Turner and Constable at Tate Britain

Joseph and John

Joseph Turner was born in 1775, John Constable in 1776. In other words, it’s just about 250 years since their joint births. Tate owns big holdings of paintings, watercolours, sketches and related paraphernalia (paintboxes, journals, letters, sketchbooks) by both of them, so they’ve used the anniversaries to bring lots of this up out of the archives – plus substantial loans from other collections – in order to create a blockbuster exhibition placing two of England’s most popular painters side by side. The aim is to compare Turner and Constable’s differing origins, styles, subject matters and careers, and the way that, even during their lifetimes, they were pitted against each other as rivals, with rival visions of art.

Turner versus Constable: ‘The Golden Bough’ (left) by Turner, faces off against ‘Dedham Lock’ (right) by Constable, in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

Obviously, it’s full of lot and lots of good stuff but I confess I didn’t really enjoy it. I finished it with a great sense of relief and couldn’t wait to escape.

Massive exhibition

I expected the exhibition to be packed and it was, but I hadn’t anticipated it being quite so big, thorough and exhaustive. It contains some 190 oil paintings, watercolours and sketches, as well as seven or eight display cases containing everything from their paintboxes and brushes to Turner’s dismantled fishing rod (!).

Four outdoor sketches by Turner along with his dismantlable fishing rod, in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

Most exhibitions are in 7 or 8 rooms but this one stretches to 12, concluding with a set of videos by contemporary artists (Bridget Riley, George Shaw, Emma Stibbon and Frank Bowling) describing aspects of Joseph or John which inspire their own practice.

The wall labels are admirably thorough in introducing each of the 11 or so major themes which each room addresses, plus detailed captions for many of the paintings, watercolours, sketches and objects – but there are just so many that by the end I was full, I couldn’t read anything more, and I was relieved to give up the effort.

Also, heretical though it is to admit it, I don’t really like Turner, I never have; and I like Constable in small doses but here, faced with 80 or more works, the brilliantly glorious works are diluted by a lot of much more humdrum stuff. Exposed at such length, over so many works, the weaknesses of both artists become more and more glaring and – for me – began to drown out their strengths.

For example whereas Turner arguably came into his own in his later years, from 1830 onwards, the final room shows four of Constable’s last works from 1835 to 37, and I thought they were really dire: they look like his Hay Wain-style landscapes but put through a blender or painted by someone with serious eyesight problems (details below).

In the end I found myself equally put off Turner’s huge shimmering light experiments and Constable’s sometimes lovely but often very scrappy Suffolk landscapes, and found relief in the much smaller, lighter watercolours and sketches by both artists, although Turner was generally better at these (see below).

To put it another way, I came away from the National Gallery’s small, thoughtful, very focused exhibition about the Hay Wain liking and appreciating Constable more. Whereas I left this exhibition with a measurably lower opinion of him, and hoping I don’t see another Constable for a long time.

Main points

Constable focused largely on the English countryside, especially the Stour Valley in Suffolk, developing a distinctive practice of outdoor oil sketching to capture natural light, weather, and atmosphere with unprecedented immediacy. His textured brushwork, bright colours, and close study of skies challenged academic conventions and gradually earned critical recognition.

Turner, by contrast, was a prolific traveller whose work ranged across Britain and Europe. He explored dramatic subjects from the sublime forces of nature to modern technology, working across oil, watercolour, and print. His radical handling of colour and light, particularly in watercolour, pushed the medium to new artistic heights.

So Constable was, on the whole, a homebody, whereas there’s an entire room devoted to Turner’s extensive trip to Italy, displaying his sketchbooks, explaining the detailed preparations he made, showing preparatory sketches and some of the huge oils he did of dramatic Alpine scenery. For the rest of his life was liable at the drop of a hat to produce another enormous work set in Venice or Rome or the Alps.

Still, the early works produced soon after that trip can be breath-taking.

The Passage of Mount St Gothard from the centre of Teufels Broch (Devil’s Bridge) by JMW Turner (1804) © Abbot Hall, Kendal (Lakeland Arts Trust)

Room summary

Room 1. Starting out (8 prints, 10 paintings)

Eight paintings including Turner’s self portrait and two portraits of Constable.

Turner was born in London, the son of a Covent Garden barber, Constable to a prosperous family in the Suffolk village of East Bergholt.

As a teenager, Turner earned money alongside his art studies at the Royal Academy. He worked as an architectural draughtsman’s assistant and a watercolour copyist, which introduced him to a wide range of art. He was a commercially minded, fast-rising young star who first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1790 aged just 15.

By contrast, Constable was largely self-taught and undertook extensive sketching tours in order to perfect is artistic technique, not exhibiting at the Royal Academy until 12 years after turner, in 1802.

Both trained at the Royal Academy. Training at the Royal Academy centred on drawing the human figure. It aimed to produce painters of grand historical and mythological subjects. Landscape was far down its artistic hierarchy – so the main way both artists were innovators was in proclaiming landscape painting as a high genre in its own right.

It’s odd that the Academy focused on figure drawing when both Turner and Constable are dreadful, awful painters of human beings. It’s one of the things I dislike about them both. Any Turner painting with people in is going to be embarrassingly bad (see below). Constable’s figures are more superficially attractive until you go up close and see how gawkily the bodies are composed and how terrible the faces are, if he’s bothered with them at all. Constable’s clouds, ten out of ten. His faces, nil.

Room 2. Constable sketching outdoors (14 sketches, display case, chair)

Fourteen sketches and a display case showing his paintbox and palette. My wife and I both thought the most interesting thing in this room was Constable’s sketching chair.

Constable’s outdoor sketching chair in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

Room 3. Turner in the Alps and Italy (4 big paintings, 7 sketches, 5 sketchbooks, display case)

A pause in the long war with France in 1802 allowed the 27-year-old Turner to travel to Paris, then on south to the Alps, Switzerland and the Val d’Aosta. Thirteen years later, when the wars finally ended in 1815, he went again. His extensive preparations for the six-month trip included reading guidebooks and making sketches of other artists’ views of key sites to visit. Turner was hungry for Italy’s scenic riches. He filled 23 sketchbooks five of which are on display here and came home with imagery that would underpin decades of finished paintings.

One of Turner’s extravagant fantasias from Italian history – Caligula’s Palace and Bridge by J.M.W. Turner (1831) Tate

Remember I was saying how poor Turner’s human figures are? From a distance they pass, they appear to fit in with the blurry mode of the paintings. But go up close and they’re embarrassing. Here’s a close-up of the most prominent two figures in this work.

Detail of Caligula’s Palace and Bridge by J.M.W. Turner (1831) Tate

The basket and hula hoop and kettle and the blue cloak at bottom right, yes. The two goats at top right, yes. But the two human figures on the left? The bloke’s legs, yes, but their faces? They look like Punch and Judy.

Room 4. Turner’s watercolours (6 watercolours, 10 sketchbooks)

Going back and forth through the rooms, slowly overcoming the sheer scale of some of the enormous paintings here, it takes the mind a little while to adjust to the scale of the smaller, more delicate sketches and watercolours. Eventually I came to think these were the works I liked best.

Turner at his most attractive: four (relatively) small watercolours, in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

A contemporary critic wrote: ‘Another mused: ‘blended and sometimes delicately contrasted as [Turner’s] colours are – the effects are exquisitely tender, but not without sufficient force, from a certain magic arrangement, a graphic secret of his own’ and in many of them, you can see what he meant.

Room 5. Turner’s studio (9 paintings, 10 cloud studies)

Turner’s studio was a chaotic shambles. His landlady owned seven Manx cats and these are allowed to roam over wet paintings; we know this because their paw prints have been found. At his death it was discovered that he’d used his own paintings to block up gaps in the roof and had cut a catflap into one of them.

Room 6. Constable fields and sky (9 paintings, 10 cloud studies)

Most contemporary artists made extensive sketches on location then took them back to their studios to work up into finished compositions under controlled indoor conditions. In 1814 Constable began completing entire paintings on location, out of doors, and there are plenty of examples in the Hay Wain / Dedham Lock manner, as well as numerous preparatory sketches.

Taking this a step further, in 1819, Constable rented a house in Hampstead, then a village outside London where he started making rapid oil sketches of clouds, a practice he called ‘skying’. These works reflect Constable’s keen interest in weather.

Some of Constable’s cloud studies in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

His preoccupation with the sky is evident in his dramatic 1823 depiction of Salisbury Cathedral, which became another recurring subject and is given the full Mona Lisa treatment in this show, complete with visitor bench to sit and gaze in awe.

Constable’s painting of Salisbury cathedral given the full treatment in ‘Turner and Constable’ at Tate Britain (photo by the author)

Room 7. Big is beautiful (5 Turner, 4 Constable huge paintings)

Both artists struggled to get noticed and one easy way to do this was to make their paintings big, really big, ginormous. Turner was already doing his huge classical and mythological paintings. In 1819 Constable joined him by exhibiting the first of his huge canvases (what he called his ‘6-footers’) ‘The White Horse’, and its appearance for the first time triggered comparisons with Turner. They were both now competing in sheer size – but what a complete difference in subject matter and style.

The White Horse by John Constable (1819) © The Frick Collection, New York (photo by Joseph Coscia Jr)

This feels like a great painting. If there had been just 4 or 5 works like this you’d have gone away inspired. It’s the fact that it’s accompanied by about 80 others, sketches, scraps and some decidedly bad works, which dilutes its effect.

Room 8. Fire and water (4 massive paintings: 3 JC, 1 T)

The rivalry was real. By the late 1820s Turner was the well-established master in all forms of landscape (oil, watercolour, prints). Constable only achieved official recognition in 1829 when he was finally made a member of the Royal Academy. To quote the curators:

Two years later, they came to blows. Artists hated being hung next to Turner in the Royal Academy’s annual exhibition because his paintings ‘caught your eye the instant you entered the room’. In 1831, Constable took up the challenge. As a member of the committee responsible for placement of works in the exhibition, he hung his Salisbury Cathedral from the Meadows next to Turner’s Caligula’s Palace and Bridge. The arrangement gave Constable’s own painting prime position. At a dinner party, Turner apparently came ‘down upon him like a sledge-hammer’. One onlooker recalled dramatically that Constable ‘wriggled… like a detected criminal’.

Room 9. Late Constable: ‘beyond Constable country’ (9 sketches, 3 big paintings)

With election to the Academy in 1829, Constable moved to expand his subject matter, producing works set in Brighton and London, away from his home turf in the Stour Valley. He tackled coastal storms and grand neoclassical architecture. I didn’t like his Brighton paintings but some of the sketches of the beach were appealing.

Rainstorm over the Sea by John Constable (1824-1828) © Photo Royal Academy of Art (photo by John Hammond)

I was tickled to read that Constable didn’t like Brighton and dismissed it as ‘Piccadilly by the seaside’. Plus ça change, eh?

In this room the curators are showing a clip from Mike Leigh’s 2014 movie, Mr Turner, dramatising another famous moment in their rivalry, when both painters had work hung in the 1832 Academy exhibition and Turner (played by Timothy Spall) adds a last-minute red buoy to his painting Helvoetsluys: Fishermen at Sea in order to catch the viewer’s eye and distract it from Constable’s long-laboured over piece, The Opening of Waterloo Bridge – which triggered Constable (played by the stalwart character actor James Fleet) to walk out in a huff. At least it’s all very dramatic in movieland.

Room 10. Late Turner (9 paintings, 8 sketches)

Turning 60 in 1835, Turner could have rested on his financial position and slowed down but he kept up the pace. 1835 saw him take one of his most extensive and taxing European sketching tours and he continued to travel abroad for another decade. He made topical paintings of contemporary subjects, including the fire that destroyed the Houses of Parliament.

The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons, 16 October 1834 by JMW Turner (1835) Cleveland Museum of Art

Favourite locations like Venice and the Swiss Alps came back into focus with repeat visits. There’s a really dreadful giant monster of a painting depicting Juliet and her nurse in a typically gauzy, highly romanticised Venice when, of course, the play is set in Verona, 120 kilometres away.

On the other hand, some of these late watercolours are truly visionary, and the curators are right to single out The Blue Rigi, Sunrise (1842) as awe inspiring.

The Blue Rigi, Sunrise by Joseph Mallord William Turner (1842) Tate

Room 11. Landscape and memory (3 Turner, 4 Constable, 4 prints)

Constable died in 1837, by now accepted as a classic. But his last years were saddened by the absence of his dead wife. The curators suggest his late paintings are clouded by melancholy but optimistically claim they reverberate with energy. Well, the four they hang in the final room are awful. They revert to the Suffolk subject matter but as if someone had thrown a bucket of mud over them. The palette has lost all its brightness and sparkle, everything is black and grey and mud. A couple of them have sets of diagonal white slashes across them as if someone had repeatedly stabbed them with a knife. They’re so horrible I made a list to show you:

My wife wondered whether he must have been suffering from some eye problem, cataracts or something, which would explain their dirgelike darkness, their fevered, cluttered, murky feeling. But that can’t be true because alongside it the curators hang a marvellously limpid and detailed drawing of fir trees on Hampstead Heath.

Fir Trees by John Constable (c. 1833) The Higgins Art Gallery & Museum, Bedford, UK/Bridgeman Images

(Incidentally,  you can see the join three-quarters of the way down the work; this is because Constable had originally drawn just the upper part of the tree but ended up devoting so much time and effort to it, that he glued on an extra strip of paper at the bottom so he could continue it down to the roots.)

Anyway, the point is that, if he could produce extremely clear, detailed and lucid drawings like this, then the dire appearance of a late painting like On the river Stour (1834) was an artistic choice.

By contrast with the murky Constable, this final room contains arguably the best Turner in the exhibition, certainly the one I liked best, Norham Castle, a work of pure luminousness, almost completely untainted by worldly subject matter.

Norham Castle, Sunrise by Joseph Mallord William Turner (c.1845) Tate

Room 12

This room is devoted to a big video screen onto which is projected an 11-minute-long film featuring interviews of contemporary artists Bridget Riley, George Shaw, Emma Stibbon and Frank Bowling, giving their opinions about T and C.

What’s really striking about this video is that it contains many tasteful close-ups of T and C’s works and these often make the paintings seem much more interesting and exciting and innovative than the complete, wider works do. It was a revelation to think of both their paintings like this, as collections of good bits which frequently impress more as inventive and wonderful details than they do as often contrived and stagey wholes.


Related links

Related reviews

The Big Four by Agatha Christie (1927)

‘It is a duel to the death, mon ami. You and I on the one side, the Big Four on the other.’
(Poirot striking the tone of melodrama right from the start, The Big Four, Chapter 2)

There was a cold malignity about her that froze me to the marrow. It was so at variance with the burning fire of her eyes. She was mad—mad—with the madness of genius!
(The overwrought shilling shocker tone of this terrible book)

‘Mon ami, he overlooked the little grey cells of Hercule Poirot.’ Poirot has his virtues, but modesty is not one of them.
(Even when he’s appearing in a terrible book, Poirot’s egotism remains undented, Chapter 11)

‘The Big Four’ is the fourth novel by Agatha Christie to feature her Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot. Like most of them it is narrated by Poirot’s dim sidekick, Captain Hastings. At the end of the second novel Hastings had headed off for South America with a beautiful young woman he had met during the adventure and who he intended to marry, which explains why the third novel in the series is narrated not by him, but by a temporary replacement, Dr Sheppard.

‘The Big Four’ opens with Hastings returning from what he tells us has been 18 months on a ranch in the Argentine and looking forward to looking up old friends in London, notably ‘A little man with an egg-shaped head and green eyes—Hercule Poirot!’

However, the novel is drastically different from it predecessors and most of its sequels for two reasons: first of all it was cobbled together from what were initially a dozen short stories which had been published separately and, as a consequence, it feels very bitty and episodic and, above all, rushed.

But the more obvious difference is that it is not a traditional murder mystery at all: instead of the staid English country house setting, this is a story of international intrigue and espionage featuring a secretive international organisation along the lines of John Buchan’s ’39 steps’, the fiendish international enemies that plucky Bulldog Drummond has to fight, the kind of gang that Tintin would find himself up against in the 1930s.

In fact it’s so completely different in content, tone and pacing from the traditional murder mysteries that it could possibly be categorised as spy fiction, an international thriller.

Plot summary

Hastings discovers that Poirot is about to dash off himself, and to South America, where he has been lured with the promise of an enormous fee. He wishes he wasn’t going because he has become more and more interested in an international crime cartel called The Big Four.

While they’re discussing this, they hear a noise from the bedroom and find a man in rags and covered in mud who has obviously climbed up through the window into Poirot’s bedroom and can only repeated his name, Mayerling, Poirot’s address before he collapses. When Hastings mentions the Big Four it triggers the man reciting, as if hypnotised, details of the organisation and its four leaders: Number 1 is a Chinese political mastermind named Li Chang Yen*; Number 2 is probably American; Number 3 is a Frenchwoman; and Number 4 is known only as ‘the Destroyer’.

Leaving the man in the care of their housekeeper, Mrs Pearson, Poirot insists they rush off to Waterloo to catch a train to Southampton, so Poirot can catch his boat to South America. But half way there he has an insight and realises the whole South America job was to lure him away from England altogether. So next time the train stops he and Hastings jump out and hotfoot it back to London.

Here they discover the man Mayerling is dead, gagged and poisoned. They fetch a doctor to confirm the death but no sooner is that sorted than a man arrives claiming to be from Hanwell Asylum. He claims the muddy man Mayerling is an escaped lunatic, confirms the identity of the body, then leaves, promising to send someone to collect it.

It’s only a bit later, as he examines the body, that Poirot comes to the conclusion that the Hanwell Asylum man was Number 4, the Destroyer, in disguise, come to meet the gang’s number one enemy, Poirot, in person.

A week later Poirot invites Hastings to come with him on a visit to a British expert on the criminal underworld of China, one Mr. John Ingles, to find out more about Li Chang Yen. Ingles tells them that the Big Four are behind everything wrong in the world:

‘Everything. The world-wide unrest, the labour troubles that beset every nation, and the revolutions that break out in some. There are people, not scaremongers, who know what they are talking about, and they say that there is a force behind the scenes which aims at nothing less than the disintegration of civilisation. In Russia, you know, there were many signs that Lenin and Trotsky were mere puppets whose every action was dictated by another’s brain. I have no definite proof that would count with you, but I am quite convinced that this brain was Li Chang Yen’s.’

And:

‘What exactly he hopes to get out of it all I cannot pretend to say for certain,’ went on Mr. Ingles; ‘but I assume his disease is one that has attacked great brains from the time of Akbar and Alexander to Napoleon—a lust for power and personal supremacy. Up to modern times armed force was necessary for conquest, but in this century of unrest a man like Li Chang Yen can use other means. I have evidence that he has unlimited money behind him for bribery and propaganda, and there are signs that he controls some scientific force more powerful than the world has dreamed of.’

(Might be worth noting that this was only a decade after the English author Sax Rohmer kicked off his series of adventure novels about the fiendish criminal mastermind Dr Fu Manchu in 1913, another archetypal figure who went on to have nearly as prolific an afterlife as Poirot, in numerous novels, short stories, radio shows, comic strips and comic books, TV and movies, until the intrinsic racism of the stereotype became unacceptable. See ‘No Chinamen’, below.)

Ingles describes a succession of journalists who’ve published articles about then promptly died in mysterious circumstances, not to mention a young scientist who came to him suffering from a nervous breakdown having carried out disgusting experiments on Chinese coolies for Li Chang Yen, and that night Ingles’s house was set on fire and the scientist died.

Ingles shows Poirot a letter from a Jonathan Whalley, who lives in Hoppaton, Dartmoor, claiming his life was in danger from the Four. So Poirot on the spot tells the others he is heading off by train for Hoppaton straightaway. It’s that kind of book, helter-skelter, cartoon panic movement.

Inevitably they arrive at Hoppiton to discover that Whalley is dead, murdered, bludgeoned then had his throat cut. Poirot does his thing and is able to prove that the servant the police arrested, although he turned out to have a criminal record and was caught stealing some of the dead man’s Chinese curios, did not do it. A man disguised as the local butcher did it with a frozen leg of mutton. Poirot attributes this man to be the aforementioned Number Four, same as the Hanwell Asylum man. In other words this is all a preposterous farrago.

Inspector Japp of Scotland Yard had been called to the scene and now introduces a new character, an American named Captain Kent. He tells an even more preposterous story, about how in a recent disaster loads of ships and torpedo boats were dashed against the American coast. A roundup of criminal gangs produced papers suggesting it was all caused by a new Superweapon, ‘some powerful wireless installation—a concentration of wireless energy far beyond anything so far attempted, and capable of focusing a beam of great intensity upon some given spot.’

So Captain Kent was dispatched to come to Britain and meet a British scientist who’s said to be the leading expert in this field, one Halliday. Only one problem, said Halliday went missing two months ago on a trip to Paris. His worried wife lives in Surrey so guess what? Off to Chetwynd Lodge, near Chobham, our little gang next head.

Halliday’s wife explains that her husband went to Paris to meet the famous Madame Olivier, checked into a hotel, spent a day meeting colleagues and visiting the Madame, went back to the hotel, dinner, bed, next morning went out and has never been since.

So guess what? Off to Paris head our gang. They interview Madame Olivier, a tall, obsessed woman, about her meeting with Halliday and she compares it with her own research into radium C which has remarkable properties.

Leaving her laboratory, they are almost crushed by a tree falling in the street! Humour lightens the preposterousness of all this:

‘But for my quick eyes, the eyes of a cat, Hercule Poirot might now be crushed out of existence—a terrible calamity for the world. And you, too, mon ami—though that would not be such a national catastrophe.’

Poirot realises Halliday was kidnapped before he even got back to his Paris hotel. The hotel staff who reported seeing him didn’t really know him and were seeing an imposter. Returning to Madame Olivier’s villa he unmasks her recently appointed secretary as Countess Rossakoff, an old antagonist (who in fact first appears in this ‘novel’). She admits she was hired by the Big Four to help kidnap Halliday but claims he has been moved from the villa next door where he was originally incarcerated.

She makes a deal with Poirot, Halliday for her liberty. He agrees so she phones the bad guys and arrange for Halliday to be delivered to their hotel. When they get back to their room they find Halliday alive, but worn and shattered. But he cannot say a thing. He tells them if he says anything the Big Four will kill him and his family.

Halliday departs for England back to his family. Poirot and Hastings are just discussing what to do next when there’s a knock at the door and a tall hook-nosed gentleman enters. He is an emissary from the Big Four and offers a huge bribe if Poirot will cease investigating them and go back to domestic murders. Hastings makes a bolt at him but the man throws him using a Japanese ju-jitsu move then escapes dressed as a hotel porter.

On the floor is a wallet he dropped which contains a piece of paper saying the next meeting of the Big Four council will take place at 11am on Friday and it is now Friday 10.30am. But Poirot immediately sees that it is a trap and doesn’t budge.

Instead they receive a telegram from Madame Olivier asking her to revisit them. She tells them last night her secretary disappeared and her laboratory was burgled. She tells them they stole some stuff but failed to take the most valuable item, her supply of radium, locked in a lead-lined safe and invaluable. Poirot is certain they’ll return so he tells Madame Olivier to act innocently and tell her assistants nothing.

Then he makes Hastings join him on a train back to England. Why? Because they are certainly being watched. Which is why he gets a friend of his, Pierre Comnbeau, to pull the emergency cord on the train and while he is arguing with the guards, Poirot and Hastings climb off, change into disguise and head back to Paris.

They are just preparing to stake out Madame Olivier’s villa when they are jumped, bound and gagged. They are carried into the house and up to the safe which swings open to reveal… Steps down into a secret underground chamber! Here is waiting for them a tall imperious Frenchwoman who is clearly the Big Four’s Number Three. When she takes off her mask it is to reveal herself as none other than… Madame Olivier!!

She taunts her tied and bound victims and asks Poirot if he has any last requests. He asks for a cigarette so she takes out his cigarette case and puts one in his mouth. At which point he tells her it’s a miniature blowpipe charged with a little dart tipped with lethal curare. Even Indiana Jones wouldn’t be so cheesy. So Poirot forces Madame Olivier to unbind Hastings who promptly ties her up and frees Poirot.

They get free of the villa but when Hastings asks if he’s going to give her up to the police, Poirot points out they have no evidence whatsoever, in fact all the evidence could be twisted to accuse them of breaking and entering. No. Back to London tomorrow!

Back in London they’ve got a letter from Abe Ryland the American multimillionaire who offered him the fabulous sum to go to Buenos Aires, but now Poirot wonders whether he is Number Two, what with his immense fortune, power and influence, and the fact we know Number Two is American.

So Poirot goes to meet Ryland. The chief outcome of this is to discover that the millionaire needs a secretary so Poirot returns to tell Hastings he will put him forward. He’ll even get a testimony from the Home Secretary who he once did a great favour for (this sounds exactly like Sherlock Holmes).

Hastings is rigged up with a ridiculous amount of make-up and even padding in his cheeks, goes to meet Rylands in his rooms at the Savoy under the fake name of Major Arthur Neville, is hired and taken down to his country house, Hatton Chase, where he meets the rest of the staff.

After three weeks a pretty maid comes to him complaining that she hates being shouted at and is thinking of quitting. She explains that she usually opens Mr Ryland’s mail except for ones on blue paper but this morning when not concentrating opened a blue one by mistake. He was furious and started yelling at her. She noticed it had a little 4 in the corner but the message was quite innocuous and short.

Hastings is v excited because he thinks their plan is working so he gets her to repeat the letter to him. Later that evening he realises it’s in code and is asking its addressee for a meeting that in the quarry not far from the house. Next day Hastings sends a letter to Poirot in London telling him about the meeting, leaving it up to him whether he wants to come or not. That evening he waits till his day’s duties are done then sneaks out and down to the quarry. However, when he gets there Ryland and colleague are waiting there with guns. The whole thing was a setup. Now they just await Poirot and then, he explains, they’ll arranged for them both to be killed in a fatal landslide.

Sure enough a few minutes later Poirot quietly appears in the quarry but when Ryland tells him ‘Hands up’ Poirot quietly explains that ten policemen and detectives are watching right now, whistles, and they come forward. Ryland and sidekick are arrested and Poirot explains that he always intended Hastings to be bait for some kind of trap – much to Hastings’ disgruntlement.

But there’s another twist. Next morning at breakfast, Inspector Japp arrives and tells them Ryland and the entire staff swear the whole thing was a prank set up by the staff and that Ryland himself was never in the quarry. The man they took to be Japp was heavily dressed and swathed in coat and hat and turned out to be the footman. Ryland was in bed all the time.

Here, half way through this preposterous farrago, I’m going to stop summarising. The remaining stories or episodes are:

The affair of the Yellow Jasmine

Poirot investigates the death of a Mr Paynter in Worcestershire. Before his death, Paynter had written in ink ‘yellow jasmine’ on his newspaper, and attempted to draw a Number Four. Poirot reveals that Paynter’s attending physician, a Doctor Quentin, was in fact Number Four and it was he who gave Paynter an injection of yellow jasmine.

The greatest power for evil in the world to-day is this ‘Big Four.’ To what end they are tending, no one knows, but there has never been another such criminal organisation. The finest brain in China at the head of it, an American millionaire, and a French woman scientist as members, and for the fourth—

The affair of the Dead Chess Player

Chess grandmaster Gilmour Wilson dies from heart failure while playing Russian refugee Dr Savaronoff. Poirot deduces that the real Savaronoff died in Russia and that Number Four impersonated him, killing Wilson in order to preserve his cover. More info about the master of many disguises and killer, Number Four:

‘Ivan is none other than the famous Number Four.’
‘What?’
‘Yes. The man is a marvellous character actor. He can assume any part he pleases.’
I thought back over past adventures, the lunatic asylum keeper, the butcher’s young man, the suave doctor, all the same man, and all totally unlike each other.

Hastings is kidnapped by Chinese

Who blackmail him, telling him they have kidnapped his wife in Argentina. They force him to write a letter to Poirot telling him to rush to this address because they want to kidnap him, too. But when Poirot arrives he throws a gas bomb into the building which knocks the baddie Chinese out (Poirot himself is wearing a gas mask under a muffler).

The life and death of Flossie Monro

Poirot gives a long list of reasons why he has deduced that the killer, Number Four, must be an actor, of a particular age, height, build and hair colour. And how, because of his ability to adopt disguises, he thinks he is an actor. After extensive research he’s narrowed it down to a list of four and he’s put an ad out in newspapers targeting friends or family of the four to get in touch.

Flossie Monro, a down-on-her-luck actress and one-time girlfriend of one of the four, Claud Darrell, gets in touch and they take her for lunch. She reveals a few tell-tale habits of Claud and promises to send them an old photo she has. but barely have they got back to their flat than there’s a call from a hospital saying Flossie’s been brought in after being hit by a car.

They rush to the hospital but Flossie dies just before they arrive. So they race to Flossie’s flat only to discover it ransacked and the photograph taken from its frame.

Poirot tells the Home Secretary and French Prime Minister about the Big Four

Hastings has to put on his best suit for the occasion. The French Prime Minister is outraged when Poirot tells her that French national heroine Madame Olivier is among the conspirators.

Poirot’s brother

‘I think—I really think—that I shall have to bring my brother into this.’
‘Your brother,’ I cried, astonished. ‘I never knew you had a brother?’
‘You surprise me, Hastings. Do you not know that all celebrated detectives have brothers who would be even more celebrated then they are were it not for constitutional indolence?’
Poirot employs a peculiar manner sometimes which makes it well nigh impossible to know whether he is jesting or in earnest. That manner was very evident at the moment.
‘What is your brother’s name?’ I asked, trying to adjust myself to this new idea.
‘Achille Poirot,’ replied Poirot gravely. ‘He lives near Spa in Belgium.’
‘What does he do?’ I asked with some curiosity, putting aside a half-formed wonder as to the character and disposition of the late Madame Poirot, and her classical taste in Christian names.
‘He does nothing. He is, as I tell, of a singularly indolent disposition. But his abilities are hardly less than my own—which is saying a great deal.’
‘Is he like you to look at?’
‘Not unlike. But not nearly so handsome. And he wears no moustaches.’
‘Is he older than you, or younger?’
‘He happens to have been born on the same day.’
‘A twin!’ I cried.

The first part of this is so obviously a direct copy of Sherlock Holmes and his smarter older brother Mycroft Holmes, as to be shameful.

The only woman Poirot ever admired

Sherlock Holmes was said to have only been smitten by one woman, Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outsmart him. Again, in what seems to be a shamelessly direct copy from Holmes, Christie tells us Poirot had a soft spot for only one woman in the world, Countess Vera Rossakoff, and for more or less the same reason i.e. she was a smart enemy.

Poirot, for some reason or other, had always had a sneaking fondness for the countess. Something in her very flamboyance attracted the little man. She was, he was wont to declare in moments of enthusiasm, a woman in a thousand. That she was arrayed against us, on the side of our bitterest enemies, never seemed to weigh in his judgment.

The affair of Mr Templeton’s illness

At a country house down in Hertfordshire. Except that they’ve barely finished dinner with the various family members suspected of poisoning Mr Templeton and gone up to their bedroom, when Poirot hurriedly tells Hastings they must climb out the window, down the ivy and run away. The young man they met at dinner was playing with his bread in exactly the way poor dead Flossie Monro told them that Claud Darrel did. So it was all a trap.

Death of Poirot

They have only just got back to their rooms in London than Hastings strikes a match to light the fire and there’s a gas explosion. When he comes to he finds local doctor, Dr Ridgeway, bending over him, relieved to see that he’s alright but telling him that Poirot didn’t make it.

This is a really low-down cheap trick, because we know Poirot isn’t dead, in fact we only have to flick ten pages later in the book to find him chatting away to Hastings. It’s the cheapest trick in the book to fake his death and have Hastings tug at our heartstrings for a few pages. Shame on you, Dame Agatha!

  • Hastings is called to the deathbed of a Chinaman stabbed in the street.
  • Hastings is warned to leave England by a stranger in a Soho restaurant.
  • Hastings is warned to leave England by the Countess Rossakoff
  • Hastings receives a letter from Poirot’s own lawyers telling him to leave England

So he takes ship for Argentina but in the middle of the night is woken up in his cabin and told he is being transferred to a Royal Navy destroyer (!) and taken back to the coast of Belgium. From here he is taken into the forest of the Ardennes and eventually to a villa where… he is reunited with a very alive Poirot! As every reader knew he would be.

They wait and wait for months until the time comes and a British secret service agent comes to tip them off. They take train to Paris, change and train on towards Italy. En route Poirot tells Hastings the Big Four have built a secret underground headquarters in the Dolomites and from here they will send out messages to the thousands they control in each country to achieve world domination. The significance of Madame Olivier is that she has solved the problem of atomic power.

‘I believe that she has, to a certain extent, succeeded in liberating atomic energy and harnessing it to her purpose. Her experiments with the nitrogen of the air have been very remarkable, and she has also experimented in the concentration of wireless energy, so that a beam of great intensity can be focused upon some given spot.’

The whole thing has gone wildly off the rails to become a sub-H.G. Wells fantasy, with Buchan and Bulldog Drummond thrown in.

They arrive at a hotel in sight of the (fictitious) Felsenlabyrynth, ‘all big boulders piled about in a most fantastic way—a path winds through them’.

They notice one of the guests, a young bland looking man, walking around the terrace then notice him at dinner time. He comes over to their table and makes polite conversation and is just leaning over to light a cigarette when all the lights go out and Hastings passes out.

This is because the young man was Number Four and he broke an anaesthetic glass under their noses. As Poirot and Hastings passed out, accomplices from other tables gagged and bound them, carried them through the hotel, out the back, along underground passages and out into the open and up up up the mountainside.

By the time Hastings fully regains consciousness they are at the opening in the Felsenlabyrinth. There’s a huge boulder in their way but one of their captors presses a magic switch and the rock swings out of the way to reveal a secret passage into the mountainside. they’re carried along this into a cavern.

Claud Darrell aka Number Four controls them at gunpoint and takes them into another room with four big chairs. In two of them are sitting Abe Ryland and Madame Olivier and Darrell climbs into the fourth. Entering the room to join them comes the Countess Rossakoff. However she is the one who realises that Poirot is not Poirot – it is his twin brother and she pulls off his fake moustache to prove it.

So Achille reveals this is all part of the plan, that their mountain hideaway has been known and watched for months, that most of the guests at the hotel as secret service agents from the allied governments. He tells us his shoes were laced with aniseed so dogs could follow his trail and will have found the secret entrance behind the big boulder. Meanwhile the cunning Poirot is outside guiding all these operations against them.

Then things get even cheaper and cheesier. There are explosions in the distance so the three bosses go off in different directions, leaving the Countess Vera Rossakoff. Quickly Achille says he will offer her anything she desires if she will set them free. She thinks she’s being cruelly ironic when she asks him to bring her dead son back to life. But Achille tells her to look in his wallet which the baddies had put along with all their belongings on a table and she gasps as she finds in it a photograph of her son. He is still alive. Achille promises to reunite her with him. And so she undoes their bindings.

So she guides them through the underground labyrinth of tunnels right through the mountain and out the other side. They have barely emerged into the open before there’s an enormous explosion and they are thrown to the ground.

No twin after all

When Hastings regains consciousness he’s in a hospital bed and Poirot is looking down at him. Poirot explains there was never any twin, the entire twin story was a scam – he discoloured his eyes and skin and shaved off his precious moustaches and gave himself a scar on the lip – but it helped that Hastings believed it. Why, you may well ask. Poirot’s explanation is that:

The whole crux of the affair was to make them believe that Hercule Poirot was still at large directing operations.

But this is no answer. Why would that make any difference, when they knew the combined intelligence agencies of half a dozen countries were lined up against them? In other words, the climactic play or gambit or scam with which Poirot saves the day seems curiously hollow and pointless.

Anyway: three of the four were killed when they blew up their own mountain; and Poirot now shows Hastings a newspaper cutting reporting that notorious master of crime Li Chang Yen had killed himself after engineering a revolution which had failed.

So that’s that, then. What a shambolic, cheap and superficial farrago. Graham Greene suppressed his first two novels as he came to realise they were sub-standard. Surprising Christie didn’t suppress this little horror. Poirot’s final words are:

‘Together we have faced and routed the Big Four; and now you will return to your charming wife, and I—I shall retire. The great case of my life is over. Anything else will seem tame after this. No, I shall retire. Possibly I shall grow vegetable marrows! I might even marry and range myself!’

All this talk of retirement. And yet we know that he had barely even started what would turn out to be forty more years of novels, stories and adventures.

*No Chinamen

In 1929 author and priest Ronald Knox wrote a jokey Ten Commandments for writing classic detective stories. Rule Five was ‘No Chinaman must figure in the story’. Delving a bit deeper, Knox explained that: ‘I see no reason in the nature of things why a Chinaman should spoil a detective story. But as a matter of fact, if you are turning over the pages of an unknown romance in a bookstore, and come across some mention of the narrow, slit-like eyes of Chin Loo, avoid that story; it is bad.’

‘The Big Four’ is a textbook demonstration of this rule.

Heightism

Captain Kent was a tall, lean American, with a singularly impassive face which looked as though it had been carved out of wood.

Mrs. Halliday received us at once, a tall, fair woman, nervous and eager in manner.

Madame Olivier was a very tall woman, her tallness accentuated by the long white overall she wore, and a coif like a nun’s that shrouded her head.

‘Mademoiselle Claude, one of my assistants.’ A tall, serious-faced young girl bowed to us.

A man stepped into the room and closed the door behind him. He was a tall, thin man, with a slightly hooked nose and a sallow complexion.

Number Three – A woman stood there, tall and imposing, with a black velvet mask covering her face.

Ryland was sitting at a table… It was my first sight of the American millionaire, and, in spite of myself, I was impressed. He was tall and lean, with a jutting out chin and slightly hooked nose.

Dr. Savaronoff – was an imposing figure. Tall, gaunt, with huge bushy eyebrows and white beard, and a face haggard as the result of starvation and hardships.

The bearer of the message was a tall impassive Chinaman, neatly but rather shabbily dressed.

I was facing an immense cushioned divan on which sat a tall thin Oriental dressed in wonderfully embroidered robes, and clearly, by the length of his finger nails, a great man.

M. Desjardeaux, the French Prime Minister – Standing with his back to the fireplace was a tall thin man with a pointed black beard and a sensitive face.

Mrs. Templeton, a tall dark woman, with sinuous movements and uneasy eyes.

Thoughts

This is a bad book. Don’t bother reading it. The basic scenario and idea of the Big Four is twaddle.

‘There is in the world to-day a vast organisation—an organisation of crime. It is controlled by four individuals, who are known and spoken of as the Big Four. Number One is a Chinaman, Li Chang Yen; Number Two is the American multi-millionaire, Abe Ryland; Number Three is a Frenchwoman; Number Four I have every reason to believe is an obscure English actor called Claud Darrell. These four are banded together to destroy the existing social order, and to replace it with an anarchy in which they would reign as dictators.’

Captain Kent is correct to find it all preposterous nonsense:

‘What was the idea in sinking those boats? Are the Big Four a German stunt?’
‘The Big Four are for themselves—and for themselves only, M. le Capitaine. Their aim is world domination.’
The American burst out laughing…

As should the reader as they throw this book in the bin. As to the ‘cases’ which punctuate the text, they’re clever but trivial because, dealt with so quickly, they never develop a fraction of the depth, grip and traction of the novel-length stories. There are some gestures towards the deeper characterisation of the proper novels:

Poirot nodded, as he arranged the glasses in a neat row on the tray. His love of order was as great as ever.

‘My dear Japp, all through dinner my fingers have been itching to rearrange your own tie-pin. You permit, yes? Ah! that is much more pleasing to the eye.’

Poirot’s eyes were shining with the green light I knew so well.

I realised that Poirot’s vanity was of the case-hardened variety which could withstand all attacks.

And the usual comedy at Hastings’ expense:

Poirot was most childishly delighted with this discovery [of enemy notes about their characters]. Personally I could not see that it was of any value whatever, especially as whoever compiled the notes was ludicrously mistaken in some of his opinions. I pointed this out to my friend when we were back in our rooms.

‘My dear Poirot,’ I said, ‘you know now what the enemy thinks of us. He appears to have a grossly exaggerated idea of your brain power, and to have absurdly underrated mine, but I do not see how we are better off for knowing this.’

But basically Christie ‘phoned it in’, as the Americans say. Tripe.

ITV adaptation

Some or all of this sprawling set of stories was adapted for ITV’s Poirot series starring David Suchet, series 13, episode 2.


Credit

‘The Big Four’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1927 by John Lane. References are to the 1984 Pan paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Waves by Virginia Woolf (1931)

‘When we sit together, close,’ said Bernard, ‘we melt into each other with phrases. We are edged with mist. We make an unsubstantial territory.’

All for a moment wavered and bent in uncertainty and ambiguity…

‘The Waves’ is an experimental novel made up of highly poetic, sometimes almost abstract and visionary monologues, delivered by six characters, depicting their lives over 30 years or more as they grow from children through maturity to old men and women. The six are:

  1. Bernard (fancies himself a novelist; never goes anywhere without his notebook in which he jots down notes for novels which never get written)
  2. Susan (wants to be a rural materfamilias like her mother)
  3. Rhoda (nervous, anxious)
  4. Neville (fancies himself a poet)
  5. Jinny (party-loving Londoner)
  6. Louis (fancies himself heir to Egypt and all the ages; acutely self-conscious of his Australian accent and his father a banker in Brisbane)

Early on the image of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five appeared in my mind (Julian, Dick, Anne, George and their dog Timmy) and I never quite managed to lose the association. This book is about the Sensitive Six.

Here’s how it opens, to indicate the schematicness of the structure, and the stilted, hieratic nature of the prose.

‘I see a ring,’ said Bernard, ‘hanging above me. It quivers and hangs in a loop of light.’
‘I see a slab of pale yellow,’ said Susan, ‘spreading away until it meets a purple stripe.’
‘I hear a sound,’ said Rhoda, ‘cheep, chirp; cheep chirp; going up and down.’
‘I see a globe,’ said Neville, ‘hanging down in a drop against the enormous flanks of some hill.’
‘I see a crimson tassel,’ said Jinny, ‘twisted with gold threads.’
‘I hear something stamping,’ said Louis. ‘A great beast’s foot is chained. It stamps, and stamps, and stamps.’

In her great novels, ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘To The Lighthouse’, and to a lesser extent in ‘Orlando’, the narrator – or the characters the narrator describes – are continually noticing small details in the world around them: the toot of a car horn, a bird arcing in the sky, a fragment of dress someone’s wearing, the tinkle of cutlery. Quite often the pressure of all these details pressing in on the characters’ senses becomes too much, sensual overload giving rise to a sort of hysteria which I thought I detected in ‘Jacob’s Room’.

In a sense ‘The Waves’ represents the triumph of this detail-noticing approach over conventional plot or characters. The text consists of nothing but random details, hundreds and hundreds of them, described in isolation like jewels hanging in space.

There is the stable clock with its gilt hands shining. Those are the flats and heights of the roofs of the great house. There is the stable-boy clattering in the yard in rubber boots… That is the close-clipped hedge of the ladies’ garden… The ferns smell very strong, and there are red funguses growing beneath them… That is a wood-pigeon breaking cover in the tops of the beech trees… The lady sits between the two long windows, writing. The gardeners sweep the lawn with giant brooms… Listen! That is the flop of a giant toad in the undergrowth; that is the patter of some primeval fir-cone falling to rot among the ferns…

From the start there’s no indication how old the characters are or where any of this is happening: it is a set of free-floating and deliberately random observations which is, to begin with, quite disorientating.

Children

In the event, the initial level of abstraction can’t be maintained for long – the speaker’s speeches become longer and start to contain circumstantial details. We learn that they are all together in one place and are children waiting for ‘lessons’ to begin. ‘My mother still knits white socks for me and hems pinafores and I am a child,’ says Susan. We learn who they all are because Louis very bluntly tells us:

‘My father is a banker in Brisbane and I speak with an Australian accent. I will wait and copy Bernard. He is English. They are all English. Susan’s father is a clergyman. Rhoda has no father. Bernard and Neville are the sons of gentlemen. Jinny lives with her grandmother in London…’

But they don’t speak like children at all. They talk in the fixed hieratic style of adults reciting the words of a play. Around the same time Woolf produced this experimental drama-novel other writers were doing something similar. T.S. Eliot tried to revive plays in verse starting in the early 1930s with ‘Sweeney Agonistes’. W.H. Auden wrote plays in verse starting as early as ‘The Orators’ in 1932. Woolf’s characters, also, speak like characters on a stage, standing facing an audience, reciting the words of a poetic play. Woolf herself referred to it not as a novel but a ‘playpoem’. No pre-school child talks like this:

‘Now the stricture and rigidity are over; and I will continue to make my survey of the purlieus of the house in the late afternoon, in the sunset, when the sun makes oleaginous spots on the linoleum, and a crack of light kneels on the wall, making the chair legs look broken.’ (Neville)

They are children talking in adult terms, using adult language.

Starting time and place

We learn that the children are all together in a country house named Elvedon. They are supervised and catered to by an extensive staff. It is the Edwardian decade because one of the girls refers to Queen Alexandra, wife of King Edward VII, who reigned 1901 to 1910.

Structure

There are no chapters, as in ‘Orlando’, or parts as in ‘To The Lighthouse’. Instead the text is broken up into nine long sections in Roman text, each one preceded by ten short descriptive sections printed in italics. After a while I realised the italicised sections describe the transit of the sun across the sky during a single day. Not just that, it is the sun rising over the sea, over a seascape, necessarily characterised by waves. So each time we cut back to one of these passages the sun is just rising or is half-way up the sky or stands at noon etc, shedding its light on the sea and its endless waves, and that these also change appearance and character at these different times of the day.

These sections are highly formalised, almost all of them opening with the same key words, ‘The sun…’ and containing some reference to the endless waves.

The sun had not yet risen. The sea was indistinguishable from the sky…

The sun rose higher. Blue waves, green waves swept a quick fan over the beach…

The sun rose. Bars of yellow and green fell on the shore, gilding the ribs of the eaten-out boat and making the sea-holly and its mailed leaves gleam blue as steel. Light almost pierced the thin swift waves as they raced fan-shaped over the beach…

The sun, risen, no longer couched on a green mattress darting a fitful glance through watery jewels, bared its face and looked straight over the waves. They fell with a regular thud. They fell with the concussion of horses’ hooves on the turf…

The sun had risen to its full height. It was no longer half seen and guessed at, from hints and gleams…

The sun no longer stood in the middle of the sky. Its light slanted, falling obliquely. Here it caught on the edge of a cloud and burnt it into a slice of light, a blazing island on which no foot could rest. Then another cloud was caught in the light and another and another, so that the waves beneath were arrow-struck with fiery feathered darts that shot erratically across the quivering blue…

The sun had now sunk lower in the sky. The islands of cloud had gained in density and drew themselves across the sun so that the rocks went suddenly black, and the trembling sea holly lost its blue and turned silver, and shadows were blown like grey cloths over the sea. The waves no longer visited the further pools or reached the dotted black line which lay irregularly upon the beach.

The sun was sinking. The hard stone of the day was cracked and light poured through its splinters. Red and gold shot through the waves, in rapid running arrows, feathered with darkness.

Now the sun had sunk. Sky and sea were indistinguishable. The waves breaking spread their white fans far out over the shore…

So it is not just about the passage of the sun through the sky, it is about the interplay between the slow-moving, inevitable sun and the ever-changing sea, the endless waves which, clearly, give the book its title. Right at the end, the text concludes with the briefest of these italicised passages, just one short sentence:

The waves broke on the shore.

So although the prose sections take us through the growth from childhood to adulthood of the six main characters, in some sense their entire lives are compassed within the frame not even of 24 hours, but in the 12 or so hours from the sun rising to the sun setting, as if part of some larger, natural cycle.

No dialogue

I thought the style would loosen up and the characters would get to talk to each other, but they don’t, at all. There is no dialogue. The characters never interact. To all intents and purposes they might be lined up on a stage, facing the audience, declaiming their parts and never facing or interacting with any of the others. Talking of complete lack of interaction…

Aspergers syndrome?

Lack of awareness of others or how to interact with other people are classic symptoms of being on the spectrum from Aspergers syndrome to full-blown autism. Here are the symptoms of Aspergers:

  • difficulty understanding social cues, body language, and facial expressions
  • difficulty relating to others
  • difficulty making eye contact
  • difficulty responding to people in conversation
  • difficulty staying on task and understanding or following directions
  • unusual speech patterns
  • formal style of speaking that’s advanced for their age
  • repeating words, phrases, or movements (‘it is not you, it is not you, it is not you’)
  • hypersensitivity to lights, sounds, and textures
  • sensitivity to loud noises, odours, clothing, or food textures

These are exactly the traits demonstrated by all six characters throughout this strange book.

Section 1. Childhood (13 pages)

We meet the six children, all for some reason living in the same house and sketchily follow a day in their lives, playing in the garden, sitting through lessons. There are several key moments: one when Susan sees Jinny kiss Louis which throws her into a rage. One when Bernard convinces the others the gardeners are after them with their shotguns and persuades them to all runs away and hide in terror. Rhoda is described as floating flower petals on the water in a basin, pretending they’re ships, and this image recurs throughout her sections in the rest of the book.

Then (rather abruptly) they are being bathed and put to bed.

Section 2. School days (29 pages)

They set off for their first days at school, by train, so there’s a description of a railway station and a train arriving. The gaggle of children, the Edwardian formality made me visualise The Railway Children, which is set in 1905, so the children would have worn similar clothes.

Train journeys have for a century and a half been the pretext for random observations, fragments seen out the window cf The Whitsun Weddings by Philip Larkin. Woolf utilises it to the maximum, here as they head to school and even more at the end of the section, where Susan, Jinny and Rhoda all describe the fleeting images they see through the speeding carriage windows.

There a white church; there a mast among the spires. There a canal. Now there are open spaces with asphalt paths upon which it is strange that people should now be walking. There is a hill striped with red houses. A man crosses a bridge with a dog at his heels. Now the red boy begins firing at a pheasant. The blue boy shoves him aside…

The boys arrive at a private school with its quadrangles, statue of the founding father, promise of Latin lessons, the lobsided headmaster, Crane. The girls go to a separate school. At this point you start wondering whether it’s a problem that they all sound alike and that they all sound like Virginia Woolf i.e. no attempt is made to give them childish turns of phrase or to distinguish between them – the opposite, these children are all gifted with Woolf’s lyrical turn of phrase and describe Woolf’s great theme, ‘identity’.

This great company, all dressed in brown serge, has robbed me of my identity. We are all callous, unfriended. I will seek out a face, a composed, a monumental face, and will endow it with omniscience… (Rhoda)

Here’s Louis reacting to the sight of Dr Crane entering the chapel:

I rejoice; my heart expands in his bulk, in his authority. He lays the whirling dust clouds in my tremulous, my ignominiously agitated mind… (p.23)

Although they are given different opinions the opinions are secondary to the style, and the style is all the same. Yes, I think this is a flaw, a failing. Woolf substitutes any feel for how children actually think and speak, with her own lyrical but sometimes ponderous, almost pompous phraseology.

From discord, from hatred… my shattered mind is pieced together by some sudden perception. I take the trees, the clouds, to be witnesses of my complete integration. I, Louis, I, who shall walk the earth these seventy years, am born entire, out of hatred, out of discord. Here on this ring of grass we have sat together, bound by the tremendous power of some inner compulsion. The trees wave, the clouds pass. The time approaches when these soliloquies shall be shared. (p.26)

There’s a service in the chapel. Cricket, of course. Bernard already wants to become a novelist, God help us. He is described as turning everything into stories – except that Woolf doesn’t turn everything into stories. There are hardly any stories in her novels, just page after page after page of lyrical descriptions. Louis envies the other boys, the ones with eminent fathers who dominate sports and clubs. Neville develops a hatred for the sign of the cross and becomes passionately devoted to the Latin poets, Catullus, Horace, Lucretius. Susan hates her school and would like to bury it.

Here, as in ‘Orlando’, Woolf claims a character (Bernard) is always bubbling over with stories, just as she claims various people in ‘Orlando’ (notably Nicholas Greene) are bubbling over with stories, and yet… there are never any stories. Not one, not one anecdote, tale or joke, nothing you could retell to anyone who hasn’t read the book. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Woolf couldn’t tell a story – with a beginning, middle and an end – to save her life.

It is extremely symptomatic that Bernard is good at setting scenes but that even he acknowledges that his so-called ‘stories’ always fizzle out, ‘tail off absurdly’ (p.34). What Woolf really means when she talks about ‘stories’ is the unstoppable flow of her own dizzyingly acute observations. But listing thousands of acute details and insights is very much not telling a story. In fact it’s the opposite of telling a story. A story is a sequence of linked events in the shape of a narrative. That doesn’t appear in any of Woolf’s novels.

I can sketch the surroundings up to a point with extraordinary ease. But can I make it work? (Bernard)

No. No he (and she) can’t make it work. Instead the tsunami of details never ends. They flood her mind and her text with a stricken profusion, a thousand snapshots, a million moments brilliantly lit.

Passing the open door leading into the private garden, I saw Fenwick with his mallet raised. The steam from the tea-urn rose in the middle of the lawn. There were banks of blue flowers.

When I wake early… I lie and watch the brass handles on the cupboard grow clear; then the basin; then the towel-horse. As each thing in the bedroom grows clear, my heart beats quicker.

I catch sight of something moving – a speck of sun perhaps on a picture, or the donkey drawing the mowing-machine across the lawn; or a sail that passes between the laurel leaves…

Then their school days are over, and they look back at what they’ve learned. Susan gives a half page impression of London which triggers memories of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ and ‘Orlando’ before she catches a train back to her country home. And then the perceptions of Jinny, Rhoda, Louis and Neville on their respective train journeys home. Neville is 18.

Section 3. University (21 pages)

University, Cambridge of course (because that was the Bloomsbury University). Bernard ponders how he is multiple selves (the great theme described at the end of ‘Orlando’). He models himself on Byron (amazingly, given that Byron died 80 years previously). He tries to dash off a letter to his girlfriend but is crippled by self consciousness. It is thumpingly clear that what he means by a ‘story’ is in fact a thousand and one cluttered details with not the slightest sense of a narrative. In the same way Louis and Neville both fancy themselves poets but can’t write a line (see ‘The Bloomsbury Error’, below). They punt up the river and eat fruit from a bag, watching the cows in the meadows.

Susan was sent to finishing school in Switzerland but now she’s gone back to her parents’ farm where she lives a rural life, walking out to see cows and pick mushrooms. She wants to get married and have babies, like her mother.

Jinny lives in London and lives for elegant society parties, large lit rooms full of gilt chairs and being swept off her feet by handsome young men.

Rhoda also lives in London but struggles to make sense of her life, to hold her selves together, lacking the rural conviction of Susan or the society confidence of Jinny.

Section 4. Dinner for Percival (25 pages)

Bernard is engaged and catches a train to London, then stands in the busy street. All six are reuniting for a farewell dinner for their mutual friend Percival (who we haven’t seen much), ‘a hero’, who is leaving for India. Each of the six imagines Percival acting with godlike decision in India, to sort out ‘the Oriental problem’. They all genuinely believe this Percival would have been a great governor who would have ruled India widely and benevolently: ‘He would have done justice. He would have protected.’

Section 5. Percival’s death (10 pages)

News comes that Percival is dead. He was playing some game out in India when his horse threw him and he died on the spot. The Sensitive Six each give their responses which are, predictably, hyperbolic and immoderate:

  • All is over. The lights of the world have gone out.
  • We are doomed, all of us.
  • All palpable forms of life have failed me. Unless I can stretch and touch something hard, I shall be blown down the eternal corridors for ever.
  • I am alone in a hostile world. The human face is hideous.

And so, immoderately, on.

Section 6. Success and babies (11 pages)

Louis has become a successful businessman. He loves his office, his desk and his telephone. He’d like to write poetry but is too busy advancing trade around the world. He and Rhoda are lovers. To do this, he has had to deal with the identity problem and from the many men inside him, make one.

Susan is married with babies. She feels replete, complete, and waxes lyrical about getting them to sleep in her country farm.

Jinny, the London party girl, is now past 30. She seems to be describing her life to a man she’s met, including gossip about loads of society figures, but also a lyric delirium about her body and her wish to go off in a ship over the sea.

Neville delivers an impassioned monologue to a woman he has a troubled relationship with, they walked round London together but then she abandoned him at the Tube but later that night arrived at his front door, so…

Section 7. Middle age (16 pages)

If you can’t think what to do next, send your characters abroad. Bored of middle-aged life, Bernard travels to Italy, to Rome. He is middle-aged and has, at last, acknowledged that he has no real talent, that all those clever hopes come to nothing.

I have made up thousands of stories; I have filled innumerable notebooks with phrases to be used when I have found the true story, the one story to which all these phrases refer. But I have never yet found that story. And I begin to ask, Are there stories? (Bernard)

In other words, there is no final statement, there is no Masterwork all these observations are building towards. The observations themselves, in all their brilliant fragmentation, are the work. Or at least, they are in Woolfworld.

Meanwhile, Susan is very content with her rural life bringing up two children in a world of butterfly nets and home-made jam, and visiting the rural poor, especially the dying in their cottages.

Jinny appears to be single but forces herself to rejoice in London life, in the energy and excitement of the Tube and buses and the hectic streets.

Neville feels himself getting old. He’s lost the old anger and bitterness. Now he reads Shakespeare and drifts from party to friend’s house, all passion spent. His section feels more than usually demented, stricken, mad.

Back to Louis who is a successful businessman, well turned-out in spats and a gold-handled cane. He tells us Rhoda left him so he’s taken up with a slatternly Cockney mistress. He is still attracted to his first love – poetry – and fantasises about writing the one Great Poem which will make sense of everything.

Rhoda has been scared all her life, copying the others to give the right appearance of living normally. Now she is in Spain, on a pilgrimage to go by donkey to the top of a mountain where she hopes she’ll be able to see Africa.

Section 8. Lunch at Hampton Court (19 pages)

They all meet up to have lunch at a restaurant in Hampton Court. Unexpressed jealousies and resentments like stags clashing antlers.

Neville despises Susan for waking up every morning to the same husband, when he has a succession of different women, sensations and conversations every season.

Louis wants everyone to notice his smart clothes and success and yet feels the perennial outsider.

Jinny wants them to acknowledge her fascination with people and life.

Rhoda is terrified of the simplest things and imagines her bed at night falling over the edge of the world. She’s the most mental of the lot:

After all these callings hither and thither, these pluckings and searchings, I shall fall alone through this thin sheet into gulfs of fire. And you will not help me. More cruel than the old torturers, you will let me fall, and will tear me to pieces when I am fallen. Yet there are moments when the walls of the mind grow thin; when nothing is unabsorbed, and I could fancy that we might blow so vast a bubble that the sun might set and rise in it and we might take the blue of midday and the black of midnight and be cast off and escape from here and now. (Rhoda)

And indeed, right at the end of the book, in a throwaway remark, Bernard indicates that Rhoda kills herself: Woolf’s avatar, in this respect. She jumped out the upper story of a house to her death, as Woolf tried to when she was 13…

As I talked I felt “I am you”. This difference we make so much of, this identity we so feverishly cherish, was overcome

Then they all go for a wistful sad walk by the river, arm in arm and hand in hand.

Section 9. Bernard’s recap (40 pages)

Oddly and disappointingly a lot of this final section consists of a recapitulation of stuff we’ve read before.

Woolf has finished with all the other characters, we see and hear them no more, but for Bernard. This section consists entirely of Bernard’s voice and lugubrious reminiscences. It consists of him addressing someone over a meal in the West End, a barely known stranger he remembers boarding a ship to Africa with years ago and has recently bumped into, a virtual stranger to tell his life story and the story of the six characters to. So the text finishes with Bernard ‘winning’ and his version of events being the crowning and defining one. Shame. I preferred the women characters, Susan, Rhoda and Jinny. Tant pis.

Early on in his 40-page monologue, Bernard complains that he’s fed up of telling ‘so many stories’. This is a bit rich seeing as how nowhere at all has there been an indication of him producing even a half-decent anecdote let alone a full-blown story.

He also says he is sick of flamboyantly beautiful phrases, which is maybe Woolf being ironic against herself, seeing as Woolf is praised above all for her lyrical (and often delirious) prose style, and this book consists entirely of fine phrases almost completely bereft of plot, event or psychology. (I say bereft of psychology because, despite a handful of superficial differences, all the characters think and speak exactly like Virginia Woolf.)

Anyway, all Bernard does, at great length, is recapitulate many of the scenes we have already had described to us, described in the childhood, school and university sections. But a scene is not a story, it is just a scene. Repeatedly telling us that Rhoda liked stirring flower petals in a basin and Neville like the Roman poets is not a story, it is creating images which, through repetition, acquire a kind of talismanic power. (Woolf does it in her factual works, as well, for example the image of the officious beadle who shooed her off a lawn in Cambridge which is repeated throughout ‘A Room of One’s Own’ and even in ‘Three Guineas’ to become a kind of looming symbol of the patriarchy.)

And on and on it goes, by far the longest section of the book and essentially a recapitulation of everything we’ve heard before. Tragically, as I’ve mentioned, as he gets towards the end of this bald list of impressions and mild events, he says ‘that’s enough of stories’ and the reader thinks ‘what stories?’ His idea of a story seems to be that Percival died when his horse threw him. Not a scintillating story, is it? Not the most complex of narratives. Woolf is the great writer of anti-stories.

Another one of his cracking stories, so good he repeats it half a dozen times, is that once, Percival invited him to accompany him to Hampton Court but he said no. That’s it. Not the ‘Thousand and One Nights’, is it? It’s more of a motif, a (very small) incident which Bernard keeps remembering and which comes to haunt him. But a story it is not.

This long final section not only recapitulates many of the events (to over-describe them), the feelings and intuitions of the previous chapters, it makes great play of repeating certain memories which have become recurring motifs – like Jinny kissing Louis, Rhoda sailing her flower-petal boats, Bernard turning down Percival’s invitation to go to Hampton Court – and alongside this, repeating certain key phrases. Presumably the intention is to give them a kind of poetic or psychological charge, but I found it just made them more and more inconsequential, like the harmless words of a lullaby.

  • The mind grows rings… the being grows rings… The being grows rings, like a tree…
  • Life is pleasant, life is tolerable. Tuesday follows Monday… Something always has to be done next. Tuesday follows Monday… I put on my hat, and went out to earn my living. After Monday, Tuesday comes… Life is pleasant; life is good. After Monday comes Tuesday, and Wednesday follows…

Empty rhythmic lulling, like the waves which wash across the empty beach, slowly wearing the mind down into utter indifference.

Right at the very end, on the last few pages, Bernard describes an epiphany he had in the countryside, leaning on a gate looking out over a valley, when he felt like his ‘self’ disappear completely, with the result that he blundered on through the countryside, a man without a self.

Now, here, in this restaurant off Shaftesbury Avenue, he begins to doubt the reality of the here and now. And then wonders if any of them are real. Who is he? Maybe he’s not one of them, Bernard, but all of them, Bernard, Susan, Rhoda, Neville, Jinny, Louis?

As I talked I felt ‘I am you’. This difference we make so much of, this identity we so feverishly cherish, was overcome…

It’s the same theme which surfaced towards the end of ‘Orlando’, the suggestion that our so-called identities are almost infinitely malleable and interchangeable.

On the very last page of the book Bernard explains that no matter how old and tired you are, each day the waves come and lift you to start the day again, dawn, rising from your bed, breakfast and the whole day to be faced again. Again and again we are lifted and propelled forward by the endless waves.

And in me too the wave rises. It swells; it arches its back. I am aware once more of a new desire, something rising beneath me like the proud horse whose rider first spurs and then pulls him back.

For the waves endlessly driving us forward are life, and the only enemy of all of this, of this long, dense, verbose, lyrical, empty-headed text, is death. So down with death and on with life, and its endless waves.


Sex

There is no sex. The six characters go through puberty, adolescence and young adulthood without developing genitals, bodily hair, breasts, discovering masturbation, orgasms or having sex. None of them lose their virginities, they just marry and have children without the apparent involvement of sex at all.

Woolf was a Victorian lady. Like most of her class and generation she was too well bred to mention sex. But she also had a personal aversion to it, as well. Victoria Glendinning’s biography of her husband, Leonard Woolf, tells us that every time he broached the subject early on in the marriage, presumably with kissing and touching etc, she began to have a panic attack, beginning to display the symptoms of her full-blown madness. Understandably, he backed off and after a while, stopped trying, and so the marriage was never consummated.

Hence the strange absence of any sexual drive in any of her novels. The entire thing repelled her, was alien to her, she knew nothing about it, and so couldn’t write about it. Hence the impression all her books give of valuing a certain kind of billowing, purely verbal lyricism above anything to do with the body.

(Hence also her revulsion at James Joyce’s novel ‘Ulysses’ with its vivid descriptions of physical activities – not just the sexual ones, but peeing and defecating. She realised ‘Ulysses’ was a great book but couldn’t overcome the revulsion of her class at the vulgar goings-on of plebeians, and the revulsion peculiar to her against any descriptions of human corporeality. Taken together this explains why she couldn’t get past its ‘obscenity’. It’s a big blind spot.)

On the broader issue of physicality, none of the six characters have any physical oddities or ever become ill. That would drag the narrative down into the realm of the physical and, on one level, all of Woolf’s works are attempts to fly above and deny human physicality.

Mental illness, dissociation and fragile identity(ies)

I am not one person; I am many people; I do not altogether know who I am. (Bernard)

Woolf was stricken throughout her life with mental illness, nowadays through to be bipolar disease, striking her down with sustained periods of depression shelving into mania and madness. It’s fairly obvious that a lot of the heightened and often dissociated perceptions which litter her books derive from her own experience of altered psychological states, what Bernard calls his ‘states of detachment.’

Am I not, as I walk, trembling with strange oscillations and vibrations of sympathy… (Bernard)

There is nothing to lay hold of. I am made and remade continually. (Bernard)

Woolf triumphed by turning her illness into a style, into a worldview. Still, some passages stick out as more than usually deranged, vividly describing the alienated, dissociated effects of mental illness.

I flicker between the set face of Susan and Rhoda’s vagueness; I leap like one of those flames that run between the cracks of the earth; I move, I dance; I never cease to move and to dance. I move like the leaf that moved in the hedge as a child and frightened me. I dance over these streaked, these impersonal, distempered walls with their yellow skirting as firelight dances over teapots. (Jinny)

‘That is my face,’ said Rhoda, ‘in the looking-glass behind Susan’s shoulder – that face is my face. But I will duck behind her to hide it, for I am not here. I have no face. Other people have faces; Susan and Jinny have faces; they are here. Their world is the real world. The things they lift are heavy. They say Yes, they say No; whereas I shift and change and am seen through in a second. (Rhoda)

There is no single scent, no single body for me to follow. And I have no face. I am like the foam that races over the beach or the moonlight that falls arrowlike here on a tin can, here on a spike of the mailed sea holly, or a bone or a half-eaten boat. I am whirled down caverns, and flap like paper against endless corridors, and must press my hand against the wall to draw myself back. (Rhoda)

Is it significant, maybe, that these shimmering states of mind are assigned to the girls? No. Bernard feels just the same if not more so. In fact all six characters routinely feel like this. Sometimes the descriptions dwindle down to something approaching a catalogue of symptoms more than anything else:

I choke. I am rocked from side to side by the violence of my emotion. I imagine these nameless, these immaculate people, watching me from behind bushes.

I hate looking-glasses which show me my real face. Alone, I often fall down into nothingness. I must push my foot stealthily lest I should fall off the edge of the world into nothingness. I have to bang my head against some hard door to call myself back to the body.

Unstoppable images

More and more bubbles into my mind as I talk, images and images. (Neville)

So many times it feels as if Woolf is barely in control of the never-ceasing bubbling up of images and similes which throng her mind, all the characters plight of being incurably ‘aware, awake; intensely conscious of one thing, one object in particular’.

I feel at once, as I sit down at a table, the delicious jostle of confusion, of uncertainty, of possibility, of speculation. Images breed instantly. (Bernard)

The bubbles are rising like the silver bubbles from the floor of a saucepan; image on top of image. I cannot sit down to my book, like Louis, with ferocious tenacity. I must open the little trap-door and let out these linked phrases in which I run together whatever happens, so that instead of incoherence there is perceived a wandering thread, lightly joining one thing to another. (Bernard)

Endless lists, lists, lists of things seen, random collocations:

People holding forth under chandeliers in full evening dress, wearing stars and decorations, some spray in a hedge, or a sunset over a flat winter field, or the way some old woman sits, arms akimbo, in an omnibus with a basket… (Neville)

Waves of hands, hesitations at street corners, someone dropping a cigarette into the gutter – all are stories. (Bernard)

A view over chimneypots; cats scraping their mangy sides upon blistered chimney-stacks; broken windows; and the hoarse clangour of bells from the steeple of some brick chapel. (Louis)

Sometimes it feels claustrophobic, makes you want to put down the book and run out into the fresh air in order to escape the relentless bombardment of her text. And in some places the characters express the same sense of borderline hysteria:

I am afraid of the shock of sensation that leaps upon me, because I cannot deal with it as you do – I cannot make one moment merge in the next. To me they are all violent, all separate… (Rhoda)

So Woolf’s texts are matrices of these never-ending perceptions oppressing characters who can never switch off, never lose themselves in action or laughter or any physical activity, trapped in consciousnesses endlessly enmeshed and enmeshing themselves:

Thus we spin round us infinitely fine filaments and construct a system. (Neville)

And always watching themselves like hawks, afflicted with never-ending bombardment of brilliant and oppressive images till they feel like they’re going to burst.

I tremble, I quiver, like the leaf in the hedge, as I sit dangling my feet, on the edge of the bed, with a new day to break open. (Jinny)

There is some check in the flow of my being; a deep stream presses on some obstacle; it jerks; it tugs; some knot in the centre resists. Oh, this is pain, this is anguish! I faint, I fail. (Rhoda)

Identity(ies)

Which of these people am I? It depends so much upon the room. (Bernard)

Who am I, who lean on this gate and watch my setter nose in a circle? (Susan)

What am I? There is no stability in this world. Who is to say what meaning there is in anything?(Bernard)

The characters are continually assailed by the fragility of their own identity, rarely if ever feeling their ‘true’ selves, struggling to define what a true self even is.

In the middle, cadaverous, awful, lay the grey puddle in the courtyard, when, holding an envelope in my hand, I carried a message. I came to the puddle. I could not cross it. Identity failed me. We are nothing, I said, and fell. I was blown like a feather, I was wafted down tunnels. (Rhoda)

I am the ghost of Louis, an ephemeral passer-by, in whose mind dreams have power, and garden sounds when in the early morning petals float on fathomless depths and the birds sing. I dash and sprinkle myself with the bright waters of childhood. Its thin veil quivers. (Louis)

I feel insignificant, lost… I will let the others get out before me. I will sit still one moment before I emerge into that chaos, that tumult… The huge uproar is in my ears… We are cast down on the platform with our handbags. We are whirled asunder. My sense of self almost perishes… (Neville)

I am more selves than Neville thinks. (Bernard)

The woods had vanished; the earth was a waste of shadow. No sound broke the silence of the wintry landscape. No cock crowed; no smoke rose; no train moved. A man without a self, I said. A heavy body leaning on a gate. A dead man. (Bernard)

The ‘message’ of the last part of ‘Orlando’ is not that we are male or female, or even made up of aspects of male and female mingled, but instead that we have scores, hundreds, maybe thousands of selves, which all appear, mix and mingle continuously. Same here. It is Woolf’s central theme and message, expressed again and again and again:

‘What am I?’ I ask. ‘This? No, I am that.’ Especially now, when I have left a room, and people talking, and the stone flags ring out with my solitary footsteps, and I behold the moon rising, sublimely, indifferently, over the ancient chapel – then it becomes clear that I am not one and simple, but complex and many. (Bernard)

I do not know myself sometimes, or how to measure and name and count out the grains that make me what I am. (Neville)

Alone, I rock my basins; I am mistress of my fleet of ships. But here, twisting the tassels of this brocaded curtain in my hostess’s window, I am broken into separate pieces; I am no longer one. (Rhoda)

To be myself (I note) I need the illumination of other people’s eyes, and therefore cannot be entirely sure what is my self. (Bernard)

The Bloomsbury Error

Bernard, Louis and Neville are convinced they are going to be Great Novelists and Poets because of the depth and sincerity of their perceptions, just as Lily Briscoe in ‘To The Lighthouse’ is convinced she will be a great painter because of the vividness with which she perceives things.

Wrong. Just because you feel things deeply doesn’t mean you can express them well. The latter, especially being a poet and an artist, are matters of technique rather than feeling. It’s not clear that John Singer Sargent perceived things particularly strongly, it was his technique which makes him a master painter. (I think of Sargent because the old Granada paperback of ‘The Waves’ which I own has a painting by him, The Black Brook, on the cover.) Ditto what made T.S. Eliot the giant poet he was, wasn’t his depth of feeling (though he harboured terrible depths of feeling) but the dazzling effectiveness of his phrasing. It’s not about feeling, it’s about technique, craft, skill.

What makes reading a bunch of Virginia Woolf novels back to back a bit tedious is her unchanging, unevolving, naive conviction that deep feeling must inevitably lead to the ability to write Great Novels or Great Poetry. It is a fundamental error but one she apparently held and makes all her characters hold.

It is boring reading Bernard and Louis and Neville going on and on and on about how wonderfully intensely they feel things and yet, when they try to get them down on paper, their stories or attempts at poetry just fizzle out. It’s because they’re making the fundamental Bloomsbury Error of confusing deep feeling with artistic ability. It’s not clear that Picasso had particularly fine and sensitive feelings, in fact all the evidence suggests the opposite. Yet he had breath-taking technique which made him the artist of the century. QED.

Death and travel as basic narrative devices

The only significant things which happen in a Woolf novel are death and travel. Having run out of ideas what to do with Jacob in ‘Jacob’s Room’, she packs him off to Italy and Greece, ending up in Constantinople. Unsure how to end it, she simply has him killed off in the Great War.

The meandering mellifluousness of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ builds to an unexpectedly harsh climax with the suicide of Septimus Smith, which overshadows the book’s ending and Mrs Dalloway’s party. Arguably it’s a regrettable stain on an otherwise charming Cath Kidston drawing room of a book.

The dominating event in ‘To The Lighthouse’ is the death in the intermezzo of Mrs Ramsay, which completely changes the flavour of the book and dictates the events of the final part (the journey to the lighthouse undertaken as a sort of penance).

At a loss what to do with Orlando, Woolf has the bright idea of packing him off to Constantinople, ostensibly as British Ambassador and it’s here, abroad, that the decisive event of the book takes place, Orlando’s transformation from a man into a woman. (‘Orlando’ is by way of being the exception that proves the rule, in having no death of a major character; in fact part of the joke is that the central characters very much don’t die but live for hundreds of years.)

Here, in ‘The Waves’, first she bumps off the rather obscure character Percival, who all the others loved but whose voice we never hear; then she sends Bernard off to Rome, admittedly a minor excursion; but then, towards the end, in a throwaway remark we learn that the attractive character Rhoda has killed herself. So it was these deaths and excursions which triggered the reflections that death and travel are Woolf’s only two narrative devices.


Secondary characters

For me, the secondary or tertiary characters in a Woolf novel have a special interest, the characters which peep round from behind the curtain of the main narrative. It’s especially true of the servants, the unspeaking lackeys whose reliable labours enable the privileged lives of the main characters. As I argued in some of my reviews of E.M. Forster, I think part of the reason these classic novels are so enduringly popular derives from the way they provide the reader with the lovely, consoling, escapist fantasy that we, the readers, while we are immersed in the narrative, are living just such a pampered, privileged life – surrounded by cooks and cleaners and maids and servants to cater to our every whim, our only worries which shoes to wear with this skirt and who to invite to dinner. They’re the literary equivalent of the Sunday Times Luxury section.

There’s another aspect of the supporting characters which is how many there are. All of her novels rotate around a handful of main characters, as most novels do, but in each one I’ve been struck by the sheer number of tertiary characters she bothers to identify and name. Here’s a list of tertiary characters in ‘The Waves’:

  • Two gardeners sweeping the lawn with brooms
  • Miss Hudson the teacher
  • Miss Curry, another teacher
  • The cook
  • Florrie, a maid
  • Ernest, a male servant
  • Mrs Constable, who bathes the children
  • George, a servant with bandy legs who carries Bernard’s suitcase
  • The housemaid cleaning the steps
  • The boot-boy made love to the scullery-maid in the kitchen garden
  • The stableboy
  • The railway guard blowing his whistle
  • The headmaster, Old Crane
  • Mrs Crane, his wife, fan of French memoirs
  • The boy who Susan leaves her squirrel (in a cage) and her doves to
  • The fat woman, presumably the matron at the boys’ school
  • Teachers at the boys’ school: Mr Barker, Mr Wickham
  • Older boys, the ‘boasting boys’, at the boys’ school: Larpent, Smith, Archie, Hugh, Parker, Dalton, Fenwick, Baker, Roper
  • Teachers at the girls’ school: Miss Lambert, Madame Carlo the music teacher, Miss Matthews, Miss Cutting and Miss Bard
  • Lady Hampton, wife of General Hampton, one of the boys’ school governors (?)
  • Boys at university: Simes, Billy Jackson, Canon, Lycett, Peters, Hawkins, Larpent, Neville
  • Mrs Moffat, Bernard’s cleaner at university
  • Miss Johnson, Louis’s secretary
  • Louis’s business associates: Mr Burchard, Mr Prentice, Mr Eyres
  • Bernard’s parlourmaid
  • Bernard’s hairdresser

Conclusion

Despite dwelling at length on what I take to be its shortcomings and limitations, the overall impression of reading ‘The Waves’ is strange and haunting. It is an awesome book and Woolf was a great, great writer.


Credit

‘The Waves’ by Virginia Woolf was first published by the Hogarth Press in 1931. Page references are to the 1977 Granada paperback edition, although the text is easily available online.

Related links

Related reviews

Jacob’s Room by Virginia Woolf (1922)

Words have been used too often; touched and turned, and left exposed to the dust of the street…
(Woolf’s sense of exhaustion and futility, page 88)

What people go through in half an hour!
(Woolf’s profound sense of the unhappiness of life)

Virginia Woolf was mad* and, I think, in this book as elsewhere, it really shows. She had a lifelong history of mental illness and ended up committing suicide. Reading this book, her third novel, helps you, I think, to understand why.

The basic subject matter is simple, insultingly simple, really: it’s another Bildungsroman or coming-of-age or growing-up novel about a clever young man from ‘the provinces’ named Jacob Flanders. The novel twist is the way the nominal protagonist, Jacob, is actually absent from most of the narrative.

We first meet Jacob as a boy on a beach holiday in Cornwall with his (widowed) mother, Betty Flanders. Then we see him roaming up the hill behind the family house in Scarborough. The local vicar and schoolmaster recommend him for Cambridge and lo and behold, in the following chapter we meet him there, hanging with other undergraduates, declaring, as if he’d invented the thought, that Greek literature is better than all modern literature. Virginia takes the opportunity to mock crusty old dons.  Then he graduates and moves to London where he meets ‘Life’ in the form of boring parties, does boring research at the British Museum and, as far as I could tell from the text, becomes involved with a prostitute, Florinda (in fact, I was wrong: Wikipedia tells me that Florinda is a sexually permissive art student; my mistake indicative of the way it’s often hard to make out exactly what’s going on.)

So far, so boring, so very like E.M. Forster’s worst novel, The Longest Journey, which describes the growth from boyhood of another provincial youth who goes up to Cambridge, knocks around with other callow undergraduates who all worship Greek literature and think they’ve invented being clever, before going on to discover how disappointing the world of work is (he becomes a teacher and is slowly crushed by the mundanity of it). So far, so dull, narrow and predictable.

But in literature it’s not the (over-familiar) subject matter, it’s the treatment of it which you pay for, and it’s here that Woolf is either a genius or a deeply disturbed individual, depending on your point of view.

A personal digression on mental illness

My sister had serious post-natal depression for years and is still on medication. Both her kids have mental health issues. At uni I went out with a woman whose mother was a schizophrenic, a trait she passed onto my girlfriend’s (deeply disturbed) brother and which darkened the lives of everyone in their family. My best friend at school had a nervous breakdown at university, jacked it in and ran off to the Continent, to the distress of his parents. Both of my children had troubled teenage years, my daughter cutting herself, my son developing month-long psychosomatic migraines which kept him off school for over two years. In the end I packed in my job to look after them both and try to get their lives back on track, but I found myself suffering a kind of secondary stress from the endless worry and ended up needing anti-depressant medication myself.

A few years ago my wife had the bright idea of taking me to see the stage production of ‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time’ in the West End. The production used flashing white lights and loud sound affects to do an excellent job of taking you inside the mind of a severely autistic boy, so good that after ten minutes or so I had a panic attack and, at first, sat with my fingers jammed in my ears, rocking backwards and forwards, humming loudly myself to try and block out the chaos. Eventually I could stand it no longer and pushed along the aisle of seats and ran through the labyrinth of corridors till I burst out into the fresh air of Soho, leaned against a lamp-post and threw up. It took me the rest of the evening to calm down and days and days to get back to feeling ‘normal’ and being able to smile.

Reading ‘Jacob’s Room’ made me feel a bit like that. I experienced it as a kind of assault on my mental health and equilibrium. I’m glad it is so short (160 pages) because much more would have been bad for my sanity. Having finished it I went out in the garden and start the weeding and pruning, in the winter sunshine, to try and regain my balance.

Fragments

‘Jacob’s Room’ was Woolf’s third novel and the one in which she really announced herself as an experimental novelist, shedding Victorian novelistic conventions left, right and centre in order to achieve her effects. Fans of Woolf focus on her concern to ignore the traditional contexts of plot, scene or character, and instead zero in on fragments and details. These include:

  • focusing on very peripheral details of a scene or location
  • giving fragments of speech with no attempt to report a complete or coherent dialogue
  • jumping from one half-completed scene to a completely new scene with no explanation or introduction
  • jumping into the middle of conversations without bothering to report the start or finish
  • mentioning characters as if we ought to know who they are despite never having mentioned them before (e.g. ‘old Mrs. Temple’ who pops up for a passing appearance in chapter 7)

The London chapters are littered with descriptions of London street scenes which describe random passers-by, people begging or pitifully selling shoe laces or whatnot, crammed into paragraphs which either convey a marvellous panorama of London life or are the dazed fragments of an alienated mind, according to taste.

The book is all about fragments and a deliberately skittish, mosquito jumping from fragment to fragment. At moments I enjoyed this, at others I didn’t. Why?

I very much liked the opening chapter which is, I think, brilliant. It starts with Jacob’s mum, Mrs Betty Flanders, on holiday in Cornwall, sitting on the beach writing a letter, and something’s made her start to cry and the scene is depicted through her tears.

Slowly welling from the point of her gold nib, pale blue ink dissolved the full stop; for there her pen stuck; her eyes fixed, and tears slowly filled them. The entire bay quivered; the lighthouse wobbled; and she had the illusion that the mast of Mr. Connor’s little yacht was bending like a wax candle in the sun. She winked quickly. Accidents were awful things. She winked again. The mast was straight; the waves were regular; the lighthouse was upright; but the blot had spread.

I see what Woolf did here, I understand the effect she’s aiming for, I thought it was brilliant and fresh. Incidentally the sentence ‘Accidents were awful things’, jarringly pasted into the stream of her thoughts, indicates the cause of her crying, thinking about an accident in which a friend has died. So you have a brilliant description of what she sees through tears and a deliberately hyper-elliptical reference to the cause of the tears.

It starts to rain and Betty makes her kids pack up their things and scamper from the beach up to the boarding house. Here she gives them tea and puts them to bed as the rainstorm continues outside and the chapter ends by zooming in on one of the kids’ buckets abandoned in the garden.

Outside the rain poured down more directly and powerfully as the wind fell in the early hours of the morning. The aster was beaten to the earth. The child’s bucket was half-full of rainwater; and the opal-shelled crab slowly circled round the bottom, trying with its weakly legs to climb the steep side; trying again and falling back, and trying again and again.

Brilliant.

I think I liked the two details I’ve selected, crying on the beach and the garden in the rain, (or I understood them) because they are both visual effects, they paint a very vivid visual picture indeed. In subsequent chapters the incidence of these visual details falls away as the book becomes increasingly psychological. As Jacob grows into a student he becomes steadily less interesting (having had two of my own, I know that student-aged people are a lot, lot less interesting than small children: small children are joyous and funny, students not so much). By the time we see Jacob attend some posh party or studying in the British Museum or walking through the busy streets, the disconnected fragments are no longer visual but psychological.

So Woolf finds herself applying her technique of fragments and pieces to people and situations which are 1) increasingly psychological and 2) of increasingly narrow subject matter (students at Cambridge, Cambridge graduates in London) and so 3) increasingly boring.

And unbearable to the narrator. What I found increasingly hard to read was not so much the tedious portraits of bright Cambridge students (God help us) or the descriptions of dinner parties or tea parties (give me strength) but the strong feeling Woolf gives of these things being too much for her.

In chapter 3 Jacob is invited to a tea party with his Cambridge tutor and wife and finds it stiflingly conventional and boring and, the second he escapes from the house,

‘Oh God, oh God, oh God!’ exclaimed Jacob, as the four undergraduates left the house. ‘Oh, my God!’ Bloody beastly!’ he said, scanning the street for lilac or bicycle — anything to restore his sense of freedom.

That’s how I felt every time I put this book down and I escaped from the prison house of mental illness, of a narrator who comes under such pressure she feels she’ll start screaming – and back into my world of birds in my garden and sunshine and freedom.

There’s a vivid example of this Woolf pressure-cooker effect in chapter 4 when Jacob takes Florinda, a girl who fancies him (I think), to dinner at some restaurant. As more and more people come in, the noise level in the big echoing restaurant goes up and up:

The room was filling; the heat increasing. Talk in a restaurant is dazed sleep-walkers’ talk, so many things to look at — so much noise — other people talking. Can one overhear?

Until:

The room got fuller and fuller; talk louder; knives more clattering.

Knives more clattering. As you read, you can feel the mental stress of the narrator building and building until, the next thing we know, someone at a nearby table, a woman, suddenly leaps to her feet, sweeps the contents of the table onto the floor and shouts something at the man she’s lunching with, clearly the climax of some kind of argument.

I can see how Woolf fans would appreciate the technique used here and it’s powerfully vivid. But what I took from it was the sense of a super-sensitive sensibility being overloaded, being oppressed by the growing roar of the large echoing room, by the clattering of the knives and then… snapping, standing screaming, smashing plates, making a scene. I felt like I was standing outside that West End theatre again, my insides screaming in distress, pushed over the edge and beyond.

Why would I read a book that makes me feel like I’m having a panic attack? And when I wasn’t having panic attack flashbacks, I just felt desperately sad for her, for Woolf. She has, it seems to me, two modes: pent-up screaming panic mode or, when her mania is under control, a sense of glum, defeated depression. At the end of chapter 4 the narrator observes:

The thought saddened him. It’s not catastrophes, murders, deaths, diseases, that age and kill us; it’s the way people look and laugh, and run up the steps of omnibuses.

Woolf was 36 when ‘Jacob’s Room’ was published. Reading that little bit of authorial wisdom didn’t strike me as very wise, it just made me feel sorry for her. Sorry for a woman who found the most commonplace sights and sounds too much to bear, which either made her want to scream and run out the room, or made her feel like they were aging and killing her. All her thoughts saddened me.

Tired of life

Here are some more examples of Woolf just sounding tired:

‘Holborn straight ahead of you,’ says the policeman. Ah, but where are you going if instead of brushing past the old man with the white beard, the silver medal, and the cheap violin, you let him go on with his story, which ends in an invitation to step somewhere, to his room, presumably, off Queen’s Square, and there he shows you a collection of birds’ eggs and a letter from the Prince of Wales’s secretary, and this (skipping the intermediate stages) brings you one winter’s day to the Essex coast, where the little boat makes off to the ship, and the ship sails and you behold on the skyline the Azores; and the flamingoes rise; and there you sit on the verge of the marsh drinking rum-punch, an outcast from civilization, for you have committed a crime, are infected with yellow fever as likely as not, and — fill in the sketch as you like. As frequent as street corners in Holborn are these chasms in the continuity of our ways. Yet we keep straight on. (p.91)

Is this an inspiring flight of fantasy? Or a kind of delirium? You can choose to be thrilled by the imaginative fantasia she projects onto the old man with the white beard she walks past in a London street – yes, excellent – or notice the tone of the last sentence: how we all ignore the fantasies of the street, walk straight past, missing out, leading blinkered lives. A sad thought.

And in the following, the never-ending people you see, lost and abandoned in the street, carries over into the powerful sense of the futility of trying to find meaning anywhere, which spills (characteristically) into the futility of reading, of seeking an answer which can’t be found.

The little man fingering the meat must have squatted before the fire in innumerable lodging-houses, and heard and seen and known so much that it seems to utter itself even volubly from dark eyes, loose lips, as he fingers the meat silently, his face sad as a poet’s, and never a song sung. Shawled women carry babies with purple eyelids; boys stand at street corners; girls look across the road — rude illustrations, pictures in a book whose pages we turn over and over as if we should at last find what we look for. Every face, every shop, bedroom window, public-house, and dark square is a picture feverishly turned — in search of what? It is the same with books. What do we seek through millions of pages? Still hopefully turning the pages… (p.92)

She has lots of these descriptions of London streets, London street scenes, which are superficially attractive – which, as a Londoner, I really enjoyed – except that they all end on the same note of futility or exhaustion. ‘Yet we keep on… What do we seek…?’

‘Come to tea, come to dinner, what’s the truth of the story? have you heard the news? life in the capital is gay; the Russian dancers….’ These are our stays and props. These lace our days together and make of life a perfect globe. And yet, and yet… when we go to dinner, when pressing finger-tips we hope to meet somewhere soon, a doubt insinuates itself; is this the way to spend our days? the rare, the limited, so soon dealt out to us — drinking tea? dining out? And the notes accumulate. And the telephones ring. And everywhere we go wires and tubes surround us to carry the voices that try to penetrate before the last card is dealt and the days are over. ‘Try to penetrate,’ for as we lift the cup, shake the hand, express the hope, something whispers, Is this all? Can I never know, share, be certain? Am I doomed all my days to write letters, send voices, which fall upon the tea-table, fade upon the passage, making appointments, while life dwindles, to come and dine? Yet letters are venerable; and the telephone valiant, for the journey is a lonely one, and if bound together by notes and telephones we went in company, perhaps — who knows? — we might talk by the way.

Doubt, doom, is this all? She sounds as depressed as T.S. Eliot:

For I have known them all already, known them all:
Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,
I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;

So that eventually I learned that whenever she sets off on one of her digressions, I know it’s going to end up being depressing. ‘Is this all? Am I doomed? Why do we bother reading books? We have to keep on.’ On every page of this book there is the heavy, lowering sense of Woolf’s struggle against depression and futility.

He sat at the table reading the Globe. The pinkish sheet was spread flat before him. He propped his face in his hand, so that the skin of his cheek was wrinkled in deep folds. Terribly severe he looked, set, and defiant. (What people go through in half an hour! But nothing could save him. These events are features of our landscape. A foreigner coming to London could scarcely miss seeing St. Paul’s.) He judged life. These pinkish and greenish newspapers are thin sheets of gelatine pressed nightly over the brain and heart of the world. They take the impression of the whole. Jacob cast his eye over it. A strike, a murder, football, bodies found; vociferation from all parts of England simultaneously. How miserable it is that the Globe newspaper offers nothing better to Jacob Flanders!

‘How miserable it is…’ could be Woolf’s motto.

A window tinged yellow about two feet across alone combated the white fields and the black trees …. At six o’clock a man’s figure carrying a lantern crossed the field …. A raft of twig stayed upon a stone, suddenly detached itself, and floated towards the culvert …. A load of snow slipped and fell from a fir branch …. Later there was a mournful cry …. A motor car came along the road shoving the dark before it …. The dark shut down behind it….

Spaces of complete immobility separated each of these movements. The land seemed to lie dead …. Then the old shepherd returned stiffly across the field. Stiffly and painfully the frozen earth was trodden under and gave beneath pressure like a treadmill. The worn voices of clocks repeated the fact of the hour all night long.

Mrs Jarvis wonders why we all run round doing foolish unnecessary things, in tones which sound just like her creator:

‘I never pity the dead,’ said Mrs. Jarvis, shifting the cushion at her back, and clasping her hands behind her head. Betty Flanders did not hear, for her scissors made so much noise on the table. ‘They are at rest,’ said Mrs. Jarvis. ‘And we spend our days doing foolish unnecessary things without knowing why.’ (p.124)

Chapter 9 contains an extended description of scholars working in the British Museum Reading Room. I suppose it’s intended to be satirical but the effect isn’t funny, it’s just sad. It conveys all too vividly the immense waste of life in futile scribbling.

Nobody laughed in the reading-room. There were shirtings, murmurings, apologetic sneezes, and sudden unashamed devastating coughs. The lesson hour was almost over. Ushers were collecting exercises. Lazy children wanted to stretch. Good ones scribbled assiduously — ah, another day over and so little done! And now and then was to be heard from the whole collection of human beings a heavy sigh, after which the humiliating old man would cough shamelessly, and Miss Marchmont hinnied like a horse. (p.101)

There’s lots of sighing in the book.

‘The Daily Mail isn’t to be trusted,’ Jacob said to himself, looking about for something else to read. And he sighed again, being indeed so profoundly gloomy that gloom must have been lodged in him to cloud him at any moment… (p.132)

What is the point, of this, of anything?

It all seemed to him very distasteful. Something ought to be done about it. And from being moderately depressed he became like a man about to be executed…

This gloom, this surrender to the dark waters which lap us about, is a modern invention.

The artist’s model, Fanny Elmer, falls in love with Jacob but he doesn’t even notice which makes her feel suicidal.

‘Anyhow, I can drown myself in the Thames,’ Fanny cried, as she hurried past the Foundling Hospital. (p.132)

Hard not to read that and remember that Woolf, of course, eventually killed herself by drowning. On every page the characters sigh, are filled with gloom, wonder what the point is of all this fuss and fret.

Jacob went to the window and stood with his hands in his pockets. There he saw three Greeks in kilts; the masts of ships; idle or busy people of the lower classes strolling or stepping out briskly, or falling into groups and gesticulating with their hands. Their lack of concern for him was not the cause of his gloom; but some more profound conviction — it was not that he himself happened to be lonely, but that all people are. (p.133)

Lonely, lonely and sad. The over-familiar line from Pink Floyd came to mind: ‘Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.’ In this book Woolf seemed to me a perfect epitome of quiet, well-mannered desperation.

Strolling in at dusk, Sandra would open the books and her eyes would brighten (but not at the print), and subsiding into the arm-chair she would suck back again the soul of the moment; or, for sometimes she was restless, would pull out book after book and swing across the whole space of her life like an acrobat from bar to bar. She had had her moments. Meanwhile, the great clock on the landing ticked and Sandra would hear time accumulating, and ask herself, ‘What for? What for?‘ (p.153)

‘What for? What for?’ I wonder if Woolf made repeated suicide attempts before she finally succeeded. It sounds like it. Misery dribbles from every page of this grimly depressing book.

The thought saddened him. It’s not catastrophes, murders, deaths, diseases, that age and kill us; it’s the way people look and laugh, and run up the steps of omnibuses.

(A few days later, I read in the notes to the Oxford University Press edition of ‘Mrs Dalloway’ that Woolf suffered mental collapses in 1895, 1904 and 1913 to 1915; that she tried to kill herself by jumping out a window in 1895 (aged 13) and again in 1913 (aged 31). In 1922 when she felt another attack coming on, she went to see a Harley Street specialist who was, predictably, useless. Anyway: I wasn’t wrong to feel through the pages of this book a profound experience of barely controlled unhappiness, gloom, misery and mental dislocation.)

Muddle

It’s odd that the ‘serious’ authors of the 1900s, 1910s and 1920s went out of their way to indicate how puzzled and perplexed they were by the world around them. The buzzword which recurs in so many of these novelists is ‘muddle’, as they throw up their hands and declare: ‘It’s too complicated for me to understand; it’s all a big muddle’. E.M. Forster routinely gives up trying to understand his own narratives and admits it’s all a ‘muddle’. Woolf isn’t much better. Here she is in the Cornish holiday home in chapter 1:

There was a click in the front sitting-room. Mr. Pearce had extinguished the lamp. The garden went out. It was but a dark patch. Every inch was rained upon. Every blade of grass was bent by rain. Eyelids would have been fastened down by the rain. Lying on one’s back one would have seen nothing but muddle and confusion — clouds turning and turning, and something yellow-tinted and sulphurous in the darkness.

And now in central London:

Indeed, drums and trumpets is no phrase. Indeed, Piccadilly and Holborn, and the empty sitting-room and the sitting-room with fifty people in it are liable at any moment to blow music into the air. Women perhaps are more excitable than men. It is seldom that any one says anything about it, and to see the hordes crossing Waterloo Bridge to catch the non-stop to Surbiton one might think that reason impelled them. No, no. It is the drums and trumpets. Only, should you turn aside into one of those little bays on Waterloo Bridge to think the matter over, it will probably seem to you all a muddle — all a mystery. (p.106)

So many of Woolf’s digressions kick off with bold declaration, with fine phrases, then get bogged down in her digressive meandering, and then completely give up, admitting it’s ‘all a muddle — all a mystery.’ Joseph Conrad’s more discursive passages quickly turn into moralising about Man and the Cruel Universe. E.M. Forster’s frequent digressions tend to bring in the Greek gods. Woolf’s digressions again and again end in the admission of defeat, failure to understand and a stifling sense of futility.

Send your hero abroad…

Like so many of the authors of the day, when Woolf couldn’t think what to do with her protagonist she sent him off abroad in the hope that something interesting might crop up, first to Italy, then to Greece. Just like Forster sending Lucy Honeychurch to Florence (A Room with a View) and Lawrence sending Aaron to Florence (Aaron’s Rod). So we are treated to descriptions of train journeys across Italy, views of the hot dry landscape, sturdy Italian peasants, Florence, the Colosseum blah blah, then – shazam! – we are in Greece, Patras, more trains, even hotter drier landscapes, Athens, the Parthenon.

Woolf may be a clever writer but this feels like a desperately tired expedience. Her views on the timeless beauty of the Acropolis join the exact same views of the thousands and thousands of other British tourists and diarists and journal-writers and essayists and archaeologists and historians and novelists who preceded her. Boring. And her protagonist is (rightly) bored. He diligently visits all the sights, reads all the guidebook facts but is stubbornly ‘morose’ (p.141).

I was hoping he’d get run over and killed by a tram, in the completely pointless way the protagonist of ‘The Longest Journey’ is run over by a train at the abrupt ending of that book, but no such luck. Instead, in Italy he falls in with an older couple, Evan Wentworth Williams who is a frustrated would-be politician, and his wife, Sandra Wentworth Williams, who sensitively swans around Athens in a long white dress.

It is made clear that Sandra wants to collect Jacob, to leech on to his youthful gaucheness, and that her husband acquiesces, staying behind in their hotel while Sandra and Jacob go for a walk up the Parthenon in the moonlight. But then, in a characteristic move to frustrate our conventional expectations, just as we are expecting something to happen (a kiss in the moonlight!), the narrative cuts away to Jacob’s mother in bed in her house in Scarborough. And after a few pages with her, when it cuts back to Athens, Jacob and Sandra have disappeared. It is a deliberate strategy of obliquity and evasion.

Then it’s the next morning, they all get up early and journey on to Constantinople. I don’t think anything at all happened between them, even a kiss. The only practical outcome is that Jacob gives Sandra the copy of John Donne’s poems which he’s reading and annotating and we are told it joins the select number of volumes the older lady keeps on her dressing table, and occasionally picks up as she moons over her old lovers. He has been collected.

All the important moments in these little scenes is deliberately omitted leaving a narrative made of fragments built around absences. The central character and all his key experiences, those character-forming experiences you expect from a Bildungsroman, have been carefully excised to leave a hole in the middle of the text.

… then bring him back

The penultimate chapter, chapter 13, gives a kind of panoramic overview of all the characters we have met so far, in the course of one day of coming and going, mostly in London.

Jacob is back in London, lean, brown and boring everyone with his trite opinions about the glories of Greece. He is walking through Hyde Park with his best buddy Dick Bonamy who is unhappy (of course) because of his frustrated love affair with the elusive Clara Durrant.

From one point of view the entire History of The Novel is a record of the long, pitifully useless efforts of adult human beings to manage even the simplest affairs of the heart, to manage their love lives. Whenever anybody gets up on their hind legs and starts pontificating about ‘human wisdom’ and what a clever species we are, even before you get out the history books with their mountainous records of wars and tortures, just hand them a couple of classic novels and say ‘Here: this is the evidence against’. Here are a half dozen examples of the human race who couldn’t manage the most basic aspects of human relationships and ended up killing themselves – Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina.

We are introduced to Mr Bowley, a new character, an older gentleman, who accompanies Clara as she puts her dog Troy on a leash and takes him for a walk in the park. They are disturbed when a horse which has thrown its rider goes galloping by. Characteristically for Woolf, this tear in the fragile surface of good manners and etiquette, is all it takes to trigger Clara to tears, just like the slow crescendo of knives and forks clattering triggered the unnamed woman in the restaurant.

“‘This statue was erected by the women of England…'” Clara read out with a foolish little laugh. ‘Oh, Mr. Bowley! Oh!’ Gallop—gallop—gallop—a horse galloped past without a rider. The stirrups swung; the pebbles spurted. ‘Oh, stop! Stop it, Mr. Bowley!’ she cried, white, trembling, gripping his arm, utterly unconscious, the tears coming. (p.159)

‘White, trembling, gripping his arm.’ It is my contention that this hysteria lies just below the surface of every sentence, every perception in the book, just waiting to burst out. Nice polite well-mannered young women are poised to snap and burst into tears at the slightest provocation.

This horse bolting is a symbol which is used to bring together disparate strands right at the end of the book. Assiduous visitor of the sick, Mrs Julia Eliot, saw the incident too, en route to her appointment with Lady Congreve in Bruton Street.

At that precise moment Florinda (the sexually permissive art student) who’s discovered she’s pregnant, watches the arrival of the painter Nick Bramham, at the restaurant, Verrey’s, where she’s booked a table. Have they agreed to marry? Has he agreed to pretend to be the father? Is he the father? Or is he stepping in for Jacob who is the real father? I can see that the way it isn’t spelled out is deliberate and artful. It joins the collection of many other issues which are elided and cut off. It creates the sense of a panorama of puzzles, allusions, mysteries, which is clearly how Woolf saw life.

At that moment far away in her country house, Sandra Wentworth Evans fondles the volume of Donne and wonders whether she can emotionally manipulate Jacob. Meanwhile, back in Hyde Park, abandoned by a cross Bonamy, Jacob idly draws in the dirt with the end of his umbrella what may or may not be a sort of diagram of the Parthenon.

A deckchair attendant asks him for a penny, but Jacob can only find half a crown which he gives the man, with some asperity.

Fanny Elmer loves Jacob more than ever and writes him notes and postcards which she never sends. She’s taken to hanging round the British Museum in the hope of sighting him. Why did no-one tell her that life is grim and frustrating?

‘One’s godmothers ought to have told one,’ said Fanny, looking in at the window of Bacon, the mapseller, in the Strand — told one that it is no use making a fuss; this is life, they should have said, as Fanny said it now, looking at the large yellow globe marked with steamship lines. ‘This is life. This is life,’ said Fanny. (p.163)

At which point, with Woolfian misery, she bursts into tears. She catches a bus which is held up in the Charing Cross Road because there’s a big political rally marching down Whitehall, past the various government ministries and Woolf gives us the last of what have been quite a few page-long digressions about international politics, about the enormous reach of the British Empire and the need to address issues with Kaisers and Rajahs and so on all around the world. Because of my own personal interest in history, these were the only bits of the novel I really enjoyed, because of their sense of range, of the wider world rising above the petty, small-minded backbiting of most of the ‘characters’.

Back to individuals: Timmy Durrant (Clara’s brother) is at work in one of these government departments which Fanny is walking past. He is aided by Miss Thomas, one of the typists who doesn’t want to be late to meet her beau at the Gaiety Theatre.

Jacob gets up from his deckchair. It’s past five and the sun is setting. Far away in Scarborough his mother is writing a letter to his older brother, Archer, who works in Singapore.

Coming out of Carter’s shop in Piccadilly, the Reverend Andrew Lloyd half recognises Jacob as he walks past because it was he, Floyd, back in chapter 2, who recommended Betty to try her son for Cambridge i.e. had a hand in the formation of Jacob’s personality, in a sense is partly responsible for the entire narrative. But he hesitates to approach Jacob just long enough for the latter to disappear into the crowd. It is a world of lost opportunities. Fleeting glimpses and unfulfillment.

In a cab in a traffic jam in Long Acre sit smooth Mr Wortley, Clara and her mother Mrs Durrant, who is concerned about arriving late to the opera and missing the overture.

Far away on the edge of the moors overlooking the sea, Mrs Pasco watches two ships pass each other out on the waves.

Even further away, Greek housewives knit their stockings while the sunset colours the Parthenon red. Artillery fires over the Piraeus to mark the end of the day.

Betty Flanders is woken by a distant booming but can hear nothing distinct. It connects back to the guns in Greece but (being 1920), was it a prolepsis or anticipation of the sound of the guns of the Great War which was to sweep all this away?

I liked the panoramic effect of this chapter very much, although maybe it was simply from the relief of having gotten to the end of the book on one piece.

Chapter 14

The final chapter is precisely one page long and shows Jacob’s friend Dick Bonamy in Jacob’s room tutting about the chaos and the letters scattered everywhere. Then Jacob’s mother, Betty, enters, asking what is she to do with these, holding up a pair of Jacob’s old shoes? Is Jacob dead? Thank God! But how? There is no clue whatsoever, so I turned to the internet for help.

The SuperSummary web page tells me that:

When World War I breaks out in Europe, Jacob enlists in the British army and is killed in combat. The novel ends with a scene of Betty Flanders and Richard Bonamy clearing out Jacob’s London apartment in the wake of Jacob’s death.

Ah. OK. but none of that is expressed in the text. I had picked up on the booming of the guns but was misled because I thought Betty heard them on the same evening when Jacob was strolling through Hyde Park. No. Turns out that all the events the SuperSummary lists (war breaking out, Jacob enlisting, training, being shipped to France, fighting, dying, Betty receiving notification of his death and travelling to his London room) takes place with no mention or description in the narrative. Offstage. That’s a really significant amount of information, data, events, to completely omit from your story, wouldn’t you say?

It was already a strikingly non-conformist book, a revolutionary book in its understated way, simply ignoring most of the conventions of the novel up to that date. This highly elliptical conclusion really rams that home. Contemporary readers must have been mystified.

The implied author

I happily admit that the picture I’ve built up here of Woolf-the-author may bear no close relationship to the actual Virginia Woolf of 1920. Here’s the Wikipedia definition of ‘the implied author’:

The implied author is a concept of literary criticism developed in the 20th century. Distinct from the author and the narrator, the term refers to the ‘authorial character’ that a reader infers from a text based on the way a literary work is written. In other words, the implied author is a construct, the image of the writer produced by a reader as called forth from the text. The implied author may or may not coincide with the author’s expressed intentions or known personality traits.

Many people’s main reaction to a novel they’re reading, whether they like it or not, is in fact a response to the character of its implied author – whether they find them warm and sympathetic or cold and brutal, whimsical and funny or difficult and literary, etc.

And canny authors exploit this, creating a persona which is not identical even with the narrator, but a larger thing – the book’s personality. As every reader knows, liking or disliking a novel often relies on your response to the total mood of the text, to the implied author, to the book’s personality.

I like literature which adds something to life, which adds factually or psychologically a richness or strangeness. Everything by D.H. Lawrence explodes with life and enhanced perception, even when he’s at his most messianic and delusional. My enthusiasm even extends to the wildest of Samuel Beckett’s prose works, a man renowned for concentrating on futility and despair, works such as the very strange How It Is. What is exhilarating about Beckett’s works is the totality of their commitment. They are bleak as hell but written with a visionary intensity.

By comparison, Woolf, to me, seems half-hearted. She is like E.M. Forster seen through a kaleidoscope, a distorting mirror. Her works radiate a kind of wet unhappiness. She – well the author implied by this book, its authorial persona – is very clever, very perceptive, very artful, but very wounded.

* A note on the word madness

I wondered whether I’m allowed to use the term ‘mad’ and ‘madness’. Surely I should be more sympathetic, up-to-date and use terms like ‘mental illness’ or ‘neurodivergent’? So I was struck by the way the author biography on the inner sleeves of the Granada paperback editions of Woolf’s works which I read bluntly states:

Recurring bouts of madness plagued both her childhood and married life and in April 1941 Virginia Woolf took her own life.

And it’s not just here. Throughout Victorian Glendinning’s excellent biography of Leonard Woolf, Glendinning refers to Virginia’s ‘madness’. And in her own writings and diary, Woolf freely uses the term mad and madness. She used it in the intensely moving suicide note she left for her husband – ‘Dearest, I feel certain I am going mad again’. So I’m not using the word flippantly or insensitively. I’m using the same word used by her editors, publishers, biographers and by Virginia herself to describe her condition.


Credit

‘Jacob’s Room’ by Virginia Woolf was first published by the Hogarth Press in 1922. References are to the 1965 Penguin paperback edition, 1971 reprint.

Related links

Related reviews

Brasil! Brasil! The Birth of Modernism @ the Royal Academy

Executive summary

To be really blunt, my wife said, ‘If this is the best Brazilian art has to offer, you can see why we’ve never heard of it before.’ A proper review needs to be more nuanced and caveated than that, and as you study each of the individual artists, you come to appreciate them more deeply… but it is a not unreasonable thumbnail summary. There are lots of really good works here, easily enough to make it worth visiting, but no one artist that really, really broke through – and many of the works I liked partly because they so clearly showed their European influences and origins.

Because as you read the wall panels, the key point to emerge is that almost all of the artists featured here spent some or a lot of time in Europe studying art – especially in the early part of the show, during the period just before and after the First World War – which is why, in the first half, you are continually seeing paintings which remind you of cubism, the Fauves, German Expressionism, then later on, Art Deco and 1930s socialist realism.

This process of assimilation from European sources was directly addressed in the ‘Anthropophagic Manifesto’ by a writer closely associated with the early Brazilian modernists (and husband of the great Tarsila do Amaral) Oswald de Andrade. The manifesto describes modern Brazilian artists eating and digesting the great European innovations of the early twentieth century, mixing them with local subject matter and non-European traditions to produce a distinctive new hybrid.

Watching the artists’ Western influences and training being remodelled and fused with Brazilian subject matter to create each artist’s personal vision is one of the main interests of the show. (Although important to be clear that some of them never went to study in Europe and so developed their own native or naive style from scratch.)

For what it’s worth, in my opinion Tarsila do Amaral emerges as the artist with the most distinctive and fully formed vision in her own right, closely followed by Lasar Segall and Vicente do Rego Monteiro (see below for all of them).

This is a big exhibition, filling the Royal Academy’s main galleries and yet it doesn’t quite feel like it. Most of the works are relatively modest in scale and, with the exception of a handful of massive paintings and a few large sculptures towards the end, the rows of medium-sized paintings often feel over-awed by the hugeness of the gallery space. I couldn’t help seeing this as a metaphor for the way this often very striking post-colonial art, despite everyone’s best intentions, derived its strength from the series of innovations taking place in the European heartland and, latterly, in America.

Anyway, on to a more detailed review.

Overview

In the early 20th century a new modern art was emerging in Brazil. Starting in the 1910s and continuing through the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, Brazilian artists adapted contemporary trends, international influences and artistic traditions to create new visual styles informed by the vibrant cultures, identities and landscapes of Brazil.

This exhibition celebrates this 60-year period between 1910 and the 1970s through the stories of ten influential artists. The show reveals the development of their artistic styles and the context in which they were created. It brings together over 130 works to capture the diversity of Brazilian art at the time. The artists are, in (rough) chronological order:

  1. Anita Malfatti (1889 to 1964)
  2. Lasar Segall (1891 to 1957)
  3. Tarsila do Amaral (1886 to 1973)
  4. Vicente do Rego Monteiro (1899 to 1970)
  5. Candido Portinari (1903 to 1962)
  6. Flávio de Carvalho (1899 to 1973)
  7. Djanira (1914 to 1979)
  8. Alfredo Volpi (1896 to 1988)
  9. Rubem Valentim (1922 to 1991)
  10. Geraldo de Barros (1923 to 1998)

The majority of works come from rarely-seen Brazilian private collections, as well as Brazilian public collections, most of which have never been exhibited in the UK. So this is a unique opportunity to see key works by ten of Brazil’s major twentieth century artists brought together in one place, and to get a sense of how pioneers of Brazilian visual culture took their European sources, developed and moulded them for their own purposes.

Brazil: history and ethnicities

1. History

I take a historical view of everything (art, politics, literature) so I liked it being explained right at the start that Brazilian history can be divided into four eras:

  • pre-Colombian i.e. before Europeans arrived
  • colonial (1500 to 1815)
  • Imperial (1815 to 1889)
  • modern since Brazil became a republic in 1889

The original inhabitants of this vast area of north-east South America consisted of numerous tribes and clans with their own languages and religions. The Portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral, hoping to sail west around the world to India, arrived in the territory that would become Brazil on April 22 1500, claiming the land for the King of Portugal.

2. African slavery

There followed centuries of colonisation and settlement by the Portuguese who first of all enslaved the local inhabitants to work on their ranches and mines, and then set up a transatlantic slave trade importing kidnapped Africans. In 1526 Portuguese mariners carried the first shipload of African slaves to Brazil. Of the 12 million enslaved Africans brought to the New World, almost half – 5.5 million people – were forcibly taken to Brazil as early as 1540 and until the 1860s. Slavery was only abolished in Brazil in May 1888, one year before the country overthrew its imperial regime to become a republic.

3. Mass immigration

The abolition of slavery in 1888 and the expansion of coffee plantations created a demand for labour. Many people internally migrated from the impoverished north-east, but Brazil also became a popular destination for immigrants. In the last decades of the nineteenth century Brazil experienced a surge in immigration, particularly from Europe, with Italians, Portuguese and Spanish immigrants fleeing poverty in their own countries, as well as Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe. Between 1872 and 1903 almost two million immigrants arrived in Brazil, increasing the population to around 17 million.

4. Technological change

Like every other country, Brazil (well, the cities and more developed regions) experienced the shock of new technologies, which seemed to follow each other with dizzying speed: the telegraph, the telephone, electrification of street lights and homes, the tram, the motor car.

These four factors explain why, as the twentieth century dawned, many Brazilian intellectuals realised they needed to create new literary and art styles to capture their newly republican, newly modern, newly multicultural society. They had to break away from the stuffiness and formality of the country’s nineteenth century Salon art, with its fondness for bog historical and religious subjects painted with painstaking realism.

Some of the leading figures were women who, like women in all the developed countries, thought women’s art and artists needed promoting. Some came from very poor backgrounds and reckoned the working classes needed to be sympathetically represented in art. And some were of Indigenous extraction and reckoned the original peoples of the land deserved better representation.

A curatorial mistake

The curators make what I think is a very big mistake right at the start of the exhibition. As usual the first room you enter is the octagonally-shaped Central Hall. Now the early wall labels emphasise the heaviness of the country’s nineteenth century art, with its European tastes for academic art and typical subjects such as historical allegories and religious scenes, as approved by Brazil’s own Royal Academy, the Academia Imperial de Belas Artes, which dominated Brazil’s arts and crafts for a century.

In my opinion, the curators would have done well to fill this Central Hall with examples of this stuffy old art, introducing us to the key figures of the old style, showing us massive realist depictions of some important battle and sentimental images of saints turning their tearful eyes towards heaven etc. This would very effectively have indicated what the ten artists in the subsequent galleries were breaking away from and given a better sense of just how radical their artistic revolution was.

Instead, with lamentable solipsism, the curators choose to fill this room by telling us that in November 1944, the Royal Academy of Arts hosted the first and, at that date, largest exhibition of modern Brazilian art in the UK. It was divided into two sections containing 80 paintings and 86 works on paper and was linked to a related exhibition about contemporary Brazilian architecture.

Now this is sort of interesting but only for art historians, and it doesn’t directly shed light on what is to follow. I thought it was a distraction and, as I say, a lost opportunity to provide deeper historical context.

Key historic event: Semana de Arte Moderna 1922

The early presentation of modernist art in Brazil crystallised in the Semana de Arte Moderna (Modern Art Week) that took place in Sao Paolo in 1922. ‘A cultural milestone in Brazil’, the Semana played a crucial role in bringing Brazilian Modernism to public awareness, and is referred to in the introduction and the biographies of the four or five artists who featured in it.

So, to the ten artists. Ten is a lot to take in. I’ll give a thumbnail sketch of each and a work which is either characteristic or exemplifies a theme of the show.

1. Anita Malfatti (1889 to 1964)

Pioneering woman artist who first brought European avant-garde styles (cubism, Fauvism, Expressionism) to Brazil.

  • the first Brazilian artist to introduce European and American forms of Modernism to Brazil
  • born in São Paulo, of Italian and German-American descent, when her father died the family moved to Germany
  • lived in Berlin from 1910 to 1914, attended drawing classes, influenced by German museum collections
  • 1915 moved to continue her education in the United States

Malfatti returned to Brazil in the autumn of 1916 and in December 1917 held the ‘Exposição de pintura moderna Anita Malfatti’ (Anita Malfatti Modern Painting Exhibition) in São Paulo. She must have blown people’s minds. The show was the first to challenge the orthodoxy of academic and Salon art and is now celebrated as the first modernist exhibition in Brazil. You know I mentioned the obvious influence of European pioneers on many of the Brazilians? Well:

First Cubist Nude or The Little Nude by Anita Malfatti (1916) Private collection, Rio de Janeiro

In 1923 Malfatti moved back to Europe, to Paris on a scholarship. She lived in Montparnasse and was mentored by French painter Maurice Denis, exhibiting at the Salon d’Automne in 1927. She returned to São Paulo in 1928 but the days of her experimental and progressive art were behind her.

The wall of her works is mostly portraits in a cubist-modernist style. I really liked two or three of these which leaned more towards German Expressionism in their strident colouring.

Portrait of Oswald by Anita Malfatti (1925) Collection of Hecilda and Sérgio Fadel. Photo by Jaime Acioli © Anita Malfatti

As usual this drab reproduction doesn’t convey the subtlety and vibrancy of the original.

2. Lasar Segall (1891 to 1957)

Colourful, stylised depictions of rural life, lots of green palm tree leaves, until his midlife turn to grimmer subject matter.

  • Jewish, born in 1891 in Vilnius, Lithuania, and so an outsider to a tropical country, to Catholic culture etc
  • 1906: moved to Berlin and studied at the Imperial Academy of Fine Arts of Berlin and Dresden Academy of Fine Arts, where he was exposed to the Expressionist and Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity) movements
  • first visited Brazil in 1913, meeting fellow artists and intellectuals, and exhibiting and selling his work before returning to Europe
  • leading figure of the Dresden Expressionist movement – 1919 set up the Dresden Secession group with Expressionist painter Otto Dix
  • 1923 Segall migrated to São Paulo and was quickly welcomed by modernist artists and writers who saw him as a representative of the European avant-garde
  • 1932, with Anita Malfatti and Tarsila do Amaral, he founded the Sociedade Pró-Arte Moderna (SPAM) in 1932 to promote modern art
  • his work was at times subject to anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic attacks

His early depictions of favelas in a naive style are lovely, really simplified, stylised, semi-abstract. A scholar calls it a tropicalisation of early cubism but surely it’s more readable, less distorted than cubism. For example, Boy with Gecko (1924).

This is the painting which is included in the articles and promo material. Early on you realise that green, numerous shades of green, are a recurring colour in many of these paintings, capturing the distinctive greenness of tropical foliage.

Banana Plantation by Lasar Segall (1927) Collection of the Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. Photo by Isabella Matheus © Lasar Segall

There are half a dozen of these deliberately stylised and naive paintings and then the viewer is brought up short by a very big painting in a completely different style. This is Pogrom from 1937. As the Nazi tyranny proceeded, Segall who had such an attachment to Germany, turned to depicting the horrors being inflicted on his co-religionists.

Pogrom by Lasar Segall (1937)

Note the headstone with Hebrew writing at the bottom left. The curators point out the dove at the top of the work, which indicates, or aspires to, a kind of hope. Ill-placed though, wasn’t it? There was no hope.

After the war Segall’s images became increasingly abstracted in the 1950s, producing a series of paintings featuring forests, brown paintings of vertical lines. These look like a traumatised response to the Holocaust, in the same way that Francis Bacon or Giacometti convey post-war trauma. A bit dazed by ‘Pogrom’, I read these as references to the thick forests of his native Lithuania, where so many Jews were murdered and buried.

3. Tarsila do Amaral (1886 to 1973)

do Amaral is the first painter you feel who develops a really distinctively Brazilian, non-European style, depicting the jungle and village life. Her work is very attractive.

  • pioneering woman artist who developed a distinctively Brazilian modern style
  • daughter of wealthy parents who owned numerous coffee plantations, and so ‘a coffee heiress’
  • private painting lessons then moved to Paris in 1920 to enrol at the Académie Julian, one of the few schools which offered women artists life drawing classes
  • 1922: returned to São Paulo where she formed the Grupo dos Cinco (Group of Five) alongside Anita Malfatti, Mário de Andrade, Menotti Del Picchia and Oswald de Andrade, who became her partner (whose portrait was painted by Anita Malfatti, see above)
  • 1923: she returned to Paris with Oswald where they lived till 1928
  • Tarsila’s art became known for its vibrant colours, simplified forms and distinctly Brazilian themes
  • her 1928 painting Abaporu, a simplified solitary figure with distorted proportions, inspired Oswald to write the ‘Manifesto Antropófago’, which proposed artists engage in “cultural cannibalism” that would metaphorically “devour” wide-ranging influences to create something new and uniquely Brazilianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abaporu
  • 1929: economic crash, she separated from Oswald
  • 1931: held an exhibition in Moscow, returned to Brazil and attended meetings of the Brazilian Communist Party. Paintings from this period, such as ‘Second Class’ (1933), reflect her more socially aware perspective

do Amaral produced the exhibition’s keynote image, the one used on the poster and all the promotional material and you can see why – it’s nice to look at. Pinks and greens and blues, very relaxing. Obviously she has taken a Brazilian jungle scene and utterly transformed it from the old Salon realism, into a series of semi-abstract shapes which are strongly reminiscent of Surrealism.

Lake by Tarsila do Amaral (1928) Collection of Hecilda and Sérgio Fadel. Photo by Jaime Acioli © Tarsila do Amaral S/A

4. Vicente do Rego Monteiro (1899 to 1970)

Big brown stylised Art Deco figures with a strong pre-Colombian flavour.

  • Rego Monteiro was born in the coastal city of Recife in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco
  • 1911 moved to Paris, where he studied drawing and sculpture
  • 1914: at the outbreak of the First World War his family moved back to Brazil, to Rio de Janeiro where he became interested in the culture of the Amazon and started using native themes and motifs into his work
  • 1922: joined the group who organised the famous Semana de Arte Moderna in São Paulo
  • he returned to Paris where he lived for the next decade and thereafter alternated between Paris and Recife

Rego Monteiro’s is arguably the most distinctive of the set. They are highly stylised brown paintings which depict human figures in a style derived from pre-Colombian native traditions.

Archer by Vicente do Rego Monteiro (1925) Courtesy of Almeida and Dale Galeria de Arte. Photo by Sergio Guerini © Vicente do Rego Monteiro

Initially I thought they felt the most free from any European influence – none of the cubism or Expressionism or Surrealism we’ve seen up till now. Until my wife pointed out that they’re Art Deco, with the repetitions and symmetries of the stylised human figures. Yes. Or like the stylised figures in the friezes of Eric Gill.

Before he developed this primitive style, he produced some lovely Art Deco images. The most famous is Tennis from 1928. As Mrs Simon pointed out, this is a rare instance of someone having fun in a painting. Most paintings show portraits of intense intellectuals or hard working peasants or murdered Jews or African-Brazilians working in the fields. People having fun is a rarity in art, which may be why it remains such a minority interest.

5. Candido Portinari (1903 to 1962)

Portinari is something else again. Born the son of Italian immigrants and he grew up in relative poverty on a coffee plantation and had a lifelong concern for the lives of the poor. This led him to a kind of 1930s social realism we haven’t yet seen in the rather elite Group of Five artists we’ve hitherto been learning about.

  • 1918 sent by his parents to Rio de Janeiro where he studied at the Escola Nacional de Belas Artes
  • 1928: won a scholarship to travel Europe in 1928 and spent two years moving around France, England, Italy and Spain, studying the old master
  • on his return determined to paint the hard lives of peasants in the backlands and developed his socialist-realist style

My wife pointed out a common theme of his paintings is the figures have enormous chunky feet. I thought this was a facetious remark, but it is picked up by the curators who state: ‘He enlarges the hands and feet of the coffee-plantation worker to emphasise his connection to the land.’

Coffee Agricultural Worker by Candido Portinari (1934)

A bit of historical background. The 1929 crash in world markets led to the collapse in Brazil of the coffee industry and widespread unemployment, impoverishment. This led to a coup establishing the populist government of Getúlio Vargas. (Vargas served as president of Brazil from 1930 to 1945 and then again from 1951 until 1954. Due to his long and controversial tenure as Brazil’s provisional, constitutional, dictatorial and democratic leader, he is considered by historians as the most influential Brazilian politician of the 20th century.) It was against this troubled economic, social and political background that Portinari copied Picasso’s 1930s style of big chunky figures, but for political effect.

Like his Mexican contemporary Diego Rivera, Portinari created massive public murals depicting the dignity of labour. He collaborated on numerous projects with the modernist architect Oscar Niemeyer. He received various high-profile commissions, including a Rivera-style commission to create huge murals, titled ‘War and Peace’, for the United Nations Headquarters in New York (1952 to 1956). The curators, a tad disappointingly, don’t include even photos of these, but there’s always the internet.

Commissions like this gave Portinari a huge international profile, so that in the mid-century he was widely seen as Brazil’s most important artist.

Portinari had a song written to him, ‘Un Son para Portinari’, regularly performed by the legendary Argentine singer, Mercedes Sosa.

6.Flávio de Carvalho (1899 to 1973)

de Carvalho was a painter, architect, theatre producer and designer, but appears to be mainly remembered as the first performance artist in Brazil.

  • born in Rio de Janeiro into an aristocratic family, raised in São Paulo, studied in Paris, and gained a degree in civil engineering from Durham University (!)
  • as an artist he was largely self-taught, his only formal training being the evening drawing classes he took while at university
  • he returned to Brazil in time to take part in the famous Semana de Arte Moderna of 1922
  • he entered national and international architecture competitions for public buildings with outlandishly ambitious designs, experimented with writing, and designed and staged several avant-garde theatre productions
  • 1933: founding member of the multidisciplinary Clube dos Artistas Modernos (Modern Artists’ Club) which attracted the attention of established modernists including Oswald de Andrade (author of the manifesto, partner of Tarsila do Amaral) who dubbed de Carvalho ‘the Ideal Anthropophagus’
  • his paintings blended Surrealist, Cubist and Expressionist influences
  • 1934: first public exhibition closed down on the grounds of obscenity

I think I liked de Carvalho’s paintings the least of any in the set. Grungy, they gave me the shivers. They reminded me of Graham Sutherland’s art, one of the few modern artists I really dislike, but de Carvalho caught the mood: he was successful and was invited to represent Brazil at the 1950 Venice Biennial.

In stark contrast to all his paintings is a photo recording one of de Carvalho’s several ‘performances’. He started doing these as early as the 1930s. According to Wikipedia, he created:

what he called ‘Experiências’ (experiments), ‘performance art’ before that term was introduced. In 1931, he joined a Catholic Corpus Christi parade in São Paulo, walking in the opposite direction and wearing a cap although removing headgear was considered a necessary sign of respect, driving the crowd to call for his lynching, which he later said was an experiment in crowd psychology. This work, the Experiência n. 2, has come to be understood as an early work of performance art, but it could also be understood in terms of Surrealist provocation that comments on the contested structures of political and religious authority in São Paulo following the Revolution of 1930.

The photo on display here is from 25 years later, when, on 18 October 1956, de Carvalho staged ‘Experiência N.3’, walking through São Paulo in the ‘New Look’ outfit he had designed for men in the tropics, which comprised a skirt, blouse and fishnet stockings, scandalising the crowd who gathered to watch him.

Photo of Experiência N.3’ by Flávio de Carvalho

7. Djanira (1914 to 1979)

Christened Djanira da Motta e Silva (she preferred to be referred to simply as Djanira) was a largely self-taught artist whose simple, dynamic paintings reflected the working class world of her upbringing.

  • born in Avaré, São Paulo, to a working-class family, father was of Indigenous ancestry, her mother the daughter of Austro-Hungarian immigrants
  • throughout her childhood Djanira worked as a seamstress and on a coffee plantation
  • her artistic practice began aged 23 (1937) while recovering from tuberculosis in a sanatorium in São José dos Campos
  • 1939: Djanira settled in the Bohemian neighbourhood of Santa Teresa, Rio de Janeiro, where she established a boarding house where many intellectuals lodged, including Emeric Marcier (1916 to 1990) who taught her the basics of painting
  • the only other formal training Djanira received was through evening classes in drawing
    at a private art school in São Paulo

Her subjects were self- portraits, portraits of people close to her, and the landscapes and everyday life of Rio. Her style, a hybrid of figuration and abstraction, was sometimes described as naïve, a description she rejected: ‘I might be naïve, but my painting is not.’

From 1945 to 1947, Djanira lived in New York, where she met the Surrealist artists Joan Miró and Marc Chagall. During the 1950s she journeyed around Brazil to study its landscapes, peoples, customs and social realities. Notably, she travelled to Bahia, where she experienced the Candomblé religion, and she also lived among the Canela people in Maranhão, which allowed her to reflect on her Indigenous Brazilian heritage. This explains why many of her paintings are accompanied by sociological or anthropological explanations.

Flying a Kite by Djanira (1950) Banco Itaú Collection. Photo by Humberto Pimentel/Itaú Cultural © Instituto Pintora Djanira

All her paintings are in this style. I could see what she was doing, the socio-political and artistic aims of it, but I didn’t warm to them. The best and biggest, one of the biggest works in the show, is ‘Three Orishas’ from 1966. It has a backstory:

Candomblé is an Afro-Brazilian religion of West African origin that combines elements of Yoruba, Fon and Bantu. Enslaved peoples brought the religion to Brazil and it developed in the port city of Salvador, the capital of the state of Bahia. Djanira encapsulates the rituals and beliefs of Candomblé with a triad of Afro-Brazilian deities, from right to left: Yemanjá, a maternal, protective deity; Oxalá, the creator, unusually represented as a woman here; and Oxum, deity of the river and fresh water.

Installation view of ‘Three Orishas’ by Djanira in Brasil! Brasil! The Birth of Modernism @ the Royal Academy. Photo by the author

8. Alfredo Volpi (1896 to 1988)

Volpi was self-taught and a pioneer of pure abstraction.

  • born in Lucca, Italy, his family emigrated to Brazil when he was just two years old
  • grew up in a working-class neighbourhood in São Paulo, and left school at 12 to work as a painter-decorator to support his family
  • never receiving a formal artistic education, Volpi began painting in the 1920s, adapting the materials and techniques of his trade, including preparing his own paints and canvases

Volpi’s early paintings were relatively conventional. He made landscapes and genre scenes alongside a group of other self-taught artists on weekend trips to the countryside, including to the seaside fishing village of Itanhaém.

His style changed significantly in the 1940s, when he turned his attention to urban scenes and began to work with egg tempera instead of oil paint. Some of them are naive and stylised depictions of buildings, such as the many paintings he titled Facade. These alternated with completely abstract works based on repeated geometric patterns.

Untitled by Alfredo Volpi (1950) Daniela and Alfredo Villela Collection. Photo by Jaime Acioli © Alfredo Volpi

His work became increasingly abstracted, taking architectural elements including apartment blocks, windows and roof tiles, and simplifying them to bold geometric shapes with a flat use of vibrant colour, reflecting the vitality and life of the cities he portrayed.

Volpi received widespread recognition during his lifetime; he was joint winner of the prestigious São Paulo Biennial Prize in 1953. He aligned himself with no particular art movement but followed artistic developments both in Brazil and Europe. He was responsible for introducing a generation of Brazilian artists to the work of Swiss-German artist Paul Klee (1879 to 1940) who emerges as an influence on the following two artists, as well.

Today his work is understood as a bridge between Brazil’s earlier modernists and the Concrete Art movement of the later twentieth century, which emphasised geometric abstraction, see Geraldo de Barros, below.

9. Rubem Valentim (1922 to 1991)

Lovely, Klee-like, colourful abstract paintings and sculptures.

  • born in Salvador, in the north-eastern state of Bahia, Rubem Valentim grew up in a region deeply influenced by spirituality, both Roman Catholicism and Candomblé, a religion rooted in West African beliefs, that would profoundly shape his art
  • Valentim initially trained in dentistry, but left the profession by the late 1940s to pursue painting
  • early work adopted the social-realism popular among local artists, but by the 1950s he began to develop his own distinct visual language
  • this geometric abstract style synthesised African symbols, particularly those associated with Candomblé, with modernist forms
  • his works came to feature vibrant colours and structured arrangements of symbols, evoking sacred Afro-Brazilian totems and spiritual iconography

The charming home-made quality of Valentim’s abstract paintings reminded me of Paul Klee, geometric shapes strung together on straight lines like kebabs. Here’s what I mean.

Installation view of Brasil! Brasil! The Birth of Modernism @ the Royal Academy showing Untitled (1962) by Valentim Rubem. Photo by the author

The paintings are complemented by four or five big sculptures which repeat the technique of abstract symmetrical designs.

Installation view of Brasil! Brasil! The Birth of Modernism @ the Royal Academy showing a painting and two reliefs by Valentim Rubem. Photo by the author

By the 1960s, Valentim had gained national and international recognition and took part in the São Paulo Biennial, the Venice Biennale, and the First World Festival of Black Arts in Senegal, which helped to cement his reputation as a leading voice in Brazilian art.

Calling himself an ‘artist-priest’, Valentim infused his works with powerful cultural significance as a means of preserving and celebrating African identity in Brazil.

In 1976 he wrote ‘Manifesto ainda que tardio’ (‘A Manifesto, Albeit Late’) in which he advocated for recognition of African cultural heritage as a vital part of Brazilian identity, challenged Eurocentric artistic norms, and promoted a greater cultural synthesis: ‘The Afro- Amerindian-Northeastern-Brazilian iconology is alive… and we must drink in it with lucidity and great love.’

We have come a long way from Malfatti and do Amaral bravely importing cubist or Expressionist motifs.

10. Geraldo de Barros (1923 to 1998)

Right at the end of the exhibition there comes a sharp change in format. All nine of the preceding artists had been painters. Suddenly there’s a wall of black and white photos, clever modernist studies in sharp angles and abstract shapes made by things like rooftops and telegraph wires, shot from high up or low down to emphasise their geometric shapes, or multiple exposures overlaying different perspectives of stark industrial artefacts (railway stations, electricity pylons). de Barros has his own website which includes a page of these photos under the title ‘Fotoformas’.

Here’s a thumbnail bio:

  • de Barros born in a small town in the state of São Paulo; shortly afterwards his family moved to the state capital
  • his interest in art began in 1941, and for several years he juggled working in a bank with studying for a degree in economics and taking art classes at the Associação Paulista de Belas Artes (São Paulo Association of Fine Arts)
  • de Barros soon found himself drawn to abstraction
  • in 1946 de Barros acquired his first camera and soon focused his artistic energies on photography
  • his approach was highly experimental, employing techniques such as photomontage, multiple exposures and physical interventions on negatives to explore the medium’s conceptual potential
  • by 1949 he was invited to set up the Museu de Arte de São Paulo’s photographic lab, and it was there in 1950 that he held the influential solo exhibition ‘Fotoforma’

All the photos on display here are really good in their way, although they reminded me of other modernist photographic experiments from the 1920s and ’30s, specifically the Bauhaus photos of Constructivist artist László Moholy-Nagy.

But the de Barros wall also featured a series of small quirky paintings which look exactly like Paul Klee paintings. He was well aware of the influence. One of photos is titled ‘Homage to Paul Klee’. I really liked Port View which I can see on the internet but can’t open as a separate image. Here it is in Google Images.

So he produced lovely Paul Klee-esque paintings, as well as a striking body of semi-abstract, modernist photographs. But it’s actually as a founded or pure abstraction in Brazil that he’s remembered.

  • 1951: a scholarship from the French government enabled de Barros to spend a year
    studying in Europe
  • on his return he founded the Grupo Ruptura (Rupture Group) which championed geometric abstraction as a means of transforming society, overcoming limits of language, geography and nationality
  • these ideas became cornerstones of Brazil’s Concrete Art movement

Arrangement of Three Similar Shapes within a Circle by Geraldo de Barros (1953) Collection Lenora and Fabiana de Barros. Courtesy Luciana Brito Galeria, São Paulo. Photo by Gustavo Scatena, Imagem Paulista © Geraldo de Barros

de Barro’s progressive approach extended to furniture design, marrying technical innovations with a Concrete aesthetic.

In 1954 he co-founded Unilabor, a cooperative that sought to merge modernist principles with accessible, affordable production and was in production until 1961. There’s a page devoted to Unilabor on his website.

In 1964 he founded a new furniture company, Hobjeto. This was a more commercial operation and it’s interesting to compare the 1950s Unilabor designs with the bolder, more colourful 1960s Hobjeto designs.

His output continued until his retirement in 1989. In terms of his range, from fine art to commercial furniture design, de Barros was obviously a major cultural influence.

The Klee connection

The three final artists in the show – Alfredo Volpi, Rubem Valentim and Geraldo de Barro – produced works that look very like Paul Klee paintings and watercolours, and even namecheck Klee directly.

It was intriguing, then, to read, on the credits label right at the end of the show, that this exhibition was organised by the Zentrum Paul Klee in Bern. Not contributed to, but organised by. Did that influence the selection of artists in this show? Were they chosen deliberately to reflect Klee’s influence? Or because the Zentrum just happens to own a lot of Brazilian art? At the time of writing, não sei.


Related links

Related reviews

Flame Into Being: The Life and Work of D.H. Lawrence by Anthony Burgess (1985)

Man belonged to the cosmos and was fulfilled through his natural instincts, of which love was the greatest.
(Burgess’s summary of Lawrence’s credo, page 62)

Anthony Burgess (1917 to 1993) was a composer, poet, novelist, essayist, librettist, screenwriter, critic, provocateur and media personality. In the 1980s I watched him appear on TV arts programmes and read his numerous book reviews, essays and novels (notably ‘Earthly Powers’, 1980, and ‘The End of the World News’, 1982). He was great fun, an unashamed entertainer. This book is a classic example of his work: opinionated, interesting, drily amusing, sensible, packed with ideas and insights.

Preface

Part of this is because Burgess, like Lawrence, was an outsider. Most 20th century English authors went to private school and Oxbridge and so, whether they were radicals or conservatives, maintained the same kind of tone and worldview, the same manners, the same limited, privileged experience of life in their works. Burgess, as he explains in his preface, grew up in the pub and shop culture of working class Manchester, with little cultural capital and, like Lawrence, largely had to teach himself about literature. And they both married foreign wives and left England to live abroad, Lawrence in his pilgrimage round the world, Burgess to live in Monte Carlo.

That said, Burgess says there are also big differences. Burgess came of an Irish family and was raised a Catholic. This explains his attraction to James Joyce. But also puts him in a different tradition from Lawrence who came from non-conformist stock, proud of his puritanism, attracted to the old pagan gods, son of a miner.

Burgess admires Lawrence’s intransigence and sympathises with his sufferings on behalf of free expression. Lawrence stands for:

that fighting element in the practice of literature without which books are a mere decor or confirmation of the beliefs and prejudices of the ruling class. (p.x)

‘Literature is essentially subversive’ and Lawrence was a leading practitioner of that subversion.

Chapter 1. Lawrence and Myself When Young

Burgess quotes Lawrence’s biographer and critic Richard Aldington saying Joyce and Lawrence are diametrically opposed: Joyce is about being and Lawrence is about becoming.

Stylistically Joyce is drawn to economy and exactness, Lawrence to a diffuseness which looks for what he is trying to say while he is saying it. (p.4)

This strikes me as the single most important aspect of Lawrence’s style as a writer of prose and poetry. His paragraphs feel like they’re being shaped and formed, often reusing the same words and phrases, as you watch. It’s a unique experience of being involved in the writing, as it happens.

His writing does not seem to have emerged, lathed and polished, from the workshop: when we read him we are in that workshop, witnessing a hit-and-miss process of creation in which orthodox faults – prolixity, repetition, apparent absurdity – are idiosyncratic virtues. (p.9)

He is a writer taking chances and trusting that he will be taken seriously.

In the 1910s literature was influenced by the serious scientific predictions of H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw with their promotion of Scientific, Rational solutions to society’s ills. Lawrence reacted against all this, despised all politics – maybe all rationality – and spoke for the Natural Man.

The purest exponent of the Natural Man after the Great War was Ernest Hemingway who saw that the complex sentences of Edwardian literature reflected a society and values which had all been exploded. He developed a stripped back, simple and repetitive style which promoted a simplistic code of honour. I like where Burgess says:

It may be that Hemingway’s prose is the biggest stylistic innovation of the century… Hemingway genuinely starts again from scratch. (p.8)

When I was a schoolboy and student, that was my view. From E.M. Forster to Ernest Hemingway was a leap from the 19th into the 20th century and, reading literary books today, they almost all still copy the Hemingway formula: short sentences, simple vocabulary, delete all adjectives and adverbs.

The pre-scientific or irrational in Lawrence made him a genuine primitive man, a pagan. He has a profound feeling for the pagan gods. Even the books set in England contain characters who talk like pagan deities. His people aspire to be naked, and their dialogue is voices from the unconscious, from another realm of experience.

Chapter 2. Beginnings

Lawrence’s father was a miner who worked at Brinsley Colliery, Eastwood, so you might have expected Lawrence’s subject to be squalor, dirt and struggle, for him to have become a proletarian writer. But Eastwood, ten miles north-east of Nottingham, in his day looked out over countryside, and Lawrence chose instead to become a writer of the countryside, flowers and animals.

Lawrence’s parents’ marriage was a warzone. His father was a miner, technically a ‘butty’ or supervisor of a gang of other miners. He was almost illiterate, spelling out the newspaper a word at a time, whereas Lawrence’s mother had been a teacher and clung to the idea that she came of gentle stock. Lawrence was unusually close to his mother – she is the central figure in his first major novel Sons and Lovers, and he was devastated when she died – but, by the same token, he was impressed by his father’s big beefy masculinity and the sodality of the miners.

Lawrence was an amateur painter till he was 20. His surviving paintings are vivid but demonstrate his complete lack of training in perspective or anatomy. Words were different. Poems and prose bent to the force of his imagination with little or no training.

At 17 he went as a pupil-teacher to Ilkeston training centre. At 21 he went to Nottingham University. Aged 23 he went to teach in Croydon. He discovered the ‘English Review’, edited by Ford Madox Hueffer, who ‘had the greatest editorial flair of his time, if not of the century’ and sent in some poems (p.20). Hueffer recognised the boy’s genius, invited him up to tea, introduced him to Ezra Pound. Lawrence showed Hueffer his first novel, ‘The White Peacock’.

Burgess makes a characteristically sweeping statement:

One of the uses of fiction is to affirm the values of the bourgeoisie. (p.24)

Lawrence is ‘this most visual of novelists’. Burgess emphasises the brilliant physical details in so many scenes.

Joyce, by contrast, was an urban man and knew nothing of flowers. Lawrence is the great novelist of flowers.

Snobbishness Lawrence’s mother felt she married down when she married his father. She aspired for her boys, wanted them to climb the social ladder. This is reflected from as early as ‘The Peacock’, with characters saying ‘awfully’ and ‘frightfully’, words never used in the Lawrence household. He was aping his social superiors, he was pitching the narrative at a higher social level.

Chapter 3. The Denial of Life

Lawrence’s second novel, ‘The Trespasser’, was published in 1912. It’s set on the Isle of Wight which was as far abroad as he’d managed to get by that point. The lead character Siegmund, hangs himself. The is the only suicide in Lawrence’s oeuvre.

In 1912 Lawrence eloped with Frieda Richtofen, the wife of his French tutor at Nottingham University, philologist and professor of modern languages, Ernest Weekley. She describes how they fell in love in her memoir, Not I, but the Wind…, how she was forced to abandon her three children when they eloped abroad, ending up in a rented house on Lake Garda in north Italy.

Mr Noon: Lawrence drafted the first part of this novel before the war. It was published as a fragment in 1934. Only 50 years later, in 1984, was the second part, which existed in papers belonging to a friend of Lawrence’s, published. The two halves or parts were first published together in 1984. The second half is quite different from the first. It appears to be a factually accurate and barely fictionalized account of Lawrence and Frieda’s early sexual relations. Burgess makes the point that:

It was common practice for Lawrence to write half a novel, abandon it, and then pick it up again with no great concern for plausible continuity; when in doubt, change your main character’s character, though retaining the name, and make him or her start a new life somewhere, preferably in Italy. (p.33)

This happens in ‘Mr Noon’, ‘The Lost Girl’ and ‘Aaron’s Rod’.

Marriage It is amusing that Lawrence was very fierce for marital fidelity, had a pagan reverence for the union of one man and one woman and yet the partner of his life was secured by wrecking her marriage to Professor Weekley. Also ironic that Frieda was (allegedly) unfaithful to him.

Anywhere Lawrence was one of those rare writers who could write anywhere, even amid noise and distractions. He never had a permanent home and so no book-lined study, was able to be interrupted mid-sentence to meet people or go and do some chore, come back hours later and pick up where he left off. In the relationship with Frieda, he did all the household chores while she lay in bed smoking. He reflected this aspect of himself in the character of Rawdon Lilly in ‘Aaron’s Rod’:

He put on the kettle, and quietly set cups and plates on a tray. The room was clean and cosy and pleasant. He did the cleaning himself, and was as efficient and inobtrusive a housewife as any woman. While the kettle boiled, he sat darning the socks which he had taken off Aaron’s feet when the flautist arrived, and which he had washed. He preferred that no outsider should see him doing these things. Yet he preferred also to do them himself, so that he should be independent of outside aid. (Aaron’s Rod, p.121)

England, My England Soon after eloping, Burgess quotes letters in which Lawrence lambasted the English and England in extreme terms. And yet he remained an Englishman through and through. Richard Aldington amusingly said Lawrence was as English as a wet Sunday in Hull.

Son and Lovers Another joke: given the theme of this novel is a young man’s struggle to break free from the smothering influence of his mother, Frieda playfully suggested it should be titled ‘Sons and Lovers: Or, His Mother’s Darling’. Lawrence was not amused.

Chapter 4. Son and Lover

David Herbert Lawrence was called Bert in the family home. He disliked his first name. After he eloped and became more cosmopolitan he liked his female admirers, starting with Frieda, to call him Lorenzo.

‘Sons and Lovers’ was published in May 1913. Giving its protagonist the French surname Morel is symptomatic of Lawrence’s aspiring cosmopolitanism. Burgess describes it as a ‘florescent, leafy, pullulent’ book (p.50).

Lawrence’s modernism lies not in the formal technique of his novels: they display none of the agonising over technique obvious in Conrad, Ford Madox Ford, James or Joyce. The modernism is in the content for two reasons to do with the characters.

1) His characters’ identities are extraordinarily labile: they change all the time. Not just that, but sometimes they disappear altogether, subsumed into the weather, the moonlight or other settings or environments.

2) All Lawrence’s characters point away from the conventions of normal social life towards primeval depths. They repeatedly sink to, or strip back layers to reveal, the elemental layer of human existence. This is deeper than anything in the history of the novel, deeper even than the Greeks in their tragedies.

Symptomatic that, ‘no strong believer in the solidity of human identities’ Lawrence had a lifelong fondness for charades (p.54). This spilled over into the best poems where he mimics or inhabits a bird, beast or flower to an extraordinary degree.

Masculinity All his life Lawrence kept a reverence for beautiful men, for the beauty of the male body, linking back to the strong nudity of his coal-miner father (stripped to the waist and washing in a tin bath every evening) and the community of tough men he managed.

Chapter 5. Coming Through

Lawrence was ‘arrogant, dogmatic, messianic, inconsistent’ but also loveable. He wasn’t troubled by his own faults or the impression they gave in society because society was a spume, a phantom: reality lay much, much deeper, and chasing, revealing and describing the depths of human experience was his challenge.

Reason Lawrence never understood rational argument, which was a kind of giving-in to the surface, the superficial, instead of seeking the core.

Friendship pattern The success of ‘Sons and Lovers’ introduced him to the upper echelons of English culture and society and inaugurated the rhythm he enacted with almost everyone he met: 1) ingratiating charm; 2) lecturing about eternal depths which they barely understood; 3) bitter rejection and immortalisation as satirised characters in whichever novel he was working on; 4) with the frequent threat of libel action (p.55).

‘Love Poems and Others’ published February 1913. In the summer Lawrence and Frieda returned from Germany to England principally because Frieda wanted to see her three children by Weekley.

In the autumn of 1913 he wrote a good deal of The Rainbow, provisionally titled ‘The Sisters’. In July 1914 Frieda’s divorce came through and the couple came to London to sign the papers, then get married. A few weeks later the Great War erupted and they were trapped in England for four long bitter years.

Chapter 6. Dementia

The Lawrences didn’t have money to pay the lawyers’ fees for the divorce so he was declared bankrupt. In December The Prussian Officer and Other Stories was published. In 1915 the odd story England, My England‘. Lawrence is always unsettling because he says the uncomfortable, inconvenient thing.

In 1915 Lawrence worked on ‘The Sisters’ and decided to divide it in two. He developed the notion of setting up a commune of like-minded artistic people in Cornwall. He tried to recruit Lady Ottoline Morrell for this. He wrote long letters raving about the collapse of British society to poor Bertrand Russell, with whom he was initially very taken before they had a huge falling out. Russell accused him (after his death) of being a proto-fascist.

Lawrence said he rewrote ‘The Rainbow’ about seven times. It was published on 30 September 1915. Just a week later, a negative review in the Daily News triggered outcry at the book’s supposed obscenity. The book was taken to court for breaching obscenity laws. Many witnesses for the prosecution and none for the defence. Lawrence wasn’t called. His publisher, Methuen, meekly apologised, withdrew the book, pulped the remaining copies and paid a fine of ten guineas. Britain’s writers did nothing. The Society of Authors did nothing. That maligned figure, Arnold Bennett, was the sole author to publicly protest (he had already sent the impoverished author a gift of £40).

The impact was to ruin Lawrence’s reputation, livelihood and career. It delayed publication of the second half of the novel, Women In Love, by five years, giving the misleading impression that it is a book of the 1920s, which it very much isn’t.

Burgess, of course, defends ‘The Rainbow’ but even he, in his summary, zeroes in and quotes some of the passages describing sex (in extremely vague and gaseous way). He himself doesn’t convey how much of the novel isn’t about sex at all, but about the tempestuous and primeval emotions of the characters, described in an amazingly impassioned prose.

In my review of The Rainbow I point out that with the arrival of Ursula to young womanhood the novel drastically changes tone, moving out of its kind of primitive pagan rural background and arriving in the modern world of schools and trams. Burgess makes the nice point that this is the ‘Wellsian mode’, the tone of Ann Veronica and Wells’s Edwardian social novels.

Chapter 7. Westward

Lawrence fantasised about setting up a colony of like-minded artists in America, maybe Florida, until the authorities made it clear he couldn’t leave the country. So he settled on Cornwall where he founded an artistic community. Two leading figures were the gifted editor John Middleton Murry and the brilliant New Zealand short story writer, Katherine Mansfield.

Lawrence was at one point so close to Murry that he suggested becoming blood brothers. The quartet shared a cottage for a while but inevitably fell out. Nearly 20 years later Murray was cruelly satirised as the slimy seducer Denis Burlap in Aldous Huxley’s novel ‘Point Counter Point’.

In Cornwall Lawrence revised part two of The Sisters, which came to be titled Women in Love. He finished in November 1916 but could find no publisher. July 1916, his travel book about his time in Italy, Twilight in Italy, was published.

During this period he was summoned to several Army medicals in Bodmin. He was always rejected but found the poking and prodding of his body deeply humiliating. His horrible wartime experiences are dramatised in the long, brilliantly vivid ‘Nightmare’ chapter in ‘Kangaroo’.

Lawrence spoke openly against the madness of the war. His wife was German. On 12 October 1917 local police raided his home and ransacked it for evidence they were spies, signalling to German U-boats with their washing or their late-night lights. No evidence was found but Lawrence was ordered to leave Cornwall.

Lawrence and Frieda went to stay with H.D. in London. He started writing Aaron’s Rod. In November 1917 the poetry collection ‘Look! We Have Come Through’ was published. In 1918 they went to live in Derbyshire. In October ‘New Poems’ came out. As soon as the war finished (November 1918) they set about leaving England but it took a year, until October 1919, before they could get passports.

During this period Lawrence did the reading for his book of criticism, Studies in Classic American Literature, which was eventually published by Thomas Seltzer in the United States in August 1923. It contains essays on Benjamin Franklin, Hector St. John de Crevecoeur, James Fenimore Cooper, Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Richard Henry Dana Jr., Herman Melville and Walt Whitman. It contributed to establishing Herman Melville as a seminal figure in American literature.

Some critics criticise it for being a rushed, superficial and highly impressionistic study; Burgess calls it ‘a series of jolts and lunges… meant to jolt Americans’ into reading their great authors. He claims it is one of the few books which created an entire new discipline, as it apparently helped jolt Americans into creating course of America literature at their universities.

Chapter 8. Nakedness

Burgess devotes an entire chapter to ‘Women in Love‘ which Burgess considers one of the ten great novels of the century. The central point of the novel is the way the characters are stripped down to their essentials, stripped to their primitive emotional cores which are depicted as bubbling over with extreme emotions, continually changing.

They are not human beings as we expect to meet them either in real life or in fiction. They are close to animals in the discontinuousness of their emotions, with unpredictable shifts of feeling which are always intense… they are capable of great emotional and even physical violence; they seem to have a skin missing. This is the peculiar quality of Women in Love which could as well be called Women in Hate. (p.89)

He outlines the main characters, identifies some of their real-life bases (Rupert Birkin is Lawrence, Hermione Roddice was partly based on Ottoline Morrell, Gudrun bears many of the traits of Katherine Mansfield).

Burgess singles out three big scenes: 1) how the violence of the big half-wild rabbit scene, in which it scratches and draws blood from both Gudrun and Gerald, anticipates the violence of their relationship and his final attempt to murder her.

2) When Ursula comes across Rupert throwing stones at the reflection of the moon in the millpond to try and abolish the power of the feminine moon over him.

3) The naked wrestling scene between Birkin and the mine owner Gerald Crich, which is deeper than homoerotic, far more primal, and its sad incompletion, the way Gerald can’t rise to Birkin’s wishes.

If we are startled by this scene we are merely experiencing the shock that it was Lawrence’s lifelong mission to impart – the shock of meeting [elemental] truths which logic and science… have tried to drive out. (p.96)

Burgess thinks it is a great novel because it is completely new: the novel, as a form, is mostly concerned with people in a social context, it is the quintessentially bourgeois art form, hedged round by manners and etiquette. From Samuel Richardson through Jane Austen to Henry James and E.M. Forster, the most earnest novels had always been about social convention and good manners. Lawrence tears the face off all this and shows his characters as madly irrational complexes of blood and nerves; primal, pagan wild animals: they have a social face (they have jobs and responsibilities) but their private lives are thronged with out-of-control primeval forces, ‘naked primitives’.

He makes the further point that the novel, up to that point, existed to convey a plot, a story. In their different ways Joyce, Lawrence, Hemingway and Ford Madox Ford showed that you could achieve new literary heights by jettisoning the straitjacket of a logical plot and instead showing human reality in a heightened form.

Chapter 9. A Snake and Sardinia

Burgess is dismissive of ‘Aaron’s Rod’, the novel Lawrence began in 1918, set aside, then completed in the spring of 1921. ‘It is a loose improvisation of which not much need be said’ (p.101).

More interesting is The Lost Girl, which he had also abandoned, and now took up and completed. It is a hokey tale in the popular style of Arnold Bennett with lots of authorial buttonholing – ‘Now fancy our two young heroes walking up the steps to the hotel…’ and, being absolutely unthreatening, won a literary prize and £100.

Lawrence and Frieda visited Florence, which he liked. He fancied it a place of manliness and virile statues, now gone to seed and packed with a large expatriate British community of ‘aesthetes’. Some of these are portrayed pretty blatantly in ‘Aaron’s Rod’ leading to accusations of bad manners and caddishness.

They moved on to Sardinia, then to Sicily where they found a cottage where they lived, off and on, for two years. The stay in Sardinia inspired Sea and Sardinia the most charming book Lawrence ever wrote and, in Burgess’s opinion, the best single introduction to his oeuvre.

Chapter 10. The Prophecy is in the Poetry

This chapter covers:

  1. Lawrence’s best book of poems, Birds, Beasts and Flowers
  2. his two works triggered by Freud, Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious and Fantasia of the Unconscious
  3. his final, posthumous work, Apocalypse

Chapter 11. Eastward

1921, year of The Captain’s Doll, in which the captain and his German paramour turn into Lawrence and Frieda, endlessly bickering, with their famously arduous trek up a glacier during which they bickered and argued every inch of the way there and back.

In October 1921 ‘Sea and Sardinia’ was serialised in The Dial magazine and was read by the American socialite Mrs Mabel Dodge Luhan. She was starting an artists’ community in Taos, New Mexico, with the aim of preserving the arts and crafts of the local Indians. She fancied having a writer-in-residence to record the way of life and ‘Sea and Sardinia’ convinced her that D.H. was the man. She wrote offering him free board and lodging and Lawrence bit.

He and Frieda decided to visit America not by crossing the Atlantic but by heading East. They took ship from Naples in February 1922, passed through the Suez Canal arriving at Ceylon in March. He discovered he really hated tropical jungles.

They sailed on to Australia, arriving at Perth at the start of May 1922 and stayed with friends for a fortnight. Staying in a town outside Perth they met Maria Louisa Skinner, a minor writer who was emboldened to show Lawrence her manuscript of a novel. For reasons that puzzle Lawrence scholars to this day, he was inspired to take it up as a collaboration and rewrite it the Lawrence way. It was eventually published as The Boy in the Bush with Skinner credited as co-author. Burgess thinks Lawrence collaborated because Australia made a big impact on him but he simply wasn’t there long enough to pick up the local lore. This manuscript was packed with local lore and just needed the psychological depth which he tried to add.

After just two weeks, they took ship to Sydney. He only stayed here two days (too expensive) before heading to a house 50 kilometres south.

Chapter 12. A Comical-Looking Bloke

Here Lawrence wrote Kangaroo which Burgess calls ‘the strangest but in some ways most satisfying novel of his entire career’ (p.135). It was an improvisation i.e. he set off without having a plot or characters but the book’s slapdash unevenness of tone 1) allows for all kinds of elements, including extended lyrical descriptions of the Australian landscape and 2) creates an overall sense of spontaneity and immediacy which is very appealing.

Kangaroo’s main characters are transparently based on Lawrence and Frieda, being Richard Lovat Somers, an English writer, and his wife Harriet, who has a foreign look. They arrive in Sydney, find a house to rent. The neighbours are a childless couple and the husband, Jack Callcott, explains he’s a member of a secretive authoritarian political movement, the Diggers, who are seeking to overthrow democracy. He introduces Lovat to their leader, a charismatic Jewish lawyer named Ben Cooley and codenamed ‘Kangaroo’.

Burgess points out that the novel is about types of power:

  • there is an entire chapter devoted to the dynamic of Frieda and Lawrence’s marriage, and Lawrence’s preposterous efforts to convince her that she should submit to him as lord and master, which she robustly ridicules
  • the political plot, sort of, about the Diggers and Cooley, although his so-called ideology is disappointingly wishy-washy, all about love of your fellow men, and Colley asks Somers (in several embarrassingly bad scenes) to love him

The plot, such as it is, leads up to a riot at a meeting of the Australian Socialist Party, which is attacked by a phalanx of pseudo-fascist Diggers, complete with gunshots, a bomb being thrown, and Kangaroo being mortally wounded. Burgess points out how all this is prefaced by an extended passage about the nature of the ‘mob’, reminiscent of Freud’s work ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’ which had just come out (in 1921), which Burgess says ‘shows an acuteness worthy of Adolf Hitler’ (p.142). I found it, like most of Lawrence’s attempts to tackle serious political or sociological issues, so wordy, so convoluted, and so embroiled with his personal mythology around the sexes and the deep gods, as to be almost unreadable.

Burgess briskly summarises that Lovat cannot give his allegiance to Kangaroo because the latter’s philosophy of brotherly love is shallow piffle beside Lovat’s deep feeling for the dark gods lying behind everything, deeper than humanity.

In a side note, Burgess picks out one of the final scenes of Lovat walking by moonlight by the seashore as being as magical and symbolic as Burkin throwing stones in the millpond to break the image of the moon in ‘Women in Love’. Lawrence’s novels overflow with wonderful, wonderful nature descriptions.

Chapter 12. Quetzalcoatl

After their Australian sojourn Lawrence and Frieda continued their odyssey east, arrived in San Francisco and took train to the artists’ community at the pueblo town of Taos, New Mexico, in the south-west USA. They had, as you recall, been invited by its owner Mabel Dodge Luhan, the American socialite, who had read Lawrence’s poetry and thought he’d be a perfect fit.

They were found a ranch fifteen or so miles from the town and endured a tough and demanding winter in its very primitive conditions, helped by a couple of Danish artists they sub-let some outhouses to.

By spring 1923 they needed a break and Lawrence took Frieda to Mexico. After some weeks in Mexico City, they headed south west and settled in a house on Lake Chapala. Over the next few years they made three trips in all. Out of them came a long novel, The Plumed Serpent (1926), an epic 462 pages in the Penguin edition, and the travel book, Mornings in Mexico (1927).

Burgess gives a workmanlike summary of ‘The Plumed Serpent’ but doesn’t do this vast, complex, brilliant and ridiculous book justice. He calls it ‘the least liked of Lawrence’s novels and one can see why’. It is humourless, and pontificates, at length, on a subject of little interest to most English readers (a couple of Mexicans leading the rise of the new religion of the old Aztec god Quetzalcoatl ).

One key point I nearly forgot by the time I’d staggered to the end of it, is that it, also, was very obviously written at two different times. The opening chapters are written in a surprisingly pared-back prose, lacking the usual Lawrentian guff, repetition and rhetoric. Almost as if he’d been reading Hemingway (who, however, hadn’t published much yet). Whereas the second half, describing the proponents of the new religion of the old Aztec god Quetzalcoatl is an orgy of half-baked mysticism, pseudo-psychology and tedious ‘hymns’.

Burgess suggests the difference in style is explained by facts on the ground. After 6 months Frieda was fed up of Mexico’s searing heat and (probably) Lawrence’s insistence on her submission to his religious fantasies. So she booked a berth on a ship from New York back to Britain (as the novel’s protagonist Kate Leslie, also does). On the New York quayside they had such an intense argument that they for a while thought the marriage was over.

He travelled west across America, stopping in the young Hollywood, before making it back to Mexico City. Here he completed the novel unrestrained by Frieda’s presence and influence. So you could argue that the first, very restrained and unLawrentian half, with its sensible characters doing believable things, was written under Frieda’s influence; and that the wildly self-indulgent second half, a fantasia of the new religion, accompanied by long poem-hymns he attributes to the new religionists, is Lawrence unleashed.

In real life Lawrence for a while felt he had lost Frieda and that, in her insistence on being free, independent and going her own way (home), she had ‘won’ their endless battle; whereas in the novel, Lawrence has the very strong character Kate Leslie in the end bow and submit to the male principle of her dark native husband. I.e. in the novel Lawrence faked that he’d won. In reality he swallowed his pride, and also took ship to Britain, ending in London where he realised just how much he disliked the English.

In his brisk summary of ‘The Plumed Serpent’ Burgess doesn’t mention the book’s countless breath-takingly beautiful prose descriptions of the Mexican landscape and mood. Equivalents to the wonderful evocation of the Australian landscape in ‘Kangaroo’. In both these novels, for my money, the ‘plot’ is dubious but the sense of place is astonishing.

Burgess thinks ‘there is no less convincing ending in the Lawrence oeuvre’ (p.157) but I found the ending of ‘The Plumed Serpent’ appropriately ambiguous and uncertain. It just stops in mid-conversation as the protagonist, Kate Leslie, rather hopelessly asks the Mexican general she’s married and who wants her to join their religious movement, Cipriano Viedma, to make her stay with him – despite the fact that we’ve seen her pining for Britain and booking a berth on a ship home. It ends on a note of irresolution and ambiguity which, I thought, accurately sums up the Lawrentian protagonist, endlessly conflicted and contradictory and changeable.

Chapter 13. A Spot of Red

In London Frieda and Lawrence became close to the artist (the Right Honourable) Dorothy Brett, and she accompanied them when they sailed back across the Atlantic in March 1924. They travelled from New York to Chicago and then back to Taos. Here Mable Luhan gave the Lawrences 170 acres of land and Lawrence, always surprisingly practical, threw himself (alongside native labourers) into rebuilding the adobe shacks, clearing the irrigation ditches, planting a flower garden.

In this period Lawrence wrote St Mawr. Like so many of Lawrence’s fictions it splits into two distinct parts (England and America), maybe three (London, Shropshire, Texas). The first, longer part portrays the posh, upper-middle-class world Lawrence was now moving in (the miner’s son had come a long, long way in a little over 10 years), set in London mews cottages and posh grand houses.

St Mawr is the name of a horse, a stallion, bought by Mrs Witt, a redoubtable American widow of independent means, for her son-in-law Henry Carrington, so he can join her and her daughter, Louise (Lou), as they go riding in Rotten Row (in Hyde Park) and mingle with London’s elite. Here the nervy, uncontrollable horse causes a scene and is banned as a danger to the public.

The scene then shifts to the West Midlands on the Welsh border, where a posse of posh people go for an extended break and where St Mawr is startled by a snake in the heather and rears backwards, kicking one of the men in the party in the face then rolling onto Henry and crushing his foot.

In part two, the leading figure, Mrs Witt, takes daughter, son-in-law and difficult horse by ship back to America, to the ranch where she grew up and whose profits pay for her pampered lifestyle travelling round Europe (and which explains why she and her daughter like horses).

But they don’t stop here. Lou looks for somewhere isolated where she can be herself and discovers a half-abandoned old ranch in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and buys it, and persuades her mother to join her and the family retainer, a native American named Phoenix, in rebuilding and furbishing it.

Burgess makes the obvious point that the entire narrative arc of the story follows Lawrence’s recent life, from posh nobs in London, via an excursion into the English countryside, then back to the States, to the dusty desert reminiscent of Taos, and then the final 20 pages are a pretty literal description of the ranch which Mabel Luhan, with great generosity, gave to Lawrence.

Burgess goes on to make the fairly obvious point which I’d completely missed that St Mawr is Lawrence: wounded, angry, liable to lash out. When the horse kicks a nice posh chap in the face up in the Shropshire hills it is Lawrence spitting in the face of the posh people he met in London and claimed to love his work and who he loathed. In fact St Mawr overflows with hatred of just about everyone, as I itemise in my review of it.

According to Burgess, right at the end of 1924 Lawrence travelled with Frieda and Brett back to Mexico. The British vice-consul found them a cottage in Oaxaca and it was here that he completed ‘The Plumed Serpent’, in all its madness.

He also completed the odd book of travel sketches combined with anthropological reportage, ‘Mornings in Mexico’. The book starts out as restrained and observant sketches of his hacienda, his servant, a long walk to a remote village and a description of a market day; but then the second half and the last three or four chapters become more anthropological, describing trips to observe traditional Indian music and dances, and taking it on himself to explain the Indians’ entire animistic worldview. Several of these chapters do not take place in Mexico at all, but in the United States, so the title of the book is pretty misleading.

Here in Oaxaca, in early 1925, Lawrence fell very ill. He went down with malaria but also food poisoning causing diarrhoea. To compound his misery, the region was hit by an earthquake. He was moved to the one decent hotel in Oaxaca. He was left weak and ill. All the old fight went out of him. For years he had written fantasies of subjecting Frieda to his imperious male will. Now he could barely walk and realised how utterly dependent on her he had become.

A doctor in Mexico City diagnosed tuberculosis and told Frieda that Lawrence only had a year or two left to live. When they tried to return to Taos the US immigration officials prevented him, until overridden by a kindly official in the embassy in Mexico City. But only with a 6-month visa.

In the event Lawrence recovered back on the ranch and was fit enough to get involved in all manner of outdoor chores and work. Burgess dwells on his finding a porcupine with cactus needles in its nose and carefully extracting them, which led to one of his many essays about man’s place in nature.

In September 1925 his US visa expired, he travelled to Washington with Frieda, then they caught a liner back across the Atlantic. He kidded himself he’d come back but, of course, he never did. His ranch is now a museum dedicated to him, the D.H. Lawrence ranch.

Lawrence disapproved of the Atlantic – ‘a dismal kind of ocean; it always affects me as the grave of Atlantis’ – although not as much as he disapproved of England.

Chapter 14. Life in Death

Lawrence passed through England en route for the continent. Burgess thinks Italy was Lawrence’s true home and the Mediterranean his proper sea. By the autumn of 1925 they had settled at a place called Spotorno, on the coast just over the border from France. Here he turned 40.

Burgess summarises Lawrence’s life to date: he had travelled right around the world looking for a race unspoiled by western materialism but hadn’t found it. He had hated the tropics (Ceylon), ignored the native people of Australia, seen the corruption and lassitude of the Mexicans, hated America’s Fordist culture, loathed England’s imperial snobbery.

Etruscan Places Now, back in Italy, he persuaded himself he’d found it in the long-extinct and legendary race of the Etruscans. Hence his book Etruscan Places. The Etruscans created a civilisation in west and north-west Italy which reached its height around 500 BC. To Lawrence’s mind they were an example of a primitive people in touch with their sensual pagan selves who were crushed out of existence by the cerebral, law-obsessed, imperialistic Romans.

This is obviously a grotesque distortion of the historical facts since 1) if crushed they were, it was by the Roman Republic, centuries before there was a Roman Empire (see Roman–Etruscan Wars), 2) the Romans were indeed an obsessively militaristic culture but at the same time they also practiced a florid variety of blood-thirsty cults, traditions and ceremonies which you’d have thought Lawrence would have had sympathy for.

But really what Lawrence does is reshape the Etruscans into his own image, as embattled outsiders fighting several types of ‘establishment’. This is why the book opens with an attack on all historians of the ancient world who Lawrence accuses of being in thrall to the glamour of Greece and Rome and downplaying all other cultures.

And, as Burgess points out, when Lawrence was anathematising an empire which crushed scores of native peoples in the name of ‘freedom’ he was also obviously referring to the British Empire, whose subjugation of native peoples around the world Lawrence deplored.

The Man Who Died Burgess devotes 4 pages to a summary of this vivid short story depicting Jesus waking from the dead in his tomb. In the story Jesus stumbles out and takes shelter with a peasant before the several encounters with disciples described in the New Testament.

These encounters are given according to the Biblical sources but we see that the resurrected man who lived them is radically different from the Jesus of the Bible account. For he has thrown off his mission to convert the world to love. He now sees all that as a form of narcissism. Now he will live for the instinctive life within him i.e. become Lawrentian man.

And so in the second half of the story (and, as Burgess points out, so many of Lawrence’s stories and novels fall into two distinct halves) he travels south along the coast. Here he comes to a small domestic temple to the goddess Isis and falls under the spell of its priestess, culminating in their having sex at the pagan altar.

Burgess doesn’t quite bring out how brilliantly vivid and imaginative this story is, with scores of moments of insight, starting with the searing description of what it feels like to rise from the dead – but he correctly points out the other striking thing about it which is – why wasn’t it banned? Why wasn’t Lawrence prosecuted for blasphemy? What kind of story could possibly be more blasphemous? Instead, as we know, the Establishment reserved its fury for his next novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover. It’s always sex with the philistine, guttersnipe British, who are too thick to notice transgressive ideas.

Chapter 15. A Woman’s Love

‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ is a book about fidelity. Lady Constance Chatterley and the gamekeeper Oliver Mellors must be true to each other and what they awaken in each other – a true awakening of their bodies’ sensual and sexual identities – despite the full panoply of opposition society can throw at them: gossip and rumour, social disapproval, censure from her father and sister, the howling anger of his shrewish wife, the cold anger of her husband, and the minefields of the law.

He began it at Scandicci in Italy in October 1926 and over the next two years wrote three versions. Many critics think the shorter first version is best, but it was the longest version which he chose to have privately printed in 1928.

Burgess correctly points out that for a book which supposedly champions free and ecstatic sex, ‘Chatterley’ is embarrassingly limited and ignorant. Lawrence is embarrassingly fixated on the penis, the phallus, on Mellors’s erect penis, and the sex is entirely orientated around his quick phallic penetration of Lady C. There is little or no foreplay and no attention whatsoever is given to Connie’s pleasure or orgasm. She is condemned to find all her pleasure in response to his quick thrusting cock.

As Burgess says, not just any modern westerner with an interest in the subject, but any literate member of the world’s other cultures, readers of Japanese, Chinese or India erotica, would know vastly more than Lawrence describes. Lawrence’s supposed sex set-pieces make us look like an embarrassment on the world stage. ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ only counts as a ‘sexy’ book when set against the narrow, blinkered, strangled, philistine background of early 20th century Anglo-Saxon culture. Compared with the erotic writings of virtually any other tradition, it is pitifully inadequate.

Burgess is critical of it. He thinks Connie isn’t as interesting a female figure as Ursula, Gudrun (who is?) or Kate Leslie, while her desertion of a crippled husband subverts her moral standing. Mellors is less attractive than the gamekeeper in The White Peacock. In my reading, I didn’t like Mellors. He is unnecessarily chippy and shirty with Clifford and, especially with the painter Duncan Forbes who offers to help them out and Mellors rudely dismisses. By the end I didn’t like either of the lovers. My sympathy went out to Mrs Bolton, a battling single mum from the village who comes to be Clifford’s housekeeper and manages to stay sympathetic to all three parties in the love triangle.

Both Lawrence’s US and British publishers refused to publish it. Lawrence had a full version privately printed in Italy and distributed 2,000 copies. Wikipedia describes the fate of various expurgated and pirated editions. Burgess summarises Lawrence’s own account of printing a private edition, as given in ‘A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’.

The famous 1960 trial came about because Penguin decided to use the text as a test of the recent Obscene Publications Act 1959.

When the jury found against the prosecution i.e. that paperback publication could go ahead, Burgess and other critics like him were relieved because now they were free to discuss the book on its merits and admit the fact that it’s a flawed novel.

Official persecution continued. When he sent the manuscript of his poetry collection ‘Pansies’ to his London publisher, it was intercepted, opened, and alleged ‘obscenities’ cut.

In 1919 the Warren Gallery held an exhibition of Lawrence’s paintings. A surprising 12,000 people paid to see them. They yellow press got wind of the nudity and egged on the police to raid the gallery and confiscate 14 of the pictures. The authorities proposed to destroy the paintings and the book of the exhibition though the gallery owners rounded up some contemporary artists to defend him.

Burgess doesn’t think much of the paintings, says the paintings ascribed to Mark Rampion, the character based on Lawrence in Huxley’s novel Point Counter Point, are better.

Chapter 17. Death in Vence

Burgess dwells on the friendship between Aldous Huxley and Lawrence and he quotes a nice section from an interview given late in life where Huxley says that Lawrence was, above all, happy. Burgess thinks Huxley absorbed enough of the scientific worldview ‘to bring a new intellectual rigour to the novel’. Having just read a load of Huxley’s novels I think this is rubbish. There’s nothing intellectually rigorous about them, my abiding impression is of the endless vapouring gaseous trip about Love and Art gassed by preposterous pseudo-intellectual rentiers. And his later writings about drugs and religion dress up in scientific terminology but are basically spiritualist nonsense.

What comes over from Lawrence’s last months spent dying from tuberculosis was his own foolish denialism, and the complete wretched inadequacy of contemporary medicine. Only antibiotics can treat TB and they hadn’t been discovered/invented yet.

Testimony from various sources suggest that Frieda was worse than useless at looking after Lawrence. She couldn’t cook, turned the kitchen of the villa where he spent his last weeks into a slum. Everything had to be cleaned and tidied by Aldous and especially Maria Huxley who worshipped Lawrence like a god.

We have it on the testimony of Aldous Huxley that, a day or two before he died, Lawrence said of his wife: ‘Frieda, you have killed me.’ The best source for his final days is from the English poet Robert Nichol. He wrote:

Aldous would not repeat such a terrible saying unless he felt it to be true. And he said, ‘I like Frieda in many ways but she is incurably and incredibly stupid – the most maddening woman I think I ever came across. Nevertheless she was the only sort of woman with whom D.H.L. could live. (quoted p.196)

Burgess makes the point that if Lawrence had married little Maria Huxley, she would have been a faithful, efficient, kind wife, creating order and tidiness everywhere, as she did for Huxley – but Lawrence needed chaos. He thrived on the battle of wills, the clash between his domesticity and Frieda’s slovenliness, between his working class background and her aristocratic hauteur, between his English puritanism and her continental sensuality, on her willingness to fight back.

Mind you, these comments shed light on Frieda’s own memoirs, one of the most salient parts of which, for me, was the way she doesn’t actually comment on any of the numerous books he wrote during their 18-year marriage. I thought it was tact. Maybe she was just too stupid, and didn’t try.

He died peacefully in his sleep and was buried at Vence. A year later he was exhumed and shipped over to Taos where Fried built a shrine for him at the ranch.

Burgess calls him ‘the most English of our writers’, is that true? More English than Chaucer, Shakespeare or Dickens? He’s nearer the mark when he says:

The British expect comfort from their writers, and Lawrence offers very little. (p.197)

The tenor of the text and endings of most of his stories offer very little comfort, from the bleak endings of ‘Women in Love’ and ‘The Fox’, to the uncertain ending of ‘The Plumed Serpent’ or the hanging ending of ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ – you go through these great emotional rollercoaster rides reading his stories but then, at the end… what?

Chapter 18. On The Side of Life

Burgess has a half-hearted go at speculating what might have happened if Lawrence had lived longer. Would he have come over to Huxley’s way of seeing i.e. combining all the blood and dark gods stuff with a more rational point of view? Unlikely.

Like most critics, Burgess thinks Lawrence had, in fact, done his best work. Some people think Sons and Lovers is his masterpiece; Burgess thinks it’s Women In Love. But after that it was all slowly downhill, there is a steady diminution in force, he is never so wildly radical again.

Then Burgess adds his own interpretation which is that Lawrence was a professional writer. He could sit down anywhere and bang out letters, stories, essays, poems or continue with a novel. More than most we have to take his oeuvre, across its many genres, as one thing.

Was he a prophet? Burgess acknowledges Lawrence’s writings about power, his dislike of Italian fascism, but his own flirting with power and submission in ‘Kangaroo’ and ‘The Plumed Serpent’. But he doesn’t mention what I think is stronger, which is the sense of doom which dogs Mellors in ‘Lady Chatterley’. Mellor’s conviction that a great crash was coming and the future was going to be very dark proved to be right.

Lawrence would have been dismayed to learn his name is associated in the common culture with sex, with the scandal surrounding Lady Chatterley, with the soft porn movie versions, as a prophet of soft-porn sensuality. There’s nothing soft porn about Lawrence: his writings are hard and rebarbative, they are not relaxing or lulling.

This is Burgess at his weakest. He wanders off into a lengthy consideration of Henry James and his criticism of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky as he tries to define what ‘life’ means in the context of a novel. But he’s over-thinking it. Think back to reading ‘The Rainbow’: it is the most fantastic depiction of the complexity of human existence, of being a person plonked down amid families, in settlements and cultures, in the natural and man-made worlds, and the endless fizzing popping confusing experience of being alive to all these endless inputs and experiences. Comparisons with Henry James or James Joyce or any other writers are beside the point. Lawrence was the poet laureate of the teeming richness of Life and delves so deep, drilling beneath all conventional notions of identity, taking his characters to primeval, archetypal depths. And his novels inhabit the animals they describe and bring to life the myriads of flowers quite as fully as his human characters, maybe more so.

It seems overblown when Lawrence writes about the ‘cosmos’ but surely Lawrence, more than any other writer, had the right to do so, because he deliberately moved out of all his comfort zones, left England behind, and wrote dazzling evocations of the landscapes, flora and fauna of the Mediterranean, Australia, and the American and Mexican desert. Who cares what Henry James wrote about ‘form’ or why James Joyce deployed such complex symbolical structures – you only have to read any of Lawrence’s descriptions of the Australian outback, of the silver fish in the cold Pacific, of the thunderhead clouds massing over the distant mountains in Mexico, and you realise you are in the presence of a great, great writer, who owned and described more of the world than most of his contemporaries even saw.

Burgessian vocabulary

  • allumeuse = French for ‘tease’
  • hypergamy = the action of marrying or forming a sexual relationship with a person of a superior sociological or educational background (as working class men do with upper class women, as Lawrence men do in a number of his stories: Virgin and Gypsy, Lady Chatterley)
  • prevernal = relating to the early stages of spring, or the end of winter

Credit

Flame Into Being: The Life and Work of D.H. Lawrence by Anthony Burgess was published by William Heinemann in 1985. Page references are to the 1986 Abacus paperback version.

Related reviews

Not I, But The Wind… by Frieda Lawrence (1935)

We are so much more than we understand. Understanding is such a little part of us, there is so much in us of unexplored territory that understanding can never grasp.

I believe the chief tie between Lawrence and me was always the wonder of living . . . every little or big thing that happened carried its glamour with it. (p.60)

D.H. Lawrence died of tuberculosis in Vence in the south of France on 2 March 1930. His wife and soul-mate Frieda Lawrence tells us that she initially meant to pay her husband the tribute of complete silence about their 18 turbulent years together. But someone obviously prevailed on her to write a memoir and this book was published in 1935.

I owe it to him and to myself to write the truth as well as I can.

Ceaseless travelling

It’s an odd, uneven, patchwork but compelling work. On the factual front, it is arranged in simple chronological order with a chapter apiece about each of the main eras of their marriage. In particular you learn a lot about the extraordinary number of places they lived in. They were tramps, hobos, perpetual itinerants. At two or three places they seem to have lived for a couple of years, maximum, but some of the chapters describe half a dozen places they moved between, and they are always moving, travelling. After the war to Florence, then Capri, then several different residences in Sicily, before they took up Mabel Luhan’s invitation to join her in Taos, New Mexico, which triggered their round the world journey by ship across the Mediterranean, to Ceylon, to Australia, where they stay at a place on the west coast, before a few days in Sydney, then moving to a cottage 50 k south. Even when they arrived in Toas they moved locations till Mabel kindly gifted them a ranch in the foothills of the Rockies. But after a hard winter Lawrence took Frieda south to Mexico where, again, they never settled, staying in Mexico City, then to a place on Lake Chapara, then somewhere in Oaxaca.

Here it gets complicated because Frieda wanted to go back to Europe to see her mother, so they travelled together to New York, where she caught a ship for Europe (after a flaring argument on the quayside). After heading west to Chicago, then back to Taos, we suddenly find that Lawrence has taken ship for England, where he stays a bit in London, before heading south to France to a quiet place on the Italian border named Spotalino. They take a breather here, but only a few pages later are heading for Switzerland, then jaunts back to Germany to see her family.

What I found mind-boggling about all this is that they were poor, really poor, dirt poor, and yet could afford to up sticks and travel round the world and stay at a bewildering number of places, many if not most of which were in lovely settings. The world they moved through seems in this account to have been simpler and much, much, much cheaper than the world I grew up in fifty years later, and vastly more free and easy than the super-expensive Euro world we live in today.

Domesticity

What comes over is how, at every place they settled in, Lawrence and Frieda set about washing and cleaning and scrubbing, throwing out the awful old furniture and buying old native furniture or even making their own, painting the walls and crockery, turning every place they stayed into a home, no matter how transiently. Whether laying the pipes from a spring or carving a rocking chair, or making sure there were vases of flowers everywhere, the book is flavoured with a lovely sense of beautifying domesticity.

Arguments

Not that it was all sweetness and light. For feminist readers, or anyone looking for ammunition to attack Lawrence, Frieda gives plenty of examples of his temper tantrums, his bullying and abuse: he ridiculed her painting, mocked her in letters to her own mother, threw a glass of wine in her face at a dinner with her own family. He could be a very difficult man to live with. It’s not only ridiculous that such a weedy, frail specimen wrote so cockily about the need for men to be men, about the need for male culture and male struggle and so on – at some points it becomes creepy when he demands her submission to him.

Living intensely

But then, there are two things which redeem the situation. For all his demanding nature, Lawrence let Frieda live as no-one before or since had done. So when they kissed and made up, on the sunny days, she experienced a fullness of life, a richness in moment-to-moment living unlike anything else, wonderful incandescent.

Everything he met had the newness of a creation just that moment come into being. (p.31)

Wherever Lawrence was, the surroundings came alive so intensely. (p.99)

Travelling with him was living new experiences vividly every minute. (p.101)

Living with a genius

The other thing she makes clear is that Lawrence was a genius and genius is difficult.

As for pretending to understand Lawrence or to explain him, I am neither so impertinent nor such a fool. We are so much more than we understand. Understanding is such a little part of us, there is so much in us of unexplored territory that understanding can never grasp. As Lawrence and I were adventurers by nature, we explored.

I only know that I felt the wonder of him always. Sometimes it overwhelmed me, it knocked out all my consciousness as if a flame had burnt me up. I remained in awe and wonder.

Sometimes I hated him and held him off as if he were the devil himself. At other times I took him as you take the weather. Here’s a spring day, glorious sunshine, what a joy!…

I learned that a genius contains the whole gamut of human emotions, from highest to lowest. I learned that a man must be himself, bad or good at any price.

Patchwork

I mentioned it being a bit of a patchwork. This is because it contains quite a few of Lawrence’s letters. A standard biography would consist mostly of the author’s text with selected quotations from the subject’s letters to demonstrate a point. But here Frieda gives you 6, 7, 8 pages describing the events of a particular period (their time in Cornwall during the Great War, say, or their stay in Australia) and then a block of 7, 8, 9, 10 letters from Lawrence in their entirety. There are so many letters, quoted in full, that it’s almost like reading two books, Frieda’s version of events, then Lawrence’s dashed-off letters, side by side.

And not just letters but poems, the text includes half a dozen or so poems which she associates with particular places and times. Towards the end she just includes an essay of Lawrence’s about nightingales. So it’s a sort of mosaic. Or maybe a scrapbook of memories.

Mother

If Frieda was by his side most of their lives who were these letters to? Her mother. Lawrence developed a close relationship with Frieda’s mother and wrote her long, considerate, informative and funny letters describing their latest adventures in Australia or New Mexico or Mexico. He regularly addresses her, jocularly, as die Schwiegermutter (German for mother-in-law). But there are also letters to Frieda’s older sister, Else. Most if not all of these he wrote in German and Frieda has translated.

At moments it almost feels like an edition of Lawrence’s letters with a little light commentary from Frieda. For example, the chapter called ‘Going away together’ has just 2 pages of Frieda and 21 pages of Lawrence’s letters and the ‘Back to Europe’ chapter includes an epic 70 pages of letters. But then again, other chapters are entirely Frieda with no letters at all. So it varies.

Lack of specificity about Lawrence’s writings

About Lawrence’s actual writing, Frieda is often quite vague. She mentions particular works which were written at particular places but rarely goes into any detail, about characters, plot or meaning. Here’s a typical example:

We spent some weeks at Zell-am-See with Nusch, her husband and children at her villa. We bathed and boated and Lawrence wrote his ‘Captain’s Doll’ there. (p.84)

Or:

He wrote ‘Birds, Beasts and Flowers’ and ‘Sea and Sardinia’ at Fontana Vecchia, and also ‘The Lost Girl’. ‘Sea and Sardinia’ he wrote straightaway when we came back from Sardinia in about six weeks. And I don’t think he altered a word of it. (p.100)

Anybody looking for insight into particular works will be disappointed. I was particularly disappointed that there was no detail about the three big legal controversies: the banning of ‘Women in Love’, the banning of ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, and the shutting down of the exhibition of his paintings in London.

She does the general psychological impact rather than the details. So in several places she comments on Lawrence’s ability to utterly focus.

Then he would sit in a corner, so quietly and absorbedly, to write. The words seemed to pour out of his hand onto the paper, unconsciously, naturally and without effort, as flowers bloom and birds fly past. His was a strange concentration, he seemed transferred into another world, the world of creation. (p.38)

And, later:

Often before he conceived a new idea he was irritable and disagreeable, but when it had come, the new vision, he could go ahead, and was eager and absorbed. (p.173)

Chapters

  1. Foreword
  2. We Meet
  3. Going Away Together
  4. Isartal
  5. Walking to Italy
  6. 1913 to 1914
  7. The War
  8. Lawrence and My Mother
  9. After the War
  10. America
  11. Going Back to Europe
  12. Nearing the End
  13. Conclusion

1. Foreword

Frieda establishes the setting where she is writing the book. She is back on the ranch, the Kiowa Ranch, which Mabel Luhan gave to them, and where she, Lawrence and, later, the artist Brett, lived together, in 1924 and 1925. Many of the chapters start with her describing the peaceful rural scenery around her, before she starts describing the events of each chapter.

It was still cold last night, though it is the middle of May.

Here the ranch, with the Sangre de Cristo mountain range behind it to the northeast, slopes to the desert. The big pine trees stand like dark sentinels in the night at the edge of the twenty acre alfalfa field. Beyond them floats the desert. You can see far. A few lights twinkle at Ranches de Taos. A shepherd’s fire glows. All is covered by an enormous sky full of stars, stars that hang in the pine trees, in Lawrence’s big tree with his phœnix on it that the Brett painted, stars that lean on the edge of the mountains, stars twinkling out of the Milky Way. It is so still. Only stars, nothing but stars.

This morning early there was still ice on the edge of the irrigation ditch from the Gallina Canyon. There is such a rush of water. The ice is melting high up in the mountains and the water sings through one’s blood.

But now, about midday, it is warm. The desert below circles in rings of shadow and sunshine. The alfalfa field is green, during these last days of sunshine it has turned green.

I am in the little cabin that Lawrence built with the Indians. I sit in the chair that he made with the ‘petit point’ canvas that we bought in the Rue de la Paix in Paris and that I embroidered. It took me a long time, and when I got bored, he did a bit.

It is a nice chair, although a bit rough, carved as it was with only a penknife.

So here I sit and try to write.

2. We Meet

Three and a half pages. Frieda was 33 and had everything a woman was meant to hope for, a respectable marriage to a man successful in his field (the notable philologist Ernest Weekley), a nice home and three lovely children. But a friend had recently been teaching her the new theories of Sigmund Freud which had begun to make her think about the search for an authentic self. So the door was already ajar when Lawrence came to lunch with her husband. They had some time alone together chatting before the meal and found themselves on the same wavelength. Rather vaguely, Frieda describes three or four further meetings, often with the children. The following appears to be the crunch moment:

One day we met at a station in Derbyshire. My two small girls were with us. We went for a long walk through the early-spring woods and fields. The children were running here and there as young creatures will. We came to a small brook, a little stone bridge crossed it. Lawrence made the children some paper boats and put matches in them and let them float downstream under the bridge. Then he put daisies in the brook, and they floated down with their upturned faces. Crouched by the brook, playing there with the children, Lawrence forgot about me completely. Suddenly I knew I loved him. He had touched a new tenderness in me.

3. Going Away Together

Two pages of Frieda’s narrative, 21 pages of his letters to her. They meet at Charing Cross station, take ship across the Channel, travel to Metz. Lawrence met Frieda’s father just the once, and they sat in glowering silence, the hostile aristocrat facing the miner’s son.

4. Isartal

Isartal is a name given to the valley of the River Isar, near Munich, in Bavaria, south Germany. Here, after delays, they met up and started their life together, living cheaply in a little flat lent them by a friend.

This morning I found the wild red columbines that I had first found with him. There they were at my feet, in the hollow where the workmen have been cutting the logs for the new house. A delicate blaze of startling red and yellow, in front of me, the columbines, like gay small flags. A rabbit stood still behind an oak shrub and watched me. A humming-bird hummed at me in consternation, as startled at me as I was at him. These things are Lawrence to me…

When Lawrence first found a gentian, a big single blue one, I remember feeling as if he had a strange communion with it, as if the gentian yielded up its blueness, its very essence, to him. Everything he met had the newness of a creation just that moment come into being.

Lawrence talked about his embattled boyhood, whereas Frieda had a lovely childhood in the garrison town of Metz.

Lawrence’s thriftiness

One day I bathed in the Isar and a heel came off one of my shoes on the rough shore; so I took both shoes off and threw them into the Isar. Lawrence looked at me in amazement. ‘He’s shocked, as I must walk home barefoot, but it’s a lonely road, it doesn’t matter,’ I thought. But it wasn’t that; he was shocked at my wastefulness. He lectured me: ‘A pair of shoes takes a long time to make and you should respect the labour somebody’s put into those shoes.’ To which I answered: ‘Things are there for me and not I for them, so when they are a nuisance I throw them away.’

Frieda’s children

She is mortally wounded about having to abandon her children. Her husband vowed she’d never see them again. Her mourning irritated Lawrence. Selfishly, he wanted her to devote herself to him alone, and have no rivals for her love.

Lawrence’s changeableness

He’d have quick changes of mood and thought. This puzzled me. ‘But Lawrence, last week you said exactly the opposite of what you are saying now.’ ‘And why shouldn’t I? Last week I felt like that, now like this. Why shouldn’t I?’

5. Walking to Italy

In August 1913 they set off to walk from south Germany across the Alps into Italy. It was Lawrence’s birthday en route. It took about 6 weeks. Sometimes they slept in haylofts. They were tramps.

I remember Lawrence saying to me: ‘You always identify yourself with life, why do you?’ I answered: ‘Because I feel like it.’

They danced and sang with the peasants they met en route.

6. 1913 to 1914

Back in London their best friends are John Middleton Murry and Katherine Mansfield, a perfect friend. When they finally got married at a registry office, JMM and KM were the witnesses. Lawrence quickly bought a new wedding ring and Frieda gave her old one to Katherine, and it was buried with her when she died (wretchedly young, in 1923) (p.66). Cynthia and Herbert Asquith became friends and Cynthia stuck with them during the bad times of the war and legal prosecution.

They went back to Italy and found a cottage at Lerici and got to know the housekeeper and her family. Here he wrote The Rainbow, originally titled ‘The Sisters’. He was upset when his literary mentor, novelist, literary critic, editor and reviewer of the day, David Garnett, didn’t like it (p.61).

Rejection

When I think that nobody wanted Lawrence’s amazing genius, how he was jeered at, suppressed, turned into nothing, patronized at best, the stupidity of our civilization comes home to me. How necessary he was! How badly needed! Now that he is dead and his great love for his fellowmen is no longer there in the flesh, people sentimentalize over him. (p.63)

Frieda’s lack of social stuffiness

With the dangerous quality of his work he accepted his more than doubtful financial position and I think one of my merits in his eyes was my never being eager to be rich or to play a role in the social world. It was hardly merit on my part, I enjoyed being poor and I didn’t want to play a role in the world.

7. The War

War breaks out. They are in London. They meet Eddie Marsh and Rupert Brooke who already looks doomed. One night they see a zeppelin over Hampstead Heath. They take a cottage in Berkshire. They have a Christmas 1914 meal with guests Gordon Campbell, Koteliansky, the Murrys, the artist Mark Gertler and Gilbert and Mary Cannan.

He goes to meet Bertrand Russell and is introduced to Lady Ottoline Morrell and her clique at Garsington Manor. The Rainbow is published then prosecuted in an obscenity trial at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 13 November 1915. As a result 1,011 copies were seized and burnt. After this ban, it became unavailable in Britain for 11 years. Lawrence was very bitter indeed and took it out on Frieda and vowed not to write another book.

‘The Rainbow’ appeared and was suppressed. When it happened I felt as though a murder had been done, murder of a new, free utterance on the face of the earth. I thought the book would be hailed as a joyous relief from the ordinary dull stuff, as a way out into new and unknown regions. With his whole struggling soul Lawrence had written it. Then to have it condemned, nobody standing for it—the bitterness of it! He was sex-mad, they said. Little even now do people realize what men like Lawrence do for the body of life, what he did to rescue the fallen angel of sex. Sex had fallen in the gutter, it had to be pulled out. What agony it was to know the flame in him and see it quenched by his fellowmen! ‘I’ll never write another word I mean,’ he said in his bitterness; ‘they aren’t fit for it,’ and for a time the flame in him was quenched. (p.71)

They move to a cottage in Cornwall, along with the Murrys who come to live nearby. Charming details of domestic life. They plan a commune of like-minded artists. But they are spied on and suspected. Their house is repeatedly searched. These sorry events are chronicled in great detail in the famous Nightmare chapter of ‘Kangaroo’. Eventually the authorities gave them three days to pack their bags, and expelled them from Cornwall.

When we were turned out of Cornwall something changed in Lawrence for ever. (p.78)

They go to London to stay with the poet H.D. and Richard Aldington, who would edit so many of Lawrence’s writings and provide introductions to the Penguin editions of his works. Then they go to stay at a cottage in Berkshire which partly heals Lawrence, but even here they are surveilled and followed. Then the Armistice (11 November 1918).

8. Lawrence and My Mother

A short chapter detailing the close relationship between Lawrence and Frieda’s mother who was the much-loved matriarch of the Richthofen household, wonderful mother to her and her two sisters. How much Lawrence enjoyed the company of the three women.

9. After the War

Lawrence doesn’t want to visit Germany immediately after the war so he goes direct to Florence. Frieda meets him there. She arrives at 4am and he insists on taking her on a carriage ride tour of the city in the mist: ‘and ever since Florence is the most beautiful town to me, the lilytown, delicate and flowery’.

Frieda makes passing reference to what I think she implies is the community of gay Brits in Florence but Frieda wasn’t impressed by their ‘wickedness’.

The wickedness there seemed like old maids’ secret rejoicing in wickedness. Corruption is not interesting to me, nor does it frighten me: I find it dull.

They move on to Capri but Frieda didn’t like it.

From Florence we went to Capri. I didn’t like Capri; it was so small an island, it seemed hardly capable to contain all the gossip that flourished there. So Lawrence went to Sicily and took Fontana Vecchia for us, outside Taormina. Living in Sicily after the war years was like coming to life again.

Frieda gives half a dozen letters Lawrence wrote to her mother. One of them is interesting from a literary point of view:

I am not working at the present time. I wrote three long stories since we are here—that will make quite a nice book. I also collected my short stories ready for a book. So, for the moment I am free, I don’t want to begin anything else…

This is interesting because it confirms the sense you have, reading his works chronologically, that after ‘Women in Love’ was published, and the three novellas and the short stories arranged – there was a hiatus. There is a distinct pause and change of pace in Lawrence’s output. And when he resume writing novels they feel considerably different from the pre-war ones, with all three of ‘Aaron’s Rod’, ‘Kangaroo’ and ‘The Plumed Serpent’ feeling below par, what Richard Aldington called improvisations.

Frieda briefly describes their travels and experiences in Sicily. She doesn’t explain any of the reasoning for why they decided to take up Mabel Luhan’s invitation to go and stay in her artists’ colony in Toas, New Mexico, and why Lawrence decided to travel there Eastwards, across the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal, onto Ceylon and then stopping at Australia. Frieda gives us five of Lawrence’s letters to her mother and daughter, in which he gives wonderfully spooky descriptions of Australia’s uncanniness which haunt his novel ‘Kangaroo’.

Australia is a weird, big country. It feels so empty and untrodden. The minute the night begins to go down, even the towns, even Sydney, which is huge, begins to feel unreal, as if it were only a daytime imagination, and in the night it did not exist. That is a queer sensation: as if life here really had never entered in: as if it were just sprinkled over, and the land lay untouched. (p.115)

10. America

16 pages of text, 22 of letters.

A brisk account of settling at Taos and some of the friends they made. The chief point is the battle with Mabel Dodge for Lawrence’s soul. After just a few pages she’s whisked us off to Mexico.

Lawrence went to Guadalajara and found a house with a patio on the Lake of Chapala. There Lawrence began to write his ‘Plumed Serpent’. He sat by the lake under a pepper tree writing it. (p.122)

After six months or so in Mexico, they went back to the States, going to New York where she caught a ship back to Europe, while Lawrence headed west then south, back to Taos. Then he was persuaded to go back to England. As so often, it descends into a bewildering list of destinations: London, then to Paris, to Strassburg and Baden-Baden, back by ship to America, New York then back to Taos.

Here they had an idyllic summer. Middleton Murry and Katherine Mansfield came to stay nearby. They laid pipes from the freshwater spring. they had a cow and chickens. In the autumn they went back to Mexico City. Brief anecdote about a lunch with Somerset Maugham who Frieda thought was an acid, unhappy man. Then they rented a house in Oaxaca where Lawrence quickly write ‘Mornings in Mexico’ and revised ‘The Plumed Serpent’. Interestingly, Lawrence later told Frieda he wished he’d ended the novel differently. Anthony Burgess doesn’t like its hanging, indeterminate ending, either. But I think it’s entirely appropriate to Lawrence characters’ endless vacillations.

Here he becomes ill and they go back to Mexico City where a specialist tells them Lawrence has tuberculosis and only a few years to live (p.133).

They had returned to New Mexico with Brett, the artist, and Frieda devotes a couple of pages to describing how unhappy she was at Brett’s slavish devotion to Lawrence so that it turned into a competition for his approval. Throw in Mabel Luhan, the American patron, and you had three women vying for Lawrence’s affections.

11. Going Back to Europe

Leaping over times and details, Frieda says Lawrence wanted to return to Europe and lo and behold they take a house in Spotorno which had been recommended to them by the published Martin Secker. Her grown-up daughter Barbara comes to stay and there is an almighty argument between the three of them with Lawrence throwing a glass of wine in Frieda’s face and Barbara telling Lawrence he doesn’t deserve Frieda. Compounded when Lawrence’s sister, Ada, turns up, and forms an anti-German alliance with her so that Lawrence for a while locks his bedroom door to Frieda.

That spring, they move again, this time to a villa outside Florence – the Villa Mirenda – and, for the first time, she thinks she gets the Italian feel for life. It’s here that he starts writing ‘Lady Chatterley’. This is everything she has to say about it.

Then he wrote ‘Lady Chatterley’. After breakfast – we had it at seven or so – he would take his book and pen and a cushion, followed by John the dog, and go into the woods behind the Mirenda and come back to lunch with what he had written. I read it day by day and wondered how his chapters were built up and how it all came to him. I wondered at his courage and daring to face and write these hidden things that people dare not write or say.

For two years ‘Lady Chatterley’ lay in an old chest that Lawrence had painted a greeny yellow with roses on it, and often when I passed that chest, I thought: ‘Will that book ever come out of there?’

Lawrence asked me: ‘Shall I publish it, or will it only bring me abuse and hatred again?’ I said: ‘You have written it, you believe in it, all right, then publish it.’ So one day we talked it all over with Orioli; we went to a little old-fashioned printer, with a little old printing shop where they had only enough type to do half the book — and ‘Lady Chatterley’ was printed. When it was done, stacks and stacks of ‘Lady C …’, or Our Lady, as we called it — were sitting on the floor of Orioli’s shop. There seemed such a terrific lot of them that I said in terror: ‘We shall never sell all these’. A great many were sold before there was a row; first some did not arrive at their destination in America, then there came abuse from England… but it was done… his last great effort.

He had done it… and future generations will benefit, his own race that he loved and his own class, that is less inhibited, for he spoke out of them and for them, there in Tuscany, where the different culture of another race gave the impetus to his work. (p.172)

Lawrence takes up painting, with absolutely no training. In one of the letters he says:

I seem to be losing my will-to-write altogether: in spite of the fact that I am working at an English novel – but so differently from the way I have written before! I spend much more time painting – have already done three, nearly four, fairly large pictures. I wonder what you’ll say to them when you’ll see them. Painting is more fun than writing, much more of a game, and costs the soul far, far less. (p.196)

Aldous and Maria Huxley come to stay nearby and become good friends. Huxley tried to teach Frieda how to ski but her legs got tangled up and she was always falling over.

But Lawrence gets tired of the country and wants the sea so he goes and finds a place to stay at Port Cros, an island off the south of France. He’s become friendly with Richard Aldington and Frieda tells us it was here that Aldington began his classic novel ‘Death of a Hero’. Then they move to Toulon and spend the winter in the Beau Rivage hotel. Here Lawrence wrote his series of poems titled ‘Pansies’ (p.175).

In the spring they went to Spain, to Barcelona then to Mallorca. See what I mean by their restless, endless travelling? She barely mentions the publication and legal proceedings against Lady Chatterley (‘…what with the abuse of Lady Chatterley and the disapproval of the paintings…’ is as much detail as we get). They both travel to London to see the exhibition of his paintings at the Warren Gallery. It’s not clear from her account whether they’re still there when the paintings were confiscated by the police.

Suddenly Lawrence is in Florence and falls ill again. So Frieda takes him north, to Germany, to the Tegernsee, where they stay in a rough peasant house. From now on it was all about tending to his ill health.

It’s here that Frieda inserts a seven-page essay about the nightingale, which is a sort of commentary on John Keats’s famous poem on the same subject, followed by a huge section of letters, 70 pages, 46 letters, in total! They contain lots and lots about travel arrangements, and all kinds of boring details about publishers and translations and fees and contracts. One of the most striking passages is in a letter to Else where Lawrence gives his response to prosecution brought against his paintings in London.

You hear the pictures are to be returned to me on condition that they are never shown again in England, but sent away to me on the Continent, that they may never pollute that island of lily-livered angels again. What hypocrisy and poltroonery, and how I detest and despise my England. I had rather be a German or anything than belong to such a nation of craven, cowardly hypocrites. My curse on them! They will burn my four picture books, will they? So it is decreed. But they shall burn through the thread of their own existence as a nation, at the same time. Delenda est Cartago – but she will destroy herself, amply. Che nuoia! (p.248)

12. Nearing the End

Moving and upsetting description of Lawrence’s steady decline in the villa Beau Soleil at Bandol, her pity for his painful coughing, the wearisome drawing of breath as his TB progressed, and their mutual forgiveness.

I can only think with awe of those last days of his, as of the rays of the setting sun . . . and the setting sun obliterates all the sordid details of a landscape. So the dreary passages in our lives were wiped out and he said to me: ‘Why, oh why did we quarrel so much?’ and I could see how it grieved him… our terrible quarrels… but I answered: ‘Such as we were, violent creatures, how could we help it?’

It was here, on his deathbed, that he wrote his final work, ‘Apocalypse’. A doctor sent by their friend Mark Gertler, advises he move to a higher altitude, and so he took the exhausting train journey from Toulon to Antibes and then by car up to Vence, to a sanatorium named ‘Ad Astra’ (Latin for ‘To the stars).

There’s no indication how long this all took, though time for lots of visitors, close friends bringing varieties of food to find something he could keep down. I was intrigued to learn he was visited by H.G. Wells. Sometimes he was cruel to her.

One day he said to my daughter: ‘Your mother does not care for me any more, the death in me is repellent to her.’ (p.262)

The fact that she sets this down suggests how much it hurt her. They took him out of the sanatorium to a villa, putting him to bed. Right at the end he was in such pain he cried out for morphine. Fascinating that Aldous and Maria Huxley were there in these last days and it was Aldous who went off to find a doctor to get the drug. He returns with a doctor who injected morphine, he grew calmer, his breathing slowed, became interrupted, then stopped. He was dead. Frieda’s account of her loss, the completeness of her loss, the extinction of someone so full of life, made me cry.

13. Conclusion

In its entirety, this last section consists of a disclaimer:

Now that I have told my story in such a condensed way, letting blow through my mind anything that wanted to blow, I know how little I have said – how much I could say that perhaps would be more interesting. But I wrote what rose up, and here it is.

So there you go.

Thoughts

As I’ve said, there are fascinating biographical titbits scattered throughout, such as Frieda freely admitting she was useless at housework and Lawrence did it all, the strong implication that he was really unpleasant to her during the war years, some upsetting accounts of his nastiness to her – then again, loads of descriptions of bucolic happiness at Taos or their various villas.

But what stands out head and shoulders above all that is their extraordinary freedom to travel. All the world seems to be their oyster. There are hundreds of descriptions of wonderful places that turn the reader quite green with envy.

We are on the top of the island, and look down on green pine-tops, down to the blue sea, and the other islands and the mainland. Since I came I have not been down to the sea again – and Frieda has bathed only once. But it is very pretty. And at night the lights flash at Toulon and Hyères and Lavandou.

Or:

I think of Bandol and our little villa ‘Beau Soleil’ on the sea, the big balcony windows looking toward the sea, another window at the side overlooking a field of yellow narcissus called ‘soleil’ and pine trees beyond and again the sea. I remember sunny days when the waves came flying along with white manes, they looked as if they might come flying right up the terrace into his room.

I wish I’d had even one holiday as fresh and scenic and lovely as Lawrence and Frieda seemed to enjoy on almost every day of their blessed existence.


Credit

‘Not I, But The Wind… by Frieda Lawrence was published in 1935 by William Heinemann. References are to the 1983 Granada paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

The Woman Who Rode Away and Other Stories by D.H. Lawrence (1928)

A Penguin paperback edition of 12 short stories by D.H. Lawrence.

  • A Modern Lover (1910?)
  • Strike Pay (1913)
  • The Border-Line (1924)
  • Jimmy and the Desperate Woman (1924)
  • The Last Laugh (1924)
  • Smile (1924)
  • The Woman Who Rode Away (1925)
  • Two Blue Birds (1926)
  • Glad Ghosts (1926)
  • In Love (1927)
  • None of That
  • Sun (1928)

The 1981 Penguin edition has a 4-page introduction written by Lawrence’s friend and critic, Richard Aldington. He gives dates of composition for the stories so I’ve rearranged them according to his chronology. Aldington’s introduction concludes with the point that:

Lawrence was quite aware that as a writer of short stories he was completely out of touch with the popular and high-paying magazines of the 1920s. Instead of trying to conform, he preferred to write newspaper articles for bread and butter, and to write his stories in his own way.

In Aldington’s view the stories fall into several groups. 1) The first two are pre-Great War, Edwardian. ‘Strike Pay’ is one of the belongs to the group of studies of West Midlands coal miners. 2) ‘A Modern Lover’ is the first embodiment of a theme Lawrence returned to in later stories, of the jilting lover who returns to his jilted love only to find she has gone off with another man. 3) There are four gruesome and uncanny stores:

  • ‘Smile’ – Matthew travels to the death bed of his wife, Ophelia
  • ‘The Border Line’ – the ghost of a woman’s first husband, killed in the Great War, takes her from her second husband
  • ‘The Last Laugh’ – the demonic appearance of the god Pan in mid-winter London
  • ‘Glad Ghosts’ – the ghost of a spurned wife haunts the inhabitants of a country mansion

Aldington relates the uncanny stories to Lawrence being persuaded by his wife to return from their ranch in New Mexico to England in late 1923. He rediscovered his hatred for England and its superannuated class system but, during the trip, went to stay with an artist versed in the occult, Frederick Carter. Maybe this influenced these four supernatural stories, which are a strange eruption in Lawrence’s oeuvre.

A Modern Lover (1910?)

The first embodiment of a theme Lawrence returned to, of the jilting lover who returns to his jilted love only to find she has gone off with another man.

Young Cyril Mersham returns to the Midlands countryside where he grew up after two years away in the big city to the south. Some of the nature description is lovely but, even for Lawrence, it’s generally overwritten, overdone.

Surely, surely somebody could give him enough of the philtre of life to stop the craving which tortured him hither and thither, enough to satisfy for a while, to intoxicate him till he could laugh the crystalline laughter of the star, and bathe in the retreating flood of twilight like a naked boy in the surf, clasping the waves and beating them and answering their wild clawings with laughter sometimes, and sometimes gasps of pain.

Cyril arrives at the farm where he used to be such a frequent visitor three years ago, and is greeted by the farm wife, the father, the two sons who’ve just come back from a day at the coal mines and strip and wash, and the daughter of the house, Muriel. He is invited to stay for dinner but nowadays he talks in the received pronunciation of the South, careful and ironic statements, and the more he talks the more he alienates the entire family from him. He is not the local man he was. After eating he is out of the way in the busy kitchen with men walking backwards and forwards with hot water and whatnot, so Muriel tells him to go and wait in the parlour.

In the parlour Cyril sits in the old chair, observes the watercolour paintings of his on the wall and photos of him on the mantlepiece. In among them he notices a photo of a stranger he doesn’t know. He remembers all the books he and Muriel read and discussed, but it is all over-egged.

There, by that hearth, they had threshed the harvest of their youth’s experience, gradually burning the chaff of sentimentality and false romance that covered the real grain of life.

Cyril priggishly pontificates at her, who is all hesitancy. Their manner of speaking is quite hard to follow but what comes over is how supercilious and patronising he is. Then there’s the sound of a bicycle bell and a different male voice outside. She looks at Cyril and he instantly divines it is her new boyfriend. Muriel tells him that he told her to find someone else and, well… she has.

Sound of the interloper’s voice in the kitchen, talking easily to the brothers. Obviously he’s quite at home. Then a brother tells him Muriel’s in the parlour and he walks in to confront Cyril, the former lover.

He is Tom Vickers. He’s some kind of electrical engineer at the mine. He crushes Cyril’s hand in his handshake. But Cyril is unquenchably superior. Fencing and sizing each other up. In his internal monologue, Cyril cites literary authors to make himself feel superior and affects a lazy drawl. But he has lost.

Lawrence’s weakest area is sometimes his dialogue: it feels like he’s trying to be witty and sharp but this isn’t his metier so that this would-be witty dialogue feels weak and contrived; in trying to portray Cyril as witty and dazzling, it mostly comes over as clumsy and pretentious. I take the point that that is precisely the character of Cyril that he’s trying to portray. As with a lot of dialogue in old books, I wonder if this is actually how people spoke 100 years ago…

Lawrence is better at describing the curdling atmosphere of the scene and describing Mersham’s stealthy method of bringing up old songs and subjects with Muriel and so slowly stealing her sympathies back from the interloper.

They both leave at ten and walk the cobbled track to the barn where Vickers has parked his bike. In a way, the most memorable thing about the entire story is learning that in those days, a bicycle lamp wasn’t electrical but was an actual flame, in a lamp, with a wick, which had to be carefully lit and the glass clicked shut.

Cyril admires the other man’s confident movements, as when he leans down to pump up his tyres. He fools himself that this is the kind of man a wife gets bored of after a while, but has to admit he’s attractive. Cyril waves goodbye as Vickers cycles off.

He goes back into the parlour and asks Muriel if she’d like to walk him part of the way back to his path home. Her father looks disapproval but that doesn’t affect to young couple. Outside it is the dark night and, because he is more restrained, Lawrence is more effective.

There was a strangeness everywhere, as if all things had ventured out alive to play in the night, as they do in fairy-tales; the trees, the many stars, the dark spaces, and the mysterious waters below uniting in some magnificent game. They emerged from the wood on to the bare hillside. She came down from the wood-fence into his arms, and he kissed her, and they laughed low together. Then they went on across the wild meadows where there was no path.

They have reignited their old flame. He even says they could get married, although he has no money. He seems to suggest that she will ‘come to him again’, suggesting sex. As if they’d made love before. But doesn’t want to seem to be coaxing of forcing. but she points out how it (sex) is different for girls. Very unreasonably, he gets angry at her reluctance. He claims to have given her ‘books’ – presumably about contraceptive techniques?

When she points out how they’d have to creep about in corners, suddenly all the magic and glamour of it disappears, and he just feels tired, and a gap opens between them which she, of course senses, and begs him not to feel cross with her. Robbed of the possibility of sex, he finds himself deflated and empty. He hasn’t the energy to kiss her goodbye or say anything fancy. She turns and walks away without saying a word, her white face disappearing into the gloom.

How many billions of men must have felt this rebuff, the woman they’re wooing’s definitive refusal of sex, which bursts their balloon, evaporating all their energy or interest – and how many billions of women must have spoken sensibly and wisely and then been heart-broken when their man abruptly went cold and walked away. The story gets better as it progresses and the further it gets from Lawrence’s cack-handed dialogue. In one sense it’s a trite scenario, but the final walk through the night woods creates a mood which makes the ending genuinely moving.

Strike Pay (1913)

One of his studies of the West Midlands miners he grew up among. A lot of information is packed into just six pages. The miners are on strike. The Union agent hands out strike pay to a roomful of miners who are in a boisterous bantering mood, joking about how much they each get paid. They go into town and join the other colliers loitering around. then four of them decide to walk to Nottingham, nine miles away, to watch the Nottingham versus Aston Villa football match.

On the way they stop at each village pub for a round. They come to a field where some of the pit ponies they work with have been liberated from toiling underground (for the duration of the strike). The more adventurous of the miners round them up and mount and ride them, larking about, falling off, getting on again. Eventually they resume their trek to Nottingham. But at the next pub Ephraim Wharmby, a shy young lad, realises he’s lost his half-sovereign (a sovereign = one pound sterling, so half a sovereign was ten shillings or modern 50p). They all rifle through his clothes and boots and go back to the pony field but can’t find it. Being good chaps they all pitch in and give him two shillings each of their pay (10p) and he doesn’t have to buy the next round.

The match is good and the lads go on to more pubs, along with thousands of other colliers, but Ephraim is miserable and opts to go home. When he arrives home there is a scene with his domineering mother, Mrs Marriott, who asks where the devil he’s been, while they’ve made lunch, and tea and dinner for him, all to wait and then be cleared away. Sheepishly Ephraim hands over all he has (4 shillings sixpence, after ha paid for his football ticket) which makes Mrs Marriott angrily ask if he thinks that’s enough room and board to support him and his wife, Maud. Under the haranguing, Ephraim turns from meek and apologetic to furious, and demands his tea. Mrs Marriott order her daughter (Maud) to refuse and flounces out, but she quietly gets her man his tea, he is her man, after all.

The Border-Line (1924)

Katherine Farquhar is another avatar of Frieda Lawrence, a handsome full-bodied woman of forty, twice married with two grown-up children.

Daughter of a German Baron she was, and remained, in her own mind and body, although England had become her life-home. And surely she looked German, with her fresh complexion and her strong, full figure.

Full of confidence, she is in Paris boarding the train to take her to visit relatives in Baden-Baden and to see her second husband, Philip, a journalist currently working in Germany. She remembers her first husband, father of her two grown-up children, Alan Anstruther, son of a Scottish baronet, and captain in a Highland regiment. They fought. Alan was obstinate. After ten years they ceased to live together.

Alan had a good friend, Philip Farquar, trained for the bar, went into journalism, small and dark with an air of knowing all the secrets, attractive to women. Philip is in awe of Alan’s solidity. ‘He is the only real man, what I call a real man, that I have ever met.’

Then the Great War broke out and Alan marched bluffly off to war. In spring of 1915 he was reported missing and never reappeared. Katherine didn’t mourn. Philip stayed in England working as a journalist and was a source of consolation and strength. In 1921, aged 38, she married him.

It was lovely at first but then a sense of loss and degradation afflicted her. Philip is clever and reassures her but she feels trapped. Sometimes the face of Alan, ‘the bony, hard, masterful, but honest face of Alan would come back’ to her. She sensed him with her on the cross-Channel ferry and his memory made her happy in Paris, where the story opens.

So she takes the train East, heading into Germany, and:

As she looked unseeing out of the carriage window, suddenly, with a jolt, the wintry landscape realized itself in her consciousness. The flat, grey, wintry landscape, ploughed fields of greyish earth that looked as if they were compound of the clay of dead men. Pallid, stark, thin trees stood like wire beside straight, abstract roads. A ruined farm between a few more wire trees. And a dismal village filed past, with smashed houses like rotten teeth between the straight rows of the village street. With sudden horror she realized that she must be in the Marne country, the ghastly Marne country, century after century digging the corpses of frustrated men into its soil. The border country, where the Latin races and the Germanic neutralize one another into horrid ash. (p.94)

She is travelling across the borderline. The train arrives at Nancy. She has to change here and catch a different train on in the morning. A German porter escorts her to her hotel, where she has dinner. Then she fancies seeing the cathedral. She gets lost and has to ask a French policeman the way, for Alsace is now occupied by the French. She used to love seeing it but now she experiences the cathedral as a huge looming mass, and is terrified by the sense that behind it ‘lurks the great blood-creature waiting, implacable and eternal.’

As she turns to leave the square she sees a man waiting by the post office and realises it is her first husband, Alan. As she goes to pass, he puts his hand on her arm. He says nothing, doesn’t look at her.

She knew that she was walking with his spirit. But that even did not trouble her. It seemed natural. And there came over her again the feeling she had forgotten, the restful, thoughtless pleasure of a woman who moves in the aura of the man to whom she belongs.

She realises nothing comes close to the fulfilment of being with your man:

As she walked at his side through the conquered city, she realized that it was the one enduring thing a woman can have, the intangible soft flood of contentment that carries her along at the side of the man she is married to. It is her perfection and her highest attainment… No matter what the man does or is, as a person, if a woman can move at his side in this dim, full flood of contentment, she has the highest of him, and her scratching efforts at getting more than this, are her ignominious efforts at self-nullity. (p.97)

She knows he is a spirit returned from hell but all the fear and dread you might imagine someone having when encountering a ghost are absent. Instead Lawrence envisions the whole thing solely in terms of fulfilling a woman’s primal need.

Now that she was walking with a man who came from the halls of death, to her, for her relief. The strong, silent kindliness of him towards her, even now, was able to wipe out the ashy, nervous horror of the world from her body. She went at his side still and released, like one newly unbound, walking in the dimness of her own contentment.

And the word ‘contentment’ is repeated throughout the passage.

At the bridge-head he came to a standstill, and drew his hand from her arm. She knew he was going to leave her. But he looked at her from under his peaked cap, darkly but kindly, and he waved his hand with a slight, kindly gesture of farewell and of promise, as if in the farewell he promised never to leave her, never to let the kindliness go out in his heart, to let it stay hers always.

She goes back to her hotel and undresses for bed, trying not to break the spell of completion.

If a man could come back out of death to save her from this, she would not ask questions of him, but be humble, and beyond tears grateful.

Next morning she goes out into the defeated and occupied town but it is hard and cold. So she catches the connecting train on into Germany proper. She crosses the Rhine, huge, sluggish and weary of race struggle. It is a profound geographical borderline between the Celtic and Germanic races. At the actual border, at Kehl, she feels that ‘the two races neutralized one another, and no polarity was felt, no life–no principle dominated.’ Lawrence gives brilliant descriptions of the watery, frozen landscape. After another long delay:

At last they set off, northwards, free for the moment, in Germany. It was the land beyond the Rhine, Germany of the pine forests. The very earth seemed strong and unsubdued, bristling with a few reeds and bushes, like savage hair. There was the same silence, and waiting, and the old barbaric undertone of the white-skinned north, under the waning civilization. The audible overtone of our civilization seemed to be wearing thin, the old, low, pine-forest hum and roar of the ancient north seemed to be sounding through. At least, in Katherine’s inner ear. (p.101)

At last the train arrives at Oos and her husband, Philip, is there to meet her. He is obviously ill and complains of being cold. And she, after her transformative experience at Nancy, the deep sense of completion she felt with the ghost of her first husband, finds Philip trivial.

As she looked at him she felt for the first time, with curious clarity, that it was humiliating to be married to him, even in name. She was humiliated even by the fact that her name was Katherine Farquhar. Yet she used to think it a nice name! ‘
Just think of me married to that little man!’ she thought to herself. ‘Think of my having his name!’
It didn’t fit. She thought of her own name: Katherine von Todtnau; or of her married name: Katherine Anstruther. The first seemed most fitting. But the second was her second nature. The third, Katherine Farquhar, wasn’t her at all. (p.101)

Also waiting there is her sister, Marianne, and they immediately gang up on Philip, denigrating him in German and bursting into giggle.

Both sisters stood still and laughed in the middle of the street. ‘The little one’ was Philip.
‘The other was more a man,’ said Marianne. ‘But I’m sure this one is easier. The little one! Yes, he should be easier,’ and she laughed in her mocking way.
‘The stand-up-mannikin!’ said Katherine, referring to those little toy men weighted at the base with lead, that always stand up again.
‘Yes! Yes!’ cried Marianne. ‘I’m sure he always comes up again! Prumm!’ She made a gesture of knocking him over. ‘And there he rises once more!’ She slowly raised her hand, as if the mannikin were elevating himself.
The two sisters stood in the street laughing consumedly. (p.102)

Which I’m sure Philip, feeling cold and ill, thoroughly appreciated. So they settle in, tea, dinner, chats. Marianne is five years older than Katherine. Her husband also was killed in the war but she has reached a place of equanimity and detachment.

She had now ceased to struggle for anything at all. She was a woman who had lived her life. So at last, life seemed endlessly quaint and amusing to her. She accepted everything, wondering over the powerful primitiveness of it all, at the root-pulse. ‘I don’t care any more at all what people do or don’t do,’ she said. ‘Life is a great big tree, and the dead leaves fall. But very wonderful is the pulse in the roots! So strong, and so pitiless.’
It was as if she found a final relief in the radical pitilessness of the Tree of Life.

This comes close to my view, or is the standpoint I would like to arrive at. Philip plays up to being weak and ill. To some extent it had always been his schtick, his brand. From his point of view, he saw the strong, manly, defiant types be exterminated by the million in the war while he kept his head down, and so he survived and won Katherine’s hand. ‘When the lion is shot, the dog gets the spoil.’

From Katherine’s point of view his weakness and dependency made a welcome change after Alan’s manly expectation of being obeyed and worshipped. But here, in defeated abject Germany, Philip comes over as abject and defeated and she realises she despises him, ‘the whimpering little beast’.

Katherine sees the abject poverty of the townspeople. In the evening they queue to get water from a hot spring since so many of them can’t afford coal or wood to warm their homes and she despises Philip for his self-pitying shivering. Let him shiver!

She goes for big bracing walks in the wild woods, deep in snow and feels the presence of her manly first husband, she wants to hug the big firm pine trees. But Philip staggers along beside her, short and sick and whining. God, how she despises him! Over there, in the reddish rocks, she is sure Alan is waiting for her but… She has to turn and take the panting Philip back to his sick bed.

Philip becomes so ill he is bed-ridden but Katherine continues her long walks in the woods. One day Alan simply walks out from among the rocks, striding proudly in his kilt, and puts his arm round her, and leads her to a secluded place, and makes love to her.

She yielded in a complete yielding she had never known before. And among the rocks he made love to her, and took her in the silent passion of a husband, took a complete possession of her. (p.104)

Obviously the word ‘possession’ has a double meaning, in the contexts of ghosts and spirits. I suppose it raises the question of whether Alan’s appearances to Katherine are ‘real’ or her hallucinations.

On her return she finds Philip really ill. She doesn’t care but out of duty stays with him and tends him. Next day she can feel Alan waiting among the rocks but Philip becomes hysterical at the thought of him leaving her and so she stays, sullen and resentful. As evening approaches it grows colder and colder and:

A very powerful flow seemed to envelop her in another reality. (p.105)

Alan is calling her, Alan has hold of her soul which a force which grows by the hour. She stays with Philip who goes downhill fast, at midnight rolling his eyes, and he begs her to hold him in his arms ‘in pure terror of death’.

And as she reluctantly works her arm down around his shoulders, on the bed, the door opens and Alan walks silently in. He walks to the bed and loosens the sick man’s arms from around Katherine’s neck and places his (Philip’s) hands on his chest. And Philip has last convulsions and dies.

But Alan ignores all that and draws her over to the other bed, where he makes love to her again:

But Alan drew her away, drew her to the other bed, in the silent passion of a husband come back from a very long journey. (p.105)

Commentary

Obviously a story like this drives a coach and horses through our modern notions of feminism and gender. Lawrence’s obsession with the notion of Man and Woman, and Husband and Wife, and the primeval power they exercise over each other, seem like they’re from the stone age. Certainly the story’s notion that a woman must submit to a strong manly husband would make any feminist throw up.

In my opinion, the best thing to do with this, as with most old literature, is to suspend judgement and give yourself to the experience, submit to the text’s descriptions, ‘ideas’, obsessions and opinions, no matter how contrary to modern belief.

There’s something to outrage a feminist or progressive reader on every page, yet it would be odd to balk at these ancient attitudes but swallow whole the bigger issue here, the idea that there are ghosts, there are spirits, that ghosts of the dead come back to visit us.

In fact this itself is contested within the story. an see that this is contested. The fundamental question is, Is the ghost of Alan real or Katherine’s (very powerful) hallucination and my opinion is, It doesn’t matter. The text is what it is.

If, for the duration of the story, you buy into the (obviously nonsensical) idea that the spirits of the dead come back to haunt us, why not buy into all the story’s other nonsensical or objectionable aspects and opinions?

Reading any literature is, in an obvious sense, submitting to someone else’s worldview for a while. What’s the point of doing it if that worldview isn’t different from ours, uncanny, alien, other, enlightening, illuminating and takes us to strange places, showing us actions and opinions we wouldn’t countenance for a second in our real lives? And so judging it by the value of our real lives is a problematic, arguably a blinkered and self-censoring, approach.

On this view, the more a text breaches modern morality, or vividly depicts old opinions, different worldviews, the better, as this exercises the muscles of the imagination and helps keep our minds open, open to the millions of things human beings have believed and valued.

Jimmy and the Desperate Woman (1924)

Jimmy plunged out into the gulfing blackness of the Northern night, feeling how horrible it was, but pressing his hat on his brow in a sense of strong adventure. He was going through with it.

A satire on the type of the squirming Oxford intellectual, a type Lawrence detested.

Jimmy Frith is 35. He’s just been divorced by his ‘very charming and clever wife’ of ten years, Clarissa. Jimmy is the editor of a high-class, rather high-brow, rather successful magazine, the Commentator, and his candid editorials bring him shoals of admiring acquaintances. Plus he’s handsome. The result? He meets loads of clever, sophisticated women when what he wants is to meet the ‘real’ people, the simple, genuine, direct spontaneous, unspoilt souls. In the opinion of his men friends, he was a grinning faun or Pan-person. In his own opinion, he was a martyred Saint Sebastian with the mind of Plato. He sought some unspoilt, unsophisticated, wild-blooded woman, to whom he would be a sort of Solomon of wisdom, beauty and wealth. She would need to be in reduced circumstances to appreciate his wealth, which amounted to the noble sum of three thousand pounds and a little week-ending cottage in Hampshire.

Then his magazine is sent a short vivid poem and accompanying letter from a woman in the North. He asks for another and a correspondence ensues. To his enquiries she explains that she is married to a coal miner who has a mistress, so is alone and misunderstood. She used to be a teacher. Now she writes poetry to relieve her heart. She is Mrs Emilia Pinnegar, 31, with a child of 8.

All these facts are by way of setting the scene for the meat of the story. This is that, after some correspondence, Jimmy decides to go and visit this woman. So he takes a train to Yorkshire, then undertakes a harrowing walk through a coal-mining town as dusk falls, eventually arriving at her poor cottage where she answers to his knock.

Mrs Pinnegar is not a pretty woman. She is tall, with a long face and a haggard defiant expression. Life has been hard to her. In his semi-realistic, semi-visionary style, Lawrence depicts Jimmy overcoming all the drawbacks, in his own internal thoughts, and then rashly inviting her to run away, to come and live with him in his house in St John’s Wood. Lawrence depicts the strange and visionary in the everyday.

He lifted his face, his eyes still cast in that inturned, blind look. He looked now like a Mephistopheles who has gone blind. With his black brows cocked up, Mephistopheles, Mephistopheles blind and begging in the street.

She is astonished by this mad invitation but he insists and she begins to accept it. She suggests he waits around to meet the man of the house, which he reluctantly accepts. The husband is on the afternoon shift at the mine and arrives home soon after 9pm, dirty and reeking of underground

Maybe that’s what all the fol-de-rol of the plot was for: to arrive at this confrontation between the bookish Oxford intellectual and the dirty but proud coalminer. He strips to the waist and washes himself, then his wife washes his back, then towels him dry. They both perform this daily ritual completely ignoring Jimmy who sits in a corner, noting the husband’s thin muscular physique.

Then the wife brings his dinner and Pinnegar sits and eats, at a right angle to Jimmy. He asks why Jimmy’s here and so begins a long, tense dialogue, which includes the blunt admission:

‘She’s told you I’ve got another woman?’
‘Yes.’
‘And I’ll tell you for why. If I give in to the coal face, and go down the mine every day to eight hours’ slavery, more or less, somebody’s got to give in to me.’ (p.122)

The husband and wife argue over his other woman, but when she says she wants to go with Jimmy, he visibly strips himself of all emotion, and agrees. It’s late. Jimmy leaves to take up the reluctant offer of the local pub, to sleep on their sofa.

Next morning, he returns to the cottage. In the daylight he sees how bad the woman’s skin is and bluntly thinks, ‘however am I going to sleep with that woman?’ but determines that he will. The husband is there, in a corner, reading the paper. He asks her to come with him now, but she refuses, saying she has things to sort out, she’ll come on Monday. Now she goes out with the child, leaving Jimmy alone with the surly husband.

They talk frankly, about the new government (‘something has to change’) and then the woman. The miner says something had to change and he regards Jimmy as the instrument of that change. Jimmy knows the cold, hard miner is dominating him and hates it.

On the train home, Jimmy at first feels exultant, like he’s had a great adventure. Back in London he goes to see his friend, Severn, who thinks he’s been an idiot. This prompts Jimmy to write a last-minute letter on Sunday night asking Emily to reconsider: does she really want to come (which, of course, signals his own reluctance)?

But the only reply is confirmation she’ll be taking the train next morning. Next morning Jimmy goes to Marylebone station taut with nerves. In the cab to his house he can more than sense the presence of the other man on her, he can feel him. It will be a battle. So the story ends:

As he sat in the taxi, a perverse but intense desire for her came over him, making him almost helpless. He could feel, so strongly, the presence of that other man about her, and this went to his head like neat spirits. That other man! In some subtle, inexplicable way, he was actually bodily present, the husband. The woman moved in his aura. She was hopelessly married to him. And this went to Jimmy’s head like neat whisky. Which of the two would fall before him with a greater fall–the woman, or the man, her husband? (p.130)

On a rational level, it is wildly improbable and doesn’t make any sense. But on the irrational, unconscious level Lawrence operates on, it is magnificent.

Two Blue Birds (1926)

This is a very high-spirited, amused, ironic story. A man and woman, in their thirties, are married and love each other but for the past four years or so can’t bear to be in each other’s company. So they live apart, he in London, she in the south of France with her latest lover. He has a secretary, Miss Wrexall, who adores him, would do anything for him. The wife thinks the arrangement is fine, she suggested she go to France, she’s the one having the ‘gallant little affairs’ but the thought of his dutiful and common little secretary is like grit in her eye.

Then he has his secretary’s mother and sister move in. They’re of the servant class: the mother is an excellent cook and the sister functions as a maid and valet de chambre. When the wife comes back from France she is horrified at how well the new household functions, and himself cock of the walk.

He had that air of easy aplomb and good humour which is so becoming to a man, and which he only acquires when he is cock of his own little walk, made much of by his own hens.

The servants are all flattery and submission and what would you like for dinner, Mrs Gee, but she hates them.

Spring visit

So on her next visit she needles him. Maybe being so well provided for might be bad for his work (for he is a workaholic)? But the narrative hovers at a generalised level, about their feelings, especially her conflicted feelings: loving him but not wanting to be with him; having affairs but not caring about the other men; hating the happy little domestic situation he’s arranged for himself.

She is Mrs Gee, ‘a broad, strong woman’ just turned 40. She schemes. Her hardness is brilliantly conveyed.

The garden was full of flowers: he loved them for their theatrical display. Lilac and snowball bushes, and laburnum and red may, tulips and anemones and coloured daisies. Lots of flowers! Borders of forget-me-nots! Bachelor’s buttons! What absurd names flowers had! She would have called them blue dots and yellow blobs and white frills. Not so much sentiment after all! There is a certain nonsense, something showy and stagey about spring, with its pushing leaves and chorus-girl flowers, unless you have something corresponding inside you. Which she hadn’t. (p.19)

This is the funniest Lawrence text I’ve read. Laugh-out-loud funny. The wife comes across him dictating an article to the secretary in the garden and is infuriated: is there nowhere to escape their happy little domesticity?

He was dictating a magazine article about the modern novel. ‘What the modern novel lacks is architecture.’ Good God! Architecture! He might just as well say: What the modern novel lacks is whalebone, or a teaspoon, or a tooth stopped. (p.19)

It is an article on ‘The Future of The Novel’, precisely the kind of thing Virginia Woolf wrote by the dozen but here, taken as the epitome of fatuousness.

The wife spies on the man complacently dictating to the compliant secretary when she notices two blue tits fighting at his feet. He notices, too, and waves them away, then the wife steps forward and there’s a tense scene, with the wife making ironic catty remarks to the secretary. Then stalks off, in her rather wolfish way.

Tea time arrives and the wife reappears as the sister serves the tea things. She asks the secretary (who was about to leave) to stay, and tell her sister (the maid) to bring another cup. Miss Wrexall runs off to change (for tea) into a chicory blue dress of the same shade as Mrs Gee’s except the latter’s is very expensive and fine. Two birds in blue fighting over their man. Like the two blue tits. And the two birds of the title. Humans becoming, and behaving like, animals, as in the novella The Fox.

Mrs Gee taunts them both, suggesting Miss Wrexall is not just the most perfect secretary but that maybe she writes the husband’s novels for him? Mrs Gee taunts the secretary for being so competent and proficient at shorthand and so on. The husband bridles. Miss Wrexall becomes agitated.

Sticking the knife in, Mrs Gee tells Cameron (the first time we’ve heard his name) that maybe he takes too much from Miss Wrexall. Her aim is to stain and sully their simple working relationship. Miss Wrexall bridles and says there is nothing inappropriate between them. Trying to reconcile, Miss Wrexall says there’s no need for Mrs Gee to feel left out.

‘Thank you, my dear, for your offer,’ said the wife, rising, ‘but I’m afraid no man can expect two blue birds of happiness to flutter round his feet, tearing out their little feathers!’ (p.26)

And with that parting shot she gets up and leaves. And that’s it. It’s an absolutely brilliant depiction of its subject matter, of the very complicated currents involved in marriage, separation, relationships, all tied up with the simple metaphor of the two birds.

The Woman Who Rode Away (1925)

The unnamed young American woman who’s the protagonist, a Californian girl from Berkeley, at 23 marries a little, wiry, twisted fellow from Holland, who’s made his fortune setting up and running silver mines in northern Mexico, in Chihuahua state.

It’s a bleak isolated location. Ten years pass. She bears him two children. The Great War knocks the bottom out of the silver market and the mines are abandoned while the Dutchman tries to switch to agriculture. They have occasional white guests (i.e. non Spanish or Mexican). One of these asks what lies beyond the hills that surround the ranch and the Dutchman explains about the neighbouring Indians: about the wandering tribes, resembling the Navajo, who were still wandering free, and the Yaquis of Sonora, and the different groups in the different valleys of Chihuahua State.

This conversation lights a flame in the woman’s soul. Her husband goes away for a few days to Torreon so the woman gets her servants to saddle up a horse, packs some food and – rejecting offers to help or accompany her – sets off for the hills.

To cut a longish story short, after a while she bumps into three Indians. When she tells them she has rejected the white man’s God and wants to find out more about their gods, they nod to each other: this was prophesied; the white man has triumphed over the Indian because the sun and the moon are out of balance, but the wise men predict that when a white woman offers herself as a sacrifice, then the sun and the moon will be realigned.

So she agrees to travel back to their village where she is put up in a house without windows and, over the course of weeks and maybe months, we see her being subjected to various rituals, stripped and anointed, redressed in native costume, allowed to watch native dances and ceremonies, and above all, plied with a sweet drink which gives her hallucinations, makes her forget herself and instead see phantasmagorias and become acutely sensitive to sights and sounds.

Lawrence prepares us for the ending by having her think, repeatedly, ‘I have died, my old self is dead, I have died to my old life etc’. So she is perfectly prepared when the shortest day of midwinter arrives, and the Indians ritually strip, wash, anoint, redress her and lead her up to a sacred cave behind an imposing sheet of ice and there, as the sun moves slowly round to shine through the ice and illuminate the cave, they sacrifice her to their gods.

The actual act isn’t described. The story stops just at the moment before she is sacrificed, with a great sense of suspense.

They were anxious, terribly anxious, and fierce. Their ferocity wanted something, and they were waiting the moment. And their ferocity was ready to leap out into a mystic exultance, of triumph. But still they were anxious.

Only the eyes of that oldest man were not anxious. Black, and fixed, and as if sightless, they watched the sun, seeing beyond the sun. And in their black, empty concentration there was power, power intensely abstract and remote, but deep, deep to the heart of the earth, and the heart of the sun. In absolute motionlessness he watched till the red sun should send his ray through the column of ice. Then the old man would strike, and strike home, accomplish the sacrifice and achieve the power.

The mastery that man must hold, and that passes from race to race. (p.81)

In Lawrence’s later novels I noticed his frequent use of words he’s coined and ‘exultance’ is one of them. Standard English isn’t deep or vivid enough to convey the depth he wants to express.

The Last Laugh (1925)

E.M. Forster wrote stories about Pan, the mischievous Greek god of nature, associated with spring, fertility, merriment and sex but they were set in sunny Greece or a summer’s day in the English countryside. Lawrence has the bright idea of relocating all this to Hampstead, in north London, in the depths of winter.

So it’s a cold winter’s night when a slight man with a red beard says goodbye to two friends, a man and a woman, who are visiting, shuts his door and they go down into the street. When the woman calls goodbye Lorenzo’, we know this is a brief, sly self-portrait of Lawrence himself.

On into the snowy street go the man in his bowler hat and the young woman. She is Miss James (referred to simply as ‘James’) and is deaf. We learn this when the man says he can hear someone laughing. This prompts James to get out her listening machine, an elaborate device which needs to be switched on, and puts on her headphones. She can’t hear any laughter but then thinks she sees something in a little park with big black holly trees and old, ribbed, silent English elms, ‘a dark face among the holly bushes, with the brilliant, mocking eyes.’

They’re loud talking brings over a tall, clean-shaven young policeman. None of them can hear the laughter but they all feel… rejuvenated, enlivened. The girl finds herself attracted to the fit young policeman and starts to feel frisky:

She seemed to stretch herself, to stretch her limbs free. And the inert look had left her full soft cheeks. Her cheeks were alive with the glimmer of pride and a new dangerous surety… The second of ancient fear was followed at once in her by a blithe, unaccustomed sense of power.

This is something new for the girl:

Having held herself all her life intensely aloof from physical contact, and never having let any man touch her, she now, with a certain nymph-like voluptuousness, allowed the large hand of the young policeman to support her

Meanwhile the man in the bowler hat:

His voice, with curious delight, broke into a laugh again, as he stood and stamped his feet on the snow, and danced to his own laughter, ducking his head.

He thinks he sees something moving and sets off at a run down the hill. He comes to a halt in front of a house just as the front door opens and a woman comes down the path. She asks if he just knocked at her door and he says no. Mysteriously, magically, seductively, she says she’s always listening for that knock at the front door because you always hope… you always hope something wonderful will happen. She makes eyes at him and invites him in and he needs no second invitation. For some reason Lawrence makes her a Jewess. Maybe that is to emphasise her exotic, slightly unenglish sexiness. Into her house disappears the man with the bowler hat.

James and the policeman watch then turn away and walk towards the tube station. She feels a tremendous sense of exultation and power, so much so that she feels she could kill the policeman.

She was surprised herself at the strong, bright, throbbing sensation beneath her breasts, a sensation of triumph and rosy anger. Her hands felt keen on her wrists. She who had always declared she had not a muscle in her body! Even now, it was not muscle, it was a sort of flame. (p.139)

And then, making it absolutely plain that this is about the god:

Voices were calling. In spite of her deafness she could hear someone, several voices, calling and whistling, as if many people were hallooing through the air: ‘He’s come back! Aha! He’s come back!’ (p.139)

There’s a flash of lightning and she sees the face right in front of her. She and the policeman walk on towards her house, which is a little one in side street near a church but as they approach the church she sees the front door is open. From inside come more voices crying ‘He is back’, then piece of paper are whirled past them on the wind and then the big white sheet of the altar cloth. In case the reader hasn’t got it yet, Lawrence writes:

There came a bit of gay, trilling music. The wind was running over the organ-pipes like pan-pipes, quickly up and down. Snatches of wild, gay, trilling music, and bursts of the naked low laughter. (p.141)

The policeman is so scared by all this that he asks if he can come into her house to warm himself up. She says OK and he can make a fire in the grate but he mustn’t come upstairs, which is where she goes.

Cut to the next morning, and James in her studio looking at her paintings. She finds them ludicrous. The servant comes to ask if she wants breakfast and is surprised when James says there’s no need to shout i.e. she can hear. In fact everything feels different the morning after.

The air all seemed rare and different. Suddenly the world had become quite different: as if some skin or integument had broken, as if the old, mouldering London sky had crackled and rolled back, like an old skin, shrivelled, leaving an absolutely new blue heaven. (p.142)

The serving woman reminds her that there’s a man downstairs, the policeman. James is surprised that he didn’t let himself out the night before.

Now she thinks of Marchbanks. This is a young man she’s been jolly good friends with for two years. Not lovers, mind; none of that dirty stuff. Now, in her new world eyes, she thinks how ridiculous it is, all this man-woman nonsense and, to her surprise, she hears the low laughter, as if agreeing with her.

Only now is it made explicit that this Marchbanks is the man in the bowler hat she was with last night. Now she sees him coming down the side street to the house then entering. It’s their habit for him to come to breakfast. He asks him about staying his night with the Jewess. He left at dawn. She tells him not to shout when he speaks and he thinks she’s joking, doesn’t realise she can hear. She is, in fact, cured.

James now has the confidence to mock Marchbanks who doesn’t like it. She tells him she saw the face again, closer up, last night, and heard the laughter, but can’t tell him any more.

They go down to see the policeman and the story for the first time topples over into being a ghost story. The policeman hasn’t left because he has gone lame. James asks him to take his socks off and they discover that his foot has become deformed, curled itself up like the paws of an animal. Of course. He has started turning into a satyr. In her ear James hears the creepy laughter and then Marchbanks reels back as if he’s been shots.

She started round again as Marchbanks gave a strange, yelping cry, like a shot animal. His white face was drawn, distorted in a curious grin, that was chiefly agony but partly wild recognition. He was staring with fixed eyes at something. And in the rolling agony of his eyes was the horrible grin of a man who realises he had made a final, and this time fatal, fool of himself.

‘Why,’ he yelped in a high voice, ‘I knew it was he!’ And with a queer shuddering laugh he pitched forward on the carpet and lay writhing for a moment on the floor. Then he lay still, in a weird, distorted position, like a man struck by lightening. (p.146)

And the story ends abruptly with ‘faint smell of almond blossom in the air.’

This is a horror story, isn’t it? not a genre you associate with Lawrence.

Aldington suggests that Lawrence’s placing of himself at the start of the story somehow implies that he is a wizard capable of deploying the occult powers that follow. This includes deforming ‘his natural enemy’, the policeman (to understand this you need to know about the terrible persecution Lawrence suffered from the authorities and the police during the First World War; see the novel Kangaroo) and striking dead a personal enemy.

Smile (1926)

A very short story, 5 pages. The third-person narrator describes a man on a train south. He’s had a telegram announcing that a woman he is attached to somehow, Ophelia, is critically ill. She is in a hospice run by the Blue Sisters, in Italy. Unable to stay up all night at her bedside, he sits up all night on the sleeper train from France into Italy, as penance. He has a Christian frame of mind, in fact:

His dark, handsome, clean-shaven face would have done for Christ on the Cross, with the thick black eyebrows tilted in the dazed agony.

But by the time he gets to the hospice, the following evening, the Mother Superior tells him Ophelia is dead. She leans towards him sympathetically, but he recoils. When she places a hand on his arm he notices how shapely it is. When she stands he sees how full-bodied she is. She calls for a young nun to come and accompany him to see the body and he notices how shapely her hand is, too. So he’s taken to see the body. In the room is another nun. When she stands he notices her fine white hand against her bosom. Obviously he is super-aware of their femininity.

When Matthew (only now are we told his name) sees the body (we are only now told it is his wife), gives a grunt and then smiles. The three women (Mother Superior, a senior nun, the junior nun) are scandalised but smiles are infectious and one by one, they smile too.

The smile fades and he looks back over his marriage. Ten years during which she became restive and left him numerous times, only to crawl back. There are no children. The whole thing was a disaster. he’s filled with bottomless sadness.

Inexplicably he feels the dead woman digging him in the ribs, tempting him to laugh. To quell it he turns to the Mother Superior and snarks ‘Mea culpa’. The nuns step back from this strange angry man. But even as he makes for the door he has to hold back the smile and, as he passes her, is smitten by voluptuous feelings for the mature nun.

When he’s left the three sisters move closer, bend over the body and notice, they think, the ghost of a smile on the dead woman’s face. Did she see him? Did she catch the smile that infected them all?

Glad Ghosts (1926)

Long, 40 pages. It was the first fictional work he began after what proved to be his final trip to Europe, in the autumn 1925.

It’s a surprisingly accessible, chatty first-person narrator tells this long ghost story. It’s all about his friendship with the Honourable Carlotta Fell. They met when they were both at school together. She was attracted to him because he had a real feel for the thing, for It, but they were never lovers, never anything like. She affected to hate her own class but like all posh young people, got over it and married into it, to a Lord Lathkill, very handsome, officer in a Guards regiment. He sees them soon after they’re engaged when Lathkill jokes about ‘the Lathkill bad luck’.

They see each other now and then but then the war comes. Afterwards, he sees them again, learns that Lathkill was wounded in the throat, now his voice is husky. They have twins. The narrator visits and sees them asleep in their cots. How sweet. Then a little girl.

He travels. Then he hears about the disasters. The twins were killed in a car crash along with their aunt. A few months later the little girl dies of an illness. He’s abroad when he gets the news and toys with writing, but what could he say? Some time later he returns to England and sends a letter. Carlotta replies inviting him to their place in Derbyshire. He counter-replies asking to see her in London. Here he sees for himself the lines of suffering in her face, and how the stuffing’s been knocked out of her.

She really presses him to visit them in Derbyshire so he acquiesces. Lathkill meets him at the station and drives him to their dark, lifeless mansion. Here things kick up a notch. For the first time we learn the narrator’s name, Mark Morier (distantly echoing the Paul Morel of Sons and Lovers).

More to the point, we learn two key facts: this house has a ghost, a woman ghost, who is meant to bring good luck (unlike the bad luck which has so far blighted the couple) but this ghost is rarely if ever seen. And 2) that Lathkill’s elderly mother holds seances and that in one of these the medium unambiguously stated that the Lathkill ghost would return as and when a friend of theirs with two Ms returned. Lathkill and Carlotta both think ‘Mark Morier’.

That evening he attends an awesomely frigid and stony dinner: Carlotta and Lathkill, along with his witchy mother, and two other guests: a yellow liverish colonel, and his terrified silent wife, Mrs Hale. The stoniness of the dinner is magnificently conveyed.

Then the women retired and the men go to the drawing room to smoke and drink spirits. Here the terrified Colonel tells his story. He married young, a woman named Lucy who was 28 to his 20. She bore him three children who grew up and married, but then she died. And then she reappeared to him after death. She badgered him to remarry and even suggested the bride, one of their daughters’ friends, 28, the same age Lucy was. And yet after the second marriage, she has haunted him angrily denouncing him for betraying her, terrifying him away from sleeping with the new Mrs Hale. Hence the extraordinary frigidity of the couple at dinner time, the fear and sterility in Mrs Hale.

Then they go up to join the women for coffee and more stilted conversation. In the midst of it, the man suggest putting some records on and dancing, so they clear the furniture out of the way and there’s an extended description of the dance, of the narrator’s feelings of dancing with old Carlotta, and then with terrified Mrs Hale.

In the midst of the dancing they feel the room become very cold. Presumably it is the ghost. The Colonel had gone to bed but now he reappears in his pyjamas, saying the ghost of Lucy has reappeared to admonish him. This triggers a diatribe from Lathkill. He explains that he realises he has been living bloodlessly, like a ghost, he and Carlotta are both ghosts, the house is dead and sterile. But this evening he has realised they have to live while they are still alive.

He sits next to Mrs Hale and presses her hand to his breast. And he tells the Colonel that the only way to appease the spirit of Lucy is to take her to his heart and warm her. Did they have much sex when they were married? No, the Colonel admits; he didn’t think she wanted it and so had affairs with other women but left her alone. Now Lathkill, in his raised visionary state, tells him to open his chest to her, and the Colonel indeed undoes his dressing gown, unbuttons his pyjamas and exposes his chest. He delivers an astonishing paean to his mother, thanking her for creating him, a man of flesh and blood.

If this was a ghost story, a genre story, we’d meet the ghost. But it isn’t, it’s Lawrence delivering a sermon. The sermon is, unsurprisingly, about the importance of physical love i.e. sex but delivered by Lathkill, who’s gone into visionary overdrive:

We’ve almost become two ghosts to one another, wrestling. Oh, but I want you to get back your body, even if I can’t give it to you. I want my flesh and blood, Carlotta, and I want you to have yours. We’ve suffered so much the other way. And the children, it is as well they are dead. They were born of our will and our disembodiment. Oh, I feel like the Bible. Clothe me with flesh again, and wrap my bones with sinew, and let the fountain of blood cover me. (p.192)

The women react to these speeches in the same bizarre spirit, Carlotta bursting into tears, Mrs Hale sticking by Lathkill.

Eventually this bizarre and surreal scene comes to an end and Lathkill walks the narrator to his guest room. Here he strips and imagines stiff unhappy Carlotta stripping down the hall and fantasises about worshipping her with his body. Instead he remains chaste. Then he goes to sleep and has a visionary dream, a long fantasia which involves meeting the ghost in the heart of oblivion. Here’s what he dreams.

Women were not unknown to me. But never before had woman come, in the depths of night, to answer my deep with her deep. As the ghost came, came as a ghost of silence, still in the depth of sleep. I know she came. I know she came even as a woman, to my man. But the knowledge is darkly naked as the event. I only know, it was so. In the deep of sleep a call was called from the deeps of me, and answered in the deeps, by a woman among women. Breasts or thighs or face. I remember not a touch, no, nor a movement of my own. It is all complete in the profundity of darkness. (p.201)

There is no embarrassing next morning, he just gets up and leaves, Lathklill shaking his hand, Carlotta saying ‘At last it was perfect!’

What this means is made clear in the last page of the story, which consists of a letter Lathkill writes some time later to the narrator who is once again abroad. In the letter Lathkill announces that Carlotta has had a baby, with yellow hair, while just a few days later, Mrs Hale had a baby with black hair.

So what I think ‘happened’ is that the evening ended with Lathkill impregnating Mrs Hale and the narrator impregnating Carlotta. The three alienated and sterile people (Lathkill, Carlotta, Mrs H) were all rejuvenated and brought back to life, in real flesh-and-blood bodies. Colonel Hale was exorcised of his guilt and has gone off to farm pigs. Even spooky Lady Lathkill has, apparently, abandoned the other side and committed to ‘this side’, to life in the here and now. With the result that the dead house where the narrator noticed everyone spoke in hushed whispers, has been restored to life. And Lathkill loves his life and his home again.

Sex is the cure.

According to notes, Lawrence really struggled with this story, starting and finishing others while he wrestled with it and you can see why. Like so many of his works it falls into two halves: the opening is amazingly fresh and realistic, sounding like a normal writer, and even up to the frigid dinner party it makes sense. It’s when the Colonel confesses how he is haunted by the ghost of his first wife that the story crosses over to the other side of fantasy. The sudden cooling of the room as if a spirit had entered, the increasingly frenetic dancing, the men swapping their dancing partners as they are to swap sexual partners, and Lathkill’s visionary speeches to the Colonel, Carlotta and his mother, before plunging into the strange ending where the narrator appears to have sex in a dream. Or is he just repressing the reality of sleeping with another man’s wife? I prefer the dream opinion because that’s what Lawrence presents in his text, that’s what’s on the page, and that is what is such a weird and giddy escape from the banal world of adultery.

Social history note: Here as in other stories from the period, Lawrence talks about them putting some jazz on the gramophone. Imagine how evocative it would be if he only told us the precise track.

In Love (1927)

12 pages. A light comedy.

Two sisters: Henrietta and Hester. Hester, the eldest, 25, is due to get married in just a month’s time. Henrietta, the younger, is just 21. Hester looks worried about going to spend a weekend with her fiancé, Joe, on his farm in Wiltshire but she goes anyway.

Here she spends the day helping with the chores, helping the cook serve dinner etc, then the servants wash up an leave. Six months earlier Hester would have been comfortable with Joe, they’ve been friends for donkey’s years. But now there’s a constraint between themselves because he’s made the mistake of falling in love with her. He wants to cuddle and ‘pet’ and all that stuff, which she finds repellent. Wishes it had never happened, now. For some reason I’ve found more humour in this selection of Lawrence stories than in all his novels put together.

He was extremely competent at motor-cars and farming and all that sort of thing. And surely she, Hester, was as complicated as a motorcar! Surely she had as many subtle little valves and magnetos and accelerators and all the rest of it, to her make-up! If only he would try to handle her as carefully as he handled his car! She needed starting, as badly as ever any automobile did. Even if a car had a self-starter, the man had to give it the right twist. Hester felt she would need a lot of cranking up, if ever she was to start off on the matrimonial road with Joe. And he, the fool, just sat in a motionless car and pretended he was making heaven knows how many miles an hour. (p.151)

After enduring some ‘cuddling’ on the sofa, Hester asks Joe to play the piano for her and while he plays she slips out of the bungalow. She feels an immense relief to be out in the cool night under the moon but then the playing stops and she, on impulse, shimmies up into the weeping willow which hangs over the stream. Joe comes calling for her, but quietly and pathetically, making her despise him even more. More comedy:

She began to cry, and fumbling in her sleeve for her hanky, she nearly fell out of the tree. Which brought her to her senses.

She worries that she must be abnormal. All the other girls love this love stuff. Suddenly there’s the sound of a car which pulls up at the gate to Joe’s place. Hesta scrambles down out of the tree and runs over. It’s none other than sister Henrietta, and the car is driven by Joe’s brother, Donald, and in the back is Teddy, a second cousin.

They all swear they don’t want to interrupt the love birds, they’ve come to stay on an adjoining farm, but Hester insists they come in. When Henrietta and Hester enter Joe is, of course, furious, which the innocent younger sister doesn’t understand. Hester wants them all to stay but Henrietta can see they’re not wanted and, after warming her hands at the fire.

In front of her Hester and Joe have a flaring row. Joe wants to know why Hester just walked out like that and Hester claims she has a very good reason so… What is it, asks naive Henrietta. The impatient boys out in the car toot their horn. Henrietta yells out the door for them to wait half a minute and turns back to the couple who are at daggers drawn. Finally Hester spits it out:

Her face flew into sudden strange fury. ‘Well, if you want to know, I absolutely can’t stand your making love to me, if that’s what you call the business… I couldn’t possibly marry him if he kept on being in love with me.’ She spoke the two words with almost snarling emphasis… ‘Nothing can be so perfectly humiliating as a man making love to you,’ said Hester. ‘I loathe it.’ (p.159)

Joe goes red with fury then pale with shock. The girls comment on horrible men:

‘I don’t believe I could stand that sort of thing, with any man. Henrietta, do you know what it is, being stroked and cuddled? It’s too perfectly awful and ridiculous.’
‘Yes!’ said Henrietta, musing sadly. ‘As if one were a perfectly priceless meat-pie, and the dog licked it tenderly before he gobbled it up. It is rather sickening, I agree.’
‘And what’s so awful, a perfectly decent man will go and get that way. Nothing is so awful as a man who has fallen in love,’ said Hester.
‘I know what you mean, Hester. So doggy!’ said Henrietta sadly. (p.159).

To be precise, the sisters agree that men are awful. But then in a comic twist Joe announces that he never lover her either. He only proposed and did all the lovey-dovey stuff because it was expected of him. All of which he says with a sneer. Is he sincere, or just recovering from being rejected. Hester is surprised but Henrietta is appalled.

And he realises what a pig he’s been and repents, And Hester for the first time sees:

the honest, patient love for her in his eyes, and the queer, quiet central desire. It was the first time she had seen it, that quiet, patient, central desire of a young man who has suffered during his youth, and seeks now almost with the slowness of age. A hot flush went over her heart. She felt herself responding to him. (p.161)

So she decides to stay and Henrietta slips out to let the love birds alone. Moral: love is a complicated thing.

None of That

22 pages. First-person narrative. The unnamed narrator meets Luis Colmenares in Venice. He’s a Mexican painter in exile. Surprisingly their conversation is all about a world-famous bullfighter from Mexico, Cuestra, who retired when an American woman, Ethel Cane, left him half a million dollars, and who Colmenares saw the other day swimming in the Lido.

Colmenares says he knew Ethel Cane in Paris before the war, when she knew ‘everybody’, was married to a painter (who wasn’t darling?) and had a mania for collecting antique furniture. Then she came to Mexico, attracted by the violence of the revolution, and hooked up with Colmenares, as someone she’d know in Paris. She came in search of a special man but her can-do energy and independence put off Mexican men, who were used to respect and obedience. They danced with her and expected her to become their mistress but she had a catchphrase: ‘I’m having none of that!’

So she became bored and insulted Mexico, saying it was nothing but little boys with guns.

She had an imaginary picture of herself as an extraordinary and potent woman who would make a stupendous change in the history of man. Like Catherine of Russia, only cosmopolitan, not merely Russian. And it is true, she was an extraordinary woman, with tremendous power of will, and truly amazing energy, even for an American woman. She was like a locomotive-engine stoked up inside and bursting with steam, which it has to let off by rolling a lot of trucks about. But I did not see how this was to cause a change in the tide of mortal affairs. It was only a part of the hubbub of traffic. She sent the trucks bouncing against one another with a clash of buffers, and sometimes she derailed some unfortunate item of the rolling-stock. (p.210)

(Cf the comic comparison of Hester with a car in ‘In Love’.) Colmenares was in thrall to her and flattered by her attention but she never had any intention of becoming an item. She used him for his information about Mexican history and society etc. Colmenares explains that he sometimes thought she wanted to be made love to, but realised that was only with her external self. Deep inside she despised men (‘she was always hating men, hating all active maleness in a man. She only wanted passive maleness’), and only used them to try and ‘start something’, to be at the centre of something, to make something happen. He knew if he gave in to becoming her lover he would be chewed up and spat out and then the subject of humiliating stories told to others. So he felt a physical repulsion from her.

Anyway, the narrator prompts Colmenares to move things along and the painter comes to the bit where Ethel Cane meets the world-famous bullfighter, Cuesta. Well Colmenares took her to a bullfight. At first she was disgusted by the blood and killing but then Cuesta came on and performed like a god. When he kills a particularly demanding bull, Ethel goes mad and joins the rest of his intoxicated admirers. She cheers and he catches her eye and it visibly affects him, he is so distracted Colmenares worries he might make a mistake and be injured.

But he isn’t. Instead, later, Ethel asks whether Colmenares knows Cuesta (yes) and asks for an introduction. So Colmenares arranges for him to call round, dressed in his best, wearing a ponytail. He doesn’t speak any other language; Ethel speaks in French, which Colmenares translates. It’s a brief call but Cuesta takes to calling round regularly. He just sits there talking to the translator he brings, staring at Ethel all the time. He’s a pig, he’s an animal, when alone with Colmenares, he refers to Ethel in the crudest physical terms. He has no brains, no imagination, nothing fires him. Colmenares he’s not really even human.

Nevertheless Ethel is infatuated and asks Colmenares endlessly for his opinion. Suddenly she starts talking about killing herself. Mad with infatuation she doesn’t want her body to triumph over her imagination.

‘If my body is stronger than my imagination, I shall kill myself,’ she said… If my body was under the control of my imagination, I could take Cuesta for my lover, and it would be an imaginative act. But if my body acted without my imagination, I–I’d kill myself… If I can’t get my body on its feet again, and either forget him or else get him to make it an imaginative act with me–I–I shall kill myself.’ (p.220)

Colmenares tries to persuade both these people to walk away, Ethel to get on a train to New York and forget, Cuesta to stop tormenting her. But she is infatuated and Cuesta 1) thinks of her as a dish he wants to eat and 2) learns that she is rich, really rich, very, very rich. But neither of them want to be physical. Ethel takes herself too seriously to be so vulgar and Cuesta actually finds her pale whiteness repulsive.

Cuesta always goes to her house early in the evening, and for half an hour at most, claiming to be busy in the evening. But on his last visit, when Ethel asks why can’t he visit her for a full evening, he tells her she is welcome to come to her house at 11, when his evening business is finished. She is embarrassed and acts surprised that he is available so late. ‘If it’s a special occasion,’ he replies.

‘Come, then, at night–come at eleven, when I am free,’ he said, with supreme animal impudence, looking into her eyes.

A few days later Colmenares hears Ethel is ill. A day or two later it is announced she is dead. It was all hushed up but Colmenares knows she poisoned herself. In her will, she had left half her fortune to Cuesta. The will had been made some ten days before her death but it was allowed to stand and so he took the money.

The narrator complacently concludes that ‘Her body had got the better of her imagination, after all’ but Colmenares says it was worse than that. When Ethel and Cuesta retired to Cuesta’s bedroom, he handed over to a gang of his cronies who gang-raped her, telling them to be careful not to leave bruises or marks. The doctors at the inquest still found puzzling bruises but then another revolution broke out and the whole affair was overshadowed by larger violence. Mexico.

Sun (1928)

18 pages. Maurice and Juliet are Americans. They live in New York (East Forty-Seventh Street) where Maurice runs his own unspectacular but efficient business. He wears dark grey suits and parts his hair neatly. Since they had a little boy, Juliet has changed, becoming increasingly upset at her stifling life. The doctors recommend a break, in the sun, so she and her little boy take ship across the grey Atlantic and on to Italy.

Here she settles into a villa with a few servants. After a few weeks of lying dressed in the sunshine, she makes the decision to sunbathe naked and, after a little scouting round, finds a sheltered rocky place among cacti where she won’t be overseen. Lawrence describes her first occasion bathing quite naked and the wonderful feeling of coming back to life it awakens in her.

She slid off all her clothes, and lay naked in the sun, and as she lay she looked up through her fingers at the central sun, his blue pulsing roundness, whose outer edges streamed brilliance. Pulsing with marvellous blue, and alive, and streaming white fire from his edges, the Sun! He faced down to her with blue body of fire, and enveloped her breasts and her face, her throat, her tired belly, her knees, her thighs and her feet.

Back at the villa she tells her little boy to strip and, reluctant and scared at first, he quickly gets used to scampering round in the nude.

‘He shall not grow up like his father,’ she said to herself. ‘Like a worm that the sun has never seen.’

A month or more passes (January through February) with Juliet sunbathing every day. She turns golden brown. She takes her boy with him to the secret place. There are a few minor incidents, like the time she realises he is standing before a snake and has to very carefully make him back away, while the snake disappears.

Then one day, walking naked among the bushes she comes across the peasant from the next-door podere tying wood to his donkey. He straightens and sees her and they make eye contact.

Then his eyes met hers, and she felt the blue fire running through her limbs to her womb, which was spreading in the helpless ecstasy. Still they looked into each other’s eyes, and the fire flowed between them, like the blue, streaming fire from the heart of the sun. And she saw the phallus rise under his clothing, and knew he would come towards her.
‘Mummy, a man! Mummy!’ The child had put a hand against her thigh. ‘Mummy, a man!’
She heard the note of fear and swung round.
‘It’s all right, boy!’ she said, and taking him by the hand, she led him back round the rock again, while the peasant watched her naked, retreating buttocks lift and fall.

She slips her grey shift on and goes back to the villa, lies on her bed and fantasises about him. Next day she is down at the secret rocky place when the villa’s ancient housemaid, Marinina, shouts down to her. Her husband is here, all the way from New York. Then she shows Maurice down the secret path to the sheltered sun terrace.

He looks immaculate in a dark grey suit and she realises what a totally indoor man he is. He for his part is shocked to see her standing completely naked and averts his eyes as he walks forward. They don’t embrace or touch, but discuss practicalities. The little boy sees his Dad and isn’t that moved. When Maurice takes him in his arms, the boy demands that he removes his jacket.

Juliet announces she’s never going back to New York, she couldn’t bear it. He hesitantly acquiesces then, for politeness’ sake, she asks if he can come out here. To her disappointment he says yes, he can probably manage a month.

She ended on an open note. But the voice of the abrupt, personal American woman had died out, and he heard the voice of the woman of flesh, the sun-ripe body. He glanced at her again and again, with growing desire and lessening fear.

They have lunch. Now Juliet had noticed that the peasant had lunch at the same time every day, at the house over on the next podere or terrace. He has it now, with his wife dressed in black. Juliet arranges their lunch so that Maurice sits with his back to the view while Juliet can see across to the peasant and his heavy wife. Juliet fantasies about sex with him, to be taken and drenched in sunlight with such an elemental force, and then part without all that tedious talking and engagement, just being uplifted and transported. Whereas, her husband! She looks at him over the lunch table.

There was a gleam in his eyes, a desperate kind of courage of desire to taste this new fruit, this woman with rosy, sun-ripening breasts tilting within her wrapper. And she thought of him with his blanched, etiolated little city figure, walking in the sun in the desperation of a husband’s rights.

God. Suddenly she realises white worm-like Maurice will make love to her and she will get pregnant again with his child and bear it and be trapped in the same sunless place. When all she longed for was to be transformed by wonderful sun-drenched sex with the solid, silent man of the earth.

And the story ends with this bitter note of her being trapped.

Note: the phallus

Interestingly, there seem to be two significantly different versions of this story. The online version includes several mentions of the peasant’s ‘phallus’, namely when she stumbles across him silently working in a little gully and he turns round and sees her naked and she sees his intense eyes but then notices his ‘phallus’ growing erect in his trousers. And ends with Juliet comparing the peasant’s big penis favourably with her husband’s ‘little, frantic penis’. Whereas the words phallus and penis don’t appear in the Penguin paperback version. There’s no mention of this in Aldington’s introduction and no notes, so I’m guessing that even in 1981, Penguin had to be careful and chose to print a bowdlerised version of the story, maybe that Lawrence himself toned down to secure publication. But that the Planet Gutenberg online version, created in 2004, felt free to use the uncensored version.

In the Penguin version it’s only at the very end that we learn of Juliet’s sun-filled infatuation with the peasant, or the idea of the peasant, and it felt to me like it came out of the blue, though was quite a powerful bombshell to end on. In the online version the incident in the gully with the phallus occurs earlier and so establishes the theme of sex-with-the-peasant much earlier, which is then reprised at the end. We are more prepared for Juliet’s sense of lust lost at the end.

Both ‘work’ but to produce different flavours. If I was forced to choose, I’d prefer the censored Penguin version. This is because the effects of the sun on Juliet’s body and consciousness are reasonably subtle, as is the interplay of her with her little boy and how he gets used to playing naked. But when you read of a phallus engorging, let alone the comparison of two men’s penises, it doesn’t exactly move things into the realm of pornography, but it does undermine the subtlety of the other perceptions and descriptions. I think the censored version is slightly crippled in shape by having the sexual impact of the gully episode played down; but the benefit is that you pay more attention to Juliet’s changing feelings.


Credit

‘The Woman Who Rode Away and Other Stories’ by D.H. Lawrence was published in 1928 by Martin Secker. References are to the 1981 Penguin Classics paperback edition, though most of the stories are available online.

Related links

The Planet Gutenberg version of this collection has slightly different stories, in a different order.

Related reviews

Aaron’s Rod by D. H. Lawrence (1922)

He paid hardly any outward attention to his surroundings, but sat involved in himself.
(The D.H. Lawrence posture, Aaron Sisson riding a train across northern Italy in chapter 14)

‘What’s the good of running after life, when we’ve got it in us, if nobody prevents us and obstructs us?’
(Motto of the gnarly little writer, Rawdon Lilly, p.337)

‘Aaron’s Rod’ isn’t a very good book. Well down the D.H. Lawrence reading list. Richard Aldington’s introduction to the Penguin edition does a good job of putting you off reading it. He describes it as a confused pot-boiler, a minor work. This is for two reasons:

1. The books consists of two halves which were written at different times: Lawrence began writing ‘Aaron’s Rod’ early in 1918 but abandoned it after writing the first eleven chapters, and you can see why: it’s not really clear what it’s about or where it’s going: the lead character keeps changing, from Aaron, to Jim Bricknell, to Rawdon Lilly for a while and only at the end back to Aaron again. Three years later, in 1921, Lawrence picked it up again and wrote the remaining ten chapters, in which he abruptly whisks his English protagonist off to Italy. But it’s not to much that: the problem is not just the change of scene but the drastic change of atmosphere and, above all, of style. It abruptly switches from being thin social satire of the first half to something more long-winded and earnest like the densest parts of ‘Women in Love’.

2. In his biography of Lawrence, Anthony Burgess quotes a letter in which Lawrence described rewriting ‘Women in Love’ seven times. This effort shows in the novel’s astonishing depth of characterisation and in the densely written depictions of human beings stripped back to elemental level. The highly wrought nature of the prose completely matches the theme and aim. By contrast, ‘Aaron’s Rod’ is not only inconsistent in tone and details (the kind of thing you’d correct by rewriting) but, for the first 11 chapters, is much, much thinner in texture and effect.

It’s the first of Lawrence’s really satirical works. As the war was starting (1914), the success of ‘Sons and Lovers’ (1912) and the scandal of ‘The Rainbow’ (1915) gave Lawrence an entrée into London’s literary and artistic society, a far cry from the colliers and farmers of Eastwood where he grew up. Soon he was hobnobbing with Lady Ottoline Morell and Bertrand Russell, meeting lots of other writers, artists and poets, and discovering just how horribly competitive, mean and backbiting they could be.

There were two results: 1) satire, taking the mickey out of the new, posh people he was meeting, their empty lives, their boredom and superficiality; 2) but satire is itself a superficial medium, ridiculing people’s appearance, behaviour and speech; it generally doesn’t attempt to reach the depths of human experience.

So it’s not just the fact that it’s a novel of two distinct parts, or the lack of consistency in tone or details, it’s the almost complete abandonment, in the first 11 chapters, of the flayed, primeval depth which The Rainbow and Women in Love achieved so awesomely. Instead, the first half is closer to the silly, social satire of Lawrence’s friend, Aldous Huxley but – crucially – without the comedy.

Lawrence invents a small group of bored bourgeois – a couple of rich couples, an artist, a painter, their wives and mistresses – and then invents half a dozen scenes for them to display their shallow worthlessness and silly affairs. But maybe in doing so he discovered that this really wasn’t his metier and, by chapter 11, had gotten understandably bored of the whole thing and dropped it.

The finished published novel isn’t cast in two parts but because that’s what Aldington and Burgess say about it, and also because there’s such an obvious break in the reading, I’ve divided this summary of it into two parts.

The title

In the Old Testament Aaron is the older brother of Moses. Unlike Moses, Aaron had a place at Pharaoh’s court and acted as Moses’ spokesman. His rod features in several stories. It was a divine symbol of Aaron’s authority as the first high priest of the Israelites. When Moses called up the first three of the plagues he brought down upon Egypt, it was via Aaron’s use of his magic rod. Later, when free and wandering in the wilderness, there was argument among the different tribes as to who deserved primacy. To emphasize the validity of the Levites’ claim to the offerings and tithes of the Israelites, Moses collected a rod from the leaders of each tribe in Israel and laid the twelve rods overnight in the tent of meeting. The next morning, Aaron’s rod was found to have budded and blossomed and produced ripe almonds. The rod was then placed before the Ark of the Covenant to symbolize Aaron’s right to priesthood (Wikipedia).

All these overtones are contained in the novel’s title. Within Lawrence’s story, ‘Aaron’s rod’ refers to the flute played by the central character, Aaron Sisson. The comparison is made, explicitly, by the writer Rawdon Lilly, in chapter 10. Here is the exchange in full. As you can see, like a lot of things in the novel, it starts with the promise of wit and deep meaning but peters out into inconsequentiality.

Aaron suddenly took his flute, and began trying little passages from the opera on his knee. He had not played since his illness. The noise came out a little tremulous, but low and sweet. Lilly came forward with a plate and a cloth in his hand.
‘Aaron’s rod is putting forth again,’ he said, smiling.
‘What?’ said Aaron, looking up.
‘I said Aaron’s rod is putting forth again.’
‘What rod?’
‘Your flute, for the moment.’
‘It’s got to put forth my bread and butter.’
‘Is that all the buds it’s going to have?’
‘What else!’
‘Nay—that’s for you to show. What flowers do you imagine came out of the rod of Moses’s brother?’
‘Scarlet runners, I should think if he’d got to live on them.’
‘Scarlet enough, I’ll bet.’

It ought to mean something, shouldn’t it, but like a lot of things in the novel, is heavy on promising rhetoric but, in the end, means nothing. Periodically there are discussions of music in the novel but not as many as you might expect. Lady Williams prefers Bach and Beethoven. In his pensione in Florence, Aaron:

studied some music he had bought in Milan: some Pergolesi and the Scarlatti he liked, and some Corelli. He preferred frail, sensitive, abstract music, with not much feeling in it, but a certain limpidity and purity. Night fell as he sat reading the scores. He would have liked to try certain pieces on his flute. But his flute was too sensitive, it winced from the new strange surroundings, and would not blossom. (p.251)

But the term really comes into its own in chapter 18, where it comes to symbolise the flowering of Aaron’s lust for the Marchesa (see summary of chapter 18, below). Here it is equated with his maleness and transparently symbolises the male member.

Part one. Beldover, Hampshire and London

Chapter 1. The Blue Ball

It is Christmas Eve after the First World War. We are in an ugly little mining town of Beldover, in the small home of Aaron Sisson. Aaron is a ‘men’s checkweighman’ at the local coalmines mines. He is 33 and a noted amateur player of the flute. He is blonde with a fair moustache and quite handsome.

He watches his two girls playing and squabbling over Christmas tree decorations. One of them finds a glass blue ball which has been handed down to him as a family heirloom. In the way of children the two sisters wonder how strong it is, what would happen if you drop it (it survives), what would happen if you throw it in the air and let it fall on the tiled floor – it breaks, angering their father.

Chapter 2. The Royal Oak

The children want candles for their Christmas tree so when Aaron sets off for his nightly visit to the pub, his wife, Lottie, asks him to buy some, and this is an opportunity for Lawrence to describe Christmas Eve in the main shopping street of a miners’ town like Beldover. Lawrence makes a point of stating: ‘The war had killed the little market of the town.’ Aaron buys eight candles in a shop.

Then he goes on to the pub, the Royal Oak. It’s a small space with benches and a couple of tables. Conversation with the men. This morphs into conversation with the local doctor who is, surprisingly, an Indian. Discussion of Indian independence. Strong hint that Aaron is close to, has slept with, the pub landlady. But the Indian conversation puts him in a bad mood, to the landlady’s irritation. At 10pm, chucking out time, she invites him into the back parlour to share a mince pie but he refuses. Reluctant to go home, on an impulse Aaron sets off down Shottle Lane.

Chapter 3. The Lighted Tree

Scene cuts to Shottle House, owned by Alfred Bricknell, ‘one of the partners in the Colliery firm. His English was incorrect, his accent, broad Derbyshire, and he was not a gentleman in the snobbish sense of the word. Yet he was well-to-do, and very stuck-up.’ His son, 6-foot Jim Bricknell, almost bald, ugly, ‘a cavalry officer and fought in two wars’. Josephine Ford, the girl Jim was engaged to. Alfred’s daughter, Julia Bricknell. Julia’s husband, Robert Cunningham, a lieutenant about to be demobilised, when he would become a sculptor once more. House guest Cyril Scott,

They’re rich and bored. They decide to place live candles in a big tree outside and are in the middle of doing this when Sisson strolls up, wearing a bowler hat and buttoned-up greatcoat. They are surprised but pleased to have someone interrupt the tedium. they invite him back into the house, give him drink and fete him, all of which Aaron greets with surprising sang-froid and indifference.

For some reason Jim warms to him and offers to put him up on the couch in his room, leads him off to his room, everyone goes to bed.

Chapter 4. ‘The Pillar of Salt’

Aaron has run away and abandoned his wife, Lottie. He’s sent her letters giving her access to money. The chapter opens with him having returned to the house at night, and now watching it hidden in the garden. He sees the comings and goings of Lottie and children through the window. Finally he sneaks inside to retrieve his flute, piccolo and music, and their case. Hiding, he overhears the visit of the Indian doctor, because one of his daughter’s is sick in bed and Lottie is scared. Aaron overhears the doctor’s rather over-familiar reassurance of his wife. When the doctor leaves and his wife goes upstairs to the sick girl’s room, Aaron silently slips out of the house and over the low garden wall.

Chapter 5. At The Opera

The same group of bored posh people we met in chapter 3 are lolling in a box at the opera in London, bored and sniping at each other. In addition there’s Rawdon Lilly, a writer, a dark ugly man, ‘bare-headed wispy, unobtrusive Lilly’, married to Tanny. Tanny is half Norwegian. And Struther, a painter.

The big topic of conversation is whether Julia Bricknell will take up the invitation of Cyril Scott to run off and leave her husband of eight years, Robert Cunningham, to have an affair. Robert is there, present, while the others discuss it. they all encourage her to have an adventure, and Robert doesn’t much mind, but she just can’t decide.

Incidentally, they all loathe the opera itself, hate the music and despise the fat oafish singers. It’s hard to make out whether Lawrence is satirising them for a bunch of philistines, or this is Lawrence’s own attitude to the opera. Either way, Lawrence completely lacks the gift for comedy. Although the characters laugh a lot at each others’ jokes or behaviour.

Argyle was somewhat intoxicated. He spoke with a slight slur, and laughed, really tickled at his own jokes.

But none of it is actually funny, none. Instead of comedy, the best Lawrence can usually deliver is acidulous contempt, jeering., something which is unconsciously echoed in the way so many of his characters are described as jeering. It’s a favourite word of his.

Chapter 6. Talk

Jim spots Aaron playing in the orchestra. After the opera he finds Aaron and invites him along with the rest of his party to his rooms at the Albany, decorated in fashionably Bohemian style. They are joined by a Mrs Browning, Clariss. A lot of pointless banter. Jim is convinced he is dying because no-one will love him. He asks Aaron whether he believes in love. Lilly has the larky idea of writing down the Grand Truths they are discovering in marker pen on the fire mantlepiece, choice insights such as LOVE IS LIFE and LOVE IS THE SOUL’S RESPIRATION. Jim is a champagne socialist.

Jim had been an officer in the regular army, and still spent hours with his tailor. But instead of being a soldier he was a sort of socialist, and a red-hot revolutionary of a very ineffectual sort.

This partly explains why he’s attracted to Aaron who he imagines is a proletarian. When he finds him after the opera, Jim walks Aaron to his rooms ‘talking rather vaguely about Labour and Robert Smillie, and Bolshevism. He was all for revolution and the triumph of labour.’ Then again, several of the little group of posh wastrels share a laughable attraction to ‘revolution’, notably sad Josephine:

‘My, wouldn’t I love it if they’d make a bloody revolution!’
‘Must it be bloody, Josephine?’ said Robert.
‘Why, yes. I don’t believe in revolutions that aren’t bloody,’ said Josephine. ‘Wouldn’t I love it! I’d go in front with a red flag.’

Callow. The party breaks up, they all go to Embankment tube station and then head off in their different directions. Aaron is rooming in Bloomsbury.

Chapter 7. The Dark Square Garden

A while later Josephine Ford hosts Aaron to dinner in a Soho restaurant. She quizzes him about his background, his family and why he left them. Aaron comes over quite appealingly as a man who just wants to be left alone. They walks across the Charing Cross Road past the British Museum to a Bloomsbury Square. There’s a high wind in the trees. Josephine talks about marriage, wanting to be loved etc. She was engaged to Jim Bricknell but has gone off him. She starts crying though Aaron doesn’t notice partly because of the storm in the trees. Then she asks him to kiss her, but he refuses. He doesn’t want to be forced into caring. He just wants to be left alone. She’s understandably insulted. They walk out of the garden and he sees her to the door of her lodging in offended silence.

Chapter 8. A Punch in the Wind

Lilly and Tanny live in a labourer’s cottage in Hampshire. They are poor. One day Jim Bricknell cables that he’s coming to visit. He brings sausages and fish paste. They gossip. Julia did go off with Taylor, leaving Robert alone. He’ll probably have a pop at Josephine. Jim’s started seeing his divorced French wife again.

Jim’s work in town was merely nominal. He spent his time wavering about and going to various meetings, philandering and weeping. (p.93)

Jim is trying. He stuffs his face with food, takes a loaf of bread to bed, and argues with Lilly. They argue about Christianity, Lilly like a good modern writer finding it detestable, Jim declaring it’s ‘the finest thing humanity’s ever produced’ and saying he’s looking for the Christ-like in man. When he asks if he can stay the Saturday, Lilly bluntly says no, tells him he has to leave tomorrow (Thursday).

They send a telegram to a girlfriend of Jim’s (Lois) to meet him at a station en route back to London so they can walk together, walk through the woods. Jim’s thing is he needs to be falling in love otherwise he feels life is empty and drinks to fill the void.

Back at the cottage they consume the tea Tanny has prepared and sit round the fire. Tanny is exasperated that Jim can’t just lead his own life without needing a woman to hold his hand and Lilly continues his mockery of Jim’s attitudes, till the big man suddenly leaps at him and punches him several times in the torso, hard. The odd thing is this doesn’t lead to an argument, all the characters accept it as somehow natural, in fact Tanny regards this as a wake-up call to dark little Lilly for constantly criticising his friends. This has the true Lawrence weirdness.

Next day they walk Jim to the train station, he invites them to come and stay at his country place, but it’s the last time Lilly and Tanny ever see Jim.

Chapter 9. Low-Water Mark

Tanny goes off to see ‘her people’ in Norway and Lilly rents a flat in Covent Garden, spends days watching the comings and goings. Just as the focus of the novel seemed to be settling on Lilly, Aaron reappears. One day Lilly sees a posh gent cross through the busy market and then slip over. Running downstairs he arrives the same time as a policeman, recognises Aaron, gets the copper to help Aaron up the stairs to his flat. It’s cosy with a piano and bookshelves.

What emerges is Aaron ‘gave in’ to Josephine, allowed himself to have feelings for her, and as soon as he stopped being aloof, something in him snapped. He is ill and Lilly puts him in his spare bed and calls a doctor, but Aaron gets worse. The doctor diagnoses the flu. Days pass as Aaron declines. Suddenly, with Lawrentian irrationality, little Lilly decides to strip him and rub him all over with oil, which he does laboriously, then recovers him with blankets, and Aaron starts to slowly recover.

Meanwhile, Lilly is given an extended rant which sounds just like Lawrence, betting that Aaron will be ungrateful when he recovers, then wandering off to the principle that man must stick up for himself, be himself, not rely on women (like Jim), give into women (like Aaron). This morphs into a rant about the races of the world, which is worth quoting to give you the full Lawrence flavour of a serious point stifled by madness and bigotry.

‘I can’t do with folk who teem by the billion, like the Chinese and Japs and orientals altogether. Only vermin teem by the billion. Higher types breed slower. I would have loved the Aztecs and the Red Indians. I KNOW they hold the element in life which I am looking for—they had living pride. Not like the flea-bitten Asiatics – even niggers are better than Asiatics, though they are wallowers – the American races – and the South Sea Islanders – the Marquesans, the Maori blood. That was the true blood. It wasn’t frightened. All the rest are craven – Europeans, Asiatics, Africans – everyone at his own individual quick craven and cringing: only conceited in the mass, the mob. How I hate them: the mass-bullies, the individual Judases. Well, if one will be a Jesus he must expect his Judas. That’s why Abraham Lincoln gets shot. A Jesus makes a Judas inevitable. A man should remain himself, not try to spread himself over humanity. He should pivot himself on his own pride.’ (p.120)

Slowly Aaron recovers while Lilly goes about the household chores, making him tea and darning his socks, which he enjoys. The chapter ends with a joint rant against women, which is so weird / mad / entertaining that I’ve made it a separate post.

Chapter 10. The War Again

We’re still in Lilly’s flat. It’s a week or so later. Aaron is much better. They chat. Lilly tells Aaron he’s signed on a merchant vessel sailing to Malta as a ship’s cook. Aaron, sounding like Lawrence, says what’s the point going anywhere if you remain the same, to which Lilly replies the with equally Lawrentian argument, ‘There are lots of me’s. I’m not only just one proposition. A new place brings out a new thing in a man.’

Then Lilly explains his theory of male and femaleness, that one must be absolutely oneself, in a relationship, but that makes the unity all the more profound: anyway, he despises most couples who are just a queasy oneness. When he talks about this unity being achieved after much fighting and sensual fulfilment, you strongly suspect he’s describing Lawrence and Frieda’s stormy relationship.

The two men have been living together for a fortnight. They have discovered a close sympathy.

The two men had an almost uncanny understanding of one another—like brothers. They came from the same district, from the same class. Each might have been born into the other’s circumstance. Like brothers, there was a profound hostility between them. But hostility is not antipathy. (p.129)

Lots more bickering then a friend of Lilly’s turns up, Herbertson, a captain in the Guards, had been right through the war, 45 and getting stout, very posh (p.137). Turns out he has a compulsion to talk about the war, and has found Lilly a good listener.

It was the same thing here in this officer as it was with the privates, and the same with this Englishman as with a Frenchman or a German or an Italian. Lilly had sat in a cowshed listening to a youth in the north country: he had sat on the corn-straw that the oxen had been treading out, in Calabria, under the moon: he had sat in a farm-kitchen with a German prisoner: and every time it was the same thing, the same hot, blind, anguished voice of a man who has seen too much, experienced too much, and doesn’t know where to turn. None of the glamour of returned heroes, none of the romance of war: only a hot, blind, mesmerised voice, going on and on, mesmerised by a vision that the soul cannot bear.

In this officer, of course, there was a lightness and an appearance of bright diffidence and humour. But underneath it all was the same as in the common men of all the combatant nations: the hot, seared burn of unbearable experience, which did not heal nor cool, and whose irritation was not to be relieved. The experience gradually cooled on top: but only with a surface crust. The soul did not heal, did not recover.

Five pages of very intense war stories are given to Herbertson, some very gruesome indeed (headless bodies) all told in the posh pukka way of an officer on the edge of hysteria. Damning indictment of war. In amid the gore, Herbertson expresses his belief that all the men who were killed had a presentiment of their deaths.

Then he lifted his face, and went on in the same animated chatty fashion: ‘You see, he had a presentiment. I’m sure he had a presentiment. None of the men got killed unless they had a presentiment – like that, you know….’
Herbertson nodded keenly at Lilly, with his sharp, twinkling, yet obsessed eyes. Lilly wondered why he made the presentiment responsible for the death – which he obviously did – and not vice versa.
Herbertson implied every time, that you’d never get killed if you could keep yourself from having a presentiment. Perhaps there was something in it. Perhaps the soul issues its own ticket of death, when it can stand no more. Surely life controls life: and not accident.

It’s two in the morning before he leaves, leaving Lilly and Aaron depressed and arguing about the war. Lilly takes the Lawrence line that the war was, in some sense, false because it didn’t happen to him, it didn’t occur at the really deep level.

‘Damn all leagues. Damn all masses and groups, anyhow. All I want is to get MYSELF out of their horrible heap: to get out of the swarm. The swarm to me is nightmare and nullity—horrible helpless writhing in a dream. I want to get myself awake, out of it all—all that mass-consciousness, all that mass-activity—it’s the most horrible nightmare to me. No man is awake and himself. No man who was awake and in possession of himself would use poison gases: no man. His own awake self would scorn such a thing. It’s only when the ghastly mob-sleep, the dream helplessness of the mass-psyche overcomes him, that he becomes completely base and obscene.’

When Aaron demurs, Lilly tells him he (Aaron) has to leave tomorrow (in the same peremptory way he demanded that Jim Bricknell leave his Hampshire cottage ahead of time). He’s serious about it, and turfs Aaron out the next morning. When Aaron pops round a few days later to say a final goodbye before Lilly sails, Lilly makes sure to be out. It is a serious breach in their friendship.

Chapter 11. More Pillar of Salt

The opera season ended, Aaron was invited by Cyril Scott to join a group of musical people in a village by the sea. He accepted, and spent a pleasant month. It pleased the young men musically-inclined and bohemian by profession to patronise the flautist, whom they declared marvellous. Bohemians with well-to-do parents, they could already afford to squander a little spasmodic and self-gratifying patronage. And Aaron did not mind being patronised. He had nothing else to do.

The chapter is titled ‘More’ because Aaron returns to the Midlands, to his town, and to his house. First crouching in the garden at the night, then walking up the garden path and into the house to surprise and dismay his wife. She, obviously, is upset and hurls reproaches at him which he is too vague to formulate replies to. The style reverts to the ‘Women in Love’ style of lots of repetition of key phrases and the man and the woman conceived as primal archetypes, along with that fundamental Lawrentian characteristic, of conflicting and contradictory emotions. His wife berates him, but then gives way to floods of tears, comes, kneels by his side her head on his thigh, wailing.

Him it half overcame, and at the same time, horrified. He had a certain horror of her. The strange liquid sound of her appeal seemed to him like the swaying of a serpent which mesmerises the fated, fluttering, helpless bird. She clasped her arms round him, she drew him to her, she half roused his passion. At the same time she coldly horrified and repelled him. He had not the faintest feeling, at the moment, of his own wrong. But she wanted to win his own self-betrayal out of him. He could see himself as the fascinated victim, falling to this cajoling, awful woman, the wife of his bosom. But as well, he had a soul outside himself, which looked on the whole scene with cold revulsion. (p.154)

So this fraught scene receives the full Lawrence treatment but… it doesn’t really work. The satirical or light characters, the effusions of vapid dialogue which have filled the intervening chapters, have undermined the ‘Women in Love’ vibe, invalidated it. He can’t write 150 pages of thin, surface stuff then suddenly turn on the primeval style and expect the reader to fall in line. ‘Aaron’s Rod’ demonstrates how the Lawrentian style, when applied to an unworthy object (or undeveloped characters) fails.

Anyway, Aaron tears himself away from his weeping wife and simply walks out, down the garden, over the wall, across fields till he finds a hay rick and makes up a bed and lies on it under the September stars. And formulates the fundamental Lawrence theme:

Love was a battle in which each party strove for the mastery of the other’s soul. So far, man had yielded the mastery to woman. Now he was fighting for it back again. And too late, for the woman would never yield. But whether woman yielded or not, he would keep the mastery of his own soul and conscience and actions. He would never yield himself up to her judgment again. He would hold himself forever beyond her jurisdiction. Henceforth, life single, not life double.

Part two. Italy

Chapter 12. Novara

So Aaron goes back to London and gets gigs playing the flute. He plays for the famous socialist Artemis Hooper, in her boudoir, attended by various other high society guests. He becomes tired of being a plaything of the idle rich, one minute talking to the latest socialite at a posh reception, the next walking home to his shabby lodgings in the rain. So he does what many the hero of an Edwardian novel does, and leaves England for Italy.

Lilly had written saying he was staying with a Sir William Franks in a place in Italy called Novara. So Aaron travels there. When he finally manages to get a cab to take him to the grand estate of Sir William, he is met at the gates, is met at the door, is shown up the stairs to a palatial bedroom, Lawrence makes space for a little dig at the degrading impact of cinema.

He had fallen into country house parties before, but never into quite such a plushy sense of riches. He felt he ought to have his breath taken away. But alas, the cinema has taken our breath away so often, investing us in all the splendours of the splendidest American millionaire, or all the heroics and marvels of the Somme or the North Pole, that life has now no magnate richer than we, no hero nobler than we have been, on the film. Connu! Connu! Everything life has to offer is known to us, couldn’t be known better, from the film. (p.163)

It is a grand house and when Aaron arrives Sir William, the frail old man, is in the middle of holding a grand dinner, servants serving up posh food to half a dozen eminent guests, including a couple of officers in khaki, namely:

  • little Sir William
  • Lady Sibyl Franks
  • a young, slim woman with big blue eyes and dark hair like a photograph
  • a smaller rather colourless young woman with a large nose
  • a stout, rubicund, bald colonel, dressed in khaki
  • a tall, thin, Oxford-looking major, tall and slim with a black patch over his eye, dressed in khaki
  • a good-looking, well-nourished young man in a dinner-jacket

After dinner there is some fol-de-rol with pinning three medals he’s been awarded on to the old man’s chest. Then Sir William questions Aaron about his life, leaving his wife, having to earn a living and so on. He dwells on his and Lilly’s faith in a Providence to look after them, rather than have a job or career. Aaron takes it all with the same puzzling indifference he takes everything else in his life, a ‘fine, mischievous smile’ on his face.

Chapter 13. Wie Es Ihnen Gefällt

Which is German for ‘As you like it’. Next morning Aaron is woken in his plush guest bed by a servant bringing coffee, rolls and honey. He dresses, wanders through the mansion observing the servants doing their chores, then out into the garden and up the grape terraces behind the house to a bench where he can admire the breath-taking view over the valley, the river, the town of Novara to the majestic Alps beyond.

Aaron walks down to the town and Lawrence vividly describes the sight and sounds and feel of an Italian town. He goes to the train station and finds out about trains to Milan, then back up to the Franks’ house. There’s a formal tea but we don’t hear much about it. Instead the evening finds Aaron in the hall, before the vast fire, tired and depressed, thinking about his wife, Lottie. And Lawrence gives him a vast screed about the eternal female, about fighting against woman’s smothering, how during their ‘terrible and magnificent connubial deaths in his arms’ (sex) he had always held back, never gave himself.

In other words, the novel mutates from the dialogue-heavy satire of the first 11 chapters into the long-winded, primeval, elemental archetype writing of ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’. All this is combined with an unusually direct address to the reader, which feels rather clumsy. After pages and pages exploring Aaron’s coming-to-awareness of his own personality and limitations, the narrator says the man himself wouldn’t have put it into words like this, he would have expressed it as music.

The inaudible music of his conscious soul conveyed his meaning in him quite as clearly as I convey it in words: probably much more clearly. But in his own mode only: and it was in his own mode only he realised what I must put into words. These words are my own affair. His mind was music.

Don’t grumble at me then, gentle reader, and swear at me that this damned fellow wasn’t half clever enough to think all these smart things, and realise all these fine-drawn-out subtleties. You are quite right, he wasn’t, yet it all resolved itself in him as I say, and it is for you to prove that it didn’t. (p.199)

The thrust of this long delirious passage seems to be Lawrence’s latest belief, that, no matter how deeply in love you are, how deeply you commune with another person, you can give yourself, but you cannot and should not give yourself away. Something must remain indissolubly private. The best communion is of two people who, despite all the modern clichés about love, remain at the deepest level, rigorously separate.

The completion of the process of love is the arrival at a state of simple, pure self-possession, for man and woman… It is life-rootedness. It is being by oneself, life-living…

Then the tone cuts drastically back to social satire mode. Sunday evening dinner at Lord Franks’s house. Here Aaron gets into conversation with Lady Franks, who explains why she prefers old classical music to Strauss and Stravinsky: it has more depth and more religion. She’s also convinced she has a guardian spirit watching over her.

Dinner is described in excruciating detail, as the four men get drunk, then have a pointless conversation, then stagger drunkenly up the stairs. In the drawing room they have to submit to an agonisingly boring rendition of Schumann on the piano by Lady Frank and then Aaron is called on to perform on his flute, like a trained seal. Throughout he has the sense of licking the rich people’s boots.

Lawrence is slack about details. In part 1 the war had very obviously only just ended, was fresh. Here in part 2, is the sentence:

‘Now, Colonel,’ said the host, ‘send round the bottle.’ With a flourish of the elbow and shoulder, the Colonel sent on the port, actually port, in those bleak, post-war days!

Those bleak, post-war days – signalling that the author is now writing, or the book being published, at some remove from those days. A tiny indication of the later date at which Lawrence wrote the second half of the novel.

Chapter 14. XX Settembre

Next morning Aaron wakes into a scared feeling of heading into nothingness. All he knows is he has snapped his ties with the past, but he has no plan for the future. A servant brings in coffee and toast and he feels better. At 8am sharp Lady Franks’ car is ready to take him in upholstered luxury to the train station. He hates being in the car and is glad to climb out and into the busy, open air life of the common people.

He checks into the Hotel Britannia then goes wandering round the town giving a characteristically vivid but acidulous description of it, notably the famous cathedral with all its pointy bits. Lawrence doesn’t bother with history or scholarship, architectural knowledge or anything like that. Absolutely everything he encounters is described for the immediate impact it makes on his senses, senses stripped back. When he’s on form, these descriptions are amazingly vivid; when he’s not at the top of his game, they can sound repetitive and forced.

Back at his hotel he witnesses a big political march. There’s been a rally and now a march of workers is moving through the town and, for some reason, tearing the Italian flag – ‘the red, white and green tricolour, with the white cross of Savoy in the centre’ – down off buildings. the house bang opposite his hotel has the flag flying on the third floor. After arguing with the woman who keeps the shop on the ground floor but apparently has no access to higher floors, a young lad bravely climbs the outside of the building up to the third floor, tears the flag off and throws it to the crowd below, who cheer.

At that point a crowd of carabinieri (Italian police) charge into the square and start beating up and arresting anyone not quick enough to flee. The boy on the third floor is trapped and, with guns trained on him, meekly descends and is arrested.

Aaron becomes aware of two Englishmen looking out a nearby window of his hotel at the scene. He retreats into his room and plays the flute to calm down. At dinner he hears their posh voices discussing their holiday itinerary. Franz ‘Francis’ Dekker and Angus Guest (p.230). Remember how the snobbish English tourists in E.M. Forster’s Room With A View detested all the other English tourists? Twenty years later nothing has changed.

Said Francis, in a vehement whisper, ‘After all, we are the only three English people in the place.’
‘For the moment, apparently we are,’ said Angus. ‘But the English are all over the place wherever you go, like bits of orange peel in the street.’ (p.227)

Francis cross-questions Aaron about his origins. The two men are very camp in their speech, presumably gay. They simply adored his playing on the flute. Aaron explains he’s heading to Venice to meet up with Lilly but they’ve heard rumours that Lilly is in Munich being psychoanalysed. they ask him to come with them to Florence.

Chapter 15. A Railway Journey

I haven’t mentioned that the narrator voice is irritatingly intrusive and buttonholing – ‘ Behold our hero…’, ‘There sat our friend…’, ‘Our two young heroes…’, ‘our gypsy party…’, ‘Don’t grumble at me then, gentle reader…’

So Aaron goes with this gay couple to Florence. He rides in third class while they swank in first class, which triggers a long disquisition about class consciousness (see below). English versus Italian train passengers:

Sitting there in the third-class carriage, he became happy again. The presence of his fellow-passengers was not so hampering as in England. In England, everybody seems held tight and gripped, nothing is left free. Every passenger seems like a parcel holding his string as fast as he can about him, lest one corner of the wrapper should come undone and reveal what is inside. And every other passenger is forced, by the public will, to hold himself as tight-bound also. Which in the end becomes a sort of self-conscious madness. But here, in the third class carriage, there was no tight string round every man. They were not all trussed with self-conscious string as tight as capons. They had a sufficient amount of callousness and indifference and natural equanimity. True, one of them spat continually on the floor, in large spits. And another sat with his boots all unlaced and his collar off, and various important buttons undone. They did not seem to care if bits of themselves did show, through the gaps in the wrapping. Aaron winced – but he preferred it to English tightness. He was pleased, he was happy with the Italians. He thought how generous and natural they were

When he goes to have lunch with them, some peasant takes his seat, despite Francis’s outraged remonstrances, so he joins them in their first class compartment. When the train is delayed at Prato, they get water from the restaurant car, nip out for chestnuts and figs, and have themselves a tidy little picnic.

They arrive late in Florence and the two gays put up at a posh hotel, making it clear they’d prefer Aaron to push off. Next morning he’s up and exploring the great Florence, treading where hundreds of thousands of British and American tourists had oohed and aahed themselves. He finds a cheap pension, 10 francs a day, with wonderful views. A room with a ‘superb’ view (p.256).

Chapter 16. Florence

Life at the Pension Nardini which is cold and dreary, with a group of Scandinavian guests and a German family. Aaron likes being detached, solo. It is November and rainy. He tours Florence in the dark and wet and is inspired. The Palazzo Vecchio, the Piazza della Signoria, Michelangelo’s David, ‘the genius [in the sense of presiding spirit] of Florence’ (p.253). This triggers a bonkers paean to men and masculinity.

He went out, he found the Piazza della Signoria packed with men: but all, all men. And all farmers, land-owners and land-workers. The curious, fine-nosed Tuscan farmers, with their half-sardonic, amber-coloured eyes. Their curious individuality, their clothes worn so easy and reckless, their hats with the personal twist. Their curious full oval cheeks, their tendency to be too fat, to have a belly and heavy limbs. Their close-sitting dark hair. And above all, their sharp, almost acrid, mocking expression, the silent curl of the nose, the eternal challenge, the rock-bottom unbelief, and the subtle fearlessness. The dangerous, subtle, never-dying fearlessness, and the acrid unbelief. But men! Men! A town of men, in spite of everything. The one manly quality, undying, acrid fearlessness. The eternal challenge of the unquenched human soul. Perhaps too acrid and challenging today, when there is nothing left to challenge. But men – who existed without apology and without justification. Men who would neither justify themselves nor apologize for themselves. Just men. The rarest thing left in our sweet Christendom. (p.254)

The gays invite him to a posh dinner which consists of Francis and Angus, and a writer, James Argyle (‘a finely built, heavy man of fifty or more’), and little Algy Constable (‘small and frail, somewhat shaky,’), and tiny Louis Mee, and deaf (Jewish) Walter Rosen. They get drunk and talk rubbish. Lawrence is really bad at middle class dinner conversation. He takes to old Argyle.

Next day he goes to a group lunch at Algy’s, talks to some ancient Italian beau, Signor di Lanti, then the Marchesa del Torre, an American woman from the Southern States, who had lived most of her life in Europe, who seems to Aaron like a modern Cleopatra brooding, bereft of her Anthony, although her husband is there, Manfredi, the Marchese, a little intense Italian in a colonel’s grey uniform, he fought in the war the full four years. He and his wife are musicians (piano and singer) but when Algy asks the nervous Marchesa to play she refuses. Something to do with the war.

The tea party breaks up and the Marchesi and Marchesa invite Aaron to walk to their rented palazzo. it has a grand music room which used to be filled with Saturday mornings of classical music. The small, bosomy (‘a full-breasted, soft-skinned woman’), nervous, chainsmoking Marchesa confides in Aaron that music makes her feel sick: it’s the clutter of notes in chords, it feels like too much. At which point Aaron reveals that he has his flute in his coat pocket and she asks him to play. He goes into the big empty music room, tells the colonel to leave the lights off to continue the mystique, and plays. This is the only description of his playing in the book.

There, in the darkness of the big room, he put his flute to his lips, and began to play. It was a clear, sharp, lilted run-and-fall of notes, not a tune in any sense of the word, and yet a melody, a bright, quick sound of pure animation, a bright, quick, animate noise, running and pausing. It was like a bird’s singing, in that it had no human emotion or passion or intention or meaning—a ripple and poise of animate sound. But it was unlike a bird’s singing, in that the notes followed clear and single one after the other, in their subtle gallop… What Aaron was playing was not of his own invention. It was a bit of mediaeval phrasing written for the pipe and the viol. It made the piano seem a ponderous, nerve-wracking steam-roller of noise, and the violin, as we know it, a hateful wire-drawn nerve-torturer. (p.271)

All this melts something in the Marchesa and Aaron and she have an unspoken bond. Now we learn that she feels horribly trapped by her kind, rational husband and wants to escape from the dungeon of human conventions. Are she and Aaron going to have an affair?

Aaron takes his leave, promising to return another evening with his flute, and flies out into the dark town with a rush of excitement. He is jostled by mobs of soldiers and then realises someone has picked his pocket. Once back at his hotel room he double checks all his coats but it’s definitely gone, his wallet with some letters and personal things about £12 in sterling and lire, all his money. And it happened because he rushed out into the streets in a state of excitement, of emotion, having opened himself, exposed himself, let his guard down.

This reminds us of his ramblings back in part one, when Lilly found him collapsed in Covent Garden, where he blamed his fever not on the flu but on having given in to Josephine’s emotions. If this novel is anything it is (half-heartedly) about one man’s attempt to remain aloof, independent, and self contained.

And Aaron never forgot. After this, it became essential to him to feel that the sentinel stood guard in his own heart. He felt a strange unease the moment he was off his guard. Asleep or awake, in the midst of the deepest passion or the suddenest love, or in the throes of greatest excitement or bewilderment, somewhere, some corner of himself was awake to the fact that the sentinel of the soul must not sleep, no, never, not for one instant. (p.275)

Chapter 17. High Up Over The Cathedral Square

Still in Florence. With no explanation Rawdon Lilly the writer has appeared and the chapter opens with him and Aaron sitting on the balcony of Argyle’s loggia, in the autumn sunshine, rhapsodising over the beauty of Florence. Apparently they just bumped into each other in the street, in the Via Nationale. The little Marchese arrives and is shown through the low window onto the balcony. Argyle serves the last of his whiskey, then tea. They have a rubbish Lawrence conversation, for example when Aaron says he came to Florence by accident the others tut and say there is no such thing as accident: a man is drawn by his fate. Worse, the Marchese launches into a long, a really long, disquisition about the imbalance of male and female desire in marriage.

‘Our Catholic religion tried to keep the young girls in convents, and innocent, before marriage. So that with their minds they should not know, and should not start this terrible thing, this woman’s desire over a man, beforehand. This desire which starts in a woman’s head, when she knows, and which takes a man for her use, for her service. This is Eve. Ah, I hate Eve. I hate her, when she knows, and when she wills. I hate her when she will make of me that which serves her desire.—She may love me, she may be soft and kind to me, she may give her life for me. But why? Only because I am hers. I am that thing which does her most intimate service. She can see no other in me. And I may be no other to her…’

And much more in the same ilk.

‘You are quite right, my boy,’ said Argyle. ‘You are quite right. They’ve got the start of us, the women: and we’ve got to canter when they say gee-up. I—oh, I went through it all. But I broke the shafts and smashed the matrimonial cart, I can tell you, and I didn’t care whether I smashed her up along with it or not… And women oh, they are the very hottest hell once they get the start of you. There’s nothing they won’t do to you, once they’ve got you. Nothing they won’t do to you. Especially if they love you. Then you may as well give up the ghost: or smash the cart behind you, and her in it. Otherwise she will just harry you into submission, and make a dog of you, and cuckold you under your nose. And you’ll submit. Oh, you’ll submit, and go on calling her my darling. Or else, if you won’t submit, she’ll do for you. Your only chance is to smash the shafts, and the whole matrimonial cart. Or she’ll do for you. For a woman has an uncanny, hellish strength – she’s a she-bear and a wolf, is a woman when she’s got the start of you. Oh, it’s a terrible experience, if you’re not a bourgeois, and not one of the knuckling-under money-making sort.’ (p.286)

This is misogynist tripe, isn’t it? When something similar – the struggle between the sexes – is dramatised in ‘Women in Love’, it feels vital and penetrating to some archetypal depth. Here, in the mouths of a bunch of grumpy old men sitting round drinking whiskey, whining that ‘these days’ women are in charge and men come running like dogs, it sounds like sexist bullshit.

The Marchese goes on to explain that in the good old days a man could retreat from his bitch-wife and go after a younger woman, innocent, easier to dominate. But nowadays even the young women are ‘modern women’ – ‘Terrible thing, the modern woman,’ put in Argyle. Then Lilly repeats what we take to be Lawrence’s position, because it has recurred throughout the novel, is its central theme (insofar as it has one):

‘Can’t one live with one’s wife, and be fond of her: and with one’s friends, and enjoy their company: and with the world and everything, pleasantly: and yet know that one is alone? Essentially, at the very core of me, alone. Eternally alone. And choosing to be alone. Not sentimental or lonely. Alone, choosing to be alone, because by one’s own nature one is alone. The being with another person is secondary…’ (p.289)

Chapter 18. The Marchesa

Aaron goes for dinner with the Marchese and Marchesa. She is so made-up he is scared of her and her sexy outfit.

Her beautiful woman’s legs, slightly glistening, duskily. His one abiding instinct was to touch them, to kiss them. He had never known a woman to exercise such power over him. It was a bare, occult force, something he could not cope with.

Aaron says he’s been to the Uffizi Gallery and seen Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus which gives rise to (yet another) discussion about womanhood, specifically whether Venus is a type of the ‘modern woman’ in her fake innocence, pretending not to know too much. There is a heavy atmosphere of seduction and Aaron feels himself being seduced, no matter how hard he knows he needs to remain aloof, separate and independent.

After an exquisite dessert of persimmons, they go out onto the palazzo terrace. The Marchesa stands so close she is touching him as she points out the window of his apartment in the pensione, not too far away. ‘My window is always open,’ says Aaron as she stands so close they’re touching, and he knows they will become lovers. He goes into the music room and plays the flute again, which has a powerful physical impact on her.

And the music of the flute came quick, rather brilliant like a call-note, or like a long quick message, half command. To her it was like a pure male voice—as a blackbird’s when he calls: a pure male voice, not only calling, but telling her something, telling her something, and soothing her soul to sleep. It was like the fire-music putting Brunnhilde to sleep. But the pipe did not flicker and sink. It seemed to cause a natural relaxation in her soul, a peace. Perhaps it was more like waking to a sweet, morning awakening, after a night of tormented, painful tense sleep.

But when he asks the Marchesa to sing, she does a couple of verses of a French song, but with her voice faltering and then failing. So Aaron takes up the music and plays it on the flute and after a moment she joins in and is wafted on his notes, is liberated, experiences a wonderful creative elation. This is the song.

When the song is over there is an embarrassed silence. The Marchesa is liberated and exultant but there is tension between the men because the Marchese knows Aaron has achieved what he could never manage, and Aaron feels he now ‘owns’ the woman.

And Aaron said in his heart, what a goodly woman, what a woman to taste and enjoy. Ah, what a woman to enjoy! And was it not his privilege? Had he not gained it? His manhood, or rather his maleness, rose powerfully in him, in a sort of mastery. He felt his own power, he felt suddenly his own virile title to strength and reward. Suddenly, and newly flushed with his own male super-power, he was going to have his reward. The woman was his reward. (p.300)

Aaron is consumed with lust but the husband is sitting right there (like a wizened old monkey, in Aaron’s view) so he politely takes his leave. Back in his room, he regards his flute and humorously recalls Lilly calling it Aaron’s rod. Well, it’s about to flower alright!

He reflects that he has for so long been hard and unyielding but now is being melted. This would be more effective if we hadn’t observed him not really being hard and unyielding but just good-naturedly indifferent, floating and drifting from place to place.

And now came his desire back. But strong, fierce as iron. Like the strength of an eagle with the lightning in its talons. Something to glory in, something overweening, the powerful male passion, arrogant, royal, Jove’s thunderbolt. Aaron’s black rod of power, blossoming again with red Florentine lilies and fierce thorns. He moved about in the splendour of his own male lightning, invested in the thunder of the male passion-power. He had got it back, the male godliness, the male godhead.

Deeply in lust he goes back the next morning to see her, politely asking to see her book of chansons, and she stands close to him as he leafs through them, and he offers to play her one. But the connection of the day before isn’t there. He stops, they sit, the tension becomes unbearable and he asks straight out: Shall we be lovers? She says yes. Where? She says in her bedroom. She takes him upstairs and shows him the door then asks him to wait ten minutes. He gives her fifteen then opens the door and enters. She is in bed with her back to him.

But the sex isn’t as he’d hoped. In bed she isn’t full and womanly but clings to him like a child. And – the great issue which has resonated through the book – doesn’t surrender herself to him. Which explains why, after a doze, he wants to get away, to escape, to disentangle himself. She begs to see him again but he wants to flee. Silly man.

He gets out as quickly as he can and, in the classic Lawrence style, decides he hates her but, just as characteristically, tries to resist his impulse.

And in his male spirit he felt himself hating her: hating her deeply, damnably. But he said to himself: ‘No, I won’t hate her. I won’t hate her.’

He had received a wry letter from Sir William asking how his providence or fate was turning out. Aaron goes to the post office and writes a bitter reply.

‘I don’t want my Fate or my Providence to treat me well. I don’t want kindness or love. I don’t believe in harmony and people loving one another. I believe in the fight and in nothing else. I believe in the fight which is in everything. And if it is a question of women, I believe in the fight of love, even if it blinds me. And if it is a question of the world, I believe in fighting it and in having it hate me, even if it breaks my legs. I want the world to hate me, because I can’t bear the thought that it might love me. For of all things love is the most deadly to me, and especially from such a repulsive world as I think this is…’ (p.308)

And so dinner and to bed, alone, in blessed independence. If he didn’t want to feel like this, why did he cave in to lust? In the words of the song, ‘if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.’

Chapter 19. Cleopatra but not Anthony

Not knowing what to do, Aaron takes a train out to the countryside and has a vision.

He lay and watched tall cypresses breathing and communicating, faintly moving and as it were walking in the small wind. And his soul seemed to leave him and to go far away, far back, perhaps, to where life was all different and time passed otherwise than time passes now. As in clairvoyance he perceived it: that our life is only a fragment of the shell of life. That there has been and will be life, human life such as we do not begin to conceive. Much that is life has passed away from men, leaving us all mere bits. In the dark, mindful silence and inflection of the cypress trees, lost races, lost language, lost human ways of feeling and of knowing. Men have known as we can no more know, have felt as we can no more feel. Great life-realities gone into the darkness. But the cypresses commemorate. In the afternoon, Aaron felt the cypresses rising dark about him, like so many high visitants from an old, lost, lost subtle world, where men had the wonder of demons about them, the aura of demons, such as still clings to the cypresses, in Tuscany. (p.310)

Whether you like this goes a long way to answering whether you like Lawrence or not. It reminds me of the passages in St Mawr where its owners sense that the horse has seen more, known more, than they ever can; or again the opening of England, My England, where the old cottage has seen more traumatic events than the current occupants can hope to understand.

Anyway, there are pages of Aaron rationalising his feelings to himself, lengthy justifications that he is a husband, even if it’s to a woman who was trapping him (Lottie) and so cannot be a lover, and all women want nowadays is a lover, and so blethering on. He cannot see what is obvious to us which is that he was blinded by lust, seduced the woman, had one shag and, having achieved his aim, is happy to dump her. Standard male behaviour, in other words.

But next day he goes to see her, finds her with guests, is polite till they leave, and then asks if they can just be friends, not lovers. You see, he is married etc etc. And she says yes. Then they play some music together, the husband comes home and finds them, he joins in on the piano, then the men go through sheet music finding things to play at the next music Saturday.

The Lillys and many others are at the Saturday morning music and it irritates him to see her playing the hostess, treating him like everyone else. She invites him for dinner the next day, Sunday. It’s a week since they slept together and all his caution is being over-ridden by his loins. The old lust rises, hoping his ‘rod’ will blossom again.

So imagine his frustration when he arrives for dinner and discovers the guest of honour is the venerable old English authoress, Corrina Wade, talking of the old ideas and old ways as if no cataclysmic war had shattered them forever; plus an old English snob, Mr ffrench, fussy and precious like an old maid. These feel like caricatures of real people.

Eventually these old fossils leave our lovers alone and the Marchesa asks if he will stay. He says yes. Gives her 15 minutes to get ready. Sleeps with her. Once again is overcome by a desperate need to get away, to be alone.

Lawrence goes into detail on two points. She is scared of his penis.

Strange, she was afraid of him! Afraid of him as of a fetish! Fetish afraid, and fetish-fascinated! Or was her fear only a delightful game of cat and mouse? Or was the fear genuine, and the delight the greater: a sort of sacrilege? The fear, and the dangerous, sacrilegious power over that which she feared. (p.318)

I’ve slept with women who refused to acknowledge that the whole thing involved a penis, refused to touch it, mention it, or acknowledge what was going on, so I identify with Aaron’s perplexity. Second thing is that almost the best bit, for la Marchesa, is afterwards curling up on his chest, snuggling into his chest, like a child wanting to be protected. He speculates that maybe the sex is the means to what she really wants, which is this comfort and reassurance. Daddy.

In line with the book’s theme of women triumphing over men, Aaron feels she uses him and his rod to achieve her pleasure. He is a tool, a means, a ‘magic implement’. She uses him with the skill of a high priestess, sacrificing a victim. He associates himself with the many lovers Cleopatra was said to enjoy and then have killed in the morning.

Chapter 20. The Broken Rod

Next day it rains and he stays indoors copying out music. Well into the evening, 9pm, he ventures out towards the cafe in the Piazza Vittoria Emmanuele which is the centre of Florence’s nightlife. En route he sees three men crouching suspiciously over a dark form with a flaming torch. He avoids them but they come trotting up the ally he takes and he panics that he’s going to be mugged but they just trot by carrying a stretcher and, presumably, a body.

At the cafe he is spotted by 50-something Argyle, drunk, who hauls him over to a table where sit Lilly and a newcomer named Levison. Levison tells them there was a big socialist protest earlier in the day and when the head of the carabinieri told them not to go down a half-built road, someone shot him dead on his horse after which all hell broke loose.

This triggers Argyle to make the ludicrously drunken statement that what the world needs is the revival of slavery, for pretty much everyone in society. Earnest young Levison asks who would be these slaves?

‘Everybody, my dear chap: beginning with the idealists and the theorising Jews, and after them your nicely-bred gentlemen, and then perhaps, your profiteers and Rothschilds, and all politicians, and ending up with the proletariat,’ said Argyle.
‘Then who would be the masters? — the professional classes, doctors and lawyers and so on?’
‘What? Masters. They would be the sewerage slaves, as being those who had made most smells.’

You can see how, in a world shattered by war, where all traditional values have been overthrown, and where the huge experiment of Bolshevik communism in Russia was just commencing, all social theories are up for grabs and many of them would involve overthrowing the useless ‘democracy’ which triggered the war and instituting something more scientific, the rule of one really strong man. Out of this melee emerged Mussolini’s Fascism a few years later.

Levison cuts across this ludicrous suggestion and earnestly points out that ‘socialism is the inevitable next step…’ This also must have been a widespread belief among the kind of people who waste their time thinking about politics. This ‘discussion’ clearly only exists so that Lilly can ridicule both types of talk, in classically Lawrentian – that’s to say irrational and subjective – language.

LILLY: ‘The idea and the ideal has for me gone dead — dead as carrion —’
LEVISON: ‘Which idea, which ideal precisely?’
LILLY: ‘The ideal of love, the ideal that it is better to give than to receive, the ideal of liberty, the ideal of the brotherhood of man, the ideal of the sanctity of human life, the ideal of what we call goodness, charity, benevolence, public spiritedness, the ideal of sacrifice for a cause, the ideal of unity and unanimity — all the lot — all the whole beehive of ideals — has all got the modern bee-disease, and gone putrid, stinking. — And when the ideal is dead and putrid, the logical sequence is only stink. — Which, for me, is the truth concerning the ideal of good, peaceful, loving humanity and its logical sequence in socialism and equality, equal opportunity or whatever you like.’

Concepts like ‘stink’ and ‘slime’ were to appear more and more in Lawrence’s writing as he became more disgusted with the world and everyone’s turning away from what he saw as the real, primitive, pagan life forces.

Lilly goes on to say that people are insects and instruments and will, eventually, vote for their own slavery as a refuge from facing reality: inferior beings will elect their superior to rule them. This sounds mad but, arguably, is what the German nation did ten years later.

But then Lawrence pulls a trick by having Lilly say he doesn’t believe what he’s just said. He could easily say just the opposite. All he cares is about the primacy of the individual to himself.

‘I’ll tell you the real truth,’ said Lilly. ‘I think every man is a sacred and holy individual, never to be violated; I think there is only one thing I hate to the verge of madness, and that is bullying.’ (p.328)

Things are getting heated when a bomb goes off! That’s not something you expect in a Lawrence novel. The cafe is bombed, glass and chairs and clothes and blood flying everywhere. Stunned, Aaron staggers to his feet, sees men fighting over coats in a corner, finds his amid the pile and discovers the flute is smashed beyond repair.

He staggers out into the street with Lilly (no mention of Argyle or Levison) and they stagger away from the scene down to the river. Nothing in the book so far has effected Aaron like the loss of his flute. Lilly tells him to chuck it in the Arno, which he does. Lilly tells him he’ll grow a new one, until then he’ll have to do without a rod.

Chapter 21. Words

Aaron wakes from a long complicated dream. Over breakfast he realises he is done. The destruction of his flute-rod marks the end. He could call on numerous contacts (the gay painters, Sir William, the Marchese) and they would simply buy him a new one.

But instead he wants to make a new start in life. And this takes the form of realising he must submit to one man. And the man he chooses is the funny little, ugly, cantankerous Lilly. Not to ‘the quicksands of woman or the stinking bogs of society’, to one odd man.

Burgess and Aldington explain this dramatises the real-world situation in which, during the war, Lawrence lured John Middleton Murray and his wife Katherine Mansfield to live with them on a commune in Cornwall, and tried to persuade Murray to become blood brothers with him. It reflects the extremely intense notion of male camaraderie which Lawrence espoused, and dramatised more successfully in the very close relationship between Gerald Crich and Rupert Birkin in ‘Women in Love’.

At that moment Lilly pops round. He explains he’s going away. Screw society and politics, he can’t influence any of that. He has to be true to himself like a migrating bird. Maybe he’ll go to a different continent, he’s tired of this one.

He persuades Aaron to catch a train with him out to the country and they have lunch at a lovely rural inn by a stream where Italian boys are swimming. Aaron asks Lilly what he’s going to do and this is the trigger for Lawrence’s last great sermon of the book. Lilly tells him he can’t lose himself in a woman, in humanity or in God. At the end of the day you only have yourself.

‘You can’t lose yourself. You can try. But you might just as well try to swallow yourself. You’ll only bite your fingers off in the attempt. You can’t lose yourself, neither in woman nor humanity nor in God. You’ve always got yourself on your hands in the end: and a very raw and jaded and humiliated and nervous-neurasthenic self it is, too, in the end.

‘You can’t lose yourself, so stop trying. The responsibility is on your own shoulders all the time, and no God which man has ever struck can take it off. You ARE yourself and so BE yourself. Stick to it and abide by it. Passion or no passion, ecstasy or no ecstasy, urge or no urge, there’s no goal outside you, where you can consummate like an eagle flying into the sun, or a moth into a candle. There’s no goal outside you—and there’s no God outside you. No God, whom you can get to and rest in. None.

‘There is no goal outside you. None.

‘There is only one thing, your own very self. So you’d better stick to it. You can’t be any bigger than just yourself, so you needn’t drag God in. You’ve got one job, and no more. There inside you lies your own very self, like a germinating egg, your precious Easter egg of your own soul. There it is, developing bit by bit, from one single egg-cell which you were at your conception in your mother’s womb, on and on to the strange and peculiar complication in unity which never stops till you die—if then. You’ve got an innermost, integral unique self, and since it’s the only thing you have got or ever will have, don’t go trying to lose it. You’ve got to develop it, from the egg into the chicken, and from the chicken into the one-and-only phoenix, of which there can only be one at a time in the universe. There can only be one of you at a time in the universe—and one of me. So don’t forget it. Your own single oneness is your destiny. Your destiny comes from within, from your own self-form. And you can’t know it beforehand, neither your destiny nor your self-form. You can only develop it. You can only stick to your own very self, and never betray it. And by so sticking, you develop the one and only phoenix of your own self, and you unfold your own destiny.’

‘If your soul’s urge urges you to love, then love. But always know that what you are doing is the fulfilling of your own soul’s impulse. It’s no good trying to act by prescription: not a bit. And it’s no use getting into frenzies. If you’ve got to go in for love and passion, go in for them. But they aren’t the goal. They’re a mere means: a life-means, if you will. The only goal is the fulfilling of your own soul’s active desire and suggestion. Be passionate as much as ever it is your nature to be passionate, and deeply sensual as far as you can be. Small souls have a small sensuality, deep souls a deep one. But remember, all the time, the responsibility is upon your own head, it all rests with your own lonely soul, the responsibility for your own action.

‘Your soul inside you is your only Godhead. It develops your actions within you as a tree develops its own new cells. And the cells push on into buds and boughs and flowers. And these are your passion and your acts and your thoughts and expressions, your developing consciousness. You don’t know beforehand, and you can’t. You can only stick to your own soul through thick and thin.

‘You are your own Tree of Life, roots and limbs and trunk. Somewhere within the wholeness of the tree lies the very self, the quick: its own innate Holy Ghost. And this Holy Ghost puts forth new buds, and pushes past old limits, and shakes off a whole body of dying leaves. And the old limits hate being empassed, and the old leaves hate to fall. But they must, if the tree-soul says so…’

But this isn’t all. This is just the sermon about love. There’s an equal amount about the centrality of power. Lilly sees power not as a superficial will to power like Nietzsche’s, not as a conscious thing, but as a submission to the deep power urge in our core. And this power urge comes out of our deep core and we (men) must submit to it and then women, too, must submit to the man’s power urge.

‘Once the love-mode changes, as change it must, for we are worn out and becoming evil in its persistence, then the other mode will take place in us. And there will be profound, profound obedience in place of this love-crying, obedience to the incalculable power-urge. And men must submit to the greater soul in a man, for their guidance: and women must submit to the positive power-soul in man, for their being.’

Aaron the sceptic, says this will never happen. Lilly says oh yes it will. And the book ends on an ominous and cryptic note.

‘All men say, they want a leader. Then let them in their souls submit to some greater soul than theirs. At present, when they say they want a leader, they mean they want an instrument, like Lloyd George. A mere instrument for their use. But it’s more than that. It’s the reverse. It’s the deep, fathomless submission to the heroic soul in a greater man. You, Aaron, you too have the need to submit. You, too, have the need livingly to yield to a more heroic soul, to give yourself. You know you have. And you know it isn’t love. It is life-submission. And you know it. But you kick against the pricks. And perhaps you’d rather die than yield. And so, die you must. It is your affair.’
There was a long pause. Then Aaron looked up into Lilly’s face. It was dark and remote-seeming. It was like a Byzantine eikon at the moment.
‘And whom shall I submit to?’ he said.
‘Your soul will tell you,’ replied the other.

Thoughts on part 1

The thinness of satire

The first part feels like a try-out of Huxleyan social satire. Lawrence has the characters, alright, but he has completely the wrong temperament for satire, because Lawrence is rarely if ever humorous. Mostly he radiates seething contempt for the upper class types he portrays.

His dialogue is rarely acute, deft and skewering. All his characters tend to speak in the blunt, assertive tones of their author. Almost any other author I can think of is sharper, with the possible exception of Conrad. Instead of using dialogue for precise or witty digs, stabs and insights, Lawrence gives his characters endless arguments, which aren’t funny or particularly informative: take Josephine’s pointless vapourings about revolution, or Lilly and Jim’s squabbling about Christianity, or Lilly and Aaron’s argument about the ‘true’ meaning of the war. Or just works up the dialogue through pointless repetition and has characters laugh at their own non-existent jokes. In part two the dinner party conversation at Lord and Lady Franks feels heavy and contrived and absolutely unfunny.

Snobbishness

Alongside the supposed satire, Lawrence the miner’s son displays a rather shameful wish to be in-the-know with the fancy foreign tags and exaggerated slang of the upper middle classes. Burgess freely accuses him of snobbishness.

Thus Lawrence has not just his characters but the narrator himself drop into French: poupée, pas seul, de haut en bas, merde, amour, a la bonne heure, bonne bouche, coeur à coeur, dégagé, seul, moue, comble, eprise, maquereau, pis-aller, ebloui, littérateur – or, in the Italian half of the book, into Italian: natura morta, bella figura, milordo, signori, a riverderci, salota, niente – with some splashes of German thrown in.

And alongside all this, the jolly slang of the Edwardian posh: good egg, champion idea, I say, rather, and so on, which often sounds ludicrous alongside the primeval, hyperbolic passages.

Class consciousness

Connected with Lawrence’s social climbing impulse is his unremitting sense of class consciousness. With Jim Bricknell and his friends, with Sir William and his guests, with the two young gay artists, Aaron is never for a moment unaware of coming from a different class. It’s vivid the way he is deeply uncomfortable being driven in Sir William’s chauffeur-driven car and what a relief it is to get out into the piazza full of common people. Or entering the train:

Aaron got his seat, and the porter brought on his bags… Aaron gave the tip uneasily. He always hated tipping – it seemed humiliating both ways. (p.236)

The issue is then spelled out:

Aaron had lived long enough to know that as far as manhood and intellect went, nay, even education – he was not the inferior of the two young ‘gentlemen’. He knew quite well that, as far as intrinsic nature went, they did not imagine him an inferior: rather the contrary. They had rather an exaggerated respect for him and his life-power, and even his origin. And yet – they had the inestimable cash advantage – and they were going to keep it. They knew it was nothing more than an artificial cash superiority. But they gripped it all the more intensely. They were the upper middle classes. They were Eton and Oxford. And they were going to hang on to their privileges. In these days, it is a fool who abdicates before he’s forced to… They were being so awfully nice. And inwardly they were not condescending. But socially, they just had to be. The world is made like that. It wasn’t their own private fault. It was no fault at all. It was just the mode in which they were educated, the style of their living. (p.236)

References to the war

The First World War had only just finished and haunts the book which is peppered with references to its aftermath. The opening sentences of the novel are:

There was a large, brilliant evening star in the early twilight, and underfoot the earth was half frozen. It was Christmas Eve. Also the War was over, and there was a sense of relief that was almost a new menace. A man felt the violence of the nightmare released now into the general air.

Aaron feels everything has changed but nothing has changed.

To Aaron Sisson, this was home, this was Christmas: the unspeakably familiar. The war over, nothing was changed.

But the appearance and atmosphere have changed.

He crossed the fields towards the little town, which once more fumed its lights under the night. The country ran away, rising on his right hand. It was no longer a great bank of darkness. Lights twinkled freely here and there, though forlornly, now that the war-time restrictions were removed. It was no glitter of pre-war nights, pit-heads glittering far-off with electricity. Neither was it the black gulf of the war darkness: instead, this forlorn sporadic twinkling.

Here’s the impact on the town’s Christmas market.

The war had killed the little market of the town. As he passed the market place on the brow, Aaron noticed that there were only two miserable stalls. But people crowded just the same. There was a loud sound of voices, men’s voices. Men pressed round the doorways of the public-houses.

In the scene at Jim’s Albany apartments:

All the men, except Aaron, had been through the war in some way or other. But here they were, in the old setting exactly, the old bohemian routine.

Overall, there’s a sense the war has spoiled and degraded things and yet the people carry on in the same old routines, only shabbier. Like Vladimir and Estragon in part two of Waiting for Godot.

And then the character of Herbertson, the bluff, posh Guards officer who has been damaged by the war and has to talk to Lilly, five pages of genuinely harrowing war stories. (Like a lot of the book) this passage feels like it’s been arbitrarily shoe-horned into the narrative, but is harrowing nonetheless.

In Italy, something comparable.

At the little outdoor tables of the cafes a very few drinkers sat before empty coffee-cups. Most of the shops were shut. It was too soon after the war for life to be flowing very fast. The feeling of emptiness, of neglect, of lack of supplies was evident everywhere.

An Italian waiter asks:

‘What would you like to drink? Wine? Chianti? Or white wine? Or beer?’—The old-fashioned ‘Sir’ was dropped. It is too old-fashioned now, since the war. (p.226)

Angus:

‘Have a Grand Marnier,’ he said. ‘I don’t know how bad it is. Everything is bad now. They lay it down to the war as well. It used to be quite a decent drink. What the war had got to do with bad liqueurs, I don’t know.’ (p.230)

Aaron likes Florence because it is half empty:

Altogether Aaron was pleased with himself, for being in Florence. Those were early days after the war, when as yet very few foreigners had returned, and the place had the native sombreness and intensity. So that our friend did not mind being alone. (p.255)

The Marchesa del Torre refuses to sing at Algy’s tea party because the war has ended her ability to sing in a heartfelt carefree way – ‘another disaster added to the war list.’

Summary criticism

The character of Aaron Sisson is never properly developed. Through the first 11 chapters he is a kind of bumbling, well-meaning non-entity. His appeal is his smiling indifference to the people he meets and whatever they say to him, up to and including not caring much when Josephine asks him to kiss her, and not being very upset when Lilly kicks him out after his bout of flu.

In the second half everything changes and he is given pages of deep soul stuff like the male protagonists of the Rainbow and Women in Love but it fails to persuade. The light triviality of the satirical scenes undermines, renders implausible the would-be deep moments.

Beneath all this lurks the fundamental problem: the theme most frequently expressed, and so the ostensible theme of the book, seems to be this thing about men and women, consisting of two parts: 1) that modern women have the whip hand over men, who submit themselves like dogs; and 2) the best philosophy of life is to remain absolutely independent, free of ties, untrammelled – even if you have a sexual affair with a woman not to submit but to keep your essential core intact.

These are potentially interesting, if often garbled and sometimes laughable, themes but the book’s problem is that Aaron Sisson is too flimsy a character to bear them.

In his introduction, Richard Aldington says ‘Aaron’s Rod’ was a hastily written text, similar in this respect to Lawrence’s novels The Lost Girl (1920) and Kangaroo (1923). What these lesser novels demonstrate is the immense rewards achieved by Lawrence in the books he did rewrite, over and again – ‘Sons and Lovers’, ‘The Rainbow’ and ‘Women in Love’. In those books there is a great unity of characters and themes and scenes in which the themes are fully and deeply dramatised. By contrast, ‘Aaron’s Rod’ contains characters and scenes and themes which are fairly memorable but fall apart like pick-up sticks; remain fatally unintegrated and fragmentary.


Credit

‘Aaron’s Rod’ by D. H. Lawrence was first published in the UK by William Heinemann in 1922. Page references are to the 1972 Penguin Classics paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews

A Room With A View by E.M Forster (1908)

‘I was hoping that he was nice; I do so always hope that people will be nice.’
(Lucy Honeychurch, the nice young lady at the heart of A Room with A View, page 29)

‘Well, I am no prude.’
(The prudish Miss Bartlett, Lucy’s chaperone, showing the same ironic lack of self-awareness as all the other characters, p.95)

‘Italians, dear, you know,’ said Miss Alan.
(Old Miss Alan expressing the universal disapproval of the people whose country all these Brits are visiting, p.59)

A Room With A View is very much a novel of two parts: the first, more vivid part, set in Florence, the second, more muted part, set in Surrey.

The first thing all the obvious sources (like the blurb on the back of the Penguin edition and the Penguin introduction, the Wikipedia article and Forster’s own Afterword) tell you is that, although this was the third novel Forster published (in 1908), it was the first one he actually wrote, starting it as early as 1901 after a lengthy sightseeing tour of Italy with his mother.

More importantly, as the Afterword tells us, he wrote the first, Italian part of the novel, all of a piece and then stopped, writing his next two novels (‘Where Angels Fear To Tread’ and ‘The Longest Journey’) before returning to write the second, English, part of ‘A Room With A View’.

The gap in writing makes an enormous difference. The Italian half is full of humorous, consequence-free high spirits whereas the second half continues to be moderately humorous but feels slower, more stodgy, and then becomes increasingly programmatic and predictable. It’s very much a novel of two parts and so I’ll review it as two parts.

Apparently, Forster’s working title for the novel was ‘the Lucy book’ and you can see why, as it’s all about young, innocent and virginal Miss Lucy Honeychurch. The cliché is to say the novel describes ‘the awakening’ of Miss Honeychurch, a virginal young woman – just the kind of subject a middle-aged gay man (Forster) would obviously be an expert on.

Part 1. Italy

Cast

Lucy is staying in Florence at the Pension Bertolini with her fussy spinster cousin and chaperone, Miss Charlotte Bartlett. In the pension they meet in quick succession:

Mr Emerson senior, ‘an old man, of heavy build, with a fair, shaven face and large eyes’.

George Emerson, his young handsome son.

The Reverend Beebe, ‘a clergyman whose head was bald and who wore a pair of russet whiskers’. ‘All his life he had loved to study maiden ladies; they were his specialty’ (p.53).

Miss Eleanor Lavish, ‘short, fidgety, and playful as a kitten, though without a kitten’s grace’, a consciously ‘unconventional’ older lady novelist who never lets anyone forget how desperately exciting she is:

‘I have always flown in the face of the conventions all my life.’

Or, as the occupants of the Pension like to say, ‘so original‘ and which, in Forster’s irony, means exactly the opposite. Miss Lavish is at pains to distinguish between herself – unconventional, exciting, creative – and all the other British tourists who she dismisses with breathtaking snobbishness.

‘Look at their figures!’ laughed Miss Lavish. ‘They walk through my Italy like a pair of cows. It’s very naughty of me, but I would like to set an examination paper at Dover, and turn back every tourist who couldn’t pass it.’

And:

‘The narrowness and superficiality of the Anglo-Saxon tourist is nothing less than a menace.’ (p.81)

Making up the numbers in the Pension are two elderly sisters, Miss Teresa and Miss Catharine Alan.

There is a resident Anglican clergyman in Florence, the Reverend Eager. He is short tempered and, like all the British residents of the place, tremendously snobbish about mere ‘tourists’.

The owner of Pension Bertolini, a Cockney lady.

Italians

The unnamed hawker who tries to sell them photos, which the Reverend Eager in his disdain, accidentally rips.

The unnamed driver of the carriage into the hills, characteristically referred to in Greek mythical terms, as Phaethon.

His unnamed girlfriend.

Anti-tourist, anti-Italian snobbery

The snobbery the book depicts and dissects is present right from the start with not only Charlotte and Lucy outraged by Mr Emerson’s intrusion into their conversation, but the disapproving tutting response of everyone else at the dining table.

In the first page you pick up that the Emersons, father and son, are a distinct social notch beneath everyone else and are therefore criticised and sniped at behind their backs by the snobbish ladies. As Miss Bartlett puts it:

‘It is dreadful to be entangled with low-class people.’ (p.92)

The room issue is that Lucy and her chaperone and cousin, Miss Charlotte Bartlett, are upset that they have not been assigned the room with a view they were promised. Overhearing them complain, Emerson father and son gallantly offer to exchange rooms with them. Their rooms have a splendid view which they’re not really appreciating.

There follow various walks around Florence and umpteen conversations in which the characters make snide, subtle criticisms of each other. This is the core of the book, not any particular dramatic event, but Forster’s careful notation of the shifting thoughts and feelings of these blinkered, constrained, painfully conventional, small-minded middle-class snobs.

‘There are some working men whom one would be very willing to see out here in Florence – little as they would make of it.’ (p.74)

Obviously this little gaggle of trippers think that they are different, they are not like the common herd of ‘pension tourists’ (p.71), ‘hot dusty unintelligent tourists’ (p.82) – they have soul, they have feelings, they have insight. When they trot off to all the obvious sights with a guidebook in hand they don’t do it like the vulgar mob, but it in a specially superior way.

‘Stop a minute; let those two people go on, or I shall have to speak to them. I do detest conventional intercourse. Nasty! they are going into the church, too. Oh, the Britisher abroad!’ (p.39)

They’re as dismissive of the Italians as they are of their own countrymen, in fact it’s astonishing just how much these pompous, self-satisfied Philistines dismiss the nation they’ve made such efforts to travel to and study. Specific Italian characters and the Italian nation as a whole are routinely dismissed for all the usual stereotypical reasons.

‘No one has the least idea of privacy in this country.’ (p.54)

‘She said: “Can I have a little ink, please?” But you know what Italians are…

The implication being that Italians are slow and lazy. Here’s the Reverend Beebe’s view (although, admittedly he is being a little satirical at the expense of old Miss Alan):

‘The Italians are a most unpleasant people. They pry everywhere, they see everything, and they know what we want before we know it ourselves. We are at their mercy. They read our thoughts, they foretell our desires. From the cab-driver down to – to Giotto, they turn us inside out, and I resent it. Yet in their heart of hearts they are – how superficial! They have no conception of the intellectual life.’

Here’s Lucy, the sensitive young woman whose spiritual awakening we are meant to warm to:

‘How very odd Italians are!… Mr. Beebe was saying that Italians know everything, but I think they are rather childish.’

And here’s the narrator:

An Italian can never be ignored, least of all when he has a grievance. (p.73)

This latter sentence is describing a hawker of postcards who is pestering another clergyman they meet, the Reverend Mr. Eager, the English chaplain at Florence, and I couldn’t help cheering every time an Italian pestered, tried to sell postcards to, overcharged and generally ripped off this gang of spoilt silly Brits.

Would we nowadays describe this relentless stereotyping of Italians as racist? What did Italians at the time make of these kinds of the countless fictions describing Brits trekking to Italy for the art and being very disappointed by actual Italians? What do they make of them now?

I call the characters philistine because the book goes out of its way to highlight how none of them have any feel whatsoever for real art or beauty but simply carry the Baedeker guide with them everywhere, into every square and every church, so it can tell them which painting is important and which tomb is beautiful and which view is delightful. Forster is explicit that Lucy only likes art she’s heard of and so knows to be important (p.61).

The one possible exception is the lady author Miss Lavish, who loudly deprecates guides and tells Lucy you can only understand the Italian soul through patient observation. But Forster makes it quite clear how trite and shallow her imagination is when she shares with Lucy her plan for her next novel. In a central incident in the novel two Italian men get into a fight over money and one stabs the other, causing Miss Honeychurch to faint. Next day Miss Lavish explains how she will use this incident as the basis of her next novel only she will change the cause of the argument from sordid money to a jealous fight over a beautiful woman ‘which would raise the tone of the tragedy, and at the same time furnish an excellent plot’, and the plot will concern ‘Love, murder, abduction, revenge’. In other words, she plans to transform something hard, violent and alien into melodramatic tripe, according to a set of hackneyed conventions. In case we can’t work this out for ourselves, Forster later has the (admittedly über-snobbish) clergyman Mr Eager describe Miss Lavish as ‘a shoddy lady writer’ (p.80).

Discussing the same incident (the stabbing) Miss Lavish also delivers sentiments of stunning banality, an opinion which was a thumping cliché even at the time:

‘I confess that in Italy my sympathies are not with my own countrymen. It is the neglected Italians who attract me, and whose lives I am going to paint so far as I can. For I repeat and I insist, and I have always held most strongly, that a tragedy such as yesterday’s is not the less tragic because it happened in humble life.’

And then Forster skewers Lucy’s chaperone, Miss Bartlett, when he has her remark of this superficially ‘unconventional’ but in fact trite, philistine woman:

‘She is my idea of a really clever woman,’ said Miss Bartlett. ‘That last remark struck me as so particularly true.’ (p.70)

Received opinion has it that Forster is gently comic about his characters, but beneath the sly humour I felt there was, at times, quite savage satire by which none of his characters are left unskewered.

Pat 1. Plot summary

Chapter 1. The Bertolini

In Florence Lucy and her chaperone Miss Bartlett room at the Pension Bertolini. They are very disappointed 1) that the Pension is run by a Cockney Englishwoman and 2) that they’ve been given rooms on the inside of the Pension facing the central well, which smells and doesn’t have a view. The Emersons, father and son, kindly offer to swap rooms to give the ladies a view despite the disapproval of all the other guests for their lower class intervention.

Lucy and Miss B are surprised to learn that the Reverend Beebe, who they know from back in England where he has a parish at Tunbridge, is also staying. They get to know the elderly sisters Miss Teresa and Miss Catherine Alan. They also meet the outspoken lady novelist Miss Eleanor Lavish with her unstoppable gush of clichés and condescension:

‘Tut, tut! Miss Lucy! I hope we shall soon emancipate you from Baedeker. He does but touch the surface of things. As to the true Italy—he does not even dream of it. The true Italy is only to be found by patient observation!’

‘One doesn’t come to Italy for niceness,’ was the retort, ‘one comes for life!’

‘Buon giorno! Take the word of an old woman, Miss Lucy: you will never repent of a little civility to your inferiors. That is the true democracy.’

Chapter 2. In Santa Croce with No Baedeker

Garrulous Miss Lavish takes Lucy to the church of Santa Croce. On the way they natter about Lucy’s family house back in Surrey (big house, 30 acres). Miss Lavish promises Lucy she doesn’t need a guide book and confiscates her Baedeker, but then darts off to talk to some old Italian, effectively abandoning Lucy, lost in this big barn-like building.

Here she bumps into Mr Emerson who is surprisingly aggressive – he despises religion of all types and insists we should live in the here and now – and candidly explains that his son, George, is unhappy with the universe and could she, Lucy, give him a sympathetic listening and maybe some support. All of which is way beyond Lucy’s comfort zone of middle class chatter (‘the world of rapid talk’) and dumbfounds her.

Chapter 3. Music, Violets, and the Letter “S”

Lucy plays the piano, not to concert standard but well enough, favouring Beethoven. She loves the touch of the keys and always feels emboldened after playing. On a wet afternoon at the Pension she plays the piano. Which reminds the Reverend Beebe of the time he heard her play at a recital and asked to be introduced. He quickly realised that, away from the piano, she is a shallow little creature with nothing to say for herself. Beebe is amused and detached, likes drawing people out and trying to make people happy. He is the nearest thing to a sympathetic character.

Back in the present Lucy, Mr Beebe and old Miss Alan natter and gossip, snobbishly dismissing the Emersons and saying they’ll have to find their own way. Bored and confined, Lucy says she wants to go out for a walk, to the disapproval of Mr Beebe and Miss Alan.

Chapter 4. Fourth Chapter

Forster was gay and his novels are about women. Lucy was recognised in her day, and has been hailed ever since, as a young woman trying to break free of the constraints placed on her sex by Victorian society. But Forster treats the subject in a typically elliptical way. Maybe, to be more accurate, he does so using his lyrical-historical-mythical style. This could be considered a form of euphemism, or a way of raising a subject without really addressing it. No analysis, instead a cloud of allegory.

In chapter 4 Lucy is restless and wants to go out, to experience something big. The biggest thing she can think of is to go for a ride on one of Florence’s electric trams.

This she might not attempt. It was unladylike. Why? Why were most big things unladylike? Charlotte had once explained to her why. It was not that ladies were inferior to men; it was that they were different. Their mission was to inspire others to achievement rather than to achieve themselves. Indirectly, by means of tact and a spotless name, a lady could accomplish much. But if she rushed into the fray herself she would be first censured, then despised, and finally ignored. (p.60)

That is reasonably straightforward, and describes a social view while neatly skewering Miss Bartlett’s worried conventionality. It’s what comes next that is characteristically Forsterian in its lyrical windiness.

There is much that is immortal in this medieval lady. The dragons have gone, and so have the knights, but still she lingers in our midst. She reigned in many an early Victorian castle, and was Queen of much early Victorian song. It is sweet to protect her in the intervals of business, sweet to pay her honour when she has cooked our dinner well. But alas! the creature grows degenerate. In her heart also there are springing up strange desires. She too is enamoured of heavy winds, and vast panoramas, and green expanses of the sea. She has marked the kingdom of this world, how full it is of wealth, and beauty, and war – a radiant crust, built around the central fires, spinning towards the receding heavens. Men, declaring that she inspires them to it, move joyfully over the surface, having the most delightful meetings with other men, happy, not because they are masculine, but because they are alive. Before the show breaks up she would like to drop the august title of the Eternal Woman, and go there as her transitory self.

A lot of words but not very useful, is it? Then Forster comes back to earth to apply all this back to Lucy:

Lucy does not stand for the medieval lady, who was rather an ideal to which she was bidden to lift her eyes when feeling serious. Nor has she any system of revolt. Here and there a restriction annoyed her particularly, and she would transgress it, and perhaps be sorry that she had done so. This afternoon she was peculiarly restive. She would really like to do something of which her well-wishers disapproved. As she might not go on the electric tram, she went to Alinari’s shop. (p.61)

This wandering off into the world of whimsy, of vague windy allegorical visions, is very characteristic of Forster. He does it more usually when invoking the idea of the pagan beauty of Renaissance art and statuary (which he does here in chapter ), and the pagan power of the countryside, sprinkled with references to the god Pan (which he does in the chapter about the picnic in the country).

But I find it a form of evasion. When he comes to a real, knotty social problem Forster turns into Tennyson and flies away from it.

Anyway, thus blocked by convention Lucy goes shopping and buys postcards of classic paintings. It is funny to learn that she calls any example of nudity ‘a pity’, so that Botticelli’s Birth of Venus is great except that the Venus, being ‘a pity’, spoils the picture.

She’s just thinking how bored she is and how she wished something would happen when two men get into an argument, then a fight, then one stabs the other in the chest. She sees blood coming from his mouth then faints. She comes to cradled in George Emerson’s arms, feeling peculiar, gabbling.

But then George behaves just as strangely. They hail a cab to take them to the river and walk a little till George throws something down into the Arno. It was the photographs she’d bought, which were covered in blood. There follows one of those strange scenes in Forster where two ordinary people become the subject of one of his incandescent analyses, limned with purple prose. Forster has invented this incident (the stabbing) is savvy enough to investigate at length the impact it has on his two very different characters. And yet the resulting description is strangely diffuse and disappointing:

She had been in his arms, and he remembered it, just as he remembered the blood on the photographs that she had bought in Alinari’s shop. It was not exactly that a man had died; something had happened to the living: they had come to a situation where character tells, and where childhood enters upon the branching paths of Youth. (p.66)

There’s something persistently obtuse and unreachable in Forster’s attitude. It’s far stranger than his cosy reputation suggests.

Chapter 5. Possibilities of a Pleasant Outing

Next day Lucy accompanies Miss Bartlett as she sets about her chores. They encounter Miss Lavish in the piazza where the stabbing took place, and hear how she intends to transform it into a conventional melodrama. Among her other clichéd views, Charlotte tells Lucy that Miss Lavish ‘has a high opinion of the destiny of woman’.

They bump into Mr Eager, the resident Anglican vicar in Florence. He suggests they all make up a party to go on a picnic into the hills. He has a grand reputation of the being a true connoisseur with entrance to private villas, advanced knowledge of art etc. In reality he poses and spouts Wordsworth and trite truisms about the benefits of nature. Here in chapter 5 we get a distinct sense of Lucy’s ‘development’. The stabbing and something in George’s rescue of her mean she now no longer sees the reverend with the respect she ought to nor Miss Lavish who she begins to suspect of being a fraud.

They have the nearest thing to a quarrel because the Reverend Eager is haughtily critical of Emerson, who was a parishioner of his back in Brixton (!). He drops dark hints and, for the first time in her life, Lucy is irritated and more or less tells him to spit it out, at which Eager declares that Emerson murdered his life. Well, in the eyes of God. In a manner of speaking, and desperately rows back, leading Lucy to think even less of him.

Charlotte buys a gewgaw in the tourist shop they’re all standing in and restores civility and they part. Lucy suddenly realises she is sick of Florence and wants Charlotte to take her to Rome but the other just laughs at the wild suggestion.

Chapter 6. The Reverend Arthur Beebe, the Reverend Cuthbert Eager, Mr Emerson, Mr George Emerson, Miss Eleanor Lavish, Miss Charlotte Bartlett and Miss Lucy Honeychurch Drive Out in Carriages to See a View; Italians Drive Them

They hire two carriages to carry the party. The one with Eager and Lucy in, also has Mr Emerson and is driven by a fiery young Italian who, a little into the journey, insists on stopping to pick up his ‘sister’. He immediately places his arm round her waist and spends the ride trying to kiss her. Mr Eager is facing away from the horses and so doesn’t see this but he drives too fast and the ride is exceedingly bouncy and after one particularly egregious bounce Eager turns round to catch the young couple kissing. The result is a huge fuss, Eager insists they get down, the girl must ride on the other carriage, the driver is told he won’t get a tip. Mr Emerson the atheist criticises Eager for denying Life and Lucy sympathises.

Finally they arrive at the viewpoint up in the hills and there’s some fol-de-rol about trying to find the exact position where the obscure painter Alessio Baldovinett set some of his works. They break up into groups. Miss Lavish and Charlotte want to have a good gossip, specifically a good laugh at the expense of George Emerson because the Reverend Eager asked his profession and George replied ‘the railway’ and so they ladies want to have a good snicker at his expense. So they mount a campaign to get rid of Lucy.

She goes back to the carriages and asks the young Italian to direct her to the clergymen. He guides her through woods till she stumbles out onto a terrace packed with beautiful violets. here is standing handsome sensible young George who sees her emerge from the woods like a nymph, so he steps forward and kisses her.

At that moment Miss Bartlett appears over both of them, shouting her name disapprovingly.

Chapter 7. They Return

It takes a while to round up all the scattered members of the outing for, as Forster characteristically puts it:

Pan had been amongst them – not the great god Pan, who has been buried these two thousand years, but the little god Pan, who presides over social contretemps and unsuccessful picnics. (p.90)

The weather turns, it starts to rain, then there is a terrific explosion as lightning his the stands of the tramline a little in front of them. They spend the journey back loudly discussing how lucky they were to escape. But Lucy is full of contrition over The Kiss and Miss Bartlett (her cousin and chaperone) is kind and supportive.

That night, back at the pension, it rains and rains and they have to socialise till finally Charlotte and Lucy are free to go to their room and discuss what to do about The Situation. Specifically, how are they going to stop George talking about The Kiss? They both regard is as an insult. Miss Bartlett wishes there was a real man in their party, such as her brother, who would defend her honour like a lion.

Charlotte announces that they must leave Florence and travel down to Rome by the first train in the morning (not telling Lucy that she had already given notice). These four or five pages very acutely convey the complex and changing relationship between the older, poorer cousin and the younger but developing young Lucy. Both wish things could go back to the simple affection they had before but know it can’t.

Cunningly Charlotte says it is she who will be blamed for The Disaster, unless of course Lucy doesn’t tell her mother… and so Lucy is manipulated into promising not to tell. Sadly, she is alone in her room when she sees the figure of a man outside. It is young George who got separated from the party and has walked all the way down from the hills. As he comes down the corridor Lucy is tempted to stop him and talk to him but she is nipped by Miss Bartlett who opens her door and in a peremptory tone demands an interview with the George in the drawing room. We can assume she extracts an apology and a promise never to speak of The Insult.

Next morning Charlotte and Lucy depart early for Rome (on what Lucy will later call ‘the flight to Rome’) and the Italian part of the narrative is over.

Part 2. England

Cast

All the English characters from part one, plus:

Cecil Vyse, the major figure in the second part of the novel who, right at its start, proposes to Lucy and is accepted.

Mrs Honeychurch, Lucy’s plump generally good-natured mother.

Frederick Honeychurch, Lucy’s rather dim, decent 19-year-old brother.

Floyd, barely mentioned friend of Freddy’s who comes over to play tennis.

Minnie Beebe, 13-year-old niece of the Reverend Beebe.

Chapter 8. Medieval

We are in the living room at Windy Corner, home of Lucy’s family, the Honeychurches. We find Lucy’s brother, 19-year-old Frederick struggling at his anatomy book (presumably studying to become a doctor) and his mother, writing and rewriting a letter to the Vyses. In Rome Cecil Vyse proposed to Lucy and she turned him down. Now Cecil has travelled to Windy Corner to try again and been successful.

Mr Beebe arrives and wants h is tea but finds himself in a conversation with Cecil Vyse that both find uncomfortable. Beebe greets the new politely but can’t help being disappointed. ‘Medieval’ is an adjective used to describe Cecil’s solid sturdy presence.

Chapter 9. Lucy As a Work of Art

A few days later Mrs Honeychurch invites Lucy and Cecil to a little garden party with some elderly ladies. Some coffee is spilt on Lucy’s dress so she and mother disappear leaving Cecil with the old ladies. They are gone some time and return to find him fuming.

They drive in a carriage round to the hillside village of Summer Street where the local landowner, Sir Harry Otway, has been too slow to act to prevent two ghastly modern villas being built. Tut tut, but he’s bought them both. Now he has to find a tenant for one of them, Cissie Villa. Lucy suggests it’s just the size for the two old ladies she met in Florence, Miss Alan and

Cecil is irritated (we are beginning to realise he is always irritated) by Sir Harry who he takes to be a provincial snob, ‘a hopeless vulgarian’, ‘all that is worst in country life’.

Cecil asks Lucy to come for a walk with him in the woods. He is irritated that she only envisions him in a room, never in the woods, in the wild. In the middle of the woods he asks her to kiss him and she acquiesces and he knows it’s all wrong, from the passive way she lifts her veil to the way his gold pince nez gets squashed between them (p.127).

Chapter 10. Cecil as a Humourist

Lucy’s background. Her father was a solicitor local to Dorking who built the modest house, Windy Corner, as an investment but then liked it and moved in. Over the years wealthier immigrants from London arrived and built bigger houses and accepted the Honeychurches as of their class and rank, which they aren’t. Lucy grew up in this tiny self-reinforcing society.

Lucy and Freddy are playing a children’s game with tennis balls when Cecil arrives. Maliciously, he has arranged tenants for Sir Harry’s villa and it is none other than The Emersons, father and son, who he happened to meet in the National Gallery Renaissance rooms. Lucy initially can’t believe it, then is really upset. Temper temper, thinks supercilious Cecil.

Chapter 11. In Mrs. Vyse’s Well-Appointed Flat

Lucy escapes from the immediate embarrassment of the Emersons moving into the villa at Summer Street by going to stay with her prospective mother-in-law, Mrs Vyse, in her London apartments (Beauchamp Mansions SW). Mrs V, like her son, is aware that Lucy is a notch or two below them in terms of class and polish, so she dreamily repeats to her son: ‘Male her one of us’.

Chapter 12. Twelfth Chapter

While the Emersons are still moving in, the Reverend Beebe and Frederick go to visit them. Old Mr Emerson pontificates about the future of equality which will be a Garden of Eden, which will arrive when we stop despising our bodies. He also believes there will be equality between men and women.

Frederick in his empty-headed way asks George if he wants to come to for a bathe in a remote pool in the woods, which he does and the Reverend Beebe joins them for a frolic. This becomes hysterical games of splashing and chase and rugby until, suddenly, Mrs Honeychurch, Lucy and Cecil come upon them, don’t know where to look, Cecil leads them away, but stumble over Frederick hiding in the bracken, then George appearing shirtless, and so on. Mrs Honeychurch is relaxed and just tells the boys to dry themselves thoroughly.

It is a yet another example of Forster’s sense of the spirit in the woods, the pagan gods, his penchant for seeing the sacred in all aspects of live:

It had been a call to the blood and to the relaxed will, a passing benediction whose influence did not pass, a holiness, a spell, a momentary chalice for youth. (p.152)

Or, more explicitly classical:

The sun rose higher on its journey, guided, not by Phaethon, but by Apollo, competent, unswerving, divine.

Chapter 13. How Miss Bartlett’s Boiler Was So Tiresome

1. Lucy had planned for her meeting with George in all manner of social situations but never in her wildest dreams imagined coming across him half-dressed in the woods, as she just has.

2. Mrs Honeychurch, plump and good tempered, for the first time starts to dislike Cecil when he is supercilious on a visit to a local old lady. Back at home Mrs H complains to Lucy that Cecil winces whenever she talks and is also visibly impatient when Frederick sings one of his comic songs. He’s ashamed of them. Class. Snobbery.

3. To try and distract her from criticising Cecil, Lucy mentions she got a letter from Charlotte and, over dinner, Mrs Honeychurch says she’s going to invite her to come and stay while she’s got the plumbers in to fix the boiler in her house at Tunbridge Wells, despite Lucy’s anxious demurrals. She is petrified Charlotte will tell her mother and Cecil about The Kiss.

Chapter 14. How Lucy Faced the External Situation Bravely

I find Forster’s narrative voice very odd, one minute lightly whimsical, the next moment invoking the gods or Fate. And quite often he deploys an intrusive narrator every bit as button-holing as Henry Fielding or Thackeray, thus:

It is obvious enough for the reader to conclude ‘She loves young Emerson’. A reader in Lucy’s place would not find it obvious. Life is easy to chronicle, but bewildering to practice, and we welcome ‘nerves’ or any other shibboleth that will cloak our personal desire. She loved Cecil; George made her nervous; will the reader explain to her that the phrases should have been reversed? (p.161)

He meets George at a social visit with the vicar and they are both civil to each other. Then Charlotte arrives for her stay, immediately causing trouble by going to the wrong station and, instead of meeting Mrs Honeychurch who’d gone to meet her, taking a separate cab all the way to the house, and then insisting on paying the fare (five shillings, p.162). Fuss and trivia, thinks Cecil, visible above all this ‘stupefying twaddle’ (p.163).

Out on the lawn Charlotte drops her hapless pose and straightaway asks Lucy whether she has told Cecil about The Kiss with George and Lucy, irritably, says No because it was Charlotte who swore her to secrecy that evening back in Florence, for fear, if the story came out, Mrs Honeychurch would drop her for being a terrible chaperone. So first she wanted Lucy to lie, now, months later, she wants her to tell the truth. Exasperated, Lucy demands which is it to be?

More interesting, really, than the rather stereotypical situation (this entire novel is about One Kiss), is Forster’s characteristically intrusive, and playful, narrator.

Lucy thought this rather a good speech. The reader may have detected an unfortunate slip in it. Whether Miss Bartlett detected the slip one cannot say, for it is impossible to penetrate into the minds of elderly people. (166)

Chapter 15. The Disaster Within

The women (Lucy, Charlotte, Miss Honeychurch and Minnie, daughter of the Reverend Beebe) all go to church on Sunday morning, unlike the infidel men, Cecil and Frederick. Their victoria (horse-drawn carriage) parks near the Villa Cissie so Mrs Honeychurch asks to be introduced to old Emerson, who is courteous, and young George who is frank and humorous. Instantly he and plump Mrs Honeychurch get on.

And Lucy rejoices because it is obvious George has never told his father about The Kiss. In the carriage back Lucy rejoices, partly because she is not a trophy he has bragged about. Back at Windy Corner Forster lays it on thicker and thicker that Cecil doesn’t really care about Lucy. His model is feudal, of himself as a guider and moulder. Lucy will never be his equal. She has increasingly realised that he sneers not only at her family but at her, at her cultural inadequacy. Without realising it she is starting to dread their wedding, planned for the following January.

That afternoon George visits, invited by Frederick to play tennis. After much gabbling about how to make up a four, they play and George is surprisingly competitive. Cecil is not good enough to play and, feeling left out, takes the odd action of walking round the court reading out passages from the silly romance he’s reading. Then, afterwards they all sit on the court and Lucy encourages Cecil, visibly irritated with everything, to carry on reading.

Two things: 1) as Cecil reads the preposterous romantic tosh which is set in Florence, Lucy laughingly realises it’s the book Miss Lavish was threatening to write, which she has now managed to do, and get published under the silly pen name of Joseph Emery Prank. But 2), and much more importantly, somehow she has learned about The Kiss on the hill because she has included it in her romance and Cecil now reads this scene aloud to the assembled group, including the two protagonists of the original kiss, Lucy and George. The effect on both of them is electric and it takes all Lucy’s self-control not to betray it.

But how, the reader wonders, can Miss Lavish possibly have known about The Kiss? And then again, this novel itself, A Room With A View is merely another, higher, sort of romance and so does such a far-fetched coincidence matter?

All this leads to a fateful consequence. As they are making their way back to the house, through a patch of bushes, George kisses Lucy again. Just once then they are in sight of the others and he moves away.

Chapter 16. Lying to George

Lucy has ‘developed’ in the six months since the first kiss (in February). She imperiously summons Charlotte and without much difficulty gets her to admit to telling Miss Lavish (who she became thick as thieves with) about The Kiss. She is mortified that Miss Lavish then included it in her novel (although, it is not exactly a unique occurrence, the manly hero and sensitive heroine of a romantic novel having a kiss) but her bad faith and shiftiness make Lucy ‘despise’ her (p.183).

Next, imperious Lucy calls for George (or more accurately, dismisses Frederick from the room where they’re having post-tennis toast) and tells him to leave. In response George delivers an impassioned declaration of love for her which includes a really devastating critique of Cecil’s character as the type of man who needs to control, who likes playing malicious tricks and will never let her be his equal.

But Lucy doesn’t yield, he gets up and leaves the house, walking up the drive. Charlotte leaps to her feet and congratulates Lucy on her bravery. Lucy steps out into the autumn air at the moment that Freddy calls for her and George to rejoin them for another set of tennis. She says George has left so Freddy calls Cecil to make up the four. But Cecil refuses, pompously saying he is a book man. And at that moment Lucy realises he is intolerable and that evening breaks off the engagement.

Chapter 17. Lying to Cecil

Detailed account of the scene where she breaks it off. When Cecil takes it badly it only makes her angry. They are too different. She will never live up to his expectations. He despises her family. Pitifully, it takes this shock to make him see her for the first time as a woman and not some figure out of a painting by Leonardo, and in a spasm makes him realise he really does love her.

By a cruel irony she was drawing out all that was finest in his disposition. (p.191)

Too late. With great dignity Cecil realises she has become a new woman, with new insights and a new voice. For a moment she is distracted into saying she’s not in love with anyone else, when Cecil hadn’t even broached the possibility, angrily saying it’s disgusting when people always accuse a woman ending an engagement of having someone else when she’s doing it ‘for the sake of freedom’. The power of her speech in favour of women’s freedom reminded me very much of Nora Helmer in Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House.

There’s one major difference. ‘A Doll’s House’ ends with the door slamming as Nora leaves to start her new life. By complete contrast, Forster’s intrusive narrator delivers his longest speech and it is entirely, devastatingly, negative.

It did not do to think, nor, for the matter of that, to feel. She gave up trying to understand herself, and joined the vast armies of the benighted, who follow neither the heart nor the brain, and march to their destiny by catch-words. The armies are full of pleasant and pious folk. But they have yielded to the only enemy that matters—the enemy within. They have sinned against passion and truth, and vain will be their strife after virtue. As the years pass, they are censured. Their pleasantry and their piety show cracks, their wit becomes cynicism, their unselfishness hypocrisy; they feel and produce discomfort wherever they go. They have sinned against Eros and against Pallas Athene, and not by any heavenly intervention, but by the ordinary course of nature, those allied deities will be avenged. Lucy entered this army when she pretended to George that she did not love him, and pretended to Cecil that she loved no one. The night received her, as it had received Miss Bartlett thirty years before. (p.194)

Chapter 18. Lying to Mr Beebe, Mrs Honeychurch, Freddy and The Servants

Next morning Mr Beebe cycles up just as the coach is leaving to take Cecil to the station, accompanied by Freddy. They banter about a letter Beebe has received from the Miss Alans saying they’re thinking about going to Greece this coming winter while Cecil listens politely. When Cecil gets in the coach Freddy quickly fills the vicar in that the engagement is off. As the coach pulls away Beebe thumps the saddle of his bike with happiness and thanks the Lord. He knew Cecil and Lucy were mismatched.

In the house Beebe finds everyone discombobulated, Mrs Honeychurch fussing about the dahlias which have been knocked over by the autumn wind. Beebe goes into the living room to find Lucy playing a Mozart sonata and they slowly talk about the engagement, Lucy spelling out that Cecil was too controlling. But when she hears Beebe’s news that the Miss Alans are thinking of going to Athens, she is desperate to join them.

Their conversation is interrupted because Beebe had promised to take Charlotte and his niece, Minnie, up the hill to the Beehive tearooms. Here Charlotte strongly suggests that there is much behind the breaking of the engagement and when she hears of the Athens plan jumps to support it with an enthusiasm Beebe doesn’t understand (because she understands how much Lucy needs to get away from the vicinity of George).

Back at the house Beebe is instrumental in talking Mrs Honeychurch into letting Lucy travel to Greece. Lucy is thrilled. The Reverend Beebe cycles home in the dark and windy autumn night.

Chapter 19. Lying to Mr Emerson

Lucy is in London with her mother making the arrangements to travel to Greece with the Miss Alans. She refuses to tell them about the engagement being broken off because she promised Cecil she would tell no one till she was out of England. She realises she is becoming detached from her mother. In numerous ways she is growing up. They go shopping for guidebooks and such and quarrel and Mrs Honeychurch makes the biting point that Lucy sounds more and more like Miss Bartlett every day. This cuts Lucy to the quick, but is this Forster’s point? Are we meant to take Lucy’s decision not to reciprocate George’s love as a denial of the life force and so the beginning of her journey into warped spinsterhood?

Anyway, the carriage passes the Cissie Villa whose lights are off and their driver (Powell) tells Lucy the Emersons have moved out. They have collected Miss Bartlett along the way but she wants to go to church so they drive there. While her mother and Charlotte go into the church Lucy goes to the rectory to wait for them and is startled to discover that Mr Emerson Senior is there, notably ill and frail from gout.

He explains that he never knew his son was in love with her, but he did notice how he revived and picked up after the incident of the swimming pond, how he determined to live. He apologises that George was so forward but says he raised him to believe in love and life. For a moment, when he describes George as ‘gone under’ Lucy has a panic that George is dead but what Emerson means is his son has sunk into a depression. He no longer wants to live near Lucy and so has found a place in London where he and his father can live.

The conversation touches on her going away to Greece and the old man assumes she means with her husband-to-be. It’s only when Beebe pops in to collect something and check they’re alright here in the warm (outside it’s a cold and windy, rainy night) and mentions that she’s going away with the Miss Alans that the old man realises Cecil isn’t going, which forces her to admit she’s broken off the engagement and then the old man spots it: she’s in love with his son. She must marry him. Love is eternal and must be fulfilled.

Lucy tries to deny it, is angry, then bursts into tears, then the carriage is at the door and she says she is trusted, she has made promises. At which moment Beebe re-enters saying the carriage to take her home is ready and is thunderstruck when Emerson Senior tells him (Beebe) that Lucy loves George, that they love each other. Beebe becomes really serious for the first time in the book and tells her to marry George, turning and walking out.

She is still not certain and Emerson Senior delivers a page-long soliloquy about love being truth, while she cries. He says if George was here and kissed her it would clarify everything so she begs him to kiss her (in a chaste, fatherly way) and Forster’s prose takes flight into a typically lyrical hymn.

He gave her a sense of deities reconciled, a feeling that, in gaining the man she loved, she would gain something for the whole world. Throughout the squalor of her homeward drive – she spoke at once – his salutation remained. He had robbed the body of its taint, the world’s taunts of their sting; he had shown her the holiness of direct desire. She “never exactly understood,” she would say in after years, ‘how he managed to strengthen her. It was as if he had made her see the whole of everything at once.’ (p.225)

‘The holiness of direct desire’, surely that’s the key to the whole thing. I’m always surprised by how much Forster – supposedly poet laureate of maiden aunts – reminds me of D.H. Lawrence, the prophet of unbridled desire. But here, as in all his other books, he praises a pagan, unchristian notion of physical desire and fulfilment.

Chapter 20. The End of the Middle Ages

And so we find George and Lucy who have eloped and are back in the same rooms in the Pension Bertolini, kissing and canoodling and blessing their luck. Lucy tells us that she alienated her family (Frederick and mother) and at a stroke lost the interest of the Reverend Beebe. She optimistically declares that:

‘if we act the truth, the people who really love us are sure to come back to us in the long run.’

Maybe. Alternatively, screw them. Live your own life. The narrative ends with a final twist. Charlotte told Lucy that she had no idea old Mr Emerson was in the rectory living room, but George disputes this. He says his father was napping and awoke to see Charlotte in the doorway turning to leave. What… what if her insistence, on that evening, on going to church was a ploy because she knew Lucy wouldn’t attend but would pass the time in the rectory where she’d seen George’s father… What if, at the last minute, she had set it up for Lucy to encounter George’s father, the only person who could talk her round to her impulsive course of action? What if deep within that dried-up spinster’s bosom still lurked romance and love after all?

At which the narrative ends in another one of Forster’s puffs of pagan smoke:

Youth enwrapped them; the song of Phaethon announced passion requited, love attained. But they were conscious of a love more mysterious than this. The song died away; they heard the river, bearing down the snows of winter into the Mediterranean. (p.230)

Forster’s Afterword: A View With A Room (1958)

Forster lived to be 91. In 1958, 50 years after the novel was first published, he wrote an Afterword to it, wittily or limply (depending on your sense of humour) titled ‘A View With A Room’.

This tells us several facts, notably that the first part, set in Italy, was almost the first sustained passage of fiction he ever wrote, which explains why readers from that day to this feel it is wonderfully light and effervescent and entertaining – but that he then put the manuscript to one side to write two novels, the melodramatic ‘Where Angels Fear To Tread’, and the long, worthy and (in my opinion) very stodgy ‘The Longest Journey’ – before returning to write the second and concluding half of ‘A Room With A View’ – which explains why, despite a handful of zesty scenes (most obviously the naked bathe in the woods) almost all readers feel there is a distinct falling-off in energy and high spirits.

I’d summarise it by saying the highly enjoyable bitchy satire on English snobbery abroad of the first part is replaced by a boring sense that he felt he ought to be writing something earnest and meaningful (about the growth of a young woman’s character) in the second.

In passing, Forster tells us that ‘The Longest Journey’, his stodgiest and least successful novel, is his favourite – presumably because it’s the most obviously autobiographical and so records events and feelings close to Forster’s own heart.

But the most interesting part of the Afterword, and the thing which apparently spurred him to write it, is the bit where he speculates on what would have become of his characters, in the fifty years since it was published. This is surprisingly detailed and also indicates the vast, almost inconceivable technological and cultural distance which separated 1958 from 1908. What vast catastrophes intervened! Here’s what Forster speculated might have happened to his characters:

George and Lucy marry and settle in Highgate. He gets a better job as a clerk in a government office. Cousin Charlotte leaves them some money and they live well until the outbreak of the Great War. George is a conscientious objector and accepted alternative service. Lucy defiantly continued to play Beethoven (Hun music!) on the piano until she was reported at which point Old Mr Emerson gave the police who called round a piece of his mind. At the end of the war they have two girls and a son and move out to Carshalton.

Hopes of moving to Windy Corner disappeared when Mrs Honeychurch died, Freddy inherited and immediately sold it to raise funds for his own growing family. The garden she tended so lovingly was built over.

When the Second World War broke out the pair were living in a flat in Watford. The children had grown up and moved away to their own lives. George enlisted at the ripe old age of 50. He discovered he liked soldiering, and also that he could be unfaithful to Lucy. The flat was bombed and they lost all their belongings.

George was captured in North Africa and imprisoned in an Italian POW camp (like Eric Newby). When the Italian government collapsed George headed north, arriving in Florence and tried to find the pension where the novel is set, but failed. Things change. The houses had been remodelled, extended, merged and renumbered. The View was still there and the Room, probably, too, but impossible to find. Now (1958) they live in peace, George is in his early 70s and Lucy in her late 60s.

As to the lead character in the second part, poor Cecil Vyse, when the first war came, he found his niche working in Intelligence i.e. the secret service.

Forster makes an interesting remark, in passing, as he describes the couple looking to move after the first war:

The characters in my other novels were experiencing similar troubles. Howard’s End is a hunt for a home. India is a Passage for Indians as well as English. No resting-place. (p.232)

Ten million papers must have been written about gender, ethnicity, empire and so on in all the classics of English literature. I wonder if anyone’s written about the search for a home, for a final resting place.

Feminism

The theme of women’s liberation is so obvious in the book that it’s the lead element in the blurb of the Penguin paperback. Quite clearly Lucy is a young woman who outgrows the social, cultural, religious and economic restrictions which hemmed in women in the late Victorian, early Edwardian era.

Emerson Senior and Junior have scattered comments about the equality of women, which they predict will come but only at some vague future time, in some future utopia. But it’s in Lucy’s bitter dissections of Cecil’s controlling personality that we get the strongest expressions of feminism.

‘When we were only acquaintances, you let me be myself, but now you’re always protecting me.’ Her voice swelled. ‘I won’t be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can’t I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? A woman’s place! You despise my mother — I know you do — because she’s conventional and bothers over puddings; but, oh goodness!’ — she rose to her feet — ‘conventional, Cecil, you’re that, for you may understand beautiful things, but you don’t know how to use them; and you wrap yourself up in art and books and music, and would try to wrap up me. I won’t be stifled, not by the most glorious music, for people are more glorious, and you hide them from me.’ (p.191)

‘Cecil was very kind indeed; only — I had better tell you the whole truth, since you have heard a little — it was that he is so masterful. I found that he wouldn’t let me go my own way. He would improve me in places where I can’t be improved. Cecil won’t let a woman decide for herself — in fact, he daren’t.’ (p.202)

And much more in the same vein. Cecil is a brilliant account of a certain kind of patronisingly controlling man. Part two is less lyrical and freewheeling than the Florence passages but Cecil’s clever, controlling, limited character makes it just as rewarding.

Does Forster’s pagan lyricism undermine his irony?

Forster’s style of timid irony cannot, I think, co-exist with his moments of pure lyricism. The kind of lyrical passages I’m thinking about are more obvious and sustained in the short stories, where every story contains poetic passages about pagan beauty, the spirit of the woods or countryside, the mystery of the seaside grotto in ‘The Story of the Siren’ and so on. In this novel these moments of pure lyricism don’t occur so often but they do occur, and at key moments.

The Piazza Signoria is too stony to be brilliant. It has no grass, no flowers, no frescoes, no glittering walls of marble or comforting patches of ruddy brick. By an odd chance – unless we believe in a presiding genius of places – the statues that relieve its severity suggest, not the innocence of childhood, nor the glorious bewilderment of youth, but the conscious achievements of maturity. Perseus and Judith, Hercules and Thusnelda, they have done or suffered something, and though they are immortal, immortality has come to them after experience, not before. Here, not only in the solitude of Nature, might a hero meet a goddess, or a heroine a god.

I can see how his subtle demarcation of the changing psychological impact of conversations is part of Forster’s spectrum of sensitivity about moods and feelings and how these can sometimes rise to the level of poetic dithyrambs, passages where the narrator gives vent to a style of lyricism which invokes the pagan gods as if real presences, as in this passage. These moments paint the background to the story, the setting for the English tourists. I can see how, from one angle, it works.

But, for me, these moments also undermine the sense of control present in all the dialogue and much of the descriptive prose. Forster’s irony works precisely because it is so underplayed, very restrained. It concerns very constrained, tightly-wrapped characters revealing themselves through charged conversations. For me, the moments of high lyricism I’m referring to blow wide open the air of restraint and constriction which his dry irony relies on for its affect. Like a stripper arriving at a vicar’s tea party. Like staring at the sun then turning your gaze back to the flowers in a border. After the great efflorescence of the pagan passages it’s difficult to focus back on the subtle details.


Credit

A Room with a View by E.M Forster was published by Edward and Arnold in 1908. References are to the 1982 Penguin paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews