Hercule Poirot’s Christmas by Agatha Christie (1938)

‘Marriage is an extraordinary thing – and I doubt if any outsider – even a child of the marriage – has the right to judge.’
(Hilda Lee, Chapter 4)

George Lee was solemn and correct. ‘A terrible business,’ he said, shaking his head. ‘A terrible, terrible business. I can only believe that it must – er – have been the work of a lunatic!’
(In almost all the books the villain is repeatedly made out to be a fiend, a demon etc, Chapter 9)

‘I myself am quite convinced that this crime was done by a maniac who somehow or other gained admittance to the house.’
(Ditto)

Sugden said: ‘Then you think someone is lying?’
Poirot sighed.
Mon cher, everyone lies – in parts like the egg of the English curate. It is profitable to separate the harmless lies from the vital ones.’
(Chapter 15)

Lydia said, almost impatiently: ‘It’s like a nightmare – so fantastic – I can’t believe it’s real!’
(The stock standard sentiment someone expresses in every Christie novel, Part 4)

‘There is in this crime such a restricted circle that it cannot possibly take long to arrive at the truth.’
(Handy expression of the ‘closed circle’ sub-genre of murder mystery, Part 5)

‘It is the quietest and meekest people who are often capable of the most sudden and unexpected violence for the reason that when their control does snap, it does so entirely!
(Daytime TV-level psychology, Part 6)

Background

‘Appointment with Death’ centred on a monstrously controlling old mother, Mrs Boynton. ‘Hercule Poirot’s Christmas’ circles round a horribly manipulative father, the Dickensian figure of old Simeon Lee.

In a big grandfather armchair, the biggest and most imposing of all the chairs, sat the thin, shrivelled figure of an old man. His long claw‐like hands rested on the arms of the chair. A gold‐mounted stick was by his side. He wore an old shabby blue dressing‐gown. On his feet were carpet slippers. His hair was white and the skin of his face was yellow. A shabby, insignificant figure, one might have thought. But the nose, aquiline and proud, and the eyes, dark and intensely alive, might cause an observer to alter his opinion. Here was fire and life and vigour. (Chapter 6)

Old Mr Lee made his fortune in South African mining (diamonds) where, it is strongly hinted, he was a ruthless operator who made bitter enemies. Having made his fortune he returned to Blighty and started a business in the Midlands based on a mining gadget of his own design, and doubled or trebled his money. He built himself a fine country house – Gorston Hall, Longdale, Addlesfield, ‘a good solid mass of red brick, unimaginative but solid’ – and married a wife, Adelaide.

She gave him four sons – Alfred, Harry, David and George – and a daughter, Jennifer. But as they grew up, they all watched old Simeon bully his wife, boasting about his numerous affairs, mocking her for her timidity and conventionality. The result was that his sons grew up hating their childhood and the family home which was filled with such unhappiness, and loathed their father for driving their mother to a sick room and then to an early death.

In revenge, none of the children turned out as their father intended. Harry was meant to go into the family firm but stole some money and ran off to have adventures. David ran off to London to become an artist, despite his father threatening to cut him off without a penny. He married Hilda.

Pompous, conventional George Lee, ‘a somewhat corpulent gentleman of forty‐one’, became an MP as his father had intended, and married Magdalene, 20 years his junior.

And Alfred stayed at home, managing the house and its servants with his wife, Lydia.

The plot follows a very conventional course, not only in terms of Christie’s own novels, but those of the scores of other detective story writers who flourished between the wars. First we meet the cast; then there is the murder; then the long, drawn-out investigation, then the totally unexpected reveal.

Key personnel

It is Christmas and grasping old multimillionaire Simeon Lee, holed up in his ugly old mansion, surprises his scattered sons and spouses by inviting them all to come and spend Christmas at the house. With various degrees of reluctance, the couples converge, being: Alfred and Lydia (already living with him); David and Hilda, up from London; George and young Magdalene, up from his rural constituency.

In addition, to everyone’s surprise, Simeon has managed to invite the black sheep of the family, David, who ran off to London to make his own way in the world.

In another surprise, Simeon has managed to track down and invite his grand-daughter, Pilar Estravados. She has a Spanish name because Simeon’s one daughter, Jennifer, ran off with a Spaniard, Juan Estravados (a Bohemian friend of David’s down in London), went to Spain, married, had this daughter, then died just a year ago. So Simeon has invited this classically Spanish, good-looking firebrand to the Christmas party, too.

Reading the novels, you are continually reminded how much Christie deals in stereotypes and stock types. Thus Pilar couldn’t be more flashing-eyed, Latin and hot-blooded if she tried.

The curve of Pilar’s red mouth curved upwards. It was suddenly cruel, that mouth. Cruel and greedy – like the mouth of a child or a kitten – a mouth that knew only its own desires and that was as yet unaware of pity.

‘She’s a beautiful creature, Pilar – with the lovely warmth of the South – and its cruelty.’
(Harry Lee, Chapter 10)

A faint smile came to Colonel Johnson’s lips, as his eyes took in the black gloss of her hair, the proud dark eyes, and the curling red lips. Very English! An incongruous term to apply to Pilar Estravados.
(Chapter 13)

And there is one more surprise which is that, back in South Africa in his youth, Simeon had a business partner, old Ebenezer Farr. Ebenezer is long gone but to Simeon’s own surprise his son, handsome, virile, outdoorsy Stephen Farr, has travelled all the way from South Africa, and arrives unexpectedly on their doorstep just before Christmas, claiming to be ‘just passing by’ – obviously suspicious behaviour.

It is an important fact that none of the family have met either Pilar or Stephen before. So one or both of them might be imposters.

As to the household staff, there is the ancient butler, Tressilian, who has been with the family for 40 years. And a new arrival, a personal nurse to old Simeon called Sydney Horbury. The narrative goes out of its way to describe the creepily silent way that Horbury creeps up on everybody. When he hears that a police inspector has been to visit the house, Horbury drops the (old and valuable) cup he is holding and turns pale. Well, he’s obviously got a dodgy past then.

The murder

After dinner on Christmas Eve the various members of the household scatter to different rooms, make phone calls, play the piano (David, playing Mendelssohn), are reading magazines, when suddenly everyone hears a violent commotion coming from Simeon’s room overhead (directly above the dining room, to one side of the drawing room) – bangs and thumps and what-have-you – followed by a blood-curdling scream.

They all rush up to the first floor only to find the door to Simeon’s room locked from the inside. The two most virile men, Harry and Stephen, have to use a big piece of furniture to batter the door down, and all the guests tumble into the room to discover: 1) a scene of amazing destruction, with furniture, vases and whatnot shattered and strewn everywhere, and 2) the body of wasted old Simeon lying in a pool of blood which has poured from his slashed throat. Someone has murdered him!

Motives

So, as always happens, a very bright light is suddenly shone on 1) circumstances leading up to the murder 2) everybody’s possible motives to commit the murder 3) a very detailed examination of everyone’s precise location in the minutes before the scream was heard, who was in which room and heard what etc.

But I need to back up and tell you about some additional facts which are highly relevant.

1) The new will On the afternoon of Christmas Eve, Simeon had called his family together about 3.30, and they – and we – expected some kind of grand announcement, but instead it was to hear Simeon make a call to the family lawyer, Charlton, and tell him he intended to write a new will. Obviously, some or all of the sons and grand-daughter might have feared they would miss out in a new will.

In case I haven’t made it clear, Simeon actively enjoyed teasing and tormenting and occasionally straight out insulting all four of his sons, generating a lot of anger and resentment…

2) The angry sons Specifically, Simone had announced two new son-related facts: one was to tell an outraged Alfred that he has invited the brother he really dislikes, freewheeling Harry, to come and stay at the house, permanently. Alfred is ‘livid with rage’ (p.107). The other was to tell George the pompous MP that he is living beyond his means and that he intends to reduce his (already miserly) allowance, prompting George to say he doesn’t know how he’ll be able to make ends meet.

Add this to the fact that the narrative goes out of its way to describe the burning sense of grievance nurses by the artist son, David, against his father’s cruel treatment of his poor wife, and you have three angry sons, each with a clear motive.

3) The diamonds Several times we are shown the old miser in his inner sanctum opening his safe and taking out a bag of ordinary looking pebbles. Only he knows that they are all rough, uncut diamonds, worth up to £10,000 (according to the internet, worth something like £860,000 today). On the most significant occasion, he calls Pilar into his sanctum, partly because he appreciates her youth and beauty, partly to discover more about her life story. But during this interview he is prompted to take the diamonds out of the safe and show them to her. a) She initially doesn’t understand that these ordinary looking pebbles are in fact uncut diamonds but, when she does, is visibly impressed and, maybe, greedy. b) Their conversation is interrupted by Horbury knocking on the door to announce that tea is ready, so Simeon tells Pilar to ‘Put ’em back in the safe and bang it to.’ But the narrative carefully omits to tell us whether she does or not. Did she steal them?

4) An inspector calls Somebody did, because the last big fact relevant to the case is that later the same afternoon, old Simeon realised the diamonds were missing from the safe and contacted the local police. He rang the local police station at around 5.10pm and asked the local top officer, Superintendent Sugden, to call round later, say around 8pm. So at around 8pm Sugden arrives, tells the butler an anodyne story that he’s calling for contributions to some police charity – but goes up to his room to see Simeon who tells him the diamonds are missing and that it is either someone in his family, or an outsider.

Simeon tells the inspector to come back later, in an hour’s time, around 9.15, because he himself will first hold a family conference and see whether he can deal with the theft just within the family.

So the inspector promises to do this and does, indeed, return to the house at 9.15, and knocks on the door just as the horrible scream and supposed murder of Simeon takes place. Thus he is on the spot immediately and is among the crowd round the door to Simeon’s room when it is broken down, and observes very closely everyone’s words and actions on the spot, at the scene, in the immediate minutes following the discovery of the body.

Enter Poirot

Guess what? World famous detective Hercule Poirot just happens to be taking a holiday in the neighbourhood (in the fictional county of ‘Middleshire’) so the Chief Constable of Middleshire, Colonel Johnson, invites him to the station to ask if would be prepared to help with the investigation. It would be a shorter, different book if he said no but Poirot, of course, says yes – although he tactfully realises he must work closely with and not step on the toes of the chief investigating officer, Superintendent Sugden.

The interview board

Things proceed in the familiar way, with Poirot, Inspector Sugden and Chief Constable Johnson setting up a kind of interview board in a small study of the big house (p.91), and calling all the family members in, one by one, to interview them about their backstories, their resentments against the murdered man, and their precise actions and locations at the time of the murder.

And once the formal interviews are over Poirot, of course, moves to the next stage of his process, which is to contrive to have more informal chats with each member, on the tried and trusted basis that:

‘In conversation, points arise! If a human being converses much, it is impossible for him to avoid the truth!’ (Chapter 15)

Cast

Lee family

  • Mr Simeon Lee – owner of Gorston Hall, Longdale, Addlesfield, an invalid, mostly confined to his room with rheumatoid arthritis
  • Alfred Lee – son, married to Lydia and still living at home
  • Lydia Lee – Alfred’s practical wife – ‘an energetic, lean greyhound of a woman. She was amazingly thin, but all her movements had a swift, startled grace about them’
  • David Lee – ran away to London to become an artist and married…
  • Hilda Lee – ‘An over‐stout dumpy middle‐aged woman—not clever—not brilliant—but with something about her that you couldn’t pass over’ – ‘solid comfortable strength’
  • George Lee – MP for Westeringham, ‘a somewhat corpulent gentleman of forty‐one. His eyes were pale blue and slightly prominent with a suspicious expression, he had a heavy jowl, and a slow pedantic utterance’
  • Magdalene Lee – George’s wife, 20 years younger, ‘a slender creature, a platinum blonde with plucked eyebrows and a smooth egg‐like face. It could, on occasions, look quite blank and devoid of any expression whatever’ – ‘meretricious airs and graces’
  • Pilar Estravados – daughter of Lee’s daughter Jennifer i.e. his grand-daughter
  • Stephen Farr – ‘very handsome. She liked his deeply bronzed face and his high‐bridged nose and his square shoulders’
  • Tressilian – elderly butler, white‐haired and slightly bowed, been with the family 40 years
  • Sydney Horbury – male nurse attendant to Mr Lee

Outsiders

  • Colonel Johnson – Chief Constable of Middleshire
  • Superintendent Sugden – ‘a large handsome man. He wore a tightly buttoned blue suit and moved with a sense of his own importance’
  • Police doctor
  • Mr Charlton – the family lawyer, ‘an old‐fashioned type of solicitor with a cautious blue eye’
  • Doris Buckle – young lady Horbury took to the cinema on the fatal evening i.e. his alibi

Bored old people

In ‘Appointment with Death’, old Mrs Boynton is described as bored with her total control over her terrified step-children, and so having come on holiday to the Holy Land as it was risky, to take a chance and play with her control over them.

In exactly the same way, old Simeon Lee is described as being bored and wanting to amuse himself by messing with his family.

‘The poor old one, he sits in his chair and he has lost the diversions of his younger days. So he invents a new diversion for himself. He amuses himself by playing upon the cupidity and the greed of human nature—yes, and on its emotions and its passions, too!’ (Poirot, Chapter 10)

Stereotyping

All Agatha Christie’s stories are made out of clichés and stereotypes (the miserly old man, the devoted family retainer, the dutiful son, the wild son, the glamorous young wife etc etc) – it’s just that they’re handled with enough style and brio to lull you into accepting them.

Obviously it applies to gender stereotypes as well: the characters are all recognisable types, as obvious in their way as types in restoration comedy – a couple of strapping young chaps, a weak artistic man, a pompous male MP, contrasted with a platinum blonde, a plump mumsy woman, a practical efficient woman, and the Spanish firebrand.

And this brings us to national and ethnic stereotypes. The figure of Pilar can’t be mentioned without one or other character adding their tuppence to the pile of national stereotypes. If you like cartoons and caricatures, they’re very amusing.

Magdalene said: ‘I can’t help feeling that the manner of my father‐in‐law’s death was somehow significant. It – it was so very unEnglish.’
Hercule Poirot turned slowly. His grave eyes met hers in innocent inquiry.
‘Ah,’ he said. ‘The Spanish touch, you think?’
‘Well, they are cruel, aren’t they?’ Magdalene spoke with an effect of childish appeal. ‘All those bull fights and things!’
(Part 4, Chapter 1)

Bookishness

All Christie’s novels contain characters comparing their events and characters to events and characters in detective stories. This has puzzled me a bit – I think it’s in order to emphasise their artificiality which, in a funny way, ends up making you suspend disbelief and accept their preposterous plots and outrageous explanations more readily.

Colonel Johnson stared at Sugden for some minutes before he spluttered: ‘Do you mean to tell me, Superintendent, that this is one of those damned cases you get in detective stories where a man is killed in a locked room by some apparently supernatural agency?’ (Chapter 8)

What was it that the señorita picked up?’
Sugden sighed.
‘I could give you three hundred guesses! I’ll show it to you. It’s the sort of thing that solves the whole mystery in detective stories! If you can make anything out of it, I’ll retire from the police force!’ (Part 4, II)

This is a very rare example of a Christie novel which doesn’t namecheck Sherlock Holmes at least once.

Poirot’s OCD

Considering it’s so famous, there are remarkable few instances in each novel of Poirot’s symmetry obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) i.e. his compulsion to rearrange household objects until they are just so. Only one or two in each novel. They’re one of the score or so stock phrases, moments or clichés which she knows she has to include in each novel but learned to deploy at just the right moment, crystallising a mood or scene. Thus after they’ve interviewed half a dozen of the family, the Chief Constable turns to Poirot and asks his opinion, triggering a moment while Poirot fiddles with the stuff in front of him while he, in parallel, arranges his thoughts into a similar order and symmetry.

Hercule Poirot leaned forward. He straightened the blotter in front of him and flicked a minute speck of dust from a candlestick. (Chapter 10)

Poirot and Wittgenstein

In his later philosophy, the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein concluded that many problems of philosophy were caused by taking the wrong view or perspective. If you could only find the right perspective, if you viewed them from the correct angle, the problem wasn’t so much solved as simply disappeared. Same with Poirot. Thus, having called the family together to make the Big Reveal, Poirot first enumerates all the facts surrounding the murder which come to looked, even to Poirot, more and more fantastical and improbable – until, as so often, he realised that he was approaching the entire thing from the wrong angle.

‘So now we arrive at the point where not only the behaviour of the murderer is extraordinary, but the behaviour of Simeon Lee also is extraordinary! And I say to myself: “This thing is all wrong!” Why? Because we are looking at it from the wrong angle. We are looking at it from the angle that the murderer wants us to look at it…’ (Part 6)

Change your vantage point, move your ground, think the same evidence through from a completely different position, perspective or angle and… all the problems disappear: the mystery is solved. Just as Wittgenstein thought most philosophical problems simply evaporated, if you view them from the correct perspective.

Comedy

In my opinion the most important thing about Agatha Christie’s novels is that they are comedies. The psychology is paper thin, the characters teeter on being caricatures, the plots are cunning at the expense of being wildly improbable. The one ordinary. non-ridiculous thing about them is the warmth and good humour and occasional downright funniness of many of the characters.

Poirot may be a great sleuthing genius but his real significance is as a wonderful comic creation. Here he is comparing moustaches with the superintendent, in a little scene designed to play his vanity and foreign foppishness off against another of Christie’s caricature bluff, no-nonsense English officials (cf Inspector Battle, Colonel Race, Colonel Carbury et al).

He said, and there was a wistful note in his voice: ‘It is true that your moustache is superb… Tell me, do you use for it a special pomade?’
‘Pomade? Good lord, no!’
‘What do you use?’
‘Use? Nothing at all. It – it just grows.’
Poirot sighed.
‘You are favoured by nature.’ He caressed his own luxuriant black moustache, then sighed.
‘However expensive the preparation,’ he murmured, ‘to restore the natural colour does somewhat impoverish the quality of the hair.’
Superintendent Sugden, uninterested in hair‐dressing problems, was continuing in a stolid manner…

Marriage

According to the internet:

Shakespearean comedies frequently conclude with multiple marriages, symbolizing resolution and happiness. Plays like As You Like It, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Much Ado About Nothing feature several couples tying the knot, often after overcoming obstacles and misunderstandings.

Over three hundred years later this is just as true of Agatha Christie’s detective novels / comedies.

I know that real aficionados revel in the very complicated plots, the intricate interlocking of multiple characters all with plausible motives etc. But to someone raised on Shakespeare, what’s really noticeable is how – like comedies from the ancient Greeks, the Romans, through Shakespeare into 18th sentimental comedy, Victorian novels and beyond – in a sense all of that detective stuff is just fol-de-rol, stuff, padding designed to deliver a good old-fashioned marriage of the bright young heroes and heroines.

This was true of the endings of:

1. ‘Death on the Nile’: wherein Cornelia Robson announces her engagement to Dr Bessner (much to the chagrin of rival suitor Ferguson and Cornelia’s cousin, Miss Van Schuyler) while sweet Rosalie Otterbourne and hapless Tim Allerton become engaged.

2. ‘Appointment with Death’: wherein the psychologist Sarah King marries Raymond Boynton, Carol Boynton marries Jefferson Cope, and Ginevra Boynton marries Dr Gerard, a festival of weddings!

3. Same here: the two young people we met right at the start, on a train to Middleshire – Pilar and Stephen – have all along been attracted and, in the last few pages, we learn are going to get married and move back to South Africa.

And even the bickering siblings and bad-tempered couples are reconciled exactly as in a Shakespearian comedy. Alfred and Lydia agree they’ll sell the house where so much unhappiness has happened and he, tentatively, apologises for being such a heel.

Alfred said gently: ‘Dear Lydia, how patient you have been all these years. You have been very good to me.’
Lydia said: ‘But, you see, Alfred, I love you…’

Sweet and lovely happy endings all round. Well, it was Christmas :).


Credit

‘Hercule Poirot’s Christmas’ by Agatha Christie was published by the Collins Crime Club in 1938.

Related links

Related reviews

Present Laughter: A Light Comedy in Three Acts by Noel Coward (1939)

Executive summary

This is a very entertaining portrait of a successful comedy actor, Garry Essendine, and the comic interplay among his coterie of servants, secretaries and sycophants (‘a tightly knit group like us’, as his wife puts it), plus a succession of outsiders whose arrivals are timed to create the maximum of comic confusion. This is the first Coward comedy that I found genuinely funny.

Background

Noel Coward wrote ‘Present Laughter’ in 1939. The title comes from a song sung by Feste the fool in Shakespeare’s comedy ‘Twelfth Night’. The song is on the age-old subject of taking pleasure while you can, the so-called carpe diem topos which we’ve seen mentioned in several other Coward plays (for example, ‘Design for Living’).

O Mistress mine where are you roaming?
O stay and hear, your true love’s coming,
That can sing both high and low.
Trip no further pretty sweeting.
Journeys end in lovers’ meeting,
Every wise man’s son doth know.

What is love, ’tis not hereafter,
Present mirth, hath present laughter:
What’s to come, is still unsure.
In delay there lies no plenty,
Then come kiss me sweet and twenty:
Youth’s a stuff will not endure.

This struck me as the funniest Coward play I’ve read and watched so far. It’s the only one I didn’t want to fast forward to get to the end of. I’ve been watching the highest quality productions available on the internet, in this case the 1981 Donald Sinden production.

Obviously Sinden was a notorious old ham but that means he was perfect to play the part of a notorious old ham, turning every possible moment into a Grand Scene which allows him to declaim and grandstand, the comedy sometimes deriving from the way he is sublimely indifferent to the reactions and feelings of all around him, sometimes from the way he artfully or cynically manipulates those around him.

Watching it also made me realise that although a lot of Coward’s lines are humdrum on the page, if they are delivered with the right emphasis and timing, apparently flat lines can be very funny. This makes me think badly of all the productions of the other plays I’ve watched which, by comparison, throw away or mute or lose the kinds of lines which here, in Sinden’s magniloquent performance, become comic gems.

Anyway, the plot such as it is, is that the comedy actor, Garry Essendine is in a more than usual tizzy because he is on the eve of a tour of Africa.

Built onto the premise of his outrageous self-absorption and the sycophancy of all who surround him, are piled events such as: having to deal with two women who want to seduce him, to placate both his long-suffering secretary and his worldly wise wife, cope with an infatuated young playwright, and overcome his impending mid-life crisis (he has recently turned forty).

Coward freely admitted that the character is a caricature of his real-life persona and he himself starred as Garry in the play’s original run. Because the part is such an obvious star vehicle, it has been performed onstage by a who’s who of British actors, including Albert Finney, Peter O’Toole, Donald Sinden, Ian McKellen, Simon Callow and, most recently, the hot priest from Fleabag, Andrew Scott.

It’s obviously based on a lifetime as a professional actor and he had been mulling it over for years, but the actual writing of ‘Present Laughter’ took him just six days. Fans of Coward cite this kind of thing as proof of The Master’s genius but critics might point out that it also explains the sustained thinness of the characters’ interplay and dialogue. Maybe if he’d spent a few days more working on it, the comic effects might be sharper and more effective.

Cast

  • Daphne Stillington – shallow young woman Garry invited to ‘spend the night’ and soon leaves
  • Miss Erikson – Swedish housekeeper with comic attitude and phlegmatic attitude
  • Fred – breezy, whistling servant
  • Monica Reed – Garry’s humorous and businesslike secretary
  • Garry Essendine – ageing, larger-than-life comic actor
  • Liz Essendine – Garry’s former wife, now separated
  • Roland Maule – over-excited young playwright who switches from damning Garry’s lack of interest in politics and ‘commitment’ to revealing a worrying obsession with him
  • Henry Lyppiatt – Garry’s agent
  • Morris Dixon – Garry’s producer
  • Joanna Lyppiatt – Henry’s wife who, it turns out, for seven long years has been secretly in love with Garry
  • Lady Saltburn – ‘a majestic but rather effusive society woman’

Plot

All three acts of the play are set in Garry Essendine’s London flat. He is a successful West End actor who has just turned forty and dominates every scene with his grand gestures and star quality.

Act 1

Daphne Stillington, 24, a young admirer of Garry’s, has inveigled herself into the flat and has spent the night there although, as she emphasises, in the spare room.

Garry is still asleep, and while waiting for him to wake, Daphne encounters in turn three of his employees: the housekeeper (Miss Erikson), valet (Fred) and his secretary (Monica). None of them display any surprise at her presence.

Garry finally wakes and plays the lead in a very funny scene, coping with Daphne’s slavish adulation while all the time looking at his watch and rushing her out. The housekeeper comes in leading to a characteristic joke.

MISS ERIKSON: Fred said I was to go and speak to the young lady.
GARRY: Very well, Miss Erikson.
MISS ERIKSON: What shall I say to her?
GARRY: I really don’t know.
MISS ERIKSON: I have been to the grocer’s and–
GARRY: That’s as good an opening gambit as any.

His secretary presents him with various letters, the phone keeps ringing (as it kept ringing in ‘Design for Living’) and people keep arriving. Piccadilly Circus.

Garry’s ex-wife, Liz Essendine, arrives, which leads to an embarrassing meeting between Daphne, emerging from having a bath and dressing, with her. But Liz is all suave urbanity and offers Daphne the use of her (chauffeur-driven) car.

Once the young woman has left we settle down to enjoy the interplay between Garry’s coterie – his ex-wife, his secretary, his servant, Fred, breezing around, whistling and dispensing coffee.

You know the difference between this and his 1920s comedies? It’s good humoured, it is good-humoured and comic throughout, in fact its high spirited mood highlights the genuine bitterness, anger and abuse which fill ‘Hay Fever’, ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’ and make them very mixed amusements.

I’d just written that when there was an extended argument between Garry and Liz. I can’t help thinking irritable bad temper is the central Coward quality.

Anyway, Liz tells Garry that she thinks his manager, Morris Dixon, is having an affair with Joanna, the glamorous wife of his producer, Henry. The point is this intrigue might be picked up by the press and damage Garry’s reputation, so can he find out more and do something about it? Garry is having lunch with Morris, so Liz tells him to phone her and indicate whether the affair is or is not true by using a codeword.

Miss Erikson comes onstage to announce there is a lady at the back door with ‘a tiny baby’. Flummoxed, Garry tells his secretary to go and find out who on earth she is. Liz, too, is intrigued. She stays long enough for the arrival of a young man from Uckfield (!), Roland Maule, an earnest young playwright who’s sent Garry a copy of his play to read. Liz has time to say hello to this young chap and then leave. Comic dialogue with this young man:

GARRY: So you’ve come all the way from Uckfield?
ROLAND: It isn’t very far.
GARRY: Well, it sort of sounds far, doesn’t it?
ROLAND [defensively]: It’s quite near Lewes.
GARRY: Then there’s nothing to worry about, is there?

Monica enters to say the woman with the baby knocked at the wrong door, she was looking for her sister who lives further down the mews. Garry introduces her to Roland. She leaves to get the manuscript of his play. In ‘Design for Living’ Coward included newspaper reviews of one of the characters’ plays, as a way of satirising his critics. As far as I can see this Roland Moule character is a satire on the earnest and politically committed writers who scorn Coward for producing shallow entertainment just for money, instead of making his audiences think!

ROLAND: Every play you appear in is exactly the same, superficial, frivolous and without the slightest intellectual significance. You have a great following and a strong personality, and all you do is prostitute yourself every night of your life. All you do with your talent is to wear dressing-gowns and make witty remarks when you might be really helping people, making them think!

This, as you can imagine, does not delight Garry but it provides Coward with the opportunity to reply with a prolonged broadside, telling the young man that his play is rubbish, a farrago of adolescent pseudo-intellectual poppycock, then tells him to join a repertory theatre, and play numerous parts until he understands how plays work.

To his and our surprise this blunt attack makes Roland announce that he loves Garry. He is obsessed with him. He’s his number one fan. He even offers to come to Africa with him. Garry manages to talk him down and then usher him out, spilling his gratitude at giving him new insight into his life etc.

He’s barely updated Monica (the secretary) before the front doorbell rings and it is Henry his producer and (‘rather dapper and neat’, about 40) and Morris his agent (‘a trifle younger, tall and good-looking and a little grey at the temples).

There’s a gag that on the way in they found a young man sitting on his steps, crying. Garry says it’s a young playwright and he’s just given him his opinion about his play. Henry laughs that he’s glad to see he hasn’t lost his touch.

The big news they’ve arrived with is that the leading lady in the troupe going to Africa, Nora Fenwick, has tripped and broken her leg! Now they’ll have to find a replacement though Garry takes violently against their proposed substitution of the old stager Beryl Willard.

Henry exists, leaving Morris with Garry. Garry asks him whether he’s having an affair with Joanna and explains why it’s important, namely the closeness of their little gang.

GARRY: Here we are, five people closely woven together by affection and work and intimate knowledge of each other. It’s too important a ‘set up’ to risk breaking for any outside emotional reason whatsoever.

Funny how this echoes comparable speeches by Leo and Otto in ‘Design for Living’, the sense of a tiny cohort of extremely close friends against the world. Anyway, Morris assures him he’s not having an affair with Joanna and the act ends with Garry telephoning Liz and using their much made-of code-word to assure her (Liz) everything is all round.

Act 2

Scene 1. Three days later, at midnight

A bit of preliminary business between Garry and his man Fred, who’s dressed up to go to a nightclub where his girlfriend, Doris, sings and does a turn with a skipping rope. When Garry says he knows Fred has been having relations with Doris, Fred says: ‘ Why not? She likes it, I like it and a good time’s ‘ad by all’ – a repetition of the carpe diem argument which echoes through Coward’s works and, more specifically, the idea that traditional conventional morality can simply be ignored if those involved agree and it hurts no-one else (see ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’).

Anyway Garry is just preparing to go to bed when the front doorbell rings and it is… Joanna, who, the stage directions tell us: ‘ is an exquisitely gowned woman in the early thirties. She has a great deal of assurance and considerable charm.’

In the kind of echo/symmetry/repetition which Coward delights in, Joanna tells him she’s forgotten her latchkey which was, of course, the excuse Daphne gave for having to stay overnight in Act 1.

The comedy of this scene is that they are both artificial over-actors, triggering one among several gags at Garry’s expense:

JOANNA: I know that voice, Garry, you’ve used it in every play you’ve ever been in.
GARRY: Complete naturalness on the stage is my strong suit.

Garry has a barely concealed hostility towards her. She married Henry five years ago and swears she has done her best to stay outside their precious charmed circle. He sees that she has an ulterior motive – I thought it might be something cunning and complex but it turns out, a bit disappointingly, that she has been in love with him for seven years and just wants to seduce him. So he lets her.

But not before she delivers a little speech which is briefly earnest, and reminiscent of the serious and bitter speeches about emotional pain found in ‘Private Lives’ and ‘Design for Living’. Then it’s back to banter and a memorable exchange about which is better, the Queen’s Hall or the Albert Hall, as they move in for their first Big Kiss.

Scene 2. Garry’s flat, next morning

In a further example of Coward’s love of parallelism, Joanna emerges from the spare room wearing Garry’s pyjamas just as Daphne did in Act 1. She too encounters Miss Erikson, Fred and then Monica, who is horrified at her presence in such compromising circumstances.

Liz arrives, is taken aback by Joanna’s presence and threatens to tell Henry that she has had affairs with Morris and now Garry. Liz, again, paints the picture of a small, tight-knit group she is threatening to disrupt. Their exchange teeters on the real angry bitterness we know to be Coward’s core mode.

The doorbell rings and Liz takes advantage of it to say he knows it’s Morris, and this throws Joanna into a panic, she says she can’t face him and her temporary confusion allows Liz to extract from her a promise that she won’t see Garry again before he goes to Africa, and shoves Joanna back into the spare room where she slept.

The caller isn’t Morris but Roland Maule who says he has an appointment with Garry. Monica takes him into another room to wait for him.

The pace picks up as more people arrive. First Morris who virtually bumps into Garry coming out of his room. When Garry makes a casual reference to a lady in the spare room, Morris demands to know who it is and knocks but it is Liz who emerges, to Morris’s surprise and Garry’s astonishment.

Things become farcical. Morris melodramatically announces that he’s madly in love with Joanna (married to Henry, remember), has promised to keep it a secret, told Joanna how she feels, but she left and he hasn’t seen her for days. We are teetering on the brink of revealing that Joanna has had a fling with Garry when Liz lies that Joanna spent the night with her, well aware that she is saving Garry’s bacon and he will owe her one.

Ripe comedy when Liz calls the phone in the spare room, gets Joanna to answer it, and hands the phone to Morris, having persuaded him Joanna is at her place. He wails down the phone how much he loves her but she slams the phone down.

Garry takes this as an opportunity to complain to everyone how he is pushed from pillar to post and everyone exploits him. In the middle of which Roland Maul emerges from the other spare room, to Garry’s horror.

He’s in the middle of coping with this mad fan when the doorbell rings and Henry comes in. He, too, wants to know where Joanna is, saying she’s disappeared, she hasn’t been home all night. Garry looks panic-stricken but Liz repeats her lie that Joanna spent the night with her. They do the phone trick again, ringing through to the spare room as if it’s Liz’s flat, so that Joanna can answer and reassure Henry.

Henry doesn’t understand when Joanna says she feels like she’s in a French farce but it makes the entire audience realise that she is, and how close Coward is to straight farce, stripped of the supposed elegance and wit his fans insist on.

The doorbell rings yet again and Fred the butler announces Lady Saltburn and Miss Daphne Stillburn i.e. the young lady the play started with. Lady S is polite but Daphne is, of course, very enthusiastic. They remind him that Garry promised to give her an audition, which is what triggered her seduction of a few nights before.

Morris and Henry make their excuses and leave, though irritating Mr Maule insists on remaining. Rather inconsequentially Daphne insists on reciting a poem, ‘We Meet Not as We Parted’ by Shelley, the very same one Garry used to paint his passion and then get rid of her at the start of the play – another example of Coward’s penchant for repetition and echoing.

She’s only just finished when Joanna storms out of the spare room where she’s been stuck for most of this scene. Liz suavely tells her she can borrow her car and Daphne – to big laughs – repeats what Liz told her in that first scene, describing the appearance and name of the chauffeur.

Joanna delivers a biting accusation of Garry and mocks his loyal band of satellites, then storms out. Daphne faints.

In the production I watched his secretary, Monica, rushes to get a glass of water to revive Daphne but as she reaches it past Garry, who’s kneeling beside the fainted young lady, he grabs it and drinks it himself. This isn’t in the original script. If only there were a few more comic touches in the original… but maybe that’s always the point of comic plays, that the script leaves it open for actors and director to come up with comic business…

Act 3

It’s a week later and the act opens with Monica reading out some of his mail, generally from people he has no memory of ever meeting. After this preliminary, Monica asks Garry why he won’t go and see Liz. He says she knows Liz is in a rage, he hasn’t seen her for a week, since the Joanna incident.

As she puts on her hat to depart the dialogue becomes charged with poignancy. We are allowed to see how much he means to her and how much she relies on him. They have a moment when she could kiss him but then it passes. She knows she’d be a fool to join his list of conquests.

Left to himself for a few minutes we realise he is bored and lonely. Mrs Eriksen emerges. She is dressed to go out. Garry rather desperately asks her to stay and have a cigarette, and tell him about her life. There’s some comic banter about a friend of hers who lives in Hammersmith and is a medium. It’s not actually very funny, more sad.

The front doorbell rings and he leaps up, obviously relieved, but then dismayed when Daphne walks in in travelling outfit carrying a suitcase. She announces she’s bought a ticket and is going to accompany him to Africa. She explains that she’s realised the truth: that he is desperately lonely and needs someone to look after him, realising this when she saw that dreadful prostitute come out of the spare room. She is, of course, referring to Joanna and he is appalled.

She is in the middle of explaining that she has True Love for him when the doorbell rings again. Daphne refuses to be bundled into the spare room and so he bundles her into the office instead.

The new caller is Roland. He is worryingly demented. He announces that he too has a ticket for the voyage to Africa. Garry tries to get him to leave, but the doorbell rings a third time and Roland bolts into the spare room and locks the door.

The third caller is Joanna, who has also bought a ticket for the Africa voyage. She explains that she needs him and he needs her and they are fated to be together. Determined to do something about all this Garry phones Liz and delivers the code-word from the first scene, triggering her to pop round.

She is just explaining that she’s written a letter to Henry and Morris telling them everything when the doorbell rings again. It is Liz, come at the bidding of his code-word to save the day.

Confronting Joanna, Liz announces that she too is travelling to Africa. In her urbane way she thinks it will be most amusing for them all to be together, dining at the same table and sharing so many stories.

Moments later the doorbell rings again and Henry and Morris enter. Morris demands to know whether the contents of Joanna’s letter are true and whether Garry has been Joanna’s love. He immediately admits it. But he deflects it by saying that the person who minds the situation the most is Morris, who has also been Joanna’s lover and genuinely loves her.

Shocked, Henry asks them if it’s true. But Garry counter-attacks by telling everyone about Morris’s affair with Elvira Radcliffe for over a year.

He accuses them all of hypocrisy and then delivers the Author’s Message:

GARRY: I believe now and I always have believed that there’s far too much nonsense talked about sex. You, Morris, happen to like taking your paltry attachments seriously. You like suffering and plunging into orgies of jealousy and torturing yourself and everyone else. That’s your way of enjoying yourself. Henry’s technique is a little different, he plumps for the domestic blend. That’s why he got tired of Joanna so quickly. Anyhow, he’s beautifully suited with poor Elvira. She’s been knee-deep in pasture ever since she left Roedean! Joanna’s different again. She devotes a great deal of time to sex but not for any of the intrinsic pleasures of it, merely as a means to an end. She’s a collector. A go-getter and attractive, unscrupulous pirate. I personally am none of these things. To me the whole business is yastly over-rated. I enioy it for what it’s worth and fully intend to go on doing so for as long as anybody’s interested and when the time comes that they’re not I shall be perfectly content to settle down with an apple and a good book!

Relax. It’s only sex. It was to be another half century or more before the great British public accepted this simple philosophy without offence or horror, if it actually yet has.

Joanna angrily slaps Garry’s face and stomps out but her departure goes unnoticed because Morris let slip that they’ve booked the Forum theatre for his next production despite his expressly saying he didn’t want it. This triggers a far more important argument between Garry, Henry and Morris than all the sex and infidelity in the world.

In fact it triggers a bravura last few minutes as Garry goes into theatrical overdrive, delivering a grand histrionic speech accusing everyone of being vultures that eat his life’s blood before melodramatically sinking to the floor. Completely unimpressed, Morris and Henry depart in good humour.

MORRIS: That performance wouldn’t deceive a kitten.

You can see how Coward has dodged all the logical or psychological problems of these revelations of infidelity and betrayal with this one piece of theatrical legerdemain.

Melodramatically gasping, Garry begs Liz to fetch him a brandy to revive him but spits it out when she announces that she’s not only genuinely coming with him to Africa, but is coming back to good. She’s going to move back in. Not because she loves him especially, she’s thinking of the good of ‘the firm’. Without someone to chaperone him he goes off the rails at the slightest opportunity. He needs a minder and it’s going to be her.

At which point he remembers Daphne and Roland hidden in the adjoining rooms and tells Liz, ‘You’re not coming back to me… I’m coming back to you’ and – repeating the ending of ‘Hay Fever’ and ‘Private Lives’ – they quietly tiptoe out.

THE END

Donald Sinden production

1981 theatre production at the Vaudeville Theatre, filmed by the BBC, directed by Alan Strachan, and starring Donald Sinden as Garry, Dinah Sheridan as Liz, Gwen Watford as Monica, Elizabeth Counsell as Joanna and Julian Fellowes as Maule.

Part 1

Part 2


Related links

Related reviews

Tonight at 8.30 by Noel Coward (1936) – 2

‘Tonight at 8.30’ is a cycle of ten one-act plays by Noël Coward. It was first staged in London in 1936 with Coward himself and Gertrude Lawrence in the leading roles.

The plays are mostly comedies but three – ‘The Astonished Heart’, ‘Shadow Play’ and ‘Still Life’ – are serious. Four of the comedies include songs, with words and music by Coward.

One play, ‘Star Chamber’, was dropped after a single performance, although I rather liked it. The other nine plays were presented in three programmes of three plays each. There have been numerous revivals of many of the individual plays, but revivals of the complete cycle have been much less frequent. Several of the plays have been adapted for the cinema and television.

Background

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Coward wrote a succession of hits, ranging from the intimate comedies ‘Private Lives’ (in which Coward also starred alongside Gertrude Lawrence) and ‘Design for Living’, to the operetta ‘Bitter Sweet’ (1929) and the historical extravaganza ‘Cavalcade’ (1931).

After performing in ‘Private Lives’, Coward felt that the public enjoyed seeing him and Lawrence together on stage, and so he wrote the play cycle ‘Tonight at 8.30’ expressly as ‘acting, singing, and dancing vehicles for Gertrude Lawrence and myself’. But he also had the motive of reviving the moribund form of the one-act play. As he wrote in the Preface to the printed plays:

A short play, having a great advantage over a long one in that it can sustain a mood without technical creaking or over padding, deserves a better fate, and if, by careful writing, acting and producing I can do a little towards reinstating it in its rightful pride, I shall have achieved one of my more sentimental ambitions.

Ten plays

The cycle consists of ten plays. In order of first production they are:

  1. We Were Dancing: A comedy in two scenes
  2. The Astonished Heart: A play in six scenes
  3. Red Peppers: An interlude with music
  4. Hands Across the Sea – A light comedy in one scene
  5. Fumed Oak – An unpleasant comedy in two scenes
  6. Shadow Play – A play with music
  7. Family Album – A Victorian comedy with music
  8. Star Chamber – A light comedy in one act
  9. Ways and Means: A comedy in three scenes
  10. Still Life – A play in five scenes

This blog post summarises and comments on numbers 4, 5 and 6.

4. Hands Across the Sea: A light comedy in one scene

Maureen ‘Piggie’ Gilpin, wife of Commander Peter Gilpin, RN, is a society hostess who is notoriously forgetful and slapdash, living in a chaotic social whirl, continually inviting people dinner, tea and parties, then forgetting about them.

When Piggie is out of the room, her and Peter’s maid, Walters, takes a phone call that the Rawlinsons are in town and, having hosted Piggie and a friend out in the Pacific, on the (fictional) island of Samolo, are taking up the invitation she made then to look them up if they’re ever in London. Moments later Piggie returns, sees the message and panics, feeling obliged to lay on a good show for the Rawlinsons. So she sets about a series of panicky phone calls to friends to try and persuade them to come round and help her entertain the Rawlingsons. She prevails on Peter to persuade a naval colleague (Major Gosling) to take the Rawlinsons on a tour of the naval dockyard at Portsmouth during their stay.

Piggie and Peter dash out to change to receive guests and Walters ushers in Mr and Mrs Wadhurst, a couple whom Piggie and Maud met in Malaya. As with the Rawlingsons, Piggie has invited them to tea and then forgotten about the appointment. Another visitor is shown in: Mr Burnham, a young employee of a company that is designing a speed boat for Peter. He and the Wadhursts make polite, slightly stiff conversation. While they wait for the Gilpins to appear, Clare Wedderburn and Bogey Gosling, close friends of the Gilpins, arrive. Clare and Bogey make themselves loudly at home and liberally hand round cocktails.

Piggie enters, greets her old friends and welcomes the Wadhursts, whom she mistakes for the Rawlingsons. Conversation is continually interrupted by the telephone on which Piggie and later Peter and Clare are called to talk to other friends, which they do uninhibitedly, to the confusion of the Wadhursts. At one point, Burnham rises and tries to give Peter a long roll of cardboard, but is thwarted when Peter is again called to the telephone. The conversation is interrupted again when Piggie takes a call from Mrs Rawlingson, who apologises that she and her husband cannot come after all. Piggie, realising her error, tries to discover tactfully who the Wadhursts actually are. Just as they are about to leave to go to the theatre, Mrs Wadhurst mentions Pendarla, where she and Wadhurst live. This finally jogs Piggie’s memory, and she bids them an effusive farewell, inviting them to dine one evening and go to the theatre. She and the Wadhursts leave the room.

Clare, like Piggie, has assumed that Burnham is the Wadhursts’ son. She is puzzled when he does not leave with them. He explains who he is, and that he has brought the designs for Peter’s new boat. Piggie, meanwhile, takes another telephone call and apologises to her caller for forgetting their engagement that afternoon. As Burnham creeps out, she, still unaware that he is not the Wadhursts’ son, bids him goodbye: “It’s been absolutely lovely, you’re the sweetest family I’ve ever met in my life.”

There’s a mild bit of biographical interest in that Peter and Piggie were widely recognised as caricatures of Coward’s friends Lord Louis Mountbatten and his wife Edwina. Coward is quoted as saying the couple ‘used to give cocktail parties and people used to arrive that nobody had ever heard of and sit about and go away again; somebody Dickie had met somewhere, or somebody Edwina had met – and nobody knew who they were. We all talked among ourselves, and it was really a very very good basis for a light comedy.’

Light is the word. This doesn’t read at all funny. The trick must be in the performance and, in particular, the brio and comic timing of the actress playing Piggie.

In a reading the most convincing character is the telephone, which doesn’t stop ringing, or which Piggie is never off.

5. Fumed Oak: An unpleasant comedy in two scenes

Another play based around bitter arguments, but in an unusual setting for Coward i.e. not the posh pukka upper middle classes in Mayfair (‘Hands Across The Sea’) but a pinched and narrow, lower middle class household in Clapham.

It opens with a grim portrait of breakfast time with three generations of women – Mrs Rockett, her daughter Mrs Doris Gow, and her daughter, Elsie, all arguing, dominated by narrow-minded Doris, ‘mean and cold and respectable’, bossing and nagging everyone:

DORIS: Never you mind… Get on with your breakfast… Stop sniffling… Don’t start that again… You’ll do no such thing… Do as I tell you… I wish you’d be quiet…Don’t untidy everything… Oh do shut up mother…

Doris tells her daughter, Elsie, she can’t put her hair up like a friend at school. Tells her she can’t have an extra slice of toast. When her mother gives Elsie twopence to buy a bit of cake they argue about that. Mrs Rockett complains about the gurgling of the pipes in her bedroom, complains about the baby next door who cries and wails at the slightest provocation. When the daughter finally leaves, Mrs Rockett complains about Doris’s husband, Elsie’s father, Henry, getting home late and banging about the place keeping her awake. When Doris says at least he’s not a drunk like her father, Mrs Rockett’s deceased husband, was, they flare up into a real argument.

The point is that throughout most of this, Doris’s husband, meek Henry, has been sitting silently eating his breakfast, not saying a word. How could he get a word in edgeways and what would be the point? Mrs Rockett complaining about him getting home late is done after he’s left the room to dress for work. He re-enters, interrupts another flaring row between mother and daughter, then quietly exists. End of scene 1.

The second and final scene is in the same setting but 7.30 that evening. Henry’s come home late from work again, to find cold ham for supper and Doris and Elsie dressed up to go to the cinema.

He’s had a couple of drinks (whiskey and soda) on the way home and is going to give Doris a piece of his mind. He tells her her hat looks awful. He says he’s celebrating the first time they had sex. Doris is shocked and tells Elsie to go upstairs but Henry insists she stays. Remember how I’ve noticed that Coward plays are all about control, about who controls the narrative, about clashes of interpretation.

DORIS: Go upstairs Elsie.
HENRY: Stay here, Elsie.
DORIS: Do as I tell you.

Henry angrily tells Doris to stop nagging him, and explains that he works hard all day to earn the money that keeps them all but all he gets is endless nagging and cold dinner, and to demonstrate his anger he throws the plate of food onto the carpet, and then the butter dish, to Doris’s horror.

When Doris tries to exit Henry nips to the door and locks it. he orders Elsie, who’s crying by now, to bring out the bottle of port and pour him one. More nakedly than usual, this Coward play is about giving orders. Everything is in the imperative mood i.e. a command.

HENRY: Stop working yourself up into a state…
DORIS: Look here…
HENRY: Sit down…
DORIS: Elsie, come with me..
HENRY: You’ll stay where you are…
DORIS: Keep away…
HENRY: Drink it…

When Mrs Rockett darts to the window and opens it as if to escape, Henry grabs her, she starts screaming for the police, he drags her away, lightly smacks her and locks the window as she faints against the piano. As you can imagine the womenfolk are all in tears by this time.

And then it’s simple: Henry announces that he’s had enough and is leaving. He reminds her that sixteen years ago they had sex in her parents’ house which was empty for the night, how she’d set her cap at him months before, how she was anxious to get married seeing as her two older sisters were married, how a few months later she lied and told Henry she was pregnant and so how he chucked in all his plans to become a steward and see the world and took up a crappy job at Ferguson’s Hosiery and has been a wage slave ever since.

Now he announces that he’s leaving, for good. He’s been salting away a little of his pay every year and now has £572 saved up. He’s giving her £50 and the freehold of the house, so she’ll have a roof over head and can make money by taking in lodgers (‘though God help the poor bastards if you do’). And now he’s leaving. He’s got his ship’s ticket and a passport in a new name in his pocket.

Henry has a page-long speech fantasising about what life will be like in the South Seas or New Zealand or Australia, and rhapsodically describing the warm seas with their typhoons and flying fish not the cold little waves at Worthing. After subjugating himself to this cold bitch Doris for 15 long years he’s going to break free and live a little. Think of Elsie, says Doris. Why, replies Henry, Elsie’s awful, a horrible selfish snivelling little kid. She’ll be able to earn her keep in a year.

And he throws down the envelope with the £50, delivers a final speech and leaves. Arguably the main thrust of the speech is that they’re not the only family like this, but there are millions like them, living in very English misery.

HENRY: Three generations. Grandmother, Mother and Kid. Made of the same bones and sinews and muscles and glands, millions of you, millions just like you.

After a few final barbs, he leaves them for good with a cheery: ‘Good-bye one and all! Nice to have known you’ slamming the door behind him.

Slamming

This isn’t the only pointedly slammed door in Coward.

  • Hay Fever: towards the end of the play, the ignored guests of the Bliss family slam the door after they’ve sneaked out
  • Design for Living: at the finale of the play, outraged Ernest slams the door shut as he leaves the three protagonists collapsing in giggles

Fumed oak

The title ‘Fumed Oak’ refers to a wood finishing process that treats the oak with ammonia fumes to darken it and emphasise its rough grain. The finish is matt and dull rather than glossy. I assume this style of wood is associated with the dark heavy ‘respectable’ furniture associated with the kind of narrow, shabby-genteel, lower middle-class household Coward is portraying.

But it is maybe also a metaphorical reference to Henry, the idea that he is the good old English oak which has been subjected to 15 years of the ammonia of the horrible women in his life, ammonia being a sour poisonous gas, who have ‘fumed’ him i.e. made him dull and dark and ‘respectable’ and nearly killed him in the process.

6. Shadow Play: A musical fantasy

Executive summary

‘Shadow Play’ depicts a husband and wife, Simon and Victoria ‘Vicky’ Gayforth, whose marriage is on the brink of collapse. Under the influence of an unwisely large dose of sleeping pills, the wife has a dream that retells their story in hallucinatory form. Musical intervals weave in and out of the dream. The husband is so concerned for his wife’s condition that his love is rekindled, and when she comes round they are reconciled.

Synopsis

It’s about midnight in the Gayforths’ flat in Mayfair, to be precise, the setting is Vicky’s bedroom.

Enter Vicky and her friend, Martha Cunningham. They’ve been to the theatre together but Vicky refuses to accompany Martha to ‘Alice’s party’ because she knows her husband will be there making up to Sybil Heston who she thinks he’s having an affair with. She asks the maid for three sleeping pills, which Martha thinks excessive. While Vicky’s in the adjoining bathroom, the phone rings and Martha answers it. It’s Michael who is clearly an admirer of Vicky’s first in line to replace Simon if the couple split up. Vicky re-enters and takes the phone and tells Michael she can’t come out, she’s taken sleeping pills and is about ‘to go into a coma’.

As usual, there’s lots of characteristic Coward bossiness, and the usual conflict about who gets to talk, with characters telling each other to shut up.

VICKY: Don’t be idiotic… Be quiet, darling… Will you kindly shut up… Stop it, I tell you…

Which gives way to what I’ve noticed is the characters’ tendency to give in to futility, at some point wondering what the bloody point is:

VICKY: What does it matter…?

Unexpectedly Simon enters and after a little banter, Martha leaves the unhappy couple alone. from the get-go they have displayed the characteristic Coward mode of arguing and bickering.

VICKY: Are going to bicker? There’s nothing like a nice bicker to round off a jolly evening.

Simon has not gone to the party because he wants to have a serious talk, despite all Vicky’s frivolous attempts to deflect the subject. He wants her to divorce him. She asks distracting questions about the details: should she cite Sibyl as correspondent, will he go to the South of France or just Brighton (in those days, in order to get a divorce one of the party had to be found guilty of adultery, and often hired a stooge of the opposite sex and checked into a hotel in Brighton, and made sure all this was witnessed by a private detective who then gave evidence at the divorce proceedings – the partner they spent the night with was hired as a freelance and no sex was involved, it was purely a performance for the courts).

Vicky asks whether he really loves Sibyl and he refuses to answer but as their conversation continues the effects of the three sleeping pills start to kick in and they both… start to hear music! And Simon bursts into song and Vicky joins him, and they launch into ‘Then’. Here are Coward and Lawrence speaking the dialogue which leads into the song, a bit more dialogue, and then the play’s main song ‘Play, Orchestra, Play’:

So, presumably we are in her consciousness as she drifts into a drugged state, or it is just a stage fantasia beyond explaining, but the set disappears, spotlights come up, a dresser brings them evening dress and they burst into song. In some way they are going back to and reviving the initial happiness they felt at the start of their relationship and Simon delivers a variation on the carpe diem trope which we’ve seen echoing through Coward’s play:

SIMON: Don’t be such a fool – grab it while you can – grab every scrap of happiness while you can.

The scenery has disappeared, there are just spotlights on an apparently empty stage and on this appear the three figures, Simon, Sibyl and Michael. First Sibyl is egging Simon on to tell the truth about them. Then Michael enters and tells Simon to hurry up and leave Vicky so she can be his, but this is all clearly a hallucination because Sibyl starts repeating word for word a speech Vicky made earlier, when she asked Simon what made him fall out of love with her, was it a dress she wore, or did she become dull etc, and all this leads into a reprise of ‘Play, Orchestra Play’.

Cut to a scene in a moonlit garden where Vicky is sitting with a young man who’s awfully keen on her but their dialogue is dreamlike in that he repeats her phrases, out of synch and muddled up, while she claims to be waiting for someone, and then Simon enters through trees.

Now they re-enact their first meeting when they made pleasant conversation and fell in love, except that they are aware it is a re-enactment with Vicky scolding Simon for forgetting his lines or skipping important bits. Simon tells her to stick to the script but Vicky delivers a line which could be a kind of motto, applied to lots of Coward’s work.

VICKY: Small talk – a lot of small talk with quite different thoughts going on behind it.

They banter about gardens (because they’re in a garden; maybe this really was the setting of their first meeting), then break into another song, ‘You Were There’:

At the end of which a spotlight reveals the servant, Lena, entering with a glass of water and the tablets and reprising the last lines from ‘Then’ which describe the pair having to face the future apart and alone.

Fade out and then lights up on a new scene, Vicky’s friend Martha with her husband George Cunningham in the back of a limousine. He’s complaining about the tense evening they just spent with the Gayforths.

GEORGE: The atmosphere reeked with conjugal infelicity…

Which could also be extracted and made into the motto of so many of his plays. Anyway George asks why the Gayforths are so unhappy so Martha explains that Simon is falling in love with Sibyl Heston – to which George bluntly says that such women should be shot – while Vicky is mildly encouraging Michael Doyle to woo her, though she isn’t serious.

This appears ‘realistic’ until Vicky runs onstage and tells them they’re ruining everything. So is this in her drug-fuelled dream or not? Simon appears and behaves as if they’re in a railway carriage and tells them they’ve reserved this compartment and mimes helping them get their luggage down from the overhead rack. The train is heading to Venice. Vicky explains that they’re on their honeymoon and Martha repeats the carpe diem theme:

MARTHA: Grab every scrap of happiness while you can.

The train compartment turns into a tax and Simon and Vicky are in it after their wedding, excited and recalling the events such as her mother’s terrible hat and his uncle slapping him on the back but their conversation keeps referencing rhymes from the play they saw that evening, or words from earlier scenes such as someone dressed in pink, and Simon keeps warning her she’s about to wake up again, for some reason she must go, and steps out of the car/compartment, leaving Simon alone and he reprises singing ‘You Were There’.

Cut to the pair sitting at a little table, on their honeymoon in Venice. The conversation is even more mixed up with Simon saying he wants to tell her something (as he did at the start, when he told her he wanted a divorce) but as she trembles with dear, he instead declares that he loves her. Fantastical mixed references:

VICKY: You mustn’t make people cry on their honeymoon, it’s not cricket.
SIMON: Dearest, everything’s cricket if you only have faith.

They spin into repeating the words of ‘You Were There’ before Vicky shakes herself free and asks him to repeat his big love speech, which is really a warning that they can’t stay in their love bubble forever, other people will come along and spoil things because people are like that, everyone following their own agenda, but he tells her to hang on to memories of this moment of complete togetherness, like the White Cliffs of Dover.

The lights fade, music plays and Sibyl and Michael dance onto the stage, representing those ‘other people’ who come between couples. Vicky and Simon rise and dance together then they all swap partners as the music gets faster and they call out the names of fashionable nightclubs, representing the fashionable world, London high society, which comes between the pair.

Onto the stage at opposite sides come Lena and Martha each holding phones. Lena is phoning Martha and asking if she can leave the party and come at once back to Vicky’s house, she’s ill, something’s wrong, it was that extra sleeping pill.

In the darkness Vicky’s voice, confused, as she tells Simon she’s trying to hold onto the White Cliffs of Dover, while Simon’s voice reprises his speech from the start, where he says he has something important to tell her…

The lights come up to reveal Vicky sitting on the edge of her bed, Simon by her side, and Martha who’s arrived from Alice’s party, all encouraging Vicky to drink more coffee and be sick if she has to. Everything is back to normality and reality. Vicky asks for a cigarette which Lena provides and Simon lights.

Vicky wonders what happened and Simon explains that she was raving, the sleeping pills, hallucinations. Seeing she’s now restored Martha says she’ll leave and exists, leaving the couple alone together. When Vicky says can’t we talk about the divorce in the morning Simon claims not to know what she’s talking about. When she asks Simon if he really loves her (Sibyl Heston) he also claims not to know what she’s talking about.

Is he lying to be sweet to her? Or was that entire scene where he said he wanted to divorce her part of the hallucination?

The music starts again, softly, but as he leans Vicky gently back into the bed, takes the cigarette from her fingers, tiptoes across the room and turns out the light, it rises to a sentimental climax.

Thoughts

Some critics and online commenters claim the ‘Tonight at 8.30’ plays are slight and second rate, but I’m thoroughly enjoying them, in many ways more than the full-length plays which often feel strained and contrived. Here everything is quick and to the point and also, he can try out a greater variety of ideas and scenarios.


Related links

Related reviews

Private Lives: An Intimate Comedy in Three Acts by Noel Coward (1929)

ELYOT: Don’t quibble, Sibyl.

AMANDA: What’s so horrible is, that one can’t stay happy!
ELYOT: Oh, darling! Don’t say that!
AMANDA: It’s true! The whole business is a very poor joke!

Ah, les idiots!
(Louise, the French maid’s accurate assessment of the play’s four protagonists.)

Executive summary

‘Private Lives’ is one of Coward’s more popularly and regularly revived plays. It depicts a couple, Elyot and Amanda who divorced five years ago but who have both just remarried and who, on the first evening of their honeymoons with their new spouses (Sibyl and Victor, respectively), discover that they are staying in adjacent rooms at the same hotel.

The play is set on the connected balconies outside their respective hotel rooms where they first realise they’re staying next door to each other. First of all they each have bitter arguments with the new spouses who both leave the rooms in high dudgeon. Then they have the first of many bitter fights between themselves before, improbably enough, deciding to run away and abandon their new partners (on the first night of their honeymoons!).

The second act is set in Amanda’s Paris apartment and consists entirely of the pair alternately being lovey-dovey and trembling on the brink of having sex, then some tiny trifle sparks an argument, and next thing they are screaming abuse at each other and, in climactic moments, slapping and throwing things at each other. At the height of the fiercest argument their estranged spouses, having tracked them down to Paris, enter and witness their latest slanging match.

The third act is set the next morning as the foursome awaken (Sibyl slept on the sofa, Victor in an armchair), Elyot and Amanda treating everything as normal (which is was during their stormy three-year marriage) while the new spouses are puzzled and confused. A lot of banter takes us to a position where the new spouses offer to divorce the central figures but a supposedly civilised breakfast itself degenerates into a fierce argument, this time between Victor and Sibyl. Looking on, for once watching a different couple screaming their heads off, unexpectedly makes Elyot and Amanda feel moony and spoony again and, while Victor and Sibyl come to blows, Elyot and Amanda pack their backs and quietly sneak out the front door.

Act 1

The terrace of a hotel in the South of France.

Onto the balconies outside their rooms come first one couple then the other. First Elyot and his new wife, Sibyl. They’re all lovey-dovey at first but her persistence in asking fairly innocent questions about his first marriage several times makes him lose his temper but they manage to recover and go into their room to dress for dinner.

This clears the scene for the second couple, Amanda and her new husband Victor. Same thing happens. They are all lovey-dovey at first until the subject of her first marriage comes up and Victor dwells on how awful Elyot was to her. But they manage to recover. The parallelism is deliberately emphasised. For example both Sibyl and Victor ask Elyot and Amanda where they went on their first honeymoons and both reply St Moritz.

What for me is the central issue of the play, the conflict between the imaginative and liberated Elyot and Amanda, and the boring Sibyl and narrow conventional Victor, is first sounded.

VICTOR: Well, I’m glad I’m normal!
AMANDA: What an odd thing to be glad about! Why?
VICTOR: Well, aren’t you?
AMANDA: I’m not so sure I’m normal!
VICTOR: Of course you are, Mandy! Sweetly, divinely normal!
AMANDA: I haven’t any peculiar cravings for Chinamen or old boots, if that’s what you mean!
VICTOR: Mandy!
AMANDA: I think very few people are completely normal, really… deep down in their private lives. It all depends on a combination of circumstances.

Even Amanda’s very mild flight of fancy, mentioning Chinamen or old boots (!) is enough to freak Victor out. He just thinks of it as the kind of thing which shouldn’t be said out loud. ‘All stuff and nonsense.’ Exactly. That’s the mentality that Elyot and Amanda, and even more so the audience, come to realise they’re up against.

Victor goes in to have a bath i.e. give Amanda ten minutes alone on the balcony during which Elyot returns to his side of the balcony, lights a cigarette, waiting for Sibyl to finish putting on her make-up.

The orchestra down on the hotel dining room starts playing ‘Moonlight becomes you’ and Elyot starts humming along. Amanda, sitting on her side of the balcony, hears him and she starts singing along. Elyot hears her and they face each other across the partition of the two balconies. After a few polite remarks Amanda says she must go and goes into her room.

Sibyl comes out onto their balcony and discovers Elyot in a flustered state. With no explanation why he tells her they must pack up and leave straightaway. She absolutely refuses and he goes into one of, what we will come to realise, are his psychotic rages, complete with really startlingly violent exclamations:

ELYOT: If there’s one thing in the world that infuriates me, it’s sheer wanton stubbornness! I should like to cut off your head with a meat axe!

Understandably, Sibyl goes into hysterics as Elyot turns and stomps into their room, and she follows him.

This of course leaves the stage clear for Victor and Amanda to come stomping out onto their half of the balcony. Amanda has clearly made the same demand of Victor, that they leave the hotel straightaway and drive back to her place in Paris.

To persuade him she has concocted an entirely fictitious story about this being the very hotel where her sister committed suicide (!) and her having to accompany the body back to England. Victor sees through this instantly and accuses her of telling a lie to which she straightaway admits.

This, like the passage about the Chinamen, should be flagging to Victor (it certainly flags to us) that Amanda overflows with high-spirited fancies and imaginings and so is a) utterly unsuited to blunt imagination-free Victor and b) addicted to the equally frivolous, fanciful Elyot. It is the quality of their free-associating, untrammeled senses of humour which binds them.

She then lies again, telling Victor they have to leave because Elyot is here but for some reason not telling the truth, that he’s in the next door room, but making up another lie that she saw him down in the street. In a white suit. Running. Victor, reasonably enough, points out that she’s lying again.

Victor refuses to leave and go to Paris, which triggers Amanda to a furious denunciation:

AMANDA: I see quite clearly that I have been foolish enough to marry a fat old gentleman in a club armchair! You’re a pompous ass! Pompous ass! That’s what I said, and that’s what I meant!

Stiff with dignity, Victor says he will be in the bar and stomps out. Over on Elyot’s side of the balcony, he and Sibyl come out just long enough for her to tell him it’s the unhappiest day of her life. She says she’s off to have dinner and Elyot hopes it will choke her.

Not the height of sophistication, maybe.

And so to the final part of the act, with Amanda and Elyot finding themselves alone on the balcony. She asks for a cigarette and joins him on his side of the balcony. At first they have a typical angry outburst, blaming each other for ruining things. But slowly they remember past happiness and end up mocking each other’s partners. The band down in the dining room starts playing their tune, ‘Moonlight becomes you’, and they both soften, and Amanda delivers one of Coward’s most famous quotes.

AMANDA: Extraordinary how potent cheap music is.

In this mood they remember all the good times and, implausibly but at the same time believably, suddenly admit that they still love each other. They are appalled at the catastrophe they’ve brought upon themselves.

AMANDA: No, wait! This is terrible, something strange’s happened to us, we’re not sane!
ELYOT: We never were.

He tells her to stop shilly-shallying, calls her idiotic and suddenly they’re having one of their rows. She stops it and says they need to have a safe word or phrase, something either of them can say and which will pull them up, make them keep a 5-minute, no a 2-minute silence, while they calm down. Jokingly Elyot suggests ‘Solomon Isaacs’ and a few minutes later when they flare up into another argument, says it, they are silent, calm down and are together again. On one level they think this little device will somehow obviate their addiction to flaring rows but, as the next two acts will amply demonstrate, it won’t.

And so they rush off, grabbing the bags they haven’t unpacked yet, heading down to the garage where her car is.

Leaving the stage empty for Victor and Sibyl to enter, call their partners’ names, look around and be puzzled by their absence. In reality there’d be calling Reception, running round upset. For the purposes of the play they both accept the situation very demurely and Victor invites Sibyl over to have one of the cocktails which he brought out for Amanda 15 minutes earlier.

And with a bitter-sweet wistfulness, he suggests a toast ‘To absent friends’, which is far more for the purpose of theatrical neatness, to neatly round off the act, than any attempt at psychological realism.

Act 2

Amanda’s flat in Paris, a few days later.

Elyot and Amanda have just had a little dinner and ponder their situation. They wonder if they’ll remarry. They agree to shorten their safe phrase from ‘Solomon Isaacs’ to ‘Sollocks’. (The ex-dustman in me thinks ‘bollocks’ might have been better.)

Almost every conversational gambit leads to the flaring of an argument, such as when they stray into listing other people they had affairs with after they divorced.

They have an attractive married habit of inventing surreal nonsense. ‘Did you notice Lady Bumble blowing all those shrimps through her ear trumpet?’ and the like. Or: ‘ It must be so nasty for poor animals, being experimented on! Well, not when the experiments are successful! – Why, in Vienna, I believe you can see whole lines of decrepit old rats, carrying on like Tiller girls!’

They kiss passionately but Amanda tells him to stop because it’s too soon after dinner, at which he breaks off in a huff. And so on. One minute he’s shouting ‘Don’t patronise me’ and they cry the safe word. Moments later he’s playing her favourite song on the piano and she softens etc. It ends for the umpteenth time for a full-throated kiss.

While Elyot and Amanda cannot live without each other, neither can they live with each other. They argue violently and try to outwit each other, just as they did during their stormy marriage.

The phone rings, someone asking for a Madame Duvallon, Elyot answers in his high surreal mode that Madame Duvallon has just left for Madagascar. Amanda is relieved; she thought it was them catching up with them. Who? Oh all the people who pursue you and pull you down. At which point there’s a little author’s message:

AMANDA: Don’t laugh at me, I’m serious!
ELYOT: You mustn’t be serious, my dear one! It’s just what they want!
AMANDA: Who’s they?
ELYOT: All the futile moralists who try to make life unbearable. Laugh at them. Be flippant! Laugh at all their sacred shibboleths! Flippancy brings out the acid in their damned sweetness and light.
AMANDA: Darling, I think you’re talking nonsense!
ELYOT: So is everyone else, in the long run! Let’s be superficial, and pity the poor philosophers. Let’s blow trumpets and squeakers, and enjoy the party as much as we can, like very small, quite idiotic school children.

Trouble is every one of these moments of silliness and closeness spirals, trips a switch, turns on a sixpence about a squabble about something trivial and then they’re in full throttle insulting rage within seconds. ‘You’re quite intolerable.’ ‘Ridiculous ass.’ ‘If you insist on being so boorish and idiotic.’ ‘You disagreeable pig!’ ‘You spiteful little beast!’

She puts on a record, he turns it off saying it’ll wake the neighbours, he turns it off again and scratches it, so she takes it off the turntable and smashes it over his head at which he slaps her in the face making her burst into tears, ‘hate you, I hate you!’ and then slaps him: ‘You’re a vile–tempered, evil–minded little vampire!’

They throw things at each other and roll around on the floor hitting each other with pillows, shouting this is the end and ‘I hope I never see you again in my life’, before storming off to their separate rooms.

For some unexplained reason, it is at precisely this moment that the spouses they abandoned in the South of France, Sibyl and Victor, walk in.

Act 3

Amanda’s flat the next morning.

Next morning the French maid arrives and is appalled by the mess everywhere, then discovers Sibyl on the sofa and Victor sleeping in a chair.

Once woken up, Victor and Sibyl agree they must see this thing through. They have somehow tracked the errant couple to Amanda’s flat in Paris. Amanda emerges from her room fully dressed, calmly accepts their presence and announces that she’s leaving immediately. When Sibyl knocks on Elyot’s door he tells her to go away and she bursts into hysterical wails.

Elyot evades the situation with studied flippancy, while Amanda brightly behaves as if they’re welcome guests on a lovely Paris morning. When Elyot speaks Amanda tells him to shut up and accuses him:

AMANDA: I have been brought up to believe that it’s beyond the pale for a man to strike a woman!
ELYOT: A very poor tradition! Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.

Amanda takes Sibyl off to a bedroom to freshen up and Victor challenges Elyot to a fight. But Elyot manages to outwit him with his flippancy, ending up by accusing Victor of not being a proper man.

Sibyl and Amanda emerge from the bedroom and themselves have a fight ending with insults.

AMANDA: Heaven preserve me from nice women!
SIBYL: Your own reputation ought to do that!
AMANDA: Oh, go to hell!

If you enjoy watching middle class people argue and insult each other, this is the perfect night out for you.

Victor and Amanda squabble about whether they’re in love with each other. The real issue here, the dichotomy, isn’t between men and women, it’s between the imaginative – those who enjoy absurdist flights of fancy (Elyot and Amanda) – and the dim and unimaginative (Victor and Sibyl).

It’s the same basic dichotomy as between Larita and the dim Whittaker family in ‘Easy Virtue’ in fact Sibyl ends up hurling exactly the same accusations at unimaginative Victor as Larita does in the earlier play, they read like leftover lines from the earlier, far more powerful, play.

VICTOR: Making stupid rotten jokes!
SIBYL: I thought what Elyot said was funny!
VICTOR: Well, all I can think is, is that you must have a very warped sense of humour!
SIBYL: That’s better than having none at all!
VICTOR: I fail to see what humour there is in incessant trivial flippancy!
SIBYL: You couldn’t be flippant if you tried until you were blue in the face!~
VICTOR: I shouldn’t dream of trying!
SIBYL: You must be awfully sad, not to be able to see any fun in anything!

The end of the play portrays a stiff and tense breakfast, as Louise brings in a tray with coffee and brioches. Predictably this also degenerates into an argument, surprisingly, between Victor and Sibyl as Elyot and Amanda look on in silent astonishment. It brings them together to watch another couple behaving like them, and they kiss and canoodle and then agree to sneak out while the other pair are distracted.

And so they sneak out while the other couple are completely absorbed in their fierce arguing, which reaches the same level as theirs the night before, the play ending with Sibyl slapping Victor and screaming at him.

She slaps his face hard, and he takes her by the shoulders and shakes her like a rat.

THE END

Thin

Like all his early plays Coward wrote it at lightning speed, sketching the plot in two weeks and actually writing it in four days. The result is entertaining but, as countless critics observed at the time, thin.

It has been described as ‘tenuous, thin, brittle, gossamer, iridescent and delightfully daring’. Allardyce Nicoll called it ‘amusing, no doubt, yet hardly moving farther below the surface than a paper boat in a bathtub’. The Manchester Guardian commented, ‘Mr Coward certainly had not flattered our intelligence. The play appears to be based on the theory that anything will do provided it be neatly done.’ The Observer also thought that the play depended on brilliant acting but thought the characters unrealistic.

When the text was published, The Times called it ‘unreadable’ and The Times Literary Supplement found it ‘inexpressibly tedious’ in print but acknowledged that its effectiveness on stage was ‘proved by the delight of a theatrical audience.’

You’d have thought none of them had seen or read a Noel Coward play before. Surely they’re all like that, aren’t they?

Mirrors and pairs

I’m starting to notice Coward’s recurring techniques. An obvious one is structural pairing or doubling. All I mean is that ‘Fallen Angels’ portrays two couples, as does ‘Private Lives’. ‘Fallen Angels’ has two almost identical scenes where the naughty women tell the other’s husbands that the other has gone off to have an affair with the mystery Frenchman. In ‘Private Lives’ the doubling or mirroring of scenes between each of the divorced pair and their respective spouses is obvious.

This mirroring or patterning is pretty obvious. You can see how it helped Coward organise and construct his entertainments, and also how it provides pleasure to the audience, consciously or unconsciously savouring the comic patterning. (Probably consciously, it’s pretty damn obvious.)

(Incidentally, Elyot claims to have a ‘presentiment’ of disaster, which echoes the way Julia and Jane at the start of ‘Fallen Angels’ claim to have had presentiments.)

And Elyot and Amanda sneaking out at the end is the same as the four guests sneaking out of the Bliss house at the end of ‘Hay Fever’. The ‘sneaking out’ theme.

Shouting

Coward has this reputation for sophistication, and his characters are certainly pukka middle class types, they dress for dinner and drink cocktails. But one of their most striking features is how quickly the characters all resort to shouting. The climax of ‘The Vortex’ is an extended confrontation between mother and son packed with tears and shouting and recriminations. The two women in ‘Fallen Angels’ get drunk and shout and accuse each other. I was surprised that the alleged comedy ‘Hay Fever’ consists of quite so many arguments between the misnamed Bliss family and their disconcerted guests.

And frankly shocked that, after a deceptive opening five minutes, this play consists of two couples having extended filthy shouting matches, first with their new spouses, and then the two protagonists getting locked into this pattern of lovey-dovey kissy-kissy which every time degenerates into another shouting match, a grim cycle which lasts for the whole of the rest of the play.

ELYOT: If you don’t stop screaming, I’ll murder you.

Shouting and screaming abuse, threatening to kill your new wife… that’s pretty much the opposite of sophistication, isn’t it? Quite a few of these scenes could come out of Eastenders at its chavviest.

Wife-beating, battery and assault

If this was a new play being touted around now, in 2025, I doubt if it would find a backer. Nowadays we call things like this ‘domestic abuse’, ‘wife-beating’ and ‘assault’. The neighbours would call the cops to the scene of a ‘domestic’ and both parties would be arrested. Not so easy to make a comedy out of that. And yet the play is as popular as ever and celebrated for its light, charming wit.

1976 TV version

Starring Penelope Keith and Alec McCowen as the leads.

I don’t like Alec McCowen, he’s ugly isn’t he, in no way the stylish, debonair figure you associate with Coward and cocktails? And creepy. When he’s being lovey-dovey to Amanda I could feel my flesh creep. Although I suppose his jokey, tricksy manner suits the character of Elyot, with his mad flights of fancy and his imaginative subversion of pompous, unimaginative Victor.

Penelope Keith isn’t really an actress, more a cartoon caricature of herself. My generation entirely associate her with the sitcom ‘The Good Life’ in which she was always prim and controlled, so it’s disconcerting to see her a) shouting her head off and b) planting big-mouthed kisses on ugly Alec. Both are rather disgusting and certainly not entertaining. It felt like watching your parents smooching at a party, toe-curlingly embarrassing.


Related links

Related reviews

Fallen Angels by Noel Coward (1925)

WILLY: The car’s downstairs.
FRED: How very thoughtful of you not to bring it up.

JANE (writing a note to Maurice): ‘C’est amusant, n’est-ce pas’ – but it isn’t, particularly.

JULIA: It’s all such ridiculous nonsense.

Twitter-length executive summary

Two rich married women get roaring drunk while planning adultery with the same French lover.

Slightly longer summary

Julia and Fred Sterroll and Willy and Jane Banbury are happily married and the best of friends, until a postcard arrives with news of the imminent arrival of a handsome Frenchman who both women had affairs with years earlier – which throws the two wives into a tizzy of expectation.

Or:

Two married women, living a life of passionless boredom, whip themselves into a state of sexual excitement over the return of a former lover. In the play’s celebrated central act they get riotously tipsy as they await the nocturnal arrival of the Gallic Romeo. But, having stoked up the sexual fires, Coward banks them down again in the finely symmetrical final act as each woman falsely believes the other has had a secret assignation with the Gallic intruder.

Or:

Jane and Julia are happily married to pleasant if boring husbands when a message arrives from a former flame of both of them, sending their staid lives into a tizzy. It appears a man with whom they’d each had a passionate tryst in the past is planning a visit, which sets them both questioning whether they can – or want to – withstand his charms.

While the husbands are off playing golf, the ladies plot and plan over copious glasses of champagne (with some help from their worldly housekeeper, Saunders) while awaiting the arrival of their former lover.

A more woke/progressive summary

‘Fallen Angels’ is a biting and hilarious comedy about the rivalry between two bored married women as they await the arrival of their exotic former lover. Dramatising female sexual desire and frustration, the play’s first performances in 1925 outraged the critics, who claimed to find it shocking and obscene. But rather than insulting British womanhood (as its scandalised opponents asserted) Coward’s sharp, entertaining script incisively draws attention to male sexual hypocrisy, while probing the vacuous lives of the play’s privileged protagonists.

Plot summary

Act 1

We are in the living room of Julia and Fred, happily married for five years. We are introduced to Julia and Fred’s newly employed maid, Jasmine who, however, they agree to call Saunders. Saunders is disconcertingly well educated e.g. knows more about golf than Fred, can play the piano better than Julia, can speak French better than Jane.

Fred is packing his stuff ready to go off for a golf weekend with Willy. Willy arrives to collect him and they depart. After being humiliated by Saunders’ superior piano playing, Julia is forced to answer the door herself and let her friend Jane in.

(The trope of the clever servant who knows more than and outsmarts his masters and mistresses is a very ancient one, that goes back through Restoration comedy and Shakespeare, to ancient Rome – where the role was called the servus callidus or clever slave – and, before that, back to ancient Greek comedy, and flourished as a stock character in comedy throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. What’s amazing is that the notion of Saunders being smarter than her employers still gets a laugh two and a half thousand years later. Human nature, human relations, and the comedy of human relations, doesn’t appear to change much.)

Jane bursts in with appalling news: Maurice, a lovely Frenchman they both had a passion for in the days before they were married, has sent a postcard saying he’s coming to London, arriving any moment. This triggers panic mixed with nostalgia and giggling memories of their naughtiness. They agonise a bit, not much, about what to do to avoid him: should they leave London, leave the country?

Julia in fact quickly gets dressed and packs a small suitcase to run away but as the two women approach the apartment door to exit, the bell rings and they freeze! Dramatic end of act 1!!

Act 2

I was expecting the dashing Frenchman to stride in and create havoc. Instead there’s a powerful sense of anti-climax because Act 2 opens with the two women lounging around on sofas, bored, and asking Saunders to fix them drinks. What happened? Who rang the doorbell so dramatically?

A few minutes into the act the ladies reveal that the fateful ring at the bell was… the plumber! And then a friend, Lady Coswick, arrived for a visit – in other words, they’ve experienced a series of disappointments which have only built up the latent frustration we are about to witness…

This act consists of 15 minutes of watching two posh 1920s ladies not only getting drunk but showing theatrical symptoms of sexual arousal and frustration.

JANE: You know what we’re doing, don’t you? We’re working ourselves up. We have been all day. Oh, I should like to scream and scream and scream and roll around on the floor.

Jane goes on to say, with comic bathos, that it must be… lack of food getting her so worked up. Yes. That’s what it is. Not lack of ****. Moments later Saunders calls them for dinner which consists of oysters, the famous aphrodisiac, and as they continue troughing, Jane declares:

JANE: Oh I adore this little sausage with my egg.

Coward was doing as much as the censor allowed to portray two married women on heat. Surely it’s this, not the pair’s drunkenness, which outraged the savvier moral critics.

As they get really plastered the two women’s sexual rivalry comes out (as so often with Coward characters) in a sustained and furious argument, and Act 2 ends with Jane storming out, claiming that she is going ‘straight to Maurice’, while Julia collapses on her sofa in hysterics.

Act 3

Next morning, Julia is painfully hungover, as Saunders serves her a hard-boiled egg.

Willy (Jane’s husband) arrives unexpectedly and tells Julia he had an argument with Fred (as Coward characters so often do) and so abandoned the golfing weekend early, leaving Fred at the hotel at Chichester. Willy asks where Jane is and Julia is shocked to learn she isn’t at Willy’s house, immediately leaping to the conclusion that she really did storm off and spend the night with the legendary Maurice. She’s so furious at her rival stealing a march on her that she angrily tells Willy everything. Bluff old Willy can’t believe it.

JULIA: She’s gone off with a man.
WILLY: What?
JULIA: A Frenchman.
WILLY: Nonsense. She can’t have. You’re unhinged.
JULIA: I’m perfectly hinged…

That’s as good as the jokes and the punchlines get i.e. weak. It’s the basic situation and the permission it gives the actors to go way over the top which provides most of the entertainment. Compare the flaring shouting matches in ‘Hay Fever’ or ‘Private Lives’ or ‘Design for Living’. I don’t think characters in Oscar Wilde‘s plays shout because they don’t need to, they dispense withering barbs and witty ripostes. Whereas most of the characters in the three Coward plays I’ve read so far quite rapidly resort to insensate, furious shouting and abuse, and this is supposed to be funny.

Anyway, Julia yells at Willy that he must leave and that she’s coming with him in order to track down Jane and they exit leaving the stage empty.

A few moments later the phone rings and Saunders the servant enters to answer it. It is ‘Maurice’, the man Julia and Jane has spilled so many furious words waiting for who has, ironically, rung when neither of them are around. Farce.

Fred (Julia’s husband) unexpectedly arrives and moments later Jane (Willy’s wife) arrives, in obvious evening dress. When Fred asks where his wife has gone, the maid says she just left with a man (not knowing Willy’s name) and Jane leaps to the conclusion that she’s left with Maurice. And, exactly as Julia told Fred that his wife, Jane, had left him, now Jane tells Fred that his wife, Julia, has run off, with a Frenchman, and abandoned him.

Jane explains that both Julia and Jane and had an affair with the same man and Fred reacts exactly as Willy did i.e. accusing Jane of telling lies and being a depraved monster. He is just dragging her to the door so they can go and find Julia and this Maurice fellow when they bump into Julia and Fred coming the other way i.e. the two women confront each other.

At which point they both quickly clarify that neither of them have been off with Maurice. When their husbands confront them with what they’ve said, the women realise that in their anger they’ve given the game away and so gotten each other in trouble. Now they close ranks and rack their brains for some way to talk themselves out of it and… have the inspiration to declare it was all a joke. They were making it up. it was a practical joke ha ha ha. They are in the middle of trying to sell this implausible story to their sceptical husbands when…

Saunders announces a visitor and the legendary Maurice sweeps in!

He straightaway kisses both ladies but the husbands are understandably disgruntled. Julia and Jane quickly explain the situation to Maurice – i.e. only 60 seconds earlier they told both their husbands that they’d had affairs with him and ‘Oh my God, what are they going to do!?’

Thinking quickly on his feet, Maurice comes up with a solution and turns to the husbands. He has come up with a solution which suits the limited mentality of these two boringly conventional men, and now delivers a thumpingly clean and impeccable moral point. Maybe, he says with a great flourish of moral concern, maybe Englishmen take their wives a little too much for granted; maybe they should pay more attention to their wives!

And he goes on to concoct the (truly ridiculous) idea that he and the girls are simply old friends and concocted the story of them having had affairs with him back in the day as a joke, a contrivance, a scheme to shock the husbands out of their complacency.

Even more ridiculous than this hastily cobbled-together excuse, is the way the two dim husbands believe him, and promptly apologise to their wives, promising to love them better in future. I know it’s a farce, but the men are portrayed as unbelievably dim. This is only a fraction above the tradition of Whitehall farces.

At which point Maurice makes the genuine revelation, which takes everyone by surprise, that he’s come to stay in London and has rented the flat directly above Julia and Fred’s for a year! Jane collapses in hysterical laughter.

Maurice goes on explain that the flat needs furnishing and decorating and asks the girls if they will come and view it for him. And so, before the husbands can stop them, Maurice sweeps the two glamorous wives out the front door and away to his place…

Very dim Fred is just saying how much he likes this French chappy to Willy’s scornful scepticism, when they both hear a piano playing from the flat above. Going out onto the balcony they listen and (in the TV production I watched) we cut to Maurice sitting at a piano, playing beautifully and singing the same sentimental love song which captured the girls’ hearts all those years ago, while they sit either side of him, mooning and spooning and swooning on his shoulder. Boom boom.

Thoughts about comedy

As I noted in my notes on ‘The Vortex’ and ‘Hay Fever’, there is a general tone of amusement and some of the characters’ behaviour in those plays is actively funny (like Judith Bliss’s taking every opportunity to play a Grand Scene in ‘Hay Fever’) but one of the most striking things about Coward’s texts is the paucity of actual jokes. There are many lines which gesture towards being jokes, which sound like jokes, with punchlines and everything, but which aren’t actually funny.

At the start of Act 2 Julia and Jane ask Saunders to make them strong cocktails, which triggers her (Saunders) to give a little speech:

SAUNDERS: If you’ll allow me to say so Madam, several drinks never did any harm, it’s only the first drink which is dangerous; after that the damage is done.

It’s sort of amusing but very slight, not laugh-out-loud funny unless you have a very low threshold for humour. Its sententious quality makes me expect an Oscar Wilde type of unexpected reversal, a genuinely clever paradox. But Coward rarely rises to that level. Something similar with the unhinged/hinged line I quoted earlier. Fairly good. Sort of funny. Not a real gutbuster, though.

These kind of ‘jokes’ are severely rationed with only about three gags per play.

The critics

Feminist

Earnest modern critics have to say that it’s a penetrating study of female sexuality and desire, that the play interrogates gender roles in a patriarchal society, and generally trot out all the other clichés of progressive critical theory, because it’s what they’re paid to teach and write.

To the unprejudiced eye it could easily be read as the exact opposite: as a comically exaggerated caricature of two middle-aged sex-starved matrons who display a shopping list of caricatured behaviour (champagne, oysters), panting and flushing with arousal, then over-dressing and overdoing their make-up in a pathetic attempt to outdo each other in attractiveness to a man; generally acting out every sexist stereotype. The opposite of feminism.

Take your pick which interpretation you prefer.

The continental cliché

If anything, the entire thing conforms to and shouts to the rooftops another hoary old stereotype, which is that English men are jolly decent but extremely boring chaps, whereas Continental men, especially French men, have a ‘je ne sais quoi’ which dull practical golf-playing Englishmen will never have. That foreign men are sexy in a way few British men can match. This perception was still as widely held in the 1970s of my boyhood as in the 1920s when the play was written.

Contextual

Taking a more historical approach, we read that:

Fallen Angels was produced the stage at a time when alcoholism was barely mentioned onstage. Therefore its portrayal of two middle class ladies getting plastered (the second half of the play is entirely taken up with an alcoholic duologue between the two women) was decried as ‘degenerate’, ‘vile’, ‘obscene’, ‘shocking’.

As I mentioned, I would have thought it wasn’t so much the drinking as the two women being so evidently aroused that would have caused scandal. But maybe that only comes over in the post-permissive 1970s production I watched and was toned down to invisibility in the original productions.

Contemporary critics

The Wikipedia article quotes a variety of contemporary theatre reviews of which I thought The Observer one was most apt, both for this and the other Coward plays I’ve read and watched: the Observer critic thought it was ‘neither a great nor a good play’ on account of its overt theatricality and lack of depth, but nonetheless declared himself ‘vastly amuse[d]’ by it. Coward in a nutshell.

The Lord Chamberlain’s view

The Lord Chamberlain was the official censor for plays on the British stage. Apparently one of his staff thought the sight of two married women getting drunk on stage was immoral so argued that the play shouldn’t be given a licence to be performed. The Lord Chamberlain sagely overruled him, stating: ‘I take the view that the whole thing is so much unreal farcical comedy, that subject to a few modifications in the dialogue it can pass.’

‘Unreal farcical comedy’ is as good a summary as any.

1974 TV production

I’m watching the best modern Coward productions I can find on YouTube. For this I watched the 1974 TV dramatisation starring Joan Collins as Jane (married to Willy) and Susannah York as Julia (married to Fred) and the impossibly dashing Sacha Distel as Maurice.


Related links

Related reviews

Stories of the East by Leonard Woolf (1921)

Leonard Woolf’s first novel, the brilliant evocation of peasant life in Ceylon, ‘The Village in the Jungle’, was published in 1913. His second novel, the more conventional ‘Wise Virgins’, a thinly disguised account of his and Virginia’s Bloomsbury friends, was published the following year. There then followed a seven year hiatus while he concentrated on publishing the serious political and sociological works he wished to be remembered by:

  • International Government – 1916
  • The Future of Constantinople – 1917
  • The Framework of a Lasting Peace – 1917
  • Cooperation and the Future of Industry – 1918
  • Economic Imperialism – 1920
  • Empire and Commerce in Africa – 1920
  • Socialism and Co-operation – 1921

Then, in among all these serious works about international affairs and the future of imperialism (of which he was a fierce critic) the Hogarth Press, which he had set up with Virginia in 1917, published a slim volume titled ‘Stories of the East’. There are just three stories:

  1. A Tale Told by Moonlight
  2. Pearls and Swine
  3. The Two Brahmans

1. A Tale Told by Moonlight

The setup

This has the influence of Joseph Conrad all over it, from the narrator within a narrator structure, through to the pretty insignificant story itself, which is jazzed up to try and make it about treatment and atmosphere which, in my opinion, doesn’t come off.

The narrator is staying somewhere in the English countryside with Alderton, the novelist. The other house guests are Pemberton the poet and Hanson Smith, the critic. The fourth member of the party is Jessop who the narrator starts the story by telling us is generally unpopular for his habit of being blunt to the point of rudeness and incivility.

After dinner these chaps stroll down through the fields to the river and lie around chatting as dusk falls. When it’s dark they hear footsteps coming along the river and realise it’s a young couple out for a stroll. Concealed in the darkness and on a bank over the riverside path, our chaps hear the young couple murmuring sweet nothings then the sounds of kissing, before they stroll on.

This puts our chaps in a sentimental mood and they share stories about first loves and wooing. All except Jessop who hears the others out then weighs in with his unsentimental withering opinion, which is:

‘Think of it for a moment, chucking out of your mind all this business of kisses and moonlight and marriages. A miserable tailless ape buzzed round through space on this half cold cinder of an earth, a timid bewildered ignorant savage little beast always fighting for bare existence. And suddenly it runs up against another miserable naked tailless ape and immediately everything that it has ever known dies out of its little puddle of a mind, itself, its beastly body, its puny wandering desires, the wretched fight for existence, the whole world. And instead there comes a flame of passion for something in that other naked ape, not for her body or her mind or her soul, but for something beautiful mysterious everlasting—yes that’s it the everlasting passion in her which has flamed up in him. He goes buzzing on through space, but he isn’t tired or bewildered or ignorant any more; he can see his way now even among the stars. And that’s love, the love which you novelists scatter about so freely…’

So Jessop ridicules all the soppy talk about love and moonlight and says real love is strange, uncanny, unpredictable, makes no sense, is the rarest thing in the world. He’s knocked around the world and only ever seen two cases of it, and he’s now going to tell us about one of them.

So all this has been by way of introduction and this it is so redolent of Conrad: the all-male company; after dinner, in the dark; all described by an unknown narrator who then introduces one of the party telling a story-within-a-story. Structurally, it’s identical with the famous setting of Heart of Darkness.

The story

Among Jessop’s many friends and acquaintances was a man named Reynolds, a novelist. They were at Rugby (public school) together. Jessop was living ‘out East’, in Ceylon, in the capital Colombo. Reynolds and he exchanged occasional letters until Reynolds announced he was heading in that direction and it was arranged he’d come and stay for a week.

He was a thin, weedy man who’s ‘stood aside’ from life, out of nervousness, a legacy of being bullied at school, knew all about people’s little tricks and mannerisms but didn’t know how they felt because he’d never felt anything except fear and shyness. So Jessop took him to all the expat clubs and they sat and talked about love and life and Jessop realised he’d never actually lived a day in his life.

So he determines to show him a side of life he hadn’t seen before, and takes him in a rickshaw out into the seedy, native part of town, to a dingy house which is a native brothel. Here they are greeted by ten or so beautiful young scantily-clad women, laughing and giggling. Poor Reynolds is terribly embarrassed at the bare boobs and golden bodies and doesn’t respond to their kisses or caresses so most of them gravitate over to Jessop who can speak their language and is prepared to listen to their stories about the native villages they come from and the arduous lives they’ve escaped to come to the big city. All except one.

She was called Celestinahami and was astonishingly beautiful. Her skin was the palest of pale gold with a glow in it, very rare in the fair native women. The delicate innocent beauty of a child was in her face; and her eyes, Lord, her eyes immense, deep, dark and melancholy which looked as if they knew and understood and felt everything in the world. She never wore anything coloured, just a white cloth wrapped round her waist with one end thrown over the left shoulder. She carried about her an air of slowness and depth and mystery of silence and of innocence.

Long story short, they fall in love and, Jessop insists, it was the real thing not the milk and moonlight version of English poets and novelists. It was something deep and inexplicable.

He looked into her eyes that understood nothing but seemed to understand everything, and then it came out at last; the power to feel, the power that so few have, the flame, the passion, love, the real thing. It was the real thing, I tell you; I ought to know…

So Reynolds becomes hooked and goes back to the brothel night after night in order to see Celestinahami. But Reynolds becomes so unhappy at the impracticality of the whole situation that he makes a feeble attempt to shoot himself. He buys a revolver but Jessop burst into his room to find him struggling with the mechanism which clips chamber shut and seized it out of his hands.

Then Jessop read him the riot act and this is the bit I didn’t really understand, or thought contradicted itself. Because Jessop tells Reynolds that the girl is nothing like he imagines:

not a bit what he thought her, what his passion went out to—a nice simple soft little animal like the bitch at my feet that starved herself if I left her for a day

BUT, at the same time, acknowledging that what Reynolds feels for her IS the real thing:

You’re really in love, in love with something that doesn’t exist behind those great eyes. It’s dangerous, damned dangerous because it’s real—and that’s why it’s rare.

So it’s real love, one of the only two times Jessop has seen ‘real’ love – and yet he’s perfectly aware that it’s love for something which doesn’t exist. Reynolds is utterly projecting something onto this girl which simply isn’t there. And yet this is what Jessop calls real love. See why I’m a bit confused?

Anyway, Jessop roughly tells Reynolds to either get on the next ship home or ‘practise what you preach and live your life out, and take the risks.’ So for the first time in his life, Reynolds takes a chance on life. He buys the girl out of the brother (for the bargain price of 20 rupees) and Jessop fixes them up in a nice cottage by the sea.

At first they were happy. He taught her English and she taught him Sinhalese. He started to write a novel about the East. But pretty quickly he comes to realise the truth. He comes to realise the vast difference in intellect and education and culture between them.

He couldn’t speak to her and she couldn’t speak to him, she couldn’t understand him. He was a civilized cultivated intelligent nervous little man and she—she was an animal, dumb and stupid and beautiful.

He loved her but she tortured him. She got on his nerves.

But the cruellest thing of all was that she had grown to love him, love him like an animal; as a bitch loves her master.

Because:

There’s another sort of love; it isn’t the body and it isn’t the flame; it’s the love of dogs and women, at any rate of those slow, big-eyed women of the East. It’s the love of a slave, the patient, consuming love for a master, for his kicks and his caresses, for his kisses and his blows. That was the sort of love which grew up slowly in Celestinahami for Reynolds. But it wasn’t what he wanted, it was that, I expect, more than anything which got on his nerves.

So, the story tells us, there are two types of love: the big visionary type which, it has been clearly explained, Reynolds projected onto Celestinahami; and the dog-like, slave-like master-love of Celestinahami. Neither sound to me like ‘the real thing’, which Jessop set out to describe.

She used to follow him about the bungalow like a dog. He wanted to talk to her about his novel and she only understood how to pound and cook rice. It exasperated him, made him unkind, cruel. And when he looked into her patient, mysterious eyes he saw behind them what he had fallen in love with, what he knew didn’t exist. It began to drive him mad.

And so the story hurtles to its inevitable, Conradian end. She takes desperate steps to try and keep his ‘love’, the most florid being to dress up like the white women she sees in Colombo, in stays and white cotton stockings and shoes. But the more she tries, the more she destroys the image Reynolds had of her, the more angry he becomes, the more wretched she.

Eventually Reynolds realises he has to leave and carry on his travels. He swears to Celestinahami and Jessop that he’ll be back, he considerately makes over the house to Celestinahami’s ownership, then one fine day sails away on a P&O liner.

I never saw Reynolds again but I saw Celestinahami once. It was at the inquest two days after the Moldavia sailed for Aden. She was lying on a dirty wooden board on trestles in the dingy mud-plastered room behind the court… They had found her floating in the sea that lapped the foot of the convent garden below the little bungalow—bobbing up and down in her stays and pink skirt and white stockings and shoes.

I suppose this is all very well done, but very much in the manner of Conrad even down to the punchline. Just as in one of Conrad’s classic tales told by his sailor-narrator Charles Marlow, the storyteller ends his tale, there’s a pause, and then one of the company of listeners brings us back to reality with a down-to-earth comment.

Jessop stopped. No one spoke for a minute or two. Then Hanson Smith stretched himself, yawned, and got up. ‘Battle, murder and sentimentality,’ he said. ‘You’re as bad as the rest of them, Jessop. I’d like to hear your other case—but it’s too late, I’m off to bed.’

Commentary

The feel and structure of the thing are, as pointed out, very Conradian, from the double narrative structure through to the deliberately throwaway ending, designed to evince that mood of cynical, jaded, man-of-the-world indifference to what is, in essence a tragedy (reminiscent of the plot of Puccini’s opera ‘Madame Butterfly’).

And you don’t have to be a feminist to find the fundamental structure – or two narrative structures – objectionable. What I mean is the frame story, in which four comfortably-off men sound off to each other about love without much or any admission of the woman’s point of view – and then listen to a tragedy based around the innocence and ignorance of poor Celestinahami. The power imbalances in both these structures are there for everyone to see. And the worldly note of the throwaway ending may be designed to indicate the fundamental heartlessness of the world, but it highlights that none of the listeners has a word of lament over poor Celestinahami.

But what puzzled me, more than anything, was that the story, the first narrator, and then Jessop all promise some great revelation about The Truth of Love, and then it doesn’t arrive. Maybe the narrator and Jessop’s point is that such a thing doesn’t exist, and instead, what actually exists in the real world is more complex, unsentimental, irrational and almost unpleasant, than the moon-in-June sentimental clichés.

In which respect, then, it chimes very much with the heartless worldview which radiates from his wonderful if extremely bleak novel, ‘The Village in the Jungle’.

2. Pearls and Swine

The setting

The unnamed first-person narrator is staying at a hotel in Torquay. After dinner and a game of billiards he joins three other chaps sitting round the fire. They’re talking about India, which reminds him of the 15 years he spent out there. Two of the three – a stock jobber and a clergymen – have never been out East and so sound off with insufferably imperialist cant and clichés: the stock jobber says the Indians must accept our racial superiority; the clergymen says we are undoubtedly raising them up to our level of civilisation, not least through the work of earnest young missionaries, basing his views on:

‘I read the papers, I’ve read books too, mind you, about India. I know what’s going on.’

All this cant goads the third member of the group, a small man with dark skin and wrinkles round his eyes (the narrator recognises a fellow servant of empire) beyond endurance, and he bursts out with a Tamil proverb. When asked to translate he explains that it’s a polite way of indicating the foolishness of earnest young Englishmen who go out to idea full of naive ideas drummed into them by their School Board education and think that somehow, after just 18 months, they understand the place from top to bottom, from ‘Benares to Rameswaram’. Compared to the Tamils who have lived in India for at least 7,000 years, compared to the hundreds of races who share the continent (‘there are more races in India than people in Peckham’).

Mention of views and opinions provides the hinge or pretext for the little Anglo-Indian man to announce that instead of views, he will tell them some facts. And this is what he proceeds to do.

The story

This is the real point of the story. The Anglo-Indian gives a ten-page account of his time serving in southern India as government administrator of a peal fishery. This was based on a God-forsaken stretch of the coast which consisted of nothing but barren sand and scrub for hundreds of miles, without a town or village or river or fresh water. But off this coast were marvellously rich oyster beds and every year, for 6 to 8 weeks between monsoons, thousands of fishermen in hundreds of boats, come to farm the oysters, a varied crew including scores of different races of Indians, plus Arabs and their Black ex-slaves, a multicultural community devoted to one end, diving to bring up thousands of oysters every day, to leave them rotting in the sun for the flies to devour, in the hope they will reveal pearls of great price embedded in their flesh.

The British Imperial government taxes their catch, taking two-thirds of the pearls. And the small, dark intense storyteller once performed this role and now describes, in vivid and powerful detail, what it was like – the heat, the unbearable flies, the nauseating smell of thousands of rotting oysters, the babble of native voices. All the several thousand fishermen had to be confined in a compound for 6 to weeks, creating a madly unhygienic and disease-ridden environment.

So that establishes the ground base of the story. Into this environment come two more white men: one is Robson, a 24-year-old bright spark who passed the Civil Service exams and is overflowing with bright new ideas about reforming everything, who criticises the narrator for giving up on changing the East and instead letting the East change him.

He was too cocksure altogether, of himself, of his School Board education, of life, of his ‘views’. He was going to run India on new lines, laid down in some damned Manual of Political Science out of which they learn life in Board Schools and extension lectures.

Predictably, his body and mind are not prepared for the disgusting conditions of the compound, the heat and the flies, and he ends up vomiting lots of time every day, becoming sicker and sicker.

The other white man is (ironically) named White. He’s a drunk, a rummy, with a pinched face and sharp teeth with gaps between them. But he’s a white man so Robson and the (unnamed) narrator let him eat at the same table. White tells the others he went to public school, which is probable, failed in England and so came out East. But even here he has been bedevilled by ‘damn bad luck’ and tells sob stories about a succession of dubious-sounding jobs.

So that’s the setup: three white men in a huge barren hot inhospitable semi-desert next to the sea, trying to control thousands of native pearl divers from all across India and beyond. We expect trouble, if not tragedy.

Sure enough, things happen. First a fight breaks out between a group of Arabs and one of Tamils over a handful of oysters which fall out of a bag. By the time the narrator separates them one Tamil is dead and ten or so have been injured. Idealistic Robson, for all his fancy ideas of ‘Reforming The Empire’, turns out to be predictably useless, running around like a distracted hen and crying.

But the main event in the story is that White comes down with a severe attack of delirium tremens or DTs. He starts raving and threatening violence so the narrator has to knock him out with a rifle butt. When he comes round, the narrator ties him to his bed. His raving, his tormented hallucinations are a trial for the narrator but tip young Robson over the edge, reducing him to sitting and crying.

All this allows Woolf to write some highly enjoyable bravura passages of the different mentality of the old India hand, of how you come to adopt the native mentality, become more passive, and accept the vast impersonal forces which dictate life, your life, everyone’s lives.

One just did one’s work, hour after hour, keeping things going in that sun which stung one’s bare hands, took the skin off even my face, among the flies add the smell. It wasn’t a nightmare, it was just a few thousand Arabs and Indians fishing tip oysters from the bottom of the sea. It wasn’t even new, one felt; it was old, old as the Bible, old as Adam, so the Arabs said. One hadn’t much time to think, but one felt it and watched it, watched the things happen quietly, unastonished, as men do in the East. One does one’s work,—forty eight hours at a stretch doesn’t leave one much time or inclination for thinking,—waiting for things to happen. If you can prevent people from killing one another or robbing one another, or burning down the camp, or getting cholera or plague or small-pox, and if one can manage to get one night’s sleep in three, one is fairly satisfied.

And again, a meditation on the profound difference between East and West:

Things here feel so different; you seem so far from life, with windows and blinds and curtains always in between, and then nothing ever happens, you never wait for things to happen, never watch things happening here. You are always doing things somehow—Lord knows what they are—according I suppose to systems, views, opinions. But out there you live so near to life, every morning you smell damp earth if you splash too much in your tin bath. And things happen slowly, inexorably by fate, and you—you don’t do things, you watch with the three hundred millions. You feel it there in everything, even in the sunrise and sunset, every day, the immensity, inexorableness, mystery of things happening. You feel the whole earth waking up or going to sleep in a great arch of sky; you feel small, not very powerful. But who ever felt the sun set or rise in London or Torquay either? It doesn’t: you just turn on or turn off the electric light.

This is all rather wonderful. But White won’t stop raving, all through the night. He moves on from hallucinations to describing shocking, immoral, cruel and corrupt behaviour all through his life, which is worse, more demoralising. The narrator moves him from his bed and ties him to a pole near his official desk where he can keep an eye on him. Arabs and Tamils come to watch him silently. The narrator explains that he is ill, the heat has driven him mad, and they accept this as they accept everything and move away with the ‘calm patient eyes of men who watched unastonished the procession of things’.

For one long night White raves and then, as dawn arrives, he cries out and dies. The narrator cuts him down from the pole and lays him out. But at that exact moment he is called by some locals. An oyster boat is coming inshore with a dead body on it, an Arab who died in mid-dive.

Woolf creates a very deliberate and stark contrast between the two dead men: White is a symbolic figure, symbolising the absolute worst of white men in the East, a corrupt drunk and public scandal who dies with horrible indignity.

By contrast the dead Arab is brought ashore by his colleagues, his brother sits by his body quietly weeping, an Arab sheikh comes up, lays his hand on the head of the lamenting man, and quietly and calmly consoles him. He died doing his work, doing his duty as a man. Everyone – dead man, brother and sheikh – are drenched in dignity and honour as the dawn breaks.

At this point the little brown man finishes his story. As with ‘A Tale Told by Moonlight’ the ending is deliberately dismissive, realistic, indicating the place of this, just one more story among a million stories in the western realm of endless discourse.

There was silence in the smoking-room. I looked round. The Colonel had fallen asleep with his mouth open. The jobber tried to look bored, the Archdeacon was, apparently, rather put out.

This feels much better than the first story for two obvious reasons. The dichotomies or binaries are easy to spot and enjoy, namely: between the shallow pontificating of the stock jobber and the clergyman, and the little brown Anglo-Indian; then between young idealistic Robson and the narrator; and then between the dignified locals and the wildly undignified, drunken White. There is the deeper dichotomy between imperial rules and the ruled to unpick as well, if you want to.

But mostly what makes it enjoyable is Woolf’ couple of paragraph-length descriptions of the mentality of the East, the spirit of the East, so utterly different from the pampered ignorance of London clubland where the frame story is set. All very neat, well constructed and enjoyable.

The Two Brahmans

Description of Yalpanam, a very large town in the north of Ceylon, which always feels abandoned and sleepy as all the living goes on behind the high fences made of the dried leaves of the coconut palms which conceal the compounds in which sit the huts and houses.

In the north of the town is the section devoted to Brahmans, to most senior caste in India’s caste system, who must keep themselves from being defiled, losing caste and face in countless ways. For example they do no work for themselves, all their needs are catered to by lower cast workers devoted to trades such as fishing tending rice, digging wells and so on.

In order to avoid defilement, the 50 or so Brahman families in Yalpanam all live in the same part of town, on the northern edge abutting the big lagoon. And for centuries if not millennia they have all married off their sons and daughters to each other to preserve their purity.

The story spans four generations of two particular families, headed by two fathers Chellaya and Chittampalam whose compounds neighbour each other. To be brief, both Chellya and Chittampalam shame their families by undertaking manual work. They try to keep it hidden but words get out and the other Brahman families cut them off. Among other things, this means their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children, will not be accepted for marriage by anyone in the town. They’ll have to go to distant settlements to find Brahman families which have never heard of their shame.

Chittampalam is a miser. When the water in his well starts to become brackish he should have gotten an earth carrying caste member to dig him a new well. Instead, in order to save, money he dug it and carries the soil away on his head himself. People saw him and he lost caste.

But it’s Chellaya who gets the lion’s share of (this very short) story. He likes to spend his afternoons staring out over the big lagoon and slowly becomes obsessed with the fishermen who wade out into the water and cast their nets. It looks so idyllic, it looks so relaxing. So one day he shamefacedly asks one of the fisherman if he could show him how to cast a net. He comes up with a cock-and-bull story about having made a vow to some god to do it as reward for healing his son but nobody is fooled. So for a small payment the fisherman sells him a net and then on successive days, far away from the village, shows him how to cast it. But someone, inevitably, sees, and he, too, loses caste.

I was wondering how these two bad Brahmans were going to be brought into contact or conflict but they aren’t. Chittampalam dies soon after being discovered carrying earth and Chellaya a few years later. It’s their great-great-great grandchildren who are. Four generations later the male descendants of the two naughty Brahmans bear the same names, Chellaya and Chittampalam.

Everybody’s forgotten which one of them carried the earth and which one cast nets, but they are still shunned by the other Brahman families and still have to marry outside the town.

And so we reach the climax of this little tale. The descendant Chellaya and Chittampalam still live in the same compounds as their ancestors, next to each other. And Chittampalam has a very beautiful daughter and Chellaya has one son unmarried, who one day sees the beautiful daughter through the compound wall, and suggests to his father that he marries her.

So the two fathers meet up and are in agreement that it would be an excellent marriage. However there’s one sticking point, the same sticking point there always is in all these native marriages, the size of the bride’s dowry: the father of the girl wants the dowry to be small and the father of the boy wants it to be large.

Well, the denouement, climax or punchline of the story turns out to be that… each time they meet to discuss the dowry it isn’t long before Chittampalam loses his temper and calls Chellaya a fisher, Chellaya loses his temper and calls Chittampalam a pariah and they both storm off.

Chellaya’s son calms his father down and arranges for the two men to have another meeting a few days later, but the exact same thing happens, with negotiations which start sensibly ending in a shouting match and both men storming away. Oh well, they realise; like their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers before them, they will have to marry off their children to partners from some distant village which has never heard of their shame.

So the moral of the story, children, is that the sins or errors or mistakes of the ancestors continue to bedevil and stymie the wishes of their descendants. Silly, isn’t it? And yet it’s those values and traditions which give our lives their meaning and aren’t as easy to shake off as glib outsiders think.

In a poignant and symbolic coda, Chellaya’s son, lovesick for Chittampalam’s daughter, takes to going and sitting at the exact same spot where his great-great-great-grandfather Chellaya used to sit and watch the fishermen cast their nets.

Maybe it’s not just social conventions and transgressions which are passed down through the generations, but something deeper; something about gestures and longings and desires which are revived and repeated in every generation…

Thoughts

‘Pearls and Swine’ is clearly the best of the three stories, which is why Eland chose to include it in their paperback edition of ‘The Village in the Jungle’ but not the other two.

‘The Two Brahmans’ is fine as far is it goes, conveying not only the restrictions of Brahman life but, better, the sense of the yearning of the Brahman who wanted to become a fisherman, briefly standing for everyone who has a dream or desire beyond their station in life; but is too short to make a big impact.

‘A Tale Told by Moonlight’ is clearly the worst story, because of the unsympathetic character of Jessop the blunt cynic; because it is based – like so many turn-of-the-century stories, plays and operas – on the immiseration and suicide of an innocent young woman; but most importantly, I thought it didn’t live up to the promise to be some kind of meditation on the nature of Real Love. Didn’t strike me as being that at all, but instead a cliché, and an unpleasant exploitative cliché at that.


Credit

‘Stories of the East’ by Leonard Woolf was published by the Hogarth Press in 1921. I read ‘Pearls and Swine’ in the 2008 Eland Publishing paperback edition of ‘The Village in the Jungle’ which includes it as a kind of bonus. The other two I read online.

Related link

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘With it’ phraseology

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

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

Prose style

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

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

Posh women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despising men

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

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

The disappointing younger generation

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

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

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

The plot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4

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

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

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

Chapter 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

Major Eastwood on desire and appetite

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

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

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

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

Chapter 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The gypsy again

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

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

Chapter 9. The Flood

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names

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

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

And only then she realised that he had a name.

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

Feelings are so complicated

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

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

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

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

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

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


Credit

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

Related links

Related reviews

England, My England by D.H. Lawrence (1922)

‘England, My England’ is a collection of ten short stories by D. H. Lawrence. They were written between 1913 and 1921 and most of them had been published in magazines or periodicals. This ten were later selected and extensively revised by Lawrence for publication in this volume.

All bar the final two are war stories in the sense that they take place at least partly during the war or the characters have been affected by the war or, as in the first story, are shown actually fighting and dying in it.

  1. England, My England
  2. Tickets, Please
  3. The Blind Man
  4. Monkey Nuts
  5. Wintry Peacock
  6. You Touched Me
  7. Samson and Delilah
  8. The Primrose Path
  9. The Horse Dealer’s Daughter
  10. Fanny And Annie

1. England, My England

Winifred and Egbert are married and live in Crockham Cottage, by woods and commons and bogs and streams in rural Hampshire. The cottage is in the extensive grounds of Winifred’s father, a successful businessman, who has also provided cottages for his other daughters, Priscilla and Magdelen. The mother is a published poetess. It’s an arty family.

The bulk of the text describes the tortuous emotionally fraught marriage of Winifred and Egbert. They married ten years before the start of the war i.e. 1904. Initially they are very much in love and Egbert is a handsome charming fine figure of a man, very interested in the folk stories and folk music of Olde England. And Lawrence repeatedly describes the cottage as having a mysterious atmosphere, of somehow invoking the spirit of the ancients.

Strange how the savage England lingers in patches: as here, amid these shaggy gorse commons, and marshy, snake infested places near the foot of the south downs. The spirit of place lingering on primeval, as when the Saxons came, so long ago… t belonged to the old England of hamlets and yeomen. Lost all alone on the edge of the common, at the end of a wide, grassy, briar-entangled lane shaded with oak, it had never known the world of today…

But Egbert, for all his charm, is, alas, useless. He has an inherited income of £150 which is just enough to prevent him trying for a job or career or profession and so he dawdles about doing DIY on the farm which always ends up breaking or not working.

He… had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

With the arrival of three children Winifred has become a full-time mother, worried about practicalities and finds her husband exasperating.

Egbert’s thoughtless impracticality is exemplified one day when he leaves a scythe he’d used for mowing grass carelessly lying about and his favourite daughter, Joyce, cuts her knee on it. Local doctor Dr Wing is very prolix and calming but doesn’t treat the wound properly and the leg becomes infected. So the practical father sends Egbert further afield to fetch Dr Wayne from Bingham. By this time the joint is infected and Wayne recommends having Joyce stretchered to a car to drive her to a London clinic. Here commence weeks then months of laborious treatment but the upshot is the girl will be crippled for life, requires clunky leg braces and crutches. Egbert is mortified. You can imagine Winifred’s feelings.

Then the Great War starts (August 1914) and Egbert is called up to the army. A year of training. He hates coming home in his khaki. Nowadays Winifred and the girls are mostly based in London to be near the hospital, so often Egbert is alone, working at his rather futile projects in the cottage grounds.

The story reaches a climax when, after a year’s training, he’s sent to France and the narrative cuts to him in action, in a machine gun nest under command of an officer trying to locate the enemy from the sounds of distant firing. Then shells begin to descend, at first at a distance, then getting nearer, then there is a direct hit and Lawrence gives a florid and persuasive account of being knocked out and slowly, groggily regaining consciousness.

Were they the stars in the dark sky? Was it possible it was stars in the dark sky? Stars? The world? Ah, no, he could not know it! Stars and the world were gone for him, he closed his eyes. No stars, no sky, no world. No, No! The thick darkness of blood alone. It should be one great lapse into the thick darkness of blood in agony.

Death, oh, death! The world all blood, and the blood all writhing with death. The soul like the tiniest little light out on a dark sea, the sea of blood. And the light guttering, beating, pulsing in a windless storm, wishing it could go out, yet unable.

The last line has the knockout punch of a classic short story, when the Germans who’ve occupied his position hear a slight noise, of earth falling away, and from the heap of earth thrown up by their shells, see the dead face.

Thoughts

This is a dense, packed and ultimately unpleasant story. To start at the end, the description of dying – which is what I take it to be – is fulsome and persuasive but, as a subject, strikes me as the kind of thing you find in school magazines.

The half dozen pages devoted to the little girl being cut, inflamed then losing the use of her leg are upsetting. Even in fiction I don’t like children being hurt. What makes it Lawrentian is the emotional ambiguity because, even after Joyce has been confirmed disabled, there is a secret sympathy between her and her father, which has them sharing glances and smiles in a way she just can’t with her more conventional mother. The irrationality of emotions.

But the real puzzle is why the story is titled ‘My England’. At the beginning Lawrence goes on repeatedly about the ancientness of the landscape and the way the old cottage has seen countless generations of inhabitants live out their lives and passions, stretching back to Saxon times. So you think the story is going to be a paean to English country living. But as my summary shows, it’s anything but. The positive vibe of the deep ancestral England trope is cut across by three big negatives:

  1. The deep problems with the Egbert-Winifred marriage.
  2. The terrible accident with the scythe.
  3. Egbert’s grisly death in the end.

In what sense is any of this Lawrence’s England? Is he showing that the war ruined his England? But the supposed rural idyll was wrecked long before the war came along? Does the first half demonstrate how difficult it is to live up to the image or inheritance of deep England?

Or is the point that he was writing during an era marked by a national outpouring of relatively unthinking, uncritical patriotism, when headlines went on about patriotism and decency and women handed out white feathers in the street and Lawrence’s response is to show that life is never that simple or inconvenient; that life is full of complexity and cross-currents and disappointments and ineffectuality and stupid accidents?

That his England wasn’t the unquestioned totem of the jingos but a deeply fraught and complex and troubling entity?

2. Tickets, Please

Set during the war. The first half sets up life on the long tram line which runs out of Nottingham into the countryside, beside rivers to collieries, and the happy-go-lucky lives of the staff. Since it’s wartime and the men have been called up, the conductors are women. They have a great collegiate spirit and love flirting with the (still male) drivers.

Inspectors hop on and off the trams to inspect tickets. The cheekiest is a lad who fancies himself, John Thomas Raynor, known, behind his back, as Coddy.

There is considerable scandal about John Thomas in half a dozen villages. He flirts with the girl conductors in the morning, and walks out with them in the dark night, when they leave their tram-car at the depôt. Of course, the girls quit the service frequently. Then he flirts and walks out with the newcomer: always providing she is sufficiently attractive, and that she will consent to walk.

The feistiest of the girl conductors is Annie Stone, ‘something of a Tartar’. She has Coddy’s measure. They know each other almost like man and wife. November arrives and the annual Statutes fair. Lawrence gives a fascinating account of the fair: roundabouts, coconuts:

Here was the same crush, the press of faces lighted up by the flares and the electric lights, the same smell of naphtha and a few fried potatoes, and of electricity.

Who should she bump into but John Thomas? They have a whale of a time, he is great fun, ladding about on the dragons, the horses, playing quoits, slipping his arm round her in the darkness of the cinema.

In the days that follow she wants to develop this into what we nowadays call a relationship, what Lawrence calls ‘taking an intelligent interest’ in her; but (to put it mildly) any form of commitment is the opposite of what John Thomas wants and he sheers away. Annie is upset then goes into a tailspin, typically Lawrentian in its extremity:

Then she wept with fury, indignation, desolation, and misery. Then she had a spasm of despair. And then, when he came, still impudently, on to her car, still familiar, but letting her see by the movement of his head that he had gone away to somebody else for the time being, and was enjoying pastures new, then she determined to have her own back.

Annie goes round the other girls determined to discover who John Thomas’s latest conquest is. This has the effect of rallying all the girls against him. The climax of the story comes at the end of a long day when the girls are all in their cosy warm waiting room and Coddy drops by to flirt with them.

To his surprise he is met with scorn which turns to anger. It starts with a joke about which one of them he’ll take home that night to keep warm but quite quickly it becomes menacing. They all shout at him demanding to know and he turns from bantering cock of the roost to irritated and then intimidated.

And then it goes wild. As he turns to go, Annie leaps forward and clouts him round the head. As he’s staggering, the others jump on him too. They are screaming and cuffing him and scratching him and tearing his clothes while he can’t throw them off, not seven shrieking women. Again and again they scream in his face, ‘Choose one!’

It’s only when he shouts through the mayhem that he chooses Annie that they stop fighting. Stunned, Annie refuses to touch him and backs away and the other girls get off him. Trying to recover his dignity, Coddy gets to his feet, collects his overcoat from the peg and goes to the door. It’s locked and Annie has the key. Dazed, she lets him out, and turns to the other girls who are fixing their hair and getting ready to go home. None of them can process what’s just happened.

Thoughts

Is it about the mayhem the war has unleashed? Is it that the war has unleashed the violence in everyone, a tone established at the funfair, which has a feverish gaiety? The sentence just before John Thomas goes into the girls nice, snug waiting room, reads: ‘Outside was the darkness and lawlessness of war-time’, suggesting that what follows is ‘the darkness and lawlessness of war-time’ invading even the young womens’ retreat?

Or is it the more modern idea that the war upended ‘gender norms’, with women doing ‘mens’ jobs? But why, then, the mob violence?

To my mind the girls are modern reincarnations of maenads, defined as ‘female follower of Bacchus, traditionally associated with divine possession and frenzied rites’. In one version of the Greek myths, the maenads tear Orpheus to pieces.

The point of literature is it leaves you to make your own mind up.

(It also reminds me of the early Ian McEwan story where two women discover a man is cheating on them both, so drug him, tie him to a table and surgically remove his penis. More graphic in a schlocky way, but the same underlying idea of female fury at the cock of the walk.)

3. The Blind Man

A blistering, intense, strange tale. Big strong, self-contained Maurice Pervin has been blinded in the war. Now he lives with his loving wife, Isabel, on a farm. They are educated middle class. The actual farming is done by the Wernham family, more working class, who talk in dialect, who live in the lower farm buildings.

There is much description, in the classic Lawrence style, of the vacillating moods of the couple. To begin with, surprisingly, despite his blindness they revelled in a new kind of intimacy because it brought them so very close together, as he learned his way about the rooms, blind. But then both of them experienced fallings away Isabel feeling exhausted, Maurice liable to plunges into deep depression.

They had a baby but it died young. Now Isabel is very heavily pregnant and expecting a second baby in the next few weeks. She has invited an old friend to visit, Bertram Reid, a barrister and a man of letters, a Scotchman. They’ve been close friends for decades, almost like family. But when Maurice went away to war, Isabel asked Bertie to stop writing, as a gesture of faithfulness to her husband.

The key points are that Maurice and Bertie met several times before the war and instinctively didn’t like each other. Bertie is morbidly sensitive about being touched or even being close to people, emotionally close. He is small and dapper and intelligent and likes the company of women until they start to crowd him, when he recoils.

It was Maurice who suggested her old friend visit. He thinks it will cheer his wife up. He’s off in the form doing something while night falls and she becomes more anxious about the arrival of the ‘trap’ i.e. horse and cart, which will bring Bertie.

In an evocative scene she goes out and past the Wernham part of the farm and they very hospitably invite her in to share their tea. Chat and a roaring fire. But then she makes her excuses and presses on into the dark farm buildings to find her husband.

Of course her husband, blind for a year, knows his way round the farm buildings in the dark, so there are no lamps, and there are no electric lights, and so Lawrence gives a vivid, thrilling account of her moving through the absolute pitch black, amid the noises and smells of the cattle stalls, quietly calling his name.

Anyway she finds him and leads him back to their house. Here they both go to their rooms to wash and change. The trap finally arrives and she goes out to greet Bertie and Maurice overhears their conversation and is troubled with jealousy and emotions.

Down in the living room Bertie settles in and a servant brings dinner. The whole topic of the big blind man brings out the supernaturally brilliant in Lawrence’s imagining and writing. At the table:

Maurice was feeling, with curious little movements, almost like a cat kneading her bed, for his place, his knife and fork, his napkin. He was getting the whole geography of his cover into his consciousness. He sat erect and inscrutable, remote-seeming Bertie watched the static figure of the blind man, the delicate tactile discernment of the large, ruddy hands, and the curious mindless silence of the brow, above the scar.

They eat then afterwards, draw their chairs up to the fire. Making conversation, Bertie tentatively asks about his blindness and Maurice shrugs it off. But extended talk about it upsets him and he begins to feel stifled.

At length Maurice rose restlessly, a big, obtrusive figure. He felt tight and hampered. He wanted to go away.

He makes an excuse to go and talk to the farmer and leaves. Bertie and Isabel talk on for a time, but then it is late. By now it’s raining outside. The final part of the story is that Isabel is 9 months pregnant and tired so she asks Bertie, the dapper urban intellectual, to go and find Maurice and fetch him back.

So now we see the narrow walkways of the pitch-black farm buildings from Bertie’s point of view. He finds him, right enough, turning the handle of a turnip pulper. They talk. Maurice asks him to tell him, candidly, what his face looks like. And then, in this dark and spectral environment, Maurice asks if he can touch Bertie’s face. Taken by surprise, Bertie says yes, and so the big man very gently lays his big hands on the small fellah’s hair, head, eyes, cheek, mouth, down to his shoulders and arms – as when he was settling into his place at the table, so now he is accommodating Bertie into his blind universe.

Then he asks Bertie to touch his eyes which the little man very reluctantly does. Now, the big man declares, they know each other. Now they can be friends. And allows himself to be taken back to the main house living room.

Big Maurice is smiling, is satisfied with his knowledge. You might have expected some kind of happy ending, like the two men have reached a new understanding but as so often in Lawrence, it isn’t a happy ending, it is conflicted and broken. Because Isabel instantly realises that her clever friend has just received the greatest trauma of his life and is screaming with discomfort inside. And ends it with a disgusting simile.

He could not bear it that he had been touched by the blind man, his insane reserve broken in. He was like a mollusc whose shell is broken. (p.75)

4. Monkey Nuts

Just after the war (I think) Albert the 40-year-old corporal and stupid young Joe are still in the army but now back in England. They work forking hay from carts which bring it from the country into train trucks at a station. They share the same bedroom so know all about each other.

One of the troops of carts that come is run by Miss Stokes. She’s a ballsy woman who knows her own mind. She falls for Joe and becomes domineering, insisting on talking to him at their daily meeting, listening to Albert’s endless jokes and banter but ignoring him.

A new level is attained when Miss Stokes writes Joe a letter asking for a rendezvous at a nearby station. She signs it MS. Joe shows Albert the letter but ignores it. When Miss Stokes next arrives with haycarts Albert can’t stop himself ribbing her about the letter and asks what MS stands for. Angrily, Miss Stokes replies ‘monkey nuts’. Because this becomes the leitmotiv of the story, I assume it’s an Edwardian insults.

The circus arrives in a nearby town and Albert and Jo go to visit it. They see Miss Stokes in the audience but ignore her. But on the 6-mile walk home they come across her, banter, then she asks Albert to take her punctured bicycle onto the town for repair, while she asks Joe to walk her home to the farm where she lives. Joe is super reluctant but it is the chivalrous thing to do so can’t back down.

From that evening he keeps disappearing every night to squire her around but hates it. He goes so far as to say ‘There’ll be murder done one of these days’ and the reader wonders whether it really will turn into a gruesome murder story.

One night Albert asks Joe if he can go on the date with Miss Stokes. He is surprised to discover Miss Stokes in a fine dress and hat; she is mortified that the old joker and not Joe has come, turns and walks back to her farm without saying a word; Albert is mortified to see tears rolling down her face.

They have one last encounter. On a cold grey morning she brings her cart up to the station and begins pestering Joe, calling his name. Eventually he turns round a cries at her ‘monkey nuts’ and this has a dramatic effect.

‘Joe!’ Her voice rang for the third time.
Joe turned and looked at her, and a slow, jeering smile gathered on his face.
‘Monkey-nuts!’ he replied, in a tone mocking her call.
She turned white – dead white. The men thought she would fall. (p.89)

The hay is unloaded, she drives off and never returns. They never see her again. And, Lawrence tells us, Joe is more relieved than when he heard news of the armistice.

5. Wintry Peacock

A rarity in a Lawrence story, a first-person narrative. He appears to be an educated, middle-class man. It’s winter and he’s living alone in a nice house. He’s out walking when a farmer’s wife he’s seen before comes out of a building, spots him and beckons him over.

She’s Mrs Goyte. She’s received a letter, written in French, addressed to her husband, Alfred. He served in the Army in France, was wounded and is currently away convalescing. And this French letter has arrived. She can’t read French and knows the narrator is an educated man, so asks if he can read it for us.

First he reads it through to himself which allows Lawrence to give us the full unexpurgated text. We learn that it is from a Belgian girl, Élise, who is writing to tell him that she has had their baby. She says she loves him, misses him and threatens to come and visit him with the child.

So when Mrs Goyte insists that he translates it, the narrator gives a censored or bowdlerised version, insisting that it’s to tell him that the girl’s mother has had a baby, a new baby brother for him, and letting him know because he was such a lovely guest when he was billeted on them.

This is quite funny, as funny as Lawrence gets. What gives it relish is that Mrs Goyte doesn’t believe a word of it, insisting the girl is pregnant, imagining she’s only one of the women her husband went out with.

This performance is interrupted by the arrival of three peacocks. Mrs Goyte makes a big fuss of the eldest of them who’s in fact father of the other two, Joey, a grey-brown peacock with a blue neck.

Well, the narrator does his best to pitch his version of the letters but Mrs Goyte isn’t having any of it. Next morning the estate is covered in snow but looking out his big west windows, the narrator sees something struggling in the snow down by a copse, puts on coat and boots and tramps down to the copse where he discovers it’s none other than Joey.

He brings the bedraggled bird back to the house, dries him, puts him in a basket in a warm room with food. Next morning Joey’s made a mess of the food and is sitting on the back of an armchair. He bundles him into a fishing basket and carries him over to the Goyte farm. He’s welcomed by Mrs Goyte whose name we learn is Maggie, backed up by the father-in-law, old Mr Goyte and his grey-haired wife. It’s the details about people and places in Lawrence which are so lovely, which snag and delight your mind.

Mr. Goyte spoke very slowly and deliberately, quietly, as if the soft pedal were always down in his voice. (p.101)

And here is Alfred, the addressee of the famous letter, dressed in khaki, standing tall, his beret at a rakish angle, a brash, confident man’s man.

The family invite the narrator in for tea and the father quietly tells the narrator that Alfred and Maggie had a big fight over the letter but he reckons they should forget about it, it all happened a long way away and need come no nigher.

Tea is pleasant enough and afterwards the narrator is walking back down the snowy road when he sees a figure making a bee line across the field to him. It’s big confident Alfred. He confronts the narrator and tells him his wife burned the letter, he wants to know what was in it. The narrator recites it honestly, as far as he can remember, then emphasises that he cooked up a story for the wife, denying it was Alfred’s baby.

The two men square off, circling each other psychologically, the narrator asks questions about this Élise, Alfred laconic, not giving anything away.

He stood smiling, with the long, subtle malice of a farmer.

Alfred reveals very little about the Belgian woman except that he doesn’t give a damn about her and her baby. He’s far more exercised by Joey the peacock who he hates; he reveals he tried to shoot it once and he’s going to wring its neck before long.

As their exchange draws to an end, the big man starts laughing out loud at the preposterousness of the whole situation, before turning and setting off back to his house, and then, in an unexpected last line, which leaves the story ringing in your memory:

I ran down the hill, shouting with laughter.

6. You Touched Me

Set in an old pottery after it’s closed (compare the closing of the Pervin horse trading business in the Horse Dealers Daughter). Two sisters, Emmie and Matilda Rockley, live on in the silent buildings where there had been so much noise and hubbub. Brought up in a middle class household they refuse to consort with the mostly working class population of this ugly industrial town and so are turning into spinsters.

Having set the scene, Lawrence gives us the backstory:

Ted Rockley, the father of the girls, had had four daughters, and no son. As his girls grew, he felt angry at finding himself always in a house-hold of women. He went off to London and adopted a boy out of a Charity Institution. Emmie was fourteen years old, and Matilda sixteen, when their father arrived home with his prodigy, the boy of six, Hadrian.

Hadrian enjoys a privileged boyhood but continually rebels, sells off his school uniform etc. The four sisters try to make him welcome but he never fits in. Aged 15 he declares he wants to go to the colonies and gets passage to Canada. He writes to the family for a while then stops.

The First World War starts (August 1914) and Hadrian enlists and comes to Europe but he doesn’t visit the Rockleys in Pottery House. Finally, after the armistice (November 1918) Hadrian writes to say he wants to visit. The two remaining daughters (the others have married and left) set about cleaning and tidying the house for his arrival the following day, but he arrives on the day of the cleaning, finding them both dirty and unprepared, while he is sporting his best uniform.

What happens is Hadrian ends up staying for weeks and inveigles his way into the good books of old man Rockley, who is very sick and dying. On the second day Matilda stays up with her father and they discuss the future. He makes her promise not to leave the house. He says everything will be left to her and Emmie, equally and he’d like them to give Hadrian his watch and chain, and a hundred pounds.

Back in her room Matilda stays up late worrying about the future and her father, who might die at any minute. She feels she must be with him so at midnight, tired and slightly dazed, goes down the hall to his room. She tiptoes in in the dark and finds the bed and whispers to him as she reaches out to find his face, running her hand over his hair, forehead, nose, moustache.

It’s only at this point that Hadrian speaks up. In her daze Matilda had forgotten that they had moved their father down to the living room and put Hadrian in his old bedroom. God, she’s embarrassed! She apologises and runs back to her room. She is mortified and feels she hates Hadrian. Unfortunately her touch has woken something in him which he has been fighting against his whole life, his feelings.

The soft, straying tenderness of her hand on his face startled something out of his soul. He was a charity boy, aloof and more or less at bay. The fragile exquisiteness of her caress startled him most, revealed unknown things to him. (p.116)

And so:

The same glamour that he knew in the elderly man he now saw in the woman. And he wanted to possess himself of it, he wanted to make himself master of it. As he went about through the old pottery-yard, his secretive mind schemed and worked. To be master of that strange soft delicacy such as he had felt in her hand upon his face,—this was what he set himself towards. He was secretly plotting. (p.117)

So during one of his sessions sitting with his adoptive father, Hadrian slowly brings the conversation round to who will stay at the house, who will look after it, how the girls will be lonely and then… springs the idea that he would like to marry Matilda. But Emmie is the youngest, his father days. But secretly the father has always loved the boy and this incongruous idea pleases him.

A few days later Matilda is sitting with him and he floats the suggestion of her marrying Hadrian. She is so appalled and reacts so negatively that she makes the sick old man angry. In a rage he threatens to call for his solicitor, Whittle and cut both the girls out of his will and leave everything to Hadrian.

Emmie confronts Hadrian in the garden and calls him a money-grubber. He hadn’t actually realised he wanted the money, he had only intended to have Matilda, but now she mentions it, he realises he wants the money too. He wants to be one of the employing class, not an employee.

Mr Rockley calls for the solicitor and presses ahead with a new will. The old division between the daughters becomes provisional.

The old will held good, if Matilda would consent to marry Hadrian. If she refused then at the end of six months the whole property passed to Hadrian.

Why? Maybe the motivation is the key thing here. Old Rockley had had four daughters and come to hate being surrounded by women. That’s why he went and got a 6-year-old boy from a charity, because his masculinity felt embattled and isolated. Same now.

Mr. Rockley told this to the young man, with malevolent satisfaction. He seemed to have a strange desire, quite unreasonable, for revenge upon the women who had surrounded him for so long, and served him so carefully.

Hadrian suggests the old man calls a meeting with the two women, which he does. The malice of decision has, paradoxically, given the sick old man a burst of energy. ‘His face had again some of its old, bright handsomeness.’ He puts the same ultimatum, Matilda must marry Hadrian. She refuses. They argue and Emmie in a rage says, well alright then, the filthy guttersnipe can have everything. Rockley is overcome with fatigue and tells them to leave. The nurse sits up with him all night.

With Rockley approaching his end, Emmie takes the initiative and calls the solicitor for a family meeting (without the old man) and tries to get the lawyers, and then the local vicar and other relatives, to intimidate Hadrian and make him back down. Of course they don’t, they just make him angry.

A few days later Hadrian manages to corner Matilda, who’s been avoiding him, in the garden. She lists all the negative reasons, starting with she’s old enough to be his mother, was 16 when he came as a surly 6-year-old to the household. None of this washes with Hadrian who insists, with robotic repetition, that it’s her fault because she touched him and woke something which can’t now be put back to sleep.

‘You put your hand on me, though,’ he said. ‘You shouldn’t have done that, and then I should never have thought of it. You shouldn’t have touched me.’
‘If you were anything decent, you’d know that was a mistake, and forget it,’ she said.
‘I know it was a mistake—but I shan’t forget it. If you wake a man up, he can’t go to sleep again because he’s told to.’ (p.123)

Matilda goes to see her father and… agrees. She agrees to marry Hadrian. the very ill father is pleased. But it doesn’t mean she’ll like him. Hadrian is a short man and Matilda is tall. She continues to look down on him, literally and figuratively. When they meet she refuses to answer his conversation.

The arrangements are swiftly made (before the father dies) and just three days later they’re married in a registry office. Then they hasten to the sick old man on his death bed, and there’s a wonderfully fraught, emotionally charged scene, in which all kinds of cross currents and mysterious motivations are at play.

Matilda and Hadrian drove straight home from the registrar, and went straight into the room of the dying man. His face lit up with a clear twinkling smile.
‘Hadrian—you’ve got her?’ he said, a little hoarsely.
‘Yes,’ said Hadrian, who was pale round the gills.
‘Ay, my lad, I’m glad you’re mine,’ replied the dying man. Then he turned his eyes closely on Matilda.
‘Let’s look at you, Matilda,’ he said. Then his voice went strange and unrecognisable. ‘Kiss me,’ he said.
She stooped and kissed him. She had never kissed him before, not since she was a tiny child. But she was quiet, very still.
‘Kiss him,’ the dying man said.
Obediently, Matilda put forward her mouth and kissed the young husband.
‘That’s right! That’s right!’ murmured the dying man.

Who’s won? Is it about the triumph of the old man, the dead hand of the dying generation? Or will Matilda succumb, over time? Is it the triumph of malicious, calculating little Hadrian? Or all of the above? It feels rich and strange and perverse and improbable but, on some other level, weirdly right. The Lawrence effect.

7. Samson and Delilah

It is the first year of the war. A man alights from the motor-omnibus that runs from Penzance to St Just-in-Penwith, and turns uphill towards the Polestar. Night is falling and the lighthouse light circles round over sea and land. He arrives at The Tinners’ Rest pub and goes in. The buxom landlady is serving some soldiers.

Long story short, the stranger insists he is the landlady’s husband who ran off to America 16 years earlier: he is Willie Nankervis, she is Alice Nankervis, and the young serving girl is their daughter, Maryann. When closing time comes (10pm) he refuses to leave. The landlady insists. He refuses and says he’s going to sleep there. The soldiers mildly suggest he leave, he refuses.

Mrs Nankervis fetches some rope from behind the bar and asks the soldiers to tie the stranger. He’s a big man but there are four soldiers so after a titanic struggle with chairs and tables thrown everywhere, they manage to rope him like a steer, with some spare braces used to knit his knees and ankles.

They carry him outside and lay him in the empty town square under the cold stars. The soldiers undo the braces and the sergeant loosens the rope. Then they both go back inside the bar and lock it. The stranger staggers to his feet and frays the rope against the corner of a wall till it snaps and he staggers off through the empty town.

He comes to the graveyard and leans against the wall for a while. This is to allow Lawrence to let the soldiers finally leave the inn. The man turns and walks back to the pub. He is surprised to find the door open and walks through the empty bar to the kitchen. The landlady is sitting in front of a fire. She isn’t surprised or angry when he appears but resigned.

He sits down next to her and they talk, both tentative, she sparking into anger several times at the way he left her, at the way he stopped even writing letters after six months. But slowly they settle into what you could call a connubial mood, and then into intimacy.

Lawrence is supposed to be ‘sex mad’ but it’s a very rare moment of explicitness when the big handsome man leans forward and places his hand between her big breasts. This kind of candid intimacy happens hardly at all in Lawrence before Lady Chatterley, which makes it all the more beautiful and striking.

‘We fet from the start, we did. And, my word, you begin again quick the minute you see me, you did. Darn me, you was too sharp for me. A darn fine woman, puts up a darn good fight. Darn me if I could find a woman in all the darn States as could get me down like that. Wonderful fine woman you be, truth to say, at this minute.
She only sat glowering into the fire.
‘As grand a pluck as a man could wish to find in a woman, true as I’m here,’ he said, reaching forward his hand and tentatively touching her between her full, warm breasts, quietly.
She started, and seemed to shudder. But his hand insinuated itself between her breasts, as she continued to gaze in the fire.
‘And don’t you think I’ve come back here a-begging,” he said. “I’ve more than one thousand pounds to my name, I have. And a bit of a fight for a how-de-do pleases me, that it do. But that doesn’t mean as you’re going to deny as you’re my Missis…’

It has that strange uncanny correctness, a truth to some deeper vein of feeling, which so much Lawrence reveals, in his characters and, by extension, in us.

8. The Primrose Path

Daniel Sutton the black-sheep, the youngest, the darling of his mother’s family. He had three older sister. He ran away to Australia. The story starts with him back in England, in London, where he’s set up as a taxi driver. The narrative opens here, at the taxi rank of a rural train station, when he is approached by his nephew, Daniel Berry, his sister, Anna’s, boy.

In a flashback we learn that Daniel married a factory girl, Maud, they had two daughters but were never close, their house lacked warmth. Eventually he fell in love with a sentimental young woman and emigrated to Australia. His jilted wife settled in with a publican.

The nephew requests a ride to Watmore. On the way the driver tells him he dumped the woman he ran off with in Wellington, convinced she was trying to poison him, and decamped for Sydney. The nephew asks if he’ll go back to Maud but he angrily says no, she wouldn’t take him. Tells him she’s living in the Railway Arms pub. In fact he got a message this morning to visit her. She’s dying of tuberculosis (which they called consumption back then).

In Watmore the nephew does his business, they have a pint in a pub then Dan drives him back towards the station. En route the uncle is visibly nervous. They pull over at the pub and go in. The landlord is startled to see Dan there but draws him and the nephew a pint. Then takes Dan upstairs to the room over the bar. Here his abandoned wife is lying very sick in bed. She has a little pet bird in a nest of ivy leaves on the wall. She is very sick and can barely speak. She asks him to look after their daughter, Winnie. Dan is gruff and nervous, asks if there is anything he can do for her, eventually says his goodbye and leaves.

From the pub Dan drives his nephew to his own house. This he finds looked after by a mature woman, cowed and obedient, and her pretty daughter, who Uncle Dan is obviously having an affair with. When Berry mentions that they’ve been to see his uncle Maud she, like Dan, looks scared. All these people are scared of the consequences of the life choices they’ve made.

And it’s to hide his fear and anxiety that Dan is so rough. ‘Already Berry could see that his uncle had bullied them, as he bullied everybody.’ Dan is all gruffness. When the scared mother serves soup he refuses to come and sit at table to eat it but insists on standing in front of the fire. The young mistress tries to soften him, asks him to take off his coat. And then there’s one of those many, many alchemical scenes in Lawrence, where he reveals the strange twisted nature of our affections, the crooked timber of humanity.

‘Do take your coat off, Dan,’ she said, and she took hold of the breast of his coat, trying to push it back over his shoulder. But she could not. Only the stare in his eyes changed to a glare as her hand moved over his shoulder. He looked down into her eyes. She became pale, rather frightened-looking, and she turned her face away, and it was drawn slightly with love and fear and misery. She tried again to put off his coat, her thin wrists pulling at it. He stood solidly planted, and did not look at her, but stared straight in front. She was playing with passion, afraid of it, and really wretched because it left her, the person, out of count. Yet she continued. And there came into his bearing, into his eyes, the curious smile of passion, pushing away even the death-horror. It was life stronger than death in him. She stood close to his breast. Their eyes met, and she was carried away.

And she does get his coat off. And the nephew sees that ‘the pain, the fear, the horror in his breast’ are all transformed into ‘the new, fiercest flame of passion’. Maybe love is a way of hiding from fear, fear of age, illness and death. Maybe this kind of desperate love.

And you think you’ve figured out the twisted depths of the story but Lawrence has a sharp blow to the gut still to deliver.

‘That girl will leave him,’ [Berry] said to himself. ‘She’ll hate him like poison. And serve him right. Then she’ll go off with somebody else.’ And she did. (p.156)

9. The Horse Dealer’s Daughter

Three brothers and a sister sit in a front room trying to discuss their futures. The family business in horses has gone bankrupt and they watch the last posse of shire horses being led through their gates. The servants have left, the house – Oldmeadow – is empty. They have to clear out by the following Wednesday.

The siblings are Joe Pervin, 33, handsome. He’s engaged to a woman his own age who is steward of a neighbouring estate, he’ll find him a job. Fred Henry is the second eldest. Malcolm is the youngest, a mere 22. Mabel, the sister, has been talked at and ignored by her brothers for so long she ignores them now.

Enter a family friend, Jack Fergusson. He’s got a bit of a cold. He banters with Fred Henry who’s his friend, they agree to go to the pub that night. Then the men exit, leaving sullen Mabel to clear things away. For ten years she’s been slaving for them. Initially she loved her mother till she died, then loved her father till he remarried. Then he, too, died the three sons lived in high style, spending money, sleeping with the serving women who had a terrible reputation and bore them illegitimate children. She put up with the humiliation because there was always money which made her feel special. Now all that’s ended. Probably she’ll have to go and live with her married sister, Lucy.

Faithful to the memory of her dead mother, that afternoon she takes scissors and brush to visit the graveyard, to trim and scrub her mother’s grave. Nearby is the town doctor’s house. Fergusson is a hired assistant, always overworked with chores. He happens to glance out the window and see her at her mother’s grave. Their eyes meet. But she is not a bright young happy women, she is heavy and mournful and imperturbable. They both continue with their tasks.

A lot later, as dusk is falling, Fergusson is coming back from his round of handing out pills and potions to colliers and iron-workers, heading back towards the ugly town when, at some distance, he sees someone walking down to the big pond in the dip. In the failing light he just about makes out Mabel and is amazed that, when she gets to the edge of the pond, she just carries on walking, into the water, up to her knees, her hips, her bosom, then disappears from view.

Flabbergasted, he runs bounding over the field down to the pond and starts to wade out. Lawrence gives a masterful description of the feel of the thick filthy clay at the bottom of the pond sucking his feet as he wades in then, inevitably, slips and falls underwater, panicking in the freezing water, before surfacing with Mabel’s dress in his hands and seizing and carrying her out, laying her on the grass – it doesn’t sound like anyone knew about pumping the chest or the kiss of life, but she starts to breathe.

Then he carries her very heavy weight back up to the empty house, strips her naked, rubs her dry with towels and wraps her in a dry blanket. Then fetches spirits for himself and her. He plans to strip and find dry clothing himself when she comes to with a start. She can’t remember walking into the pond. Confused she asks if he jumped in to save her.

Only then does she fully realise she is naked and ask if he undressed her. And this triggers a – to us – wildly irrational development which is she becomes convinced this means he loves her. And as if a dam burst in her rigid impassivity she crawls to him and embraces his knees (he is standing).

‘Do you love me then?’ she asked.
He only stood and stared at her, fascinated. His soul seemed to melt.
She shuffled forward on her knees, and put her arms round him, round his legs, as he stood there, pressing her breasts against his knees and thighs, clutching him with strange, convulsive certainty, pressing his thighs against her, drawing him to her face, her throat, as she looked up at him with flaring, humble eyes, of transfiguration, triumphant in first possession.
‘You love me,’ she murmured, in strange transport, yearning and triumphant and confident. ‘You love me. I know you love me, I know.’

Lawrence often depicts emotional ambivalence, maybe it is his core subject. All his most vivid characters love and hate each other and experience wild mood swings in between. Same here. Fergusson had thought that rescuing Mabel, stripping and towelling her dry, was done from purely professional motives. Now she has confused things. This rather mad desperate declaration of love triggers something in him, too. And when she sees her face flicker and lose its happiness as she starts to realise he doesn’t, he hurries to reassure her.

One minute he hates her touching him, next he finds himself gushing ‘I love you, I love you!’ One minute she is clasping his knees in a mad declaration, next she sobers up and realises she is half naked before a stranger, hobbles to her feet and runs upstairs to find him some dry clothes.

She chucks them downstairs, he strips, towels himself in front of the fire, and dresses in her brothers’ clothes, smiling at the result. He sees the time (6pm) and realises he needs to go back to work. He calls up the stairs and she straightaway appears, now dressed in completely formal lady’s wear, a big dress of black voile.

And they act like shy strangers to each other. To calm her he repeats that he loves her but she bursts out that she is horrible, horrible, he can’t possibly, and his reassurances become more extreme, telling her he wants to marry her! Tomorrow if possible!

‘I feel awful. I feel awful. I feel I’m horrible to you.’
‘No, I want you, I want you,’ was all he answered, blindly, with that terrible intonation which frightened her almost more than her horror lest he should not want her.

Strange, weird, uncanny, impenetrably different and hard to parse because at two removes. Lawrence is difficult and strange, but then the social conventions of the day are almost incomprehensible to us nowadays. Would the Edwardian audience have thought it a bit odd or breaking taboos but still essentially comprehensible? To me it seems wildly over the top but it’s precisely its psychological weirdness which makes it so compelling.

think this is the only one of the stories which doesn’t mention the war at all.

10. Fanny And Annie

Fanny is:

a lady’s maid, thirty years old, come back to marry her first-love, a foundry worker: after having kept him dangling, off and on, for a dozen years. Why had she come back? Did she love him? No. She didn’t pretend to. She had loved her brilliant and ambitious cousin, who had jilted her, and who had died. She had had other affairs which had come to nothing. So here she was, come back suddenly to marry her first-love, who had waited—or remained single—all these years.

The foundry worker is called Harry Goodall. He is a fair-haired fellow of thirty-two, easy going and popular but with absolutely no drive or ambition.

Harry meets her off the train and the whole scene is lit up by flames from the giant foundry. He can’t even afford a dog cart but carries her bags by hand. Word can’t express how depressed she is to be back in this dump.

Harry carries her bags all the way to her aunt’s place, a little sweet-shop in a side street. Her aunt knows her well for a tall, proud woman. She knows she thinks herself way above Harry’s class and Harry knows it too. She, also, married a man beneath her and that night weeps for her niece’s fate.

Next day Fanny has to endure the ordeal of visiting Harry’s domineering, coarse mother, Mrs Goodall, matriarch of four boys and a vixen of a daughter, Jinny.

Harry has a fine singing voice, a tenor, but is a joke on the choir circuit because he cannot pronounce his h’s. Fanny goes to the church that Sunday, her heart sinking seeing the same old vicar, hearing the same old hymns. Harry is a handsome man but marrying him means being dragged back down into the common people. It feels like a doom.

In the middle of Harry’s singing, a notorious local character – Mrs Nixon, who is know to beat her feeble husband – she stands up and denounces Harry as ‘a scamp as won’t take the consequences of what he’s done’ – which I take to mean that Harry has had sex with her but then dumped her. Mrs Nixon describes Fanny as his ‘new fancy woman’, implying that she’s the latest in a long line. Fanny goes bright red. Harry looks down in amusement. There’s a pregnant pause and then the vicar stands up to announce the final hymn.

After church the congregation leaves, Mrs Nixon staring them all out, till it’s just Harry, Fanny and the vicar. The vicar comes and apologises to Fanny. Harry comes down from the choir stalls and when the vicar asks him what it’s all about, he readily admits it’s Mrs Nixon’s youngest daughter, Annie. She’s in the family way. Harry says she’s gone to the bad and is always in and out of the pubs with the fellers. Now she’s with child and claiming it’s Harry’s. When the vicar asks whether it is his, Harry replies ‘It’s no more mine than it is some other chap’s.’ Is he confessing that has slept with young Annie?

Fanny and Harry walk the long mile back towards his house in silence. At one point is the turning off to her aunt’s place. It crosses her mind that she could take it, go to stay, walk away from this whole Harry business. But ‘some obstinacy’ makes her turn with him towards the Goodall household. It’s packed with the entire clan, ma and da and all the siblings with their spouses and they’ve all heard about the scandal at the church.

The thing is, as the clan all chip in with their stories about awful Mrs Nixon and how she’s emasculated her husband, how she beat her daughters and made them bathe in a tin bath outside in the freezing cold, and as they devour a big tea of sardines and tinned salmon and tinned peaches, besides tarts and cakes, all this has the effect of making Fanny feel at home. Her warming to the big friendly supportive clan is dramatically indicated when the others prepare to set off for chapel that evening. Fanny says she (understandably) doesn’t want to go but then goes on to say:

‘I’m not going tonight,’ said Fanny abruptly. And there was a sudden halt in the family. ‘I’ll stop with you tonight, Mother,’ she added.
‘Best you had, my gel,’ said Mrs. Goodall, flattered and assured.

She’s reverted. She’s gone native. She’s been tamed. She realises she wants to be part of the clan. And it’s taken her fiancé’s infidelity, not to make her jealous or set her moralising, but to make her remember the warmth provided by such a large, extended Midlands family which, by implication, is all that she’d been missing in all those years as a fine lady’s maid. Now she’s back home, reabsorbed into her roots. It’s marvellously done.


Credit

‘England, My England’ by D.H. Lawrence was first published in the UK in 1924 by Martin Secker, having been first published in the USA in 1922. References are to the 1966 Penguin paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews