the hapless politician is being terrorised by a wild swan and so has taken refuge on the roof of the mock Greek temple. Bertie is just sizing up the situation when the swan goes for him, too, so he also scrambles up onto the temple roof.

They call to Jeeves who saves the day, throwing Bertie’s raincoat over the swan and using a boathook to hoist him into the undergrowth, at which point Bertie and Filmer scramble down and everyone legs it back to the boats.

Later on, as Bertie is having a bath and recovering, Jeeves surprises him by telling him that he (Jeeves) has just told Aunt Agatha that it was Bertie who unmoored the minister’s boat. At first sight Jeeves seems to have dropped Bertie in the soup. But Jeeves goes on to explain that he overheard Aunt Agatha planning to get Bertie a job as Filmer’s secretary, something he would have hated. Therefore, what at first sight appears a floater by Jeeves turns out to be a stroke of genius.

This is what I meant when I referred, above, to the way the stories so often have a second comic climax, or Plan B, a kind of encore to the main action.

Anyway, Jeeves suggests Bertie avoids recriminations from his aunt by getting dressed, shimmying down the drainpipe and Jeeves will be waiting in the car to spirit him away.

2. The Inferiority Complex of Old Sippy (1926)

Bertie helps his old chum overcome his shyness about proposing to his girlfriend and standing up to his old headmaster.

The story opens with one of those arguments over taste which I mentioned above. usually Bertie and Jeeves fall out over clothes, but this is over a vase which Bertie loves and Jeeves hates.

Having established the bookend theme, Bertie goes to visit his old friend Sippy, who we first met as a freelance writer but who is now the editor of a journal, which he is finding dashed hard work. Bertie arrives for a visit and observes him being bullied by a horrible older man, who forces an unsuitable article on him and, when he’s left, turns out to be his old headmaster, Mr Waterbury. In the same visit Sippy explains that he is in love with the poet Gwendolen Moon.

Back home Bertie runs all this past Jeeves and expounds his theory that Sippy is suffering from an inferiority complex. Bertie comes up with a wizard wheeze which is to place a bag of flour over the entrance to Sippy’s offices so that next time the bullying headmaster visits, he will be doused in flour and Sippy, upon seeing him so humiliated, will lose his fear of him – and this will give him the confidence he needs to finally propose to his lady love, Miss Moon.

At present this head master bloke, this Waterbury, is trampling all over Mr Sipperley because he is hedged about with dignity, if you understand what I mean. Years have passed; Mr Sipperley now shaves daily and is in an important editorial position; but he can never forget that this bird once gave him six of the juiciest. Result: an inferiority complex. The only way to remove that complex, Jeeves, is to arrange that Mr Sipperley shall see this Waterbury in a thoroughly undignified position.

Jeeves doesn’t like the plan. He thinks they should do things in the opposite order – help Sippy pluck up the courage to propose to Gwendolen so that her acceptance gives him the boost and confidence to outface horrible old Waterbury.

But Bertie pushes on with his flour plan, popping round to the offices and perching the flour bomb on a partly ajar door when no-one is around. Then he goes for a walk round the block to let Waterbury get caught in the trap. But when he returns an hour or so later, there is no sign of a floured Waterbury but there is a Sippy wreathed in smiles because Jeeves has arranged everything.

Jeeves explains that he invited Sippy round to Bertie’s flat and, when his back was turned, whacked him with a golf club, then phoned Miss Moon and told her Sippy had had a bad accident. She immediately came rushing round and swooned at the sight of her beloved injured, tended him and he finally proposed and she joyfully said yes. Success!

How did he explain away the whacking? Well, he gave the excuse that Bertie’s vase fell on is head. This had the added virtue, for Jeeves, of smashing said vase.

All is well but Bertie realises he’s forgotten his hat so nips back into the offices, goes through the wrong door and triggers the pound-and-a-half of flour falling on his head.

So Jeeves fixes everything, gets rid of the detested vase, and Bertie gets roundly humiliated into the bargain.

Inferiority complex

‘The whole trouble being, Jeeves, that he has got one of those things that fellows do get⁠—it’s on the tip of my tongue.’
‘An inferiority complex, sir?’
‘Exactly. An inferiority complex. I have one myself with regard to my Aunt Agatha. You know me, Jeeves. You know that if it were a question of volunteers to man the lifeboat, I would spring to the task. If anyone said, ‘Don’t go down the coal-mine, daddy,’ it would have not the slightest effect on my resolution⁠—’
‘Undoubtedly, sir.’
‘And yet⁠—and this is where I want you to follow me very closely, Jeeves⁠—when I hear that my Aunt Agatha is out with her hatchet and moving in my direction, I run like a rabbit. Why? Because she gives me an inferiority complex.’

3. Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit (December 1927)

The hot water bottle fiasco.

Christmas is approaching and Lady Wickham invites Berties to her place, Skeldings, for the festive season. This disappoints Jeeves who thought they were going to Monte Carlo.

Aunt Agatha phones to warn him that his nemesis, the loony-doctor Sir Roderick Glossop, will be there too. Bertie confides in Jeeves that the reason he’s come is to get revenge on one Tuppy Glossop, the chap who humiliated him at the club by making him swing from hoops above the swimming pool for a bet, but tied the last one to the wall so Bertie was obliged to drop into the pool and swim back to the side.

Now Bobbie suggests a scheme for revenge involving a long stick, a darning needle, and a hot water bottle. Bertie tells Jeeves to get a long stick and tie a darning needle to the end of it. Then, as per Bobbie’s plan, he sneaks into Tuppy’s room in the dead of night, infiltrates the stick under the covers of the sleeping figure, locates the hot water bottle, and gently punctures it.

However, it’s at that moment that the bedroom door, which Bertie had carefully left ajar, is caught by a gust of wind and slams shut, waking the inhabitant of the bed like a shot. Bertie turns and runs but his dressing gown gets caught in the door and he is apprehended by the room’s inhabitant who… turns out to be Sir Roderick!! He and Tuppy have swapped rooms because Roderick doesn’t like sleeping on upper floors.

Sir Roderick drags Bertie back into the room where they both observe his hot water bottle leaking all over the bed, at which point Sir Roderick says he will sleep in Bertie’s bed and leaves our hero to decide not to try the now soaking wet bed, but instead fall asleep in the armchair… where, come the morning, he is awoken by Jeeves with a reviving cup of tea.

There then follows one of those comic double takes or double endings which I’ve mentioned, the kind where Jeeves first appals Bertie, before going on to give the deeper, reassuring, explanation.

In this case, Bertie is astounded to learn that it was Jeeves who betrayed him: Sir Roderick told Jeeves he was changing rooms but Jeeves didn’t pass on the message thus guaranteeing Bertie’s humiliation. BUT next second, Jeeves goes on to clarify that he did it to avoid Bertie falling into the clutches of Roderick’s daughter, Honoria Glossop. He had overheard Sir Roderick musing that Bertie might still make her a good wife.

Bertie makes the objection that Sir Roderick might, over time, come to realise the hot water bottle thing was just youthful hi-jinks, when Jeeves points out there was a second incident in the night, namely that someone crept into Bertie’s old bedroom, where Sir Roderick was sleeping, and punctured his hot water bottle using the stick and needle technique.

Dim Bertie thinks this is an extraordinary coincidence, two chaps having the same bright idea on the same night. Not really, Jeeves explains. For he overheard Bobbie Wickham giving Tuppy the idea, same as she gave Bertie the idea. In other words, she arranged for them both to sneak into each others’ rooms and puncture each others’ hot water bottles!

Bertie had been showing signs of softening to Bobbie. Now Jeeves’s revelation of her treachery makes him see her in a whole new light. Meanwhile Jeeves has seen Sir Roderick this morning who is gunning for Bertie. Jeeves thinks the best course of action would be to shin down the drainpipe and do a runner from the house to the nearest village where he can hire a car to take him back to London. Jeeves will pack up his stuff and bring it back in their motor car.

And, in order to escape Aunt Agatha’s wrath maybe get out of England altogether. Probably to Monte Carlo which is where Jeeves wanted to head all along.

‘I would not take the liberty of dictating your movements, sir, but as you already have accommodation engaged on the Blue Train for Monte Carlo for the day after to-morrow ‘
‘But you cancelled the booking?’
‘No, sir.’
‘I thought you had.’
‘No, sir.’
‘I told you to.’
‘Yes, sir. It was remiss of me, but the matter slipped my mind.’
‘Oh?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘All right, Jeeves. Monte Carlo ho, then.’
‘Very good, sir.’

A textbook example of how Jeeves always gets his way in the end.

4. Jeeves and the Song of Songs (September 1929)

Jeeves ends Tuppy Glossop’s inappropriate engagement to opera singer Cora Bellinger.

Bertie is in the bath when Tuppy Glossop calls round to announce he’s madly in love with an opera singer named Cora Bellinger. Tuppy’s called round for two reasons. 1) To invite Bertie to have lunch with him and Cora; 2) to ask him not to mention the practical joke where he bet Bertie he couldn’t swing from bars above a swimming pool which resulted in Bertie falling into said pool.

Bertie is reluctant as he is still mulling over some fierce revenge he can take for the swimming pool incident but instead finds himself hosting lunch for his enemy. When Cora arrives, Bertie is winningly rude about her:

I can’t say I exactly saw eye to eye with young Tuppy in his admiration for the Bellinger female. Delivered on the mat at one-twenty-five, she proved to be an upstanding light-heavyweight of some thirty summers, with a commanding eye and a square chin which I, personally, would have steered clear of. She seemed to me a good deal like what Cleopatra would have been after going in too freely for the starches and cereals.

Cora performs a few songs.

The Bellinger, at Tuppy’s request, had sung us a few songs before digging in at the trough, and nobody could have denied that her pipes were in great shape. Plaster was still falling from the ceiling.

After lunch Cora has to leave. Only then can Tuppy relax, have a drink and explain that, in her presence, he’s having to put on a serious and earnest facade. For example he’s given up drinking booze (in her presence).

He also explains what turns out to be the comic core of the story: that he’s planning to demonstrate what a serious type of chap he is by inviting her along to an East End Boys club run by a mutual pal of his and Bertie’s (‘Beefy Bingham who was at Oxford with us’) to show off his social conscience. More, Tuppy will impress her with his musical talent by singing ‘Sonny Boy’. (This is the 1928 song which had been a massive hit for Al Jolson the year before the story was published.)

Jeeves announces that Bertie’s Aunt Dahlia is on her way round and Tuppy disappears. She is a large impressive lady.

 Aunt Dahlia is one of those big, hearty women. She used to go in a lot for hunting, and she generally speaks as if she had just sighted a fox on a hillside half a mile away. ‘Bertie,’ she cried, in the manner of one encouraging a platoon of hounds to renewed efforts,

Everything is always very tightly plotted in a Wodehouse story, and Tuppy’s disappearance is directly linked to Aunt Dahlia. Turns out she has a daughter, Angela, who Tuppy left for Cora, which explains why he is in her bad books and why he ran off so quickly. Aunt Dahlia wants Tuppy to get back together with Angela and orders Bertie to get his man Jeeves on the case. She’ll call back tomorrow to find out their plan.

So Jeeves comes up with a cunning plan. He proposes that Bertie does a turn at this East End boys club and sings ‘Sonny Boy’ before Tuppy goes on, so that by the time Tuppy sings it, the audience will have heard it and it will make no impression. And then, if Tuppy goes down badly with the audience, Jeeves argues, Cora will cease to like him:

‘I think, therefore, that, should Miss Bellinger be a witness of Mr Glossop appearing to disadvantage in public, she would cease to entertain affection for him. In the event, for instance, of his failing to please the audience on Tuesday with his singing.’

Bertie is none too pleased at having to sing ‘Sonny Boy’ in public but he reluctantly agrees to go ahead if it means saving his old mucker Tuppy from an inappropriate liaison.

At the club Bertie points out that if Tuppy hears him sing ‘Sonny Boy’, he obviously won’t sing it himself. Jeeves reassures Bertie that Tuppy, on Jeeves’ advice, has gone for a drink to settle his nerves and won’t be back until it’s time to perform. He then suggests a similar stiffener for Bertie, who accordingly nips round to the local pub and has a couple of whisky and sodas, becoming a little inebriated.

Back at the venue, Bertie manages to get through the song, giving what he thinks is a good performance though puzzled at the audience’s lack of appreciation, at which Jeeves drops the bombshell that the previous two turns before Bertie had also sung ‘Sonny Boy’! No wonder the audience was restive.

Which explains why, when Tuppy takes the stage, ignorant of all his predecessors, he is only half way through the song when the audience revolts, first making boos and catcalls, and then starting to throw things, starting with a squishy banana, so Tuppy eventually gives up and beats a retreat.

It is now that the story follows the general shape of having the First Setback followed by the Ultimate Triumph. The setback is that it’s only after Tuppy runs offstage that we learn that Cora is running late and didn’t hear Tuppy sing – the whole ordeal has been for nothing. Disheartened, Bertie says he’s off to the club for a drink, while Jeeves says he’ll stay and watch the rest.

But then comes the Ultimate Triumph: later that night, back at his flat, Bertie is visited by Tuppy who is sporting an impressive black eye and announcing that he doesn’t think Cora is the girl for him, and perhaps someone with a sweeter temperament would be more suitable such as Bertie’s cousin Angela. He leaves and Jeeves arrives, to explain all.

It was Cora who gave Tuppy his black eye. This is because, when she arrived late and finally went on and performed, Jeeves asked her to sing ‘Sonny Boy’ as a favour to Tuppy. She was upset to be received with boos and raspberries, but furious to learn that several performers before her had sung the same song and drew the conclusion that she was the victim of an elaborate practical joke. Which is when she punched Tuppy in the eye. Which is why he’s rather gone off her.

As usual, complete triumph for Jeeves.

5. Jeeves and the Dog McIntosh (October 1929)

Bobbie Wickham gives Aunt Agatha’s dog to the American impresario Blumenfeld and Bertie has to get him back.

Bertie is looking after his Aunt Agatha’s West Highland terrier, McIntosh for five weeks. Aunt A returns and expects her dog back. In the meantime Roberta ‘Bobbie’ Wickham asks Bertie to give her lunch and specifically requests pudding, ice cream and chocolates. When she turns up she explains this is because a boy, a child, is coming to lunch. She goes on to explain that 1) her mother has dramatised one of her own novels 2) she (Bobbie) is in bad odour with her mother because she smashed up the car and a few other things and so 3) when she met an American theatrical impresario she thought she’d effect a reconciliation with her mother by 4) promoting the play to him; specifically, she has asked the impresario along to Bertie’s flat for a reading of the play. So she’s invited him along, and his son.

As she tells all this Bertie realises he knows the man: it’s Blumenfeld who he and we encountered in an earlier story, set in New York, ‘Jeeves and the Chump Cyril’ (1918). Bertie violently objected to Blumenfeld’s horrible son and now vows to avoid the lunch altogether. He bounds for his coat and legs it to the stairs. Unfortunately the taxi the Blumenfeld father and so is just pulling up and they spot him but he waves a cheery hello and legs it to his club.

Many hours later he returns to his flat, having phoned ahead to check the Americans have left. Jeeves reports that Miss Wickham was well pleased with the reading and, when he phones her, she confirms this, confirms that the boy was well stuffed with ice cream, his Dad liked the play, they’ve gone off to catch a movie and she’s to report to their suite at the Savoy at 5.30 to sign the contract.

Just one catch. During the lunch the little boy took a fancy to Aunt Agatha’s dog and so, er, she gave him (the dog) to him (the boy). Bertie reels at his end of the phone. He’s had a message that Aunt Agatha is arriving home from her trip abroad today. She’ll eviscerate him when she discovers her precious dog has been given away to an American brat.

Jeeves suggests a plan: if Miss Wickham has been invited to the Americans’ suite, if she arrives early and is let in, then she can open the door moments later to Bertie who can swipe the dog, and all before the Yanks get there from their movie. A quick call to Bobbie confirms this is the arrangement. Jeeves has one more suggestion: it is that Bertie douses his trouser bottoms in aniseed on the principle that dogs go mad for it. Slightly disbelieving, Bertie legs it to a chemist’s shop, buys and bottle, and whistles back, douses his trouser bottoms as instructed, then catches a cab to the Savoy.

Everything works like a dream: Bobbie opens the Americans’ room door to Bertie, the dog smells the aniseed and comes bounding out, snuffling his trousers, following him as he legs it downstairs, out into the street and into a cab home.

Barely is he home before Jeeves announces that Blumenfeld has rung up in a rage about Bertie kidnapping his goddam’ dog. There’s no time to leg it so Bertie hides behind the sofa as Blumenfeld storms in and rants and rages at an impassive Jeeves. Jeeves plays a blinder by persuading Blumenfeld that Bertie is eccentric, even dangerous – he is particularly triggered by fat men, such as Blumenfeld. That’s why he excused himself from the lunch and they saw him running off; he wasn’t sure if he’d be able to control himself.

Bertie hears all the vigour going out of Blumenfeld’s voice as he becomes hesitant and then scared. When Jeeves offers to wake Bertie who, he says, is taking his usual nap behind the sofa, Blumenfeld blinks and then says, No, just get him out of this madhouse alive! and Jeeves sees him off the premises.

But this isn’t all. There’s always the second comic climax. For Jeeves tells a startled Bertie that, before he left, Jeeves gave Blumenfeld the dog! But wasn’t that the whole point of the whole beastly exercise, to keep the wretched dog?!

Oh no, not that dog Jeeves explains. The one he bought in Bond Street earlier that afternoon and looks exactly like McIntosh. This way Blumenfeld’s boy gets a dog, Bobbie Wickham gets her mother’s play performed, and Aunt Agatha can be reunited with her precious mutt in just a few hours’ time.

Jeeves is a genius! Everyone is, as Bertie puts it, ‘on velvet’.

6. Jeeves and the Spot of Art (December 1929)

Over dinner, Bertie tells Aunt Dahlia that he will not, now, be able to take up her kind offer of accompanying her on a yachting cruise of the Mediterranean because he has fallen in love with Gwladys Pendlebury. She is an artist and has painted his portrait which he just this morning hung in his flat. Jeeves (of course) doesn’t like it. Anyway, Bertie daren’t leave her alone in London because he has a love rival, one Lucius Pim.

But Bertie gets home from this lunch to discover that Gwladys called round but left rather distressed because she had a car accident outside the apartment block, specifically she hit a pedestrian and fractured his tibia; more specifically still, it was none other than the dreaded rival, Lucius Pim.

And to his horror, Bertie discovers that the doctor they called advised that Pim be accommodated in Bertie’s flat, in his spare room, and be accorded full rest and recovery. Also: his sister (Mrs Slingsby) is arriving in London and she must on no account discover that it was Gwladys who ran him over. Bertie must agree with the cover story that he was hit by an unknown driver who drove on.

Knowing that the sister is going to pay a visit the following day, Bertie decides to make himself scarce and motors down to Brighton for the day. However, on his return he is horrified to learn that not only did Gwladys visit for four hours – suggesting she is doing that womanly thing of caring for a poor invalid – but Mrs Slingsby was made furious with Bertie when Lucius told her that it was Bertie who ran him over – and that he was a bit drunk at the time!!

Pim is offensively calm about it, agrees it is a cheek, admits his sister is furious with him (Bertie). Not only this, her husband is an American businessman who might be so angry about it, there’s a risk he might take Bertie to court. So Pim suggests Bertie sends her a nice big bouquet of roses and a card with apologies.

Bertie does this but next thing is that the husband appears, demands his way into the flat, and starts accusing Bertie – not of running over his wife’s brother, but of having an affair with his wife! He thinks the swags of roses Bertie sent her indicated romantic tendencies. At that moment Mrs Slingsby arrives at the flat and her appearance triggers Slingsby to charge out of his chair as if to assault Bertie except that…. he slips on the golf ball Bertie had been toying with before he arrived, flies in the air and lands painfully on his back.

This gives Bertie the opportunity of legging it out the room, grabbing his coat and hat, just time to tell Jeeves to meet him at Victoria with some packed bags because he’s going to nip over to Paris till the coast clear, leaving last instructions to Jeeves to do whatever it takes to calm Slingsby down.

Weeks later Bertie ventures to return and, arriving in London, discovers that it is plastered with his image on enormous posters for Slingsby’s Super Soups. Slingsby has only gone and done a commercial deal with Gwladys to use Bertie’s image from the portrait of him she did.

Jeeves explains that he did as instructed and set about mollifying Slingsby by suggesting he use the image from the portrait. Gwladys secured a good deal, brokered by Pim acting not only as her agent but in his new-found role as her fiancé.

Well 1) that puts Bertie right off Gwladys and 2) right off the portrait (which Jeeves always disliked) and 3) in order to escape London and the ridicule the use of his image exposes him to, Jeeves suggests no better resort than to accept Aunt Dahlia’s kind invitation to the yacht cruise. As he, Jeeves, had wanted all along. Game, set and match to Jeeves.

7. Jeeves and the Kid Clementina (January 1930)

Bertie tries a cunning way of returning an AWOL schoolgirl to her school.

Bertie travels to Bingley-on-Sea to take part in the annual golf tournament. One day he confesses he’s nervous because Bingley is where a friend of his dreaded Aunt Agatha – Miss Mapleton – runs a school for girls, St Monica’s.

The clothes complication: Jeeves doesn’t like the vivid plus-fours Bertie has chosen to play golf in. What are plus-fours?

One day Bertie’s knocked out of the competition early and has met Jeeves on the promenade when they both spot his ex-girlfriend Bobbie Wickham approaching. At the start of the story, Bertie had horrified Jeeves by announcing Bobbie had invited him to go and stay with a party of Bobbie’s in Antibes in the south of France.

Now she bounces up and announces that she’s down from London to visit her friend Clementina who’s at school nearby and to take her for dinner on her birthday. More precisely, to ask Bertie to take them both out for dinner. Bobbie will then jump into her own motor and tootle back to London, leaving Bertie to deliver Clem back to her school…

When they pitch up for dinner, Clementina turns out to be a well-behaved 13-year-old. All goes well till Bobbie jumps into her car and is about to shoot off when she casually reveals that Clementina didn’t have permission to leave school. She had been sent to her room early for putting sherbet in the inkwells.

Obviously Bertie can’t just roll up and hand her in at the front door as she will get into trouble and he will be the subject of a vitriolic letter to Aunt Agatha. So Bobbie outlines a cunning plan: get some string, break into the grounds, go to the greenhouse, gather some pots, attach string to pots, climb the nearby tree; when coast is clear pull string pulling pots down onto greenhouse with great shattering. Door opens as teachers sally out to discover what’s going on. Insert Clementina through open door, she makes her way to her room, Bertie legs it.

When he explains all this to Jeeves the latter is appalled but Bertie insists they proceed. In the event he’s only just climbed up the tree when he’s startled by the flashlamp of a policeman who tells him to climb down and explain himself. Oops.

Things are getting dicey when Jeeves magically appears and intervenes. He says he and Bertie were on a visit when they saw suspicious figures in the grounds. He, Jeeves, has knocked at the servants door and asked to see the headmistress, Miss Mapleton. (Later, he explains to Bertie that while the servant was getting her, Jeeves quietly let Clementina run in through the open back door and make her own way to her bedroom.) Then told the headmistress the fake story about alleged intruders, made Bertie out to be a hero who had gone looking for them.

Jeeves takes Bertie and the copper to meet Miss Mapleton who confirms all this is true, so the policeman is obliged, reluctantly, to acquiesce and let Bertie off. There is then the comic second climax, when they all hear the flower pot Bertie had precariously balanced, crash down into the glasshouse, as originally planned. But Miss Mapleton says this only confirms Jeeves’s story that there are intruders loose in the grounds and tells the policeman to go and do his job.

The clothes conclusion: having started the story insisting on keeping the plus-fours, Bertie ends it giving in to Jeeves. As always.

8. Jeeves and the Love That Purifies (November 1929)

Bertie gets involved in a competition between two boys as to which can be the best behaved.

It is August, the month when Jeeves gets a summer holiday and decamps off to Bognor ‘for the shrimping’.

Bertie is invited to go and stay at his Aunt Dahlia’s at Brinkley Court in Worcestershire. Here he discovers that the little terror Thomas Gregson, the son of Bertie’s Aunt Agatha, has been dumped on poor Dahlia while Agatha goes abroad. Now Dahlia has a son of her own about the same age as Thomas, Bonzo, and Bertie further discovers that another guest of his aunt’s is an old boy named Mr Anstruther, who is notoriously sensitive and given to nervous collapses. So when Anstruther realised the house contained two boisterous young boys he did a clever thing and invited them to take part in a competition as to who could be the best-behaved boy, winner getting £5! Not only this but, as Anstruther explains to Bertie, he has instituted a points system and assigns the boys points on a daily basis based on their behaviour.

But Aunt Dahlia quickly informs Bertie that this is just the start: for also staying at the house are Lord and Lady Jane Snettisham and they are gamblers and they have bet on which of the two boys will break first and behave badly. And Aunt Dahlia has joined the betting, betting her legendary cook, Anatole, against Jane Snettisham’s kitchen-maid!

Now, she tells Bertie, she suspects the Snettishams (‘the opposition’) will play dirty and place unwonted temptations in Bonzo’s way, so Bertie has to help her do the same to young Thomas. After a few failed attempts, Thomas is pulling ahead in the stakes. On one notable occasion Thomas walks 3 miles to the nearest station and 3 miles back again to fetch Bertie a copy of the Sporting Times. When he hears about this Anstruther gives Thomas bonus points.

So Aunt Dahlia insists Bertie contacts Jeeves and asks him to cut short his holiday in order to come and help. Jeeves suggests they invite young Sebastian Moon, young brother of Gwendolen Moon, to stay. He has such lovely blonde curls that any self-respecting thug like Thomas will find it impossible not to beat him up. But at first all goes badly; Thomas goes out of his way to be friendly to Sebastian and very conspicuously gives him a piggy-back when Sebastian has a painful nail in his shoe.

Then Jeeves makes the crucial breakthrough: he engages Thomas in casual conversation and discovers that the boy is besotted with the movie star Greta Garbo and, like many an idealistic adolescent, he wants to make himself worthy for her by doing good deeds. Leading Bertie to make the age-old lament:

‘The motion-pictures, Jeeves,’ I said, ‘are the curse of the age.’

This is the key which brings the story to a sudden climax because all Jeeves now has to do is tell irritating young Sebastian to insult Greta Garbo to Thomas’s face. A few hours later the boys are playing down in the stables when Jeeves and Bertie both hear a piercing scream. Round the corner comes Sebastian running, pursued by Thomas carrying a big stables bucket of water. The ‘insult Greta Garbo’ strategy has obviously worked a treat.

Anstruther had been dozing in a deckchair till the scream woke him up. He leaped to his feet just as Sebastian drew near him so that the boy dodged behind him and Thomas, egged on by the momentum of his run, let loose his big bucket of water which, of course, completely misses Sebastian but drenches old Anstruther.

Anstruther seizes a nearby stick and lashes out at Thomas who turns and flees, pursued by angry old man – Victory!

The Kiss (1929)

Greta Garbo in her last silent movie, The Kiss (1929)

9. Jeeves and the Old School Chum (February 1930)

Bingo Little’s marriage is imperilled when a friend of his wife’s, Laura Pyke, visits and enforces a health and vegetarian regime.

Bertie’s friend Bingo Little inherits a nice country house in Norfolk, about 30 miles from Norwich. Here Bertie has a jolly stay before being dragged off to Harrogate to accompany his Uncle George on one of his many rest cures.

After a week or so he manages to slip away but discovers the atmosphere at the Littles’ place much changed. Because Bertie’s old school friend, Laura Pyke, has come to stay and she is a health food fanatic. She immediately starts criticising everything Bingo eats, insisting they switch to pretty much vegetarian meals, and strongly disapproves of lunch.

Bertie goes so far as to imagine that it’s affecting the Little marriage, as the wife, Rosie, sees her husband being mocked on a daily basis. Bingo begs him to get Jeeves to help somehow. In the end the solution is this: they all go to the nearby Lakenham races in two cars – Bingo and Rosie in one, Bertie, Jeeves and Laura in the other. Beforehand Bingo had stood over the cook to make sure he packs a small feast of tasty sandwiches in the hamper.

However when they arrive at the races, disaster has struck: someone forgot to pack the bally hamper! Laura is jubilant, saying that no-one needs a big lunch anyway and Rosie, as she has taken to doing, agrees with everything Laura says.

Luckily Bertie had instructed Jeeves to pack a few more sandwiches for himself and the three men make excuses about seeing bookies in order to sneak off behind a hedge and share out Jeeves’s sandwiches. It is here that Jeeves drops the bombshell that it was he who omitted packing the hamper. So many of the stories follow this shape – Jeeves does something which appears inexplicably awful to Bertie, until he explains its deeper significance. Now Jeeves explains that his aim was to force the ladies to go hungry and put their money where their mouth is. Bertie is sceptical because, as he explain to Jeeves, the modern woman is happy enough to skip lunch but adamant about having tea and buttered toast.

The races end and, as Bingo wants to stay on a little, Rosie asks Bertie to drive her and Laura home. Just as they’ve got to the complete back of beyond the car stutters and rolls to a halt. There’s some comic business as the two women (Rosie and Laura) send Bertie to an isolated house they see half a mile away to get some petrol but when he bangs on the door it is opened by an infuriated man who has only just managed to get his baby off to sleep, and who refuses to give petrol.

After some more business they see a light approaching along the now dark road and Bertie runs toward it to flag it down and discovers it is Bingo and Jeeves. Bingo jumps out, tells Jeeves to wait five minutes, and walks up the road with Bertie. This is so they can secretly listen to Rosie and Pyke who, lacking their afternoon tea, have begun to bicker and argue. Their argument grows in intensity till Laura insults Rosie’s latest book!

After five minutes Jeeves drives up and Laura, furious with Rosie, demands that Jeeves drives her home.

Rosie is thrilled that Bingo has arrived to rescue her but a little cross with him for not filling the car up. Bingo insists he did and says the real fault is some car mechanic stuff (which he’s clearly made up on the spot in order to blind her with manly car know-how:

‘What’s wrong is probably that the sprockets aren’t running true with the differential gear. It happens that way sometimes. I’ll fix it in a second.’

Meanwhile he also assuages her longing for ‘tea’ by taking Rosie to the nearby house – despite Bertie’s warnings that the inhabitant is a beast – and intimidating the man into giving Rosie tea, impressing Rosie, restoring her faith in her husband which is the point of the entire exercise.

She turned for an instant to Bingo, and there was a look in her eyes that one of those damsels in distress might have given the knight as he shot his cuffs and turned away from the dead dragon. It was a look of adoration, of almost reverent respect. Just the sort of look, in fact, that a husband likes to see.

While she is inside, Bertie and Bingo refuel the car with the petrol tin they brought with them so they can retrieve Rosie after she’s refreshed by tea and all toddle home. It had been Jeeves’s idea to almost empty the tank, ensuring the ladies broke down in the middle of nowhere confident that, having had no lunch and now being deprived of tea, they would have a big fight. And then arranged for Bingo to turn up like a knight in shining armour and play the hero to his wife. Well done, Jeeves!

‘He’s a marvel.’
‘A wonder.’
‘A wizard.’
‘A stout fellow,’

10. Indian Summer of an Uncle (March 1930)

Aunt Agatha tasks Bertie with breaking up the relationship between his Uncle George and a young waitress.

Fat Uncle George, whose full title is Lord Yaxley, falls in love with a waitress named Miss Rhoda Platt and is threatening to marry her. Jeeves knows all about it, of course, and that the girl is a waitress who lives in East Dulwich. Aunt Agatha storms in and orders Bertie to go to East Dulwich straightaway and offer the girl £100 to cancel the engagement. Bertie drives down to the girl’s place, Wistaria Lodge, and encounters her stout, imposing aunt, who tells him Rhoda is in bed with the flu. There’s some comic business when she at first takes Bertie to be a doctor and asks him to examine his knee. Once that’s sorted out, Bertie loses his nerve and can’t bring himself to raise the subject with the aunt or offer her the money.

He returns to his flat where Aunt Agatha is waiting and she is furious at his failure. At this point he calls in Jeeves who, of course, fixes things. Jeeves suggests they invite Uncle George for lunch to meet the girl’s stout aunt: once he sees her and learns that she will move in if he marries the girl, it will put him off the match. Aunt Agatha ridicules this suggestion and insists that Bertie continues with the money option but, once she’s left, Bertie tells Jeeves to arrange the lunch.

When Bertie asks how Jeeves knows about Rhoda, Jeeves replies that a friend of his, another valet, named Smethurst (valet to a Colonel Mainwaring-Smith), wants to marry this Rhoda and had an ‘understanding’ with her, until she met Uncle George. Now she is torn between love for Smethurst, a man of her own station in life, and the opportunity of marrying a man with a title.

Next morning Bertie awakes with a sense of impending doom. At lunchtime Rhoda’s aunt, Mrs Wilberforce, arrives. In casual chat she stuns Bertie by telling him how she used to work as a barmaid at the Criterion. Now the thing is, as backstory earlier on, Bertie had told Jeeves (and the reader) that Uncle George had done this kind of thing – falling for a member of the lower classes – once before, years ago – with a barmaid at the Criterion, and had only just been talked out of it by the family. Could this be the self-same barmaid? Well, this is a comic story so the answer is, of course, Yes!

Panic-stricken, Bertie tells Jeeves to call Uncle George and cancel lunch but it’s too late because he arrives at just that moment, enters the drawing room and is astonished and delighted to encounter his beloved of all those years ago, immediately using their old pet names:

‘Piggy?’
‘Maudie!’

Bertie doesn’t hang around to see any more but legs it off to his club, the Drones Club. Here he gets a call from Aunt Agatha who, to his surprise, sounds happy. She explains this is because Uncle George has told her he’s called off the plan to marry Miss Rhoda and instead is going to marry a Mrs Wilberforce, a woman closer to his own age. The comic point is that Aunt Agatha mistakenly believes Mrs Wilberforce belongs to an aristocratic family.

‘I wonder which Wilberforces that would be. There are two main branches of the family — the
Essex Wilberforces and the Cumberland Wilberforces. I believe there is also a cadet branch somewhere in Shropshire.’

Bertie dare not point out her mistake, returns to his flat and confronts Jeeves. Surely this is a disaster! But Jeeves smoothly puts him right. He explains that 1) Smethurst asked him to break up Rhoda and Uncle George and that 2) Mrs Wilberforce might actually be a good match for Uncle George: he keeps going off the rails because he is an unsupervised bachelor. Even during lunch she was commenting on his overweight and recommending a healthier regime. She might be a blessing in disguise.

As to Aunt Agatha who will, no doubt, be furious, maybe a little trip abroad?

11. The Ordeal of Young Tuppy (April 1930)

Every year aristocratic households live in fear of who Bertie will go and stay with for Christmas. This year it’s Sir Reginald Witherspoon, Bart, of Bleaching Court, Upper Bleaching, Hampshire. A consideration is that Tuppy Glossop will be there and Bertie is still brooding his revenge after the swimming pool humiliation.

But plans are interrupted by the arrival of Aunt Agatha with news that Tuppy appears to be reneging on his engagement to Angela, Aunt Dahlia’s daughter, in favour of some ‘dog girl’ he’s met at this place Bleaching Court. Dahlia tells Bertie to tell Jeeves to sort it out.

So Bertie and Wooster motor down there, coming across Tuppy mooning over the girl en route. Once arrived and unpacking, Tuppy bounces in to explain the meaning of the telegram he sent Bertie. In it he asks him to bring 1) his football boots and 2) an Irish water-spaniel spaniel. The dog was designed to impress the girl and her parents (Bertie didn’t bring one). The football boots (which Bertie did bring) are to enable Tuppy to take part in the annual village football match between Upper Bleaching and Hockley-cum-Meston.

Jeeves tells Bertie that this football match is no mere sporting event but a primitive affair of great violence between two villages who hate each other. Bertie visits both villages and is horrified at the bloodthirsty language being bandied about. But when he warns Tuppy, the latter rejects it all, saying this is his big opportunity to impress the lovely Miss Dalgleish.

Wodehouse describes the match, which is in fact a form of barbarian rugby, with brilliant comic verve. Before the match Bertie had concocted a scheme whereby Jeeves would send a telegram purporting to come from Aunt Dahlia and telling Tuppy to return to London because Angela is ill and calling for him – but when he goes to deliver it to Tuppy, he realises he’s left it in the pocket of his other coat!00 It doesn’t matter, though, because, with a kind of comic inevitability, once his blood is up, Tuppy turns out to be a ferocious player, takes revenge on a red-haired player who’s been persecuting him and even scores a try!

Bertie gets back to his room at Bleaching Court and confides to Jeeves that he thinks the case is lost: he failed to deliver the telegram and Tuppy was the star of the game. However, at that moment Tuppy enters, still covered in mud, but a broken man. He explains that the lovely Miss Dalgleish wasn’t there and so didn’t see his heroic play! Apparently someone rang her from London claiming to have an Irish water-spaniel they wanted to sell her so she scorned the chance of seeing Tuppy risk his life for her and motored off to the capital, only to discover it was the wrong kind of spaniel after all.

He is gutted – disappointed in Miss Dalgliesh, what kind of life partner would she make! – and disillusioned with women as a sex.

Bertie mentions Angela but Tuppy crossly remembers the argument about her hat they had which led to them breaking up. it is now, at the perfect psychological moment, that Bertie retrieves the telegram he and Jeeves faked and hands it to Tuppy. When he reads that Angela in her delirium is calling his name, Tuppy melts, tells Bertie what a wonderful woman she is, asks to borrow his car so he can motor off to her bedside hot foot. And so he exits.

Just as Jeeves re-enters with the drink he ordered. By this stage even dim Bertie realises that it must have been Jeeves who made the mystery phone call to Miss Dalgliesh inviting her to London to see the phantom Irish water-spaniel, and Jeeves admits as much. But what will happen when Tuppy arrives in London and finds Angela very much not ill in bed and feverishly calling Tuppy’s name? Jeeves has phoned Aunt Dahlia and told her to manage the situation.

And thus concludes the eleventh and final short story in the collection.

Cast

  • Bertie Wooster
  • Jeeves
  • Aunt Agatha aka Mrs Gregson – ‘on the occasions when my Aunt Agatha is perturbed strong men dive down drain-pipes to get out of her way’ – rudely referred to as ‘the Family Curse’
  • Spenser Gregson – Aunt Agatha’s (first) husband, big on the Stock Exchange, ‘recently cleaned up to an amazing extent in Sumatra Rubber’
  • Cousin Thomas – Agatha’s mischievous son
    • Purvis – their butler
  • Mr A.B. Filmer – cabinet minister, president of the Anti-Tobacco League, in Bertie’s view a ‘superfatted bore’, character in ‘Jeeves and the Impending Doom’
  • Bingo Little – old pal of Bertie’s from school, always getting into trouble
  • Rosie M. Banks – married to Bingo, celebrated authoress of romantic tripe
  • Oliver ‘Sippy’ Sipperly – old pal of Bertie’s, currently ‘editor of a weekly paper devoted to the interests of the lighter Society’
  • Waterbury – Sippy’s old headmaster – ‘a large, important-looking bird with penetrating eyes, a Roman nose, and high cheekbones. Authoritative’
  • Miss Gwendolen Moon – authoress of ‘Autumn Leaves,’ ‘ ’Twas on an English June,’ and other works, beloved of Sippy
  • Sir Roderick Glossop – nerve specialist aka the ‘loony doctor’
  • Tuppy Glossop – nephew of Sr Roderick, who played the wicked trick on Bertie at a swimming pool, who he conspired to humiliate by bursting his hot water bottle in ‘Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit’ but who he helps dump an unsuitable opera singer girlfriend, Cora Bellingham, in ‘Jeeves and the Song of Songs’
  • Cora Bellingham – large opera singer who dumps Tuppy
  • Miss Roberta ‘Bobbie’ Wickham – red-haired girl who Bertie fancies until she is revealed as a prankster in ‘Jeeves and the Yule-tide Spirit’
  • Blumenfeld – the American theatrical impresario in ‘Jeeves and the Dog McIntosh’ – ‘A large, round, fat, overflowing bird, who might quite easily, if stirred, fall on a fellow and flatten him to the carpet’
  • Blumenfeld fils – brattish son
  • Gwladys Pendlebury – artist who Bertie thinks he’s in love with in ‘Jeeves and the Spot of Art’
  • Lucius Pim – artist and rival for the affections of Gwladys Pendlebury
  • Mrs Slingsby – Pim’s sister, who blames Bertie for running Lucius over
  • Mr Slingsby – her husband, a pushy American who threatens to assault Bertie
  • Miss Mapleton – Aunt Agatha’s friend who runs a girls’ school in Bingley
  • Clementina – Bobbie’s 13-year-old cousin who attends St. Monica’s school for girls
  • Lady Wickham
  • Anstruther – an old friend of Aunt Dahlia’s late father, prone to nervous collapses
  • Lord ‘Jack’ Snettisham
  • Lady Jane Snettisham
  • Bonzo Travers – son of Aunt Dahlia
  • Mrs Wilberforce – the waitress Rhoda’s aunt, who turns out to be the waitress Uncle George fell in love with a generation earlier, in ‘Indian Summer of an Uncle’

Bertie’s character

As Aunt Agatha puts it, addressing Bertie:

‘Mr Filmer is a serious-minded man of high character and purpose, and you are just the type of vapid and frivolous wastrel against which he is most likely to be prejudiced.’

And again:

‘I have always known that you were an imbecile, Bertie,’ said the flesh-and-blood, now down at about three degrees Fahrenheit, ‘but I did suppose that you had some proper feeling, some pride, some respect for your position.’

And:

‘Bertie,’ said Aunt Dahlia, with a sort of frozen calm, ‘You are the Abysmal Chump… It’s simply because I am fond of you and have influence with the Lunacy Commissioners that you weren’t put in a padded cell years ago…’

As Bertie himself puts it.

Those who know Bertram Wooster best are aware that in his journey through life he is impeded and generally snootered by about as scaly a collection of aunts as was ever assembled.

I explained as much to the fair cargo and received in return a ‘Tchah!’ from the Pyke that nearly lifted the top of my head off. What with having a covey of female relations who have regarded me from childhood as about ten degrees short of a half-wit, I have become rather a connoisseur of ‘Tchahs,’ and the Pyke’s seemed to me well up in Class A, possessing much of the timbre and brio of my Aunt Agatha’s.

And:

Every year, starting about the middle of November, there is a good deal of anxiety and apprehension among owners of the better-class of country-house throughout England as to who will get Bertram Wooster’s patronage for the Christmas holidays. It may be one or it may be another. As my Aunt Dahlia says, you never know where the blow will fall.

All compared with Jeeves’s omniscience:

‘There are very few things in this world, Aunt Agatha,’ I said gravely, ‘that Jeeves doesn’t know all about.’

Slang

The last time I had seen old Sippy, you must remember, he had had all the appearance of a man who didn’t know it was loaded.

He looked as if he had been taking as much as will cover a sixpence every morning before breakfast for years.

The fixture was scratched owing to events occurring which convinced the old boy that I was off my napper.

It seemed to me that things were beginning to look pretty scaly.

He [Jeeves] has a nasty way of conveying the impression that he looks on Bertram Wooster as a sort of idiot child who, but for him, would conk in the first chukka.

How any doom or disaster could lurk behind the simple pronging of a spot of dinner together, I failed to see.

‘Take it from me, Aunt Agatha, I’ve studied human nature and I don’t believe there’s a female in the world who could sec Uncle George fairly often in those waistcoats he wears without feeling that it was due to her better self to give him the gate.’

An unseen hand without tootled on the bell, and I braced myself to play the host. The binge was on.

I slid away. The last I saw of them, Uncle George was down beside her on the Chesterfield, buzzing hard.

It was — what’s the word I want? — it was plausible, of course, but still I shook the onion.

‘Bertie,’ said Aunt Dahlia — and I could see her generous nature was stirred to its depths — ‘one more crack like that out of you, and I shall forget that I am an aunt and hand you one.’
I became soothing. I gave her the old oil.

‘We must put a bit of a jerk in it and save young Tuppy in spite of himself.’

I thought ‘tuning out’ was a modern idiom, maybe dating from the 1960s. Apparently not. In ‘Indian Summer of an Uncle’, Jeeves embarks on a long explanation and Bertie comments:

I saw that this was going to take some time. I tuned out.

Bertie’s cheerful philistinism

As Shakespeare says, if you’re going to do a thing you might just as well pop right at it and get it over.

‘You want time to think, eh?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Take it, Jeeves, take it. You may feel brainier after a night’s sleep. What is it Shakespeare calls sleep, Jeeves?’
‘Tired Nature’s sweet restorer, sir.’
‘Exactly. Well, there you are, then.’

‘Remember what the poet Shakespeare said, Jeeves.’
‘What was that, sir?’
‘”Exit hurriedly, pursued by a bear.” You’ll find it in one of his plays. I remember drawing a picture of it on the side of the page, when I was at school.’

‘Yes, sir. Smethurst — his name is Smethurst — would consider it a consummation devoutly to be
wished.’
‘Rather well put, that, Jeeves. Your own?’
‘No, sir. The Swan of Avon, sir.’

Actually, reading them in chronological order, it feels like there are more and more literary references in the stories, played for laughs of course, but increasingly evident. For example ‘Indian Summer of an Uncle’ contains several references to Shakespeare, and to Robert Burns and Tennyson, and others are liberally scattered about:

JEEVES: ‘An invalid undoubtedly exercises a powerful appeal to the motherliness which exists in every woman’s heart, sir. Invalids seem to stir their deepest feelings. The poet Scott has put the matter neatly in the lines — ‘Oh, Woman in our hours of case uncertain, coy, and hard to please… When pain and anguish rack the brow.’
I held up a hand.
‘At some other time, Jeeves,’ I said, ‘I shall be delighted to hear you your piece, but just now I am
not in the mood.’

Memorable moments

‘Are wives often like that? Welcoming criticism of the lord and master, I mean?’
‘They are generally open to suggestions from the outside public with regard to the improvement of their husbands, sir.’
‘That is why married men are wan, what?’
‘Yes, sir.’

I heard Aunt Agatha rumble like a volcano just before it starts to set about the neighbours, but I did not wilt.

The stupid narrator

Literary critics and writers themselves have long known about the so-called ‘unreliable narrator’, who tells the story but you slowly realise is giving you a biased account. There’s a moment in ‘Indian Summer of an Uncle’ when Bertie is being more than usually obtuse, when the reader has realised the family he’s visiting has mistaken him for a doctor but it takes Bertie five minutes longer than the reader to realise this, while all the time he describes himself as being sharp and alert and quick to spot things.. A bit belatedly (like Bertie himself) I realised that, in Bertie Wooster, we are dealing with the stupid narrator, a narrator whose dimness has been laid on for our comic amusement.

And at the same moment I realised there’s a family resemblance with Captain Hastings whose obtuseness is exaggerated in order to promote the suave cleverness of Hercule Poirot in Agatha Christie’s detective novels.

(There’s actually a real world connection here, because the lovely character actor, Jonathan Cecil, played Captain Hastings to Peter Ustinov’s Hercule Poirot in three Agatha Christie TV adaptations in the 1980s, and he also recorded audiobooks of a number of the Jeeves books. According to Wikipedia ‘He might have been more strongly identified with narration of the series than any other actor.’ He was eminently qualified to do so, having himself attended Eton and New College Oxford.)

P.G. Wodehouse and Sherlock Holmes

It’s amazing how large the shadow of Sherlock Holmes loomed, for generations after his invention. I’ve pointed out in my Agatha Christie reviews that almost every single one of her detective novels features at least one reference to the master detective; and that the relationship between dim Captain Hastings and super-smart Hercule Poirot echoes or is built on the template of slow Dr Watson and the omniscient Holmes. Well, same here. I’m hardly the first to point out that the relationship between incredibly dim Bertie Wooster and super-smart Jeeves is based on the same basic structure.

Wodehouse nowhere mentions Holmes by name but this thought was triggered by the way each of these stories is actually very like one of Holmes’s cases, with a knotty problem set out at the beginning, Bertie following a number of false leads, only for Jeeves to dazzlingly solve it in the end.

And this notion of ‘cases’ is made explicit in ‘The Ordeal of Young Tuppy’:

‘You remember the trouble we had when he ran after that singing-woman.’
I recollected the case. You will find it elsewhere in the archives.

This use of ‘case’, and also the reference to ‘the archives’, are very reminiscent of the way Dr Watson refers to his files of Holmes cases.

Alas, the times

BERTIE: ‘Twice during dinner tonight the Pyke said things about young Bingo’s intestinal canal which I shouldn’t have thought would have been possible in mixed company even in this lax post-War era.’

BERTIE: ‘You tell me that Sebastian Moon, a stripling of such tender years that he can go about the place with long curls without causing mob violence, is in love with Clara Bow?”
JEEVES: ‘And has been for some little time, he gave me to understand, sir.’
BERTIE: ‘Jeeves, this Younger Generation is hot stuff.’
JEEVES: ‘Yes, sir.’

BERTIE: ‘What do you think about it yourself?’
RHODA’S AUNT: ‘Oh, it doesn’t matter what I think. There’s no doing anything with girls these days, is there?’
BERTIE: ‘Not much.’
RHODA’S AUNT: ‘What I often say is, I wonder what girls are coming to. Still, there it is.’
BERTIE: ‘Absolutely.’

And mocking contemporary fiction. There are a surprising number of writers in the Jeeves stories, although somehow disguised by the poshboy banter. Bingo Little has married an author of ladies romances such as Mervyn Keene, Clubman, and Only A Factory Girl, leading Bertie to ponder:

I shouldn’t wonder if right from the start Mrs. Bingo hasn’t had a sort of sneaking regret that Bingo isn’t one of those strong, curt, Empire-building kind of Englishmen she puts into her books, with sad, unfathomable eyes, lean, sensitive hands, and riding-boots. You see what I mean?’
‘Precisely, sir.’

Freud

If you’ve read my Agatha Christie reviews, you’ll know I’m interested in the spread of references to Freud or Freudian ideas in popular fiction of the 1920s. There are several references scattered among the Jeeves short stories, not least because one of the recurring characters, Sir Roderick Glossop, is a nerve specialist or psychiatrist. Here’s another one, from ‘Jeeves and the Old School Chum’ published in 1930, made humorous by the stock contrast between Jeeves’s intellectual fluency and Bertie’s dimness.

‘Precisely, sir. You imply that Miss Pyke’s criticisms will have been instrumental in moving the
hitherto unformulated dissatisfaction from the subconscious to the conscious mind.’
‘Once again, Jeeves?’ I said, trying to grab it as it came off the bat, but missing it by several yards.
He repeated the dose.
‘Well, I daresay you’re right,’ I said.


Related links

Related reviews

P.S. Plans

I won’t draw a plan, because my experience is that, when you’re reading one of those detective stories and come to the bit where the author draws a plan of the Manor, showing room where body was found, stairs leading to passageway, and all the rest of it, one just skips. I’ll simply explain in a few brief words.

Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES @ the Hayward Gallery

‘We love the 21st century. It’s our best century so far!’
Gilbert & George

The Morecambe and Wise of modern art are back with a blockbuster show of brand new works at the Hayward Gallery on London’s South Bank.

It’s not a retrospective (that would cover their entire career) but it includes 60 or so works from the past 25 years i.e. the entire twenty-first century so far, hence the exhibition title.

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery showing the enormous works in the first gallery (photo by the author)

The works are enormous, filling entire massive gallery walls. They are done in the style the terrible twins perfected what seems like aeons ago, vast digitally generated images divided by black borders into frames, mocking the format of medieval stained glass windows, complete with our heroes in a variety of stylised poses, against backgrounds filled with the bric-a-brac of street life where they live (Brick Lane, in the East End of London) all done in lurid dayglo colours.

HETERODOXY by Gilbert & George (2005) © Gilbert & George. Courtesy of Gilbert & George and White Cube

The blurb says the show demonstrates how the dynamic duo have deployed ‘modern technology’ in their practice and what this means is that the works are not only enormous but the outlines of the random objects which form the backgrounds are rendered with digital precision and in even more strikingly vivid colours than before. Everything feels more precise and controlled.

Hackneyed themes

The wall labels announce half a dozen themes, confidently telling us that G&G tackle big taboo subjects such as Sex, Money, Race and Religion. But hang on. Those are hardly ‘taboo’ subjects, surely the exact opposite – these have been the favourite subjects of ‘radical’ artists since at least the 1960s. They are the clichés of modern art.

Also, these works don’t really tackle anything at all. In the biggest gallery are 4 monstrously large works showing our heroes’ stylised red faces against what seem to be floral patterns and a number of postal frank marks, but each one dominated by a text box bearing the key words SEX, MONEY, RACE, RELIGION.

Installation view of Gilbert & George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES showing the enormous SEX MONEY RACE pictures (2016) (photo by Mark Blower) Courtesy of the Gilbert & George and the Hayward Gallery

But hang on – just writing big words on an art work doesn’t make the art work about that subject. I could title this review BREXIT – it wouldn’t make the review about Brexit, though, would it? Similarly, just writing words on works of art doesn’t mean the work addresses, analyses, investigates (or any of the other art curator buzz words) the topic mentioned.

In fact, in a funny way, it does the opposite. What’s always fascinated me about putting text into art words is the clash between two completely different modes of discourse – language and words with their denotations and connotations, which trigger instant meanings and associations in our minds – with images, colours and patterns, which trigger completely different neural networks, associations and meanings. Often these juxtapositions can be jarring and triggering. And yet here, the plastering of these great big abstract nouns into entirely irrelevant images has the opposite effect: is oddly neutralising, stripping them of meaning, bringing out how exhausted and empties of meaning these words have become.

Sex

As to sex, many of the works feature what (looking it up online) I discover are called tart cards, the kind of business cards you used to get in old telephone boxes offering sexual services of prostitutes, escort girls, rent boys and so on. These flourished in the 1980s and 1990s in phone boxes all across London but… who uses phone boxes nowadays? I spoke to one of the visitor attendants at the show and she didn’t know what a phone box is. She’d certainly never used one.

A couple of the works deploy the word HOMO across them, one dwelling on HOMO RIOT, a phrase repeated 40 times in smaller billboards lining the central image. Um, so what?

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery showing the text HOMO RIOT against an old-fashioned phone box and letterbox (photo by the author)

Another one is made up entirely of mocked-up Evening Standard hoardings with headlines announcing this or that figure was outed as gay or denied being gay. What came across to me was how old all this was. One of the outed figures was Simon Hughes, remember him, the Liberal MP, from decades ago who I assumed was gay in the 1980s.

I suppose all this might be a gesture towards queer politics but the real message here is the medium – evening newspaper hoardings, as shown in the image below, which shows works collecting quite a few newspaper hoardings relating to bomb outrages? Fair enough but who reads evening papers any more? Are there any evening papers in London any more? Surely everyone gets their news on their phones? These images felt lovingly curated and wonderfully nostalgic.

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery showing images using old-style newspaper hoardings (photo by the author)

Race

I recently went to the massive Kerry James Marshall exhibition at the Royal Academy which emphatically demonstrated a career spent putting Black people at the centre of the picture, at reworking themes and styles from across Western art and history, to put Black people, Black faces and Black bodies front and centre of every work.

Thus sensitised to the presence or absence of Black figures I was struck, dazzled and flabbergasted that there are no Black people anywhere in these 60 or so massive works about contemporary London. The dynamic duo live and work near Brick Lane, famous for its Asian community (and fabulous curry houses) and yet out of the 60 works I saw only one which depicted a couple of Asian youths.

SEX MONEY RACE RELIGION by Gilbert & George (2016) © Gilbert & George. Courtesy of Gilbert & George, Fondation Louis Vuitton, Paris and White Cube

Why this conspicuous omission? I’m not attributing any sinister motive, just saying that the absence of multiple ethnicities seemed gobsmacking in an exhibition of contemporary art about London.

Religion

When the wall labels explain that the pair mock and subvert RELIGION they are, of course, talking about one religion, the one it’s always been safe to mock and subvert, Christianity, in particular the feeble, bien-pensant Church of England. Hence ‘scandalous’ works with titles like ‘God loves fucking!’ with its even more ‘scandalous’ footnote, ‘Was Jesus heterosexual?’

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery showing ‘scandalous’ and ‘blasphemous’ stuff about Christianity, yawn (photo by the author)

This hangs in the room devoted religion which houses half a dozen even vaster works than the Sex-Money-Race-Religion and on these works are written schoolboy slogans and public toilet-level graffiti.

  • Ruffle the Religious
  • Shag a Sacristan
  • Prick Tease a Waitress
  • Crosses Are Crass
  • Spit in the Font
  • Crap in a Crypt
  • Dump on Dogma

These are sort of funny because they’re funny, and then funny all over again because they’re so crude and crass. The curators assure us this is a subversive undermining of religious bigotry or something, but it feels more like naughty 4th formers titillating each other with rude words.

And what about the other religions, the non-Christian ones? Do they take the piss out of Judaism? No. There are a few menorahs scattered among the bric-a-brac which litters the works but they don’t want to risk accusations of bigotry themselves. Similarly, there are two (I think) slogans which appear to mock Islam but which I am too cautious to reproduce here. And they live in a heavily Muslim area of London. What’s the Cockney expression, ‘Don’t shit on your own doorstep’? Wise advice.

In other words, Gilbert and George’s mockery of the Christian Establishment – like the so-called discussions of Race and Sex – seem charmingly old-fashioned, dated and risk-free – postcards from another, simpler time. They feel as if they hark back to the confrontational days of the 1980s and Mrs Thatcher’s racist, homophobic regime when this kind of sloganeering would have caused a genuine scandal. Now this kind of thing (‘God loves fucking!’ lol) causes barely a ripple, certainly won’t be splashed all over the tabloids with outraged calls for the show to be closed down, as would have happened back in the glory days of political art. The ideology of calling out, naming and shaming and cancelling, has moved on to other issues, ones they are careful to avoid.

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery, one of the few works to show non-Christian religious symbolism (photo by the author)

Money

I couldn’t see anything about money as such, but then how do you visualise the staggering rise in inequality which has come to blight British society over the past 40 or so years? There were two works which appear to feature (white) tramps and down-and-outs. Not the most biting analysis of the impact of neoliberal economics.

In fact the most pertinent thing about standing in an art gallery talking about money is the way most contemporary art has been monetised, how art itself has become one more asset class to be bought up by international players such as Russian oligarchs, oil-rich Arabs, national wealth funds, bought for tens of millions and promptly stashed in Swiss bank vaults.

In fact one of the main reason for going to art exhibitions is to see works which are usually squirreled away in private collections or Swiss bank vaults given a rare public outing – as will no doubt be the eventual fate of most of the ‘subversive’ works on display here.

Installation view of Gilbert & George 21ST CENTURY PICTURES. Photo by Mark Blower. Courtesy of the Gilbert & George and the Hayward Gallery

Nostalgia

No, despite the use of the latest digital technology etc, this felt like a deeply nostalgic art, art from and about a bygone era. The 1980s was forty long years ago and much, much has changed since then. But the iconography and the mindsets and the ‘targets’ of Gilbert and George’s art have not changed at all. SEX, MONEY, RACE, RELIGION, good grief, what hackneyed old themes!

The whole things took me back to the 1980s of red phone boxes smelling of pee and festooned with tart cards, with Evening Standard sellers outside every Tube station shouting out the headline of the evening.

Something else which took me back the olden days was that alongside the images of red phone boxes were massive images of pillar boxes, the red metal columns in which you used to post letters. Sweet. My kids don’t post letters. Everything is done by text and email, TikTok and Instagram.

Installation view of Gilbert and George: 21ST CENTURY PICTURES at the Hayward Gallery showing a work featuring an old-style phone box and letter box (photo by the author)

In much the same way the huge SEX, MONEY, RACE, RELIGION works in the big room, which I show above, are covered with postmarks, indicating the regional location of the post office which stamped it. I’ve no idea but, like the rest of the show, it felt quaint, sweet, from another age.

Tourist images

In fact the more I looked the more I felt that images like these – old-style red phone boxes, old-style red pillar boxes, the old-style red London buses depicted in a few of them – these could all come from tourists brochures and ads for Swinging London, certainly from tourist ads created in the 1980s and ’90s. Britpop. Oasis. New Labour. Some of the details may be unnerving if you bother to look up close, but the overall impression is of a slightly delirious and arty patriotism.

METALEPSY by Gilbert & George (2008) © Gilbert & George. Courtesy White Cube

London

So I didn’t buy the idea that any of these images were ‘about’ anything. They’re certainly useless as ‘investigations’ of Sex-Money-Race-Religion, what a ridiculous idea.

If they’re about anything, what they’re about is London, and above all the bric-a-brac, the detritus found in London streets. So there are several works made up entirely of images of street signs from East London. There’s a recurring motif of small metal lockets bearing images stamped into the metal such as you sometimes find lost in the street. One had a couple of bracelets arranged in patterns roughly approximating human form, a kind of proxy for the two ageing subversives. There are old champagne corks and the wire frames they come with, such as you sometimes see lying around.

FUNKY by Gilbert & George (2020) © Gilbert & George

There are several featuring (for some reason) huge glow-ups of date stones and, in one notable work, a bunch of large slugs. Take these along with the series featuring dayglo swatches of leaves, or the couple depicting what look like tramps, the ones depicting newspapers hoardings, knackered-looking phone boxes, graffiti-covered pillar boxes… and you realise they’re not really about the ostensible themes or topics: what they’re really all about is London.

The show is a kind of glorying in the junk and detritus you find or see stumbling around London’s filthy, polluted streets. But transmogrified, transformed, elevated and turned into brilliantly coloured and luridly outlined talismans and icons, immediately recognisable and strangely warming, in these overwhelming, larger-than-life images.

Summary

So Gilbert and George present us with 60 enormous, bold, bright and brassy works, presenting the detritus of the capital’s gutter in an astonishingly hi-res digital finish. The attempts to ‘tackle contemporary subjects’ side of them are – in my view – laughably inadequate, nostalgic gestures back to the confrontational politics of the 1980s and 90s, but that’s part of the fun, too.

The works are maybe best seen as updated versions of medieval stained glass windows, replacing the saints and symbols of medieval Christianity with avatars of the dynamic duo themselves adrift amongst the endless junk of the city, street-worn detritus and out-of-date old attitudes alike preserved in digital aspic for future generations to puzzle over.


Related links

Related reviews

Leonard Woolf: A Life by Victoria Glendinning (2006)

Leonard and Virginia were agreed that his chief fault was cowardice, and hers was snobbery.
(page 151)

‘If it were not for the divine goodness of L. how many times I should be thinking of death.’
(Virginia Woolf diary 28 May 1931, quoted p.291)

Having read most of Virginia Woolf’s adult work, why read a biography of her husband, Leonard, and not her?

1) Because I’d had enough of Virginia: the essays finished me off, my cup overflowed with Woolf style, snobbery and delirium. 2) I’d learned most of the important facts about her life from the short biographies and notes in each of her novels, and the essays. 3) These notes sometimes referred to books by Leonard, notably a book he wrote called Quack! Quack! mocking the 1930s dictators, Mussolini and Hitler, which intrigued me. He wrote two novels, over 15 books of political science, was a committed socialist, literary editor, publisher, and wrote six volumes of autobiography. Does anyone ever read these? No.

So 4) Leonard is the underdog. The critical industry around Woolf is now mountainous – as Glendinning puts it, ‘There is a small mountain of books and articles on the life and work of Virginia Woolf’ (p.502) – and will only increase year by year. She is a patron saint of feminist writing, as iconic as fellow feminist saints Frida Kahlo and Sylvia Plath. There are lots of biographies of her, hundreds of books and tens of thousands of critical essays about her writing. But what about the mystery man who loved and supported her throughout the years of her great achievements, who tried to manage her recurring bouts of mental illness, who co-founded and ran their famous Hogarth Press? Let’s find out.

Jewish

Woolf was Jewish. He came from a large and extensive Jewish family. I enjoyed Glendinning’s handy summary of the history of the Jews in England, their slow liberation from various legal and customary restrictions during the nineteenth century, and then the transformation in the size of the Jewish population and in attitudes towards them triggered by the mass immigration of Jews from Russia in the 1880s and ’90s.

This more than quadrupled the size of the Jewish community in England and, because so many of them were very poor, from peasant communities, and often settled in the slummiest parts of the East End, it was this mass influx which gave rise to the casual antisemitism you find (distressingly) in so many Edwardian and Georgian writers (Saki and D.H. Lawrence spring to mind. The fact that Virginia includes antisemitic comments in some of her novels, and was regularly casually antisemitic in her letters and diaries – ‘I do not like the Jewish voice, I do not like the Jewish laugh,’ (p.189) – requires a separate explanation).

Father

Woolf was born in London in 1880, the third of ten children of Solomon Rees Sidney Woolf (known as Sidney Woolf), a barrister and Queen’s Counsel, and his wife Marie, maiden name de Jongh). Both parents were Jewish, and from extended families. This is why Glendinning needed four pages to depict the full, extended family trees of both parents. At various points, family members are quoted jokingly referring to it as ‘the Woolf pack’. From time to time grown-up Leonard, feeling sorry for himself, referred to himself as ‘a lone Woolf’.

The family lived at 101 Lexham Gardens off the Earl’s Court Road. The household was:

an example of a typical, well-to-do Victorian way of life, underpinned by an unquestioned social hierarchy and set of values. (p.13)

As a young man Leonard was conscious of ‘the snugness and smugness, snobbery, its complacent exploitation of economic, sexual and racial classes’ (quoted p.15).

We are told all kinds of things about Sidney Woolf but the single most important fact is that he died in his prime, in 1892, aged 47 (p.23). He had earned a lot as a lawyer and that income ended overnight. Now relatively impoverished his widow, Marie, was fortunate enough to have a legacy to live off. She hung on at Lexham Gardens for two years then moved the family to a smaller house further out of town – 9 Colinette Road, off the Upper Richmond Road in Putney.

School

After prep school, Leonard was sent to the prestigious St Paul’s School in west London. Lots of anecdotes, prizes and whatnot, but the important thing is that it was as a slight, shy, Jewish teenager that he developed what he called his ‘carapace’, the protective shell he was to deploy for the rest of his life.

Trinity College, Cambridge

In 1899 he won a classical scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge. Glendinning vividly paints how he encountered a small group of fellow undergraduates who became soul mates, including the flamboyant Lytton Strachey and the hulking great Thoby Stephen, nicknamed The Goth, son of the biographer Sir Lesley Stephen and brother of the sisters, Vanessa and Virginia Stephen, the second of which Leonard was, of course to marry. But Strachey was the man. Before he’d arrived at Cambridge Strachey was a fully-formed individual with outrageous views and a particular way of speaking which influenced all his friends. Leonard became closer to Lytton Strachey than anyone else in the world, calling him ‘the most charming and witty of human beings since Voltaire’ (p.189).

I tend to think of E.M. Forster as being an old man, but he was actually a year younger than Leonard and they got to know each other at Cambridge.

Leonard was elected to the elite discussion society called The Cambridge Apostles and it is fascinating to learn the rules of this elite club and the kind of topics they discussed. When I was a sixth-former I read A.J. Ayer, learned about Logical Positivism, and went on to read Wittgenstein, all of which convinced me that talk of Beauty and Love and Truth and God is enjoyable, entertaining but ultimately meaningless.

More precisely, they may have a psychological importance and impact on the people who discuss, write and read about such topics, but they don’t really relate to anything in the real world. They derive from a misunderstanding of language. Because we talk about a good meal, a good person and a good day, it’s easy to be deluded into thinking there must be something they have in common. Plato started the ball rolling by writing dialogues in which Socrates and his followers endless debate the True Nature of The Good. Two and a half thousand years later, clever undergraduates at Cambridge were doing just the same.

I follow Wittgenstein in believing there can be no answer to these kinds of questions because they are non-questions based on a misapplication of language. Viewed from a correct understanding of language i.e. that language consists of a vast number of language games – then any given use of language may or may not be appropriate to the vast number of language games people continually play, invent and evolve and self-important Oxbridge discussions of these great big concepts simply take their place among myriads of other linguistic interactions.

Anyway, all this was to come. For the time being these clever young men thought Truth and Beauty were excellent subjects to write long papers about and present at gatherings of like-minded chaps who all considered themselves part of a literally self-selecting intellectual elite, the Apostles. Members of the Apostles included Leonard, Strachey, E. M. Forster and a year or so later, John Maynard Keynes. Thoby Stephen (his future wife’s brother) was friendly with the Apostles, though not a member himself. What comes over from Glendinning’s comprehensive accounts of these meetings and discussions is how absolutely irrelevant everything they discussed is to us today. Here are the dates of Leonard and significant contemporaries:

  • E.M. Forster b. 1879
  • Lytton Strachey b.1880
  • Thoby Stephen b.1880
  • Leonard Woolf b. 1880
  • Clive Bell b.1881
  • John Maynard Keynes b.1883

G.E. Moore

All of them were deeply in thrall to the moral philosopher George Edward (G. E.) Moore (1873 to 1958), himself an older member of the Apostles. They were still undergraduates when Moore published his influential book, Principia Ethica, in 1903, which was concerned with that age-old problem, What is the good? Moore decides that ‘the good’ is ultimately unknowable, so that:

By far the most valuable thing, which we can know or can imagine, are certain states of consciousness, which may roughly be described as the pleasures of human intercourse and the enjoyment of beautiful objects.’ (p.63)

1. The pleasures of human intercourse and 2. the enjoyment of beautiful objects. Friends, lovers and art. Or, as Wikipedia summarises it:

that the summum bonum lies in achieving a high quality of humanity, in experiencing delectable states of mind, and in intensifying experience by contemplating great works of art,

Moore’s conclusions led his book to be treated as a kind of Bible by the network of friends which came to be known as the Bloomsbury Group, validating their belief that human relationships are what count most: Love and Beauty. Sounds like Keats, doesn’t it, from almost a century earlier? Glendinning quotes John Maynard Keynes’s extravagant response to Moore’s theory: ‘It seemed the opening of a new heaven on a new earth’ (p.64).

The thing to understand is that the younger generation experienced this as a tremendous liberation from the oppressive burden of Victorian beliefs in duty and honour and nation and empire and queen and country and all the rest of it. For believers like Leonard the book stripped away centuries of oppressive religious beliefs, shedding the calm light of common sense on the agonising questions of how to live and what to believe.

‘Isn’t that the supreme, the only thing – to be loved.’ (Strachey, quote p.98)

But there were plenty of critics who mocked these earnest young believers. Glendinning quotes Beatrice Webb’s shrewish view that the book had little or no value and simply gave the young generation who worshipped it ‘a metaphysical justification for doing what you like’ (p.65).

Glendinning herself criticises the Principia because:

  1. Its unquestioning definition of The Beautiful was heavily Victorian and becoming out of date as the new aesthetics of the 20th century kicked in
  2. Moore’s idea of the good life was very passive and quiescent i.e. simply ignored the active life of politicians, engineers, administrators, people who did things. It was a privileged academic’s conclusion that the best possible way of life was… to be a privileged academic.
  3. No sex please, we’re British: Moore’s ‘asexual mind-set seemed to preclude the “intrinsic value” of any “state of consciousness” elicited by anything more urgent than affection’ (p.63). In other words, Moore’s was a very pallid, underpowered, sexless view of human emotions.

Choice of career and the Civil Service exam

Woolf was awarded his BA in 1902 but stayed on at Cambridge for another year to study for the Civil Service examinations which he took in the summer of 1904. He got a low pass, 69th in the list, and was offered a job as an imperial administrator in Ceylon. First he went the round saying goodbye to his uni friends and this included dinner at the Stephens new house. Sir Leslie Stephen had recently died (February 1904) and his children had moved out of the gloomy family house in Hyde Park Gate to a roomier lighter one in Bloomsbury. Visiting his friend Thoby (the Goth), meant meeting the two beautiful sisters, Vanessa and Virginia. Glendinning points out that the latter was still recovering from the nervous breakdown triggered by her father’s death, one of what was to become a string of breakdowns and mental health problems. During this breakdown she had made the first of several suicide attempts (p.129).

Ceylon

Woolf was in Ceylon for 7 long years, 1904 to 1911. Glendinning makes the point that he met hundreds of native Sinhalese and Tamils but never became friendly with one of them. He liked Ceylon, some of the scenery was breath-taking. He wrote that the jungle:

‘is a cruel and dangerous place, and, being a cowardly person, I was always afraid of it. Yet I could not keep away from it.’ (quoted p.109)

, but he became an increasingly conflicted imperialist. As he was slowly, systematically promoted, he found himself adjudicating law cases and arguments and realised the only thing to do was be as strict and impartial as possible. At the same time he came to hate the impact many imperial laws and restrictions had on the natives.

Glendinning gives a vivid and fascinating account of all this, based on the twin sources of the official diary he kept of his duties, along with the many letters he exchanged with his friends back in England, Thoby, a friend called Saxon but above all Lytton Strachey.

He lost his virginity to a Singhalese woman and seems to have had occasional sexual encounters, but didn’t keep a native mistress as many other young male imperial administrators did.

The conversation of whores is more amusing than the conversation of bores.

The correspondence with Lytton back in England, in Cambridge, is extraordinarily candid about sex. Lytton deploys what he himself calls ‘the dialect of their intimacy’ (p.146). Lytton was a promiscuous homosexual who needed to be falling in love with new young men all the time. Glendinning quotes liberally from his letters which depict not just his sex life, but the sex lives of those in their set or circle, including Duncan Grant, Clive Bell and Keynes. For example, where he explains that he is having an affair with Duncan Grant, who is also sleeping with Keynes. Lytton and the others delighted in using the word ‘copulate’, in a self-mocking tone.

‘I copulated with him [Duncan] again this afternoon, and at the present moment he is in Cambridge copulating with Keynes.’ (p.115)

As always, it’s the promiscuity of gay men which staggers me, compared with the, as far as I can tell, complete chastity of their female contemporaries, specifically Virginia and Vanessa.

A note that Leonard’s sister, Bella, came out to Ceylon in 1907. She married a colonial administrator, Robert Heath Lock, Assistant Director of the Peradeniya Botanical Gardens, near Kandy in 1910. She wrote children’s books and the first tourist guide to Ceylon. She was one of many voices advising Leonard to get married. She merits a Wikipedia page of her own.

The Longest Journey

While Leonard was in Ceylon, his friend E.M. Forster published an autobiographical novel, The Longest Journey which describes the coming-to-maturity of young Frederick ‘Rickie’ Elliott, including lengthy descriptions of his time as an undergraduate at Cambridge. Critics think the character of Stewart Ansell, the clever student which Rickie’s and their circle look up to, is at least partly based on Woolf. Certainly the flashy pseudo-philosophical conversations at Cambridge which the novel opens with, are based on The Apostles. Woolf and Strachey both hated it.

Back from Ceylon

After seven years service Leonard was given an extended leave to return to England. Glendinning quotes many of the colleagues and managers in the Colonial Service who advised him to get married. it’s interesting to read the opinions of quite a few contemporaries all advising that marriage is the best thing or only thing which a young man can do to acquire focus and purpose in his life. ‘Marriage was the only way forward’ (p.120).

We know from their letters and diaries that it was Lytton who first proposed to Virginia, in a panic that she might accept (p.114). You have to have followed the text quite closely to understand why this flamboyant queer would even consider such a mad move in the first place. She sensibly turned him down.

Virginia’s character As the focus of the story turns towards Virginia Stephen, Glendinning gives a useful profile and description of her (pages 128 to 130). The bit that stood out for me was the notion that her mother was aloof and distant, so that the girl Virginia hardly ever had time with her alone.

In adolescence and beyond, she became emotionally attached to older women. (p.128)

Aha, I thought – this sheds light on the warmth and fondness for mother figures and older women which you find in her fiction – Betty Flanders, Clarissa Dalloway, Mrs Ramsay, Lucy Swithin.

Virginia’s physicians We learn about the wonderfully named Dr Savage, the physician treating her mental illness, and that he had treated her father for depression, and one of her cousins, who ended up committing suicide. Also, we learn that her sister, Vanessa, was also prey to anxiety and depression. She had her own ‘nerve doctor’, Dr Maurice Craig of 87 Harley Street. So was it genetic?

Brunswick Square The Stephens children moved again, to 38 Brunswick Square, and invited several friends to move in and take rooms. Among these was Leonard who moved in on 20 November 1911. Their wooing was slow and painful.

The Aspasia Papers Constant company led Leonard to fell deeper and deeper in love with the beautiful, mercurial, charismatic Virginia, who he came to nickname Aspasia. This was the name of the wife of Pericles (495 to 429 BC), leader of Athens during its so-called Golden Age. He wrote descriptions of her and these expanded to become sketches of the entire social circle or set, all under pen-names, eventually called the Aspasia Papers. The whole gang he joking referred to as The Olympians.

Leonard proposes to Virginia On 10 January 1912 he proposed to her. This upset her so much she took to her bed. But over the following weeks he maintained his suit and the great day came on Wednesday 29 May when she acknowledged the loved him. They told the gang who reacted in different ways. Rupert Brooke claimed it was Leonard’s sexual know-how that got her. He described her eyes lighting up when Leonard described having sex with prostitutes in Ceylon. Put simply, he was the only man she knew who wasn’t gay and had had sex. With a woman!

He was 31, she was 30, both getting on a bit.

Quits the Colonial Service The Colonial Office required him to end his leave and return to Ceylon by May at the latest but Leonard realised he couldn’t go back, and after some surprising shows of flexibility by Whitehall, he eventually resigned his position. Now what was he going to do? He was writing a novel and had written some short stories, but hadn’t made any money from them.

Wedding They were married on Saturday 10 August 1912 at St Pancras Registry Office, a very small low-key affair. As Glendinning puts it:

Leonard and Virginia were agreed that his chief fault was cowardice, and hers was snobbery.
(p.151)

And both faults lay behind his failure to invite his mother to the wedding. Not being invited to the most important day of a son for whom she had made such sacrifices as a single mother deeply hurt her.

Sex

Glendinning (like all their friends) moves onto the subject of sex. Virginia seems to have got to the ripe old age of 30 without every experiencing sexual feelings. This is what you’d deduce from her novels and essays which have a kind of hallucinatory sexlessness. So she didn’t have a clue and he wasn’t savvy enough to be a teacher. He’d only slept with a few Singhalese prostitutes and prostitutes are 1) experienced and 2) compliant. Apparently when Leonard went to make his move, Virginia became increasingly anxious and over-excited in the way which preceded her breakdowns so he had to desist. Permanently.

Glendinning cites a letter exchange of 1933 with Ethel Smyth the feminist composer, where they talk about a news story that young women are having operations to break their hymens ahead of getting married, and joke about going to have the operation themselves. Woolf was 51 and apparently serious. Glendinning concludes from this and plenty of other evidence that Leonard and Virginia never had penetrative sex, so the marriage was never consummated in the normal way. Within a year they took to sleeping in separate rooms and never again slept together.

Events

Breakdown and suicide attempt After the marriage Virginia’s anxiety, nerves and depression grew worse. She became extremely anxious about the likely reception of her first novel, ‘The Voyage Out’. They went to the country hotel to celebrate the first anniversary of their honeymoon but it was a disaster. Virginia had high anxieties about food and refused to eat. Back in Brunswick Square, unattended for a few hours, she took an overdose of veronal (100 grains of veronal) sleeping pills. Prompt action by Keynes’s brother, Geoffrey who was staying in the house, and a stomach pump, saved her life but this necessitated a round of carers, nurses, consultations with the three physicians now treating her.

The Village in the Jungle In the middle of all this Leonard’s first novel, The Village in the Jungle, was published to good reviews. It’s set in Ceylon but not among the white ex-pat and colonial community, instead it entirely habits the minds of poor Singhalese villagers. And it’s written in what, for the times, was very plain factual English, what Glendinning calls ‘spare and unmannered’. Woolf’s old boss, Sir Hugh Clifford, wrote that:

‘Your book is the best study of Oriental peasant life that has ever been written, or that I have ever read.’ (p.168)

It’s available online and I’ve read and reviewed it for this blog.

Virginia Woolf was five feet ten inches tall. She had a ‘cut glass accent’ (p.299).

The Women’s Co-operative Guild The misery with Virginia lasted for months. Throughout this period Leonard became involved with the Women’s Co-Operative Guild, led by its young and energetic president, Margaret Llewelyn Davies. He went to meetings and the annual conference and write articles to promote their work.

He was by this stage writing lots of articles and reviews for a variety of journals, including the New Statesman.

Exempted from war service When the war came the army was at first fuelled with volunteers. The Military Service Act of 1916 widened the age of conscription to all men aged between 16 and 41. Leonard was 35 but underweight and anxious, with a permanent tremor in his hands. In the next three years he underwent three medical examinations but each time presented a letter from his doctor exempting him, predicting that if he were conscripted he would have a physical and mental breakdown within months.

The Fabian Society As well as the Women’s Co-Operative, Leonard had been collared by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, leading lights of the Fabian Society, who were always recruiting likely young chaps for their cause. Sympathetic to gradualist socialism based on facts and figures, Leonard was commissioned to research and write various reports. Thus in 1916 was published the result of extensive researches, his International Government. The book’s central proposal was for an international agency to enforce world peace, and he went on to join a number of the organisations lobbying for a League of Nations to be set up, becoming friendly with the genial H.G. Wells in the process.

Labour Party Leonard joined the Labour Party and helped research and write policy papers. Women’s Co-Operative, League of Nations charities, Fabians and Labour, he wrote research papers, pamphlets and books for all of them. His next book was the thoroughly researched Empire and Commerce in Africa.

1917 Club As a left-winger Leonard welcomed the Russian Revolution. As promptly as December 1917 he helped set up the 1917 Club in Soho as a discussion forum.

The Hogarth Press In 1917 the couple bought an old printing press for £19 and set it up on the dining room table of Hogarth House in Richmond and taught themselves how to use it, to print pages and stitch them together into books. Their first publication was Two Stories, one by Leonard, one by Virginia. Hers was The Mark On The Wall, a free-associating flight of fancy. It was her first published story. His old friend Lytton Strachey immediately saw it was a work of genius. But as Virginia’s confidence grew, Leonard’s shrank. He had published two novels but began to lose faith. He was happier writing factual books.

Mark Gertler, Lady Morrell, Katherine Mansfield They make friends with Mark Gertler, self-obsessed Jewish painter and lover of Dora Carrington. At Garsington Manor, home of Lady Ottoline Morell, they meet the New Zealand short story writer Katherine Mansfield and her husband, the editor John Middleton Murray. They agreed to published Mansfield’s 68-page story The Prelude on their press

Leonard produced another book, Co-operation and the Future of Industry and agreed to edit a journal called International Review. The publishing sensation of 1918 was his old friend, Lytton Strachey’s debunking work of biography, Eminent Victorians.

In the war one of Leonard’s brothers, Cecil, was killed and one, Philip, badly wounded.

Recap When the war ended Glendinning summarises that Woolf had established himself as a documentary journalist and political propagandist, an experienced public speaker and author of distinguished books, as well as a seasoned book reviewer, and publisher in his own right. He was a behind-the-scenes figure in the growing Labour Party and was offered a seat to contest as an MP but, after some hesitation, turned it down.

James Joyce In April 1918 Harriet Weaver, patron of The Egoist magazine, approached them with the unfinished manuscript of James Joyce’s Ulysses but they had to turn it down. Far too big for their expertise, it was rejected on the grounds of obscenity by the two commercial printers they approached. Obscenity was Virginia’s central objection to Joyce, see her essay Mr Bennett and Mrs Brown (1923). She couldn’t get past her snobbish aversion to his references to peeing, pooing and the male anatomy. (The book’s central character, Leopold Bloom, has a bath and idly watches his willy floating in the water.) In her own fictions, almost all references to the body, let alone sex (God forbid) are rigorously excluded, which helps to give them their strange, bloodless, ethereal character.

Woolf’s problematic reaction to Joyce (admiration, envy, rivalry, disgust at his physicality) are explored in two excellent essays by James Heffernan:

T.S. Eliot Conversation with Weaver turned to her other protegé, T.S. Eliot, who they invited to tea to discuss whether he had anything to publish. As a result they published seven of his poems in a small edition of 140 in November 1919. Initially stiff and inhibited, Eliot became friends with Virginia who referred to him, unpretentiously, as Tom. He, like Leonard, was to become carer to a mad wife. He was six years younger than Virginia (born 1888 to Virginia’s 1882). (Later Glendinning wryly notes that ‘Eliot continued to consult Leonard as an expert on mad wives,’ p.265. Ten years later they could have both helped Scott Fitzgerald with Zelda.)

Monk House In 1919 they were meant to go down to Cornwall to join the ménage which had been set up by D.H. Lawrence, his wife Frieda, Middleton Murray and Mansfield – but never did. They had been used to a place in the country named Asheham House but it was sold by the owner. They looked around and settled on Monks House in the village of Rodmell in Sussex. They paid £580 plus £120 for the freehold. This is now a National Trust property. When they moved in it had no running water, electricity or toilet facilities. These two highbrows put up with conditions which would nowadays as unfit for human habitation. Leonard became addicted to working in the garden and had to be dragged away to take Virginia for constitutional walks.

Back in London they bought a bigger press and began to consider the Hogarth Press as a commercial venture. They published Virginia’s story, Kew Gardens. It was 1919 the year of the Paris Peace Conference and Leonard nearly went. They printed Leonard’s Three Tales from the East with a cover by Dora Carrington, to very positive reviews.

Friends’ success Lytton had become a famous name with his Eminent Victorians and Keynes became famous for writing a scathing indictment of the peace terms imposed on Germany in The Economic Consequences of the Peace (December 1919). But although much of Leonard’s research for International Government was used by the British government or other organisations at the Conference, he got little recognition.

Empire and Commerce in Africa: A Study in Economic Imperialism (1920) a scathing indictment of British imperial policy in Africa. He was writing for the New Statesman and wrote leading articles on foreign affairs for the Nation. He was secretary to the Labour Party Committee on International and Imperial Questions. He was in the loop.

The Memoir Club Molly McCarthy set up the Memoir Club to bring together old pals from Cambridge to read works in progress. A propos of this you realise that Leonard, the man, was the objective authoritative and grounded one; Virginia, the woman, was flighty, solipsistic, experimental (p.237).

Gorki and the Russians In 1919 Maxim Gorky sent a friend of theirs, Kotelianski, a manuscript of his life of Trotsky, which he brought to the Woolfs. Thus began a series of careful translations of contemporary Russian literature by the Hogarth Press.

Teeth out In June 1921 Virginia had another nervous collapse. It is mind-boggling to read that some experts thought that having your teeth extracted was a cure from mental illness. On this occasion she had three pulled out. By the end of her life she’d had all her teeth pulled out by these experts.

Jacob’s Room In November 1921 she finished writing Jacob’s Room but with the end of any book came a rush of doubt, anxiety and sometimes collapse. She had come to rely on Leonard entirely, and he had evolved to know his place was by her side and supporting. At the time of the peace conference he had been asked to travel abroad, the Webbs asked him to visit Bolshevik Russia and report back, but he turned all offers down in order to remain by Virginia’s side. This makes him a hero, doesn’t it?

Passage To India Leonard played a key role in helping Morgan Foster complete his most important novel, A Passage To India, when Forster had severe doubts and thought of abandoning it (p.242). Passage was published in 1926 and made Forster famous and financially secure. Leonard was the grey eminence behind it.

Stands for Parliament Leonard stood as a Labour candidate for Liverpool in the 1922 General Election but, thanks to his lacklustre speeches about international affairs and against imperialism, came bottom of the poll. It was a relief.

Literary editor

‘I expect you have heard that, having failed as a) a civil servant b) a novelist c) an editor d) a publicist, I have now sunk to the last rung… literary journalism. I am now Literary Editor of The Nation and Athenaeum.’ (letter to Lytton Strachey, 4 May 1923)

The salary, £500 a year, gave the couple some financial stability and coincided with the start of ‘the most prolific and successful period of Virginia’s writing life’ (p.248). She had published Jacob’s Room and started the long process of writing Mrs Dalloway and was, in addition, writing important essays and reviews.

Leonard’s literary positions Wikipedia gives a handy list of Leonard’s editorial positions:

  • 1919 – editor of the International Review
  • 1920 to 1922 edited the international section of the Contemporary Review from 1920 to 1922
  • 1923 to 1930 – literary editor of The Nation and Athenaeum (generally referred to simply as The Nation)
  • 1931 to 1959 – joint founder and editor of The Political Quarterly from 1931 to 1959

The Waste Land It’s a bit mind-boggling to learn that the Hogarth Press published The Waste Land and the type was set in the household larder. ‘Tom’ was pleased with the typescript and layout. In the same year he established a literary magazine of his own, the Criterion and he and Leonard now were friendly and conspiring literary editors, swapping reviewers and ideas. Tom became a regular visitor to their house, mostly alone, in fact maybe a bit too often as his marriage with the mentally unstable Vivian sank into misery.

Glendinning very entertainingly punctuates the key events of Leonard’s life with a roundup of what all the other Bloomsburies were doing, which is mainly having hetero or bisexual affairs with each other. A little grenade was thrown into the mix when Keynes announced he was not only in love with, but going to marry a dancer from the Ballets Russes, Lydia Lopokova (p.249).

52 Tavistock Square Virginia felt out of it in Richmond and wanted to socialise more. So they sold Hogarth House (for £1,350) and rented 52 Tavistock Square for £140 a year.

Vita Sackville-West At this time Virginia met and became friends with socialite and author Vita Sackville-West. She was married to diplomat Harold Nicholson but they led separate lives, he with a string of boyfriends, she having affairs with women and, eventually, with Virginia. They became ‘tentative’ lovers for about three years. But sex was alien to Virginia’s nature and Vita was a passionate collector of conquests.

Labour As well as working full time as literary editor of the Nation, he continued to be secretary to Labour’s Advisory Committee on International and Imperial Questions. He drafted the foreign policy section of Labour’s 1929 manifesto. Throughout the 1920s he campaigned for India and Ceylon to be given independence. If they had, he later wrote, the murder and mayhem of the independence struggle and the catastrophe of partition would never have happened.

Freud The Hogarth Press embarked on publishing the complete works of Freud being translated by James and Alix Strachey. This project carried on into the 1960s, long after Leonard had parted company with Hogarth, and they’re the edition I own, as republished by Penguin. Despite this, Leonard grew more anti-analysis as he grew older. I’ve reviewed quite a few of Freud’s works:

Vita It became a love affair in December 1925. They took trouble to conceal the full depth of it from Leonard.

Car In August 1927 he bought a car. He drove Virginia all round the country. They drove to the south of France. He wrote that nothing changed his life as much as owning a car.

Mrs Dalloway was published by the Hogarth Press on 14 May 1925. The Common Reader, a volume of 21 short literary essays, was published the same year, and the following year was the first one in which Virginia’s income exceeded Leonard’s. In 1927 her masterpiece To The Lighthouse was published. In 1928 she earned £1,540 to his £394.

Nicknames Virginia never called him Len, she called him Leo. From the start of the marriage they had numerous nicknames for each other but the enduring ones were the Mongoose and the Mandrill. Before she married, Virginia’s nickname in the Stephen household was ‘the Goat’.

They went to Berlin to visit Harold Nicholson, it was a long draining visit with many late nights, and on her return she had a relapse and was in bed for three weeks. Glendinning quotes her as saying she really wanted ‘the maternal protection which… is what I have always wished from everyone’. Suddenly, reading that, I saw how Woolf was a child, endlessly seeking reassurance. And it made me see her novels as essentially childlike, a sexless, jobless, workless, child’s-eye view of life.

Orlando: A Biography was published on 11 October 1928 and sold well, securing their finances. A year later, in October 1929, A Room of One’s Own was also successful.

Richard Kennedy, 24, was the latest young graduate taken on to help out at the Hogarth Press. He describes how Leonard was:

the magician who keeps us all going by his strength of will… and Mrs W is a beautiful, magical doll, very precious but sometimes rather uncontrollable.’

He describes how, when she was lifting off into one of her manic spells, Leonard would gently tap her on the shoulder and she would stop talking, and quietly follow him, go to her bedroom where he talked quietly, read to her and calmed her down. Leonard had to warn new people what they could not say to Virginia to avoid a problem/getting her over-excited. I hadn’t realised she was this on the edge, all the time.

Ethel Smyth During 1930 Virginia gets to know the deaf, feminist composer Ethel Smyth and they become regular, and sometimes bawdy, correspondents. Smyth was 72, Virginia 48. Here’s Smyth’s most famous work, The March of The Women. Very worthy, but heavily Victorian and boring.

New Fabian research Bureau Leonard is appointed to its executive committee in 1931.

Kingsley Martin, an earnest young nonconformist, is appointed editor of the New Statesman which he would remain for 30 years. Leonard became joint editor of the Political Quarterly which he remained for the next 27 years.

The Hogarth Press published 31 books or pamphlets in 1930, 34 in 1931.

John Lehmann just down from Trinity Cambridge, was hired to work on the Press. He lasted two years. While here he published New Signatures, the selection which introduced the poets of the Auden generation. He introduced the Woolfs to Christopher Isherwood. They published Laurens van der Post’s first book. The more I read about the Hogarth press, the more impressive it becomes.

Glendinning cites eye witness accounts from Lehmann, Barbara Bagenal and Harold Nicholson of how Virginia needed Leonard to calm her when she got over-excited or had a fugue, a loss of awareness of where she was or what she was doing (p.294).

There are plenty of eye witnesses testifying to how happy Leonard and Virginia were at Monks House, how relaxed with each other and a civilised routine. Visitors heard Virginia endlessly talking to herself, in the bath, as she pottered round the big garden, and along country lanes, so that the locals came to think of her as bonkers. The servant Louie Everest came to recognise when Virginia was having one of her bad headaches because she pottered round the garden, bumping into trees.

1932

21 January: Lytton Strachey died of cancer. Leonard wrote a sensitive obituary. He had been Leonard’s best friend in their youth. His death confirmed Leonard was middle aged.

11 March, Lytton’s partner, the painter Dora Carrington, shot herself.

Mains water is brought to Monks House and they get a telephone, Lewes 832. Virginia buys new beds from Heals.

1 October Oswald Mosley founded the British Union of Fascists. Marches, rallies and violence in the East End. The Woolfs were connected to all this because up till this point Virginia’s lover, Vita Sackville West’s husband, Harold Nicholson, had been secretary to Mosley. Now he quit.

Conversely, T.S. Eliot‘s mentally unstable wife, Vivian, joined the Fascists. Eliot separated from her and never saw her but she stalked him and made public scenes. Virginia sympathised and ‘Tom’ became a good friend and regular visitor to their London or Sussex house.

1933

1933: Victor Gollancz asked Leonard to edit An Intelligent Man’s Way to Prevent War. This is the same subject as prompted Virginia’s great book, Three Guineas. In April Mosley held a rally for 10,000 followers at the Albert Hall. Leonard and the Fabians thought he might be in power in five years’ time.

1934

July: they visited the fabulously wealthy Victor Rothschild and promised to look after his pet marmoset while he went abroad. It was called Mitzy and became so attached to Leonard’s kindness that she never went back. She perched on Leonard’s shoulder or head and the back of his jacked was routinely strewn with her poo.

5 to 10 September: Leonard listens to the Nazi Nurenberg rally, relayed on the radio. He was inspired to write his satire on the totalitarian regimes, Quack Quack!

9 September: art critic and populariser of the French post-impressionist painters, Roger Fry, died. Vanessa had had a fiercely sexual affair with him (13 years older than her) and was inconsolable. Slowly the idea crystallised that Virginia should write his biography. This was to turn into a chore and produce a not very good book.

1935

May: Driving to Italy Leonard decided to take a detour through Nazi Germany. Glendinning points out that in his autobiographies he doesn’t mention the antisemitism of the 1930s, doesn’t mention Mosley or the British Union of fascists. She thinks this is because he didn’t want to put down in black and white even the possibility of his country’s rejection of himself, as a Jew. The British Foreign Office advised Jews not to visit Hitler’s Germany. Brief description of their journey through Nazi Germany, soldiers everywhere, public notices against Jews, mobs of children giving the Nazi salute. They had taken Mitzy the marmoset with them who made people laugh and defused tensions.

June: published his attack on the Fascist governments, Quack Quack!

September: Nazi Nuremberg Race Laws Jews legally different from their non-Jewish neighbours introducing all kinds of legal discrimination.

September: Leonard and Virginia attended the Labour Party Conference where Ernest Bevin argued that Britain had to rearm to face the Fascist powers, annihilating pacifist speaker in the process.

2 October: Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. Sanctions were useless as didn’t include Germany or the USA. Leonard wrote bleakly about the failure of the League of Nations. He had spent 20 years arguing that the only way to keep peace was international co-operation. Now he was forced to abandon that position and agree with Bevin that Britain needed to re-arm and make itself strong.

1 November: UK General Election in which Labour were thrashed and the new coalition government of Conservatives along with small breakaway factions of the Labour and Liberal parties, was headed by Conservative Stanley Baldwin.

Tom Eliot brought Emily Hale, a former love and confidante, to meet Leonard and Virginia, who left a record of their tea, finding Leonard more sympathetic, warm and tired.

1936

20 January: King George V died, succeeded by his son, Edward VIII.

6 March: Hitler’s troops reoccupied the Rhineland in breach of the Versailles Treaty. The atmosphere of growing antisemitism in Britain. British Union of Fascists symbols drawn on the walls.

Trying to finalise The Years and separate out the polemical book which was to become Three Guineas brought Virginia closer to breakdown than she’d been since 1913. She lost half a stone and for over three months was unable to work, an unusual hiatus. Only in the last 3 months of the year could she resume work on what was to be her longest novel.

July: Spanish Civil War broke out with the army’s coup against the republican, anti-clerical socialist government. Leonard concluded the international system had collapsed and a European war was inevitable.

Sunday 4 October: the Battle of Cable Street as anti-fascists attacked a march by the British Union of Fascists through the East End.

5 to 31 October: the Jarrow march.

19 December: after a prolonged constitutional crisis, Edward VIII abdicates because of the Establishment’s refusal to let him marry the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

1937

Leonard was ill for an extended period of time. Glendinning thinks it expressed his anguish about the international situation and dread for the plight of the Jews. He tried various consultants who thought it was diabetes or prostate trouble i.e. didn’t have a clue.

April: the bombing of Guernica.

24 June: Leonard and Virginia were among many artists and performers onstage at the Albert Hall for a concert to raise money for Basque orphans.

20 July: the terrible news that Virginia’s nephew (Vanessa’s son) Julian Bell had been killed after volunteering to drive an ambulance in Spain.

Leonard was diagnosed with numerous ailments and prescribed loads of medicines none of which worked. He even went to see the inventor of the Alexander technique, Frederick Alexander, but gave it up as too arduous. His ongoing illness prompted love and support from Virginia. Glendinning quotes Virginia’s diary describing them walking round Tavistock Square like a lovestruck couple:

‘love-making – after 25 years can’t bear to be separate…you see it is enormous pleasure being wanted: a wife. And our marriage so complete.’ (Virginia’s diary 22 October 1937)

21 October: after a long gestation, Virginia’s final and longest novel, The Years was published. It received good reviews and was her most commercially successful novel although Leonard thought it was her worst.

In late 1937 John Lehmann became a partner in the Hogarth press, buying out Virginia’s share for £3,000.

1938

March: Lehmann started full time as co-director of the Hogarth Press. Endless bickering with Leonard. But it was making more money than ever, £6,000 in this tax year.

March: Leonard installs a wireless in 52 Tavistock Square. He himself makes regular radio broadcasts.

12 March: the Anschluss, Nazi Germany marches into Austria and takes it over. At the Labour Party Executive Leonard argues for a coalition with the Conservatives and the introduction of conscription.

April: Lady Ottoline Morrell, hostess of the literary salon at Garsington Manor, died.

June: Three Guineas published. Leonard thought it typified Virginia’s impeccable feminism but their friends didn’t like it. Forster thought it cantankerous, Keynes thought it silly, Vita thought it unpatriotic. I think its structure (like a lot of Woolf’s writing) is eccentrically oblique and sometimes confusing, but the picture she builds up, especially through the extended notes, of the patriarchy which held back British women, is magnificent, radiating scorn and quiet rage.

August: Tom Eliot’s wife Vivian was certified insane and sent to a lunatic asylum where she spent the last 9 years of her life. Eliot never visited her.

September: the Munich Crisis, Neville Chamberlain flies to Munich and along with the French Prime Minister allows Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia with a large German population. Leonard predicted war. Virginia is still very much in love with him. She bakes a loaf of bread and calls out to the garden, where he’s up a ladder ‘where he looked so beautiful my heart stood still with pride that he had ever married me’ (letter to Vanessa Bell, October 1938).

9 November: Kristallnacht when the Nazis unleashed stormtroopers on Jewish homes, business and synagogues across Germany. Hundreds of synagogues throughout Germany, Austria and the Sudetenland were damaged, over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed, and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps. Leonard has a recurrence of the painful rash which covers his back and other parts. He sees doctors but Glendinning thinks it was psychosomatic, stress, and to do with the persecution of the Jews.

December: Leonard finished the first volume of After the Deluge, an analysis of Enlightenment thought into the early nineteenth century. His aim was to show the psychological and sociological process which bring about wars, and so avoid them. Fat chance. When it was published in September 1939 it sold pitifully.

1939

January: Leonard and Virginia go to tea with Sigmund Freud, recently escaped from Nazi Vienna. The Hogarth press had been publishing his works for 15 years. Leonard was struck by Freud’s aura of greatness. Freud died a few weeks into the war, on 23 September 1939.

15 March: German army annexes the rest of Czechoslovakia and claims the country has ceased to exist. France and Britain bring forward their rearmament programmes. Leonard’s psychosomatic rash returns with a vengeance.

23 June: their friend the artist Mark Gertler gassed himself. He was suffering from financial difficulties, his wife had recently left him, his most recent exhibition had been slammed, he was still depressed by the death of his mother and the suicide of Dora Carrington with whom he’d been madly in love, and was fearful of the imminent world war.

Victor Gollancz commissioned Leonard to write a book in defence of civilisation and tolerance for the Left Book Club for £500. But the final manuscript of Barbarians at the Gate contained criticisms of the Soviet Union which were unacceptable to the communists at the club, leading to a prolonged exchange of angry letters.

2 July: Leonard’s mother died. He was unsentimental.

The Woolfs moved to 37 Mecklenburg Square, taking their thousands of books and the Hogarth printing press.

23 August: Germany and Russia signed their non-aggression pact. 1 September Germany invaded Poland. 3 September Britain was at war with Germany.

November: The Barbarians at the Gate was published and slated by left-wing fellow travellers.

1940

The War for Peace published in which Leonard defended what critics called his utopianism in international relations.

June: France collapsed. Hitler enters Paris. Dunkirk. Leonard was shaken.

September: the Blitz began and was to last until May 1941. The blackout is enforced in Rodmell (the village where they had their country home). Virginia spoke to the local Women’s Institute then became its secretary. Like many others they equipped themselves with means of committing suicide should the Germans invade (p.353).

Correspondents: Virginia was still writing letters about her everyday life to Ethel Smyth who didn’t die until May 1944. Leonard still wrote letters to Margaret Llewelyn Davies of the Women’s Co-operative Guild.

They drove to London but couldn’t get as far as Mecklenburgh Square because of the bombing. A pill box was built in the field beyond their garden. German planes flew overhead every day. The flat in Mecklenburgh had its windows blown out by bombs, but their old place at 52 Tavistock Square was reduced to rubble. The Hogarth press machinery was evacuated to Letchworth. The books from Mecklenburgh were shipped down to Monks House where they packed the corridors.

23 November: Virginia finishes first draft of Between the Acts. She slowly fell into a depression, Her hand started to shake.

1941

25 January: Virginia turned 59 and Leonard began to be worried about her persistent depression. She was revising Between the Acts, always a dangerous time. They socialise, Virginia telling people her new novel is no good, though Leonard praised it.

March: she went for a walk in the fields and fell into the river whose banks had broken and flooded some of their land. Leonard returned from giving a talk to find her staggering back towards the house, wet and upset. Vanessa visits and tries to cheer her up.

Monday 24 1941: he realised she was becoming suicidal. The situation was as bad as her collapse in 1913. He consults a friend, Octavia Wilberforce, about whether to his nurses and force 24 hour supervision on Virginia against her will. But this is what had triggered furious psychotic breakdowns in the past so they decided to try and gentler approach, of Leonard calmly supporting and encouraging her.

Next day was a series of humdrum chores, recorded by Leonard and the house servant, and Virginia said she was going for a walk before lunch. An hour or so later Leonard went up to his sitting room and found two letters there, one for Vanessa one for himself, suicide notes. The letter to him is so full of love it made me cry. She thanked him and said she had had a wonderful life but she could feel her madness coming on, she was hearing voices, she couldn’t read, he would be better off without her.

Obviously he came running downstairs, hailed all the servants, sent one to get the police and help and spent the day till sunset searching the flooded river Ouse. He found Virginia’s walking stick lying on the bank. In subsequent days the river was dragged for the body. Eventually the authorities gave up the search for her body.

Three weeks later he body was discovered floating in the river by some teenagers having a picnic. They called the police. Leonard had to identify it. Coroner’s report etc. Leonard drove on his own to the cremation.

All his friends tried to console him, saying she was better off dead than really mad, but Leonard swore she would have recovered from this attack as from previous ones. He buried her ashes under two elm trees in the garden at Monks House which they had jocularly named after themselves.

Joyce and death Born February 2, 1882, Joyce was precisely eight days younger than Virginia. Two days after his death on January 13, 1941, she noted in her diary that he was ‘about a fortnight younger’ (D 5: 352-53). She outlived him by just a little over ten weeks.

Virginia asked Leonard to destroy all her papers

He disobeyed and in the years to come Virginia Woolf’s diaries and letters, autobiographical writings and unpublished works, were to be published and pored over in ever greater detail. The shape of her legacy, and the broader picture of the Bloomsbury Group, would have been very different if he’d obeyed her wishes.

Was he right to ignore her explicit, direct request, as Max Brod disobeyed Kafka’s request to burn his papers?

The shocked response of friends and family, other writers, journalists, and the wider world, are described and done with by about page 380 of this 500-page book. Leonard Woolf still had 28 years to live (died 14 August 1969). A man who was born the year Gladstone replaced Disraeli as Prime Minister (1880) lived to see men land on the moon. The twentieth century, century of marvels but also cataclysmic disasters.

After Virginia

What’s interesting is the power of the biography completely evaporates with Virginia’s death. I hadn’t realised how much Leonard’s story had come to be entwined with hers, and his existence justified by his support of her as she wrote her masterpieces. When it’s back to just him it remains sort of interesting in a journalistic gossipy way but the pressure drops right down.

Twenty-eight more years of living, writing, politicking, editing, publishing and loving – one year less than his marriage to Virginia (1912 to 1941). According to Glendinning ‘Few people are so fortunate in their later life as Leonard Woolf’ and he had many happy years. But for this reader, at any rate, all the life went out of the book when Virginia died.

Trekkie

In the next few years he fell in love with a woman called Trekkie (real name Margaret Tulip) Parsons, a keen but nondescript painter, married to Ian Parsons, an editor at Chatto and Windus, a handsome charming man. Ian sort of permitted a menage a trois to develop though it’s doubtful that Leonard and Trekkie ever had sex, and I hate myself for reading about other people’s sex lives, though this is an unavoidable aspect of modern biography. Ian meanwhile was having an affair with his editorial assistant Norah Smallwood so… so people will be people.

Superficial though it sounds, the relationship with Trekkie lasted for the rest of their lives.

The growth of Bloomsbury

The other theme which emerges is the slow steady growth of the Bloomsbury industry. Post-war interest in Virginia and other figures just kept on growing. The surviving members of the network –published books every year and fed the market throughout the 1950s (p.433). The advent of the swinging 60s, sexual liberation, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, a greater openness about sex, made the Bloomsburies, with their fluid sexuality and open relationships, seem forebears and founders.

The members wrote autobiographies and memoirs, and a steadily growing tribe of academics wrote books about them. Glendinning describes some of the early Virginia scholars who began to approach Leonard asking for help, advice, an interview, and whatever papers he could spare.

Glendinning records Leonard’s growing involvement with not just American scholars but professional buyers of manuscripts such as Hamill and Barker, to whom he sold off packets and parcels of letters, manuscripts and diaries, through the 1950s and ’60s, for lucrative sums (pages 427, 450).

The schism between academics and public intellectuals

This move to biography was encouraged by the growing schism between general, freelance public intellectuals such as Leonard, and the growing number of professional academics housed in the growing number of postwar universities. When Virginia and Leonard started writing all intellectuals were on about the same level, with some being experts at universities, but many freelance writers knowing quite as much across a broad range of subjects. The tone of discourse across public writers and academics was comparable. In the new era of academic specialisation, academics developed technical terms and jargon, assumed specialist knowledge, which increasingly cut them off from generalists let alone the man in the street.

Leonard fell victim to this specialisation with his book on international politics, After the Deluge, published in 1955. He intended it to form the third part of a trilogy (the previous books published in 1931 and 1939) which he allowed himself to be persuaded to give the grandiose title Principia Politica. This begged comparisons with the masterworks of Newton (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica), Whitehead and Russell’s Principia Mathematica or GE Moore’s Principia Ethica, but it was nothing of the kind, as reviewers were quick to point out. Compared to the new ranks of professional academics, Leonard appeared discursive, repetitive, anecdotal and amateurish (p.444).

The spread of universities and growth of a class of specialist academics was epitomised by the opening, in 1961, of the University of Sussex, just outside Brighton and only 5 miles from Leonard’s rural retreat in the village of Rodmer (p.465).

For the public intellectual locked out of the growing ivory tower of academia, there remained publishing (he continued to be a director of the Hogarth Press), ‘the higher journalism’ (he continued to edit the Political Quarterly, and biography and memoirs. So this feeds back into the growth of Bloomsbury books – none of the survivors (Vanessa, Duncan, Quentin and so on) were really expert, scholarly expert-level on anything except… themselves.

Leonard himself epitomised the trend. Having had his masterwork of political commentary rubbished he retreated to the safer territory of his own life, and commenced his own autobiography which ended up taking no fewer than six volumes:

  • Sowing: An Autobiography of the Years 1880 to 1904 (1960)
  • Growing: An Autobiography of the Years 1904 to 1911 (1961)
  • Diaries in Ceylon 1908 to 1911, and Stories from the East: Records of a Colonial Administrator (1963)
  • Beginning Again: An Autobiography of the Years 1911 to 1918 (1964)
  • Downhill All the Way: An Autobiography of the Years 1919 to 1939 (1967)
  • The Journey Not the Arrival Matters: An Autobiography of the Years 1939 to 1969 (1969)

I’d never heard of these but they won him prizes. Beginning Again won the W.H. Smith book prize and the handy sum of £1,000.

Michael Holroyd’s two-volume biography of Lytton Strachey published in 1967-8 proved to be a turning point. Its openness about Strachey’s homosexuality, his numerous affairs, his thousands of camp letters, shed a completely new light on the Bloomsburies, rendering much that had been written up to that point obsolete, but confirming their reputation as sexual pioneeers (p.475).

Pointless

In the last volume of his autobiography Leonard candidly, devastatingly, adjudged that a lifetime of political activism, sitting on innumerable committees, spending years researching and writing position papers and polemical books (calling for international co-operation for peace) achieved more or less nothing.

‘I see clearly that I achieved practically nothing.’ (quoted p.484)

Thoughts

Authoritative, thorough, empathetic, insightful, fascinating and often very funny, nonetheless Glendinning’s definitive biography becomes increasingly focused on the mental illness of poor Virginia, relentlessly building up to Virginia’s suicide which is so terrible, so upsetting, so devastating, that I could barely read on and stopped trying to review it after that point.


Credit

‘Leonard Woolf: A Life’ by Victoria Glendinning was first published by Simon and Schuster in 2006. Page references are to the 2007 Pocket Books paperback edition.

Related links

Virginia explaining and justifying her technique in ‘Modern Novels’ (TLS 10 April 1919):

The mind, exposed to the ordinary course of life, receives upon its surface a myriad impressions–trivial, fantastic, evanescent, or engraved with the sharpness of steel. From all sides they come, an incessant shower of innumerable atoms, composing in their sum what we might venture to call life itself; and to figure further as the semi-transparent envelope, or luminous halo, surrounding us from the beginning of consciousness to the end. Is it not perhaps the chief task of the novelist to convey this incessantly varying spirit with whatever stress or sudden deviation it may display, and as little admixture of the alien and external as possible.

Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however disconnected and incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness. Let us not take it for granted that life exists more in what is commonly thought big than in what is commonly thought small.

Revised as ‘Modern Fiction’ in The Common Reader (1925).

Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf – 4. Looking On

‘… to give up this arduous game… of assembling things that lie on the surface…’
(Woolf describing the effort required to hold her mind together, in ‘Flying over London’, page 211)

‘Mental fight means thinking against the current, not with it.’

The Oxford World Classic edition of ‘Selected Essays by Virginia Woolf’, edited by David Bradshaw, brings together 30 of her essays, reviews and articles and groups them under four headings:

  1. Reading and Writing
  2. Life-Writing
  3. Women and Fiction
  4. Looking On

Summarising each of the essays was taking so long that I broke my review of the book up into multiple blog posts. This post summarises and comments on the ten essays contained in the fourth and final section of the selection, titled ‘Looking On’. Unlike the essays in the previous sections, which closely addressed the relevant topic heading, the volume’s editor, David Bradshaw, has deliberately chosen these ones to be more diverse in subject matter and approach. The essays are:

  1. Thunder at Wembley (1924) [the British Empire exhibition at Wembley]
  2. The Cinema (1926)
  3. Street Haunting: A London Adventure (1927) [a walk from her home at Hyde Park Gate to the Strand one winter evening as night was falling]
  4. The Sun and The Fish (1928) [a solar eclipse and visit to London Aquarium]
  5. The Docks of London (1931)
  6. Oxford Street Tide (1932)
  7. Evening Over Sussex: Reflections in a Motor Car (1942)
  8. Flying Over London [an imagined flight in a small plane over London]
  9. Why Art Today Follows Politics (1936)
  10. Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid (1940)

I keep reading references to Woolf being an ‘intellectual’ which astonishes me because she hardly anywhere mounts clear, sustained arguments, with reasons and evidence to support her. Even when she is making a point – as in her essays criticising the Edwardian novelists and promoting her new version of literature, or discussing what a feminist literature might be like – what her essays are far more noticeable for their slow beginnings, their whimsical digressions, her easy distraction by the surface of things, objects and phrases, by her indirections and odd approaches, which sometimes barely make sense.

This is more than usually true of these ten descriptive and impressionistic pieces.

If there’s one common theme or thread linking all of them, and maybe all her writing as a whole, I think it’s her mental illness. In Street Haunting, Sun and Fish and Evening over Sussex she describes having multiple ‘selves’, which initially sounds cool and post-modernist but, I think, was an aspect of her mental illness.

You particularly feel the struggle it involved when she talks about the need to marshal all these selves back together, to create a unified personality to face society with. This isn’t a criticism, it’s the opposite: it’s sympathy. Both my kids have mental health issues and I struggle sometimes. Maybe that’s why I’m making too much of it as an issue…

Anyway, my interpretation is that her obsessive listing of everything she sees, on all her walks and travels, her distraction by endless streams of shiny details, was both a symptom of her problems but also a way of coping with them. When the inner world gets cluttered with multiple selves all shouting at you, you take refuge in the ever-changing world outside you to try and regain, and hang onto, some calm, something outside yourself. I take this to be the message made explicit in ‘Street Haunting’ and lurking, implicitly, beneath all the other pieces; maybe, beneath her whole oeuvre.

1. Thunder at Wembley (1924: 3 pages)

A brisk description of attending the 1924 Empire Exhibition at Wembley. It has an odd tone. She mocks the organisers for not making the vast concrete edifice which enclosed the exhibition, sealed off from the sky, for making the error of letting nature intrude here and there: a few trees, some birds. But the real feeling that comes over is Woolf’s lofty snobbish view of the crowds who are attending it. The words vulgar and mediocrity recur. She ironically comments that the exhibition would have been much better if the organisers had only kept all the people out. In the last paragraph she becomes delirious and has a vision of the end of the world.

The sky is livid, lurid, sulphurine. It is in violent commotion. It is whirling water-spouts of cloud into the air; of dust in the Exhibition. Dust swirls down the avenues, hisses and hurries like erected cobras round the corners. Pagodas are dissolving in dust. Ferro-concrete is fallible. Colonies are perishing and dispersing in spray of inconceivable beauty and terror which some malignant power illuminates. Ash and violet are the colours of its decay. From every quarter human beings come flying—clergymen, school children, invalids in bath-chairs. They fly with outstretched arms, and a vast sound of wailing rolls before them, but there is neither confusion nor dismay. Humanity is rushing to destruction, but humanity is accepting its doom.

What?

The Cinema (1926: 5 pages)

It starts out in the typically frivolous and gaseous style which makes Woolf’s essays such a trial to read.

No great distance separates [we moderns] from those bright-eyed naked men who knocked two bars of iron together and heard in that clangour a foretaste of the music of Mozart. The bars in this case, of course, are so highly wrought and so covered over with accretions of alien matter that it is extremely difficult to hear anything distinctly. All is hubble-bubble, swarm and chaos. We are peering over the edge of a cauldron in which fragments of all shapes and savours seem to simmer; now and again some vast form heaves itself up and seems about to haul itself out of chaos.

?

Woolf briefly describes the black-and-white newsreels of the day. She begins to be interesting when she says that one of the disconcerting features of film is that it shows what life is like when we’re not there and a world which has gone.

But that’s newsreels and factual movies. As to the development of fiction movies, lots of other arts stood ready to help. Of course Woolf has only one art in mind, her own specialist subject, literature. But the marriage of literature and film has been a disaster. Why? Because literature shows people from the inside, shows us their minds and thoughts and emotions, whereas movies can only show them as stock figures from the outside.

So we lurch and lumber through the most famous novels of the world. So we spell them out in words of one syllable, written, too, in the scrawl of an illiterate schoolboy.

I’m sure all Hollywood screenwriters were flattered by this description. On the other hand, I like this next bit which I totally agree with, that movies simplify complex human emotions down into stock gestures and expressions.

A kiss is love. A broken cup is jealousy. A grin is happiness. Death is a hearse.

In Woolf’s view film needs to free itself from a literalistic interpretation of content from another medium, books, and free itself to explore its own language and vocabulary.

It seems plain that the cinema has within its grasp innumerable symbols for emotions that have so far failed to find expression… Is there, we ask, some secret language which we feel and see, but never speak, and, if so, could this be made visible to the eye? Is there any characteristic which thought possesses that can be rendered visible without the help of words?

Interesting thought. Obviously there’s been a hundred years of movies since Woolf wrote but you feel her point is still valid. Film ought to consist of more than just popcorn-munching, Technicolour-fabulous summer blockbusters, surely it does have the potential to convey human experiences in an utterly novel and revolutionary way. And yet it has failed. The movies I see nowadays (2025) are crushingly banal and familiar, and the whole concept of a ‘film’ is bleeding out into the extravaganzas shown on Netflix et al. There are more films than ever before but at the same time, a strong sense of exhaustion and repetition.

As usual, Woolf invokes Shakespeare, her go-to guy for symbolising the peak of literary complexity i.e. multiple associations are triggered in the brain by his verse. But it’s precisely the multi-faceted and evanescent and subjective nature of the reader’s response, which is unique to literature and cinema’s tactic of showing a man on a screen talking fails to convey.

Instead, she repeats the thought: surely there are visual symbols, maybe accentuated with music, which could convey complex emotions in a purely filmic way.

That such symbols will be quite unlike the real objects which we see before us seems highly probable. Something abstract, something which moves with controlled and conscious art, something which calls for the very slightest help from words or music to make itself intelligible, yet justly uses them subserviently – of such movements and abstractions the films may in time to come be composed.

Then indeed when some new symbol for expressing thought is found, the film-maker has enormous riches at his command.

All this guessing and clumsy turning over of unknown forces points at any rate away from any art we know in the direction of an art we can only surmise.

She concludes with the thought that cinema has been born the wrong way round: it demonstrates tremendous sophistication of technology, engineering, design and logistics, but has no soul, no content, no emotional complexity worth the name.

The mechanical skill is far in advance of the art to be expressed.

This falls into the category of one of her Hortative Essays. In linguistics, hortative modalities are verbal expressions used by the speaker to encourage or discourage an action. In more common speech, hortative is an adjective meaning something which to encourages, urges, or calls to action. So in an earlier section of the book, ‘Life-Writing’, we read her essay claiming that the genre of biography was poised at the dawn of a new era, which would require hard work and commitment but would lead through to a new vision. Same here. In her opinion film is just at the start of an era of innovation and discovery.

I guess she was right, insofar as film was poised on the brink of introducing talkies (published in 1926, this whole essay is based on the experience of only silent movies) and continued to evolve at a rate of knots throughout the twentieth century. But whether it ever developed the symbols and methods to really convey the human soul, as she hoped, is very much to be doubted. Maybe in lots of rarer, indie or art or non-American movies. One for film buffs to discuss forever.

3. Street Haunting: A London Adventure (1927: 11 pages)

How beautiful a London street is…

After a long day cooped up in a room writing, what better release than going for a ramble across London. Evening is best and winter the best season when there is magic in the air. The lamplight gives the bustling passersby a spurious glamour.

This is all unusually high-spirited and positive for Woolf and she deploys some stylish phrases.

Here under the lamps are floating islands of pale light through which pass quickly bright men and women, who, for all their poverty and shabbiness, wear a certain look of unreality, an air of triumph, as if they had given life the slip, so that life, deceived of her prey, blunders on without them. (p.178)

Once or twice she is tempted to imagine the lives of the people in the houses and has to remind herself to stay on the surface of things, an observer, a wandering eye, as the characters in so many of her books.

The eye is not a miner, not a diver, not a seeker after buried treasure. It floats us smoothly down a stream; resting, pausing, the brain sleeps perhaps as it looks… Let us… be content still with surfaces only—the glossy brilliance of the motor omnibuses; the carnal splendour of the butchers’ shops with their yellow flanks and purple steaks; the blue and red bunches of flowers burning so bravely through the plate glass of the florists’ windows.

For some reason she pops into a shoe shop and is there when a dwarf enters, accompanied by two normal-sized adults. Woolf describes her preening over he normal sized foot but when she goes back out into the street and Woolf follows her, she finds all the other passersby infected with the grotesque.

(This all reminds me of the French poet, Charles Baudelaire, famous for his visions of strange passersby in the streets of Paris, and of the whole French nineteenth century intellectual cult of the flaneur, all of which was being written about seventy years before Woolf wrote this essay.)

The dwarf had started a hobbling grotesque dance to which everybody in the street now conformed…

So she sees two drunk men pass by both leaning on a small boy, a stout woman dressed in shiny sealskin, a feeble-minded boy sucking the silver knob of his stick, an old man squatting on a doorstep as if suddenly overcome by the absurdity of the human spectacle – the randomness of these people seen in the street reminds me very much of all the background people who appear in her wandering-round-central-London novel, Mrs Dalloway.

In shops windows she sees good which spark fancies. Sofas and furnishings allow you to create and decorate a fantasy home of your own. When you wave that away, a glimpse of pearls in a jewellers’ window prompts visions of herself at a grand party in Mayfair, in June, looking out over the darkened streets while back in the main room the Prime Minister describes some political crisis to Lady So-and-So.

Why this continual turnover of fantasies? Because nature made human beings with ‘instincts and desires which are utterly at variance with his main being, so that we are streaked, variegated, all of a mixture’.

I’ve commented on how the same dozen or so ideas recur across Woolf’s oeuvre. Here she mentions the idea of multiple selves which features in the mature novels and Orlando.

Is the true self this which stands on the pavement in January, or that which bends over the balcony in June? Am I here, or am I there? Or is the true self neither this nor that, neither here nor there, but something so varied and wandering that it is only when we give the rein to its wishes and let it take its way unimpeded that we are indeed ourselves? (p.182)

Then she comes to the neighbourhood of second hand book shops and for a couple of page sings the delights of exploring the strange detritus of sold-off libraries and dead men’s collections, the eternal hope that you will take down some little treasure and be transported by dashing narratives or wonderful poetry, and all those travellers to far-off lands. But there’s no end to books and so after this cosy interlude in a warm second-hand bookshop, it’s back out into the streets.

She passes two women complaining about how selfish ‘Kate’ is, then they’re gone and she never finds out more. Two men discussing racing tips under a lamp-post. Thousands of other commuters, freed from work and thronging from the Strand over Waterloo bridge, who she fondly fantasises are themselves fondly fantasising about being ‘great cricketers, famous actresses, soldiers who have saved their country at the hour of need.’

When you stop and read that you realise how essentially childish her view of other people is. Those aspirations – ‘great cricketers, famous actresses, soldiers who have saved their country at the hour of need’ – are the aspirations of the Famous Five. Real people who are worried about money, worried about their marriages, their children about work, don’t enter in, they are too real, sordid, vulgar. None of her imagined people ever think about sex because that is crude and vulgar. The fantasy must be kept pure, romantic, chaste and childish.

Coming into the Strand she feels her conscious mind telling her she has to do something. What was it? Oh yes, the spurious aim of buying a pencil with which she justified this evening stroll in the first place. That’s one self, the practical self. But another self steps in and says Why can’t we just enjoy ourselves and ramble where we wish? Multiple selves in conflict. You can see why she was interested in Freud’s dynamic model of the mind, and why the Hogarth Press was to publish his complete works in a definitive English translation. You can also hear a ghost of her lifelong mental problems: the voices in her head, conflicting and arguing.

From a psychiatric point of view it’s telling that the only way she can manage the voices is to transcend them with another image, with the sight of the wide cold black River Thames. And memory. Memory which we saw so important in coping with a task in Memories of a Working Women’s Guild and Leslie Stephen, The Philosopher at Home: A Daughter’s Memories. We get a deeper understanding that backing away from the clamorous present and retreating into distant memories is not so much a cop-out as a psychological coping mechanism.

This becomes really obvious when she remembers leaning over the parapet last summer and being happy. Maybe if she goes to the same place now she can regain that mood of calm.

We see it through the eyes of somebody who is leaning over the Embankment on a summer evening, without a care in the world. Let us put off buying the pencil; let us go in search of this person—and soon it becomes apparent that this person is ourselves. For if we could stand there where we stood six months ago, should we not be again as we were then—calm, aloof, content? Let us try then…

But the attempt fails. A young couple are smooching nearby, the air is cold, a tug with two barges slowly passes under the bridge, she can’t regain that last-summer mood. She draws the conclusion that:

It is only when we look at the past and take from it the element of uncertainty that we can enjoy perfect peace.

To be honest, I don’t understand what that means. Finally, she arrives at a stationery shop where she can buy the pencil which was the pretext for this trek and this essay. As soon as she enters she realises she’s interrupted an argument between the old couple who own it. They break up and the old buffer tries to find her a pencil but keeps making mistakes amid the many shelves and boxes, until his wife comes back into the shop and silently indicates the correct box. Even then, Woolf lingers in order to enjoy the experience of the couple slowly calming down until, eventually, full peace is restored.

The old man, who would not have disgraced Ben Jonson’s title-page, reached the box back to its proper place, bowed profoundly his good-night to us, and they disappeared. She would get out her sewing; he would read his newspaper; the canary would scatter them impartially with seed. The quarrel was over.

Now, either you think that last sentence is beautifully imagined or, like me, you find it too pat. In fact the entire episode feels too neatly rounded and complete to be a depiction of real life, which is always more edgy and incomplete than this little fable.

When she exits back onto the street, it is completely empty and she walks home through the silver city which triggers another reflection on the idea of multiple selves.

Walking home through the desolation one could tell oneself the story of the dwarf, of the blind men, of the party in the Mayfair mansion, of the quarrel in the stationer’s shop. Into each of these lives one could penetrate a little way, far enough to give oneself the illusion that one is not tethered to a single mind, but can put on briefly for a few minutes the bodies and minds of others. One could become a washerwoman, a publican, a street singer. And what greater delight and wonder can there be than to leave the straight lines of personality and deviate into those footpaths that lead beneath brambles and thick tree trunks into the heart of the forest where live those wild beasts, our fellow men?

On my reading, all of literature provides a cure for mental illness by allowing us to escape from our troubled selves into other, more completed and so simpler, more manageable lives.

She sings the praises of her big ‘adventure’ in the streets of London and this triggered a memory of Three Guineas with its angry attack on how women in her lifetime and for all British history before her, had been legally, socially and financially excluded from public life, from all the professions, from business, from paid work, from any independence. And so had to make from the tiny incidents of their cramped lives what satisfaction and adventures that they could.

And one last thought: any writer, male or female, can describe the lovely, warm comfort of arriving home but, given the Enid Blyton interpretation I’ve given to much of the narrative, I couldn’t help the ending feeling like the cosy rounding-off of a reassuring children’s story.

As we approach our own doorstep again, it is comforting to feel the old possessions, the old prejudices, fold us round; and the self, which has been blown about at so many street corners, which has battered like a moth at the flame of so many inaccessible lanterns, sheltered and enclosed. (p.187)

4. The Sun and The Fish (1928: 5 pages)

This is the most peculiar essay in the selection.

Exordium: The introduction tells us that memory works by yoking together two, sometimes random elements i.e. we remember things best when they’re associated with something else memorable.

[A] sight will only survive in the queer pool in which we deposit our memories if it has the good luck to ally itself with some other emotion by which it is preserved. Sights marry, incongruously, morganatically… and so keep each other alive.

This appears to be the justification for the collocation of the two memories which follow.

Memory 1: On 29 June 1927 Leonard and Virginia Woolf travelled with a party of friends to Bardon Fell in Yorkshire, where they stood on the ridge at dawn with thousands of others to witness a total eclipse of the sun. That is a rational, factual account of the event, but Woolf’s account is delirious. She compares the watchers to participants in the prehistoric ceremonies at Stonehenge and then gives a vivid description of the eclipse itself, during which the entire world loses colour and laments its death. Fear and anxiety lest the sun never returns. I’ve been reading D.H. Lawrence alongside Woolf, and this essay is more or less the only which one which has the psychological intensity of Lawrence. Maybe because it’s the only place in any of her works where the narrator is scared.

This was the defeat of the sun then, and this was all, so we thought, turning in disappointment from the dull cloud blanket in front of us to the moors behind. They were livid, they were purple; but suddenly one became aware that something more was about to happen; something unexpected, awful, unavoidable, The shadow growing darker and darker over the moor was like the heeling over of a boat, which, instead of righting itself at the critical moment, turns a little further and then a little further; and suddenly capsizes. So the light turned and heeled over and went out. This was the end. The flesh and blood of the world was dead and only the skeleton was left. It hung beneath us, frail; brown; dead; withered… (p.191)

Memory 2: But weirder is to come because Woolf links the eclipse memory to a visit she made to London Zoo and, in particular, to the Aquarium. This again makes it seem nice and logical when it is anything but. Instead it’s a fantasia on the life and being of fishes, in their watery tanks, and the sense of them being far more at home in their element than we poor, helpless, pink animals are on ours.

The fish themselves seem to have been shaped deliberately and slipped into the world only to be themselves. They neither work nor weep. In their shape is their reason. For what other purpose, except the sufficient one of perfect existence, can they have been thus made, some so round, some so thin, some with radiating fins upon their backs, others lined with red electric light, others undulating like white pancakes on a frying pan, some armoured in blue mail, some given prodigious claws, some outrageously fringed with huge whiskers? More care has been spent upon half a dozen fish than upon all the races of mankind.

And having exhausted this strange vision, the essay finishes with the abrupt line:

The eye shuts now. It has shown us a dead world and an immortal fish.

5. The Docks of London (December 1931)

In 1931 Woolf published The London Scene, a collection of six essays published individually in ‘Good Housekeeping’ magazine, over the course of a year. They were not published as a collection until long after her death. According to Wikipedia, the title was not chosen by Woolf but comes from the 1975 republication of five of the essays. Originally the essays were referred to as ‘Six Articles on London Life’.

The first of the six essays was The Docks of London. It records a guided tour Woolf was given round the docks on a Port of London Authority launch on 20 March 1931.

Compared to the eclipse fantasia it is a model of sense and description. She describes coming up the Thames from the Kent end, coming across ruined warehouses and reeking waste dumps and barges full of the city’s refuse, a pub and a few trees in this wasteland, then turning a corner and coming across the beautiful Greenwich Hospital buildings, up and round and so arriving at the Tower of London.

She cuts to a description of a cargo ship being unloaded with careful regulated industry and all its goods being stored in a low unadorned warehouse. She lists the bizarre items sometimes found stashed amid all this imported goods: a snake, a scorpion, a lump of amber, a basin of quicksilver. Among a pile of elephant tusks the customs officers have found older browner ones which they think come from mammoths. Virginia is finding out about the big world of work, and the imperial trade which her pampered life relies on for its luxuries and perquisites. She learns the great principle:

Trade is ingenious and indefatigable beyond the bounds of imagination. (p.196)

Everything is weighed and graded. A use is found for everything. Nothing is wasted. She savours the ‘dim sacerdotal atmosphere’ of the wine vaults. In the precision and dexterity of the work, the endless movement of the cranes, the unloading and stacking and packing and storing, she sees beauty. This feels like an awakening for young Virginia into the world of real work and the appeal of doing a job well, the subject of so many Rudyard Kipling stories.

She ends with the slightly unexpected thought that it is we, the consumers, who dictate all this energy, day in day out, all year round. It is we with our taste for shoes, furs, bags, stoves, oil, rice pudding, candles, that dictate what crops are grown, what animals are reared, what minerals extracted, what is brought here to the world’s largest port. So that:

One feels an important, a complex, a necessary animal as one stands on the quayside watching the cranes hoist this barrel, that crate, that other bale from the holds of ships that have come to anchor. (p.198)

6. Oxford Street Tide (1932: 4 pages)

The garishness and gaudiness of the great rolling ribbon of Oxford Street has its fascination. (p.199)

This was the second piece in her ‘Six Articles on London Life’ series, published in the January 1932 issue of Good Housekeeping. As you might expect, it’s about shops. In her day, as now, Oxford Street didn’t have the best shops, in fact it was looked down on for its bargains and sales. ‘The buying and selling is too blatant and too raucous’.

What stood out for me was the differences. In 1932 one could find barrows parked selling fresh tulips, violets, daffodils; see magicians make bits of paper unfold into clever shapes on bowls of water; sell live tortoises which are kept in litters of straw.

She gives a blizzard of sense impressions: placards selling endless editions of newspapers; a whole brass band; omnibuses grazing kerbs; buses, cars, vans, barrows streaming past. The old aristocracy were dukes and earls who built grand town houses along the Strand. The new, commercial, aristocracy build department stores along Oxford Street which dole out music and news, welcome you in to their high and airy halls, thickly carpeted and with the magic of lifts. (The notes tell us that the American Harry Gordon Selfridge opened his department store on Oxford Street in 1909.)

You can’t help noticing how flimsy these new stores are, concrete walls and metal floor bases. When you see other buildings being demolished so quickly and thoroughly, you realise these stores, to large and showy, with such modelled facades, are less solid and enduring than a labourer’s stone cottage from the time of Elizabeth I.

Then again, that’s the appeal. ‘The charm of modern London is that it is not built to last; it is built to pass.’ The owners of the citadels of consumer capitalism must:

persuade the multitude that here unending beauty, ever fresh, ever new, very cheap and within the reach of everybody, bubbles up every day of the week from an inexhaustible well. (p.202)

It is vivid and wrily comic, and she doesn’t mention Shakespeare once!

7. Evening Over Sussex: Reflections in a Motor Car (1942: 3 pages)

Despite the title, it’s a very static, ghostly impression of Sussex, which she prefers to imagine at dusk, as night falls and the stars come out and the busy fret of the day disappears and you see the country in its essentials, as it was in days past. She gives a vivid poetic description of the county but then feels unhappy, conflicted. It is too beautiful, too big to contain, to master and this triggers her characteristic psychological reaction or problem, of feeling divided into multiple selves.

It is well known how in circumstances like these the self splits up and one self is eager and dissatisfied and the other stern and philosophical.

She has to struggle with herself, to force herself to sit still and take in what’s in front of her. While these two selves argue about how to cope with beautiful scenery, a third self, observes to herself how happy both the other selves were when they were driving around in a motor car, just to see the never-ending stream of sights. Although when they were quiet and happy, the conscious self was in fact unhappy at the thought that everything is transient, everything passes out of sight and memory so fast as you zoom around the country.

This is, in other words, an essay about Virginia coping with her mental health issues and struggling to maintain an even keel. Compare ‘Street Haunting’, where she similarly struggles with the voices in her head and tries to find some way of calming them. Her mental illness is never very far from the surface.

Then there appears a fourth self, an ‘erratic and impulsive self’, interrupts the others with an unexpected perception, pointing out a light hovering in the sky. Only after some moments of confusion does her rational self realise it’s a car’s headlights coming over the brow of a hill, but this visionary self takes it as a portent of the future, of a distant future when Sussex will be full of magic gates and electric light.

In the final paragraph she tells us she assembles her many selves, as official presider over them, and tries to reckon up the sights they have all seen. But this is a surprisingly thin list and almost immediately describes ‘disappearance and the death of the individual’. That’s a bit shrill, isn’t it?

David Bradshaw’s notes tell us this wasn’t published during her lifetime but in the posthumous collection Death of the Moth and Other Essays. Is it an indication of how she was ‘declining’ into mental illness? Or does its candour about the struggle of managing multiple selves suggest a new art, a new style which she might have explored and expanded?

8. Flying Over London (6 pages)

The notes tell us this essay was only published in 1950. Reading the book’s notes builds up the impression that Woolf wrote a huge amount, that gathering together all the essays and fugitive pieces published in numerous outlets, from classy Vogue to transient student magazines, has taken decades to track them all down and been a labour of love for Woolf scholars.

It opens with a strikingly fanciful analogy, comparing the planes lined up at the aerodrome to giant grasshoppers, ready to spring into the air. She is self-consciously aware that ‘a thousand pens have described the sensations of leaving earth’ and you can’t help feeling how dogged she is by a self consciousness so intense that it is consciousness of multiple selves. Woolf is crippled by selves-consciousness.

Anyway, she makes the original observation that, when the plane takes off it’s not so much that the land falls away as that the sky falls upon you, immerses you. A lifetime of judging all objects in your field of view by their static appearance at ground level is swept away by this radical new perspective. ‘Land values’ have to be swapped for ‘air values’.

She wonderfully describes being in the air, amid the clouds, where perspectives and orientation disappear and this reminds me of the extended passage describing looking up at the clouds in ‘On Being Ill’.

And yet, as the previous essay has made clear, there is always another self in Woolf, tugging and restraining all her attempts at spontaneity. She knows it. ‘So inveterately anthropomorphic is the mind’ that she imagines the plane is a boat, and then imagines it, as in some Victorian poem, sailing towards a harbour:

And there we shall be received by hands that lift themselves from swaying garments; welcoming, accepting. (p.207)

Don’t you think that’s very Pre-Raphaelite, the hands that lift from swaying garments? I’m sticking with my impression that, despite the so-called modernism of her deploying a dreamy kind of stream-of-consciousness and jumping between characters’ points of views in her books, deep down – in fact not very deep down at all – Woolf has an essentially Victorian sensibility, Keats and Tennyson and Christina Rossetti, everything must be elegant and decorous and just so.

She sees the Thames as the Romans saw it, as paleolithic man saw it, reprising the theme of prehistoric London found in Mrs Dalloway and especially Between the Acts where Mrs Swithin is reading H.G. Wells’s Outline of History which starts with just such prehistoric descriptions of dinosaurs in what were to become London landmarks. But then things suddenly take a dark turn.

It was the idea of death that now suggested itself; not being received and welcomed; not immortality but extinction. (p.208)

She sees a flight of gulls and thinks how alien they are, where only gulls are, is death. ‘Life ends; life is dowsed in that cloud… That extinction now becomes desirable… And so we swept on now, up to death’ Why? Again you have the strong sense of a woman fighting her own psychological demons.

The pilot’s head suddenly reminds her of Charon, the ferryman across into the realm of the dead, and she claims the mind is proud of extinction ‘as if it deserved extinction, extinction profited it more and were more desirable than prolongation on other terms by other wills.’ Usually the experience of flying in a small plane is one of exhilaration. For Woolf it brings flooding thoughts of death. She wants to die, and die she soon would, at her own hand.

The pilot turns into a flame of death and she imagines dying together with him. ‘Extinction! The word is consummation’. But there’s a lot more. We’re only half way through. She vividly imagines flying into cloud, being immersed in the ever-changing shapes and colours.

All the colours of pounded plums and dolphins and blankets and seas and rain clouds crushed together, straining – purple, black, steel.

It’s as if John Keats went for a plane ride. Here’s a stanza from John Keats’s poem Ode to a Nightingale:

O, for a draught of vintage! that hath been
Cool’d a long age in the deep-delved earth,
Tasting of Flora and the country green,
Dance, and Provençal song, and sunburnt mirth!
O for a beaker full of the warm South,
Full of the true, the blushful Hippocrene,
With beaded bubbles winking at the brim,
And purple-stained mouth…

The technology and the subject and the continual changing of scene may be from the 1920s but the sensibility dates back a hundred years, to the 1820s, an impression confirmed by lots of details of phrasing like when she says that when they emerge from the clouds and see ‘the fairy earth’ beneath them.

The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:
Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
The same that oft-times hath
Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.

I wonder if she’s just been reading ‘Ode to a Nightingale’ and that explains why the sensibility and even specific phrases of Keats spill over into this fantasia?

One way of thinking about Woolf’s writing is that she had to adopt different techniques to shake herself out of her madness, out of being dominated by the voices in her head. The ‘Street Haunting’ essay describes one technique, which was to go to a place where she had been calm and try to recapture that feeling. A cruder one is to change the subject to something which focused all her selves into a unity, such as her feminist scorn of men. This lines up all the voices into unanimity. Here’s something the squabbling voices can all agree upon.

I think this is why, after the fantastical passages which have seen her mind split into multiple levels and ages and perspectives, she brings everything back with the tried-and-tested technique of taking the mickey out of pompous rich men in the City of London.

There were blocks in the city of traffic sometimes almost a foot long; these had to be translated into eleven or twelve Rolls Royces in a row with city magnates waiting furious; and one had to add up the fury of the magnates; and say – even though it was all silent and the block was only a few inches in length, how scandalous the control of the traffic is in the City of London. (p.211)

This is feminism as therapy, submerging her squabbling selves and the multifarious observations which threaten to overwhelm her conscious mind, into the reassuring, all-pulling-together mode prompted by the activity of mocking rich men. Ha ha ha, silly little men. Oh, I feel much better now.

The narrative goes on to describe flying over the East End and seeing good working people wave up at them, flying over Oxford Street where everyone is too busy with bargain hunting to acknowledge them, onto Bayswater with its deadening rows of identical houses and then does something odd. She claims to see a door in one house open, and to see into a flat, and to see a particular woman and… you realise it has all been a fiction. Then I woke up and it was all a dream.

And a glance at the notes indeed confirms that Virginia Woolf never went up in an airplane. The entire thing is a fiction. It is a bold and strange fiction, and candidly reveals some of the ramifications of her mental illness and yet… I couldn’t help feeling disappointed that it was utterly fictional.

In fact she tries to make a joke of it. The last paragraph is a rare attempt by Woolf at explicit humour. After she’s given a vivid description of coming in to land and bumping over the grassy airfield, she goes on:

As a matter of fact, the flight had not begun; for when Flight-Lieutenant Hopgood stooped and made the engine roar, he had found a defect of some sort in the machine, and raising his head, he had said very sheepishly, ”Fraid it’s no go today.’ So we had not flown after all.

Contemporary flying reviews

9. Why Art Today Follows Politics (1936: 3 pages)

Surprisingly maybe, this very short piece was first published in The Daily Worker newspaper in 1936. Woolf opens the piece, as so often, by candidly explaining the terms of its commission:

I have been asked by the Artists International Association to explain as shortly as I can why it is that the artist at present is interested, actively and genuinely, in politics.

I think her views on this subject are not much worth considering, since she had made a career out of ridiculing, mocking and ignoring conventional politics as irredeemably male. Bit late in the day to change her tune.

What struck me most about this essay was the way that, when she came to consider examples of classic artists, the very first name she came to was John Keats and the very first ‘work of art’ his poem, Ode to a Nightingale. This, for the umpteenth time, confirmed my sense that underneath her modernist tricks and strategies, Woolf remained, in her core sensibility, an unreformed Victorian Romantic of the purest kind, oblivious of the radical art being created in Bolshevik Russia or Weimar Germany, of symbolist or Expressionist or Surrealist poetry, but again and again and again and again, judging everything by the purest, most conservative, arch-Romantic figure of John Keats.

As to the essay, I found it pompous, self-satisfied twaddle. This is because of her narrow, blinkered, restricted and wildly unrealistic notion of what an Artist is and what Art is, something pure and untainted by Society which aspires to the perfection of a Shakespeare. Instead of a much more realistic sociological view of ‘art’, which sees it being produced by a huge array of people, working in all kinds of fields, at multiple levels.

It is a fact that the practise of art, far from making the artist out of touch with his kind, rather increases his sensibility. It breeds in him a feeling for the passions and needs of mankind in the mass which the citizen whose duty it is to work for a particular country or for a particular party has no time and perhaps no need to cultivate.

This notion of the artist as a special superior and privileged personage, blessed with more sensibility than the average person, feels, to us today, I think, absurd. Artists in all fields may have been trained to a level of specialist knowledge in particular fields and techniques but this doesn’t make them ‘superior’ to everyone else. Plus we have had too many examples of artists who were very superior, refined and sensitive but who still wrote books and poems against the Jews, say, or in favour of Stalin or Mussolini.

Between Woolf’s narrow, conservative values and our own times stands the dire history of the twentieth century which ought to have disabused anyone of these Victorian notions of the Superiority of Art.

She’s on firmer grounds when she leaves off her notions of art and takes a more sociological view of the pressures modern artists come under. This echoes, repeats or invokes the notion of multiple voices which we’ve encountered her struggling with in earlier essays. Here she gives them external form as types or groups or classes of people who are perpetually haranguing the modern artist, including:

  • the voice which cries: ‘I cannot protect you; I cannot pay you. I am so tortured and distracted that I can no longer enjoy your works of art’
  • the voice which asks for help: ‘Come down from your ivory tower, leave your studio and use your gifts as doctor, as teacher, not as an artist’
  • the voice which warns the artist that unless he can show good cause why art benefits the state he will be made to help it actively – by making aeroplanes, by firing guns etc
  • the voice which artists in other countries have already heard and had to obey, the voice which proclaims that the artist is the servant of the politician, of a Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini

So, in the face of all these voices shouting at him, no wonder the modern artist is forced to take part in politics, and decides to form or join societies like the Artists International Association.

And that’s what she was commissioned to explain, and she has just explained it. You can see how it’s still written from a position which mocks and scorns all these external voices, the voices of society, and tries to preserve the separateness and aloofness of the artist, the high artistic calling she learned in her father’s library in the last years of Queen Victoria’s reign.

10. Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid (1940: 4 pages)

Written in August 1940, for an American symposium on current matters concerning women.

As she writes in London, Germans are flying overhead dropping bombs trying to kill her. This is the same situation with which George Orwell starts his famous essay, The Lion and the Unicorn. The difference is that Woolf is a woman and a feminist. Therefore she is aggrieved that women on both sides of the fighting are not given guns or any material means of helping. Sure they can make guns and munitions and serve food and protect the children. But there’s another way. They can use their minds. (This is always a doubtful tactic in Woolf whose mind was liable to stray and loses its place far more than the average person, as all her writings show.)

But she sticks to her feminist message. The whole Establishment tells women they are fighting Hitler because he is the embodiment of aggression, tyranny, the insane love of power. And yet she quotes Lady Astor in a speech saying:

Women of ability are held down because of a subconscious Hitlerism in the hearts of men.

It’s the same point she made in the ferociously powerful feminist tract, Three Guineas. So I understand that the challenge is how to get rid of this subconscious Hitlerism in the hearts of men, but I didn’t understand what she was proposing to do.

She makes a detour to describe how training to become a soldier and readiness to fight appears to be instinctive to many men. How can this instinct be eradicated? Well, imagine if the government told all women that childbearing would be banned for most of them, and restricted to a tiny handful i.e. sought to abolish a fundamental instinct of women, what luck would it have? Not much. So trying to make young men more peace-minded is the same kind of challenge.

We must help the young Englishmen to root out from themselves the love of medals and decorations. We must create more honourable activities for those who try to conquer in themselves their fighting instinct, their subconscious Hitlerism. We must compensate the man for the loss of his gun.

What does this mean in practical terms? She repeats the same ideas in a slightly different formulation.

If we are to compensate the young man for the loss of his glory and of his gun, we must give him access to the creative feelings. We must make happiness. We must free him from the machine. We must bring him out of his prison into the open air.

These ‘We must…’ sentences could be written on till infinity but won’t change anything and so have no meaning except as expressions of fine feelings.

Comment 1: the failure of feminism

Like so many of the feminist articles and essays I read every day in the Guardian, New Statesman, London Review of Books, The Atlantic, The Conversation, the New York Review of Books, even in the Financial Times and sometimes in the Economist, Woolf laments that (some/quite a few) men are violent, in thrall to ‘the subconscious Hitlerism in the hearts of men’, and calls for a wholesale transformation of human nature.

Go on, then. Transform human nature. In fact I’ve been reading the same lament, and hearing it from feminist friends and girlfriends and wives and daughters for over 40 years, tens of thousands of articles, documentaries, films, plays and so on calling for a radical overhaul of human nature to try and make men less toxic and more like women.

How is the project to radically transform human (male) nature going? Well, according to the thousands of articles lamenting the election of Donald Trump or bewailing the rise and rise of Andrew Tate, it is going backwards, which is impressive. I don’t mean I applaud Trump the know-nothing bully or the poisonous snake Tate, far from it. It’s just impressive that the feminist cause seems to be going backwards.

And I’m not especially singling out feminism. Although everyone knows that they are being exploited by huge corporations and multinational banks, that every service in their lives is ripping them off, yet somehow, magically, more and more voters are turning to an essentially right-wing solution, rather than what seems to me the more obvious need for a string of left-wing policies to rein in excess wealth, excess pay and excess control of corporations over our lives. (Just think of all the privatised water companies paying their shareholders huge dividends while filling our rivers with sewage.)

Same with global warming and the environment. Although everyone knows about it now, and governments are taking steps to invest in renewable energy and diversity power grids, on the cultural level society seems to be taking against the green and environmental policies we desperately need.

What I’m trying to do is understand and report what people are actually like instead of what high-minded progressives would like them to be like.

So back to Woolf, I know she’s a patron saint for feminists, but, tome, she’s also a kind of patron saint of feminist fantasy. I mean her narrow, blinkered, limited, upper-middle-class experience of life excluded her from understanding the great majority of population in her time and my thesis is that, in following her, in adopting her voice and tone, latterday feminists make the same mistake – of not understanding human nature in all its squalid horribleness and of simply wishing toxic masculinity away, without any practical plans to deal with it. To repeat, her solution is:

If we are to compensate the young man for the loss of his glory and of his gun, we must give him access to the creative feelings. We must make happiness. We must free him from the machine. We must bring him out of his prison into the open air.

Like so many progressives, she thinks that if only we could give our enemies a reading list of classic literature – and in particular make them read more Keats and Shakespeare – we could magic the problems of managing human nature away.

My position is simply that it’s much harder than that.

Comment 2: preparing for war

Eighty-five years after Woolf wrote this piece, the British government and fleets of commentators are all worrying about how to encourage more young Englishmen to cultivate their fighting instinct and join the British Army which, like the armies of all European nations, need to be significantly increased to counter the threat from Putin’s Russia.

Telling men to cultivate their finer feelings is not really an adequate strategy for coping with Putin’s Russia or Xi Jinping’s China, just ask the young men of Ukraine. Why are there always wars and the threat of wars? The feminists I knew at university and subsequently all had one answer: it’s men’s fault. It’s toxic masculinity. There. Done. Understood. Sorted. Dismissed.

Except it isn’t sorted, it’s never sorted. All the essays in the world – no matter how high minded and correct and lovely in their sentiments and wishes – can change human nature with its endless lust to fight the enemy and destroy the planet.


Credit

‘Selected Essays of Virginia Woolf’ was published by Oxford World Classics (OWC) in 2008. Most but not all of the essays can be found online. The OWC introduction can be read on Amazon.

Related links

Related reviews

  • Virginia Woolf reviews

Candida by George Bernard Shaw

George Bernard Shaw’s early works are problem or issue plays, the trouble being that the problems or issues seem so silly and shallow to us, 130 years later, that it’s hard to care about them very much. Also Shaw just doesn’t have the giant depth of Ibsen or the fierce intensity of Strindberg, the dazzling wit of Wilde or the humanity of Chekhov – so his plays feel, to me, like moderately attractive, wordy rambles.

This one is on that perennial subject, which goes back to the Greeks and still fuels countless soaps and novels today, the Love Triangle. This one is between:

  1. James Morell, a 40-something vicar who works in the East End (his house overlooks Victoria Park)
  2. his wife, 33-year-old Candida
  3. and a pathetic drip of a pimply poet, 18-year-old Eugene Marchbanks, who mistakes teenage ineptitude and shyness for finer feelings, and is convinced that Candida really loves him

As with ‘Arms and the Man’ the supposed narrative, let alone the ‘issues’ the play ‘deals with’ (what does a woman want? what is marriage for? yadda yadda yadda) scarcely ruffled my mind. The most interesting thing about ‘Candida’ is the astonishing detail of Shaw’s set descriptions and stage descriptions.

The play opens with three very densely packed pages, comprising 1,200 words, describing the vicinity and contents of Victoria Park in East London, before zooming in to describe the exterior of Morell’s dwelling place, St. Dominic’s Parsonage. He gives us a minute description of the drawing room which is the set for most of the play before finally alighting, like the camera in an old-fashioned movie, on the male protagonist himself and proceeding to summarise the man Morell, his character and appearance, his career and attitudes, in prose which reads just like a novel. This is just part of this long description:

The Reverend James Mavor Morell is a Christian Socialist clergyman of the Church of England, and an active member of the Guild of St. Matthew and the Christian Social Union. A vigorous, genial, popular man of forty, robust and goodlooking, full of energy, with pleasant, hearty, considerate manners, and a sound, unaffected voice, which he uses with the clean, athletic articulation of a practised orator, and with a wide range and perfect command of expression. He is a first rate clergyman, able to say what he likes to whom he likes, to lecture people without setting himself up against them, to impose his authority on them without humiliating them, and to interfere in their business without impertinence. His well-spring of spiritual enthusiasm and sympathetic emotion has never run dry for a moment: he still eats and sleeps heartily enough to win the daily battle between exhaustion and recuperation triumphantly. Withal, a great baby, pardonably vain of his powers and unconsciously pleased with himself. He has a healthy complexion, a good forehead, with the brows somewhat blunt, and the eyes bright and eager, a mouth resolute, but not particularly well cut, and a substantial nose, with the mobile, spreading nostrils of the dramatic orator, but, like all his features, void of subtlety.

On their first appearances the text stops to give equally as detailed descriptions of the two other main characters, as well as ancillaries such as Morell’s snippy secretary, Miss Proserpine Garnett, and Candida’s comically Cockney father, Mr Burgess.

Mr. Burgess enters unannounced. He is a man of sixty, made coarse and sordid by the compulsory selfishness of petty commerce, and later on softened into sluggish bumptiousness by overfeeding and commercial success. A vulgar, ignorant, guzzling man, offensive and contemptuous to people whose labour is cheap, respectful to wealth and rank, and quite sincere and without rancour or envy in both attitudes. Finding him without talent, the world has offered him no decently paid work except ignoble work, and he has become in consequence, somewhat hoggish. But he has no suspicion of this himself, and honestly regards his commercial prosperity as the inevitable and socially wholesome triumph of the ability, industry, shrewdness and experience in business of a man who in private is easygoing, affectionate and humorously convivial to a fault. Corporeally, he is a podgy man, with a square, clean shaven face and a square beard under his chin; dust coloured, with a patch of grey in the centre, and small watery blue eyes with a plaintively sentimental expression, which he transfers easily to his voice by his habit of pompously intoning his sentences.

What these enormous descriptions convey, I think, is Shaw’s lofty superiority to his own characters. His brisk businesslike dismissal of them then carries in into the stage directions which often subtly mock and undermine them.

And it’s this (on the admittedly slender basis of having read just two of his plays) which gives Shaw’s plays their superficiality. He himself undermines their seriousness at every turn, not with comedy – as in Wilde – but with a kind of robust good-humoured mockery which is rarely actually funny but is facetious and unserious enough to prevent his characters acquiring real gravitas.

Act 1

We are introduced to the reverend Morell and his secretary, Proserpine, also to a young Oxford clergyman Morell has picked up, the Reverend Alexander Mill.

Then his father-in-law Mr Burgess arrives to make it up after they had an argument. Morell lost his temper with Burgess for winning a contract with the council by dint of paying his employees starvation wages. As a result Morell shamed the Guardians out of accepting Burgess’s bid and Burgess was miffed. Now Burgess announces that he’s got most of the work automated and raised the pay of the remaining workers. Morell is briefly overjoyed before Burgess explains that he only did it to win the contract i.e. not out of the kindness of his heart.

Onto this scene enters Morell’s wife Candida, aged 33, who’s arrived home from a trip somewhere. She’s arrived back along with Eugene Marchbanks, a slight, weedy, effeminate, shy, nervous scribbledehoy.

After a bit of politeness, Burgess and Candida exit leaving Morell and Marchbanks by themselves. Dialogue in which Marchbanks manages to massively insult Morell, by telling him all his ideas about life are wrong and that his wife doesn’t love him. Marchbanks is, we are told, a poet who believes all kinds of poetical things about love are true. He phrases them quite persuasively but the nub of the scene is he manages to anger even the kind-hearted tolerant Morell who eventually grabs him by the lapels and shouts at him to leave his house. Comically, it’s at this precise moment that Candida enters and insists that Eugene simply must stay for lunch, mustn’t he, John?

So that’s Act 1 but what impressed me, as usual, was the detail of the dialogue instructions.

(Eugene chafes intolerantly, repudiating the worth of his happiness. Morell, deeply insulted, controls himself with fine forbearance, and continues steadily, with great artistic beauty of delivery.)

MARCHBANKS: (unimpressed and remorseless, his boyish crudity of assertion telling sharply against Morell’s oratory)

MORELL: (redoubling his force of style under the stimulus of his genuine feeling and Eugene’s obduracy).

I’m fascinated by Shaw’s obsessive detailing of every aspect of his characters’ personality, history, gestures and tones of voice, which leaves almost nothing to the interpreter of the actor of the character, the director of the play or the reader.

Act 2

Same scene, later the same day, Eugene and Miss Proserpine. Eugene spills his naive thoughts about love:

MARCHBANKS: All the love in the world is longing to speak; only it dare not, because it is shy, shy, shy. That is the world’s tragedy.

Eugene keeps plugging away at Proserpine until he gets her to admit that she has feelings for Morell and loses her temper with his childish persistence. Which is just the moment when bluff old Mr Burgess enters. He, also, has an argument with Miss P who calls him a fat head – then realises she’s gone too far and repents when the bell goes and she exits.

Burgess tells Eugene he thinks Morell is mad because earlier this morning he called him a ‘scoundrel’. This obviously plays to Eugene’s recent argument with Morell.

Morell enters and Burgess complains that Proserpina called him a fat head. Morell laughs and tells him to forget it. Burgess says (aside) to Eugene, Told you so – mad! The scene is all about manual labour. When Morell says that Candida is filling the lamps both Burgess and Eugene are outraged, Eugene in particular can’t bear to think of her sullying her pretty white hands etc.

In the event Candida enters carrying one of the lamps she just filled which leads to melodramatic wailing from Eugene who says he has the horrors. Burgess comically thinks he’s talking about delirium tremens till Candida clarifies that Eugene is talking about the poetic horrors. Candida drags Eugene off to chop onions, leaving time for Burgess and Proserpine to spat a bit more. P wins and Burgess goes into the garden in a huff.

When Candida returns she makes Morell stop writing and come and sit and talk with her. She tells him the obvious fact that Prosperine is in love with her, just like all his previous secretaries – and the congregations at his church only come because he’s such a damn good sermon giver, a great performer, that it’s better than a play. But none of them believe in God or practice what he tells them.

This all leads to the notion that Morell receives love and adulation from his secretaries and flocks and yet love is desperately wanting for the one person who needs it, Eugene! She goes even further by revealing she knows that Eugene is ready to fall in love with her. Morell is shocked and upset that his wife is attracted to the young man he laid hands on for saying he loved her. Some kind of power is taking Candida away from him.

She goes even further in saying she hopes Eugene finds out about love from a good (kind, noble) woman and doesn’t degrade himself by finding out from a bad, fallen woman. And now she horrifies Morell by saying she would sacrifice her purity and duty for Eugene.

CANDIDA: Ah, James, how little you understand me, to talk of your confidence in my goodness and purity! I would give them both to poor Eugene as willingly as I would give my shawl to a beggar dying of cold, if there were nothing else to restrain me.

Candida’s mockery, and even her phraseology, directly echo Eugene’s, and when she clinches her speech by giving him a mocking kiss, it breaks Morell’s heart. He angrily pushes her away just as Eugene and Burgess re-enter, to be amazed by the couple arguing.

Marchbanks sits on the sofa and Candida goes to cheerily sit next to him but he is scandalised. His says he is upset because he can see how much Candida has hurt Morell.

MARCHBANKS (aside to her). It is your cruelty. I hate cruelty. It is a horrible thing to see one person make another suffer.

Burgess and Marchbanks are remonstrating with Candida when Lexy, Morell’s young assistant enters. He has a message from the Guild of St. Matthew. They have booked a hall and put up posters advertising that Morell will speak to them, but now…he has sent a telegram saying he won’t go and won’t speak.

I didn’t understand the timing of this. If Morell is meant to have had some change of heart because of his argument with Candida, that’s only just happened, and there’s been no time for him to send anyone a telegram. So it must have been a result of his earlier conversation with Eugene, where Eugene attacked his superficial speechifying and said he knew nothing of love.

All the other characters are disconcerted and amazed. Morell always keeps his speaking engagements. And letting a group down on the very evening of his talk is unprecedented. Candida tells him they’ll all come along to support him, they’ll sit on the stage and everything.

At which point Morell calls Miss Prosperine in and tells her to telegraph the Guild of St. Matthew to tell them that he will speak after all. Burgess is reluctant to attend until Morell tells him the chairman is on the Works Committee of the County Council and has some influence in the matter of contracts at which point, with comic effect, he reverses his decision. He’ll require Miss P and Lexy, as well.

But when Candida renews her offer to attend, Morell tells her no: she must stay at home and entertain Eugene. He goes so far as to say he is afraid of Eugene’s criticism and won’t be able to express himself, won’t speak freely if Eugene is watching.

MORELL: I should be afraid to let myself go before Eugene: he is so critical of sermons. (Looking at him.) He knows I am afraid of him: he told me as much this morning. Well, I shall show him how much afraid I am by leaving him here in your custody, Candida.
MARCHBANKS (to himself, with vivid feeling): That’s brave. That’s beautiful.

So…so he’s leaving Candida and Marchbanks alone together as a kind of test… This along with the characterisation of Candida, in fact the central triangle between Morell, Marchbanks and Candida is comprehensible just deeply improbable.

Act 3

Same scene past ten that evening. Eugene has been reading Candida poetry for two hours, ever since Morell left the house. With the result that Candida is slumped in an armchair gazing hypnotised at the tip of a poker she’s holding. Eugene stops reading and asks her what she thinks and has to ask several times to wake her from her trance. He is a bit hurt that she’s hasn’t been listening, she is remorseful.

She asks him to come closer. She is in an armchair and he lies on the hearthrug with his head on her lap. He says he has only one thing to say and repeats her name in an impassioned poetic way, says that repeating her name is like praying. She is kindly but also shrewd and sensible at the same time, asks if praying this prayer makes him happy and he says yes.

I’d have thought all this was advanced flirting and this is just the moment when when Morell comes in and sees them together. When Morell says the others have gone to dine somewhere Candida goes out to tell the maid she can go to bed, leaving Morell alone with Marchbanks.

Morell interrogates Eugene, in effect asking him whether he has seduced his wife, though it’s all expressed more obtusely than that. Eugene says his wife maintained a ‘flaming sword’ between them. The conflict between them is populated by subtle sentiments, clever turns of debate and conflicting interpretations of phrases, but the entire situation seems preposterous. This clergyman is allowing his young guest to see whether he can tempt and seduce his wife away from him…

To put it another way, both of these men dress up the process of falling in love, being in love, being married, maintaining a relationship, in a bluster of metaphors and allusions which are presented as sophisticated dialogue but feel really tiresome. The general idea is Marchbanks speaks in absurdly naive, over-the-top poetic flights of fancy while Morell is the straight man, providing the thumping bathos of reality.

MARCHBANKS (Dreamily): A woman like that has divine insight: she loves our souls, and not our follies and vanities and illusions, or our collars and coats, or any other of the rags and tatters we are rolled up in. (He reflects on this for an instant; then turns intently to question Morell.) What I want to know is how you got past the flaming sword that stopped me.
MORELL (meaningly): Perhaps because I was not interrupted at the end of ten minutes.
MARCHBANKS (taken aback): What!
MORELL: Man can climb to the highest summits; but he cannot dwell there long.
MARCHBANKS: It’s false: there can he dwell for ever and there only. It’s in the other moments that he can find no rest, no sense of the silent glory of life. Where would you have me spend my moments, if not on the summits?

There’s an interlude of broad comedy when Burgess, Lexy and Proserpine stumble into the living room having come from a champagne dinner bought by Burgess, each one a bit tipsy which exaggerates their basic characters.

Anyway, this larking about is a comic interlude before the climax of the play, arrived at in a roundabout, laboured way. This Great Climax is that Morell and Marchbanks both ask Candida to choose between them. Shaw makes a sort of feminist point that Candida finds both of them absurd, finding Marchbanks a pathetic child (sat on the sofa ‘like a guilty schoolboy on his best behaviour’) but just as disappointed by her husband who hesitates to assert that he is ‘master’ of the house.

Both men make set-piece speeches bidding for her love before Candida announces her decision. She says she gives herself to ‘the weaker of the two’. Morell, in his convention, literal way interprets this to mean Marchbanks who throughout the play and in his arguments with Morell has painted himself as a feeble weakling up against strong determined Morell, and I think the audience is intended to go along with this interpretation, too.

However, it is a conceit or gag or ploy. Marchbanks grasps it immediately but Candida has to spell it out to Morell that by this phrase she in fact means him. Then she delivers the Author’s Message which is that Morell only appears strong because all his life he has had other people (mostly women) to support him.

CANDIDA: Ask James’s mother and his three sisters what it cost to save James the trouble of doing anything but be strong and clever and happy. Ask ME what it costs to be James’s mother and three sisters and wife and mother to his children all in one. Ask Prossy and Maria how troublesome the house is even when we have no visitors to help us to slice the onions. Ask the tradesmen who want to worry James and spoil his beautiful sermons who it is that puts them off … I build a castle of comfort and indulgence and love for him, and stand sentinel always to keep little vulgar cares out. I make him master here, though he does not know it…

And once it’s pointed out to him, Morell instantly agrees, with rather sickening Victorian sentimentality.

MORELL (quite overcome, kneeling beside her chair and embracing her with boyish ingenuousness): It’s all true, every word. What I am you have made me with the labour of your hands and the love of your heart! You are my wife, my mother, my sisters: you are the sum of all loving care to me.

Somehow, by some alchemy which might work in the theatre but rings very hollow on the page, Candida’s choice and her explanation transform Marchbanks. Instead of the pathetic weed he’s been for all the play up to now, he is at a stroke transformed into a man. He even sounds like a man:

MARCHBANKS (with the ring of a man’s voice—no longer a boy’s—in the words). I know the hour when it strikes. I am impatient to do what must be done.

He declares that this morning he was 18 whereas now, having gone through whatever process Shaw has in mind, he feels ‘as old as the world’, and the play closes in some kind of climax of Victorian high-mindedness which I’ll quote in full to give you the preposterous pompous flavour:

CANDIDA (going to him, and standing behind him with one hand caressingly on his shoulder): Eighteen! Will you, for my sake, make a little poem out of the two sentences I am going to say to you? And will you promise to repeat it to yourself whenever you think of me?
MARCHBANKS (without moving): Say the sentences.
CANDIDA: When I am thirty, she will be forty-five. When I am sixty, she will be seventy-five.
MARCHBANKS (turning to her): In a hundred years, we shall be the same age. But I have a better secret than that in my heart. Let me go now. The night outside grows impatient.

‘The night outside grows impatient,’ yes.

Thoughts

An Ibsen play moves through a carefully structured series of revelations which shake the audience and the characters’ sense of themselves. Strindberg’s characters torment each other with an intensity which bites the imagination. But Shaw describes his characters in such excruciating detail on their first appearance that he destroys any sense of mystery or surprise as he puts his totally-explained mannequins through the motions.

Long before the end I was exasperated with the footling histrionic Marchbanks, but also immensely frustrated with Morell’s inability to simply kick the cuckoo out of his nest. I think we’re intended to sympathise with Candida, I think she’s meant to be a Modern Woman and a variation on Ibsen’s great Nora Helmer. But she, and the play in general, have absolutely none of Ibsen’s depth. Instead, her insistence on playing up to Marchbanks, her insistence at the end of Act 1 that he stays for lunch even though he and her husband have just come to blows; her toying with him at the start of Act 3, all this just seems wilful and silly and superficial, especially when it becomes plain how much it’s hurting the husband she claims to care for.

All three of them seem to hurt each other but not for the deep reasons of Ibsen or Strindberg but just because Shaw wills it so for our entertainment. The reversal on the penultimate page where Candida proves that Morell is the weaker of the two doesn’t feel like the revelation of a great truth, the solution of an issue we can all relate to, but a cheap gag at the end of a rather tiresome entertainment.


Credit

‘Candida’ by George Bernard Shaw was first staged in 1894 and published in 1898 as part of Shaw’s ‘Plays Pleasant’ volume, which also included ‘Arms and the Man’, ‘You Never Can Tell’, and ‘The Man of Destiny’. I read the 1946 Penguin paperback edition, 1964 reprint.

Related links

Related reviews

Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime and Other Stories by Oscar Wilde (1891)

This is a collection of four short comedy mystery stories that Oscar Wilde wrote and published in magazines from 1887, before bringing them together in this volume in 1891. They showcase:

  1. Wilde’s favoured milieu and subject i.e. the upperest of the English upper classes
  2. whose conversation is littered with smart, politely cynical banter and witty bons mots
  3. his aptness, given half a chance, to slip into the purplest of purple prose, likely to reference precious jewels and the pink fingers of dawn and the glories of Greece etc
  4. his just-as-frequent tendency to slip into the over-egged tones of Victorian melodrama

1. Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime

This brilliant comic story exemplifies all four aspects of Wilde’s fiction.

1. It is set among the highest of high London Society, opening at a wonderful party being given by Lady Windermere at her London mansion, Bentinck House, which gives Wilde the opportunity to introduce a series of caricatures of the upper classes, but also the ‘straight’ hero of the story, dashing young Lord Savile.

2. The tone of frivolous banter, elegant badinage based on paradox and wit is established right at the start:

‘But surely that is tempting Providence, Gladys.’
‘My dear Duchess, surely Providence can resist temptation by this time.’

‘No one cares about distant relatives nowadays,’ said Lady Windermere. ‘They went out of fashion years ago.’

3. After having his palm read, Lord Arthur wanders the streets of London till dawn, when he encounters carters coming in from the countryside piled high with fruit and veg for Covent Garden:

and the great piles of vegetables looked like masses of jade against the morning sky, like masses of green jade against the pink petals of some marvellous rose. Lord Arthur felt curiously affected, he could not tell why. There was something in the dawn’s delicate loveliness that seemed to him inexpressibly pathetic, and he thought of all the days that break in beauty, and that set in storm…

After several attempts to carry out the pre-destined murder fail, a gloomy Lord Arthur:

wandered down to the Thames Embankment, and sat for hours by the river. The moon peered through a mane of tawny clouds, as if it were a lion’s eye, and innumerable stars spangled the hollow vault, like gold dust powdered on a purple dome. Now and then a barge swung out into the turbid stream, and floated away with the tide, and the railway signals changed from green to scarlet as the trains ran shrieking across the bridge. After some time, twelve o’clock boomed from the tall tower at Westminster, and at each stroke of the sonorous bell the night seemed to tremble. Then the railway lights went out, one solitary lamp left gleaming like a large ruby on a giant mast, and the roar of the city became fainter.

At two o’clock he got up, and strolled towards Blackfriars. How unreal everything looked! How like a strange dream! The houses on the other side of the river seemed built out of darkness. One would have said that silver and shadow had fashioned the world anew. The huge dome of St. Paul’s loomed like a bubble through the dusky air.

Like a painting by Whistler, isn’t it? If only London was actually like that.

And then there’s Wilde’s tendency to reference all things Greek as a marker of beauty. Here’s a description of Sybil Merton:

The small, exquisitely-shaped head drooped slightly to one side, as though the thin, reed-like throat could hardly bear the burden of so much beauty; the lips were slightly parted, and seemed made for sweet music; and all the tender purity of girlhood looked out in wonder from the dreaming eyes. With her soft, clinging dress of crêpe-de-chine, and her large leaf-shaped fan, she looked like one of those delicate little figures men find in the olive-woods near Tanagra*; and there was a touch of Greek grace in her pose and attitude.

4. And closely related to the passages about rose-coloured dawn are the equal and opposite passages of over-ripe melodrama which thrill themselves with big words like Murder and Horror and Fate and Destiny and Doom!

Looking at him, one would have said that Nemesis had stolen the shield of Pallas, and shown him the Gorgon’s head. He seemed turned to stone, and his face was like marble in its melancholy. He had lived the delicate and luxurious life of a young man of birth and fortune, a life exquisite in its freedom from sordid care, its beautiful boyish insouciance; and now for the first time he became conscious of the terrible mystery of Destiny, of the awful meaning of Doom.

The plot

As to the plot: Lord Arthur Savile is a young, rich man about town (‘he was very wealthy himself, having come into all Lord Rugby’s property when he came of age’). He is engaged to the fragrant Sybil Merton. At Lady Windermere’s party he has his palm read by her latest discovery, a cheiromantist, a short, fat, sickly man named Septimus Podgers. (Wilde’s astonishing snobbery is on such open display that many readers fail to even notice it.)

It was Mr. Podgers, the cheiromantist! No one could mistake the fat, flabby face, the gold-rimmed spectacles, the sickly feeble smile, the sensual mouth.

Stunned by what he hears he stumbles out of the party and spends the night’s wandering the streets of London in horror, for Mr Podgers has predicted that Lord Savile will commit a murder!!

The joke, the comic conceit of the whole story, is that Lord Savile is made to (ironically) decide it is his Duty to commit this murder and so get it out of the way before he can marry his fiancée. It is a suave and satirical inversion of what most people would regard as their ‘duty’, characteristic of Wilde’s love of inverting conventional values or sentiments:

Many men in his position would have preferred the primrose path of dalliance to the steep heights of duty; but Lord Arthur was too conscientious to set pleasure above principle…he recognised none the less clearly where his duty lay, and was fully conscious of the fact that he had no right to marry until he had committed the murder…For a moment he had a natural repugnance against what he was asked to do, but it soon passed away. His heart told him that it was not a sin, but a sacrifice; his reason reminded him that there was no other course open…and he felt no hesitation about doing his duty.

Since Duty compels him to murder someone he sets to the task with energy and makes a list of possible victims:

He accordingly made out a list of his friends and relatives on a sheet of notepaper, and after careful consideration, decided in favour of Lady Clementina Beauchamp, a dear old lady who lived in Curzon Street, and was his own second cousin by his mother’s side.

From this point onwards the text revels in the multiple paradoxes thrown up by a charming gentleman having decided that Duty obliges him to murder a relative. For example, he disdains to do it by hand, being both a gentleman but also wishing to avoid the publicity attendant on such an act, and definitely not wanting to be lionised at one of Lady Windermere’s parties.

So he consults some textbooks on poison at his club then strolls down St James’s to a famous chemists who he easily persuades to make a pill of aconitine, a strong poison, claiming it is to put down a dog with rabies. Then he visits Lady Clem and gives her the pill as a gift, contained in a charming silver bonbonierre, claiming it will cure her heartburn. She is touched and promises to take it next time she has an attack.

Proud of having done his duty, Lord Savile goes abroad till Lady Clem dies, holidaying with his brother Lord Surbiton in Venice (of which Wilde takes the time to show off his knowledge, specifically of the top hotels and restaurants).

When he gets news that Lady Clem has died he feels the warmth and pride of a man who has Done His Duty and returns to London to resume his engagement to Sybil. Lady Clem has left Lord Savile her house in Curzon Street and, when he is clearing it out along with Sybil, she comes across the bonbonniere! Disaster! Lady Clem died a natural death, he did not murder her at all! He is back to square one in his plan to fulfil Mr Podgers’ prediction.

Recovering from his bitter disappointment, Lord Arthur determines to act like a man and so decides to blow up his uncle, the Dean of Chichester. He goes to see a Russian he’s met, a Count who’s over here researching Peter the Great’s spell in England, who writes him a letter of introduction to a famous bomb maker who specialises in making explosive clocks. The comedy derives from the extreme politeness and formality of the conversation between the lord and the bomb-maker.

‘The clock is intended for the Dean of Chichester.’
‘Dear me! I had no idea that you felt so strongly about religion, Lord Arthur. Few young men do nowadays.’
‘I am afraid you overrate me, Herr Winckelkopf,’ said Lord Arthur, blushing. ‘The fact is, I really know nothing about theology.’

Arthur duly sends an ornate clock containing a timed bomb to his uncle (anonymously, of course) but then hears nothing on the day it’s due to go off and a few days later his mother receives a letter from the Dean’s daughter describing the funny little present they’d been sent which gave a funny fizzing then a little pop, prompting the statue of freedom on its top to fall off and break its nose in the fireplace. So much for explosives!

A note on Ian Small’s annotations

I read the stories in the Penguin Complete Short Fiction volume, which is edited by Ian Small. Unlike the feminist academic who edited the OUP’s edition of the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Small doesn’t take every opportunity to tick off his author for being a member of the patriarchy who erases female presence, or scold his male readers for their toxic masculinity, which is a refreshing change.

Instead, Small writes a sensible introduction which places Wilde’s shorter fiction in the overall context of his career, and his notes are lovely: he chooses just the right words and phrases to annotate and the notes themselves are useful and informative. He is particularly illuminating about recurring themes of Wilde’s; for example, the minor detail that Wilde repeatedly has his characters mock American novels. In other notes he points out that:

Names

Wilde had to be careful about names so as to avoid libel; this meant he often recycled fictional names, most obviously in Lord Savile’s Crime which a) features a Lady Windermere, later to be used as the central character of the play, and b) names the protagonist’s fiancée Sybil, just like the fiancée in Dorian Gray.

Jokes

Wilde recycles not just names but jokes, one liners from these stories reappearing in the plays.

Cosmopolitan

Late-Victorian High Society was characterised by easy movement between the worlds of high politics, high society, the arts and so on, something any reader of the fiction of the period notices.

The geography of London

was highly meaningful in Wilde’s fiction: the kind of High Society Wilde depicts lived in Mayfair or St James’s (Lord Savile lives in Belgrave Square, Sybil lives at her father’s house in Park Lane): all other parts of London were less high class and carried meanings, thus Bayswater was a newly built neighbourhood aimed at the new middle classes, Soho was associated with prostitution, the East End was universally associated not just with poverty but with violent crime and even, down at the waterfront docks, drugs i.e. opium dens set up by Chinese sailors.

Meals

In the same spirit, meals are an important indicator of class in Wilde: for Lord Arthur ‘tea’ denotes high tea, taken at 4pm and consisting of tea and, maybe, cucumber sandwiches; he humorously turns down an invitation from some Russian anarchists to a meat tea, which, as the name suggests, involved cold or hot meat and was a much more lower class habit.

The Morning Post

The Times may have been the British Empire’s newspaper of record, but the Morning Post contained all the Society gossip and so was the newspaper most of Wilde’s characters read, in order to read about themselves, their parties and their affairs; it features in Lord Arthur Savile and the Sphinx.

Cigarettes

Smoking cigarettes was a marker of modern ‘decadence’: smart young men and ‘fast’ women smoked cigarettes, by contrast with their parents who didn’t smoke at all, or reassuring uncles who smoked trusty old pipes:

After breakfast [Lord Arthur] flung himself down on a divan, and lit a cigarette.

The telephone

Incidentally, speaking of ‘modern’ I was struck that Lord Savile telephones to his stables to have his hansom prepared; impressively hi-tech for 1887.

Russian revolutionary politics

A hot topic in the 1880s; Wilde dealt with the subject at length twice, once in his essay on The Soul of Man Under Socialism which takes as its starting point the writings of the Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin; and once in his early and unsuccessful play, Vera or the Nihilists (premiered New York 1883) which is entirely about Russian revolutionaries.

The French revolution

was in the news because of its centenary in 1889, to commemorate which France had just sent the United States the Statue of Liberty.

Tanagra

Small explains the reference to Tanagra in the passage about Sybil Merton by explaining that in the last decades of the 19th century small and beautifully proportioned statuettes from the 4th and 3rd centuries BC were found at Tanagra, a village in Greece.

2. The Canterville Ghost

A brilliant comedy ghost story, it is also about the contrast and/or culture war between Americans and English, specifically American millionaires buying up Britain. In this case it’s the American Minister, Hiram B. Otis, who buys Canterville Chase, ancestral home of the Canterville family. Lord Canterville warns him about the family ghost to which Otis replies with American can-do confidence aka money:

‘My Lord…I come from a modern country, where we have everything that money can buy; and with all our spry young fellows painting the Old World red, and carrying off your best actresses and prima-donnas, I reckon that if there were such a thing as a ghost in Europe, we’d have it at home in a very short time in one of our public museums, or on the road as a show.’

Ian Small has a useful note pointing out that Americans are in several places in Wilde’s writing described as ‘natural’ or ‘painfully natural’, by contrast with the fastidious European super-sophistication which he thinks of himself as representing.

Mrs. Otis, who, as Miss Lucretia R. Tappan, of West 53rd Street, had been a celebrated New York belle, was now a very handsome, middle-aged woman, with fine eyes, and a superb profile. Many American ladies on leaving their native land adopt an appearance of chronic ill-health, under the impression that it is a form of European refinement, but Mrs. Otis had never fallen into this error. She had a magnificent constitution, and a really wonderful amount of animal spirits.

So it’s a story of other-worldly spirits versus animal spirits. So Mrs and Mrs Otis, their eldest son Washington, 15-year-old Miss Virginia E. Otis and the twin boys catch a train to Ascot, are transported the seven miles to Canterville on a waggonette and are received by the family housekeeper, the lugubrious Mrs Umney, who they have agreed to keep on.

The animal spirits are almost immediately on display as Mrs Umney points out in a solemn whisper the patch of red on the library carpet which is:

the blood of Lady Eleanore de Canterville, who was murdered on that very spot by her own husband, Sir Simon de Canterville, in 1575.

Taking no nonsense Mr Otis whips out a stick of Pinkerton’s Champion Stain Remover and Paragon Detergent and after a few moments of hard rubbing, has completely removed the centuries-old stain. Mrs Umney faints with shock, There is a loud burst of thunder overhead. Mr Otis lights up a long cheroot. The Yanks are here.

But the blood stains keep returning, day after day, despite being cleaned away, despite Mr Otis locking the library door and taking the key to bed with him. A few nights later he is woken by the clanking of chains and opens the door to find a ghost clanking along the hallway. Mr Otis’s phlegmatic response is to ask him to keep the noise down and, indeed, has brought from his beside a bottle of Tammany Rising Sun Lubricator. Outraged, the ghost storms off down the hallway, only to be ambushed at the top of the great oak staircase by the twins who throw a pillow at his head.

The Canterville ghost is outraged. He reviews the great achievements of his career i.e. scaring various housemaids and visiting clergy out of their wits before deciding:

It was quite unbearable…no ghosts in history had ever been treated in this manner. Accordingly, he determined to have vengeance, and remained till daylight in an attitude of deep thought.

But all his attempts to scare the natural Americans fail, even when he decides to emit his ‘celebrated peal of demoniac laughter.’ All that happens is Mrs Otis rushes out into the hall offering him a spoonful of Mr. Dobell’s tincture, which is a great cure for indigestion.

Mortified he makes up his mind to put on a truly terrifying display and Wilde describes his preparations with ironic humour. However, the ghost, dressed to horrify, has barely turned the corner into the Otis family’s sleeping quarters before he spies a truly terrifying sight, turns tail and flees. It is, in fact, a fake ghost knocked up by the incorrigible twins.

Sir Simon is a very conscientious ghost and he is obliged to make certain appearances at certain times and places, so he continues to do so but he finds himself so frightened of the Americans that he willingly uses the Tammany Rising Sun Lubricator to silence his squeaking chains and takes to wearing slippers so as not to wake anyone. In a final attempt to scare the twins, the ghost dresses up in yet another costume and in the middle of the night slowly pushes open their bedroom door – only for a jug full of water balanced on top of the door to fall on his head, giving him a nasty chill.

One afternoon the quiet and soulful daughter, Miss Virginia E. Otis, comes across the ghost alone and sad in the Tapestry Chamber. He doesn’t even try to frighten her but pours out his troubles and woes and she is touched and moved to tears. Isn’t there some escape from this job, she asks. Only if you help me fulfil the prophecy carved in the library window, which is 6 lines of verse effectively saying the ghost can only be saved by a golden girl who gives away her tears.

And the ghost takes Virginia through a secret passage in the wood panelling. With the result that she is late for dinner and then doesn’t appear all evening. Increasingly worried, Mr Otis remembers he gave some gypsies permission to camp on his land. When they go to check the gypsy camp they find it hurriedly vacated and this triggers them sending telegrams to all the local police offices and riding to Ascot station to ask the stationmaster to send messages all along the line asking if a 15-year-old American girl has been seen.

All a wild goose-chase, because later that night with a crash and bang Virginia emerges from the secret panelling to the huge relief of her family (and her young boyfriend, the little Duke of Cheshire). She explains that the ghost is well and truly dead, that he repented his sins, and that she wept for him and that saved his soul. Now all that remains is a skeleton in a secret dungeon.

The final section of the story describes the grand formal burial of Sir Simon’s skeleton in the Canterville plot, and the discussion between Otis and the Lord about who should have ownership of the casket of jewels the ghost gave to Virginia. Lord Canterville insists it is here. And so she wears them at her wedding to the young Duke of Cheshire and when the happy couple are presented to Queen Victoria in 1890.

Commentary

The central gag is drawn out, namely the notion that the ghost does its best to scare the Yanks who remain perfectly indifferent and only promote wonderful American products. This scene or motif is repeated about six times, the essential repetition of the ghost’s attempts and the Americans’ debunking of it concealed by the brio with which Wilde comes up with identities and disguises which the ghost adopts.

The end passages become sentimental. Young Virginia really is close to becoming an angel. And when she attributes the ghost’s ultimate atonement and salvation, nobody questions her.

And then it ends, as almost story ever told, with the happy marriage of Virginia and her Duke. Those damn Yanks, coming over here, stealing our most eligible bachelors. This also is a recurring motif and joke in Wilde’s plays.

3. The Sphinx Without a Secret: an etching

Very short, barely 6 pages in the Penguin edition. Ian Small’s notes tell us that The Sphinx was 1) a nickname Wilde gave to his friend Ada Leverson; 2) was the title of one of his best poems; 3) the sub-title was an example of Wilde’s habit of sub-titling texts or poems in terms of other art forms, generally art or music, very much in the manner of Whistler who called his paintings after genres of music, for example, nocturnes etc.

The plot

The narrator is sitting in a cafe in Paris watching the world go by when he is hailed by Lord Murchison, a good friend from years ago at Oxford. But the man seems anxious and harried. They hail a horse-drawn cab and go to a restaurant in the Bois de Boulogne. After they have eaten, Lord Murchison tells his story.

He shows the narrator a photo of an attractive woman with large vague eyes and wrapped in rich furs. One evening he was walking down Bond Street when he glimpsed a beautiful face in a carriage window. Her beauty haunted him. Next day he walked up and down Rotten Row seeking her, to no avail.

A week later he is dining at Lady Rastail’s when to his utter amazement the woman arrives as a guest and is introduced as Lady Alroy. Murchison takes her into dinner and tries to make conversation, but she is timid, almost anxious. When he mentions having seen her in Bond Street she tells him to hush. He asks if he may pay a call on her next day, she agrees, but when he does so the butler informs him she has gone out. Puzzled, he writes her a letter from his club and she replies agreeing to another meeting, at which she begs him not to write to her at her home.

What the devil is going on? It has the claustrophobic, gnomic secrecy of a Sherlock Holmes story (this story was published in the same year as the first Sherlock Holmes novel, A Study in Scarlet, 1887).

He is taking a short cut between Regent’s Park and Piccadilly when he spots her in a rough quarter of low streets, veiled, hurrying along to the last house in a shabby row and letting herself in with a key. When he calls on her that evening, he explains that he saw her but she refuses to explain her strange behaviour. He had nerved himself to propose marriage, he had become so infatuated by her, but instead finds himself becoming angry and eventually raging at her, before storming out and then going abroad with a friend.

A month later he returns and reads in the Morning Post that she caught a chill at the opera and died. So he goes along to the house he saw her enter; he quizzes the landlady, who simply replies that Lady Alroy had indeed rented the drawing room, liked to arrive wearing a veil and… ‘met someone?’ cries Murchison, anxiously. ‘Not at all,’ the landlady replies. She simply sat and read books and occasionally had tea…

So, back in the present, this is the story he tells the narrator and asks what the devil it all means? The narrator calmly tells him: nothing. She had a fondness for melodrama. She read novels. She liked to fancy herself the heroine of one of them, dress up, slip around the shabbier streets of central London. She was acting in a play of her own devising. There was no secret. She was a sphinx without a secret.

4. The Model Millionaire

A charming little short story about philanthropy and love. It opens with a little flurry of Wildean epigrams. Having read Ian Small’s introduction I now know that Wilde’s texts sometimes actually began as sets of epigrams on a particular topic which he then set out to link together with argumentation or fictional narrative. Thus the painter character pronounces:

Unless one is wealthy there is no use in being a charming fellow.

Romance is the privilege of the rich, not the profession of the unemployed.

The poor should be practical and prosaic.

It is better to have a permanent income than to be fascinating.

After this brief flurry of apothegms, the text settles down to be a sort of fairy story. Young Hughie Erskine is ‘wonderfully good-looking, with his crisp brown hair, his clear-cut profile, and his grey eyes’ but absolutely hopeless at finding a job or a career with the result that he is practically penniless (apart from the two hundred a year that an old aunt allowed him.)

He is in love with Laura Merton, ‘the daughter of a retired Colonel who had lost his temper and his digestion in India’.

They were the handsomest couple in London, and had not a penny-piece between them.

The colonel refuses to consider Hughie as a son-in-law unless he can rustle up £10,000 to support Laura, which he hasn’t the slightest chance of doing. One day Hughie drops in to the home of his friend, Alan Trevor the painter. Alan is painting a beggar, a strikingly picturesque old man.

He was a wizened old man, with a face like wrinkled parchment, and a most piteous expression. Over his shoulders was flung a coarse brown cloak, all tears and tatters; his thick boots were patched and cobbled, and with one hand he leant on a rough stick, while with the other he held out his battered hat for alms.

They discuss painting and Alan says he’ll get 2,000 guineas for his painting. When Alan is called out of the room Hughie is so overcome with pity for the knackered old man that he goes over and gives him the last sovereign in his pocket. The man smiles strangely and says thank you. When Alan returns to the room, Hughie, by now embarrassed at his own generosity, takes his leave.

That evening Hughie bumps into Alan at his club, the Palette Club and they get talking about the old tramp. Alan says he asked lots of questions about Hughie so Alan told him all about his beloved Laura Merton, about the obdurate colonel, the £10,000 requirement and all the rest of it.

It’s only now that Hughie reveals that he slipped the old man a sovereign which prompts Alan to burst out laughing. For ‘the old beggar’ is really Baron Hausberg, the richest man in Europe.

‘He could buy all London to-morrow without overdrawing his account. He has a house in every capital, dines off gold plate, and can prevent Russia going to war when he chooses.’

He asked to be painted in the guise of the poorest of the poor and so Alan, to indulge the whim of a multi-millionaire, lent him a ragged old suit he picked up in Spain. Hughie is mortified to realise what a fool he’s made of himself.

Next morning his servant announces a visitor. Monsieur Gustave Naudin, de la part de M. le Baron Hausberg. Clearly a notary or lawyer, this visitor hands Hughie an envelope containing a cheque for £10,000. His generosity of heart has been rewarded. The story cuts to a swift two-line conclusion. Hughie and Laura are married. Alan Trevor was the best man, and the Baron made a speech at the wedding breakfast. And concludes with a Wildean mot.

‘Millionaire models,’ remarked Alan, ‘are rare enough; but, by Jove, model millionaires are rarer still!’

More Ian Small insights

In his introduction, Ian Small points out that the 1880s saw a great widening of the reading public as a result of 1) new developments in print technology which made printing books and magazines cheaper 2) an explosion in the size of the reading public due to increased education, crystallised by the 1870 Education Act. One of the consequences was a dramatic growth in genre fiction, most notably ghost stories, detective stories and fairy tales. He then shows how Wilde, still desperate to make a living, lost no time in trying at his hand at each of them, fairy tales in the volume titled The Happy Prince, a ghost story in The Canterville Ghost, a murder story in Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime.

Parody

But what is immediately obvious is that Wilde tried his hand at all these genres in the form of parodies. He elegantly inverts the fictional values associated with each genre. Thus the fairy tales are not very reassuring and tend to highlight people’s greed. The ghost in Canterville completely fails to scare the Americans. The murder in Savile is not committed at the start of the story, but forms the ironically logical conclusion of the story.

Small thinks the stories ‘subvert’ Victorian morality but that’s not quite right. At the end of Savile and Millionaire the young lovers get happily married. In Canterville the only sensitive, imaginative member of the Otis family saves the soul of a sinner and reconciles him with God. In Millionaire a spontaneous act of kindness is handsomely rewarded. Surely nothing could be more conventional or piously Victorian than these outcomes?

Inversion of values

It’s more accurate to say that the journeys to these conclusions are unorthodox. They turn the conventions of their genres, especially Canterville and Savile, on their heads. Not only that but the inversion tends to be at the expense of social values. In Lord Arthur Savile’s Crime the joke is that Arthur feels duty bound to commit the murder the cheiromancer has predicted for the sake of his fiancée. The moral inversion at the centre of the story mocks society’s values. And it foregrounds the conflict between Morality and Social Convention which is a, arguably the, central theme of Wilde’s works.

Disguise

Parody of genres and inversion of social values are joined by a third recurring theme, which is disguise and concealment. This is the theme of the two short and slight stories in the volume. In Sphinx Lady Alroy maintains a secret, wears a veil, whips up an air of melodrama around herself, which turns out to be utterly baseless and empty. It is not the ‘secret’ that matters: there is no secret; it is the performance, it is the play-acting which matters, which gives her her identity.

Millionaire is a lesser example, although it still centres on the figure of a fabulously rich multi-millionaire masquerading as a homeless beggar. Putting the actual plots to one side for a moment, both stories share the same fundamental structure whereby the majority of the narrative is driven by a subterfuge, a disguise and a bit of play-acting, which is then revealed.


Related links

Oscar Wilde reviews

His Lordship by Leslie Thomas (1970)

Sometimes, with all his uncertainties and outrageous misjudgements, he felt like a man destined to stagger through life weighed down by half a dozen heavy, free-swinging slop buckets.
(His Lordship, page 23)

‘It just seems to me that half the jokes in the world are on me. I’m always the one with his trousers down.’
(William Bridgemont Herbert expressing his loser complex, p.89)

‘I don’t know how any man can look so great and be so soft, so stupid.’
(Connie the American schoolgirl, not exactly helping Herbert’s self esteem, p.223)

This is an oddity, a comedy about under-age sex. But that’s not the only strange thing – it’s odd in all kinds of ways. From the title alone I expected it to be a satire about some doddery old member of the aristocracy, maybe comparable to the mad old geezers found in Tom Sharpe‘s savage farces. I wasn’t expecting ‘his lordship’ to be the nickname given by the girls at a posh boarding school (Southwelling School for Girls, Sussex) to their handsome if clumsy and tormented 35-year-old tennis coach, William Bridgemont Herbert.

Then the next surprise. The novel opens with William in police custody, on remand in Wandsworth Prison (3 miles away from where I live, whose open day museum I once visited and reviewed). The specific causes of this are that he was arrested for being drunk and disorderly at Victoria station and for being in possession, when his suitcase was opened, of a sports awards cup and five pairs of girls’ knickers which he has stolen from Southwelling School.

(It was only a third of the way into the book that it dawned on me that Southwelling might be a rude joke; if said fast enough it sounds like ‘sthwelling’, like ‘swelling’ with a lisp, maybe referring to the engorged condition of the penis which features heavily in the book’s later chapters.)

The novel opens with William, on remand, being questioned or interrogated, by Detective Sergeant Rufus, assigned to William’s case. I thought this might be a preliminary scene before the protagonist would get out and about but it’s not: it settled down to become the format of most of the book, with Rufus returning for renewed interrogations on a daily basis and most of the text consisting of dialogue, as Rufus asks questions and William answers them – then, in every chapter, the dialogue morphing into William’s memories of events as given by a third-person narrator.

In fact the whole thing turns into an extensive overview of the life and actions of this William Bridgemont Herbert and you wonder whether such a slender subject can really support an entire novel, especially when the narrative goes out of its way to emphasise what a boring, suburban non-entity William is.

His life story, as told to Rufus, features a whole series of failures and humiliations, not least his efforts to impress his unhappy wife, Louise (‘she told me she’d never enjoyed a single moment in bed with me’) which uniformly end in failure, so much so that she eventually leaves him for someone more interesting (Mr George Sherman, the deputy town clerk).

As William tells his life story to Rufus, his supposed crimes (drunk and disorderly, stealing a cup from his place of work) barely seem to justify the prolonged period of remand and the massive, extensive interrogation which the novel records.

But there are more surprises. The first is the very strange dynamic which develops between Rufus and William who enter into a kind of creepy friendship – calling each other by their first names, discussing Rufus’s wife’s pregnancy and then the delivery of his first child, it develops into an odd, unrealistic, eerie relationship. And it’s all given a peculiarly uncomfortable tone when Rufus assaults William. At one point, early on, Rufus reaches across the interview table and slaps William, and then grabs his nose and twists it, painfully. We only know this because of the spelling of William’s sudden, pained pleas for him to stop:

‘My nothe! Snnnnoppitt! Snnnoppitt, Rufuth! You’re bloody hurting…’ (p.35)

think this is meant to be funny, maybe in the knockabout comic tradition of Norman Wisdom or a Carry On film, but it mainly comes over as strange and creepy. Between the comedy world of the 1970s and the contemporary world of 2024 we’ve heard so many stories of police brutality, climaxing in the grotesque case of Sarah Everard and Wayne Couzens, that it’s hard to take the descriptions of a policeman slapping and twisting the nose of his interviewee with anything other than revulsion. It comes over as not funny but grim.

But all these other surprises pale before the big daddy of them all, the novel’s central theme, which is that William appears to be a pervert and a voyeur. I initially found him difficult to categorise because he’s not the modern idea of a paedophile: according to Wikipedia, a pedophile is someone who’s attracted to prepubescent children (‘psychiatric diagnostic criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13’). William is not this; his problem is he’s sexually attracted to post-pubescent schoolgirls from, say, 12 or 13 to 16 or 17. So he’s not a real monster but his obsession with schoolgirls is nonetheless uncomfortable and creepy.

This is what this novel is about – a 35-year-old, dim, hapless man who is overwhelming sexually attracted to schoolgirls and at the same times fights (or claims to fight) his obsession.

Because this is another odd thing about the narrative, which is William’s self-deception. He is a profoundly unreliable narrator. As I’ve mentioned, every chapter features interview scenes between him and Rufus which, at some point, cut away to a third-person description of what took place, generally inflected by or seen from, William’s point of view. Yet when the interview dialogue resumes we are often surprised to learn that the entire account we’ve just read is false and misleading.

A classic example is when we read William’s account of one of the many incidents that eventually drove him to leave the small town where he lived (Midford-Pallant) and look for another job, namely when he was driving his dad’s van in the high street and knocked over a woman. He himself admits, in his telling of it to Detective Rufus, to the sexualised sensation of picking the woman up to carry her to the kerb, one arm under her parting legs, the other round her torso enough to just touch the outline of her breasts. That’s pervy enough.

But William’s apparently candid account is interrupted by Rufus once again grabbing Herbert’s nose and twisting it hard because he knows that this whole account is a fib: the person William knocked down was a schoolgirl. William claims not to have noticed at which Rufus reminds him that she was wearing a school uniform and carrying a satchel, which William then, grudgingly, concedes.

This is not the only time when William tells a reasonably innocent version of an anecdote about women or girls which Rufus then violently corrects. I wondered whether this is how the novel started, with Thomas thinking it would be an interesting experiment to write a whole novel about a man who lies to himself, and others, and then cast around for the type of person who would do that, before settling on the idea of someone who is conflicted about their sexuality, specifically a man who is compulsively attached to ogling schoolgirls, but continually trying to fight the compulsion and lying to himself about it?

To recap: we are in a prison interview room where a pretend friendly, but occasionally violent police detective is interviewing, over a series of days, a thirty-something man, who’s separated from his wife, lost his job at a bank, taken another job as a tennis coach at a girls’ boarding school, and has been arrested for being drunk and disorderly at Victoria station.

Some of it is definitely funny, such as the description of William trying to make himself more ‘interesting’ to his bored wife by drinking too much at a tennis club party, winning the raffle, and barely being able to walk up to collect his prize. That’s the standard kind of ‘humiliate the pathetic anti-hero’ scene you find in novels by Kingsley Amis, Tom Sharpe or Howard Jacobson.

But the nervy atmosphere in the interview room is both boringly samey and unpleasant. That’s not at all funny.

And then there are all the pervy scenes. These come in at least two categories. 1) First there’s the dirty old man type, voyeur type scenes, such as the repeated description of William spying on the sports ground of his local girls school from a van with a hole cut in the side. The existence of the spy hole and William’s repeated denials of it until Rufus forces him to admit it, are these meant to be funny? They made my flesh creep. Is that the intention?

But 2) once William’s got the job at the girls boarding school there are, of course, many more encounters between him and teenage girls and the early ones of these are, I think, designed to titillate the (male) reader, while the later ones are straight out porn, designed to arouse.

For example, the scene which he and the copper both go over again and again, when William was called to the school swimming pool changing rooms because one of the girls was supposedly drowning, and thus finds himself, as in a dream, in a steamy room surrounded by young teenage girls wearing only loose towels. This feels like a scene from a soft porn movie.

Even more erotically charged is the scene where one of the girls comes to his study late one evening, ostensibly to confess to pushing another girl down the stairs, but a quite palpable sexual tension develops, at least on William’s side. He finds himself saying that, if they were at a boys’ school, he’d put her over his knee and spank her. To which this teenage girl replies, with deliberate erotic provocation, ‘Try me’. This feels like it’s intended to be titillating.

For the first half or so of the book what stops it being pornography is that there is no actual sex. In the scene I’ve just described William struggles to keep control of himself (as he knows he must) and eventually breaks the spell by grabbing the girl’s shoulders, turning her round, marching her to the door and bidding her goodnight, before getting into bed and hugging the pillow in frustration (at least that’s what he says he does).

These scenes might have a titillating front but they are more about the protagonist’s struggle with himself, his struggle to control his urges (‘You don’t know how I tried to fight it off,’ p.153), so is that what the book is about ? Is it intended to be a portrait of a man attracted to schoolgirls who gets his dream job at a girls’ school but then struggles every day to control and rein in his desires (‘I didn’t want it to happen. I did all I could,’ p.155)?

Having looked up the definition of pedophile and concluded that William is not one, I wondered if there’s a term for men who are attracted to high school aged girls and, of course, there is, in fact there appear to be two: Hebephilia is when adults are sexually attracted to people under the age of consent (generally between 12 and 15 years); but there’s an overlapping term, Ephebophilia, which is when an older adult is sexually attracted to post-pubescent teenagers, usually those in the age range 15 to 19.

Looking for clues to how to read it, I read the blurbs on the back of the ancient Pan paperback I own: ‘A girls’ school that makes St Trinian’s sound like a nunnery’ (The Listener), ‘Ripe comedy, very funny’ (Daily Express). But it’s nowhere near as funny as the St Trinian’s books or films, and there’s more of the strange and creepy about it than the humorous.

Am I misunderstanding it? Is it just a straightforward entertainment from a distant era, from the smutty innuendo-laden late 1960s and early 1970s, the era of the worst Carry On films and the Confessions of a Window Cleaner-type smut-fests?

(Right at the end of the text we learn that the final pages are set in November 1968, page 227. According to his court case he was arrested on 25 July (p.236), and the text describes most of the events at the school as taking place that spring and summer of 1968. We also learn that the police detained him for precisely 14 days, although it feels like much longer.)

Or is it something more literary i.e. complicated, intended to be a psychological portrait of a sad man who’s attracted to schoolgirls but tries to deny and/or control his urges? I admit to being confused all the way through as to how to respond to it.

Incidents

Even more confusing is the stream of bizarre or surreal incidents. One which has Rufus in stitches is the story about William, once established at the girls school, buying a scooter. Once morning he went shopping to the local town and some of the girls had a pass and were in town, too and they attached a condom to the exhaust of his scooter so that when he turned the scooter on the condom began to inflate, making passersby point and laugh. Then, as he scooted away, the condom inflated to ten feet or so in length, so that traffic stopped to see it, before it finally pinged free of the exhaust and went flying all over the high street, as released balloons do. From that point onwards, William was as much of a laughing stock in Southwelling as he had been in Midford-Pallant. The classic gormless twit of English comedy video almost all the films of Ian Carmichael.

The backdrop to the arrest and his present plight gets going when William describes being in Oxford Street on Christmas Eve (1967), caught in the mad shopping crowds (which brought to mind the cartoon depictions of exactly this scene in Posy Simmonds’ 2018 graphic novel, Cassandra Darke).

So William is hurrying through the crowd and next thing he knows he’s knocked over a dwarf, who lays floundering on his back – that’s odd enough. Panicking, William doesn’t help the poor man up but runs off and ducks into the first available dark doorway. This turns out to be into a dancehall where couples are half-heartedly shuffling the afternoon away – which all feels surreal enough. Then William confesses to Rufus that he at first danced with a 12-year-old girl – which definitely feels creepy. But he ends up chatting up some mature women, one of whom, Blanche, asks him to take her home and it’s only when they’re almost there that hapless William realises she’s a prostitute. Being typically ineffectual, he hasn’t got the guts to turn her down and so is forced to fork out the £5 price for sex, although, typically, he has to make the fifth pound up from of scattered silver and copper coins in his pocket.

So Blanche takes William up to her dingy flat which, as always in these kinds of stories, is dirty and ramshackle and where she disconcerts him, as always happens, by just stripping off, applying a condom to his member and telling him to hurry up and get it over with. So they have just begun to have sex when the door bursts open to reveal Blanche’s flatmate barging into the room, a massive tank of a woman who is blind drunk and starts shouting and singing, which in turn triggers the Asian man who runs the curry house next door to start banging on the wall, which triggers big Babs to start shouting back, while Blanche starts yelling at Babs, and poor William lies there stark naked, aroused and quivering with fear etc.

And all this is part of the narrative being told to Detective Rufus, who periodically interrupts with questions to clarify the details. Is it meant to be funny? Is it meant to be part of building up the character of William as naive and inept, an innocent in the ways of the world? Is it meant to explain why he is attracted to young girls – for the simple reason that he doesn’t know how to handle grown-up women, or sees them in terms of these grotesques?

In the middle of describing it all to Rufus, William mentions that he was still inside the prostitute as she started yelling at her drunk friend to shut up and that each time she yelled, it tightened her cervical muscle around his penis quite painfully. At which Rufus chips in that the same thing happens when women cough; his wife has a persistent cough so he’s often experienced it.

What are we to make of this? Was this acceptable lad talk in the late 1960s? It may indeed be the kind of thing which men might discuss, but in the context of this novel is it intended to be funny, or a little creepy?

Anyway the comic scene in the prostitute’s flat ends with them both discovering that he likes schoolgirls and so the massive woman, Babs, slips into a schoolgirl outfit and starts whipping him. Then she jumps on top of him to create a William sandwich, asphyxiating between two hulking women. Rufus is crying tears of laughter at hearing all this and I can see how all this fits certain antique comedy tropes, but I was more appalled than amused.

The only reason William’s in London is that the school broke up for Christmas and everyone just left, so he packed up and got a cab to the station with some of the girls and mistresses and since they were going to London so he went along with them, all the time lying his head off about the fabulous people he was going to parties with (the Prime Minister, actresses) and the great Christmas he was going to have.

Instead he checks into a cheap hotel, the Abbey Castle Private Hotel, in the Bayswater Road and has the miserable Christmas Eve I’ve just described, knocking down the dwarf, the sad dance hall, chaos with shouting hookers.

The next day the hotel are having a Christmas dinner for its guests, hosted by the ancient landlady. Characteristically, William attends the pre-meal drinks but then slips away, making excuses that he’s just popping out for a moment. And then spends all of Christmas Day walking lonely and sad round the empty streets of London and what is on his mind? Terror that he might have caught the clap off these two prostitutes.

His description of walking around London in the 3 o’clock darkness of Christmas Day is affecting and sad, especially when he walks into the grey muddy waste of Battersea Park:

Leaves were running in blind crowds, making a tinny sound, across the open spaces and huddling under canvas screens. (p.80)

William’s long, miserable Christmas walk includes playing in the tree walks in Battersea Park, then sitting in a deckchair on the grey muddy Embankment before he ends up at a Seaman’s Mission in the East End. Here, as usual, he lies about his origins, saying he’s a sailor from Antwerp and ends up becoming very popular by leading sing-songs of classic Gilbert and Sullivan songs, ones he’s learned from the operetta-mad headmistress of Southwelling school. It’s a rare moment when he feels liked and respected for being ‘Antwerp Herbert’.

This whole passage has got nothing to do with ‘St Trinians’ nor is it ‘Ripe comedy, very funny’. At best it’s bitter sweet, at worst quite grimly depressing.

What follows is farce. He had been invited to the Christmas party at his Bayswater hotel but told the agèd host he was just popping out, and had never gone back. Anyway, he had been missed and when one of the guests heard a knocking from under the floorboards, in a chaotic comic way, the senile guests became convinced William had gotten into the cellar and got locked in.

The comic upshot is that William arrives back at the hotel to discover the landlady has called the fire brigade who are in the middle of prising up the floorboards in order to get to the cellar and free him. When he walks into the building, everyone goes mental, shouting blame and recriminations at him. He packs his bags and leaves. Everywhere he goes he causes disaster and mayhem.

Walking the streets, he decides on a whim to buy some second-hand boots he sees in a shop window and walk from London to Derby. Why Derby? Well, earlier in the story, after his wife left him and he ran away from Midford-Pallant, he had ended up arriving in Derby where he got a job working in a post office. Here he was recognised by a tennis-mad upper-class lady, Mrs Ferber, as being a county tennis champion, because that’s one of the oddest and least plausible things about this character – a failure in absolutely every aspect of his life, he is, nonetheless, a champion tennis player.

Outraged that he’s working in a poxy little post office, Mrs Ferber invites him for tea at her posh mansion and she and her husband decide to give him a helping hand, telling him that there just happens to be a vacancy for a tennis instructor at the boarding school in Sussex which their twin teenage daughters attend. And that was how he got the job at Southwelling.

Anyway, he’s got three weeks to kill before the next term starts and doesn’t want to stay in London so…why not walk all the way to Derby to visit the Ferbers and tell them how their kindness is working out? So off he sets, amid improbable descriptions of the lovely scenery (no mention of A roads or motorways or endless juggernauts spraying him with diesel-infused puddles).

But his route takes him past his old town, Midford-Pallant, and when a bus comes along with that as its destination just as he’s passing a bus stop, he automatically gets in, unable to stop himself, he alights at the town centre, and then he finds himself outside the house where his ex-wife, Louise, lives with her new man, pacing up and down in his big hiking boots, trying to pluck up the nerve to go and knock.

Comically, it turns out that Louise has been observing William from the neighbour’s house across the street, both of them falling about laughing at his odd behaviour. In his mind William is a sensitive, tortured soul; to everyone else he is a plonker.

Anyway, it turns out that Louise is none-too-happy with her lover George Sherman, who claims to work late and is always going to ‘works parties’ which he doesn’t take her to, leading her to suspect he is being unfaithful. So Louise now plies William with sherry and then, to his astonishment, leads him upstairs to the bedroom where she strips naked and starts playing with her big breasts. William is half way through taking his clothes off when he suddenly remembers THE CLAP – his pecker is still really sore and he hasn’t had results back from the clap clinic which he visited on Boxing Day (all of this he blames on the two hookers, Blanche and Babs).

Long story short, he finds himself in the classic comedy scenario of being in a bedroom with a gorgeous busty woman stripped naked and gagging for sex and…having to turn her down. (As a comparison, this happens not once but twice to the hapless hero of William Boyd’s comic novel A Good Man In Africa).

William makes a stream of feeble excuses (he has holes in his socks) until Louise’s patience snaps and she switches from sex kitten to furious harpy, boxing him round the ears, throwing things at him, screaming him out of the bedroom, down the stairs and out of the house, where he stands doing up his trousers and tucking his shirt in while the neighbours watch from behind their net curtains, chortling at this latest episode in the silly life of William Herbert.

At moments like this William is the standard hapless loser antihero of a hundred English comic novels… except that the narrative keeps reminding us that he has this fetish for schoolgirls and that all these events are flashbacks from the core situation, which is him in prison being interviewed by threatening Detective Rufus.

After more minor mishaps en route, William finally arrives in Derby and is hanging round outside the Ferbers’ house when he’s discovered by the twins who are out cycling and it’s all hugs and kisses and invitations to their New Year’s Eve party. Anyone who’s read a comic novel knows this will go badly.

Leslie’s sentences

I read Thomas’s debut novel The Virgin Soldiers because it connected to my reading about the post-war Emergency in Malaya, itself part of a loose post-colonial reading project. But I discovered I enjoyed Thomas’s sense of humour, his coarse, non-middle-class worldview, but most of all his imaginative and entertaining way with the language – so I was prompted to buy the Virgin Soldiers sequels and then to explore some of his non-Virgin Soldier novels. About the characters and the plots of these I am a lot less sure, but I still enjoy the surprising quality of many of his sentences:

Louise’s hand came across the table and pulled at him roughly like a sergeant catching a sleeping sentry. (p.24)

He felt like a man in a midget submarine. (p.30)

It was a mute Midlands evening when he came out of the station and walked among the quiet shops and the dumb office fronts. There were a few entwined couples around, all arms and aimlessness, looking at the engagement rings in the windows of Bravingtons… (p.31)

There are few things so levelling as licking other people’s stamps. (p.32)

Curled leaves were lying in worried groups about the paths and lawns, waiting pessimistically for the wind or the broom. (p.37)

She wore a smirk as carelessly as she wore her clothes. (p.56)

Something strange and panic-stricken was running around inside him like a family of disorganised mice. (p.56)

She pulled her smirk in like someone tightening a string bag. (p.58)

The miniature days after Christmas were fine and cold-edged. (p.91)

He rolled into bed in his shirt, turned out the light and lay there with the flickerings of an indifferent moon entering through the low window and sharing his eiderdown. (p.94)

[In a library] there were old men crouched, as though in prayer, over the newspapers in the reading room, and a large young woman, so rounded she looked as if she’d been pumped up that morning, sat behind a desk. (p.117)

Second half

It’s only in the second half that the novel starts to pick up speed, becoming more genuinely comical and also, for the first time, featuring actual sex, not of the farcical romp style of Blanche and Babs, but described with sympathy and sensuality, genuinely erotic sex – first with one of the Southwelling girls and then, scandalously, with a whole roster of them!

To begin with, though, there’s more farce. The posh Ferbers have a big New Years Eve party. Feeling unsociable and conscious of the growing soreness of his penis (which he is terrified is caused by ‘a dose’) William loiters by the phone in the main room. Unable to bear his frustration he calls the clap clinic where he gave a urine sample on Boxing Day and begs them to tell him the result, even though, characteristically, the doctors at the other end are having their own party and are pretty tipsy.

They take his number and promise to ring him back which is when, of course, William finds himself being coerced by his hostess into taking part in some ridiculous game where the guests split up into two teams and each team runs a long ribbon with a spoon on down their trousers or down their skirts until they are all joined together on the one string. it is, of course, at this point that the phone rings and it’s the clinic ready to give him his results only he can’t make it to the phone. When he tries he drags the entire team of ten or so guests after him, falling over each other, collapsing in a heap which some find hilarious and makes some quite angry, but not before someone else has answered the phone, takes the message from the clinic and shouts out William’s test result to the entire roomful of laughing clapping guests.

Thomas manages this comic scene (pages 127 to 138) with great skill, totally involving the reader in William’s mounting, hysterical panic. In the event, the clinic give his result as a poem which is so cryptic none of the other guests understands what it means, which is just as well.

But the most important thing about the whole stay with the Ferbers is that he is hit on by the prettiest girl at Southwelling, Connie Rowan, a knowing 16 year old. Ostensibly she is being squired about by an eligible young American man, but in reality she and William keep finding themselves along together as her flirtation becomes more and more obvious.

After a few days more, William makes his excuses and leaves, declaring he will walk back to Surrey. In the event he’s picked up by a lorry whose rough working-class driver regales him with stories about picking up female hitch-hikers and rogering them in the bed at the back of the cab, although he also tells a sort of poignant story about a teenage couple he picked up, drove for a while, stopped at some services for a pee and, when he came back to the cab, found them going at it hammer and tongs. He was about to open the door and get angry, then he stayed still and watched for the porn value, but then he was overcome by a sort of fatherly feeling, jealous but also admiring of their energy and optimism and simple enjoyment. If only he was young again (sigh).

Anyway, he finds himself back at the school, weeks before the next term starts, with just the Gilbert and Sullivan-loving principal, Miss Smallwood, and the foxy American girl, Connie. Days of being nearly alone together, meaningful glances, they play tennis together and get hot and sweaty. Eventually she comes to his room, makes him close the curtains, strips to the waist, and that’s it. They make love. It is described at length, over several pages, with adult seriousness, with sensuality and sympathy. She’s a knowing, mature girl. It it nothing like pedophilia, and more serious and complex than anything in St Trinians.

His control had surprised him. He loved her so immensely; his concern, his anxiety was all for her. Her girl’s body took him and gave him the softest comfort he had ever realised. They made their love for a long period, laying across his bed in patterns, turning and trying, until they knew they could delay no longer… (p.160)

Next evening he goes to her bed where she rides him, at first in her pink nightdress etc. We have entered the full-blooded sexual part of the novel. Remember that all these scenes are interspersed with, or revert back to, the primary location which is William being interrogated by Detective Rufus, scenes accompanied by their own nexus of concerns about Rufus’s wife being heavily pregnant, then going into hospital and giving birth, then Rufus looking groggy because he’s being kept up all night be a crying baby etc.

Back at the school, the other girls return. William reverts to pervy voyeur mode when he discovers there is a hole in the ceiling of the dormitory where Connie and the other oldest girls sleep, so a couple of times he climbs up into the attic, using the indoor umpire’s stand as a ladder, and shuffles along the dusty rafters, dodging cobwebs and getting splinters in his knees, in order to peep down on the girls stripping off, changing into their pyjamas, sometimes oiling their nubile young bodies etc. We learn that William masturbates while he watches the girls because rude, rough Rufus tells him the pillow they found there was sent for forensic testing and revealed traces of semen. Some moments, like the lovemaking scenes, are described with real sensual care, and then here’s William wanking in the attic. I never figured how to settle and take this book, whether to be revolted or touched or amused, or bounce between all three reactions.

Long story short, Connie turns out to be more conniving and calculating than she seemed. For a start she sends four of the other girls in the dormitory along to take her place, each encounter being described in Thomas’s sensual mode, with farcical sidelights. At the same time she plays practical jokes on him and tricks him. On the occasion when he creeps through the loft space, she realises he’s spying on them and, while he’s busy masturbating as he watches the other girls, she sneaks off and silently wheels the umpire’s stand away from the entrance to the attic, so that, half an hour later, William, feeling blindly for it in the dark, falls fifteen feet to the hard corridor floor and twists his ankle. Connie makes him feel like an idiot and that is because he is an idiot.

There’s a long passage devoted to describing the annual school trip to an island, Downsley Island (p.190) off the Pembrokeshire coast with some of the women teachers and a dozen or so girls. Here William is propositioned by the ugly tug-like Jackie MacAllister who threatens to tell on him if he won’t have sex with her, which he proceeds to do to his own disgust. More intriguingly, he witnesses the really bizarre lesbian behaviour of Miss Tilling who gets her girls to strip down to their singlets and then re-enact battles in the exposed countryside.

Adding an extra level of weirdness, the frail headmistress suddenly stumbles and plummets down a chute of muddy shale into the sea where she nearly drowns until rescued by air-sea rescue and William forms the pretty clear idea that she was pushed by the vicious girls. Underlying all the sexy frolics is William’s dismay at discovering that the ‘innocent’ girls have agendas of their own, such as these acts of revenge on adults. They are, he comes to suspect, using him entirely for their own ends.

The main narrative builds, like so many comic novels, to a Grand Climax in the form of a formal, institutional event, a grand occasion or ceremony which, of course, ends in disaster. In this story it takes the form of the interschool tennis championship, the Clifton Cup, which school head Miss Smallwood wants to win, trouncing last year’s winners, her bitter rivals, St Margaret’s school (p.216).

After a lot of build-up, the actual tennis goes very well, the school’s best pair Connie and Susan Belling crushing the opposition. Things go wrong because William drinks too much sherry (a drink he becomes more partial to throughout the book, cf his wife Louise getting him drunk on sherry in order to seduce him, earlier on). He’s drinking because a) he’s devastated to realise that Connie, who he’s convinced is the love of his life, will be leaving at the end of this term i.e. in a matter of weeks, and also realises that b) the rate at which the 16-year-olds are throwing themselves at him isn’t sustainable. He needs to leave before someone finds out and he’s arrested.

The farcical climax feels contrived. At the last moment the headmistress asks him to play an ‘exhibition match’ against St Margaret’s coach, apparently ignoring the fact that his twisted ankle still hasn’t healed and that he’s roaring drunk.

When a teacher knocks on his door to tell him about the exhibition match, William is in fact having sex with Connie. She came to find him after her famous victory in the championship, discovers him drunk and maudlin, one thing leads to another and they have a glorious last bonk. They’ve more or less finished when the teacher knocks on the door and talks through it, while Connie stifles her giggles. When the teacher leaves William loses his temper and spanks her. Then he loses his self control and spanks her hard, again and again, until she wriggles free, furiously angry and upset. She quickly dresses yelling abuse at him, storms to the door and then yells that she’s pregnant before storming out and slamming the door.

This emotional tornado explains why William has a few more swigs of sherry, struggles into his tennis gear, staggers out onto the court, and is playing like a drunk man when, mercifully, the sky clouds over and the mother of all storms erupts, with forked lightning and everything. All the teachers, girls and parents flee indoors. William goes to jump playfully over the next, completely misjudges it, trips and falls flat on his face, knocking himself out.

When he regains consciousness some time later, all of him hurts and he is soaked through by the storm. In an alcoholic stupor he staggers back into the school, along to his room, throws his few measly belongings into his suitcase and calls a taxi to take him to the station. He changes trains at Lewes and catches a train to London with the drunken aim of finding Connie. It’s here that he drunkenly sits back on a table in a caff and sits on a tourist’s hamburger and fries, which leads to a quarrel, the police being called and him being arrested. And remanded to Wandsworth and to the series of interrogations by Detective Rufus which we’ve just been reading. I.e. the narrative has come full circle bringing us up to date.

With his interrogations complete, Rufus packs up his dossier and bids William farewell, pointing out he hopes he gets lucky at his trial given the appalling defence counsel he’s been awarded, one ‘Mr Decent’.

William’s ‘conquests’:

  • Connie Rowan
  • Susan Belling p.179
  • Jackie MacAllister p.204
  • Tina Ferber p.210
  • Pamela Watts aka Yum Yum p.215

Comic twists

At which point the setting finally cuts away from the claustrophobic interview room and reveals not one but a whole heap of comic twists. Once outside the interview room Rufus is referred to by other coppers by his real name and it’s not Rufus. We learn in quick succession that the detective’s name is not Rufus but Trevor, he is not married, so his wife has not had a baby and he has not been kept up all night by it.

So ‘Rufus’ is as big a fantasist and liar as William is. On the many occasions when Rufus twisted William’s nose in order to force the truth out of him, ‘Rufus’ himself was lying. Two levels of lying. Two lying liars lying to each other.

Trevor is called into his boss’s office and learns that William is not going to court after all, the case against him has been dropped. Apparently no witnesses can be found. None of the girls will own up to having under-age sex, the star witness Connie, has flown back to the States, the head mistress loves William for coaching her cup-winning team, all the other (female) teachers adored him. When pushed, some of the girls admit to making him the panties found in his suitcase as a present and one of them says it was Connie who put the cup in his suitcase, so they can’t get him for any kind of theft.

Not that it was ever a very serious case, but everything’s evaporated except the charge of being drunk and disorderly. In the event, we see a brief description of the trial in which Mr Decent, far from being a doddering incompetent, turns out to be a zip sharp lawyer who gets the judge to apologise to William for having him remanded for so long, which reduces his fine to 5 shillings, and he walks free.

The last chapter presents yet another twist. It opens with a bunch of middle-aged male perverts, lechers and voyeurs lined up along the fence of a school playing field watching a bunch of 14-year-old schoolgirls playing netball. Point is that among them is Detective Trevor. He’s one of them, too!

And he’s not surprised when William appears at his side, doesn’t bother to defend himself. Takes one to know one. The shoe is on the other foot now and William rattles off a list of issues Trevor is beset by. While William had been inside Trevor had gone down to Southwelling, confiscated William’s motorbike, brought it back to London, sold it and bought a very snazzy suit. But when William visited Trevor’s boss, along with his lawyer, they hurriedly said they’d restore his motorbike. The lawyer is also threatening to sue the police for wrongful arrest.

So the positions have been completely reversed – now Trevor is the shabby pervert and William is in the driving seat. On the last page he delivers an author’s message of sorts, weird and cranky though it seems:

‘The trouble with schoolgirls, you know, is once you get really interested in the creatures and start thinking about them it’s very difficult to remember what’s fact and what isn’t. Even some of the facts I told you in the cell may not have been absolutely right.’ (p.238)

So the text kind of autodestructs, in a very postmodern kind of way. We thought William had been lying because he was a shabby pervert ashamed of his lusts and honest Rufus had been correcting him. Now we are told that we have misunderstood the entire situation. Quite possibly William was making up a lot of the incidents the text has described in order to draw Rufus in, because he had spotted that Rufus was a fellow pervert. Maybe a lot of what he said was a lie. Maybe it all was.

Hard to credit that these were bestselling books in their day: sure they have lots of titillating schoolgirl sex and some scenes of broad farce and yet, they come over as so strange, on so many levels.


Credit

His Lordship by Leslie Thomas was published by Michael Joseph in 1970. Page references are to the 1970 Pan paperback edition. All quotations are used for the purpose of criticism and review.

Related (comic) reviews

A Brief Revolution @ the Photographers’ Gallery

The Architectural Review is a monthly international architectural magazine. It was founded in London in 1896 and does what its title suggests, covering all aspects of the built environment.

Manplan

Just over 50 years ago, in 8 issues from September 1969 to September 1970, the Review ran a series of eight specially commissioned reports on the state of architecture at the end of the 1960s. It was to review not just architecture in the narrow sense but the entire state of town planning, in an age when old Victorian slums were being torn down to make way for gleaming new towns made of high-rise towers, medium-rise blocks characterised by lifts and concrete walkways, subways under sweeping new ring roads, nicely laid-out grassed areas and so on.

The Review’s editors called the series of articles ‘Manplan’ and hired leading photojournalists and street photographers to address a set of eight themes, being:

  1. Frustration
  2. Travel and communication (‘Society is its contacts’)
  3. Town Workshop
  4. Education (‘The continuing community’)
  5. Religion
  6. Health and Welfare
  7. Local government
  8. Housing

The result was a series of brilliant photos shot on a 35mm camera in a spirit of photo-reportage – vivid and dramatic black-and-white works which captured a nation in the midst of great social, cultural and environmental change. To the horror of some of its contributors and readers, the magazine turned its back on large-format, heroic photography of buildings and their details, instead embracing a grainy, 35mm black-and-white reportage aesthetic, where people were as, if not more, important than the places. In the words of The Royal Institute of British Architects, publishers of the Architecture Review:

The aim was to propose an alternative and more holistic approach to urban planning, which would look at all basic human needs as a whole. The photographs illustrating the issues were created in the spirit of photo reportage and often featured people inhabiting the spaces studied by the survey, thereby shifting the focus from the architecture itself to the human element within the built environment.

So it was intended to be polemical stuff. The photographers were:

  • Ian Berry
  • Tony Ray-Jones
  • Tim Street-Porter
  • Patrick Ward

Altogether the Architectural Review published about 80 photographs. Just 16 are on display here, but every single one of them is a masterpiece; there’s no slack. Each one is a densely packed, highly charged vignette. This exhibition isn’t big but it is packed with social history, with memories and nostalgia for a time within the living memory of many but feeling evermore distant.

Design and layout

On a separate wall is a display of the actual copies of the magazine which the photo-essays appeared in, along with the words and designs of ‘Manplan’ editor Tim Rock and designers Michael Reid and Peter Baistow. This section goes into detail about how the photographs were processed, reproduced and printed (using ‘special matt black ink’) along with analysis of the layout and typography. All a bit over my head but interesting for students of design.

The photographs

Private terraced houses on the Old Kent Road opposite Camelot Street Estate, London by Tony Ray-Jones (1970) part of ‘Manplan 8: Housing’, in Architectural Review, September 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Housing at New Ash Green, Kent by Tony Ray-Jones (1970), part of ‘Manplan 8: Housing’, in Architectural Review, September 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Low-rise housing, Tavy Bridge, Thamesmead, Greenwich, London, 1970 by Tony Ray-Jones, part of ‘Manplan 8: Housing’, in Architectural Review, September 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive/RIBA Collections

Classroom windows in a school in Wales, 1969 by unknown photographer, part of ‘Manplan 4: The continuing community (education)’, in Architectural Review, January 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

High-rise flats and multi-storey car park, Birmingham, 1970 by Peter Baistow, part of ‘Manplan 5: Religion’, in Architectural Review, March 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Chatsworth Street school and high-rise housing block overlooking the cleared site, Liverpool, 1969 by Tom Smith, part of ‘Manplan 4: The Continuing Community (education)’ in Architectural Review, January 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Salvation Army officers picnicking on the steps of the figure group Asia by J H Foley, Albert Memorial, Kensington Gardens, London, 1969 by Peter Baistow, part of ‘Manplan 5: Religion’, in Architectural Review, March 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive/RIBA Collections

Unidentified primary school, 1969 by unknown photographer, part of ‘Manplan 4: The continuing community (education)’, in Architectural Review, January 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Thamesmead film

To one side of the 16 framed photos on the wall, is a TV monitor showing a film from around the same time (in fact the year before the project, 1968). So far as I can tell it’s not directly connected with RIBA or the Manplan project except for the slender link that one of the 80 Manplan photos happens to cover the same subject as the film, namely the new estate being built at Thamesmead.  So it wasn’t directly related to the Manplan project but gives context to the kind of architectural and town planning thinking which was going on at the time of the Manplan project.

Directed by Jack Saward, this 25-minute public education film gives an overview of the history and construction of Thamesmead, a sort of new model suburb built down the River Thames from London on the site of the old Royal Arsenal, a site that extended over Plumstead Marshes and Erith Marshes.

Alas, to quote the introduction to the video on YouTube:

The ambition is commendable but it didn’t quite work in practise, with Thamesmead becoming a notoriously problematic estate and its architects perceived as exhibiting many of the faults of post-war planning, with communities being tinkered with from above like a real-life experiment. This is where utopia meets authoritarianism.

Hard to believe, but the planners that designed the place provided insufficient transport links with London, no way of crossing the Thames for 5 or 6 miles in either direction and – best of all – an almost complete lack of shopping facilities and banks. Lots of pretty little lakes but…nowhere to buy food. According to the label in the exhibition, the estate ‘was soon plagued by social problems caused by lack of facilities and public transport’.

The half-built estate won an unwanted fame when American film director Stanley Kubrick used parts of it as the setting for his notoriously violent 1971 movie, A Clockwork Orange, a vision of an alienated, dystopian society. Here’s the photo of it taken by the brilliant Tony Ray-Jones which provides a sort of coincidental link between the Manplan series and the film.

Thamesmead under construction, Greenwich, London, 1970 by Tony Ray-Jones in ‘Manplan 8: Housing’, Architectural Review, September 1970. Courtesy Architectural Press Archive / RIBA Collections

Which do you prefer? Which do you think is telling the truth, the film or the photo?

The Robert Elwall Photographs Collection

All the materials for the Manplan exhibition, photos and old copies of the AR magazine, come from the Robert Elwall Photographs Collection. This comprises around 1.5 million images from the earliest days of photography to the present day. The collection includes photographic archives of individual architects and practices, travel and topographic images from across the world, press photographs from major architectural journals, and large bodies of work by some of the best known architectural photographers of the 20th century. The collection includes prints, negatives, slides, transparencies, photographically illustrated books and digital files. It is itself part of the larger Royal Institute of British Architects collections.

Conclusion

Flicking through some of the text on the walls is a dispiriting experience. These 1970 writers were raging against the soulless design of modern cities, the daily struggle of commuting to work on overcrowded public transport, against air pollution, excess traffic and the destruction of the environment, against the dominance of the car over human-friendly spaces, against the dehumanising effects of modern technology, against social inequality and the lack of social housing, against the prioritising of profit over people.

It’s as if, 53 years later, nothing has changed except we all have smart phones to share our frustration about how things obstinately carry on being rubbish. The Manplan writers’ rage and frustration is captured by this, the last entry in the exhibition.

Double page spread from Manplan 1. ‘Frustration’

It’s a copy of the original magazine, open to a double page spread showing a traditional Pearly King and Queen standing in front of the typically sterile, barren waste ground surrounding a clutch of looming, threatening tower blocks. Up in the top right is a text reading: ‘The richness of East End life is replaced by monotony and inhumanity.’

Yep. that’s the world I grew up into and which punk rock, with its angry nihilism, was a direct response to. Eternal shame on England’s architects and town planners.


Related links

More Photographers’ Gallery reviews

Edith Tudor-Hart and Wolfgang Suschitzky @ Tate Britain

This is a one-room, FREE display of the wonderfully evocative 1920s and 1930s black-and-white photos of the Jewish émigrés, Edith Tudor-Hart and Wolfgang Suschitzky.

In fact, despite the name difference, they were sister and brother, two Austrian Jews born and raised in Vienna (Edith born 1908, Wolfgang born in 1912), who fled the Nazis, settled in England, and made a major contribution to documentary photography and film in mid-20th century England.

Their father was a social democrat who was born into the Jewish community in Vienna, but had renounced Judaism and become an atheist. He opened the first social democratic bookshop in Vienna and the family home was a meeting place for left-wing intellectuals.

Edith Suschitzky trained in photography at Walter Gropius’s Bauhaus in Dessau by which time she had become a fervent socialist, eventually a communist, and vowed to dedicate her art to documenting the lives of the poor.

A child stares into a Whitechapel bakery window (circa 1935) by Edith Tudor-Hart

In 1933 Edith was jailed for a month in Vienna after acting as a courier for the Communist Party. Upon release she married a British medical doctor, Alexander Tudor-Hart, who left his wife and two children to be with her. (Tudor-Hart was himself an active member of the British Communist Party who would volunteer to serve as a doctor on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War, 1936 to 1939). And so the couple fled Vienna where she was in jeopardy twice over, for being a communist and a Jew.

Demonstration outside the Opera House, Vienna (about 1930) by Edith Tudor-Hart © Peter Suschitzky, Julia Donat & Misha Donat

Once settled in London, Edith continued her photography, photographing the working class in the East End and then undertaking trips to depict poor communities all round England – from the south Wales coal miners, to the unemployed in Jarrow, to working families in London’s East End.

Gee Street, Finsbury, London (1936) by Edith Tudor-Hart © Scottish National Portrait Gallery

She worked for several British magazines – The Listener, Picture Post and Lilliput among others – and earned a modest income as a children’s portraitist. There was always a completely separate strand to her work which was about health and education, especially of small children, something that dated back to her early enrolment, aged just 16, in a course with Maria Montessori in London, where she at one stage planned to become a kindergarten teacher.

Later, in England, alongside her photos of the poor and deprived, she also took numerous photos of children in clinics and health centres and exercising healthily outdoors. As if contrasting the misery and poverty and deprivation of 1930s England with what might be if only we could organise society’s resources rationally.

Ultraviolet Light Treatment, South London Hospital for Women and Children (c. 1934) by Edith Tudor-Hart © Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh

Wolfgang Suschitzky

Edith’s younger brother, Wolfgang, fled Vienna a little after Edith (in 1935) and although he, too, settled in England, his photography was strikingly different in style and approach. He too took mostly street scenes of ordinary people, but his work is more consciously poetic, carefully arranged and lit.

Backyard, Charing Cross Road (1936) Wolfgang Suschitzky

Light and shade and shadow, and the glimmer of dust in sunlight or fog and mist, are what attracted him.

Westminster Bridge, London (1934) Wolfgang Suschitzky

Whereas Edith’s work focuses relentlessly on the day to day poverty of the working classes, Wolfgang’s, as the wall label puts it, ‘displays an affection for the city in which he found freedom and safety’. Probably his best-known photos are from a series made on the bookshops of Charing Cross Road.

Charing Cross Road/Foyles (c.1936) by Wolfgang Suschitzky

They can be interpreted as:

a) street scenes from the London he came to love
b) a memorial to his bookseller father (who took his own life in 1934 in despair at the collapse of Socialism in Austria)
c) a tribute to books and their readers as symbols of intellectual and imaginative freedom which need to be treasured and defended

Spies

In fact Edith’s story has an extraordinary extra dimension: she was a Soviet spy. And not just any old spy but played a key role in the recruitment and management of the Cambridge Five spies, including Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt.

She was instrumental in recruiting members of the Cambridge Spy ring, which damaged British intelligence from World War II through to its discovery in the late 1960s.

During the early 1930s Edith’s former lover, Arnold Deutsch, was teaching at the University of London, but was also an active Soviet spy, recruiting British students to spy for Russia. When, in 1934, Kim Philby and his Austrian wife Litzi Friedmann arrived back in London from Vienna, Tudor-Hart – who had met and got to know them in Vienna – suggested to Deutsch that the NKVD recruit them as agents. After some vetting, a direct approach was made to Philby and he became the KGB’s longest-serving and most damaging British spy.

Entwined lives: Kim Philby and Edith Tudor-Hart

Edith had been placed under surveillance by Special Branch soon after her arrival in Britain, but despite this (and confirming all your suspicions about the British Security Services) she was able to carry on her espionage activities. In addition to Philby, she also helped to recruit Arthur Wynn for the Soviets in 1936. In 1938–39 Burgess used her to contact Russian intelligence in Paris. When the rezidentura at the Soviet Embassy in London suspended its operations in February 1940, Edith acted as an intermediary for Anthony Blunt and Bob Stewart, passing on their messages to the Soviets.

In 1950 Edith was commissioned by the Ministry of Education to take a series to be titled Moving and Growing, showing children undertaking healthy music-and-movement style exercise, often outdoors.

From the series Moving and Growing (1951) by Edith Tudor-Hart

But they were to be among her last photographs. Following Kim Philby’s first arrest in 1952, Edith was brought in for interrogations by MI5 agents and her apartment was searched several times. She burned many of papers, notes, journals and many of her negatives in order to protect herself. What a loss!

Despite the searches and interrogations, MI5 were unable to prove evidence of her espionage so she was left at liberty. However, Edith’s mental health was not good. She had divorced Tudor-Hart in 1940, and had to cope with the fact that their only child, a son, Tommy, born in 1936, was severely autistic, and was placed in mental institutions from the age of 11, never to be fully released.

How hard that must have been for a woman who had taken so many life-affirming photos of happy little children at innovative health centres or playgroups or dancing in the sunshine.

So, later in the 1950s, Edith abandoned photography altogether and moved to Brighton, where she opened a tiny antique shop on Bond Street and lived in the flat above it in genteel poverty until her death in 1973. It was only 20 years later, after the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, that files about her were released and a newspaper article first revealed her role as a Soviet agent and spy.

And only then that her relatives, namely her brother Wolfgang’s children, first learned of their aunt’s scandalous double life. This led to research, the writing of a biography, and last year a documentary was released about her double life. This is the trailer:

Conclusion

So this modest one-room display of 49 photos by just a brother and sister ends up unfolding a story of huge historical, artistic and psychological complexity and poignancy.


Related links

More Tate Britain reviews

Don McCullin @ Tate Britain

This is an enormous exhibition of over 250 photos by famous war photographer Don McCullin. A working class lad who left school at 15 and got interested in cameras during his national service, the show opens with the first photograph he sold (in 1958 a policeman was stabbed by members of a gang in Finsbury Park – McCullin happened to have been at school with some of these young toughs and persuaded them to be photographed posing in a bombed-out house – people in his office saw the printed photo and said why don’t you try selling it to a newspaper? A newspaper bought it, and said have you got any more like that? And so a star was born).

The Guv'nors in their Sunday suits, Finsbury Park (1958)

The Guv’nors in their Sunday suits, Finsbury Park (1958)

The exhibition then follows McCullin’s career as he visited one warzone, famine zone, disaster zone, after another from the early 1960s right through to the 2000s, in the process becoming one of the most famous photographers in the world. He began a long association with the Sunday Times which covered war zones and natural disasters around the world in a ground-breaking combination of photojournalism.

Each of these odysseys is accompanied by a wall label which gives you the historical background of the conflict in question, and then, separately, McCullin’s reactions and thoughts about it.

Not all of them are abroad. The Troubles in Northern Ireland, though mainland Brits often forget it, was, of course, a low-level war or civil conflict fought here in Britain. And McCullin also undertook trips with journalists to parts of Britain which were still very, very deprived in the 1960s and 70s, capturing images of the homeless and alcoholics in the East End, as well as sequences depicting the bleak late-industrial landscapes and cramped lifestyles of the North of England.

Homeless Irishman, Spitalfields, London (1970)

Homeless Irishman, Spitalfields, London (1970)

The featured locations and subjects are:

  • Early London i.e. variations on his gangs of Finsbury shots
  • 1961 a journey to Berlin just as the wall was going up
  • Republic of Congo descent into civil war
  • Cyprus – intercommunal assassinations between Greeks and Turks
  • Biafra, war and then famine in this breakaway state of Nigeria
  • Vietnam – McCullin went to Vietnam no fewer than eighteen times and shot some of the iconic images of the war: there’s a display case showing the passports he used and the actual combat helmet he wore
Grenade thrower, Hue, Vietnam (1968)

Grenade thrower, Hue, Vietnam (1968)

  • Cambodia – as the Vietnam conflict spilled over into its neighbour setting the scene for the rise of the Khmer Rouge
  • the East End i.e. the homeless, tramps and derelicts around Spitalfields
  • Northern Ireland in the early years of the conflict 1970 showing youths throwing stones at British soldiers
  • Bradford and the North – McCullin has a special fondness for Bradford with its rugged stone architecture, and shot the working class amusements of the population (bingo, the pub) with the same harsh candour he brought to his war photos
  • British Summer Time – a smaller section about the activities of the British rich i.e. the season, Ascot etc
  • Bangladesh – the war followed by floods and famine as East Pakistan broke away from West Pakistan in 1971
  • Beirut – once the Paris of the Middle East descends into a three-way civil war, destabilised by neighbours Israel and Syria – there’s a famous sequence McCullin shot at a home for the mentally ill which had been abandoned by most of its carers: madness within madness
  • Iraq – among the Kurds in particular as the first Gulf War came to its tragic end (President Bush exhorted the Kurds and Marsh Arabs to rise up against Saddam Hussein but when they did, gave them no help, so that they were slaughtered in their thousands or fled to refugee camps
  • southern Ethiopia – amazingly colourful tribespeople holding Kalashnikovs
  • India – one of McCullin’s favourite countries which he’s returned to again and again to capture the swirl and detail of life
  • the AIDS pandemic in Africa – pictures of the dying accompanied by McCullin’s harrowing description of the AIDS pandemic as the biggest disaster he’d covered

Finally, in the last big room, are displayed the photos from the last few decades of McCullin’s career (born in October 1935, he is now 83 years old), in which he has finally been persuaded to take it easy. These are in two big themes and a smaller one:

  • he has been undertaking trips to the ancient Roman ruins to be found in the Arab countries bordering the Mediterranean, leading up to the publication of the book Southern Frontiers: A Journey Across the Roman Empire
  • and his most recent book, The Landscape (2018), is a collection of stunning photos of the scenery near his home in the Somerset Levels
  • finally, right at the tippy-most end of this long exhausting exhibition are three or four still lifes, very deliberately composed to reference the tradition of the still life in art, featuring apples or flowers in a bowl, next to a cutting board
Woods near My House, Somerset (c.1991)

Woods near My House, Somerset (c.1991)

Black and white

All the 250 photos in the exhibition are in black and white. McCullin printed them himself by hand in the dark room at his Somerset home.

As I’ve remarked in reviews of umpteen other photography exhibitions, black and white photography is immediately more arty than colour, because it focuses your visual response on depth, shade, lines and composition.

A lot of the early war photography is obviously capturing the moment, often under gunfire (McCullin was himself hit by shrapnel and hospitalised in Cambodia). But many of the smokestack cityscapes of Bradford and the North, the images of swirling mist and muddy rivers in India, and then the bleak photos of the Somerset Levels, in winter, dotted by leafless trees, floodwater reflecting the huge mackerel cloudscapes – many of these also have a threatening, looming, menacing effect.

The wall labels and the quotes from McCullin himself make it explicit that he is still haunted by the horrors he has witnessed – of war and cruelty, but also of famine and death by epidemic disease. It is a fairly easy interpretation to find the trauma of war still directing the aesthetic of the later photos – whether of Roman ruins in the desert or lowering skies over bleak Somerset in winter – both looking as if some terrible cataclysm has overtaken them.

The magazine slideshow

The one exception to the black and white presentation is a big dark projection room which shows a loop of the magazine covers and articles where McCullin’s photos were first published, displays of how they actually looked when first used, covered with banner headlines, or next to pages of text, and accompanied by detailed captions, describing the scene, what had happened just before or was going to happen afterwards, quotes from the people pictured.

It is striking what a difference a) being in colour and b) being accompanied by text, makes to these images. You quite literally read them in a different way, namely that your eye is drawn first to the text, whether it be the splash headlines on the front covers, or the tiny lines of caption accompanying the images.

It makes you realise that they were almost all first intended to tell a story, to explain a situation and, in all of the rest of the rooms of the exhibition, where that story is told by, at most, a paragraph of text on the wall, the images become ‘orphaned’. They stand alone. they are more ominous, pregnant with meaning, imposing.

Here, in the magazine slideshow, pretty much the same images are contained, corralled to sizes and shapes dictated by magazine layout, and overwritten by text which immediately channels your aesthetic and emotional responses and underwritten by captions, explanations and quotes which lead you away from the image and into the world of words and information.

And because information is, at the end of the day, more entrancing than pictures, more addictive (you want to find out what happened next, who, where, what, why) in one way this was the most powerful room in the show. I stayed for the entire loop which must have lasted over ten minutes, incidentally conveying, yet again, the sheer volume of work McCullin produced.

Local Boys in Bradford (1972

Local Boys in Bradford (1972

One perspective

Which brings me to my concluding thought which is that, for all its breadth (some fifty countries visited) and variety (from traumatic photojournalistic immediacy of wounded soldiers or starving children, to the monumental beauty of the Roman ruin shots and the chilly vistas of Somerset in winter) there is nonetheless a kind of narrowness to the work, in at least two ways:

The louring images of Somerset could hardly be more bleak and abandoned and the commentary is not slow to make the obvious point that they can be interpreted as landscapes as portrayed by a deeply traumatised, harrowed survivor i.e. it is all the suffering he saw which makes McCullin’s photographs of Somerset so compelling.

Well, yes, but these are also landscapes which people travel a long way to go on holiday in, where people have barbecues in the summer, take their dogs for walks, cars drive across playing Radio One, which has a good cricket team and various tourist attractions.

None of that is here. None of the actual world in all its banality, traffic jams and Tesco superstores. The images have been very carefully composed, shot and printed in order to create a particular view of the world.

And this also goes for the war and disaster photos. Seeing so many brilliantly captured, framed and shot images of war and disaster and famine, as well as the images of wrecked human beings in Spitalsfield and the poverty of the North of England – all this is bleak and upsetting and creates the impression that McCullin was living, that we are all living, in a world in permanent crisis, permanent poverty, permanent devastation.

A Catholic youth threatening police, Londonderry, Northern Ireland (1971)

A Catholic youth threatening police, Londonderry, Northern Ireland (1971)

You would never guess from this exhibition that his career covers the heyday of the Beatles, Swinging London, hippies smoking dope in a thousand attic squats, Biba and new boutiques, that – in other words – while soldiers were torturing civilians in Congo or Bangladesh, lots of young people were partying, older people going to work, kids going to school, families going on package holidays to the Costa del Sol, trying out fondue sets and meal warmers and all the other fancy new consumer gadgets which the Sunday Times advertised in the same magazines where McCullin’s photos appeared.

In other words, that away from these warzones, and these areas of maximum deprivation, life was going on as usual, and life was actually sweet for many millions of Brits. Kids play and laugh, even in warzones, even in poor neighborhoods. No kids are playing or laughing in any of these photos.

McCullin’s photos build up into an amazing oeuvre, an incredible body of work. But it would be a mistake to use them as the basis for a history or political interpretation of the era. It is just one perspective, and a perspective paid for by editors who wanted him to seek out the most harrowing, the most gut-wrenching and the most conscience-wracking situations possible.

If the cumulative worldview which arises from all these 250 photos is violent and troubled that is because he was paid to take photos of violence and trouble. Other photographers were doing fashion and advertising and sport and pop music photos. Their work is just as valid.

None of McCullin’s work is untrue (obviously), and all of it is beautifully shot and luminously printed – but his photos need to be placed in a much wider, broader context to even begin to grasp the history and meaning of his complex and multi-faceted era.

The promotional video


Related links

Related reviews

More photography reviews

More Tate Britain reviews